Joint Committee on Environment, Culture and the Gaeltacht díospóireacht -
Friday, 5 Jul 2013

Heads of Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Bill 2013: Discussion (Resumed)

Irish Corporate Leaders on Climate Change

Chairman

We will proceed with our consideration of the outline heads of the climate action and low carbon development Bill. Before we do I wish to complete some necessary procedures. With regard to the caution issued to witnesses referring them to section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, I propose that we give each witness a written version of this caution and that I read out the following shortened version.

Witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of their evidence. However, if they are directed to cease giving evidence and continue to do so, they are entitled thereafter only to qualified privilege. Witnesses are directed to restrict their evidence to the subject matter of these proceedings and to respect parliamentary practice by not criticising or making charges against any person, persons or entity. Witnesses are asked to read the document which has been circulated to them concerning privilege. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Members are fully aware of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. I will not read this statement out each time. I also insist that members ask questions. I will not allow long introductions or policy statements. There is no need for each member to thank each individual witness for coming before the committee. Where members do this, they should please be advised that I will immediately intervene to ensure we have appropriate time to discuss specifics. Each member may speak on each section only once.

Given our tight schedule today, we have no choice but to move quickly. We have no spare time to allow for delays or unnecessary commentary. We are against the clock. We are here today to hear evidence from experts and not listen to members. We want to hear from the witnesses. Accordingly, the time allotted to each section will be strictly adhered to regardless of who has not put their questions. If one member takes too long, it will eat into the time of other members.

We have received documentation and an opening statement from the witnesses. We will ask them to give their views rather than read their opening statement. I call on Mr. Gabriel D'Arcy to address the committee.

Mr. Gabriel D'Arcy

I thank the Chairman and committee for welcoming us. I introduce my colleagues, Ms Lorraine Fitzgerald, secretary to the corporate leaders group, and Mr. Joseph Curtin, a consultant who recently worked with the National Economic and Social Council and was the author of its recent December 2012 report on the subject. I intended to read a statement but if the Chairman does not wish me to do so, I will not. I will talk about what we are trying to achieve.

First and foremost, I would like, on behalf of the corporate leaders group, to thank the Minister and his officials for bringing forward the heads of the Bill to this juncture. There was some debate and questioning as to the commitment of the Department and Minister to bringing this forward and I commend him on bringing it forward.

A few points should be addressed in the Bill to strengthen it. The heads of the Bill would benefit from there being an overarching vision towards 2050 for the country in terms of climate change. Other countries have done something similar. In our statement we referred to Denmark and elsewhere.

In our submission we note it has been clearly recognised, and attested to recently in moves by President Obama in the United States with regard to his proposals on fossil fuels, that Ireland, because of its location and geography and climate change, as it is occurring, can benefit disproportionately. We have a disproportionate amount of renewables. Renewable energy is no longer a fringe subject but is core, and it is recognised it can play a major role.

In bioenergy and a number of other areas, Ireland can disproportionately benefit from a move to a low carbon economy. We need to set out a national vision which cascades down into all the other sectors and departments. One of the issues in the Bill is that it seems to be built up from those sectors. There is a role for a national vision. Ireland can create huge strategic gain in developing a national vision which will cascade down.

Related to that is the development of sectoral and national roadmaps. In Bord na Móna we set out a vision which is encapsulated in a statement, a new contract with nature. It is about sustainable development, which is defined in economic, social and environmental terms. We have a duty to the communities we serve, our shareholders and the environment. It is being rolled out in each of the business units within the company. This would be a better practice and a way of moving forward on this Bill.

My final point concerns the role of the expert advisory body. As published in the heads of the Bill, it is not sufficiently strong. For instance, the Bill envisages that the body may be consulted in developing roadmaps. We believe that the expert body should have a much more powerful role. We fully acknowledge the role of Government and the Houses in terms of setting out legislation and objectives, but the Houses, as they pertain to this Bill, would benefit from much stronger expert advisory group and, as we have laid out in our statement, the rules, goals and responsibilities.

Chairman

I thank Mr. D'Arcy.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

If businesses are to invest, they need certainty. Does the Bill provide sufficient certainty or is more required? Mr. D'Arcy referred to a vision, with which I agree. How would he state that vision? Would it require a target?

How would the delegates see such a target being best stated?

Some of the companies represented today operate in parts of the world where climate change legislation is already in place. In some cases, the jurisdictions in question have targets in excess of what Ireland has stated. How have the delegates' companies coped with that legislation? Has it been helpful or unhelpful in terms of investment and competitiveness? It would be very useful for us to have an understanding of the experience in other jurisdictions.

Mr. Gabriel D'Arcy

The Deputy's first question was related to flexibility and certainty. There is certainly a leadership challenge to be met in a context where so many changes are taking place. Take energy, for instance, we saw what happened in the past two or three years in the shale revolution in the United States. There is significant ongoing technological development and we have seen a great deal of emerging information from eminent climatologists and so on. Our view is that there must be a global setting of targets and a tightening of existing structures, including a follow-up to the Kyoto Protocol and so on. Recent announcements by President Obama and the Chinese Government have been helpful in this regard.

