Oireachtas Joint and Select Committees
Wednesday, 25 June 2025
Committee on European Union Affairs
Sustainable Development Goals: Discussion
2:00 am
Barry Ward (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
We have not received any apologies. This meeting will be an engagement with a number of witnesses. They are from Coalition 2030, Social Justice Ireland, the Irish Environmental Network and The Wheel, and they will discuss the implementation of the sustainable development goals, SDGs, which are an important part of our work programme. We are joined by Mr. David Rossiter, co-ordinator of Coalition 2030; Ms Karen Ciesielski, CEO of the Irish Environmental Network; Mr. John McGeady, CEO of Social Justice Ireland; and Mr. Oisín Coghlan, strategic advisor to the Wheel. They are all welcome and I thank them for being with us. I will give them some preliminary advice. Some may have heard it before but we are obliged to give it.
I remind witnesses 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. Therefore, if their statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity, they will be asked to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative that they comply with any such direction.
Members 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 of the constitutional requirement that they must be physically present. We do not have anybody online. Am I okay to skip over that bit then? Yes.
I will give the witnesses five minutes each for opening statements. I think there are only two opening statements, for which I am grateful because it slims things down a little bit. After the opening statements, we will go round the members and give them an opportunity to ask questions. There will be five minutes per member for questions and answers. It is possible I will cut speakers off, but I will allow them back in if there is anything they need to finish. I call on Mr. McGeady to make an opening statement on behalf of Social Justice Ireland.
Mr. John McGeady:
Gabhaim buíochas leis an gcoiste as ucht an chuiridh. The UN’s 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development calls on all nations to combine economic prosperity, social inclusion and environmental sustainability. Only five years remain until the SDG deadline of 2030.
Social Justice Ireland welcomes the 2025 programme for Government commitment to "Implement a Whole-of-Government Strategy to fully integrate the SDGs into national policies and initiatives... [at] all levels of government." Our analysis shows that while Ireland has made some progress, the scale of the challenge facing our country remains substantial. Events over the past few years have highlighted the interdependence of our economic, social and natural spheres. They have also made the achievement of the 2030 agenda and the SDGs even more challenging, both for the EU and globally.
Social Justice Ireland tracks Ireland’s progress on achieving the SDGs annually through our sustainable progress index, which I have shared with members. The 2025 edition of our annual report uses 84 indicators to measure Ireland’s performance across all 17 SDGs and compares our performance with that of our EU14 peers. Those are the 14 EU members we regard as most closely aligned to Ireland in terms of ongoing development. I have shared both our submission and the report. Members can turn to table 1 on page 3 of our submission or to page 72 of the report. They will see that Ireland ranks ninth out of 14 comparable EU countries in this year’s sustainable progress index, meaning we are in the bottom half of the table. The index provides a snapshot of Ireland’s record across three dimensions: economic development, social inclusion and environmental sustainability. There is value in attempting to understand how countries are doing on these three aspects because all are interconnected. If members turn to table 2 on page 4 of our submission or to page 70 of the larger report, they will see the breakdown.
The economy index comprises SDG 8, decent work and economic growth, and SDG 9, industry innovation and infrastructure. The society index comprises eight SDGs that capture the theme of social inclusion. They cover: no poverty; no hunger; good health and well-being; quality education; gender equality; reduced inequalities; peace, justice and strong institutions; and goal 17, partnership for the goals.
The environment index combines seven SDGs. These are clean water and sanitation, affordable and clean energy, sustainable cities and communities, responsible consumption and production, climate action, life below water and life on land. We also provide a ranking for how Ireland is doing on each of these dimensions, as well as overall. In table A1 of our submission and table A2 in the larger report, members can see that on both the social and economic indices Ireland is in the middle of the rankings. We are coming in sixth place for the social index and joint seventh on the economic index. If members turn to table A3, they can see that, unfortunately, Ireland is towards the bottom of the environment index, in 11th place. This highlights that there is a major challenge in meeting our environmental goals and also that we are not top of the class when it comes to our social or economic goals either.
In terms of the strengths, Ireland is in the top five for one third of the SDGs. In six of the 17 SDGs, we are ranking in the top five. We continue to perform well in SDG 4, quality education, where we rank in first place. While Ireland has a reputation for quality education, we do need to give some consideration to the low rate of adult participation in learning and that continues to be a concern. The high score for SDG 11, sustainable cities and communities, is also good. We rank in second place. This indicates that Ireland is a relatively safe place to live with reasonably good, transparent, effective and accountable institutions.
In terms of weaknesses, Ireland is in the bottom five for half of the SDGS, or nine out of the 17. Clearly, there are pressing issues when it comes to environmental sustainability that must be addressed. They are reflected in that we do poorly in five of the seven SDGs that relate to the environment. The low score of 12th place on zero hunger might be a bit unexpected. In an Irish context we focus on malnutrition and the whole question of whether the quality of diet that people are intaking is positive. The obesity rate is a risk on that front, as is the issue of sustainable agriculture and ensuring we have food security in our country. Ireland ranks in tenth place on SDG 9, industry, innovation and infrastructure, which is an economic goal. This points to the fact that we need further policy action when it comes to logistics and broadband capacities, although there have been major improvements on that front. In particular, we need investment in research and development, an area we are falling behind in. Overall, we are failing to balance these core essentials in terms of economic and social progress while at the same time sustaining our environmental commitments and the well-being of our planet and climate.
In the broader European context, it will also be crucial to ensure that the sustainable development goals and the European Pillar of Social Rights are embedded in the practical implementation and realisation of the European Commission’s focus on enhancing competitiveness. This could be supported by the application of an SDG impact assessment, with a particular focus on identifying those potential conflicts that arise when there are competing policy objectives, to ensure there is harmony and policy coherence across all EU decision-making. It is also vital that the core objectives of the EU’s green new deal not be diluted due to this renewed focus on competitiveness. The SDGs can also be used to ensure that a just transition is embedded in EU policy. Of course, we now have a just transition commission up and running in Ireland. We can look at how the SDGs complement the work of the just transition commission as well.
When it comes to the European semester process, it would probably benefit from greater policy coherence between the SDGs, our country reports and our national reform programmes. While sustainable development is addressed in the process, explicit tagging of the SDGs in the country-specific recommendations would further support and enhance this. Social Justice Ireland also sets out a full set of policy recommendations to support Ireland’s implementation of the SDGs in our sustainable progress report, which members have, and also in appendix B. In that we link each of our recommendations to the SDG. We also tag it to the 11 dimensions of the well-being framework that sits in the Department of the Taoiseach. We see a complementarity between that and the SDGs.
I am happy to address any questions members may have and I thank them for their time.
Barry Ward (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I thank Mr. McGeady. I now call on Mr. Rossiter to give his opening statement.
Mr. David Rossiter:
I thank the Chairman and members of the committee for the opportunity to address them today on behalf of Coalition 2030, an alliance of over 70 civil society organisations working to ensure Ireland delivers on its commitments to the sustainable development goals. I will outline Ireland’s progress to date in achieving the SDGs, as well as the opportunities presented by Ireland’s upcoming Presidency of the Council of the European Union, particularly in advancing SDG delivery at EU level, strengthening civil society engagement and promoting climate and biodiversity action as part of the Presidency agenda.
