Vol. 497 No. 1
1 Mr. Dukes asked the Minister for the Environment and Local Government if he supports proposals to raise money from global sources to generate the necessary resources for ecologically sustainable development in less industrialised nations, as required by the framework convention on climate change, in view of the failure of most industrialised countries to provide new and additional resources. [22488/98]
2 Mr. Dukes asked the Minister for the Environment and Local Government the progress, if any, since the Kyoto meeting in December 1997 to ensure that Ireland meets its emissions reduction targets; and the current trend in our national emissions. [22489/98]
3 Ms Clune asked the Minister for the Environment and Local Government the outcome of the negotiations at the fourth conference of the parties on climate change held in Buenos Aires; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24088/98]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1, 2 and 3 together.
The key outcome from the fourth conference of the parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change which concluded in Buenos Aires last week was the adoption of a Buenos Aires plan of action. This establishes deadlines for decisions in the year 2000 on the mechanisms in the Kyoto Protocol for achievement of emission targets, such as emissions trading, joint implementation and the Clean Development Mechanism. Work programmes on compliance issues and for co-operation on policies and measures were also identified to enable operative decisions to be taken immediately after the Kyoto Protocol enters into force.
The conference also made progress on a number of issues including the transfer of technology, where a process was agreed towards overcoming the barriers to the transfer of environmentally sound technology to assist developing countries. In addition, it was decided to provide further support from the Global Environment Facility, including support to developing countries vulnerable to the impacts of climate change.
The adoption of the Kyoto Protocol, with legally binding emissions targets for the countries of the developed world, was a very significant stage in the global effort to combat climate change. By adopting the Buenos Aires plan of action the key aim of maintaining the momentum of Kyoto was achieved. While Ireland's position in common with that of the EU throughout the negotiations was to press for maximum progress, the outcome is a balanced reflection of the differing concerns and positions of the many parties involved in climate change negotiations.
Under the Kyoto Protocol Ireland's target is to limit the increase in emissions of greenhouse gases to 13 per cent above 1990 levels in the period 2000-2012. A number of measures are currently in place to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions in the energy, transport, residential, industrial, agricultural, waste and commercial sectors. These are outlined in detail in Ireland's second national communication under the United Nations Framework Convention on climate change. Since the preparation of this report in July 1997, there has been a number of further policy developments which, inter alia, address climate change.
For the purpose of preparing a national greenhouse gas abatement strategy to meet Ireland's commitment under the Kyoto protocol, a consultancy study, Limitation and Reduction of CO 2 and other Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Ireland, was published by my Department and the Department of Public Enterprise in June 1998 as a basis for public consultation. On 28 October 1998, the two Departments held a discussion forum for interested bodies, organisations and individuals who made submissions to the report. The submissions made and the wideranging discussion at the forum will be utilised in the development of the national strategy. This is being prepared for Government approval at the earliest possible date. The strategy will provide a framework for achieving Ireland's Kyoto commitment, building upon existing measures and developing additional policies and measures for implementation in all sectors in a cost effective and environmentally sound manner.
In relation to current emissions, inventories prepared by the Environmental Protection Agency based on official Government data such as national energy statistics and other activity data show that the net increase over the period 1990 to 1996 for the greenhouse gas emissions covered by the Kyoto Protocol was 3.9 per cent.
Regarding proposals to raise funds for less industrialised nations, Ireland as party to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change is committed to the provision of new and additional financial resources to assist developing country parties comply with their obligations under the convention and to support sustainable development in less developed countries. The Global Environment Facility, GEF, is the means by which the financial obligations of developed countries parties to the convention are met. This is the principal international environmental fund and it provides grants and concessional funds to developing countries for projects and activities aimed at protecting the global environment. In Buenos Aires it was agreed that assistance provided under this mechanism to countries which are vulnerable to the effects of climate change would be strengthened.
Ireland has pledged approximately £3.8 million for the period 1998 to 2000 to this fund. This represents an increase of £2.1 million or 124 per cent over the period 1994-97 when we contributed £1.7 million to the fund.
It is outrageous of the Minister to take these three questions together because they deal with three different and very distinct aspects of very important issues. It is deplorable that the Minister should produce an answer which skims over all the issues without dealing with any one in detail. Will he give three or four examples of the measures in Ireland's communication, to which he referred, which are designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in this country?
Will he give three or four examples of measures which are in place and which are specifically designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions or to moderate the rate of increase in greenhouse gas emissions?
Will he indicate if he believes the funding being made available under the Global Environment Facility will make a significant impact on climate change problems in developing countries? It seems to me that the amounts of money involved are pitifully inadequate to meet the problems being faced in such countries.
Has any progress been made with suggestions that funding be increased by the kind of measures I referred to in Question No. 1 such as global energy taxes and global energy use taxes which could be used for the kind of work the Global Environment Facility is intended to do?
The Deputy may have noticed that in taking the three questions together I spoke for almost six minutes which is the length of time I would have been allocated if I had answered them separately. By putting three questions together we have a total of 18 minutes to deal with all the inter-related matters.
We would have had the same length of time if the questions had been taken separately.
That is exactly the case. The Deputy is simply making an irrelevant point.
I have been in the seat which the Minister now occupies and I would not have accepted this method of answering questions on the advice of any Department.
