Mr. Michael Ewing:

I wish to comment on Dr. O'Neill's submission. It was excellent. It clarified and identified the issues related to the five scenarios presented in the White Paper. The NGO sector, specifically SDG Watch Europe in Brussels and Friends of the Earth Europe, devised a sixth scenario to the effect that, while the other scenarios were interesting, they were not adventurous or ambitious or solve the problems we must face. The groups considered a broad sweep of social, environmental and economic issues.

Before I outline the sixth scenario, I will discuss what is presented to us as the real world by the media and other elements that have an input into our thinking. The real world is one in which the environment is fundamental. It is from where we come and on what we rely entirely for our existence. Without it, we are nothing and would die out as a species. If that is the case, why do we always think about the issue in a different way, for example, in terms of the economy? It is always the economy first and, "It's the economy, stupid", when, in fact, it is not. It is actually, "It's the environment, stupid", because, without it, we would have no economy or society.

The way in which the European Commission is considering the future of Europe is cock-eyed. In my submission I referred to how we had believed the situation was looking better under Mr. José Manuel Barroso, given that the European 2020 strategy suggested an opening up of understanding about sustainability and the idea that dealing with climate change and biodiversity was essential to the whole picture of Europe. Unfortunately, there has been a gradual narrowing of the focus on economic issues under the Juncker Commission. This is understandable to some degree in the light of the economic crash in the 2000s. Nonetheless, that time has passed, yet the direction has not changed dramatically. Brexit has pushed matters a little in a new direction.

The European Commission has been focusing more and more on economic issues and less and less on the community and the environment, as evidenced by the semester process, the annual cycle of review, reporting and making recommendations. Over the years, the Commission has grown less interested in making recommendations for countries on environmental or social issues and more focused on economic issues. That is a symptom of the thinking at play, which is sad. The Europe 2020 strategy is gradually being sidelined, while the semester process is narrowing year on year. The Commission is making fewer country-specific recommendations, CSRs, which reflect its narrow economic focus. From 2012 to 2015, there was a significant reduction in the number of CSRs on energy, tax shifts to green taxes and the removal or reduction of environmental subsidies. In 2015, there was only one. As far as I am aware, there has been none since in any country in Europe, which is a major change.

The sixth scenario was devised by SDG Watch Europe and Friends of the Earth. It refers to something about which we have known since 1992 or thereabouts with the Rio Declaration on the Environment and Development, namely, that economic, social and environmental well-being are intertwined and cannot be separated. If we were to try to separate them, we would have an unbalanced society, economy and environment.

We would like to see the European Union focus on two elements, the first of which is the 2030 agenda for the sustainable development goals, around which the European Union must build its thinking. Even more so, it must build its thinking around full implementation of the Paris Agreement on decarbonising the economy in order to achieve a safer, if not safe, place for us in which to live in the context of climate change.

Those are the two issues.

I am sure members are all aware of the 17 sustainable development goals so I do not want to go through that list. Ireland and the EU have signed up to these goals and the future of Europe needs to be intrinsically and fundamentally based on the sustainable development goals and the Paris Agreement. While there are 17 sustainable development goals, most fit into three basic categories: the fundamental one of "Planet", which comprises five sustainable development goals; "People, Dignity and Justice", which comprises six of the goals; and "Prosperity", which comprises five of the goals. Combined, they tell us that we need to reschedule the way we think about things.

As it stands, the EU has created most of the environmental legislation that has been put in place in Ireland in the past 30 years. We have the birds directive, although we still see rapid declines in bird species across the Continent; the habitats directive protecting areas of particular sensitivity; the water framework directive, which looks after our inland waters, such as lakes and rivers - it should be fully effective and is not yet, but without it, what would we have? - and the marine strategy framework directive. All of these measures need to be implemented better and the implementation needs to be followed up by Brussels to make sure all the countries in the Union are actually delivering on them. Every year, 400,000 people in Europe die as a result of air pollution, which is like a battle of Verdun every year, and some 1,400 of these people are in Ireland. What is being done about it? There is air pollution legislation and air pollution directives but we need more of this and we need to make sure these measures are implemented.

Brexit is a moment of great danger for Ireland in many ways. It is not just about the economy, trade and the Border, but a border which does not exist for nature. This island is one biogeographic unit. Plants and animals do not know anything about our borders, and neither do the fish or the other creatures in the sea. We need to make sure that whatever happens with Brexit, Ireland remains one biogeographic unit in terms of the legislation and its implementation and enforcement. We need to ensure that, across this island, there is just one system. I thank the Senators and Deputies.