Joint Committee on Environment and Climate Action debate

Sustainable Development Goals: Discussion

An Cathaoirleach

The purpose of today's meeting is to discuss the sustainable development goals. There will be two sessions, the first of which will involve a discussion with representatives of Coalition 2030, Chambers Ireland and Social Justice Ireland. We will be joined in the second session by officials from the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications.

Coalition 2030 is represented by Ms Meaghan Carmody, co-ordinator, Ms Karen Ciesielski, co-ordinator of the Environmental Pillar, and Ms Sadhbh O'Neill, co-ordinator of Stop Climate Chaos. From Chambers Ireland, we are joined by Mr. Shane Conneely, director of policy and communications, and Mr. James Kiernan, director of relationships management. From Social Justice Ireland, we are joined online by Dr. Seán Healy, CEO, and Ms Colette Bennett, economic and social analyst. All the witnesses are welcome.

I remind members and witnesses 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. If their statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity, I will direct them to discontinue their remarks, and it is imperative that they comply with any such direction.

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

I will go first to Ms Meaghan Carmody for her opening statement.

Ms Meaghan Carmody

Gabhaim buíochas leis an gCathaoirleach agus le baill an choiste as an gcuireadh chun aghaidh a thabhairt orthu inniu. Coalition 2030 is grateful for the invitation to address the committee today on matters relating to the achievement of the sustainable development goals, SDGs.

Coalition 2030 is an alliance of 70 civil society organisations and networks across the international development, domestic anti-poverty and equality, environment and trade union sectors, all working to ensure that Ireland keeps its promise to achieve the SDGs by 2030, and to contribute to their achievement abroad.

As outlined in the Brundtland report of 1987, sustainable development means meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs. In 2015, all UN member states signed up to Agenda 2030, and with that committed to progressing the 17 goals and their 130 underlying targets. It remains today that the SDGs represent the only universally agreed framework for meeting the needs of all without overshooting planetary boundaries. The SDGs are deeply interconnected. A lack of progress on one goal hinders progress on others.

We are almost halfway through the period of time to achieve the SDGs, and the global community is facing a complex set of crises that are undoing gains on progress, namely, the cost of living, conflict, an acute global hunger crisis, and climate change, not to mention the impacts of Covid-19. In a 2021 Nature study entitled, The social shortfall and ecological overshoot of nations, it was found that no country currently meets the basic needs of its population at a level of resource use that could be sustainably extended to all people globally. In other words, no country is developing sustainably, including Ireland. The authors suggest deep transformations are needed to safeguard human and planetary health. Current trends will only deepen the ecological crisis, while failing to eliminate social shortfalls.

A core tenet of the SDGs is that states reach those in society who are the furthest behind, first. My colleagues and I from Coalition 2030 would like to give the committee a sense of the urgent action Ireland needs to take from an environmental and climate perspective if it is to meet its SDG targets, as well as to outline what we believe constitute key blockages to SDG achievement more broadly.

Climate change disproportionately impacts first and worst those who have done the least to cause it, both within and between countries. Nevertheless, Ireland’s emissions are still rising, and while the climate action plan contains welcome commitments, several weaknesses remain. In Ireland today, it is clear that the energy needs of those furthest behind remain unmet. For example, energy is a fundamental need which enables the fulfilment of multiple human rights, yet energy poverty threatens more than a third of Irish households. Initiatives to retrofit homes run the risk of leaving some people further behind, as the upfront costs make it inaccessible to many low-income households. The energy upgrade scheme designed to target households in energy poverty is not accessible to tenants in the private rental sector.

Travellers, in particular, experience significant levels of energy poverty, and are still largely dependent on the burning of fossil fuels. Traveller families in trailers are also excluded from access to retrofitting grants, and current policies and structures make it difficult to switch to using low-emission transport. Other groups, including people living with disabilities and single parent households, are at particular risk of extreme fuel poverty.

The one-off energy measures in budget 2023 do not go far enough, as once this money is gone, it is gone. What is more, energy efficiency measures and supports are not being delivered anywhere near the scale required and are not proactively targeting the increasing number of households at risk of energy poverty.

Any emission reduction targets for the residential sector must prioritise policies that result in a radical reduction in energy deprivation. Additionally, alongside increases in social welfare payments and the fuel allowance, wider accessibility to Government retrofitting schemes, grants and low-cost loans for retrofits are needed.

Coalition 2030 has identified a number of barriers to broad SDG implementation in Ireland. These include: inadequate resourcing of the SDG unit, especially given the sheer number of actions in the national implementation plan for which the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications is the lead; the lack of SDG integration into national and departmental budgeting; a dearth of reporting on SDG progress at target level; and the insufficient collection of disaggregated data also act as blockages to SDG progress. With seven years to go to achieve the SDGs, these obstacles must be unblocked in order to create an environment where the State has the best possible chance of reaching the goals in Ireland and abroad.

This year represents a golden opportunity for Ireland to demonstrate its commitment to sustainable development. For the first time in five years, Ireland will, in July, present a review of its SDG progress to the United Nations High-Level Political Forum in New York. With Qatar, Ireland is also cofacilitating the political declaration for the SDGs, which will form a core element of the SDG summit in September, which marks the halfway point to 2030. In this pivotal year, this Joint Oireachtas Committee on Environment and Climate Action has an opportunity to be a champion for the SDGs, ensuring that action for sustainable development leaves no one behind and reaches the furthest behind first. We strongly suggest that this committee regularly engages all relevant Ministers to assess SDG progress.

My colleagues and I would welcome questions and comments from the committee.

An Cathaoirleach

I thank Ms Carmody for her opening statement. I will go now to Mr. Shane Conneely of Chambers Ireland.

Mr. Shane Conneely

I thank the committee for inviting us here today. I will be outlining how we in Chambers Ireland use the sustainable development goals to guide our policy recommendations. I am joined by my colleague, Mr. James Kiernan, who is director of relationships with Chambers Ireland. James has been our in-house champion of the SDGs, and has been the one who engages with business on the ground. He leads our sustainable business council, and has been the powerhouse behind our SDG toolkit for business, which is being translated by our sister chambers internationally. He is here to answer any questions the committee has on the business engagement side.

As a network, Chambers Ireland strongly welcomes the increased interest which is being shown in the sustainable development goals by the Oireachtas, Departments and Government agencies. Chambers Ireland have been supporting the sustainable development goals since their inception. We are members of the International Chambers of Commerce, which has permanent observer status in the UN as a result of our collective support for the sustainable development goals. In 2019, our member chambers came together to sign a pledge to support the attainment of the sustainable development goals, and since then we have put the sustainable development goals at the core of all our activities. We use the goals as tools for creating coherence across our policy proposals and when it comes to developing greater awareness of sustainability issues within the business community.

Our first action regarding the goals was to identify those goals that were most relevant to our network. While acknowledging that there would be opportunities to promote the other goals, we selected five that would be our highest priorities. Our members throughout the network went through their own processes to determine which would be most relevant to them, and broadly we all landed on the same. In no particular order, they are: climate action; industry innovation and infrastructure; gender equality; decent work and economic growth; and sustainable cities and communities.

While we have these foci, we have found that the great strength of the goals, as a policy tool, comes in lending a holistic perspective on the issues our members face. Our members outline to us the problems that businesses are experiencing in their areas, and then we use the goals to help identify what solutions we should be pushing. We find that their greatest utility emerges from highlighting novel angles, insights and opportunities when seeking out solutions to problems.

One of the things that we do when making a submission, or lobbying about an issue, is to ask ourselves what other goals are relevant here. How does policy action pertaining to this issue impact, directly and indirectly, other goals that we want to achieve? How can our advocacy for other goals reinforce what we are trying to do in this instance? Can it help us identify new allies?

A case in point is our advocacy for better public transport. This is a key concern for our network because it is a quality of life issue, and quality of life issues are making it harder for businesses to attract and retain staff in the country. We are looking for better infrastructure, which immediately has us thinking about the industry innovation and infrastructure SDG. If you know our chambers network, you will know that for many of them, infrastructure will be seen as an end in itself. However, climate action also comes in here, because we can see that transport is an enormous component of our greenhouse gas emissions. This has led us to more advocacy for sustainable transport, and public transport, so that people have an alternative to using cars. This has led us to consider the impact that cars have had on our town centres, and how they have been undermining the economic potential of our towns and cities.

The long commutes that have been normalised impact quality of life further, damaging households and communities. This has led us to advocate for the activation of vacant and underutilised properties, because if people are living in town centres we can, on the one hand, offer them better public services more efficiently, and on the other, we are bringing customers to our members’ doorsteps.

Looking at transport issues from a gender equality perspective highlights things most of us in this room are going to be oblivious to, including how the lighting at public transport stops and the frequency with which trams and buses arrive stop women using public transport and keep them in their cars. This makes gender equality a climate action issue too. There is a naive way to look at this whereby we say this is a chicken-and-egg scenario and it is all so complicated that we do not know where to start. However, we have already started, we know what our shared goals are and we just need to remind our colleagues these are their goals too. What if we can get our colleagues in the Department of Health to emphasise the savings active travel brings to the health service when they are in their budget discussions with with the Department of Finance? If the Department of Justice comes to see vacancies as the huge public order problem they have become, we can then start acting on the widespread calls for joined-up Government. When used well, the goals are a tool for de-siloing public policy.

In addition to the solutions, the goals also help us identify where the problems are. Our chambers are deeply concerned that as things stand Ireland will not be able to meet our climate action targets, national development plan or climate action plan. It currently seems likely we will not be reaching our targets for offshore wind energy, despite the increased ambition for this. We fear our country is unlikely to be able to upgrade our energy networks to admit the quantity of renewable energy available to us. Without alternative means of transport and the decarbonisation of our energy infrastructure, it does not seem possible we will be able to meet our 2030 targets, nor our climate action goal. The issue here is our planning system. It has become the single greatest hurdle to achieving the sustainable development goals. We are more than half way towards 2030 and are supposed to be achieving our goals, but on climate action is seems the attainment of that goal is further away than ever.

I thank the committee.

An Cathaoirleach

I thank Mr. Coneely. We will now hear from Dr. Healy.

Dr. Seán Healy

Ms Bennett will make our opening statement.

