Water Management and Community Engagement Workshop Crown ...

Water Management and Community Engagement Workshop Crown Plaza Hotel, Dundalk 25th November 2015.

Dr. Alec Rolston Centre for Freshwater and Environmental Studies Dundalk Institute of Technology [email protected] Tel: (042) 9370200 @Water_DundalkIT

Page |2

Summary A total of 66 delegates attended the Water Management and Community Engagement Workshop held at the Crown Plaza Hotel, Dundalk, County Louth, Ireland on 25th November 2015. The workshop aimed to increase awareness of integrated water management, Integrated Catchment Management and community engagement in Ireland; facilitate discussion on water management and community engagement; and to encourage collaboration, partnerships and integration in the Irish water sector. The morning session of the workshop consisted of invited speakers who addressed issues of water management, catchment management and community engagement across international, national and local scales. The afternoon session introduced the World Café concept and in small groups, delegates were asked to address key topics on water management and community engagement. Delegates stated that their main priority for attending the workshop was to learn more about engagement practices for local water management. Although the majority (61.7 %) of delegates had previously initiated or undertaken a community engagement activity, only 54.3 % stated that they were confident in organising such an event. Following the delivery of the workshop, 58.6 % of delegates reported that they were more confident of undertaking an engagement event. The workshop improved the understanding of water management and community engagement for nearly all (96.4 %) participants. The most valued aspects of the workshop were the on-ground examples of successful community engagement projects, along with the opportunity to network and discuss water management and community engagement with other delegates. Current engagement practices in Ireland were typically identified as being ‘poor’. When describing good engagement experiences, delegates used adjectives such as ‘social’, ‘interesting’ and ‘refreshing’. Descriptions of bad engagement experiences were much more emotive, with the use of adjectives such as ‘frustration’, ‘distressing’, ‘disappointment’, ‘traumatic’ and ‘void’, thus identifying potential legacy issues from previous initiatives that new engagement programmes need to address. Key barriers to improving engagement processes in the water sector in Ireland included time, dealing with community apathy, encouraging individuals to take responsibility, limited resources including funding, and overcoming community trust issues. Regardless of previous engagement initiatives, there remains a disconnect between government agencies and local communities that needs to be overcome to truly facilitate community-led involvement in local water management in Ireland. With increased awareness of best practice as presented at this workshop, participants identified an increased confidence in facilitating engagement events and a greater understanding of key issues involved in engaging communities in local water management. Water resources and water management are currently at unprecedented high levels within the public conscious and therefore an opportunity exists to harness this present interest level to move local community-led involvement in water management to the fore of the water sector in Ireland.

Towards Integrated Water Management (TIMe) Project, Centre for Freshwater and Environmental Studies, Dundalk Institute of Technology. Funded by the Environmental Protection Agency

Page |3

Background Although not included as a specific work package, the delivery of a best practice workshop on community engagement within the water sector in Ireland is a key output of the TIMe project. The Water Management and Community Engagement Workshop was held at the Crown Plaza Hotel, Dundalk on 25th November 2015 and a list of attendees is presented in Appendix One. The workshop consisted of a morning session of speakers invited to present on specific aspects of water management and community engagement across international, national and local levels, followed by an afternoon World Café session (Table 1). The World Café involved small groups of delegates producing a number of outputs which addressed structured questions and scenarios of water management and community engagement issues. The objectives of the workshop were to:   

Increase awareness of integrated water management, Integrated Catchment Management and community engagement processes; Facilitate discussion on water management and community engagement in Ireland; Encourage collaboration, partnerships and integration in the Irish water sector.

The workshop was promoted through several avenues: Social media (Twitter and Facebook feeds); The TIMe Project webpage; an article in Rural Water News (newsletter of the National Federation of Group Water Schemes, circulation c. 3,000); flyers distributed at the Rural Water Conference held in Galway on 15th September 2015; and through direct emails to targeted stakeholders (including Local Authorities, Government Agencies, NGOs, Academic Institutions, Community Groups and Local Interest Groups). The workshop was assessed through both pre- and post-workshop assessment forms which evaluated delegates’ opinions, knowledge and confidence levels regarding community engagement in the water sector.