My colleagues at Social Justice Ireland have just presented to members their excellent Sustainable Progress Index report for 2025. I would also like to highlight to the committee the 2024 Sustainable Development Report, which was published by the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network. The annexe to the submission contains some information in that regard. In this report, Ireland ranks 28th out of 166 countries for overall SDG progress. The report highlights persistent and emerging challenges, particularly in relation to SDG 13, climate, SDG 14, life below water, SDG 15, life on land, and SDG 12, responsible consumption and production. Progress remains stagnated or regressing in some of those areas. Furthermore, inequalities, which is goal SDG 10, persist in income, health, housing, and policy coherence across Departments and continue to present a barrier to systemic change.
We also acknowledge the important steps taken, including the publication of Ireland's second SDG national implementation plan, the establishment of the SDG stakeholder forum and ongoing interdepartmental co-ordination. However, the scale and pace of progress must increase significantly if Ireland is to meet the targets set for 2030.
Ireland’s upcoming Presidency of the Council of the European Union offers a unique opportunity to re-energise Ireland’s and Europe’s commitment to the 2030 agenda. We note Ireland’s engagement in the EU working party on the 2030 agenda for sustainable development and Ireland will chair this working group as part of its EU Presidency. We urge the Government to use the Presidency to champion SDG implementation at the EU level. This can be achieved by adopting a Presidency theme that aligns with and builds on Denmark’s 2025 focus on SDGs 14 and 15, life below water and life on land. Effectively, the Danish Government is using the SDGs as the thematic framework for its Presidency.
We recommend this committee advance policy coherence on the SDGs by ensuring all council working groups consider the SDGs in their deliberations. That same level of policy coherence is needed domestically at the national level. The OECD recently hosted policy coherence for sustainable development workshops with civil servants and civil society, which also focused on the development of Ireland’s third national implementation plan. These workshops made it clear that much more needs to be done to ensure effective co-ordination across Departments in delivering the SDGs. For this reason, the coalition has long advocated for responsibility for the SDGs to be transferred from the Department of Climate, Energy and the Environment to the Department of the Taoiseach.
We also want to highlight the importance of strengthening civil society engagement with the EU as a key opportunity during Ireland’s Presidency of the Council of the European Union. Shrinking civic space and reduced opportunities for dialogue are growing concerns across Europe.
Ireland’s Presidency should champion good practices in inclusive consultation, create space for collaboration, and establish strategies with measurable targets to ensure civil society engagement is genuine, meaningful and not tokenistic.
Ireland has valuable practices to share in this area. Initiatives such as the Civic Forum, an annual event in partnership with the Department of Rural and Community Development, the dialogue forum with voluntary organisations, and the national five-year strategy to support the community and voluntary sector are all strong examples of good practice. The values and principles for collaboration and partnership offer a robust framework for inclusive consultation and engagement, and have been highlighted by the European Civic Forum as positive models of meaningful dialogue.
I draw the committee's attention to EU Presidency opportunities in climate and biodiversity. Hosting the EU Presidency presents significant opportunities for Ireland to demonstrate leadership on climate and biodiversity. However, several developments at the EU level risk undermining progress. The European Commission is currently advancing a series of omnibus simplification proposals, ostensibly to streamline regulation. While regulatory efficiency is important, this process is being accompanied by a concerning deregulatory agenda, targeting recently adopted laws such as the corporate sustainability reporting directive and the corporate sustainability due diligence directive.
Particularly alarming is the fast-tracked decision-making model being used in these processes, which restricts scrutiny and may undermine democratic, evidence-based policy-making. Proposed changes to environmental regulations affecting agriculture along with potential reforms to the Common Agricultural Policy that could remove many of its environmental protections are of significant concern. So too are threats to key funding instruments, including the LIFE programme and Pillar 2 of the CAP, which are essential to biodiversity, climate resilience and civil society engagement.
Ireland has taken meaningful steps towards achieving the sustainable development goals but progress remains uneven and must be urgently accelerated if the 2030 targets are to be met. As Ireland prepares to assume the Presidency of the Council of the European Union, we face a critical opportunity to demonstrate leadership both domestically and at EU level. We thank the committee for its attention and welcome any questions or discussion.
Ruairí Ó Murchú (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
We could say it is shocking - maybe it is not shocking - some of the positions we find ourselves. It makes sense that 14 countries are engaging against. The proposal is to have these SDGs dealt with under the auspices of the Department of the Taoiseach as opposed to in the Department of Climate, Energy and the Environment.
We all know the issues that exist. Despite all the wealth that there is in Ireland, there is a huge issue for those who are outside and impacted by poverty. We do not have the interventions that are necessary. We are dealing with intergenerational poverty. We are talking about embedded poverty. The issues with housing have obviously made that a million times worse. When talking about moving to zero hunger and addressing malnutrition, nobody would be shocked that some people in western societies are not eating well and others are eating too much.
We are failing environmentally but we are also failing infrastructurally. Someone at that table may have commented recently on having sufficient building materials while at the same time being able to deal with environmental issues. I will follow up with that shortly. How can we get movement from here? How can we deliver on the SDGs particularly in relation to poverty? We know the infrastructure issues that exist with Irish Water, the electricity grid and wind power and how that impacts on everything else. We have the issue with the quarries and concrete and all the rest of it. How can we do that while at the same time move ourselves into something that is far more sustainable? We know the issues that exist across the board. There is almost a question in that.
Barry Ward (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Does the Deputy want to direct that to anybody in particular?
Ruairí Ó Murchú (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I am going to shoot the line.
Mr. David Rossiter:
The Deputy has highlighted some of the cross-cutting structural issues with the SDGs. They cut across various aspects of the Government's work and various Departments. That is why the coalition since its foundation has tried to advocate. There is a small SDG team in the Department of Climate, Energy, and the Environment, which has been covering a lot of the Government's work in its SDG reporting and delivery at UN level. We have been advocating for that unit to be moved into the Department of the Taoiseach because it is such a cross-cutting issue. There was a risk in the past that the goals were considered as a climate and environment thing because-----
Ruairí Ó Murchú (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
They were considered an environment niche; it stays there and does not percolate through.
Mr. David Rossiter:
That is partly because that unit has been positioned within that Department. There are good reasons for that as well. As we come near the end of Agenda 2030 if the Government is going to boost its ambition and try to hit the goals and the targets, moving that unit into the Department of the Taoiseach with that cross-cutting element would be a real benefit. My colleagues might wish to add to that.
Mr. John McGeady:
I thank the Deputy for the question. The complexity of the SDGs is the benefit of the SDGs because they shift from looking upon issues that may at face value appear that they are in direct competition with one another to recognising that it is actually more nuanced than that. We need to look to addressing our development in a way that is also sustainable and socially inclusive. It is about using the SDGs to shape policy. With this report, we use the SDGs as a way to consider how effective policy has been for our national well-being development, etc. Embedding them into the policymaking process allows us to deal with some of those areas where there are challenges or competitions between different needs. As Mr. Rossiter mentioned, having it narrowly focused on environment misses the point about sustainable development.
Barry Ward (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I am conscious that we have run out of time on that question. If the witnesses who did not reply want to come in later, I will give them the opportunity to do that.
Seán Crowe (Dublin South West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Cuirim fáilte roimh na finnéithe chuig an gcruinniú. I will start with the sustainable goals. Some of the conspiracy theories on social media give them a bad press. Why would anybody be against the likes of reducing poverty and inequality, improving education and health, and inspiring economic growth? It seems so illogical, yet there is a growing conspiracy theory suggesting that this is the root of all the ills of the world. Why is Ireland doing so poorly on the environmental index?
