UN Conference on Environment and Development: Statements.

Minister for the Environment (Mr. Smith)

I am very happy the Dáil has the opportunity to discuss the forthcoming UN Conference on Environment and Development. The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development — UNCED — is the most comprehensive international effort ever mobilised in favour of the environment. More than two years of intensive negotiations for UNCED have now taken place; these have engaged an unprecedented number of countries and international agencies. These preparations will culminate in next month's Rio conference from which decisions of historic importance for environment and development are expected.

UNCED has been driven by three fundamental considerations: first, that the protection of the environment is increasingly a global enterprise and concern, for which global solutions are essential; second, that poverty is a major cause and effect of global environmental problems; these must therefore be addressed within a framework which takes account of the needs of the developing world, and; third, that sustainable development is the key to all the solutions involved — that is, development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.

Ireland strongly supports the UNCED process. We have participated fully at all four major preparatory committee meetings for UNCED, including the last one in New York in March at which I presented the conclusions of the Dublin Conference on Water and Sustainable Development. We have participated in all EC and OECD preparations for UNCED, including relevant EC Councils and an OECD meeting attended by the Minister for Environmental Protection. Ireland's particular contribution to UNCED preparations was to host a major UN Conference on Water and Sustainable Development in Dublin in January 1992. This conference was directly mandated by the UN to make an input to UNCED on freshwater policies. My Department have produced a national report for UNCED which has recently been submitted to the UN authorities and circulated to Deputies. My Department and the Department of Foreign Affairs are providing assistance to Irish environment and development NGOs to attend the UNCED Global Forum which is taking place in parallel with the intergovernmental conference and ENFO and the Department of Foreign Affairs have financed the production of an educational pack on UNCED to be circulated to schools by DESC, the Development Education Support Centre.

Ireland will also be strongly represented at UNCED next month. The Taoiseach has already made clear his commitment to the conference and will attend the concluding summit of heads of state and government. There will be ministerial representation at UNCED for other appropriate periods by the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment with responsibility for environmental protection, who will both be contributing to this debate, and by myself.

Not least important among our many preparations for UNCED is this Dáil debate itself. It is consistent with the broadly based consultative approach that has characterised UNCED preparations that elected representatives should have full opportunity to put their views on UNCED on the record. I would hope to be able to give some expression to the views emerging from this debate in my own contribution to the Conference.

The Rio Conference takes place around the 20th anniversary of the first world conference on the environment which was held in Stockholm, in June 1972. That United Nations Conference on the Human Environment was a milestone in international environmental co-operation. From our present vantage point, it is difficult to realise that prior to the Stockholm Conference formalised international co-operation on the environment was virtually non-existent.

In 1983, the UN General Assembly established a World Commission on Environment and Development, popularly known as the Brundtland Commission after its chairman. Mrs. Gro Harlem Brundtland, now Prime Minister of Norway. The Brundtland Commission was established as an independent body, representing the developed and developing world and was mandated by the UN to propose strategies for achieving global sustainable development into the next century. The Commission was particularly asked to recommend ways and means to promote sustainable development policies within developing countries.

The Commission's report — Our Common Future — was published in 1987 and forcefully concentrated public opinion on the new concept of sustainable development and on the important relationship between the environment and development. In the words of the Brundtland report:

it is impossible to separate economic development issues from environment issues; many forms of development erode the environmental resources upon which they must be based, and environmental degradation can undermine economic development. Poverty is a major cause and effect of global environmental problems.

The Brundtland report concluded by calling on the UN General Assembly to adopt a programme of action for sustainable development and to convene an international conference to review progress and to promote follow-up arrangements. This appeal sowed the seeds of the UNCED process. In 1989, the UN General Assembly acted on this UN recommendation by resolving to convene the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development on the 20th anniversary of the Stockholm conference; the Government of Brazil agreed to host the meeting in Rio de Janeiro.

The basic concerns of UNCED are continuous with those of the Brundtland Commission, although there is now a more refined understanding of the interaction between environment and development issues. The UNCED agenda has crystallised around a number of urgent environmental problems: climate change and biodiversity, on which global conventions are expected to be adopted; deforestation, on which a Conference statement will issue; desertification, and Agenda 21 which will seek to identify viable environmental strategies across a range of sectors for the 21st century.

The other fundamental question facing UNCED is that of the financial and other transfers and support structures necessary to permit the developing world to assume its environmental obligations. UNCED is also expected to agree a set of fundamental legal principles for the guidance and development policy in the future. This is to be known as the Rio Declaration or Earth Charter.

I would like to comment briefly on these main UNCED agenda items. The Rio Declaration will embody the principles to which states should adhere in drawing up environment and development policies. These principles are all embracing and highlight in particular the importance of environmental protection and the needs for developing countries. At the last preparatory committee meeting in New York, substantial agreement was reached in this very important item. Ireland has supported the declaration as a strong statement of political intent which Heads of State and Government should endorse.

Agenda 21 will define the programmes and activities needed in specific environmental and cross-sectoral areas to implement sustainable development for the future. When finally agreed, Agenda 21 will comprise some 1,000 pages and 30 chapters of programme areas. The topics covered include protection of the atmosphere, oceans and freshwater resources, desertification, deforestation, biotechnology, biodiversity and waste management. Cross-sectoral issues include poverty, consumption and demographics, human settlements and health. These concerns are comprehensive and will be important for future policy making. Wide ranging agreement has been reached on most of Agenda 21. The main outstanding question to be resolved in Rio relates to the means of implementation. These are essentially the issues of finance, technology, and institutional follow-up to the conference. These, and in particular, the question of finance will require difficult political negotiation at Rio.

The financial issue is also critical to final agreement on the conventions on climate change and biodiversity. These are being negotiated in separate parallel processes, but should be completed to allow signature in Rio. Both conventions involve specific commitments. In the case of climate change, the commitments will relate to controls on carbon dioxide and possibly other greenhouse gas emissions. In the case of biodiversity, countries will be required to protect species and habitats and to integrate conservation considerations into other policies. The negotiations on the climate change convention are expected to conclude later today in New York. The negotiations on biodiversity resume next week.

A key factor in both of these negotiations is the need for the developed world to make available to developing countries additional financial resources to assist them to meet their obligations under the conventions. My colleague, the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, will have more to say on this general issue. In principle, however, Ireland supports the provision of new and additional resources and we are prepared to explore the possibilities for this within the constraints of our current economic situation.

I would now like to recall Ireland's particular contribution to the UNCED process by the hosting of the International Conference on Water and the Environment in Dublin in January of this year. This conference was convened by the World Meteorological Organisation on behalf of the many UN organisations with an interest in freshwater issues. It was attended by some 500 participants, including government designated experts from 100 countries and representatives of 80 international, intergovernmental and non-governmental organisations. The Dublin conference was mandated directly by the third preparatory committee to review the freshwater work of UNCED with particular reference to implementation, mechanisms, programme targets and costings. I presented the results of the Conference to the Fourth UNCED Preparatory Committee meeting in New York.

The freshwater chapter of Agenda 21, which is acknowledged to be one of the clearest and most forceful, incorporates much of the language and many of the ideas of the Dublin statement and report on water and sustainable development. In representing the results of the Dublin conference in New York, I called for the dedication of a major share of the funds flowing from UNCED to freshwater management and provision. Improved fresh water management is not just an environmental imperative, it has enormous potential to improve human health, human settlements and agricultural production. Better water management is a core issue in the environment and development relationship. It links many of the problems addressed by UNCED and it should allow these to be resolved simultaneously.

Having surveyed the international background to UNCED, I would now like to describe the relationship of Irish environment policies to the principles and themes of UNCED. Ireland places a high value on its natural environment. Our clean and green environment is rightly perceived as sustaining the quality of life in this country. Ireland's good environment is important economically, because it enhances the quality of our agricultural production and facilitates its marketing. It is also advantageous to tourism and in attracting high class industry and services. It is a fundamental natural asset which will be fully protected and preserved for future generations.

The Irish national report to UNCED, which has just been published, provides an overall view of the interaction between environment and development policies across key sectors of the economy.

Agriculture makes a significant contribution to Irish economic and social life. However, if not properly managed, agriculture can be a source of pollution and destruction for watercourses, habitats and wildlife. The Government response to these problems includes stronger water pollution legislation, a major programme of farmyard pollution control grants and a greater emphasis on educating farmers about conservation and habitat protection.

Environmental considerations are also central to the development of Irish industry. Investment in science and technology will ensure that Irish industry benefits from research in emerging areas such as clean technologies and low waste production processes. The recent major review of industrial policy has argued strongly in favour of Ireland seeking opportunities for advancing ahead of other countries in environmental protection and development and applying environmentally sound technology and processes.

The Irish marine sector has been making a growing contribution to the economy in recent years in terms of increased output, employment and exports. The aquaculture industry is expanding and is opening up new opportunities, particularly for isolated communities. Recreational fisheries is developing as part of the tourist industry. The environmental sustainability of sea fishing is controlled primarily by international arrangements, including a quota system to conserve stocks. In the development of the aquaculture sector, account is taken of potential environmental impacts and the operational controls necessary to minimise these impacts.

An EC assisted investment programme is under way to promote and develop Irish forestry. Ireland is the least forested country in the Community but the increased rate of afforestation in recent decades has brought about a significant change in Irish land use patterns. Land use change on this scale, by its very nature, produces positive and negative impacts on the environment. Environmental impact assessment incorporating greater sensitivity to environmental considerations is a precondition for afforestation. Diversification to broadleaved species is stressed. Increased afforestation also plays a significant and beneficial role in enhancing carbon sink capacity and this is an important aspect of climate change policy.

Environmental protection and sustainable development in Ireland are also supported by the specialised environmental legislation which has been developed over the last 15 years. The development of legislation in the seventies to control water pollution was followed in the eighties by major legislation on air pollution. Irish waste legislation has been developed mainly to transpose the requirements of relevant EC legislation but comprehensive legislation on waste is at present being prepared to complete the main body of Irish environmental legislation.

The Environmental Protection Agency Act, 1992, is the most recent addition to Irish environmental legislation. The new Act sets out a number of guiding principles which the agency must adhere to in the carrying out of their functions. These principles include the need for a high standard of environmental protection, the need to promote sustainable development, the precautionary principle, the polluter pays principle and the need to insure that a proper balance is achieved between environmental and developmental considerations.

Principles alone will not achieve results. Concrete measures are also necessary and these too are provided for in the Environmental Protection Agency Act. The new agency are charged with the operation of integrated pollution control licensing for activities with serious polluting potential. The new system will deal with all emissions to the environment from the activity and will require the application of the best available technology not entailing excessive costs. This approach will ensure that a global multimedia approach rather than a narrow sectoral one will be adopted to environmental licensing. It will recognise the environment as an integrated system to be preserved and renewed rather than as a collection of expendable assets.

A national Environment Action Programme was published by the Government in January 1990. This was the first comprehensive environment programme ever adopted in Ireland and is in line with the international trend towards a programmatic and strategic approach to national environmental management. The Action Programme systematically sets out objectives for protecting and improving the environment across the range of relevant public sector activities and it is founded on the principle of sustainable development, on the precautionary principle and on the integration of environmental considerations into all policies.

The methodology of the Irish environment action programme is clearly based on the identification and setting of targets and policy objectives. They are being subjected to regular review by means of progress reports, the first of which was published in July 1991.

The environment action programme places a high value on environmental awareness, information and promotional programmes — all designed to enable people to act positively towards their environment. This emphasis on environmental awareness and information is consistent with UNCED policies. ENFO has been established as a publicly accessible information service. It has had an enthusiastic response from the public with over 1,000 visitors per week during its first year and a half of operation. Computerised access to ENFO systems is also being made available through the main public libraries.

The Department of the Environment and other public bodies are increasing the output and quality of their environmental publications. Finally, the Environmental Protection Act, 1992, provides for a number of new or improved measures in the area of environmental information. The Environmental Protection Agency will co-ordinate environmental data bases which will be open to the public. The new Act also makes provision for ECO labelling and ECO audit of industries. The Act also provides for regulations to implement the EC directive on freedom of access to information on the environment.

In conclusion, UNCED faces the global community with fundamental decisions about its future. Despite the many difficulties involved, there are some grounds for optimism about the political willingness to address the challenges. UNCED does not, however, represent a panacea or a once and for all solution to the formidable problems which it will confront. The Rio conference is only a beginning: the hope must be that it will set new thresholds and objectives for the ongoing development of sustainable policies into the next century. The Irish Government will make every effort to ensure this outcome.

Mr. J. Mitchell

It is no exaggeration to say that this is a very vital and important issue. In the nature of things it is not the sort of issue that will grab too many headlines. It is extraordinary — and part of my experience — that very often fundamentally important matters get little or no attention in the national or international media. At any rate they get insufficient attention compared to their national and global importance.

