Ann Phelan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Deputies who contributed to this debate for sharing with the House their views on the Bill and on how it might be further enhanced. I am heartened by the level of interest shown and I know the Minister will give consideration to many of the ideas put forward. He and I have listened carefully to the contributions and some common themes appear to have emerged. I am conscious that the Minister already covered these areas in his opening contribution. However, given the importance of the Bill and the debate relating to it, I believe it useful that I reiterate his views briefly on the issues raised.

There has been much said in respect of the setting of targets and trying to define low carbon on a legislative basis. Although I appreciate the reasoning behind the arguments being made, there is no doubt that such an approach is perhaps not in our national interest. As part of European Union processes, mitigation targets are already prescribed and will be agreed for all member states, including Ireland, on an incremental basis over the coming decades. It is important to spend some time examining this process in a little more detail. Reference was made to the debate about targets being set for 2030. Notwithstanding the targets already set for 2020 under the effort-sharing decision of 2009, we are now entering a critical phase in terms of how a new decision will be agreed for 2030. Deputy Catherine Murphy made reference to Ireland being set a new target of 40% for this date. However, Members should note that this is a target for the EU as a whole and may not necessarily translate exactly for each member state. This does not mean that Ireland will have a 40% mitigation target, particularly as the next stage of negotiations will involve another effort-sharing decision for the division of burdens among member states.

The Taoiseach made it clear at the European Council meeting that what is to be agreed must take account of Ireland's specific circumstances and be achievable, fair and economically sustainable. In this regard, specific recognition was given to the multiple objectives of agriculture and land use, including reference to ensuring coherence between the EU's food security and climate change objectives. Moreover, on the basis of a proposal from Ireland, the contribution of afforestation to greenhouse gas mitigation and sequestration was also recognised by the European Council. Again, this is crucial for Ireland as it continues to make major investments with a view to expanding new forest cover. Within such a context, the question must be asked as to why we would consider setting different or duplicate targets within national legislation in advance of targets being agreed at EU level and even if such targets were to be set, the basis on which this would be done. Are we suggesting the establishment of two separate, parallel processes? Putting in place our own targets would cut across and interfere with the EU's target-setting process and could lead to potentially adverse outcomes. We want to develop a clear and coherent path to meeting our EU targets and not impose on ourselves multiple overlapping policy objectives which lead to greater complexity, policy misalignment, increases in costs and a tendency towards such unexpected outcomes. We would prefer to concentrate our efforts on achieving a single target, namely, that agreed with our EU partners, while incurring the least cost for the Irish economy. Ireland will, in due course, be set what will need to be a fair and achievable target for 2030. This should be the primary focus of our attention in the short to medium term.

On the second issue, and as stated by the Minister when commencing the debate, there is no internationally-agreed definition of what a low-carbon economy looks like.

By defining it in statute, we could end up restricting the breadth of activities which could conceivably contribute to lowering greenhouse gas emissions. Does the State want to use a straitjacket in developing national mitigation plans? Do we want to restrict how we might innovate in identifying the best path forward in terms of decarbonisation?Targets can only be realised by putting in place appropriate and proportionate mitigation measures across the sectors with the most significant emissions. There is no shortcut for this, which is why the Bill focuses on institutional arrangements for ensuring such sectoral mitigation measures can be developed, approved and implemented.

A number of Deputies have referred to the delays in putting a national mitigation plan in place or, as Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett put it, kicking the can down the road. However, the work in developing mitigation measures is not awaiting the enactment of legislation. In anticipation of legislative requirements, work has been ongoing for some time in several Departments to scope out additional mitigation measures beyond those already adopted. Deputy Catherine Murphy put it well when she spoke about ensuring the nuts and bolts were in place. I cannot underestimate the importance of this process. In my opening statement I spoke about the importance of having sufficient time to engage in appropriate public consultation and meet our obligations in having due regard to processes relating to strategic environmental assessment and appropriate assessment, both of which are critical considerations in the development of a national mitigation plan. If we move too fast, we are criticised for not being inclusive. This point was made strongly by Deputy Brian Stanley. If, however, we follow due process, we incur the wrath of those who are accusing us of kicking the can down the road. We intend to do the right thing and make sure we will have sufficient time to do it well.

Several contributors suggested the Government had ignored the recommendations of the Oireachtas joint committee on the heads of the Bill. The committee did not make recommendations as such but instead proposed possible courses of action to further develop the heads of the Bill. I assure the House and, in particular, those who contributed to this process that the proposed courses of action were given due consideration in the final drafting of the Bill. Of the possible courses of action proposed by the committee, the following five have been accepted fully: that the annual emission limits up to 2020 should be based on the European Union's effort sharing decision of 2009; that the annual emission limits up to 2050 should be as agreed in effort sharing decisions at EU level; that the intervals between proposed national roadmaps should be not greater than five years; that the preparation of sectoral mitigation measures should be integrated into the national mitigation plan; and that the expert advisory council should be empowered to publish its reports directly after submitting them to the Minister. In this regard, it is worth noting that the committee did not recommend the introduction of our own annual emission targets between now and 2050 beyond those agreed at EU level.

