Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Joint Committee on Environment, Culture and the Gaeltacht díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 30 Apr 2013

7th Environmental Action Programme: Discussion

We will discuss COM (2012) 710 - proposal for decision of the European Parliament and of the Council on the General Union Environment Action Programme to 2020, Living Well Within the Limits of our Planet, with officials from the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government. I welcome from the Department Mr. Pat Macken, principal officer, Environment, International and Sustainable Development; Mr. Brendan O'Neill, senior adviser; and Mr. Fintan O'Connell, Presidency team. I thank the gentlemen for attending.

I draw the witnesses' attention to the fact that, by virtue of section 17(2)(l ) of the Defamation Act 2009, witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of their evidence to the joint committee. However, if you are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and continue to do so, you are entitled thereafter only to qualified privilege in respect of your evidence. You are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and you are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, you should not criticise or make charges against a person, persons or an entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable.

Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

Before commencing with the presentation I wish to make some brief remarks. The environment action programmes have guided the development of EU environmental policy since 1971. They provided a systematic approach in terms of tackling environmental issues. They identified priorities, set targets and highlighted the need to integrate environmental policies with other policies.

The 6th Environmental Action Programme, which ended in 2012, worked towards establishing a framework for environmental policy within which a wide range of environmental legislation was consolidated and completed. That covered a wide number of areas with the exception of one important issue, namely, soil.

The question remains as to how committed are individual member states in terms of implementing the provisions of the environmental action programmes. That is an area that must be addressed in the context of the 7th Environmental Action Programme being considered.

I have been advised that the 7th Environmental Action Programme is more strategic in nature than the sixth. I have been advised also that it sets out different priority objectives to be attained. It is a very welcome development and I am interested in hearing today the way the Minister and the Department intend to meet those challenges and attain the priority objectives set within it. It is also an interesting time given that we hold the Presidency for the first six months of this year. It would be a nice legacy, in terms of Ireland's footprint on future European environmental policy, to have that issue dealt with constructively and, hopefully, before the Presidency concludes. I call Mr. Macken to address the committee.

Mr. Pat Macken

Before I begin I will introduce on my far left Mr. Fintan O'Connell, who is on our Presidency team, and Mr. Brendan O'Neill, who is senior adviser in the Department's environmental technical inspectorate. I may call on them occasionally during the presentation.

I thank the Chairman for the invitation to address the committee this afternoon on the 7th Environment Action Programme. As members will recall from previous discussions with this committee, the Irish Presidency has an ambitious environment agenda in terms of strategic policy, a very heavy international agenda, and a significant number of challenging legislative dossiers. With just over eight weeks to go before the curtain falls on the seventh Irish Presidency, intensive efforts are being made to achieve the targets set for it.

Thus far, good progress has been made across the range of priority dossiers identified in the Irish Presidency programme and we are still on course to achieve First Reading Agreement on our key priorities. Already, First Reading Agreement has been achieved on two dossiers - the amendment to the emissions trading scheme in so far as aviation is concerned and the priority substances in water file - while work is continuing on securing agreement on other dossiers.

These include two dossiers on CO2 in cars and vans, a proposal on ship recycling, which is designed to ensure old ships are recycled in a way that does not damage the environment, a dossier on batteries, which will extend the scope of the ban on batteries using certain levels of cadmium and, of course, the seventh EAP itself. Progress made is largely attributable to the intensive pre-Presidency planning in the 18 months leading up to the end of last year, about which we have previously spoken to the committee. This involved active engagement at ministerial and official level with the EU Commission, Council secretariat and European Parliament on the putting together of the Irish Presidency programme. Pre-planning has laid a solid foundation for the Presidency itself and, I am happy to say, we are well placed to achieve our key objectives. Success in any area, however, is always dependent on the degree to which consensus can be achieved within the Council itself and with the Commission and Parliament.

