Joint Committee on Environment, Culture and the Gaeltacht debate -
Friday, 5 Jul 2013

Heads of Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Bill 2013: Discussion (Resumed)

IBEC

Chairman

The fifth set of witnesses to address the committee today is Mr. Neil Walker, head of energy and environment policy, Irish Business and Employers Confederation, IBEC, and Ms Jill Murray, Bord Gáis Energy. They are very welcome to the committee.

I wish to advise the witnesses that they are protected by absolute privilege in respect of their evidence to the committee. However, if a witness is directed by the committee to cease giving evidence in regard to a particular matter and continues to do so, the witness is entitled thereafter only to a qualified privilege in respect of his evidence. Witnesses are directed to restrict their evidence to the subject matter of these proceedings and to respect parliamentary practice by not criticising or making charges against any person, persons or entity. Witnesses are asked to read the document circulated to them about privilege. I remind them not to read out their opening statements. These have already been distributed to members and will be taken as read. They have a maximum of five minutes to deliver their opening statements and when they reach this time I will inform them. I call on Mr. Walker to address the committee.

Mr. Neil Walker

Did the Chairman say we are not to read our opening statements?

Chairman

Yes. We can take that as being read but Mr. Walker can offer views around the statement. If he is happier reading it out then he may do so.

Mr. Neil Walker

If everyone has read the opening statement there is no point. Would the people in the audience be aware of its contents?

Chairman

Mr. Walker can summarise the opening statement if he wishes. The opening statement has been submitted. That has been the general rule all day but if he would like to read it out then he should please do so.

Mr. Neil Walker

Yes indeed. I thank the Chairman and the committee for the opportunity to answer questions on our submission. I would like to introduce my two colleagues, Ms. Jill Murray from Bord Gais Energy and Ms Audrey O’Shea from Glanbia whom the committee met this morning. There are particular circumstances for her second appearance. We apologise if we have breached any protocol. I explained to the clerk the particular circumstances. It is my intention to handle most of the questions. Unless there are questions specifically directed to my two colleagues I will attempt to answer them.

The committee is aware that I head up IBEC's energy and environment policy unit. I have been doing that for three years. I previously worked for the Sustainable Energy Authority and prior to that in industry. As part of my policy brief I administrate several policy committees including an energy policy committee and an environment policy committee and our climate change working group runs across both those committees. We try to represent the broad common interests of all sectors of industry because we have several thousand members in different sectors. Whereas individual sectors may have particular interests we are trying to find the common ground.

Deputy Brian Stanley

I thank Mr. Walker and his team for taking the trouble to come in. In his opening statement he mentioned that this Bill is an improvement on previous attempts at legislation which would have worked against, rather than alongside, EU policy. Could Mr. Walker explain how previous Bills may have worked against, rather than alongside, EU policy?

This morning we heard the other employers' body, Irish Corporate Leaders on Climate Change. Those witnesses said that they can see the need to use the opportunities to provide certainty in respect of the legislation, clear markers and a clear direction, clear five year targets, clear 2050 targets to give people and investors certainty. Mr. Walker's statement seems to be at variance with that. Why is that so? The future will be very different from the present. Would Mr. Walker agree that if we do not change course now we will lead ourselves into a cul de sac, instead of going down a different road where we use the new realities to develop the opportunities to move towards a more carbon-neutral future?

Mr. Neil Walker

That is a very good question. There have been four or five attempts at climate legislation in recent years. I am familiar with all of them, and with two authors of the legislation who are here today. I do not intend to imply any criticism of any person but as a point of principle it is important when designing national legislation that it works in harmony with the pre-existing European legislation. The primary criticism that we made of the last government attempt at legislation is that it effectively ignored the existing EU policy and would have directed mitigation efforts into areas where there would have been no environmental benefits, specifically the emissions trading sector where the absolute cap is already determined so the money would not have been spent on meeting national obligations but simply on driving down the price of EU allowances. This has been debated at length in various fora. There is very little debate about it now. It is imperative that national policies reinforce EU policies in the same way that EU policies have to reinforce the UNFCCC framework.

There is no room for national solo runs.

Senator Fiach Mac Conghail

I thank Mr. Walker for his submission. I am director of the Abbey Theatre, which is a member of IBEC, although our representative is not on the energy committee. I had better outline that in case some wily journalist reveals that.

Mr. Walker states clearly in his submission: "For the avoidance of doubt, such a body must not be modelled on the UK's committee on climate change whose relationship with the Department of Energy and Climate Change and with the UK Treasury has become increasingly fractious and ineffective over recent years". He later states: "We would also disagree with recent proposals that responsibility for climate policy should be transferred into the Department of Taoiseach". They are two Doomsday visions for IBEC about what a committee might look like. Will Mr. Walker outline his view of what that horror might be?

Mr. Neil Walker

I did not use the word "horror".

Senator Fiach Mac Conghail

I refer to the perceived potential conflict between our current model of economic growth, which also includes the Food Harvest 2020 strategy, and the notion that we must reach targets? IBEC opposes the insertion of targets in the Bill but we are considering long-term targets.

Mr. Neil Walker

Could the Senator refer me to the part of my submission that says that?

Senator Fiach Mac Conghail

I am making an inference. This is not a criticism of IBEC. There is a potential conflict between our current economic growth model, which also includes the Food Harvest 2020 strategy, and the insertion of targets in the Bill. Does Mr. Walker see that as a conflict?

Last week, Dr. Brian Ó Gallachóir of UCC made a presentation to the committee on low carbon emissions. He had a particular view on the electrification of heat. IBEC refers to the increasing cost of electricity in its submission. What is the body's view of the electrification of heat between now and 2020?

Mr. Neil Walker

In addressing the second question, I will be able to address one of the questions I neglected to respond to earlier from Deputy Stanley. There are tremendous green growth opportunities in the economy. Provided we get the policy right, there is a chance to make the economy much more sustainable, have a lower carbon footprint and not damage our economic prospects.

Senator Fiach Mac Conghail

What is IBEC's view on the policy?

Mr. Neil Walker

I am not here to answer that question because the Bill will not set out what are those policies. There will be a committee of experts. I happen to have a background in this and I have a great interest but if the Senator gets me started, we will be here for the rest of the afternoon and he will not get any more questions answered. I have done a great deal of work on what technologies are available. It is one thing to identify a technology with potential but it is another to design an efficient policy that gets that implemented. For example, work done by McKinsey suggests many energy efficiency projects have a negative cost. Why are they not happening? If one cannot get things to happen of their own accord when they are a negative cost, how much more is policy needed to make sure things happen that have a positive cost and are done in such a way that they will create opportunities for the business community to deliver domestically rather than substituting a dependence on fossil imports for a dependence on technology imports?

Senator Fiach Mac Conghail

Should responsibility for this, therefore, transfer to the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources from the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government?

Mr. Neil Walker

Climate cuts across all Departments. That is no argument for moving responsibility for it to the Department of the Taoiseach because that is not a spending Department. It holds the ring between all the other Departments. Clearly, there is a Cabinet decision-making process and a Cabinet sub-committee, which is advised by experts, but no country makes the Head of State personally responsible for delivering climate policy. The President of the European Commission, for example, does not have responsibility for it; the Commission has a directorate. Britain has the Department of Energy and Climate Change, not David Cameron. From that viewpoint, while I can see the argument for having greater accountability and it would be great to haul the Taoiseach in during Question Time every week and ask him what he has done for the climate this week, I am not sure that would have any positive real effect on achieving what we want.

Senator Fiach Mac Conghail

What is the ideal model of accountability for delivering policy if the UK's is not?

Mr. Neil Walker

The UK has been proactive and we can learn a great deal from them, including from the mistakes they have made.

Senator Fiach Mac Conghail

What are those lessons?

