I move:
That Dáil Éireann approves the terms of
(1) the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer, 22nd March, 1985,
(2) The Montreal Protocol on Substances that deplete the Ozone Layer, 16th September, 1987, and
(3) the Protocol of 26th March, 1986, amending the Convention for the Protection of Marine Pollution from Land-Based Sources, 4th June, 1974 by the inclusion of provisions on the prevention of transatmospheric pollution,
copies of which were laid before Dáil Éireann on 6th May, 1988.
These three international agreements have the common purpose of limiting air pollution of the kind which does not respect national boundaries but can have regional or even global effects. Air pollution of this kind has been the subject of extensive discussion and regulatory activity in recent years. At EC level action has been taken to limit air pollution from industrial plants and motor vehicles. At the level of the Economic Commission for Europe in Geneva the emphasis has been on the reduction of overall national sulphur and nitrogen oxide emissions. More recently, and because of the global nature of the problem, the United Nations Environment Programme UNEP has become involved and, under its auspices, the Vienna Convention and the Montreal Protocol, both of which are concerned with the protection of the ozone layer, have been negotiated. I propose to deal first with these agreements which the Dáil is now being asked to approve.
There has been growing concern over the past few years about the depletion of the ozone layer. The discovery by scientists of a hole in the ozone layer over Antarctica each spring has been graphically illustrated in satellite images and shows the threat facing the earth's atmosphere. The main substances implicated are chemicals called chlorofluoro-carbons, commonly referred to as CFCs. These are widely used as propellants in aerosols, in refrigerants and in the manufacture of foam plastics, such as the packaging used in the fast-food outlets.
Ozone is a gas comprised of three oxygen atoms. It surrounds the earth, protecting it and its inhabitants from the direct effects of the sun's rays. Ozone is most dense in the atmosphere at level of 20-25 kilometres above the earth in a layer known as the stratosphere. However, even there, only one molecule in 100,000 is ozone. It has been estimated that if all the ozone were collected at the earth's survace it would form a layer less that three millimetres thick, roughly one-tenth of an inch. It is obvious, therefore, that even small changes in ozone concentrations could have major effects for life on earth by reducing the extent to which we are screened from the harmful ultraviolet rays of the sun. It is this ultra-violet radiation which gives our skins a tan in summer. As is now widely recognised, excessive exposure can result in increased skin cancers and eye diseases such as cataracts. Animal health can also be adversely affected and crop yields reduced. Increased ultraviolet radiation could also contribute to global warming, or the so called "greenhouse effect", which could result in dramatically altered weather patterns, shifts in deserts and fertile regions and a rise in sea levels.
Ozone is produced naturally from oxygen, high in the atmosphere, where strong radiation from the sun breaks up oxygen molecules. Natural forces also break down ozone, with the result that the gas is being constantly created and destroyed. The speed at which these reactions occur determines how much ozone is naturally present in the atmosphere at any given time. But we now know that the presence of certain chemicals in the atmosphere can speed up the destruction of ozone. In the early seventies researchers in the United States suggested that certain man-made long-lived compounds containing chlorine — in other terms CFCs — would penetrate the stratosphere and decompose; this would release chlorine, which in turn would speed up the destruction of ozone and deplete the ozone layer surrounding the earth. Research and monitoring since the early eighties has shown the validity of the theory of the effects of chlorine on the ozone layer. While some changes can be explained by seasonal and natural factors, it is clear that the release of CFCs to the atmosphere is the main problem.
As I stated earlier, CFCs are used as propellants to force substances through the nozzles of aerosols. They are also used as the refrigerant for refrigerators and air-conditioning systems, foam blowing for take-away cartons, and in insulation materials, including the foam used for cavity insulation in houses. Some CFCs are also used in fire extinguishers for specialist uses, such as computer and electrical systems, and as solvents in the electronics industry. These chemicals are released to the atmosphere during the manufacturing process, when aerosols are used, when fast-food containers are crushed, and when refrigerants leak. As they are inert, they remain in the atmosphere for a long time.
Research has already shown a reduction in the ozone layer surrounding the earth. This reduction is mainly concentrated over Antarctica, but monitoring has indicated reductions in the Northern hemisphere as well. High altitude aircraft, fitted out with special instruments, have been measuring the constituents of the upper atmosphere and analysis of the results has revealed an abundance of chlorine. This supports the link between the presence of chlorine and the depletion of ozone, but many uncertainties remain to be resolved. What particular factors cause Antarctica to be most affected? How exactly does chlorine affect the chemical processes in the atmosphere? Valuable international research is continuing on these and other issues.
Changes in the ozone layer will have effects throughout the world, changes which will not be limited by national boundaries. It is essential, therefore, that countries co-operate extensively with one another in international efforts to resolve the problems. In 1985, the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer was concluded under the auspices of the United Nations Environmental Programme. The Convention is essentially a framework one; in other words, its obligations were expressed in general terms but it envisaged more specific measures being negotiated as Protocols to it. The Convention provides for international co-operation in research, monitoring and exchange of data, and it obliges states which are a party to it to adopt legislative or administrative measures to control, limit or reduce activities found to have adverse modifying effects on the ozone layer.