In terms of what Ireland should be doing, the type of vision we are proposing would include setting out a view of where we see ourselves up to 2050. The NESC report suggested attaining carbon neutral status by 2050 could be a target for us. If that is to be achieved, we must set out what has to be done by 2020, 2030, 2040 and 2050 and begin laying out guidelines to that end. Of course, while all of this is going on, we have the normal cycle of economic life. We are in a difficult economic period and that must be taken into account. It is crucial to retain some level of flexibility to accommodate normal economic cycles. It will inevitably happen that particular goals will not be reached because something else has arisen which the Government of the day must take into account. There must be a mechanism for retaining a certain flexibility, but, at the same time, we need to have a degree of certainty in terms of where we are going, how policy is being developed and the framework within which targets will be achieved. There must be a clear plan in terms of how objectives in this regard will cascade into all areas of Irish life, whether it be planning, particularly spatial planning, food and agriculture and so on. Objectives have already been set in some of these areas up to 2020, but we must plan for how we can build on this in a sustainable manner. There is a massive opportunity in the energy area, for example, and that is all linked into resources, including water and wind energy. This could all be encapsulated within a vision up to 2050, which would include a plan for how objectives could be brought forward and cascaded into all relevant areas.

At the same time, I am not a great believer in having specific targets. As an open economy on the western fringes of Europe, we should be careful about taking unilateral actions and must always give consideration to the global and regional consequences. Europe, I am pleased to say, is further ahead than most regions in the world in this domain. There is a real opportunity for Ireland to be a leader within Europe on these issues, simply because of the disproportionate strengths we enjoy in terms of our renewable resources, if they are properly mobilised.

My colleague, Mr. Curtin, might comment on the experience of companies such as Vodafone, for example, which operate in other countries in terms of the climate change targets and legislative provisions that pertain there.

Mr. Joseph Curtin

A number of countries, including some of the leading European countries, have taken on specific climate change targets. The NESC report highlights some of the options that have been taken internationally, to several of which Mr. D'Arcy made reference. Several countries, including the United Kingdom and Germany, have taken on science-based, legally binding targets, but there are other options. Sweden, for instance, has adopted the objective of being climate neutral by 2050. The NESC has indicated that Ireland is in a very favourable position to achieve that type of target because we have a large agriculture sector, climate neutrality being capable of capturing the potential of agriculture as a sink, as well as a source of emissions. This vision of a climate-neutral Ireland could harness much of the potential inherent in agriculture, including afforestation and so forth. It is broader vision, one to which Ireland might be very suited because it reflects the particular nature of the country and its particular climate change challenge.

In the case of Denmark, to give another example, the extremely ambitious objective of becoming fossil fuel free by 2050 has been adopted. This is a typical Danish approach and really captures something about that country and its relation to climate change, decarbonisation and ongoing transition. The trick for Ireland is to discover a unique offering which we can give to the world in terms of the climate change challenge and to encapsulate that offering in some type of vision. The Corporate Leaders Group on Climate Change has a sister organisation in the United Kingdom which is very favourably disposed to the approach in that country of incorporating a legally binding target for 2050. The UK corporate leaders group has a similar membership to ours, with members from across a broad range of organisations. It campaigned very vigorously for a legally binding target for 2050 for precisely the reason the Deputy suggested, namely, to be able to offer its member organisations certainty in terms of investment decisions.

Deputy Brian Stanley

I thank the delegates for their presentation. The key points they have set out correspond with the provisions of a Bill I introduced earlier this year. I understand Deputy Catherine Murphy's Bill reflects many of the same themes. These include an 80% reduction in emissions by 2050, a five year roadmap, clear benchmarking of targets, prioritisation of a national roadmap and annual reporting to involve the Taoiseach. Mr. D'Arcy has indicated that Bord na Móna is always watching for opportunities to diversify. Do the delegates believe there is significant willingness, awareness and preparation on the part of corporate Ireland in terms of the changes that will have to be made? These changes are comparable to what happened in the industrial revolution but must be made in a much shorter timeframe. Is there a readiness to meet this challenge?

The process of change will be very important. Do the delegates agree that the national plan should be followed by sectoral plans? From an economic point of view, the reality is that people in boardrooms are mostly looking to boost profits. Have significant numbers bought into the idea that there is an opportunity for Ireland to lead on this issue and get ahead of the curve?

Mr. Gabriel D'Arcy

I look at the matter from a corporate point of view. I am currently CEO of Bord na Móna and I previously spent 19 years in the food industry. I was abroad for most of the latter period. In the corporate world, it is markets and our customers that are driving this. Corporate social responsibility has risen way up the agendas of most international corporate groups. As part of that, they play to social sustainability. They do not want people working in sweat shops producing cheap products and services for the western world. This is the case whether it be technology, food or clothing companies. Customers are also seeking low carbon footprints. The consumer is beginning to understand the position in this regard. Our customers are driving us in a certain way. For example, our customers for horticulture and energy products are driving our business in a certain direction. The opportunity for corporate Ireland lies in the future rather than in the past. The latter is gone. Future opportunities will increasingly be based on leading-edge technology and service products that are responsibly produced from an environmental point of view. I refer, for example, to energy products which give rise to lower carbon emissions and low-carbon products in other areas. Many corporates are moving into what is termed the circular economy. The latter involves trying to be much more resource efficient. What we are discussing is but a subset of a wider issue relating to resource management.

Profit and customers - particularly those whom we keep satisfied - drive corporate Ireland. Our customers are motivated by sustainably produced products and services. There are sectors which are extremely carbon-intensive in their activities and which there is a great deal of investment. These have to migrate and there must be a transition. It is not just as if one can throw a switch, a proper transition must be made and it is necessary to bring people and communities along. However, it is the market which drives companies.

