Michael McCarthy (Cork South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We have a quorum. I remind members of the usual guidance regarding mobile telephone technology. Apologies have been received from Senator Ned O'Sullivan.

We will now proceed with our consideration of the outline heads of the climate action and low carbon development Bill. I welcome the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, Deputy Phil Hogan, and his officials, Ms Geraldine Tallon, Secretary General; and Ms Caroline Lyons, assistant principal officer in the climate policy section. The Minister is well used to the caution in regard to witnesses, so we will proceed without it. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. I invite the Minister to address the committee.

Phil Hogan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Chairman for the invitation to participate in the stakeholder debate the committee is facilitating on national climate policy and associated legislation. I greatly appreciate members' work and look forward to receiving their report in due course. Substantial progress has been made in terms of developing the national climate policy agenda since I met with the committee in December 2011. Arising from that constructive meeting, I responded to a request from the committee to set out in writing the policy development agenda, issuing the programme for the development of national climate policy and legislation in January 2012. In spite of the enormity and importance of the task, the programme is broadly on schedule. Great credit is due to several key players, particularly this committee and the secretariat to the National Economic and Social Council, NESC.

I delivered a comprehensive statement to the committee at the outset of the policy development process in December 2011. In addition, the committee recently had a full briefing by departmental officials, the Environmental Protection Agency and the NESC secretariat. Rather than going over the ground again and given there have been no major developments in the meantime, I propose to take this opportunity to set out the key issues in the national climate policy and legislation agenda from my perspective.

First, and perhaps most important of all, is Ireland's greenhouse gas emissions profile. That is the critical starting point. We have a somewhat unusual profile in the European context due to several factors, including the high share of emissions associated with ruminant livestock in the agricultural sector. This situation has not arisen because we do not have an efficiency in that sector; on the contrary, we have a carbon-efficient agriculture and food sector. It is simply due to the scale of the industry relative to our overall economy. In any debate on national climate policy and legislation, it is essential both to understand Ireland's emissions profile and respond specifically to it.

As I said in my previous statement, the challenge we face is significant and serious and must be dealt with in a manner that has regard to our specific national circumstances. I have heard suggestions that we should follow the policy or legislative approach taken in other countries, particularly the United Kingdom. When I look at the latter's emissions profile, however, I see little similarity with ours. In short, that country's challenge is very different from ours. Lessons from other countries must certainly be considered, but it would be naive and potentially very harmful to assume that what works elsewhere provides an easy or appropriate solution for Ireland. We must make progress on the basis of what will work best for this country in meeting its greenhouse gas mitigation obligations in the medium and long term and pursuing new growth opportunities in a low-carbon future. We need an informed and mature response to our specific greenhouse gas mitigation challenge.

The second issue I will address is the serious gap that exists in international and EU policy and legislation in terms of accounting for greenhouse gas emissions and removals of the use of certain lands, including agricultural land. This is a critically important issue for Ireland but one which is often overlooked. In fact, it is central to the climate policy development process as a consequence of its direct relevance to our agricultural sector. Efforts to resolve the gap at the European and international level raise matters with profound economic implications for Ireland, particularly our agriculture and food sector. Every sector must of course play its part in the national transition agenda; there can be and are no exceptions. The main issue is that policy on agricultural land use at EU level and in the international process under the UN convention is incomplete. We must bear in mind that gap and how it might ultimately be resolved in our deliberations on climate policy and legislation. Irish engagement in the ongoing efforts to resolve the gap is focused on seeking to optimise the opportunity for the highest ambition possible on the part of the agricultural sector as a whole, that is, livestock and land. I will outline presently the highly ambitious agenda which the Government, in anticipation of the planned primary legislation, has set for four sectors of the economy, including agriculture.

The third key point is greenhouse gas emission targets. Domestic targets at whatever level or timeframe, be it 30% for 2020, 40% by 2030 or 80% for 2050, are not just numbers. It is very attractive to talk about ambitious headline numbers such as 80% by 2050 but entirely shallow and indefensible if they have no substance. In other words, there is little point in putting forward such objectives if there is no clear case for an additional layer of targets or if proposed targets are not presented and considered in the context of Ireland's specific greenhouse gas emissions profile and on the basis of where and how they are expected to be achieved. As I said in my letter of January 2012 to the Chairman's predecessor, while targets, trajectories and institutional arrangements are of huge importance as part of a robust national position, they are elements of structure and process which do not directly address the core political issue of where and how greenhouse gas emission reductions are to be achieved across the economy and society.

