Aodhán Ó Ríordáin (Dublin North Central, Labour) | Oireachtas source

As the House will be aware, the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Bill 2015 was published last Monday. I acknowledge the substantial work done by the Joint Committee on the Environment, Culture and the Gaeltacht and, in particular, its Chairman, Deputy Michael McCarthy, in laying the groundwork for what has become the published Bill. Publication of the joint committee's report was an important milestone in shaping the debate on the legislation. The report informed, in a genuine and meaningful fashion, the further development of the heads of the Bill.

While the report did not make recommendations as such, it outlined a number of possible courses of action that might be considered in the further development of the heads of the Bill. As the joint committee made considerable efforts in preparing its report, it is only right that I spend some time addressing each of these possible courses of action. In the first instance, the committee proposed that Ireland's existing annual greenhouse gas emission limits, as agreed under the European Union's so-called effort sharing decision of 2009, constitute the required mitigation objectives of the Bill for the period 2013 to 2020. The Government agrees with this approach. However, as the targets set down under the effort sharing decision are already legally binding on Ireland, there was no need to explicitly include them in the legislation. It should be noted that the Bill, as published, explicitly refers to the European Union's effort sharing decision as one of the existing obligations on the State which must be respected.

The second possible course of action proposed by the joint committee is that Ireland's annual emission limits for the periods to 2030, 2040 and 2050 should ultimately be agreed by member states under the EU Roadmap 2050 or any future burden sharing arrangement agreed at EU level. I am pleased to note that the committee and the Government are at one on annual emission limits up to 2050 and that they should arise from EU negotiations, rather than be unilaterally self-imposed in the Bill without regard to the wider EU and international sphere.

The third possible course of action proposed by the joint committee is that the intervals between proposed national low carbon roadmaps for emission reductions should be not greater than five years. An interval of seven years was proposed in the original outline heads of the Bill. Nonetheless, having regard to the committee's views, I am pleased to note that we took on board this advice and the published Bill specifies a five-year rather than a seven-yearcycle.

The fourth possible course of action is that the preparation of sectoral roadmaps for emission reductions should be subsequent to the publication of the national roadmap for the relevant period and should, in aggregation, be consistent with the prior targets established by the national roadmap. With respect, this advice is to somewhat misunderstand the process of preparing national roadmaps or national mitigation plans as they are now called in the published Bill. In this regard, the preparation of sectoral mitigation measures will be closely co-ordinated across Departments so as to ensure that, when aggregated, the subsequent national mitigation plan will provide for meeting the relevant mitigation targets. This co-ordination will be facilitated by extensive modelling work undertaken across the main emitting sectors.

The fifth possible course of action proposed by the joint committee is that national policy for future agricultural emissions to 2050 should be predicated on the basis of zero emissions growth relative to 2013. This does not appear to be a realistic option having regard to Food Harvest 2020, the medium-term strategy for the development of the agrifood, fisheries and forestry sectors for the period to 2020. Moreover, it may be in contradiction of the committee's proposal in respect of carbon neutrality in agriculture, an issue to which I will return.

The sixth possible course of action proposed by the joint committee is that the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine should investigate non-national-based emission management strategies at European Union level such as an agricultural emissions trading scheme, in which efficient and sustainable Irish agricultural practices would be rewarded with increased emission quotas. This advice did not specifically relate to the further development of the legislation; therefore, I will not dwell too much on it. However, suffice it to say I appreciate the intent behind the proposal in that it recognises Ireland's unique emissions profile, in which agriculture features prominently, not because of any lack of agri-efficiency but solely relating to the size of the agriculture sector relative to other sectors.

The seventh possible course of action proposed by the joint committee is that, in preparing the sectoral roadmaps for agriculture, a target of carbon neutrality should be established for 2050, with measurable progress towards it scheduled for 2020, 2030 and 2040. The intent behind this proposal is correct; carbon neutrality is the appropriate avenue of policy development in respect of future greenhouse gas emissions from the agriculture and land use sector, including forestry, by making use of appropriate carbon sinks. I am certain that the sectoral mitigation measures proposed for the agriculture sector will fully reflect this goal.

The eighth possible course of action proposed by the joint committee is that, for the purposes of the Bill, low carbon development should be interpreted as near zero emissions for 2050 in the energy, buildings and transport sectors and carbon neutrality in the agriculture sector. Since publication of the committee's report, further consideration was given to a national vision for low carbon development. The outcome was communicated with the publication, last April, of the national climate policy position, which sets out a long-term vision of low carbon transition based on an aggregate reduction in carbon dioxide emissions of at least 80%, compared to 1990 levels, by 2050 across the electricity generation, built environment and transport sectors and, in parallel, an approach to carbon neutrality in the agriculture and land-use sector, including forestry, which does not compromise capacity for sustainable food production. Given that Ireland will likely be subject to binding greenhouse gas emission reduction targets up to 2050 as part of the EU process and that a long-term vision of low carbon transition has been set out in the national climate policy position, the Government does not consider it either appropriate or necessary to include a national 2050 target in legislation.