Progress on SDG 15 is particularly poor. It refers to life on land, sustainable agriculture and so on. A few weeks ago some TDs met a group to discuss biomass. They were not the usual group and basically they were talking about the lack of regulation in that area which is one of those new industries. This morning on the radio there was discussion about the lack of progress with electric vehicles. The goal is 1 million and we are at 15,000 or maybe a bit higher in that regard. Again we are not meeting those targets, which is frustrating. It is difficult for people from a poorer background to access. We do not talk enough about the whole area of just transition. I ask the witnesses to focus on that in their replies.
The challenge is particularly bad in respect of the environment section. The fact we are doing well in some areas. Mr. McGeady referred to education and said we were doing well, but I could introduce our witnesses to schools where we are not doing well, particularly where students might have a disability. Will Ms Ciesielski to focus on why we are doing so badly on life on land? It is linked to the biomass and, for example, soilage.
Why are we doing so badly on social media? What have we to do in that area? We need to bring people with us. What can we do on that?
Ms Karen Ciesielski:
In respect of the narrative and combating the growth of a negative message around the UN SDGs, I firmly agree with him. There is nothing controversial about wanting to have healthy children, healthy seas and positive well-being for our people. Part of the issue is being stirred up in the culture wars. We try to go back to the basics. The UN is a result of multilateral dialogue. Countries signed up to it as a fundamentally good thing to aspire to. That is where we should focus. We could very easily get distracted fighting a negative message that does not represent the majority of people who agree these are all good things. Having children who are educated and fed is something that we as Irish people take very seriously, and always have.
I wish to revert to the Deputy’s question regarding life on land and SDG 15. According to the most recent EPA state of the environment report, he is absolutely right. We are doing quite poorly in comparison to our fellow EU member states. The state of our rivers and streams is declining and according to the EPA report, we fall short of the water framework directive when it comes to having high-quality and pristine water bodies. We also have very low levels of afforestation. We have declined. We used to have 17,000 ha in the 1990s, and we had 1,650 ha as of 2023.
Of the land that is still being forested, we see that instead of a carbon sink, it is actually on the cusp of becoming a source of carbon emissions, which is not where we want to be at all. There is a fundamental problem with how we are managing our land, sustainable food production and land use. The Deputy is absolutely correct on that. There is time to turn things around. As Mr. McGeady noted, policy coherence lies at the root of proper decision-making. If we were using the SDGs as a policy-making tool we would not be in the situation we are in now, with things still moving in what is clearly the wrong direction when it comes to the natural environment. Some of my colleagues might want to comment.
Barry Ward (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
We are out of time. I will allow Ms Ciesielski to come back in later. I call Deputy O'Donoghue.
Robert O'Donoghue (Dublin Fingal West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I thank the witnesses for their presentation; I really appreciate it. I have a couple of questions. Given the recent escalations in the Middle East and the renewed focus on defence and security spending, are they concerned about EU spending on SDGs? Many member states want increased defence spending while retaining CAP spending and regional funding. This is not doable, quite frankly, without increasing tax under the MFF. No one seems to willing to grasp that nettle. Are the witnesses concerned that the SDGs, particularly through the European Green Deal, will suffer cuts as a consequence?
Simplification seems to be the catch cry of the day in the EU institutions, especially with the weakening of the cordon sanitaire in the European Parliament between the centre and the Eurosceptic blocs. My fear is this is deregulation for deregulation’s sake. As part of Ireland's EU Presidency, what would the witnesses suggest are the three key priorities we should focus on pushing?
Mr. Oisín Coghlan:
As the Deputy knows, the multilateral financial framework discussions are to begin very shortly. The Commission is due to come out with its proposals in the next month. It looks like there will be a strong contestation between what seems to be, if not a consensus, a powerful political drive to increase defence spending and what that means for the established pillars of activity, action and spending for the European Union. That circle has to be squared either by raising taxes, or at least raising the revenue the European Union is spending through whatever means, debt or taxes in this case, or cutting elsewhere. We are not in favour of cutting spending on social cohesion or indeed on agricultural sustainability in all senses of the word: economic, social and environmental. That will be a key issue that will start this July, but will absolutely be front and centre by the time Ireland takes the Presidency.
As the Deputy knows, the Presidency is a convening and neutral role. We are a civil society and particularly from the environmental pillar, the cap is central to achieving both food security and sustainability. The cap could do much more for sustainability and nature. However, the risk is that the environmental schemes will be lopped off, and only the core payments will remain with no environmental conditionalities or dimensions to them. That is a risk, as equally, the cohesion payments are a risk. Maintaining that core purpose of the spending for those programmes will be really important as the MFF plays out. We also need to have the funding, for example, for the nature restoration law that was recently passed. That may be raised at national level. Ireland played a very positive role in that law. To abandon it to wither on the vine as soon as it is passed would be very short-sighted.
Mr. John McGeady:
It has to be crucial that what is not undermined in whatever direction the European Union is taking is the European Pillar of Social Rights. As to Ireland holding the Presidency of the EU, it is imperative to emphasise that the pillar of social rights has to be front and centre at all times and cannot bear the burden of cost of other priorities for the EU, whether enhancement and competitiveness, etc. Of course the EU does have to be competitive, but it needs to be done in such a way that the pillar of social rights is protected. The SDGs can play a very useful role in that as a policy instrument to look at what that would look like across all areas of policy. Mr. Coughlan made a point about sustainability in all its terms, and that is sometimes lost in the narrative. Sustainability is not solely focused on environmental sustainability: it is also about what is sustainable for workers, employers, institutions and all people in society, whether they are employed or not, and whatever kind of work they do, whether it is caring work, etc.
On Deputy Crowe's point about the just transition, that is where we need to have a really expansive vision for what we mean by a just transition. It needs to be about ensuring nobody is left behind, particularly those already at the bottom of the income distribution, in marginalised communities and sectors that have fallen behind. They must not be allowed to fall further behind. A time of transition is when we have the opportunity to make changes, and we are going to have to make positive changes for those groups already furthest behind to bring them forward first.
Eoin Hayes (Dublin Bay South, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I am conscious there are only about five minutes left. I will focus on Mr. McGeady. If we think about the EU functions and what the purpose of the EU was for so long, it was initially a trade union. Certain regulations came into that.
It has been a Union that upholds human rights to some degree and it has had responsibility for capital markets. We are also seeing movement towards defence becoming a competence of the European Union. In that context, there are what I would call missing pillars. Social programmes are missing. We do not really talk about housing at a European level, healthcare across the European Union or, with regard to the fiscal union, how transfers should occur between the core and the periphery to sustain things like the SDGs. There is a question as to how we embed the SDGs into the EU's functions, how we talk about that and what the pathway towards it is. Related to that is the question of accountability for not meeting SDGs. One of my criticisms of legislation more generally is that we often talk about monitoring things but we never talk about the consequences for not hitting goals or improving against certain metrics. Would the witnesses like to offer any commentary on embedding enforcement mechanisms in respect of the SDGs in the institutions or functions of the European Union that they would like to see put front and centre during the Irish Presidency or beyond it?
Mr. John McGeady:
There is a threefold approach to that which reaches from the beginning to the end of the policy cycle. Impact assessment tools are already used at European level whenever policy is being developed and implemented. The SDGs are not explicitly part of that impact assessment process. They are used and are embedded to some extent, but having an explicit SDG impact assessment tool within that overall impact assessment at policymaking level would ensure that the SDGs that would be impacted both positively and negatively by a particular policy initiative would be considered. This means that, where a particular goal is negatively impacted, consideration could be given to the mitigation measures that could be brought to bear in the policymaking process to improve that situation so that we would not be progressing one goal while another deteriorates. Such an assessment tool could be used at various levels. When a policy has been developed and approved and is to be implemented, a similar tool could be used in the implementation process to see whether it is working in practice. That is where accountability would come in.
