Brian Leddin (Limerick City, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have received apologies from Deputy Alan Farrell but he may be along later. Today's meeting is split into two sessions, the first of which is with representatives from Oxfam, Friends of the Earth, Christian Aid, Stop Climate Chaos; and Trócaire. That session is scheduled for two hours. The second session will be held at 1 p.m. with an official from the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications and will last for one hour. The purpose of the discussion today is to hear from stakeholders in advance of COP27, which is coming up in a few weeks' time. On behalf of the committee, I welcome the following witnesses: from Oxfam, Ms Elizabeth Wathuti, who is joining us online, and Mr. Simon Murtagh, who is with us in the committee room; Dr. Bríd Walsh, policy co-ordinator at Stop Climate Chaos who is joining us online; Mr. Conor O'Neill, head of advocacy and policy at Christian Aid Ireland who is present in the room; Ms Siobhan Curran, head of advocacy at Trócaire; and Mr. Jerry MacEvilly, no stranger to the committee, who is head of advocacy at Friends of the Earth.

Before we begin, I will read a note on privilege. I remind our guests of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of the person or entity. If their statements are potentially defamatory in regard to an identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative they comply with any such direction. For witnesses attending remotely from outside the Leinster House campus, namely, Ms Wathuti and Dr. Walsh, there are limitations to parliamentary privilege and as such, they may not benefit from the same level of immunity from legal proceedings as do witnesses physically present on the campus.

Members of the committee 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 remind members that they may participate in this meeting only if they are physically located on the Leinster House campus. In this regard, I ask any member joining us online, prior to making his or her contribution, to confirm that he or she is on the grounds of the Leinster House campus.

We have quite a few guests today. I ask them to limit opening statements to five minutes in order that we can get through them all and get through questions from members in time for 1 p.m. I call on Ms Wathuti to make her opening statement.

Ms Elizabeth Wathuti:

I thank the committee. I am a climate activist from Kenya. Right now, it is evident that the people least responsible for the climate crisis are bearing the biggest brunt. We are already witnessing devastating loss and damage from the devastating flooding across west and central Africa to the prolonged drought that has hit the Horn of Africa and has seen five consecutive rainy seasons fail. These impacts are impacts of climate inaction and they are claiming lives and livelihoods and displacing people from their homes. Millions are facing climate-related starvation. As the impacts of climate change start to land, the education and empowerment of women and girls also suffer because climate change is forcing girls out of schools. It is clear that loss and damage are critical issues at the moment that need to be addressed; they are becoming the priority and defining issues for COP27.

At the opening ceremony of COP26, I held world leaders to a moment of compassionate silence for the billions of people not present in that room whose stories were not being heard and whose suffering was not being felt. We still left COP26 with nothing more on loss and damage than a promise to have an annual dialogue. We left COP26 still on course for 2.7°C of global heating. This is going to make larger parts of my continent uninhabitable. Since then, I have been spending time with communities in my country, Kenya, who are also severely affected by the nature, food, and hunger emergency caused by the devastating droughts across the Horn of Africa. Our natural ecosystems - our life support systems - have been pushed beyond breaking point. People tell me the only thing left to lose is hope, yet wealthy countries with the greatest historical emissions are not acting fast enough to help frontline communities to cope with the devastation they are facing. This is not what climate justice looks like. Climate justice is not abandoning frontline communities to their fate. That is why I was compelled to launch a public campaign letter a few months ago calling for climate justice and calling on leaders to help frontline communities by delivering loss and damage finance. This letter has now received over 100,000 signatures worldwide.

I was compelled to write this letter after spending time with the people of Wajir County in the north-eastern part of Kenya. During my time there, I completely understood and felt their human lived experience of the climate crisis. This includes terrifying levels of water and food insecurity and thousands of livestock animals dropping dead from thirst and starvation - livestock that provides 80% of people’s livelihood. Young girls are being pulled out of school because their families can no longer afford to pay school fees. I also saw decimated wildlife populations in the same region and babies struggling to stay alive because their hungry mothers cannot produce enough milk to feed them. These communities need to recover, reconstruct, rehabilitate and even build their resilience. They are not sitting back and doing nothing, despite receiving no support. They are showing every day what real climate leadership and solutions look like. The women, for instance, are having to walk distances as long as 12 miles in search of food and water. They are also restoring degraded forest lands and finding ways to grow drought-resistant crops. Frontline communities are clearly coming together, creating movements for change, educating themselves on the climate crisis and even offering clean energy solutions, among others. Frontline communities need our help because they are also the solution to the climate crisis. They have the strength and solutions that they know work for them.

Having heard that, we cannot ignore the fact that COP27 must put justice at the centre of negotiations. Justice is not forcing countries into further debt due to climate disasters they did not cause. Take the example of Mozambique, which was forced into further debt when the cyclones hit. Most of the climate finance delivered to the most impacted countries, if it is not in the form of pledges that have been made and not met, is in the form of loans, which is driving them into deeper debts. That definitely is not what climate justice looks like. Justice means delivering on promises that have been made and not met. It also means that rich countries, who have greatly profited at our expense, should provide the resources they promised in order that countries like mine can develop in a just, sustainable and resilient way.

Justice also means we must be honest and take responsibility.

Small island states raised the need to address loss and damage 30 years ago. We can clearly say that 30 years of climate inaction have led us to the scale of loss and damage we are experiencing today. It is time for leaders to take responsibility for that inaction and pivot further towards solidarity. In practical terms, that also means establishing additional financial support for loss and damage and finally establishing a loss and damage finance facility. We do not want to leave COP27 with only another promise to keep talking about it. That is not acceptable.

This is not only about money because money can never replace what the people I met in Wajir have already lost. This is about justice. COP27 is our chance to bring justice to impacted communities through global solidarity and co-operation.

Dr. Br?d Walsh:

I thank the Chair and members of the committee for the opportunity to present today on behalf of the Stop Climate Chaos coalition. My central message is that this is the critical decade for international climate action and time is not on our side. Ireland must contribute bold and fast actions to the global effort to tackle the climate crisis and COP27 must demonstrate higher ambition to contain the substantial risks associated with warming beyond 1.5°C.

We are already at 1.2°C of warming. The national pledges at COP26 last year were not sufficient and now countries must ratchet up their pledges before COP27, keeping in mind two important points. First, 1.5°C is still feasible but global emissions must peak immediately, that is, by 2025 at the latest, reduce by half by 2030 and reach net zero by 2050. According to the UN Emissions Gap Report that was published recently, globally we need three times more mitigation than is currently planned in order to reach a 1.5°C pathway by 2030. The COP27 negotiations must make progress in closing the emissions gap by ramping up the ambition of those nationally determined contributions through the mitigation work programme, setting ambitious 2030 targets, providing clarity on what limiting temperature rise to 1.5°C means for the remaining global carbon budget, emissions reductions and fossil fuel phase-out targets.

Wealthy high-emitting countries such as Ireland must cut emissions more steeply and reach net zero as quickly as possible and before 2050. Ireland has already used approximately 23.5% of the emissions allowance for the first carbon budget in 2021 alone according to the recent annual review by the Climate Change Advisory Council. The new climate action plan due next month must specify the implementation pathways for rapid delivery of new and already-committed-to measures to ensure immediate emissions reductions.

Looking to the post-2030 period, it is important the Climate Change Advisory Council carries out further analysis on the provisional third carbon budget to ensure the pathway and the timeline to net zero reflect climate justice and the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities.

For Ireland to take a leadership role at COP27, the Government must deliver on its EU commitments and submit the long-term strategy before COP27 begins. The strategy is already approximately two and a half years late and the Commission recently issued Ireland with a formal notice for failure to submit. This strategy, together with the updated climate action plan, must set out bold and fast actions that Ireland will take to reach net zero as soon as possible.

Mr. Conor O'Neill:

I thank the committee for the invitation to speak.

As international aid and development organisations, we already see the impact that climate change is having around the world and recognise the profound inequality described by Ms Wathuti. To address it, my colleague Dr. Walsh has already spoken about the need for deep, rapid and sustained emissions cuts. My colleague Ms Curran will discuss loss and damage in more detail. I will focus in my remaining time specifically on the issue of climate finance including what support has been pledged, what has been delivered, and crucially how Ireland compares.

At COP15 in Copenhagen way back in 2009 and reaffirmed in Paris in 2015, wealthy countries pledged to provide $100 billion per year in financial support to developing countries for climate action to both reduce emissions and to help build resilience and protect communities. The underlying rationale is that wealthy countries should take the lead because, historically, their emissions have caused the crisis and they have greatest financial capacity. This is essentially a form of the polluter pays principle, whereby climate finance is a responsibility rather than a question of charity. It is not some form of an optional extra but the repayment of an ecological debt and a key pillar of the Paris Agreement.

A decade later this target has not been met, with OECD data showing that US$83 billion was provided in 2020. However, as Ms Wathuti noted, the vast majority of this money was in the form of repayable loans that only add to unsustainable debt burdens and ultimately leave the costs still shouldered by the world’s poorest. A further portion was mobilised private finance that tends to flow towards projects that can deliver a return on investment rather than where need is greatest. Taking all of this into account, colleagues in Oxfam estimate that just $21 billion to $24 billion in public climate finance was provided in 2020, which is less than a third of the headline figure and just a quarter of what was promised.

In assessing Ireland’s contribution to this global effort we look primarily at two things. They are quality and quantity. In quality, Ireland has been a leader. Much like our record on official development assistance, ODA, more broadly, Irish climate finance is provided publicly on a grant basis as opposed to through loans. There is an important focus on adaptation and building capacity and resilience in poorer countries. Transparency is relatively high, with much of the relevant data published in yearly reports by Irish Aid. Taken together, this is a commendable track record that should be strengthened and advocated for both within the EU and at the Conference of the Parties, COP.

On quantity however the story is very different. The chart that members have to hand shows Irish climate finance since the $100 billion pledge was made. They will see roughly €35 million was contributed on average for the first six years, before a rise in 2016, although a portion of this was due to a change in reporting rules and what was eligible to be counted. From 2019 onwards, levels plateau at just over €90 million.

The second chart below, however, provides some crucial perspective. The red marker reflects the pledge made by the Taoiseach, Deputy Micheál Martin, at COP26 in November 2021 to increase Ireland’s contributions to at least €225 million per year by 2025. The green marker however reflects best current academic estimates of our actual fair share of the global target, which is calculated based on factors like historic emissions, financial capacity and different pathways to staying under 1.5°C of warming. A combination of a range of recent estimates gives us an approximate figure of €545 million per year.

From this perspective, we see the blue contributions line flatten out significantly and the key takeaway is immediately apparent. We are providing less than one fifth of our fair share and are failing on a key global justice component of the Paris Agreement. It is also important to note that the $100 billion target is a wholly political figure. It is not based on any scientific assessment of need and is widely recognised as insufficient. Work is under way at COP to try to revise it upwards. As such, this green line should be considered the floor of our ambition and something we should be delivering now, rather than pushing out to 2025.

Finally, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, UNFCCC, states clearly that this finance should be new and additional to meet the full incremental costs borne by developing countries. This principle is extremely important. It is designed to ensure that contributions do not detract from already limited ODA budgets, leaving the world’s poorest to choose between existing development needs like schools and hospitals and adaptation measures like flood defences. It is for this reason that some countries, such as Denmark, only count contributions above the long-standing target of 0.7% of gross national income, GNI. By contrast, the current programme for Government instead commits to doubling the share of ODA that can be counted as climate finance. This is concerning because it risks reconfiguring existing ODA, rather than making a concerted effort to increase contributions overall.

We recognise that this is extremely challenging but that is a reflection of the seriousness of the situation we are in.

The only way to rise to it is for countries like Ireland to step up, meet the target in this document and provide the leadership we need.

Ms Siobhan Curran:

I thank the committee for the opportunity to present this morning. Trócaire works across 24 countries worldwide, and many of the communities with which we work in partnership are on the front line of the climate and biodiversity crisis. We work with our colleagues in Stop Climate Chaos across a range of climate justice issues, and as Mr. O'Neill mentioned, I will focus on loss and damage. As Ms Wathuti has said, loss and damage is an issue that speaks to the heart of climate injustice. While some of the poorest countries in the world who have contributed least to the climate crisis are experiencing massive losses and damage from climate impacts, they are being left to pay for a crisis not of their making. This is diverting much-needed public finance for sustainable development into dealing with crises and is pushing countries further into debt. It is a matter of climate justice that richer countries including Ireland, contribute to, and support the development of this third pillar of finance under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, UNFCCC.

