Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 23 May 1996

Vol. 465 No. 8

Global Environment Facility: Motion.

I move:

That Dáil Éireann approves the terms of the instrument for the establishment of the restructured Global Environment Facility adopted at Geneva, Switzerland, between 14 and 16 March 1994.

The Global Environment Facility was established in 1991 by the World Bank as a pilot programme to assist in the protection of the global environment and the promotion of environmentally sustainable economic development. Following the Rio Earth Summit in 1992, and the designation of the GEF on an interim basis to operate the financial mechanisms provided for in the Climate Change and Biodiversity Conventions, the GEF was restructured in 1994 to broaden its membership and further facilitate participation by developing countries. The World Bank, the United Nations Development Programme and the United Nations Environment Programme are now the implementing agencies for the GEF.

At the time of the GEF restructuring, Ireland gave formal notice that, subject to Dáil approval, it intended to become a member of the GEF. The purpose of today's debate is to comply with Article 29.5.2º of the Constitution which requires Dáil approval to international agreements which involve a charge on public funds and to allow Ireland to take on full membership responsibilities of the GEF.

The GEF was established in 1991 in response to the perceived need to provide financial assistance to developing countries, over and above traditional development aid, to assist them in combating global environmental problems. The GEF also reflects the now widespread awareness of the seriousness of global and regional environmental problems. Dangers that seemed exaggerated ten or 15 years ago, such as climate change, ozone layer depletion and biodiversity loss are now accepted to be real and urgent.

It is generally accepted that the developed world has to take the lead in responding to these problems. Apart from the fact that developed countries have, historically, contributed most to the environmental problems now facing us, they have at their disposal to a greater extent the financial, human and technology resources necessary to deal with these problems. It is also the case, however, that action by developed countries alone will not be sufficient. Measures at the widest possible level, including efforts by developing countries in accordance with their capabilities and stage of economic development, are needed if the environmental problems facing the world are to be dealt with effectively.

The major new international conventions on climate change, biodiversity and ozone depleting substances have all, therefore, acknowledged that (a) developed countries must take the lead in combating global environmental problems; (b) the responsibilities of developing countries must be differentiated according to their capabilities; and (c) developed countries should assist developing countries in responding to environmental problems through the provision of financial resources and access to environmentally sound technologies. It is in this context that the GEF has emerged as a multilateral mechanism for the channelling of resources to developing countries.

At present 155 countries participate in the GEF, of which 22, including Ireland, are non-recipients of GEF support. The GEF governing structure consists of an assembly representative of all members which meets every three years to review and evaluate general policies; an executive council which meets every six months, and a secretariat.

The GEF has a fund of more than US$2 billion pledged by donor countries for the period 1994-97. The funds will be allocated to projects over the period April 1996 to October 2005 and will be drawn down over this period. Total payments are expected to reach some US$390 million by the end of 1996.

The Global Environment Facility provides grant and concessional funds to developing countries for activities aimed at protecting the global environment in four focal areas: biodiversity, climate change, international waters, and ozone layer depletion. The issues of land degradation, primarily desertification and deforestation, as they relate to each focal area, are also addressed.

In the areas of climate change and biodiversity the GEF operates on an interim basis the financial mechanisms for implementing the Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Convention on Biological Diversity. In these cases the GEF must operate in conformity with the policies, programme priorities and eligibility criteria decided by the conferences of the parties for each of these conventions.

It is appropriate to outline for the House some of the activities financed by the GEF in its main programme areas. In the area of biodiversity, nine projects with combined financing of US$65 million were approved for inclusion in the 1995 GEF work programme. These projects include conservation, protection, management, development and restoration work in threatened priority sites in nine developing countries. The activities outlined in the project descriptions are varied and include tropical forest protection, wildlife preservation, ecosystems conservation and habitat restoration. Considerable emphasis is placed on working directly with the indigenous peoples of the areas concerned.

Deputies will be aware that the House passed a motion on 6 March last approving the ratification by Ireland of the Convention on Biological Diversity. The aim of the convention is, inter alia, the conservation of biological diversity, the sustainable use of its components and the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of the utilisation of genetic resources.