The question of mechanisms for holding to account is more challenging. That is for the European Commission, the European Parliament and member countries. When Ireland holds the EU Presidency, it will be a convening role but there is nonetheless an opportunity to emphasise areas where assessment is showing that progress is not being made or that a particular policy is undermining a development goal.
Eoin Hayes (Dublin Bay South, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Would anybody else like to come in on that?
Mr. David Rossiter:
On a really practical level, there is an EU working party on the 2030 agenda for sustainable development. The term "working party 2030" is used as shorthand for that. As part of our Presidency, we will be chairing that working group. That is the working group within the EU structures whose responsibility is to embed the SDG agenda across the workings of the EU. It plays a co-ordination and coherence role. It co-ordinates the EU's internal and external policies and integrates sustainable development into EU policies. It also looks at Council conclusions and EU positions. It prepares ahead of big UN set-pieces in respect of the SDGs, such as the high-level political forum that happens in New York every July where countries are assessed by the UN. Those UN processes are where a lot of the accountability comes from. Ireland will report to that HLPF. This working group within the EU leads the Union's engagement with some of those high-level processes. It also plays a part in monitoring and reporting. Chairing that working group as part of our Presidency will give us a lot of influence in advancing the SDG agenda. As I mentioned earlier, the Danish Government will use the SDGs to offer a policy framework or theme to its upcoming Presidency. As we are following the Danish Government, there is an opportunity to use the goals as our own thematic framework. As I have mentioned, that EU working group is where we have a real opportunity to advance the goals as part of the Presidency.
Barry Ward (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
We will move to Senator Lynch. I hope the vote went well.
Eileen Lynch (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
It did. We won. I thank the witnesses very much for their presentations. We are addressing an incredibly important issue and it is undoubtedly disappointing to see where we are in 2025 with regard to our delivery on the SDGs and how we compare at the European level. There are many areas of concern but what do the organisations see as the biggest area of concern for us, as a nation, in respect of our delivery on the SDGs?
Civic engagement was mentioned in the context of the EU Council Presidency. I feel that civic engagement and engagement with the public on the SDGs in general is not where it should be. How could SDGs be made more relatable to the general public so they would be more knowledgeable about them? The general public is probably not as aware of SDGs as they should be because it is incredibly important.
The engagement of councils was also mentioned. How could local authority engagement be improved? I am a former member of a local authority and SDGs were not overly prominent in our work. Local authorities across the country could play a significant role in the delivery of these goals. What is the best way in which to progress that?
Mr. Oisín Coghlan:
On the relatability question, the same thing comes up a lot with climate action. Particularly given that there are only five years left, the goal is not for everyone to know about and understand the SDGs. As we touched on earlier, the abstraction of the SDGs and the process behind them is quite vulnerable to weaponisation in the current online climate but, as my colleague has said, the actual things we are talking about are very hard to be against. To be honest, while those co-ordinating policies should have the SDGs in mind, our communications, our actual action and our mobilisation for action need to be focused on the things that will make a positive difference in people's lives, whether that is housing, transport, cleaner water, cleaner air or renewable electricity. In other parts of the world, the needs are more basic. It is about those things. When you go into them, the SDGs themselves do not do a bad job of translating high-level geopolitics into things that mean something to people's lives. We should focus less on the abstraction of the collective framework and as much as possible on the concrete material deliverables that will improve people's lives.
Mr. John McGeady:
I will just chime in on what Mr. Coghlan has said. I am in agreement. Deputy Seán Crowe made a point regarding the conspiracy idea in respect of the SDGs. That is sometimes part of the problem. There is an idea that there is a large, overarching and Machiavellian vision from globalists to control things. We need to get down to a much simpler level and recognise that they are ultimately simply a policy tool. In the same way as at the European Union level, there is an opportunity to embed them as a policymaking tool at the county council level. I am repeating myself, but impact assessments should be carried out to see what impacts any given policy initiative or project would have across the 17 SDGs. There may be no impact on some but we should see where such initiatives and projects would have positive impacts or negative impacts and what additional steps could be taken to mitigate the negative impacts or to enhance the positive impacts. Treating the SDGs as a practical and reasonable policy tool and as simply a matrix to assist policymaking and implementation is the way to go at the local authority level. As Mr. Coghlan has said, we should take a step back from the large abstract view of what they are even though we should not underestimate how great an achievement it was at the UN level to achieve a consensus to back these 17 goals and the various targets that underlie them.
However, ultimately we should take a much more practical view on how to use them.
Ms Karen Ciesielski:
The public participation networks, PPNs, are very well placed to drive and advance the SDGs. Owing to their composition, they fully reflect economic, environmental and social sustainability, the three legs of the stool of sustainability. They constitute a really good mechanism that is already in place and doing the work.
Fiona O'Loughlin (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I thank all who have presented on this important topic. We must not forget David Donoghue, of course, because Ireland and Kenya really steered the formulation of the 15 SDGs and did sterling work in this regard. The points Mr. McGeady has just made on how we make the SDGs relatable to everybody, so schoolchildren and councillors in their meeting rooms know what we are talking about, are really important. When thinking about the principle of subsidiarity, everybody should be familiar with the circle, the colours and what they stand for.
When we consider the SDGs, both the global and national aspects come to mind. Globally, we must consider the obvious impact on the SDGs of Donald Trump and the wars in the Middle East and between Russia and Ukraine, particularly in those parts of the world. There is also a ripple effect right around the world. Maybe the witnesses will comment on that.
Domestically, there are two areas I would like to focus on. We are doing quite well on the social economy and, as mentioned, education. However, with regard to SDG 5, on gender equality, the Women’s Aid report launched this morning indicates the number of calls to the organisation last year went up by 12%, reaching the highest number in its 50-year history. Obviously, we have to be concerned about that. It is an area of considerable concern.
The importance of councils to this work was rightly mentioned. All 31 local authorities have a climate action officer but only 24 have multi-department climate teams, which means seven do not. That has to be a concern. If the awareness and experience in any one area are dependent on how the local authority is doing its work, there are seven areas with quite a big gap. Could the witnesses comment on those points?
Mr. David Rossiter:
I will touch on a couple of the points. On the question on making the SDGs more relatable, I will take this opportunity to mention Coalition 2030’s SDG campaign that it is going to try to launch later this year, potentially in September during SDG week. The approach of the campaign is not to tell people not to forget about the 17 goals; rather, it will focus on the work our 70 members are doing to achieve the goals. We will be talking to Concern, Trócaire and Social Justice Ireland, for example, and ascertaining how their work is contributing to the achievement of the goals. We will be telling the stories of the work our members are doing in the communities and showing, for example, what the work of Women’s Aid means for SDG target 5. As we move into the final period of the SDGs and Agenda 2030, we really need to focus less on awareness-raising and more on the practical dimension, including the question of how the goals have an impact on one’s life.
On the wider geopolitical changes and some of the regression we might see, the coalition has a serious concern over some of the aid cuts we are seeing in the international development sector and what will occur if the sector shrinks. We have really great members working in that area, and these include Trócaire, Concern and Christian Aid. When I start name-dropping, I will be in trouble for not mentioning everybody. The members’ work will be reduced because of the cuts, which means much of the serious work on zero poverty and zero hunger overseas will see a regression. Governments that want to put forward a more open, inclusive and progressive vision for what geopolitics can be need to step up to the plate. The SDGs offer the policy framework to do so.
