Mr. Pat Macken:

As the Chairman mentioned, some of the countries mentioned have had issues in terms of the low carbon road map. There was a failure to reach agreement on the Council conclusions because of opposition in the Council. However, the debate has moved on somewhat. Discussions are taking place on a Green Paper which was before the informal Council last week not only the 2020 but on the 2030 vision. Many businesses plan long term and the debate is moving on. The process of political debate started in Dublin where we had a joint meeting of environment and energy Ministers to discuss the 2030 pathway document.

There is a distance to travel in that regard. As I outlined, in terms of our national strategy, the NESC report and so on, we will be moving to develop our own national strategies to make sure we meet the 2020 targets. There are divisions and people are aware of them, but at the same time the challenge is not getting any easier. We still have to try to meet the 2o plus 2o C target by 2050. That issue was also discussed in Dublin as part of the international agenda.

The Commission brought out a communication on the international climate change negotiations and it was the subject of discussions. The Minister has made it the central focus of the Irish Presidency to try to have an early debate at political level on these issues. That is always important in an EU context because these Council conclusions might sound somewhat official, but they provide political guidance which then guides the Commission in the way it shapes and writes policies.

Members can see from the environmental action programme, EAP, document that it takes on board the conclusions reached by Ministers and strives to strike a balance between being realistic in what it can achieve and at the same time having a good level of environmental ambition. That is what we are trying to do in the negotiations. Obviously, in the negotiations on the EAP, for example, there is always a push-back in respect of areas such as soil, but we have to try to counteract this and make sure there is a good balance struck in the document. The document can achieve agreement but it might do more damage in the long run were it to lack credibility and not to be seen as a substantive contribution to the process of improving environmental standards in Europe.