In the climate change area, the GEF 1995 work programme consisted of a series of enabling activities, with emphasis on demonstration projects. A total of 19 projects in the climate change focal area were approved with combined financing of approximately US$31 million. A feature of the aid administered in this area is that many of the benefiting projects will be of a regional nature rather than being confined to a single country.

The ultimate objective of the Climate Change Convention, which Ireland ratified in 1994, is to achieve a stabilisation of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that will prevent dangerous man-made interference with the climate system. The convention requires developed countries to take the lead in responding to climate change and to adopt policies and measures to mitigate climate change by, inter alia, limiting emissions of greenhouse gases. The convention requires developing countries to develop national programmes containing measures to mitigate climate change.

The GEF council has also approved a Preliminary Operational Strategy for International Waters. Current programme priorities in this area are focused on management of freshwater basins, including lakes, reservoirs and transboundary groundwater systems, and pollution. Two projects, at a cost of US$687,000 were approved during 1995 and related to activities in the Red Sea-Gulf of Aden and the Lake Chad basin.

Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted and 20 Members being present,

The GEF council included in the work programme for 1995 five ozone depletion projects at a total cost of US$37 million. The funding for these projects is concentrated on the newly independent states, NIS, of the former Soviet Union and the central and east European countries, CEECs, which are currently ineligible for aid under the Montreal Protocol Multilateral Fund. They are intended to assist in the phase out of ozone depleting substances principally in the refrigeration, foams, aerosol and solvent sectors.

In implementing its programme in the areas I described, the GEF operates by reference to a number of principles, including ensuring the cost effectiveness of its activities; the maintenance of sufficient flexibility in order to respond to changing circumstances, including evolving guidance of the conferences of the parties where appropriate; the full disclosure of information relating to GEF projects, and the participation of beneficiaries and affected groups of people in GEF projects.

It is worth noting the importance the GEF attaches to working in partnership with national authorities and local communities in implementing projects. This approach is essential to ensure that projects complement national activities and to improve the capacity of developing countries to identify and implement appropriate solutions. GEF financed projects are particularly important in the context of developing countries' efforts to build up their capacity for developing and managing environmentally sound technologies.

International co-operation is essential if major environmental problems that threaten the ecological balance of the planet are to be dealt with effectively. It is right, therefore, that Ireland should play an active part in international efforts through membership of institutions, such as the Global Environment Facility, to strengthen environmental protection and promote sustainable development. Ireland's contribution to the GEF will amount to £1.7 million over a four year period, a sum of £425,000 per annum. If approved, payments are expected to commence this year and appropriate provision has been made in the Estimates.

Ireland's participation will meet our financial obligations under the Climate Change and Biodiversity Conventions. It is consistent with our commitment to the promotion of international co-operation to address global environmental problems and is a significant practical contribution to the needs of developing countries for finance to meet the additional cost of environmental protection measures. I commend the motion to the House.

On behalf of Fianna Fáil I support the motion allowing for the establishment of the restructured Global Environment Facility. Ireland will contribute funds to the facility which is a practical first step towards a global plan for sustainable development.

The tentative nature of the steps being taken may be ascertained from the modest amount of moneys made available to the projects in client countries. As the Minister indicated, projects under four different headings have been approved. These include nine biodiversity projects, which received US$65.21 million last year. A sum of US$31.3 million has been approved for 19 projects in the climate change area, while a total of US$687,000 has been approved for projects in the international waters area. A total of US$37.1 million has been approved for five projects in eastern Europe in the ozone layer depletion area.

Given the size of the problems which need to be solved, the amount of money provided is tiny. However, it is important and significant that an international mechanism is now in place in the organisation which can practically assist the concept of sustainable development in developing countries. The establishment of the working Global Environment Facility is the first step in the transition from talk to positive action in relation to sustainable development.

