Seanad debates
Thursday, 7 July 2022
Circular Economy, Waste Management (Amendment) and Minerals Development (Amendment) Bill 2022: Report and Final Stages
9:30 am
Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source
I will speak to the group of amendments as a whole. I am seeking to insert a definition of "climate justice" into the Bill by means of amendment No. 3. This is the definition that Senators from all Opposition groups sought to insert into the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development (Amendment) Bill 2021 last summer. The reason I am seeking to insert the definition into the Bill relates to a core issue, namely, that the Bill is somewhat too narrowly focused on Ireland and the Irish economy. This is evident in the fact the Bill has such a strong focus on consumption and levies at point of consumption, and does not have measures that are sufficiently strong or robust in respect of manufacturing or the supply chain, which are very important issues that should be addressed, should be central to this and should fall in line with, for example, the due diligence debates taking place at EU level.
When we look at the circular economy in the round, we cannot solely focus on our Irish economy existing separately from the rest of the world. We need to look to the impacts on the rest of the world, in addition to the economic activity of wealthy countries and how it worsens the climate crisis for those in the global south. This has been spoken about in the context of issues such as the current famine in the Horn of Africa and the significantly worsening climate emergency, but it is also very important when we look to things such as scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions, including supply chain emissions under scope 3. That is why we should have a stronger international focus and a stronger focus on the supply chain and manufacturing. It is to facilitate this that at later points in the Bill I seek to insert the definition of climate justice. It is the definition that reflects the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change commitments to equity and common but differentiated responsibilities in respect of capacities and capabilities. We will have other amendments in areas such as fast fashion, which touch on some of those supply chain issues and scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions.
Amendment No. 4 outlines a definition of just transition we seek to insert into the legislation. This definition defines just transition as a transition that ensures the economic, environmental and social consequences of the necessary fast but fair transformation of economies and societies "are managed in ways that maximise opportunities of decent work for all, reduce inequalities, promote social justice, and support industries, workers and communities who are negatively affected". It would be good if we began to have stronger and clearer definitions of just transition in legislation. Sometimes, just transition gets invoked in an abstract way, as if it means, for example, we keep things the same whereas the key to just transition is fast and fair. We need to make these transitions but do so in a fair way. We need to start clarifying that and making it clearer and more evident in legislation. This is an amendment that would allow and make clear legislation should operate in a way that is equitable and affects those principles I have talked about in reducing poverty and supporting social justice.
As a principle of equity, there is a problem if the main measures we take are continually focused on the point of consumption. When the Minister of State spoke to the last suite of amendments, he talked about affecting behaviour. It is not sufficient or adequate that we focus constantly on persons as consumers because the State also has citizens who have elected us as decision makers, not to solely advise them what to do as consumers, but to also regulate industries and sectors and put hard and proper measures in place in areas such as manufacturing. There is something about moving things to the consumer choice space and seeking to influence that, while failing to bring in hard regulatory measures in areas such as manufacturing, public procurement and others, which, in itself, is inequitable. It does not deal with those who tend to profiteer at the highest levels from bad practices and those who have profited in the past from the production of, for example, fast fashion.
Amendment No. 20 outlines a provision relating to the circular economy fund for insertion into the Bill. I will not move it because I realise there is a problem with it in that it is limited to financial institutions in the State. It should have been amended to include financial institutions more widely in the EU. I want to avoid circumstances where we have inappropriate financial institutions involved in this operation. The amendment might need to be reworded so I will not proceed with it.
Amendment No. 21 seeks to add a provision that moneys may be paid out of the fund "to assist [in] the establishment of public-public partnerships for research and development in the area of the circular economy and waste management;”." Amendments Nos. 20 and 21 relate to a much wider issue that affects research in Ireland. It is the fact we see a major emphasis on research in commercial areas around the development of products to be marketed, but nowhere near the same emphasis on the frontiers of blue-sky research, research for the public good, research, for example, into social processes and other areas, and all the other mechanisms that, in the context of a circular economy, may in some cases lead to a shrinking of certain areas of the economy. That is what we might actually need in certain areas. It might lead to changes in social practices and to situations whereby we may have products and measures that are less profitable for everybody but lead to greater outcomes. For example, simple measures such as the provision of public water fountains. This comes from a wider concern I have, which is that again and again I have pressed for public-public research in order that we might look for public solutions in certain areas. These may be about removing areas from commercial activity and delivering them in a different way to make sure people's needs and wants are being addressed but not always through consumption of products. This is an area of important research. The circular economy fund should contribute to that.
Amendment No. 22 seeks to add that the circular economy fund would be used "to assist the establishment, equipping and, where appropriate, the operation of facilities which provide repair services". This might not be profitable. It may well be these are non-profit or community repair services but it would be an example of just transition in practice, in effect, if we were to use the fund not simply to develop new commercial products but ensure that people can get longer lifetimes from their goods. That would be a signal. This relates to just transition, but Voice of Irish Concern for the Environment, VOICE, Ireland has explicitly suggested that a right to repair should be regulated for. If we look to things such as repair cafés and men's sheds, these are the kinds of measures that are just transition in practice. This would send a signal that, when we talk about the circular economy, it is not just about extra levies on the things people buy. It is about supporting people to get greater value from the things they own. That would be a very practical measure. I hope the Minister of State takes amendment No. 22 on board. It is a very decent and constructive proposal around addressing the issue of planned obsolescence, especially in electronics, which is a significant area of concern. We simply cannot afford to have electronics that become obsolete. Recycling is not adequate. These are not captured in that single-use space, but they are a significant resource management problem.
