I welcome the delegation from Trócaire and look forward to their contribution. I hope the delegates were not delayed too long and that they may have learned something from the first part of the meeting. I ask Trócaire's director, Mr. Justin Kilcullen, to introduce his colleagues to the committee.
Climate Change and the Developing World: Discussion with Trócaire.
Mr. Justin Kilcullen
I thank the Chairman for the invitation to make a presentation to the committee. I am joined by Ms Sorcha Fennell, our programme manager on sustainable livelihoods and environmental justice; and Ms Niamh Garvey, our policy officer in this area and the author of a report which we e-mailed to the committee. We have some hard copies of the report if members would like one.
We were pleased to receive an invitation to address the committee. We have a high regard for its work and recognise its importance. We make this presentation in the context of our Lenten campaign, which uses the slogan "Climate change affects everybody but not equally". The previous presentation was interesting for me and my colleagues. It focused on what we would describe as mitigation efforts to reduce the impact of our development on the planet's climate. We wish to focus rather on the issue of adaptation. The impact on the developing world of climate change is severe but the people of those countries must be helped to adapt to this change.
Climate change is not something that will happen in the future but is already a daily reality for many. The impact of unpredictable rainfall, increasing draughts, floods and hurricanes are being felt across the developing world on a daily basis. It is the poorest people in these countries who are being hit the hardest. The interaction between climate change and poverty is potentially catastrophic, as climate changes push people whose livelihood is vulnerable over the edge. The partners with whom we work in the developing work are being forced to change the work they do, with an increasing emphasis on the delivery of food aid at the expense of the long-term poverty reduction projects they would normally have implemented.
Climate change is not just a future threat but the current reality in the developing world. A survey was undertaken by Trócaire to prepare our policy report, Tackling Climate Injustice. Among those with whom we work in the developing world, 86% said that harsh weather conditions are now having a negative effect on the food supplies of poor communities, with 90% reporting similar implications for water supplies. Most worryingly, 43% reported that water supply is now a source of tension and even conflict in their region. This conflict over increasingly scarce resources such as water is a worrying development. This comes at a time when Ireland is committed to increasing its overseas development aid in accordance with UN targets. However, climate change is undermining all these efforts to the point that decades of programme gains are now being put at risk. We see communities being forced to stand by and watch the results of their hard work to try and achieve full development being dried up in drought or washed away by floods and storms.
For us, climate change is a justice issue because it exposes the stark inequalities in today's world. Those who depend absolutely on the environment contribute least to the problem and will pay the most and be hardest hit. They bear the brunt of the climate risk as they have the least resources to adapt to change.
For those of us involved in international development work, the challenge of making these links between domestic initiatives, about which we have previously heard, and international policy is critical. We see our role in Trócaire as bringing these issues to the debate in Ireland. We did so in the Lenten campaign through our television advertising. We did not have €12 million to spend on it but for the amount we spent, we got a good response and helped people to understand that this is an aspect of the problem. More particularly, it requires a political response that is about helping these countries to adapt. As the Chairman said, that will cost money. This is the harsh reality we must face as a nation as we address this issue. I will ask Ms Fennell to illustrate some of the key aspects of climate change that we have experienced. Ms Garvey will deal with some of the policy asks in our policy document.
Ms Sorcha Fennell
Before we begin the PowerPoint presentation I will discuss the context. In 2005, more than 20 million people were affected by drought in the horn of Africa alone. Unpredictable rainfall is estimated to have pushed an extra 12 million people into absolute poverty in the late 1990s. The World Bank estimated that rainfall variability is responsible for reducing Ethiopia's economic growth by a third. At that macro level, the impact is already there and this is something we experience in our programmes. I will take the committee through some of the stories, impacts and our experiences with our partners and the communities with which we work. This slide shows Ms Shelmilh Mwangi, a farmer from Nyeri in Kenya, whom we met as part of preparations for the Lenten campaign. She said:
There used to be short term and long term drought. Now it's like there is one continuous drought. Even when it rains there may not be a crop, if they're erratic. Rains like this don't produce.
That is the reality for many of the communities and partners with which we work. The majority of the people with whom we work are poor rural people who depend on rain-fed agriculture to support themselves. This slide shows a family that is quite typical, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa. The family, which lives near Tharaka in Kenya, planted three times. Erratic rainfall is affecting people who used to be very much in tune with the date on which the first rains came and when to plant and is making it very difficult to know when to plant. There are things like false rains so one loses one's crop. There are shorter rains so one plants but the crop does not yield. This family borrowed money to plant three times and each time, due to erratic rainfall, lost their crops.