The Irish share of the funding, which will be £1.7 million over a number of years, will be money well spent if it is expended on properly evaluated projects. It will be a valuable contribution from this country because there is a strong and direct link between a clean environment and strong trading economies. The benefit of investments in water quality in Lake Chad may not be apparent to people in my constituency or elsewhere in Ireland. However, it is imperative for Ireland's long-term strength as a trading nation that places such as Africa, Latin America and south-east Asia are spared any further environmental degradation. The GEF will provide the seed money to allow eligible countries develop sustainable economies. The planet is becoming increasingly small and events in one area affect the climate and other environmental aspects in other areas. While the link may appear tenuous, it is important that Ireland plays a role in this matter.

The strongest reason for an international fund to assist sustainable development is that perserving the environment is the right thing to do. The issue is being discussed in terms of improving trade and the capacity of economies to develop in a sustainable way, but it is right to spend money on preserving the environment for its own sake. Large scale environmental degradation is almost exclusively a modern phenomenon. It does not take much imagination on our part to realise that posterity will look back on our time and call us a locust generation. There is increasing awareness in communities and countries of the dangers of persisting with the current patterns of development. To date action has not kept pace with that awareness.

It should be noted also that some of the projects will be of immediate relevance to Ireland. The US$37.1 million being spent on projects in eastern Europe designed to phase out ozone depleting substances is a case in point. This will be of benefit to Ireland's long-term environmental well-being. This assistance to the economies of eastern Europe will help their future cohesion in the European Union. Economic and environmental trends are inextricably linked. It is similar to the proverbial apple a day; a healthy economy needs a healthy environment. The process of cleaning up the nuclear industry in eastern Europe does not appear to come within the terms and scope of the facility, as the Minister outlined. If that process is not covered, will Ireland use its position on the body to expand the role of the GEF in this area to ensure there is a safe clean up of the industry there?

The amount of money involved is relatively small. It is, nevertheless, public money. It is vital, therefore, that projects are properly evaluated and monitored. The GEF is a World Bank programme which has been put on an international footing. The World Bank has been joined as an implementing agency by the United Nations Environment Programme and the United Nations Development Programme. I hope this mix of organisations will provide the right level of practical supervision and ideological guidance to allow the fund operate in a successful manner. I hope it will not take the other route and cause excessive bureaucracy.

We must not forget that the World Bank was responsible for some of the most environmentally damaging projects ever undertaken on this planet. As a donor nation, we have a duty to our own taxpayers and the global environment to ensure funding is allocated in keeping with principles we would be happy to have applied at home. I hope the Minister of State will use the opportunity of this debate to outline how he proposes to monitor the fund on an ongoing basis to see that it meets those criteria.

I hope the establishment of the restructured Global Environment Facility means a turning away from the flawed policies promoted heretofore by the World Bank and other international organisations which have a poor record. Motorways through the Amazon and huge dams which have wiped out entire communities and habitats are dotted around the Third World landscape as a monument to the failed policies of the past. The World Bank must take its share of the responsibility for this. I ask the Minister of State to ensure that the GEF will not be allowed to serve merely as window dressing for an otherwise flawed policy.

At least as important as the work that will be done by the GEF in its first year is the full eco-auditing of all World Bank policies. The Global Environment Facility must be more than a PR exercise. Irish policy at international level must reflect the standards and attitudes we expect at home.

Any foreign policy which ignores the daily living conditions of most of the world's population is unworthy of serious consideration. In 1990, when Ireland last held the Presidency of the European Union, Fianna Fáil in Government began to address global environment problems. The Dublin Declaration on the Environment was negotiated and signed. That historic agreement committed EU member states to the principle of shared responsibility for the world environment. It further committed the EU to solidarity with the developing world and stressed that for action to be meaningful it should take place immediately. Progress in the interim has been disappointing.

I hope that when it assumes the Presidency of the European Union the Government will put environmental policy to the fore once again and build on the progress made in 1990. One of its aims — this has not been mentioned in the context of the Presidency — should be to "green" the Maastricht Treaty, which was drawn up largely without any emphasis being placed on environmental issues and eco-auditing policies.