This is essentially an economic debate because the whole question of deterioration of the world environment is tied up with money and economics. The central failure of the developed world has been its refusal to face up to its responsibilities to assist developing countries. This failure is manifested in the performance of the OECD countries, including ourselves, who have failed consistently not only to achieve the targets set out by the United Nations in relation to overseas development aid but who have consistently failed to make any progress towards attaining those objectives — it has often been a case of one step forward and two steps backwards. I know that the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs will participate in the debate later, but I am very disappointed that the Minister for the Environment has not emphasised the question of overseas development aid because that is the first key to the solution of helping the Third World to cope with not only the awful problems which they face economically but with the intrinsically connected issues in relation to the environment.

As a State we should be taking the lead in commiting ourselves by a fixed date in this decade to achieving the recommended percentage of GNP contribution towards overseas development aid. Moreover, we should be taking the initiative within the EC to ensure that all our 11 partners are similarly committed. Undoubtedly this would be a major help to developing countries to cope with and face up to their enormous environmental problems, which we share.

In mentioning overseas development aid we should remember that many people have been trying to prick the consciences of politicians to try to make progress towards UN objectives. One is Bishop Casey, who, sadly, has resigned as Bishop of Galway. We should take this opportunity to salute his contribution and to hope that there will be even more ardent prodders of conscience in future to ensure the achievements of the objectives of overseas aid. However, overseas development aid is not the only current question which is important in relation to the developed world. The EC, the G7, the OECD and GATT are also very important to the issues being debated here today. The developed world must live up to their responsibilities. They must make certain sacrifices and prepare and mobilise public opinion in the developed world to make those sacrifices and to halt the slide and deterioration in the global environment which in present economic circumstances are almost unavoidable. Not only are the ODA and GATT talks intrinsically connected with these issues — that is why I say this debate is essentially an economic one — but we also have a major problem in regard to world demographics, particularly in the Third World. This is a sensitive and vital issue for the future world environment. It calls for very deep and clear reflection and reconsideration of policies, not only of states but of churches, in relation to demographics.

When I was Minister for Transport in the early eighties, in the aftermath of the Air India disaster and as a sort of thank you from the Indian Government I was invited as their guest to visit India in 1985. I remember being shattered by the conditions in which people lived in every city, particularly in Calcutta, although the same applied to Bombay and Jaipur. I had been a severe critic of Sanjay Gandhi, the son of Indira Gandhi, brother of Rajiv Gandhi and the grandson of Nehru. The House will recall that Sanjay Gandhi had pressed for compulsory control of family size in India and he was severely criticised throughout the developed world by those who considered themselves liberal and progressive. However, when confronted by the reality of the shocking circumstances in which people lived in India I had to consider whether the criticisms of Sanjay Gandhi were well informed or correct. Since 1985 circumstances in India have worsened. Last year, a Cheann Comhairle, you and I had the honour of visiting Latin America and on my way to the Inter-Parliamentary Union meeting in Chile I stopped off in Rio de Janeiro where the World Conference on the Environment will be held next month. I was shocked by the conditions in which so many people live in that city and I was also shocked that I had been so unaware of the depths of the poverty which afflict that part of the world. We have heard about children being killed. I saw those children who rob and plunder and who, in turn, are killed. Indeed, during my short stay I was attacked and robbed by a group of children. However, in a sense I was glad of the experience because it sharpened my awareness of the problem. It also sharpened my awareness of the almost vulgar prosperity in which we in the northern hemisphere in the western world live compared with so many other people. I cite these facts and experiences because they are central to the debate here today, which, I repeat, is an economic one. It is essentially a question of whether the 25 or so richest countries in the world — of which we are one — are prepared to live up to their responsibilities to the rest of the world. We must stop mouthing platitudes and slogans and take these issues seriously. The Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro next month is a step in the right direction, but one meeting will not be enough. There was a depressing paragraph in the Minister's speech which made me think "Here we go again". The Minister stated that: "In principle, however, Ireland supports the provision of new and additional resources and we are prepared to explore the possibilities for this"— and here is the rub —"within the constraints of our current economic situation.". That is always the condition, and it means never.

I know from my own experience in two Governments, even though the economic pressures were greater then than they are just now, and even though our Taoiseach was deeply and emotionally committed and made insistent demands on the Government to try to find extra funds for overseas development aid, we were able to make very little progress. We did make some progress. However, that progress has been rolled back since. Now we are making a smaller contribution than was made in those years, even though overall things are economically better now. We did better then only because our Taoiseach, Deputy Garret FitzGerald, was so passionately committed. But we still made very little progress and the reason is that the economic departments in every state will accept the principle but add the condition "within the constraints of our current economic situation".

Ireland has a very fine history in assisting the Third Word and in sending out missionaries and volunteers to the Third World to help with education and health in particular. Anyone who has visited India or Brazil, for instance, will have noticed how many Irish missionaries and volunteers are involved in both countries and will have realised how much worse the position in those countries would be without the missionaries and volunteers. I believe that there is a readiness among our people to face up to some sacrifice in order to meet our obligations under the United Nations targets. What has been missing is the political and economic commitment. If this debate can mobilise the support of all parties in the House for making those sacrifices to increase our overseas development aid then something will have been achieved. I hope that we can set a target that within five years Ireland can reach the UN target, regardless of how much other UN countries might disregard their obligations. We should also make the commitment that we will try to get all our EC partners to set a similar target. If by 1997 the twelve EC countries were making available 0.7 per cent of GNP for overseas development aid the extra resources available to the Third World would be dramatic and would make a huge contribution in Third World countries. Let us make as the first target and objective of this debate that we mobilise opinion within the State and within the Community to achieve commitment towards overseas development aid. I believe our country should take the lead and I also believe that in this respect our people are ahead of our politicians.

I remember with great pride the reaction of this country to the initiative of Bob Geldof some years ago. The world reaction to his initiative was good, but this country excelled itself and led the way in responding to the awful plight of the Ethiopian people during the famine there. The plight of those people struck a chord with the Irish, first of all because of our own history and our so-called famine in the previous century — which was not a famine but a hunger. What is known as the famine was an epic event in our history and because of that history we are particularly sensitive to the plight of the Ethiopians, those in Somalia, those in Brazil or those in any country where there is a desperate and grinding poverty. People want to do more and they will make sacrifices to help more. We in this House should tap that rich and generous vein in our people and then export it as we have for so many generations exported it in a different way. Let us generate the same spirit among the rest of the Community.

The debate on the Treaty on European Union, which has been discussed in the House in the past few days, is not an unimportant development in this respect. In the Treaty there is a very welcome inclusion of environmental issues. The environment is clearly put on the agenda as a matter of primary concern for the Community. The only criticism I have in relation to the provisions of the Treaty on European Union is that those concerning the Environment are too vague and lack commitment. I have no doubt that the Minister for the Environment and the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment will play their part in post-referendum Europe in bringing EC environmental policy even further than it is.

I wish to mention two other elements that received scant attention, if any, in the Minister's speech. One issue I am concerned about is urban environment. One of the disappointing things for me is that when many people talk about the environment they confine their remarks to landscapes and greenery. They convey the impression that the environment is merely about fresh air, pure water, green fields and so on. There is very little consideration — or discussion, at least — given to the urban environment, while, of course, it is in the urban areas that most people live and it is in the urban areas that most people are confronted by their daily experiences of the environment. Rio de Janeiro, where the conference will be held, is a frightful city for people to live in. The urban environment there is horrific. Compared to that city, our cities and towns are a pleasure. Having said that, within this city of Dublin and some of our other cities, and especially in the inner city areas, there are major environmental problems that are not getting serious enough attention. During the debate on the Environmental Protection Agency Bill the House discussed the issue of the built environment and the natural environment. We have not given enough consideration to the living environment within cities, which is something that not only was missing in the Minister's speech but is not given enough priority in the agenda for the Earth Summit. The vast majority of people live in cities and the vast majority of people living in cities live in appalling conditions.

When talking about the world environment and global issues, we also have to talk about matters such as Sellafield, intrinsically transnational issues and developments that can cause a different kind of pollution that will not be stopped because national boundaries change. That is an issue, concerning the developed world in particular, that needs to be kept on the agenda. Not only does there need to be a consensus developed among the developed world in this regard, there needs to be a consensus for action.

Finally, I consider that there is a danger of the whole environmental issue being one in which new slogans and new platitudes such as "eco labelling" and "biodiversity" are developed but there is not enough action. We in this House have to commit ourselves to action, and that action may call for sacrifice by those of us who are lucky enough to live in this part of the world.

Mr. M. Higgins

The Labour Party document Proposals for a Socialist Environment contains a paragraph headed "All Things are Connected". I should like to begin at that point and, in the brief time available to me, make a few preliminary points. In preparing for the conference in Rio it is very important not to create an exaggerated sense of expectation because it is very clear that there are a number of issues which will have to resolved. It will take a great resolution on the part of participants to bring them forward. A point which is very important to me relates to our capacity to go to Rio and the capacity of the Rio Conference to function at all. Some hundreds of years ago Francis Bacon, in one of his essays, began with the phrase:

"I leave to you nature and all her children in bondage for your use."

Of Francis Bacon's great essays, that essay was always used. It tells us a great deal. It speaks about nature being in bondage and refers to nature as "she". It refers to nature's children being in bondage and the suggestion is that they are available for the use of the person to whom they are being left. That might seem almost an eclectic reference but where it is important is that within political science, theory and action the two great movements that have brought us to an awareness have been the feminist movement and the ecological movement.

There will be no significant advance in environmental policy until we take the benefits of those two broad movements and incorporate them. Further, the conditions, economically and socially in which that inter-active perspective might have been applied was a planned environment of some kind, and certainly the best benefits of socialism were very valuable in that regard. A question to which our philosophers and many other people are only turning, because I have not seen anything significant in print yet is, can one do as Mrs. Thatcher did and suggest that society does not exist? Can one reduce the world to a series of atomised actions and still claim responsibility in matters, including matters of the environment, when one has privatised and atomised all concerned and when one has reduced the definition of the human person to the suggestion, "I consume, therefore I am".

These broken atomised individuals spread across the planet represent a disaster for the planet. Let us be clear about that. One of the worst conditions available to Rio is this drift against solidarity, against inter-connectedness, against co-dependency. If we try to avoid that we will avoid the argument altogether.

The Minister, in his speech, describing fundamental considerations driving UNCED said:

. . .poverty is a major cause and effect of global environmental problems;

What is not stated in that sentence is that great global inequality is the cause of the poverty. There is a fashionable suggestion now, for which there is no basis, that somehow people in the developed world are responsible for their own problems. I heard a late arrival in Irish journalism last week suggest that the report of the United Nations on the disposal of the world's resources was a waste of paper and ink. That kind of thinking, this kind of dangerous guerilla thinking of the extreme right, is the greatest threat to human survival in the world.

I would like our delegation going to Brazil to know the precise amount, in debt that has been repaid by Brazil in the past ten years. I would like them to read the documents presented by Marco Arruda when he spoke about the size of the Marshall plan and the equivalent of the Marshall plan that had been repaid from the Latin American continent. The Minister's statement that poverty is a major cause and effect of global environmental problems is dangerous in isolation. It is an interesting comment, unless it is put in context that poverty arises, is sustained and gets worse because of the aid, trade and debt relationships into which the south of the world is locked.

In the last few years we have seen deterioration in the aid field, where it has not only lessened but become more tied. In relation to trade, for examle, anybody who is not a hypocrite will have to reflect on the cost of the multi fibre agreement in relation to the south of the world. In relation to debt, we have in the debt institutions of the world an attitude now that is the most reactionary since the institutions came into existence. I am glad whenever my political colleagues are honest about the enormous effect on their psyche of seeing child poverty. But, the children have died again and again. This is the reality.

Let us not con ourselves about Brazil where children are dying, and where there have been reports of people suggesting, for example, that there is a trade in the organs of children from the south to the north. That is the reality of the country where the conference will take place. If the conference does not produce meaningful results in definite and specific areas it will be a great disappointment. It is not sufficient that it would make some bland statement on the question of sustaining the forests. It is not simply acceptable that it would fail to have an operable convention in relation to the operation of technology.

Recently, on television, President Bush said he would not go to Rio with a cheque book and that he would not make concessions. Let us be real about this. I have few opportunities to raise these matters here and we are discussing them on a Friday when there are few Members in the House and we are given a limited amount of time. The issue involved is: can one sustain the ideology that is driving international economics now and pretend to be real going to a conference like this in Brazil? The answer is, "no, you cannot". So what do we do. We just live with it and drift along. What is missing in our thinking in relation to environment, development and foreign policy issues is the framework of time, a sense that we can get beyond our own generation, that we can get beyond the assumptions of Francis Bacon. The House should remember the image I gave — nature as a woman, nature as something subjugated. It is from that ideological philosophical set of assumptions that the whole notion of western progress was built.

Now people point to the Latin American cities. I have been lecturing on urban sociology for 23 years and I know the Latin American city.