The need to re-frame our national agenda from "how much" to "how to" is strongly borne out by the comprehensive climate policy analysis reports from the NESC secretariat. When I spoke in the House in February in response to a Bill brought forward by Deputy Catherine Murphy, I made the point that Ireland already has a challenging greenhouse gas reduction target for 2020 which is binding under EU law. I also told the House that the legislation the Government proposes to bring forward will be unequivocal in terms of compliance with existing and future obligations of the State under EU law and any other international agreement to which the State becomes a party. The unequivocal commitment on compliance relates both to existing and future obligations of the State. For Ireland, future obligations under EU and international law are not some remote possibility. They are a reality and we are fully committed to meeting them.

In publishing the recent Green Paper on a 2030 framework for climate and energy policy, the European Commission has already initiated a debate on a 2030 EU target. The Green Paper is a political priority for the EU in progressing decarbonisation across the European economy and further developing EU leadership in preparation for negotiations on a new international climate treaty which we hope will be finalised in Paris in 2015. We already have a challenging and binding 2020 reduction target under EU law. In the relatively near future we expect to have a further challenging target for 2030. We are fully committed to meeting these and all subsequent targets.

It is important to note that targets are not the only barometer of ambition or commitment. In anticipation of the planned legislation, the Government has already announced a high level of mitigation ambition for 2050. Work is under way on low-carbon roadmaps in four key sectors of the economy, namely, energy, buildings, transport and agriculture. The ambition is to achieve near zero carbon dioxide emissions by 2050 in the case of energy, buildings and transport, and carbon neutrality in the case of agriculture. This sectoral element of the road-mapping process will underpin work on a 2050 national low-carbon roadmap which will be completed by my Department following public consultation next year. This approach has substance in that it addresses Ireland's specific greenhouse gas emissions profile and sets out a way forward that is realistic and relevant to the negotiations on the policy gap to which I referred. The steps already taken by the Government in anticipation of the primary legislation demonstrate the depth of consideration underpinning our approach and the proposed provisions of the climate action and low carbon development Bill. The underlying policy may not be immediately evident from the text of the outline heads.

The fourth point is that Ireland is not a laggard on climate protection. In fact, it is quite the contrary. As well as meeting our greenhouse gas reduction target under the Kyoto Protocol in the 2008 to 2012 commitment period, due in part the impact of economic recession, we also put in train the intensive analytical and policy work necessary to underpin much higher ambition in the future. We certainly face a challenging target for 2020 under EU law, but one of the priorities in initiating the policy development process in which we are now engaged was to identify and adopt the additional measures necessary to achieve our 2020 compliance.

It is also designed to allow us to take a step forward in the context of our own agenda on an effective transition to a competitive low-carbon economy in 2050.

Within the EU, our record is strong. We have consistently and constructively supported EU leadership in seeking to mobilise an effective global response to climate change. A further priority in initiating the policy development process was to ensure that Ireland will maintain its acknowledged place among both the progressive member states within the EU and the progressive parties to the wider international process under the UN Convention on Climate Change. Our record in this regard is not something which happened overnight or on my watch. It is only fair to all those who have been involved in this area over many years to ensure that the facts relating to Ireland's good standing are made clear. Rather than criticising our efforts to date, our objective should be to build on those efforts.

The fifth and final key point is that there are no easy answers to the greenhouse gas emission challenge with which all developed countries will be obliged to grapple in the period to 2050. As I said in my original statement to the committee, I am not convinced that any one body possesses - or any particular approach involves - a monopoly of wisdom. A successful way forward for Ireland lies in structured dialogue on the range of views that exists across Irish society. My objective - this is a fundamental point and I would welcome support from the committee in respect of it - is to ensure that the ultimate decisions on the way forward will be taken on the basis of a fair hearing for all stakeholders, address our specific national circumstances in the context of the challenges and opportunities presented by a low-carbon future, achieve the critical balance between environmental and economic sustainability and reflect a national vision energised by the broad consensus and support of an enlightened and progressive society.

