Vol. 132 No. 16
I move:
That Seanad Éireann recognises the historic importance of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), notes the Government's already significant contribution at UNCED preparations, and agrees that the Government should contine to work for a successful outcome to UNCED both directly and through the co-ordination of the European Community.
I would like to begin by thanking Senators for this opportunity to address the Seanad on the forthcoming United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED); this is the most comprehensive international effort ever mobilised in favour of the environment. It is consistent with the broadly based consultative approach that has characterised UNCED preparations that elected representatives should have a full opportunity to debate the issues involved. UNCED was considered in the Dáil earlier this month and I hope to be able to give some expression to the views emerging from this debate, and that in the Dáil, in my own contribution to the conference.
More than two years of intensive negotiations for UNCED have now taken place; these have engaged an unprecedented number of countries and international agencies. these preparations will culminate in next week's Rio Conference from which decisions of historic importance for environment and development are expected.
The Conference is a remarkable step forward in linking environment and development issues to the ultimate benefit of human kind. The highly publicised withdrawal from attendance at the conference by the EC Environment Commissioner Mr. Ripa di Meana cannot detract from the major advances made in the UNCED preparations. All of us would like to see more specific agreements in particular areas, but many decisions remain to be concluded in Rio and we must participate actively to get the best agreements possible. All 12 EC member states will be represented at Government level and I assure you our views will be forcefully put.
UNCED has been driven by three fundamental considerations. First, that the protection of the environment is increasingly a global enterprise and concern, for which global solutions are essential; second, that poverty is a major cause and effect of global environmental problems. These must, therefore, be addressed within a framework which takes account of the needs of the developing world; and third, that sustainable development is the key to all the solutions involved — that is, development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.
Ireland strongly supports the UNCED process. We have participated fully at all four major Preparatory Committee Meeings for UNCED, including the last one in New York in March at which I myself presented the conclusions of the Dublin Conference on Water and Sustainable Development.
We have participated in all EC and OECD preparations for UNCED. Ireland's particular contribution to UNCED preparations was to host a major UN conference on Water and Sustainable Development in Dublin in January of this year. My Department have produced a national report for UNCED which has recently been submitted to the UN authorities.
My Department and the Department of Foreign Affairs are providing assistance to Irish environment and development NGOs to attend the UNCED Global Forum which is taking place in parallel with the intergovernmental conference.
ENFO and the Department of Foreign Affairs have financed the production of an educational pack on UNCED to be circulated to schools by DESC, the Development Education Support Centre.
Ireland will also be strongly represented at UNCED next month. The Taoiseach has already made clear his commitment to the Conference and will attend the concluding summit of heads of state and government. There will be ministerial representation at UNCED for other appropriate periods by the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Environmental Protection, who will both be contributing to this debate, and by myself. The official delegation will also include four parliamentarians, two of them representing womens' interests.
In 1983, the UN General Assembly established a World Commission on Environment and Development, representing the developed and developing world, popularly known as the Brundtland Commission after its chairman, Mrs. Gro Harlem Brundtland, Prime Minister of Norway.
The Commission's report, Our Common Future, was published in 1987 and forcefully concentrated public opinion on the new concept of sustainable development and on the important relationship between environment and development. In the words of the Brundtland report:
it is impossible to separate economic development issues from environment issues; many forms of development erode the environmental resources upon which they must be based, and environmental degradation can undermine economic development. Poverty is a major cause and effect of global environmental problems.
The Brundtland report concluded by calling on the UN General Assembly to adopt a programme of action for sustainable development and to convene an International Conference to review progress and to promote follow-up arrangements. This appeal sowed the seeds of the UNCED process.
The basic concerns of UNCED are continuous with those of the Brundtland Commission, although there is now a more refined understanding of the interaction between environment and development issues. The UNCED agenda has cyrstallised around a number of urgent environmental problems: climate change and biodiversity, on which global conventions will be signed; deforestation, on which a conference statement will issue; desertification, and Agenda 21 which will seek to identify viable environmental strategies across a range of sectors for the 21st century.
The other fundamental question facing UNCED is that of the financial and other transfers and support structures necessary to permit the developing world to assume its environmental obligations. My colleague, the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, will speak on the issue of financial assistance to the developing world. In principle, however, Ireland supports the provision of new and additional resources and we are prepared to explore the possibilities for this within the constraints of our current economic situation.
UNCED is also expected to agree a set of fundamental legal principles for the guidance of environment and development policy in the future. This is to be known as the Rio Declaration or Earth Charter. These principles are all-embracing and highlight in particular the importance of environmental protection and the need of developing countries. Ireland has supported the Declaration as strong statement of political intent which heads of state and government should endorse.
Agenda 21 will define the programmes and activities needed in specific environmental and cross-sectoral areas to implement sustainable development for the future. The topics covered are comprehensive and include protection of the atmosphere, oceans and freshwater resources, deforestation, and waste management. Cross-sectoral issues include poverty, consumption and demographics and human settlements. Wide-ranging agreement has been reached on most of Agenda 21 but final decisions are needed on issues of finance, technology, and institutional follow-up to the Conference. These, and in particular, the question of finance will require difficult political negotiation at Rio.
The recently agreed conventions on climate change and biodiversity will be open for signature at UNCED. Both conventions involve specific commitments. In the case of climate change, the commitments will relate to controls on carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions. In the case of biodiversity, countries will be required to protect species and habitats and to integrate conservation considerations into other policies. The fact that the climate change convention does not include a legally binding target of stabilisation of CO³ emissions has led to expressions of disappointment. However, the convention is still a major achievement and the participation of the United States, the world's largest emitter of CO², must make it effective. The EC will be pressing for the early adoption of Protocols to the convention setting out more detailed targets for control of greenhouse emissions.
I would now like to recall Ireland's particular contribution to the UNCED process by the hosting of the International Conference on Water and the Environment in Dublin in January of this year. This Conference was convened by the World Meteorological Organisation and attended by some 500 participants, including government designated experts from 100 countries. The Dublin Conference was mandated directly by the Third Preparatory Committee to review the freshwater work of UNCED with particular reference to implementation, mechanisms, programme targets and costings. As I have said, I presented the results of the Conference to the Fourth UNCED Preparatory Committee meeting in New York.
The freshwater chapter of Agenda 21, which is acknowledged to be one of the clearest and most forceful, incorporates much of the language and many of the ideas of the Dublin Statement and Report on Water and Sustainable Development. In presenting the results of the Dublin Conference in New York, I called for the dedication of a major share of the funds flowing from UNCED to freshwater management and provision. Improved freshwater management is not just an environmental imperative, it has enormous potential to improve human health, human settlements and agricultural production. Better water management is a core issue in the environmental and development relationship. It links many of the problems addressed by UNCED and it should allow these to be resolved simultaneously.
In the short time available to me today I have chosen to concentrate on the international background to UNCED, but the lasting success of UNCED depends, of course, on all countries implementing the agreements reached in Rio. The Government are committed to the concept of sustainable development. Ireland places a high value on its natural environment. Our clean and green environment is rightly perceived as sustaining the quality of life in this country. Ireland's good environment is important economically because it enhances the quality of our agricultural production and facilitates its marketing. It is also advantageous to tourism and in attracting high class industry and services. It is a fundamental natural asset which will be fully protected and preserved for future generations.
The Irish national report to UNCED provides an overall view of the interaction between environment and development policies across key sectors of the economy.
Environmental protection and sustainable development in Ireland are supported by the specialised environmental legislation which has been developed over the last 15 years. The Environmental Protection Agency Act, 1992, is the most recent addition to Irish environmental legislation. The new Acts sets out a number of guiding principles to which the Agency must adhere in the carrying out of its functions. These principles include the need for a high standard of environmental protection, the need to promote sustainable development, the precautionary principle, the polluter pays, and the need to ensure that a proper balance is achieved between environmental and developmental considerations.
Principles alone will not achieve results. Concrete measures are also necessary and these too are provided for in the Environmental Protection Agency Act. The new system of integrated pollution control licensing will deal with all emissions to the environment from activities with serious polluting potential and will require the application of the best available technology not entailing excessive costs. The system will recognise the environment as an integrated system to be preserved and renewed rather than as a collection of expendable assets.
