Ms Caoimhe de Barra:

I thank the committee for the opportunity to address it. As an overseas development agency, the advance of climate change is now the context within which Trócaire works. The impacts of climate change are being felt first and most keenly by those with the least resources to cope and least culpability with respect to climate change.

Trócaire is concerned that the heads of Bill do not propose a mechanism fit for ensuring the long-term vision and planning required to bring about the fundamental shifts necessary to adequately address climate change. We are concerned in particular about the inclusion in the Bill of clear, numeric national targets, which are important in order to enshrine our EU and international targets. If, as we assume, the intention is to meet these external targets, then their naming in national legislation should give no cause for controversy. We are concerned that there are differing interpretations of what low carbon means and that in the absence of a clearly defined objective, the practicalities of planning towards an overall emission reduction strategy will be compromised. We believe that it is, therefore, important to place beyond doubt the meaning of a low carbon, climate resilient and environmentally sustainable economy by setting out in head 4 an emission reduction target of 80% to 90% for the period up to and including 2050. We believe this would give clarity, objectivity and measurability to the context. We believe also that consideration could be given to inserting a definition of low carbon into head 2 so that low carbon would in that definition be in line with the European Council agreement for the EU to reduce emissions by 80-95% below 1990 levels by 2050.

We believe that strong accountability and implementation mechanisms are essential to ensure the effective management of the transition to a low carbon future. It is proposed that provision should be made in head 5 for the development of low carbon roadmaps every three to five years. A seven year cycle, as currently envisaged, is too long to ensure an adequate form of political accountability. Further, we believe that the role of the expert advisory body should be strengthened and in this regard propose that provision be made in head 8 for the expert advisory body to have the ability to publish its annual reports independent of Government consent.

We ask that in its considerations the committee reflect on the three principles outlined in our submission, namely, responsibility, justice and coherence. While Ireland ranks highly as an international partner as a result of its development co-operation programme, it has a disproportionately high level of greenhouse gas emissions for its population size and is among the highest users of natural resources in Europe. We believe that an adequate and just response to the threat posed by climate change would require Ireland to reduce its domestic emissions in line with the established international commitments and scientific evidence to ensure that those disproportionately impacted by a problem to which they did not contribute are adequately and reliably supported to cope with the impacts, that the most vulnerable people, domestically and internationally, are not disproportionately burdened in the response but receive an equitable share of the opportunities that action on climate and sustainable development presents.