We live in a world where 1.7 billion people do not have access to proper sanitation and 170 million people in urban areas lack a clean source of drinking water close to home. In rural areas the number is 855 million. In Latin America less than 2 per cent of sewage is treated. It pays $50 billion per annum in debt repayments, which hugely exceeds total aid given to it. The reality of the modern world is that poverty and environmental degradation are inextricably linked. Our membership of the EU and, in particular, the forthcoming Presidency of the Council of Ministers allow us an opportunity to contribute to the environment as a global issue.

It is a matter of increasing concern that the Government is not pursuing with any vigour or enthusiasm the urgent agenda of sustainable development. This week the Department of the Environment published a press release which related, apparently with some pride, that in the past year there has been a 5 per cent increase in the number of cars on our roads. The increase over the past five years has been 20 per cent. No effort has been made by the Department, the Environmental Protection Agency or any other agency to evaluate the real cost of this hugely increased pressure on our health and environment.

In its recently published document, The State of the Environment in Ireland, the Environmental Protection Agency cited road traffic as the most significant source of air pollution. Our CO2 emissions are as dangerous to the ozone layer as those of other countries. It is ironic that we are patting ourselves on the back for making money available to eastern European and other countries for emission reduction projects while we are belching out poisonous gases as if there were no tomorrow. If we continue at this rate, there may not be.

I welcome the establishment of the Global Environment Facility and very much hope that, in hindsight, it will be seen as a turning point in the investment and development policies of the World Bank and other international agencies. There is a need to monitor the use of this fund closely on an ongoing basis. It is imperative that the GEF is not used as a fig leaf by agencies and Governments, including our own, for continuing inactivity. Sustainable development at home and globally cannot be reduced to a set of cosy conclusions with which we all feel comfortable.

Starting at home, which is where we must start, there are hard decisions which need to be taken urgently. CO2 and SO2 emissions, waste and litter, to name but a few, are not responding to the sticking plaster solutions being applied. Internationally, the ideas set out in Dublin when Ireland last held the Presidency of the EU have not been followed through. I ask the Government to do so at home and in Europe. The Global Environment Facility is a timely reminder of how much there is to be done and achieved urgently. We support the motion.

My party and I also support the motion which is both timely and good. We acknowledge that environmental protection is a global challenge. Simply put, pollution does not respect national or other boundaries. If we are to deal with the outfall of pollution and the degradation of our environment, we will have to do so at international level in a highly determined way.

I welcome the establishment of the restructured GEF. If it sets out to carry out its tasks properly, it can become a strong moral force in the world. I am glad we are making our contribution. At £1.7 million over a four-year period, it is not a major one, but nonetheless it is a significant acknowledgement that we also have a role to play and are at one with the objectives set out by the Global Environment Facility on day one.

The four specific areas of concern to the GEF are biodiversity, climate change, international waters and ozone layer depletion. These issues must be of primary concern to all human beings as we face the end of the century. Gandhi said once this world can sustain all man-kind's needs, but it cannot sustain all mankind's greeds. We are living in an age where greed is very much in the ascendancy. It will not be possible to curb that greed without having in place a very strong international body. I hope the GEF will increase and grow in strength and moral authority. The planet is not being destroyed by any lower being but by mankind, which is supposed to be the most intelligent of all creatures. The destruction and degradation is as a result of actions by man who will have to undo the damage which has been done.

Ireland has an historic opportunity to advance environmental issues during the six months of the EU Presidency. I strongly argue that Ireland should use the EU Presidency to effect the greening of the Maastricht Treaty, which was called for by Deputy Dempsey. We should use this historic opportunity wisely and well, but we cannot do so unless we advance a vision which must be kept on the agenda during the six months of the Presidency.

The single most pressing issue threatening our planet is the manner in which we deal with the ugly by-products of nuclear energy — the manner in which we deal with radioactive waste. To date, this country has been particularly helpless in such matters, especially in relation to Sellafield and THORP. We have called for the closure of Sellafield and THORP time and again. It has become almost a political mantra. How much heed is given to those political calls? We should square up to the fact that there are 8,000 good jobs in Sellafield and that they are very important to the economy of that country — a fact we cannot ignore. While I am not saying we should stop calling for the closure of Sellafield, we should be a bit more realistic in our approach.

