I have rather a long script which I intend to truncate because I must attend the Seanad to take Second Stage of the Planning and Development (Strategic Infrastructure) Bill.
This is the first opportunity I have had to address the committee since it held discussions with Professor McGlade regarding the European Environment Agency report, the transcript of which I read. I noted some of its points. I also held interesting meetings with Professor McGlade prior to the committee's meeting with her. I had suggested to her during the European Environment Council meeting that she appear if she were invited to do so. I was delighted that the committee invited her to come before it.
The issue is complex and I have some quibbles with Professor McGlade's methodology, which rejects 241 indicators and focuses on only nine. As she explained, however, that is how she must operate. I was pleased with her comments that Ireland is doing as well as any other country in addressing environmental challenges.
I was pleased that the Commissioner for Environment, Stavros Dimas, visited Ireland last week. I asked him several times to do so because we have been obliged to deal with so many issues, some of which have been referred to court and led to proceedings being taken against us. While here, Commissioner Dimas opened the waste electrical and electronic equipment, WEEE, processing facility at Park West in Dublin. He complimented us on leading the way in respect of the WEEE directive.
The Commissioner was also involved in the launch of the Environmental Protection Agency's, EPA, environmental technologies programme. While it is not my business to suggest the work the committee might undertake, it would be interesting for it to hear from the EPA about its technologies programme, particularly the promotion of new technologies in this area. That programme provides funding for third level institutions and companies and forms part of a new initiative to boost the development of environmental technology. I know the committee views this as a win-win process because not only can it improve our environmental performance but there are also real economic benefits.
I took the opportunity to introduce Commissioner Dimas to officials from my Department, the EPA and the Office of Environmental Enforcement, OEE, and outlined the work we are doing in respect of environmental impact assessment, nature, water waste and enforcement. These are issues in respect of which the Commission has taken proceedings against us and I was anxious for him to see at first hand the progress being made and the effort put into meeting our environmental responsibilities.
One of my ambitions is to take Ireland from its position in terms of infringement proceedings to a better position on the league table, as I did when I was Minister of State with responsibility for European Affairs in the Department of Foreign Affairs.
I thank the Chairman for the opportunity to present to the committee the agenda for this month's meeting of the EU Environment Council. The meeting will take place in Brussels on Thursday, 9 March. The Austrian Presidency has put together a long and ambitious agenda which provides that the Council will adopt conclusions on five issues, have policy debates on four others and hear a progress report on the tenth.
We are reminded of the global and transboundary nature of environmental challenges when we note the inclusion in the agenda of the thematic strategy on air pollution the convention on biological diversity and its protocol on biosafety, climate change, the convention on persistent organic pollutants and the assessment and management of floods. Of a less global nature but no less important are the other agenda items: GMOs, Euro 5 standards for emissions from cars and the thematic strategy on waste. The discussion on the Euro 5 standards will be interesting because the issue of particulates will be considered. We will also discuss the Environment Council contribution to the Spring European Council and the review of the EU sustainable development strategy. These two agenda items, in particular, allow us, as Environment Ministers, to contribute to and influence the necessary cross-sectoral and integrated approach to achieving our environmental ambitions which are set out in the European Union's sixth environment action programme for the period 2001 to 2010. Seven thematic strategies underpin that programme and we will discuss two of them on Thursday. The thematic strategies are a new direction for environment policy, providing for an integrated approach to policy development, while also allowing for simplification of legislation. This is vital in view of the complexity and cross-cutting nature of some of the legislation and the need for it to be more clear-cut and focused.
We will also have a policy debate on the thematic strategy for the prevention and recycling of waste which was published last December. The draft of this strategy provided the focus for the informal Environment Council during the 2004 Irish Presidency. It is, therefore, an issue of which we have a sense of ownership. The final document generally reflects the conclusions adopted at that meeting and the priorities identified by the Irish Presidency. The core objective of the strategy is to move towards making Europe a recycling society using the Internal Market as a driver to optimise recycling. The strategy also proposes the improvement of the regulatory environment through the modernisation and streamlining of waste legislation. This will include the amendment of the waste framework directive, for which I understand proposals will be considered by this committee later this month as part of the Oireachtas scrutiny process.
