Joint Committee on Environment and Climate Action debate

Irish Experience of Community-led Climate Action: Public Participation Networks

Chairman

I have received apologies from Deputy Bruton who is unable to attend today. The purpose of today's meeting is to discuss the Irish experience of community-led climate action. In attendance with our committee today we have a number of members of various public participation networks, PPNs, from around the country. I welcome Charles Stanley-Smith from Tipperary PPN; Ms Cliona Kelliher, representing Kildare PPN; and Ms Sarah Clancy from County Clare PPN, which is near enough to my neck of the woods in the mid-west.

As usual, I will begin with the note on privilege. Witnesses are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable, or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of the person or entity. Therefore, if their statements are potentially defamatory in respect of an identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative that they comply with any such direction.

Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. I also remind members that they are only allowed to participate in this meeting if they are physically located on the Leinster House complex. In this regard, I ask all members who are joining us online - I notice that a few members are joining us from their offices - to confirm prior to making their contributions to the meeting that they are indeed in their offices or at least on the grounds of the Leinster House campus.

I call Mr. Stanley-Smith first for his opening statement, please.

Mr. Charles Stanley-Smith

I thank the Cathaoirleach and I also thank the Deputies and Senators for inviting us along for a discussion. I am a member of the secretariat of the very proudly independent PPN of Tipperary. I am also on the Department of Rural and Community Development's national advisory group for PPNs as a representative of the environmental pillar.

I will start with a quick reintroduction to public participation networks. PPNs have three main functions: participation, which is influencing policy; information, a two-way flow to allow the influence of policy; and capacity building to help and grow member groups. They are a single organisation where community and voluntary social inclusion and environmental groups can come together and provide a formal method of participation to all those local groups. PPNs have a flat structure, are bottom-up and independent, and the decision-making resides with the plenary or general meeting of all groups. Tipperary PPN is having its plenary on Thursday for example, and these are regular twice-a-year events. There is no hierarchy, no chairman and all PPN members are equal. Members of PPNs find it all a bit strange at the start but once they have tried and understood the principles, they come on board and get involved with this very friendly structure. There is no power grabbing or people who stay in place forever. This will possibly be my last public appearance as a secretary and member of the Tipperary network because I have nearly outstayed my welcome and will be going at the end of the year. This equality leads to increased participation and organisational, meeting and facilitation skills, along with greater transparency, accountability, inclusivity and diversity. One can see how a number of our members have grown as a result of being involved in the PPN structure and been given the opportunity to get thoroughly involved.

PPNs have direct participation in local authority policy groups and other local boards and use that to bring the community, environment and social inclusion voice directly to the local authority. PPNs are a huge source of expertise. We have 1,000 groups in Tipperary and possibly approximately 10,000 or 20,000 members who all have individual skills and practical and theoretical expertise covering all aspects of life.

The PPNs also provide information on all aspects of the county, including funding opportunities and local government consultations. They channel information to groups in order to respond to these and often produce an agreed PPN response. PPNs provide capacity building in terms of help and training of their groups. The other thing that nearly every PPN has either done, or is involved in now, is creating county community well-being statements. These are a well-being statement of a community, not individual people. It is the feeling of the people of the county, what they see for the county and their wish for the county. These statements are the basis of all interactions as they lay out the wishes for which the PPN feels it should strive.

Members of the committee may ask what is happening now in terms of climate action. I refer them to the excellent report from the Kerry PPN on climate conversations which took place in Kerry recently. I hope members received the copy I enclosed with my statement. These conversations are representative of other dialogues which have taken place around the country.

The key points of the people attending the climate conversations are as follows. There is a need to see action on points raised in earlier consultations. Members felt they have been consulted once and come along to find they are being asked they same questions again. It was highlighted that real change needs the whole of government, whole systems and all the community working together in unison. Joined-up thinking was also mentioned and the lack of a whole-of-government approach to bringing the community along with it in any proactive manner. Communication was considered to be a key factor in this joined-up thinking, along with the ability to challenge Departments which are not sharing and linking. Again and again, Departments link in with community and voluntary groups with regards to consultations, but are they really listened to or is it a tick-box exercise? Members wondered how many times community groups need to be asked before changes take place. Departments need to empower the community to do the work themselves. Lifestyle and behavioural changes also need to take place.

There is a need to share existing good practice and this requires leadership. Elements of the climate action fund need to be ring-fenced for small projects which could be delivered by community groups. Education initiatives are key to awareness raising and increasing engagement. Sectoral education and awareness-raising is important, as is how fishing, farming, tourism industries can all carry out their work and minimise the impact on the environment. Funding should enable partnership work involving community groups and local authorities to deliver on local actions and to explore local solutions. The LEADER programme delivery was given as a successful example. The challenge is how to reduce fossil fuel use in all areas of society. All funding proposals must be climate and biodiversity-proofed. There are EU documents available on this process. More ecological corridors around our towns and villages, interconnecting all places with natural habitats, which double up as nature-based climate solutions are needed. Clear communication about the role of ecological systems in our lives and the connection to well-being, clean air, soil, green spaces, blue spaces, etc. was raised. More green urban spaces to sit and walk in, highlighting the links to health and well-being and a need for a peaceful environment, greater access and visibility of biodiversity were raised. Space should be given to nature, protecting the habitats and ecosystems we have around us in the country, restoration of habitats and ecosystems and a focus put on interconnecting them with ecological corridors was raised, as was green transport, more cycleways and closer connections with farmers through, for example, community-supported agriculture and support for farmers markets, local food networks and initiatives. Support is also needed for projects focusing on: decarbonisation, reducing energy use, restoration of biodiversity, sustainable travel, regenerative food systems and community supported agriculture, green infrastructure and ecosystem services.

Currently many people, especially in rural areas, are locked into car transport. There is a need for a link with UN global sustainable development goals and with climate, ecological and social justice. There is a requirement for a multidisciplinary or cross-departmental approach at Government and local authority level to join the dots and connections between the issues and responses.

What needs to happen? Currently, there are, or soon must be, consultations on the many interlinked problems such as climate action, water, the river basin management plans coming up soon, biodiversity, waste, circular economy, sustainable development goals, planning transport and energy.

PPNs are ready, willing and able to contribute but they need additional resources to achieve this and there must be co-ordination and buy-in at Government and local level in all aspects. PPNs know how to participate; let them do so.

Chairman

I thank Mr. Stanley-Smith and I invite Ms Kelliher to make her opening statement.

Ms Cliona Kelliher

I am delighted to be here to talk about PPNs. I am an environmental representative on the Kildare PPN secretariat and also a member of the national secretariat network and of the national advisory group. I completed a master's degree in climate change this year in Dublin City University and the topic of my research was PPNs and how they can be used to further climate action at local level. My research highlighted the huge benefits which PPNs can offer in terms of partnership and collaboration in achieving climate goals. Weber and Khademian speak about "lay knowledge of communities who are directly tied to their locale and understand the practical implications of structural or policy changes, in a way that may not be obvious to those coming from an official perspective." The existence of a national structure, which connects communities, offers huge potential for engagement on climate. It also creates the possibility of influencing behaviour and acceptance of climate action measures.

Other research has shown that public participation increases trust in Government and leads to better decision-making. My research showed that 66% of PPN members surveyed felt that being part of a PPN increased their climate knowledge. This was via various means such as PPN newsletters, workshops, social media and peer knowledge-sharing.

Across the country, PPNs connect with community groups and engage in projects and education around climate. PPNs also took part in the climate conversations this year, and Mr. Stanley-Smith referred to the great work that Kerry did in this. The idea of partnership and collaboration also connects to sustainable development goal No. 17 - partnerships for the goals.