Earlier this week I was in Lisbon, a city with the mark of the benefits of empire on it. The great European cities, and other cities, were made grandiose from the robbery and pillage of the south of the planet. We cannot say that we can write history again, and say that the south of the planet is a place where we have massive ecological despoilation and problems, and that we will try to assist them with their problems. They are not their problems. They are the legacy of colonisation, the legacy of empire, the legacy of greed, the legacy of philosophical movements that said, "I consume". That will be the mark of our humanity on this planet.

Let the people who are talking like that revise their assumptions. They are helping. They are paying back, in a sense. They have to accept responsibility in the present for the past. As we know the major industrial countries, the United States, in particular, is leading a revolt going to Rio and that will have to be resisted. A number of issues arise on which we have to inform the position of the Irish delegation. The two philosophical movements that will inform thinking in relation to future ecological responsibility will be the ecology movement and the feminist movement. They will be some form of revised socialism. One thing clear is that all over Europe, the best, the freshest and the most responsible thinking comes from non-governmental organisations. It makes sense to include in the delegation a representative of the NGOs to which, I understand, 35 of the countries have already committed themselves and which one-sixth of our partners in the European Community have indicated they may be doing. If one wants to build up a general change in values and sustain an atmosphere in which we will have a better approach there is since in having a representative of the NGOs on the delegation.

Since I have been a Member of the Houses of the Oireachtas, on and off since 1973, I perceive the distance there is between our language here, the language of the street and the language of those who have an opportunity of reflecting on these issues. I know from my other different activities in life that it is important to recognise the principle of living holistically, that it is important to recognise that specialism brings both achievement and danger. But I have witnessed the abuse of reason — the suggestion that reason is in fact automatically reflected in conservatism and destructive thinking, that imagination is to be defiled and used only as a kind of open-ended consumerism; that occasionally, when the worst consequences of an abused imagination defy reason itself, people panic and come up with piecemeal solutions and reactions to parts of the problem. It is very interesting that it goes back to that moment of Bacon's writing when he decided on the concept of domination of nature being regarded as a woman to be oppressed and dominated, that from that came the idea of progress and the open-ended despoliation of this planet.

We need to sustain our position in Rio de Janeiro by a genuine philosophy of integrated thinking, of all things being connected, of the nature of the gentleness we need to approach our relationships to planning. In a sense, reference was made to Maastricht. Since the Maastricht debate began there has been an unending chorus of those who have told us we are 3.5 million out of 340 million; do you think they care about us; do you think that we matter and so on? We have been destroying our self-respect nationally. We are suggesting that we do not matter. In a way here is an area in which a country, no matter what its size or population, can make a magnificent contribution, not even one that requires a great deal of money but simply in the sheer quality of thought.

Individuals in this country, such as Professor Eamon Nash and Professor James Dooge have made massive contributions in relation to hydrology and water in the world. I remember being in the Middle East and being told by people: you know if the West was to devote its resource to solving the problem of water in the Middle East the contribution it could make to this part of the world would be enormous, rather than concentrating its political energies on arguments about how cheap they want to take oil. There was not much support for that kind of view. But then again we in this country, in this mode of dependency, say continuously that we must make ourselves attractive as a place of external investment. Yes, we need to do something about the problem of unemployment, but nobody now suggests that the problem of unemployment is in competition with ecological responsibility. There are tens of thousands of jobs to be created in ecologically responsible work. There are short term jobs to be created in ecological initiatives.

Of course, there is the problem that lurks in the background, that is, that the nature of the world has changed. Now we have transnational corporations without accountability or responsibility to anybody. When the conference in Rio de Janeiro begins, when one looks at what has been published in the newspapers preparing for it, when one looks at, say, India, or any of the other countries, one sees massive international corporations seeking to evade their immediate responsibilities for death, destruction, mutilation, injury and poisoning of entire regions. These are the people for whom President Bush speaks when he says, in preparation for the conference in Rio de Janeiro he refuses to commit himself even to a specific target or timetable for CO² reduction, that he will resist climatic conventions.

What would be the worst scenario that could emerge from Rio de Janeiro? What could emerge from Rio de Janeiro could be the suggestion that the international community had exerted itself enormously in order to prepare a great and fulsome agenda, that the issues had been addressed but that from it there emerged bland statements about sustainable development — no timetable, fewer specific commitments, no sanctions, no international agency, such as an international environmental court to police or implement any of the actions of the agencies involved. That would be quite disastrous.

A great deal has been made about particular issues. I congratulate the Department on the quality of this booklet. It might have been an interesting gesture, apart from the beautiful plates, to have attempted to use recycable paper. But it is interesting to know that we can rise to glossy heights of self-representation, and the maps are very good. I congratulate all of the initiatives that have been taken. I am not simply being cynical about that. We have an agency which deserves support.

I have been talking about more general issues, but all of these general issues occur in microcosm in relation to national planning. For example, when talking about the importance of the economy one has to decide to merge the progress of the economy with a kind of long term responsibility in relation to environmental and ecological matters. For example, we are told by the Government that tourism is the fastest growing industry worldwide. The language was interesting, rather militaristic, when I attended a tourism conference and listened to the assistant director of one of our tourist industries say: "We were given our greatest challenge by the Government when we were told to double bed nights by 1991". The doubling of bed nights was like an invasion, a great defence of a country, or something like that. I often reflected on the meaning of this — what was a bed night and so forth? The interesting thing is that this kind of gross thinking is simply irresponsible. We need to talk about developments in tourism that speak about a gentle relationship, a gentle interaction with what is our best asset, that which we have not yet polluted. Let me be accurate. There is a great deal that we have polluted and about which we have been irresponsible; but it is very important, if we are to respect the relationship between a receiving community and a visiting community, that there be a dynamic that can be constructed one way or another. Equally, it is very important to remember that if we are to accept interconnectedness — an interesting point, one from which I often wonder whether we will ever dislodge ourselves — we realise that we live under the burden of the Cartesian fallacy, which is that reason and imagination, head and heart, are divided from each other. It is very interesting to look at thousands of years of philosophical traditions in the East which said that we live as species with nature. That is their view. Our whole thrust has been that we are against nature, that we exploit nature — the phrase occurs in speeches — exploiting it, gouging out nature's secrets, which is another phrase I have seen. This thinking simply has to stop.

What would be very interesting — in a way, powerful — would be if the contribution of Ireland constituted a presentation of that of which we can be proud across three different headings and so on. It would be also interesting if there were a significant philosophical contribution that would deal with the sets of assumptions that are necessary if we are to have an approach that can lead to policy directives, to institutional monitoring and, above all else, lead to the destruction of the myth — and here is the point — that the North of the planet that has represented the greatest threat to the planet's existence can turn now to the South and say: not only can you not develop like us but you must carry the burden of our artificial lifestyles. That is an unsustainable position. It is a test of international morality and international political commitment. I hope we can expand representation at the conference when it takes place in the direction suggested and that we will have a very extended opportunity of discussing the proceedings of the conference at its conclusion in this House.

Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs (Mr. Daly)

I welcome this opportunity to contribute to the debate on the issues which will make up the agenda for the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development. I look forward to attending the conference where some of the major issues facing the world community will be addressed.

Much has been written about the prospects for the conference and even today it is still not clear what will be the final agreements to emerge from Rio. Much work remains to be done if we are to secure the necessary consensus of all the participants on an agenda which is as broad as it is complex.

The challenges which face the developed and the developing world have never been greater than at present. The agenda before us is a global one linking economic development with environmental protection. The objective of bringing about a level of economic development which can be sustained is one that is valid for countries whether they consider themselves to be developed or developing.

It is now widely accepted that development programmes must meet the needs of present generations without placing an intolerable burden on future generations to meet their own needs. This concept of sustainable development is at the heart of what it is hoped to achieve at Rio. It is a concept which implies that economic growth must provide fairness and opportunity for all the peoples of the world and must do so without destroying the finite resources of the world. It is a concept which, in the years to come, will permeate and shape the programmes of economic and technical assistance which the industrialised countries will provide to the developing countries.

The issues which will be discussed at Rio all reflect aspects of the process of sustainable development. They cover economic, fiscal, trade and energy matters as well as agricultural, industrial and social aspects of economic and development policy. The two Conventions on Climate Change and Bio-diversity which it is hoped can be signed during the conference are a reflection of the priority which governments attach to conserving the natural resources of the planet. They also signal the determination of the industrialised countries, responsible for much of the depletion of these resources, to take meaningful action to tackle environmental problems at a global level.

By accepting that the concept of sustainable development must guide our future thinking about how we manage our resources, it is important to bear in mind a number of fundamental principles. First, future development models must place people at the very centre of their operation. Partnership must lie at the heart of what we do in the field of development. Second, the new models must be based on the adoption and use of environmentally sound technologies. These technologies should also be safe and when transferred to developing countries should be adapted to meet their specific needs. Third, the environment must be seen not as a free resource which can be exploited at will by markets and private investors but as a resource which must be paid for at a proper price. Fourth, sustainable development models must mobilise all sectors of society. Wherever possible, control should be placed in the hands of local communities. Unless these communities believe in the programmes and contribute to their survival, they will be ineffective.

These principles are very fully reflected in each of the chapters of the action plan which has been developed for the 21st century and beyond and which is known as Agenda 21. It is an ambitious agenda covering almost all the global environmental problems facing the nations of the world today — climate change, ozone layer depletion, transboundary air and water pollution, the contamination of the oceans and the seas. The social and economic dimension of the problems are also addressed, including action to combat poverty, changes required in consumption patterns and the impact of population trends.

Critical to the effective implementation of the objectives, policies and mechanisms which will be agreed at Rio in all the programme areas of Agenda 21 will be the commitment and active involvement of all social groups. This will call for determined efforts to increase the role of women in the decision-making process, advancing the role of youth and actively involving them in the protection of the environment and the promotion of economic and social development. In many parts of the world the role of indigenous people also plays an important part in protecting the natural resources and environment of their regions.

I have tried to describe in broad terms the main issues which will be discussed at Rio and to indicate the likely outcome which we all hope will emerge from this historic occasion. Perhaps the most difficult issue of all, and one on which the positions of the main participants — developed and developing countries — remain very far apart, is the financial means which will be necessary for the implementation of the actions and commitments which will be entered into.

The increased funding which will be required to accelerate economic growth in developing countries is huge. Some estimates put it at $125 billion per year. While this figure may be contested by the industrialised countries it nevertheless amounts to more than a doubling of what is presently given in official development assistance to developing countries. On top of that must be added the financing for programmes to address global issues such as deforestation and desertification which has been estimated at $15 billion annually. Irrespective of whether or not these estimates can be accepted as reflecting realistic assessments of the likely cost of implementing sustainable development policies, including areas of action covered by Agenda 21, it is clear that significant levels of funding will be required.

For the Group of 77, as the developing countries are kown at the United Nations, any new and additional funding should be provided in addition to and separate from the official development assistance which is already given by industrialised countries, including Ireland. They have talked about setting up a "Green Fund" which would be transparent with an equal voice for all parties and provide funds to developing countries without conditions and in conformity with the needs of developing countries.

For their part, the industrialised countries are prepared to accept that there is a need for new and additional resources and have committed themselves to providing this. They have accepted that for those countries which have not reached the UN target of 0.7 per cent of GNP devoted to ODA greater efforts must be made to move towards the target while taking into account the relative degree of economic development of each country.

The position of the European Community is crucial to the successful outcome of the negotiations on this pivotal chapter as it has been for so much of the negotiations in other areas. I strongly support the important role which a united and forceful European Community can play to make Rio the success that we all hope it will be. The new status which the Community has achieved as a full participant at UNCED will make it even more incumbent upon us to build upon the progress already made. Already within the OECD, the Community has been influential in persuading other industrialised countries, such as Japan, to adopt positions which will contribute to consensus in Rio.

The role of the Global Environmental Facility — GEF — which was set up under the auspices of the World Bank will be the key mechanism for channelling funds to meet the additional costs of global environmental problems. The Community is prepared to consider adaptations to this facility to attempt to allay the fears of the developing countries that, because the facility is administered by the World Bank, their interests and concerns will be ignored. We have agreed that the GEF should be transparent and democratic in nature to ensure a balanced representation. It should encourage broad membership and provide access to developing countries.

I would not wish to under-estimate the difficulty of the negotiations which lie ahead on the important chapter of funding. I am very conscious of the expectations which the developing countries have and of the commitments they are looking to receive from the industrialised countries. I note from the Declaration of the Second Ministerial Conference of Developing Countries held in Kuala Lumpur at the end of April that while the progress made in a number of areas is welcomed, serious concern is expressed about the lack of progress on a few key issues, particularly financial resources.

The Government have followed the preparatory phase of this conference with close attention and are fully conscious of the historic importance it has for addressing issues affecting the planet as well as the circumstances of the peoples who inhabit it. The Taoiseach has already indicated his intention to attend the conference when it meets at the highest level of Heads of State and Government on 13 and 14 June. The Government have played a full and active role both within the Community and throughout the preparatory phase of the conference to ensure that the positions which are adopted will contribute ultimately to the success of the whole.

