Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank both witnesses. Professor Buckley suggested explicitly including the national biodiversity action plan. To future-proof it, might it be useful to say something a little broader, such as "national biodiversity action plan and other biodiversity obligations". This might encompass the EU habitats and birds directives and the national pollination plan, if it ever gets on a statutory footing, which I hope will be the case some day. I refer also to such other biodiversity legislation as is being considered. If we had a slightly wider framework, it might address what comes afterwards because I am aware that the plan is due to expire in a couple of years. Naming specific obligations is a positive suggestion. Does Professor Buckley believe they should be named not simply in terms of the budgets, or how much we are going to be reducing by, but also in terms of the sectoral plans, which concern the policy on how we achieve our targets? Should the obligations be in the sectoral plans, by Department, as well as in the overall budget?

I am interested in another area of proofing. Professor Buckley does not need to comment on the specific example I am choosing, that of the Porcupine Basin in Cork. The impact of drilling on the habitat was examined but the impact on climate was to be examined separately. Together, they may have added up to a reason not to proceed. The environmental impact assessment was split into separate procedures, whereby the biodiversity impact was determined to be so much and the climate impact was to be determined later, after possible extraction. There is almost a split process. How important is it to tie together the assessments of climate and biodiversity?

On the pollinator plan, we are focusing on the nature-based solutions.

I am interested in Professor Buckley's take on offsetting. Forests can burn down and things can change. How important is it not to bank on any one solution because of the changeability of circumstances? As a reminder of the negative consequences, if there is a massive loss of pollinators, for example, how will that accelerate climate change? What are the dangers if we do not act on climate biodiversity, as well as the solutions?

Turning to Dr. Glynn, I was interested in the ratchet clause he suggested. It seems to be in line with Article 4 of the Paris Agreement, which provides that we should seek the highest possible ambition and that must be increasing all the time. The EU precautionary principle may be also relevant. Will Dr. Glynn comment on that and on ensuring we plan in a safe way for the future? There was much in his presentation that interested me. Compared with the 2008 climate talks, which I attended, at last year's climate talks many more accountants were offering clever accountancy solutions. What are the dangers when offsetting? What do we need to watch out for in respect of the question of numbers being moved around? I am concerned that emissions would end up being counted twice as removal, when in fact it is just emission reduction technology.

As for the international aspect-----