On the council side, it is probably worth flagging that there is an SDG champion programme run by the SDG unit in the Department of Climate, Energy and the Environment. A council can apply to become an SDG champion and get some resources from the Department to roll out some programmes locally to increase awareness of SDGs. If the Senator is still in contact with any of her local councillor colleagues, she should feel free to flag the programme with them. It has just opened, so any council that has not applied should consider doing so.
Paul Gogarty (Dublin Mid West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I thank everyone for their presentations. I have a couple of broad questions and some more specific ones. How likely are we to face the €26 billion fine by 2032? As we know, the current EU iteration has watered down the green new deal to some degree. The delay in the corporate sustainability reporting directive is weakening the nature restoration law, and the scope of the EU taxonomy for sustainable activities and how economic activities are classified as environmentally sustainable have been watered down. Do we have the scope now? There is hope in some circles that the EU will water down things so much that none of us will face the fines. That suits many EU member states. What is the witnesses' take on that right now?
On Ireland’s EU Presidency, what systems do we have to put in place over the next 12 months to ensure we can actually lead? The Taoiseach’s office was mentioned in reference to driving things. At the moment, things are very disparate. There is some great work being done in local authorities on climate strategies but an issue arises with basics like littering and pollution. My council, South Dublin County Council, for example, has five litter wardens but they cannot really tackle more than a couple of big commercial dumpers. This is because the fines are not sufficient because the money is not being put in by national government. Also, there is bureaucratic inertia. I have previously raised the point that 50% of all litter is from cigarette butts. In Australia, there is a big campaign stating, “Don’t be a tosser.” It was alarmist in one sense but made the tossing of cigarette butts socially unacceptable. South Dublin County Council got back to me on this idea and said it would prefer if we used the phrase “cigarette butt disposal”. It was put into its litter strategy after much effort but I do not see any effort generally, either nationally or locally, to deal with cigarette butts, which constitute 50% of all litter.
Recently, farmers were giving out in the media about plant-based sausages and burgers and saying they should not be called sausages and burgers as it will affect them. It is a little facetious but I would like an opinion on the question raised by farmers. I say this as a vegan and in this regard I have a conflict of interest. Farmers in Ireland ask whether, if Mercosur entails the cutting-down of Amazonian forest to produce beef, it is not better to produce high-quality, grass-fed beef in Ireland. How do we counteract that from an Irish perspective, having regard to the fact that we really have to reorientate our agriculture and not increase the so-called national herd?
What are the witnesses’ opinions on culture wars and NGOs? The people who criticise the NGOs are the same people who say climate change is a hoax, spread cloud-seeding and Great Reset conspiracies, are anti-vaxxers - you name it. How much of this is funded by coal, oil and gas companies? How much of it is generated by certain parties operating troll factories in certain Eastern European countries, etc.? Is big money being spent? How much are NGOs – for example, environmental NGOs – being outspent by vested interests?
Mr. Oisín Coghlan:
I will answer on climate fines. The range is from €8 billion to €26 billion with current policies, or from €3 billion or €4 billion to €12 billion if we improve our policies. There are two dimensions to this: what the European Commission might do and why we should be doing the things anyway. On the European Commission side, we all tend to use the word “fines”, but these are not actually fines levied by the Commission. Therefore, it is not up to the Commission whether they are imposed. Rather, the existing regime means we would have to buy credits from countries that are overperforming. If it depended on whether von der Leyen and other Commissioners felt they wanted to go after Ireland, there might be some political wrangling, but the credits will have to be bought under the existing system unless there is a whole change of system, which seems unlikely.
I think we will face fines if we do not act. The Commission will come out with new proposals for 90% reductions by 2040. Despite all the noise we are hearing, the general direction of travel is not changing. We should be getting on with them anyway because it is better to spend the money on investing in warmer homes, cleaner air, lower fuel bills and less fossil fuels than on fines or compliance costs. I had better let others in on the other ones. I would like to come back to NGOs and civil society at some point.
Ms Karen Ciesielski:
I will come in on the Mercosur point. It is an interesting one because we in the environmental pillar are aligned with farming bodies on many things, including the Mercosur deal. We think it is a bad deal for the environment. Instead of arguing for increased deforestation, water pollution and air miles, we need to transform the way we produce food and use land. Mercosur will certainly not get us there. That is something we are on the same page as farming bodies on. I do not know if others wanted to come in on other points.
Barry Ward (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I might let witnesses back in. I am conscious of what Mr. Coghlan said about NGOs as well but I will move on to Deputy Lahart.
John Lahart (Dublin South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I thank the witnesses for their reports and contributions. I practised as a psychotherapist and am always interested in the psychological aspects of this. It struck me in recent years it is like the planet is suffering from a lot more than this now. When we are under threat, what do we do? We either fight, flee or freeze. There is a huge amount of denial going on. A lot of it is from fear. There is a huge amount of fear and part of the fear becomes denial - "It can't happen. It could never happen." - until we get another jolt, whether a hurricane, tornado or flood. Then there are people facing it. I would be interested in any work done on it. This represents the pulling-up of the drawbridge, almost. America is pulling up the drawbridge and will have the moat surrounding it. That is the way some of the world seems to have gone and be going. It is an interesting piece that is not being looked at. It is not because I am saying it but the psychological aspect has struck me from time to time. When you are threatened with annihilation, how do you respond? I do not know how that observation helps but that is my first point.
A practical thing is to ask what makes the Scandinavians so good at this. That is it.
Mr. John McGeady:
I will come in on the question of anxiety and fear. Rapid change raises anxiety among people. We will see more of that with the increased global instability on the economic front and increased global conflict. Very often when people face massive rapid change they did not see coming and that is totally new to them, their response is to freeze or, as we have seen in politics in some areas, to devolve to a reactionary stance and a belief we can just go back to the way things were. Politics is ultimately about guiding and navigating our way into the future. When it comes to building hope, it is important to note that action generates hope. Having Government take the bit and make the policy changes required and seeing incremental change and, more than that, radical change will give people the hope and buoyancy that will generate further change. That is my view. I am not a psychotherapist so I cannot speak on an evidential basis but that makes sense to me.
John Lahart (Dublin South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I like the point about reverting. When you are under threat, you want to go back to the way things were. That is one response and it is an interesting insight.
Mr. Oisín Coghlan:
I will come in on a more parochial level on the same point regarding fear of change. Pete Lunn and his colleagues in the ESRI have done interesting research on this. There is change aversion when it comes to climate action. When people are shown a map of what their town might look like when all the necessary changes are made in pedestrianisation, parking, buses, etc., they really like it. However, if you show them the process needed to get there, they do not like it at all because it is awkward and inconvenient.
The answer to that is political leadership. We need you all - not just Government and Opposition - and all of us to sell this to people and accompany people through it. Many things to be done on the climate side are actually beneficial. They will bring benefits right now, as opposed to some future abstraction, but they are awkward and help is needed to make them affordable for people. It is a societal project and needs social and political leadership to make it happen.
Mr. David Rossiter:
I liked the Deputy's framing of the threat response as pulling up the drawbridge. It is worth pointing out this is a challenge for the Irish Government and governments more broadly. We know climate change will lead to more climate-driven migration. We have already seen that in today's world and it will get worse. There will be parts of the world that become less and less inhabitable. That migration issue needs to be seen in the context of how so-called developed economies push against the desire to pull up the drawbridge. We are in the early stages in Ireland and need to learn these lessons as quickly as we can because the issue will become more prevalent as time goes on. Unfortunately, that is probably not a solution but it is worth flagging that we need to zone in on the issue as soon as possible.