Addressing loss and damage must be framed within a human rights-based approach under common but differentiated responsibilities. I speak as millions of people in the Horn of Africa and east Africa are experiencing crisis levels of hunger due to the worst drought in 40 years. The losses and damage in this context are profound, with a likely declaration of famine in parts of Somalia in the coming weeks. People in Somalia are facing starvation, mass displacement, loss of homes, livelihood and livestock, and, for many pastoralists, loss of their way of life due to the climate crisis. The injustice is stark when we consider that Ethiopia, Kenya, Somalia, and South Sudan represent 2.75% of the world’s population but account for just 0.1% of global carbon emissions. It is estimated that Ireland produces nearly 54 times higher emissions than Somalia alone.

Despite decades of struggle by small island states and countries most vulnerable to climatic shocks to deal with loss and damage, it has been excluded from the financial architecture of the UNFCCC. In practice, this means there is no accessible and predictable finance for crucial measures such as rehabilitation, reconstruction and unavoidable relocation caused by climate events. This is a glaring omission and this third and missing pillar of finance must be provided in addition to mitigation and adaptation finance and to official development assistance. Loss and damage have a particular gendered impact as women and girls experience greater climate impacts due to factors such as unequal access to resources, limited mobility and less access to decision-making. Therefore, communities need access to gender-responsive, adequate and predictable finance that meets their needs. It is crucial this is provided in the form of grants and does not contribute to further unsustainable debt for the poorest countries in the world. Given the rising scale of climate-related damage, there is no time to lose.

COP 27 is a moment for Ireland to show global leadership, solidarity and political will. If the UNFCCC continues to fail to address loss and damage and the demands of the global south, its credibility will be severely undermined. We are calling on Ireland to support the establishment of a loss and damage finance facility to support loss and damage as a permanent agenda item at COP. These are demands from our partners throughout the global south, including the least developed countries which Ireland has prioritised in climate action. We also call on the Minister, Deputy Ryan, to follow the lead of Denmark and commit initial loss and damage finance. This will be a sign of leadership and a political signal of Ireland’s commitment to addressing loss and damage before COP 27.

For the people we work with, this is not a matter for their grandchildren or a fear for the future; it is their daily reality. We call on Ireland to do the right thing and we implore committee members to take action to ensure Ireland becomes a leader and voice for justice, equality and human rights in climate action.

Mr. Jerry McEvilly:

I thank the Chair and the committee for this opportunity to present today. Friends of the Earth strongly supports the recommendations made in the previous statements. My main message is that, at COP 27, the Government should support the development of a new global fossil fuel non-proliferation treaty. My written submission contains further background information. What is this proposed treaty? This type of agreement has been proposed as a mechanism to ensure effectively and equitably that fossil fuels remain in the ground. The three main pillars put forward for such a treaty are to prevent the expansion of fossil fuels by ending all new exploration and production, to manage phasing out of existing production of fossil fuels in line with the Paris Agreement, and to ensure a just transition for communities and countries.

Why is it necessary? The disastrous effects of the climate crisis and the need for immediate government action on fossil fuels have been well addressed, including in two further Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC, assessment reports this year, yet governments are going in the wrong direction. Several authorities, including the UN and the International Energy Agency, have concluded that every new fossil fuel development fundamentally undermines the achievement of the Paris Agreement and makes climate disaster all the more likely.

Why now at COP 27? The Paris Agreement itself is evidently fundamental in terms of obliging climate action among states. However, it does not make any reference to the main culprit, fossil fuels. The UN summit is the ideal forum in which to address this and to highlight the need for a treaty to deliver an equitable phasing out. We are now witnessing European states shifting focus and seeking narrowly to define energy security as fossil fuel supply. There is now the very real danger that the energy crisis will result in further long-term dependency on expensive, polluting fossil gas. Certain European states are seeking to expand gas production in Africa and ignoring gas demand reduction measures in Europe itself. However, there is significant momentum behind the development of this treaty. It has already been backed by Vanuatu, Timor Leste, the WHO, thousands of civil society organisations, and experts. Last week, the European Parliament passed a landmark resolution calling on member states to work on developing a fossil fuel non-proliferation treaty.

On a related but separate note, an existing international agreement, the Energy Charter Treaty, poses fundamental risks of fossil fuel lock-in which have still not been addressed at an EU level. Indeed, both France and the Netherlands have just announced that they will follow Spain, Italy and Poland in exiting the Energy Charter Treaty. We urge Ireland to do likewise.

Why Ireland? In terms of domestic policy, Ireland holds greater historical responsibility for the climate crisis. Ireland has already positioned itself as a first mover in committing to phase out fossil fuels. Last year the Government legislated to prevent new licences for oil and gas exploration in Irish waters. Ireland also has a moratorium on liquefied natural gas and a legislative ban on fracking. Further fossil fuel development is not compatible with our climate Act, and such developments have recently been rejected by the Government's independent consultants as part of the energy security review.

On foreign policy, Ireland became a founding member of the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance at COP 26 last year. The first of its kind, this alliance aims to keep fossil fuels in the ground by bringing together countries that have taken steps to end new licensing for fossil fuel exploration and production. We are calling on the Government to use this alliance to build diplomatic support for a treaty and develop a UN resolution on this issue.

The call for the development of a fossil fuel non-proliferation treaty draws on lessons from other treaties to manage global threats, such as nuclear weapons. For decades, thanks to the dedication of successive Ministers and officials in the Department of Foreign Affairs, Ireland has led the way on disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation at UN level. We are calling on the Government to resource the development of a treaty on fossil fuels as an essential element of international peace and security in the same way as it has supported the nuclear non-proliferation agenda.

We also very much welcome that Ireland has elevated climate concerns at the UN Security Council and raised support for the least developed countries and small island developing states. It is this context that the COP and Ireland's final months on the UN Security Council come into focus. Island states like Vanuatu and Timor Leste have already called for this global treaty. One may legitimately ask what support for these states means in reality if it does not involve a focus on preventing the polluting fossil fuels that are driving the loss of their territories.

Phasing out fossil fuels is the test for climate leadership at COP 27. To quote the UN Secretary General:

Climate activists are sometimes depicted as dangerous radicals. But, the truly dangerous radicals are the countries that are increasing the production of fossil fuels.

Investing in new fossil fuel infrastructure is moral and economic madness. Such investments will soon be stranded assets - a blot on the landscape and a blight on investment portfolios. But, it doesn't have to be this way.

To summarise the main recommendations for the Minister which the committee has heard this morning: one, support higher ambition to close the emissions gap at EU level and at COP 27 and submit Ireland's long-term strategy prior to the COP to have a credible voice; two, rapidly scale up climate finance contributions in line with our fair share and make sure the money is reaching the poorest communities; three, support loss and damage as a permanent agenda item, including the establishment of a loss and damage finance facility and commit initial loss and damage finance; and four, support a new global fossil fuel non-proliferation treaty.

Brian Leddin (Limerick City, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank all who spoke for keeping their statements to about five minutes. That is appreciated as it helps us get through the meeting in a timely fashion. I invite members to come in for questions and answers. It has been agreed that we will take five minutes each for questions and answers, and I will be strict on that.

Christopher O'Sullivan (Cork South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will not take my full five minute allocation to ask the questions, so the witnesses can take as much time as is allowed to answer. I think this session is about us as a committee listening and taking in what the witnesses are telling us in terms of the global crisis, the necessary financing needed to address it internationally, and what we need to do to do our fair share. I will start my questions with Mr. McEvilly on the oil and gas treaty that he mentioned. I will preface this by saying I am against any further oil and gas exploration. It is often heard said, certainly in the Dáil Chamber and in commentary in the media, that we need to ramp up our own oil and gas exploration. Barryroe, which is just off west Cork where I come from, is often referenced as the answer to our energy crisis. These are other people's comments, not mine, just to clarify that again. What does Mr. McEvilly say to that kind of commentary, that we need to accelerate oil and gas exploration off the Irish coast?

Mr. Jerry McEvilly:

First, and this very much links in with the ongoing energy security review, so I will try not to go into too much detail here, there is no energy security without climate security. We are moving away from the stage where one can, with any degree of legitimacy, suggest the climate impacts will not be disastrous. Second, and this is referenced in the statement, Ireland has clear national, EU and international climate obligations. If new fossil fuel infrastructure is brought on stream, the first risk is locking in emissions, fundamentally preventing adherence with those climate obligations. The second risk is that, as new renewable storage, interconnection, demand reduction and energy efficiency is ramped up over the next three decades, there are very real risks such infrastructure will become stranded assets. They are the two main arguments with regard to this idea that additional fossil fuel infrastructure or supply would be a free lunch. I appreciate, in terms of immediate energy security concerns, that there are questions to be answered, which I do not want to dismiss, but it is also important to remember that any likely future fossil fuel infrastructure, even if we wanted it, would more than likely only be available in several years' time, so it would not respond to the immediate crisis.

No one in this committee needs any reminder of the extreme challenges caused by the increasing prices of fossil fuels. We need to ask ourselves if we want to commit to a guaranteed, expensive and volatile fuel in the long term, which will fundamentally impact upon households. Bringing it back to the proposed treaty, which I have mentioned, I fully appreciate that the development of a new global fossil fuel non-proliferation treaty would inevitably be a long-term process. This would not be a treaty that flicks the switch overnight and suddenly prevents fossil fuels.

Christopher O'Sullivan (Cork South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have one more question to ask the other panellists. To add to that, from my assessment of this talk of Barryroe being the saviour for our energy needs, apparently the success rate off the Irish coast in terms of drilling for oil and gas being so small is part of the reason it has not happened already. That has to be thrown into the argument as well.

On the international scale and what we are already seeing in Pakistan, where tens of millions have displaced, and in the Horn of Africa, where we are seeing extreme drought brought about by climate change - there is no denying that - there seems to be a news cycle where events like those in Pakistan happen, they make headlines, and maybe not even headlines sometimes, and then drop off the media. The same happens with the Horn of Africa, and the same with any of the events we have seen in Germany or with wildfires. What do we need to do to keep these events in the mind's eye of the public so that they do not become part of the news cycle where we see an extreme event and it drops off, it happens again and it drops off? How do we keep it there so that we remind people of the dire need to address climate change?

Brian Leddin (Limerick City, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Who is that question directed at, Deputy?

Christopher O'Sullivan (Cork South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Anyone who wants to answer.

Mr. Conor O'Neill:

I thank the Deputy for the question. It is a very important point, and I will be brief on account of time. One of the reasons we talk so much about the figures, about the numbers of contributions for things like climate finance, and about the ask for loss and damage funding is because it is supposed to consistent, adequate, and predictable. What we have at the moment is an ad hocsticking plaster system, where there will be a disaster somewhere like Pakistan, as the Deputy mentions, members of the Government and civil society in that country will be on the BBC World Service, and people will mobilise to try to provide some resources depending on what is available and depending on the level of media and public attention. That is not how this should be done. The ask from civil society, from our partners in the global south, and from the vast majority of global south delegates at COP in Egypt in two weeks' time will be for a loss and damage finance facility that will be contributed to on an equity justice basis by this part of the world to ensure that money is there to meet the challenges the Deputy has mentioned and without relying on a media cycle level of attention. That is why the money is important, but what has been committed already in climate finance and what has been called for in terms of loss and damage needs to be stable, adequate and predictable. That is how we get away from this cyclical response.

Ms Siobhan Curran:

I add one comment in support of what Mr. O'Neill has said. We also have to grapple with the fact the EU is blocking this at the COP negotiations. It did so at the previous COP and has been seen by some as not being constructive enough in these engagements. That is where Ireland can play a role as a constructive member within the EU and use this opportunity of COP27 as a space where we can push the global framework for consistent and adequate flows. However, we need to play our part in that.

Bríd Smith (Dublin South Central, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses. That is very useful and very important. I want to stick with the example of Pakistan and use it as a way of teasing out a couple of arguments. First, we know that 33 million people were directly affected by the flooding there, in a country that is responsible for 0.04% of emissions. I have figures here, I think from Oxfam, that show that a UN humanitarian appeal for the floods was set at $472 million. That is just over 1% of what is needed. The costs of the flooding were around $30 billion. We have a huge hole to fill and that is just one country. That is leaving aside the tragedy of the Horn of Africa, which Ms Wathuti talked about earlier. One of the witnesses has said the funding needs to be stable, adequate, and predictable. I get that the loss and damage finance is a permanent structure we need to put in place, but is there also a case for calling for a cancellation of the debt of these countries and pushing Ireland to lead on that? The IMF, which is no stranger to Ireland, will loan money to Pakistan in this particular case and to other poor countries, but it will require severe austerity measures to be imposed on the basis of that loan. As we know, austerity weakens the internal services and public equality that can be distributed through education, health etc. Cancelling the debt is one call that should go out at COP, and the other is for a windfall tax on the profits of the fossil fuel industries. Mr. McEvilly has just described what is going on, and it is outrageous, particularly since the war in Ukraine. The profits have gone through the roof for all of the big fossil fuel industries. I would like the witnesses to comment on that. My final question is a little provocative but I really am concerned that COP27 is taking place in one of the most brutal dictatorships on the planet.