On a national plan followed by sectoral plans, corporate Ireland would benefit from a national vision. There would then be an opportunity for that vision to cascade into various different aspects of policy. This is a Government vision which should cascade into all areas of policy formulation throughout the country. It is within that framework that the corporates should operate. Corporate Ireland would benefit if there was such a national vision in place. That vision should be developed following consultation with all of the key players throughout the country.

The Deputy's final point related to opportunities. I am of the view that opportunities exist. Ireland should be at the leading edge because, as a nation, it can reap the greatest benefit. Germany is far ahead of other European countries in this area and when one considers what is at its disposal in the context of renewables, one can see that it has much fewer resources than Ireland. However, Germany is still moving in a definitive direction. There is a real opportunity for Ireland and, thankfully, much of this is beginning to be realised. It would, however, be greatly embellished by the presence of an overarching vision.

Deputy Marcella Corcoran Kennedy

I thank Mr. D'Arcy and his colleagues for coming before us. The members of the Irish Corporate Leaders on Climate Change group are collectively exploring ways in which they can deal with the challenges which will arise. Are they the group considering the direction they are going to take from a business perspective? Obviously low-carbon economies are going to present opportunities for our guests. Are they considering this matter from the perspective to which I refer or do they approach it in different ways?

Mr. Gabriel D'Arcy

The group comprises a variety of entities, including technology companies, traditional energy companies such as Bord na Móna and Bord Gáis, food and food service companies, etc. All of the companies have their own particular business objectives and strategies and operate in different sectors. In the context of climate change and of responsible businesses in various sectors operating in circumstances where such change is occurring at pace, the members of the Irish Corporate Leaders on Climate Change group believe they have a responsibility to try to inform policy-makers about what they believe is the right action to take at such a critical juncture as we contemplate passing a climate Bill into Irish law. It is in this context and in respect of a number of different sectors that we are saying this would be good for our businesses and that it would be responsible to do. We are trying to inform the debate.

Deputy Marcella Corcoran Kennedy

I am coming at this matter from the point of view of trying to marry corporate social responsibility with our guests' businesses and with the challenges to which climate change will give rise.

Mr. Gabriel D'Arcy

It is integral. On behalf of all the members of the Irish Corporate Leaders on Climate Change group and the wider business community, I think I can safely say that we all get the concept to the effect that unfettered focus on economic gain at the expense of everything else is not sustainable.

Deputy Gerald Nash

Will Mr. D'Arcy expand on what he said earlier in respect of unilateral targets? He stated that corporate Ireland would be better placed if there was an overarching national vision on climate change. The latter is what we are trying to address in the context of the proposed legislation. Would corporate Ireland benefit from and would jobs be created as a result of that vision being wedded to unilateral national targets?

Mr. Gabriel D'Arcy

Ireland has a small open economy and people must understand that it operates in a global context. Notwithstanding how emotional we might feel about it, we must be careful about taking unilateral actions. Any actions we take must be in some way aligned to European and international actions. I am of the view that in certain sectors we can be at the forefront in respect of this matter and, as a result, enjoy disproportionate gains. We must be careful, however, about taking unilateral actions. I accept that this may be an extreme example but we could decide to go carbon free tomorrow and to put in place a national law stating that the country must have zero carbon emissions. This would lead to a large number of business closures throughout the country but would that have any impact in respect of climate change?

No, it would not. It would certainly get us notice but it would have no benefit for the social, economic or environmental fabric of Ireland. Therefore, we cannot act unilaterally. The Minister and his officials engaged very actively in Doha, and we need to be represented there. We can be leaders in those debates and some progress is being made having regard to some comments that were made by international leaders in America, China and so forth. It is in that context that I mean that we as a small open economy have to be careful about unilateralism. Mr. Joseph Curtin might wish to add a further comment.

Mr. Joseph Curtin

In practical terms, what that translates into is that we do not want to duplicate a target for 2020. We have a legally binding target for 2020 and if we were to say there should be a 3% annual reduction in that target or try to reformulate it for the domestic sector of the economy in legislation that would be unnecessary and would go beyond our exiting commitments, which are extremely challenging for Ireland. It is a question of trying to balance that with the need to be ambitious and to set something ambitious in legislation for 2050. My understanding of the discussions among the corporate leaders is that while there was no definitive conclusion about whether that should be a science-based target or an extremely ambitious formulation of words along the lines of carbon neutrality or a fossil-fuel-free society, those are the gamut of options from which to choose. There is a NESC paper which evaluates those options within a specific Irish context and it is worth considering. It goes into considerable detail about which of those options would be most suitable for Ireland and the reasons for that, but now is not the time to go into the details and nuances of that because it is a quite a complex subject. There is a very strong need for there to be something on the horizon in 2050 and for that to be something towards which we can benchmark progress, but we must avoid duplicating targets for 2020 and muddying our existing legally binding obligations. I think the leaders would suggest that there is no need for that.

Chairman

Fewer than 12 minutes remain in this segment and three members wish to contribute.

Senator Cáit Keane

The witnesses are welcome to the committee. One of the witnesses said that this was important economically, socially and environmentally, and they were the priorities given. I presume the next group could give its priorities as being environmental, economic and social. It is good that we hear all of the views. I take it the group's priorities in this respect are economic, social and environmental.