Mr. Neil Walker

The UK is unusual in having such advanced climate legislation. It is the exception rather than the norm. Every member state has transposed EU legislation that would have the impact of promoting renewables, energy efficiency, building standards, sustainable transport or reducing carbon emissions but few have introduced a climate Bill, which has targets that do not specifically relate to what has been negotiated in Brussels. We have an effort sharing agreement on renewables, energy efficiency and climate targets for the non-emissions trading sector. The way those targets were reached was through modelling similar to Dr. Brian Ó'Gallachóir's, except that he reckons they got the numbers wrong. Although there was meant to be an equal sharing of the burden, the numbers for Ireland are much higher because they did not take proper account of agriculture, but then Ireland's target was adjusted upwards as part of social cohesion. Instead of us getting 16%, we got 20% and we were meant to carry more of the burden than other less wealthy EU states. They thought we were rich back in 2006 and we would help them. The question is whether we would help them by going the extra mile doing domestic abatement at ever-increasing cost or whether we would have financial transfers to cause abatement to be done at a lower cost, thereby helping economic development in poorer countries. That is different from buying dubious credits from Third World countries where there have been issues about how real they are. This is within the EU and the Commission wants us to promote social cohesion. Target setting is a complex process, which is negotiated in Brussels.

The UK does many things well but it has determined its climate targets without adequate reference to the EU policy framework and one of the unintended consequences, for example, of the carbon price law is to depress the price of carbon in the European market. It has targets up to 2050 but if the Senator Googles it, he will find in two minutes that there has been a series of public spats between the committee on climate change and the Government. Perhaps he will say that is holding the government to account but has it been constructive? I invite him to form his own view.

Senator Fiach Mac Conghail

Does IBEC broadly agree with the composition of the expert advisory group under the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government under the draft heads?

Mr. Neil Walker

The administration of the expert group will be provided by the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, and that is not a bad thing because the agency has done much of the leg work.

The five ex officio members of the committee are all very busy people. I do not know who the other three or four people will be and I do not have a view on that.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

The difference between the corporate leaders' approach this morning and IBEC's approach is stark. They were keen on having certainty and referred to the UK approach as being positive in giving certainty for people, for example, in the energy sector.

Mr. Walker said we should not do solo runs here. Would he be in favour of inserting into the Bill the targets to which we have already more or less subscribed? The main emphasis in the IBEC submission appears to be on avoiding measures that increase the cost burden on employers. On the other side of that, has it quantified the damage-type issues, such as increased insurance costs and investment in water infrastructure? Would the cost of inaction be more than the cost of action?

This morning, the corporate leaders pointed to the need for a broader vision that would cascade down into each of the sectors. Would Mr. Walker agree with that approach? The decision on where responsibility is placed at Government level ties into that. He has already said that the Department of the Taoiseach should not have the responsibility. That broad vision seems to be a very sensible approach. We would have to come back to how it might be defined. Does Mr. Walker believe the science on the targets up to 2020?

Mr. Neil Walker

Are you asking me if I am a climate change sceptic?

Deputy Catherine Murphy

No. The emphasis of the submission was that it should not apply more of a cost burden on industry. It is difficult to see how we can meet the targets without having costs in the short term. If the proper investment is made, there may be a greater cumulative return in the longer term. We need to plan for 2020, 2030 and 2050. Is IBEC working towards that? How can we meet those targets without incurring a cost at this stage?

Mr. Neil Walker

That is understood. There are five questions and I may not respond to them in the order asked. First, the Deputy spoke about damage, which is really the cost of adaptation. Most of the pollution is being done in the developed world and most of the damage is being done in the Third World. That is an issue of climate justice, on which I feel very strongly. Within Europe there are issues relating to flooding, coastal defence, etc. However, I do not claim to have any expertise in the mitigation costs of that. Globally, the Stern review has shown that the cost of mitigation should be cheaper than the cost of adaptation, but I cannot say whether that also pertains to one EU member state.

I agree on the need for a vision, which is why it makes sense to have a national roadmap. However, it must also adhere to European policy and cannot be a stand-alone national vision. On the issue of whether central roadmaps should inform the national roadmap, it will be a two-way flow.

Do I believe that the target for Ireland was scientifically reached? As I have previously outlined, the European Commission runs a model called PRIMES which is run by the University of Athens. It is similar to the TIMES model which Dr. Ó Gallachóir runs. A model is only as good as the numbers on which it runs and it is an engineering technical model. It is an optimisation model in Dr. Ó Gallachóir's case and a simulation model in the Commission's case. Having come up with a solution that was supposedly equimarginal - that is efficient - because nobody was asked to be able to do something at a higher marginal cost than everybody else, they then adjusted the targets for purposes of social cohesion. The target we have is not purely the result of science.

At a global level a scientific reduction is required because the environment only cares about global emissions. High-level international politics at the UN then decides the share that is being carried by the EU. Negotiations in Brussels then determine the share of individual member states and that is partly on economics and partly on social grounds. We ended up with the toughest target by far, partly because the modelling is questionable and partly because we were perceived to be a rich country - we got landed with our target based on 2006 GDP.

We need targets but we have loads of targets. Between now and 2020 for each year there is a trajectory for the ETS which is EU-wide. There is a trajectory for the non-ETS sector. There is a requirement to move towards the use of 10% of renewable sources of energy in transport. That is qualified by a target related to indirect land use change. There is a target for overall renewable sources of energy and there is a target for annual improvements in energy efficiency. That makes 48 targets.

We could put a reference to targets in the Bill, which we suggested to the former Minister, Mr. Gormley, more than two years ago. In order to get broad support for his Bill, all he had to do was to say that the purpose of the Bill was to enable Ireland to meet, at a minimum, its legally binding obligations under the EU climate and energy legislation.

However, this is not purely about energy policy. The climate-change working group covers not just energy policy, but also environment policy so it feeds into two broad policy committees. I believe every member of the Irish Corporate Leaders is a member of IBEC and most of them are represented on those policy committees. If there really was a stark disagreement between the two positions, it would have surfaced in our discussions.

Deputy Kevin Humphreys

I believe Mr. Walker has covered most of the questions. I was interested to hear his view that responsibility should not lie in the Department of the Taoiseach, which is probably similar to mine.

On head 8, IBEC's submission refers to the need to provide more detail. It also states that it should not be modelled on the UK's committee on climate change. I ask Mr. Walker to outline the weakness in head 8. While dealing with head 8, does Mr. Walker believe the national should come before the sectoral roadmap or should they run in parallel?

Mr. Neil Walker

Perhaps I might quote Dr. Rory O'Donnell of NESC who said that policy is a loop and not a line. If one buys into that, there needs to be constant two-way communication. It may be that there are several iterations. Nobody writes a plan that will be good for 40 years - it will need to change. To the extent that there is a national target and a framework, it is then necessary to ask each of the sectors what it is possible to do, what it would cost and what policy design is required to do it. Some of them may need more encouragement because they have not been at it as long. The individual plans are then added together and reviewed. That is what the European Commission does with renewable energy and energy-efficiency action plans to see whether the national plans in total add up to the overall target.

There is likely to be a shortfall, for the simple reason the European Commission intended that in Ireland's case there would be a shortfall. This is why we were given an extra 4% in the target, so we would have a choice between more expensive domestic measures or funding work elsewhere in the EU.

It would be a matter for the national roadmap to state how big the gap would be. There almost certainly will be a gap, even if the economy stays in the doldrums. Effectively our reduction is not 20%; it is probably more than 30% when one considers the sheer difficulty of abating emissions from soil processes and enteric fermentation in the agriculture sector. Even if one could come up with a novel technology, such as vaccinating cows to stop them burping or particular chemical inhibitors which would stop soil bugs from decomposing matter into nitrous oxide, the UN accounting system would not recognise them as savings. It is likely there will be some use of flexibility instruments in the EU and this is not a bad thing; it is what the Commission wants us to do. It will not be for an individual sector to state it can do nothing so it will meet its share of the burden through the purchase of instruments. This would be an issue for the central road map.

Deputy Kevin Humphreys

With regard to head 12 and the potential cost burdens to Irish employers, how could the language be altered to better regulate it?

Mr. Neil Walker

If the policy is right there will be opportunities. There are already costs associated with the policies in place but they are being borne. Some of them are very visible, such as the carbon tax and EU allowances, but there are also costs which are less obvious in terms of how the energy system is required to operate. We have not been complaining and we have been very progressive. It is fair enough to meet a target in a way which is efficient but there is nothing to be gained from doing it in a way which is inefficient. How would this help anybody? It would just mean there was less money over to do the work needed.