I wish to briefly reflect on a number of other points which I set out in my letter of 12 January last to the Chairman's predecessor. In that letter, I clearly outlined the central role I see this committee playing in the policy development process. That role is of the utmost importance in the context of the critical issue of developing a clear national understanding of when and how we propose to meet our binding EU and wider international commitments, as well as pursuing our national objectives in respect of a low-carbon economy. I have already stated that while targets, trajectories and institutional arrangements are extremely important in the context of a robust national position, they are elements of structure and process and they do not directly address the core political issue of where and how greenhouse gas emission reductions are to be achieved across the economy and society. Questions in this regard lie at the core of the political challenge and, as stated earlier, there are no easy answers.

The way forward will require strong political vision, leadership and determination. Input from that perspective is what I will be most anxious to see in the committee's report. I am absolutely confident that if it gets its policy and legislation right, Ireland can and will make a successful transition to a low-carbon future. The policies and measures which are most likely to be successful are those which best respond to our national circumstances, as reflected in our greenhouse gas emission profile and the structure of our economy. I firmly believe that any approach to a low-carbon future must address and seek to balance the challenge of greenhouse gas mitigation and the opportunities for new growth that will arise as the emerging global green economy matures. The response must be approached from both perspectives and the outcome must reflect a credible balance between our commitment to environmentally sustainable development and our ambitions for economic growth and social development.

Michael McCarthy (Cork South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will take members' questions in groups of three. The first member to pose his questions will be Senator Mac Conghail.

Fiach MacConghail (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister. In the context of political reform and the policy development role of this committee, I applaud him for engaging with us and giving us a sense of the major challenge we face in the context of addressing the matter to which the proposed legislation relates and in terms of interacting with the various stakeholders. I can only speak on my own behalf but the recent sessions at which we have discussed the heads of the Bill with many of the stakeholders have been invigorating and interesting. Points of divergence and tension have emerged and we hope these will be reflected in our final report. I hope that report, when it is published, will be of assistance to the Minister.

The Minister was very clear in the context of what he said with regard to Ireland's greenhouse gas emissions. I do not wish to put words in his mouth but he appears to be suggesting that we have not arrived at a clear set of measurements which we can use to quantify Ireland's exact level of such emissions. He also seemed to suggest that putting in place targets or objectives in this regard would be premature and that there is more work to be done in the context of developing a national and specific greenhouse gas emissions measurement mechanism. The Minister was also very clear with regard to how reductions in greenhouse gas emissions should be achieved. He is consistent in this regard in that he is not necessarily in favour of national targets or objectives being included in the body of the legislation. Two questions arise from what the Minister said. Is he of the view that burden-sharing would offer us an outlet in respect of this matter? He suggested that the agricultural sector should be carbon neutral and that the other three sectors should try to achieve certain reductions. Is he suggesting, therefore, that burden-sharing would provide us with a way to reduce overall emission levels? The Minister does not agree with including targets or objectives in primary legislation. A former Scottish Minister for the Environment and Climate Change, Mr. Stewart Stevenson, addressed this committee and indicated that Scotland put in place annual targets which were separate from the legislation. These targets were not designed as a way for politicians to be admonished if they were not achieved and, as a result, they became self-fulfilling in nature.

Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister, Ms Lyons and Ms Tallon. The main issues which I believe arise relate to the need for overall targets in the context of 2050 and the need for five-year carbon budgets. Some of those who previously made presentations to the committee have actually argued for three-year targets. I would not argue for the latter in the context of trying to be restrictive but rather from the point of view of taking small steps forward. If there are only eight steps on a staircase which should contain 13, then one will be obliged to take very long strides as one ascends. It would be much better if we took small incremental steps. We must also ensure that successive Governments will fulfil their obligations.

Another matter which arises is the advisory body, the make-up thereof and the need for it to be completely independent. Said body must also be in a position to publish its reports. As it is currently drafted, head 10 would appear to allow for a break in this regard in that a Minister may decide not to follow the advice or recommendations of the advisory body. What is the position with regard to the Taoiseach's office having overall responsibility in this area?