Today, this is very much on the agenda here. When I worked in Central America in 2001, after four years of recurrent drought, we said that we needed to employ irrigation and work with small farmers to manage water in a different way. The cumulative effect of climate change and climate variability is now taking its toll in many of the communities where we work. It is not something that started last year; it is a pattern that emerged over a decade. Our experience with families like this one is that there is no longer a capacity to respond or recover. There have been five, six or seven years of drought and, essentially, families are left with very little in the way of an asset base and very little capacity to adapt.
Some of the responses to that are migration and pressure on urban centres. One of the major trends in Malawi is rural-urban migration. Migration outside of these countries also takes place. In Central America, collapsed livelihood due to excess pressure from climate change is exacerbating migration to the US. Similarly, issues like negative coping strategies and high-risk behaviour complicate the links between climate change and HIV-AIDS.
This slide shows a family in El Salvador in Central America with whom we have worked during the process for Lent. They stated that "with this problem of the climate we are completely lost". This is a family that in Hurricane Stan, lost their house, farm and crops as a result of flooding. They had to move out of a high-risk area and were relocated to another area. They planted there and this area was exposed to extreme drought. On both sides, they had just been left in a situation with no ability to respond.
Much of the drought in Africa is recurrent with a very slow onset. Central America experienced Hurricane Mitch in 1998, tropical storm Katrina in 1999 and Hurricane Michelle in 2001. What we are seeing is increased frequency and intensity. The hurricane season, which used to start in October, can now start as early as August. There are many more hurricanes and they are much more intense. Again, this means that people do not have time to recover before the next extreme weather event debilitates them.
Trócaire's response and that of its partners involves looking at alternatives, diversification and spreading the risk base. Agriculture that is highly dependent on rain is simply not adequate to sustain people so we are looking at alternatives like small-scale animal husbandry and cattle. Our global gift initiatives support this very strongly. It spreads one's risk and is very often a safety net on which people can fall back during times of drought.
Other options we are trying to advance with the communities with which we work are off-farm and value-added activities that look at processing, storage and adding value to food products. Some of these include tofu production from soya with women's groups, cashew production and exportation and microcredit and financing. These initiatives try to take pressure off what is no longer yielding what it used to, namely, agriculture, and look for alternative livelihood strategies.
We also look at things like irrigation. In Malawi, we have supported a considerable number of irrigation projects involving very simple technology like treadle pump irrigation to support farmers who used to have one yield per year if they were successful to get three harvests per year. This kind of irrigation is being carried out at household and community level so the opportunities this is delivering are quite significant. Another project is water harvesting which, again, involves very simple technology. It involves capturing rainwater when these torrential rains come and using it at household and community level to sustain people through dry periods.
In terms of development, climate change is another dynamic that compounds factors like HIV-AIDS and poverty and exacerbates existing vulnerability and risks. The outlook for how this will impact on agriculture, particularly in respect of sub-Saharan Africa, food production and the people with whom we work, is quite bleak. It is very important to point out that Trócaire and the communities with which we work are already adapting. People have been adapting with what they have, although they perhaps have not explicitly said they are adapting to climate change. They have been changing what they are doing. They have been changing existing crops to drought-resistant crops and exploring shorter maturing seeds. What we are doing at a micro scale with some of these households about which I have just spoken needs to be scaled up.
Governments are trying to put plans in action. Twenty-eight of the least developed countries have developed national adaptation programmes of action. They have identified their most urgent priorities at a national scale. Some of it concerns urban infrastructure and some of it concerns health systems in terms of new illnesses that will emerge as a result of the changing climate. We are keen to see these national adaptation programmes of action supported and to see that governments are supported to support their people if they have any chance of adapting to climate change.
Ms Niamh Garvey
My colleague, Ms Fennell, has highlighted some of the responses at local level to climate change and what this really means. As was mentioned at the beginning, climate change also requires a political response. I will give a few examples of what Trócaire is calling for in terms of Ireland's role in tackling climate change.
A just response to climate change requires tackling both the causes and consequences of climate change in an equitable way. Avoiding the worst impacts of climate change requires a global agreement that will limit temperature rises to 2° Celsius above pre-industrial levels. The EU has acknowledged this threshold, as has Ireland in the national climate change strategy. The science tells us this requires a peak and then decline in global emissions within next decade and reductions of 80% of global emissions by 2050. It also requires an interim target in 2020 of reductions of at least 25% to 40%.
Ensuring that such an agreement is equitable requires it to be based on common but differentiated treatment, cognisant of historical responsibility and the ability to pay. The right to development must be protected for developing countries. Just as Ireland was given the space to grow under the Kyoto Protocol, so too must developing countries be ensured the space to tackle poverty within an overall global attempt to tackle climate change.