In the past ten years, Sisi's Government has built over a dozen extra prisons. Tens of thousands of activists, including climate and justice activists, are locked up permanently in prison. Many have to go on hunger strike to draw attention to their plight. It seems contradictory that we can go to a country that is so brutally guilty of injustice, inhumanity and climate damage and say here we are now, greenwashing a dictator who is going to advocate for justice and climate justice. It cannot be separated from the question of human rights - I think we would all agree on that. The boycott is not going to happen, but at a minimum, can we get our delegates to scream about this and draw attention to it inside the conference centre and not give Sisi a free ride while this green preening happens on the side of the Red Sea?

Mr. Simon Murtagh:

I thank the Deputy for bringing up the human rights issue. It is something we have discussed in detail in Oxfam Ireland and across our international organisation. The next COP is going to be in the United Arab Emirates, UAE and similar objections may apply there. We have a protest movement called the climate caravan which we are supporting across Africa in 22 different countries and is going to end up at the conference. Without giving too much away, it will seek to raise publicity on all of these issues, beginning with climate justice. We have tried as much as possible as an organisation to hand over agency to the African activists on the ground. The committee heard Ms Wathuti's opening statement today - she represents everything we are trying to do as an organisation, which is to give leadership to African and global south voices to carry out their agency in all of these areas. It is a UN conference; we cannot control where it is held. A decision is made by all of our organisations about what level to engage. The fact that it is being brought up at political level here is the right thing.

When it comes to IMF debt and Pakistan, as the Deputy mentioned, he is correct that they now have to resume an IMF loan of $1 billion as a result of the floods. That is exactly what we are trying to get away from. There are a number of means of doing that. Given the context of the last couple of years, from the pandemic to the current crisis, we have called for the cancellation of debts in 2022 and 2023 so countries can get on with trying to recover in general.

There was also a question about special drawing rights, which are a form of currency issued by the IMF. One of the points of the rights is that they can pay off debt. It was a great campaign last year when we were at COP26 in Glasgow. I had a detailed discussion with the Minister, Deputy Ryan, about it. It has fallen off the agenda. It is a mystery that it has, because at first we were talking about issuing $3 trillion of those rights across the world - the development community as a whole was behind it. It has fallen off the agenda; it was reduced to $650 billion. Ireland received $4.5 billion of these special drawing rights. The idea was that we would try to allocate them to developing countries. It would be a good question to ask the Minister about what happened the reallocation of the special drawing rights and if they could be a means for debt cancellation and funding loss and damage in an immediate sense. I hope that answers the question to some extent about debt and the IMF.

The windfall tax is something Oxfam has led on and it continues to do so. There are significant revenues across the world to be made from the windfall profits being made by energy companies. Along with wealth taxes, it is a way of addressing our inequality crisis, which is a huge contributor to the climate emergency, as proven by the carbon emission figures for the richest 1% of society. It is also a means of addressing immediate crises like this in order to raise revenue.

Brian Leddin (Limerick City, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Our guests online may use the raise hand function if they want to come in on a particular question. I call Ms Curran.

Ms Siobhan Curran:

I support Mr. Murtagh's points about the innovative sources of finance that can be used to fund loss and damage. The point Deputy Smith made about the huge gap in finances at the moment is crucial. It is costly, but the poorest countries in the world are paying the price. We need to switch that power balance and the model. It is crucial that this finance is under the UNFCCC for reasons of accountability and transparency. There is a limit to humanitarian responses. While they are crucial - we need life-saving responses - they are short term. We need to look at loss and damage because that is medium term and long term. It is the question of when someone is displaced, what happens to them. Where do they find a home? We can give the immediate relief, but we need long-term structured approaches to people who are dealing with the realities of loss and damage. Transparency and accountability are key because the position of Ireland at the moment is that there are existing financial flows that need to be used. We need to listen to the demands of the global south and what developing countries are saying; they are saying clearly that we need a separate finance facility. That is what they need delivered. They need promises to be met and actual demands to be met, not technocratic responses.

Lynn Boylan (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Chair and the speakers. Our colleague, MEP Mr. Chris McManus, was delighted to vote for the Non-Proliferation of Fossil Fuels Treaty during the week. I echo the comments Deputy Smith made about Egypt and our concerns about human rights. As someone who has been to Egypt and been inside an Egyptian prison, there are major human rights concerns there. While Mr. Murtagh is correct about the agency of people living in Africa to talk for themselves, I have concerns about the ability of Egyptian activists to speak publicly. We should be mindful of that and of any fallout from COP27 for them.

It will be no surprise to members of the committee that my question is about the Energy Charter Treaty, ECT. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC, report identified it as a barrier to climate action and that it is not compatible with the Paris Agreement. Italy left in 2016, yet they are still on the hook for €190 million in an investor-state dispute settlement, ISDS, judgment in a case taken by the Rockhopper Exploration oil and gas exploration company. In recent weeks, we have seen EU countries leaving - Poland announced it is going to leave, along with the Netherlands, Spain and, most recently, France. What are the views around Ireland remaining in this treaty? Ahead of COP27, it would a brilliant opportunity for the Minister to announce that we are going to withdraw. I would like to hear the views of the witnesses on that matter.

Even if the EU was to withdraw as a bloc, there are concerns about the Energy Charter Treaty secretariat and its expansion into the global south. A number of African countries such as Burundi, Eswatini and Mauritania are at the ratification process, while Niger, Chad, Gambia, Nigeria and Senegal are at accession stage. The Energy Charter Treaty is actively targeting Kenya as a member country. The long-term viability of the Energy Charter Treaty and the predatory nature of going into the global south while the global north might protect themselves and leave and protect themselves from ISDS challenges is an issue. The fact that it is going into the global south and trying to lock those countries into a fossil fuel future is concerning. I would like to hear the witnesses' views on that.

Mr. Jerry MacEvilly:

I thank the Senator. I agree with her comments in the first instance. On the EU process, Ireland's response has generally been that it is fully supportive of the EU modernisation process series of negotiations and formal discussions on the modernisation of the charter and how the EU interacts with it. That has largely been unchanged for months if not longer. We do not consider that sufficient; it was still the response even up to a few weeks ago. There are grounds for Ireland to exit the treaty on an earlier basis.

The core point is that the modernisation process, to the best of our knowledge, has not addressed the fundamental risks raised by Senator Boylan about the ISDS. We question what the central benefit is for Ireland of remaining in such a treaty.

I was not aware of the idea that the predatory nature of the Energy Charter Treaty and it being directed at African countries. On the one hand this links in with the core reasons for the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty, one of which is equity. It would require developed countries to take the lead in the fossil fuels phase-out given that less developed countries are not responsible and, naturally, are continually in the process of trying to catch up with more developed countries. We urge less developed countries not to welcome the Energy Charter Treaty but we must be mindful that the onus is on developed countries, particularly the EU and Ireland to take the lead in, at the very least, significantly questioning and critiquing the modernisation process.

Jennifer Whitmore (Wicklow, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for their presentations.

I will focus on the issue of loss and damage. I have a question for Ms Wathuti. I thank her for her powerful presentation. When we speak about loss and damage and supporting communities to adapt or mitigate, how do we ensure the money reaches the right people in the right way? Denmark is the first EU country to establish a specific loss and damage fund but over half of the allocated money is for insurance companies. Is there a risk that if this money was allocated it would not reach the right people?

Ms Elizabeth Wathuti:

The reason we are asking for additional finance for loss and damage is that, at the moment, especially for front-line communities, most of the impacts already defy human adaptation. People are no longer able to adapt to the loss of their cultures, total starvation, total crop failure or the loss of their homes. These challenges and disasters require immediate support and that is why we are saying we need to ensure our leaders agree on the establishment of a loss and damage finance facility, but also agree on the governance and structure this kind of facility would have to ensure the finance reaches the front-line communities. This is one of the asks. The arguments the leaders come up with must ensure these finances reach the people they are supposed to reach because existing finances have not been able to achieve that. Front-line communities are still not able to access the finances. Loss and damage would be an opportunity for leaders to build the trust that has been lost on climate finance.

Jennifer Whitmore (Wicklow, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

COP27 provides a good opportunity to have those discussions.

Mr. Simon Murtagh:

The Deputy asked a good question about the Danish funding. Denmark has divided its funding into four parts. As the Deputy mentioned, some of it is going to a big insurance global fund but the rest is being applied much more directly which allows for much more accountability. For example, direct bilateral funding and funding of civil society organisations in west Africa where Denmark sees a crisis and does not want wait for the finance facility to be established before devoting that money to those crisis points. That should allow for accountability in the immediate sense.

Jennifer Whitmore (Wicklow, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

How important would it be for Ireland to use its position to do a similar thing and to stand in solidarity with the Danes to ensure another country joins in offering a similar fund. Is COP27 a good opportunity for that?

Mr. Simon Murtagh:

Of course, because that is one of the main elements of our argument. There is now momentum within EU states. If Ireland is not the first, it will be the second. Scotland made a pledge last year at COP26 but we would be next in line in creating momentum in the EU.

Jennifer Whitmore (Wicklow, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Loss and damage is one part of the picture. It is of assistance to countries that have suffered because of activities of developed countries historically and currently. A level of accountability must always be at play. This comes back to the points made by Deputy Bríd Smith about how many corporations and countries have made a lot of money from creating and doing this damage over many years. How do we bring that level of accountability? One of the things I would be keen to see is a law on ecocide in order to hold countries, corporations and individuals to account at a global level for any damage they cause to the environment. Is there a potential role for that to be part of the picture so that it is not only loss and damage but also legal accountability?

Mr. Conor O'Neill:

Those types of measures, principles such as the right to a safe healthy environment and a legal obligation on ecocide are important. They are tools to help us achieve what we want to do. Christian Aid supports them and many of our partners do also. The key point is that any legal measures must be used as a driver of action.

In response to the Deputy's first question, it is important. One of the things we have seen as a development organisation following the question of finance and the global justice angle for many years, is that there was a commitment of US$100 billion on climate finance I spoke about and a large amount of that money went either on loans or to try to mobilise private actors. We see this tendency to hope that a market-based approach - if we can just leverage enough investors - will hit our target. That is the wrong perspective to take on this. We have worked with communities and partners in South Sudan to build dykes to assist communities after devastating flooding. It is difficult to convince private investors to invest in that because there is no return. If a market-based approach is taken, the poorest communities are left behind.

The same principle applies to loss and damage. There is a tendency to think insurance will fix it but our experience with insurance in the countries we work in is that it is often inadequate, is very lengthy and rarely pays out what it ought to. Individuals here can think of the experiences they might have had trying to ring insurance companies about a lost suitcase. Imagine trying to do that while a third of the country is under water. The public provision of climate finance and loss and damage funding is the most accountable, direct and important source we have. The temptation is to hope private investment or insurance companies will make up the gap, but while it is important that money flows in the right direction, it will not get us out of the responsibility governments in this part of the world have.

Ms Siobhan Curran:

It is also important to note that Ireland can play a role in this. One area in which Ireland has played a positive role at COPs is a focus on least developed countries, LDCs, and grant-based and adaptation finance. Ireland has advocated for models and that could be translated into advocacy on loss and damage, keeping the principles of human rights and justice at the core.

On corporate accountability, connections can be made with other processes that are happening. As we sit here, the UN treaty negotiations to regulate transnational corporations are taking place. Part of that draft treaty considers inclusion of free prior informed consent, FPIC which relates to corporate harm in communities. We can build accountability for corporations into existing frameworks of legally binding regulation. We need to draw those links. Also at EU level, environmental and due diligence legislation is being proposed through a new directive within which companies would be required to develop climate or carbon emission plans. At the moment these provisions lack teeth perhaps so these areas could be improved. Corporate accountability is also key to climate action.

Darren O'Rourke (Meath East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses.

In relation to the non-proliferation treaty, the Energy Charter Treaty, the recent report about energy security and what infrastructure might be needed in the future in Ireland, what are Mr. McEvilly's thoughts on how all of that can be squared? The energy security review came with a short list and a long list of options.

Mr. Jerry McEvilly:

On the energy security review, one of the main conclusions by the independent consultants is that they did not short-list a commercial liquefied natural gas, LNG, plant either onshore or floating. Neither did they short-list further offshore exploration. Broadly speaking, they rejected these options for two reasons. First, because of the risk of emissions lock-in, which I mentioned, given our climate obligations. The second reason was that there are major question marks as to what level of security they would actually bring. In the case of commercial LNG, the question is whether the tankers actually would arrive on time. In the case of exploration, members all know well the significant doubts and uncertainty around further offshore development. We would wholeheartedly agree with those two conclusions in the short-listing.

