I thank the Chairman and members for the invitation to come before the committee. I value these sessions because they provide me with the opportunity to outline my brief.
This will be the first formal Environment Council of the Finnish Presidency. I already attended an informal meeting that the Finns hosted in Turku in July. The main theme for that meeting was "Going global on eco-efficiency — towards a new generation of environment policy". We had a good and wide-ranging discussion at that meeting regarding the general topic of the global nature of eco-efficiency and the challenges of dealing with environmental impacts and energy issues.
We also had the opportunity to hear about the challenges of managing the Baltic Sea environment and to engage on issues of common concern in respect of the marine environment. I was somewhat amused by the European Environment Agency's rather negative comments about some aspects of Irish coastal waters. As the Chairman is aware, I am a swimmer and I decided to swim in the Baltic Sea. However, there was no bathing place within miles of where we were staying and certainly not one that a person would, in his or her right mind, enter. This goes to show that our problems are as nothing to those which exist elsewhere.
There are five substantive items on the Council agenda for next week's meeting, namely, air quality, climate change, the sustainable use of natural resources, the shipment of waste and the marine environment. The Presidency hopes to reach political agreement on the new air quality directive. This is a key element of the thematic strategy on air pollution which the committee discussed with my officials earlier this year. We have discussed it on a number of occasions at the Council, most recently in June under the Austrian Presidency. The Austrian President of the Council had originally been hoping to achieve political agreement on the directive at that meeting but this could not be done because of the timing of discussions in the European Parliament. However, I believe progress will be made on this issue.
Ambient air quality in Ireland is very good, among the best in Europe, but our lifestyles are creating pressures on all aspects of the environment, including air quality. Similar pressures are being experienced across the EU. Despite major improvements in air quality, significant negative impacts on human health and the environment will persist, even with effective implementation of current legislation. In order to address the situation and deal with this problem, the European Commission has identified specific objectives, based on a medium-term perspective to 2020. The current proposal addresses fine particulate matter, PM2.5, for the first time. The case for further measures to control particulate emissions is beyond question and the proposal is welcome. The measures proposed will enable real progress to be made in this area, building on existing legislative provisions for coarser particulate matter, PM10. Compliance with the proposed 2015 limit value will require a significant upgrading of the national monitoring regime operated by the Environmental Protection Agency.
Within the Council, there is a substantial level of agreement on the proposal. There is only one outstanding issue on the part of the Netherlands. I expect that issue to be resolved and that the Presidency will facilitate the reaching of political agreement at the next meeting. Ultimate agreement is, of course, a matter for co-decision with the Parliament. From its first reading, I understand that the Parliament will put forward a significant number of amendments and it is likely, therefore, that it will be some time before the directive is adopted. I will be encouraging my Council colleagues to press for the proposal to be progressed as quickly as possible. Ireland is in good order regarding meeting the requirements in the directive.
In the run up to the 12th conference of the parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and the second meeting of the parties to the Kyoto Protocol in Nairobi in November, it will come as no surprise to the committee that climate change is again on the agenda. The Council will consider draft conclusions for the Nairobi meetings. Essentially, these provide a negotiating mandate for the EU delegation. I have not yet received the final text of the draft conclusions and it is impossible, therefore, to state what will be the wording.
From the discussions at official level, however, I can inform members that they will give a clear and strong message to the participants, regardless of whether they are parties to the Kyoto Protocol, on the EU's objectives for the meeting and its expectation in terms of outcomes. This message will be underpinned by the fundamental Union position that overall global mean surface temperature must not exceed 2° Celsius above pre-industrial levels. That is absolutely essential if the ultimate objective of stabilising global greenhouse gas emissions at a level that would prevent dangerous interference with the climate system is to be achieved.
In terms of specifics, the Union wishes to see a determined effort to address issues for developing countries. This is the first meeting of the parties to the Kyoto Protocol in sub-Saharan Africa and it is both urgent and appropriate to make progress on these issues. For example, we must advance the entire adaptation agenda, as well as technology transfer and further development of the clean development mechanism, CDM. Many people seem to miss the point that this mechanism establishes a multilateral framework for joint, project-based implementation between industrialised and developing countries. It operates for the benefit of both sides, and is hugely important for developing countries in terms of financial and technical resource transfers. Investment in CDM projects is a valid option under the Kyoto Protocol. It is not, as some people suggest, an easy alternative for industrialised countries, nor is it a form of fine or penalty. The CDM is a sensible approach to dealing, on the one hand, with the challenges faced by developing countries and, on the other, those faced by the developed world.
The other major issue is future action and the importance of progressing on the agenda agreed in last year's Montreal plan of action. On foot of the plan, two separate rounds of discussion are under way; one under the convention and the second under the protocol. Progress on both is essential in terms of the scope of a future agreement and the timeframe for the negotiations. A key objective will be to avoid a gap when the Kyoto Protocol commitment period ends in 2012. In other words, it will extend beyond the timeframe of the Kyoto Protocol.