I have raised the issue of mitigation with the Minister on previous occasions. I accept that work, which is being done in conjunction with Teagasc, is ongoing in the context of assessing the position with regard to mitigation and the sequestration effects of bogs, forests and grasslands. One of the matters which continually arises relates to what we can count in this regard. I do not want the position to be overstated or understated. Regardless of the system we choose, it must be accurate because it will need to be credible. Apparently the mitigation offered via the sequestration of bogs and forests cannot be offset against agriculture. As a result, there is a need for a decision to be made on this matter. Will the Minister comment on this matter? It is extremely important - in the Irish context - that the sequestration effects of bogs, forests, grasslands and hedgerows should be able to be brought into the equation in the context of offsetting overall emissions. What is the position in respect of this matter and who will be responsible for making the decision on how we should proceed?

Paudie Coffey (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister for coming before us. The key issue at the heart of this debate relates to whether we should set targets. I am of the view that we cannot set targets unless there is a proper alignment of policies throughout our entire national framework. We are informed that agriculture, transport and industry are among the main contributors of carbon emissions. We have put in place ambitious targets under Food Harvest 2020 in respect of food production and exports in order to assist the country's economic recovery. I read an observation on a blog in recent days which indicated that at these hearings only one group - the IFA - has objected to the setting of targets. I was present at the hearings which took place on Friday last and many people from industry, business and other sectors stated that by setting targets we could seriously undermine the national recovery.

We have policies on economic growth, employment strategy and increasing our exports. We need to be very careful about the language we use here because we cannot have it every way. We are facing challenges. Ireland is a very small country. We must play our part in reducing our carbon emissions but we must also consider the consequences of setting the targets people seek. I will give two examples. The amount of stimulus the Kerry Group and Glanbia will create in our economy and the food they will produce to export throughout the world cannot be underestimated. If we are to set targets, we will put that industry and productivity at risk and I am not prepared to support that.

Progress is being made regarding the generation of electricity. In my region and that of the Minister, the south east, Great Island, which was an oil generating station, is being converted by SSE, formerly Airtricity, into a gas generating station. That will be far more efficient and will greatly reduce the emissions for the amount of electricity it produces. We need to speak more about that progress, and that is only one sector. Major progress is being made in other sectors also, and we need to bring the stakeholders along with us if we want to seriously reduce the level of carbon emissions. Will the Minister indicate if any thought has gone into a more holistic approach, and I presume that is the case, in the way we align our national policies to reduce emissions and bring the stakeholders with us?

I will give the Minister three practical examples of the way we are not aligning policies in the current scenario. Various sectors are trying to reduce their carbon emissions but they are meeting blocks along the way. For example, GlaxoSmithKline, a major employer in Dungarvan, Waterford, wanted to install a wind turbine on its plant to reduce its carbon emissions, reduce its overheads and become more competitive, which would help us in our task. It was granted planning permission by the local authority, with very little objection from the local community, but the application was refused by An Bord Pleanála.

We have a hydroelectricity scheme on the Glasha river in Waterford, which will generate hydroelectricity for Merck Sharp & Dohme, again to assist in the reduction of carbon emissions. However, the problem is connectivity to the grid. We can use all the flowery language and talk about the ideology with regard to setting targets but unless we align our policies and make the reforms and changes that are needed, we will not reach those targets.

I come from a place in Portlaw, County Waterford, where 300 KW of hydroelectric energy was produced in the 1800s. Not one kilowatt is being produced from that river now. Perhaps we should look back at the way our forebears operated to understand sustainable living and reduce carbon emissions before we set any target. I would be interested to hear the Minister's comments.

Phil Hogan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Senator Fiach Mac Conghail asked some general questions on our approach to climate change policy. The best example I can give the Senator is that during our Presidency we did an enormous amount of work in completing files in the European Parliament process which were lying around for a considerable period and which we prioritised. We got conclusions on priority substances - water, CO2 emissions on cars and vans, F gases and the emissions trading schemes. All of those files have resulted in a progressive approach towards reducing our greenhouse gas emissions in their own way through the legislative process in the European Parliament without any targets. A whole-of-government approach was taken in terms of what the Government was trying to achieve. We have issues of sustainability and a framework to promote that at international level as well through the sustainable development goals and the millennium development goals, on which a huge amount of progress was made. Council conclusions were reached on those during the course of our Presidency.