Do the witnesses consider there is anything missing from the heads of the Bill or that there is a glaring gap in it? Enough has been said about the targets, although I had intended to ask a question about those. I note in the paper submitted by Mr. Joseph Curtin that he stated that no comprehensive analysis with regard to targets, similar to that which has been done in other European countries such as Germany and the UK, had been undertaken in Ireland. One would think there would be a need for comprehensive analysis and that we as a committee would need that. The EPA has done some initial research on it, but would Mr. Curtin recommend that the committee obtain such analysis before we make any decision?

I believe the position regarding tariffs in Europe will change big time because of a court case an Irish man took on his own to bring the European Union to heel. He did not bring his case to the Irish Government. Would the witnesses put an emphasis on one tariff over another? We are an agricultural country and we have talked about that during this entire process. Anaerobic digestion is the poor relation in tariffs here and perhaps it has to be. Have the witnesses a view on that? I intend to put that question all the guests who will appear before the committee today.

In terms of the companies the group represents and that have amalgamated with companies in other jurisdictions to plan further afield, have the targets they have introduced to ensure they reach maximum targets harmed or hindered the business in any way? Have the companies in the group learned anything in this respect that they could transfer to Ireland?.

One of the witnesses said that the expert advisory group was not strong enough. In his view, what is needed to strengthen it?

Deputy Kevin Humphreys

I thank the witnesses for coming in. Under head 5, can they explain the reduction in emissions under the national roadmap, or annual review, every five as against every one years? I agree with the witness who said that the expert advisory body should be more similar to the Fiscal Advisory Council and I ask him to elaborate on that. If similar terms of reference were used for the expert advisory council, would he consider that would strengthen the Bill under head 9, section 7? Does the witness consider that it would be useful to use wording to the effect that the expert advisory body should publish a report under subhead 5 within ten days beginning from that day the Minister receives the report, thereby transposing the terms of reference from the Fiscal Advisory Council to the expert advisory board, and that we should go through the Bill and accordingly change the language used?

There are targets set out under head 3. Would the witnesses recommend that targets for 2050 should be inserted in the legislation? If they would, will they outline their vision for the Irish economy in 2050? Ireland will emit 11 million tonnes of carbon in 2050. Agriculture currently accounts for the emission of 9 million tonnes of carbon. In terms of the 80% target, that would mean there would be a reduction in carbon emissions down to 11 tonnes, which would mean there would be no carbon emissions from power generation, heating, business and transport if the agricultural sector was allowed to constitute the full 11 million tonnes. What is the group's vision of the of economic mix we will have in 2050? If a target for 2050 is set in the legislation, we must have a vision of what that economy will be.

Deputy Paudie Coffey

I apologise for being late and I welcome the delegation to the committee. This is an important debate around the climate change Bill and the challenges we face. I noted with interest Mr. D'Arcy's comments regarding the setting of targets and that we have to be very careful about doing that. I ask him to expand on that. In his view, should Ireland set targets in this legislation? He referred to that, but I would like him to give a simple "Yes" or "No" answer to that question. I note that some companies in the group operate in other jurisdictions around the globe where climate legislation is in existence and targets have been set. How are those companies doing? Is it affecting their business and the cost of doing business?

We need to explore further climate change realities versus the current economic realities, because the NGOs clearly tell us we should set targets, but that will affect us economically. I would appreciate if Mr. D'Arcy would explore and explain that further. What are the group's constituent companies doing internally in the sector? Are they individually setting targets internally? I appreciate that the group has many policies on corporate social responsibility and reducing carbon emissions is one of the areas it is trying to address. I have mentioned this issue at the committee and it is an important point. A company in my constituency, GlaxoSmithKline, is trying to reduce its carbon emissions by installing a wind turbine but it is meeting opposition to that project at every level and An Bord Pleanála recently refused its application for it.

I acknowledge that companies are trying to reduce carbon emissions but Government policy and the way we are set up - it is probably a legacy issue because we are not moving quickly enough to assist - is causing problems. It is all very well to set targets and to expect companies to make reductions when the country does not have its act together in terms of how we assist them policy-wise. How can we do more to assist?

Senator Cáit Keane

Could I ask a question?

Chairman

We have less than five minutes left.

Senator Cáit Keane

A question has not been asked yet about incentives. Some sectors are anticipating-----

Chairman

The Senator should ask the question.

Senator Cáit Keane

It relates to incentives. I have to state the fact before I ask the question. The witnesses will not know what my question is about. It is anticipated that some sectors will decarbonise more quickly than others. We will either have to examine the issues of incentives or we could leave the matter to the market to decide. Would the witnesses recommend that some sectors should be incentivised over others?

Chairman

I advise the witnesses that we have only one minute remaining.

Mr. Gabriel D'Arcy

I will start with the last question first. Deputy Coffey spoke about setting targets and being careful. He answered the question in the conundrum he posed. I fully understand that when companies set targets they can be impeded in their achievement of a target by a critical policy in another area that is not aligned to the main initiative. That is the point I am trying to make about setting targets without an overarching vision that is set at the top, having consulted widely with the various vested interests and deciding where the country is going, and cascading it down into every area of policy in the country - industrial policy, transport policy, spatial policy, water policy, energy policy and planning policy - one will come up against more conflicts.

In the absence of a vision for the future, targets are fine but will not achieve very much because one will wind up with more problems. One must set one’s vision first, set out one’s stall and cascade it into each Department. We often hear Ministers say that the role of Government is to set the overall national policy and strategy framework within which companies such as ours can operate. If the policies are not properly enforced or not properly aligned, then one will wind up with more not less of those situations. That is what upsets companies such as ours.