Ms Colette Bennett

Social Justice Ireland welcomes the opportunity to discuss the sustainable development goals with the committee. As others have said, the SDGs are a blueprint to achieve a better and more sustainable future. Since before their introduction, when we talked about the millennium goals, Social Justice Ireland has produced a report every year as a contribution to the debate on the shape of Ireland, Europe and our world in 2030 and beyond. The aim of our sustainable progress index is to inform interested parties, including Irish and European citizens, policy-makers and business people, on how to adopt sustainable development actions. Our central goal is to show how Ireland compares relative to our EU peers. Knowing where we stand, identifying the most pressing sustainability challenges, and critically examining our performance is essential if we are to ensure a sustainable future for our country. Our latest report, published in February 2023, utilises 82 indicators across the 17 goals to arrive at our final index scores. As in previous reports, the focus of our analysis is the EU14 countries. It was formerly the EU15, but we have knocked one off for obvious reasons. Comparing relative performance among countries from a similar regional or income group is valuable in this context and the overall index is split into three sub-indices, namely, ones concerning the economy, the society and the environment.

The economy index relates to SDGs No. 8 on decent work and No. 9 on industry and innovation. Despite significant improvement in many aspects of the economy, especially, GDP and GDP per capita, and notwithstanding the issues with using those indicators as a measure, our broader measure of the economy shows there is significant room for improvement and Ireland ranks ninth relative to its EU peers on the economy index. We compute the society index by combining eight SDGs. Ireland is sixth overall here. Our relatively favourable position is driven by strong performance on the education theme of SDG No. 4, relatively good performance on peace and justice goals under SDG No. 16 and good health and well-being under SDG No. 3. The other SDGs in the society index are No. 1 which has the heading "No poverty", No. 2 is "Zero hunger", No. 5 is "Gender equality", No. 10 is "Reduced inequalities" and No. 17 is "Partnership for the goals", on which we rank seventh to tenth place.

Our analysis on the environment index sees Ireland in ninth place out of our EU14 peers. This implies our country faces significant challenges in meeting our commitment to the environment goals set out in Transforming our World: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. This index covers SDG No. 6. on clean water and sanitation, No. 7 on affordable and clean energy, SDG No. 11 on sustainable cities and communities, No. 12 on responsible consumption and production, No. 13 on climate action, No. 14 on life below water and No. 15 on life on land.

When it comes to our strengths, Ireland is in the top five for just three SDGs, namely, quality education, good health and well-being and sustainable cities and communities. The good score on SDG No. 16, headed "Peace, justice and strong institutions", indicates Ireland is a relatively safe place to live with reasonably good, transparent, effective and accountable institutions. Ireland's relatively good performance on good health and well-being does not take account of the Covid-19 pandemic due to the way we have to score the data that can be collected. However, the crisis has underlined the importance of every country having not just a good health system but an effective social protection system, as well as universal health coverage. We continue to perform very well on SDG No. 4, "Quality education", and this is is much as expected. From basic education to tertiary education, Ireland’s reputation for quality education is evident in the data, although some consideration should be given to the low rate of adult participation in learning and lifelong learning.

As to weaknesses, challenges lie ahead for progress on achievement of some goals. For example, several of the SDGs reflecting the environment present a less favourable picture of Ireland. Clearly, there are pressing sustainability issues that must be addressed, as reflected by the ranking of SDG No. 7, "Affordable and clean energy", SDG No. 12, "Responsible consumption and production", and SDG No.13, "Climate action". The low score on SDG No. 2, "No hunger", emphasises the need to embrace fully the idea of sustainable agriculture, while Ireland’s rank on SDG No. 9, "Industry, innovation and infrastructure", points to the need for further policy action with regard to logistics and broadband capacities.

Several of the SDGs are in the middle of the rankings, which implies there is a fair bit of scope for improvement. We should not be complacent in this. The objective of the 17 SDGs as part of the 2030 agenda was to set universal goals that meet the urgent environment, political and economic challenges evident in our world. Continuous monitoring of all the indicators that make up the goals is required in order to fully meet the aims of the 2030 agenda.

On how we are doing overall, the SDGs provide an ambitious, comprehensive plan of action for people, planet and prosperity. The goal of the SDGs is to change the perspective of public policy and we have shown the scale of the challenge facing Ireland under the headings of economy, society and environment. As for our composite sustainable progress index, we have argued previously there is merit to presenting one statistic to capture progress as it can quickly draw our attention to potential problems or issues that need to be addressed. The benefit of the aggregate measure here is it provides a simple report card to track Ireland’s overall performance on the SDGs compared to its EU peers, which are countries that have experienced similar levels of development. It is important to emphasise our analysis is based only on what can be measured. In spite of best efforts to identify data for the SDGs, several indicator and data gaps persist, especially for the environment SDGs. Those data need to be across the 14 countries we analyse. Good data and analysis remain critical to ensuring the SDGs become useful tools to support policy-making. As in previous years of the composite sustainable progress index, we see the Nordic countries, along with the Netherlands, top the rankings. Ireland is in eighth place in the sustainable progress index 2023.

The SDGs call on all nations to combine economic prosperity, social inclusion and environmental sustainability. Our analysis shows enormous challenges remain for Ireland under each of the three headings. For more information on this, all of our sustainable progress index can be accessed on our website, socialjustice.ie. We welcome any questions members may have.

An Cathaoirleach

I thank Ms Bennett very much for her opening statement. Members who wish to ask questions might indicate. We have about 90 minutes for questions and answers before we go into the session with the officials from the Department. I think we will have enough time. I will manage it with a view to giving everybody a fair hearing and getting the best out of the session.

I might ask one quick question of Social Justice Ireland first, if I may. It is about the methodology it uses. I am interested in its scorecard approach. Is there a similar organisation in each of the 14 member states that is doing something like this? If an organisation in another country was to look at Ireland, would it come up with the same numbers? I am wondering about consistency or just how verifiable the approach is. I ask the witnesses to please speak to that for a moment.

Ms Colette Bennett

First of all, it is rigorous. I cannot speak about whether there are similar organisations doing similar things with the same data. There does not seem to be a coalition of us doing it, but in regard to our own methodology, what we do is we select data that are comparable across the EU14 and then we overlay the dataset. The data come from official sources such as EUROSTAT and also Departments and trustworthy sources such as Transparency International, for example. Then we have overarching rules around relevance and applicability, so the data must be directly related, either an exact match, or a very similar match in terms of monitoring the SDGs. Some indicators for the data that we might look at for stunting or wasting would be less relevant to Ireland in terms of malnutrition. When we talk about hunger, we talk more about food sustainability. We also look at quality. The vast majority of statistics are from official sources: EUROSTAT, UN datasets, the OECD, the World Bank, the World Health Organization, Transparency International and Gallup.

We look for the most recent available data, but some data are still a couple of years behind. That is why our health data set is not taking account of Covid just yet. We hope that will be comparable for next year. For coverage, there must be something comparable across all 14 states. Otherwise, the index falls apart. We can only include indicators where we have the data availability for all 14 of the EU countries that we are looking at.

Dr. Seán Healy

I will just add to that. The report itself has several pages setting out in detail what Ms Bennett has just set out. Members might take a look at that at their leisure. It shows quite clearly the rigorous nature that this goes through. The key researchers on it are a professor of economics from New York and a professor of economics from UCC. They have been doing this work for us from the very beginning in 2015. They have done other work for us as well, but this work is their main work. If one likes, we can say their studies have stood the test of time.

An Cathaoirleach

I thank Dr. Healy and Ms Bennett. That is a very reassuring answer. It is such a valuable scorecard and it gives us a very strong sense of progress or the lack of it. It is so important that the data are verifiable, which I hear from the witnesses that they are. It is very much at the front of their minds that it is something we can trust.

Deputy Richard Bruton

I thank the witnesses very much for their presentations, which were very enlightening in giving us a picture of where we stand. I have two questions.

I ask my questions in the light of the latest report today from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC, which effectively says we are standing on the brink of a very serious environmental disaster with a rapidly closing window of opportunity to secure a liveable and sustainable future for all. The report also underlines the issue of how delay means higher costs. Where do the sustainable development goals fit into that sense of urgency to push through the political constraints all of us feel, which restrain action that is needed at the moment?

What is encouraging about the report is that there are still substantial numbers of low-cost options. A lot can be done, and we have significant opportunity with many of the highest impact ones. Where do the witnesses see the two approaches linking in: the balanced scorecard approach versus the much more focus-driven urgency? I find it difficult to mobilise people around 17 points. It is hard enough with one or two. Is there a better prism to see the crisis through than the SDGs?

I would like to get the perspective of the witnesses on the other major political blocs globally, apart from the European Union. To be fair to the European Union, it seems to be very much established on the political agenda with the European Green Deal, the reporting requirement directive for companies, and so on. There is very much a European drive to embed deep-rooted change but where do the witnesses see the other major blocs that are going to determine global progress? Where do they stand in these balanced scorecards? I would welcome the insight of the witnesses on that.

Ms Colette Bennett

I thank Deputy Bruton for that question. In terms of where the SDGs fit into all of this, I note with interest the comment on there being 17 of them and trying to keep track of them all. It provides a framework and blueprint to show that all of these things are interrelated. There is a tension between the discussion around climate change and what needs to be done because some of what needs to be done can be quite expensive at a household level. Ms Carmody spoke earlier about the inadequacy of some of the SEAI grants. We have said before, they are effectively a wealth transfer because it is only those who have the capacity to pay the upfront costs associated with measures like retrofitting that can actually do it and then we socialise things such as carbon tax. That is not to say Social Justice Ireland is anti-carbon tax - we are not, but it is an inherently unfair process. I tend to quote colleagues in community law and mediation where there is an environmental justice team. They have done some research with focus groups and what is coming out of that is when it comes to a choice between the end of the world and the end of the month, people have to feed their kids, so it can be very difficult to get people to make change at an individual level that can have a broader knock-on effect. It is very important that we have drivers at governmental and institutional level who can make that change and ease the transition for people who are on low incomes. While the changes to the retrofitting programmes that were brought in last year were very welcome, they still do not meet the needs of a majority of people. Those needs are in very stark relief now with the cost of living and the cost of energy.

Aside from that, as part of the report that we issued this year and last year, we looked at where the SDGs fit in with our national goals around our well-being indicators. We have 11 well-being domains, and we have targets to meet under all of those. The SDGs tie in quite nicely with all of those. By meeting our national targets, we could make progress towards our international targets. However, we are falling down in a number of areas. Again, in terms of there being no poverty, we have 671,000 people living below the poverty line, as of last year.