I received no advice from the Department on this matter. The policies and measures in the second national communication in relation to the question of climate change included intensified energy efficiency and conservation programmes by the Irish energy centre, the establishment of an energy advisory board by the Minister for Public Enterprise to advise on energy efficiency, renewable energy and related research, the implementation of the EU SAVE programme, demand side management in the ESB, significant alternative and renewable energy programmes, AER 1, 2 and 3, the promotion of combined heat and power, the improved efficiency of electricity generation and distribution, the operational programme for transport which is the investment programme to improve efficiency in transport, the implementation of the Dublin transport initiative and the establishment of the DTO, the national afforestation programme and codes of good practice for fertiliser use in agriculture, all of which are or have been implemented. Since the signing of the Kyoto Protocol we have implemented a number of other measures including the revised technical guidance documents which accompany the building regulations and the waste strategy which I launched in October. Wind farm development and other forms of renewable energy are continuing apace and the Deputy will be aware that some incentives were given for these in the last budget. The Deputy asked for three or four examples and this list is considerably longer than that.
The agreement reached on the amount paid into the funds is negotiated. I agree with the Deputy that if more funds were made available and if the parties to this framework convention agreed, developing countries would welcome more funds. The EU, and Ireland as a member state, took a lead position on this at the conference. We wanted all parties to the convention to go further than they did in all areas. However, the Deputy, who has some experience in this matter, will know that in international negotiations one generally gets so far and one must then make a value judgment as to whether one can achieve anything by pushing further, or whether one must settle for what one has. This is not the optimum position as far as Ireland or the EU are concerned. We will try to give the lead in this area.
The Deputy referred to global sources of funding and there was a suggestion that a global tax on aircraft fuel could be used to augment the funding for developing countries. It was not possible to reach agreement on that proposal at the conference, but the matter will be considered in the context of the International Civil Aviation Organisation. It was also suggested that an adaptation tax, which would apply to the flexibility mechanisms to which Deputies referred, would help developing countries meet their adaptation costs. It was agreed that would be negotiated further at the next two conferences, COP V and COP VI.
Would the Minister not agree that most of the measures he instanced as being designed to reduce the rate of increase in our greenhouse gas emissions are either ones that would have been in places for other reasons — such as the Dublin Transportation Initiative, which was not even partly designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions — demonstration measures, such as the AER 1, 2 and 3 or encouragement measures? We have advisory organisations to beat the band, but none of these measures is of a constraining nature.
As long as we maintain an approach based on measures of that kind, it is likely to have very little effect. That has been amply demonstrated by one simple fact. My colleague, Deputy Clune, tabled a question today about a waste management strategy, which was refused this morning on the grounds that there is no ministerial responsibility for it. That is something I would like to take up with you separately, a Cheann Comhairle.
When a key part of environmental policy, which can impinge on greenhouse gas emissions, is a matter for which there is no ministerial responsibility, will the Minister agree that I am right to feel sceptical about the seriousness of our efforts to reduce such emissions?
Absolutely.
I do not know anything about the question to which the Deputy referred. Questions may be disallowed for particular reasons. However, the Deputy will be aware that on 1 October I published a waste management policy document.
Yes, but we cannot question him about it because his Department stated he does not have responsibility in that area.
I have used every opportunity since then to ensure local authorities are aware of that policy and will implement their waste management plans in strict compliance with it.
They have not shown much sign of it so far.
The Deputy is right in saying that some of the measures — but only some — I mentioned earlier are not specifically designed to reduce emissions. There is no argument about that. He highlighted a number of them but the waste management strategy and technical guidance documents were drawn up having regard to our future commitments following the Kyoto protocol.
While I do not want to go into great detail on climate change now because of a forthcoming question on the matter, there seems to be some misunderstanding about it. We have not yet adopted a climate change convention because we are in the process of developing a strategy. I hope we will reach the later question that deals with the matter. I accept we must do more. A "no policy change" scenario would mean an increase of 28 per cent on 1990 emission levels, while our target is 13 per cent. I accept what Deputy Dukes said about strategy and the need to make decisions. We are trying to do that nationally on the basis of discussions with people, as we did internationally at Kyoto. We have had submissions and a conference on this matter which included interested parties. We now intend to undertake further discussions to try to publish an abatement strategy early in the new year, to which everybody will be obliged to subscribe. A variety of measures need to be taken.
Will the Minister be more specific and concentrate on transport, which has out-stripped electricity generation as the fastest growing contributor to emissions? How will we reduce our emissions to 13 per cent when car numbers far outstrip any projected increases? Are cars imported from Japan, which fail emission tests there after three years, contributing to our greenhouse gases? What is the Minister prepared to do about this matter?
The Minister said he has had discussions with the Minister for Public Enterprise, but what about the Department of Agriculture and Food? He mentioned a code of good practice regarding fertilisers, but that has not been effective in reducing the amount of fertiliser we are using. Fertilisers are contributing to our methane emissions, as are land fill dumps.
The question I tabled earlier concerned the suggestion that super dumps would be located around the country. Where do such dumps tie in with the Minister's waste management strategy? I have read his statement which projects wonderful recycling targets that I would like to see met, but all I can see are more and more super dumps. What is the connection between the reduction in land fill and these super dumps that are appearing around the country?
Transport is one of the main contributors to emissions. It will have to be dealt with by a number of means, including investment in public transport and more stringent restrictions on emission levels from cars. A number of European directives under the auto-oil programme include recommendations in that regard. There may be a need for further measures in this area. The abatement strategy refers across the board to issues including agriculture, energy, tourism and so on. All of these areas will be catered for. We may have a chance to discuss this issue later.