Such a global agreement sets the framework for action. However, targets are only meaningful if they are put into practice. Here at home is where this action must take place. Our record on emissions reductions has not been promising. Despite allowing for an increase of 13% on 1990 levels under the Kyoto Protocol, we are emitting at almost twice this allowance at approximately 25% above 1990 levels.
We welcome the commitment in the programme for Government of 3% year-on-year reductions. Taking us up to 2020, these reductions would enable us to meet our obligations under the proposed EU effort-sharing target of minus 20% by 2020. To safeguard this commitment Trócaire believes it is necessary to enshrine it in legislation. Putting a clear and transparent price on carbon would encourage individuals and organisations to make choices to reduce pollution. Trócaire also welcomes the commitment in the programme for Government to introduce a carbon levy, and calls for it to be established sooner rather than later, and in a manner ensuring social protection of the most vulnerable in Ireland.
Through our discussions in Ireland, we are more familiar with the aspect of tackling the causes. However, it is vital to also examine tackling the consequences. We must accept that even if we meet our targets and stay within the 2° Celsius threshold, climate change is already dangerous for people in developing countries. Ms Fennell highlighted some of the impacts on the people with whom we work. Climate change will continue to be a major threat as we are faced with an inevitable further increase of 1° Celsius to1.8° Celsius in temperatures as a result of emissions to date.
In the report we circulated, we highlighted the consequences and impact on a global scale of a 2° Celsius increase. In Africa alone, the population at risk of increased water stress is projected to be between 75 million and 250 million by 2020 and between 350 million and 600 million by 2050. These are the likely ranges even if we stay within the 2° Celsius. This makes it vital that developing countries are enabled to adapt to the impacts of current and inevitable climate change.
As we have seen, adaptation takes place at local level as individuals adapt their lives to cope with a changing environment. It also takes place at national level as governments invest in coastal protection or climate proofing national infrastructure such as transport, health or water. Poor people in impoverished countries cannot be expected to shoulder the financial burden of adaptation. Trócaire believes that sufficient, accessible and predictable finance which is additional to aid must be made available to developing countries to enable them to adapt to the impacts of climate change.
Following agreement on its governance structures, Trócaire believes that the UN adaptation fund has the potential to be the main mechanism for providing accessible adaptation financing because it has the potential to generate large amounts of money additional to overseas development aid. Also, its management and governance structures have been agreed to the satisfaction of developing country parties. We recommend that Ireland support and further strengthen the adaptation fund as the main channel for providing future adaptation finance. Strengthening the fund is necessary to ensure it can generate sufficient volumes of adaptation financing.
A minimum of US $50 billion a year is required to fund adaptation in developing countries. Existing estimates of pledged or generated funding falls far short of this. A levy on the clean development mechanism is the main generator of finance for the adaptation fund. This is expected to generate between $80 to $300 million a year for adaptation during the Kyoto period between 2008 and 2012.
The World Bank has estimated that contributions to other adaptation funds under the global environment facility will amount to $200 million a year. Ireland has contributed approximately €5 million to these funds. Existing pledged and generated funding amounts to millions, far short of the billions of dollars required. Therefore, new and innovative sources of finance that can generate sufficient and predictable financing need to be explored. Linking mitigation mechanisms to means of generating adaptation finance could provide elegant solutions that give meaning to the polluter pays principle.
We would like to see Ireland support an extension of the levy across all flexible mechanisms. The adaptation fund is financed through a 2% levy on the clean development mechanism. This is one of the three flexible mechanisms under the Kyoto Protocol and I believe the EPA came before the committee recently to discuss this. This levy should be extended across all flexible mechanisms including joint implementation and emissions trading. The UNFCCC has estimated this will generate extra funding of between $10 million and $50 million a year during the Kyoto period and perhaps more as we move into whatever regime follows the Kyoto Protocol.
Revenues from auctioning under the EU emissions trading scheme are being reviewed and the EU has proposed that a higher level of emissions permits will be auctioned, rather than simply allocated to businesses. Higher levels of auctioning are a welcome means of improving the effectiveness of the trading scheme. Revenues raised from auctioning are a potential source of finance for adaptation. Ireland should champion the use of at least 50% of these revenues to be used for adaptation finance. At home, as we look to put a price on carbon, this may be an opportunity to generate innovative forms of adaptation financing.
Almost all the adaptation financing being pledged by developed country parties is being counted towards long-standing commitments to provide 0.7% of national income as aid. This is funding separate to that generated to the mechanisms I previously discussed. Ireland has contributed approximately €5 million to these funds, which has been reported against our 0.7% commitment on aid. Development and poverty reduction are momentous challenges that require every penny of the aid budget and these moneys should not be diverted to adaptation. Financing for adaptation should be in addition to this by way of compensation for damages caused. When we speak of additionality, we are referring to funding generation, which should not to be confused with coherence in taking climate change into account in development programmes, which is essential.