We have issues around sustainability in our food processes, energy and renewables. There is much that can be done in that context at a national and institutional level that would make a huge difference in terms of our progress towards the goals.

Dr. Seán Healy

Social Justice Ireland has tried to contribute. We acknowledge Deputy Bruton's comment about the difficulty of mobilising people around the 17 goals. That, in many ways, was what was driving us to be able to summarise it all in a single index score. I think that is a difficult thing to do. The easy option would have been not to do it but for us it was important.

On mobilising people, the comparison I would use would be something like GNP, GNI* or whatever. There are huge amounts of data going in there, different measures and so on but in the end you come out with a single number but it is the single number that is the focus and I think the same is useful in this context. We know we rank eighth out of 14 in our peer countries in western Europe. That says we have some distance to go and plenty of room for improvement. Then, when you look more closely, you can see which areas we are doing well on and which we are not. That is why we took the approach that we actually have taken because we do believe it is very important to mobilise people, and to mobilise policymakers around the SDGs. They provide a very useful tool in this context.

Mr. Shane Conneely

I thank Deputy Bruton for his questions. On SDGs versus other ways to motivate individuals, the first thing we can think about is where the SDGs came from. We saw the human development index being developed within the UN circa 1989 and 1990 and since then there has been an SDG index. All of these things are moving. They occurred for a reason and they are multifactorial for a reason, the reason being that GDP and GNP did not measure enough of what mattered so these are ways of introducing other things.

The Deputy has asked if it is important to have so many of these issues given that the big issue is climate change. The Deputy is correct that the big issue is climate change. However, staring into the eyes of the apocalypse is a difficult thing to do. We can use the goals as ways of framing solutions to the climate problem in terms of things which are more tangible, and things one can do in the community, business and society. That is the real strength of the goals. They give people paths to taking action as opposed to standing there and looking at the world but thinking that we are all producing CO2 and hastening, potentially, the end. The goals let us look at what we can do in our towns. How do we make our town a better town and more attractive to live in, and how do I make my home a better home for my kids? That is the kind of human scaling of the bigger issue that the goals facilitate.

Ms Meaghan Carmody

I thank Deputy Bruton for his questions. My colleague, Ms O'Neill, will respond to his question on how the IPCC report relates to the SDGs.

On the Deputy's comment about the potential of the 17 goals to mobilise people, there are other prisms, to use the Deputy's word, but there are no other prisms that have got unanimous buy-in from all UN member states. With respect, it is not up to us to decide necessarily to do away with one and I am not saying that the Deputy referenced that. The goals comprise the only framework that has been agreed by all UN member states. There are others and Ms Bennett referenced well-being frameworks but they have certain drawbacks. In Ireland, for example, it does not take into account the trans-boundary effects of policies in line with target 17.14 on policy coherence for sustainable development so that really needs to be addressed. There is also "donut economics", which I am sure that the Deputy has heard of. They all say approximately the same thing, which is that we need to stop over-shooting ecological boundaries and under-shooting social thresholds. We have seen in recent years what happens when climate action is taken without regard to the social impacts, and how that can hinder progress on climate action and many other policies. So it is this idea of strong sustainability as opposed to weak sustainability. Older diagrams of sustainable development would have a Venn diagram of society, economy and environment. However, more recent Venn diagrams have society and economy embedded within the environment thus acknowledging that it all relies on a stable environment. That is how critical and how crucial it is to work on climate action and the environment but the work needs to be in tandem with other policies. The value of SDGs is that they act as a backstop. If implemented correctly, and using proper policy coherence mechanisms, they can act as a backstop to certain policies having trade-offs in other areas. That is the real benefit of SDGs. We have not yet seen that policy coherence in Ireland and that is one of the blockages.

On the second question on international blockages, data is one that many countries are seeing. We call for our CSO to be resourced financially more so that we can have more regular, timely and relevant disaggregated data on the SDGs to know where we need to focus. I have mentioned the lack of policy coherence. There is also democratic back sliding, which is part and parcel of certain policies not taking into account their differential impacts. Obviously there is climate change and the resulting conflict, conflict separate to climate change and the impacts of Covid. All of those are common issues that prevent SDG progress more globally.

Ms Sadhbh O'Neill

I agree with the Deputy that the IPCC report, which was published yesterday, puts a renewed focus on the potential synergies between climate action and the other SDGs. The first thing to recall is that the SDGs, just like the Rio Declaration in 1992, represent a set of political commitments. SDGs can be used as a methodology or tool to track progress, as the Social Justice Ireland representatives have developed. Ultimately, SDGs are political commitments. They are an attempt to draw together a set of different political commitments that address fundamental, environmental and development challenges that were identified at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change was adopted in 1992. The convention incorporated the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities. There is a sense in which these concepts are being used in a legal sense to define the responsibilities of countries, and to ensure that climate action is not pursued in a way that does not target inequality both between and within countries.

On the IPCC report, what is interesting about the report that was issued yesterday and signed off by governments, is that it directly identifies these synergies and does so much more clearly than many previous reports. For example, one of the illustrations, which I think is on page 26, includes enabling conditions for climate policy, conditions that constrain and the way that these link with SDGs. Enabling conditions incorporates inclusive governance, integration across sectors and timescale, equal systems stewardship and so on, and behavioural change. The constraining conditions would be poverty, inequality and injustice. It is recognised that we cannot successfully adopt the mitigation measures that are identified in all of the IPCC reports without addressing the fundamental inequalities that are both barriers to climate action but drive further inequality and climate change in themselves.

The IPCC report is interesting in the sense that it does specifically address trade offs with SDGs and the need to integrate SDGs into climate responses. The report, when compared with previous reports, more directly addresses the co-benefits of climate action in so far as the benefits to human health, and through active travel, diets and improved air quality. These are much more directly mentioned than I recall from previous reports, which is very welcome. Again, these have been signed off directly by governments.

To answer whether the SDGs are useful, yes because they represent a set of political commitments that include and embrace climate action, and a safe planet for all.

Deputy Jennifer Whitmore

I thank all of our guests for their presentations.

From listening to the witnesses and reading through their documents, there is a focus on what individuals can do. We have quite a focus on this aspect in Ireland because everyone wants to do their bit. I wonder if there is too much of a focus on this approach. In reality, when we talk about retrofitting, we are not meeting these targets. Data centres use 14% of our electricity and this is more than all the rural houses in Ireland. It is clear, therefore, that while individuals should be doing things and we should be supporting them, we need to see systems change happen for us to meet our targets. We are not seeing this. It is clear the Government's actions and policies, and we have many policies and plans, are not translating into reduced emissions. We are still seeing our emissions increasing. I am interested in hearing the comments and thoughts of the witnesses on this point. Is our focus too much on individuals? Should it be more about the major players and how we can deal with the demand they are placing on the system?

Ms Karen Ciesielski

I do not think we could agree more with the need for systems change. While we, of course, encourage individuals to change their behaviour and to act, purchase and consume sustainably, we also need the State to lead from the front. This is especially the case when it comes to protecting nature. So far this morning, we have talked about climate action, but we have not talked about protecting nature and stopping the worst of the attacks on our threatened habitats and species.

For example, today is the International Day of the Forests. We have been speaking broadly, but to get a little more specific, it is appropriate to spend some time talking about forestry in Ireland. According to Forest Statistics Ireland 2022, some 11% of our land is forested. This is among the lowest in the EU. When we examine these figures more closely, we see a system that focuses predominantly on intensive production. This is worsening water quality and leading to additional negative pressures on our habitats and species, further threatening our biodiversity.

To take just one example within the rubric of the 17 goals, we need a new vision for Irish forestry and woodlands, which will bring with it ecologically and socially coherent sustainable land use that is protecting and enhancing our environment, diversifying our rural economy and creating spaces for work and recreation and overall enhancing the quality of life for rural communities. This is just an example of one thing we can do. When we look at the role of the State in this regard, Coillte manages more than 50% of our forested land, so it can lead from the front in this regard. We must use public lands, for example, in the public interest. To do this, we can explore changing the public, legal mandate of Coillte, and similar bodies like Bord na Móna, to ensure the State is leading from the front.

When we talk about systems change, we cannot overlook the fact that we regularly break the law in respect of our environmental legal obligations under the water framework, habitats and birds directives. To put this simply, we are not doing what we need to do to enhance, protect and restore biodiversity in Ireland. We cannot do it without enormous systems change, which the State must lead from the front.

Mr. Shane Conneely

We have to agree that systems change is critical. We think the reliance on individual action is a mistake. Our sense is that there has been a great neglect in Ireland of issues relating to climate action in particular, and not just locally but also at the European level.

Locally, we can look at the case study of the offshore energy regulatory framework. That fell apart in 2007. We spent 15 years trying to get a replacement put in place. We saw this embodied in another way in 2013 and 2014 in the context of the green investments everyone was trying to undertake. The Deputy brought up the issue of data centres. If we had not been neglecting this offshore aspect, data centres would not be an issue for us now. The symptoms we are experiencing are largely a result of a type of semi-malign neglect in respect of taking those kinds of decisions over the years.

At the European level, we can see an echoing in this regard. Our chief executive cannot be with us today because he is in Sweden, where there is a discussion of critical rare materials at the Eurochambres level and the legislation involved there. This context is critical to us at a European level. We need batteries for cars. We need the same materials for creating magnets for the wind energy sector. These are not necessarily available because 90% plus of that supply chain is based in China. This echoes something Deputy Bruton mentioned earlier regarding the other blocs. We have not been taking enough action in this space, either collectively as a bloc or individually as a country. It is very hard for businesses and our members to be taking the kinds of actions they must take to have sustainable businesses if the State is not also catalysing this change.

An Cathaoirleach

Quite a few of our guests are seeking to come in, so I will hurry them on if we go on a bit long. I call Ms O'Neill.

Ms Sadhbh O'Neill

I will be as brief as possible. Deputy Whitmore raised a very interesting point. It might be helpful to think about it not so much as individuals versus the system but, in a policy sense, in terms of whether we rely on market-based approaches or State regulation. When we look at the likes of the energy system, for example, the reality is that it is not possible to have it all one or the other. It is going to be a blend of the State regulating and providing essential infrastructure and long-term direction and strategy for the evolution of energy and electricity markets, while at the same time creating opportunities not just for private sector involvement to generate and supply electricity to the grid but also for our householders, consumers, farmers and businesses to do likewise. European electricity markets have gone through a series of radical reforms in recent decades. They are likely, however, to go through another round of considerable reform because of the way gas markets have influenced wholesale electricity prices.