A national environment action programme was published by the Government in January 1990. This was the first comprehensive environment programme ever adopted in Ireland and is in line with the international trend towards a programmatic and strategic approach to national environmental management. The methodology of the Irish environment action programme is clearly based on the identification and setting of targets and policy objectives. These are being subjected to regular review by means of progress reports, the first of which was published in July 1991.
The environment action programme places a high value on environmental awareness, information and promotional programmes — all designed to enable people to act positively towards their environment. This emphasis on environmental awareness and information is consistent with UNCED policies. ENFO has been established as a publicly accessible information service. It has had an enthusiastic response from the public with over 1,000 visitors per week during its first year and a half of operation. Computerised access to ENFO systems is also being made available through the main public libraries.
In conclusion, UNCED faces the global community with fundamental decisions about its future. Despite the many difficulties involved, I am optimistic about the political willingness to address the challenges. UNCED does not, however, represent a panacea or a once for all solution to the formidable problems which it will confront. The Rio Conference is only a beginning: the hope must be that it will set new thresholds and objectives for the ongoing development of sustainable policies into the next century. The Irish Government will make every effort to ensure this outcome.
I would like to begin by thanking the Minister for coming to the Seanad to discuss this very important subject. As the Minister said from 1-12 June Rio de Janeiro will host the UN conference on environmental development, known as UNCED. This Conference, also known as the Earth Summit, is where all the Governments will gather to find a common basis for action of universal concern to all humanity.
The United Nations Conference on Human Environment, which was held in Stockholm in 1972, led to the setting up of the United Nations Environment Programme. Events like Bhopal in 1984 and Chernobyl in 1986 signified a new era of concern. In 1987 two very important documents appeared: the first was the report of the World Commission on Environment and Development, more commonly known as the Brundtland report, and the second set out the environmental perspective to the year 2000 and beyond, a strategy approved by the UNEP governing council, later to become the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development — UNCED 1922.
The aims of UNCED 1992 were, first, to examine the current state of the environment since 1972; second, to set up strategies for action to deal with environmental issues in the socio-economic development process of all countries; and third, to protect and enhance the environment and take measures to prevent environmental degradation at source. Specific areas to be examined will include the following: protection of quality and supply of freshwater; management of land resources by inter alia, combating deforestation, desertification and drought; and to combat climate change depletion of the ozone layer and transboundary air pollution; conservation of biological diversity; and environmentally sound management of biotechnology and waste, particularly hazardous waste.
The Rio de Janeiro conference has failed in my view to put a single greatest threat, not only to the environment but also to peace, development and the very future of mankind on the agenda, namely, the population explosion. Rumour has it that it was the influence of a certain Church, which will be nameless, which prevented this happening. The present population growth is simply not sustainable. The world population today is about 5.4 billion by the year 2020 at that growth rate it will be 8 billion and by the year 2060 it will be 16 billion. In other words, the population is doubling every 40 years, which means that by the year 2100 it will be 32 billion. That is not sustainable. Any approach to tackling the environmental problems which ignore this problem is, in my view, doomed to failure or at best only partial success. Almost all of this population explosion is occurring in the undeveloped and underdeveloped world, such as Central and South America, Africa, South-East Asia and the Indian sub-continent.
The present population levels are already putting enormous strains on the environment causing deforestation, soil erosion and desertification in the poorer regions which can cause problems for the entire globe. Industrial growth, consumerism and wanton waste are the real threat in the developed world. Our generation in the developed world are enjoying a standard of living which we are not really entitled to by depleting the capital that has built up over millions of years in the form of fossil fuel, natural gas and other resources, and at the same time investing virtually nothing to develop alternative sources of energy and alternative materials to ensure that generations yet to be born will have satisfactory substitutes for the resources we will have wasted and exhausted in a few short generations.
The US is the main culprit in this regard consuming as it does 30 per cent of the entire annual oil consumption although it has less than 5 per cent of the world's population. The consumer society is at its most extreme there but, thankfully, there are emerging signs of very strong movement towards recycling and taking greater care of the environment, and strong moves towards the use of biodegradable materials, particularly packing materials.
The European Community could do much more for the environment, such as using the surplus land we now have, to produce energy crops and timber, our two biggest imports, and promoting greater efficiency in the use of energy. As long ago as 1912 the man who invented the 20th century's most efficient engine, Dr. Rudolph Diesel, said: "The use of vegetable oils may be negligible today, but such products could well become as important as mineral oil and coal tar products".
Today, we have another German designed engine specifically designed for the use of vegetable oil. Technical reports on it show that it works as satisfactorily as the diesel concept and even more satisfactorily in the case of vegetable oil. All we lack in the Community now is the political will to take on the oil lobby and the will to forego the tax revenue on mineral oils by using untaxed vegetable oil. This, in one stroke, would help us to launch a new era in the field of energy for transport and make a significant contribution to cutting down on aerial pollution.
I was interested to read the following in the Financial Times:
In Mr. Diesel's day, in spite of his inventions, most transport was based on genuine live horsepower and the animals derived their energy from hay and oats. Perhaps it was easier for him to conceive of a similar source of power for his engines than it is for the present generation, more used to relying on non-renewable fossil fuels.
The question we must ask ourselves is: why are we still using up precious reserves of oil when we could be running our tractors, lorries and cars on fuel derived from crops grown fresh every year on our farms? Moreover, if we were using such low carbon fuels the level of air pollution would be much reduced and both the environment and human health would benefit. The article goes on:
Clearly oil is too cheap and the cost of growing non-food crops too high for the environmentally attractive idea to be viable. No one would wish to see the price of oil rise by the necessary amount for fear of provoking world recession. Farmers could not grow the appropriate crops at such reduced return. Times have been changing. Last week's Brussels agreement on reform of the Common Agricultural Policy, for instance, will mean that prices to farmers for crops like cereals, oil seed rape and in due course sugar beet will be much closer to world levels, in other words, lower. The fact that there will be compensation for the loss of income should be viewed separately. The relevant point is that it will be cheaper for industry, or whoever, to buy crops from farmers that will narrow the gap between them and the fossil fuels.
A few weeks ago the European Community proposed, and the UK Government accepted, that a carbon tax, designed to encourage consumers to use fuels that cause the least air pollution should be imposed to raise the cost of fossil fuels mainly responsible for the problem. The proposal has not yet been endorsed by Community Environment Ministers, but the delay appears to be only technical and has something to do with drafting. Assuming that this is the case, while the speed of the introduction and initial extent of this tax remains to be determined, it is likely to become Community policy and over the time will raise the price of fossil fuels.
Meanwhile, it has been agreed that the levels of excise duty charged on all biofuels — that is, those derived from vegetable sources — should be limited across the Community to 10 per cent of those charged on fossil fuels they replace. Add all these measures together and it is clear that the cost gap which existed only weeks ago is now much smaller, always accepting of course, that this is the result of political manipulation rather than market forces. It might not be too fanciful to believe, however, that the environment and green policies in general will continue to receive favourable treatment by Governments for the foreseeable future.
The Community would not be treading a new path if it developed a biofuel industry. With regard to the use of fossil fuels in Austria, for instance, such an initiative is already well advanced. Farmers grow oil seed rape, sell it to the Government, at a subsidised price to processors who then convert it into fuel for tractors and lorries, and sell it back to them. The performance of the vegetable powered vehicles is said to be only marginally lower than it would be with fossil based diesel. The conversion from one to the other can be done in any farm workshop. I have already suggested that there is a new engine — the Elsbet engine — which needs no conversion.
How much of the success of this venture relies on aid from the Austrian Government is not immediately clear, but lack of other sources of fuel was clearly the motivation; at least it has proved it can be done. Neither is diesel fuel the only one that can be replaced from farm based sources. In Brazil — another country without its own fossil fuel resources — many of that country's cars run on fuel derived from alcohol made from sugar cane. It can also be made from maize or wheat starch. During the seventies' oil crisis US fuel companies set up plants to manufacture what they call "gasohol". Now that the oil crisis has fallen it is seldom seen, but the technology exists and given a favourable cost comparision could be reactivated. Moreover, there are many other and yet unexploited industrial uses for farm crops. It is well known that it is possible to manufacture plastic from wheat starch. What is more, the product is biodegradable making it environmentally desirable.
I would like to add at that point that I see plastic as being one of the greatest nuisances that has ever appeared on farms and it is becoming ever more of a problem. While it is extremely useful, I am afraid it is going to leave us a legacy that we will regret in the future.
