I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Noonan, and his officials, Mr. Alan Moore and Mr. Niall Finan of the National Parks and Wildlife Service, NPWS, biodiversity policy unit, to the committee. This meeting has been convened to consider the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization to the Convention on Biological Diversity, which was referred to the committee by the Dáil. I thank the Minister of State for the accompanying documents issued to us in advance. I invite him to make his opening statement and tell us all about the Nagoya Protocol and the benefits it will bring for biodiversity.
Nagoya Protocol: Motion
Go raibh maith agat a Chathaoirligh, agus leis an coiste. I thank them for the opportunity to address them as we move to ratify the Nagoya Protocol. It is a landmark agreement in the international governance of biodiversity that was adopted at the tenth meeting of the Conference of the Parties on 29 October 2010 in Japan. While it has taken longer than we might have liked, I am proud that Ireland is now in a position to bring this important framework forward.
The Nagoya Protocol aims to ensure the equitable sharing of benefits arising from the utilisation of genetic resources. In plain English, this means it seeks to ensure everyone benefits from and has access to the bounty of nature’s diversity. Biodiversity, or the variety of life on earth, is a technical term that encompasses biological diversity at the level of the ecosystem, the species and the gene. The Nagoya Protocol focuses on the latter, that is, the genetic resources. Genetic resources comprise all genetic material of actual or potential value. Essentially, they encompass all living organisms, namely, plants, animals and microbes, that carry genetic material that is potentially useful to humans. Genetic resources can be taken from the wild, domesticated or cultivated. They are sourced from natural environments or human-made collections, such as botanical gardens, gene banks, seed banks and microbial culture collections. They have many commercial and non-commercial applications across a range of sectors, including pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, technology, academia, food, agriculture and other industries.
The Nagoya Protocol emerged from a global treaty, namely, the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity, which is known as the CBD, to which Ireland is party, along with 195 others, including the European Union. The CBD has three main aims, which are securing the conservation of biological diversity, the sustainable use of its components and the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of the utilisation of genetic resources. The latter aim is the subject of the Nagoya Protocol.
In the context of current global efforts to tackle the biodiversity crisis, fairness in the distribution of benefits and the concept of a just transition are crucial. I recently attended the CBD’s Biodiversity COP15 in Montreal, Canada, where access and benefit sharing was a major focus of the negotiations on the new global framework for nature. The protocol underpins this by providing a strong basis for greater legal certainty and transparency for provider countries of genetic resources utilised in research and development in third countries. This relationship usually involves a less developed country provider and a more developed country user. Ratification will enhance Ireland’s reputation as a positive actor for biodiversity. It will also bring us into line with the 20 other EU member states that have ratified the protocol. For industry and academia, especially in research and development, ratification will demonstrate Ireland’s commitment to having an appropriate legislative and regulatory framework in place when it comes to the important issue of access and benefit sharing. There was a delay in Ireland moving to ratify the protocol due to a number of factors, including the need to introduce legislation in Ireland to implement Regulation (EU) No 511/2014, which provides a framework for the protocol in the EU, as well as pressure from other priorities in the biodiversity area in recent years.
The National Parks and Wildlife Service of the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage is the lead authority with respect to the implementation of the EU access and benefit sharing, ABS, regulation and the Nagoya Protocol in Ireland. Cabinet approved a memo for Government on ratification of the protocol in June 2022. It is now necessary, and indeed welcome, for us to move the process forward and ratify this vital framework. I look forward to members' questions, which I and my officials will do our best to answer.
I thank the Minister of State. I will go to Deputy Higgins first.
I thank the Minister of State for being with us to take us through this and also for representing Ireland at COP15 in Montreal. It is really important he was there. As it happened, he was only there briefly due to domestic matters but it was an important sign and signal of Ireland's support for everything that is happening on a biodiversity level.