The seventh environment action programme, or EAP, is a flagship priority for the Irish Presidency in the environment field. As stated in the information note on the programme which has been circulated to members, environment action programmes have operated since the early 1970s to guide and drive policy and advance the environmental agenda in the European Union. Despite failures to fully achieve desired outcomes in some areas, the programmes have provided strategic policy focus and direction and the actions identified have served to significantly advance the environmental and sustainable-development agendas. The seventh EAP was developed against the background of Europe 2020, which was adopted by the European Council in 2010 and provides the overarching policy framework aimed at making Europe a smart, sustainable and inclusive economy and society. As a flagship initiative on resource efficiency under Europe 2020, it sets out a path for advancing the transition to a low-carbon, climate-resilient and resource-efficient future. The seventh EAP seeks to operationalise the objectives of the resource-efficiency roadmap through a series of agreed actions. The new EAP proposal, "Living well, within the limits of our planet", was published by the European Commission on 29 November 2012. The proposal, when adopted, will succeed the sixth EAP, which expired in July 2012. Currently, there is no EAP in place.

The path towards the formulation of the seventh EAP has been the subject of important guidance through three sets of Environment Council conclusions, most recently in June 2012, while the European Parliament adopted a resolution calling for a seventh programme in April 2012. Ireland has been active in this development process since 2011 and made a submission as part of a consultation process undertaken by the Commission. The priorities listed in the Irish submission focused on areas such as greater integration of environmental principles across all policy areas, better implementation of EU legislation, a focus on innovation, international issues and the urban environment, all of which were well reflected in the proposal that was ultimately published by the Commission. We are now in a good position through our Presidency role to develop the necessary consensus across all of the main actors and, hopefully, bring this flagship dossier across the line.

The proposal for the seventh EAP is in the form of a decision to be adopted through co-decision by the European Parliament and the Council. The seventh-EAP European Parliament rapporteur, Mr. Gaston Franco, was appointed in December 2012 and, at an early engagement, indicated his intention to work with the Irish Presidency to achieve a first reading agreement by June. Mr. Franco and the chairman of the environment committee of the European Parliament attended the informal Council in Dublin last week. As the briefing note circulated to the committee sets out the main elements covered by the EAP, I will not go into too much detail on them. The seventh EAP sets out a strategic agenda for environmental policy with nine priority objectives to guide EU environment policy up to 2020. For each priority objective, the rationale is set out in ten to 12 paragraphs, with actions and requirements specified to deliver the priority objectives by 2020. These actions and requirements could be described as the operational side of the draft proposal and are the main focus of the negotiations. The programme sets out a framework to support the achievement of the nine priority objectives through better implementation of EU environment law, state-of-the-art science, securing necessary investments in support of environment and climate change policy and improving the way environmental concerns and requirements are reflected in other policies. The programme aims to boost efforts to help EU cities become more sustainable and improve the EU's capacity to meet regional and global environment and climate challenges.

The Irish Presidency has thus far held ten meetings on the seventh EAP in the Council working party, the latest of which was held in Brussels yesterday. An additional two meetings are planned for Thursday of this week and next Tuesday, respectively, to prepare for trilogues which involve the Presidency, on behalf of the Council, the European Parliament and the Commission. This process has involved the Presidency seeking to build compromise and amend the text where required, while at the same time being conscious of the obligation to uphold the level of ambition in the seventh EAP. We are not just seeking agreement for the sake of securing agreement but must ensure the final document is credible, environmentally ambitious and capable of achieving desired outcomes across the environmental agenda to 2020. Inevitably, there is a distance to go to achieve consensus in a number of areas under discussion. That said, we are pleased with the progress being made in what has been a very intensive process. The areas where significant issues remain are narrowing.