During the EU Presidency, Ireland should seek to put in place an independent Euro-based body which would monitor the activities at Sellafield; it would advance research into new and different ways of dealing with the disposal and movement of radioactive waste and put in place enforceable sanctions in the event of a breach by any member state of agreed safety regulations and precautions. That is the key point which I want to make.

The shipping of nuclear waste and radioactive materials will greatly increase in the Irish Sea in the years ahead. The Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland has objected to THORP on the grounds of increased discharges, the increased risk of major nuclear activities and the risk of weapons proliferation from unwanted plutonium. This type of objection, while it has great moral force, does not have any legal standing. That is why there is a grave need to put in place an independent Euro-based body like that which I described.

The latest plans for disposing of nuclear waste are causing major debate not only along the Cumbrian coast but in the United States where, by 1998, 23 power plants will have run out of space for spent fuel. In April 1986 international attention was focused on the poor safety record of many civil nuclear power plants in what was then the Soviet Union because of the horrific accident at Chernobyl when unit four of that plant suffered a massive explosion and a subsequent leak of radioactivity. The fall-out from that accident will live to haunt us and future generations. Those of us who live in Cork where the Chernobyl Children's Project is based have looked at the faces of many of the child victims of that accident. The Minister knows what I am talking about. I assure Members that it was not a good experience to look at those faces and to see the blighted hopes, minds and bodies of little children, the helpless victims of that accident. We must never cease to ask ourselves whether there could be another Chernobyl. If there is, are there now better procedures in place?

All countries with nuclear installations face the question of how to dispose of their radioactive waste. Russia has a particular problem. There are, for example, 120 decommissioned nuclear submarines carrying used nuclear fuel lying in shallow harbours off the coast of north west Russia. Large quantities of nuclear waste have also accumulated at civil nuclear installations throughout Russia, constituting a continuous and horrendous risk to the environment. We can no longer turn away from that fact. After all, Russia is not that far away.

More research must be done to find some type of scientific formula which could help to find new ways and means to neutralise that waste. As I said, nuclear fall-out is a man made nightmare. The best brains must be harnessed to find acceptable and safe solutions for disposing of the ugly byproduct of nuclear energy. We must spend our energies putting in place an international body to scrutinise and supervise the dismantling of decommissioned nuclear reactors and the movement of nuclear waste and allied matters. That task should be initiated by this country during the next six months of the EU Presidency.

If there was a serious accident at Sellafield, people living in the eastern counties would be almost — I do not want to scaremonger — as helpless as the poor children of Chernobyl. We must put in place a procedure to deal with this. We have been given an historic opportunity — whether we grasp it remains to be seen — to put in place an international body to monitor, supervise, police and punish if safety regulations are breached.

In matters of degradation of the environment we must look to the standards we set for ourselves. We are not in a great position to preach to other countries if we do not attend to environmental matters in our own. I take the point made by Deputy Dempsey about the huge increase in the number of cars. That is a sign of a good economy, but it is also testimony of our failure to put in place a better system of public transport. Many people have no alternative but to resort to the car, which is a great cause of degradation of air quality. I wonder how many new cars are fitted with proper catalytic convertors. I have a question down to the Minister for the Environment on that matter. How forceful are we in insisting that all new cars are fitted with proper convertors to reduce harmful emissions?

It has always been stated that one of our greatest assets is our highly skilled and trained young people. As well as voting this modest amount of money, we should encourage at least some of our young workforce to put their expertise, skills and education at the disposal of developing countries which face enormous problems which, without international assistance, are insurmountable. We should send trained environmental groups who are well versed in key technology as missionaries abroad.

(Laoighis-Offaly): It is unacceptable that people who wish to contribute on a subject such as this have little opportunity to do so and must share a very short time. In order to facilitate the other Deputies, however, I will be very brief. We are contributing £425,000 in this area this year and £1.7 million over four years. That money forms part of Ireland's overseas development assistance. As chairperson of the Sub-committee on Development Co-Operation I wish, on behalf of the members of that committee, to put a couple of issues on record.