Given the modest size of our aid programme compared to most of our EC partners, we are conscious of the need to do more. That is why in our Programme for Government we have committed ourselves to implement a planned programme of increases in Ireland's ODA in the period 1992 — 1994 so as to achieve a higher contribution by the end of that period. This decision has been taken in the context of very difficult economic circumstances at home and in a situation of very tight budgetary constraint. Nevertheless, the Irish public have been very generous with their voluntary contributions to organisations working in the developing world and it is proper that we in Government should be as generous as we can.

The European Community and other donor countries attach importance to maximising the availability of additional funding in a manner which makes use in the most effective way of all available funding sources and mechanisms. These include the multilateral development banks and funds, the relevant specialised agencies and other United Nations bodies. All of these financial mechanisms can provide various types of funding arrangements specifically adapted to the particular needs of developing countries.

I should like to turn to the question of debt. There can be little doubt that the burden of debt which is carried by the poorest countries is a major impediment to growth and a factor in preventing them from undertaking programmes and policy initiatives for development. It is important to bring the greater public attention to the paradox that in spite of the publicity that is given to donor funded financial assistance the overall flow of financial resources is from South to North, not from North to South. It is the developing countries who are financing investment in the developed world and not the other way around.

The figures are instructive. It is calculated that in 1990 the export of real resources from Africa alone by way of debt service came to about 8 per cent of GNP and 28 per cent of export earnings. The total volume of African debt has risen to over 270 billion dollars. Overall the total indebtedness of developing countries in 1991 is thought to have been about 1,281 billion dollars. While the least developed countries should, I think, be treated as special cases, some of the other middle income countries concerned may in fact be able to repay their debts. Accordingly, more benefit might be derived by requiring that these debts be honoured and the proceeds channelled into further development programmes. Ireland, through its membership of the European Community, will continue to contribute positively to alleviating the debt problems of the least developed countries. We believe, however, that strategy for debt management must also provide for internal adjustment and improved economic policies by the debtor countries.

The maintenance of a favourable international economic environment is also critical, as well as adequate financial support for adjustment and development, including provision for offsetting the social consequences of adjustment.

Ireland's own Bilateral Aid Programme has been based since its inception on grants rather than on loans. Consequently, in contrast with most other donors our programmes have not contributed to the debt burden of the developing countries. Official debts of developing countries to Ireland, therefore, arise principally under the heading "government guaranteed debt", specifically from commercial transactions on which official export credit insurance was granted and invoked. The share of Third World debt which is owed to Ireland is small by any standards, even taking into account Ireland's small relative size. As a member of the Paris Club, Ireland has participated in the rescheduling arrangements made for a number of developing countries and has played an active part in the decision of the Paris Club to provide debt relief to the poorer heavily indebted countries.

The decisions which will be taken at Rio will have important implications for the way in which donor countries design and implement their bilateral aid programmes. In future the integration of development and environment programmes and projects will become a priority for official development assistance. In our own bilateral aid programme a great many of our projects have a strong and visible environmental dimension. We are not involved in large scale infrastructure projects which can often have a major destructive impact on the environment.

Ireland concentrates on the development of the effective, sustainable management of existing natural resources. All new development projects, including those proposed by non-governmental organisations, are subject to environmental impact assessments at the planning stage. If a project is seen to have a negative impact, aid is either redirected or discontinued.

One example of this is the Gairo agro-forestry and land use project in Tanzania. This project, located in an area subject to desertification, focuses on the mobilisation of local communities to manage and control their environment. Trees will be planted which can be used for fuel but which will grow again rapidly thereby systematically reducing the deforestation of indigenous woodlands. There are many other Irish projects in Sudan, Zambia, Lesotho, Rwanda and Burundi where the criteria of sustainable development and the principles which I spoke of earlier are being fully applied. I see it as essential that the shape of future programmes under our bilateral aid programme would conform strictly to the new emphasis which Rio is giving to the concept of partnership and sustainable development.

Another issue which has been the focus of much discussion in the preparatory phase of the conference is the transfer of technology to developing countries. Many developing countries consider access to environmentally sound technologies to be an essential element in helping them to achieve sustainable development. They insist that the transfer of such technology should be on concessional and preferential terms. They argue that unless this is done it is impossible for them to build up a satisfactory level of scientific and technological capacity.

The European Community and the member states recognise the importance of this area and played a major role in the securing of a broad measure of agreement on this chapter in the run up to Rio. We have indicated clearly that we are committed to co-operating with developing countries to build up environmentally sound technologies. We have also agreed to promote and finance, where possible on concessional terms, the access to and transfer of such technologies and the corresponding know-how.

We have also pointed out that while much technology is available through commercial channels, and is therefore under patent or respect for international property law, a large body of useful technology lies in the public domain. The Community is willing to take a number of practical measures to assist developing countries to obtain such technology — for example, through the purchase of patents and licences on commercial terms for their transfer to developing countries as part of aid packages.

While much of Ireland's bilateral aid programme is based principally on the provision of expertise and inputs, we recognise the important role which the transfer of appropriate technologies can play in economic and technological development. Through the fellowship programmes and other educational courses which we fund we are able to contribute towards the necessary training of personnel at all levels and the education of those who will have to use the technology.

The objective of sustainable development is one which cannot be achieved without the efforts of the international community through programmes of development assistance. Of particular importance is a supportive economic international climate and, within that, an open trading environment which does not discriminate against the economies of developing countries. Greater efforts must be made to improve access to markets for exports from developing countries.

It is therefore urgent that the Uruguay Round of multilateral trade negotiations in the GATT should be brought to a satisfactory conclusion as soon as possible. This will provide greater security and predictability in the international trading system as well as further liberalisation and expansion of world trade thereby enhancing the trade and development possibilities of developing countries.

It is apparent that the success of the Rio Conference will depend very largely on the extent to which the nations of the world begin to realise that urgent action is required if future generations are to live healthy, prosperous and satisfying lives. This will call for changes in global consumption, production and demographic patterns.

The poverty, malnutrition and health ailments which afflict more than a billion people worldwide are an illustration of the unsustainable patterns of today. Over 800 million people go hungry every day, many of them children. Primary health care is not available for over one and a half billion people. Diseases, many of them easily avoidable, threaten these people. Given the present population increases, meeting the needs of all the inhabitants of the world will become an even greater challenge.

The Rio Conference and the work which will be carried on into the 21st century will allow the world community to make a transition towards modifying unsustainable consumption patterns, alleviating poverty and improving living standards. Only in this way will it be possible to move towards achieving stable populations and realising the fundamental goal of enhancing human welfare throughout the world.

A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, I have already stated that the Rio Conference has historic importance for the nations and people of the planet. It must be regarded not as the end of a process but the beginning of a new one. The survival of the planet and the urgent need to take substantive action to provide the peoples of the earth with the instruments necessary to give themselves an acceptable level of development is what will be at issue in Rio. We must commit ourselves to a new understanding and a new era of co-operation in order to face the challenges which confront us and to find solutions to address them. If we fail at Rio we will have failed humanity and added to the threats which already hang over this shrinking planet.

Mr. Gilmore

I am pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to this debate on environment and development in advance of one of the most important international conferences ever to be held on this earth. As we know, the globe is facing an ecological crisis which could destroy this planet. This crisis has been brought about by a number of factors. The first is the extent to which the developed world has already exploited the resources of the earth. If one takes life on earth to be represented by a day, the developed world has caused more damage to the earth's resources in the last hour of the day than in the entire lifetime before that. No doubt that degree of exploitation has produced material standards of living and comfort for the better off in the developed world that cannot be sustained. The second is the understandable desire of peoples in the developing world to catch up with the developed world. The poverty and the degree of debt and deprivation are forcing people in the developing world to adopt development strategies which of themselves are destroying the globe. Third is the expected doubling of world population over the next 50 years or so.

Someone described the crisis as being typified by the wish of the Chinese people to have a refrigerator in every home — something we take for granted. If the Chinese were to achieve this goal it would add a whole new dimension to the crisis. Because of the volume of CFCs used in fridges we worry about what would be required if every household in China had a refrigerator. We also worry about the impact of producing additional energy to run the refrigerators. We have a crisis because the developed world has plundered the earth and those in the underdeveloped world want to raise their living standards.

The Brundtland report, which acted as the catalyst to convene this conference, has very accurately described the relationship between poverty, development and the environment. This conference is about how we can reconcile the development needs of the majority of the population on earth with the lifestyle and what many would call the extravagant living standards of people in the developed world.

In recent years we have seen a growth in environmental awareness. The environment and ecological issues are now very much on the political agenda. People have become more active in campaigning on environmental issues and as a result people are more conscious of their personal consumption habits. However, I feel we have not yet faced up to the logic of our concern for the environment. Both the Minister for the Environment and the Minister of State at the Department or Foreign Affairs touched on the point when they referred to the difficulties that will be experienced in Rio when it comes to meeting the financial implications of implementing the conclusions of the Rio Conference. Deputy Michael Higgins referred in philosophical terms to how we pay to protect the globe and who will pay for the measures which will have to be taken to do so. He also referred to the interaction of three strands of philosophy — two of which have become unfashionable in recent times — feminism, ecology and socialism. The principles contained in those philosophies will have to be applied to this problem. It is not possible to address at Rio the huge problems of poverty, and the environmental destruction which goes with it, without addressing the question of the redistribution of resources. The globe cannot be saved on the backs of the poor of the world any more than the measures to achieve environment protection in the country can be paid for by those who are less well off.

The Stockholm Conference, which took place 20 years ago, was referred to. At that time the poor of the world were told that the developed world simply could not afford the luxury of the underdeveloped world catching up and as a result they would have to do without.

It is disappointing that we have not had some indication in the course of the debate as to the position of our Government on the question of implementation of the conference's recommendations. There is no doubt — and the Minister referred to this in his speech — that the Irish Government support the UNCED process, but we have not had an indication of Government attitude to the really thorny question of how it will be paid for. We know, for example, that some of the developed countries, particularly the United States, are quite reluctant to make the commitments that will be required if the Rio Conference is to be a success. The United States made it clear in Geneva that they were not prepared to commit themselves to a reduction of greenhouse gases. The United States have also introduced "grandfather clauses" in the negotiations on establishing pollution limits whereby they claim that because they have a historical level of pollution they should be entitled to continue on that basis. There is no question of levelling up. Those who have something already can continue to have it and add to it and those who do not will simply have to do without it.

An issue which has to be raised for our own people here is whether Irish people are prepared to pay the cost of restoring the environment. It is very easy to be an environmentalist when the issue at stake is a development which is across the road from one's house. It is very easy for one to mobilise in a situation like that and to object to it and to become very passionate about the environment. Equally, it is very easy to become compassionate about the environment when one watches a television programme about the destruction of the rain forests. Are we prepared to countenance the reductions in our own living standards which will be necessary if the problems of the environment are to be seriously tackled, particularly the problems of the global environment? Are we prepared to countenance the prospect of either environmental or development taxes in order to address these problems?

Even the leaf which is to be sent to the Earth Conference by citizens pledges people to do certain things which are very important, for example to reduce consumption in certain areas. They urge motorists to consume less petrol. The question is whether people would be prepared to pay more for petrol if it involved a carbon tax which would probably be required if the environmental problems are to be resolved. It refers also to the question of recycling. A very practical issue will arise in the greater Dublin area in the immediate future in that the life of the three waste disposal dumps in Dublin — which take the refuse for one-third of the population of this country — will have expired within the next five years. There is a proposal to transfer the refuse of Dublin city and county to a dump at Kill, County Kildare which, as many Members of this House will be aware, is being strongly resisted by people there. The alternative is to move to a more environmentally friendly form of waste management, waste reduction and waste disposal. Moving to that type of system will cost money. The simple question which must be asked is whether or not people in this country are prepared to pay the cost. It is very easy to ask the poor to pay the cost for saving the environment. The poor were asked to pay the cost for ridding this city of smog. The people who used to pay £8 per week for their smokey coal are now paying £20 per week for the more environmentally friendly coal which rid this city of smog. Those very people are denied the provision of natural gas. Of the 30 housing estates selected by Dublin Gas last year for the extension of gas in Dublin not a single one was a local authority estate: all were private estates because Dublin Gas believed that was where they would get the consumption and the contracts to justify extending the gas grid. The people who were hardest hit in the pocket for ridding our city and county of smog are the people who are being denied, for financial reasons, the extension of gas to their homes. We cannot save the environment by asking the poor to pay for it.

I should like to refer briefly to the report before us. It is a well presented report but I wish to express a number of disappointments in relation to it. First, it is late in appearing. I understand this report should have been submitted last July — nine months ago. There are now only three weeks to the conference in Rio but the report has only just been submitted and is now being debated in this House. I want also to refer to the content of the document, much of which is dishonest and should be withdrawn, if this country is not to be made a laughing stock of at the Rio Conference.