On the protocol itself, Article 5.2 and 5.5 speak about legislative, administrative or policy measures we must take to achieve the overall objectives of the protocol. Do we have any indication at this stage of what the next steps are for us? Do we need further legislation? Do we need administrative or policy measures, is it more in that sphere? How do we take this to the next level in Ireland?
I thank the Deputy for her questions. I will ask my officials to come in with more specifics but legislation is indeed required. In tandem with that, it is the intention of the NPWS to establish an ad hoc group to bring together a stakeholder forum to look at the elements of the ratification and implementation of the protocol. As for a timeline for all this, we are probably looking at between 12 and 18 months to move through that process. All of this is in train within the Department, as I said. There have been many priorities, as the Deputy is aware, around biodiversity. I thank her for her comments on COP15. It was important Ireland was represented and we had a fantastic delegation there and certainly a very good outcome, generally, from the COP. We are moving in line, I think. On the legislative element of it, it is our intention over the next 12 and 18 months to establish an ad hoc group and bring together stakeholders. There are many in this area, from pharma to the National Botanic Gardens and many others, with an interest in this that we wish to bring together to move on its implementation. I ask Mr. Moore to come in to elaborate on that.
Mr. Alan Moore
I thank the Minister of State. I believe he covered the matter quite well. We already have legislation in place that implements the ABS regulation, which was introduced in 2014 to give effect to this protocol across the European Union. The requirement on us is to produce a statutory instrument in Ireland to give effect to matters of national concern relating to that regulation. Our legislation has been in place since 2019. Once we ratify the protocol, we are free to go ahead and formally implement it at a level at which we can be considered a party to it, can take part in meetings of the parties at UN level and can involve ourselves in discussions on how the protocol will move forward and be used to deal with issues that are, perhaps, tangential to it. As the Minister of State indicated, over the next 12 to 18 months we will be putting in place the process for implementation, the establishment of working groups, the holding of discussions with stakeholders and so forth.
It is very good to hear what those next stages are going to be and what that implementation programme will look like.
I am aware that the committee has quite a heavy agenda, but this is a very important issue. Could we ask the Minister of State and his officials to come before us on a twice-yearly basis in order to provide updates on the implementation programme, on how things are going in the context of establishing the forum and the various working groups, on stakeholder interaction, on any of the changes that may be needed and on whether there will be a need, as the Minister of State indicated, for further legislation and on how such legislation might be progressed? If possible, it would be good for the committee to be kept abreast of developments.
I would be more than happy to do that.
Deputy Higgins suggestion is a good one. We did that in the past year when we received updates from the Minister of State on planning and local government issues. We were also given updates by the relevant Ministers and Ministers of State on heritage, electoral reform and housing. However, we have a very heavy agenda. I will take the Deputy’s suggestion on board and try to work it into the schedule somehow. I thank Deputy Higgins and call Deputy Ó Broin.
Unfortunately, I am not on campus so I am not entitled to ask questions.
I thank Deputy Ó Broin. We now move to the Green Party slot, which I will take. First, I thank the Minister of State for bringing this matter to us. I understand that it dates back to 2010 and is something that has probably not been prioritised or high on the agenda. It is very important that the Minister of State has resurrected this issue and brought it here to us today, and that we can finally take our place at the table, as Mr. Moore has outlined there.
I reiterate what was said by Deputy Higgins, which is that the Irish delegation at COP15 in Montréal did a very good job on behalf of Ireland, especially in the context of marine protection, which is a part of our biodiversity and environment that is overlooked. We think that everything is fine out there and, obviously, we know well that our marine environment is under severe pressure. We have a significant sea area and many parts of it have been damaged.
The Minister of State will be aware that we are soon to commence pre-legislative scrutiny of the marine protected areas legislation. This is another very important item of legislation. We we look forward to welcoming the Minister of State and his officials back before the committee to discuss that matter.
