Dáil Éireann Debate, Thursday - 5 December 2013
11. Deputy Seán Ó Fearghaíl asked the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government if he has assessed the cost benefits of the Antarctic Treaty; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [51930/13]
View answerI have raised the question of the Antarctic Treaty both with the Tánaiste and the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government on a number of occasions. Sometimes one meets with a certain sense of fun coming from the Government side in terms of the treaty, and this week the Tánaiste, or perhaps it was the Minister, Deputy Rabbitte, wondered were we going to bring on the huskies as far as this issue is concerned. The reality is that what is happening in Antarctica is of huge world significance and the protection of the Antarctic is vital. That is what I am trying to get at in this question.
I support the primary objective of the Antarctic Treaty, which is to ensure, in the interests of all mankind, that Antarctica continues to be used for peaceful purposes and will not become the scene or subject of international discord. The Antarctic treaty system at this stage includes the original treaty, the Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Seals, the Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources and the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the treaty.
The question of Ireland’s signature and ratification of the Antarctic Treaty has been considered by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, in consultation with other relevant Departments, including my own. While no formal assessment of the cost and benefits of the treaty has been carried out by my Department, ratification would be likely to impose substantial administrative burdens arising from the necessity to review the corpus of environmental legislation to ensure compliance with the treaty. Additional administrative burdens would arise from the need to service relevant international meetings, together with other obligations arising from ratification should Irish citizens engage in activities coming within the remit of the treaty.
Given current issues which I have prioritised in various policy areas within the remit of my Department, including waste management, climate change, water services, local government reform and housing, my Department is not in a position to undertake the administrative burdens arising from ratification of the treaty at the present time.
While I appreciate the points the Minister is making, I do not agree with him. In excess of 40 countries have ratified the treaty at this stage. The year 2014 marks the centennial anniversary of the launch of the Endurance trans-Antarctic expedition of 1914-17. It is rightly seen as perhaps the most remarkable exploration in history, a tale of extraordinary leadership by Shackleton and a triumph of perseverance in the face of impossible odds. I suppose my interest in this is driven in part by the fact Ernest Shackleton was a Kildare-born individual. However, we must also face the reality that the encroachment of climate change and its disastrous consequences for the Antarctic underscores the need for a treaty system to be put in place. Other countries have done it. It may not be possible for us to do it immediately, given the financial constraints we accept the Minister and his fellow Ministers are under. However, I would like to hear some sort of a commitment from him that it would be the intention of the Government to do something about signing this treaty at some stage in the future.
I will give the Deputy some idea of what I am speaking about in terms of administration, which includes the following: the need to review the existing corpus of environmental legislation to ensure we comply with that treaty; the need to introduce a permit or licensing scheme for Irish citizens who may engage in activities coming within the remit of the treaty; the requirement that any such scheme applying to Irish nationals concerning activities in Antarctica which have an impact on the environment would need to be compliant with the provisions of the Aarhus convention on access to information, public participation in decision making and access to justice in environmental matters; and the provisions of EU directives, such as the public participation directive and the environmental impact assessment directive, might be of relevance. Therefore, any such ratification would potentially involve a significant legislative workload which, unfortunately, because of the cap on numbers in my Department and other current priorities, we are not in a position to deal with. Moreover, while the objectives of the Antarctic Treaty are commendable, Irish accession, in my view, would have minimal practical effect on the achievement of those objectives.
What the Minister said in conclusion is highly relevant. I would be practical in terms of my approach to environmental matters. We cannot save the world on our own. We cannot turn back the effects of climate change on our own. However, we can make a difference and we can fulfil the responsibilities that fall to us. What disappoints me about what the Minister is saying is his refusal to give us some sort of a commitment, or even to express the desire, that this is a treaty he would like to see the Irish Government sign up to in the future, when resources allow.
More than 40 other governments have acceded to this treaty system, irrespective of the administrative burdens. It is clear from the replies to the parliamentary questions I have tabled that no cost benefit analysis has been carried out by any Department. That is tragic. It underlines a lack of commitment in the area of climate change, which is highly regrettable.
In the absence of substantial research activity being carried out in Antarctica by the State, Ireland would not enjoy voting rights under the treaty even if it signed and ratified it. I do not know what useful purpose there would be in prioritising it, but we will work with our partners in the European Union, as we do on all issues relating to climate change, and we will make our views known where appropriate. However, it is not a priority in the Department's workload, and I will not be dishonest with the Deputy and say we will prioritise it in the near future.
The Deputies who tabled Questions Nos. 12 to 14, inclusive, are not present.