We welcome wholeheartedly the ratification by Ireland of this instrument and the fact that Ireland will contribute to the Global Environment Facility. In many aspects of development we in the First World are very much like the Pharisees in the Gospel, we create burdens for people but do not lift a finger to help carry them. The integration of environmental issues into the whole area of development is somewhat similar. We are saying to the developing world that we have made mistakes in the environmental area and we want those countries to follow our model of development but we will not allow them make the same mistakes. In many respects we are hampering them on their development path because on the one hand we are forcing this model on them while on the other we are not providing the resources, encouragement and support to allow them avoid the environmental mistakes we made.

There is a danger that this fund will be used for a purpose similar to that of a zoo — animals are being exterminated throughout the world but there is a small zone where some of them are on show. Biodiversity, climate change, international waters and ozone depletion are important issues, but I wonder how projects will be assisted under this fund when, through international economic and trade policies, we continue to force models of development on third countries. If they follow the path of development suggested, it will result in environmental degradation.

It is important to recognise that some of the concerns expressed about programmes imposed on developing countries by international agencies have been met. A majority of members of the council involved in administering this funding should be from recipient countries and the chairperson of the council should alternate between recipient and non-recipient countries. An effort is being made to redress the balance of power globally between north and south and I welcome that.

The Government will be well aware of the criticisms by members of the sub-committee of the way the IMF and the World Bank impose programmes on developing countries. The Government must be vigilant in ensuring that programmes under the GEF are implemented in a spirit of partnership and consultation, with genuine co-operation between recipient and donor countries. I would ask the Minister to ensure that at the earliest opportunity Ireland seeks representation on the council set up to oversee this matter. Much negotiation will take place in that council and it should be a clear objective of the Government that we be represented. In that way we could be an advocate of developing countries by ensuring that in the implementation of programmes by the UNDP, the UNEP and the World Bank there is proper consultation and a spirit of partnership so that programmes are not imposed on people in the developing world.

We are talking here about biodiversity and sustainable development. Yesterday a number of Members met representatives of the Guarani Indians in Brazil who are being streamrolled out of their territory by cattle ranchers. I suspect that much of that development is funded by international agencies such as the IMF and the World Bank. The Minister should ask the GEF to consider adopting a specific programme of support for the Guarani Indians in Brazil and Paraguay and for people generally in Latin America.

I regret I do not have more time to speak on these issues but I will allow other Deputies to contribute.

Ba mhaith liom mo chuid ama a roinnt leis an Teachta Eoin Ryan. Ba mhaith liom chomh maith buíochas a ghabháil leis na Teachtaí a bhí cabhrach. Is mór an trua nach bhfuil níos mó ama againn áfach.

This issue is one of the most important with which we have to deal. It is an issue that is difficult to deal with because it is so vast. The measures we implement and actions we take on a daily basis have far-reaching consequences for this area, although we may not realise it at times. I support this motion, but I believe that in an attempt to offset bad PR an element of conscience money from the World Bank is involved. I hope there is more to it than that because enormous problems have been created by the wasteful spending of large amounts of money in many poorer parts of the world.

Despite the goodwill and generosity of the Irish people and many others vastly greater amounts of money go from poorer countries to the banks of the western world than the other way round. For every £1 donated to these countries, £4 comes back as a form of repayment for the so-called generosity of the major financial institutions. That must be tackled and the question of debt cancellation has to be given serious consideration, as it was in biblical times.

Our lifestyles are intricately linked to the system which oppresses the people of poorer countries. Let us consider some of the products we use regularly such as tea, coffee, pineapples, cocoa and oil — a product over which countries have gone to war. I was in contact with Shell yesterday in regard to the problems in Nigeria. These products are part of a system which keeps poorer countries as primary producers unable to develop sustainable economies. This must be changed.

I was interested to hear Deputy Quill's remarks about the jobs at Sellafield and THORP as if the problem with THORP is something from which we should back off. There are alternatives for those 8,000 jobs and it is in that direction we must look. We must examine what is known widely as appropriate technology which not only gives employment and ensures people have a sustainable livelihood but that the people in developing countries can maintain that technology and are not dependent on people in white coats travelling out on expense accounts from First World countries.

