Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

It is really interesting that we are really pushing into a point of overlap. I have a similar perspective to Deputy Bruton on where things are going but a slightly different perspective of how to approach it. The finance actors and others are very much already there and moving. What is really important is that public ideas and policy goals can be placed centre stage in order that they are not lost.

It is something we need to be aware of because while the distinction is not as clear in Ireland, it is important internationally. Indigenous peoples and local communities are not necessarily the same as landowners. If we use the term "landowner" as shorthand for indigenous peoples, it is problematic. There are many industries that need to deliver on carbon impact abatement. We are seeing very large international land grabs by massive investment firms because there is a market that they correctly see coming - and it is coming - for carbon. I do not think they are the people who need motivating. They are there already. I do not know the detail of the Intel project; it sounds really interesting. It is also really important that any carbon sequestration that companies engage in is not done to allow them to expand areas of their business, for example, data centres. I do not know if that is happening. Our national targets in carbon emission reductions need to be achieved. It is imperative that public land in particular, and even semi-private public land and other land, is used as part of the national carbon abatement process. We should also look at the jobs that we can create and support through that in terms of ecological care, rather than simply motivating the market. The market is already motivated. For me, the question is whether our other biodiversity and ecological goals will really be delivered and whether we are doing all that we can with the land that we, as a State, can access. I think that is important. That is where the tension will be. There are huge areas of biodiversity that have been protected by indigenous people. For countries that want to hit their 30% protection target, the easy thing to do is to relabel a whole area of indigenous land - with a commercial partner - as being a biodiversity protection zone that can be commercially marketed. It is a real tension. The good thing is that everybody realises that we need to protect land. How it is done and the approach taken are really important. That is where having a public leadership vision is important. I hope that we scale that up.

I also ask Dr. Lynn to comment on invasive species and the sustainable development goals, SDGs. The SDGs, and particularly those that focus life on land and life on water and goal 11 on sustainable cities and communities, have really interesting targets around biodiversity and habitat protection. Invasive species is an issue. The protection of the native honeybee is a measure that we are currently considering in the Seanad at the moment. It seems to me to fit within those SDGs. I ask Dr. Lynn to comment on addressing invasive species and the other SDG targets, as well as on the capacity that we need to increase in respect of environmental impact assessments, the habitats directive, the birds directive and the water directive. Is there potential to have the same kind of tools that we are using there to begin to incorporate and consider some of the SDG targets on biodiversity alongside that work? Could we upskill in that area in terms of the kind of ecological and environmental impact assessments that we are doing?