Deputy Kevin Humphreys

Mr. Walker mentioned the pitfalls discussed by a UK committee on climate change and he also covered this when answering questions. Are there any other obvious pitfalls for which we should watch?

Mr. Neil Walker

I can see an enhanced role for the expert advisory group. Whether this would extend to supervision is not clear. It is quite feasible there should be some form of supervisory body, not necessarily the Taoiseach or an Oireachtas joint committee because it could be diluted across several such committees. One could envisage something along the lines proposed in the final report from the National Economic and Social Council, NESC. We do not state this would be the best way to do it, but it would be no harm to consider whether there would be a role for such a supervisory body. We would see it as complementary to the role of the expert advisory group. The expert advisers would advise on how to design policies and implement them in a way whereby technologies are adopted early and cost effectively, but somebody must examine whether it all adds up and if not what more needs to be done. This is not necessarily a role for the heads of the EPA and SEI. It might be, but they all have day jobs also.

Deputy Kevin Humphreys

What Mr. Walker proposes is an expert embedded group similar to the Fiscal Advisory Council. The NESC was going in that direction in one report.

Mr. Neil Walker

One could draw parallels with the Fiscal Advisory Council. I am not qualified to state whether the Fiscal Advisory Council carries much clout. I could not answer this question.

Senator Cáit Keane

Most of the questions I wanted to ask have been answered. A major issue with regard to sustainable development and renewable and sustainable energy is certainty in the market. Mr. Walker is against the UK model. The UK position on the single 2030 target emissions reduction will help reassure investors the Government understands the need for certainty and flexibility if they are to invest in new low-carbon technologies. One of the main themes at a conference held in Dublin Castle last month, which I helped organise, was that investors need certainty. One way of achieving certainty is knowing what a government will do. What does Mr. Walker recommend to achieve certainty in investment in renewable energy? It is all right to have policy, but if we do not have people to implement this policy we will go nowhere. We must make it happen; there is no point in writing a document if we have nothing at the end of it.

Mr. Neil Walker

The Senator has asked a valid question and I will do my best to answer it but I may call upon my colleague Ms Murray who knows much more than I do about this.

Senator Cáit Keane

Some measures we could implement could have negative costs. I am interested to hear about this because we do not have money. Offshore wind energy costs much more than onshore. It is more productive at sea but we do not have it. I would be delighted to hear about measures with negative costs so we could recommend them.

Mr. Neil Walker

With regard to certainty, unless we know what the price of carbon will be for the next ten years nobody will build a wind farm. If we look at what happened during the pilot phase of the emissions trading scheme, which was between 2005 and 2007, the price of carbon moved from approximately €20 to approximately 20 cent per tonne. During this period investment in wind in Ireland accelerated because the revenue received by a wind developer does not depend hugely on the price of carbon. It can help, but what is more important is the wholesale price of electricity, which also depends on fuel costs. There is also the safety net of a renewable feed-in tariff which means even if a recession hits, which it did in 2009, and the price of gas in Europe were to fall by half, which it did, and therefore the pool price of electricity falls by 25% to 30%, the wind farm is held whole and has a hedge against energy prices falling too low. Anything above this provides the icing on the cake. There are also other issues with regard to certainty on wind farms, such as the weather and planning permission. The gate process was first come, first served, so many people are sitting on connection offers but do not have planning permission. It is a very complex area.

I will speak briefly about European policy. This week, the European Parliament passed a vote on backloading and the price of EU allowances has shot up from €4.50 to €4.75. It has not had a huge effect yet, but if it is followed by further measures it could increase the price of carbon. The question is whether this will have an impact on the build-out of renewables. Other countries have gone for much more expensive technologies, particularly on the Continent. Some countries have tried to create certainty. In one instance solar photovoltaic energy was being developed at a multiple of the cost of onshore wind but there was no certainty because the government in question then realised how expensive it was and pulled the plug. It has been very damaging to investor confidence.

The way the Department has proceeded has been very good. It has thought things through carefully and is focused on technology, which is where we have an advantage. Having the refit scheme as a safety net is a reasonably cost-effective way of promoting onshore wind. If the price of energy continues to increase the refit will not cost anything because there will be no need for a public service obligation. It will be above the safety net level. We have policies in place which, regardless of the price of energy, of which carbon is only a part, there is sufficient certainty to promote renewables. There is a queue around the block to build onshore wind.

Ms Jill Murray

From our point of view, in terms of investment in renewable energy, what we want to know is where we are going. This Bill will be helpful in that it will provide a co-ordinated approach, which means each sector will know where it is going, at least for the duration of the roadmaps, be they five or seven years. A positive development for us in terms of renewable development is that the Department has stuck to its guns. Europe has set a target and Irish policy makers have developed the policy to achieve those targets and have stuck to them. In other countries, Governments have pulled back and changed their targets, which kills investment. It gives investors comfort that the Irish Government is pro-investment in renewables and renewable policy.

The uncertainty at the moment is around where we are going next and what happens post-2020. By providing a framework whereby we are planning in advance on a five or seven years basis, we will know well enough in advance where the Government is going and what policy will be. This provides for certainty and stability to investors and reduces the costs of investment. One of the key questions we are asked by financiers these days is what is Ireland's policy on renewables. We have been able to show that Irish Government policy has been stable, which has proven very helpful for us.

In terms of the Bill, we believe it will provide the framework to give us the certainty so that we can invest and that this, in turn, should reduce the cost of those investments.

Senator Cáit Keane

Negative news always receives the most coverage in the media and so protestors outside a renewable energy conference and so on always receive more coverage than does the conference. What would the witnesses do to educate the mass public? In other words, in terms of investment in renewable energy, how do they bring people along with them?

Ms Jill Murray

A large part of the focus is on behavioural change and education change to bring society to where we are trying to go. To date, the focus has been on a few sectors of society. This framework will, perhaps, help in terms of education. How one goes about it is a good question. While I cannot answer that question, it is core to this working from an energy efficiency and renewable viewpoint.

Mr. Neil Walker

I would like to think that we will be the last generation who will have bad teeth and do not care about the climate.

Ms Audrey O'Shea

The work being done by the local authorities and education awareness officers in conjunction with An Taisce through the schools green flag programme is an excellent way forward. There are many new schemes in the area of health, waste, energy, climate change and water. The younger generation will teach the older one.

Chairman

I thank Mr. Walker, Ms Murray and Ms O'Shea for their interesting exchange of views.

The joint committee went into private session at 3.25 p.m. and resumed in public session at 3.50 p.m.

BirdWatch Ireland

Chairman

I welcome our sixth group of witnesses: Ms Anja Murray, policy and advocacy team, BirdWatch Ireland, and Dr. Caoimhe Muldoon, BirdWatch Ireland. I will outline the privilege advice and then invite you to address the committee.

Witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of their evidence. If they are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence in relation to a particular matter and they continue to so do, they are entitled thereafter only to a qualified privilege. Witnesses are directed to restrict their evidence to the subject matter of the proceedings and to respect the parliamentary practice of not criticising or making charges against any person(s) or entity. Witnesses are asked to read the document that has been circulated to them concerning privilege.

I remind the witnesses not to read out their opening statement, as it has already been circulated to members. Some members have read it and others will read it over the next few days. We will take the opening statement as read. You can use your five minutes to give your own view on that. I ask Ms Anja Murray to address the committee.

Ms Anja Murray

We thank the committee for inviting us to this meeting. We welcome the opportunity to bring nature-based approaches to climate change before the committee.

BirdWatch Ireland is Ireland's largest NGO and we have been actively engaging in climate change issues for over ten years. I will not outline the scale of the challenge because that is contained in our submission and I am sure members are aware of it. We are keen to see a target of 80% to 95% for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. It is really important to have targets; otherwise, the effectiveness of the Bill will be undermined.

Biodiversity and climate change are not issues people would usually put together. The interaction of climate change and biodiversity has been reflected in the national biodiversity action plan. There is a quote from the plan in the submission. It states how important ecosystems are for actively removing greenhouse gases from the atmosphere, as well as being really important in providing adaptation to existing impacts of climate change. There will be impacts from climate change and they can buffer us against some of the worst impacts, such as flooding.