We should absolutely have incentives. Reference was made to anaerobic digestion. One must devise a vision and strategy and cascade it out into each of the policies and then one will incentivise what one wants to make happen. Of course there are conundrums. I am sure incentives are currently in place that conflict with policies that are being pursued in other areas.

On many occasions I have been in the privileged position of trying to develop a new economy for the midlands, for instance. The first thing one does is try to have an informed debate, an appreciative inquiry - whatever one wants to call it - with all of the key stakeholders, in particular companies – small, medium and large, foreign and national – because that is what pays for everything through taxes, employment and so forth. We had an informed discussion about the strengths of the midlands, the unique leverageable strengths in a world where we are going to lower carbon and introduce more sustainable practices. That has given rise to a debate about how we leverage those key strengths in terms of renewable energy in water management and so forth. That puts a focus then on the approach.

That is the type of debate we must have nationally. We must examine what we are good at, disproportionately, that other nations are not. What assets do we have that other nations would love to have but do not have? There is a prime example in an era of extreme global water stress. Of course we do not have in situ a method to tap into that but at least we have the rain which comes down on top of us. Thanks be to God we are getting a bit of respite now. Water is one resource. Renewable energy is another and there are more. Our climate and rainfall give us a disproportionate advantage for instance in our food and agriculture business. That is the reason for our success. It is not that our tractors go any faster than French tractors. It is because we have a climate that provides a rich sustenance that we feed our cattle which gives us a thriving beef industry. That is, relatively speaking, a low carbon industry because we are competing with nations that have to import all their feed. One must set the vision and the strategy and then one can talk about targets.

Chairman

I thank Mr. D'Arcy, Mr. Curtin and-----

Deputy Kevin Humphreys

The five minutes are not up.

Chairman

They are up.

Deputy Kevin Humphreys

I would like the witnesses to address the question I asked about tonnage. Building on what was said; one must plan for the vision. Most submissions referred to an 80% target. I have returned to the question many times. If one puts a certain tonnage in place – a cow will emit whatever it emits – how does Mr. D’Arcy see the tonnage being divided?

Mr. Gabriel D'Arcy

I will get my colleague to address the issue. In fairness, I did not quite get to answer. The Deputy also spoke about the review every five years to seven years. It is appropriate to do so with all Government policy, notwithstanding the difficulties in terms of how busy Deputies and the Government are. Things are changing so rapidly that setting something in stone and saying it will not be reviewed for seven years is not feasible. Three years ago, America-----

Chairman

I am sorry but we will have to conclude.

Deputy Kevin Humphreys

Could someone please answer the tonnage question?

Chairman

I will give Mr. Curtin a minute but then we must conclude.

Mr. Joseph Curtin

It is one of the issues NESC explored in its 2050 vision paper. The vision is more or less to have a decarbonised economy across transport, energy, residential and commercial sectors and whatever is left would be apportioned to the agricultural sector. The important thing is that how we calculate agricultural emissions could change and there could be significant opportunities for this country. For example, grasslands could potentially be used as a sink for emissions, as could afforestation. The year 2050 is a long way off. That gives us 40 years to change. We will not be in the same situation in 2050 in terms of our agricultural emissions as we are now. For example, nearly half of agricultural emissions are made up through artificial fertilisation – the use of fossil fuels in fertiliser. Within a long timeframe there are opportunities in agriculture so I would not assume that the chunk of emissions will always be there in the agricultural sector. There will be possibilities and technical advances. There have been technical advances recently as a result of the nitrates directive where, for example, we reduced fertiliser use by half. Who is to say we cannot continue along that road?

Chairman

I thank Mr. Curtin and all the witnesses for the exchange. It is very much appreciated. They are now free to go. Míle buíochas.

Mr. Conor Linehan

Chairman

The second witness to address the committee today is Mr. Conor Linehan, head of environment and planning group on behalf of William Fry. Before he commences I remind him that witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they give to the committee. However, if they are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and they continue to do so they are entitled thereafter only to a qualified privilege in respect of their evidence.

Witnesses are directed to restrict their evidence to the subject matter of these proceedings and to respect parliamentary practice by not criticising or making charges against any person, persons or entity. Witnesses are asked to read the document that has been circulated to them concerning privilege. I remind Mr. Linehan not to read out the opening statement, which has been circulated to members and we can take it as being read. Mr. Linehan has a maximum of five minutes in which to deliver his opening statement and when he reaches this time, I will insist that he stops. However, I will intervene when one minute remains to Mr. Linehan to advise him of that. I invite him to make his address.

Mr. Conor Linehan

I am grateful for the opportunity to address the joint committee this morning on the outline heads of the Bill. In the interest of more discussion time, as the Chairman has suggested, I propose to summarise the main points of my opening statement rather than reading it. While the outline heads obviously are at a very early stage, as they stand I have two overriding impressions. The first relates to the absence of a domestic target from the heads of the Bill and the second relates to the emphasis in the heads of the Bill on policymaking and planning for climate change into the future. As indicated in my opening statement, I have a number of legal responses in respect of the omission of a domestic target from the Bill. The question of whether the heads or ultimately the Act include or omit targets, their stringency and whether they match or surpass European Union targets is a political issue and pertains to political decision-making, which I do not propose to address.

