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

I thank all of the witnesses. What Ms Bennett said at the end was very interesting, which is that it is there already in that it is not an aspirational document, it is a very practical blueprint which has targets and sub-targets. One of the things I am interested in is how we begin to push the conversation to being about the targets and the sub-targets. Regulatory impact assessment, was mentioned. Could the witnesses expand a little bit about the tools for assessing in advance? The key one, which has been touched on already, is the budgetary process, but I would welcome any further points the witnesses might wish to make in that regard. The current implementation plan seems to be to pilot the well-being budgeting and then think about bringing in SDG budgeting rather than, for example, ensuring that our well-being budgeting and our SDG budgeting are aligned. We are running out of time. We must ensure that the targets and sub-targets are there and are aligned. Could the witnesses comment on the need to accelerate matters with regard to budgetary processes and the regulatory impact assessment? Could they also comment on the importance of that, not just for the good things, which we have spoken about, but also in respect of the bad things? What happens is that we get the good policy, there is a pilot and that is highlighted. This point is relevant to our committee. SDG sub-targets 14.4 and 14.5 are on ending overfishing and marine protected areas, yet we know Ireland took a decision today not to oppose the end of bottom-trawling. How important is it to ensure that we are scrutinising the decisions being made to make sure they are not moving us backwards on the SDGs rather than just finding the examples that move us forward? That is just one I picked today, but the targets are very specific, they are not abstract. It is very clearly stated that we must regulate against overfishing in 14.4, and to ensure that marine protected areas have strong protections, including against overfishing, in 14.5. It is there. How do we achieve that?

This fits very much what Chambers Ireland said. I like that its presentation talked about the choices. If there is a problem, there are five different ways to solve it, but when we bring in the SDGs, we get a way that solves it and also does two other good things. I like the point about transport, which was very interesting. I have a specific question for Chambers Ireland which is related again to something on which it has been very strong, which is a place-based approach where we recognise that the SDGs happen in real places - towns and communities - as well as on a real planet. We missed a little bit of an opportunity in the context of local development plans because we are almost still at the awareness-raising level locally, whereas there is lots of new local development in city and county development plans. I would welcome a few thoughts on how important it is to resource almost a retrofitting of our local development plans and community development programmes.

On the international aspect, we will be counting for ourselves in July but we are meant to be leading the negotiations in September. I appreciate what was said about being honest. There is a mix between being honest but not using it as a chance to offer excuses. It will be very hard for the other 198 countries if the wealthier countries are all saying that they only had X% growth and are only in the top ten or 15 wealthiest countries this year and that it is a tough time for them. It is very hard for 180 countries that are having a much tougher time if they see wealthy countries making excuses for themselves regarding the SDGs. Could the witnesses comment on the importance of the sustained ambition and pushing the example, and within that a very specific example? There is another specific target whereby, in the context of the SDGs, $100 billion in climate finance to the developing world is required annually. This was meant to be by 2020, but Ireland is talking about getting there in a couple of years’ time. It is hard to see why a wealthy country cannot just pay its share now. As I understand it, $475 million would be our share of the $100 billion. For example, would it not be a good thing if we were to pay that now and then give some confidence and credibility when we go in to discuss how countries are getting around to achieving those goals? That is one of the points on climate. I have loads more questions but I know our time is limited. It would be great to get answers to those questions.