Pre-Workshop Evaluation The location of the workshop in Dundalk likely influenced the geographical spread of delegates, with the majority having travelled from the provinces of Leinster and Ulster to attend the workshop (57.1 % and 30.6 % of delegates respectively). Munster and Connaught represented 6.1 % and 4.1 % of delegates respectively, and one delegate travelled from England. Direct email was the most common method for becoming aware of the workshop (46.9 % of delegates), followed by word of mouth and promotional activity undertaken by the EPA (20.4 % and 14.3 % of delegates respectively). Surprisingly, promoting the workshop through social media (Facebook: 4.1 %; and Twitter: 0 %) and in Rural Water News (4.1 %) did not result in significant attendance. Most delegates identified themselves as being environmental professionals (46.9 % of delegates), followed by members of the public (26.5 %), water managers (10.2 %) and Group Water Scheme Members (2.0 %). A further 14.3 % of delegates described themselves as having an ‘other’ demographic, such as academia or NGO. Towards Integrated Water Management (TIMe) Project, Centre for Freshwater and Environmental Studies, Dundalk Institute of Technology. Funded by the Environmental Protection Agency

Page |4 Table 1: Programme of events for the Water Management and Community Engagement workshop held on 25th November 2015. Time 0830 0900 0910

1240

Topic Registration and Tea/Coffee Welcome and Introductions Plenary Presentation: Integrated Water Resources Management Integrated Catchment Management in Ireland Launch of Streamscapes Public Engagement Report Coffee Break Towards Integrated Water Management (TIMe) Project Delivering Integrated Water Management through the bottom-up approach: A critical analysis Community engagement and Local Authorities Cattle exclusion from water courses: Environmental and socio-economic implications Love your River Telford Project

1300 1400 1410 1520 1540 1630

Lunch Break World Café Introduction World Café – 3 rounds Coffee Break World Café continued – 2 rounds Summary and close

0955 1030 1040 1100 1140

1200 1220

Speaker

Association

Alec Rolston Prof. Ken Irvine

TIMe Project UNESCO-IHE

Donal Daly

EPA

Paddy Woodworth Mark Boydon

Streamscapes

Alec Rolston

TIMe Project

Fran Igoe John Ballinger

IRD Duhallow

Bernie O’Flaherty

Monaghan County Council Teagasc

Daire ÓhUallacháin

Guy Pluckwell

Environment Agency, UK

Alec Rolston

TIMe Project

Alec Rolston

TIMe Project

Delegates stated that their primary interest in water management were water quality (28.6 %), the protection of natural resources (17.6 %) and environmental enforcement (15.4 %) (Figure 1). Fisheries/Angling and drinking water were less popular primary interests, followed by recreation, water conservation and water policy. Other primary interests submitted by delegates included flooding, community engagement, biodiversity and catchment management. Whilst the majority of delegates had previously initiated or undertaken a community engagement initiative (61.7 %), only 54.3 % of delegates expressed confidence in organising such an event. When asked to describe current community engagement practices in the water sector in Ireland, delegate responses were typically negative. Striking language identified concern regarding the general lack of good engagement initiatives and also the ’fledgling’ status of community engagement in Irish water management following decades of predominantly top-down management (Figure 2). The frequent use of the word ‘poor’ provides perhaps the most striking and damming description of community engagement in the Irish water sector. Although the more positive word ‘good’ does appear strongly in Figure 2, this was typically associated with advice on how to improve the level of engagement rather than praising current engagement initiatives. Towards Integrated Water Management (TIMe) Project, Centre for Freshwater and Environmental Studies, Dundalk Institute of Technology. Funded by the Environmental Protection Agency

Page |5

Proportion of Delegates (%)

Primary Interest in Water Management 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

Interest

Figure 1: Primary interests in water management of delegates attending the Water Management and Community Engagement Workshop.