A just response to climate change, based on equity requires action on both fronts, namely, mitigation and adaptation. It is increasingly clear that taking equity considerations into account is not only a moral imperative, but also a political one. As a global problem, climate change requires a global response. The participation of developing countries in this will be crucial because they account for a growing share of global emissions. Developing countries are clear that any mitigating actions they take must be adequately supported by finance, technology and capacity building. Tackling climate change justly and equitably is in all of our interests. We must play our part by doing our fair share. If countries like Malawi are to avoid the worst consequences of climate change, we need to tackle the causes to prevent the worst outcomes of runaway climate change. To ensure they are well prepared for the inevitable, we must provide the resources for adaptation. Climate change is a predictable disaster that we can avoid. Coping with the disaster will be far more costly than investing in adaptation measures now.
I warmly welcome the witnesses here today and apologise for keeping them waiting for so long. The presentation was very powerful and reflects the fearless approach Trócaire has adopted to campaigning for the developing world. Trócaire has raised important issues over the years and this is one it has been promoting very effectively, though perhaps not effectively enough, when one considers the alarming testimony that Ms Garvey has just given. It seems a terrible injustice that the developed world is causing such major problems for people in the developing world, who have had no real part in causing climate change, or at least very little in comparison to those of us in the richer part of the globe.
It seems very difficult when one considers that anything we do — and we spent a considerable amount of time earlier talking about mitigation and the role of the individual — will have a limited effect. One fact from the EPA which stuck in my mind is that no matter what we do now, it will not have a positive impact until the second half of this century. Meanwhile, people in the developing world are feeling the immediate impact. Any time one discusses climate change with representatives from African countries, they talk about it as a living reality. I find that very disturbing and it behoves us all to take it extremely seriously.
Trócaire has made many very interesting points in the presentation, much of which will take some time to digest. On the issue of overseas development aid, it is clear that Trócaire is arguing that the money must be ringfenced and that funding for adaptation measures must also be ringfenced. Does the organisation feel that the ODA commitment Ireland has made is sufficient, given the changing circumstances in the developing world?
I support the idea of legislating on climate change. I do not know if Trócaire has given that issue specific thought, but I would be interested in the views of the organisation on that. While I support the principle of legislation, the problem I envisage is that if one sets targets in legislation, one must find some way of enforcing them. Other than firing the Minister, and I am not even sure that would have the desired effect, how could that be done?
I am not very familiar with the workings of the UN adaptation fund but is Trócaire arguing that countries are not living up to their obligations or commitments or that the overall contribution simply is not enough? Perhaps it is a bit of both.
It would be extremely helpful if the Government, when introducing a carbon tax, of whatever type, was able to show that part of that tax would go to the developing world. That would be a real plus and would be something we would all welcome. It would also be an important element in the whole area of climate change — that we continue to factor in the impact on the developing world. It would be a very practical way for people to make an individual contribution and it might also make the tax more palatable.
In the area of expertise in adaptation techniques, does Ireland have a contribution to make? If one takes the ESB, for example, it has been enormously effective in exporting Irish expertise to other countries, developing and otherwise. With our high levels of education and our good track record in areas like engineering, are there mechanisms we could develop to assist the transfer of expertise or is that something that is advisable?
I welcome the delegation. I am sorry many of us were not able to attend Trócaire's recent round-table discussions. Many of us would have liked to attend, but they clashed with one of our committee meetings. It might be useful, in that context, to have an informal discussion at some stage on the proposals before us today. The proposals have significant policy implications if they are taken seriously by the Government.
I agree that the real unfairness about global climate change is that the people least equipped to respond to it are the ones who are being hit hardest. This is particularly true in sub-Saharan Africa, but also in other areas where natural disasters like floods, mud slides and hurricanes are occurring on a more regular basis. The main issue is how we finance the response to it. That is where the hard decisions must be made. I remember some very blunt discussions on this issue in Bali before Christmas, when developing countries argued that they knew what they were being asked to do but that they simply could not afford to do it without help from the developed world. Some countries have put together adaptation strategies and action plans but cannot afford to put them in place unless they receive financial assistance.