The following main issues of concern for member states have been clarified in the Presidency redrafts of the seventh EAP and form part of the ongoing negotiations. First, the proposed legislation on soil protection is still opposed by the same blocking minority that has rejected the outstanding Commission proposal since 2006. The Presidency is trying to ensure that the seventh EAP includes action on soils in the period to 2020 and is striving to forge a compromise text that might gain a broad measure of support. Second, the low-carbon roadmap to 2050 and references to mandatory targets for the climate and energy framework beyond 2020 pose difficulties for a number of member states. Third, there are issues about the inclusion of references to the development of indicators and targets for resource efficiency and sustainable consumption and production. Fourth, references to the treatment-of-chemicals legislation is proving to be contentious. These discussions are complex and technical. The fifth issue of concern is the proposal to fully implement the EU biodiversity strategy, which is priority objective 1. Sixth, the issue of an environmental inspection support capacity at EU level raises questions and reluctance in a number of member states, although this issue has been clarified in the Presidency redrafts as an inspection support capacity to respond inter alia to member states' requests for assistance. EU legislation in this area has been always an important issue for Ireland itself. Seventh, the implementation of landfill proposals were initially problematic for some member states. However, the revised wording on which we have been working to take account of postponements of targets under the landfill directive and provide clarity on the provisions under the waste framework directive have addressed these concerns.

More than 500 amendments to the Commission proposal were tabled for consideration in the European Parliament's environment committee. Following the committee's vote on the amendments, the overall number was reduced to just over 200. The committee also voted to give the rapporteur a mandate to enter into trilogues, which means the Presidency will be moving into a process of direct engagement with the Commission and the European Parliament in a series of trilogue meetings in the May-to-June period. We look forward to engaging with the European Parliament in an open and constructive manner to rapidly achieve agreement on an ambitious and realistic seventh EAP which will help us all to "live well, within the limits of our planet". While success will be dependent on securing agreement between Council and Parliament, we are cautiously optimistic that we can get the flagship dossier over the line by the end of our Presidency.

I am happy to go into more detail on any issue and to answer any questions members of the joint committee may have.

Mr. Macken says the proposal is strategic in nature while also referring to operational issues. I find it difficult to tie the two of those together. I am trying to think of what will be the practical application of the seventh programme. To get a sense of where people fit into this, I have been looking at some of the practical things that have been done elsewhere. The Haringey carbon commission report was a positive initiative which involved a whole community. It included measures such as low-carbon districts and steps to make people understand the practical issues.

For example, the fall-off in the number of people insulating their homes - the environment issue straddles a number of Departments - is an indication that people do not completely buy into the process. It appears that a lot of what is being done is from a top-down perspective. I would like to hear what outcomes are expected as a consequence of our adopting this measure which would have a bottom-up element to them. I believe buy-in by individual citizens and communities is incredibly important. Can there be included in this measure a component such as the local government community initiative, which has been piloted in certain areas? Is this likely to be an operational consequence of the strategic headings that will be developed?

Mr. Pat Macken

The thematic strategy of the sixth environment action programme was waste prevention and recycling. As a result of a commitment in that programme, a new waste framework directive on recycling policies and so on was introduced, which drilled down to member state level through directives and policies. Member states also took their own initiatives. The action across Europe must be broad in nature. As I said in my opening statement, the Europe 2020 strategy sets the broad canvass, as does the European sustainable development strategy. We published our sustainable development strategy last year. The aim is to set a narrative that will appeal across all sectors. As such, the programme is broad in scope and contains nine separate priority objectives. It tries to draw together all of these strands in a way that will be meaningful to Governments and civil society. The Commission set out to do it in that particular way and it has worked quite well. We are trying to maintain a narrative that will mobilise and drive action.

In our experience, one of the problems with the previous environment action programme was that it became too prescriptive in terms of the inclusion of many different actions, some of which went nowhere in the end. It became something of a Christmas tree and took a long time to negotiate. We believe the Commission, guided by political debate at European Council level, did a good job in coming up with a coherent framework that would drive and focus action up to 2020. It sets the broad policy strategy. It also, as the Deputy stated, identifies priority areas in which there is currently a lack of progress. This is based partly on an analysis of the previous environment action programme, in which gaps not properly addressed were identified. For example, in terms of consumption and production, we still consume too many natural resources. The aim is to break the link between economic growth and the consumption of natural resources through, for example, the green public procurement action plan, which is a practical measure we introduced and which features again in the current programme. It is a strategy that seeks to bring together all of the different strands to integrate environmental principles across all areas, be they financial or economic areas. It is seen as a type of platform for driving the environmental side up to 2020 and to ensure that environmental action is taken and integrated in areas such as the European semester.