Other typically negative descriptive words include ‘limited’, ‘patchy’, ‘non-existent’, ‘minimalistic’ and ‘fragmented’. Positive descriptions included ‘improving’, ‘needed’ and ‘change’. Delegate thoughts on community-led involvement in local water management were generally emotive, identifying the local-level requirements of community-led initiatives, and the key components required for improvements (Figure 3). The ‘important’ and ‘essential’ ‘involvement’ of ‘local’ ‘communities’ were key descriptive words, whilst community engagement was identified as being a key component for the implementation of legislation such as the Water Framework Directive (WFD). Ensuring sufficient resources was highlighted as being particularly important for successful community engagement, and the empowerment and awareness of communities also featured prominently (Figure 3).


Page |6

Figure 2: Word cloud identifying the key components of delegate descriptions of community engagement practices in the Irish water sector. The frequency of word occurrence in delegate comments is related to the size of the word text (larger text size equals greater frequency).

Figure 3: Word cloud identifying the key components of delegate thoughts on community-led involvement in local water management issues. The frequency of word occurrence in delegate comments is related to the size of the word text (larger text size equals greater frequency). Towards Integrated Water Management (TIMe) Project, Centre for Freshwater and Environmental Studies, Dundalk Institute of Technology. Funded by the Environmental Protection Agency

Page |7 In identifying their expectations for the workshop, delegates stated a strong desire to learn about all aspects of community engagement and water management, to gain new ideas with regard to engaging communities, and to understand the issues of, and barriers to, the integration of water management in Ireland (Figure 4). Collaboration and developing partnerships were also important outcomes that delegates hoped to identify as a result of attending the workshop.

Figure 4: Word cloud identifying the key components of delegate expectations for the Water Management and Community Engagement Workshop. The frequency of word occurrence in delegate comments is related to the size of the word text (larger text size equals greater frequency).

World Café Topics In the afternoon session of the workshop, a World Café method (www.theworldcafe.com) was implemented to engage small groups of delegates in conversation and to address crafted questions and scenarios. The World Café method provides an opportunity to share insights within and between groups as following initial discussion, groups were asked to summarise their key points or were asked to provide outputs for summary by a facilitator. Four questions or scenarios were presented to the delegates, and although time was limited as a result of speaker presentations over-running into the afternoon session, significant outputs were achieved by the working groups. Following the first two topics, delegates were asked to change tables in order to mix up groups and encourage networking, participation and the sharing of diverse opinions.


Page |8 World Café Topic One: Describe an experience where you were engaged in a non-water related issue. What was good about the engagement? What was bad about the engagement? Use one word to summarise your engagement experience and list whether that word was positive or negative.

When asked to use single words to describe positive experiences of engagement, the dominant adjective used was ‘challenging’ (Figure 5). Although frequently used with negative connotations, in this context, ‘challenging’ was used in a positive manner, describing the concept of challenging perceptions and encouraging delegates to consider different opinions and perceptions. The social aspect of a good engagement process was also highlighted. These good engagement experiences also enabled delegates to feel refreshed, both about the process of engagement that they had experienced, and also regarding the integration and partnerships developed though the successful engagement. Perhaps the rarity of experiencing good, inclusive engagement, led some delegates to feel exhilarated and fulfilled, subsequently finding the whole positive engagement process interesting, satisfying and eye-opening. When describing negative experiences of engagement, the adjectives used were very emotive, with frustration and disappointment being the dominant words (Figure 6). The use of descriptive words such as distressing, traumatic and void identify the powerful feelings that can be raised following a poor engagement process, highlighting the difficulties that often need be overcome when engaging communities in a new process. The legacy of previous engagement processes can have a lasting impact on the psyche of individuals and as such these emotive hurdles need to be overcome in order to achieve subsequent successful engagement

World Café Topic Two: What are the barriers to improving community involvement in local water management?