I prioritised our future level of ambition on reducing greenhouse gas emissions at our informal Council meeting in April. It might come as a surprise to some people, particularly those in the non-governmental organisation community, that I would prioritise where we go between 2020 and 2030 to develop even greater levels of ambition than those we had between now and 2020 to keep up the momentum in reducing our greenhouse gas emissions. I have prioritised in a practical way some of the issues that will be centre stage in the European process in the coming years.

As Deputy Stanley is aware, we do not have legally binding targets in Ireland. We have EU legally binding targets.

Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am aware of that.

Phil Hogan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

He will be aware also that we are signed up to the European Union-----

Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am aware of that also.

Phil Hogan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I do not believe that we need any duplication of targets. I am aware of a mantra going about that we should sign up to a 2050 target before anyone else, that we should demonstrate that level of ambition. We are a competitive, open economy and we will work in conjunction with our European Union partners. The European Union states are the leaders in trying to do something about this issue in the world in terms of ambition, and Ireland is among the progressive states that are forging alliances with people from outside the EU to drive that particular agenda of meeting all of the various policy changes at local level to meet the 2015 UN convention outcome, which we all hope we will able to complete by that time, in Paris. That is ambitious enough but from Ireland's point of view, we will be participating fully, and we have done so in the past six to 12 months, as part of the EU Council deliberations in driving that agenda in Doha and in Poland at the end of this year when it is hoped we will make further progress in meeting the EU legally binding targets to which we signed up. Otherwise, we will be in the European Court of Justice.

When I became Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government I inherited 31 files where Ireland had been brought to the European Court of Justice and where we were running the risk, as we were on the wastewater treatment systems and the groundwater quality, of fines on a daily basis. I tackled that issue. I am very conscious that we could be facing fines again if we do not hit our 2020 targets. We will do everything we can in that regard, but I have a different approach. I have an approach where all of the stakeholders are involved, by agreement, rather than imposing a solution which somebody would like me to do. For that reason we have the roadmap process and with the help of the NESC secretariat and the Departments of energy, agriculture, transport and buildings, we will be able to get agreement from those Ministers on the milestones we need to reach and the progress we must make in all those areas because this is a whole-of-government approach. This is not my approach or the Deputy's approach. This is what is required in each of the Departments to help us achieve our 2020 targets, which are onerous but on which I am prepared to seek the support of the Government, with the chairmanship of the Taoiseach and the Cabinet committee process, to deliver. We will have objectives in those sectoral roadmaps for each of the Departments that are causing the major difficulties for us in meeting those EU legally binding targets by 2020.

I agree with Deputy Coffey that we need to have a whole-of-government approach. Pragmatic suggestions must be taken on board by all communities, local and national authorities and agencies as well as business to ensure we do things differently from the way we did them in the past. We no longer have an option in the way we do our business, in agriculture or as a society, of taking an àla carte approach to this issue. We must do this on the basis of achieving the objectives we set out in a practical way. Any encouragement I can give, I will do so.

Deputy Stanley mentioned carbon sinks. We have an issue with the area of land use, land-use change and forestry, LULUCF, in the European Union. We took our eye off the ball in regard to the way forestry, peat and grassland is calculated for the purposes of Ireland's effort sharing in relation to our EU obligations. We took our eye off the ball in 2008 and 2009 when that was being negotiated but we have peatlands in the context of being used as a carbon store and sink, including any institutional arrangements, for moving on this issue. That has been the subject of a bogland study where the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht, in co-operation with the Peatlands Council, is preparing a draft peatlands strategy. I hope that will be completed by the end of the year. Obviously, it will have some impact, depending on the negotiations, in terms of the way, under the LULUCF, peat, forestry and grassland generally will be calculated in the post-2020 emissions proposals that will come forward from the European Commission by the end of the year.

Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Regarding what the Minister said, Teagasc is doing a study of grasslands-----

Phil Hogan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No. It is feeding into the process in agriculture from the point of view of the sectoral roadmaps. The study being done is on boglands and peatlands.

Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

With a view to having both, and forestry, included as carbon sinks and being calculated as mitigating-----

Phil Hogan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

While I do not wish to pre-empt what studies will be undertaken in each Department, as one would expect, Teagasc obviously is involved in agriculture. The Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht is undertaking its own boglands study. I understand that study has been under way for a considerable time and I hope it will come to a conclusion by the end of the year. This is something I will follow up with the Minister, Deputy Deenihan.

Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is it the intention to seek to have them offset against overall emissions? Is this correct and should this have been done in 2008 or 2009?

Phil Hogan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are in discussions and I believe Ireland was not fairly treated on the last occasion in respect of land use, land-use change and forestry, LULUCF, and we are seeking some changes in that regard to take account of the particular issues the Deputy has identified.

Kevin Humphreys (Dublin South East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister for his attendance and apologise for not being present for his opening submissions, as I was at another meeting. Please feel free to stop me if I am being repetitive but the process has been quite informative. The concept of having hearings on the heads of the Bill has been highly informative in respect of this joint committee's thinking and, it is to be hoped, when the Minister proceeds to flesh out the heads of the Bill into legislation. A consensus that emerged among all groups was that the Fiscal Advisory Council could be a good template for an expert advisory body and I ask the Minister to consider this possibility. There certainly was a lot of what I would call negative reaction when the heads of the Bill were first published. However, much of that may have arisen from misunderstandings, in particular with regard to head 3, in which targets actually are set under international agreements although the 2020 target is already enshrined in legislation. It also provides for any such targets negotiated in the proposed 2015 agreement. It would be interesting were the Minister to revert to the joint committee at a later stage on the negotiations for 2015 and the process by which we can improve the position in respect of peatlands, grasslands and forestry, which probably was not covered.

Arising from the hearings themselves, I have come to the viewpoint that the best mechanism probably involves setting the national roadmap first, rather than drawing up sectoral roadmaps first and then setting the national roadmap subsequently. This might be a better process although I do not know whether the Minister has yet given thought to it. As for the seven-year review period, everyone, right across the board, considers it probably to be too long and has sought a reduction to a period of five years. One item to emerge through the hearings concerns black carbon, which does not appear to be covered under any of the existing heads. If the report of this joint committee recommends the inclusion of black carbon, does the Minister have thoughts on where it might be included under the heads of the Bill?

Caít Keane (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister and appreciate that the Joint Committee on Environment, Culture and the Gaeltacht will have an input into shaping the Bill. I believe it to be a new way of engaging in the business of government and note that participative democracy is at work in this regard. It is to be hoped that some recommendations will be brought forward. While I believe everyone shares the same objective, the question is how to get to it. In addition, all members share the objectives of ensuring that whatever is done is sustainable and that the country will be able to bear it economically because, as I have stated previously, there is no point in having airy-fairy ideas while being unable to implement them. I am a realist and have listened carefully to the advice coming from all sectors, including scientists, meteorologists, community groups and others who have made studies of this issue, as well as very good input from the Department. While this has been a learning experience, a point I took from the Minister's comments, which also had been made to members in another submission, possibly that of Professor Bates, is that the European Union's accounting procedures definitely required examination. Obviously, this issue must be considered in more detail because 30% of Ireland's emissions output comes from agriculture on which much of our economy is based, whereas the European Union average is 10% overall. In other words, Ireland is starting from a different base and, therefore, the accounting methodology must be revisited. The joint committee also heard a presentation on how the measurements were conducted and the area that was taken into consideration. As the position is very different when one compares Ireland with much larger countries, this is another issue that must be considered in greater detail.

