I thank the Chairman for the invitation to come before the committee. The meeting this month has an interesting agenda. There are six major items, the first of which will be LIFE+. There are also issues regarding aviation, climate change, international chemicals management, air pollution and two separate issues relating to GMOs.
LIFE+ is a new financial instrument for the environment which we have previously discussed. It has arisen at Council meetings more than once and was discussed by the joint committee with officials from my Department some weeks ago. The officials in question briefed me on that meeting. As was stated at the meeting to which I refer, there is still much to be done on the details of LIFE+ but much good work has been done in Brussels. We commend the UK Presidency because it is making a big effort to make progress on the matter.
The proposal has changed somewhat since its launch by the Commission in September 2004. It includes a separate new component on nature and biodiversity. It also includes provision for contributions to the development and demonstration of innovative policies approaches, technologies, methods and instruments. The Presidency is hoping to achieve partial political agreement on LIFE+. Full agreement will not be possible because the financial perspectives for 2013 have not yet been agreed by heads of state. The achievement of partial political agreement on LIFE+ this month will mean that when the funding issue is solved, we can proceed with implementation of the new arrangements.
Although we will adopt draft conclusions on reducing the climate change impact with regard to aviation, we have not heard from the Irish aviation sector on the matter. This sector is not normally noted for its reticence and we will probably hear from it after today's meeting. Ireland accepts, in principle, the inclusion of aviation in the emissions trading schemes but there is still much work to be done in the area of a proposal to include aviation in the scheme.
It should be noted that we have some concerns. These relate to the practical aspects of bringing aviation into an emissions trading scheme. We are also concerned that this should address the potential impact on peripheral regions such as Ireland, which are particularly reliant on air transport as a key mode of travel. Ireland is also concerned that the inclusion of aviation in the emissions trading sector should not negatively affect other sectors in the scheme by driving up the price of allowances. It is clear that if there is a finite number of allowances, price will be increased when there are more demands in the system. Ireland considers that these matters should primarily be taken into account in the functioning of the Commission working group. They should not be left to be dealt with at a later stage in the legislative process when change is more difficult. I will make these points at the Council meeting.
Specifically detailed issues such as this should be dealt with by the Commission before final proposals come to the political stage. It is not good practice to assume that matters will be resolved and that is not an approach we adopt in legislative programmes in this country. It would be a careless approach and one which has little to commend it in the European arena.
The Council will adopt conclusions on a strategic approach to international chemicals management. This is a global approach to the sound management of chemicals. We are more familiar with the EU approaches set out in REACH. The strategy approaches being adopted under REACH are in line with the aims and approaches of this global strategy, which is being developed under the auspices of the United Nations environment programme. The 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development sought to ensure that by 2020 chemicals will be used and produced in ways that lead to the minimisation of significant adverse effects on human health and the environment. The development of the strategic approach was recognised as a major contribution to reaching this goal. The conclusions to be adopted are a preparation for the EU position for the concluding meeting in the development of this strategic approach.
This meeting will be held in Dubai next February. The strategic approach should assist in the implementation of existing international agreements relating to hazardous chemicals, including hazardous waste and the import and export of such substances. This is an issue of which we should be mindful. EU strategies are being developed or are in place in many of the areas covered by the strategic approach. Examples of these are the 2004 persistent organic pollutants regulations and the EU mercury strategy. No real discussion is expected on this agenda item.
There will be a debate on the thematic strategy on air pollution published by the Commission in September. This is the first of seven thematic strategies promised under the EU sixth environment action programme. Different themes will be the subject of different discussions. The strategy sets out a long-term perspective on cleaner air in Europe. We previously discussed the transboundary nature of many environmental problems and air quality is a particularly important example. Action by individual governments can produce positive benefits but this must be complemented by joint actions by the EU and others at international level. The proposal is such an action at EU level. It is important to recognise that although there is much to be done, Ireland's air quality, particularly in comparison with that in other European states, is generally good.
We will also consider the Commission's proposal for a new air quality directive. With a view to making better regulations, it is the Commission's intention to streamline current air quality legislation. This is intended to lighten the administrative burden and enable member states to overcome difficulties experienced in complying with current rules. The proposed directive would bring together five legal instruments and the work is much the same as that done when legislation is consolidated and when regulations are made simpler and more easily accessible. An extensive consultation process was undertaken in preparation for this strategy. An impact assessment was also conducted.
We welcome the implication of the tools of better regulation to this complex but important area of environmental legislation. The committee will recall that better regulation was part of the Irish Presidency programme which has been carried on by subsequent Presidencies. Any work that aims to achieve coherence in the application or implementation of legislation is to be commended. The cost-benefit analysis of the strategy estimates that it would deliver at least €42 billion per annum in health benefits. There would be significant benefits to ecosystems in terms of reduced risks. We should also have the benefit of a reduction in damage caused by acidification, nutrification and ozone. The achievement of the targets in the strategy is estimated to cost €7.1 billion per annum. Therefore the cost-benefit is positive. Some of the costs are already in train. For example, through the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy and other measures we in Ireland expect it to exceed our targets for reducing ammonia.