Disposable nappies made from farm-based starch are already being widely used in the US, as are engine fuel filters and absorbent gels. They, too, have superior environmental properties compared with fossil based equivalents and after use need not be buried in landfill sites but can be composted and returned to the soil as an organic fertiliser. There is even a type of printers' ink made in the US from soya bean oil. Presumably, it enables journalists to eat their words if the need arises! Could it be that the non-food uses of farm crops is an idea whose time has come? Will the combination of global environmental concern and the realisation that reserves of fossil fuels are finite, persuade Governments to take the extra step, now shorter than ever before, to make such enterprises viable? Certainly it will have to happen sometime when the oil runs out. It would be potentially disastrous if the present concern about surplus food production that prevails in the European Community were to blind politicians to the opportunities that could be provided by efficient, cheap and renewable crop production.
That is what appeared in the Financial Times. I agree with it. There is a problem for the moment with the relative cost; it is a problem that is diminishing and instead of paying farmers to produce nothing off their land we should be devising a process whereby they would be using that land to produce renewable sources of energy.
There are many other things we must do in the Community and in Ireland. Starting nearer home, we have an appalling record of lack of concern for our environment. When I walk the streets of Dublin or Cork I am always appalled at the amount of litter. We are making little or no effort to conserve energy by increasing the amount of insulation in our homes or draught proofing our homes. That is a cost saving exercise that can be profitable. It is not just our homes but our factories, our offices, our Government buildings and so on. We must be continually striving to be more efficient where energy is concerned.
The key to the energy problem could, to a large extent, be a key to many of the problems of pollution, particularly aerial pollution. We have problems with water pollution in our lakes, rivers and our seas. We are not doing enough. There have been great improvements as far as farming is concerned. There are far fewer accidents occurring now than there used to be with pollution from farms getting into inland lakes. We cannot be complacent, we must be ever vigilant to ensure that we protect our environment. We have all got a responsibility, all of us who have inherited a good environment, to pass it on as well as we found it and, if possible, better to generations yet unborn. I am afraid the record will show that across the globe, we are going to leave that environment in a much worse condition.
Although Ireland is a small country in terms of geographical land mass both internationally and in the European context, we are fortunate to enjoy the benefits and lifestyle of a developed country while still having a relatively unblighted environment. Indeed, most of our European neighbours have an industrial based economy, the fact that our economy is agri-based, and most of our industry arrived late to Ireland, has ensured that our environment has survived most of the perils of modern day development.
During our highly successful Presidency of the EC in 1990, Ireland hosted the first meeting of all the Environment Ministers from the EC and their counterparts from eastern Europe to discuss the environmental problems common to us all, and in particular the environmental neglect of the eastern bloc countries. Earlier this year Ireland also hosted the International Conference on Water, one of the most vital and often abused resources of this planet. Our record in environmental awareness and conservation while not totally blemish free, is far ahead of other countries with similar living patterns.
The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development — UNCED — will be by far the largest gathering of world leaders for a global summit on any issue. Such is the importance of the issue that it merits the attendance of over 100 Heads of State or Governments as well as up to 30,000 other participants. UNCED was initiated by a resolution of the UN General Assembly in December 1989. Next month's world summit to be held in Rio de Janiero will hopefully see the signing of three important environmental charters. The earth charter is a general statement of principles dedicated to the importance of preserving the environment. Agenda 21 is an action plan for the environment for the 21st century which includes special provisions to manage "global commons" trade, technology transfer, debt, etc. International conventions will be held on common areas of concern such as climate change, global warming and biodiversity, including its protection against ever increasing threats.
As a member of a local authority and also a national representative, I am aware that the question is no longer local or national but global in its nature, although it must be said that any efforts to redress ecological damage must begin with the individual before impact will be felt both nationally and globally.
A national environment action Programme was published in January 1990. This is the first comprehensive environment programme and systematically sets out objectives for protection and improving the environment across the relevant departments and public sector activity and is founded on sustainable development. The action programme was drawn up against a background of growing international concern for the environment. The programme will set out targets and policy objectives and will be subject to review by regular progress reports. The plan will entail overall public expenditure of £1 billion over ten years on pollution control and enhancement of amenities.
Under the environment action programme the Government established ENFO, the Environmental Information Service, in September 1990. At the moment ENFO has a drop-in information centre in the city centre in Dublin and plan to extend into the regional areas in the future. ENFO has a full range of information services available, including leaflets, videos, reports, journals and international data bases. ENFO also links in with public libraries and has already had over 1,000 visitors per week in the first year of operation. As a member of a local authority I can say it is a service we have used widely over the last five years, holding regular meetings of our sub-committee on the environment. It is a most helfpul service.
CFC and halon gases are not manufactured in Ireland. However, this does not mean we are blameless when it comes to contributing to the whole in the ozone layer. Ireland is party to the Vienna Convention on the Protection of the Ozone Layer and the Montreal Protocol of 1987. We also ratified the London Amendment to the Protocol in 1991 to help rectify the ozone problem.
Although we in Ireland do not manufacture these gases, we still use a sizeable amount each year. The EC has now agreed strict limits on the emission of ozone depleting substances. The proposal to phase reduction throughout the EC and to ban the production of CFCs, halons and carbon tetrochloride has been agreed from 1995, with an intermediate cut of 85 per cent by 1993. The EC will also urge and encourage other countries to follow suit.
Our Minister for the Environment has contacted the significant suppliers and users of CFCs and requested them to develop alternative programmes to reduce and effectively eliminate the use of these substances. Recycling of CFCs from freezers and refrigerators now qualifies for local authority grants. Consumers are now more aware of the need to use ozone friendly aerosols and the large variety of these sprays on the market is proof of the recognition by the manufacturers and the success of the campaign.
Ireland is developing a national strategy on climate change based on energy conservation, efficient fuel switching and increased afforestation. The Department of the Environment have gone a long way to improving the air quality in Dublin by banning the sale and distribution of bituminous coal from September 1990. The Government have also actively campaigned for the conversion of home heating systems to either gas or electricity. Indeed, over 21,000 homes were converted to gas systems in Dublin in 1990 and 1991. Fuel subsidies to those on welfare or other low income groups are provided to aid in minimising the cost of smokeless fuels.
The Government are also actively promoting the use of lead-free petrol by reducing excise duty on unleaded petrol and conducting advertising campaigns to promote its use. New cars and industrial vehicles are now subject to new directives to regulate emissions of carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides and hydrocarbons from petrol engines and particularly emissions from diesel engines.
The Government also reaffirm a two-year commitment to accede to the Helsinki Convention on transboundary air pollution. This aims to effectively eliminate acid rain and would commit us to cutting SO 2 emissions by 30 per cent. Investment in a good public transport system such as rapid rail or electric tramways would also be a priority as by encouraging commuters to leave their cars at home the air quality in our cities can only improve. Other positive results would include fewer road accidents and less noise pollution.
The high demand for energy that modern living commands for both domestic and industrial use is at the root of many of our environmental problems. Many of our Euro-neighbours use nuclear energy to keep up with this constant demand. This, however, is not an option for Ireland because of the safety aspect. One has only to remember the tragic Chernobyl accident to realise the inherent dangers. Nonetheless, we are still high energy consumers with appetites which need to be satisfied. The completion of an undersea link to the United Kingdom gas grid will ensure the constant availability of clean, safe natural gas for the foreseeable future.
The 33 major local authorities are the main agencies for the implementation of environmental policy in Ireland. Each one, although somewhat autonomous in certain areas, for example, planning, operates under the umbrella body of the Department of the Environment. There are also 54 urban councils operating environmental regulations. Other new organisations acting as environmental watchdogs are the Environmental Research Unit, the Marine Institute, the Radiological Protection Institute and legislation for the new Environmental Protection Agency has recently been enacted.
The Irish Government have already committed themselves to several principles for furthering the cause of environmental protection: the principle of sustainable development; the precautionary principle; the integration of environmental considerations in all policy areas. The most important of these is the policy of sustainable development. This means achieving economic growth without diminishing our natural resources for future generations.
The Earth Summit is historic in its conception that we all recognise that the earth which we all share is not an instantly renewable source which we can use or abuse at will and suffer no retribution. The time for repaying the bounty we have enjoyed for so long is now because if we fail we leave nothing for future generations.
The scenario of a polluted earth is horrendous in pictorial terms, a planet devoid of life, swirling in clouds of poisoned air and putrid water, stripped of all that was once so plentiful and orbiting in space probably dead for all eternity.