In summary, the objective of the European Community and its member states will be to reach agreement on agenda items that are mature and ready for decision and to encourage and facilitate maximum progress in the ongoing discussions on future actions. The Community will also engage constructively on the question of the review of the Kyoto Protocol as required under Article 9.
The agenda for the Nairobi meetings of the parties to the protocol is full and demanding and I expect EU member states and many of the parties to both the convention and the protocol will attend. I propose to attend the high-level ministerial segment of the meeting as it is important that Ministers should so do.
I greatly welcome an initiative by the Presidency to invite the newly appointed executive secretary to the convention, Mr. de Boer, to join the Council for lunch. His views on the state of play regarding the international agenda will be both interesting and useful in the final preparations for the Nairobi meetings. He was present at previous meetings, in particular, the one at Montreal.
The Council will adopt conclusions on the thematic strategy on the sustainable use of natural resources. This strategy takes a long-term view to 2025. It is another of the seven strategies delivered under the sixth environmental action programme. Legislative initiatives will not arise from this strategy as the discussion will focus on supporting the sustainable development strategy in general. It is also strongly linked to the subject of sustainable consumption and production. The conclusions proposed by the Presidency for adoption include an outline of what might be included in the EU action plan on sustainable consumption and production. I will support the conclusions prepared by the Presidency. These conclusions invite the Commission and member states to outline the ecological dimension of the renewed EU sustainable development strategy, develop indicators, establish a data centre and set targets by 2010.
We will have a policy debate on the thematic strategy on the protection and conservation of the marine environment and the related proposed framework directive. Ministers will be asked for comment with regard to the definition of and the proposed timetable for achieving good environmental status. This is a key concept pertaining to the main objective of the proposed directive. Ireland wishes to see greater clarification of the term, "good environmental status". It is important that clarity be achieved. Guidance will also be sought on how best to articulate national measures with measures requiring regional co-operation, taking into account, inter alia, the role of regional conventions for the protection of the marine environment, as well as the role of third countries.
The eighth conference of the parties to the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their disposal will take place in Nairobi at the end of November. We will adopt conclusions at the Council to provide broad political guidance for the EU in negotiations at that meeting. The draft conclusions provide for a strong political message to be given in the light of the recent Ivory Coast tragedy. They also provide for political messages to be delivered at the meeting to the secretariat of the convention on matters including ship dismantling, co-operation between different multilateral environment agreements and resource use and mobilisation.
The Commission has stressed that the convention has automatic effect in all member states, including Ireland, as a consequence of the application of the EU waste shipment regulation, which is why a number of member states have not found it necessary to ratify it to date. However, it is important that sufficient countries should ratify the convention to ensure the ban has effect outside the EU and the Commissioner for the Environment, Mr. Dimas, will ask those member states that have not ratified to do so, purely for this reason. Ireland will start the ratification process immediately to bring the convention into operation. At the Council meeting, I will support the conclusions as drafted and will express Ireland's profound regret and sympathy with the victims of the Ivory Coast tragedy.
In respect of Irish ports, I will take the opportunity at the Council to tell fellow Ministers about the very encouraging results from a programme of inspections in Dublin. Ireland chairs a steering committee of the European Union network for the implementation and enforcement of environmental law, IMPEL, on the transfrontier shipment of wastes. When Dublin City Council started inspections during an IMPEL sea port project, the same negative results were produced as elsewhere in Europe, whereby up to 60% of shipments were found to be technically illegal and up to 40% showed other deficiencies in paperwork. One year later, thanks to a very hands-on approach and much raising of awareness among the shippers and brokers, the story was quite different. A commendable 100% compliance rate was achieved when the same inspections were repeated for the IMPEL project. We can take quiet satisfaction from this development.
At the Council meeting, I will urge greater participation in IMPEL projects on the transfrontier shipment of wastes. I will urge the Commission to do what it can to facilitate these projects in order that such efforts will continue and grow.
The last segment of the Council meeting will consider other business and four items are listed. The Presidency and the Commission will report on a number of meetings held in recent weeks with third countries. These include meetings with representatives from Russia, Korea, China and India. All such meetings are well reported on the Finnish Presidency website. At the request of the Hungarian delegation, Ministers will hear a report on the First European Congress of Conservation Biology that was held in Hungary at the end of August. At the request of the Danish delegation, a ban on mercury exports from the EU will be mentioned. The Spanish delegation has requested mention of forest fires in Spain during the summer. However, I have not yet received papers on these two items.
This is an outline of the Council agenda for 23 October. I again thank the Chairman for the invitation to share this information with the joint committee.
