Dáil debates

Tuesday, 19 November 2013

Ceisteanna - Questions - Priority Questions

Biofuel Obligation Scheme Targets

2:15 pm

Photo of Maureen O'SullivanMaureen O'Sullivan (Dublin Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

83. To ask the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade following the Minister of State for Development's statement to supporting a 5% EU cap on food based biofuels because of its implications for land and food security in Africa, the reason the Department of Communications Energy and Natural Resources has reneged on this by supporting a new 7% cap which has potentially devastating effects in the developing world; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [49072/13]

Photo of Maureen O'SullivanMaureen O'Sullivan (Dublin Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

My question relates to what the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade is saying about biofuels and what the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources is saying. There was a commitment to 5% by one and 7% by the other. What is the Irish position on biofuels?

Photo of Joe CostelloJoe Costello (Dublin Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

My colleague, the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, has lead responsibility for Government policy on biofuels. By 2020, 10% of energy used in transport must come from renewable sources, according to the 2009 renewable energy directive. In October 2012, the Commission proposed amendments to mitigate the potential negative effects occurring as a result of the use of certain biofuels. These would limit the use of food-crop-based biofuels for renewable energy to 5% by 2020. Some member states argue for a higher cap or no cap at all on relevant biofuels. Others want a cap lower than the 5% proposed.

During Ireland’s Presidency of the Council of the European Union we worked hard to facilitate consensus, but at the moment there is no agreement in Council.

biofuel production and use, unless properly regulated, could have a negative impact on food production and food prices and might increase the emissions of greenhouse gases. The Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Deputy Pat Rabbitte, has conveyed to member states the need to be cognisant of these potentially adverse impacts of biofuels on land use in developing countries.

Ireland argues for a restriction on food crop-based biofuels and for incentives to develop advanced biofuels. Our preference is for as low a cap as is achievable. To help reach agreement on the Commission's proposal, Ireland has been practical by supporting the Lithuanian Presidency's compromise providing for a reduction in a cap of 7%. The proposals tabled are part of the normal process of identifying a workable compromise.

2:20 pm

Photo of Maureen O'SullivanMaureen O'Sullivan (Dublin Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is very disappointing. The bottom line is that the production of biofuels should not undermine food security. There is no doubt that the biofuels mandates are having major negative effects on food production. It is almost as if there is a conflict between the production of food for the world's poor and fuel consumption by the world's rich. It is very disappointing that Ireland regards the 7% cap as being as low as is achievable and that we are supporting it. Why are we not continuing to support a cap of 5%? The merits of such a cap were borne out at the Mary Robinson conference on climate justice which Ireland hosted. The Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Deputy Pat Rabbitte, when he met representatives of the NGOs, certainly gave the impression that they had made a compelling case for not applying the higher rate of 7%. We are aware that a number of countries, including the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Denmark, Finland, Belgium and Luxembourg, have committed to having a cap of 5%. Italy has lowered its cap from 7% to 6%. A cap of 5% is advocated by the European Commission, but the Presidency is supporting a cap of 7%. My question is on policy coherence between the two Departments.

Photo of Joe CostelloJoe Costello (Dublin Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What I said was that during our Presidency we had fought hard to make the Commission's amendment, namely, a rate of 5%. We failed to obtain agreement at that point. We would like to achieve the lowest possible level, but at this point there is very substantial disagreement among member states, particularly Poland and eastern European states, which want a higher level. Many of them want no cap at all because of investments they have made in biofuels in their territories. Other countries such as the United Kingdom and Denmark want a lower level, just as Ireland wants the lowest possible level that can be achieved. In this matter, as in most matters in the European Union such as the multi-annual financial framework voted on today in the European Parliament, there is much desire on the part of Ireland and other countries to have a greater amount of finance for the period 2014 to 2020. Eventually, a compromise is brought forward. We have opted for the upper end of the compromise figure, which is 7%. We would prefer if it were 5%. If the cap is achievable, it will certainly be better than the 10% that obtains at present.

Photo of Maureen O'SullivanMaureen O'Sullivan (Dublin Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Failing to have an agreement does not mean that Ireland should give up on this issue. An interesting report produced recently by Action Aid examines the difference between the rates of 5% and 7%. The difference is such that if the former was adopted, over 68 million people could be fed. It is all very well to say we might have the lower cap by 2020, but by then how many more people will have died from hunger? I acknowledge what the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and Irish Aid do to relieve hunger, but it is as if we are giving with one hand and taking back with the other. I urge the Government not to take the issue of the cap off the agenda and to continue to argue for a figure of 5%. Ireland should join the group with the United Kingdom and the other member states which are supporting a cap of 5%; it should not regard 7% as a compromise.

Photo of Joe CostelloJoe Costello (Dublin Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The current position is that the cap is 10%. It is an amended position put forward in 2012. The Deputy should not forget that the original position in 2009 meant a cap of 10%. That will remain the position, unless we make an amendment securing a reduction. It is a question of working towards the best cap we can get and continuing with that work. We fought hard during our Presidency for a reduction to 5%. One should remember that all Irish biofuel is from waste material and that we do not use any food crop in its manufacture. We are setting a good example in that respect and will continue to seek a further reduction.