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.