Delegates identified a number of key issues that act as barriers towards improving community involvement in local water management. One of these is time: time that is needed to implement an engagement initiative to ensure success; and time available to the individuals within a community to engage in an event. The latter issue of individual availability was frequently identified as a limiting factor, both through this World Café event, but also through the TIMe Project’s survey on water management and community engagement. The modern family lifestyle often leaves little time for additional involvement in extra activities such as local water management, particularly in a voluntary capacity. Indeed, this was apparent during the organisation of the Water Management and Community Engagement Workshop, as a number of community representatives expressed interest in attending the workshop but were unable to attend as a result of work and family commitments. Whilst some community members may be keen to engage yet do not have the time, delegates identified that other individuals show significant apathy to the engagement process potentially as a result of poor outcomes from previous engagement initiatives, and also as a result of a lack of trust of government agencies/local authorities that may be organising an engagement event. Motivating apathetic communities is a significant challenge in any engagement initiative.


Page |9

Figure 5: Adjectives used by delegates to describe positive engagement experiences. The frequency of word occurrence in delegate descriptions is related to the size of the word text (larger text size equals greater frequency).

Figure 6: Adjectives used by delegates to describe negative engagement experiences. The frequency of word occurrence in delegate descriptions is related to the size of the word text (larger text size equals greater frequency). Towards Integrated Water Management (TIMe) Project, Centre for Freshwater and Environmental Studies, Dundalk Institute of Technology. Funded by the Environmental Protection Agency

P a g e | 10

Figure 7: Barriers to improving community involvement in local water management actions identified by workshop delegates. The frequency of word occurrence in delegate descriptions is related to the size of the word text (larger text size equals greater frequency).

Encouraging individuals to take responsibility for their actions was also identified as a barrier to improving engagement. Associated with taking responsibility, a fear of involvement, fear of recrimination and fear of change were also key barriers identified by delegates to improving community involvement in local water management actions. Two significant observations from delegates were that ‘Agencies are unsure of how to successfully engage communities’ and ‘Communities do not know how to engage Agencies’. These identify two key points: 1) there are legacy issues affecting newly established engagement processes. As mentioned previously, new initiatives have to overcome any negative experiences from previous engagement attempts; and 2) whilst communities also need to take responsibility for becoming involved in local water management issues, the pathways for engaging government agencies or Local Authorities may not be clear and may restrict communities from proactive involvement in initiatives.


P a g e | 11

World Café Topic Three: Scenario: A local lake has frequent algal blooms and a lot of rubbish is dumped in and around it. Your community wants to improve the local lake environment. 1. What work needs to be done (from a community perspective)? 2. How do you mobilise support and interest at both community and local authority/government levels? 3. How do you go about sourcing funding to support the work that is needed?

Time constraints meant that delegates only had a limited period to respond to Topic Three. However, responses were provided to each of the three questions for this scenario. In response to question one, ‘What work needs to be done’, delegates identified the following actions that the community should undertake: 

      

Contact the relevant Local Authority/Government Agency to ensure awareness of the issue and to identify support mechanisms for any community involvement in management actions; Take photographs to document evidence of the key issues; Engage community stakeholders and organise an initial meeting to develop a local task force for identifying and responding to local water issues and to identify relevant stakeholders; Develop partnerships with existing organisations such as Tidy Towns; Discuss the local community value of the lake; Agree on suitable management actions that the community can help to facilitate, whilst managing expectations of outputs and outcomes, particularly with regard to nutrient issues; Organise a community clean-up event/litter pick in association with a more general community event to drive awareness and garner support; Use local media (e.g. radio, newspapers) and social media to raise awareness and garner support for any events or actions.

Whilst mobilising support and interest at both community and local authority/government levels can be achieved through a number of the actions identified above, delegates also suggested:  

Visiting local schools to increase awareness and provide information – Organise interactive visits to the area to encourage active learning; Identifying the potential for a community area at the lake to make it an accessible amenity and to encourage community ownership and empowerment of the area.