Nature-based solutions to climate change are very cost efficient. They are our key ally in the fight against climate change in respect of both mitigation and adaptation strategies. The most important and relevant example of this in Ireland is peat bogs - that is, peatland restoration and conservation. Bogs store an enormous quantity of greenhouse gases. In Ireland the figure is approximately 1.56 million tonnes of carbon. This is massive. They actively absorb 2.64 million tonnes of carbon per year. They are a massive store of carbon and they are actively doing us what is effectively a free service. The problem is that when we reduce the water table in peat bogs and degrade those bogs through burning, turf cutting or peat extraction, that role is reversed and the bogs start to release greenhouse gases. At present, Ireland is a net source of greenhouse gas. I provided a figure in the submission. This Bill must have specific targets for restoration of degraded peat bogs. We must examine that issue if Ireland is to do anything meaningful to reduce its emissions. Achim Steiner, UN Under-Secretary General, has said the restoration of peatlands represents low-hanging fruit. It is among the most cost-effective options for mitigating climate change. It is important to point out that it is not part of the UNFCCC process, so it must be in addition to cutting emissions. A required action we have sought for the Bill is that it should adopt targets for the restoration of protected peatlands to stop carbon loss in accordance with the recommendation in "Bogland", a major study compiled by many academics across the universities in which they put forward a set of recommendations. The Bill should set a target for achieving this by 2020 through partnership approaches to peatland management. This has happened in the UK, Canada and other countries. In the UK, for example, there is a target of 1 million hectares of peatland to be restored by 2020. Ireland is very far behind. We have done a handful of studies which have shown that we can successfully cap losses of carbon from peat bogs, but we have done very little on this. We must do a great deal more.

Energy is another big issue. Some of our mitigation actions can have negative impacts on the environment. We must ensure there is explicit reference to protection of the environment in the Bill. The challenge we face is to protect nature while deploying renewables at the scale and pace required. BirdWatch Ireland supports our renewable energy targets and supports meeting those targets through wind energy, but there must be a strategic and planned approach to the deployment of renewable energy in Ireland. BirdWatch Ireland is actively working towards that with sensitivity mapping for wind energy. That is a really important issue.

Bio-fuels are another issue. Until now, there has been much support for bio-fuels, but unsustainable production of bio-fuels is driving environmental damage. It is not as climate-friendly as had been assumed. In some cases the bio-fuel can be more climate-damaging than conventional oil. The required action for this Bill is that there are references to the protection of the environment and explicitly for biodiversity that require no damage to valuable ecosystems arising from mitigation and adaptation strategies. Targets for reducing emissions from fossil fuels must be matched with equally strong policies and measures aimed at protecting natural ecosystems from destruction by conversion to meet the displaced energy demand.

The other really important issue relating to energy is that there must be clear and legally binding energy efficiency targets. That is really crucial.

Other ecosystem-based approaches to climate change adaptation are adaptation strategies for wildlife, in terms of wildlife having to adapt to climate change. There must be buffer zones around our existing Natura 2000 nature conservation sites. Also, there must be catchment-based flood attenuation. This is important because wetlands provide a really important service to attenuate flooding. With regard to increasing the resilience of forestry, there must be a pile of actions in the forestry sector to improve the extent to which forestry is mitigating climate change. At present, there is an over-reliance on single species monoculture. Much more could be done. Studies throughout Europe show a great deal more carbon sequestration can be achieved by continuous-cover forestry approaches.

I have rushed through the submission because I cannot read from it, so I referred to some of the key points. The overarching point is that ecosystems are a very important ally in our fight against climate change. They are also consistent with a pile of other benefits. This is an opportunity for Ireland. Ireland depends a great deal on its clean, green image, particularly in agriculture and tourism. Currently, our performance with regard to environmental legislation is atrocious. We rank at the bottom of the European scales. We have a great deal to achieve if we are to benefit from maintaining a clean green image. Having specific targets and incorporating biodiversity and environmental considerations into those is essential.

Deputy Brian Stanley

I thank Ms Murray for her presentation. In general, I agree with the key points she made about legally binding targets, five-year roadmaps, giving the expert advisory group the power to publish its results and so forth.

On the issue of forestry, we are relying on one type of tree, which is conifers.

Is that a serious problem? Is the lack of diversity in our woodlands a problem?

I hope that forestry stays in State hands. This is a recent battle and I hope that those in favour of retaining it in State ownership will win. How important is that?

I wish to discuss peatlands and the controversial turf-cutting. According to the Government, only 2% of peatlands are used for domestic turf-cutting. Typically, the bogs are small and dried out because turf has been cut on them for 200 years and it would be difficult, if not impossible, to restore them. I agree with the delegation that scientific evidence has implied that bogs are a great asset for absorbing carbon and their biodiversity is very important. However, huge tracts of the 98% of boglands not used for turf-cutting are not protected SACs. They should be protected SACs, and I can name some of them if the delegation so wishes. The bogs are wet and are actively growing. I am not a scientist but I know from a brief reading of the reports on different bogs that once the bogs are wet then all of them share the same type of fauna and biodiversity.

To an extent, some environmentalists have missed the point. We should protect the bogs, particularly in view of their importance in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. That point has been missed. In most cases the wrong bogs were designated and large bogs were missed, particularly the large, wet actively growing bogs that nobody wants to cut turf on any more. Bord na Móna might have harvested them for peat moss 20 or 30 years ago because they were unsuitable for fuel, but the company has moved away from that idea.

I have a question on the habitats of cutaway bogs and their value in absorbing greenhouse gas emissions. Any cutaway bog that I have seen, particularly those that have been left static for five, ten, 15 or 20 years, have became active habitats again in the space of a couple of years. Many of them are now wetlands, but no thought has been given to restoring their habitats. They have great potential to deal with greenhouse gas and carbon emissions and probably have the same value as raised bogs.

There has been great conflict between turf-cutters and the State, and aeroplanes have even taken to the sky over an issue that concerns just 2% of bogs. The conflict continues, but we are missing the remaining 98%. I know that not all of the remaining 98% of bog is suitable, because some of it was harvested by Bord na Móna. I also know that massive tracts of bogs, far more than 2%, can be utilised and preserved. The bogland would be of greater benefit because it is wetter. Does the delegation agree that we must examine that idea?

Ms Anja Murray

I thank the Deputy and I am pleased to hear he is aware of the climate benefits of restoring peat bogs.

I will comment first on the forestry issue. Studies have been carried out in the UK and across Europe that show that mixed forestry and continuous cover forestry are more beneficial for storing greenhouse gases in the long term. Most of the climate-polluting gases are stored in the leaf litter and soil beneath the forest, not in the timber, and much of this is released when a forest is clear-felled. Mixed forestry provides continuous cover and allows for more species and selective harvesting of species, but entails more work, skill and expertise and makes a greater return economically. It is also better from a climate change perspective, and the literature supports that view.

We need to examine different ways of approaching forestry. I have outlined the mitigation side of forestry and will now talk about resilience. A large monoculture is more susceptible to attacks from drought, fire or pests. Mixed stands in forestry are more resilient to climate impacts, as we shall see in the future. For example, we have had dry springs lately, which is a big issue. Even without climate mitigation there are many good reasons to have more mixed forestry. Ireland is wedded to monoculture forestry stands, but we need more mixed forestry here.

With regard to peat bogs, the present fight over turf-cutting relates to designated SAC raised bogs which are mainly in the midlands. They were designated in 1994. The best sites for nature conservation were chosen, boundaries were delineated around them and they were protected for nature conservation. Turf-cutting continues, along with many other damaging activities such as afforestation on blanket bogs. The blanket bogs play a great role in storing and actively sequestering greenhouse gases. The focus has not been sufficiently wide, as it has been mainly on raised bogs in the midlands and turf-cutting. For a number of years BirdWatch Ireland has called for the focus to be widened. We need to stop turf-cutting on the designated raised bogs in the midlands. We also need to examine other pressures and threats to cutaway bogs and blanket bogs. Our website contains a ten-page submission from the Peatland Council that details all of those issues and outlines why we need a wider scope. Climate change is a very important part of our argument, along with other issues such as water quality. Peat bogs do a great amount to filter and purify water. Lowland peat bogs also do a lot to soak up heavy rainfall and prevent flooding further downstream. One can attach a real economic cost to that range of services. Raised bogs are more than just a nature conservation issue; the focus should be cast much wider.