I refer to some of the work done by PPNs around the country. Cork City Council and Cork PPN worked together in 2021 and 2022 with the Cork Environmental Forum to deliver a pilot community climate action programme, where participants attended a number of workshops and compiled a list of community actions. In Kildare PPN, we held our third annual climate action weekend this year, which looked at topics such as energy, circular economy, biodiversity and health. These climate weekends were designed to be engaging and to connect with people’s lives in a practical and fun way, and to bring communities together for support and connection. In 2019, Sligo PPN hosted a climate change seminar with Professor John Sweeney. More recently, an environmental event for south-east PPNs was held in Kilkenny, which was attended by up to 80 PPN members and representatives. This is just a snapshot of some of the climate actions undertaken by PPNs. In addition, PPNs offer training and information on an ongoing basis and provide peer support, which was flagged as a big positive of PPNs in my research.

The key role of PPNs in policy creation has to be highlighted, because this is essentially why PPNs were set up in the first place. Member groups and representatives on strategic policy committees offer a wide range of expertise and lived experience. The Kildare Climate Action Linkage Group put a huge amount of work into its submission on the Kildare County Council development plan consultation, and this kind of work is replicated across the country, as Mr. Stanley-Smith mentioned, with representatives and groups engaging actively in policy creation. This is an area that needs further work and a greater commitment from local authorities to fully acknowledge the important role of PPNs in decision-making. Previous research on PPNs, as well as my research, shows that many PPN representatives do not feel their input is incorporated directly into policy decisions. Another article highlights the importance of moving from top-down decision-making to a more participatory model. It states, "local people and organizations ... are often left out of critical decision-making processes ... such as the design of adaptation programs or plans."

The structure of PPNs, with their three pillars – environment; social inclusion; and community and voluntary – means they are uniquely placed to create connections and understand the whole-of-society implications of climate change. Working with marginalised groups can give insights into how climate measures will impact them and it is essential, from a climate justice perspective, that all of those diverse views are incorporated into decision-making. Furthermore, PPNs can play a role in the commitments of Ireland’s Open Government Partnership national action plan to progress civic participation and strengthen inclusion and civic deliberation in local decision-making.

Chairman

I thank Ms Kelliher for her opening statement. We now go to Ms Clancy.

Ms Sarah Clancy

I thank the Chairperson and members of the committee for inviting PPNs to give their input. I am the co-ordinator of County Clare’s public participation network and I am here to give input from the workers' network of PPNs. The workers' network includes co-ordinators and resource and support workers from PPNs in each local authority area in the country. As workers, we come together on at least a quarterly basis to share knowledge and best practice and to support the work of the PPNs through collaboration.

The next part of my contribution will be slightly repetitive, but I will explain the context of the points that workers wanted me to make. As the members of the committee will be aware, PPNs have an extensive membership of community and voluntary groups in Ireland, with more than 18,000 groups being part of PPNs. Our groups are categorised in three colleges or pillars: community and voluntary; environmental; and social inclusion. The environmental college member groups of the PPNs, which include many of the most significant and necessary environmental organisations in the country, exist in their own right separate to the PPN and direct their own actions and activities. The role of the PPN, in a nutshell, is to help these groups come together, collaborate and influence policy in their local authority area, although in many cases they also take action on national and EU policy issues too.

As Mr. Stanley-Smith said, PPNs have further roles in information sharing, training and capacity building, and in particular their structure has served to allow the environmental member groups to influence and connect with the other two colleges and, in so doing, build community support for climate action in each county. This means that while PPN environmental member groups are responsible for extensive programmes of climate action, biodiversity protection, marine preservation, community-supported agriculture and community energy schemes - to name but a few - their purpose when they come together through the PPNs is usually to use their expertise to influence a policy or to direct resources towards, or in some cases away from, a particular action or project that impacts our climate, biodiversity and environment.

The key message we can bring from our network’s extensive involvement with these groups is one of urgency. Climate change is real and it is already happening in our communities, neighbourhoods, countryside and towns. Our member groups are also keenly aware that the impacts of climate change are not being felt equally around the world or in Ireland, and that even as we struggle in Ireland to mitigate and adapt to the necessary changes, people in other places who value their lives just as much as we do are right now experiencing famine, displacement, resource wars and man-made natural disasters. Just last week, the UN issued a stark statement that the goal of limiting global warming to 1.5°C is appearing less and less likely to happen.

It is on this basis, rather than detailing the community-led climate action already taking place in our communities in this forum or the all-too-real need for substantial financial and Government support for community climate action, the workers determined it would be more beneficial for us to use this opportunity to raise four pertinent issues, all of which serve to prevent or counteract the effects of positive community-led climate action and which need to be addressed at Government level. First is whole-of-government policy coherence. If the committee will forgive my casualness, this is something that drives our member groups nuts. Despite the fact that in many areas we have very strong policies in Ireland on climate action, our groups have raised in consultation after consultation the frustration they experience when Government policies, planning decisions and funds are used in ways that are contrary to our climate action plan and our international commitments. As PPN workers, we are calling for a whole-of-government approach. Our energy, transport, industrial, economic development, food production, farming, forestry, fishing and marine policies must complement and agree with one another and contribute to the necessary reductions in carbon emissions. If anyone's mind needs to be concentrated, that figure is 51% in the next eight years. The new climate action plan being worked on must apply to all Departments and State agencies, and its provisions must be adhered to.

Second, we are not happy with the Government's concept and facilitation of a just transition process. At present, Ireland’s commitment to ensuring a just transition is not properly defined or robust enough for it to have real meaning in our communities. This is not an academic concern nor a concern about the language used. The changes indicated, for example, in our national planning framework and all the subsidiary regional, economic and spatial strategies in the national development plan, are not happening on a blank canvass. They are happening in communities in which people already live, and their lives will be impacted. If the negative impacts of climate action are not recognised, planned for and minimised where possible, it is unreasonable to expect communities to get behind them and it is not unreasonable to expect communities to oppose them. This is a process that could delay action that PPNs consider necessary.

A key matter from Clare PPN's perspective is that within the PPNs, our social inclusion colleges are all too aware of people living in isolation or poverty, or who are disabled and will find it hard to benefit from climate action when it involves carbon taxes and a move towards regionalisation of services and supports. Many such categories of people will find themselves worse off in the short term as a result of climate action. A properly defined just transition strategy would ensure no one is left behind.

As well as those workers traditionally included in discussions on a just transition, it needs to include carers, older people, people with disabilities and the Traveller and Roma communities. It needs to include all of the people who make up our really diverse communities. That is something we need Government action on. We urgently need such a strategy. Immediate action is necessary to ensure communities are involved in creating just transition plans for themselves and that this process and the actions which result from it are fully resourced and supported by national government.

I promise I am getting there but the third issue relates to infrastructural investment. We in the PPNs are big believers in community-led climate action. We understand the capacity and the amazing efforts and enthusiasm communities bring to things. However, community-led climate action cannot compensate for a lack of State investment in infrastructure, although many of our groups do their best to compensate for that lack. Our PPNs, particularly the rural ones, know all too well that, in many cases, even people who want to live more climate-friendly lives cannot if the necessary infrastructure is not provided. I will give an example of what I mean. Ireland is a small and accessible country. We are smaller than many American states. There is absolutely no reason we should not have an extensive, dependable and affordable public transport system. Our retrofitting programme needs to be redesigned as it clear from recent reports that it will not ensure the level of carbon reductions necessary and will not deliver ancillary benefits for people's health and income if it is not widespread. While the capacity, expertise and knowledge of our community groups should not be underestimated, it is our belief that the Government is underestimating the extent of direct State investment in, and ownership of, public transport, renewable energy, energy-efficient housing and just transition measures that is necessary. Where properly managed, all of these will be investments in Ireland's future and in the well-being of our people and the beautiful country we are lucky enough to inhabit.