The draft of the document should have been made available to the NGOs who were previously consulted about it. Indeed, there should have been a wider degree of consultation with a number of organisations. I understand, for example, the Irish environment and development organisations, who have come together specifically for this purpose, were not consulted about this document although I concede that individual component parts of that organisation were consulted. The general thrust of this document is that Ireland is a green and holy land, that we do not have an environmental problem of any substance, that we are only a little country and that the conference can carry on with our full support, but please do not ask us to do anything about it or to make any significant contribution to it.

I should like to refer to some specific points in the document. For example, we are told that by the standard of industrialised countries Ireland has an exceptionally high quality natural environment. The report goes on to list the areas where land contamination does not exist on any extensive scale and so on, and hazardous waste production is relatively small, all of which is playing down the existence of any environmental problem in this country.

One of the first things you have to do if you suffer from an addictive illness is to recognise it. The addictive illness we are suffering from in Ireland is pollution. We may not be the world's worst polluters but we are contributing, per head of population, three times the level of greenhouses gases as the average person in the world. We do have a pollution problem and that should be acknowledged honestly in this document and a more honest approach taken to it. There is a soft pedal on the question of agricultural pollution. The reference in the report is that "agriculture can cause pollution" without any reference to the degree of damage agricultural pollution has caused, for example, with fish kills and so on over the course of the years.

Further on in the report we are told that improving the efficiency of energy use is a cornerstone of the Government's energy and environmental policies but we are not told that the Government, in their Estimates last year, actually reduced the budget for renewal energy. Reference is made to the introduction of new regulations on building standards which the report says will improve energy efficiency. We are not told that those building regulations are 20 years overdue, that the Act which gives rise to those building regulations was passed in this House two years ago and the building regulations have still not been produced.

A great case is being made in regard to roads. We are told that care is being taken in route selection and design to involve the demolition of houses and to prevent severance of communities. The Stillorgan Road which runs through my constituency goes through three communities between Stillorgan and Bray. I am sure a similar case can be made for many of the other major road constructions.

The report goes on to state that the principles underlying Government policy on the environment include the precautionary principle. We had a long discussion during the debate on the Environmental Protection Agency Act during which the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Deputy Harney, rejected the inclusion of the precautionary principle as the basic principal and opted instead for the weaker BATNEEC principle.

There is reference also to access to environmental information as a guiding policy principle. Regulations on access to environmental information have still not been introduced. There is reference also to the introduction of the directive on environmental impact assessment but it does not say that the European Commission had to force the Government to introduce those regulations. There is reference to the tax deferentials with regard to leaded and unleaded petrol. The Government had an opportunity in the budget when 9p was taken off the gallon of petrol — but did not avail of it — to reduce the price of unleaded petrol by a greater extent than leaded petrol. So much for the Government's commitment in relation to the tax differential between leaded and unleaded petrol.

The worst aspect of this document is its pathetic approach to the question of aid to developing countries. A section tells us that the Government are committed to making a pro rata contribution to the EC budget for assistance to developing countries. What it does not acknowledge is that the level of aid being provided to developing countries by our Government is still only one quarter of that required by the United Nations.

We have an important role to play in the whole debate on the environment and development. It is important that we approach that in an honest way, that we acknowledge first that we have an environmental problem, not necessarily the worst in the world. We have a pollution problem and are contributors to the ecological crisis that has given rise to this Earth Summit in the first place. We should not gloss over the approach to environment here. A stronger commitment should be given to what we should do about aid to developing countries than was given in this document or by the Minister of State when he spoke here about an increase in the level of bilateral aid. He qualified it very much by referring to the budgetary constraints and did not commit himself on specifics, the level of bilateral aid, the amount and the phasing of increase in aid to developing countries that would be forthcoming from the Government in future budgets.

Mr. Lyons

Tá áthas orm ráiteas a dhéanamh ar Chomhdháil na Náisiún Aontaithe a bheidh ar siúl i Rio de Janeiro i rith na míosa seo. Ag an gcomhdháil sin beidh an comhshaol agus forbairt faoi chaibidil, ábhair atá thar a bheith tábhachtach dúinn agus don domhan i gcoitinne. Tá súil agam go mbeidh rath ar an obair agus go mbeidh leanúint ar na moltaí a thiocfaidh as an chomhdháil. In Ireland, as elsewhere, proper environmental management will increasingly involve challenges and resources demands. We strongly support the UNCED process and contributed to the preparations by hosting the United Nations International Conference on water and the environment in Dublin in January last. Because of the constraints on time for the making of statements, I will not be in a position to give extensive coverage to the report and to point to its positive aspects which my colleague has assiduously sought to make negative comments about. That report is being presented in accordance with the invitation of the United Nations General Assembly Resolution of March 1990.

Its essential purpose is to assess our development policies against the requirements of sustainable development, to analyse the constraints involved, and to describe the policy responses which has so far been formulated. Suffice to say that it is wide-ranging and very constructive in its analysis. It notes the Government's environmental action programme, published in 1990, which explicitly comments on Irish environment policy for this decade and the principles of sustained development, the precautionary principle and the integration of environmental considerations in all policy areas.

In the European Parliament news letter of April of this year, I read of a special report by the Commission on the implementation of the 1990 EC rules on the environment by member states. That report concluded that the situation was far from satisfactory. The report shows that EC directives are seldom incorporated into national legislation within the given time limits and that the number of complaints and legal actions will continue to rise. In 1990 there were 480 complaints concerning the environment, up from 465 in 1989. Proceedings under Article 169 were started in 167 cases and 14 cases were referred to the European Court of Justice. According to the report of the Commission, all member states were found to be at fault in some respect. For example, in the case of drinking water standards, legal proceedings have now been started against the majority of EC states because of higher than allowed levels of lead and nitrate in certain supplies. Likewise the Commission has begun action against all member states, except Portugal whose legislation does not apply until 1993.

As far as we in Ireland are concerned I would hope to show, in the few minutes available to me, the improvements we have been making. The United Nations conference on water and the environment in Dublin in January was an important part of the preparations for the United Nations conference on environmental development and was attended by approximately 500 delegates. Under the Department of the Environment's water and sanitary services programme pump out facilities for cruisers are being provided at key locations on inland waterways. Up to £4 million will be invested by the year 2000 on eliminating untreated discharges of sewage from major coastal towns.

The quality of water is monitored by local authorities at 64 beaches. The results of annual monitoring show an excellent compliance with the quality standards set out in the EC Directive on bathing water. Under the European Blue Flag scheme the number of blue flags awarded to Irish beaches has increased from 22 in 1987 to 66 in 1991 and 39 of these 66 beaches also won the silver star fish award for outstanding water quality. That award is presented to beaches which do not breach any of the very stringent guidelines relating to bacteria in the Directive.

A first report from the Government's environment action programme was published in July 1991. It confirms that developments to date in relation to the main objectives of the programme are well on target. I should like to give a brief resumé of the environmental information service, known as ENFO, established in September 1990, which is making a valuable contribution to the promotion of environmental awareness and protection by disseminating environmental information. ENFO is a public information service on the environment whose function is to collect and maintain up to date and authoritative information on all aspects of the environment and to make it readily available to the public.

There was a record number of visitors, 57,821, to the ENFO centre in 1991. The average number of visitors in a full working week is approximately 1,200 and ENFO also receive approximately 300 requests each week for information by post, when it is operating, telephone and fax. Almost all ENFO services are provided free of charge. A recent addition to the range of facilities at ENFO is a CD-ROM unit — compact disc: read only memory — which enables ENFO to provide public access to a wide range of information on compact disc. This facility complements the large stock of information held by ENFO in books, journals, reports, videos, microfiche and computerised data bases. The primary object of ENFO is to make their information services available on a widespread basis and to this end ENFO have been forging links with various agencies throughout the country. On-line connections, via Eirpac, to the ENFO data bases are now in place in 21 public libraries and it is likely that a further ten libraries will have this service within a reasonable time. The 31 libraries involved are spread over 23 counties and provide a well distributed network of access points to the ENFO data base. The facility is in all cases available for "hands on" use by members of the public.

Consideration is being given to requests for direct access to the ENFO data base which have been made by schools, colleges, local authorities, State agencies and professional bodies. A large proportion of information sought from ENFO is supplied in the form of information leaflets produced by ENFO. There are at present 68 leaflets on different topics and I understand that the range will be extended as demand dictates.

ENFO has actively assisted AONTAS, the National Association of Adult Education, to develop an adult education course on environmental matters. This course, entitled "The World in Which We Live", commenced in January 1992 in three centres as a pilot project in Counties Cork, Kerry and Meath. The development of adult education courses on the environment holds great potential for promoting environmental awareness and greater understanding and appreciation of our world. ENFO are developing educational materials for use by teachers in primary and post-primary schools and it is likely that a teachers' resource pack on air quality will be produced by ENFO in the near future.

ENFO also provide on-line access to the data collections hosted by the European Space Agency Information Retrieval Service. The access terminal is located in the library at the ENFO centre and connects via Eirpac to the ESA-IRS computer in Frascati, Italy. The ESA-IRS is one of the largest on-line host computer information services of its type on Europe and provides bibliographic information in relation to areas such as agriculture, biology, engineering, health and safety, environment, food and other scientific and technical topics.

A major information resource in ENFO is a collection of reports of the US Environmental Protection Agency. The full text on microfiche of approximately 120,000 reports on environmental topics is held in ENFO. Searches for material can be carried out using hard copy indices or the access facility to the ESA-IRS data bases.

The total number of personal callers to ENFO since its establishment in September 1990 to 30 April 1992 was 89,544. The primary function of ENFO is to provide public access to authoritative information on environmental matters. I am not aware of any agency established by Government in any other country for this primary purpose.

ENFO is a service of the Department of the Environment. The 1991 provision in the Department's Vote was £600,000, comprising £431,000 non-pay and £169,000 pay. The 1992 provision comprises a gross provision of £628,000, that is £459,000 non-pay and an estimated £169,000 on pay.

From what I have said it is obvious that awareness is the keynote in regard to this matter and we are playing our part. The protection of the environment and sustainable agricultural development are now major issues throughout the world. Of particular concern are atmospheric quality, soil loss, deforestation, desertification, drought, the maintenance of biodiversity and, of particular interest to us, ocean and freshwater resources. Life on this globe is very dependent on water and most human activities are water dependent and water related. Water has an economic value in all its competing uses and should be recognised as an economic good.

Fresh water management may not currently enjoy the same media attention as the high profile issue of ozone layer depletion and climate change. However, the credibility of the conference in Rio demands that it addresses all environmental questions of urgent concern. A strong statement from Rio on fresh water is essential. The character and quality of the Irish environment generally is held in very high esteem internationally and has proved a tremendous asset in Irish tourism. I say that as a result of my experience over the past five years in marketing Irish tourism abroad.

The protection and development of the environment is seen therefore as an integral part of the national tourism effort. The current investment programme for tourism has been designed to ensure that no adverse environmental effects will result from development grant-aided under the programme. Most new tourist developments and extensions to existing developments under the programme are covered by the requirement of planning laws and, where relevant, environmental impact assessment.

We are aware of environmental problems which have been associated with the expansion of the tourist industry in other countries. We therefore have ensured that particular attention is paid to the environmental consequences of our tourist development programme. This is as it should be. We have clean air and clean water and it is right that we should maintain that position and guard it religiously with all the efforts we can make, including awareness.

On the subject of water, I would like to make a brief reference to the fact that as an island nation on the periphery of Europe, and with our geographical location of proximity to international shipping lanes, we are very exposed to risks posed by shipping traffic, especially vessels encountering difficulties in the north-eastern Atlantic. In the south-west, the gateway to Europe, we are the statio bene fide carinis.

There are quite a number of factors which determine pollution risk associated with particular marine casualties. Oil spillages, for instance, have an adverse effect on the immediate environment. All the coastlines and beaches, if coated with oil, will deter tourists from visiting the area. Local mariculture industries will be severely affected. Fishing may also have to cease in the area while oil is present. Confidence in the marketplace for fish products will be severely dented and, mainly, it will be a loss in market share in the long term. Boats, equipment, piers, slipways and walls will all be adversely affected. Fish and wildlife suffer greatly and in some spillages high mortality rates occur.

Ireland has not been immune from pollution incidents in recent years. The Betelgeuese exploded at the Whiddy Jetty in 1979, killing 51 people and spewing over 20,000 tonnes of oil into Bantry Bay. The oil clean up took almost one and a half years to complete, at a cost of £350,000. The Kowloon Bridge was in 1986 forced to seek shelter in Bantry Bay, having suffered some damage during storms at sea. She left Bantry Bay during a severe gale to avoid collision with another damaged ship in the Bay, the Capo Emma, carrying 80,000 tonnes of crude oil. She was later abandoned off the south-west coast and crashed onto the Stagg Rocks. The clean up lasted seven months and cost the local authority £0.75 million.

The Tribulus, a bulk carrier, sought shelter in Bantry Bay in 1990, having been damaged during storms at sea. She was leaking fuel oil from a damaged hull. It took over a week to stop this flow, due to extremely severe weather. The clean up took two months, at a cost of £90,000. Damage was also caused to the mariculture industry in the bay. The operators were compensated by operators of the carrier, Shell Tankers UK Ltd. The Tribulus left Bantry Bay after 91 days, having been the subject of the largest underwater repair job ever carried out at sea.