Within the Convention framework, the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer was concluded in September 1987. The Protocol contains measures to control the use of the eight substances regarded as having the greatest potential for depleting the ozone layer. The substances involved are five CFC's and three halons, compounds which also contain chlorine. The controls on these substances apply to their production, consumption, import and export. As regards CFC's, the main measures involve stabilisation by 1989 of consumption at 1986 levels, a reduction of 20 per cent on these levels by 1993 and a reduction of a further 30 per cent by 1998. Consumption of halons must be stabilised at 1986 levels by 1992. Parties to the Protocol will be prohibited from importing the controlled substances from third countries and parallel controls will apply in relation to the production of CFC's and halons.
Ireland must support the aims and objectives of both the Vienna Convention and the Montreal Protocol. Ireland did not sign the Convention during the limited period it was open for signature because the enactment of the Air Pollution Act, 1987, which contained extensive statutory powers for the control of air pollution was then imminent. However, we are now committed to completing all the procedures necessary to allow us to accede to the Vienna Convention and sign and ratify the Montreal Protocol in the autumn.
The Air Pollution Act, 1987, provides all the statutory powers necessary to meet our obligations under the Convention and Protocol. It contains a general provision in section 24 requiring the use of the best practicable means to limit and if possible to prevent emissions. In addition, section 23, dealing with the prohibition of certain emissions, was drafted specifically with the Convention and Protocol in mind. It enables the Minister for the Environment, by regulations, to prohibit the production, treatment, use, import, placing on the market, distribution or sale of any substance, other than a fuel, which may cause air pollution. The general provisions of the Act in regard to research and monitoring are also relevant. In addition to statutory measures, the option of administrative measures is available; indeed EC decisions of 1980 and 1982 on a reduction in the use of CFC's in aerosols were implemented effectively here by a voluntary agreement with industry. I look forward to, and indeed confidently expect, the co-operation of industry in the implementation of the international agreements, the terms of which I am now asking Dáil Éireann to approve.
As the world's major producer of CFC's, responsible for some 57 per cent of total world output, the European Communities, represented by the Commission, played an important role in the negotiation of the Montreal Protocol. Indeed, the Protocol provides that the required controls may be observed jointly by the EC as a whole rather than at the level of individual member states. A draft regulation has now been proposed by the Commission limiting both Community imports of controlled substances and the quantities of these substances which may be produced within the EC for Community use. This would gradually restrict the supply of controlled substances within the EC and encourage the speedier development of alternative products. The proposed regulation would bear directly on producers and users of CFC's within the Community and, save perhaps for technical measures to facilitate inspection and enforcement, would satisfy the control requirements of the Protocol for the Community as a whole, without the need to use national legislation. However, as I said earlier, adequate national measures could be developed, if needs be, by regulations under section 23 of the Air Pollution Act, 1987.
CFC's and halons are not manufactured in Ireland and our overall use of these substances is small. For example, our 1986 annual consumption of CFC's was about 1,200 tonnes or only about 0.4 per cent of EC consumption. Use of CFC's for aerosol manufacturing here has continued to decline since 1975 and Ireland has more than observed a 30 per cent cutback enjoined in the EC decisions of 1980 and 1982. Some 95 per cent of the CFC's and halons used in Ireland are imported from Community countries, principally the UK and the Netherlands.
I do not anticipate that implementation of the convention and Protocol will pose particular problems for Ireland. The fact that controls will apply on a world-wide scale should encourage the timely development of alternative substances to replace diminishing quotas of the CFC's and halons regulated by the Protocol and thus avoid real problems for industry.
I believe that the Montreal Protocol can most effectively be implemented within the European Communities by means of the binding regulation now proposed. For this reason, I strongly supported the Commission's proposals in this regard at the last Environment Council meeting in March. I was pleased that there was general support for the Commission proposal although some of the details remain to be ironed out. The Council will be considering the regulation again at its meeting on 16 June in Luxembourg and today's debate in this House, is, therefore, a very timely one.
It is the intention that the Montreal Protocol would come into force on 1 January 1989. However, for this to come about, the Vienna Convention must be in force and the Protocol must have been ratified by at least 11 countries representing two-thirds of the 1985 world consumption of the controlled substances. The Environment Ministers of the European Communities have committed themselves, therefore, to completing all necessary national and Community procedures so that the EC and all its member states can ratify the Vienna Convention and Montreal Protocol this autumn. It is important, therefore, that I should be in a position to tell my colleagues in Europe that the Irish Parliament has approved of the terms of this important Convention and Protocol.