Twenty EU countries have signed up to the Nagoya Protocol. If the protocol had not been put in place what damage would have been done in the context of genetics in itself and in the context of the relationship between genetics, biodiversity and protection? What drove the development of the protocol in the first instance?
Again, I will ask Mr. Moore to deal specifically with that question. I thank the Chairman for his comments on COP15. I also wish to thank our officials and team who represented Ireland so well as part of the wider EU negotiating team. Certainly, there was a very positive outcome from COP15 that will lead, I hope, to transformative change. I also thank this committee, which is very busy. Much of its work is dominated by dealing with housing legislation, given the crisis we are experiencing in that regard. We are appreciative of the space being given to the marine protected areas legislation and to the matter before the committee today. It is important for us because these issues are vital in nature.
The Nagoya Protocol emerged out of the wider negotiations that took place in Nagoya, Japan, in 2010. The protocol was 18 years in negotiation and took four years to draft. A substantial amount of work was done in the build-up to those negotiations in 2010. The element around the equitable sharing of genetic resources was important for less-developed countries in particular and for Ireland, one of the countries in receipt of that genetic information and those genetic resources. In most cases, less-developed countries are the repositories of that resource. It is critical that we had this protocol in place to ensure that there is fair and equitable sharing of the resources in question and to ensure that there is a common agreement among signatory nations to use those resources fairly and equitably. We have had reports from Trócaire and Oxfam in respect of agricology, supporting the wider genetic resources we have and how sharing these resources can ultimately benefit our wider ambition around the conservation and restoration of nature. I will ask Mr. Moore to come in and elaborate further on this topic, but that is the position as I see it in the context of the benefit of this protocol.
Mr. Alan Moore
The third pillar of the Convention on Biological Diversity already deals with access and benefit-sharing and makes it a pillar of the convention. The purpose of the Nagoya Protocol is to provide clarity and a strong legal framework to ensure that obligations around benefit-sharing are met and to enable parties to the convention to put in place, at national level, legal obligations on users, as the Minister of State pointed out. The motivation behind the protocol is to ensure for the providers, which are generally countries with less-developed economies, island states or vulnerable nations, that the benefits derived from the use of these genetic resources in more developed states, namely, those in the EU and Asia, and the UK, are shared in a way that is agreed upon at the outset. In other words, there would be a process to come up with mutually agreed terms that are put into a clearing house set up under the protocol. This ensures that parties will see their obligations through to the end. This is the motivation behind it.
Very good. This would also fit very well with our sustainable development goals. The position has been clarified. I thank the Minister of State and Mr. Moore for that information. I call Deputy O’Callaghan.
I also thank the Minister of State for his work in this area and for bringing this matter before the committee. While it is late; it is welcome to see this happening.
In practical terms, what does all of this mean? When we talk about users, for example, who, in an Irish context, are typical users and what legal obligations are being put on them? In practical terms, what does this mean and what impact will it have on users in Ireland? Also, we have done the ABS regulation, but is there more that needs or that could be done? Is that it when it comes to the ABS regulation, implementing it and the signing up to the protocol? Will it be a case of "job done" or is there more to be done?
Again, I will defer to Mr. Moore on the specifics. As we see it, however, the stakeholders are our research institutions and the pharmaceutical companies that have a very strong presence in Ireland. I am speaking about research organisations such as Teagasc, the Intellectual Property Office and the National Botanic Gardens. These bodies, as we would see it, would be the users of these genetic resources. The National Botanic Gardens are a great repository for genetic resources in the context of their wider work around research.
As we see it in terms of implementation, under the requirements of access and benefit sharing, ABS, we would establish a stakeholder group to look at the implementation of the protocol and how organisations in Ireland, as a user country, would meet its requirements. I will ask Mr. Moore to speak about the specifics of this.
Before Mr. Moore comes in I have a question. The obligations of public bodies acting in the public interest are one thing but private bodies with their own interests are another. How far will these obligations go for private bodies? Does this have to be worked out? I would like some insight into this.