It is up to us, the developed nations, to take the steps to ensure that this never happens. We must aid and educate not only our own people, but those developing nations who aspire to our materialistic lifestyle at such a great cost to their natural habitat. The world summit in Rio is the first concrete step in this direction. We in Ireland are glad to contribute and play our part. Let us hope it is not too late.
I had intended asking to share my time with Senator Costello but I gather this is not possible under the new rules.
I understand a number of speakers are offering and their speeches will not be very long.
In that case he will probably get in in due course.
Obviously what we are talking about today is very important. It relates to the most basic fundamental questions, how the planet is managed, how it is used for the welfare of everybody who lives on it. In the past 20 or 30 years it has become quite clear that there are major problems facing the world arising from the excesses of industry, arising from wholesale pollution and indeed wholesale destruction of the environment in some cases. As Senator Raftery said, there is an obligation on every generation to leave the planet in at least as healthy and as wholesome a state as they found it. Certainly that would not be true of recent generations. There is no doubt that there has been considerable deterioration in the quality of the environment worldwide over the past quarter of a century, and indeed in the past generation.
Of course, we must recognise that many of the issues we are talking about are very badly understood. The scientific base on which to make decisions is very inadequate. Many of the predictions are based entirely on speculation, more of them are based on hypotheses are badly tested, on estimations and calculations which contain enormous levels of error. However, we have to live with that situation. It is simply not possible to collect all the information in a satisfactory manner and, accordingly, people are going to rely on these modelling procedures and all the rest of it in an attempt to try to estimate how things will be in 20 or 30 years time if we continue to behave in a series of differing patterns.
As I say, we will have to rely on scientific opinion, on scientific speculation, and we are going to have to make decisions based on those grounds which, of course, is anything but satisfactory. Given that that is the position, it is important that decisions are made on the principle that we should be cautious, that we should err on the side of safety in relation to what is done regarding the environment.
There is a lot to be said for people having the understanding that the data is inadequate and, accordingly, there is no real value in adopting definite positions. We need to know that things may change and to be in a position to adapt ourselves to the changing circumstances arising from the availability of new information and from the capacity to forecast changes to a far greater extent than we can at present. It is also important to recognise the role of the scientific community in these matters and it is particularly important to recognise that their role should be one of presenting the facts. When scientists become advocates, it is equally important that those who are listening to them recognise the metamorphosis that has taken place and interpret them in the same way as any other advocates would be interpreted. In other words, a scientist should be interpreted in the context of somebody who has a case to make and is seeking to convince people of one point of view or another. It is very important that those distinctions are fully understood.
Often times I do not think that is the case either in relation to environmental problems, or indeed in relation to many other problems. I have often felt in regard to some outside scientists coming into the country that one of the first questions that should be asked about them is, who has invited them to come? Who is picking up the tab and who is sponsoring the trip? If you get the answer to that it will help you greatly in interpreting what they have to say either on one side of the case or another. You will find there are certain people who only invite certain types of scientists and those who tend to be down the middle do not get as many invitations as perhaps do some of the more shrill elements.
In relation to the main problems facing the world, undoubtedly the problem of increasing population is a very stark and grim one. Senator Raftery fairly well illustrated it when he talked in terms of effectively what is an exponential growth rate and that can be expected to continue unless something is done about it. Like the growth curve in science, obviously the numbers will continue to increase but, of course, at the top of the growth curve you come to a stage where the whole thing begins to turn down again and that is the danger. When that happens in the human population, the turning down of the growth curve unfortunately has absolutely appalling effects. We see some of the horrors of war and starvation on the television every night and to some degree, certainly in the case of the starvation problems, they can arise because of an inability to control population levels. They also arise for a whole series of other reasons and I do not want to underestimate them. Many of those reasons are political.
In regard to this country's position, some of the major pollution and environmental problems are not really directly within our control. I do not think there is a great deal this country can do about the problem of topsoil erosion or of the destruction of the rainforests. These are tremendously important problems but our influence in relation to them is very much going to be a peripheral one where we would hope to influence indirectly some of the key players who have an important role in determining the rate of which those problems are controlled.
In regard to the thinning of the ozone layer, we certainly have our part to play here. I understand we use of the order of 2,500 tonnes of CFC gases in this country each year. That is a relatively small amount in the context of the total usage of CFC gas and in the context of the total impact that the use of CFC gas has on the thinning of the ozone layer.
I understand we have made a national wish that the usage of CFCs would be reduced by the year 1995. We all seem to agree with that but we are not prepared to get down to brass tacks and make regulations which will ensure that we reach the targets we set ourselves.
The same applies to global warming. We would like to see the emissions of carbondioxide, methane, sulphur dioxide and other gases reduced but we are not getting down to brass tacks. We are not implementing laws which will control the levels at which these gases are emitted. Even very small increases in environmental temperature per decade will have very profound effects and we cannot turn our backs on those problems. Indeed we have to play our part.
We have an obligation to be more positive when it comes to laying down controls on the usage of fossil fuels. However, it would also be naive not to acknowledge the control of the use of fossil fuels will bring certain undesirable side effects. The usage of fossil fuels is directly linked to the development of industry. It may be possible to make some adjustments to that linkage but there is no doubt that there is a clear relationship between the use of fossil fuels and industrial development and that in turn affects employment levels and so on. To some degree, we will have to face some short term difficulties in order to reap a longer term benefit.
The behaviour of the United States in refusing to accept targets and to get down to the serious business of imposing controls on the worldwide use of fossil fuels I has to be seen as a great disappointment. The Americans are major players; they account for approximately one quarter of all the carbondoxide emitted into the atmosphere. They are the market leader and if they are not prepared to adopt hard measures to control the use of fossil fuels, it will be very difficult to ensure a serious reduction or a serious control in the emission of fossil fuels.
Our total emission of CO² would be relatively small. I think we should adopt a positive position to the carbon tax which is being considered at the European level, although one can only be disappointed at the recent responses from Europe. It may be easy for us to adopt a fairly positive attitude to the carbon tax because the results of the ESRI study would seem to indicate that it is probably going to be in our interests to do so anyway. This means we can make a virtue of this by taking a lead in Europe. In relation to the environment in Europe generally, we should be much more aggressive than we are in trying to set the pace because, in the longer term, that is where the action is for this country.
I want to again mention our contribution to Third World aid. I regret the levels of aid we provide are so low, I am disappointed that the Europeans were not more positive when it came to setting real targets which would have to be achieved.
I reiterate what I said on a number of occasions in this House on the control of the use of pesticides and the control of the intensive developments in agriculture. It is very desirable that we would be more vigilant than we have been in those areas and one can only view with alarm reports from the United Kingdom where farmers are suffering from the toxic effects of organophosphate sheep dips which have been used in intensive agriculture, and one hears of similar cases in Ireland, although they are obviously not as widespread as in the United Kingdom.
There are two or three points Senator Raftery raised with which I would agree. Our attitude to litter is deplorable. The litter that is strewn all over the place after a pop concert, a football match, etc., is appalling. One gets the impression that there are people in this country who dump litter on the streets as a way of expressing themselves. Sometimes people act in an aggressive manner as if they wanted somebody to challenge them and they could start a row.
Our attitude to the conservation of water leaves a great deal to be desired. This is the time of year when we are liable to have water supply difficulties in the city of Dublin. There are many reasons for this but I think we have not done enough to conserve water, a basic resource. A person will last only a few days without water, yet we take it for granted, and assume it will always be there, that it comes through the taps almost by magic. I am in favour of having a good water supply but there is a strong reason to be more concerned and to conserve it rather than waste it.
My final point relates to the labelling of ecologically friendly products. I gather there is considerable scope for improvement in the levels of labelling and some companies have exploited the anxieties and concerns of members of the public by putting eco labels on their products which, in many ways, are anything but environmentally friendly.
I welcome Minister Smith to the House this afternoon and thank him for his contribution to this debate. The Progressive Democrats will be supporting this motion; that will not surprise anybody.