The energy security review independent analysis does short-list a State-backed floating LNG plant and the potential for gas storage. There are two points here. First, we would have major concerns around any form of LNG and not only because of that emissions lock-in risk. The consultants have raised the point that if it is State-backed, it could theoretically be used less and only used for emergency purposes. However, this does not get away from the risk of fracked gas imports. The most developed project in this case has been proposed by US developers. As I understand the majority of those exports come from fracked gas, it does not overcome that risk either. On gas storage, we could have a lengthy debate about the ins and outs of it and whether offshore or onshore is better but in a point that is broader than the development of fossil fuel infrastructure, it is crucial that where new infrastructure is planned domestically, it has to align in the first instance with climate obligation. It needs to be very clear how the fossil fuel supplies, in this case, will not lock in emissions. That analysis needs to be done in the first instance and if it was to be used temporarily - this is crucial - it would need to be absolutely clear that it could only be used with clear obligations, temporarily. Broadly speaking, the case for further fossil fuel infrastructure has not been clearly made in the analysis that is in that consultation paper. We would definitely be rejecting LNG for a wide variety of reasons.

Darren O'Rourke (Meath East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Would it be consistent with that non-proliferation treaty that is being spoken of?

Mr. Jerry McEvilly:

Absolutely. On the non-proliferation treaty, any development of a new treaty, as we all know with Paris, is a very long process. It needs leadership by states that already have skin in the game and that have already made progress. Ireland is in a leadership position here, given the Beyond Oil & Gas Alliance and given the fact that it does have a legislative ban on new licences for fracking and so on.

Réada Cronin (Kildare North, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for their presentations. The presentation from Ms Wathuti of Oxfam was harrowing. It is worrying that Ireland is among a handful of countries that are yet to submit its long-term strategy to the EU. This committee takes its work seriously but I sometimes wonder if we are a bit too genteel in our approach. Are we the ones who are not looking up, so to speak?

To go back to what Senator Boylan brought up about the Energy Charter Treaty, do the witnesses believe this committee is doing enough to raise awareness of this issue? Is the public even aware of it and potential it has to affect us? I find these meetings very beneficial to remind us why we are on this committee. Political speak at the moment is all around a safe pair of hands, steadying the ships, all that kind of stuff. Does the witness really believe that politicians in the northern hemisphere really have the liathróidí to actually do the work that has to be done? COP27 is coming up and here we are. We are worse than we ever were. As for loss and damage, it is absurd that poor countries affected by climate change are expected to be writing IOUs instead of submitting invoices to the developed world. I think that perspective is key there. As a committee, we should be perhaps a bit more vocal on that point. We should leave our party allegiances outside the door when we come in here to work as a committee.

For the information of Ms Wathuti, I am meeting the Kenyan ambassador tomorrow. I am sure I will be talking to him about the situation in Wajir and I thank her for what she has brought to my attention today. I knew about the situation in the Horn of Africa but when one reads about mothers not having enough milk to feed their children, livestock dropping dead, it really and truly is harrowing.

Mr. Jerry McEvilly:

On whether this committee doing enough, it is extremely welcome that we are in here and I thank the committee for this opportunity. I would almost put the question another way and ask whether other committees are doing enough. One of the biggest challenges within the Oireachtas is this committee is continuously seen as the only avenue, forum or discussion space for all climate action, which as we all know spans across every single sector. Without going into specifics, we have seen that other committees have produced recommendations that are entirely not consistent with our climate obligations. I would challenge the Oireachtas on this point. Perhaps the Deputies and Senators can raise this with their party colleagues. I am sure we would like to raise some of these issues in other forums, whether it is in the committee on foreign affairs or on finance. On what this committee can do, it would be helpful if we could perhaps come in again after the COP and give our analysis. We could also consider other international aspects of climate, climate finance and energy security.

Brian Leddin (Limerick City, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Climate finance has been on our work programme. We are probably not going to get to it before Christmas but I think in the new year it will be a priority so we certainly will consider bringing the witnesses back in.

Réada Cronin (Kildare North, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does the witness believe that we have done enough in relation to the Energy Charter Treaty?

Mr. Jerry McEvilly:

I would question if the Government has done enough.

Réada Cronin (Kildare North, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

My colleague, Senator Boylan, certainly has. I meant whether this committee has done enough.

Mr. Jerry McEvilly:

It would be helpful to have clear recommendations from this committee on a range of international issues, such as climate finance, loss and damage, non-proliferation and other international aspects of climate. It would be helpful but I would say that the core question would still be whether the Government is doing enough when it comes to the Energy Charter Treaty, ECT

Mr. Conor O'Neill:

On the question of whether we are doing enough, it is a good question and a big one.

In all of the discussions on climate change in these committee rooms and in both Houses, climate justice is always raised. That represents a shift. A little more attention is being paid to the perspective we are trying to bring today. The test is that when you leave this road and get to the difficult stuff, such as the national carbon budget, do you raise it then? Do you raise it or is there a retrenchment into purely domestic politics and where the burden falls on this island, which is, of course, extremely important? The global justice perspective often gets lost at that point. It is heard at a committee meeting, specifically with development or international organisations, but is it there when the rubber really meets the road? I recall the testimony of Professor Kevin Anderson before this committee in January or February. Professor Anderson highlighted the uncomfortable truth that those carbon budgets, while extraordinarily challenging and more ambitious than anything that has gone before, are still far more than our fair share of the remaining global carbon budget. However, that perspective was barely present when the rubber met the road in the context of votes in the Dáil.

There are two operative questions to ask. Are we going to eat up more than our fair share of the remaining global carbon budget, as has happened for the past 100 years? The answer is "Yes". Are we providing the finance that has been promised, and is required in order to ensure that the burden does not fall on the world's poorest? As of yet, the answer is "No". These are the two crucial tests and they matter much more than any rhetoric. It is in the financial budgets and the carbon budgets that the real priorities lie. We commend the committee on giving us the chance to make this presentation and giving space to this angle, but please reflect it in the votes in the Chamber, because that is what really matters.

Brian Leddin (Limerick City, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Mr. O'Neill. I call Deputy Bruton. I apologise for not bringing the Deputy in earlier.

Richard Bruton (Dublin Bay North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I understand the disappointment with COP, but it is still probably our greatest hope for mobilising collective action and it is still definitely worth the sustained commitment. I certainly support the call regarding loss and damage because, as Mr. O'Neill rightly points out, trying to invest in devastated communities will not yield a commercial return. We need to recognise that investment of this nature is required or else we will see migration on a massive scale that will be bad for everyone. We need to find a route to do this.

I am not so sure on the workability of some of our guests' other blanket policies, such as refraining from all fossil fuel investment or ending all subsidies relating to fossil fuels. We have seen in this crisis that governments have had to look at storage of fossil fuels. They have had to subsidise the energy bills of people who are extremely vulnerable. I worry about hoisting very rigid policies that, unfortunately, become very difficult to implement and about mobilising public support for them. That is something I, as a former Minister, grapple with. I see things slightly differently from the witnesses' perspective. They say that Ireland should reach net zero by 2029 in order that we might have a good chance of keeping global temperatures down. If they are advocating that we adopt very rigid positions around certain things, we will lose the room. It is really important that we find a way of mobilising people. The decisions we have taken are going to be really difficult to implement. As a result, we need to a way of working to deliver these things as well as being aware that we have to continually lift our ambition. Saying that there can never be any fossil fuel investment in Europe just does not gel with the reality of day-to-day management of some of the challenges thrown before Government. I can understand why the witnesses want to have positions of very strong principle, but people like ourselves who are trying to manage the messy challenge of getting public support for these policies meet a slightly different test. That is what we are grappling with.

Brian Leddin (Limerick City, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will bring in Mr. Murtagh and then Mr. MacEvilly.

Mr. Simon Murtagh:

On the issue of fossil fuel subsidies, we would, along with other NGOs, make the distinction of harmful subsidies. We always have done. The traditional distinction is between subsidies on consumption and production, as the Deputy knows. A heating allowance could be seen as a fossil fuel subsidy.

Richard Bruton (Dublin Bay North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We have to support our businesses through this as well. We cannot just pretend that business is production and therefore it goes to the wall.

Mr. Simon Murtagh:

On fossil fuels producers' record on climate change and funded denial of climate change over the decades, we make no apology for calling for an end to the harmful subsidies they receive. We see that as an issue of global justice.

Richard Bruton (Dublin Bay North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Are you calling what is happening now harmful subsidies? Every country in Europe is trying to protect its enterprises and people, and particularly the vulnerable. Are you saying that is wrong?

Mr. Simon Murtagh:

I am saying that harmful subsidies to fossil fuel companies have always been wrong, and are wrong in this instance.

Richard Bruton (Dublin Bay North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Are you saying these are harmful subsidies then? That is the difficulty.

Mr. Simon Murtagh:

Yes, and the ones that go directly to fossil fuel companies, which are making windfall profits, are absolutely wrong.

Richard Bruton (Dublin Bay North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The subsidies are going to people whose energy costs have gone up by whatever percentage and who are losing trade and cannot sustain their businesses. That is what people are subsidising. This is not subsidies to companies that are making windfall gains from selling fossil fuels.

Mr. Simon Murtagh:

In that case, how does the Deputy explain the runaway profits of the companies involved?

Richard Bruton (Dublin Bay North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is because the price has gone up, and that has happened in the marketplace. What governments are trying to do, which your approach would prevent them from doing, is to support businesses that have genuine problems staying open and keeping people employed.

Mr. Simon Murtagh:

We have a policy on windfall taxes, which is being followed by the European Union.

Richard Bruton (Dublin Bay North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I did not say anything about windfall taxes. I am all for windfall taxes.

Mr. Simon Murtagh:

Such taxes predominantly relate to energy companies.

Richard Bruton (Dublin Bay North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am all for solidarity taxes.

Mr. Simon Murtagh:

That is clear, and it is the European Union's position. We look forward to the progressive implementation of that.

Richard Bruton (Dublin Bay North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are talking about different things.

Mr. Simon Murtagh:

The Deputy asked about subsidies. There is a distinction between subsidies on consumption and production which I would bring to the attention of the committee and which would be my response to that.

I also want to say something about the wider global justice argument in the context of loss and damage, because we welcome the Deputy's support for that. We released a report yesterday, The Cost of Delay, which is a historical look at loss and damage as an issue and which looks back three decades. The report was issued in conjunction with the Loss and Damage Collaboration, so most people here would have received it. Loss and damage was first asked for in 1991 by small island states at a UN framework convention. In that year, more than 150,000 people died because of extreme weather events. The states in question made a push for it at that stage - 30 years ago - and it was rebuffed. You can look at years of pushes for loss and damage at COP. It was rebuffed again as a funded facility at COP14 in 2008, when, again, over 150,000 people were killed directly by extreme weather events. It was cyclones in that case, in places like Bangladesh and Myanmar. When it comes to this year, we see another push. This year, we come to COP27, following the floods in Pakistan and the Horn of Africa crisis, which is a conflict as well as being climate related above all. Are we going to be rebuffed again? Do we know how many people have died because of extreme weather events this year when we count the Horn of Africa crisis and the floods in Pakistan? The global justice case for this is beyond dispute. We argue that the time for quiet diplomacy on this issue is over. We need to move and publicly state our support for a loss and damage facility based on the principles of global justice, which Deputy Bruton mentioned.

Brian Leddin (Limerick City, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does Mr. MacEvilly want to come in?

Mr. Jerry McEvilly:

I will try to take each of Deputy Bruton's points in turn. On the issue of support for continuing with fossil fuels, in particular for storage, it is very important to distinguish between immediate pressures on certain EU states as the result of loss of Russian supplies and long-term support for fossil fuels.

There is a continuous tendency in the Oireachtas to conflate gas and electricity security when they are not the same. On the broader EU perspective, one of the major reasons we are in this crisis is that decisions were taken at EU level five or seven years ago to invest further in gas, causing us to rely more on Russian gas rather than setting greater energy efficiency targets. We have continuously failed to have a grown-up discussion on demand reduction measures.

On the issue of subsidisation, I fully agree with Mr. Murtagh's points on the need to distinguish the types of subsidies but we have to be clear that this is not about a call to suddenly switch off some individual subsidy, particularly one of those subsidies for those most at risk. The issue is that Ireland has failed to even commence or produce a review of its subsidies, despite committing to do so years ago. We are at the very beginning here. This has been continuously called for.

On the issue of public support, I fully support the need to bring citizens with us and the challenge that presents but Friends of the Earth has done polling and, to give just one example, three times as many people support renewables as support the introduction of LNG. The Environmental Protection Agency has done fantastic in-depth surveys on public attitudes towards climate action on renewables. I question any sort of belief that there may not be general public support.

On the issue of rigid positions, while it is extremely challenging to suddenly take an immediate and rigid decision on fossil fuels, the example in this area is, of course, Covid-19. When the risks were explained to citizens, we found that quite harsh measures were not only readily accepted by citizens but were more actively supported than by some parts of Government.

On the day-to-day reality, I will give a very brief example relating to the fossil fuel non-proliferation treaty. Back in the 1960s, when issues around nuclear disarmament were coming to the fore, there was a general understanding that nuclear weapons were needed as a result of the Cold War and so on. Ireland took the lead in tabling resolutions at the United Nations on the need for an end to nuclear weapons and for disarmament given the risks they posed not only to Ireland, but to the world. That shifted the narrative and the understanding.