John Lahart (Dublin South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
And the Scandinavians?
Mr. John McGeady:
Political will is measured in the resources allocated to it. That is crucial. To do that, we have to ask how the resources of our society are deployed across the society. There are major changes already under way. They include an ageing population and demographic change. Now we are looking at risks to the huge corporate tax receipts we have had for many years and a possible shift. We need to ensure we have revenue coming in to fund the policy changes and major infrastructural projects we need for sustainable security into the future. We will have to consider that. If we are looking at reduced receipts from corporate tax in the coming years, we need to have a conversation about making up the difference and funding the infrastructure, services and environmental actions we need.
That brings us to the issue Deputy Gogarty mentioned about the fines. I have a concern. Government is wisely putting money aside in the nature restoration fund and Future Ireland Fund but there is a risk. We are putting this money away but will we have to spend it on paying so-called fines in the future? We need to look at what sort of investment we need to make today. We have to be fiscally responsible but we have to do it in such a way as to ensure our infrastructure and services are robust enough. They are essential to our future resilience and are part of what I mentioned earlier about the need for a just transition that is more expansive and is not looked at in terms of one for one - somebody lost a job because of climate policy and that job has to be replaced. That has to happen but it has to be more expansive than that.
That comes back to the issue of how the Scandinavian countries do it. Ultimately, they have a higher tax take but they have services, infrastructure and investment at a different level from ours.
We can move towards that while maintaining, as a policy objective, a low tax economy for our economic model, although there are issues with that. Even maintaining this as a broad policy objective, we still need to ensure we have a tax take that allows us to do the things we need to do as a society, for both infrastructure service and climate and environment.
Barry Ward (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I want to bring it back to the fines, and I know we are not calling them fines but costs. If we are mid-table in our performance on the SDGs and, when the time comes, we fail to deliver and must buy the credits from other countries, is there a possibility there will not be a high enough performing country from which we can buy those credits? If that is the case, and there are no fines but there is a need to buy credits, what happens then?
Mr. Oisín Coghlan:
For the clarity of listeners or readers of the transcript, the costs are specifically for our climate obligation under EU regimes. The SDGs do not have any of those enforcement mechanisms we are talking about. To answer the question, the reason there is such a large range in the price is because much of the price will depend on how other countries are doing. If many countries are missing their targets, they will all want to buy credits from each other, but there will not be very many sources so the price of those credits will go through the roof. If many countries are on track and getting there, the price might not be so great. If no one met their targets at all, there would be a significant structural or architectural problem.
As it happens, at the same time the EPA released its report on our projections for 2030 which showed us off track, an equivalent European exercise showed that the Union as a whole, which has a target of reducing emissions from 55% compared with 1990, the current projections were at 54%. There is a lot of variation within countries but overall we are on target. This means there will be some countries overperforming if others are underperforming and there will be credits around but they could be quite pricey. It is unlikely the whole scheme will collapse. If all the big countries were missing targets and there were very few credits available from smaller countries, you could imagine a last-minute renegotiation, but that does not look like it is what is going to happen.
Barry Ward (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I want to give an opportunity now to those wanting to come back in on a few issues. Mr. Coghlan mentioned the NGO point. Are there any other issues others might like to come in on? It might be a good time to do it while that vote is going on.
Ms Karen Ciesielski:
To address Deputy Crowe's question on biomass, there is lots of talk about biomass and biomethane as renewable fuel sources in Europe. There is certainly the development of a biomethane strategy here domestically, but we need to proceed with caution, zoom out and look at sustainable land use as a whole. We need renewable energy, but if we were to throw the baby out with the bathwater and start building up these enormous plants of biomass and biofuel, I am not sure this would help us. Some of the risks include air pollution, water pollution and carbon emissions.
Mr. David Rossiter:
It would be great to have a wider discussion on the NGO side of things, but to add something before we do, it was Senator O'Loughlin who asked what the biggest issue is regarding SDGs and what is one SDG goal we should focus on. When we look at the SGI report and other UN reports, the climate action piece is the goal that we are probably performing the worst in when we compare ourselves with our other counterparts. Obviously, we can sit down and talk about why that is but, certainly, that is one piece. When you break down the goals and indicators, it is the emissions side of things that drags the performance and goal down. Again, if you were to open that up further, the issue really comes back down to electricity generation, how we are generating our electricity and if that is coming from fossil fuel sources. If you were to pick one area where we are really performing the poorest, that would be it. It is worthwhile mentioning that.
Mr. Oisín Coghlan:
I will say a couple of words on the civil society role and where there are opportunities there. Before I do that, I wish to come back to the question raised regarding the drawbridge, which is an interesting question for the European Union. The US is doing more than pulling up the drawbridge. It is deluding itself of a great past it is going to go back to that is not in any definition sustainable. It is swearing off all forms of renewable energy and going back to a fossil-fuelled past, and that seems to be the proposal. I saw today that the great big beautiful Bill Trump has proposed includes the US postal service getting rid of all the electric vehicles and destroying the charging infrastructure it has at a cost of €1.5 billion just because they do not like that stuff. This proposal is slightly delusional or fantastic in several ways. However, the technology is winning out. The Stone Age did not end because of a lack of stones and the steam age did not end because of something similar. Renewables such as wind and solar are now cheaper than gas and nuclear energy. Texas is the biggest renewable state in the US for those reasons; it can make money from it.
Whatever Trump and his Administration do now may delay things but it will not ultimately stop the transition. The question is whether it will make it so slow that it does not contain climate breakdown. When it comes to climate breakdown, there is no drawbridge that will save Florida or New York from the rising sea levels or storms. I do not want to be too polemical but it is delusion. Denial was also mentioned earlier. It is denial of the reality they face for some backward-looking fantasy, all because the US has a lot of fossil fuels. Meanwhile, China, which does not have a lot of fossil fuels, is, despite the narratives you hear, powering ahead with electrification, moving electricity to renewables and moving transport to electric vehicles. We do not hear these stories but it is moving quite fast in that direction. This leaves Europe in an interesting place. We do not have fossil fuels and we are trying to get off them from our near neighbours like Russia. Are we going to buy more fossil fuels from the US and Middle East or are we going to follow a more - I am not sure we want to call it this - Chinese model of getting the heck off fossil fuels and using renewables as fast as possible because that is what will make us more resilient? If our choice is between buying other people's expensive, dirty fuels from volatile areas or developing our own indigenous European solar and wind and interconnecting in Europe, one of those makes a lot more strategic sense for both resilience, autonomy and economics as well as sustainability. That is the choice Europe will face for the next few years, including during the Irish Presidency.
Barry Ward (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Were there any other unfinished issues anyone wished to raise?
Mr. John McGeady:
Mr. Coghlan was going to mention civil society but, on that issue, there is a lot to be said for members, as political leaders, standing with what are called NGOs by those who sometimes want to paint them in a negative light. Ultimately, however, the vast majority are community and voluntary organisations we all know that are working across society. Having a show of support for community and voluntary organisations in our own communities, which I know the Members already do, goes an important way to mitigating against that narrative.
With regard to sustainable development goals, as we said before, it is a broad range of goals that look at not just the environmental but also the social and economic issues. Within all of that, as I said before, the principle of the just transition plays a key role in this. I wish to draw the committee's attention, just because we have it, to a paper Social Justice Ireland has published laying out a whole suite of policy options to support a just transition. I am very happy to share it with the Chair to share with all members.