Deputy Stanley asked whether the wrong bogs were designated, and my answer is definitely "No". The bogs were designated for species and habitats that are very rare and are increasingly rare across Europe. We selected the most pristine bogs, not the Bord na Móna bogs. We selected the bogs in which people cut turf using the traditional implement called a slean up until the 1960s, not the ones in which people were engaged in turf-cutting with tractors and sausage machines. The right bogs have been designated for nature conservation.

With regard to climate change, there is a strong argument for seeking wider protection for bogs. One EPA-funded restoration project focused on a cutaway bog in County Mayo, and its emissions of greenhouse gases were capped. That is just one study in Ireland, but many have been carried out in other places. Belarus has engaged in such conservation over millions of hectares as a climate change response, and we need to do a lot more of this in Ireland. I must emphasise that this is not instead of other actions to reduce emissions but in addition to them.

Deputy Brian Stanley

Two of the bogs were selected because of specific wildlife and fauna.

Ms Anja Murray

Yes.

Deputy Brian Stanley

The other bogs have the same wildlife and fauna. The only justification I saw for choosing one bog over another was that it was deemed to be the most southerly raised bog within the midland group of bogs. A number of other raised bogs lie further south on the globe in Ireland than that designated bog. The people who made the designation ignored that fact or were unaware of it. One can see them on the map.

Ms Anja Murray

There is a range of scientific criteria to explain why certain bogs were designated.

Deputy Brian Stanley

I read it.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

I want to raise a few issues. Why does the delegation think the expert advisory group should be independent? Why should it have the power to publish its own results?

Nothing focuses people's minds like costs and quantifying costs. Is there a way to quantify the damage to biodiversity caused by climate change? Can Ms Murphy estimate the cost? Has a model or work been done on same? It would be useful to know its economic value.

Some of the issues that were referred to in regard to ecosystem-based approaches are really land-use planning issues which are more properly dealt with by local authorities. Do the delegates consider this legislation the right place to include such provisions or is there a need to strengthen other legislation in tandem with this Bill?

Ms Anja Murray

I will take the question on why the expert advisory body should be independent. After ten or 15 years working in this sector, most NGOs will observe that serious difficulties can arise when advisory bodies are constrained by being too tightly contained within a particular Department. The fiscal advisory council is a very good example of a body that is capable of releasing statements, highlighting scientific evidence and making recommendations to Government which the latter can choose either to accept or reject but must, in either case, give an explanation for its decision. That is the importance of having an independent body. Many of the measures that will have to be taken if we are to meet the challenge of reducing greenhouse gas emissions will be politically unpopular in the short term. It is important that recommendations are not curtailed politically before even being put in the public domain.

The question regarding the economic value and cost of peatland restoration efforts is an excellent one. Several studies in this regard have been carried out in the United Kingdom. For example, the commission of inquiry established by the International Union for Conservation of Nature carried out a cost-benefit analysis of peatland restoration and found a return of 30 times the investment in terms of carbon value. In Northern Ireland and Britain, water companies are funding peatland conservation because it is cheaper for them to supply clean water if it comes from a catchment with an intact bog as opposed to having to treat water which contains peat sediment. There are many similar examples right across Europe. On one occasion when I raised this issue at an event, a representative of Bank of Ireland who was in attendance expressed considerable interest in the possibility of investing in peatland restoration. There are strong economic arguments for it.

In terms of land-use planning, issues include the location of renewable energy responses and so on. It is important that this Bill would state very clearly that there shall be no negative environmental impacts on protected species and habitats from mitigation and adaptation strategies. We are seeking an overarching commitment in this regard within the legislation.

Deputy Kevin Humphreys

Ms Murray mentioned a return of 30 times the investment in peatland restoration and referred to the existence of various studies. Can she give us any more examples of those types of studies?

Ms Anja Murray

A significant study was undertaken in Belarus. That is one example and one that is perhaps surprising. I can come back to the committee with more details in this regard.

Deputy Kevin Humphreys

That would be helpful. Ms Murray also mentioned the Mayo experiment where there was success in capping greenhouse emissions. What is the possibility not only of capping emissions but actually making deposits of greenhouse gases?

Ms Anja Murray

It depends on the state of the peat bog, specifically the level of degradation. In the case of a cutover bog, for example, where there is very little peat layer remaining, one would seek to cap emissions. If a bog is capable of proper restoration to an active bog, the greenhouses gases can be stored as the bog starts to grow. My colleague, Ms Caoimhe Muldoon, might expand on that.

Dr. Caoimhe Muldoon

The top layer of bog is the active layer and is comprised mainly of sphagnum mosses. As the mosses grow, they absorb the carbon from the atmosphere. Where the bogs are waterlogged, the carbon will be retained in the inactive layers below. Once the active top layer is in place, it will start to act as a carbon sink.

Deputy Kevin Humphreys

Are there figures for tonnage per acre in an active bog?

Ms Anja Murray

It differs on a site-by-site basis. The bogland report gives very specific figures, which are included in the initial submission from BirdWatch Ireland to the committee, including an average figure for both blanket and raised bogs. The average figure for the whole of Ireland is 57,000 tonnes of carbon per year which can be actively sequestered. The summary section of the bogland report is four or five pages long and sets out much of this information. Again, it is a question of how waterlogged a particular bog is. In Canada, active restoration efforts involve the use of small pellets of sphagnum moss to reseed the bog and make it grow again. In Wales, meanwhile, strips are deployed to stop the water from running down the mountainside. There are different ways of doing it, some more cost efficient than others. There is a range of factors at play in deciding which method to use.

Deputy Kevin Humphreys

What is Ms Murray's definition of "adequate expertise", as referred to in her submission, and in what way does the expert advisory body fail to meet that criterion?

Ms Anja Murray

Adequate expertise means having sufficient scientific expertise on a range of climate change issues. We are concerned with the nature conservation aspects of that. The representatives of Stop Climate Chaos might have more details on what is required in this regard.

Deputy Kevin Humphreys

Will Ms Murray outline the deficit she sees in the expert advisory body?

Ms Anja Murray

We are concerned that if the body's membership is politically appointed, people might be included for reasons others than their expertise on the issues.

Deputy Kevin Humphreys

Yet Ms Murray referred to the fiscal advisory council, which is politically appointed, as a good model for such bodies.

Ms Anja Murray

The main issue is that a range of expertise would be represented and that certain criteria should be applied to ensure that happens

Deputy Kevin Humphreys

I am supportive of the notion that provisions in this area should be included in legislation. However, I have yet to come across any environmental proposal, whether relating to wind turbines, wave energy development or otherwise, where there has not been some type of complaint. For instance, the construction of turbines off Arklow prompted objections on the basis that spawning grounds would be impacted, which might lead to the death of migrating birds. There is concern right now in locations in the midlands regarding wind turbine flicker. The difficulty is in striking a balance between the overall benefit of installing wind turbines or developing tidal energy, for example, as against the potential impact of such initiatives. There seems to be a negative impact from everything we propose. There is clearly a level of urgency to be met in dealing with climate change, but this question of striking a balance must be considered before including any provision in legislation. As I said, I do not recall any proposal that has not prompted objections from one source or another.

Ms Anja Murray

It is about strategic planning as opposed to issues being led along based on whose plot of land is at stake or who wants to do what where. A greater degree of strategic planning will help the roll-out of renewable energy. BirdWatch Ireland's sensitivity mapping project is identifying areas where there is a higher or lower risk for wind energy specifically. That is one tool out of a range of tools which can be used by developers and regulatory agencies to facilitate roll-out. As I said, BirdWatch Ireland is absolutely supportive of Ireland meeting its renewable energy targets, including in the area of wind energy. We are particularly supportive of wind energy being rolled out in locations where there is no conflict with birds and habitats. That is entirely possible. I referred in our submission to a BirdLife Europe report entitled Meeting Europe's Renewable Energy Targets in Harmony with Nature.

It lays out a range of specific tools as to how we can deploy renewable energy in harmony with nature, including better spatial planning and strategic planning on which Ireland has not been particularly good so far. Some counties have wind energy strategies while some go into more detail on spatial planning than others. That is the main tool about which we talk in terms of nature conservation issues and renewable energy.