What is the relationship between the current development aid budget, about which Trócaire knows a lot, and what is needed for technology transfers from the developed to the developing world? Technology transfer will help developing countries to skip a generation, so to speak, in areas like energy production and hopefully avoid the mistakes we have made in the past, the main one being a reliance on filthy technology. How does Trócaire see the development aid agenda and budget linking in with issues like technology transfer and capacity building through education programmes, some of which may be financed at the moment under the umbrella of sexual health, for example? Can we amalgamate education on climate change into existing education programmes to enable people to prepare for adaptation and so forth? It is not feasible to start an entirely new development programme based on climate change when we have very successful programmes already in place that can be adapted or improved to enhance our response on climate change issues. However, the danger in doing that is that one does not receive an extra budget. It might be felt that it can be done on the cheap and that one can simply add to existing programmes. I am not advocating that approach but am suggesting that just because a new budget is needed does not automatically mean that an entirely new programme is also needed. I am interested in Trócaire's views on that issue.
On the issue of the raising of funds, my understanding is that the UN is seeking ways to persuade developed nations to contribute to an adaptation fund but has not had much success to date in terms of reaching its target of $50 billion. The reality is that if we introduce a carbon tax in Ireland, the likelihood is that any Government which introduces it will try to introduce a revenue-neutral tax. In other words, if it takes a tax for carbon, it will give it back through VAT reductions or some other tax mechanism. If a Government introduces a carbon tax in that way, it will be very hard to take a slice off to contribute to an adaptation fund. It is important that we are honest about the challenge of where to find the money, particularly in the current climate when we are looking at €5 billion to €8 billion of a deficit this year. In that context I would like to hear the delegates' comments, particularly on how we can adapt existing development aid policy and funding, and where they see the Government finding the excess money. I agree with them in terms of clean development mechanism, joint implementation and EU trading schemes. It probably makes sense to have a small levy on such emissions trading, both outside and inside the European Union.
I welcome the presentation which was in contrast to the previous presentation by our own Department on how to remind the public of what must be done. The stark language the delegation used to describe a predictable disaster contrasts with the gentle cosy feeling of knowing one's carbon footprint expressed in the other presentation. It is typical that the developed world reacts slowly to a disaster that is already having significant effects in the developing world. There is a role and duty for the delegates, even more so for Deputies and Senators, to communicate this and to make the harsh political choices necessary.
In discussing the financial cost of tackling climate change I am always struck by the words of Mayer Hillman from the UK, who says that there will be downsides to tackling climate change but that there are also considerable downsides to the planet not having a future. It is against that backdrop that we must make the often harsh financial choices required.
I am interested in what Deputy McManus said about legislation for targets. That is necessary, but in the same sense that we now say that homelessness must be eliminated or 50 to 80 years ago that TB must be eliminated. The devil is in the detail and what we do to provide actual changes in policy is far more important than legislating, and perhaps firing the relevant Minister if he or she does not deliver. We must dig very deep in this issue.
We must do both. That is the trick.
We must do both but there has been increased discussion of legislation in the absence of a detailed discussion of the harsh choices that must be made concerning cars and cows. That is difficult. I note Deputy Aylward's suggestion that perhaps we need individual carbon allowances. Perhaps we do. We need to travel much further down that road of personal decisions and responsibilities. To go from 10 or 11 tonnes per capita down to perhaps two tonnes, which is what is necessary, requires a greater political step than anything any party, including my own, has thrown into the mix thus far.
The targets have already been laid down by the Government. The only issue is whether or not they should be put on a statutory basis. I think they should.
I agree and I have no doubt that my colleagues are moving towards that. The UK has done so recently but I suspect that, as in the UK, a legislative commitment has been given but that the body politic is moving more slowly. I believe we must concentrate on the much harder decisions required, whether to buy a large or a small car, whether to eat more meat or less, whether we choose to live closer to public transport.
I do not believe it is an either-or scenario but I do not want to dispute this.
Those are the harsher questions. I have some questions for the delegates.
Are they happy that aid and medical funding have been addressed separately from climate change? The question arose in the past few years as to whether our development aid commitments are having climate change funds channelled through the same area. Are the delegates satisfied that there is a clean line between them?
Are they happy that enough consideration has been given to carbon-proofing our development aid budget? Have we gone through a process of ensuring that such aid has been carbon-proofed?
I have a final tricky question that I have brought up in a few forums. Should we place more emphasis on family planning in the context of development aid? It is an issue that climate change scientists tend to shy away from and push towards those with a background in the area. If we look towards calculating an individual's carbon footprint obviously if there are two people instead of one the footprint is larger. I believe that we should place greater emphasis on family planning in the development aid context.
I thank the deputation.
Regarding Ms Garvey's point about causes and consequences, the campaign, even Trócaire's Lenten campaign, is informing policy on causes. That is probably one step back from total engagement or taking control over the matter. With regard to consequences, as someone who has a herd of cows at home, I must defend the poor old cow because as well as meat, she produces milk.
Ms Fennell made an interesting observation, which I believe is true, that rural to urban migration has become a problem. If people could be helped with basics such as water they would be able to live in their home community where it would be easier to sustain them and which is the easiest point to which to deliver aid.