Barry Ward (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Before I go to Deputy Lahart, are there any other issues that need to be completed?
Mr. Oisín Coghlan:
In concert with that, Commissioner Michael McGrath's DG has recently launched a public consultation on a new civil society strategy for the European Union with the goal to support, protect and empower civil society organisations. This will ultimately result in a communication from the commission in due course. I do not think there will be legislative proposals, so it will not go through a legislative process in the European Union but there could well be Council conclusions in response to it.
The timeline is not entirely clear yet but it may well be that some time during the Irish Presidency a Council chaired by an Irish Minister will be asked to facilitate conclusion about a civil society strategy overseen by the Irish Commissioner. Given that Ireland has so far been relatively strong in its public understanding of what charities and civil society organisations really are as opposed to the abstracted weaponisation we are seeing elsewhere, there could be a really positive opportunity there for Irish civil society, the Irish Government, the Irish Commissioner and, to the extent it is involved, the Parliament, to paint that positive community charity-based vision of what we think that social contribution looks like.
John Lahart (Dublin South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
China poured more concrete in a 15-year period than the United States did in the entire 20th century. That is the other side of their fossil-fuel generated stuff.
Their South American narrative is interesting because the world is changing. I am on these committees, as is Deputy Ward. Some South American countries would say that they share and admire European values. They feel patronised when we talk to them about issues such as deforestation. In Ireland, we are on dodgy ground criticising South Americans for deforestation. In a world that is changing where the drawbridge is being pulled up on trade and all this kind of stuff, delusional or otherwise, one aspect, not for here, is there is a wealthy class globally that thinks it can escape all of this.
John Lahart (Dublin South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Not far off it. The movie was not far off it. The forest fires in places Los Angeles is a real answer to that but a wealth class feels it can escape it.
We have to create new markets. We may have to travel farther to sell our goods and we may have to import goods from farther away and create goals, environments and rules that facilitate that in a climate-friendly way.
Mercosur is for another day but I would happily debate it with them. There is a continent down there. The Chinese are fishing out the south Pacific. There are no rules. There are no treaties. It has been somewhat ignored as a continent. I certainly see signs from there that they want to become part of the world, that they want to become engaged with the western world and that some countries, and some of the representatives, look at European values and those kind of liberal democratic values as precious and shrinking. We should not throw the baby out with the bath water.
Barry Ward (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I will call Deputy Crowe and then Deputy Gogarty.
Seán Crowe (Dublin South West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I started off talking earlier on about this area of biomass and who would be against it and the new energy that will come from it but the people I was talking to were saying that there is a lack of regulation. Even more worrying is there is a lack of planning in this regard. In relation to where these go, it is really up to the local planning authority. It is similar with, say, data centres. There is a number of them out in my constituency, which is also Deputy Lahart's. In one case, the heat off the data centre will be used for the local hospital, local authority, etc. If we are talking about planning the likes of data centres, there does not seem to be an spatial plan of where they should be and the impact they will have, etc. Similarly, with the biomass, if we are talking about these hundreds of trucks, does anyone want them next door with the smell and everything else? However, it is good for society and for the food waste that we generate. They should be located near cities but no one at any senior level seems to be overseeing the popping up of these different centres. This applies to biomass, data centres and other situations. Is part of the big weakness in Ireland that there is no overseeing body that is looking over and saying that this is good but we have to control it and do the A, B, Cs in relation to it, infrastructure and everything else? Am I missing the point here? This is what we are talking about.
Ms Karen Ciesielski:
I am sorry about that. I was not sure that the Deputy was coming back. I am happy to follow up with the Deputy afterwards because he rightly pointed out some risks around regulation. There are also risks around air pollution, water pollution and going in the wrong direction of investing in unsustainable land use practices. The question he raised provides a great opportunity to talk about the land use review, which is supposed to offer a bird's eye landscape-specific perspective on how we are using land in Ireland for transport, housing, energy and things like data centres and should be a driver of how we make policy decisions and changes in the future. That big piece of work has been conducted in the land use review and it is a great opportunity to talk about that again and the importance of publishing it so that we can see and use it as a future decision-making tool.
Mr. Oisín Coghlan:
I will comment on data centres. There is definitely a need for overarching planning because the latest figures from the CSO show that 22% of our electricity last year was for data centres and, right now, half of all the electricity in Dublin and the surrounds, I think it is Dublin and Meath, is used for data centres, which is mind-boggling. I almost doubt that when I say it, but that is the case. We are a complete outlier by comparison. Virginia has a high percentage, but the European average is less than 3% of electricity.
In 15 years, when we have this vast resource of offshore wind developed, maybe we will be able to sustain that level of data centres but, right now, it is a real threat to other policy goals, not only, as the committee would expect us to say, climate policy goals but also housing goals. As the committee may have heard, the Secretary General of the Department of Climate, Energy and the Environment recently said that there is a direct conflict between connections for new housing developments and connections for data centres. There was some pushback on that, but that was her analysis of the situation. Other State agencies had alerted to that issue as well. The Government seems to be not wanting to give any negative signals to big tech right now but, obviously, from what we hear, housing is its primary policy goal. It will have to find a way to manage that transition and prioritise, we would say, the social good of housing and the environmental and social good of constraining our emissions, at least while we build the renewable energy infrastructure. If we are already heading to 30% of electricity for data centres anyway by 2030, we are doing more than our fair share of housing the cloud and we need to make sure we have overarching planning that achieves the other policy goals that we say we want.
Seán Crowe (Dublin South West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
We have not even talked about the new policy on the use of gas, etc.
Paul Gogarty (Dublin Mid West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
If I had won that €250 million, besides a couple of housing projects, I would build that bunker on the side of a mountain very sustainable for a whole lot of extended family members and friends, but, ultimately, I am an optimist. In terms of painting the optimistic scenario for Ireland, we could be a net massive exporter to Europe of energy and we would not be importing. It would be done from offshore wind, as has been mentioned, and from wave technology which we have not invested in, all through a network that Irish companies would be leading rather than letting foreign companies come in and take all the profits.
We are a global country in a globalised world. Equally, we would still be able to fly everywhere because, through policy shifts, we would be using electric planes for short haul, and gradually develop into longer haul, and putting tariffs on fuels to create a more sustainable aviation network.
How realistic would such a scenario be? Given that we have a massive infrastructural deficit in terms of transport, housing and energy, should we borrow massively, and even breach the EU Growth and Stability Pact?
I know we have the €13 billion from Apple, etc., but Irish Water has stated we need €20 billion. Should we borrow on the basis that, in 30 or 40 years' time, we will need to be self-sufficient and we can then get the revenue from the AI heavy, energy heavy data storage companies? It is possible to have a win-win situation realistically?
Mr. Oisín Coghlan:
I am not sure if I have a perfect answer to the borrowing. It may be beyond the scope of the organisations we are speaking for today, particularly when the supply chain is a challenge too. You pay the higher price and the thing you need is not available. In terms of the actual outcomes, the good news is that the things we need to do for climate also address, in a positive way, other SDGs. You can see the positive reaction to solar energy generally, particularly solar energy on schools, which organisations around this table have pushed for and it is taking off. You see the positive reaction to the investment in Local Link over the years. The number of passengers on Local Link rural transport is stunning but it is still only a drop in the ocean of what is needed around the country.