Senator Cáit Keane

My question is about carbon from bogs and the amount it releases, which supersedes industry and commerce. When one takes that into consideration, is Ms Murray saying it should be offset against our target or is she saying we should ensure conservation of the bogs, or both?

Ms Anja Murray

We need to do both.

Senator Cáit Keane

In regard to bio-fuels, Ms Murray said palm oil, soybean oil and rape seed oil are more damaging than conventional oil. Miscanthus grass is the up and coming thing but it was not mentioned. I would like to hear her views on miscanthus grass, anaerobic digestion and on the environmental impact and all of the different technologies in use there for implementation of those two.

Ms Anja Murray

Miscanthus grass is probably the main crop here for bio-energy and bio-fuels. Again, it depends entirely on where it is. I do not think miscanthus is commonly grown on peaty soils. Where forestry and other species are planted on peaty soils, for example, there can be more emissions from the soil than benefit from the growing crop, so it is very site-dependent. Anaerobic digestion is an excellent idea when it is based on waste products but taking up land to grow crops specifically for anaerobic digestion is a bad idea from a number of perspectives. When anaerobic digestion is using waste products, it is an excellent idea.

Senator Cáit Keane

Mixed forestry is recommended rather than an expansion of the type of forestry we have had until now, including sitka spruce. Has an analysis been done on planting - upsetting the bog and gas being released - versus how long it takes for the forestry to mature and provide benefits? Does it balance out? How long does it take?

Ms Anja Murray

A few different studies have been done. At the moment it is the source of some debate. The studies done to date show that there is a positive net benefit in terms of greenhouse gas emissions being absorbed by the growing forest but those studies have not taken account of aeration of the soil, the oxidation of the soil which occurs when one drains and plants. We have said they are not painting a true picture of the emissions from afforestation. Again, it very much depends on the site. We support increasing forestry in Ireland, as we have very low forest cover. However, we should move away from over-reliance on sitka spruce plantations and the clearfell replant system.

Deputy Gerald Nash

I thank Ms Murray for her presentation. Is Bird Watch Ireland seeking to have bio-diversity plans and so on explicitly referenced in the Bill?

Ms Anja Murray

We are looking for specific mention in the Bill that adaptation and mitigation strategies, adopted as part of the Bill and our strategy to achieve those targets, do not negatively impact on nature conservation targets. If we have targets by 2020 and 2050, we should also have legal and policy commitments to halt the loss bio-diversity by 2020. We do not want there to be a conflict and we know there are ways of achieving both in harmony. We want explicit reference to that.

Deputy Gerald Nash

I refer to bio-diversity plans, the habitats directive, primary legislation relating to habitats protection, including peat bogs and so on, and the whole range of policy areas governed by specific legislation. There may well be a need to include a reference to climate change legislation and to amend those plans and that legislation. Does Ms Murray understand what I am driving at?

Ms Anja Murray

I do.

Deputy Gerald Nash

I may not be articulating it very well. A whole range of legislation may need to be amended in order to give effect to what we all want to see new climate change legislation reflect. It is another way to do that.

Ms Anja Murray

The habitats and the birds directives would be explicitly for nature conservation. I do not think there would be a conflict in anything there counteracting what we do. The SEA directive has a specific clause stating that climate change and bio-diversity elements shall be incorporated into strategic environmental assessment. A number of those already have a statement. What we want here, as we develop strategies, is that an onus is placed on each sector, so that there are sectoral action plans which reflect the need to meet bio-diversity and climate change targets simultaneously.

Chairman

I thank Ms Murray and Ms Muldoon for their engagement, which we appreciate.

Ms Anja Murray

I thank the committee for inviting us.

Sitting suspended at 4.30 p.m. and resumed at 4.40 p.m.

Stop Climate Chaos

Chairman

Our seventh group, Stop Climate Chaos, will be the final witnesses today. I welcome Ms Monica Gorman, programme support and development officer at Oxfam Ireland, Mr. Sorley McCaughey, head of policy and advocacy at Christian Aid Ireland, and Mr. Gavin Harte, from the Stop Climate Chaos secretariat.

By virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they give to this committee. However, if they are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence in relation to a particular matter and they continue to so do, they are entitled thereafter only to a qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. They are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and they are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise nor make charges against any person, persons or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable. They are asked to read the document relating to privilege which has been circulated to them. The opening statements have been circulated and should be considered as read. I call on Mr. McCaughey to address the committee.

Mr. Sorley McCaughey

I thank the joint committee for affording the Stop Climate Chaos coalition an opportunity to address members. We are a coalition of agencies which are campaigning to ensure Ireland plays its part in preventing runaway climate change. We have worked slowly on climate change since our launch in 2007. The coalition is a diverse group of developmental, environmental, youth and faith-based organisations, ranging from Trócaire, Christian Aid and Oxfam through to BirdWatch Ireland, the Climate Ireland Action Platform, CIAP, Sustain West Cork and Cultivate, an organisation based in County Tipperary. We are a national organisation with a diverse membership. My colleagues and I will now address any questions members may have based on our submission.

Deputy Brian Stanley

I thank our guests for their presentation. On targets, the submission refers to a target of reducing carbon emissions by 95% by 2050. How realistic is this target in the case of Ireland, particularly considering the quantity of food the country produces and is expected to produce in the short and medium term? The document also notes that an Irish citizen produces 93 times more carbon that a citizen of Malawi. While I am not questioning the figure, if accurate, it is staggering and should be viewed in the context of the proposed 95% reduction in carbon emissions.

The submission states that a business-as-usual approach to climate change will result in a catastrophic increase of 6° Celsius by the end of the century. Most other commentators cite a figure of between 2°C and 4°C. An increase of 6°C would wipe out millions, if not billions, of people and would have catastrophic effects on agriculture, the environment, sea levels and so forth. On what is the figure of 6°C based? I concur with many of the views expressed by the Stop Climate Chaos coalition, members of which I have met previously.

Mr. Sorley McCaughey

On targets, the science tells us that we need to make these deep cuts by 2050. The European Council has agreed we must make cuts of between 80% and 95% and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change agrees. When the Deputy asks whether this target is realistic, we must ask whether the question relates to whether it is realistic if we are to avoid runaway climate change or realistic in terms of what Ireland can achieve. We have to be guided by the former requirement or Ireland will not have an agriculture sector worth talking about. That is the way in which we should view this issue.

Ms Gorman will discuss how the target ties into Ireland's commitment to agriculture. As Irish citizens, we acknowledge and fully understand the importance agriculture plays in the economy. However, as Ms Gorman will explain more fluently, the business-as-usual model we are currently following is not sustainable. We must acknowledge that things need to change in terms of both how we approach agriculture and how we will address our requirement to avoid a rise in temperature of more than 2°C.

Ms Monica Gorman

We need to have something to aim for, which is the reason for targets. As Mr. McCaughey indicated, we must also accept that deep changes are needed. Agriculture is a critical part of the economy. I am from a farming background and spent the past four years working with Oxfam in Tanzania. I see both sides of the argument and I accept that this is a difficult circle to square. Our agriculture is becoming increasingly focused on livestock. While our dairy industry is extremely important for exports, we must have a vision involving a change in direction in the medium to long term.

How should agriculture be shaped from an economic, social and environmental point of view? We are asking whether there is scope for rebalancing and a shift in the agriculture sector. Further reductions in carbon emissions could be achieved in certain areas of the livestock sector, including through innovative technology such as the use of methane in energy production.

Irish farming has always responded well to the policy environment that supports it. In the past 30 or 40 years, Irish farmers have always adapted and changed in response to rural development policy and the Common Agricultural Policy. Our politicians must show vision and leadership by accepting that we cannot maintain intensive livestock-based agriculture and must move towards a more multifunctional type of agriculture. We must also realise that climate change will mean we will not have a strong agricultural sector. The fodder crisis earlier this year has been a wake-up call for everybody. Business as usual is not an option.

Deputy Brian Stanley

I asked about the projected temperature increase of 6°C.

Mr. Gavin Harte

The 6°C warming figure is well within the projected scenarios of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. It is not a surprising figure.