The UN Conference on Environment and Development will have profound implications for the country. It will have very significant international implications and the fact that 100 Heads of Government are going to assemble in Rio and that there are going to be, as one newspaper described it, a swarm of 10,000 officials attending the conference indicates a rapidly growing awareness of the significance of conserving natural resources. It was described in one newspaper article I read this morning as the future of spaceship Earth. That is a good description. Ten years ago a conference like this would not even have been contemplated. Our awareness of what we were doing to our environment and the planet was so low that it would not have occurred to anybody, except the most farsighted, that such a conference was necessary. That makes me wonder about some of the people who are most vocal in defence of what they call sustained systems of agricultural production, sustainability in general and talk about things as extreme as closed eco systems. These people do not always get the hearing that they deserve because they are the voices now crying in the wilderness; ten years ago their voices might have led to the development of this Conference to which I think we all subscribe.
We are becoming more globally aware; the global village is assuming relevance. Television has brought the global village into our sittingrooms. We now see developments across the world that a few years ago we only heard about by way of report and did not fully understand. Now we can see the dramatic changes that are being made. We have seen what happened in East Germany through industrial development. We have seen what happened in eastern Europe. We see what happens to the tropical rainforests. We see the spread of the deserts. We can very easily identify with the damage that has been done to the planet — and it is not just all through population growth and through more people having to try to live in a confined space, although that undoubtedly has something to do with it. Therefore, the scale of the task that confronts the Governments that are going to attend the Conference in Rio is an enormous one.
I noted that at the conclusion of his speech the Minister said he was optimistic about the political willingness to address the challenges, and I would say that is correct. He also said that the Conference did not represent a panacea or a once and for all solution to the formidable problems it will confront. I think that represents a very accurate summary of what can be hoped for from the Conference; that it is such a task, that there are so many Governments and so many conflicting interests involved that there are going to be considerable difficulties in reaching a consensus. I believe, nevertheless, there is a broad willingness on the part of the developed countries to protect the environment and to try to protect the future of spaceship Earth.
I was very surprised, and I notice the Minister made reference to this in his remarks as well, that the EC Commissioner for the Environment decided he would not — I see the Minister shaking his head; I am going to agree with him in a moment so he should not worry — attend the Conference because it was alleged in the newspapers he was not very pleased that the EC Ministers failed to endorse his proposals for an energy tax to help cut carbon dioxide emissions. His stance strikes me as quite extraordinary on two fronts. First, in relation to his responsibilities as an EC Commissioner, if he, as an EC Commissioner, does not know it is the EC which brings forward the proposals but it is the Council of Ministers which decides, not the EC Commissioner, I think he should reconsider his position as a member of the EC Commission. It is not his responsibility to decide what the policy will be; it is the Commission's responsibility to bring forward the proposals and to leave it to the Ministers to make the decisions. If we can bring Maastricht into this debate, at least we can continue to look forward to a situation where this country has an input into those decisions and it will not be decided unilaterally by members of the EC Commission.
Perhaps the Commissioner, in his attempt to impose his will on the EC Commission, might look at the record of his colleague, Commissioner MacSharry, in terms of his success in getting his proposals through the political system when they were met with universal hostility from all quarters when they were originally put forward. I think the Environment Commissioner is just like a spoilt child who has not got sweets and has decided he is going to stay away from the event; if he feels that strongly about it he might as well resign. I agree with the Minister. It is not going to make the slightest bit of difference whether he turns up or not. I think the Minister made that clear in his remarks.
I have read the national report to the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development which has been prepared by the Minister's Department. It sets out in quite concise and clear terms where this country is at in relation to its economic development and to environmental matters. It emphasises the importance of a clean environment to the welfare of the country. I think this is a very significant point and, again, it is one about which a developing awareness is just emerging.
If our agriculture, if our farmers, are to survive and prosper within the new environment which the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy has brought to us, then a clean environment is critical to the future welfare of food exports from this country and to farming. In my view, and I think again this is becoming widely accepted, it is critical to the whole question of job creation, not just in the food industry but in industry in general. That point is emphasised in this report, it is emphasised in the Culliton report and it has been emphasised in several official reports which we have received in the past year or so.
We have the whole question of tourism. Obviously, if we are to develop our tourism properly and to our national advantage, there is the need to have our environment in a pristine condition so that people can come from the very heavily populated areas of Europe and other parts of the world, where there are huge environmental pressures, to a country where there is space, where there is clean water and where there are unrivalled natural assets. The development of tourism must be to our national advantage. It is, therefore, incumbent upon us to protect all these assets and our record in that regard to date has not been all that it might be in protecting these assets. They must be protected, not just for philosophical reasons or for reasons that people who are extremely comfortable think that a hedgerow in a county needs to be protected, but because it is in our own economic interest; it is central to our whole economic welfare to protect these priceless assets which have been left to us by previous generations.
Thankfully, we have made advances in the past few years and I hope we continue to make advances. I commend what my colleague in the Progressive Democrats, the Minister of State with responsibility for environmental protection, Deputy Harney, has done in relation to smog in Dublin and in bringing the Environmental Protection Agency Bill through this House and the other House. Here we had a very detailed, prolonged debate, many amendments were made to the Bill and it was greatly improved in its passage through this House and the other House. These are the type of measures we must continue to adopt in the interest of the welfare of our citizens.
At the outset I spoke about sustainability; this word has become a buzz word. I attended a conference in Cork earlier this year which talked about sustainable agriculture. The problem about sustainability is that everybody has a different definition of sustainability. There were some people at that conference who believed that the only sustainable system of agricultural production was to live on a farm without any input from outside energy or from outside sources of fertilizer and just to be able to provide for the needs of the family from that piece of land.
Unfortunately, given the prognostications about population growth and even given the society we have at the moment, that is simply not feasible. It may be very nice for somebody to go and live on a smallholding in west Cork having made their money in the Ruhr or in the industrial heartland of England; but that is not for the people who have lived for generations in that part of the country or any other part of the country because it is simply not possible.
That is not to say, of course, that the very intensive systems of agricultural production which are so widespread on the Continent should be adopted here. I note that in the report which has been prepared it says that over the past 20 years consumption of fertilizer nitrogen in Ireland has quadrupled and that the bulk of this addition has been attributed to the changeover from hay to silage. It goes on to give usage figures for phosphorous and potassium, but the figure I think is most relevant is that for nitrogen, where it says that in 1988-89 62 kilograms per hectare of nitrogen fertilizer were used on Irish farms. It might have gone on to say that that is less than half of what is being used on English farms and I think it is less than a quarter of what is being used on Dutch farms. Therefore, while the situation might not be as good as it could be, by international standards it is certainly far better than nearly all of our European competitors. I note the document goes on to point to the very low levels of nitrate in our rivers. There are only a few exceptions where the admissible concentration specified by the EC directive on the quality of water intended for human consumption has been exceeded. It is satisfactory that at least our water is in a good condition, but we have to ensure it continues to stay in that good condition.
Returning to this matter of sustainability and the tropical rainforests, I have heard very well-meaning young people in Ireland talk about the need for a closed environment within the tropical rainforests many thousands of miles away, that this environment cannot be touched. That is grand if you are living in suburban comfort in well-to-do housing estate in Montenotte or Foxrock, but I do not know how to tell the person who is living in the forest in a structure which is probably covered by nothing other than grass that they must forego the economic benefits to themselves which are associated with the exploitation of that resource. If it is the wish of the developed countries of the world to sustain these resources in the underdeveloped countries of the world the conclusion is obvious: the developed countries of the world must pay the bill.
It is quite illogical for people who are driving to conferences in cars which are consuming fossil fuels, who are living in houses that are heated by fossil fuels, to argue that people who are living in abject poverty should not be given the opportunities to develop their lifestyle to a standard only half that of the people who argue this case so eloquently and so vocally. I have serious difficulties about how we are going to square that circle in terms of keeping the resource.
I acknowledge the need to keep the resource and I acknowledge the environmental damage that is being done by the destruction of the rainforests. I still wonder about the people who are living in those regions and how their economic welfare can be advanced. It strikes me that the only way that can be done is through action by the wealthy developed countries in the world, just as we have action in the European Community on a much lower level to protect people living on the periphery of the European Community. The question is: who is going to pay for the protection of the Amazonian jungle or for rainforests in other parts of the world?
I note that when the Minister spoke about development aid he said that his colleague, the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs would speak on the issue of financial assistance to the developing world. He continued:
In principle, however, Ireland supports the provision of new and additional resources and we are prepared to explore the possibilities for this within the constraints of our current economic situation.