The fourth issue relates to the matter of policy coherence, which was raised in connection with the first issue. We need to free the energy, enthusiasm and efforts of our community groups from having to undertake preventative action against State-facilitated environmental damage. Many of the PPNs' environmental college member groups and the national environmental networks spend a great proportion of their available resources, energy and manpower and womanpower on preventing damaging actions by the State, State agencies and industries operating under State permissions. These efforts include campaigning, lobbying and even legal challenges. Over the course of the last two Governments, we have seen attempts to prevent or minimise the opportunities for such groups to impact the planning process. As the PPN workers' network, we would like to see a fresh approach in which dialogue is facilitated and the input and expertise of environmental groups respected. This will help to ensure that costly and divisive legal processes become a last resort and that better decisions and plans are made at the outset. As PPN workers, it is our experience that our member groups, as specialists, are frequently ahead of policy-makers in their understanding and view of what constitutes effective climate action. In order for policy-makers to avoid costly mistakes, it is necessary for them to be open and receptive to input from environmental and social justice groups. This is not about seeking exclusive or preferential access. It is clear that governments are lobbied from a wider range of angles by sectors such as industry, farming, technology and energy. However, it would serve us really well to understand the difference between those who are advocating for profit and those who are seeking the common good, often at personal cost rather than personal gain.

If any of us had the exact solution, we probably would not be running a PPN. We would be running something much more significant. Some of the resistance to climate measures is due to a lack of understanding of the real lived experience of people's lives. I come from Clare, where we have done good work recently on poverty, rural deprivation and so on in the county.

We have some very interesting information from people about their lives. It is said that education will help people to get out of poverty, but these people can totally disprove that because they are carers or single mothers whose children are in school between 10 a.m. and 12 noon. If they live in Kilrush, the bus to Ennis costs €23. The difficulty is getting a job that will allow a person to take the bus to Ennis for €23, for an hour and a half, that will pay more than the social welfare. The routes we are proposing to get people out of poverty are not practical for the circumstances they are in.

Some issues arise in regard to climate change as well. Let us look at the case of the carbon tax in County Clare. The fact of the carbon tax and how much it will be are a different issue but let us think about the narrative around it. I refer to someone with children going to school who has no access to public transport, and medical services have been moved to a regional area to help rebalance Ireland so that we have concentrated cities. We are telling people that there is no other choice for them, but we are going to impose a carbon tax on them. That does not work. Even if the person believes in climate change, he or she cannot impact their behaviour. If they are in the lower socioeconomic ranks, they probably cannot change their car to an electric one, and if they could, there are no charging stations. We are proposing things that impact negatively on people's lives. We all understand that climate change impacts negatively on all of us, but just saying that we will take an equal approach to everybody, irrespective of the circumstances they are in, to achieve climate action is causing resistance and causing people to become more open to misinformation as well. If something appears to have only negative consequences, why would people opt into it? If the narrative was that they were going to have a warm, cosy home at the end of this and they would not have to pay any money upfront, and it would be healthier, that is an entirely different narrative. We are not getting that right. Climate action should create healthier, more liveable communities with better resources, but if we do not try to address inequality at the same time, we will not get there. That is slightly different. I know there are entrenched interests also. I refer to the strong sectors in industry, farming and so on. There is a different approach to that. If we want ordinary people, who are not part of a particular stakeholder group, to buy in, we must examine how it will affect them and explain why that has to happen and what steps are being put in place to try to ensure that alternatives are presented. I know that answer was not short.

Chairman

No. I could come back with more comments and questions but my colleagues would rightfully drag me out of here.

Deputy Christopher O'Sullivan

The carbon tax is being used for retrofitting for the warmer homes scheme and for social welfare payments such as the fuel allowance. It also pays for half of the agri-environment scheme. I accept that we must deliver on the plan and ensure that people have warmer, cosier homes. Then the message would be a lot easier to sell.

I want to add to what has been said by referring to my experience of dealing with community groups that are trying to make a change in terms of climate change and especially biodiversity. What we find is that many of the groups involved in the PPN have a focus on biodiversity, whether it is a pollinator group or a tree-planting group, among others. I will refer to the experience of some of the groups I have been dealing with and the challenges they faced, as it shows where we must improve. I fully accept the point about the importance of participation and consultation. I want to focus on the challenges and obstacles community groups face in accessing finance and supports to deliver their projects. The witnesses might respond on what they think needs to be done to improve the situation.

Clonakilty recently won the award for the tidiest small town in Ireland in the Tidy Towns awards. It was indicated to the Tidy Towns group afterwards by the adjudicators that one of the reasons Clonakilty had won the top prize in that category was the new biodiversity projects in the town. The Tidy Towns group created a fantastic biodiversity wildlife garden to the west of the town. It is amazing. It was not one of the box-ticking types of effort with a couple of wildflowers in a meadow. It was genuinely purposeful and created a great new ecosystem. The group got behind it 100%, but it got minimal support from the local authority and Departments to deliver the garden. It was achieved through fundraising and constantly going back to the community in that regard.

The Irish for Clonakilty is Cloich na Coillte, the castle in the forest. The motto of the tree-planting group that was set up was that we want to put the "coillte" back in Cloich na Coillte, which was once in a woodland area but the woodlands have been decimated. The group approached the local authority to look for areas of public space where trees could be planted. The engagement was very poor. The group ended up having to go to private landowners who were willing to plant a few trees. Thousands of trees were planted but very few on public spaces or public land. The group met challenges to delivering the project.

One of the most incredibly frustrating experiences I had was when a local group that was set up to deliver on biodiversity wanted to plant trees around the perimeter of the local graveyard to try to make it a more wildlife- and biodiversity-friendly space and also to make it a nicer place for loved ones to visit graves. Graveyards are maintained by local authorities and the response to the group was negative even though the members were going to do it on a voluntary basis and fund it themselves. They were told that it would create too many maintenance issues for the council down the line. There is a real issue with the attitude of local authorities in particular and many groups as well. I would like to get the views of the witnesses on how we can change the engagement with local authorities. They have climate action plans and mitigation plans, but much of it seems to be about ticking the boxes. How can we increase the engagement?

I am not sure if anyone else has noticed, but there has been an explosion in community groups who want to improve biodiversity in their towns and areas, but the funding they are getting is a pittance. What do we need to do? Is there a figure on the type of funding that is needed to help these groups and, apart from the funding, what types of structures do we need to put in place? I would like to hear the views of the witnesses on this point.

There seems to be another issue arising with local authorities whereby they give community groups a bit of funding and then they wash their hands of the issue and leave people to look after it. I mentioned that the local authority would not provide public space or land in Clonakilty, and it does not provide follow-up support either. Is there too much focus on giving people a few quid, letting them deal with it and then the local authority steps back? I would not mind getting the opinion of the witnesses on that point either.

Could the witnesses also briefly comment on communities getting involved in their own renewable energy projects? Have they seen good work there and where can we improve? I would welcome comments from the witnesses on the points I have made about the challenges communities face in delivering projects.

Mr. Charles Stanley-Smith

I have always found in my interaction with local authorities that they ask what they can do to help. That eventually does get through. What is happening with many of the biodiversity projects is that they are at the start of the process of persuading a local authority that they are there to help and to do good and that it will benefit everybody. It is a barrier they must get through. As the Deputy says, it is happening, and it is something that will happen and needs to happen. I am afraid the only thing I can think of is perseverance. It will get there in the end. That attitude is a very strong one and local authorities find it hard to stop the attitude of being there to help.

Deputy Christopher O'Sullivan

Cork County Council does not have a biodiversity officer yet. That would be an important step.

Ms Cliona Kelliher

I work in a local authority but that is not the hat I am wearing today. It gives me perspective from both sides. Local authorities often have a very siloed approach to things. That is partly down to resourcing and partly due to institutional culture. That creates many problems when it comes to things such as a local authority acquiring land. Somebody might suggest that it is a parks issue and then somebody else will claim that it is public ground, ending up with the issue bouncing back and forth with nobody wanting to take responsibility, or people feeling they do not have time to take responsibility for these things. Unfortunately, I do not have an answer to that, but better engagement and trying to shift that institutional culture would certainly help.

Ms Sarah Clancy

This is very specific to the PPNs. As workers, we are finding it very difficult. We are housed, for want of a better word, in the Department of Rural and Community Development, whereas the local authorities respond mostly to the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage. We have an issue with buy-in by the local authorities. The PPNs are legislated for and provide that our people should be there. We have a formal role in the local authority process. It is very difficult to establish that. We are one of the longer and steadier PPNs that has existed in County Clare.