Suggestions regarding funding to support agreed works centred on engaging both Local Authorities and local businesses to encourage partnerships to improve the local environment. Funding avenues such as Local Agenda 21, agricultural schemes and LEADER initiatives were suggested as possible sources for obtaining supporting grants. At the local level, community fund-raising events such as cake sales and church gate collections were suggested as an initial source of revenue. Towards Integrated Water Management (TIMe) Project, Centre for Freshwater and Environmental Studies, Dundalk Institute of Technology. Funded by the Environmental Protection Agency

P a g e | 12

World Café Topic Four: Scenario: You have been asked to design a local water management-community engagement toolkit that enables communities and agencies to work in partnership and provide guidance to manage local water issues. What are the top three items to be included in the toolkit? (Groups were allocated to approach this scenario from either a local community or a local government perspective).

Although approaching Topic Four from two different perspectives created some initial difficulties for some individuals regarding the concept of thinking from a different point of view, the concept highlighted the differing priorities associated with local community and governmental agency perspectives. The government agency perspectives typically focussed on developing a network of stakeholders (primarily within governance organisations), dealing with and providing access to data, and providing guidance as to how to develop an engagement initiative. The community perspective typically focussed on identifying the key stakeholders and developing avenues for communities to raise awareness and encourage involvement in local water management activities.

Government agency perspective The following are the top three items for each group approaching this scenario from a governmental perspective: Group 1: 1. Create a contact list for all relevant stakeholders including community leaders, state agencies and respective officials. 2. Create a list of relevant data and information sources, including maps, water quality data, and EPA storyboard data for the catchment. 3. Provide a guidance document on how to organise and undertake an introductory community engagement event. Group 2: 1. Produce a guidance document that includes a list of key stakeholders, the main issues present, how to approach a community and how to make key issues relevant to a local community. 2. Construct a team to deliver the necessary management actions/response and to assist with enquiries and feedback. 3. Create a data sharing facility that helps to give community groups identity and facilitates transparency, partnership and empowerment. Towards Integrated Water Management (TIMe) Project, Centre for Freshwater and Environmental Studies, Dundalk Institute of Technology. Funded by the Environmental Protection Agency

P a g e | 13 Group 3: 1. Provide an accessible graphical map of the relevant area that includes catchment analysis such as summaries of the ecological aspects of the catchment (habitats, plants, fish and other animals present), local amenities and pressures acting within the catchment. 2. Create a database of critical contacts, particularly within governance agencies such as Local Authorities, the EPA, WFD Catchment Coordinators and Irish Water. 3. Develop an education scheme aimed at primary school level, which can help to facilitate knowledge transfer to parents as well as educating the younger generation in catchmentlevel thinking.

Community Perspective The following are the top three items for each group approaching this scenario from a community perspective: Group 1: 1. Create a contact list of key stakeholders and prospective catchment partnerships and identify a person who has the potential to act as a champion for the catchment, driving engagement, participation and action. 2. Identify what community members’ value about their catchment. 3. With key stakeholders including community representatives, agree aims and objectives for the catchment that are realistic and achievable. Group 2: 1. Establish a local community forum which addresses local water issues in addition to discussing local heritage, environmental and other matters. This forum should include stakeholders from local communities, government agencies, the scientific community and other experts. 2. Organise a community water festival which involves all stakeholders and draws on funding raised through local initiatives (e.g. cake sales) and more formal funding avenues. The aim of the festival would be to engage the local community and put them in touch with their local water environment, raising awareness of local water issues. The event could be aligned with an established event day such as World Water Day or World Water Monitoring Day, and should be developed through the local community forum. Therefore the festival has the opportunity to connect local issues to the national and international scales. 3. In partnership with stakeholders, develop a citizen science initiative that provides upskilling and training opportunities for local community members. Schools should be a particular target group for inclusion. Funding avenues should be explored for the provision of equipment, training, engagement actions, data management and dissemination activities. The outputs of the citizen science event should provide the community with an avenue for viewing the impact of their results and for enabling connections at the national and international scales (and therefore should be associated with an established event day such as World Water Monitoring Day). Importantly, community expectations should be managed from the outset.