It is also important we take a look at some recent studies on how actual measurements relate to Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change projections. We can consider scenarios around emissions, ice loss and other issues, which indicate that current business as usual trajectories have us on the worst case scenario. When we consider the range of temperature increases over the next 100 years, it is fair to argue that a 6° Celsius potential warming above pre-industrial temperatures is possible. Other commentators are working at a level of 4° Celsius, which is the mean, but if we include external feedback into the system - when nature joins the warming party - it is very possible that we could reach those sorts of targets.

When considering where we need to be, we must take into account the factor of 2° Celsius and we must set our targets accordingly. Best case science from 2007 is now suggesting a reduction of 80% in levels by 2050 if we are to hold within the 2° Celsius. That is where science is telling us to go so it is up to the policy and political representatives in these Houses to show leadership in that space and take society on an innovative and competitive path to a low carbon economy, as this Bill is attempting to do.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

The witness has placed an importance on having an independent climate change commission with the power to publish its own results. Will he elaborate on this and speak of its benefits? We have had a variety of witnesses before us today which included the Irish Dairy Council. I take the point on board regarding the balance of agriculture and the extent to which the sector is livestock-based. The council made the argument that because we have a very sustainable model from an international perspective taking into account the unit of production, the targets could be spread across Europe. I would like to hear Mr. Harte's opinion on whether agriculture should be catered for within our national envelope of responsibility, for the want of a better description. A Green Paper is expected in 2015 and there is an idea that Europe is moving towards an approach taking in the whole of Europe as opposed to an individual country. I value any contribution in this regard.

Many of the constituent organisations before us include young people, for example, and the intergenerational aspect has been raised today. Given that young people will predominantly pick up the tab on the far end if we do not get policy right, how will we engage them in a more inclusive way? They have more of a stake than we who may be a little beyond youth.

Mr. Sorley McCaughey

We would prefer the body to have a title like the climate advisory council, which would be similar to the fiscal advisory council. The Deputy asked about the benefits to this being independent and the answer may be in the question. The value of having an independent body is, among other things, the ability of the body to publish its own reports rather than having the Government decide when it should do so. We have highlighted that aspect in our submission and to most minds that is not a particularly outrageous request or suggestion. It has probably been met with some sympathy by members of the committee and others.

Another benefit of an independent advisory council is that we would draw in specialists and experts from outside State bodies. The relevant Minister would have it within his powers the right to nominate people to bring a diverse range of specialisation and expertise to the advisory council, which may not be the case in what is currently envisaged. The advisory council could incorporate a wide range of specialists, including people from the private sector through to climate scientists. It would be up to the Minister to determine what he or she sees as being the most representative for a council. We would not like to under-stress the importance of having the independence of that advisory council.

Ms Monica Gorman

There was a question of whether agriculture should be exempted from the national responsibility but with agriculture contributing 25% of our carbon emissions, that would be very difficult. There must be a cross-sectoral sharing of responsibility. There is a wider question, and I accept that, because we have a grass-based system of cattle and sheep production, it is a somewhat more efficient way of growing meat than that which is grain-based. Nevertheless, to exempt agriculture would be very difficult and it may not be accepted across other sectors of industry. There must be scope within agriculture for cuts as well.

Mr. Gavin Harte

With regard to the intergenerational aspect, there is a clear responsibility with this legislation to consider the long term. There are certainly people alive now who will feel the severe impacts of climate change. We are experiencing some effects already and it is fair to say the number of extreme weather events is increasing with a warming atmosphere. In effect, we are experiencing climate change today and the impact is likely to worsen if we only carry on business as usual. From an intergenerational aspect it is really important for the Bill to have a long-term target. If we consider other areas of similar legislation, the Disability Act is setting very clear legislative targets for hiring people with disabilities. There are similar stories in the likes of the restructuring of the Anglo Irish Bank bond, which happened in February, as that has a target of 2038 for the first capital repayment, with final payment of the bond in 2050. The idea of setting long-term targets is not a new phenomenon for legislators and it is fair for us to say that similar to a financial target, we can have targets for carbon emissions. The restructuring of the Anglo Irish Bank bond may be for this generation and we are forgetting about the future but we should not repeat such thinking when it comes to climate change and carbon emissions.

Senator Cáit Keane

I thank the delegation for the presentation. I will not dwell on targets, as we have had much discussion about them, but in the submission the target is an 80% to 95% reduction on 1990 levels by 2050. Is that a realistic objective? The delegation obviously believes it to be if it has made the recommendation. Nevertheless, we have a large agricultural sector.

The delegates have argued that we must change the direction of agriculture in this country, yet Food Harvest 2020 identifies a potential 12% increase in emissions. As legislators charged with implementing provisions in this area, we have a duty to ensure any recommendations we make are realistically achievable. Do the delegates have further recommendations on how the target they have set out might be achieved? It is fine to set a target; the challenge arises in finding ways to meet it.

The delegates made no reference to EU proposals regarding compensation for loss and damage. As organisations concerned with climate justice, I would assume this is one element of their agenda. Why then have they not recommended compensating countries which, through no fault of their own, are most affected by climate change? When one looks at the footprint per head of population for some of these countries, it is nowhere near the corresponding figure for Ireland.

A 4% rise in temperatures will result in a decline in crop yields. Given our location, there is a possibility that Ireland might be better suited to cope with that change than are some other countries. Certainly, a 4% rise would result in a huge decline for countries at the Equator, Mediterranean countries and so on. Might it fall to countries in more favourable geographical locations to compensate those experiencing the greatest decline? In other words, is it possible that Ireland might in future be charged with feeding a greater portion of the global population?

Ms Monica Gorman

At the heart of our submission is the notion of climate justice. Unfortunately, it is generally the countries that have contributed least to the problem that are paying most dearly for it. As global citizens, we have a role in leading on this issue by way of a recognition that we cannot keep consuming at the expense of the vast majority of the world's poor people. The compensation element is one part of that effort.

Coming back to the question of where we see the future for agriculture in this country, the Food Harvest 2020 vision has very much been a response to the growing market among the middle and richer classes in emerging countries for dairy and meat products. Whether or not that vision will contribute to a sustainable agriculture sector for Ireland in the long term has to reviewed. We must constantly review and question the underlying assumptions here. It probably is not possible for us to reach our carbon emission reduction targets if we continue on the path of intensive dairy production. However, the innovation, imagination and capacity are there within the sector and among our young people in terms of thinking differently about the agriculture industry and where it is going. More and more people are seeing the reality of climate change and that is pushing the drive for innovation. We must have an agriculture sector that is driven by more than just market opportunities. It must include an element of sustainability if it is to thrive into the future.

My colleague, Mr. Harte, might comment on whether the target of a reduction of 80% to 95% is achievable.

Mr. Gavin Harte

It is important to look at this in terms of each European country having a unique profile of carbon emissions. Ireland has a unique profile in terms of its agriculture sector, while Germany, for instance, has a unique profile in regard to industry. It is not a case of selecting one element and claiming it deserves special treatment. In that scenario, Germany could well argue for special treatment for its industrial sector. There must an equitable division in terms of effort, which will require a national job of work for all of us in this process. It comes back to how legislators devise a roadmap for sectors, as laid out in the proposed legislation, in terms of setting innovative targets. Those targets should be achievable but they should also be challenging. We need to see this as something that will stretch innovation, particularly from the point of view of business. Businesses which embrace sustainable and green enterprise identify the resulting competitive advantage as their gain from taking that approach. On the other hand, companies which are slow to embark on green enterprise would perhaps see financial savings through reduced energy costs as a reason for embarking on change in this regard. It is clear from the Irish profile that if we want to generate that type of innovation within the agricultural sector, then legislators must send out clear signals and devise clear targets.

On the specifics, there is great potential in the area of anaerobic digestion, for example. There is also a good opportunity in terms of diversifying the output of our agricultural sector, which would mean less of an emphasis on grass-based animals. I am hopeful that our strong agricultural sector, the backbone of the Irish economy, will, if given clear leadership, rise to the challenge of reducing our emissions. I realise there is great fear and concern about the changes that are required. None of us wants to change. Anybody who gives up smoking knows the challenge of change. We must have supportive structures and legislative clarity to assist people in making the transition. I believe agriculture can rise to the challenge.