In this country best practice is that people should migrate to urban areas as if all problems would be fixed by being nearer public transport. I hear this one size fits all theory all the time but it is not true. It is also interesting to observe that many of the initiatives propose to increase herds of cows and other animals so that they can be sustainable and become intensive. Here we talk all the time about the need to de-intensify. We have a planet to feed and we must try to take measures which actually deal with mitigating the carbon consequences of methane emissions from bovines. There are other ways to deal with that rather than merely reducing numbers. The context is of a growing population that must be fed.
A very interesting point was made that overseas development aid is always in the form of money. Deputy McManus made a point about the level of Irish expertise in different areas, whether in agriculture or electricity and alternative energy generation. The Government could send such people to Third World countries or part-fund joint ventures with private companies such as those that bought out Airtricity, to help populations deal with the consequences of climate change. Governments and nations throughout the developed world are responsible and have a duty to help people in the Third World find their feet, stay where they are and protect their communities as has been their tradition. They are the first ones to pay for our indulgences and such action is a way of providing for them other than by money.
I am engaging in something of a rant here but I say it in the context of observing double standards. Keeping people in rural areas is considered the best policy and I see it that way. We have seen the gold rush to slums in Brazil and other countries in South America, Cape Town, Malawi and elsewhere. However, that does not seem to be the policy in Ireland or the First World. We should bear this in mind and place everything in context.
Mr. Justin Kilcullen
We will try to deal with the questions between us. I will start with a couple of points. On the overseas development aid, ODA, budget we came into this Lenten campaign thinking we were taking a risk by asking the public to support our work while asking for new taxes to be introduced and an additional aid budget, the adaptation fund. We began the campaign slightly with our hearts in our mouths. At the same time, my view is that overseas development aid is fine. We fought hard for a budget of 0.7% of GNP by 2012, and if the Government delivers that it will be doing well and will be ahead of the crowd in EU terms. We want to make clear that, in principle this adaptation fund must be additional funding. While there is a need for coherence between adaptation strategy and development strategy, they cannot be lumped together into one budget line. Very quickly what would happen is we would reach the 0.7% and then say "that is it". Coping with climate change in the developing world is additional to what is needed in terms of development strategies. This is the reason it is important that there is a clear distinction. I will ask Ms Garvey to talk about how that money should be generated.
On the family planning issue — I will leave the other issues to my colleagues — if we examine this statistically, the per capita CO2 emissions from the USA is in excess of 20 tonnes per person per year; in Ireland it is more than 10 tonnes; in India it is one tonne; and Uganda 0.1 tonnes. Looking at this logically, the population to be controlled is that of the USA and Europe and not the developing world. Even if the population of India were twice what it is today, they would still only produce a quarter of the emissions, per head, that we produce in Ireland. It has always been Trócaire’s view on population that if people are allowed to develop, become secure in their life, have an income and a future they will limit the size of their families accordingly. We have even seen this in our own society. Perhaps Ms Fennell can deal with the question on capacity building.
Ms Sorcha Fennell
The entry point in terms of looking at gaps and capacity building is really the national adaptation programmes of action that have been developed. There are significant opportunities within national government plans in terms of national scale projects and technology transfer. Also, this is one of the areas where, perhaps, Bangladesh has been ahead of the game. It has been adapting for several years.
There are areas such as energy and sustainable and green development paths where it is possible to examine options. However, the research on drought-resistant crops is context specific and much adaptation research is taking place within countries already. For example, one of the innovative projects is on geothermal energy production in the rift valley in Kenya. Many countries are looking at alternatives already and there are opportunities for collaborating and looking for alternatives that are as relevant in developing countries as here. The national adaptation programmes of action need to be examined and we need to look at how we can provide technical capacity. We need to examine what exists already, what has taken place and opportunities for learning from these.
Ms Niamh Garvey
There were some questions on the issues of additionality and complementarity with existing aid programmes. Deputy McManus asked if the problem was that countries are not living up to what they said they would give and if not, then what is the problem. Under the United Nations framework convention on climate change, UNFCCC, which is the main international global response to climate change "the developed country Parties and other developed Parties included in Annex II shall also assist the developing country Parties that are particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change in meeting costs of adaptation to those adverse effects". While the commitment was, in principle, that developed countries would assist developing countries in meeting adaption costs, there are no targets or figures to say what that means. It is very much on a voluntary basis and under that framework Ireland has committed €5 million. However, some countries have given nothing; the USA is part of the UNFCCC, if not the Kyoto Agreement, and has not given a penny towards adaption funds. It is very much a voluntary approach. This is why we are more interested in funding other than the type where a country could pledge funds, just as Ireland has with the €5 million. We should examine those inhibitive mechanisms so that financing is generated. The more we need to use flexible mechanisms to reach our mitigation targets, the more finance is generated for adaptation. It really links to "the polluter pays" principle. Since the more pollution a country generates above its reduction targets, the more carbon it must buy or trade. That generates finance for adaptation.