Item 6 relates to a Commission proposal to improve a hybrid maize product for import into the Community for processing to produce products such as adhesives, synthetic rubber, porcelain coatings on spark plugs and ethyl alcohol. The proposed approval does not cover use of the product for animal feed, food or cultivation. Notwithstanding the limited nature of the proposal and the fact that the Environmental Protection Agency is the Irish competent authority for the directive and has no objection to its approval, I continue to bear in mind the doubts of other member states and members of this committee and they will abstain on the proposition. I do not anticipate a discussion on the matter at Council. The position of member states was checked at COREPER on 23 November. Tomorrow the Presidency is likely simply to ask if any member state has changed its position in the meantime. The clear indications are that there is no possibility of a qualified majority either in favour or against the product. At COREPER 104 votes were indicated in favour and 108 against; 75 votes, including Ireland, were counted as abstentions.
We have a second genetically modified organisms item on the agenda. Members may recall at our meeting before the last Environment Council in October that I referred to a point which was raised under "any other business" by Denmark about perspectives on the future use of GMOs. The current item has emerged from the discussion in the last Council. Essentially Denmark signalled a wish to explore what possibilities other states saw for highlighting the benefits that GMOs might offer to the Third World in terms of alleviating poverty and hunger. This is an interesting, if slight, shift in the traditional Danish position. At the same time Luxembourg indicated a desire to examine the decision-making process as it applies to GMOs bearing in mind the Commission's powers to approve products where no qualified majority vote emerged from the Council.
The UK Presidency has provided an opportunity tomorrow for member states to comment on GMO issues by posing the question of which aspects of policy on GMO crops and food merit further in-depth analysis and political discussion, such as potential risks and benefits of GMO technology, including the regulatory regime and the decision-making process for individual GMOs and the need for further research. If members think about it, it is a fairly loaded question.
As for the original Danish proposal which attempts to accentuate the positive in GM technology, I do not think the Community is ready for such a step. Consensus is unlikely to be reached on this matter. I am unconvinced by the Danish view, although I accept it is well intentioned, because promoting the benefits of GM should surely be a matter for the biotechnology industry and not the Community.
More importantly, the possibility of the Community highlighting a possible role for GMOs in the area of Third World poverty and hunger is likely to be fraught with danger. Members will obviously be aware there is a siren call in this proposition, namely, that something which we object to fundamentally in our world is somehow applicable to the Third World. If members think of that, they will see the inherent dangers in that approach. The position is incongruous when viewed in light of different opinions on the subject within the Community. The European Union would be open to accusations of working for the benefit of the biotechnology industry if it were to move in that direction. The Community would be open to criticism for facilitating interference in the biodiversity of countries that have few resources to deal with either the regulatory aspects of GMOs or the possible implications of such interference.
As for Luxembourg's wish to discuss the decision-making process, I can understand that some parties share unease about the Commission approval of proposals that do not have a qualified majority vote. It remains early days, however, and the scrutiny arrangements have not yet fully dealt with all types of notifications. For example, no proposal for cultivation has yet come before the regulatory commission under directive 2001/18/EC, let alone before the Council. It must be remembered that the GMO decision-making procedure simply mirrors processes that apply across many policy areas. Accordingly, any proposals for change would deserve careful consideration by all interested parties and whether we would change in this area and have different arrangements in every other decision area is a matter that requires much analysis.
In any event, it must be borne in mind that the Commission will undertake a review of these arrangements and will report in early 2006. On this basis, Ireland is prepared to accept that discussion on this aspect could be deferred until the Commission's review has been contemplated. It would be more logical if we did not have a discussion until we had the basis of the Commission's review. After all, the Commission has certain key roles in the legislative process under European law and it would appear appropriate if the Commission were to clarify its proposal in bringing it to the Council. Notwithstanding that, it is simply a request for a discussion. Obviously I would be glad to hear the views of the committee on this matter. I suspect the joint committee would share my views on it.
On tomorrow's agenda six items are listed under "any other business". We will have a report from the Commission on the EU biodiversity strategy. The strategy was adopted in 1998 to meet obligations under the UN convention on biological diversity. Ireland wishes to see an end to the review process and the early emergence of the promised communication from the Commission drawing from the Malahide analysis. This is the outcome of a major Irish Presidency conference last year.
We will also have information from the Presidency on the nanotechnology action plan. The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, in conjunction with Forfás, is undertaking an assessment of national nanotechnology investment options for the country. Forfás has established a project team for the nano-Ireland study and work will include input from all the relevant stakeholders. From my Department's perspective, nanotechnology has huge potential for environmental protection in terms of reducing energy use, reducing emissions and reducing waste in process industries.
We will have information from the Presidency on green public procurement on which a conference on this theme was held in London last month. The UK Minister, Margaret Beckett, wishes to inform the Council about that conference.
At the request of the Swedish delegation we will have information from an informal ministerial meeting last month on the future of the Baltic. This arises from a consideration by ministers in that region of the EU's thematic strategy for the protection and conservation of the marine environment. Members will be aware there is a very specific marine environment in the Baltic region. The nature of the Baltic Sea requires special consideration.
The importation of wild birds into the EU is on the agenda at the request of the Belgian delegation. It is concerned that the current regulations are not adequate. Ireland considers that the CITES regulations provide an effective and sufficient instrument for addressing the genuine conservation issues in the trade in wild birds. Accordingly Ireland does not support the Belgian proposal. Many of us will have received an interesting e-mail from the Irish Parrot Association this morning. I have not had the opportunity to consider it.