Mr. Sorley McCaughey

Senator Cáit Keane referred to climate justice. She is correct that we have not included the issue of compensation for loss and damage in our submission, but we did not set out to cover everything. The principle of climate justice has been signed up to not just by development organisations but also by the Government, most recently by the Tánaiste at the Dublin conference on hunger, nutrition and climate justice. That undertaking has implications, one of them being a requirement to honour commitments to developing countries to assist them in adapting to the changing climate. To that end, we would like to see climate justice set out as one of the guiding principles of the Bill, together with a commitment to policy coherence across the Government. These are the principles which should be guiding the development of climate policy. Policy coherence is important to ensure that Ireland's emissions are not undermining the development work of Irish Aid and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.

Senator Cáit Keane

I was delighted to hear Mr. Harte mention anaerobic digestion. When we did a comparison in this regard with Northern Ireland we found we were not even at the races.

Deputy Gerald Nash

Our primary objective in embarking on this consultation process is to identify, from the insight of stakeholders and experts who have been active in this area for a long time, any deficiencies in the proposed legislation. Where do the delegates see the benefits from the Bill? What is positive about it from their perspective? We are in a progressive minority in Europe in embarking on this process. While some states, including Austria, France, Sweden and the United Kingdom, have legislated in respect of climate change, many others have failed to take any action. Will the delegates guide us through the aspects of the Bill they see as representing progress, as opposed to the current position where there is an absence of any legislation?

What is the witnesses' view on the proposed climate change commission? We have looked at the model of the Fiscal Advisory Council, which is a robust and respected body comprising an august group of wise and independent heads formed to advise the Government on fiscal policy. It is a welcome innovation. However, in one case, where it made recommendations to Government on front-loading deficit reduction, its advice was ignored. This was the correct decision, in my view, because of the social cost that would arise from following its recommendation.

That was one instance in which the council's advice was not taken because of the impact on broader policy. Where would the delegates stand in a situation where an advisory body on climate change, mirroring some of the functions of the Fiscal Advisory Council, had one of its recommendations rejected by the Minister, whether in this or future Executives, simply because it did not fit with his or her policy direction or preferences?

Deputy Kevin Humphreys

Today's debate has been most informative. In fact, some of my preconceptions have been challenged through the course of the discussion.

The delegates referred in their submission to legally binding targets. I agree that there must be such an element. After all, legislation which is not robust is meaningless. It is one of the reasons I favoured the automatic inclusion of our commitments under international agreements, as set out in head 3. This will ensure the 2020 target and what is negotiated in 2015 will have a legislative basis, which will enable everybody to see the direction in which we are moving. The example of the IBRC was given. Agreement in that regard was negotiated and subsequently transposed into Irish legislation. There is also the constitutional argument which I can appreciate, that inclusion of the targets will mean that they cannot be challenged by international agreements.

We have the 2020 target and will also arrive, through negotiation, at a target for 2030, another for 2050 and so on. I am in favour of a strong independent committee overseeing action on climate change. The Fiscal Advisory Council model is a good one; the notion that a recommendation is given to the Minister and must be published within ten days, etc. We should be using that type of language in the Bill. The Minister would then respond to the recommendation, indicating, where he or she did not propose to implement it, why that decision was being made. This will ensure transparency and clarity on whether we are moving in the right direction. I am a little concerned, however, by the delegates' proposal that we should aim for a higher reduction target of 80% to 95%. We have already discussed the possibility that we may initially see emissions rising before subsequently beginning to fall drastically. Will the delegates comment on this?

An issue that has jumped out at me from the submission is that the target of a 20% reduction by 2020 is based on the 2005 baseline. The delegates, however, are talking about a 20% reduction below the 1990 level. Taking into account the current economic climate, how do they see us achieving an even more onerous target for 2020? We must be realistic and seek to devise targets we can actually achieve. As it is, we are not on target for 2020. It will take a great deal of work for the Government and the next one to hit the target for which we have already signed up, but the delegates are recommending it be increased by referring to the 1990 figure rather than the one from 2005. What effect do they see for the broader economy in striving to meet that more onerous target? Have they taken account of the potential shock?

Mr. Sorley McCaughey

Deputy Gerald Nash asked how we might respond to a situation where the Minister chose to ignore advice from the proposed climate advisory council. I do not have a problem with this because it is part of democracy. In any such circumstance the Minister will have to explain to the Houses of the Oireachtas why the decision was taken to take a different path. The council would be fulfilling its function and the Minister would be responding accordingly, as is his or her mandate. I do not foresee an issue in that regard.

The Deputy's question about the positives in the Bill, as proposed, is a good one. A criticism that could be levelled at NGOs is that we are always pointing to the weaknesses rather than the strengths of Government efforts. I suppose it is our job to do so. The process which led to the development of the heads of the Bill has been useful because it is has been participatory. It is a template that should perhaps be repeated in other areas. We now have a statement of intent from the Government, as reflected in the Title in the Bill. That in itself is something because it places efforts in this area within a legal framework. It will be of use to citizens in the years to come. What is most important is the big picture. There are elements of the proposed expert advisory board, as it is described, which are positive. We believe it does not go far enough, but it is a broadly positive proposal.

Mr. Gavin Harte

On that point, in recent years we have seen several attempts to introduce legislation in this area, including a Bill brought forward some years ago by the Deputy's party. Each of those proposals included elements of what good legislation would look like. Our view is that the proposals we are discussing fall short of what is required. There are positive aspects of the previous proposals which we would like to see included in this Bill. The major positive we would see is that something is actually being done.

Regarding legally binding targets and how they are included in the Bill, the approach being taken stands out to me as essentially a means of building a compliance strategy into legislation. However, for a climate action Bill to be genuinely effective, it requires more than compliance. We must move beyond compliance to a targeted approach which facilitates innovation and the competitive advantage to which Irish agriculture and enterprise can aspire.

In terms of specific targets, anybody concerned with definitions in this area, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, would say a low-carbon economy was one which achieved an 80% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2050. The notion of a longer term target is not new. As I said in reference to the restructuring of Anglo Irish Bank bonds, for instance, we do reach out those distances to give ourselves direction and focus. The Bill would certainly be strengthened by the inclusion of that type of commitment, as well as the compliance targets, as Deputy Kevin Humphreys suggests, for 2020, 2030 and so on which are negotiated under future agreements. All of that is very helpful and the two processes are not in any way exclusive of each other.

Deputy Kevin Humphreys

Will Mr. Harte answer my question on the potential shock to the economy of aiming for a higher reduction based on the 1990 rather than the 2005 base level?

Mr. Gavin Harte

The economy has experienced substantial shock. In fact, we are reeling as a consequence of several, largely external, factors which have impacted on us greatly. Climate change will follow a very similar story if we do not make ourselves indigenously resilient to the shocks coming down the line. The interesting aspect of climate change is that we can actually see these shocks before they hit. Our agriculture, industrial and residential sectors - the economy at large, in fact - will be under significant threat in 2030, 2050, 2060 and beyond.

In a way, whereas there will be a shock and business must adapt to it, respond and find competitive advantage, in a way we need to manage those shocks. The Bill should be seen as something other than a challenge. That comes back to leadership, which I cannot emphasise strongly enough, and political leadership is essential to the process. That is why parties such as the Labour Party, which I see as a progressive voice in Irish society, have a responsibility to show leadership on the issue.

Deputy Kevin Humphreys

What about the short-term shocks?

Mr. Gavin Harte

We are not achieving our targets now and we are still in shock. The economy is in shock at the moment.

Deputy Kevin Humphreys

It is different. I am trying to get a picture of the issue. What about the increasing target?

Mr. Gavin Harte

We are working on the science of the matter, and the atmosphere can absorb so much carbon. We are looking at our part in the process. It is a technical matter as to where we take a reference but ultimately the purpose of the Bill is to achieve a reduction in our emissions in the long term. We are looking to achieve a low-carbon society, which in our view would be an economy with an 80% reduction in emissions by 2050.

Chairman

I thank the witnesses for their attendance and they are free to go. It has provoked some humour all day when I have said this, with the implication being that witnesses have been detained. We have two issues to discuss in private session.

The joint committee went into private session at 5.22 p.m. and adjourned at 5.26 p.m. until 10 a.m. on Monday, 8 July 2013.