Mr. Conor O'Neill:

I will respond to a couple of things Deputy Bruton said. Support for loss and damage finance funding is brilliant and we really welcome it. We have been looking at this over a number of months and the question is whether any EU state will step out in front of the common position. Denmark has done so. A key ask of this committee, and particularly of Deputies and Senators of the Government parties, is to raise this with the Minister so that we can, as Mr. Murtagh said, not be the first, but the second.

On the question of energy and the political reality, I recognise the political reality Deputy Bruton is describing. None of us think for a second that any of this is anything other than extraordinarily challenging. That is just a reflection of the position we are in. However, we also recognise the scientific reality. If those two things are not coherent with one another at the moment, we have to ask which is more mutable, the scientific reality or the political reality. The latter is often assumed to be more fixed than it is. Mr. McEvilly was spot-on in raising the example of Covid. What we had there was an emergency response. Politicians, the Civil Service and the public acted as if there was an emergency and the operation of the State and our society shifted to rise to the challenge. We did exceptionally well. However, there is not that sense of an emergency about this. We are still treating it as just another policy position to be talked about just as we talk about education, housing and healthcare when holding debates and discussing Bills. This is different. I fully appreciate where Deputy Bruton is coming from and that he is speaking in good faith but the question is which of the scientific reality and the political reality we can change, even if it is extraordinarily hard. In my view, it is the latter.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The witnesses' testimonies and debate have been really powerful. On loss and damage, it is important that we do not have a situation in which we are choosing between supporting a loss and damage facility and leading the way. Will the witnesses confirm that by taking the lead, as Denmark has done in taking an individual position and recognising that historic responsibility and committing, we would be supporting debate on a loss and damage facility and helping to push the EU position in a positive way? It is important both to support a loss and damage facility in the negotiations and to take an individual stance.

I was very struck by what Ms Wathuti said about what is happening, which was very powerful. It is a good reality check. We hear a lot about the costs and difficulties associated with climate action and what it does to different business models, about how we have done things and about how difficult it is to change but we have now heard about how the cost of inaction and slow action on climate is far more severe. It is not simply a matter of businesses failing, but of death, loss of life, farming and food security around the world. That is really important. Will the witnesses elaborate on what slowing or delaying climate action means for food security worldwide?

On that loss and damage facility, the loss of lives and livelihoods is understandably at centre stage. However, will the witnesses comment on the cultural and biodiversity loss that is also part of the loss for many countries and on the importance of that being recognised?

There is also the question of trust. How fundamental is emerging with a loss and damage facility to the trust of the more than 100 countries across the world that have been calling for this and that were frustrated at the last Conference of the Parties?

On the question of climate financing, I am struck by the issues of quality and quantity. With regard to quality, what should or could Ireland do to press the EU on the quality of climate financing? I am particularly struck by the idea that we could be asking countries to go into debt for damage we have done, a point that was beautifully made by Deputy Cronin. An approach to some of these issues that is based on debt or loans is wrong. Also mentioned was the danger of public money being used solely to underwrite or incentivise private commercial investment when there is a great public need that is not profitable to meet but that must be met to ensure the maintenance of life and social cohesion across the world. I refer to the importance of public money going to those worst affected through loss and damage and other climate grant financing rather than simply being used to underwrite private investment. In relation to-----

Brian Leddin (Limerick City, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We might give our guests a chance to answer the questions.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will finish really quickly. I have just three really quick questions. On quantity, what does the timeline for doing our fair share on quantity need to look like? What of a fair share on mitigation? What do the next two to three years need to look like for Ireland to be credible about doing our fair share? I completely agree on fossil fuel non-proliferation. The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons was a diplomatic high point for Ireland. I am worried that we might lose decades of work we have done in that area. Will the witnesses also comment on the importance of ensuring we do not have an escalating arms trade? We have talked about the human rights context but it is important that Ireland champion the inclusion of human rights in the texts that are being negotiated. I know there has been pressure to remove references to human rights from some of the negotiated texts.

Brian Leddin (Limerick City, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Senator Higgins has asked a lot of questions. We would be here for quite a few more hours if our guests answered them adequately. I will ask guests to be brief in their answers but if they want to follow up with written answers, we would certainly appreciate them.

Mr. Conor O'Neill:

I will pick up on the questions that are most relevant to the presentation I have made. I will begin with the question of climate finance.

Senator Higgins is right about the quality aspect. When we come in here, we try to give constructive criticism and highlight the areas where we need to do more and need to do better, but it is also important to recognise the quality aspect, as outlined in the statement. We can always do better in this sense, but relative to what we are seeing in other European countries, Ireland is definitely a leader. The message will be to hold and maintain that. Countries like France, for example, have provided a lot of money through loans, and we have discussed how inadequate and unjust that is. Ireland has a role to protect the model that we have developed, to strengthen it and to urge other EU states to follow. The quality piece is very important.

In terms of our fair share, the estimate we have given here is €545 million per year. The target, pushed out to 2025, is €225 million. The committee can see that we have some way to go. As I mentioned earlier, the budgets, both carbon and financial, are where the rubber meets the road. The academic research backing up those estimates is footnoted and referenced in the statement.

On the question of trust, I do not think one could pick a better word to describe the dynamic as it was at COP in Glasgow and how it will be in Egypt on this question. In fact, a huge amount of the nationally determined contributions - the national plans submitted by every country that is a party to the treaty – from the global south have an asterisk, as they are conditional on receiving the funding that has been promised but has not been delivered. If anyone wants to be more cynical about it, there is a self-interest here: providing this finance is not just a moral obligation, it makes it more likely that everyone in the world will be able to get their emissions down, and we would all benefit.

On the fair share of the remaining global carbon budget, we mentioned it before, but Senator Higgins is right to re-emphasise it. I think it might have been in this committee or it could have been in the Seanad that it was called a forum of carbon colonialism. Christian Aid would throw its support behind that assessment because in the context of the global carbon budget, to date, it has been this part of the world that has eaten the vast majority of it. Based on the current plans, we are going to keep doing that. I will repeat those two questions. Are we overeating our fair share emissions-wise? Are we providing our fair share in terms of finance? They are the high-water marks and challenges for Members of this Parliament.

Ms Siobhan Curran:

I will make two additional points. In terms of loss and damage, the critical issue will be to home in on the finance facility. Mr. Murtagh documented the extent of the obstruction over the years. For 30 years, different reasons have been given as to why finance cannot be provided. At this point, even within the EU, more countries concede that there is a gap in loss and damage finance. What they are not agreeing to is a specific, transparent, accountable facility under the UNFCCC, which is what developing countries are calling for. It is important that we home in on that detail.

The finance needs to be unlocked in order that we might have those critical discussions on non-economic loss and damage, erosion of biodiversity and so on. Ireland is doing some work in exploring these issues with the Overseas Development Institute and has facilitated a number of workshops in this regard, which we welcome.

The overwhelming message from COP26 was that trust had been broken. Promises were made about the provision of $100 billion, which is not even enough, but that has not been delivered. It is being delivered primarily through loans rather than through adaptation and grants. There is a feeling that trust keeps being eroded. Trust must be rebuilt at COP27.

The final point I will make relates to a fair share of climate finance. It is important to note that the commitments made by Ireland for €225 million to be delivered by 2025 are welcome, but we must put these in context. That money part of the $100 billion promise, which was supposed to be delivered by 2020. At COP26, there was an acknowledgement by richer countries that this money would be delivered by 2023. What we have is a promise by Ireland to deliver by 2025. It is already late. The message is that there is an urgent need to scale up our finance swiftly. The year 2025 is a late deadline. We must look at our fair share. The work that we have done estimates our fair share to be approximately €500 million, which is much higher than the €225 million target. In that context, a rapid scaling up of our climate finance is crucial.

Dr. Br?d Walsh:

The question from Senator Higgins on how we can make sure Ireland does its fair share of mitigation is a good one. The long-term strategy, LTS, is very important. As I mentioned earlier, we are two and a half years late in submitting this. We are among a handful of countries, including Poland, that have not submitted it. What the LTS would do is set out the pathway to net zero. The question is how quickly we can get to net zero. We must remember that we have set in law that it will be 2050 at the latest. It will identify what is required across all sectors of the Irish economy to get us there. It gives us a true long-term plan. Together with the updated climate action plan, they will be two extremely powerful tools for climate action in Ireland. The LTS is also a very important mechanism to ensure that the EU achieves its collective net-zero goal. It allows for checks and balances to ensure that Ireland makes the appropriate and fair contribution to meeting the goal. It is more transparent. It will also provide information on investment, research, health impacts, environmental protection and socioeconomic effects in order that we will have a more holistic view.

Pauline O'Reilly (Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses. I very much appreciate their expertise. I sometimes feel I am on an episode of “Ireland’s Fittest Family”, dragging people through the mud to the finish line in the context of climate change. The witnesses are quite right that the science relating to it is immutable. It is undeniable, yet still we do have a sense of denial here and around the globe. The point in regard to Covid is well made. Even during that time, however, we had a lack of sharing of vaccines globally. When I was at a pre-COP meeting, I likened the position on climate finance to the approach taken by governments around the world, including in the EU, to vaccines for the very poorest nations. There is significant work to be done.

When it comes to publicity on climate catastrophe, I do not think anybody has got it quite right. I do not know what the witnesses’ thoughts are, but we are coming into another COP. Nobody had a clue what it was about at the previous COP. For this COP, we are also having to explain to people. Focusing on loss and damage is probably a good way to go about it, because it is one thing that can be addressed. Ireland must get behind it. However, it is very disappointing to hear that countries from the global south have an asterisk indicating that their work can only be done if the funding is delivered. Trust has gone, yet people still keep coming back to the table. Those are my thoughts.

Globally, we must get better about delivering this science to people. That is partly our job, but it is also the job of everybody sitting around the table. What do the witnesses think needs to be done in order for people to get behind it, because I do not think we have all the answers. We would like to bring everybody with us.

Mr. Simon Murtagh:

I might refer to the report on the cost of delay. The lead figure is that 189 million people every year, on average, are affected by extreme weather events. We have heard some of the statistics on deaths globally and it is important that the issue can be raised more in the face of these unimaginable figures.

Reference was made to keeping loss and damage on the agenda.

That aspect of three decades of injustice springs to mind. Ms Curran, Mr. O'Neill and I were in Glasgow last year. The eloquence of some of the speeches by spokespersons from the global south towards the end of the conference, and even in the final plenary session, was incredibly moving, as it was for officials there who mentioned that. Ms Wathti said that lasting damage will become the defining issue of this COP, but it was, in a sense, the position with COP26 as well. People from the global north were surprised by the push and the sense of justice that had come up in respect of the issue as it was expressed in Glasgow.

Our report, entitled The Cost of Delay: Why Finance to Address Loss and Damage Must be Agreed at COP27, documents the delaying tactics that are used by rich governments throughout the world to stem this call for justice, which is one for compensation and historical justice. It relies on a Cambridge University journal article, entitled "Discourses of Climate Delay", which shows the different tactics used. I think all we can do is to address those tactics and confront them at a policymaking level, and insist that Ireland takes a more active role through the committee. I do know if the other witnesses want to comment on the publicity-raising aspect of it.

Mr. Jerry MacEvilly:

Five to seven years ago, no one knew what a COP was, so we should give ourselves a little compliment. It is now at least on the news agenda and more people know what a COP is. There was, perhaps naturally, more media engagement last year because the COP was held in Glasgow in Scotland. That is a major risk. It is not lost on us that Sharm El-Sheikh is a holiday resort. It is very likely that civil society in Africa will find it hugely challenging to attend and be there. The oppression of human rights defenders was mentioned previously. The context of this COP at Sharm El-Sheikh is very different.

In terms of wider publicity, the public understand the climate justice message to the effect that Ireland failing to act is both unjust and stands to hurt those most at risk and least responsible. I am also struck by the fact that many of the most important climate action measures that would have the biggest impacts in reducing emissions fundamentally improve quality of life. I will not lecture the committee on it, but when it comes to transport and energy efficiency, we are all very much aware that these are the real measures that people want. There is an opportunity to link climate mitigation and quality-of-life messages, as well as Mr. O'Neill's central point that this is not a climate inconvenience; it is a climate crisis. We cannot treat as this as another simple policy question. I fully agree with the point around the need for Members of the Oireachtas to really bring these interests and decisions into question in the context of the budget and legislation.

What is needed from Government right now is implementation. While it might be understood very well by this committee, it is not simply the responsibility of the Department for the Environment, Climate and Communications to deliver every single climate action measure. As we have just heard, the Departments of Finance and Foreign Affairs have a central role to play in climate finance. That is equally true across a plethora of sectoral climate issues. There needs to be much more focus, scrutiny and responsibility placed on other Oireachtas committees, Departments and public bodies in delivering on those commitments. Indeed, many of the major obstacles we have encountered have been with other Government bodies. Needless to say, this committee has a central role going forward in providing accountability and in acting like the Committee of Public Accounts in the context of public finances and holding Departments to account. I know the committee has started that process.

