I thank the committee for hearing our evidence session today. To add a little more context to what Mr. Coghlan has introduced, it is important to note what these climate plans are. As members are aware, Ireland has got climate planning obligations under both domestic and EU law. To ensure our commitments that we have made internationally and domestically to address the climate crisis and make progress towards net zero are met, the NECP and the national long-term strategy are essential, EU-mandated climate plans designed to set out in detail how we are going to meet our national and international commitments. These are not tick-box exercises. Both these strategies are really important for setting out what we are going to do to get to net zero, when we are going to do it and how exactly we are going to do it. This is so important and it fills in any gaps in domestic climate planning. It is important to flag that these are mandatory requirements of the EU's governance regulation. Again, they are not optional opt-in choices; they are mandatory requirements.
Where are we with these planning processes? They are part of a rolling process which happen every few years. With the NECP, the first one was submitted in 2019. All member states must submit a final updated or revised NECP to the European Commission by the end of June this year. Over the past year, there has been an ongoing process of updating our final NECP in line with the EU's updated targets. That is the NECP side of things and must be finalised by the end of June.
Regarding the national long-term strategy, the first was published in April 2023 and it is worth flagging that it was more than three years late. Most of the other member states had published their national long-term strategies and we were three years late publishing ours. The final long-term strategy is due to be published this year and it is due to be updated before January 2025. These are two processes that are interlinked and it is important to remember that the two must be consistent with each other. The sequencing of the publication of these plans is very important as well and that is something we need to flag.
In terms of how we are doing so far with these two processes, our analysis indicates that Ireland's approach to these two critical planning processes has been very problematic. I am going to flag three common themes, but we would be happy to take questions on any of the substantive or procedural issues in the questions and answers after this. The first of the three things we have noticed is delay. Compliance with the mandatory timelines which the EU has set has been very challenging. We have been consistently late across all of these processes. Other member states have been late as well but not as late as us. The quality of the plans and draft plans, when they have been produced, has also been quite problematic. The issue with the delays is that they have frustrated public participation in the decision-making processes. They have undermined the whole EU-wide process because the Commission reports on these plans as a whole. Ireland is causing a problem for the EU as a whole and its monitoring the progress towards meeting our climate neutrality targets. What has happened is that the extreme delay with the national long-term strategy, which is the ultimate point we want to meet, has led to piecemeal, incomplete and outdated plans. It has wasted an opportunity to provide clarity on the types of policy choices we need to make in Ireland to meet these targets.
The second issue is alignment. As I have said, the governance regulation requires consistency between these plans but the current drafts do not have the level of detail we need to be able to assess whether it is going to be consistent.
How are we going to meet the targets? It is not possible to say that at the minute, as we cannot assess it. There is not enough detail. There is also a big problem caused by a lack of alignment or sequencing between domestic and EU climate planning processes. That is annoying, apart from anything else, because it creates duplication of effort. It makes it really difficult for stakeholders to engage in these processes because there are so many process ongoing at different times and they relate to different periods. It also causes confusion between stakeholders. Responding to these processes is difficult.
There is also no obvious alignment between a rake of other plans, including the territorial just transition plan, the national energy poverty action plan and the national energy efficiency of buildings plan. Alignment and sequencing are really problematic.
Finally, the public participation and political engagement in these critical EU processes has been really problematic. As we do not have up-to-date data and detailed scenarios in the plans, it is impossible for stakeholders to effectively undertake meaningful analysis of whether the strategies put Ireland on a credible pathway to climate neutrality and meeting the mandatory targets. This process has been particularly problematic with the NECP because there were no public participation processes ongoing while the draft was being prepared. The public consultation exercise was quite late and did not allow for early and effective engagement.
Another thing worth flagging here is that there has been no transboundary consultation, despite the significant impact of the plans on the North. As the committee can tell from my Belfast accent, this is of particular concern to me because these are plans of strategic importance. Obviously, there are legal obligations to consult with the competent authorities but citizens should also have a say in these plans. They are going to impact the whole island. The fact there has been no meaningful attempt to encourage proper public participation in these critical plans undermines the whole process of climate planning and potentially creates confusion and backlash against the climate targets and objectives.
That is an overview of the themes we have seen in the preparation of these plans to date. We need to make sure going forward that the recommendations of the commission, which align very closely with our own analysis and were made at the start of May in respect of the draft plans, are addressed in the final document. We need to have more detailed data and proper pathways set out in these plans in order that we can assess whether they are consistent. That is what needs to happen now. There is another consultation exercise happening at the end of May and we will be looking very carefully at the final plan. Ireland really needs to step up its game in terms of these critical processes. That is everything I have to say. My colleagues, on screen and in the room, and I would be very happy to take any questions members may have on these issues. I thank the committee.