All I would say is that our record in this country does not bear favourable examination, that we spend 0.2 per cent of GDP on development aid. The EC, if my figures are correct, spends 0.5 per cent and the objective is to bring it up to 0.7 per cent. I understand the economic constraints which are imposed upon Government and I realise the need for prudence so that we can improve the standard of living of our people, but I think we could be significantly further than we are going in relation to our development aid. It would be illogical for us to go to Rio and argue for more understanding for the problems of the developing world, more support for the developing world, without putting our money where our mouths are. There is a core question involved here — how much is the wealthier western world prepared to pay for the measures which we all regard as essential for the protection of the planet?
We must turn to our own domestic situation, having looked at the global aspect. If we are to have a convincing case and make convincing arguments when our delegation attends the Conference in Rio, we must be able to point to how well we are putting our own act together when it comes to protection of the environment. We begin with agriculture, and I have talked about this question of sustainable agriculture. I subscribe to the view that we must head towards a more sustainable system than we had in the past, because there are economic benefits to Ireland in such sustainable agriculture. For example, I believe we could do far more to exploit organic farming, to exploit the image, which I hope we have of green and pollution free food.
In relation to organic farming itself, I submit to the Minister that serious consideration should be given to supporting the transition which a farmer has to make from a traditional and intensive system of farming to an organic system. There is a four-year period when it is extremely difficult to sustain income in making the transition from the intensive system to the organic system and the only way I can see of overcoming that problem is to develop some system of aid which will ease the transition. Such systems are already in place in the Scandinavian countries, so there is a precedent for them.
Reference has also been made to our inland fisheries. Paragraph 2.4.7 of the report says: "The most serious problem facing inland fisheries is the deterioration of habitat." Again, it comes back to the tourist question and the whole point of integrating our tourism, our natural resources, our agriculture and our industry. There is no doubt about it, all the rhetoric in the world about the development of tourism is just so much hot air when you start at Galway and travel through Costello, Screeb, Gowla, Kylemore, Inagh up to Delphi and find that the sea trout are gone. I do not know how anybody can talk about development of tourism if, at the same time, we allow a resource of that value and of incomparable international standing just to disappear before our eyes. This has been going on for four years and we still do not know the reasons, or appear to not know the reasons.
The so-called Sea Trout Action Group have suggested, among other reasons, that it is to do with the proliferation of the salmon cages in the sea, that as a result of the chemicals being used on the salmon the sea lice are migrating from those salmon and are destroying the sea trout. The point is that this is a resource which has been there for generations. It is an incomparable resource. I have fished in most of these places. I have met people who have travelled from America, who have hired a car in Shannon Airport, who have gone up the west coast, who have stayed for a month, who have hired a gilly for a month. Those people will go to Alaska, New Zealand or wherever the sport is. They can leave an immense amount of money there. The few hundred pounds I have left there every year for 20 years is neither here nor there. Certainly, if enough people go, there must be some significance.
I note that the Minister for the Marine in the last day or so has said, if I am quoting him correctly, that there will be an investigation. The urgency of this matter is such that we need to put major resources into it. What has been happening up to now has not been adequate. I take the point which was made earlier by Senator Upton when he talked about science, having a sort of scepticism about what science tells us, and the inadequacy of science. This is a case where the inadequacy of science has been fairly sharply shown up. I make a direct appeal to the Minister to use his good offices to try to rectify the situation, because I have seen hoteliers in the west devastated by this. I understand the need to develop aquaculture — there is reference to that in the report — but I do not understand why one development has to be inconsistent with the preservation of another resource.
The other point that needs to be referred to is the whole matter of water abstraction. That is fairly topical at present with the problem of water into Dublin. I live on the Liffey in Kildare. I know what water abstraction is doing to the Liffey, and what it has done in the past few years. I hope I have the figure accurately — I think I do — and that is that 70 million gallons a day are being abstracted from the River Liffey. Of course the people in Dublin must have clean, drinkable, potable water; but the people who live along the Liffey also have a natural resource at their door which has to be protected. Again, in my recollection the level of the Liffey over the past five years has gone down. If abstraction goes up from 70 million gallons to 120 million gallons, as I think it is proposed, what is going to happen the Liffey? What is going to happen to the sewage we allow enter the Liffey? How are we going to flush out the system if the water is not in the system to do it?
I will make a suggestion. This matter can be overcome; I know where the water is — in the River Shannon. The River Shannon is not much further away than Ballymore Eustace is from Dublin. There is fairly flat ground between the Shannon and Dublin. People living around the Shannon know they have too much water nearly all the time. I am sure the Leas-Chathaoirleach can verify that.
At last we are going to drain the Shannon.
We are going to drain the Shannon and we have a practical way of doing it. If all the money comes through the Structural Funds, and I am confident it will, some of it would be well spent bringing Shannon water to Dublin.
As regards the natural environment of the Liffey, the problem of the Dublin water and how it might be overcome, somebody suggested having a second reservoir. My suggestion is to build a pipe. There is a pipe in Libya about 1,000 miles long which pumps water from the mountains in the south to Tripoli.
We then come to the question of ground water. I know from the report prepared for the Conference that 22 per cent of our water supplies come from ground water. To what extent are we prepared to protect the ground water? There is reputedly a huge reservoir of ground water under the Curragh. We have a situation in County Kildare which I will bring unashamedly to the Minister's attention. I am sure the Leas-Chathaoirleach will agree that this is relevant to the debate. It is to do with this proposed dump, a landfill site in Kill. Kill is a village that has won awards for flowers and has won a Tidy Towns award. It is in the middle of the bloodstock industry area. Good quality water is essential to the bloodstock industry. I do not understand how somebody, on environmental grounds, can even contemplate a development like this, when it is considered that the main water supply to Dublin is running through a pipe adjacent to this site. How much are we prepared to do within our own country to be consistent with the arguments we are going to make when we go to Rio? The matters within our own remit must be controlled.
Another domestic matter is the question of roads and the marvellous motorways we are going to build with the Structural Funds so that we can get people quickly out of the west of Ireland on to the boat and ship them abroad. Paragraph 2.8.3 of the report says in regard to the development of motorways:
Particular care is taken in route selection and design to avoid the demolition of houses, to prevent severance of communities, to bypass sensitive areas and to minimise visual intrusion.
I would suggest that whoever wrote "to prevent severance of communities" visit the people of Kilcullen, Kildare or Celbridge and tell them how that is consistent with the way the motorways have been designed to leave those communities isolated. It is not consistent.
Continuing on the matter of the roads, the report says:
On the debit side, major road improvements can be environmentally disruptive by causing visual intrusion and leading to severance of communities. However, in the planning of projects, attention to location, layout and other factors can avoid or minimise these effects.
In its conclusion on that section the report says:
Under the programme, environment impact assessment and public participation are essential parts of the planning and design process for new projects.
To what extent were the residents in these areas consulted when it came to building these marvellous highways that are going to bypass their communities and leave them severed?
I am glad that the report mentions the exclusion of nuclear energy as a power source. There is a passing reference to Bord na Móna, but in view of the time constraint, we will not go into detail. Senator Raftery referred to the use of energy crops, such as oil seed rape, wheat or sugar beet, to produce fuel. I agree there is potential there, but I think we have not yet got to the point where that potential can be exploited economically. As far as I am aware, and I stand corrected on this, there is a negative energy balance in producing the fuel from these sources to put into machines to drive them. In other words, it is going to take more energy to create one gallon of this environmentally friendly fuel than the value of the fuel itself.
If we take it that the Common Agricultural Policy reform will reduce the price of cereals, they would have to be reduced by one-third of what they are at the moment before these proposals could come into economic focus. There is a lot to commend them. As the shortage of fossil fuels becomes more and more apparent, when we do not have the motor cars to drive on the big highways and when we return to the horse and cart, perhaps then we can talk about using the other fuel systems.
I agree with what Senators Upton and Raftery said about litter. There is too much demanded of local authorities and national Government in relation to cleaning up the country. The country is our country. There was a protest march outside the gates of the House yesterday and you should have seen the amount of litter left. I doubt if that litter ever entered their consciousness. It is the citizens' country and it is not always the local authority's job to clean up the litter. People should bring home their litter, put it in the bin and then let the local authority get rid of it.
At the beginning of his address the Minister said the Rio Conference was just a beginning and that it did not represent a panacea or a once and for all solution to the formidable problems which it will confront. I think he is right in that. I wish well those who are going to this Conference on behalf of Ireland. I am sure they will conduct themselves, as they always do, with the interests of the country at heart and will contribute to a more environmentally friendly satellite earth. At the end of the day, if we are consistent in our arguments, we will have to put our money where our mouth is — and when I say "our money" I mean that of the western developed economies — to pay for the things they think they need to protect the less developed parts of the world.