From a legal perspective, I have the strong view that targets are simply that: targets. For as long as they are not expressed as obligations or requirements in the heads of the Bill, the Bill itself or ultimately in the Act, they are not matters that leave the Government or the Legislature vulnerable to legal action at every hand's turn from members of the public who claim the targets are not being achieved or are not being achieved quickly enough.

As noted in the original written submission, I refer the joint committee to the discussion on this issue before the United Kingdom's parliamentary committee hearings into what became the United Kingdom's Climate Change Act 2008. At those hearings, the point was made strongly by a weight of legal opinion that it is extremely unlikely a court would take the view that the Government is hidebound or is binding itself legally to have such targets enforced. Essentially, the point made there and which I endorse - I am not simply taking it directly from the United Kingdom's position but rather have formed this view - is it is not simply a target. It is a greenhouse gas reduction target that a court would recognise and which entails the Government embarking on a series of policy choices into the decades ahead.

This brings up the entire issue of the separation of powers and of distributive justice in respect of how the targets will be met, how sectoral targets, if there are such targets, will be met and where the most stringent cuts will be enforced. I refer to all those distributive justice type of issues and the position of the courts here in a series of legal cases from O'Reilly v. Limerick Corporation in 1989, the Sinnott case on provision for special education for autistic children and the TD v. the Minister for Education case in respect of improper provision of secure units for young people. All these cases stress the courts ultimately are extremely reluctant to get into issues of distributive justice and it is a fundamental separation of powers issue that I believe will mean that were a case taken in respect of the enforceability of targets, it would be quickly knocked on the head for those reasons.

Moreover, it is not as though the legislation is without a mechanism to stress this point even further. I again refer to the United Kingdom Act in which, on foot of the parliamentary committee hearings, Parliament ultimately gave a message to the courts as to what was to happen if a target within a particular budgetary period was not met. To be specific, the Secretary of State would be obliged to come into Parliament, explain the reason it was not met and set out recommendations for meeting it or trying to redress it or to set it off in the next budgetary period. In other words, the legislation itself tells the courts this is the mechanism and the redress if the target is not being met. I refer to these matters because of the references in the media over a number of months to concerns within the Attorney General's office about constitutionality and the possibility of the Government leaving itself open to legal action. In my written statement, I have addressed this point and while I appreciate there are sensitivities in respect of Cabinet confidentiality and so on, I have suggested the joint committee might consider how it might at least get the gist of that concern. Ultimately, however, I made the point in my detailed written statement that I consider there to be ample scope within the Constitution, by reference to the principles of common good and social justice as well as separation of powers issues, that would leave the Government not needing to be concerned about any constitutional challenge. The rest of my submission is contained in the written document supplied.

Deputy Brian Stanley

I thank Mr. Linehan for the paper he submitted, as well as for his attendance to make a presentation. As for the point he raised regarding the Attorney General's advice, I raised that issue at a meeting of this joint committee. When members were informed they could not have sight of the Attorney General's advice, I asked for precisely that. When reading Mr. Linehan's submission the other evening, I noted his use of the word "gist" and I had asked that the joint committee at least be given an overview or, if not the precise information, a more broad spelling out of the reason members were not getting that advice. To be honest with Mr. Linehan, I am at a loss in this regard and I believe the joint committee is being kept in the dark on this issue.

My other major concern pertains to a considerable degree of vagueness regarding targets in the heads of the Bill. On targets, this is an absolutely key issue because unless one decides to go a certain distance on a particular day, the journey will not be completed and one will only get half-way towards the destination. In particular, in the context of how business is done here, unless matters are set out in black and white, it becomes grey with the result that nothing happens, it does not go anywhere and one find oneself being obliged to try to play catch-up. In that regard, how important does Mr. Linehan believe it to be to have five year targets as opposed to seven year targets? How important does he believe it to be to have specific targets for 2050 and not simply broad statements that will keep us in line with whatever Europe is doing?

Mr. Linehan also should expand on the legal points. Anyone present who has served on a county council will have encountered a great phrase being used continually in documents presented by county managers or the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government, namely, they would "have regard to". Mr. Linehan also has raised concerns about this issue. How strongly does he believe one must ensure the Bill is absolutely clear and terms such as "having regard to" should be removed? My concern is that through such vagueness, we will experience carbon cliffs and that at different times over the next 30 or 40 years, good governments will be trying to play catch-up in the wake of governments that may not have been so good on this issue. The joint committee's previous discussion was with corporate leaders, who are in favour of having specific targets and who appear to be ahead of the Government in this regard. However, from a legal point of view, how important does Mr. Linehan consider it to be that vague terms such as "having regard to" would be removed from the Bill?

Mr. Conor Linehan

I will take these questions in turn. On the access to the Attorney General's advice, I have not concerned myself, for the reasons I explained, with access to that beyond the general observation that what is taking place here this morning is part of the same process as what led to the Attorney General's advice being sought in this regard in the first place, namely, the legislative process from start to finish.

I am not a constitutional law expert or expert on the law on Cabinet confidentiality. If there are such experts to address the committee, perhaps the point could be raised with them. With regard to periodic targets or budgets, as distinct from one long-term target, I am examining targets from the legal perspective and determining whether there are legal or constitutional impediments to their featuring in primary legislation. I take the view that there are not. Perhaps it is a political issue but I would have believed the old adage, "If you do not know where you are going, you will never get there", certainly applies. A budgetary and periodic structure is a useful review mechanism. It ties into the legal issue in the sense that I have outlined. The solution to all of this in the United Kingdom is that the Secretary of State explains in the Parliament at the end of a budgetary period why the Government is off track and the proposals to address that. That is the legislative remedy.