P a g e | 14

Post-Workshop Evaluation The first six questions of the post-workshop assessment asked delegates to rate the aspects of their responses on a 1 to five scale: 1 = strongly disagree; 2 = disagree; 3 = neither agree nor disagree; 4 = agree; and 5 = strongly agree. Once collated, an average score for each of these questions was calculated and related back to the 1 to 5 scale to provide an evaluation on the quality of the workshop and its delivery. With an average score of 4.2, delegates agreed that the objectives of the workshop were clear. Similarly, delegates agreed that the workshop content was stimulating (average score of 4.3) and they strongly agreed that the speakers were engaging and informative (average score of 4.5). Opinion on clarity of the World Café discussion topics varied, receiving an average score of 3.9, despite delegates agreeing that the World Café discussion topics were thought provoking (average score of 4.3). Delegates also agreed that they would be able to use what they learned at the workshop (average score of 4.1). The content and delivery of the work shop met the expectations of 79.3 % of delegates, and exceeded the expectations of 20.7 % of delegates. The workshop improved the understanding of water management and community engagement for nearly all (96.4 %) of delegates. The workshop also resulted in a positive change of opinion for 62 % of delegates regarding community-led involvement in local water management, with 34.5 % of delegates reporting no change in opinion. Only 1 delegate reported a negative change in opinion on such community-led involvement. Prior to the workshop, 54.3 % of delegates stated they were confident in undertaking or organising a community engagement event. Following the workshop, 58.6 % of delegates reported that they were more confident of undertaking an engagement event, with 41.3 % reporting no change in their confidence. No delegates stated that they were less confident of undertaking an engagement event following the workshop. Only six delegates provided examples of what they found least valuable about the workshop, with the volume of technical data presented along with the time keeping on the day being the two most common negative aspects. Delegates reported that the most valued aspects of the workshop were the on-ground examples of successful community engagement projects, along with the opportunity to network and discuss water management and community engagement with other delegates with similar interests and a diversity of viewpoints.

Social Media Outputs Twitter was the primary vehicle for social media communications in the lead up to, and on the day of the workshop. The hashtag #engageH2O was publicised to encourage delegate tweeting and to gather relevant tweets for subsequent assessment. Over the period of November 24th to November 29th the TIMe Project tweeted 33 times about the workshop, earning 5,800 impressions (the number of times users saw the tweets on Twitter) over this six day period. These 33 tweets had an engagement rate (the number of interactions with the tweets divided by the number of impressions) of 3.1 %. A total of 65 tweets were made by delegates on the day of the workshop.


P a g e | 15

Conclusions The workshop achieved the rare situation where water managers, environmental professionals and representatives of local communities were present together to discuss key issues on local water management and community engagement. Almost all delegates (96 %) reported that attending the workshop improved their understanding of water management and community engagement. Therefore the workshop achieved its first objective of increasing awareness of integrated water management, Integrated Catchment Management and community engagement. Delegates highlighted the value of the networking opportunities presented through the workshop. These networking opportunities, in association with the World Café discussion topics, helped the workshop to achieve its second and third objectives: to facilitate discussion on water management and community engagement; and to encourage collaboration, partnerships and integration in the Irish water sector. The morning presentations initially identified the higher level policy interactions that overarch water management at international, national and local scales, before outlining specific best practice examples of the on-ground delivery of engaging communities in local water management. Delegates reported that these on-ground examples were strongly valued, with 62 % of delegates stating a positive change of opinion regarding community-led involvement in local water management. An important negative feature of the workshop was the lack of a community representative presenting on their experiences of being engaged in local water management actions. Prior to the workshop, approaches were made to identify community representatives to present on their experiences but unfortunately they were unable to attend. This resulted in the presentations having a particular top-down bias and highlights one of the key barriers to undertaking community engagement events: Representatives of local communities are typically volunteers who have busy work and social lives and subsequently confirming attendance at events can be difficult, particularly when costs frequently come from an individual’s own pocket. Any future workshops that look to include community representation should consider actively funding community representative attendance to ensure such representation. The principle components of engagement practices were identified through the afternoon World Café sessions, which raised awareness of key issues for engagement events and encouraged participants to address problems from scenarios they were often unfamiliar with. The interactions between delegates during these break-out groups were strongly valued and encouraged discussion and debate. However, there remains a disconnect between government agencies and local communities that needs to be overcome to truly facilitate community-led involvement in local water management in order to assist in the implementation of key policy and legislation within Ireland. With increased awareness of best practice community engagement as presented at this workshop, participants have identified an increased confidence in facilitating engagement events and a greater understanding of the key issues involved in engaging communities in local water management. Water resources and water management are currently at unprecedented high levels within the public conscious and therefore an opportunity exists to harness this present interest level to move local community-led involvement in water management to the fore of the water sector in Ireland. Towards Integrated Water Management (TIMe) Project, Centre for Freshwater and Environmental Studies, Dundalk Institute of Technology. Funded by the Environmental Protection Agency