When the EC regulation has been adopted, as I expect it may be at the next Environment Council meeting on 16 June, I will be able to complete the remaining procedures to allow for Ireland's participation in these international agreements. As I stated already, most of the obligations arising are likely to be dealt with under the EC regulation but some ancillary action may be necessary here. I expect also that research and monitoring will be developed in Ireland. Already some research is being carried out at UCD and UCG, and I am anxious that this should be continued and developed.
I am aware of calls for banning the use of CFC's in aerosols. I believe, however, that the controls on production and consumption to be introduced under the Montreal Protocol will lead quickly to CFC's being used only for purposes for which alternatives cannot be found. Accordingly, I am confident that the decline in the use of CFC's in aerosols will accelerate as alternative substances are developed. Public awareness of the issues will help to accelerate this decline in consumption and I intend, therefore, to devote some attention to this aspect in the coming months.
There have also been calls for the labelling of aerosols containing CFC's. This would be difficult to apply unilaterally in Ireland as the majority of aerosols used here are imported. However, I welcome recent statements from some multinational manufacturers of their intention not to use CFCs in their products and to label their products as CFC-free. At the Environment Council in March, the Commissioner responsible for environmental issues stated that the Commission was examining the possibility of introducing a Community label for CFC-free products. I believe that this would probably be the most effective way forward, given that most of our aerosols are imported. I will, however, keep the situation under review and if there are no early developments at Community level, I will be considering other possibilities.
Environmental protection should not be dependent solely on Government regulation. As individuals we are all responsible for the quality of our environment and in our daily lives we should exercise the options which are favourable to the environment. Therefore, I would strongly urge all my colleagues in the House and all consumers to consider whether or not they really need to buy certain products in the form of aerosols which use CFCs. Many toiletries are available in formats other than aerosols. Where the consumer prefers to buy an aerosol, he or she should ask if it is CFC-free and thereby help to create demand for such products. Many aerosols, such as furniture polish and hairsprays, are available CFC-free. This is one of the areas where we can take responsibility ourselves for the quality of our environment.
I now turn to the Convention for the Protection of Marine Pollution from Land-Based Sources, commonly known as the Paris Convention, which was concluded in recognition of the need for concerted international action to protect the marine environment. The Convention requires contracting states to take action under a number of headings. There is a general obligation to take all possible steps to prevent pollution of the sea from land-based sources through the introduction by man, directly or indirectly, of substances or energy which cause hazards to human health, living resources and marine ecosystems, or damage to amenities, or interference with other legitimate uses of the sea. In particular, measures are required to be taken so as to achieve the elimination, if necessary by stages, of pollution caused by certain persistent and toxic substances and the reduction of pollution by other less noxious substances. In addition, contracting states are required to forestall, and as appropriate, eliminate pollution by radioactive substances, including wastes.
With the growing awareness of the effects of transboundary air pollution, it was decided that the Paris Convention should be amended to include measures on the prevention of marine pollution from the atmosphere. Accordingly, a Protocol was adopted in April 1986 extending the provisions of the Paris Convention to the prevention of marine pollution from atmospheric sources. The Protocol is in the nature of a framework agreement and was signed on behalf of Ireland in June, 1986. It allows the Commission which administers the Convention to develop proposals and carry out research to protect the marine environment from pollution from atmospheric sources and, together with the original Convention, will enable comprehensive measures to be taken to protect the marine environment from pollution from all sources. The Air Pollution Act, 1987 enables us to meet our obligations under the Protocol.
Since the Protocol was agreed in 1986, work has been concentrated on research projects on atmospheric inputs to the sea. There is no evidence that Irish emissions contribute to any significant extent to acid deposition in other European countries and this is also true in relation to atmospheric imputs to the sea. It is likely that any specific measures which may be adopted by the Paris Commission under the Protocol will be closely aligned to the provisions of the air pollution directives already adopted by the EC and implementation here should not create difficulties.
This motion is before the House today because of the requirements of Article 29, sub-article 5.2, of the Constitution under which the State shall not be bound by any international agreement involving a charge upon public funds unless the terms of the agreement shall have been approved by Dáil Éireann. A charge on public funds arises indirectly from these international agreements and relates only to our proportionate contributions to the cost of administering the agreements. The annual liability in the initial years is likely to be of the order of £3,000 in respect of the Vienna Convention and Montreal Protocol, and about £2,000 in respect of the Paris Protocol. These payments will be financed from the Environment Vote.
Molaim an tairiscint seo don Teach. Is ábhar an-tábhachtach é truailliú an aeir. Caithfimid an teachtaireacht a scaipeadh go bhfuilimid go léir freagrach as ár dtimpleacht a chothú. Léiríiríonn an diospóireacht seo faoin sraith ozón pointe eile freisin, 'sé sin an gá atá ann le comhoibriú idirnáisiúnta chun timpleacht an domhain ar fad a chaomhnú. Tá sé í gceist agam go nglacfaidh muidne anseo in Éirinn páirt chuí sa bhfeachtas seo. Mar sin, tá mé cinnte go n-aontóidh an Teach leis an tairiscint mhórchúiseach seo.