I mention this as a way of pointing out that system change is going to happen and is happening already. The regulatory frameworks to support the electrification of transport, energy and buildings, etc., often lag behind what is required for us to achieve our targets. When we think about individuals versus systems change, therefore, the policy and regulatory frameworks and institutional capacities need to be fit for purpose. This comes back to the point made by Chambers Ireland concerning the offshore sector. If we cannot look ahead to the next ten, 20 and 30 years and ensure we have governance and legal structures that are fit for purpose as we electrify huge parts of our economy, then we will not be able to incorporate the renewable energy that is available to us. This will impact the achievement of other SDGs.

An Cathaoirleach

I thank Ms O'Neill and call Ms Bennett.

Ms Colette Bennett

I will also keep my comments brief. We must be clear about this being about much more than the environment and the energy sector, notwithstanding the fact these are critical to the SDGs. This also concerns the fact that there are 17 goals here and they are all interrelated and interdependent. If we take the goal of there being no poverty, for example, then we need to look at things like income adequacy. Individuals can only do so much concerning this element. People on core social welfare rates, for example, are far below the poverty line for the vast majority of household compositions. They have not been able to keep up with inflation because of the choices made in budgets. Equally, these people are also impacted by not being able to access long-term education and life-long learning. It is the same in terms of the lack of access to sustainable, appropriate accommodation. This has a negative impact on health. We have sought to privatise more and more in respect of social housing.

We have gone from social housing delivery to a social housing solution. We are moving backwards on sustainable development goal No. 11, which relates to sustainable communities. We are also moving backwards on health because we have privatised that sector to a great degree. We are not progressing on primary care provision to a real extent by supporting people at the point of need rather than the point of ability to pay. Again, that comes back to the poverty aspect. It is about looking at how moves can be made by institutions that have great influence, whether that be the State, which is a key driver, or in terms of responsible consumption and production. Individuals absolutely have an obligation to consume responsibly insofar as they can and their income allows them to do so. Instruments of the State also have that obligation. They have an obligation to ensure public procurement is fulfilling the sustainable development goals or at least progressing towards them. There should also be an onus on large corporations and organisations to do the same. Anyone with a Government contract should be under an obligation to demonstrate compliance with or progression towards the sustainable development goals.

Dr. Seán Healy

The answer to the Deputy's question is a very straightforward "Yes". Policy processes tended for a long time to give more priority to individuals and put more responsibility on individuals to reach goals. Systems have been ignored or certainly have not been attended to as much as they need to be. The classic example from an Irish point of view is that we have always consistently thought in policy terms of getting the economy right and everything else will follow. That is a fallacy. We have done a terrific job with the economy but we see where we are on everything from housing to health and a lot of other issues. We are talking about climate and all the rest of it today.

The key requirement is to understand that integration is critical. We cannot do one piece without the other. Of course we want a thriving economy, but to have a thriving economy, we must have decent services and that requires just taxation. If we are to put those three aspects in place and make them effective, we need participation by people generally in shaping the decisions that affect them. They must no longer accept the idea that they elect politicians once every five years and need pay no attention to them other than at that time. We need better real and better public participation. For all of that to happen, as has been pointed out, we need sustainability. That must include environmental sustainability, economic sustainability - the economic system has to be sustainable - and social sustainability. If we do not have social sustainability, people will not want to live in the society we are building. The bottom line is these five areas must be addressed simultaneously and with equal intensity and importance. If we do not do that, we will not deal with the systems failures we are currently facing. We will again find ourselves putting far too much emphasis on the responsibility of individuals and far too little emphasis on the importance of systems in generating outcomes we need.

Deputy Bríd Smith

I thank the witnesses for their contributions. I welcome this discussion. When I was a member of the Committee on Climate Action in 2018, with which Ms O'Neill engaged, much of the emphasis was on changing individual behaviour rather than system change. The change in the conversation we are now seeing is welcome. Previously, the discussion was mainly around why we needed a carbon tax. The argument was that we needed to change individual behaviour, despite the fact people had no options because they could not have a warm home without using carbon to heat it or they did not have access to public transport and so on. I will not rehearse the old arguments. We are seeing a welcome change in the debate.

The report yesterday by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC, reiterates these points. I have a question for Ms O'Neill, who gave a fine analysis of the report on RTÉ radio yesterday. There is one part of it I found extraordinary. It would be amazing if we could implement this particular recommendation. IPCC working group III has stated that "global Gross Domestic Product (GDP) would be just a few percentage points lower in 2050 if we take the actions necessary to limit warming to 2°C ... or below, compared to maintaining current policies". The reports states with confidence that mitigation options costing $100 or less per tonne of carbon could reduce global greenhouse gas emissions by at least half the 2019 figure by 2030. That is remarkable and our economies should be used to do it.

However, when we talk about system change, the problem we have is our system is dominated by the market. In her opening statement, Ms Carmody talked about the number of challenges we are facing, including the cost-of-living challenge, the conflict in the world, the acute global hunger crisis, climate change and the impacts of Covid-19. We can now add to that a possible recession, with the markets starting to get jittery over banks collapsing, including Credit Suisse and a number of US banks. There is the possibility of another global recession because this craziness is looming large. A system change must be about looking at how economies can work differently. We do not just need a different kind of government or, as Dr. Healy said, more democratic engagement between elections. All of that is perfectly fine. The problem, however, is that the markets dominate every decision we make. The markets are driving our housing policy as well as policy on health and climate. How can we get out of that? I would like to hear the opinions of all the witnesses on this. We need to have a serious conversation about challenging the existence of the market itself.

Energy is an example I draw to the attention of Ms O'Neill because it reiterates my concerns and the point I am making. If we were to take the energy market in this country back into full public control and give the ESB the mandate it used to have, which was a not-for-profit mandate, we could really transform overnight how we produce energy. We need to remove the profit motive and act for the common good, as was done in the 1930s and 1940s when the lights were turned on in every town and village, but this time we must do it with renewables. We must do it without the competition created by the market and the sort of chaos that brings to everything we try to do. That is the point I emphasise in regard to sustainable development goals and the very helpful report produced by the IPCC yesterday.

Ms Sadhbh O'Neill

I agree with Deputy Smith that some of the key highlighted points in the IPCC report stand out and are quite dramatic. I refer in particular to the point she referred to about this being within our grasp and that we can afford to do it. A cost of a couple of percentage points of global GDP over the next couple of decades is completely affordable and does not even take account of the avoided damages and the other co-benefits for health outcomes and so on, as I mentioned earlier. The question really is about what financial instruments we have in place to implement that policy. One example is a windfall tax on the profits of fossil fuel companies that could be used either to support domestic climate action and-or to support the new loss and damage fund at UN level that we hope will be introduced in the coming years to support vulnerable countries that are experiencing devastating climate losses. We must think not just in terms of the local benefits of that kind of financial instrument but also how it can support the sustainable development goals.

Regarding the energy markets, Ireland's approach will be guided by EU policy, which favours a blend of state and markets. We also must take into account that renewable electricity permits very small-scale generation. In Ireland, we do not see many energy co-operatives coming together to develop renewable energy and either sell it to the grid or use it in some community context. There are lots of opportunities we can explore that are not either specifically State-run monopolies or private sector enterprises but, rather, a kind of community and co-operative model that has been very successful in other countries.

I thank Deputy Smith for her question. Many of these factors may be out of our control because they happen on a global scale, but one thing, for example, that we could do on a domestic level to make a big impact would be to incorporate the SDG-proofing process in our annual budgeting. We can do that. Every SDG is linked with indicators, for example, around health, the environment and tackling poverty. If we were to link them to how we spend our money, because that is a choice that we can make domestically, we would see the impact and incremental systems change. In addition, ensuring public participation is happening in decision making is a critical factor in delivering system change. When we talk to people in the communities, as we have seen from the citizens’ assembly processes on climate action and as we await the biodiversity citizens’ assembly recommendations, which are due imminently, we see people want change. They want things to happen in their community to make them healthier and more pleasant places to live. They want sustainable food production. They want choice and they want those choices to be affordable and locally available. If we are putting money where are mouth is an ensuring that public money is spent investing in these changes, I think we would we see a big impact. Budgeting around the SDGs would be a strong signal to get there.

Dr. Seán Healy

On the point about linking the SDGs to the budget and so on, there is already a model. Every year since the SDGs emerged, Social Justice Ireland has badged every item in its budget analysis on the day after the budget or in its budget choices analysis of the options facing Government some months before the budget. It has badged every single item with the relevant SDG. They are all in those documents.

To answer Deputy Smith’s question, we need a conversation, without a doubt, on the items she raised. We need more than a conversation; we need to recognise that Ireland’s social contract is broken and we have a serious challenge ahead of us. In reality, the policymaking process in Ireland has not been prepared to delve into the processes on which our society functions at the depth that is required. The nature of work is changing profoundly. We have not been prepared as a society, and certainly policymakers have not been prepared, to go beyond the paid job approach to work and recognise that there needs to be change there.

We have not got to grips with the issue of income distribution and income adequacy Ms Bennett talked about earlier.

The dismissal by the policymakers, on the basis of bogus evidence that has been produced, of moving towards some kind of basic income system is just another symptom of the refusal, in the context of the policy process, to face up to the need for a different kind of world, economy, society and participation. We reiterate that the traditional approach to participation is not sufficient. There is need for a real social dialogue. The current Government and those that preceded it have refused to engage in a comprehensive social dialogue, however. The Government is doing the traditional thing of only talking to the powerful in society, that is, employers, trade unions and, to a lesser extent, farmers. It does not talk to the community and voluntary sector in a serious and integrated way that would encompass all policy, nor does it talk to the environmental pillar in the same space. Individual Ministers will from time to time talk to us on a one-to-one basis about their particular areas. However, what is always missing - we have been calling for it and suggesting ideas about how it can be done - is the idea of integrating all of them, putting them into a coherent whole and recognising that they are all part of an integrated system. There is a need for such an integrated system.

Deputy Darren O'Rourke

I thank the witnesses. I ask the them to reflect on the architecture involved. We have what I think is the second iteration of the national implementation plan. What are the witnesses' reflections on that? Is it a useful benchmark? Are there gaps? What is the witnesses' assessment of the plan? Will they speak to an issue that has been raised a number of times, namely, the data and information deficit? There are gaps in information. With regard to the national implementation plan, there is a considerable body of work to be done in order to imbed this into policy and decision-making and to have Departments take a cross-cutting approach to it. Will the witnesses comment on the progress that has taken place and the opportunities to do better?