As personnel change in each section, we need to do it over again. We need to say, "No, we're allowed to be here. No, we are not hippies or if we are hippies, we're still allowed to be here." People do not necessarily know why they have to listen to us or our representatives. We recommend that there should be a national advisory group with input from the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage. If the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage is running local government and if our job in the PPNs is to influence local government policy-making but we are answerable to a different Department, then we have a difficulty in that understanding. When that is taken into the traditionally siloed and hierarchical culture of local authorities trying to engage with this mad thing that has a flat structure, much of the time they cannot figure out who is in charge of PPNs or whom they should talk to. There is a friction and tension there that is not productive because people are asking, "Why is that person criticising me? Is she allowed to?" We are allowed to and in fact, this is good for local authorities. It is like eating broccoli; this will improve the local authority.

As local authorities own their own need for rates and funding, their own need to ensure their own existence in some ways counteracts the overall good. It means the policies they are making try to ensure their own existence rather than necessarily being for the benefit of the wider community. Local authorities need proper funding. They should not be out touting for rates and deciding that a particular project, which will deliver good rates, is the best thing for their community when it may not be the best thing for their community. Those are the two things that I would say there. I agree with the Deputy that the groups have done extraordinary work.

There are energy projects, such as the Aran Islands energy project and the Tipperary Energy Agency. Some really good groups are out there basically building the stuff. If we can facilitate, enhance and encourage those instead of putting barriers in their way, it will definitely help us.

Deputy Christopher O'Sullivan

I appreciate those answers.

Senator Lynn Boylan

I have a major interest in the consultation process. I was taken by the point about how box-ticking consultation can be even more damaging than no consultation at all. That was certainly the experience I had when I worked in Ballymun. That is how local people said they felt about the regeneration project. We do not do consultation very well in Ireland. We are afraid of it. We sort of roll it out and then complain that people have issues. We are seeing it in housing and all the projects with NIMBYism being blamed when actually it is about not talking to communities and people not being prepared to shift position. Even EirGrid and the Irish Wind Energy Association have accepted that they have carried out really poor consultation in the past and have learned from that experience. Can the witnesses outline any examples of where it has been done well in Ireland? Those involved in the BusConnects project seemed to have done a decent job in certain areas in engaging with communities and actually changing the project to reflect what the local people said to them.

I was struck by what Ms Clancy said about being responsible to the Department of Rural and Community Development and the interaction with the local authority. How much of that is compounded by the fact that we also now have the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications and the Department of Transport which are trying to implement most of the climate action plan? How aware are they of the role of the PPNs in the consultation?

Ms Clancy stated that just transition is not what it should be. I was looking at analysis of the just transition done in the Bord na Móna regions. Of the €14 million that was spent, only €2 million was attributable directly to benefitting the workers. If we are going to set up a just transition commission, how important is it that we get it right and learn from the mistakes of what we have done in the midlands? It is not a just transition there; we have just diverted funding that would have been going to renovation of churches and things like that and are now calling it a just transition fund when in reality just transition is about the community and the workers.

Mr. Charles Stanley-Smith

We are involved in a couple of groups within the local authority. One would be the joint policing committee, JPC, and the other is the CIPC, which are very dependent on the input of the PPNs. It is possible to see where input was provided from the PPN and is being applied. They tend to be small committees with good interaction between the members. I was the first chair of the local community development committee, LCDC, in Tipperary. That pretty much took on board the PPN view because I was the chair. It still carries on in that vein. It is a proper bottom-up organisation and it is possible to see the footprint of the PPN in that.

The national planning framework was the one that really surprised me. While it took a long time to do it, the appendix shows where each individual bit of the consultation was and where it was applied. Those preparing that report took that step which is not done very often if at all. It gives people a very strong feeling of being able to see exactly what happened to their bit of consultation, which is what people need. As Ms Clancy said, we do not want to be consulted knowing that it will end up in the bin. If we can see it has actually changed a plan, we will carry on and will bring other people into the whole participation framework network because we know it is beginning to have an effect. If it is not having an effect, dragging some poor members of our community into yet another consultation, which we know is a tick-box exercise, does not do anybody any good.

Ms Sarah Clancy

There is one thing we have not mentioned on the consultation. Everybody imagines there are communities there with all the time to do them. People doing a consultation think their consultation is the most important thing that is happening. I will take the example of County Clare. We will have community consultations on the LEADER funding, and on the local economic and community plan.

There has been community consultation for the county development plan and that is continuing. The same community groups are repeatedly asked roughly the same series of questions in consultations with very little feedback. I suggest that in some ways the multipurpose consultations around views means we have already consulted. I mean that PPNs have provided a model as we have all compiled well-being vision statements for our counties. We got views from all of our members' groups on a range of issues so everything from the environment to just transition, social justice and services. In lots of ways that facilitates our work because we have already consulted. That is not to say that for a specific thing happening in a specific area that people should not be entitled to be consulted on it again. If one has a baseline, for how people feel that their community should be developed into the future, to start from then that might help us to be a little bit more efficient. For example, someone may already be a member of a Tidy Towns group so more consultation may be a problem. Unless one is a nerd like us more consultations may cause a problem. A person may have children who have matches to attend and everything else is happening in one's life so attending another evening meeting can be an issue.

That is not my analysis of democracy. The State depends spectacularly on voluntary groups to give of their free time but at a time when people or groups have a reducing amount of free time due to their having busy lives, commuting, returning to the workplace, etc. I urge the committee to not overestimate what time volunteers have available to give to commitments and, therefore, it is even more important not to ever waste their time. We occasionally do that ourselves but try not to. If I am going to gather people and so make them travel or participate online, and they, for example, go to the trouble of getting someone to mind their children then I will make sure that I can provide every bit of useful information, that we use that information and I will do my best to feed back to them where and when we are using the information. That is the model we need to use and we must be open to change. Do not call something a consultation if it is not that. If a consultation is happening then information must be shared about why it is happening, etc. and let people challenge that but only consult if one is able to be open about what actually does happen.

The PPNs have a huge member group but a very limited staff and financial resource plus our remit is widening all of the time. As other Departments want to use the PPNs and consult with its members, then PPNs need to be resourced in order for that to happen. My key message is that if we believe that the PPNs are the method through which we want to consult communities then we need to invest in PPNs, grow them and support them and not just say that they exist.

Mr. Charles Stanley-Smith

I would add one thing about resources. I am the human resources person responsible for our staff in the Tipperary PPN and I keep a very close watch on the amount of work that they do, because they do a huge amount of work, and the amount of work that they are expected to do.

As Ms Clancy said earlier, we have a work plan that we work to. If we are going to do climate change, water, LECPs and this, that and the other then we do not have the resources. I cannot allow our staff to get involved in all of that as it would just be against all HR principles. So we do need more resources and PPNs to do this work.

Chairman

The network consists of 18,000 groups but without resources it is a notional network. How effective can the network be without resources? The problem is that once one starts to introduce resources then maybe the network will start to look like a hierarchical organisation where one has paid people and volunteers. How does one square that?

Ms Sarah Clancy

People's participation in democracy should not cost them. We will not get diverse representation among people participating in consultations unless we make sure that people from disadvantaged communities are facilitated to participate. I am not talking about paying them to participate and I am talking about making sure that it does not cost them to participate. For example, for the PPNs that have a very strong representation from people with disabilities, there are costs that are not included. For example, the cost for Irish Sign Language interpretation for our events or the cost for wheelchair-accessible taxis, which we have to use frequently. If we want participation then there is a cost involved.

The PPNs are funded to the tune of €110,000 each per year and some of that funding is ring-fenced for staffing. The PPN in Clare has €20,000 to spend once we have finished paying rent, staff and everything like that. With that money we are able to make resources available to our communities that are not available elsewhere because we have meeting space and a capacity to do different things. We are able to provide a hub for community activity which may not be necessarily right in the remit of the PPN but it certainly builds goodwill and builds our relationships with community groups.