As Deputies Humphreys and Coffey have noted, the targets comprise the main topic of the day. One submission, I think from Friends of the Earth, suggested they should be called national objectives and not targets as, therefore, they would be primary objectives and a roadmap could be laid out. The Minister himself and other submissions have referred to the question of "how much". However, we must concentrate on the question of "how to" to get to the question of "how much" and were we to lay down "how much" without knowing "how to", we will not get there. Consequently, we must know how to get there. As for the stakeholders, particularly in respect of transport, heat and so on, that sector's objective must be raised, even though wind energy has risen from 1% up to 16% at present. However, in the absence of all the Departments coming together, it is difficult to try to get renewable energy of the ground if one faces objections all the time. Obviously one also must educate people to bring them with one but in addition, consideration must be given to the co-ordination between Departments. The Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government must drive matters to ensure the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources considers financing and whether it must be changed to include wind energy at sea and facilities for that. I know it is increasingly expensive but the output is greater, the return is much greater and it would be faster. Consequently, a coming together of the stakeholders would be desirable. Deputy Humphreys also mentioned a point I had intended to make regarding the possibility of revising the seven-year review period to five years and while the Minister probably will not comment on that suggestion today, I will make a point to flag my perspective.

What I have most in mind is to learn more about the accounting procedure. Three or four people around the table have stated that farming is important to us, that it must be considered and that we must ensure we are starting with a level playing field. In addition, one of the climatologists who appeared mentioned that because of climate change and the warming of the Mediterranean countries, the food output there will not be great, as the facilities around the Mediterranean will not be as good as they are at present. Consequently, from the perspective of food security, it will fall to the Nordic countries and ourselves to look at food production and this must be taken into consideration. The Minister has just concluded his role in the Presidency of the European Union, in which Ireland did a great job. While Ireland has been noted as a good, clean, green country, we must ensure we keep it that way and that is what is going forward. Moreover, we should build on where we are and as the Minister himself has stated, we no longer have an option but must go forward with the climate change Bill. Hopefully we ultimately will come up with some good recommendations and I thank the Minister for his input.

Marcella Corcoran Kennedy (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister and his officials for their attendance. Has the Minister come to any conclusions in respect of defining what is meant by low-carbon targets? As some people are suggesting 80% and others have suggested a figure of between 80% or 90%, the Minister might indicate whether he has come to any conclusions in this regard. In addition, has the Minister made progress on how each Department might try to meet its own specific targets? Will a set of rules be put in place? Has the Minister given consideration to setting up an international climate fund, as have other counties?

Phil Hogan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On the question of the definition of low-carbon targets, we have defined it as an ambition to have near-zero carbon dioxide emissions by 2050 in the case of energy, buildings and transport, as well as carbon neutrality in the case of agriculture. That is the working definition we are using. I refer to Deputy Humphrey's suggestion.

We will be establishing the expert advisory council before the end of the year. We are considering the fiscal council template and we want the body to be independent and not captured by anybody. Its role will be to give independent information to everybody. That is a useful approach.

As I stated, this is challenging Ministries that have difficulties, including the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources and the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport. Solutions are not easy to find in these Departments, in particular. Through the Cabinet committee process, chaired by the Taoiseach, we have agreed since last October that the Ministers can now come up with their own policies with which to meet the targets. Responsibility used to fall on my Department, but there is now a whole-of-government approach. It is very important that the model be robust, cost effective and deliverable within the stipulated timeframe. The year 2020 will not be long coming around.

With regard to black carbon, I agreed with Minister Atwood in Northern Ireland at the end of April in the run-up to our informal Council meeting that we would have an all-island study on the elimination of black carbon from the island over a three-year period to combat air pollution and protect the environment. The study will commence shortly. We have given industry sufficient time to phase out the bad stuff, including smoky fuels, and replace it with alternatives. I am glad to report that a company has been established in Foynes in County Limerick that has sought to establish a new facility to create alternatives to black carbon products. One hundred and forty-two jobs will be created over a period of two or three years to coincide with the policy decision we have made. That is positive and it shows that the green economy can work very effectively in regard to such a policy decision.

Kevin Humphreys (Dublin South East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is obviously not widely known. It was touched upon in two or three submissions to the committee. I am not the only one who missed it.

Phil Hogan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We did get a bit of publicity for it in April but we will send details around again if the Deputy believes it is necessary.

I am prepared to consider changing the review period from seven years to five years. Seven years seems a little long. We have an open mind on it. If the committee includes the matter as part of its recommendations, I am sure it might be considered.

Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Seven years is even too long for the presidency.