Ms Meaghan Carmody

The most recent national implementation plan for the SDGs was released in October 2022. There was quite a delay with it. There are a number of gaps in implementation that we have identified. First, the committee shadows the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications. Ultimately, that Department is responsible for overall SDG implementation. We believe responsibility for implementation needs to lie with the Department of the Taoiseach in order to demonstrate the overall political leadership that was referenced earlier, which is a real enabler of system change. To date, we have not received a rationale as to why it is housed within the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications. We wish to hear why it is not within the Department of the Taoiseach. The well-being unit is in the Department of the Taoiseach. I have already pointed out some of the inconsistencies between that framework and the SDGs. Only one of them has been agreed by all 193 UN member states.

Second, we do not have a functioning mechanism with regard to policy coherence for sustainable development. There is a policy analysis tool for the well-being framework but not for the SDGs. The regulatory impact analyses are a key way to implement this and they are housed in the Department of the Taoiseach. We are seeing some inconsistencies that are hindering overall SDG progress and are key stumbling blocks in that architecture. With regard to monitoring and accountability, it is very positive to see lead Departments named in the most recent policy map from 2022. One will be able to see which ones the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications are responsible for-----

An Cathaoirleach

I will push Ms Carmody along. Quite a few members wish to come in and we only have 35 minutes left.

Ms Meaghan Carmody

No problem. I will point out one positive example from another country. The authorities in Finland - this is not currently the case in Ireland - have a national set of indicators that they update annually. These are analysed by experts. A progress report is developed. The Finnish Government submits this report to the Finnish Parliament, which gives feedback, and then there is a budgetary session to identify how the gaps can be remedied. At the end of every term, the Government has to report on SDG progress overall. There is no mandate for any Department here to report annually on its SDG progress at target level. That is another key gap.

In the context of interdepartmental work, the most recent minutes from the interdepartmental working group on the SDGs available online date from 2019. The group has met since, but the fact that there are no recent minutes shows the lack of resourcing. I am happy to send on some information to the committee.

Ms Colette Bennett

With regard to data gaps, we submitted to the then Minister for Communications, Climate Action and Environment in April 2018, under each of the 17 goals, a list of between one and four data indicator gaps that existed. We have called consistently for the Central Statistics Office, CSO, to have increased funding to monitor the SDGs and to produce a sustainable progress index of its own. We would continue to do that, but the data is publicly available should the Deputy wish to see it.

An Cathaoirleach

I think the then Minister is sitting with us. Or perhaps it was a previous Minister.

Ms Colette Bennett

It was a previous Minister.

Mr. James Kiernan

We welcome the national implementation plan, late as it was in arriving. It gives focus to regional goals for the SDGs, but there was one limiting factor in that there was not enough talk in the plan about resourcing to reach the goals and many targets. We would welcome resourcing to support us as we reach the targets. There are many ambitious ways of doing it, but how will they be sufficiently resourced? We wish to see more resourcing in the Department and for the SDG forum, which is driving much of the implementation in many areas in it. We are a member of that forum, along with many organisations and colleagues in that space. We see that as the main omission. Another area is that of a standardised reporting system to see where businesses in our organisation in particular - we have more than 8,000 members - can engage with the SDGs to see how they are doing on them. We see much about environmental, social and governance, ESG, goals at present. ESG is a topic on which many companies engaging, but they are very large companies. We wish to see smaller businesses engage on reporting around sustainability. However, there are many different reporting mechanisms at present. We wish to see Government support one that it sees as a benefit to businesses in the area. We would have our opinions on that, as well, but the lack of resourcing in the plan is a particular issue.

An Cathaoirleach

Senator O'Reilly is giving her time to Deputy Ó Cathasaigh.

Deputy Marc Ó Cathasaigh

I thank the committee for its indulgence. I am not a member but, as the Chair knows, the SDGs are one of my hobby horses. I thank Senator O'Reilly for giving me the opportunity to contribute.

It is a positive that committees have begun to step up when it comes to SDG implementation. The Joint Committee on Social Protection, Community and Rural Development and the Islands had a session on it and the Joint Committee on Education, Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science, of which Senator O'Reilly and I are members, has it on its work programme. As the committee shadowing the Department that has lead responsibility for the implementation of the SDGs, this committee has an especially important role, not just within the SDGs that would be an obvious fit for this committee, such as those with regard to climate action, life on land or below water, or clean water, but for the full policy suite of the 17 SDGs.

I take this opportunity to compliment Chambers Ireland. It might not have been the quarter where I expected to see the best-quality work on the practical implementation of the SDGs. Chamber Ireland's toolkit is absolutely exemplary. The work it did in respect of town centres, where it took the first-principles approach of applying the SDGs target by target rather than goal by goal, and drilling down into those 169 targets, was absolutely exemplary.

It is the type of first-principles approach we need to map into all our policy work and not just have this kind of retrospective badging we often get where somebody says "Which of these pleasant little pictures can we put beside a policy directive?" Chambers Ireland really drilled down into this and gave a practical and implementable roadmap to the members of its network. I compliment it on that.

I have any number of questions, but I will restrict myself to five. I am probably looking to take advantage of the Cathaoirleach's leniency a little. Mr. Kiernan has gone into this to some degree. What is his impression of the SDG implementation plan that was issued by the Department and of the policy map that goes with it? While I welcome having those lead Departments involved, it does not break down the difficulty with siloed thinking. My impression is that Departments think they have a responsibility for particular goals and that those are the goals they are going to look at, as opposed to taking a holistic view of the 169 sub-targets, going through them line by line and seeing which ones relate to them. What is the witnesses view of the implementation plan? Clearly, this is the lead committee. In addition, it is the most important committee in terms of a comprehensive overview. What other committees are seen as lead players in taking a comprehensive approach to the SDGs? Agriculture jumps out for me-----

An Cathaoirleach

As the Deputy is asking five questions, for which I will give him time, I ask that he direct them to certain witnesses, otherwise we will not finish by 1 p.m.

Deputy Marc Ó Cathasaigh

I will do my best. Those were both general questions.

I refer to Coalition 2030 in the context of the integration of SDGs into Government policy and the business relating to first principles as opposed to retroactive badging. We saw a good example of this in the climate action plan. I know they used the SDGs accelerator tool in order to take a first-principles approach. Do we need to have a more comprehensive approach to that in order to ensure that the SDGs are embedded in and stitched into Government policy, as opposed to retroactive badging taking place?

My fourth question is on international best practice. Finland was mentioned. Iceland has aligned its well-being framework very closely with the SDGs, essentially making one shadow the other. Our well-being framework is close to but quite separate from the SDGs. Is there other international best practice that the witnesses could point the committee in the direction of?

This is a big year in terms of set pieces for the SDGs and Ireland's participation in that regard. Ireland has a particular responsibility towards to SDGs in that, along with Kenya, it was one of the lead negotiators in getting the SDGs across the line at the UN. We will have a similar role coming up in September when we will review the SDGs. In July, we will have a high-level political forum at which we will present our voluntary national report, which is very important. This committee will have a big part to play in both these set pieces in influencing what it is the Government wants to achieve in those set pieces. From the witnesses' point of view, what would they like the Government to achieve, at an international level, during what are pivotal set pieces for the SDGs this year?

Mr. James Kiernan

The question on the implementation of the current plan and siloed thinking within Departments was directed to me. We need to do a lot of work within the various Departments to educate people about the interdependency of the SDGs. An example of this would be us talking to businesses about life below water. This is an SDG that businesses thought would not affect them, but it actually does. An example of this would involve the plastics produced by businesses. Much plastic finds its way into our water systems in the form of microplastics. Businesses can have an effect on this. There are education programmes in that regard. We could do something similar within Departments in order to get away from siloed thinking and get an understanding that there is an interdependency between all 17 goals and 169 targets. If we increase the knowledge in that regard, the concept of siloed thinking will be broken.

Chambers Ireland contributed to the voluntary national report; we wrote a chapter on businesses' application of it. We would love to see an urgency around this and around the fact that, in July, we should convey the urgency of where we stand in 2023 while looking towards 2030. There will be a review, as the Deputy said, in September. We need urgency on this and we need to outline the actions required in order to hit our targets, otherwise we are not going to hit any of them. That urgency will need to be conveyed in July.

Mr. Shane Conneely

A case in point on how not to do it is how the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine did it with the five goals it selected. We took five; there are obvious reasons for taking five because there is a lot in 17 goals. Claiming that SDG 17 is one of your core SDGs is a box-ticking exercise. We would like to see is an introspection within Departments to figure out how they are affecting the other 169 targets because they are affecting them and they need to consider that in all their actions.

Ms Karen Ciesielski

One of the main weaknesses or barriers our colleagues in Chambers Ireland referred to is that the SDGs are not being used as a policymaking tool. They are being applied retrospectively, as Deputy Ó Cathasaigh said. Let us look at our food system, for example. If we were to take it seriously and say we want to achieve a sustainable food system that looks at life on land, life below water, inland water bodies and air quality, it would fundamentally alter the way we produce and consume food. The key to unlocking SDG achievements is to use it before policy making as opposed to afterwards, seeing which ones we can apply through a particular policy.

Ms Meaghan Carmody

I thank the Deputy for his questions. I will answer his fifth one on Ireland's role in what has been described as the centre point of 2023 by the UN Secretary-General. In terms of what we can influence, we can be honest about how we are doing on the SDGs. For many countries at the high-level political forum, it has been described as a postcard. They only showcase what they are doing well. We must be really honest about how far we need to go to reach some of the targets and what we plan to do to get there and involve people in that conversation - public participation has been mentioned a few times - so that we can showcase the commitment to being honest and having integrity.

We could have a Dáil debate. Members have a very particular role, as the Deputy said. What needs to happen before the high-level political forum is that there needs to be a debate in both Houses of the Oireachtas on where we are in terms of the SDGs. As an outcome of this meeting, we would like the committee to take that forward and to write to the relevant Ministers and departmental officials around the issues raised today.

There is also the example of Finland. It would be fantastic if Ireland could commit to the type of policy process I outlined earlier and to potentially ask a member of the Finnish National Commission on Sustainable Development to come before the committee to speak about that governance architecture. They are an example of a few of the things that could be done.

An Cathaoirleach

Deputy Ó Cathasaigh can make Dáil debates happen. We will leave that one with him. Would Ms O'Neill or Ms Bennett like to come in?