I thank Mr. Macken for his presentation. Having read the background information to the action programme and listened to Mr. Macken's presentation, I have a couple of questions for him. Perhaps Mr. Macken would give a brief explanation of the dossier on cars and vans. We are currently experiencing problems with cars and vans, although they are regulatory rather than environmental problems. It is an area that requires monitoring, particularly in terms of small businesses and what may be planned in that area.

The main issue on which I wish to focus is that of climate change. Mr. Macken's presentation states on page 3, "As a flagship initiative on resource efficiency under Europe 2020, it sets out a path for advancing the transition to a low-carbon, climate-resilient and resource-efficient future". Obviously, climate change legislation will have a huge impact in this regard. Further down that page it states: "The priorities listed in the Irish submission focused on areas such a greater integration of environmental principles". While there are only eight weeks remaining of our Presidency of the Council of the European Union, I would like to see a greater emphasis on climate change and the enactment here of the relevant legislation in this regard, which would make a statement to other European countries. I believe we should use the remaining eight weeks of our Presidency of the European Council to try to accelerate that process. I would welcome a comment from Mr. Macken on that matter.

Climate change is front and centre of the nine priorities listed by Mr. Macken, particularly priorities Nos. 2 and 9. On farming, forestry and our carbon footprint, it has been stated that up to one third of carbon emissions comes from the agriculture sector. However, a mitigating factor in this regard is that feedstuff is not being hauled long distances, although that may not be true now owing to the fodder crisis. Another mitigating factor is that farming takes place on open grassland and we have an extensive hedgerow system. In terms of the action programme, how much work is being done by the Department in trying to assess this? It is important we have an accurate picture in this regard. I would welcome the enactment here of climate change legislation and for Ireland to be seen to be leading the way on this issue. However, it is important we have an accurate and true assessment of where we are at in terms of carbon emissions and agriculture, taking into account the mitigating factors that may benefit the agri-food sector. We do not want to have a negative impact on that sector if there is no need. I would welcome a comment from Mr. Macken on that matter.

What struck me about the priorities - Mr. Macken's response may be that what I am concerned about is already provided for in the detail of the priorities - is that there is no reference to the need to improve the efficiency of buildings, particularly homes. Most people will be aware that many of the buildings and homes constructed here during the past 15 to 20 years do not contain wall insulation. People are now having to have their homes insulated because developers and builders who made a fortune during that time did not put even cheap insulation in the cavities. As such, we are playing catch-up in this area. Also, our energy bill is huge and we are using an enormous amount of fossil fuel, much of which is imported, and this is affecting our economy, environment, household budgets and so on. I believe this issue should be highlighted and included as a priority at European level. We should also do our bit in terms of catching up in this area. While I do not have detailed data on this, in my view, other European countries are way ahead of us. As a northern European country, we have an obligation to catch up.

Mr. Pat Macken

The idea of resource efficiency is integral to the whole process. It is a question of embedding it in all policy areas. The resource-efficiency benefits are substantial in terms of achieving greening of the economy. There is much potential for jobs. It is not just the environment sector that is saying this. The OECD has produced a lot of work on this subject. It has a publication called Towards Green Growth which states that, on a global basis and certainly on a European basis, it will not be possible to achieve previous levels of growth until we successfully address this issue. We must take into account the environmental impact of whatever we do as part of the economic equation. The cost must be factored in. It is only when one does so that one can make real progress. This is at the heart of the matter.

Energy efficiency in housing is part of the equation. We have done a lot in Ireland through the building regulations to improve energy efficiency. There are grants and supports available for people who want to carry out energy-efficiency projects in their homes and buildings. Buildings have been identified as comprising an area in which we can make significant progress in reducing greenhouse gas emissions in a cost-effective manner. This has been central to policy for some time.