The ninth possible course of action proposed by the joint committee is that the Bill should provide for the establishment of a national green climate fund ring-fenced within, or separate to, the environment fund. It would be used to support climate mitigation and adaptation measures in developing countries and constitute Ireland's contribution to the international green climate fund established under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, UNFCCC. While I applaud the intent, the reality of our fiscal situation militates against this course of action. In this regard, any future funding by Ireland of the international green climate fund should be part of the annual Estimates process, rather than a matter of statutory obligation. That is not to say nothing is being done in this regard. Despite difficult fiscal circumstances, Ireland has maintained significant support, including public finance, for climate action on adaptation in developing countries. Although the vast majority of Ireland's annual climate finance flow through Irish Aid, Ireland's overseas development programme, which falls within the remit of my colleague, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, it should be noted that the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government also made a contribution of €33 million over two years during the fast-start finance period 2010-12 in supporting the Global Climate Change Alliance and the Least Developed Countries Fund. Moreover, as articulated by the Minister, Deputy Alex White, in his Lima COP plenary address, despite our recent difficult economic circumstances, Ireland has maintained flows of public climate finance at fast-start finance levels, delivering approximately €34 million in grants in 2013. We expect to match this in 2014 and are actively exploring all options for scaling up our mobilisation of climate finance, including in the green climate fund.

The tenth possible course of action proposed by the joint committee is that the expert advisory body should consist of a chairperson and not more than five other members, all of whom should be independent of State or stakeholder interests, and that it should be supported by a technical secretariat, comprising the heads of the EPA, the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland, Teagasc and the ESRI. The Government does not share the committee's view in this regard. Pursuant to the published Bill, the expert advisory council will comprise a chairperson and between eight and ten ordinary members, four of whom shall be exofficio members comprising the heads of the four agencies. In appointing a chairperson and the ordinary members it is important to note that the Government will consider the range of qualifications, expertise and experience necessary for the effective performance of the council. The inclusion of the exofficio members will help to underpin this much needed expertise and experience on these matters, as well as providing a link with relevant agencies working in the field so as to ensure effective implementation. Accordingly, the Government is not minded to alter this arrangement.

The eleventh possible course of action proposed by the joint committee is that the expert advisory body should exercise its functions independently and obtain the assistance of the technical secretariat in acquiring and processing data relevant to its activities. I do not believe the composition of the expert advisory council, as proposed in the published Bill, in any way prevents the advice emanating from this quarter from being anything other than independent and of the highest quality. Having the exofficio members on the council directly, rather than relegated to some technical secretariat, means that the advice provided by the council will be well informed, robust, up-to-date and, just as important, capable of being implemented in the real world.

This is crucial to ensure those charged with implementing mitigation policy measures enjoy buy-in from the start.

The twelfth possible course of action proposed by the joint committee is that the expert advisory body should be empowered to publish its annual reports subsequent to submitting them to the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government and the committee. I am pleased to note that in the published Bill this advice has been taken on board and that the expert advisory council has been given the power to publish its annual and periodic review reports directly, after a short set period, following their submission to the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government.

The thirteenth possible course of action proposed by the joint committee is that the annual transition report to Dáil Éireann should be concluded by a statement from the Taoiseach as chairman of the Cabinet sub-committee on climate change detailing the progress made in emissions reductions in the preceding year and outlining the programme for achieving the required reductions in each sector for the forthcoming year. The Government does not consider it appropriate that this role should fall to the Taoiseach, as climate change policy properly falls within the remit of the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government. Accordingly, the Government believes it should fall to the Minister to make an overview statement as part of the annual transition report to Dáil Éireann, which constitutes an important exercise in transparency and openness.

As the House has heard, several of the joint committee's proposals were accepted in full and unequivocally. On others, however, agreement could not be reached. On others again, the intent, if not the letter, of the proposal found favour. That is probably the way things go.

I again thank the joint committee for its extensive work on the outline heads of the Bill and, in particular, its chairperson, Deputy Michael MacCarthy. It is obvious that the report was given genuine and detailed consideration and I am satisfied that it has promoted a better and more inclusive Bill than would otherwise have been the case.

See this speech in context