PPNs definitely need more staff. If the person in my position is employed parallel with a Civil Service grade V position then there is no way, if we worked in a local authority, that we would try to run consultations by ourselves and write policies at grade V. That just would not happen. We would facilitate other people to do that work or administer that. First, the level at which staff are employed is too low. Second, there are too few staff. We have three colleges so in theory the PPNs should have a staff person for each college. That would mean that I could, for example, work on poverty today, work on Tidy Towns tomorrow and now I am supposed to know something about wastewater disposal tomorrow so it is like a resource worker. Even though such a person facilitates the participation of the groups, one cannot facilitate that without having at least a basic understanding. PPNs need trained, skilled people who are paid properly and are in long-term positions if there is a belief in PPNs.

Ms Sarah Clancy

From my experience, yes. I have not seen evidence. We receive lots of indications of support, but they are not of great use in paying bills or staff. Our community groups are also under-resourced. I refer to community groups that work on climate action. We see funding streams passing them by because they do not have someone available. Take for example the LEADER programme, which provides funding for rural development, some of which relates to climate action. A group has to be willing to voluntarily set about a large project, involving all the bureaucracy and governance. If we wanted to turn our community centre into a green hub, people would have to sit on the committee on a voluntary basis, which they do over and again. However, the State cannot continue to provide funding and supports to business and enterprise, and all the other factors at play, and expect community interests to fund themselves through goodwill. We in Clare do an extraordinary amount of work with the €20,000 funding, which is true for other PPNs. One would not believe what we can do. However, it is because the majority of people engaged with us are giving their time, effort and expertise for free. They are not then treated equally either, like if a person comes in and says "I am the director of services" compared with a person who showed up for nothing.

Chairman

I have so many questions to ask Ms Clancy in that regard. Does Senator Boylan have more to say?

Senator Lynn Boylan

No, I am okay.

Mr. Charles Stanley-Smith

What has happened recently is a very strong collaboration between the PPNs, including the resource workers' network and the secretariat network. Members from each PPN come together to talk about the whole thing. Under the newly proposed changes to PPNs, there will be much more openness and ability to collaborate and co-operate.

I refer to the report from Kerry, which everyone in PPNs has because we share things. Climate change, water quality - which is coming up soon - and biodiversity are the topics of national as well as local consultations. There is a great body of people right around the country willing and able and who understand how to participate. One thing that needs to be done, to which we have alluded many times, is to somehow ensure that people are only consulted once. We do not want a whole lot of people coming in every other day.

When PPNs were first set up, there were no resource workers. We ran Tipperary PPN for about a year and a half or two years, and it actually drove us all mad. We said that it needed a resource worker, after which resource workers did come in. We are not funded to do that higher level of consultation, although we have the ability and willingness to do it. Other Departments will have to chip in with considerable amounts of their consultation budgets. One would then be talking to the people on the ground and it is the only way one can do that. This is a call from PPNs: we will do it, but you have to fund us.

Deputy Darren O'Rourke

It is good to hear from representatives. I am sorry for stepping out earlier. As sometimes happens in the Oireachtas, the Joint Committee on Transport and Communications is on at the same time as this committee meeting and I am a member of both.

I am very interested in the topic and I was one of those who was elected in the first round of local government reforms in 2014, which gave us new municipal districts and, supposedly, a new way of doing local governments, to which the PPNs were central. I have six years of working closely with PPNs locally in Meath. It was interesting to hear from Ms Clancy in terms of the experience and the almost tokenism of some of it. We are in an era of politics of consultation and public engagement and there is a box to be ticked for everything that happens. As Ms Kelliher pointed out, there are very different meanings to consultation, engagement and empowerment of communities.

My question is for each of the groups. We need to move into a real era of community involvement in climate action. That is why we are here and have had a series of meetings. I ask the witnesses to reflect on their experience of the PPNs and point us towards the opportunities that are available for good engagement. What we also want is mobilisation, not just engagement. We want to empower communities and mobilise them into climate action. That is where my main interest in this topic lies. I am seeking the witnesses' critical reflections on how PPNs and local government play their roles. There is an element about sharing power that does not really happen, as it can be dependent on individual officials or councillors. How do PPNs relate to sustainable energy communities, for which they are to be a vehicle?

Ms Cliona Kelliher

I refer to a point Ms Clancy made in that PPNs are under one Department and local authorities are under another. That instantly creates a difficulty because local authority staff do not necessarily understand what the PPN is or represents, even though it is embedded in legislation and has a clear role. From a local authority perspective, it may be misunderstood and is certainly not respected a lot of the time in terms of the input of representatives.

Another point Ms Clancy mentioned was the well-being statement. We have not done ours in Kildare PPN yet, but they are a good example of consulting with the community. It may happen that these well-being statements are taken and then local authorities replicate these types of engagements without referring to the completed document that consulted with communities. It has happened that work is doubled up on, or people are in silos and not communicating. Mr. Stanley-Smith referred to people doing consultations and not getting feedback and feeling as those they are not being heard. People get consultation fatigue. People who get involved in consultations are active citizens. They care about their communities. To see that feedback and work not being recognised or acknowledged is disheartening for people.

Mr. Charles Stanley-Smith

Tipperary is fortunate in having the Tipperary Energy Agency for many a year. We do have energy communities, which are working. There is much retrofitting and all that sort of stuff going on. I like the Deputy's question to which I do not know the answer. We are talking about policies. How do we get people involved in actions? Due to the timeframe, we do not have much more time, if any, to discuss policies.

We need to get to the actions. How do we get local people involved and how do we bring them together? I do not know the answer, but the PPNs would certainly be a good starting point from which to do this. They are involved with every aspect of communities. They have representatives from member groups right across the board, from the GAA and every other organisation. There is something here which provides an opportunity to move on to action, because we must do this.

Ms Sarah Clancy

I have several points to make about this. I agree with Mr. Stanley-Smith. In County Clare, where I work, opposition to climate action is somewhat overstated, although noisy. What is missing, however, are bodies on the ground in the communities to undertake the actions necessary. There must be a reduction in and minimisation of bureaucracy and the difficulty in getting anything done.

There are some great examples in County Clare in this regard. A new swimming pool has opened in Lahinch. It is an entirely environmentally sustainable swimming pool. The community applied for funding. It changed it around, did everything on the application and worked on this project for years. This required, though, a small cohesive group of people to persist constantly through funding rounds and all sorts of different things. It required people to give eight years of their lives to make this project happen. That is a huge ask. This is something for people who are really committed to their communities. It is not to say that people who do not have that time and energy are not committed to their communities. They are, but their lives are playing out differently. We must, therefore, find some way to make climate action easy and accessible and facilitate it.

Turning to the relationship of the PPNs to the more action-based groups on the ground, sometimes these latter groups can find the slow and cumbersome nature of the PPN process, and our constant talk about consultations, submissions etc. frustrating because they just want to do something. This does not mean that what the PPNs are doing is not necessary. What we have tried to do, though, and what many of the PPNs have tried to do, is to seek one person to be a representative and to bring expertise to the committee. In our experience, in some ways, the reason representatives are willing to do this is not because they are being listened to on the committees, it is because they support the other things we are trying to do in the community. For the PPN to exist, they are deciding to take one for the team and they join the committee.

This is not what we want. We want the committees to be deliberative places where discussions are undertaken and recommendations are made to the county councils. The role of county councillors has not come up here. It would be remiss of us to leave without discussing their role. To date, we have had a more productive relationship with our county councillors in County Clare than with our local authority. In some ways, this has been because we can meet them and they will engage with us. It does not mean that county councillors love the PPN or anything like that, but there is dialogue. We are people in the communities that the county councillors are elected to represent. So long as we respect the fact that they are elected to represent their communities, then they engage positively with the PPN.