Brian Leddin (Limerick City, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have a few thoughts to which the witnesses might respond. Building on the questions asked by Senator O'Reilly and Deputy Bruton, there is a challenge in bringing the people with us. It can be somewhat infuriating that we obsess over targets and where we want to get to, and much less about how we are going to get there. There seems to be a deficit in bridging the gap, politically and socially, between the targets and where we are now. We are going to have sessions , hopefully before Christmas, on climate communications. The committee feels that there is a very important role to be played in that regard. In the few minutes we have left, I would like to hear from the witnesses about where they feel more effort should be made in terms of bringing the people with us. The very simplest of climate action projects in this country seem to hit a brick wall. I do not need to list them, they are well-known at this point. They hit a brick wall because they represent an immediate inconvenience to the public. There may be a medium- to long-term benefit to the projects, but getting that message across is very difficult. So many have fallen by the wayside because people have mobilised and have said they do not want the inconvenience. I ask the witnesses for their thoughts on how we might bridge that deficit in the few minutes that we have.

Ms Siobhan Curran:

On a point that relates to people's understanding of COP, one thing that can bring people along is the global dimension to this and pulling back from a narrow domestic focus all the time. This is a global crisis. When we place Ireland's action within what is needed globally, the picture of the scale of the crisis and the urgency that is needed becomes a little clearer.

Brian Leddin (Limerick City, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I might argue with Ms Curran on that point. The global dimension is very abstract for people. When we talk about the global dimension, they do not make the connection between, for example, the bus lane project or the new cycle network for their town or city. As far as they are concerned, they are two different conversations. I fear that if we talk about the global dimension all the time with respect to Ireland's responsibilities and targets, we are not going to get the buy-in we need. If Ms Curran feels differently, I am interested in hearing what she has to say.

Ms Siobhan Curran:

These are the challenges involved. Perhaps there is a job to be done at COP. With all the media coverage and commentary around COP we can bridge the global and national, making the point that we have a global framework, asking how our national policy fits with that, and making the links between the two. There is an opportunity at that point to do it and to frame the issues in the language of climate justice and human rights.

Mr. Conor O'Neill:

I agree with Ms Curran. I totally recognise the challenge that the Chairman highlighted. It is not too dissimilar to that highlighted by Deputy Bruton. That is the challenge for the 220-odd people who are lucky enough to be Members of this Parliament. They have to try to reconcile those political differences. There is a deep bedrock of internationalism in Ireland that is not always evident elsewhere in the world. It is one of the reasons that we have such a good reputation in the provision of aid, for example. There are a lot of organisations and people here who really care about the bigger picture. That is something that we can draw on. On the flip side, the challenge I would put to the politicians is that when it gets to that micro level and some decision in a constituency or at a local level, they should reject the obvious cynical move of using it as an opportunity to fight with another party. It does sometimes happen that the easiest thing in the world to do is to point out what is difficult. Much of what we are talking about here is going to require a critical mass of politicians to say things that are hard. It was the same during the pandemic. It would have been easy enough to put our fingers in our ears, but we did not do that. I would hope that the fact that the news we have seen, not just from Pakistan and east Africa but also across the European Continent this summer, including wildfires and the impact they had, is something that will hopefully help the penny to drop here that we need to play our part. I urge political representatives to be willing to stand up and take that leadership, even when it is really difficult electorally.

Brian Leddin (Limerick City, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Have the delegations any thoughts on the communications piece, how that can be done or what kind of fora are necessary or important? Do we need a campaign from the Government's side? Oxfam has had very effective campaigns. To date, the State has not explained the importance of our targets and why we are trying to reach them.

Mr. Simon Murtagh:

I have already approached members of this committee on a wider accountability structure on the programme for Government targets, which has a nominal target of a 7% decrease in emissions each year. What the Chairman has described is not what we see in our polls or even in the local community. Oxfam Ireland is based in Ringsend and there is a huge willingness to engage on issues like district heating or retrofitting. There is a real appetite for that in the community. There is also a very quick understanding of the national and global injustices and inequalities that come with this issue. Oxfam has used the statistic more than anyone else that the richest 1% of the world's population is responsible for twice the emissions of the bottom half of humanity which is the 4 billion people who contribute very little to emissions. We have seen that research reflected in Ireland where the top 10% is responsible for more than 50% of the emissions. That is why Oxfam promotes ideas like windfall and wealth taxes to address that inequality. We have seen in our polling a sense of despondency as people rate climate change at the top of their agenda but feel a sense of powerlessness. That is why I have approached Members like Deputy Whitmore to see if we could generate a flow of questions from local communities on what happens at a local level and that information could be fed to this committee and we could get responses from the Government on those issues.

Finally, on the question of inequality, many of the members will know of the French economist Thomas Piketty. He and another French researcher have produced a book titled The Elephant Curve of Global Inequality and Growth, which shows on the curve that climate guilt is sometimes an issue. It shows that from 1990 to more or less the present working class and middle class people in rich countries have reduced their emissions so created the bottom part of the curve. However, where the curve rises again like an elephant's trunk is the emissions of the super rich and extremely wealthy. That is not just in terms of their luxury jets and holiday homes but also in their investments in fossil fuel industries and so on. It is a question of having justice at that level at both the level of consumption and investment.

Mr. Jerry MacEvilly:

The 2019 report of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Climate Action, which is the predecessor of this committee, has a chapter on climate communications with recommendations to Government and I would hazard a guess that it is still relevant. On this piece around engaging communities and giving them a basis on which to feed in their views, EirGrid has done really fantastic work as part of the development of its strategy. EirGrid set up its own citizens' assemblies to directly engage with community groups in order to understand people's views of the energy transition.

Finally, there is a continuous narrative in the media that climate action equals cost. I believe that the following really need to be explained. One, inaction has a major cost so, for example, traffic congestion has an impact on health. Two, when it comes to ensuring that people support larger pieces of infrastructure they need to see the benefits, particularly for the most vulnerable people, in terms of energy efficiency.

Brian Leddin (Limerick City, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Mr. MacEvilly for reminding us of the report produced by the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Climate Action. We should look at that chapter before we embark on the sessions on communications.

As we are out of time I thank everyone for coming here today and our two guests who joined us online. I thank everyone for their time, effort and contributions today, which are certainly useful to us. I expect all of it will prove useful for the delegation that will travel to COP and I believe that this meeting has been very timely.

Brian Leddin (Limerick City, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The purpose of this session is to discuss COP27 with Mr. Niall McLoughlin, principal officer, Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications who has joined us online from his office. He is very welcome.

Before we begin, I will again read the note on privilege. I remind Mr. McLoughlin of the long-standing parliamentary practice that he should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of the person or entity. If his statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity, I will direct him to discontinue his remarks. It is imperative that he comply with any such direction. As he is attending remotely from outside the Leinster House campus, there are limitations to parliamentary privilege and, as such, he may not benefit from the same level of immunity from legal proceedings as witnesses physically present would.

I invite Mr. McLoughlin to make his opening statement, which is limited to five minutes.

Mr. Niall McLoughlin:

As a country facing significant threats posed by climate change, Egypt, as incoming COP27 presidency, is emphasising that the focus of this conference must be on moving from planning to implementation and action. Its foreign minister and the president-designate of COP27, Sameh Shoukry, has pointed out that the African continent is the party most affected by the negative repercussions of climate change despite contributing least to emissions. Therefore, Egypt has emphasised that COP27 will be "an African COP" placing adaptation at the forefront, while recognising that a just transition remains a priority for developing countries worldwide. As we move closer to COP, loss and damage discussions are increasingly coming to the fore as developing countries set high expectations for progress on finance for loss and damage due to the adverse effects of climate change. Climate finance, in particular adaptation finance, will also be a priority, both in terms of developed countries catching up on the missed target of $100 billion by 2020, but also agreeing the implications and process to double adaptation finance by 2025 as well as commencing discussions to determine the post-2025 climate finance goal for the Paris Agreement.

Ireland looks forward to a comprehensive and balanced outcome from COP27 in Sharm el-Sheikh. I will highlight a few of the priorities the Irish delegation will be focusing on in the negotiations. Climate-induced loss and damage is a key priority for Ireland's work on climate change. Parties urgently need to scale up and improve access to climate finance to avert, minimise and address the loss and damage currently facing communities in countries most vulnerable to climate change. Ireland will continue to engage constructively in the Glasgow dialogues on loss and damage and explore concrete solutions and frameworks to assist those in need. To avoid exacerbating existing inequalities and vulnerabilities, Ireland's financial support is overwhelmingly grant-based and emphasises sectors that are of most relevance to the poorest, such as agriculture and food security, energy and social protection. At COP26 we also committed to more than double our funding for developing countries to tackle climate change by 2025, rising from €93 million to €225 million over the next four years, which Ireland's recently published international climate finance roadmap sets out with clear, time-bound items to be delivered.

The "African COP", as the Egyptian presidency has described it, is taking place in the context of devastating droughts and failed rainy seasons. We recognise that such climate extremes are a threat to food production systems and water security, and that food production needs to be resilient and environmentally sustainable. Challenging discussions, particularly on loss and damage, are anticipated. Developing countries have made it clear they expect a finance facility for loss and damage to be established. In practical terms, there must be an agenda item on the issue at COP27 for this to happen. The EU position on loss and damage is evolving and we are centrally involved in this process.

In discussions to date, the EU has focused on strengthening and scaling up support, including financial support, for existing institutions and initiatives that assist vulnerable communities. Reservations remain about creating a new, potentially duplicate financing facility, given that some mechanisms already exist which partially fund loss and damage, such as the Green Climate Fund. The EU sees the Glasgow dialogue, which is under way, as a valuable space with relevant stakeholders to discuss and plan financing on this area further.

Ireland also recognises the negative impacts that short-lived climate pollutants, including methane, can have on the climate and air quality and ,in turn, acknowledges the threat posed to health, especially in urban areas. Ireland is committed to advancing work on short-lived climate pollutants, including through the Climate and Clean Air Coalition and our continued support of policy based on the best available science. We look forward to engaging with our EU colleagues in the second technical dialogue of the global stocktake, which brings all parties together to reflect on best practices and lessons learned in our implementation of the Paris Agreement, to strengthen our efforts.

Recognising that the voices of the most affected are those that should be amplified and receive greatest attention in such dialogues and beyond, we will continue to promote the participation of representatives of least developed countries and small island developing states, including through financial support to non-governmental organisations.

We are committed to the Paris Agreement as the primary multilateral mechanism to drive global climate action. Recent IPCC reports demonstrate that national efforts alone are not enough. International co-operation through strong institutions is essential.

Significant progress was made at COP26 in Glasgow last year, with the international community coming together at an unprecedented level. However, the geopolitical context has changed radically since then, with the war in Ukraine often knocking climate change down the agenda. The Russian Federation's unprovoked and unjustified military aggression against Ukraine has exacerbated the imperative for Europe to end its dependency on imported gas to heat homes and power industries. Ireland supports the Egyptian presidency in its view that the energy and food crises fuelled by the war in Ukraine are an unacceptable pretext for backsliding at this COP.

To address all these issues, we must rediscover the spirit, energy and hope from COP21, where 192 countries created the Paris Agreement, and bring that same unity of purpose to the table at Sharm el-Sheikh. The UN Secretary General, António Guterres, said we need "a coalition of the world" to tackle the challenges ahead. I would expand that by stressing the importance of civil society, youth, scientists and other non-party stakeholders in that coalition. Ireland, along with our EU colleagues, continues to make that point clear to the Egyptian presidency. We continue to advocate for COPs to be transparent and inclusive for all, in particular the active participation of women and young people in negotiations and the facilitation of civil society attendance and engagement.

It is clear we face many challenges in the coming weeks, but there is room for hope if all parties come together to develop and agree concrete, sustainable solutions. The Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications will work collaboratively with all parties in preparing for and framing the nature of the debate and will work as part of the EU team to bring countries together to agree a comprehensive, ambitious and balanced outcome taking forward co-ordinated climate action, remaining true to the Paris Agreement and keeping 1.5° alive.

Brian Leddin (Limerick City, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Mr. McLoughlin said Ireland supports the Egyptian presidency in its view that the energy and food crises fuelled by the war in Ukraine are an unacceptable pretext for backsliding at COP. Will he elaborate on that? When was that position taken and why was it taken? Will he outline the outlook for COP if we go into it with that position?