P a g e | 16

Appendix One List of attendees SURNAME Antunes Ballinger Boyden Bragina Breagy Cahill Cahill Christmas Clerkin Conboy Cooney Corrigan Cuddy Curley Daly Daly Deane Duffy Egan Fallon Fields Finca Gallagher Gilleran Gilliland Gunning Hamil Healy Holmes Igoe Irvine Jennings Lee Linnane MacDonald Magee McCarthy McCartney McEntee McEntee

FIRST NAME Patricia John Mark Lyubov Kieron Emer PJ Heather Sean Emmet Emer Sean Heather Dan Donal Conor Barry Oonagh Wayne Fiona Enda Andiswa Joe Caroline Stephen Conor Therese Eadaoin Joanne Fran Ken Eleanor Monica Suzanne Brian Catherine Carol John Patrick John Paul

AFFILIATION Dundalk Institute of Technology IRD Duhallow Streamscapes Dundalk Institute of Technology Dundalk Institute of Technology Dundalk Institute of Technology Ballypickas Group Water Scheme Dundalk Institute of Technology National Federation of Group Water Schemes Meath County Council Environmental Protection Agency Irish Water Irish Water River Blackwater Catchment Trust Environmental Protection Agency Dundalk Institute of Technology National Federation of Group Water Schemes Jacobs Consulting Environmental Protection Agency Meath County Council Dundalk Institute of Technology Dundalk Institute of Technology National Federation of Group Water Schemes Dundalk Institute of Technology Dundalk Institute of Technology Dundalk Institute of Technology Newry and Mourne Council Donegal County Council Donegal County Council IRD Duhallow UNESCO-IHE Dundalk Institute of Technology Geological Survey Ireland Dundalk Institute of Technology National Federation of Group Water Schemes Offaly County Council Kilkenny County Council Loughs Agency Dundalk Institute of Technology Monaghan County Council


P a g e | 17 McEvoy McGarrigle McGauley McLoughlin Morris Murnaghan Murphy Murphy Murray Nelson O'Brien O'Flaherty O'hUallachain Owens Pluckwell Quigley Rogers Rolston Ryder Shahzad Smith Spain Stewart Tee Walsh Woodworth

Donna Martin Oliver Neil Paddy Sarah Aine Trish Finnouala Andrea Sinead Bernie Daire Aileen Guy Finbar Patrick Alec Liz Tanvir Lisa Ray Dorothy Jasmine Patrick Paddy

Monaghan County Council Limnos Consultancy National Coarse Fishing Federation of Ireland Dundalk Institute of Technology Environmental Protection Agency Dundalk Institute of Technology Irish Water Inishowen Rivers Trust/Celebrate Water Monaghan County Council Monaghan County Council Sustainable Water Network (SWAN) Monaghan County Council Teagasc Monaghan County Council Environment Agency UK Meath County Council Dundalk Institute of Technology Dundalk Institute of Technology Dundalk Institute of Technology Government University Pakistan Monaghan County Council Carlow County Council Environmental Protection Agency Dundalk Institute of Technology Dundalk Institute of Technology Author/Irish Times