Ms Colette Bennett

I could not agree more with Ms Ciesielski. I was nodding my head vigorously in terms of not looking at retrospective tagging but using it as a framework, which is what it is meant to be. Similarly, in regard to our well-being indicators. One can tag or connect each of the well-being dimensions to the SDGs if one wants to pull it back into national policy. Again, these things will only work if they are used as policy frameworks under which we then make our policy as opposed to being badges we stick on policies that are already there.

In terms of international best practice, everybody has mentioned Finland. They always seem to be the good example, them and the Swedes, but there are others. The whole human rights approach that Scotland is taking with its commission is really positive.

We have the Welsh example. Deputy Ó Cathasaigh is very familiar with what is happening in Wales. He brought over staff from the Office of the Future Generations Commissioner for Wales. There is the whole well-being context with Canada and child poverty. New Zealand was very much to the forefront in respect of that matter. There are examples of best practice available that we can learn from. We should do all of that, but I am hesitant because it might delay matters again. Realistically, we should not need to learn from these various international departments and commissions, because we already know what is involved. We already have a framework. We were one of the leaders in implementing this in 2015, and then it fell off the agenda. It was almost like the work had been done before it had even been started. We know what needs to be done. It is about looking at policies that connect everything. If we are talking about anything, whether it is food sustainability, energy sustainability, poverty, or business, the question is how does it impact on each of the SDGs. It is guaranteed that it will have an impact on each of the SDGs.

Senator Alice-Mary Higgins

I thank all of the witnesses. What Ms Bennett said at the end was very interesting, which is that it is there already in that it is not an aspirational document, it is a very practical blueprint which has targets and sub-targets. One of the things I am interested in is how we begin to push the conversation to being about the targets and the sub-targets. Regulatory impact assessment, was mentioned. Could the witnesses expand a little bit about the tools for assessing in advance? The key one, which has been touched on already, is the budgetary process, but I would welcome any further points the witnesses might wish to make in that regard. The current implementation plan seems to be to pilot the well-being budgeting and then think about bringing in SDG budgeting rather than, for example, ensuring that our well-being budgeting and our SDG budgeting are aligned. We are running out of time. We must ensure that the targets and sub-targets are there and are aligned. Could the witnesses comment on the need to accelerate matters with regard to budgetary processes and the regulatory impact assessment? Could they also comment on the importance of that, not just for the good things, which we have spoken about, but also in respect of the bad things? What happens is that we get the good policy, there is a pilot and that is highlighted. This point is relevant to our committee. SDG sub-targets 14.4 and 14.5 are on ending overfishing and marine protected areas, yet we know Ireland took a decision today not to oppose the end of bottom-trawling. How important is it to ensure that we are scrutinising the decisions being made to make sure they are not moving us backwards on the SDGs rather than just finding the examples that move us forward? That is just one I picked today, but the targets are very specific, they are not abstract. It is very clearly stated that we must regulate against overfishing in 14.4, and to ensure that marine protected areas have strong protections, including against overfishing, in 14.5. It is there. How do we achieve that?

This fits very much what Chambers Ireland said. I like that its presentation talked about the choices. If there is a problem, there are five different ways to solve it, but when we bring in the SDGs, we get a way that solves it and also does two other good things. I like the point about transport, which was very interesting. I have a specific question for Chambers Ireland which is related again to something on which it has been very strong, which is a place-based approach where we recognise that the SDGs happen in real places - towns and communities - as well as on a real planet. We missed a little bit of an opportunity in the context of local development plans because we are almost still at the awareness-raising level locally, whereas there is lots of new local development in city and county development plans. I would welcome a few thoughts on how important it is to resource almost a retrofitting of our local development plans and community development programmes.

On the international aspect, we will be counting for ourselves in July but we are meant to be leading the negotiations in September. I appreciate what was said about being honest. There is a mix between being honest but not using it as a chance to offer excuses. It will be very hard for the other 198 countries if the wealthier countries are all saying that they only had X% growth and are only in the top ten or 15 wealthiest countries this year and that it is a tough time for them. It is very hard for 180 countries that are having a much tougher time if they see wealthy countries making excuses for themselves regarding the SDGs. Could the witnesses comment on the importance of the sustained ambition and pushing the example, and within that a very specific example? There is another specific target whereby, in the context of the SDGs, $100 billion in climate finance to the developing world is required annually. This was meant to be by 2020, but Ireland is talking about getting there in a couple of years’ time. It is hard to see why a wealthy country cannot just pay its share now. As I understand it, $475 million would be our share of the $100 billion. For example, would it not be a good thing if we were to pay that now and then give some confidence and credibility when we go in to discuss how countries are getting around to achieving those goals? That is one of the points on climate. I have loads more questions but I know our time is limited. It would be great to get answers to those questions.

Ms Meaghan Carmody

I will comment briefly on RIAs and, if it is okay, I will then pass over to Ms O'Neill to speak about climate finance.

Some of the questions Senator Higgins has on regulatory impact assessments are ones we also have. Officials are coming in later and we would really like to know how they are employing RIAs. There is a full RIA and there is a screening RIA. We are unclear about the circumstances in which each is used. We know they are in the Department of the Taoiseach, but it is not clear if they are public. It is very important that policy is evidence based so that it is clear where the trade-offs are emerging.

An Cathaoirleach

With respect to the example of the decision on bottom-trawling in fishing that Senator Higgins gave, why are we doing this if it says in the SDGs that we should not be? It looks like there is no assessment happening.

Ms Meaghan Carmody

Exactly. Where is the information and where is the evidence of that process having happened? This really is the cornerstone of policy coherence for the SDGs and them being a tool for public policy. This must be ramped up and how this process is being used must be made very clear. It is a question we would really appreciate members to ask officials this afternoon.

As for the point about honesty, I appreciate that it does not equate to an excuse. We very much hope that the Government's integrity and a commitment to honesty do not equate to kicking the can even further down the road but more a public communication of where we are, where we need to be, and what we are going to do to get there. That involves approved data. Ms Bennett mentioned that SJI has been pushing for increased resourcing of the CSO in terms of SDG data collection for many years. I appreciate that we have a lot more resources at our disposal in Ireland to be able to push the SDGs and we need to do a lot more, both in Ireland and to facilitate SDG achievement around the world.

Ms Sadhbh O'Neill

I thank Senator Higgins very much for her question about how we push the conversation to targets, sub-targets and the budgetary process. In regard to climate, the obvious place to start is in climate-proofing Government decisions, specifically around infrastructure and projects that are listed in the national development plan. In addition to that, local authorities are now going to be required to produce climate action plans this year, and there is a role there for the public participation networks, PPNs, to be involved as well. There are many opportunities for climate considerations and for the emissions impact of essentially political decisions to be evaluated in advance. I mention this because these are the politically controversial decisions of the day. Politicians have wish lists for roads and other local projects that they want to see funded by the State. Unfortunately, the manner in which certain projects make their way onto lists, given the long lead-in times for road projects in particular, does not lend itself easily to being evaluated for climate impacts in a timely fashion. Shadow pricing is not sufficient. We need to look well beyond just the carbon cost of an investment and look at the emissions impact and how that relates to the carbon budgeting cycle. These are technical evaluative mechanisms but they are critical to ensure that, as colleagues have said, we are assessing projects against the SDGs in advance of approving and funding them.

The second point on climate finance is also extremely important. My understanding is that the Government argument is that it does not have projects to invest in. It does not have NGOs with capacity to invest in. Other people have to scale up their actions in order to provide that level of climate finance. I do not think that stacks up at all. There are many ways in which the Government could invest in that recognised 0.7% of GDP. There are many avenues available other than the traditional ones through overseas development assistance, ODA. I understand the development organisations are critical of the fact that the Department does not want to spend its climate finance contribution outside of the ODA framework. However, as international negotiations proceed around loss and damage and other financial facilities that might open up, we see there are other ways and avenues to support adaptation, mitigation and climate finance outside of existing frameworks. They should be explored in detail. I wholeheartedly agree that there is no reason Ireland should not be meeting its full obligations in this manner.

Ms Karen Ciesielski

I am glad the Senator raised the matter of fisheries. Ireland still has some way to go, as does the EU, to end overfishing in its waters. A key finding of the marine spatial framework directive 2022 was that a total of 34 stocks have achieved good environmental status. That refers to fish stocks. The environmental status of 60% of our stocks is currently unknown. In the case of 44 other stocks good environmental status has not been achieved. The key point is we are not doing enough to ensure that we are not fishing unsustainably. The fact is there is scientific evidence we choose to ignore when it comes to fisheries, and to building a sustainable fisheries economy that would also benefit the communities living along the coast, while protecting our marine environment for future generations. We recently announced two offshore special areas of conservation, bringing our marine protected area, MPA, coverage to 8.3%. We warmly welcomed these announcements. However, this still falls short of the 10% of MPA commitment we were supposed to reach in 2020. We have a long way to go before reaching the 2030 target of 30% of our MPAs. Meanwhile, MPA legislation is currently going through the Dáil. This would copperfasten in Irish law for future generations something we hope will be robust, ambitious and effective. Another policy driver already in place is the national biodiversity action plan. We want to ensure that is well resourced, well funded and target driven.

To answer the Senator's question there is a certain number of things we can do. The first is to follow the science when it comes to fisheries. The second is to ensure the laws we have in place are robust and efficiently managed through, for example, the MPA legislation. There is also the EU nature restoration law which is currently going through in the European Union. If it is robust and ambitious that will go a long way to protecting biodiversity in our marine, coastal and inshore areas.

Ms Colette Bennett

I will be brief. On the subject of tools for assessment, the Department of Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform has a framework in which it can look at policies and their impact in other policy areas and Government Departments. They demonstrated that to the National Economic and Social Council, NESC, working group on the well-being framework. That is perhaps something to explore further with them. That capacity is there, as is the template. That would lend itself to that whole budgeting piece, in terms of how it is brought in to frame the budget as opposed to tagging the budget.

The piece around local development and local authority climate action plans is very welcome, but given how centralised our Government is the leadership has to be led by central government. They have to be properly funded and resourced. The staff need to be there to implement it. They have to be enforced where enforcement mechanisms are appropriate. There is a lot to do from the perspective of central government to get the local development plans up and running.