Some Members presented Ireland's comparatively high greenhouse gas emissions per capitaas evidence of some failure on our part to reduce emissions. This is quite misleading and does not fully reflect our unique greenhouse gas emissions profile and historical trends. The per capitafigure can be easily explained by the fact that Ireland has a unique emissions profile which reflects our large agriculture sector. Agriculture features prominently not because of any lack of efficiency but solely because of the size of the sector relative to others. Agricultural emissions account for well over 40% of our emissions under the trading scheme. Emissions per capitaappear comparatively high because of the size of the national herd. If we look at carbon dioxide emissions alone, Ireland's emissions per capitaare only marginally above average for the EU 28, at 8.295 tonnes per capita, as against the average value of 7.345 tonnes per capita. Considering that Ireland, by virtue of its location and low population density, does not have access to many of the public transport and heat distribution options available in mainland Europe, this is a creditable position and reflects well on the actions that have taken place. Ireland's actions in reducing carbon dioxide emissions are having an impact.

Much has been said about the perceived lack of independence attaching to the expert advisory council in its advice giving function. There will be a challenge in achieving the required balance of input on the council so as to ensure independent advice is provided. On the one hand, we want to avoid a scenario in which the council will be so far removed from real world policy making and capabilities that its advice will be ignored. On the other, we also need to ensure the advice being proffered can prompt the system to act effectively rather than just endeavouring to find favour with the political system of the day. Between these two considerations lies a council with the expertise and a mind of its own to appreciate both the demands of our mitigation targets and the realities of where we are. I am fully confident that the council will play a significant role in providing independent and robust advice as we navigate a course towards our mitigation targets. In the coming weeks I hope to bring forward nominations for appointment by the Government. The persons concerned will have a wealth of appropriate expertise and experience in climate change related disciplines and serve alongside the ex officiomembers of the four key agencies, namely, the EPA, Teagasc, SEAI and the ESRI, who will also bring a wealth of talent, expertise and practical understanding of the administrative system. This combination will allow us to have the best of both worlds. The council will have to operate within strict terms of reference set out in the relevant provisions of the Bill, including section 10 which deal with the disclosure of interests for all those serving on the council.

Deputies Catherine Murphy and Clare Daly, among others, expressed concern about the absence of an explicit reference to climate justice in the Bill. Few, if any, of us would doubt the validity of considering the impact of climate change on those who have made the least contribution to the problem and the most limited means to adapt. We know that climate change exacerbates many existing problems and affects most acutely those who are already marginalised or vulnerable. Our aim must be to provide for practical actions. By far the single most important contribution any country can make is to take ambitious action to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions as part of the global effort to limit climate change and its impact. That is what the Bill is already doing by putting in place an institutional framework to ensure robust mitigation policy measures will be developed in a timely fashion. Through the European Union, Ireland is active in the international negotiations which aim to deliver in December a legally binding global agreement on combating climate change. The Bill recognises the importance of these international discussions in having regard to existing obligations under international agreements. Ensuring all citizens have the option and means to access information and participate in the development of climate policies and actions affecting them is crucial in ensuring our response to climate change protects and promotes the rights of all. The Bill provides for such participation. Furthermore, by providing support for countries which need to respond and adapt to climate change, we can ensure Ireland's efforts will be part of a global transition to a more climate resilient world.

Ireland has maintained significant support, reporting €34 million in 2013 in climate finance, mostly for the adaptation project in Ireland's key partner countries in sub-Saharan Africa. Work is continuing to explore options of how to maintain and enhance such support well into the future.

Rather than legislating for broad concepts like climate justice, Ireland has already demonstrated its commitment through practical actions, aimed at ensuring a fair and inclusive national and global response to climate change that promotes sustainable transition for all. However, we will reflect further on this point and consider whether and how we can reinforce our commitment to climate justice, including through explicit reference in our national climate policy position.

I would like to reflect on the journey that has brought us here today. In particular, I note the level of frustration that exists in terms of getting a climate Bill published, never mind enacted. It is no secret to say that the Bill has been a long time in gestation, but now it is here. I would like to think we can get a collective mandate to get on with the work that needs to be done and avoid any further delays in this process. I know that as the Bill proceeds through the Oireachtas, Deputies and Senators will make heartfelt contributions to the debate. I have taken note of the intentions to table amendments and am willing to consider the proposals tabled on merit, but only where I think such changes can enhance the existing provisions in terms of making a practical difference in the context of implementation.

For example, Deputies Stanley and Boyd Barrett made reference to the role of local authorities in the development of a national mitigation plan. We have been looking at similar proposals, particularly from the operational perspective. As Members know, we have provisions within the Bill in respect of the role of local authorities and the making of adaptation frameworks. There may also be merit in considering trying to underpin, on a legislative basis, relevant operational aspects for mitigation. We will also commit to taking another look at the possible courses of action as outlined in the joint committee's report. However, there may not be much scope to make significant changes for the reasons already outlined.

We all share the same ambition for the legislation. It is historic and is a significant step towards making a meaningful contribution to both the required mitigation and adaptation efforts by the State over the coming decades in the interests of all.

See this speech in context