On additionality, such mechanisms generate funds that are, by their nature, additional because this is not necessarily about dipping into our budget in the way we generate aid. Additionality is about the generation of finance. In terms of carrying out adaptation projects on the ground we recognise the need for complementarity. So in some cases, particularly at the local level, the type of intervention with specific communities, farmers and families would need to be consistent with aid work. There are two sides to this. One is how Trócaire does aid work and how Irish Aid continues to do its projects. We need to be more aware of the impact of climate change and climate-proof our work in this area. However, adaptation is not only about that; there are other issues. The national adaptation programmes of action that Ms Fennell referred to exist, where Governments have plans of action and are ready to carry out adaptation projects on a national level, but there is no funding for them.
Allow me to intervene for a moment. On adaptation programmes, if there was a UN fund who would decide who gets what?
Ms Niamh Garvey
That was one of the major controversies surrounding the fund. The fund was established in 2001 under the UNFCCC process. However, it was only agreed to be put into operation in Bali last December because of disputes over that issue. Developing countries, under other funds and under the global environment facility, have found it very difficult to access funding in a structure that was dominated by the donors, those who were giving the funds. The reason we support that fund is that developing countries wanted the fund to be managed in a way that those who were meant to benefit from the fund would have a large say over where the money goes, how it is distributed and how the mechanisms work. The major outcome from Bali was that the governance structure was agreed with a majority participation of developing country parties on the board of the adaptation fund. The projects will develop under the aegis of the whole UNFCCC which includes all parties. This is the criteria by which different projects will be eligible for funding under that fund.
The big concern among potential donor countries was that they had no guarantee that the money would be spent correctly and they had no control over the process. Unlike, for example, the way countries have control over their development aid budget where they are dealing with organisations that they know, whether it is Goal, Trócaire or Concern or whether it is direct assistance through Governments. The concern with the adaptation fund was that money was put into a pool and, until the Bali agreement anyway, there was not a clear understanding of how it would be spent or who made the decisions.
Within our administration——
Ms Niamh Garvey
That was the crucial distinction and the reason developing countries were so passionate about that issue. They see adaptation financing, correctly, as compensation for damages caused as opposed to an aid budget. Therefore, it is right and proper that those who require compensation manage how it works and how it is distributed. Adaptation finance is not about an aid budget where donors are more naturally concerned with how it is managed and how it is governed and all of that. That is the political dynamic but in terms of——
Adapting a country or preparing a country for the consequences of climate change is about spending money. It is not about just handing over a lump sum of compensation. That was the big debate. It is compensation, but it is money that needs to be strictly allocated within countries adapting for existing problems resulting from climate change.
Ms Niamh Garvey
Absolutely, and all parties involved felt the agreement on how the adaptation fund should be managed was a good compromise between the different interests. The Global Environment Facility was designated as the secretariat for the fund, even though developing countries would prefer if that body was not involved. It was a negotiated outcome in which all parties feel comfortable, the main principle being that the adaptation fund fits very much underneath the UNFCCC process where all 190 parties to the UNFCCC are responsible for the overall direction of that fund and review its progress and whether it is meeting its mandate.
The airline industry has not yet been brought into this in terms of having to purchase carbon credits. Every time I go on a flight I note that fuel costs and numerous other charges are added to the price of the airline ticket. It strikes me that adding a charge for carbon through airlines would be a way of collecting money that could be used for funds such as the one we are discussing. Nobody seems to know where all the money that is collected goes. I read once that Ryanair made €35 million from taxes collected from people who did not avail of flights they had booked. This was money paid for Government taxes that was never passed over to the Government because the people never took the flights. There is a huge amount of money to be collected in that way.
It is objectionable that vast sums of money will be made in carbon credit trading by agents and companies selling off excess credits they do not need. Perhaps that is happening because the targets set by the Government in the first place were far too low. I suspect we are entering an era where people will be looking for ways and means of making money out of the whole process. Does Trócaire share my concerns, or am I off the wall on this?
Ms Niamh Garvey
There were problems with the initial EU emissions trading scheme and certainly with the allocation of permits to pollute. There was much concern that companies were making money out of their allocations. However, as the system beds in, and as it is reviewed, rather than allocating permits, a higher number will be auctioned so that companies will need to buy the right to pollute as opposed to being allocated the right to pollute. It is proposed to improve the system as it develops. It is certainly not perfect.