In December the Council held a policy debate on the thematic strategy on air pollution. The strategy and its proposals for a new directive were broadly welcomed. We will adopt conclusions on the strategy which establishes the Commission's level of ambition for air quality across the European Union for 2020. The strategy also proposes a long-term commitment to reducing air pollution to improve public health and the environment. I will not dwell on the details of the strategy because members had an opportunity to discuss it with my officials last Wednesday.
We will also have a policy debate at the Council on one of the measures complementing the thematic strategy on air pollution. This is the proposal for a regulation on type approval of motor vehicles with respect to emissions. The aim of the regulation, known as Euro 5, is to further reduce the emissions of pollutants from new passenger cars and light commercial vehicles. While Ireland's air quality remains good overall, recent EPA reports identify transport emissions as the greatest threat to our air quality. Any initiative that helps us manage that threat is welcome.
The Council will adopt conclusions in preparation for a meeting on the convention on persistent organic pollutants. Concerns regarding exposure to these pollutants, from the perspective of health and environmental impacts, are best addressed through the effective and further implementation of the convention. I will support the proposed Council conclusions in this regard.
No. 5 on the Council agenda provides for the continuation of discussions on the European approach to the future use of GM technology. This item was on the agenda for the December meeting. Discussions on that occasion broached many aspects of the policy to be followed, ranging from further research on potential risks and benefits of GM technology to the comitology procedures under which decisions can be made.
At the March Council I expect contributions covering a wide range of views on the authorisation procedures generally will be made. While the authorisation procedures under the deliberate release directive and the food and feed regulation are comparable in many respects, the divergence in the area of risk assessment is notable. Under the deliberate release directive, risk assessment is carried out at competent authority level, with any differences in opinion referred to the European Food Safety Agency for resolution. Under the more recent food and feed regulation, a single risk assessment is performed by that agency.
It is useful to explore the contrasting approaches. The food and feed regulation might appear to have the edge in terms of consistency of approach. On the other hand, it might be said the deliberate release directive fosters wider participation. The issue of subsidiarity is also raised. As I stated to this committee last December, it remains early days in testing the procedures under the directive and the regulation, a view shared by many of our European colleagues. Attitudes are beginning to change and some previously hard attitudes such as those held by the Danes seem to be shifting slightly. It will be interesting to see what occurs at that meeting and whether changes will be made. The committee will be informed afterwards. The Austrian Presidency is arranging a conference of experts in Vienna in April to focus on the role of precaution in GMO policy. I will ensure this committee is fully briefed as it will become a significant issue and is one about which we are all concerned.
As the committee will appreciate, Ministers will have limited time to explore this issue at Council. Furthermore, the Presidency's conference in April offers an opportunity to get into the detail of the subject matter. I have little doubt that this matter will return to the Council at our meeting in June. At that stage we will have as input the outcome of the deliberations of the experts in April, the final text of the World Trade Organisation's ruling on the GMO case brought by Canada against the European Union and the Commission's analysis of the operation of the deliberate release directive and the food and feed regulation. We will then be in a better position to have a substantive debate on the issue at Council level. I suggest this committee should then have a single focus discussion on it. We must get our heads around the many changes that will occur in this area.
A related issue on the agenda is our conclusions on negotiating priorities for the European Union at the meeting in Brazil later this month of the parties to the Cartagena Protocol on biosafety. The protocol seeks to ensure an adequate level of protection in the safe transfer, handling and use of living modified organisms resulting from modern biotechnology that may have adverse effects on the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity. This takes into account risks to human health and specifically focuses on transboundary movements. The European Union's main priority at the meeting will be to secure progress on the issues of handling, transport and identification of living modified organisms intended for direct use as food or feed. If such progress can be made at this month's meeting, it will represent a significant achievement for the European Union and the vast majority of parties who wish to improve controls in this area. Many in Europe are anxious to have a better focus on controls.
Immediately following this meeting the eighth meeting of the conference of the parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity will be held. At Council we will adopt conclusions on the position to be taken by the European Union on a number of issues affecting the operation of the convention and its processes. Key areas of the convention will also be covered in the conclusions, including marine biodiversity, protected areas, financing biodiversity, national implementation and public awareness. I look forward to a good outcome for the European Union at both meetings.
Immediately after I met the committee about the December Council, I attended the 11th conference of the parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and the first meeting of the parties to the Kyoto Protocol in Montreal. The success of that meeting has been well documented. At Council, we will consider the outcome and record the European Union's welcome for the decisions made and agreement reached at the meeting.