The Capitaine Pleven II entered Galway Bay in darkness in 1991. She grounded on a rock and her crew of 60 were airlifted to safety. She carried approximately 500 tonnes of gas and oil as well as lubricating and hydraulic oils. The major consideration here was the protection of the large oyster and mussel fishery in the bay. Some slight damage was caused. We must also bear in mind the Torry Cannon in 1967, the Amoca Cadiz in 1978 and Exxon Valdez in 1989.

In 1977 the Oil Pollution of the Seas Amendment Act gave effect to the intervention convention in Ireland's law. The important aspect of this convention, however, is that the powers are conferred on the Minister for the Marine and can only be used in the event of grave and imminent danger to the environment.

The agreement in Rio de Janiero of a framework of practical action for the 21st century will be historic. It will be positive proof that the world is serious about its future and that countries are prepared to co-operate to achieve agreed programmes for sustainable development.

Mr. Finucane

Today's discussion is timely. I am glad that the Government intend to be represented at the conference. Indeed, I compliment the Government on the document they have produced.

Recently I read of a survey undertaken that showed that the most important issue outside of employment to young people was that of the environment. In many ways that is understandable. Perhaps the young are a little ahead of us adults in that regard because the issues that concern them most are those that could have long term implications. I think here especially of the destruction of the tropical forests and the damage caused by CFCs.

Recently I read of a simple statement made by Jacque Delors when announcing some environmental changes. He said: "Our proposal is that man is part of nature and not about man dominating nature". There is a lot of truth in that statement.

Forests cover one-third of the world. A third of those forests are in what is classified as temperate zones and a third are classified as tropical forests. It is ironic that the conference is being held in Rio de Janiero because it is in Brazil that there has been much destruction of the tropical forests. It seems that there are two parallel lifestyles in Brazil. One often hears of the luxuries of the Copacabana beaches and the wealth of those living there, but there are also the shanty towns of Brazil. However, it is the tropical forests and the effect that their destruction is having on the world's climate that most people are concerned about. We hear much of what is called the "greenhouse effect".

When one considers that the tropics alone are losing forests of 17 million hectares a year one has some idea of the serious implictions for the survival of mankind if such destruction continues in the way that it has in the past. In recent times the food and agricultural section of the United Nations have taken a greater interest in this issue and are providing both the finance and the education required to highlight the problem.

We have to ask why deforestation is taking place. Deforestation is an economic lifeline to many of the people who live in those areas. The forests are depended upon for the provision of food, fuel, rubber, resins and other products and they are also the natural habitat of many varieties of insects and wildlife.

It is important that we as politicians focus our attention on these specific areas. Often we might tend to think of a person who talks about the greenhouse effect, CFCs and so on as having his or her head a little in the clouds, but it is the survival of future generations that is probably at stake if things do not improve. It is necessary to introduce controls, and I think that that is happening now with the awakened consciousness of the importance of this issue.

While we in Ireland may not be regarded as significant users of chloro-flurocarbons, bringing into the country about 2,500 tonnes, it is important for us to realise the damage they cause. The ozone layer, which has an essential purpose in filtering ultraviolet rays, has been seriously damaged. Over the Antarctic alone, where one would expect the air to be essentially pure, there is a hole in the ozone layer as big as the entire United States and as deep as Mount Everest. I was shocked to read of that illustration. The damage to the ozone layer has continued apace, particularly in the past ten years. There is now increased consciousness about the effect of the use of CFCs. If the use of CFCs continues at previous levels the resultant effect on the ozone layer would mean that Irish people would be very unlikely to go tearing off to warmer climates for the sun. The strength of the ultraviolet rays from the sun resulting from damage to the ozone layer is leading to a high incidence of skin cancer, which is of concern to all mankind but particularly to the younger generation. The natural resources of the body in fighting off skin cancer, tumours and so on, would be affected. Cataracts and eye disorders would also emerge. It is important that this conference should allow us to focus on these issues.

With regard to the document on the ozone layer, has it been circulated to schools and has it been advertised? We should be conscious of what is happening. The document also refers to the prime users of CFCs here and says that the Department of the Environment have approached them in relation to reducing the use of CFCs and seeking alternative methods. I would like the re-assurance of the effectiveness of their approach. In rural areas one comes across litter and discarded fridges. I am glad that local authorities were given a certain amount of funding from the Department to set up CFC recovery units for fridges and freezers. Is this scheme being effectively implemented by all the local authorities and are the public aware of the facility?

A change which has taken place which will have implications for the environment is the introduction of the environment impact awareness statements. They have heightened the consciousness of people looking for planning permissions. It is significant that planning authorities are becoming more vigilant with regard to the type of industry allowed in an area. People are more aware of the importance of ecology and everybody has welcomed the advent of those statements. In our job creation policies we often have to balance the type of industry against the need for jobs. We cannot eat scenery. I compliment the Minister of State who recently piloted the very comprehensive Environmental Protection Agency Bill through the Dáil. Until the introduction of that Bill noise was not stipulated as a possible impediment to a project. The Bill was very welcome and I hope it will be successfully implemented. Both the Bill and the environment impact awareness statements will all contribute to a much improved environment. We are trying to project a free image so it behoves us to ensure that we keep the environment as green as possible.

With regard to septic tanks, I can understand the need for regulations and controls especially when one considers the spin-off with regard to the pollution of ground water and so on, from badly sited septic tanks. The planning process would be simplified and helped if county councils made people aware of the areas in their counties which, because of soil type, are generally unsuited to septic tanks and required people seeking planning permission in those areas to make a try hole and test percolation when seeking planning permission. At the moment there is undue hassle with planning permissions in these areas. When a person applies for planning permission he submits all the paper work and then an engineer is sent out; then there is pressure on a local public representative to try to expedite the planning permission. When the engineer visits the site and makes his report the client is asked to dig a try hole. The client then has to wait for the health board inspector to inspect the try hole.

The inspection will take place and then a report will go back to the county council and the client will be asked, perhaps, to test the percolation. The client will then have to get the health official to inspect the percolation test and then the report goes back to the council. County councils must know which parts of their counties have land which is unsuitable. This information should be disseminated to people looking for planning permission in those areas rather than having them go to all the expense of applying for planning permission and then eventually be rejected. My suggestion would be a simplier way of doing this. My proposal should be looked at with a view to simplifying the process. There is nothing more frustrating for an applicant having wasted four or five months on the process than to get a letter refusing planning permission.

Oil pollution has manifested itself along the coastlines of Kerry and Clare recently. Money should be allocated each year in the Department of the Environment budget to deal with oil pollution. In the tight budgetary constraints that prevail any county affected by oil pollution does not necessarily have the necesary funds to deal with it. The local authority straightaway gets on to the Department to be told that there is no allocation for this and eventually the local authorities pick up the tab with the result that some other area suffers. Some provision should be made for this.

I am concerned at the statement that the entire £94 million allocated for pollution grants to farmers up to the end of this year has now been used up. It is an extremely successful scheme in that more than 25,000 farmers have undertaken pollution controls. We all remember the fish kills of the eighties when, daily in the summer, many in my county, the feeling was that in many cases it was caused by agricultural pollution. In fairness to the farming community there has been a significant change in that they have implemented controls which have proved effective in counteracting the problem. In that respect it is most important that extra funding be provided for pollution grants under the next tranche of EC funding because we must continue that good work. The incentive to continue such work is those grants because farmers are already sufficiently pressurised. They need this incentive to proceed with this work. I plead with the Government to seek further funding for this purpose.

Sometimes many of us take the decision to holiday at home; I do so most years. It is sad to see all the plastic containers and debris scattered on our beaches. Local people must be complimented whenever they take the initiative in cleaning up their local beaches. In that respect there appears to be a lack of consciousness on the part of people who dump such debris of the havoc it creates and its effects on marine life. Therefore, there is need to educate the public of the damage it does.

I should now like to deal with acquaculture which has become more important, particularly to communities in isolated areas where jobs would be extremely scarce without such development. There has been inevitable controversy in relation to many such projects, in many cases on the part of well-meaning environmentalists who usually have the benefit of safe, secure jobs. Very often, in their endeavours to protect an area, they may not take sufficiently into account the views of local communities in dire need of employment. I hope the Marine Research Institute are carrying out useful work in that area, striking a balance in equating the needs of local communities with the importance of the development of aquaculture nationwide. Concern has been expressed about some of the chemicals used, which scientists maintain have not been fully proved. One could debate that issue at length but I do not intend to do so.

I wish our deputation to the conference in Rio de Janeiro well. It is my hope that our Ministers will endeavour to heighten awareness, particularly on the part of the older generation, in regard to problems lurking on the horizon for this country and, indeed, for mankind if we do not recognise the need to protect our environment.

Mr. Garland

I would commend the success of this conference to all Members. This is one of the most important turning points in the history of our planet because, unless we get things right now, we will continue down the slippery slopes to perdition.

We should expect two achievements from this Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, the first being at least an indication of the political will of world leaders to solve the many problems on this planet. The expression of the political will constitutes the easy part and the hard part lies in the implementation of their promises.

I do not need to remind Members of the severe ecological problems being experienced on this planet. I should like to name just four of them, in no particular order. For example, there is the loss of precious top soil causing so much poverty and famine in Africa and the Far East; the destruction of the rain forests; the thinning of the ozone layer and global warming. These critical problems will be addressed at this conference.

I must confess to being pessimistic about the outcome of this conference because we in the West are not facing up to the necessary changes in our economic, social and political systems to effect radical, fundamental changes in order to save our planet or, more particularly, its inhabitants, human and animal, because, of course, the planet, with or without us will continue to orbit in space. I suspect that, because our largely capitalist world does not really face up to these problems but rather is hell bent on mass consumerism, evidenced by the acres of newsprint of consumer advertising and so on, not only are we making no real effort to control these extravagences but are endeavouring to pass on this bad example to the developing world where there will be more and more McDonalds and so on. This appears to be the type of message we endeavour to get across to the developing world, the wrong message. Let us be clear, this planet could not sustain the type of economic development there has been in the West if it were to be replicated in the Far East and Africa. If such are to continue there would be need for three planets rather than one.

The Minister said that Ireland would be strongly represented at this conference. I do not accept that that will be the case. The latest information available is that the Government will be represented by the Taoiseach, the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of State responsible for environmental protection. There would not appear to be any provision for a parliamentary delegation, which I should have thought was normal, and which I understand will be the case on the part of other western countries. For example, there is no provision for representation of NGOs except at the parallel conference which will take place at the other end of Rio de Janeiro and which, I suspect, will be totally overshadowed by the main conference. Nor is there even one representative of our NGOs on the official delegation to the main conference to liaise with the supplementary conference. This will be a case of politicians, more particularly Government members, grabbing the limelight for their self-serving purposes. This is very sad because this will be an extremely important conference.

When in Brazil, a deeply troubled country, I hope the Taoiseach will make some reference to the plight of the street children of Rio de Janeiro and other cities, being gunned down daily by death squads under one of the most oppressive, ugly regimes the world has witnessed in recent times. It is ironic that this conference should take place in a country which clearly breaches the normal, decent, civil liberties and human rights we all seek to espouse.

Our contribution to the conference is based on the national report, which was only published on Tuesday. This has not given us adequate time to have proper debate here today. This report was promised last July. The considerable delay in the publication of this report is an identication of the lack of commitment by the Government to environmental matters. I could understand the delay if the document had been well thought out and researched, but this is not the case. I am ashamed that the Government are going to this conference, which is of unsurpassed importance, with an ill-prepared and ill-researched national report.

Ireland is bogged down with reports on environmental issues which are gathering dust on shelves in various Government Departments. The Government boast of yet another report, but I believe it will do absolutely nothing to improve the position in this country unless it is acted upon, something which rarely happens. The much vaunted Environmental Protection Agency Act has now passed into law. This legislation was long awaited. Is it an accident that this legislation was passed just in time for the Rio Summit? Will the Government say they are good boys and girls for introducing this legislation? Will they mention the number of years it will take before the Environmental Protection Agency begin to have teeth? Will they admit to the failure of past legislation to control pollution? Will they admit the apparent lack of will to ensure that action is taken to control CFC emissions, water pollution and pesticides? Will they admit that the one and only reason much legislation has been enacted here is because they have been pulled kicking and screaming into passing it under regulations insisted upon by the EC? I think not. The whole tenor of this report is to put a surface gloss on the lack of Government activity in preserving Ireland's ecological integrity.

After many years of talk the Government still do not have a waste management programme. We cannot continue to produce waste at the rate it is being produced at present. Waste cannot be burned or buried without serious repercussions. The Government should be working extremely hard to reduce the levels of waste and not creating more. It is not good enough to leave this matter to cash strapped local authorities. Irish people are in the main aware of what needs to be done and it is possible that they will take the law into their hands. Governments are elected to lead, but this Government and previous Governments have followed public opinion with dragging feet.