Phil Hogan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy should note what was arrived at in that regard by the constitutional convention, of which the Deputy is in favour.

Michael McCarthy (Cork South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What is the position on the international climate fund?

Phil Hogan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Structures are being established to help countries to draw down that fund. The process has been quite slow. A small number of projects have been approved but we hope that between now and the meeting in Poland at the end of the year, there will be a lot more progress. The process has been frustrating for potential recipients of the funds, which are to promote the green economy while assisting with mitigation and adaptation. It was hoped that there would have been further progress to date. As part of our Council conclusions in June, we agreed an EU-member state adaptation policy on climate change. I hope this will trigger additional resources through various EU programmes for member states. I hope this will give some impetus to those who wish to draw down funds, through local authorities or national agencies.

On Senator Keane's point, targets have become a little bit of an obsession. Legally binding EU targets have the force of law and are sufficient. Ireland, in step with all other EU member states, can meet EU binding targets. That is why we are part of the Union. We want to be among the leaders and progressive member states on this issue, and we are. Objectives have been mentioned in regard to the sectoral roadmaps but we should wait to see what the other Ministries come up with to deal with their own sectoral roadmaps. They will have to underpin their objectives with policies.

The accounting methodologies are always a subject of debate. We want to see a transparent means of accounting so that every member state will know exactly, in a harmonised and standardised way, the objectives it must meet and the means of meeting them without proceeding in a way that might lack openness and transparency, as evident in regard to other policy areas.

Caít Keane (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What about the question of the legal advice? Is it our own business, given that any committee can get the advice of the Attorney General? Whose remit is this?

Michael McCarthy (Cork South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We will get our own legal advice next Tuesday.

Caít Keane (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

All right.

Noel Coonan (Tipperary North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister and his officials. I thank him for his presentation. It brought balance to the proceedings. Many of the presentations of groups that appeared before us focused more on agriculture than anything else and sought serious reductions in emissions in the agriculture sector. Agriculture will play its role. Very important to Ireland is the balance between our ability to produce quality food and the opportunities presented by the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy with the abolition of quotas, bearing in mind that we export 90% of what we produce agriculturally. It is very important that we strike the right balance between environmental protection and food production. Will the reformed Common Agricultural Policy present Ireland with difficulties in the lead-up to 2020 in that many farmers will be considering increasing their herds, particularly their dairy herds? I recently met a farmer who was increasing his herd from 80 to 150. Unless there is balance in the legislation, there will be a negative impact on our capacity to produce quality food. I welcome the Minister's refreshing approach to dealing with this issue. In conjunction with the submissions by the IFA and Teagasc, it augurs well for our ability to produce quality food.

Phil Hogan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There is a policy conflict that arises regularly and which raises heads, namely, the conflict between the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and the need to produce enough food to feed the people of the world. That tension will always exist. Companies such as Glanbia or Kerry Foods, which are major exporters from this island, are now demanding certain practices on the part of agricultural producers to meet the market demand for sustainable production methodologies. They are voting with their feet in regard to how they will respond to the growing need for additional food and the manner in which the manufacturing and production processes will work towards reaching targets, such as the Food Harvest 2020 targets. The share of the Common Agricultural Policy has now enshrined for the first time an increased amount of consideration for environmental objectives. I would have believed a little more would have been appreciated but what I describe indicates the new consciousness of the new cross-departmental role in the areas of agriculture and environmental protection. It is a question of having more integration of economic and environmental considerations in achieving our national objectives on employment, food security and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

It has dawned on our food-producing companies, because of market requirements, that sustainable development, sustainable means of production and cultural changes in agricultural production methodologies that must be implemented at farm level comprise a welcome step towards meeting the objectives. By 2020, we will require producers to be more ambitious in meeting many more of the objectives in order to ensure we have carbon neutrality in agriculture. After all, we have a very efficient agriculture system in terms of carbon production but we might not always achieve the necessary reductions in carbon emissions that we would like.

I am conscious of the challenge facing the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine to provide the sectorial roadmap to achieve the 2020 objectives.

Michael McCarthy (Cork South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister, and this concludes our considerations. I also thank his officials, Ms Geraldine Tallon and Ms Caroline Lyons.