I call Senator Costello. I understand Senator Haughey is also interested in contributing and I believe the Minister also wants some time. I would ask Members to bear that in mind so that everybody can speak.
Perhaps I should start by referring to Senator Dardis' remarks and by welcoming his innovative and imaginative way of draining the Shannon. Those of us who come from the west would welcome an approach that might take some of the excess water from that part of the country and bring it to the desert area of Dublin where it is needed. Even though I am a member of the city council, I am always amazed that in a country that has so much water annually, if there is a week of relative dryness we immediately find ourselves almost in a panic and that the reservoirs in the capital city, which is not that large, seem to be inadequate to meet the people's needs. I understand we are coming close to providing the necessary resources in the next year to increase our capacity by about 20 per cent, so perhaps we may not need all that water from the Shannon after all.
I agree with Senators that this is a very important motion and debate which I wish we had had earlier. It is a little disappointing that we could not have the opportunity to discuss all the environmental issues and issues relating to development policy in the Third World when there may have been opportunities for input into government thinking at the various consultative conferences that took place prior to the one scheduled next month in Rio de Janeiro. I welcome the fact that the Taoiseach is leading the delegation which is appropriate and lends status to it. I hope this country will give the question of world environmental protection and development the priority it deserves.
The UNCED conference is being described as the Earth Summit, an appropriate description. It is a United Nations Conference on Environment and Development and I hope it will be the first of many and that next time around we will be more specific with regard to objectives.
I notice from the Minister's remarks that it is intended to agree there a set of fundamental legal principles for future guidance of environment and development policy. I hope that will be achieved. I worry that we might achieve less than that but if we agreed a declaration of intent underpinned by fundamental legal principles that would be a good start.
Ireland has a bad record in environmental matters. We were anxious to attract multinational companies to this country without considering their possible environmental impact and we have suffered as a consequence. The attitudes of political parties and of the general public has been to attract industry at any cost. It is less than a decade since one of our more radical parties advocated the establishment of an oil refinery in Dublin Bay without considering possible consequences for the city of Dublin.
We are the garden of Europe and we should market ourselves as such but we have done the opposite. We have allowed scandals to develop in areas where we should be projecting a strong environmental conscious image. Our beef industry is in tatters at the present time, partly because of angel dust, the failure to eradicate TB in the industry and poor marketing techniques which fail to emphasise the quality of our product. That leaves much to be desired.
Pesticides have been in regular use; lakes have been contaminated and fish kills have become the order of the day. Sea trout have suffered as Senator Dardis outlined, from the use of pesticides in fish farming and also from the seepage of raw sewage into the water supply. I was on a well-known lake last Sunday where approximately 200 anglers in a competition caught only 13 trout between them which is a reflection on the way in which some of our tributaries and major lakes have been depleted of nutrients and consequently fish stock. We have much work to do to redress this.
We are negligent about energy conservation also. We over-consume energy by approximately 75 per cent in the industrial sector leaving an enormous capacity for improvement. Likewise, public policy on public transport could be formulated with the intention of limiting the consumption of fossil fuels by motor vehicles. We use resources coming from Europe for structural development such as the building of motorways which Senator Dardis referred to as bringing our emigrants from one part of the country to the boat but motorways entail petrol consumption which will deplete the supply of fossil fuels.
Progress in environmental affairs has been almost entirely due to EC directives. The EC has been beneficial to us in that respect and as a result of directives we now insist on environmental impact studies before permitting major developments that could have severe environmental impact. We have dealt with a number of those in recent years. The eastern by-pass proposal is still on the boards. The Ryder's Row proposal to cut through an 18th century building and the proposed incinerator at James Street both necessitated environmental impact studies as a result of EC directives.
Waste disposal is now subject to an important EC directive that must become operational in all member states, obliging states to provide at least secondary treatment for all waste disposal by the year 2000. That will impose substantial obligations on us which we should be preparing for already. Again, the impetus for change comes from outside rather than within the State.
Maastricht will bring environmental benefits because it will establish environmental protection as a Community-based effort rather than permit individual states to act in accordance with their own wishes. The movement from Community action to mandatory directives from the EC on the environment is an important one.
I am concerned that Rio de Janeiro will not become a talking shop. I hope that the Italian Commissioner's decision not to attend the Summit will not damage its prestige. He should not have taken that drastic decision; the best thing is to get in and fight one's corner. It will be a pity if we end up with only a discussion document after 100 countries contribute enthusiastically and intensely with nothing legally binding after the work has been done.
The possibility of a carbon tax for energy conservation and to inhibit global warming must be considered and I am disappointed that Ireland should express reservations in the matter. We release billions of tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere every year thus contributing to global warming. We have a national responsibility to take action in this matter.
The second stage of this motion is in relation to development aid which is equally important because the world population is increasing. It is about five billion at present, and is expected to double within approximately 50 years. That may precipitate a world crisis and pose considerable problems for all of us. It is a pity our foreign aid contribution is no more than 0.17 per cent of the United Nations recommended target of gross domestic product. I am not happy with the Minister's statement that:
Ireland supports the provision of new and additional resources. We are prepared to explore the possibilities for this within the constraints of our current economic situation.
In other words, the Minister is imposing conditions. We are a long way behind the 0.7 per cent required by the United Nations. The least we could do is develop a timescale so that by the year 2000 we would have bridged the gap and reached the UN aid target.
I am disappointed that the Irish non-governmental organisations that will be accompanying the official delegation are not part of that delegation and that their expertise will not be included as it has been in other official delegations.
The UNCED is an important conference. We must not allow the environmental situation to go unchecked. At present there is global warming, pollution, depletion of the ozone layer and the world is in danger of becoming increasing hostile to life. We have an obligation to make sure that it remains fit for us and for our children in years to come.
I welcome Minister Daly to the House. It is important that this House should discuss the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, otherwise known as the Earth Summit. It has been described as the last chance to save the earth and the planet, a dramatic phrase which signifies the importance of this conference taking place in Rio de Janeiro.
Unfortunately there are indications to suggest that the Conference may not be a success. There is a great deal of pessimism about the Rio deliberations. It has been said that the road to Rio is paved with every good intentions, and that is as it should be. Nevertheless, practical action must emerge from this world conference; we cannot rely on rhetoric alone. It must not be turned into a major publicity exercise and nothing else. It is the last chance to save the earth and we need a meeting of minds to set out a course of practical action to tackle world environmental problems.
The withdrawal of the EC Environment Commissioner from the Conference is not helpful although I gather from the Minister for the Environment who was here earlier that he is not worried by it. He may know something about that man's personality that I do not. It does not seem auspicious that an EC Commissioner has seen fit to withdraw from the Conference.
The role of the USA has been discussed extensively and it appears that they are not sincere about bringing about changes at Rio. The culture of the United States is based on consumption. This is election year there and suggestions to impose carbon taxes to cut consumption and to give massive subsidies to the Third World go against the promise of the American dream. The problems faced by the USA are shared by other world economies. There is a disparity in material wealth between north and south and one half of the world prospers at the expense of the other. That situation is typified in America and shows how difficult it will be to reach solutions in Rio.
I wish the Conference at Rio de Janeiro every success. It has caught the imagination of the people. Young people are being taught about it in schools and are asking their parents what they are doing to save the environment. That is a hopeful sign and I am glad that the issues are on the table and will be discussed.
The public are demanding environmental action. We have had several major tragedies in the last few years such as the Chernobyl disaster and the discovery of a hole in the ozone layer. Green issues in general are coming to the fore as a result of public demands and public action.
Individuals can do much to curb environmental decay. The environment begins with the consumer and the household. One may cycle to work, bring bottles to the bottle bank, avoid dropping litter, make donations to foreign agencies and so on, plant trees and conserve energy in other ways.