With regard to vague language, I would hesitate to criticise excessively expressions such as "having regard to". The case of McEvoy and Smith v. Meath County Council was a case that drew attention to what the question of "having regard to" means in any legislation. In that case, the High Court said it does not mean one should follow what one is meant to have regard to but take it into consideration. Therefore, one must ask whether the term is meaningless. It is not meaningless because one must assume the decision maker will have regard to the phenomenon in question. There is a certain amount of trust involved. Ultimately, under the heads of the Bill, the Minister must have regard to the sectoral plans when carrying out statutory functions and remits. While it is important that regard be had to a matter, democratic accountability means there must be a decision maker. One really cannot have someone making a decision for the Minister at every hand's turn. The Minister is the person with whom the buck stops and the expression "having regard to" tries to achieve that balance.

The one piece of vague language that I believe is unhelpful in the heads concerns what is called the "transition objective". I believe it is a defined term. The title of head 4 refers to a low carbon future and it expresses a transition objective. It is described as transition to a low carbon, climate resilient and environmentally sustainable economy in the period up to and including 2050. It is stated that to pursue and achieve that objective, the Government is required to provide for the adoption of the national and sectoral plans. That is really the objective. It is objectionable language to appear in a primary Act. The courts would not be happy with that, nor will the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel be happy with that in due course. It is a question of what it means. I am trying to confine my remarks to the legal issues as much as possible. Certainly, in the absence of the target and the acknowledged controversy over whether there should be domestic targets, this is the compromise. A low carbon, climate resilient economy is referred to rather than a reduction of 75%, 80% or 95%, for example, by 2050. Lawyers are not used to seeing this type of fudgy language in legislation and it is not helpful.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

This legislation is being advanced in a different way from the normal way and the committee has been asked to consider the heads first. Many of us feel very frustrated that we are largely doing so blindfolded. One Attorney General clearly gave one set of advices while another gave the opposite. We can presume that is the case because the last Government had a climate change Bill that contained targets while the current one does not. It is quite difficult to square the circle.

To what extent has there been successful litigation against other countries that have had targets? Is Mr. Linehan aware of any court action demonstrating a valid reason not to include targets?

On the point on the vagueness of the language and the McEvoy and Smith v. Meath County Council case, changes to the framing of development plans changed behaviour. Would Mr. Linehan accept that the language in the Bill is not only included to provide legal certainty but also that legal certainty, in turn, changes the approach? I felt there was a dramatic difference in how people approached the zoning of land when the operative legislative phrase was "be consistent with" rather than "having regard to". The legal relationship between sectoral and national roadmaps is vague. How might the Bill be improved to ensure the sectoral roadmaps are in compliance with the carbon budget specified in the national roadmap?

Mr. Conor Linehan

With regard to the timing of the committee's involvement in the legislative process, there was obviously a roadmap in November 2011. I refer to the roadmap and finalising policy and legislation. I am not sure what the reason was at the time for getting the committee involved at this stage. It is a new experiment. To some extent, this is unique legislation. Whatever is contained in it will ultimately be unique. Passing primary legislation that addresses a global environmental problem and that will have a physical and economic impact in Ireland and make a multi-decade provision for an economic transition that will have an impact on every area of economic life is a unique legislative experiment. It is probably no bad thing that the committee gets to express its views at a relatively early stage.

With regard to climate change litigation, there is an increasing amount of climate change litigation internationally in different jurisdictions. There is none that I am aware of that focused specifically on a government failing to meet a particular interim or long-term target or which tried to compel it to do more to achieve the target. There is an enormous range of climate change litigation. Much of that is emerging because legislatures are not passing domestic climate change legislation. There are various legal strategies that really take the form of legal cases to try to force governments to pass legislation. It is in the absence of domestic legislation that a lot of it is happening.

In my opening statement, I sought to outline how existence of a target will not give carte blanche to the public or interested parties to go into court at every hand's turn to say that not enough is being done, or to say they cannot have a gas or CCGT plant, or must have a wind farm because of influencing targets.

Under existing legislation, planning authorities making a decision on any application must have regard to a range of matters, including Government and ministerial policy. Since this will be Government and ministerial policy, they will have to have regard to it. It will operate at that level, so it is appropriate that the planning authorities' role should not be taken away. They must make their decisions only by reference to a particular target. After all, it is a multi-decade target. If it adds to gas emissions, the Minister can say that it can be offset, but the courts will not want to get into that type of distributive stuff.

I take the point, however, that post-McEvoy and Smith, there was a change whereby planning and development plans had to be consistent with regional planning guidelines. There has been a move away from language like "Having regard to the legislation...". It may be helpful to state "Consistent with the legislation..." instead.

The certainty of targets is one issue but there also needs to be some in-built flexibility when one is dealing with a multi-decade period.

Chairman

There are three questioners left and I will group them.

Deputy Gerald Nash

I accept and understand that Mr. Linehan is not a constitutional lawyer, but he is obviously clear in his own view that he would like to see the Attorney General publish her advice on her consideration of the drafting of this legislation. Does Mr. Linehan think that the Attorney General should publish all advice on legislation under the consideration of her office? What ramifications does he think that would have, notwithstanding the fact that he is not a constitutional lawyer?