Finally, on climate finance we have been arguing, along with others, for the decoupling of climate finance from our ODA commitments, because they were agreed under separate declarations and agreements. They are essentially separate. However, the Overseas Development Institute, ODI, published a report in 2021 stating that at that point Ireland had paid just 33% of its climate finance share. Even if, therefore, we met our commitment to another €80 million we would only be meeting 26% of our share. There is a huge amount of work to be done.

Dr. Seán Healy

I have a short but important point, which has not been mentioned so far. In terms of the budgetary process and integrating the SDGs into the budget process, the two key Departments where the budget is concerned are the Department of Finance and the Department of Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform. There is an issue there that needs to be dealt with. That is the issue of the culture in those two Departments. I am not talking about the Ministers or the politicians. I am talking about the culture in the Departments. In my experience of working with them on budgets for almost 40 years, those Departments have a strong culture with a great capacity for incorporating stuff in rhetoric, but not in reality. What we are looking at in the SDGs are a set of goals that do not have anything remotely close to acceptance or commitment by the policy makers in the Departments. I assume the committee will be speaking with some of those in later sessions. The bottom line is that they can talk the talk, but when it comes to walking the walk and making it part of the budget process the evidence is extremely thin. The challenge there eventually goes back to Government. The Government has to be extremely strong in pushing these. Unfortunately, while there are some strong advocates in Government there is a substantial portion that is not really committed to making these happen. It would require serious Government commitment to ensure they become part of the dialogue that goes on between those two Departments and the line Departments as they would be referred to. This would make sure they are linked and the SDGs get a real role in the decision making.

Mr. Shane Conneely

I have been saved by the bell here. I will be brief. The place-based approach brings the goals home and makes them concrete. It is part of people's lives. We suggest there has been a mood change in the public and the business community in recent years. It is more challenging with businesses because there have been repeated crises that have distracted businesses, which want to be sustainable but are trying to survive day to day and week to week. There is much wider social engagement at this point, certainly compared with the 2014 pylon protests.

On the local development plans, local actors are important. I particularly emphasise the city and county managers. They are the ones who make decisions that shape our daily lives. I particularly agree with Ms Bennett on resourcing, particularly in the areas of local authorities and skills. There is a need to upskill the planning authorities at every level to bring in multidisciplinary teams that can make the robust decisions that will sustain scrutiny in the long run.

We agree with the Office of the Planning Regulator that environmental objections are likely to be the principal source of objections into the future and that means that the decisions that are made at that level and at An Bord Pleanála level need to be robust. Complementing that, we need to see much more financing and resourcing of the proposed planning and environmental court to ensure that it can hear these decisions speedily. One concern that we have with regard to the current trajectory of the planning legislation is that it is trying to avoid scrutiny by the courts. Ultimately, it will undergo scrutiny by the courts. That will require very high-level Supreme Court judgments and potentially European Court of Justice judgments to see if that is acceptable or not, and that will delay action. We need a well-resourced local decision-making process that can deliver decisions effectively and quickly.

An Cathaoirleach

The implementation of a robust climate adaptation policy to support SDG goal 13.1 is extremely important to ensure that Ireland’s economy, infrastructure and society are resilient to the impacts of climate change. The development of a new national adaptation framework, NAF, by the end of 2023 is a key priority for the Department in terms of meeting this goal.

While it is evident that the recently published climate action plan 2023, CAP23, plays an important role in contributing to environment-related SDGs, in particular SDG 13, climate action, the result of an assessment of the plan demonstrated that CAP23's impact extends well beyond climate action to span all three dimensions of sustainable development: the economic, social and environmental.

The findings of the assessment highlight that all 17 SDGs are being progressed to some extent by actions set out under the plan. This demonstrates the comprehensive and cross-cutting work required to progress climate action, and the importance and value of the climate action plan in promoting and progressing sustainable development in Ireland. At target level, 85 out of 169 SDG targets are being progressed by actions set out under CAP23.

The core pillars of the national dialogue on climate action, NDCA, include raising awareness of climate change; engaging and empowering the public and stakeholders to take climate action; promoting climate literacy through education, improving human and institutional capacity; and facilitating public participation in the development of climate policy.

The Department published the SDG national implementation plan in October 2022. The plan sets out five strategic objectives and 51 actions, with 119 individual measures to increase Ireland’s ambition and strengthen implementation structures to achieve the SDGs.

I thank the committee for inviting my colleagues and I, and I am happy to answer any questions.

An Cathaoirleach

I thank Ms Egan. I ask members to indicate if they wish to ask questions. I will go first. In the session we just had, we had various stakeholders in with us, including Coalition 2030, Chambers Ireland and Social Justice Ireland. One of the points that emerged - and maybe it relates to Ms Egan's final remarks on SDG target 17.14 - is the implementation piece. The point that was made was that it should be the responsibility of the Department of the Taoiseach rather than the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications. That is not Ms Egan's call, but with regard to the implementation piece, she has given us a very helpful update on progress on a number of pieces which sit within the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications.

What oversight mechanism is there for the other Departments? As the lead Department, does the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications have a role in the oversight piece, over the other Departments?

Ms Karen Egan

Ms Hannah Gilmartin will take the question.

Ms Hannah Gilmartin

I work in the sustainable development goals unit, and I am the assistant principal there. We were in charge of publishing the new national implementation plan. There are a number of governance measures in place to progress a whole-of-government approach to the SDGs. We have the SDG senior officials group, and the SDG inter-departmental working group, so there is a member of each Department on that group. They report back to us, so we have oversight of how the SDGs are being progressed.

There is also the Central Statistics Office, CSO, data governance board, which is responsible for identifying and monitoring progress in respect of the SDGs by gathering the relevant data. We will be publishing our 2023 voluntary national review shortly, and will be presenting it to the United Nations in July. As part of that, the Central Statistics Office has put together a dashboard which will give a high-level overview of how we are getting on with achieving all of the 17 goals. At the moment, it has published statistical progress reports for 16 of the goals, individually, with a lot of data behind it, but for the first time we are going to have this high-level oversight of how we are doing. It will be like a traffic light system. This will be really helpful for stakeholders, in particular, who want that quick look at how we are doing. That will be available in April.

An Cathaoirleach

I thank Ms Gilmartin. I have two further questions coming from that. It was mentioned by representatives of Chambers Ireland, who gave the example of the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine selecting five SDGs to concentrate on, that they felt those five SDGs were not that relevant to that Department, such that it was essentially a "tick box" exercise. There is a concern that this can happen if the Department has autonomy over which sustainable development goals it pursues.

The Deputy's first question was on the effectiveness of assigning lead Departments to SDG targets and whether this potentially allows Departments to sidestep their responsibility for other SDG targets. The thinking is very much that assigning lead Departments to SDG targets promotes ownership of at least those targets. What we are now doing is further promoting discussion on the idea that a Department's policy or strategy does not just contribute to its own targets but to a wide range of them. There is a piece around mapping all of the targets. The tool will help us to do this. As part of the voluntary national review, we have also mapped 12 other national policies so we are getting a bigger picture as we go. The intention is to continue mapping policies. We can then get a high-level picture of which targets are being progressed by which policies. This will allow for a better assessment of how targets are being progressed and who is contributing to them. Assigning lead Departments is still important, however. It provides clarity and a contact point for stakeholders, something which is set out in the SDG policy map. When we are looking for updates on targets, the lead Department will take the co-ordinating role and liaise with the stakeholder Departments. It allows for a certain level of responsibility away from one centralised team. Other Departments are taking responsibility.

The Deputy's second question was on the voluntary national review and how open and transparent our report will be.

Just on that, if are just using that example, with the smart metering programme, essentially Ms Gilmartin is saying those policy teams do not need to wait for those different governance structures. Is that currently being reviewed, because I believe it is one that is not working?

Ms Rebecca Minch

The Deputy makes a very important point about smart metering. Obviously, the actual physical roll-out of the smart metering infrastructure is a very big undertaking. That is progressing well in terms of being at 1.1 million meters, but it is a very fair point the Deputy makes about it being the use of the meters and that it is not just enough to have them on the wall. She is right. There is clearly a need there for more work to activate the actual use and realise the potential of smart meters.

As the Deputy will be aware, there are a quite a number of parts to this issue. There is a very important role for the Commission for Regulation of Utilities in that in reviewing the tariff structures, because that is quite a sea change for people to start to use their energy differently.

The other dimension to bear in mind here, and I think it keys in very much with a lot of what is happening across the SDGs in terms of the behavioural change piece in this, is that smart metering is part of an even wider agenda around demand management and data.

An Cathaoirleach

We do not have time to get into a detailed discussion about smart meters.

Ms Rebecca Minch

I am very conscious of that, yes.

An Cathaoirleach

We will keep it a high level, if that is okay, Deputy Whitmore. Are you happy enough?

Deputy Jennifer Whitmore

Yes. It is about the number of different mechanisms. If the witnesses are saying the key developments in relation to the SDGs from the departmental perspective are programmes like this, it should not be the programmes that are key developments.

It should be the tangible measures and actions on the ground. This is where I am coming from.

An Cathaoirleach

If anyone wants to respond quickly to the general point, I ask them to please go ahead or I will move on. I call Deputy Bruton.

Deputy Richard Bruton

I can only imagine the complexity of 169 targets across scores of Departments and agencies. It is a truly formidable task to try to co-ordinate those in a coherent way. One of my suggestions, on which the witnesses could comment, concerns each newly-appointed Minister having to provide a strategy statement within six months. Under the 1997 Act, there is supposed to be a rotating evaluation of programmes within those Departments. That has fallen into disuse. I suggest that this is a tool that could be used very effectively to influence how Departments embed the SDGs in policymaking. The strategy statement must go to the Government. Every Department, including that which the witnesses represent, gets the opportunity to have an input. This seems to provide a high-level tool to allow the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications to penetrate into whether a Department is seriously failing to address issues, as others have mentioned, and is just ticking boxes. I suggest that the Department revisit the Act. The Act is a legal framework and Departments are obliged to follow it, as is the Cabinet. It does provide some additional instruments for the Department.

Mr. Carberry knows I have an interest in the circular economy strategy. To my mind, this may serve to illustrate some of the problems in this regard. As I recall, the Circular Economy and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2022 commits to circular economy strategies in many sectors. When I table questions to Ministers, however, the reality is that there is no sense that they are engaging at all with the development of a circular economy strategy. It is being shunted back to the witnesses' Department or the EPA. This suggests that there are barriers in the system which the Department must address. We provided it with this power only in recent times. It may be necessary for the Department to revisit it with us and to ask where these strategies are at and how stand the targets for reuse and the others in the food and construction sectors, for example. In the Oireachtas, there is a sense that those are not emerging fast enough. We met representatives of the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage and there was a sense that it has a hand-off approach and is waiting for Europe to come up with a solution. Is there a way in which our committee and the witnesses' Department could perhaps co-operate in exploiting the opportunities in legislation already passed by the Houses to build momentum?

