Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

This amendment seeks to ensure that within the Bill the approach taken in regard to removals would be in a manner consistent with current international carbon reporting practice. This arises in the context of the elevated focus on removals signalled by the Government's acceptance of amendments on Committee Stage and the Report Stage amendments brought forward by the Government which place a stronger emphasis on removals. How that is done will be important, as will be how much that is done.

My concern, which the Minister might address, is whether there will be a cap on the level of removals. For example, might it be 5%, 10%, 20%? What we do not want to see happen is that, rather than reducing emissions, we are disappearing or calculating out so that they do not count on paper. I previously mentioned the idea of getting credit for the taps that you do not turn on that allows you to keep other taps running. There is sometimes a little bit of that in removals. This is about looking for credit for the things that you do not do as well as for the active measures that you might take to increase removals. I do not see that specifically named in the Government amendments.

The Minister mentioned EU guidelines and the land-use, land-use change and forestry approach. Currently, Ireland is a net emitter. Forestry is a net emitter. We hear a lot about trees. The approach we have taken to forestry is such that currently forestry emits more emissions than it sequesters. It is important that that is reflected. My amendment, if inserted, copper-fastens it. In my amendment, I state "current international carbon reporting practice", which is the language from the Scottish legislation and how they approached the issue of removals. The Minister specifies the EU. In referencing "international" I am hoping to encompass the EU and UN evolving science in these measures. The other part of the amendment, that is, "in a manner that is consistent" is about making sure that we set some limits on how removals are used. I am concerned. I opposed a blunt insertion of the idea of removals without any caveats, as happened on Committee Stage. There is a real danger that in the end we will still be producing a lot of emissions and we will not reach the goal of highest possible ambition of progression.

If we have two hands that we can act with, that is, removals and emissions reduction, we should be working with both hands. I believe that farmers should be paid and supported. They are custodians of the land, but they are not the only custodians of the land.Every person in Ireland is a custodian of the land of the country. It is important to remember that it is a shared responsibility of farmers and everyone else. All of us play a role in this. We need to look at how we can sequester and remove better but it must not be done in any way that compromises our ultimate goal of as much reduction in emissions as we can possibly achieve. I suggest that as the Minister develops those guidelines, it might be worthwhile for him to refer back to some of the committee proceedings where we heard about double-counting scenarios in which trees are reported as doing two or three different pieces of work.

I am concerned that the Minister has mentioned a potential trading scheme in this area because that opens us up to further potential manoeuvres. We know how trading systems and company structures, etc., have been used to move tax around the world so it never really gets counted anywhere. I hope we will be very careful not to introduce measures like that. The Minister hinted that such an approach might be taken in the case of emissions.

The Minister did not answer my question about the regulations he intends to insert under the proposed new subsection (5B), which corresponds with my amendment No. 9. I asked the Minister to assure us that a change in the baseline year will not lead to any diminution, reduction or backward slide. Such a change should not lead to a different way of measuring progress which effectively reduces the amount of tonnage that might need to be sought. It should not lead to any scenario that involves a potential for backsliding. In fact, it should operate on the principle of highest possible ambition and progression. In effect, there should be a ratchet approach.

The Minister has just told me that the baseline year was politically negotiated and that something else would be politically negotiated. If we allow for a change of baseline year in this legislation, I want to be assured that we are not allowing whatever is politically negotiated to be less ambitious. Our prerogative now, as the legislators in this Oireachtas, is to ensure this Bill is a strong as possible. I do not want us to be inserting loopholes to allow for the programme for government negotiations of a future Government. That is not my affair as a legislator. I do not like to see that being brought into this Bill. The Minister did not answer my question on that point. He simply indicated that it is a political matter for the future. Can the Minister give me an assurance that the baseline year movement will not be effectively regressive? Can he also say whether there is potential within the regulations he has set out for the degree to which removals might be used to be limited?