We have a great aid tradition in this country with Bob Geldofs Live Aid and our tradition of missionary work. Overseas development assistance is extremely important and I suggest that we need to increase our contribution. The question of global warming is important and the suggestion for a carbon tax should be looked at. It has been suggested that the earth is getting warmer by three tenths of a degree per decade as a result of which polar ice caps are threatened, oceans will swell up and low lying areas will be affected. I understand that the Netherlands is worried about this for obvious reasons. Again the major problems in that regard are coal and oil. The question of a carbon tax challenges our philosophy of competitiveness and industrial development. It will take brave decisions but something must be done to prevent the accumulation of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
Tropical rain forests cover 6 per cent of the world's surface and provide a home for up to 90 per cent of the earth's species. It is extremely important that decisions be taken in that regard.
There is a direct relationship between population increase and poverty and there must surely now be a need to reduce the rate of population growth. This is an extremely sensitive area and I understand that the Vatican and the USA are anxious not to take major decisions on this crucial issue. Half the world lives in dire poverty and major initiatives must be brought forward in relation to population growth in the Third World. We have to challenge the old moral philosophy in order to tackle this problem. It will call for brave decision but the nettle will have to be firmly grasped.
By the end of this century, up to 50 per cen of the population will live in cities posing major environmental problems in relation to sanitation, car pollution and so on. I have briefly sketched over some of the major environmental problems. Ireland could make a worthwhile contribution through the conservation actions of individuals. We need to tackle the problem of acid rain in Ireland. We have signed the Helsinki Convention. SO 2 emissions will have to be curbed and the ESB in particular will have to adhere to its terms.
I wish the deliberations well. I hope we adopt Agenda 21. Action has to start now on an important matter so that we may hand on the environment to further generations in a better condition than it is at present.
Few international conferences have attracted such interest and anticipation as the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development which opens in Rio de Janeiro in just under a week.
The importance of the Conference can be measured by the unprecedented number of Heads of State and Government, including the Taoiseach, who have announced their intention to attend. It is also unique in the exceptionally high level of interest which it has aroused among the ordinary citizens of the world. Evidence for this can be found each day in the world media but also in the broad range of interest groups who will participate in the global forum which will run in parallel to the Conference itself. These include parliamentarians, non-governmental organisations, trade unions and many other sectoral representative bodies.
Interest here in Ireland in the many important issues to be discussed at Rio has been significant. The recent debate in Dáil Éireann and today's debate in this House reflect the concern shown by Members of the Oireachtas and through them the people of Ireland at the serious threat to the planet and mankind of the uncontrolled exploitation of the earth's natural resources.
There is a growing realisation that unless action is taken urgently to protect the environment by elaborating programmes of sustainable economic development, ecological and economic catastrophe will ensue. For that reason the global agenda before us in Rio links economic development with environmental protection.
The position of developing countries is one to which particular attention will be paid. Very often it is these countries that are confronted by the greatest level of environmental damage as their peoples exploit their natural resources to sustain life. For these countries as well as for developed counties, programmes of sustainable development are essential.
These development programmes must meet the needs of present generations without placing an intolerable burden on future generations to meet their own needs. This concept of sustainable development implies that economic growth must provide fairness and opportunity for all the peoples of the world and must do so without destroying the finite resources of our planet. It is a concept which, as a result of the agreements reached in Rio, will shape future programmes of economic and technical assistance between developed and developing countries.
If the concept of sustainable development is to guide our future thinking about how we control our resources, there are a number of principles on which we should base our approach; future development models must put people at the centre of their operation. Partnership is essential for development co-operation; the adoption and use of environmentally sound technologies must be a key element of aid programmes. These technologies should also be safe and when transferred to developing countries should be adapted to meet their specific needs; the environment must be seen as a finite resource which cannot be exploited at will by markets and private investors; and all sectors of society must be mobilised in the implementation of models of sustainable development. Wherever possible, control should be placed in the hands of local communities. Unless these communities believe in the programmes and contribute to their survival, they will be ineffective.
These principles underpin the Action Plan — known as Agenda 21 — which will be adopted at Rio. It is an ambitious agenda covering almost all the global environmental problems facing nations today — climate change, ozone layer depletion, transboundary air and water pollution and the contamination of the oceans and the seas. The social and economic dimensions of the problems are also addressed, including action to combat poverty, changes required in consumption patterns and the impact of population trends.
If the developmental and environmental objectives of Agenda 21 are to be met, it is clear that a substantial flow of new and additional financial resources to developing countries will be required. Some estimates put the needs at $125 billion per year. While this figure may be contested by the industrialised countries it nevertheless amounts to more than a doubling of what is at present given in official development assistance to developing countries. On top of that must be added the financing for programmes to address global issues such as deforestation and desertification which has been estimated at $15 billion annually.
Irrespective of whether these estimates reflect realistic assessments of the likely cost of implementing sustainable development policies, it is clear that significant levels of funding will be required. The Twelve member states of the. European Community have agreed that increased financial resources must be allocated.
In our own case, we recognise that our aid programme, when compared to most of our EC partners, is modest in size. Nevertheless we are determined to do what we can. In the Programme for Government we have committed ourselves to implement a planned programme of increases in Ireland's ODA, in the period 1992-94, so as to achieve a higher contribution by the end of that period. This decision has been taken in the context of very difficult economic circumstances at home and in a situation of very tight budgetary constraint. Nevertheless, the Government are conscious that the Irish public have been very generous with their voluntary contributions to organisations working in the developing world and it is proper that more should be done if at all possible.
The European Community and other donor countries attach importance to making the maximum use of all financial resources and mechanisms in the most effective way. These include the multilateral development banks and funds, the relevant specialised agencies and other United Nations bodies. All of these financial mechanisms can provide various types of funding arrangements specifically adapted to the particular needs of developing countries.
The decisions which will be taken at Rio will have important implications for the way in which donor countries design and implement their bilateral aid programmes. In future, the integration of developmental and environmental programmes and projects will become a priority for official development assistance.
Ireland's bilateral aid programme has a strong and visible environmental dimension. We are not involved in large scale infrastructured projects which can have a major destructive impact on the environment. Ireland concentrates on the development of the effectives, sustainable management of existing natural resources. We ensure that all new development projects, including those proposed by non-governmental organisations, are subject to environmental impact assessments at the planning stage. If a project is seen to have a negative impact, aid is either redirected or discontinued.
Sustainable development cannot be achieved without the efforts of the international community through programmes of development assistance. A supportive international economic climate and, within that, an open trading environment which does not discriminate against the economies of developing countries is also essential. Greater efforts must, therefore, be made to improve access to markets for exports from developing countries.
In that context the Uruguay Round of multilateral trade negotiations in the GATT should be brought to a satisfactory conclusion as soon as possible. This will provide greater security and predictability in the international trading system as well as further liberalisation and expansion of world trade thereby enhancing the trade and development possibilities of developing countries.
Last week I attended the annual meeting of the ACP-EC Council of Ministers in Kingston, Jamaica, where I had the opportunity of hearing directly from the leaders of developing countries about their preoccupations concerning access to the Community market for their products. They talked very openly of their fears that the preferential position they enjoy on the Community market under the Lomé Convention might suffer as a consequence of the conclusion of the GATT negotiations. I am glad to report that the Community was able to reassure these countries that it would do all it could to protect their position in the GATT negotiations.
It would be wrong to imagine that the Rio Conference will provide answers to all the environmental and developmental problems facing the world today. Many will argue that the agreements which emerge from Rio fall short of what is really needed to make a permanent impact on environmental degradation and to lay the foundation for effective models of sustainable development. I would not agree.
To begin with, two very important conventions will be signed — one on climate change the other on biodiversity — which together represent a major advance on what it has been possible to achieve at international level up to now. They reveal a determination and a commitment on the part of all nations, but especially those responsible for much of the environmental damage, to address the forces which lead to such damage. New and additional financial resources will be made available to fund these conventions and to help tackle some of the fundamental structural problems of developing countries.
These new resources will help developing countries to adopt programmes of sustainable development so essential for the alleviation of poverty which is vital for proper and effective environmental management. Let us not forget that 40 million persons worldwide face starvation daily. That is the background to this Conference. Rio is not the end of a process; it is the beginning.
Last week I saw for myself the efforts which have been made by the Government and the people of Jamaica to reconstruct large parts of their infrastructure and economy destroyed by Hurricane Gilbert in 1988. It was an example of what can be done because it must be done in the aftermath of a natural disaster. The Rio Conference offers us an opportunity — which we must seize — to take steps to tackle the damage which man has caused to his environment and to move towards the fundamental goal of enhancing human welfare throughout the world.
When is it proposed to sit again?
It is proposed to sit at 2.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 3 June 1992.