We learned from the EPA recently, and it is something I never knew, that Government decides who gets what. Decisions were made on the basis that it is easier to collect money through, for example, the energy sector. This is all done behind closed doors. We were told that people got an opportunity to make submissions and so on but we never heard anything about it. It was not approved by the Houses of the Oireachtas but people are making money or being charged money as a result of decisions being taken by the Government. I do not mean to be party political when I refer to the Government. I mean whatever Government happens to be in power at any time. I find that quite frightening.
I would like to know who distributes the adaptation fund and who will approve the ventures in which it will be invested. That needs to be clarified before it gets wider support from either the Government or the people. There is a long way to go on it. I agree in principle with the adaptation fund, but if we are collecting billions of euro we need to know who will get it, what percentage of it goes to whom, who gets contracts and so on. Given past experience, we have every reason to be sceptical as to what might happen.
Ms Niamh Garvey
The fund will be operationalised this year. It has been in development since 2001 and the Global Environment Facility and the World Bank are involved in it. All parties to the UN convention are satisfied that it will be a fund that is operated to the highest standards with clear and transparent governance mechanisms.
I have more faith in the ability of organisations such as Trócaire to handle funds on our behalf and put them into projects than I have in governments that I do not know much about. That is the truth.
Mr. Justin Kilcullen
We appreciate the vote of confidence, but, unfortunately, given the figures, it is not within our capacity.
At least we can invite Trócaire here and ask questions. We cannot ask other people questions.
Are Irish aid agencies now adapting their own funding programmes each year to apply for funds for adaptation programmes? Clearly it is an issue in which Trócaire is interested; it would not be spending the revenue it is spending on raising awareness if it were not. In regard to its application for funding next year, does Trócaire envisage a role for the NGO sector in climate change adaptation programmes to complement its existing programmes, or does it see that as the role of some other organisation, for example, the UN through the adaptation fund being collected? Will we see Irish aid agencies providing a climate change agenda in their projects in three or four years' time and seeking extra money for that, through carbon levies and so on? Is that what is envisaged?
Ms Sorcha Fennell
Many of our current programmes already deal with climate change, but it is not explicit. When farmers decide to produce sorghum instead of maize, they do not see it as adapting to climate change. We have not named it as that, but we are conscious that activities we have increasingly had to take up in the past few years are a response to climate change. Trócaire and many other Irish organisations and development agencies are being much more explicit in regard to analysis before programming. We are looking at how climate change is already impacting and at how it will impact in the future. Until development organisations like ourselves start really looking at the future implications at country level and so on, the cost will not become clear.
Rather than having separate climate change projects, we are trying to address climate change within our ongoing work. In terms of its impact at country level we are seeking to engage with the national adaptation programmes of action to see whether our communities and partners see them as national priorities that might support the protection of business, exportation, etc., or as responding as well to small-scale farmers needing to adapt to climate change. We are currently at a stage where we are being much more explicit. We are naming it. We are analysing our programmes in terms of the impacts of climate change. However, we are not setting up a completely separate climate change unit because it is part of what we do and it is part of development.
Therefore, the organisation is climate-change proofing its existing programmes and adapting them in a prudent way.
Ms Sorcha Fennell
Yes, and we also engage in research. We are considering carrying out research in Brazil, Honduras, Malawi and Mozambique. We are examining the conduct of substantial in-depth household level research on the invisible impact of climate change to obtain more information on it. Many of us deal with the visible impact of climate change such as failed crops, water shortage and so on, but we do not have an understanding of migration patterns, HIV incidence, levels of urbanisation and other issues. We are embarking on a two-year research project across four countries to gain a deeper knowledge of the impact of climate change. We are taking many initiatives in this regard. In the next two or three years we expect to accelerate and deepen our understanding of the impact of this issue and to examine our programmes from a climate change perspective.
When the organisation gains that experience on the ground, it will be important to share it with this committee. It should use this committee as a forum from which to broadcast that information to the wider community. I would appreciate it doing that. Our door is always open to the representatives should they wish to put forward any points to us, particularly to share any of the vital information they have gained through their work. We would be delighted to hear from them. This is a new committee. We are learning like everybody else and as we progress we hope we will make some contribution towards dealing with this problem.
I thank the representatives most sincerely for attending here this afternoon. I apologise for delaying them. I did not realise the first session would continue for so long.
Mr. Justin Kilcullen
I commend our report to the committee. We will be more than happy to facilitate an informal discussion with members of the committee elsewhere, outside this formal session format, if anyone wants to discuss some detail of this with us. We would be delighted to do that.
Yes, by all means. We would like to do that.
The joint committee adjourned at 4.40 p.m. until 2.15 p.m. on Wednesday, 2 April 2008.