Another question concerns the county councillors engaging with their own local authority. How do county councillors influence the edifice of their local authority? I think our local authorities are spectacularly under-resourced. If we want local democracy, then we need them to be resourced. We need a research department in our local authorities. We do not have the proper facts and figures concerning most of the issues that affect us in County Clare. We are now undertaking a local economic and community plan while waiting for information from the Central Statistics Office, CSO. We are working on this plan, which is a six-year plan, in addition to the county development plan, in advance of the CSO information.

To give one example in this context, almost everything we have heard so far in County Clare has referred to rural depopulation. One of the first items of information coming back from the CSO, though, is that there has been a 7% increase in population in almost all the communities in County Clare. We are therefore planning for depopulation at a time when our population is actually increasing. Things like this explain why we need informed local government able to undertake a much quicker cycle of activity.

Turning to the workplace survey, for example, in County Clare we can only guesstimate how many people are employed in tourism. We can only guesstimate many things. How can we make or influence policy without good information? This is what the consultation process should be doing. I refer to a situation where neutral researchers would be coming to us with information. The groups are telling us what information they need to make decisions. I refer to having neutral researchers, without a vested interest in the outcome, telling the committee the facts and figures, such as how many people are poor in County Clare, how many are dependent on cars etc. This is the information we tend to be missing.

I am aware I have been talking about County Clare, but we tried to address this problem through our PPN in one small way. We received funding from the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, IHREC, to look at socio-economic rights in County Clare. I know I keep talking about money, and I am not all about money, but this funding amounted to €17,000. I handed out copies of the research derived from that funding. Dr. Conor McCabe undertook a participative research project for us. Using that €17,000, we were able to fill in many of the holes in information in County Clare. The PPN did it. It was a case of the PPN with €110,000 at its disposal versus the local authority, with 900 staff, or the Government. This shows us the situation.

All the PPNs have similar examples. I am just familiar with this one from County Clare. This type of activity is limited, though, and the local authority is now having a meeting this Friday and invited representatives of all the SPCs and everyone else in to discuss this strategy. In a way, though, our participation through the facilitative processes was not achieving that for us. We had to do something else which required other funding. Eight social inclusion groups have worked on this project for the best part of two years now in their free time. The PPNs have great potential, but we are not supported enough.

We must take local change seriously and for this to happen local authorities also need to be invested in. We are now seeing investment being made in local authorities concerning climate action. We have, for example, witnessed the appointment of climate action officers. In County Clare, we are also getting a climate action directorate. The money alone, however, will not suffice to get this done. We need to change the ethos. Climate action must be of overriding importance to everything we are doing in County Clare, rather than it being something where we need just to tick the climate action box. How we can create the culture change required in this context will be a big aspect.

For example, when recruitment is under way for these types of roles in local authorities, and there are already superfine people in all the local authorities with great expertise around the country, we recruit people with expertise in climate action and in communicating about climate action, as well as an understanding of the science and what needs to happen in this regard. Quite often people in local authorities are transferred. We need people in these roles who have an interest in driving climate action. We do not have the time to get this wrong if they are not. We will also squander the goodwill of our communities by doing more things wrong. I know this was a bit of a fine speech but I think it probably encapsulates what we have been experiencing.

Deputy Darren O'Rourke

I thank the witnesses. That was very helpful.

Chairman

I am very interested in this area. The witnesses might think about the question I am going to ask and come back to me later with a response. The climate action plan is a top-down approach. It is the way the State does things. It states all these different things in all these different areas must be done if we are to achieve the target we have set ourselves in a short timeframe. What I have heard from the witnesses, however, is that there is a distinct lack of research capacity across the local government system, including in the PPNs. Even if they were, therefore, to take on the role of an alternative climate action plan, they could not do it because they simply do not have the capacity to come up with something, to get into the numbers etc. An example would be finding out what County Clare's responsibility is regarding the number of megatons of carbon that must be reduced by 2030. It would not be possible to say because this would require a huge body of work.

The other point is that the urgency is so great we probably do need to lean on the State because it has access to this information. There is probably a happy middle ground here where the State does have a critical role, but it needs to enhance the capacity of the communities and the PPNs in this regard to help it achieve this goal.

There is a tension and conflict there that is not easily resolved. I will not ask the representatives to answer that now but to think about it because Senator Higgins has been waiting in her office and I am sure she is keen to contribute.

Senator Alice-Mary Higgins

It is a very interesting debate. I have about a million questions but I will condense.

I will pick up on a couple of the key points mentioned relating to the four areas. I want to focus in particular on the idea of just transition. We have heard of that "just transition". It is probably regrettable that we did not take the opportunity to embed principles of just transition in our legislation as, for example, was done in Scotland. There is the idea of just transition being fast and fair but by not having proper principles and definitions, I am worried that it has become, in some cases, almost used as a reason for stalling action for sectors to change. In other ways, it has become a top-down idea, for example, we go to companies, be they Bord na Móna or anybody else, and go top-down in terms of their revised business models, rather than going from the ground up and saying these are the communities that will be affected by the very necessary changes. Maybe these communities have completely different and new ideas of what a sustainable future for them might be. I ask the witnesses to talk to us a little more about those just transition principles from the ground up. We know there is specific funding from Europe for just transition but we also need to give much more of our own funding to it. I would be very interested in hearing about that idea of just transition principles from the ground up.

It is also important to talk to rural communities and not just, for example, the major agribusinesses or companies within a rural area. Sometimes, there is an alignment but at other times there will be a situation that what might suit a major agribusiness in an area, or an industry lobby, might not actually reflect local concerns. We have also seen that a lot of the time, when it comes to making shifts and changes, we hear a very strong narrative of needing to take everyone with us regarding, for example, very large businesses that have very environmentally damaging practices, some of which even relate to the nitrates derogation. We have seen this "take everyone with us" narrative, yet when it comes to those in rural communities who are concerned about the environment in a wider sense, or about biodiversity, they are being more or less told to step aside or shut up at times. That is what we come up with.

We get this narrative on planning that comes through, which basically says that we want to bring business with us but when it comes to those who have a joint concern about biodiversity or the local ecology and climate, they are almost being asked to step aside. That is a concern I have because I see this even in the quite concerning comments from the Taoiseach recently about this idea of limiting objections to those who live in the immediate area, even though they will be accused of NIMBYism. What we have actually seen, and I saw it in some of the projects Mr. Stanley-Smith spoke about, is that those who care about biodiversity and ecology to the point where they are doing this labour of work in trying to make sure there are better decisions are also those who, if they are empowered, listened to and engaged with rather than demonised, are our champions on very good climate action. I note that when Wind Energy Ireland representatives appeared before the committee, they were asked for their views on planning. They said they did not want to see an end to the right to judicial reviews. They want to see better resourcing, including public resourcing for environmental impact and NGO resourcing, to make sure they are able to make better decisions faster. It is around making better planning decisions rather than truncating those decisions. Again, how powerful would it be if that was the approach taken to encouraging and empowering local engagement on environmental issues?

On budgets and funding, the idea that the carbon tax will pay for this is a problem we have sometimes seen but it is a very limited amount of money. Its goal was meant to be to ensure that massive fossil fuel companies did not profit from social and environmental damage. That is why it is interesting that António Guterres, the head of the UN, directly called yesterday for windfall taxes as a more effective way of ensuring that companies are not profiting from social damage. The problem is when we get these little scraps of money and pilot projects. This is also a significant issue in the area of social justice where there are local communities who do pilot projects, those projects work and make a brilliant difference, people say that is wonderful, and they then apply for another pilot project two years later. How can we have a better scaling-up if there is a brilliant pilot project, for example, the pilot project around hedgerows in County Clare, which was very good? What is the channel to root something that really works at local level, and that the PPN has been part of and knows works, so that it becomes a national policy with the proper resourcing that goes behind it? Is that around ensuring that PPNs are feeding into more Departments in a formal way, which was mentioned? Is it around ensuring that there is no ceiling on resources?