The Government's lack of activity in working towards sustainable production, sustainable energy and sustainable growth is absolutely appalling. Do the Government think that because Ireland basically missed out on the Industrial Revolution our environment has not been destroyed to the same extent as countries which participated fully in the industrialisation process of the last century? The lack of industrialisation here does not mean that the Government can sit back and take things at an easier pace than other countries. We have a responsibility to the rest of the world. We have only one world and we have a second chance — this one. If we make a mess of this world we cannot emigrate, say sorry and start again.

The report waffles on about energy production. However, I do not see any reference in it to the unprincipled lack of concern about CO² emissions from Moneypoint. There are still no scrubbers there because of the expense involved. I must ask: what price the survival of this planet? The Government should not be looking at ways to generate more electricity to meet the so-called growing needs of this country; rather they should be looking at ways of cutting down on such needs and generating power from renewable resources.

The Green Party, Comhaontas Glas, are appalled at the lack of commitment by the Government to this summit. However, we are not surprised at this as virtually nothing the Government do has the ability to surprise us anymore. It gives us an increasing sinking feeling of doom slowly enveloping us from which we can see no escape unless the Government, the other Opposition parties and local authorities cop themselves on and realise that this is a matter of survival and not a political ball game to be played with soft words, false promises and no action.

I wish to refer in more detail to the report. As I said, I only had time to have a hurried glance at it. The report betrays its origins; it is a series of contributions from various Government Departments which have been strung together with no thought about whether Ireland's current development path is in any way sustainable, even though the purpose of the Earth Summit is to discuss sustainable development. Most of the NGO's which the Government were obliged by the UNCED Secretariat to invite to submit their views are appalled and frustrated at the way in which the Department of the Environment, who assembled this report, have carried on. Even the Confederation of Irish Industry are on record as deploring the fact that the Department did not see fit to hold a conference at which the report and Ireland's role at UNCED could be discussed. The Government's approach betrays their complacent view that they know best and that consulting with anyone else could risk diluting their power. Because all power is centralised in Dublin local authorities are feeble and there is a lack of proper regional development structures. The Government have failed to involve the people in the most important discussion of all, the future of our planet.

Almost all of the document is bland and self-satisfied. The two honourable exceptions in it are the admissions that modern farming practices can be environmentally damaging and that coniferous plantations can make streams acidic, with serious consequences for fish life. If one were to believe this report, everything in the Irish garden is rosy. Only two quantifiable targets are set in the document: a specific but very old commitment to the amount of bogland which is to be preserved and a pledge that this country will cut its sulpher dioxide emissions by 30 per cent by the end of next year by switching to the use of low sulphur coal at Moneypoint and using natural gas instead of oil.

I wish to give an example of the sloppiness of the Government's approach to the environmental crisis facing us, as revealed in the report. Every Deputy must be aware of the serious damage which has already been caused to the ozone layer by the release of CFCs and halons. Deputies will also know that 20 per cent of the ozone shield was lost this spring and that crop growth and human health will suffer as a result. The report reveals that Ireland uses 2,500 tonnes of these chemicals each year. The only action the Government have taken to phase out their use has been to write to the companies using them suggesting that they cease to use them as soon as possible. The report quotes the response —"Companies have replied in generally positive terms". Is this an adequate response? What do the Government propose doing about firms which did not give a positive response? Why have they not set a target date for the complete cessation of the use of these chemicals?

The report states that one of the best ways of reducing CFC releases is to recover chemicals from fridges as they are scrapped. It states that grants are available to local authorities who wish to do this. However, it does not outline the number of local authorities who operate this equipment. It also fails to set a date by which each local authority will operate a fridge disposal programme. Why is this the case?

The report reveals that the Government have given totally inadequate consideration to Ireland's response to the threat of global warming. It states that the European Community is committed to stabilising CO² emissions as a whole by the year 2000 at the 1990 levels and mechanisms for achieving this target are under consideration. What this means is that the Irish Government will go to Brussels and argue that this country should not have to cut back on its use of fossil fuels to achieve the stabilisation target but that our partners in the Community should make sacrifices so that we can continue to increase our energy use. Is that not a correct interpretation? Perhaps the Minister for Energy might answer that question on another day.

The energy section of the report states that this country's national climate strategy will aim to balance the developmental needs of the Irish economy with the developmental objectives. This means that if there is a conflict between the continued economic growth and the environment, economic growth will win. Is that not correct?

If the Minister looks at a book published recently in Ireland —The Growth Illusion— of which I know she has a copy, she will see that historically economic growth has not benefited the majority of people and that the use of increased amounts of fossil fuel energy in an attempt to improve labour productivity destroys jobs. I would urge the Minister and every Deputy to obtain a copy of the submissions made by Earthwatch to the Department of the Environment in connection with this report. It argues that a reduction in fossil fuel energy use would be of great benefit to this country, particularly in maintaining communities in rural areas.

Finally, Deputies should look at the ESRI study published last November which shows that if Ireland taxes fossil fuel energy and uses the revenue to cut taxes on labour, not only will unemployment fall but the country's economy will blossom, especially if our EC partners do not follow suit. The Minister knows of this study; why does she ignore it?

As I said, many non-Government organisations made submissions which they hoped would be borne in mind when this report was compiled, but they will know by now that they need not have bothered. There is not one item in this report which would not have been there if no submissions had been made from outside Government. As a result of the "we know best" policy, there are many serious omissions from the report. I will just mention one. Twenty-six Irish environmental and development groups made a joint submission asking, inter alia, that over a period Ireland would increase its overseas aid from a current figure of 0.17 per cent to the United Nations target of 0.7 per cent. There is no mention of any target for overseas aid in this report. It is ridiculous for us to consider ourselves a poor country by world standards. I will conclude by hoping that the Minister will give a considered response to the points I have made.

Mrs. Owen

I saw Deputy Garland looking my way when making those last remarks. I hope he realises that the Minister is on that side of the House rather than on this side. I welcome the opportunity to speak on this very wide-ranging and important debate not just for this country but for the world. I read recently an article by Colm Boland in The Irish Times headed “Brazil's Earth Summit may put Maastricht in the shade”. We have been very preoccupied in the last few months with the whole debate on Maastricht, rights to travel, abortion and so on, but unfortunately we cannot afford to be as insular and parochial when it comes to considering what will happen in Brazil and, hopefully the advances that will be made. There is no doubt in my mind, having followed the development issue in the developing world for almost 12 years, that a world summit such as this could not have taken place ten years ago. The language that was used by world powers and the attitude by the wealthy north to the poorer south would never have allowed a conference such as this to take place. Although there is a certain movement away from the objectives and hopes that people had for this conference, there now seems to a drawing back, with an Earth Charter being published as a result of the holding of this conference. Pehaps it will be only a Rio plan of action but, nonetheless, it is hopeful that the conference will go ahead.

In February the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade — GATT — published a report in preparation for this summit. It is worth looking at some of the recommendations and points in that report, which were quoted in an article on 12 February in the Financial Times. The report made some very forcible points and highlighted some of the damages and difficulties that resulted from policies in the wealthy north. They say that the European Community's fiercely protectionist Common Agricultural Policy is inflicting serious environmental damage on the globe. They say that countries with large forest areas currently provide carbon absorption services free of charge and instead of imposing trade sanctions on them for exporting logs they should be properly paid for these carbon absorption services.

We in the wealthy north tend to think that we can use the natural resources, the advantages that exist in the south, for our own personal gratification. When we do not want the people in the south to exploit their own natural resources we rise up on our hind legs and condemn them for policies that to them are crucial for life. The whole issue of the destruction of the Brazilian forests and forests in many parts of the developing world is an issue on which environmentalists groups will very quickly press, perhaps without the experience of knowing the difficulties being encountered. Instead of condemning perhaps we should assist these countries, and one of the ways the GATT report recommends that we as a world do that is by paying them for maintaining their forests so as to absorb carbon from the air.

The report states that countries are not clones of each other — this has been a very controversial point. They maintain that they have a sovereign right to declare different environmental priorities and policies. Having had an opportunity to travel in the Philippines and in a number of countries in Africa, I have sympathy with a number of these countries who have the right, after sensitive and careful examination, of looking at their own environmental policies, of harvesting and husbanding their own natural resources in a way that is sensitive to the environment and that can assist the growth and development of their own economies and their own people.

There is certainly a very close link between wealth and improved environmental protection. It is very difficult to say to a person who is starving or who has no physical advantages in life: "How dare you cut down the tree that is ten kilometres away from you in order to light a fire and provide even the most minimal of food for your family". I have seen people in Africa, particularly women, having to walk miles to get the firewood necessary to provide minimal subsistence, food, shelter and water for their families. It is not easy to condemn them when they denude the land around their little hut of valuable trees and cover. Of course that kind of devastation leads to desertification, the removal of top soil and erosion. I have stood in areas of Tanzania where young men in their thirties could remember forests and woods stretching to the horizon. It is now sandy and devastated. We in the North can be critical and insensitive about this. Wealth allows the flexibility and the luxury of improving environmental standards.

The fiercest language in the GATT report is reserved for protectionist farming policies in the United States and Europe. There is no doubt that the Common Agricultural Policy does not help the environment. It encourages very intensive farming practices, higher yields and extensive use of artificial fertilisers. There is now a greater emphasis on the setting aside of land. A farmer who might have been farming 100 acres may be told to set aside half that land; but he will then intensify production on the other 50 acres, damaging that land by further intensification of the use of fertilisers and doing long term environmental damage.

The change in the Common Agricultural Policy and the GATT discussions should allow environmental and developmental issues to remain centre stage. The North-South dialogue that will dominate the summit in Rio is about much more than the simple question of transferring resources from the North to the South. The bottom line must be a sharing of power and responsibility and of world resources. Many people who have not studied this matter as closely as they should point out that many of these countries have mineral resources, wildlife and marine resources and tourist potential and they ask why they cannot pull themselves up by their boot straps. Maybe we are standing on their bootstraps.

I understand that the Minister of State, Deputy Daly, referred to the huge transfers of wealth and resources from the South to the North. The transfer from the South far outweighs the inputs from development aid, food relief and technology inputs. As far back as 1976 the North enjoyed a $70 billion advantage over the South — in other words, the North benefited to the extent of $70 billion every year from the South. That represents 3.5 times the development assistance and inputs to the South. The assistance the North was giving to the South to lift the level of development was turned on its head. We knew this was happening but somehow the desire to change matters was not there. We never stopped to evaluate what this meant on the ground.

The burden of debt repayments meant that governments, which were often unstable, adopted policies which led to extremely harmful projects designed to produce hard currency. It meant, perhaps, taking the best land and devastating it, putting the indigenous people off the land and using it to grow vast acres of coffee, bananas, pineapples, cotton or whatever products we in the consumerled North wanted. There was little thought for what was happening to the people who lived on those lands. Very often water was very scarce in these areas and could only be reached by boring 200 metres into the earth to reach the watertable. Because of the outputs from the South to the North, policies were adopted which have been devastating to the lands and peoples of these countries. Maybe we are to blame; maybe we forced them into those kind of decisions. When we see on television interesting programmes about tribes in Central and South America and in Africa we say it is a shame that they are being driven off their lands. We are as much to blame as the policy-led decisions made by the governments of those countries. We forced those countries into a kind of development programme which was totally inappropriate.

I visited a project in the Philippines which was concerned with coconut recovery. Well-meaning government agencies had produced all sorts of tractor-driven machinery to dehusk and dehull the coconuts. I arrived two years later and saw these expensive machines lying to one side like broken skeletons, rusty and without parts. The local people had devised a much better system for doing the same job at about one-fiftieth of the price. It involved no more than a length of metal with a few blades attached to it, onto which they threaded the coconuts. They turned the piece of metal between two trees and thereby produced as much coconut as they were able to produce by using the most appropriate technology. That is over ten years ago. It is a graphic description of the kind of technology we should be allowing those countries to develop rather than contending that what we have in the North is always right for them. The industrialised countries resisted the concept of interdependence. The very notion that a nation's fate, freedom of movement, freedom of policy or health could be held hostage by another country was anathema, particularly to countries like the United States or countries in Europe. There was not a willingness to look beyond national policies or even to stop to consider whether eventually the price would have to be paid for the disposal of consumer detritus in other countries which did not happen to be as developed as us. We are now paying the price for off-loading our surplus products and surplus baby powder milk was sent to African countries where they had not a proper water supply and the people were not educated in the proper use of the product. We also disposed of our waste products in underdeveloped countries.

Developing countries need hard currency and they can be seduced by Governments bearing gifts and vast payments in dollars for disposing of toxic waste. Who can say we would not be seduced if something similar was to happen here? At one time, the policy was to accept industries that would create jobs at any cost. Thankfully, that has changed because we have developed sufficiently to know that jobs at a cost to our environment are not worth while because eventually we have to pay the price. There was not a willingness to accept we were all part of the wider world and that sooner or later we would have to accept the consequences. I know from reading speeches made at conferences around the world in the early eighties that the concept of a "global world" was not even considered because the decision-making was unilateral and parochial.