Ms Hannah Gilmartin

I thank the Deputy for his question. I will definitely look into this legislation. Within the new national implementation plan, there is an obligation on all Departments to include the SDGs within their statements of strategy, in addition to their annual reports. This was included in the previous plan, but it was not reported on or monitored as closely it should have been. Going forward, therefore, we will have clear reporting structures in place. All Departments will be asked to report back regarding whether they have done this and, if so, how they have done it. We are working with the IDWG on this aspect now. Many statements of strategy have come in to us recently, so we are ensuring to provide the observation that this obligation must be met. The IDWG is aware of this point. These are key instruments that we want to make use of. As we go forward, as well, we are gaining more knowledge of the best practice of how to do this and sharing this with other Departments. They will now have a better sense of what we are looking for as well. We will be progressing this aspect.

Mr. Leslie Carberry

I thank the Deputy for the questions. To take the last part first, the circular economy team and the wider Department are always delighted to engage with the committee at any time that is convenient in order to discuss developments in circular economy policy and to get the views of its members on this subject. We will be more than happy to take up any invitation in this regard.

On the question of policy coherence, just using the circular economy as an example, to take the point raised by the Deputy concerning the sectoral strategies or roadmaps, the first of these is in development. We are focusing on the construction sector now. We have received input on this from officials from the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage, so there will be that sectoral insight and expertise in future. Another example is green public procurement, where we are working closely with the Office of Government Procurement, which is located within the Department of Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform. Moving to food waste, we are working with the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. Turning to the sustainable products directive, currently being discussed in Europe, our Department and the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment are effectively co-leading the national position in those negotiations.

While I can understand, therefore, that it appears the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications is leading the charge solely on the circular economy, under the hood there is a high level of engagement across Departments on the areas that pertain to the policy leads of each.

On the global strategy and why the committee is not hearing about this aspect from other Departments, we are in the early stages of drafting it. We are looking at the structural inputs that need to go into the strategy and this means we are the penholder at this stage. We are trying to get these building blocks and frameworks right. When we come to populate the document with policy targets and actions, however, it will then be widely circulated across Government because it will probably touch on most sectors of economic activity.

An Cathaoirleach

I thank Deputy Bruton. I call Senator Higgins.

Senator Alice-Mary Higgins

I will direct most of my questions to the representatives from the Department. Mr. Carberry's contribution was useful in that it gave us a sense of the mechanics of how things are applied. To what extent has the Department embedded the SDG framework in its work plans? We heard about some of the pilot and flagship projects. This was one aspect we have been hearing about. I refer to the piloting and the examples in that context. Regarding policy-proofing, however, the tool mentioned earlier was the RIA. We know now that a well-being analysis tool is also being applied. What is the equivalent of that in terms of the SDGs? I refer to looking at policies in advance and not solely examining them to consider if we have something we can say we are doing under SDG 13.1, or whatever number it might be, but to whether we have checked our policies to ensure we are not causing damage in this regard.

An example I think is relevant, and I have many others, concerns SDGs 14.4 and 14.5. These are not provisions the Department has identified, although they are of significant environmental relevance. They are specifically concerned with the issue of protecting against overfishing and ensuring the proper regulation of marine protected areas. Again there is a really clear message emanating from the SDGs, yet there is a policy decision to be considered as well. In this context, I wonder what the witnesses' Department is doing in respect of scrutinising its policy decisions to ensure not only that they bring us forward on the SDGs, but that they are not actually moving us backwards in this regard. I refer to what I assume is important when the Department does this.

I share some of Deputy Ó Cathasaigh's concerns regarding just 19 of 169 goals being considered in respect of positive duties, which seems to be remarkably low. I ask the witnesses to indicate if this total is open to expansion, if it is being reviewed regularly and how it is liaising with the Departments where it was hard to decide which would lead on an area. In addition to the positive duty, there is also the protective duty. I refer to the RIA, where presumably all 169 targets must be considered to ensure there is not a policy in one area which causes damage in another. It is not enough to be screening the 19 being examined; there is a need to be screening all 169 goals in this regard. I am interested in this aspect. In the work plans, is consideration only undertaken of the positive duty aspect or is a protective and analytic tool also employed? Is it coming in advance of policies being implemented or afterwards? Can the witnesses give an example of a decision that was changed based on an analysis of the SDGs?

I am referring to something that the Department decided to do differently than originally planned due to the analysis.

Yes. I will speak first and then hand over to members of the policy teams. While we are the SDG unit and look after national implementation, we also lead on it within the Department, so I can cover both aspects and then pass over to others.

To date, the SDG framework has not been used as a tool for informing the development of policy as much as it should have been, but it is the key priority under the national implementation plan. We used the SDG assessment tool to inform the development of the climate action plan and, going forward, we are planning to use it prospectively. The advantage of this is that certain targets should be met by all policies in terms of proofing against inequality of outcomes and promoting gender inequality. We will be working towards a training course and toolkit for civil servants. That toolkit will contain an information checklist of what someone needs to do to ensure that the framework is fully considered within a policy and what considerations need to be taken into account in respect not only of the targets, but also the general principles of Agenda 2030 for sustainable development, one of which is that no one should be left behind. The Senator is aware that we have been focusing on this principle recently, and we will incorporate guidance on what needs to be considered in a policy if it is to follow it. Our work in this regard is in progress.

The Senator asked whether there were discussions on which Department would be lead. The policy map is updated annually. We updated it in October at the same time as we published the new national implementation plan. There are ongoing conversations with Departments about who should lead on which targets, so it is a live document and is not stale by any means.

If anyone else wishes to contribute, I will speak about the budgetary process afterwards.

Ms Karen Egan

The climate action plan supports SDG 13. The assessment of the plan indicates that all 17 SDGs are being progressed by it to some extent. The plan is such a straightforward example, I do not know whether there is much value in my going into it any further, but this is an area where we are aware of the SDGs and how they map across what we are doing in terms of the climate.

Senator Alice-Mary Higgins

I might ask about SDG 13.A.1 on financing.

Ms Karen Egan

That question is for my colleague, Mr. McLoughlin, who is attending remotely.

Mr. Niall McLoughlin

The Senator's point is noted. As she rightly said, there is a commitment in the programme for Government to double our climate finance delivery. A further commitment was given by the then Taoiseach at COP26 to provide €225 million in international climate finance by 2025. Under this goal, there is shared responsibility between us and the Department of Foreign Affairs. Our Department's climate finance allocation has increased from €5 million in 2020 to €26 million today. This gives an indication of the level of ambition in our Department.

Regarding our credibility internationally, we stand in good stead. This was evidenced by our participation at COP27 and the central role that the Minister played in bringing very reluctant partners to a consensus on establishing a loss and damage fund. We have continued out commitment to seeing this through via our participation in securing a seat on the transitional committee, which will consider the modalities associated with creating a fund and report to COP28.

The roadmap has been published. It does not just set out how to reach the €225 million figure, but it also offers us the opportunity to learn how to continue investing and scaling up. No NGO would question the quality of the allocations we make available. They go directly to source and to where they are most needed. They do not disappear into multilateral funds. They make a difference on the ground.

As part of the national climate delegation, we work with colleagues in the Department of Foreign Affairs on realising the programme for Government commitment, in scaling up and, following the outcome of the negotiations of the transitional committee and the decision by COP28, on how a loss and damage fund will be financed.

An Cathaoirleach

Deputy O'Rourke had to leave, so there are a few minutes available.

Senator Alice-Mary Higgins

An Cathaoirleach

I thank Mr. Carberry, and Senator Higgins for her questions. We are over time, so I am going to bring proceedings to a close. I thank the witnesses for their time this afternoon. It has been very helpful for the committee. As I mentioned, the fact that so many people have come in today is a reflection of how seriously the Department is taking the sustainable development goals. I wish the witnesses well in their work and in respect of the international piece in which Ireland will be engaged with Qatar later in the year. Best wishes with that as well.

The joint committee adjourned at 2.05 p.m. until 9.30 a.m. on Thursday, 23 March 2023.

Joint Committee on Environment and Climate Action debate - Tuesday, 21 Mar 2023

Sustainable Development Goals: Discussion

Ms Meaghan Carmody

Mr. Shane Conneely

Dr. Seán Healy

Ms Colette Bennett

Ms Colette Bennett

Dr. Seán Healy

Ms Colette Bennett

Dr. Seán Healy

Mr. Shane Conneely

Ms Meaghan Carmody

Ms Sadhbh O'Neill

Ms Karen Ciesielski

Mr. Shane Conneely

Ms Sadhbh O'Neill

Ms Colette Bennett

Dr. Seán Healy

Ms Sadhbh O'Neill

Ms Meaghan Carmody

Mr. Shane Conneely

Ms Karen Ciesielski

Dr. Seán Healy

Ms Meaghan Carmody

Ms Meaghan Carmody

Ms Colette Bennett

Ms Colette Bennett

Mr. James Kiernan

Mr. James Kiernan

Mr. Shane Conneely

Ms Karen Ciesielski

Ms Meaghan Carmody

Ms Colette Bennett

Ms Meaghan Carmody

Ms Meaghan Carmody

Ms Sadhbh O'Neill

Ms Karen Ciesielski

Ms Colette Bennett

Dr. Seán Healy

Mr. Shane Conneely

Mr. Shane Conneely

Mr. Shane Conneely

Ms Karen Egan

Ms Karen Egan

Ms Hannah Gilmartin

Ms Hannah Gilmartin

Ms Hannah Gilmartin

Ms Hannah Gilmartin

Ms Hannah Gilmartin

Ms Hannah Gilmartin

Ms Hannah Gilmartin

Ms Rebecca Minch

Ms Rebecca Minch

Ms Hannah Gilmartin

Mr. Leslie Carberry

Ms Hannah Gilmartin

Ms Karen Egan

Ms Karen Egan

Mr. Niall McLoughlin

Ms Hannah Gilmartin

Ms Hannah Gilmartin

Ms Karen Egan

Ms Karen Egan

Mr. Leslie Carberry

Joint Committee on Environment and Climate Action debate -
Tuesday, 21 Mar 2023