Mr. Niall McLoughlin:

Russia's invasion and the consequential food and energy crises will be the undertone of this year's COP, antagonising the ever-present issue of climate change. Energy acceleration is key to energy security, not fossil fuels, especially for Europe. However, increasingly, countries are being faced with difficult choices in this space. Overall emissions are not increasing. Long term trends see decreases and this accelerated shift needs to be maintained. The geopolitical situation we are facing forces us to reassess how we achieve our longer term transition to climate neutrality, which is not only essential to our environment but is also key to our growth strategy. The path to zero is predicated among other things on ample availability of affordable gas, and that is now a thing of the past. This is a moment to break through rather than backslide, particularly on renewables and energy efficiency on coal phase-out to peak gas earlier than we would have without the war.

The question facing us is whether we can create a public debate and public awareness around COP. On fossil fuel language, for instance, can we create positive messages on renewables? All parties and governments must make short-term compromises on energy. Ireland and the EU are committed to adhering to our emissions cap and carbon budgets. Most important is that overall emissions do not increase. As I said, there is a long-term trend that can see a decrease.

We recognise that Russia's invasion of Ukraine has upended global politics and the market. This is first and foremost a humanitarian tragedy which also has profound effects on the price and security of energy and food globally. High volatile oil and gas prices are now driving inflation and the cost-of-living crisis throughout the world, and are exposing the true cost of our dependency on oil and gas as never before. Governments have a responsibility to ensure reliable and affordable energy services for their populations and their economies. We believe the best way to deliver this while creating jobs and lowering the long-term cost of energy is to increase massively investment in energy efficiency, renewable energy and the resilience and flexibility of our energy systems.

Ireland stands firmly for that in the forthcoming negotiations on climate and energy security.

We are not in favour governments turning off the taps overnight. We accept that there are limited increases in production from the existing oil and gas capacity and that might be necessary in the current context but certainly issuing new oil and gas licences for fields that take years to come online will do nothing do solve the current crisis. In fact, the contrary is the case. Decisions carry a long-term risk of stranded assets and carbon lock-in. Leadership on a managed phase-out of fossil fuels and our vision of a world beyond oil and gas, which was amplified by our membership of the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance last year, is urgently needed. Ahead of COP, developed countries with greater financial and technical capacity must really lead the way on this and support developing countries in their transition.

Brian Leddin (Limerick City, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am conscious of time. I will cut across Mr. McLoughlin. I am sorry. It sounds like a strong position that Ireland is taking. Do we have a sense that is supported? Is that also the EU position?

Mr. Niall McLoughlin:

The crisis in the Ukraine has really amplified things. Different member states are being forced to take difficult decisions depending on their circumstances. The crisis has crystalised for everybody how, apart from the humanitarian crisis, it represents an opportunity to decouple our continued economic growth and dependency on what is now regarded as a very volatile region of the world.

Richard Bruton (Dublin Bay North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Mr. McLoughlin for the presentation. Before he came in, he probably heard how loss and damage had only been adopted by one country, Denmark. Is this a new announcement today that it is a key priority for Ireland? We also heard that Irish aid had plateaued in recent years and that we seem to have stalled in moving towards the commitment to €225 million.

It seems to me that the energy crisis provoked by the war in Ukraine has brought new focus on cutting our use of energy in the first place. To what extent can that gain momentum? Probably for the first time ever, the public is listening and there is an opportunity. The EU has set a 10% reduction, which is voluntary, and a 5% reduction at peak use - 10% reduction in gas. The French are talking about sobriety, as they put it. That does not seem to be so much a feature of debate or of Mr. McLoughlin's presentation. Should we not focus in on the lower-hanging opportunities and build the public momentum around those as a precursor to the more challenging changes that we have to make over the next decade?

Mr. Niall McLoughlin:

No, it is not a new announcement in respect of loss and damage. Loss and damage has always been recognised in how we have approached our climate finance with the focus very much on adaptation and a grants-based system.

Richard Bruton (Dublin Bay North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is loss and damage different from adaptation? I thought loss and damage is not where you have to mitigate a particular fossil emission or adapt to a particular risk; it is more about dealing with real crises, such as in the Horn of Africa, and involves a whole new category of aid.

Mr. Niall McLoughlin:

What we have dealt with to date is emerging, minimising and then the final piece in the jigsaw is addressing. In the context of Ireland's profile, we have been one of the early movers on this. Last year, at COP26, the Minister, Deputy Eamon Ryan, announced new funding to operate the Santiago Network, which is a loss and damage facility that catalyses the deployment of expertise, etc., to regions facing this crisis. We are an early mover, and our entire aid profile and the way it is underpinned by humanitarian instincts in the first place speaks to the fact that loss and damage is an issue and is recognised as such.

Officially, perhaps for the first time, we saw conclusions emerge from the Environment Council yesterday. There was recognition that loss and damage needs to be on the agenda and recognition that these losses are real and need to be addressed. How they are going to be addressed is the subject of very difficult discussions at Sharm el-Sheikh. The discussion that we have been having entirely as part of the EU working group preparing for COP27, where a number of different approaches to the issue have been advocated. Ireland has experts in the various expert groups feeding in possible options with respect to approaches that can be taken to loss and damage in the context of the Glasgow dialogue, which was really necessary to create the space for discussions on how funding can be channelled to those in the greatest need.

The Deputy mentioned some backsliding in the context of finance. Ireland's total climate finance for 2020 was €88 million. For 2021, indicative figures confirm an increase. These figures are submitted to the European Commission reporting system. They are not yet publicly available. They could be subject to minor changes. It is important to note there was a change in the methodology for counting and reporting Ireland's international climate finance which has taken effect since the publication of the 2019 report. It is in line with the EU regulation of the governance of the Energy Union and climate action which came into force in 2020. According to the previous methodology there Ireland's total climate finance would have been nearly €92 million in 2020. There are underlying factors. Applying the new methodology, Ireland's climate finance is approximately €88 million which represented a reduction of about €5.7 million. The decrease is mostly explained by the impact of Covid-19 in 2020 on programming and the delivery of planned activities. The changed methodology had the largest impact on the Department of Foreign Affairs climate finance spend due to the nature of real marking across bilateral NGO programming. There was a technical aspect there and our commitment to providing appropriate levels of climate finance was really crystalised by the Taoiseach's announcement at COP last year, which guarantees €225 million by 2025.

On energy, the entire crisis has represented an opportunity to engage the public on how we have approached energy previously and how we have over-used. There is a national campaign, Reduce Your Use, ongoing to get that message across. There is an opportunity to try to engage the public now while more than ever everyone is considering the costs associated with their consumption. Every opportunity we have to engage the public on this and more broadly on climate is very welcome. We will try to use those opportunities as best we can over the coming weeks.

Bríd Smith (Dublin South Central, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am looking at the expression on Deputy Bruton's face. I have complete empathy and understanding. I am totally confused by Mr. McLoughlin's answer about loss and damage funding. Can he give me a straight and simple answer as to whether Ireland going to support loss and damage funding at COP27.

Mr. Niall McLoughlin:

The position is that we are negotiating at COP27 as part of the EU. Our work over the past year has been with colleagues in the context of developing the position on loss and damage. Every member state has a different perspective, notwithstanding that it is recognised that loss and damage is real, is happening and needs to be addressed. It is how it is addressed that has been the context of discussions entirely in the EU which informs the position going forward for the conference itself.

Bríd Smith (Dublin South Central, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Sorry, forgive me now for interrupting -----

Mr. Niall McLoughlin:

Within that space, Ireland has been advocating that we engage through the existing financial mechanisms in the first instance and establish whether there is scope to support loss and damage initiatives.

We have also been looking at other options in terms of what a new financing mechanism would actually look like going forward and how that could be funded. Throughout all of this, however, we have been working through the Glasgow dialogues and hoping to gain traction in the context of those discussions with other parties in the context of what is required. How can these funds be delivered? How can there be no slippage in terms of averting and minimising what we would call adaption and mitigation? All I am saying is that we are being as ambitious as we can in this space in working with EU colleagues. That has had practical expression by the fact that yesterday, the Council conclusions were agreed and for the first time, the EU has acknowledged that there needs to be an agenda item on loss and damage at COP27. That is very welcome. That speaks to the work that Ireland-----

Bríd Smith (Dublin South Central, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am sorry; I am going to run out of time.

Mr. Niall McLoughlin:

-----and other member states have done, including through expert groups that have developed different option papers for consideration by different member states. We certainly hope to see traction in this space-----

Bríd Smith (Dublin South Central, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am sorry I asked.

Mr. Niall McLoughlin:

-----during the course of the COP.

Brian Leddin (Limerick City, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I dare say to the Deputy that Mr. McLoughlin has learned from the master.

Bríd Smith (Dublin South Central, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am almost sorry I asked because I did ask for a straight, simple answer. I would hate to get a complex answer from Mr. McLoughlin.

Mr. Niall McLoughlin:

I am sorry; I am just saying that we are not alone in these spaces.

Bríd Smith (Dublin South Central, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is okay; I get it.

Mr. Niall McLoughlin:

We negotiate at COP in the context of our membership of the EU.

Bríd Smith (Dublin South Central, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Mr. McLoughlin is basically saying he cannot answer it because he does not know if Ireland supports it or not. That should be the answer. We are going about it in a roundabout way. Mr. McLoughlin just said that other states support it, but he cannot answer if Ireland does. Therefore, let us park that one. I want to ask Mr. McLoughlin another question.

Mr. Niall McLoughlin:

In fairness, at the outset, I did acknowledge the fact that Ireland has been one of the most ambitious member states in this space and continues to work with EU colleagues in ensuring that is reflected.

Brian Leddin (Limerick City, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Mr. McLoughlin. We have that point.

Bríd Smith (Dublin South Central, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have that point. I have two more questions. I might get to ask Mr. McLoughlin one of them. He talked about the crisis in Ukraine giving us an opportunity to engage the public regarding the costs associated with their consumption and to look at the reduction in the use of fossil fuels. Does Mr. McLoughlin see this as an opportunity to engage the fossil fuel industry on the costs associated with its increased production of gas and oil infrastructure across the planet during the crisis in Ukraine?

Mr. Niall McLoughlin:

Those discussion are absolutely taking place and they need to be taking place. We have to look at the context of loss and damage. I am conscious that the committee received presentations earlier from NGOs in this space. A report was published yesterday in the context of the income associated with fossil fuel companies, etc., and the potential of whether somehow those profits can, through a windfall tax or something like that, be used to help address the loss and damage being experienced by parties and particularly least developed countries and small island developing states. There are opportunities here to look at whether there is potential for carbon market transactions for solidarity fund levies, etc., on profits from fossil fuel fuels and so forth. These still take time to put in place. Obviously, further analysis is required in terms of such negotiations, including how it might affect the carbon border adjustment mechanism, the European Union Solidarity Fund, etc. They are also mentioned in the context of the developed countries admitting that a big part of fossil fuel production is in developing countries. Further analysis is required there. As I said, however, absolutely, Ireland is engaging by association with the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance last year and in the context of our preparations for COP27 and how we are negotiating with EU member states. They must be part of the solution They have to brought in and made aware of the polluter pays principle. Everything needs to be considered in this context.

Bríd Smith (Dublin South Central, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Mr. McLoughlin.

Jennifer Whitmore (Wicklow, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have a brief question on fossil fuel subsidies following on from that discussion. Was the Department involved in climate-proofing the recent non-targeted electricity scheme?

Mr. Niall McLoughlin:

I am sorry; I would have to check that with colleagues from other divisions. I do not have that information but I am certainly happy to get back to the Deputy on that.

Jennifer Whitmore (Wicklow, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Mr. McLoughlin. I will address a few other issues. I was really pleased to see that one of the priorities for the delegation at COP27 is the issue of gender. Obviously, gender and climate change are incredibly intertwined. Women and children tend to bear the burden and brunt of climate impact in terms of poverty and everything that is associated with it.

What will that look like for the Department in the context of COP27? Will Ireland's delegation ensure that gender reporting is mandatory on all streams of the global stocktake cycles? Is the Government engaged with the UNFCCC gender action plan? How is it promoting that?

Mr. Niall McLoughlin:

It is fair to say that Ireland's long-standing support for climate justice and adaptation recognises that women and girls and, indeed, LGBTQ+ people and other marginalised groups are disproportionately affected by climate change, and more vulnerable to the shocks and stresses associated with current and future climate change. In the context of COP, since 2012, gender and climate change have been stand-alone agenda items. Therefore, this is a form of recognition that a gender-responsive approach to climate action reduces the potential for pre-existing equalities to continue in a green transition at a state and smaller-scale project level. As the Deputy said, this is done through the identification of gaps and needs and the collection of this aggregated data.

In 2019, COP25 successfully reviewed and concluded the Lima work programme on gender and adopted an enhanced working programme, as well as a new gender action plan. Since then, the gender action plan offers a framework for actions of parties and observers, including mandated activities across priority areas.

Jennifer Whitmore (Wicklow, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am sorry; I am just trying to get to get to the nub of this. Is gender reporting mandatory at the moment on all the global stocktake schemes?