Mr. Alan Moore
This goes back to the initial purpose of the protocol. Deputy O'Callaghan raised good points on how providers will ensure that users act on their obligations. When the legal framework is in place and the protocol is ratified there will be awareness of it. Users in Ireland would be in the sectors the Minister of State mentioned, including pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, research and any institution that is dealing with organic genetic material. The provider countries are where it starts. If the genetic material is from Peru and it is a plant-based material used in cosmetics or has a medical use, the providers of the resource will agree terms with the user. This is where it starts. This goes into the online ABS clearinghouse. There will be online documentation that we will all sign up to once the protocol is ratified. This is where the obligations will be monitored through due diligence declarations made by the user that match the documents lodged by the provider countries. The clearinghouse will be brought into force by the protocol to ensure the obligations are met. The legislation we have in place is to ensure we meet our obligations under the protocol and the EU ABS regulation. There will be no need for further legislation.
The legislation we have in place ensures a pharmaceutical or medical company operating in Ireland that is using genetic resources from a country such as Peru is legally obliged to go through the process. Will it share information with the country of origin of the genetic information or resources or will it share it universally?
Mr. Alan Moore
It starts with the provider country.
It is then shared universally.
Mr. Alan Moore
Yes.
Some of the intent is that the provider country will have the most rights to access. This is what we are doing in practical terms with the protocol and the legislation in place.
Mr. Alan Moore
Yes. In practical terms we are dealing with benefit sharing. The provider country will deal with access. We are dealing with the benefit sharing side of it, to ensure the benefits arising from the utilisation of the resource in Ireland, Germany or wherever is shared on agreed terms in a fair and equitable manner with the provider country.
It will no longer be legal for a company operating here that gets genetic resources not to share them in a fair and equitable manner.
Mr. Alan Moore
This is the aim of the protocol.
What needs to be done to reach this aim? An ad hoc group will be established to get together all of the stakeholders to work out the operation of the protocol.
Mr. Alan Moore
That is at a detailed implementation level. I should say that initially providers and users will have discussions outside the scope of public bodies. It could be a private company and a private body, landowner, tribe or local government in the provider country. They will come up with mutually agreed terms and launch their initial agreement with the ABS clearinghouse. We will get notification of this. It will be about ensuring this is matched by a due diligence application from the user in Ireland.
When that goes to the clearing house we will get notification.
Mr. Alan Moore
Yes.
There is a monitoring role to ensure no one is pulling a fast one or using economic influence to put undue pressure to make a poor agreement. There will be an ongoing monitoring role for us to be satisfied that the standards are being met. This will be the important ongoing work.
Mr. Alan Moore
Yes, the monitoring will fall to the competent authority or the focal point in Ireland. It could be the Department or the Minister and in this case it is the NPWS. The main role will be monitoring before enforcement. It will be about monitoring the due diligence applications.
The National Parks and Wildlife Service will be doing this.
Mr. Alan Moore
Yes.
I thank Mr. Moore.
I thank the Minister of State and his team. We have spoken about the importance of biodiversity for everyone. I represent a constituency with below-average tree density, poor public open spaces and very few retained biodiversity habitats. Will this have anything for my constituency or is it something completely different? Biodiversity habitats are very important and some of the people I represent are very interested in this.
The protocol is not directly related. Many of the pharmaceutical companies we are speaking about are situated in the Cork area. There is very good movement on biodiversity in Cork city and county. The local authorities in Cork have appointed their own biodiversity officers and the Department is supporting the roll-out of further biodiversity officers throughout the country. There will be plenty of support for communities. It is very important with regard to urban biodiversity. The Deputy deals a lot with housing issues. It is very important that we not only build housing units but that we have biodiversity-rich communities in urban areas. This can be achieved. There is no doubt the appointment of biodiversity officers in Cork city and county will be of huge benefit to those communities. Having biodiversity action plans at a local level provides a great opportunity. There has already been significant work in Cork city and county on urban biodiversity. I hope this answers the Deputy's question. Specifically with regard to this protocol it will impact on many of the pharmaceutical companies that are based in the greater Cork area and west Cork. It will have a positive benefit for all.