I hope this conference in Brazil will foster initiatives and starter policies instead of reactive policies. We should be pro-active and put policies in place before the crisis. It is important to recognise that we must wake up before there is nothing to wake up to.

One is struck by the differences between north and south. Last week I was lucky enough to have the opportunity to visit Botswana, one of the more developed countries in Africa. Even in that country which has a good supply of natural resources one is struck by the contrast with a consumer society. We have become obsessed with packaging and presentation. Now one cannot buy anything unless it is treble-wrapped.

We use polystyrene pellets around the tiniest of bottles. Africa is a stark contrast. It seems we have to pass on our knowledge to them but we can relearn much from them. One does not need to have one's souvenirs packed in three shades of paper and then in polystyrene — newspaper is perfectly adequate, and, indeed, in Africa one is lucky to get that. This raises the whole question of recycling and the use we make of our resources, a matter that will lead to a great deal of discussion in Brazil.

We have to recognise that the so-called sophistication of the western world may not be as sophisticated as we think. We may have been seduced into thinking we cannot live without this, that or the other, but we can survive. Indeed the Minister recognises that and that we are adopting short-sighted policies. We have a great deal to learn.

The Brandt Commission, a major initiative, was probably the first group to examine the concept of "one world". Speaking of North-South relations, as was its mandate, it concluded:

At the beginning of the 1980s the world community faces much greater dangers than at any time since the Second World War.

That was said when the Cold War existed. Thankfully, things have moved on and we have moved away from the idea of another World War. The pessimistic view we all shared in the eighties about the lack of balance between north and south has lifted. While there have been improvements there are still huge differences. Approximately 100 of the countries in the world are still not self-sufficient in food. That challenge must be faced up to at the Earth Summit. Let it be the agent to wake up countries to change their policies.

I wish the Government delegation to this conference well. However, I ask them not to sit back and allow some of the bigger countries dominate. We should be courageous and speak up and show that Ireland understands what is happening. I am disappointed, reading the extensive consultations outlined in the report, that most of the non-governmental organisations consulted were environment oriented. The Minister met representatives from the Advisory Council on Development Co-operation but then the Government promptly abolished that body. I am disappointed that the Minister for the Environment did not see fit to involve development agencies such as Trócaire, Concern, Campaign Aid, Oxfam and Christian Aid that have practical experience of what is happening in the developing world.

I appeal to the Minister to redress this omission before she attends the conference.

Minister of State at the Department of the Environment (Miss Harney)

I thank the Deputies who have contributed to this very worthwhile debate. It reassures me that there is widespread interest in environmental and global environment issues in the House. The Minister for the Environment, and the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, dealt extensively with the purpose and background to the UNCED process and I intend to respond to the points raised in the debate as, obviously, this is more useful. Though some of the Deputies are not present to hear my response they will be able to read the Official Report. It would be wrong to leave questions unanswered.

I believe the Earth Summit will be an exciting challenge for all. It will make us aware of how small the world is and how modern communications and travel can bring us more closely together when we live thousands of miles apart. In recent years many of us sat back and looked in awe at the way the powerful G7 countries came together to discuss important fiscal and monetary matters. The fact that so many important world leaders will be attending the conference in Rio de Janeiro to discuss the environment and development indicates how important global environmental problems are and how they have become a political necessity for even the most powerful world leaders. That is a good thing. It will not only help the environment but will be of particular assistance in terms of dealing with the problems of developing countries, which Deputy Owen, one of our experts in this area, spoke so well about. This is an area of concern to me.

The fact that so much attention is being paid to the questions of the environment and development and the concept of sustainable development has to be good — regardless of what will happen in Rio — for the future of the planet. I have always been concerned while living in the richer North, as Deputy Owen said, where we have encouraged and paid people to produce food to be put into intervention, that further south people are dying of starvation. It seems we live in a very unjust world. If this conference plays any part in making us face up to our wider responsibilities towards mankind it will have achieved much.

Obviously the purpose of the conference is to see how we can achieve sustainable development, realising that that is the only way we can solve the world's environmental, development and poverty problems. For many countries it is a question of mere survival. We have the luxury in this House, as some Deputies said earlier, of being able to speak about what I would regard as relatively minor environmental problems. That is not to take from them — we do have environmental problems in Ireland. But we have a clean environment, relatively speaking, mainly because we are not a heavily industrialised country and we have a low population density. Nevertheless, we have many localised problems. Facing up to our own environmental responsibilities and the environmental infrastructure that will be required in this country to the end of the decade to allow us to meet our European Community obligations will pose major constraints on our public finances. Even with assistance from Structural or Cohesion Funds the provision of better water and sewage treatment facilities will cost enormous sums of money. If we want higher standards we will have to pay more. Ordinary citizens, householders and those involved in industry will have to make a greater contribution towards the provision of these essential services.

During the course of the debate many individual queries were raised which I would like to deal with. Deputy Owen and others spoke at length concerning this country's commitment to Overseas Development Aid. I am pleased to say that in the revised Programme for Government, agreed by the two Government parties last October, a commitment was given to increase the national percentage by the end of 1994. I hope — and I think I speak for all members of the Government — that we will increase the official aid, which by international standards is not as high as one would wish. As a people we have been particularly generous in a voluntary capacity.

Mrs. Owen

The Minister might do that this year.

Miss Harney

Certainly we have wider obligations towards those parts of the world where sheer survival is what we are talking about. The Department of the Environment have made moneys available towards the UN Convention and the depletion of the ozone layer. We make other moneys available through our membership of the European Community, but we have to make a greater effort to find ways and means to increase the development aid budget from this country. Deputy Garland would like to see us reach the UN target of 0.7 per cent but that is a long way off. We need to increase our contribution in real terms and we need to begin that process relatively soon.

The Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Deputy Daly, referred to the problems of the developing countries and the fact that in 1991 they had a combined debt of $1,281 billion. The problems are so enormous that it is frightening to think of the extent of the aid required if we are to help alleviate the difficulties in these countries. In his speech the Minister of State referred to a sum of $125 billion annually, excluding a further $15 billion to meet biodiversity conventions and individual problems of deforestation. That is an enormous sum. The developed countries have to play a major role, both in terms of direct aid and in terms of expertise and technology, to help the developing countries. We have wider responsibilities beyond our own individual member state and beyond the continent. Certainly, this will be a key issue at this conference.

I attended a meeting of OECD Minister last December where the environment and development was discussed. It was agreed that additional resources have to be made available to the developing countries, but agreement was not reached on the extent of the additional resources or the manner in which they might be made available. Agreement was reached on Agenda 21 to provide new and additional resources. We must be specific in relation to these new and additional resources and we must do so in the context of the issues being discussed.

A number of Deputies queried the participation in the Rio Conference of NGOs. While it is true that NGOs will not be represented on the official national delegation, they are being funded to attend the conference. Both my Department and the Department of Foreign Affairs have provided a sum of £20,000 towards the cost of NGOs attending the conference. It is the intention that there will be liaison and an exchange of information in Rio between the official delegation and the NGOs.

In relation to the drawing up of the national report there was fairly widespread consultation, although I accept some mistakes were made. The Minister, when answering questions in the House about two weeks ago, referred to the fact that farming organisations, with the exception of the organic growers, were omitted, and that was unfortunate. As the appendix shows, a large number of organisations made submissions and were consulted. The Department of Foreign Affairs also had widespread consultation in relation to a number of issues with the development NGOs.

The umbrella organisation for the environment and development NGOs came together for the purpose of making a submission to the Rio Conference, which was considered in the context of the national report. I am happy to inform Deputies, especially Deputy Higgins who raised the point, that the report is printed on recycled paper, although the cover is not recycled paper. Deputy Higgins referred also to the important role which women can play in the context of sustainable development. This is a view I share. It is particularly relevant when speaking about developing countries, where women play a pivotal and essential role in relation to the earth's environmental assets; and this is particularly relevant in the case of water. At the International Conference on Water and the Environment held earlier this year in Dublin the role of women in relation to this issue was fully recognised.

Deputy Garland and others referred to the problems of deforestation. It is the intention at Rio that principles for the conservation not only of tropical forests but of forests generally will be discussed. That may form the basis in the future for a convention giving legal protection to forests. As the Deputy said, forests act as a sink for carbon and make an enormous impact particularly in the context of global warming. By European standards Ireland, at about 7 per cent, has a very low level of afforestation, but that is an enormous increase since the turn of the century when afforestation stood at 1 per cent. The Government's intention is to increase our annual plantation to 30,000 hectares; last year it was of the order of 24,000 hectares. In the context of climate change our afforestation programme has a key role to play; so too does the use of renewable energy, switching to alternative fuel and, most important, the conservation of energy. We need to decrease our dependency on energy in the home, in industry and so on. The recently published building regulations which will come into effect next month place heavy emphasis on higher insulation standards. It is important to accelerate our energy conservation measures so that we use energy in a more caring and efficient way. Whilst many environmental issues may cost more money, using less energy costs less money and I am surprised that more people do not do simple, basic things in their homes relating to that matter.

Deputy Finucane referred to the excellent booklet produced by ENFO on the depletion of the ozone layer. He asked if that had been made available to all the schools in the country. I do not think that has been done although it is widely available. The ENFO office have an enormous number of booklets and if individual schools wish to have it it can be made available.

Deputies Finucane and Garland referred to CFCs. The phase-out date has now been brought forward to the end of December 1995. Even in advance of that my Department have had discussions with the consumers of CFCs and have received a great deal of co-operation, particularly from the CII. I hope we will be in a position to have an area phase-out before the statutory one on 31 December 1995. The fact that something can be done in advance on a voluntary basis is no bad thing. There are many purely voluntary agreements throughout the world that have an enormous impact and that can be very successful. I hope we can go down that road here too.

The new regulations in relation to septic tanks will certainly lead to improvements and higher standards. I appreciate that the problem spoken about is a localised one. In the past we were not as cautious in relation to the location of septic tanks and many are a cause of pollution. With ribbon developments in many rural parts of the country we must be particularly careful that septic tanks do not become a source of pollution to ground water or soil. I welcome the initiatives of Bord na Móna of the new biophor and puraflo systems which allowed the construction of houses in areas that would otherwise not be suitable for septic tanks.

Deputies Gilmore, Mitchell and others referred to the delay in publishing the report. I, too, regret the delay. However, we now have it and I am delighted to have the opportunity, so shortly after its publication, to debate it in this House. The report is widely available and any interested party or organisation who wish to receive a copy of the report is welcome to have one. The purpose of the report was to outline this country's experience in aiming at sustainable development. Whatever about the need to plough additional resources in the direction of the developing countries, one of the outstanding achievements of the whole UNCED process is that countries are looking at their own environment to see how they can accelerate their own environmental protection measures, and that is a good thing. Whatever about our international obligations, we can always do a lot more. The Irish Government have done a lot more.

The Environmental Protection Agency Act sets up a completely new mechanism for the enforcement of high environmental standards. Deputy Garland said the agency will not bite for a few years. I am hoping that it will be biting by the end of the year. The agency will effectively be a national environmental police force acting independently of the Government and local authorities and various vested interests, making decisions on the basis of the facts, licensing particular activities and forcing compliance with the licence and so on. It will have a major impact in the environmental area here. So, too, have many of the other measures that have been introduced in recent years. I suppose the gravest measure of all was the environmental action plan spelling out as it did the Government's commitment to providing £1 billion by the end of this decade towards the provision of water and sewage treatment facilities. If we are to meet our obligations we will have to find new ways of funding much of the environmental infrastructure. Higher standards invariably cost more money and the users of many of these facilities will have to pay directly, which does not happen at the moment.

Many Deputies questioned the fact that there would not be a parliamentary delegation as opposed to a Government delegation attending the Rio Conference. This is essentially a world Government conference as much as anything else. If commitments are to mean anything, if conventions are to be signed, if principles are to be endorsed and followed through by the signatories, that has to be done at Government level.

Mrs. Owen

The Danish Parliament are sending 70 delegates.

Miss Harney

We do not have the resources nor the capacity to send a delegation of that kind. Deputy Owen is a well travelled Deputy and she knows it would be extremely expensive.

Mrs. Owen

I am just the spokesperson.

Miss Harney

The sending of the small ministerial delegation along with the Taoiseach will certainly cost an enormous amount of money. We must be realistic in terms of the necessity and the impact and the results that might be achieved by sending a delegation of that kind.

Let me thank the Deputies for contributing to this debate, particularly the Deputies who went to the bother of reading the report in advance. It has been a useful debate and hopefully it will help to clear all our minds in the context of the forthcoming conference next month which I hope will provide the world with the kind of environmental development solutions that will allow us to achieve sustainable development.

The Dáil adjourned at 2.10 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday, 12 May 1992.

Dáil Éireann debate - Friday, 8 May 1992

UN Conference on Environment and Development: Statements.

Dáil Éireann debate -
Friday, 8 May 1992