I have some issues with the conclusions, as currently drafted, for this week's Council meeting and I will make this point at the meeting. I am of the view that the language proposed does not convey the leadership the EU has shown in the past. The language in the conclusions adopted by the Heads of State and Government at their spring Council last year on climate change had a discernible effect on the international negotiations and gave credibility to the EU position. Weaker language will take us back from that position and weaken the impact of the EU's leadership. Last year's language showed that we are willing to lead by example and are serious about taking the steps necessary to tackle climate change. At the Council meeting, I will recommend the re-inclusion this year of the language agreed in 2005.
We will hear a progress report on the proposal for a directive on the assessment and management of floods. The aim of this proposal is to reduce and manage flood-related risks to human health, the environment, infrastructure and property. It will require significant integration with the water framework directive in terms of public consultation, organisational process, reporting and governance. While this is a matter for my colleague, the Minister of State responsible for the Office of Public Works, Deputy Parlon, the issue is nonetheless discussed at the Environment Council. Ireland generally welcomes the proposal and we have actively participated in its development. We have an issue with the reporting arrangements in that the proposals are not suitable for the Irish circumstances of different ministerial responsibilities for the water framework directive and flood management. I will raise this matter at Council. I am sure Ireland is not the only country that has dual ministerial responsibility in this regard.
The Environment Council is one of a number of Council formations that will make contributions to the spring meeting of the EU Heads of State and Government. We will invite the European Council to recognise: the potential of environment policy to impact positively on public health, social inclusion and cohesion and energy security and efficiency; the need to continue to integrate environmental considerations into the Lisbon agenda; and that the efficient use of natural resources contributes to growth and competitiveness. I have made the point several times that the energy efficiency, which is inherent in the direction Europe is taking, particularly under the Lisbon Agenda, will give Europe a long-term economic lead on countries that are less focussed on this issue.
My wish is to preserve the recognition of the importance of the environment, both within the Lisbon strategy and in the minds of Heads of Government at the spring Council. As stated, we must not allow economic competitiveness and environmental concerns to compete with each other for short-term gain or solutions because they are not in competition and run in harmony. Rather, we must view them as co-dependents offering great opportunities from the long-term perspective. If Ireland can focus on this issue, we will see its value.
I referred earlier to new technology. There is much work to be done in this regard and a significant economic benefit to be realised from it.
We do not take the view that we should simply follow a European lead in terms of introducing measures to protect the environment. Budget 2006 saw the introduction of a €20 million carbon fund, the extension of VRT relief for hybrid cars, a significant increase in the relief for biofuels and the allocation of €20 million for a new recycling and remediation fund. This comes on top of a major increase in the level of recycling facilities, concerted action against illegal dumping, significant improvements in the treatment of wastewater and steady progress in drinking water quality. Progress is continuing.
I referred to the launch of the Environmental Protection Agency's ETAP awards, whereby €3 million was made available for 15 eco-innovation projects. More generally, the agency has provided €30 million over the period 2001 to 2006 under its environmental research and technological development innovation programme. This will leave us well placed in Europe to play our part fully in the development and application of eco-technologies.
The Lisbon strategy and the sustainable development strategy are closely linked and their aims are mutually supportive. At Council we will also debate the current review of the EU sustainable development strategy. The Commission has achieved a good and balanced mix in the review. I welcome all initiatives that will deliver clearer objectives, establish targets and communicate the strategy in a more accessible manner. I particularly welcome the priority being given to climate change. I look forward to the completion of the review before the June Council, the preparations for which we will discuss with the committee prior to the meeting.
There are six items under the heading "Other Business", namely, reports by the Presidency on two conferences held in Vienna in January, one entitled, Greening Events, the other, Environmentally-Friendly Travelling in Europe. The Presidency will report on the outcome of the first international conference on chemicals management held in Dubai last month, at which the strategic approach to international chemicals management was agreed. The Presidency will provide information on a follow-up to the communication from the Commission on the biomass action plan and an EU strategy for biofuels. At the request of several Mediterranean member states, the issue of European action on water scarcity and droughts will be raised. At the request of the German delegation, the issue of environmentally sound and crop-friendly use of biodegradable waste will be raised.
That is an outline of a busy agenda. I look forward to the committee's questions.
