Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I will direct most of my questions to the representatives from the Department. Mr. Carberry's contribution was useful in that it gave us a sense of the mechanics of how things are applied. To what extent has the Department embedded the SDG framework in its work plans? We heard about some of the pilot and flagship projects. This was one aspect we have been hearing about. I refer to the piloting and the examples in that context. Regarding policy-proofing, however, the tool mentioned earlier was the RIA. We know now that a well-being analysis tool is also being applied. What is the equivalent of that in terms of the SDGs? I refer to looking at policies in advance and not solely examining them to consider if we have something we can say we are doing under SDG 13.1, or whatever number it might be, but to whether we have checked our policies to ensure we are not causing damage in this regard.

An example I think is relevant, and I have many others, concerns SDGs 14.4 and 14.5. These are not provisions the Department has identified, although they are of significant environmental relevance. They are specifically concerned with the issue of protecting against overfishing and ensuring the proper regulation of marine protected areas. Again there is a really clear message emanating from the SDGs, yet there is a policy decision to be considered as well. In this context, I wonder what the witnesses' Department is doing in respect of scrutinising its policy decisions to ensure not only that they bring us forward on the SDGs, but that they are not actually moving us backwards in this regard. I refer to what I assume is important when the Department does this.

I share some of Deputy Ó Cathasaigh's concerns regarding just 19 of 169 goals being considered in respect of positive duties, which seems to be remarkably low. I ask the witnesses to indicate if this total is open to expansion, if it is being reviewed regularly and how it is liaising with the Departments where it was hard to decide which would lead on an area. In addition to the positive duty, there is also the protective duty. I refer to the RIA, where presumably all 169 targets must be considered to ensure there is not a policy in one area which causes damage in another. It is not enough to be screening the 19 being examined; there is a need to be screening all 169 goals in this regard. I am interested in this aspect. In the work plans, is consideration only undertaken of the positive duty aspect or is a protective and analytic tool also employed? Is it coming in advance of policies being implemented or afterwards? Can the witnesses give an example of a decision that was changed based on an analysis of the SDGs?

I am referring to something that the Department decided to do differently than originally planned due to the analysis.

Regarding how SDGs are resourced within departmental SDG actions, are there specific budget lines for projects? Will the witnesses provide the 2023 figures for same?

I will ask the Department to comment first, but I would also like Ms Gilmartin to comment on another important matter. I am concerned that we are waiting to pilot the well-being framework before piloting SDGs, but as the lead Department, the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications could show leadership by beginning the piloting of SDGs within its budgetary process. How are the SDGs being reflected in its budgetary process?

I will leave it at that.