Does the Minister of State think the pharmaceutical companies will engage with this process in a positive manner?
There is quite an amount of work to be done on capacity building to support implementation at a national level and research. The Department will lead on this as well as on the legislative element. Quite a significant opportunity will arise from the protocol. The general sense of direction of this work is to collaborate with all of the stakeholders to ensure implementation of the protocol. We are confident that all of the stakeholders we have mentioned will play a positive active role in the implementation.
Research from the International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and Associations, IFPMA, has found that the protocol creates a transactional framework for sharing pathogens and undermines global health security. Will researchers here need a permit to access the State's biodiversity for research and development under the protocol? What protections are we taking to avoid the consequences warned about by the IFPMA?
I will defer to Mr. Moore on the specific questions. As I said, there are positive benefits for the research element. We still have a significant amount of work to do on capacity building among all of the stakeholders. I will ask Mr. Moore to come in on these questions.
Mr. Alan Moore
On the first question about pathogens, there are discussions at EU level, at the EU expert group for ABS, that pathogens should be outside the scope of the protocol. We do not see that as an issue at the moment.
If I understand the second part of the question correctly in terms of accessing our own resources, all sovereign states have access to their own sovereign resources. That does not change with the protocol. Access to Irish genetic resources is not affected.
The Minister of State mentioned the importance of sharing information. I recently became interested in the concept of citizen science and the impact it can have on the environment. I have met the owner of an open litter map, which potentially could support the improvement of our biodiversity. I know there are other initiatives around dereliction, animal species and more topics. This seems an exciting area of research. Will the protocol's focus on sharing support or hinder citizen science in the field?
Again, we see this as unrelated. I had engagement with the provider of the open litter map as well. What we have done recently is bolster the governance around the national biodiversity data centre, and its ability to gather data through citizen science has been greatly enhanced. We have seen, particularly during Covid, that it has had a real significant spike in people inputting through its portal, biodiversity.ie, and uploading citizen science data on species throughout the country. That has been fantastic. We encourage people and communities to be involved in data-gathering because it is very beneficial to the State to have good data available around species distribution and plotting trends in terms of climate change and biodiversity loss. We very much support a citizen science-led approach, and this will be reflected in the next national biodiversity action plan.
When will this legislation come before the committee?
The legislation exists already so it is a statutory instrument. Is the Deputy talking about the movement of the ratification?
Yes.
In the next 12 months.
We will conclude as no other members have indicated a wish to contribute again. The local environment is incredibly important and we can see it deteriorating right in front of our eyes. We are all part of the global ecological web. There have been trends on the damage done in developing countries, mostly by the developed world extracting natural resources and often to the detriment of local environments and the people who live in those countries. The protocol is another very important small step in protection and encouraging the equity across the planet that we need.
I thank the Minister of State for bringing this matter to us this morning. As Deputy Higgins stated earlier, we look forward to bringing him before the committee again because we are aware of the work that is being done. Earlier I mentioned the marine protected areas, and we are happy to have the Minister of State before the committee to discuss them in next couple of weeks. We have significantly increased the number of marine protected areas from 2.5% up to 8%, and that is an important step towards the target of 30% we committed to in the programme for Government. We are interested in having the Minister of State before the committee to consider further the progress being made following a huge investment and restoration of the National Parks and Wildlife Service. The national biodiversity action plan is an incredibly important document that feeds into biodiversity plans in local authorities. Another important local step is the creation in local authorities of the new post of biodiversity officer. All these developments are examples of the incredibly important work being done by the Minister of State's Department. I thank his officials for the work they have done and we look forward to welcoming him back very soon to discuss that at the committee. I thank the Minister of State and his officials for their attendance this morning.