I have a last question that goes back on a practical level to the Chair's point on carbon budgets, megatons and all of that. If we have that frame that was mentioned, where the rates in the budgets and the financial limitations of local government are kind of seen as the hard line rather than - and this is a general thing - the economic existing inside society, which exists inside real planetary boundaries, then we just see this idea of the financial budget and whatever flourishes we can add in the meantime in between. If we look at carbon budgets, however, and things like tree removal, we know we have sometimes had the phenomenon of tree removal simply due to insurance costs. It is the idea that we have to lose a 60-year-old tree because it would lower the insurance premium or because of the maintenance costs. Is there potential for both carbon budgets and - something we know the National Parks and Wildlife Service is looking for - the idea of biodiversity scorecards becoming an outside frame in which the policies are being made at local level? Is that maybe something that would give strength to those discussions that really measures what we lose when we lose, for example, an area of trees along a river?

Mr. Charles Stanley-Smith

As a former Chair of An Taisce, my views on what is happening in planning are probably not repeatable in this setting. Mistakes have been made in planning along the way and trying to restrict the ability of people who have a genuine reason to take appeals is the wrong way to go, but I will not get into that.

The potential of what is happening in the whole area of well-being is very interesting. The Government is doing top-down well-being statements and the like, and the PPNs are doing true bottom-up well-being statements. We are the only country in the world that is doing bottom-up well-being statements. Many countries are doing top-down statements. It is about the business of where these two meet. That is where we will find out an awful lot. We have got the idea of a climate action plan coming top-down but if we can bring the bottom-up into that, we will see where they do and do not meet. That is what we have to really concentrate on. That whole opportunity is there. We have to have top-down and bottom-up because there are some big, fundamental financial decisions to be made and so on.

I would like to see much more of an opportunity - and the PPNs can do this - to see where things fit together, not just in climate action but, as we have talked about, in social inclusion, disability and so on. How we move that forward is a difficult question. We have talked about local government and local councillors. We have a very good relationship with our local authority and our local councillors. The opportunity for all this is there, and we should look at that. As I have always said, there are hundreds of thousands of members of PPNs with a huge range of expertise, including their lived experience, within the PPNs. That lived experience is the key to climate action, biodiversity action - the whole lot.

Senator Alice-Mary Higgins

I will add a question to that. Others will come in on the idea of the pilots and how we make them be not pilots but joined-up scale-ups. There is responsibility at local level for the sustainable development goals, SDGs. I am thinking particularly of Sustainable Development Goal 11, on sustainable cities and communities. Would it be exciting and transformative, do the witnesses believe, if there were a strand of funding going in at local level with very strong engagement by PPNs on that? That is an area where the ground-up approach might deliver a lot more on the SDGs. The piloting has been largely for things like awareness-raising versus the potential really big changes that could be led from the ground up on the SDGs, which are, of course, linked with climate.

Mr. Charles Stanley-Smith

I have been talking about this for a number of years. Each county is doing LECPs. The important part of those will be key performance indicators, KPIs. Within the SDGs we have KPIs. We do not want to end up with a difference in that regard. There is a framework there. If it were possible for the LECPs to merge into the SDGs, there would then be the business of being able to have a common set of KPIs. That would be very useful. We are discussing our LECP. It is very useful, as Ms Clancy mentioned, to be able to compare with Clare on a particular thing. It is very difficult to find out that information - not that we want to beat Clare. We will talk about hurling another day. Clare is doing lots of good stuff and we are doing lots of good stuff. How do we share that around? I know that the council people are talking to one another on LECPs, but the opportunity to bring together that knowledge, from which we will hang a great many other policies, is very important.

Senator Alice-Mary Higgins

It strikes me that if the likes of the SDGs are used, and if they are part of the key performance indicators, it allows a common conversation across local areas not just in Ireland but also internationally, whereby you are able to have a chat about how you are going on a sub-goal of SDG 11 and how that is working out in Bilbao as well as in Galway. It seems that that might be a useful piece.

I had other questions for Ms Clancy.

Ms Sarah Clancy

Sorry about that. I was uncustomarily silent there.

In response to the question about the sustainable development goals, a few other concepts and internationally agreed or nationally agreed ideas, one of the things we find within our PPN - this is contrary to what others say - is that by the time we have explained the public sector duty, the sustainable development goals, the just transition concept and so on, people have lost the will to live. That is our problem. I am not talking about when we are preaching to the converted but when we are trying to convert the unconverted. On that, the more concepts we introduce like that, quite often the further we can get from talking about what is happening to our people in our communities. There needs to be a way of using these such that they do not become another barrier to people's participation. That is not contradicting the ideologies or the work that has gone into them, but what we find is that if we try to convince our community and voluntary sector on climate action and they are not involved, by the time we have gone through that, we have lost them, whereas if we say we would like something to happen around, let us say, the Ennis post office field, we can keep people's interest on that and possibly introduce the wider concepts as part of that process. It works the other way around in that the concepts that might be useful can be probably introduced after the practical applications.

As for the funding and the resources, I am absolutely not point-scoring, but €60 million over three years that was allocated for the community climate action fund is equal per year to the amount greyhound racing gets. I know that keeps coming up, but the climate action fund is not a big fund for the times we are in. There is €19 million for greyhound racing and €20 million for communities climate action. Lots of the PPNs have been involved in applying for projects under that grant, and I see that three of the PPNs are linked in partnership projects happening under the community climate action fund, but if we could get one key thing coming out of this meeting, it would be a whole-of-government approach. That means that our agriculture policy and our planning decisions would be linked to climate action, that climate action would come on top and that socioeconomic rights for all marginalised communities would come just underneath that. Economic development has to be relegated beneath that because at the moment we have economic development which may deliver us the other goals or may not. That is the problem we have at the moment. If our climate action will be only the crumbs from private industry, it will not work. I think our communities know that. Our communities fully understand that. There is a lot of resistance even to wind energy in Clare. I do not personally agree with that resistance but I understand where it comes from. It is because wind energy is being done on an extractive basis. One would think a renewable resource could not be done on that basis, but it is, in almost the same way in which fossil fuels were mined for. The community was given a few crumbs and away they go. We need a regenerative approach happening in all those areas: climate action at the top, socioeconomic rights coming underneath that and economic development, which is obviously necessary to ensure we have the finances, coming in and complementing the two on the top.

Senator Higgins spoke about an area that needs to be considered. The days of being able to come up with a completely defined plan that will work for the next ten years are gone. My background is in information technology. I was in the arena when it was big ten-year plans. Then rapid development came in and that is the only way to go because by the time a big plan is finished, it is out of date.

The PPNs would be ideal for this. Try a number of pilot projects around the place and see how that works. Try it. It might not work but we do not have the time or luxury to come up with a big, all-seeing plan.

KPMG did a housing analysis in respect of Clare. I do not mean to cast aspersions but I may be about to do so. KPMG did its analysis of the future affordability of housing in Clare for Clare County Council. To our knowledge, KPMG did not talk to anyone living in a house in Clare. One of the measures used to calculate the future of affordability of housing in Clare in our county development plan was GDP. One is left thinking, "Oh, come on." That measure is affected by industries such as financial services and aircraft leasing. We also have 10,500 empty houses in Clare. It is a non-functioning private market. I am not saying the State needs to run the whole market but it does need to intervene because the private market is failing to solve the crisis in Clare. The State needs to intervene in a way it is not intervening. Councillors have families growing up in their areas with care responsibilities, farms and whatever else. People who have a real local connection to the area cannot get planning permission because 5,000 holiday homes that got planning permission are sitting there and left mostly empty. People will not accept they cannot have houses when people who only use their houses three weeks per year can have a house. It is a justice, and not a human rights, issue. It is an issue of unfairness.