Appropriate technology which should be promoted here for use in developing countries includes organic growing, a culture in which the car is reluctantly not habitually used, respect for habitats, reed bed sewage treatment, energy audits and solar and wind power. These are all areas of appropriate rather than oppressive technology which can be used in developing countries.

I welcome the opportunity to support the motion. It is time we recognised the damage done to the environment in Third World countries is enormous and continuing unabated. I hope the moneys being allocated here will go some way towards highlighting that damage and addressing the problems experienced by many people in the Third World.

The developed world must take action in regard to this problem. People living in developing countries believe that the First World countries should take action on the environment because it has done most damage while they are merely trying to improve their standards of living. The World Bank financed and sponsored many projects which have resulted in enormous damage in Third World countries, including forestry projects in Brazil and the building of various dams. The Ogoni people in Nigeria are a typical example of how the expanson of the oil industry in that country has resulted in enormous suffering.

Many of us on what are often described as junkets have visited Third World countries for a great learning experience. The NGOs operating in those countries told us that much of the money allocated to these areas is wasted. Natural resources are being plundered, at enormous environmental cost, by companies from the developed world without any spin-off to local communities. When the moneys are allocated it is vital that projects are monitored. It must be remembered also that many people in the Third World can do a great deal with small amounts of money which are more difficult to obtain than large sums for larger projects. It is vitally important to consider funds for small projects which can protect the environment.

The developed world has created our largest environmental threat in the form of nuclear waste in the former Eastern Bloc countries. That problem must be tackled. The Assembly representatives of all member countries will meet every three years to review and evaluate general policy and the Executive Council will meet every six months. Would it be possible for a committee of the House to receive an updated report on that, perhaps every six months, rather than waiting to see what happens three years from now? A regular report is essential to ensure that money is being spent properly and that it is working.

I thank the Deputies who contributed to the debate. That Ireland is joining the GEF as a contributing member is practical evidence of our commitment to assisting developing countries in responding to global environmental challenges. Developed countries must take the lead in responding to these challenges but these efforts alone will not be sufficient. Action at the widest possible level, including developing countries, is necessary. GEF support is important in assisting developing countries to get on a sustainable development path.

I agree with Deputy Dempsey on the importance of increasing our efforts to get on a sustainable development path and I will take his views on board. The Deputy referred also to the modesty of funds. I must clarify that the figures quoted by me were examples from the 1995 programme and that the total fund is US$2 billion.

In relation to the clean-up of nuclear facilities in eastern Europe, the position is that the GEF does not finance such work but the European Union PHARE and TACIS programmes provide funding for the clean-up of nuclear facilities in eastern Europe. That addresses the concerns expressed by Deputy Quill.

I do not defend the past activities of the World Bank but I understand it now has an active policy of integrating environmental considerations in all of its programmes and activities. I assure Deputies that during our Presidency we will advance a substantial programme of work in the environmental area. A major priority will be a review of the Union's fifth environmental action programme and we will also ensure that the European Union maintains its leading role internationally in the area of climate change and ozone depleting substances.

I note Deputy Quill's comments about the greening of the Maastricht Treaty and I agree that the current Intergovernmental Conference provides an opportunity to strengthen the environmental provisions of the Treaty of the European Union. Deputy Quill also highlighted the widespread public concern about the safety of nuclear installations. We will continue to avail of all opportunities to make known our concern about these nuclear issues and to seek solutions to the problems identified by Deputy Quill.

Deputy Gallagher raised the issue of the use of trade policies to assist developing countries; he is correct in explaining the injustice of trade issues. The trade and environmental committee of the World Trade Organisation has begun to address the issues involved and, while progress is admittedly slow, one can take comfort from the fact that the WTO is finally beginning to take on board environmental and sustainable developmental issues.

I thank Deputies for their contributions in what has been a brief debate. I will take Deputy Ryan's question on board and I may be able to get a response on it later.

Question put and agreed to.
Top
Share