There is a potential for doing win-win things like warmer homes with lower fuel bills and cleaner air if you get off fossil fuels, better public transport and easier cities to walk around, etc. There is a really positive vision there but it will take investment and leadership to get there.
Mr. John McGeady:
We need to be very careful about simply buying into the idea that because there is volatility in the global economy and because we have to be prudent and careful, we cannot use this wealth now in order to create the sort of society we want to create. That requires that political leadership. It requires the policy coherence we were talking about. It requires the policy coherence the SDGs provide. As Deputy Crowe said, there is a need for that overarching leadership and vision. In Ireland, there is a case to be made for the need for a new social contract.
The fact that almost 630,000 people in Ireland are below the poverty line while we have this enormous wealth speaks to the social issues. That policy coherence is needed at local level, with local authorities as we talked about, at the national level and at the European Union level, which is relevant to the responsibilities of this committee. We need to recognise the vast wealth we have at our disposal and ask the question as to how it will be deployed in a way that is fair and sustainable while we have it. Obviously, we have to ensure it is sustainable at the same time, not just environmentally but economically for the future as well.
Ruairí Ó Murchú (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I apologise as I have to go to a meeting someone else promised me access to. On what Mr. McGeady said earlier about the sustainable development goals, they are a tool for two things, namely, grading and framing policy. He put it better than I would have about the scenario we are in at the minute. For all the wealth we have, there is a huge issue with inequality. It is also about delivering a system that is fair and sustainable. That is a new social contract, as Mr. McGeady said, but with a lot more within it.
Outside of the proposal to put these under the Department of the Taoiseach - I get the logic with that and giving it primacy - how do we get all that in place? In the Department of the Taoiseach at the minute, there is the disability unit, there is the specific piece around child poverty and all that.
Seán Crowe (Dublin South West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The shared island unit.
Ruairí Ó Murchú (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Obviously, there is the shared island unit. While it has gone to some good places, it should probably go further. I do not think that will come as a shock to anybody. The proposals the witnesses have about making sure we have this are from two points of view; it is leverage in relation to ensuring you have the policy that is fit for purpose but making sure it is in the right place and has the right powers. I had a conversation on this and probably some of what I said earlier relates to it because to a degree, it is seen as us having to go handy on the environment but the fact is we have such a fall-down on infrastructure and we need to build houses and address all those other issues. What is the proposal here beyond putting the SDGs into the Department of the Taoiseach?
Mr. John McGeady:
In addition to doing that, I mentioned the idea earlier that political will is measured by where we put our resources. Insofar as that is true, the budget process plays a crucial role in determining how the SDGs can be implemented across all Departments and across all of Government. Embedding the SDGs within the budget process is one area we could really look at.
Ruairí Ó Murchú (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
In a very simplistic way, is Mr. McGeady talking about almost check-listing against-----
Mr. John McGeady:
Exactly. It could be as simple as all policies being tagged with an SDG and having a check list against each Department, the budget lines for the various Votes and the specific policies the Department hopes to invest money in over the course of the following year and now, with medium term budgeting over the course of the five years. Linking those to SDGs would be one way to emphasise policy coherence. Earlier, I mentioned the idea of an SDG impact assessment tool. If that was in place at the policy planning level as well as the implementation level, you would be actually able to see when a policy is enhancing or bringing us further towards an SDG, when it is actually working against an SDG and sometimes, you have competing-----
Ruairí Ó Murchú (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I was going to say multiple contradictions, which will happen.
Mr. John McGeady:
They key thing is you are able to identify when a policy will make progress on one SDG but is actually working against a different one. Once you have spotted that and identified that challenge, you are then able to ask how does this policy need to be reshaped at the planning stage.
Ruairí Ó Murchú (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
There is the leverage. Initially, you can grade poorly bad policies and bad legislation. That is straightforward. On the grading system, impact assessment tool and even checklist, what will it take to put those into operation? I get it. Political will is a major part of it. I am not sure about the Government but there would be plenty of civil servants who would have a particular issue with this but we can all see the logic in it. How quickly could this be done? How close to an actionable proposal are we?
Mr. John McGeady:
Implementing an SDG assessment tool might take a little bit longer but at the point of simply tagging policy recommendations with SDGs they are intended to achieve, it could be done very quickly. We are beginning the process of planning for budget 2026 and ultimately, the budget day in October. It is absolutely possible that initial steps can be made in this budget cycle to look towards how Departments can identify how the budget line items they are looking for money for can link up with SDGs. Oireachtas committees like this one have a role also in looking at the Departments they are holding to account and how the policy recommendations from those Departments link in with the SDGs. That is at a policy coherence level.
At a more practical level and the practical policies Social Justice Ireland advocate for that can actually progress the various SDGs, there is a range of policy recommendations in the submission paper I shared with everybody and they are all tagged under the SDGs. They are also tagged against the 11 dimensions of the well-being framework, which sits in the Department of the Taoiseach. There is scope there for Departments and for Ministers and Ministers of State to look at what can be done there and for the Deputies and Senators as committee members to emphasise that.
As I said, I will share with the Chair our paper on delivering a just transition for Ireland, which lays out a whole range of policy options that can be embedded across all levels of policy to support a just transition. It is about ensuring that as we work towards our climate goals, we do so in a way that is socially progressive, ensuring those who are most vulnerable to the changes that are coming are given additional support. It is a question of bringing in the economic, the social and the environmental, rather than simply looking at this through one lens, which has been a challenge over many years. We have tended to look to do things in one area rather than taking a coherent view.
Barry Ward (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I invite Mr. Rossiter to make a closing comment as we are out of time.
Mr. David Rossiter:
To add to what my colleague said, our coalition has put forward three really practical measures to embed the goals into the Government's delivery. One of them is the budget aspect, as we outlined. When the budget happens each year, we really need to tie the goals and the various indicators of the goals into Government spending. We need to know how X expenditure in the Department of the environment or rural and community development is achieving, for example, SDG No. 7 or target No. 4.8. It is about ensuring the Government puts its money where its mouth is. That is a really important aspect.
In the previous Oireachtas, the Commission for Future Generations Bill 2023 was making its way through the legislative process. First and Second Stages were completed in the Dáil and the Bill was sent to the children's committee. We would love to see that Bill coming back onto the Dáil schedule. It followed a model set out by the Welsh Government, which involved the establishment of a future generations commissioner or ombudsman. In effect, it would be an arms-length body that would offer advice and some policy proposals whereby the Government could look at more long-term decision-making processes. Our coalition has proposed that approach of looking at the SDGs from a proactive point of view. At the moment, trying to achieve the SDGs is a reactive process. If we achieve goal No. 7 or No. 8, say, we put a sticker on it and say we have managed to do that. It is really about taking a proactive approach and the future generations Bill offers a framework to do that.
Ruairí Ó Murchú (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Would it be possible to get a short and concise paper on the future generations commissioner? I recognise the proposal is already there in legislative form but I am asking for an outline of everything from the impact assessment tool to implementing something much simpler. We could look to it as something to put forward as part of the budgetary process. I would say it would be welcomed in a very minor sort of way.
Barry Ward (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The witnesses have indicated that providing such a paper is possible. We will distribute it to committee members.
I thank Mr. Rossiter, Ms Ciesielski, Mr. McGeady and Mr. Coghlan for a very stimulating discussion. They took a lot of questions that were not necessarily easy to answer. We really appreciate their time.
We will now go into private session. The next public meeting will be at 3.30 p.m. next Wednesday, 2 July, when we will engage with the Danish ambassador.