We are not trying to put actions into the EAP. This is an EU policy. It spreads out and brings together all the various strands under which the detailed initiatives will be brought forward, be it through legislating on climate change, energy efficiency, eco-labelling or the Common Agricultural Policy. These are matters for detailed discussion. The mechanism does not in itself set targets; it seeks to identify broad areas and some specific areas in which we need to make progress. Under member states' separate corpora of legislation, it will be a matter of making progress in these areas. There are responsibilities placed on the European Union but there are also responsibilities placed on member states. Housing, for example, is not a competence of the European Union, nor is spatial planning. It is by working together and individually that member states can achieve progress.

With regard to the climate change Bill, the outline heads and final climate policy report by the NESC secretariat are to be considered by the Oireachtas Joint Committee on the Environment, Culture and the Gaeltacht and various stakeholders. The Oireachtas will facilitate the debate on national policy and legislation in response to the outline heads of the Bill. The Oireachtas committee has requested submissions from interested individuals and groups. The closing date is 30 April. The committee will be forwarding a report to the Minister by mid-2013. The joint committee's report on the policy analysis by the NESC secretariat will be the key input for consideration by the Government in adopting a national policy position on the transition to a low-carbon future and finalising the introduction of climate legislation in the second half of 2013. It is a matter of moving away from what is called the brown economy, which is based on fossil fuels, to a greener economy that has a lower impact on natural resources. That is what we are trying to do under the new EAP and under Europe 2020 itself.

I accept what Mr. Macken is saying about there being a broad brush. However, on the energy-efficiency issue and the amount of energy used in Northern Europe, never mind Ireland, which fares very badly by comparison with other countries, we need to catch up. Mr. Macken referred to a brown economy. Ours is purple; that is the fact of the matter. While some progress has been made through Sustainable Energy Ireland and while there have been some improvements in energy efficiency, there are very many households and buildings, including public buildings, that are anything but energy-efficient. Some of the county councils are trying to catch up but, unfortunately, we did not try to build energy-efficient homes during the building boom. A considerable number of buildings are totally inefficient and we must now try to retrofit them. As a State, we should do this. In the medium term we could save money, and the project could pay for itself. While we hold the Presidency of the European Union, we need to make a statement in this regard to other member states.

I thank the delegation for the presentation. I have a couple of questions. Could the delegates tell me a little more on the legislation on soil protection? They said there is a blocking minority. What is the thinking on that? I would have thought it would not be a difficulty. What is the difficulty? Do the delegates believe there will be a positive outcome in the negotiations on this?

Mr. Pat Macken

We are quite conscious ourselves in moving the EAP agenda forward that we want to see some action on it. If there is to be a programme to 2020 and there is no action in it on soils, it becomes an inaction plan rather than an action plan. A substantial number of countries have blocked legislation that the Commission introduced in 2006. A blocking minority is made up of some very large countries, including the Netherlands, Germany, the United Kingdom and France. These are some of the key countries. The Commission is still very much committed to the legislation, so there are two irreconcilable positions. In the course of the negotiations, we have been trying to find a language that allows us to try to move the agenda along and unblock the blocking minority. This issue will continue to arise until the end of the process.

Much of the debate has focused on the fact that many member states comprising the blocking minority maintain that the competence in question is not an EU competence but a matter for member states themselves. Some of the member states argue that they have many programmes in place to deal with contaminated lands and the issues of soil sealing and erosion, which are all major environmental problems. We are trying to tackle this and come up with a language that we believe might work. We cannot say with confidence yet how it will work. As I stated in my presentation, the issues are narrowing down. If we could narrow them down to this and perhaps one or two other issues in the final stages, we would be happy enough.

My colleague Mr. Brendan O'Neill may have something technical to add.

