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

That is really useful because we hear about the many issues developing countries have in accessing climate finance and, in a wider sense, accessing finance from private sources. Those are all issues, even in terms of the credit rating issues, and there are a lot of other things that come in, that can be addressed through the debate on Article 2.1, which is basically improving the way our international financial systems address issues of climate and access to finance, and that is also in respect of regulation and ethical issues within there.

That is different from Article 9, which is the money that must be paid. It is about having that distinction. Even when we discussed it with the Minister, Deputy Ryan, he raised the issue of how many developing countries are very frustrated at their lack of access to private finance. That is a separate issue, however. That should not get used as a cover for the public finance. The witnesses mentioned, for example, potential levies on the major profits of certain corporations. As I understand it, because those corporations are not parties to the treaty or to the COP, that is something individual countries or, indeed, Europe could do and that would then develop revenue and that revenue could be channelled as an innovative source of finance. It is really useful to tease those two issues out.

I want to come back a little on the private finance piece. I asked a question previously about how it is an issue that comes up on aid and tied aid. Ireland has been in a really good position compared with others in the European Union with regard to aid. Ireland has a principle of not having tied aid whereas, in fact, many countries in Europe do have very strong tied aid. They say they will lend the money if the recipients buy their thing, for example. They will lend them money, but they need to give them something else in another policy area. Looking especially at Ireland's position as a negotiator for the EU, I am concerned, and we are seeing right now a very massive land grab happening internationally. It was mentioned in the written piece from Friends of the Earth, which talked about the danger of carbon markets as a potential false solution that could be presented and the dangers of large areas of territory effectively being almost ceded from developing countries for corporations or other countries to use them as an excuse to continue with business as usual.

The other issue, of course, is that we are seeing a global scramble diplomatically in some cases and more aggressively in other situations for precious minerals. Are there protective measures that need to be put in place to ensure there is no quid pro quoor that the need for climate finance is not abused either by developed countries or, indeed, corporations and private financers in terms of those issues of the land grab and the minerals? It is just a concern I have. What guardrails might be able to be put into the process to try to protect against that?

I want to go back to the fossil fuel non-proliferation treaty because it is another new instrument. Again, it was mentioned that there is not any draft zero or first draft. Is there a chance for a breakthrough on that, not now, but even maybe for Rio in two years' time? What is the critical mass of countries that need to sign up to it in principle to get to the point that we could have a first draft of text that then becomes a more concrete discussion point? Is that feasible for Rio in two years' time, for example? I know it is a separate process that happens on the outside, but it would be great if that became a discussion point.

The example of cluster munitions was mentioned and, obviously, Ireland really led on the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. There has been some push for military emissions to be counted because we are seeing a massive scaling up in military activity globally. At the moment, they are not there within the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, UNFCCC, process. They are not properly recognised. I know there is a call for that. Is there scope for that discussion to start at this COP? Next summer is when countries are developing their nationally determined contributions. Is there scope for a campaign, for example, to have countries include their military emissions in their nationally determined contribution calculations, which would potentially feed into that? It is one of the big elephants in the room that is not being acknowledged at the moment. Now, unfortunately, we are seeing a re-proliferation in the arms race, which could, of course, scupper our emissions altogether if we are not counting military emissions and so on.

They are responsible for such a huge portion of climate emissions. The witnesses might comment on that.

The last thing is almost outside this; I am jumping ahead as usual and going straight to Rio. What can be done in this COP that might set us up for the COP in Rio to perhaps be the kind of leap or step forward we need? There is a lot of hope being put into it, particularly in terms of civil society participation, which we know has been constrained to a degree, and maybe limits or brakes that might be put on fossil fuel lobbyist participation. Can something be done at this COP that tries to set it up in Rio in two years' time so we do not end up with the exact same situation where fewer civil society voices are coming through and more fossil fuel lobbyists are coming through?