Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I welcome Mr. Éamonn Meehan, Ms Caoimhe de Barra and Ms Lorna Gold to the committee and thank them for their submission. I wish to make a couple of points on the issues raised. I will try to steer away from issues raised by others.

Global challenges are compounded locally and poor governance and failed institutions accentuate economic and social inequalities. In attempting to address these issues, we are often faced with suggestions that the people for whom the aid is intended do not necessarily always receive the aid to the extent intended and that administration costs in the process cause particular problems. Perhaps the witnesses would respond to that issue in some fashion.

The point on the Charities Act 2009 was well made, a point which the Chairman and I have made on numerous occasions. I am concerned that five years have elapsed since the Act was passed. We are all aware of situations where, in the event that it had been passed on time with all its trappings, some of the issues that have arisen in the interim may not have occurred at all. We all support that view and continue to raise it.

Climate change is an issue we need to look at again. Climate change is not new. It comes and goes over the millennia and has come and gone several times. It happens to be here now. It used to be called global warming. We can attest to the fact that it does not always mean warming, as we know from recent events. We need to recognise that it is an economic issue. Those countries that do not observe it can have an economic advantage. Those countries that do not take account of the guidelines laid down and do not observe carbon emission requirements have a duty to the rest of us. I strongly agree that, proportionately, we need to address our own particular responsibilities in that area and I think we are all committed to that. Recently, there were some suggestions to the effect that we do not need to do that, that the whole situation has changed and in some strange way the European Union has decided to reduce its targets after 2030, which is some time away. A lot of water will run under the bridge between now and 2030. The question I would raise is to what extent Trócaire finds the equivatory response in some quarters to the whole question of climate change and the economic impact it has for all of us.

As a representative of this country I would have a friendly attitude to the agri-sector, which is the main business of this country. Other countries throughout the globe do not necessarily have the same attitude. Ireland is in the happy position where it can offset its carbon responsibilities to those countries which it sees as having a serious contribution to make. Everything that grows has a contribution to make as a repository in relation to carbon, including grass and trees, and some trees more than others. Some trees that are not highly regarded here, for example, the infamous sitka spruce, has a huge capacity to absorb carbon. The one thing to remember is that when burned or destroyed it emits the same amount of carbon it took in. That is simple technology. There are those who would suggest that is not true and those who would suggest that some industrial treatment in the interim can change all that. It does not change it. Anything that goes through an industrial process has a carbon attachment, regardless of whether we like it.

At another committee of the House in the past couple of weeks, I heard people suggest that the whole issue of the requirement to comply with carbon limits does not apply any more, that it is all rubbish and nonsense. That has to be confronted. To what extent does Trócaire hear such comments in the course of its very important and charitable work? As I have often said, the only fuel that is carbon neutral is untreated wood, straight out of the forest, that goes into the stove. It just emits what it absorbed in the first place, nothing more and nothing less. There was no industrial process whatsoever, except the chainsaw.

An issue that has arisen from time to time is the question of aid for trade. We have discussed it at recent meetings. As far as I can see, it is becoming more evident, particularly with some of the more powerful upcoming countries, that it is being used to the benefit of the donor countries, more so than the recipients.

Southern Sudan was discussed at the joint committee in the past. An issue that other members and I have raised from time to time is the global menu of crises that take place on a daily basis and whether it is possible to identify them in a way which would mean a more focused and concentrated effort could be directed towards those areas in need of the most immediate and urgent treatment. We dealt with Somalia in the past and it continues to be an issue. We have dealt with refugees from Somalia, a country that had appalling catastrophes perpetrated on the civilian population some years ago. Issues that would make the hair stand on one's head were brought to our attention by refugees in this country. They did not always receive the kind of comfort and succour to which they would have aspired, and tragically so. The question that arises is the extent to which Trócaire is in a position to identify those most sensitive areas that are in urgent need of attention in the course of its daily work and the degree to which it can address these issues or if Trócaire, like we are from time to time, is distracted by each emerging issue of a really serious nature on a daily, weekly or monthly basis to such an extent that it has to spread itself in all directions at the same time.