Mr. Brendan O'Neill

As Mr. Macken was saying, this proposal was launched in September 2006. There was a chapter on contaminated land. The European Commission was proposing that the very systematic assessment of contaminated land would be such that the land would be checked bearing in mind its former use and chemical analysis would be done to determine the level of contamination. Afterwards, one would put in place a remediation programme for all sites. A number of member states felt this would be very expensive and difficult and that it was not a case of good prioritisation. Many of the major member states felt it was a question of going to the sites that they knew presented serious risks and which would pose a danger to the population if they were used for schools, for example. They are very much against checking everything more or less in the same way and they question the expense of remediation at the sites. That is the main reason for the blockage. The member states are seeking a more risk-based approach such that they would assess the risk associated with the activities that took place on the sites and then determine what needs to be done based on the proposed new use. This is the main difficulty. The Commission is insisting that there be a systematic approach.

My question is slightly related to the point made by Deputy Murphy. There is a lack of public engagement on climate change, renewable energy, targets and all the challenges that face us nationally and globally.

As part of this process, is there any Europe-wide public information plan or engagement, rather than leaving it to advocacy groups, to ensure there will be a more united approach taken by all member states to engage with communities?

Mr. Pat Macken

The Deputy's point is well made. The level of engagement with the citizen as part of the efficiency process is a concern. We were concerned about it and had a discussion at the informal Environment Council last week which was attended by 21 environment Ministers. We had a discussion on the issue of resource efficiency in terms of how to have greater engagement with the public and ensure greater trust in labelling, including eco-labelling. We facilitated a discussion by a senior OECD person and it turned out to be an interesting debate in terms of how we could secure a buy-in. It is all very well to say we want to promote a greener economy, the allocation of more resources and lower carbon emissions, but how do we mobilise public support in that regard? There was a general discussion on that issue, which is indicative of the priority being given to it. Citizen engagement is a live issue in the context of this proposal as it is being implemented. We made a submission during the development phase of the EAP and stressed the importance of communicating with civil society. That was one of the reasons we did not want the document to be written in officialese or legalese but as a coherent narrative that would mean something to people, whether it be groups or individuals in member states when it came to implement it.

We have got as far as people accepting the concept of "reduce, reuse, recycle". That took a long time to enter people's consciousness and the use of primary schools to get the message across was effective. We are now moving to a different level in having to focus on the 2020 targets, the level of energy to be sourced from renewables and how we will achieve this. The general public needs to be informed that globally - never mind here - we have moved away from the use of fossil fuels. How will we have an energy source to enable us to turn on the switch that we are so used to turning on, be it for cooking or heating? There needs to be a big discussion in order that people will engage. One can read specialised periodicals and watch the odd television programme, but at Government level there is a need for a programme of citizen engagement, starting at primary school level. I hope that is something that will come from this.

Mr. Pat Macken

I agree absolutely. It is interesting when we are in negotiations to listen to the problems other member states have. Some of the eastern European states that recently acceded to the European Union have very high landfill rates, similar to what we had 20 years ago, and it is a question of them trying to come up to what is required. It was a long road for us in that we had to put the necessary infrastructure in place and we had to have awareness campaigns, but one cannot have such campaigns unless there is progress on the ground. Through the environment fund, landfill levies and the plastic bag levy, we were able to provide recycling centres around the country which enable the producers of responsibility schemes such as Repak to have very high recycling rates. We have high recycling rates for packaging, about 70%, and level of WEEE recycling is more than twice the EU target. With good awareness levels allied to institutional changes, infrastructure provision and development, one can move along and also create many jobs in the process. There will be an opportunity for accession countries to create jobs in this area also. Often low-skilled jobs in labour-intensive sectors such as recycling can be beneficial.

The Deputy referred to moving to the next level. We established a market development programme because we were reaching very high recycling levels. It was aimed at trying to achieve added value for recovered waste resources and ensuring it would not all be shipped to the Far East and that processing would be undertaken here. One of the products on which we concentrated was compost, for which we set a national standard in order that it would do what it said on the tin. Farmers can have confidence in it and know that if it is used on their land, it complies with animal by-product regulations, veterinary regulations and so on. We reach a certain level and to get above it one has to invest again in such a process.