Mr. Niall McLoughlin:

I would have to check with colleagues whether it is mandatory. I know that across gender-----

Jennifer Whitmore (Wicklow, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am quite limited on time. If it is not, will Ireland through the Department commit to pushing for that to happen? It is obviously a very important initiative.

Mr. Niall McLoughlin:

Absolutely. We have an expert in the gender group at the negotiating table. We certainly will push for it. The mid-term review of the gender action plan was scheduled to be completed in Bonn back in June. That will continue at COP27 following a lack of agreement there. There were two major issues arising from discussions, which were, again, financial support for the secretariat for national gender and climate change focal points and increased funding to be made available for multilateral climate funds for gender responsive climate action in developing countries. what I am saying is that a member of my division sits in that space. We will certainly push for that. I apologise for not being clear on whether that is mandatory already.

Jennifer Whitmore (Wicklow, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is concerning that the gender action plan has been stalled because of arguments over who pays the secretariat. It is just incredible that this kind of minuscule barrier and issue could stop or stall something so important. I have very little time left. Earlier, Mr. Simon Murtagh from Oxfam mentioned the special drawing rights that were issued by the International Monetary Fund, IMF. Has there been any discussion? Ireland was allocated €4.6 billion from the IMF. Has there been any discussion about looking at whether we should be donating or reallocating those to the Global South with regard to our assistance when it comes to climate action?

Mr. Niall McLoughlin:

I am sorry; I am not aware that there have been any discussions in that regard.

Jennifer Whitmore (Wicklow, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Okay. I thank Mr. McLoughlin very much.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will address two or three issues, one of which relates to loss and damage. Perhaps Mr. McLoughlin could confirm that loss and damage is not in any sense aid. One of the issues of concern in terms of other aspects of our climate financing is that it is meant to be new and additional. However, Ireland has described doubling the share of official development assistance, ODA, that could be dedicated to climate action.

It is important to clarify that climate finance is different from aid and, specifically, loss and damage funding is different from, additional to and separate from aid.

On that point about loss and damage, the answer was very unsatisfactory. There was the idea of having to negotiate as part of the EU but this is not a trade negotiation. These are negotiations in respect of the UN. We are part of the EU but also of the UN, and Ireland sought a position, for example, on the Security Council by strongly pitching that we understood and were connected with other countries. We are also one of the only EU countries with a direct experience of colonialism, which is very relevant in the context of what has been called climate colonialism or carbon colonialism in the using-up of the fair share and the causing of damage to the developing world.

I would like Mr. McLoughlin to confirm that nothing is preventing Ireland from, as Denmark did, playing a role in the EU position, and I would argue that Denmark taking a strong stance probably helped push the Council to improve its position. There is nothing to prevent Ireland from individually giving recognition through a loss and damage payment while also pushing for a better EU position. Will Ireland support a loss and damage facility? This is not a brainstorming of ideas; it has been called for for a long time. Will we back the 130 countries that have called for that when they call for it again and when that decision point comes, or will we do only what some other countries in the EU are doing, even though some member states such as Denmark are supporting a loss and damage facility? We need to be clear on this as a committee. Ireland performing a fabulous secretariat role in the background is meaningless if we do not have a position.

I welcome the fact there is a focus on human rights in what Mr. McLoughlin said. At previous COP conferences, there was a concerted effort not to refer to human rights in some of the texts, including in areas such as gender. Will Ireland support better human rights language in what comes through? Will it sign the declaration on children, youth and climate action that has been developed by YOUNGO, UNICEF and the Children's Environmental Rights Initiative? Mr. McLoughlin mentioned young people as a focus. This is a specific opportunity to sign something that will be meaningful, although it would have been better if we had signed it in advance of COP. Multiple special rapporteurs from the UN Human Rights Council have also highlighted the importance of this.

Ireland signed up to the target of a 30% cut in methane by 2030 last year. Are we going back to the negotiations and discussions, alongside those with whom we discussed it, with ideas of how Ireland might achieve the 30% cut in methane by 2030 if we have signed up to that?

Beyond oil and gas, a crucial issue that has been emerging relates to the energy charter treaty. Many EU countries are now leaving but, at the same time, there is an aggressive promotion of it, an issue other members may pick up on.

Brian Leddin (Limerick City, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Other members wish to come in and we have to give Mr. McLoughlin time to respond, so I ask the Senator to be brief.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will leave it at that.

Mr. Niall McLoughlin:

There were a couple of questions there. Ireland’s current position is to maintain its membership of the energy charter treaty in the context of supporting the agreement in principle on the modernisation process to align the treaty with the objectives of the Paris Agreement and the environmental concerns integral to it while having regard to the benefits to international energy security it may provide, particularly at a time when energy security has been threatened. My understanding, from colleagues on the energy side, is that they are awaiting the outcome of the final stages of the modernisation process towards adoption at the energy charter conference, which I think is due to be held in November, while reserving the option to support a co-ordinated withdrawal from the charter should the effort fail, and as considered appropriate by the Government to achieve our national renewable energy and climate ambitions. I hope that point is clear.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am concerned about the expansion of the treaty, but that is by the by and I am sure other members will pick up on that.

Mr. Niall McLoughlin:

On the global methane pledge, yes, we are signatories. The goal is a 30% worldwide reduction. A number of programmes have been focused on different areas and the initial focus has been on the fossil fuel industry in the first instance, and methane profiles from waste are also being examined. As a participant, we fully support initiatives for global methane action, including the land sector and the promotion of sustainable agriculture practices both here and abroad, and we recognise that methane emission reductions will have to be achieved globally in any event to meet the requirements of the Paris Agreement, in addition to reducing global carbon dioxide emissions by 45% by 2030 relative to the 2010 level and achieving net zero around mid-century. The EU has just prepared a methane plan, which is being reviewed. There is an expectation that signatories to the pledge will also take that up, so colleagues are engaging with the EU in the first instance on that issue.

On loss and damage, Ireland is seeking at every opportunity to support progress in this space, and we were one of the first movers in terms of funding and supporting the operation of the Santiago Network. Throughout the year, we have been progressing dialogue on finance for loss and damage while acknowledging the limitations in the current EU position and we are keen to influence the decision with the views of key stakeholders throughout the humanitarian, development and climate sectors.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Briefly-----

Brian Leddin (Limerick City, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have given the Senator a lot of time and two members wish to come in.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----because this is a tricky question, does Ireland support a loss and damage facility and the acknowledgement of historical responsibility for the reflection of that through financing?

Mr. Niall McLoughlin:

Acknowledgement of historical liability-----

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I asked about "responsibility", in line with common and differentiated responsibility.

Mr. Niall McLoughlin:

In any space, what we have to acknowledge, as in the Council's conclusions yesterday, is that there needs to be movement in this space. Concrete steps need to be taken and this needs to be done on the basis of bringing everybody along, that is, on the basis of solidarity rather than any sense of liability. It is important to maximise the value of the Glasgow dialogue. This is a very valuable space for the analysis of the needs, gaps and opportunities-----

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

But it is not aid-----

Brian Leddin (Limerick City, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Senator Higgins-----

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Will Mr. McLoughlin confirm it is not aid? I would like to have that one sentence confirmed.

Brian Leddin (Limerick City, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I cannot allow the Senator back in because we are about to run out of time and two further members are looking to come in.

Mr. Niall McLoughlin:

Certainly, the funding that has been earmarked for the Santiago Network is not aid. It comes from the finances of the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications, so that-----

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Loss and damage is not aid.

Brian Leddin (Limerick City, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Mr. McLoughlin.

Mr. Niall McLoughlin:

We need to see what the outcomes of the negotiations are and what we can get from the Glasgow dialogue-----

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is a deeply unsatisfactory position.

Brian Leddin (Limerick City, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I call Senator Pauline O'Reilly.

Pauline O'Reilly (Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On that point about the UN and responsibility, I draw Mr. McLoughlin’s attention to the programme for Government, which promises to “Ensure that Ireland leverages its position within the UN to promote international cooperation in the management of climate-related security challenges and to build on our strength of conflict resolution.” I am aware of that line because I was the negotiator for the Green Party in respect of foreign affairs and I had a lot of support from some of the relevant NGOs, which are represented at this meeting. It is important that we step up to the plate, in regard not just to the EU but also to the UN, so I echo what Senator Higgins was saying in that regard.

It is undisputed that Ireland has a good reputation in this space, particularly with ODA. That is built not just on what it does but on what it says. It is important that we use every opportunity to say what it is we mean, particularly around loss and damage. In negotiations, what you say externally impacts on your ability to get what you want at the negotiating table. I take the point that in a negotiation you cannot always lay all your cards on the table but in this instance I do not see what we have to lose by saying what we mean around loss and damage. Those are my main points. I know we are caught for time. Much of what has been said is what I was going to say as well. Before we go to COP, I would like Ireland to state a position.

Mr. Niall McLoughlin:

Ireland cosponsored the UN resolution for a right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment earlier in the year. There have also been moves at the Security Council level, and Ireland has been on that level, around integrating the security risks associated with climate. I understand if I am not being clear. Ireland absolutely supports efforts to address loss and damage. Yesterday, the EU environment ministers agreed the bloc's negotiating position with a call to promptly strengthen existing institutions, provide support and deliver concrete solutions, including through a new agenda item that would make full use of the Glasgow dialogue. Those conclusions form the basis of our negotiating mandate. It is through the EU that we are negotiating. I can only reiterate the steps Ireland has made both in the context of the working parties and in the expert groups informed by representatives from the Department of Foreign Affairs. Concrete steps and measures have been taken to bring proposals to really challenge member states in this space. I assure the committee that Ireland will be among the most ambitious member states.

I know what Senator Higgins is saying about Denmark. If we were to go line by line through the various different funding streams, there is no doubt that we could extract different things some of the funding we have provided, because it is so grant based and because it responds to what is happening on the ground. There are things in our support for multilateral funds that we could package as loss and damage. What we are looking for here is to make actual progress. The world is looking to Sharm El-Sheikh, to COP, for progress in this space. It will be the defining issue. If I am reticent about going ahead of other EU member states as we have just reached conclusions around negotiating positions and the work that needs to be undertaken, I apologise. However, I assure the committee that it is all in the context of trying to ensure we go as a united bloc, to make sure the full weight of the EU can be brought to bear on what will be the most important negotiating at COP. I just wanted to make that point.

Pauline O'Reilly (Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Mr. McLoughlin. There were helpful comments there.

Mr. Niall McLoughlin:

I cannot offer anything further on the energy charter treaty because I do not want to speak for energy colleagues, other than to say we await the outcome of the final stages of the process. At that point, it will be reviewed. Regarding our membership of Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance, there are any number of initiatives that ministers are invited to sign up to in the context of COP. The Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance was one such initiative led by Denmark and Costa Rica last year. With a lot of the initiatives, the lack of follow-through can be stark and it speaks to the need to create a programme for what initiatives we lend our weight to. The Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance has stood out in the context of its ongoing engagement with the founding members and with the friends of the alliance There have been nearly monthly meetings between members and the secretariat, which was also established during the course of the year. At this year's COP, the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance will have a very visible presence on the ground. There is a sustained outreach programme to other parties and countries that may wish to receive encouragement in this space, whether through becoming a member of the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance or through practical measures. The organisation can contribute to the discussions that may be happening in those countries about their energy profile and whether they will consider banning or introducing limitations on gas and oil exploration.

The make-up of the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance in the context of COP27 is slightly difficult because the Danish elections are ongoing. That may have effects for the Danish Ministry. The Minister, Deputy Eamon Ryan, has made the secretariat aware that he is available to support the organisation and to work with potential members as well as new members, which will be unveiled in the context of the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance events at COP27. We look forward to that. The alliance was also very present at the recent meeting of the UN General Assembly. It issued a measured and powerful statement about the war in Ukraine, acknowledging the difficulties governments are in at the moment in using short-term solutions. It also re-emphasised the point that long-term decisions such as recommencing drilling or issuing new licences must be paused and considered in the context of where we need to be going forward with respect to the energy profiles of various other countries. I am looking forward to working with the organisation again this year.

Mr. Niall McLoughlin:

Yes. We will be working with colleagues and other countries that are members of the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance to push the alliance's agenda at COP27. I would be delighted to prepare a summary paper for the committee's information in respect of the alliance's activities during the course of the year.

Mr. Niall McLoughlin:

The peer-to-peer engagement has been really valuable in that space.

Mr. Niall McLoughlin:

I absolutely will.

Brian Leddin (Limerick City, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Mr. McLoughlin for agreeing to that. I also draw his attention to Senator Higgins's question in the chat window. He might also come back in writing to the committee on that question, which relates to a declaration on children, youth and climate. The Senator asked that question but there was not time to respond.

I thank Mr. McLoughlin for his attendance and engagement ahead of COP27. I wish him and the Irish delegation well in the negotiations. We hope to have good news in a few weeks' time.