The population of Clare has increased. We were allocated 4,300 housing units by the Office of the Planning Regulator. We need those units now, not in the future. We need them to stop families becoming further marginalised because of the lack of housing in Clare. Is there a way we can take or get our hands on some of the empty houses? That would be the ideal solution from a climate perspective and every other perspective. These are not derelict houses; they are vacant houses. Using them would be far more climate-friendly for us than trying to plan for new houses. However, we have no means to make that happen. Are the councillors to say we are not to have housing and should depopulate our communities? One cannot expect people to vote against the interests of those who elect them. That is what I think is the situation being outlined. I am not saying that is everything. People like independence. Changes in behaviour must happen. We are not going to see rural depopulation in the future. We are going to see rural repopulation, considering all the factors. International factors include the likelihood that we will become a country of net migration. We are already seeing that. There are 3,500 new residents in Clare who were not there this time last year. That does not include the increase in population noted by the CSO. Some people are working remotely and travelling back to Clare. Change is happening fast.

Ms Sarah Clancy

A small whole-of-government action that could be taken is the Government could adopt a working definition of what "biodiversity" is.

We have been in meetings where people have said "biodiversity is very important for the tourists" and our guys are going "for all human life on Earth, actually". Simple things can be done, such as where we are using one definition of this and this is what we mean by biodiversity.

Two other things might be worth mentioning. Ireland has signed up to one aspect of the 30x30 campaign, which is that we will protect 30% of our marine areas by 2030, but the aspect to which we have not fully signed up is that we will protect 30% of our land area by 2030. It is very useful in terms of a framework. Coillte, for example, has control or oversight of 7% of that 30% we want to protect, so we already know 7% is in the hands of a semi-State agency. It would be worthwhile pursuing this ambition and then define what we mean by protecting 30% of that land because an audit of what land is owned by the State, what land is vacant and what land is being used should be possible. Again, it is a positive action that links our water quality and land use, which is an emotive issue in Ireland, to our climate goals target for 2030.

Declan Owens, a trade union legal activist from the North, has done a significant amount of work with community groups around taking a rights-of-nature approach to climate action. He has influenced our PPN to the extent that it passed a motion at the plenary that it would like us to do all our environment action from a rights-of-nature perspective. I will not go into the whole lot; I think everybody present probably knows it, but it would mean accepting that nature is not just something we can extract from to the nth degree but has a right to exist on its own and we are dependent on it. That lens might be useful because it seems to us to be one that people can grasp, possibly more so than referring to a particular subsection of sustainable development goal 11. The rights of nature seems to be a more immediately graspable concept for people. Those are a couple of things that have come out our way that might be positive lenses to use.

Senator Lynn Boylan

We will discuss the nature restoration law, which is the 30%. It is important that the committee discusses it. The witnesses might have seen how at the Oireachtas Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine, people had to withdraw statements. I do not want to give the witnesses more work around consultation but it would probably be useful for groups to make submissions to the committee regarding nature restoration laws because, again, it is an area where a lot of scaremongering and non-factual information is being put in the ether and there are vested interests. Many people are as interested in the biodiversity crisis as they are in the climate crisis. They see it. We see the loss of nature all around us. Every one of us can see the changes so it is really important that we hear everybody's voice when it comes to the idea of the nature restoration law and that it is not just the impact it will have on certain farms. This is about our communities and a crisis about which we should all be concerned. It is on our agenda and it would be useful if the witnesses could let people with a particular interest in it know that submissions to the committee would be very welcome. I am sure the Chairman would agree.

Mr. Charles Stanley-Smith

Ms Sarah Clancy

It is about dialogue, dialogue and more dialogue. I know we do not have time for it. Some of the best biodiversity and climate activists in Clare are farmers. From the narrative, you would imagine that the two never met but that is a shorthand view that does not represent circumstances on the ground. I am not saying that agriculture as currently practised is not hugely environmentally damaging. It is also damaging the commons, which is a justice issue. People in Clare other than dairy farmers have a right to clean water. There are competing rights at play. The only way they can be teased out is through dialogue. This is really simple.

I am not saying we are the best. We do loads of things wrong in Clare but our environment college invited Macra na Feirme to a meeting and chatted with it. It had a great meeting. The farmers, particularly young farmers, told it about the various biodiversity projects. It leads me to think that to a certain extent, the representatives of farmers are possibly the representatives of agribusiness rather than farmers. We saw the beef plan movement emerge in Clare. It has since dissipated but there are significant differences within farming and there needs to be a way to talk to people with their representative bodies but also in more relaxed settings away from the representative bodies to see what our common interests are. Farmers have a common interest in our environment, community, public transport and clean water, as do I. We have more common interests than differing interests. We need to create a place where those common interests can be discussed. That might be something worth talking about. I know the Government is doing climate dialogues. Change is hard. That is the main thing for most people. In particular, if you think you are going to lose something you think is part of your identity by changing, that-----

Chairman

We are going to write and publish a report in the next few months on climate action at community level. Mr. Stanley's network should have a strong voice in that, but we have to be mindful of the question of time. I know it would be difficult to get all of the people and groups together, consolidate the various views and come up with a consensus position, but if the PPNs were willing to do that, then I can speak for my colleagues when I say that we would be open to receiving such a submission and knitting it into our report.

Senator Alice-Mary Higgins

If we are getting that feedback, it would be useful in terms of the engagement of PPNs with Departments to see interesting and practical ideas around some of the new structures and other elements for strengthening the channels of input, for example, the weird gap between the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage and-----

Chairman

Yes. That point was well made. We will try to capture the essence of this meeting in the report. If the witnesses wish to reiterate or reinforce any point in a written submission to us, we would appreciate anything they give us.

I thank the witnesses for attending. We appreciate their time, effort and expertise. It has been an engaging and thought-provoking session.

The joint committee adjourned at 2.02 p.m. until 11 a.m. on Tuesday, 15 November 2022.

Joint Committee on Environment and Climate Action debate - Tuesday, 8 Nov 2022

Irish Experience of Community-led Climate Action: Public Participation Networks

Mr. Charles Stanley-Smith

Ms Cliona Kelliher

Ms Sarah Clancy

Mr. Charles Stanley-Smith

Mr. Charles Stanley-Smith

Ms Cliona Kelliher

Ms Sarah Clancy

Ms Sarah Clancy

Mr. Charles Stanley-Smith

Ms Cliona Kelliher

Ms Sarah Clancy

Mr. Charles Stanley-Smith

Ms Cliona Kelliher

Ms Sarah Clancy

Mr. Charles Stanley-Smith

Ms Sarah Clancy

Mr. Charles Stanley-Smith

Ms Sarah Clancy

Ms Sarah Clancy

Ms Sarah Clancy

Ms Sarah Clancy

Ms Sarah Clancy

Mr. Charles Stanley-Smith

Ms Cliona Kelliher

Mr. Charles Stanley-Smith

Ms Sarah Clancy

Mr. Charles Stanley-Smith

Mr. Charles Stanley-Smith

Ms Sarah Clancy

Ms Sarah Clancy

Ms Sarah Clancy

Ms Sarah Clancy

Mr. Charles Stanley-Smith

Mr. Charles Stanley-Smith

Mr. Charles Stanley-Smith

Ms Cliona Kelliher

Ms Sarah Clancy

Ms Sarah Clancy

Ms Sarah Clancy

Ms Sarah Clancy

Ms Sarah Clancy

Ms Sarah Clancy

Ms Sarah Clancy

Ms Sarah Clancy

Ms Sarah Clancy

Ms Sarah Clancy

Ms Sarah Clancy

Ms Sarah Clancy

Ms Sarah Clancy

Mr. Charles Stanley-Smith

Mr. Charles Stanley-Smith

Mr. Charles Stanley-Smith

Mr. Charles Stanley-Smith

Ms Cliona Kelliher

Mr. Charles Stanley-Smith

Ms Sarah Clancy

Ms Sarah Clancy

Ms Sarah Clancy

Ms Sarah Clancy

Mr. Charles Stanley-Smith

Mr. Charles Stanley-Smith

Mr. Charles Stanley-Smith

Mr. Charles Stanley-Smith

Mr. Charles Stanley-Smith

Mr. Charles Stanley-Smith

Mr. Charles Stanley-Smith

Ms Sarah Clancy

Joint Committee on Environment and Climate Action debate -
Tuesday, 8 Nov 2022