Amendment No. 23 seeks to provide that the circular economy fund might be used "to develop public industrial washing facilities which support the use of reusable food and drink containers by local businesses and public services;”." The State is planning to have one industrial washing facility at present. We should have one in every region. This is one of the absolute game changers we could have. It is one of key obstacles that comes up again and again. I even know it from the place where I buy juice, where I have asked the same containers to be refilled but it cannot be done because of health and safety measures and other issues. We should have industrial washing facilities that allow businesses to, at scale, reach relevant hygiene and other standards in the sterilisation of containers in order that they can be reused.In many cases, people will go to the same places again and again. Public services that provide people with foods should be able to access these industrial washing facilities. This could be a significant measure. This is the kind of concrete support for businesses and services that is needed. This is not just for the individual. It is fine for me when I am carrying around a coffee cup, but most people will not carry around every food container and most businesses will not be able to fill an individual's food containers. However, businesses can and should be able to not use disposable materials, but to take materials back from their customers, have them industrially washed, and then reused. These would be significant. It is almost moving back to the tiffin boxes that are used in other parts of the world that are ahead of us on the issue of reuse of a materials. This is one of the biggest measures that we could take to make this possible, especially for smaller businesses that may not be able to have large-scale sterilisation facilities on-site.
Amendment No. 24 adds the provision that in dispensing money from the circular economy fund, the Minister may dispense funds to assist, support and promote initiatives to restore, conserve and renovate buildings to reduce embodied emissions that result from demolition. One of the biggest areas of emissions is from buildings and from the demolition of buildings. If a building is demolished, it does not matter if the building that is built to replace it afterwards is covered in solar panels and whatever else, it will still be 70 years before those embodied emissions are compensated for. These emissions are presenting themselves in the period where we are under most pressure, which is this next decade when e need to look at every measure we can take to reduce embodied emissions going forward.
My next point relates to the issue of repair and, in some cases, a more specialist form of repair. Sometimes we focus on innovation in new areas. There is much talk about technologies and about how they are going to help us. However, one of the most important aspects of the circular economy is old skills that are time intensive but that, in many cases, may have fallen out of favour. We need new apprenticeships in these areas. Let us consider all the shutters across Ireland that were painted shut and the difference they make in older buildings. We must consider how we can repair buildings. There are specific skills in those areas. While they may seem to be heritage skills, they are also key climate skills and key to the efficient management of resources in minimising emissions.
Amendment No. 25 seeks to add a new provision that the Minister may dispense funds from the circular economy fund to assist, support or promote actions or initiatives undertaken by international organisations and NGOs to further climate justice. I have said that climate justice needs to be reflected in this Bill. The amendment is a tangible measure that could be taken to further climate justice. I am thinking of international NGOs, as well as indigenous groups that have been at the forefront of ending wasteful practices down the line in the supply chain in, for example, the areas of mineral extraction and precious metals extraction. NGOs have been advocating strongly for climate justice. That advocacy is crucial to make the links with the supply chain and to highlight the practices in fast fashion and other areas. One of the important things that these NGOs often do is raise awareness in development education in Ireland among the public around which companies, not just in the shop, have ethical and environmentally sound practices. They address sustainability change, they challenge that and they empower and support citizens and customers to demand more information. That is why I mention international NGOs in that context. In some cases, it is a matter of having groups that are in Ireland but are making the links with others internationally. This is so that we do not only start looking at the issue once it hits the shop floor and we are able to have these conversations because climate change is a global threat. It needs global co-operation. Ireland has a record in this. It has spoken at the UN and it has claimed to have a strong commitment to the role of civil society internationally in climate change. This is an opportunity to put that into effect.
I apologise that this is such a large grouping of amendments. I will not move amendment No. 26 because it is not a material change. It is necessary because of the wording that is already there.
Amendment No. 27, again, seeks to improve transparency and accountability in the legislation. It seeks to add that when a committee is established under subsection (14) to advise the Minister with respect to the performance of her functions under subsections (9) or (12), that where a Minister has a material interest in a matter that is under consideration by the committee, he or she would have to declare that interest and would subsequently recuse himself or herself from such deliberations. This would be important in a situation whereby there is a committee that is to advise the Minister, and one of those members has an interest. It is making sure that there are provisions such as declarations of interest extend down the line. I tabled similar amendments to both the Land Development Agency Act and the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act, , both of which were accepted. It improves transparency and accountability and it makes it clear that we do not have any case of, or even a perception of a risk of, there being undue interests at play in the advice that a Minister may receive. I would urge the Minister of State to, therefore, accept this amendment.
No comments