I drew attention to some practical initiatives undertaken as pilot projects in communities and where there was a co-responsibility with the community and agencies working on the ground. There were recommendations not to do with where a recycling facility should be located but with a buy-in in terms of changing people's attitudes, which is a driver in its own right. That is the point I was trying to make. Is it possible to move towards a co-responsibility model that would involve more than imposing limits and would instead try to involve people in developing a low carbon, sustainable community in which they could live? It is not only about involving schools; it involves everything from industry to the difficult issues such as public transport and so on.

Mr. Pat Macken

I agree. When we were devising our sustainable development strategy, Our Sustainable Future, we were conscious that it was not just about a top-down approach; it has to be a bottom-up approach. We have to have engagement at local level through various initiatives. I was struck by a few aspects when we were developing the green economy document. The Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation brought out a document, Developing our Green Potential, but in compiling it it consulted other Departments, as we normally do. We met many of the non-governmental organisations involved and asked them how we might create jobs. People are actively engaged on the ground on the issue of how to create opportunities locally, whether it be in the area of biodiversity or natural habitats, to talk about our own sectors - I am sure the same applies to others - through engagement. The local authorities' reform structures are meant to facilitate and pull all of this together. Some interesting things were in done in Fingal, for example. Interesting work was also done in Roscommon. We see it as people being able to make a contribution. The idea of sustainable development is about ensuring well-being, in other words, ensuring people are in a clean environment that meets good standards and that they have a decent life and engage and reach their potential. It is a broad concept in that respect and, therefore, requires actions across every sector of society. It is a dynamic scene. We have met many of the people and communities involved and try to support them. We also provide some funding for them.

Carbon emissions have been reduced substantially, not least because of the financial crisis. We are in a different space in that regard, but the underlying challenge remains. Has the divide between, say, Poland and its interest in the coal industry and the wider European agenda narrowed? What is the status of the negotiations on the post-2020 targets?

Mr. Pat Macken

As the Chairman mentioned, some of the countries mentioned have had issues in terms of the low carbon road map. There was a failure to reach agreement on the Council conclusions because of opposition in the Council. However, the debate has moved on somewhat. Discussions are taking place on a Green Paper which was before the informal Council last week not only the 2020 but on the 2030 vision. Many businesses plan long term and the debate is moving on. The process of political debate started in Dublin where we had a joint meeting of environment and energy Ministers to discuss the 2030 pathway document.

There is a distance to travel in that regard. As I outlined, in terms of our national strategy, the NESC report and so on, we will be moving to develop our own national strategies to make sure we meet the 2020 targets. There are divisions and people are aware of them, but at the same time the challenge is not getting any easier. We still have to try to meet the 2o plus 2o C target by 2050. That issue was also discussed in Dublin as part of the international agenda.

The Commission brought out a communication on the international climate change negotiations and it was the subject of discussions. The Minister has made it the central focus of the Irish Presidency to try to have an early debate at political level on these issues. That is always important in an EU context because these Council conclusions might sound somewhat official, but they provide political guidance which then guides the Commission in the way it shapes and writes policies.

Members can see from the environmental action programme, EAP, document that it takes on board the conclusions reached by Ministers and strives to strike a balance between being realistic in what it can achieve and at the same time having a good level of environmental ambition. That is what we are trying to do in the negotiations. Obviously, in the negotiations on the EAP, for example, there is always a push-back in respect of areas such as soil, but we have to try to counteract this and make sure there is a good balance struck in the document. The document can achieve agreement but it might do more damage in the long run were it to lack credibility and not to be seen as a substantive contribution to the process of improving environmental standards in Europe.

I thank the delegates for their attendance and presentation. Interaction is always important. This will serve as a good legacy of the Irish Presidency. The EU policy clerk and I were in Brussels last month where we met Mr. Lemass and went through the document in great detail. To think that our imprint is on the document, which I found fascinating, is exciting for us.

The joint committee adjourned at 3.25 p.m. until 2.15 p.m. on Tuesday, 14 May 2013.
Barr
Roinn