Dr. Geraldine Brennan:

In response to the first question about the circular material reuse rates, Ireland is, as has been flagged, based on that metric perceived as a laggard in Europe. This is in some ways related to the Chairperson's question about material flow analysis. It is a matter of looking at the material flow and the recycling rate in an economy. There is one view and one metric in the circular economy. However, the complexity in measuring circularity is why it is the existing metric. It is complex to measure.

If the Chairman will allow me to go on a little tangent to answer this question, a lot of data are needed to develop the carbon footprint of a product based on virgin material but the point is that it can be mapped out. As soon as that product is brought back in, some parts are taken away, new parts are brought in, some of them are used and extra labour, energy, materials and capital are added, the way in which the footprint is measured becomes more complex. If that product goes back out into the market and comes back for a second time, the capturing of the carbon footprint and the impact of the product become more and more complex if you are not set up from the beginning to measure them. The measurement is complex and is being tackled by experts. For example, there is one International Organization for Standardization, ISO, technical standard specifically on circular economy performance and metrics. There are 120 people from around the world who are experts in this space and are trying to grapple with this.

My point as to whether it is a worthwhile metric is that it is not necessarily the best metric but that, right now, it is the metric for which the data are available. It is a crude metric but at least there are data to say something when it comes to benchmarking. The Netherlands, for example, is at the top of this ranking in Europe. It is saying it still needs to invest all this money to become circular because it has invested in the recycling infrastructure, it has been doing this for ten to 15 years and its material reuse rate is only 30% because its focus has been predominantly on recycling and it is investing in all these other activities. When it comes to other metrics - and this is something the CIRCULÉIRE members support - there need to be metrics for reuse, repair and remanufacturing, but when it comes to trying to roll this out to the level of the economy it becomes complex. That is my position.

To respond to Deputy Bruton's point about who pays, sharing the cost of the change and the carbon tax, again, it would be prudent of me to speak to my expertise rather than that of the CIRCULÉIRE members because there will be differing views on this within different sectors and among the membership. What we see in Irish Manufacturing Research when we are asked to do feasibility studies on material substitutes or business cases for different aspects of implementation of circularity is that carbon tax comes into it because it means that by 2050 people will pay €100 per tonne. I completely concur with the Deputy that that is a driver for boards and their finance directors to say, "I do not understand what this means for my business but I better figure it out." Those taxes definitely have a role to play, but that consultation with industry to understand the scale of the tax and what other things will enable them to still operate while they are on this transition is important.

Have I addressed the Deputy's questions sufficiently?