Much has been made of the targets provided for in the previous government's Bill, and their description. We have been having that debate for quite some time. It they were not justiciable targets, surely there would be a question-mark over the efficacy and enforceability of that legislation. What was the point of including non-justiciable targets if they could not be enforced through the courts? Was this as meaningful as we were led to believe at the time?

Deputy Barry Cowen

Taking that a step further, would a review group be suitable to assess any such targets or the alignment that may take place in other Departments to meet the sort of targets that are laid out as the ground rules concerning this Bill? Is consideration being given to having an expert group to review the legislation and its implications?

Senator Cáit Keane

I have a further question on the targets. In his paper, Mr. Linehan said the weight of legal opinion before the UK committee was that a target is not legally binding, but is equated with the creation of a legal duty, and that is the position if a Minister uses his or her best objectives to achieve that duty. Am I correct in interpreting Mr. Linehan's statement in that way - that, in law, targets cannot or will not be legally binding?

I think we will have to leave the other question about the Attorney General's advice. Perhaps we could put it on the agenda for discussion another day to see how we will deal with it. As regards setting targets, if there is a hindrance to us doing so as a committee then we need to know about it. If we cannot get the Attorney General's advice, we will need separate legal advice on it. There is no point in discussing targets without knowing where we stand legally. We cannot recommend it if it is not legally possible, so we will need advice on that.

Deputy Kevin Humphreys

I have two questions. The first one concerns head 3 which obliges Ireland to adhere to any future international agreements, including EU 2050 targets. By introducing a questionable element in the Bill, head 3 has made that argument unnecessary. It is an unnecessary legal risk.

My second question concerns the previous Fianna Fáil-Green Party Bill and the heads of the current Bill. As I read it, the Attorney General's advice seems to be similar. The previous Bill stated that one could not go to court with the targets. It would be nonsense to bring legislation through under which one could not refer to the courts. Head 3 covers the element that Mr. Linehan outlined in his submission. I would like to hear his response to that point.

Mr. Conor Linehan

I want to be clear concerning the Attorney General's advice. Given that I am not a constitutional lawyer, I really do not want to get into that territory. I am not avoiding that issue but there are aspects on which I can hopefully be helpful to the committee and others that I cannot deal with. The only context in which I mentioned it is that, in respect of some of the constitutional points I put in the written submission, I said I may be speculative here. I have tried to anticipate what problems the Attorney General's office may have identified and I have responded to them as best I can.

As regards the propriety of publishing that opinion, however, there are good reasons that there must be confidentiality. There may or may not have been precedents in the past for departing from that. The advice from the Attorney General's office to the Government is one of the first exceptions in the FOI legislation. Ultimately, if confidentiality is being cited then it is a political issue as to whether the committee can get the gist to help it in its deliberations. That is as much as I am prepared to say on that.

As regards the justiciability question, I gather that the inclusion of targets in the climate change response Bill 2010 was a controversial issue, even between the government parties at that stage. A reference was put in to say that nothing in the Bill, or the Act, would be justiciable.

Deputy Kevin Humphreys

It was even worse.

Mr. Conor Linehan

I take that as covering the targets as well. In my written submission, I sought to emphasise that. To some extent, I hesitate to make this point because Attorneys General are always extremely eminent lawyers, which is why they are appointed. The climate change response Bill may not have been a good example around which to consider the issue of justiciablility, because a lot of other considerations were in play when the language of that Bill was being finalised.

Ultimately, the word "non-justiciable" appeared in it. It is something that would be somewhat eye-opening for lawyers. One tends not to get an express statement in legislation to the effect that it shall not be justiciable. That is the Legislature saying to the courts that they cannot go near it, which is highly unusual. A number of decisions are relevant, including the Sinn Féin funds case in 1947, Buckley & Others v. Attorney General and Another, where there was a similar attempt to make such a provision. The Supreme Court said it cannot happen. More recently, there are decisions, including in the Tormey case, which suggest the same. It is not necessary to do that in any event in respect of the targets. It is done much more subtly in the UK legislation, as I have described. The courts in the UK are told what the redress is where a target is not being met. If a person comes to court to say the target is not being met, there is a ready-made approach. It may be a political solution or redress and not very effective to require the Minister to explain to Parliament what will be done where a target is seriously missed. That is aside from the point I made earlier that, by its nature, a target is a target, especially a greenhouse gas reduction target, the achievement of which reaches into every sector of the economy over a multi-decade period. The courts will not want to get into making themselves expert as to how the Government is going to get back on track and whether it is off-track in the first place. It is not necessary to get caught up in the language of justiciability for the reasons I have explained.

Deputy Barry Cowen asked if a review group would be acceptable. Some review mechanism is important. One can have a long-term target, but it requires a mechanism to ensure one adjusts to get back on track. I am not quite sure how it operates in the UK. Certainly, there is a power for the Minister to adjust the long-term target and to adjust the reference baseline by reference to developments in climate science and changes in international and EU law. The Committee on Climate Change, which is the advisory body in the UK, probably has a role in advising the Secretary of State. I am not sure it is necessary to have a specific review group in respect of adjustment of targets. Certainly, if one is going to have an advisory body, it should have a role in the question of any adjustments or changes to the target.

Senator Keane asked if the targets will be legally binding. It is unique legislation. Let us assume there is a domestic target in the eventual enactment. While it is not unique in Irish law to have targets to achieve certain things in the environmental field, the examples of which I can think derive ultimately from EU directives. An example is the targets on the diversion of waste away from landfill, which are specific quantitative targets set out every couple of years. They are set out in secondary legislation, transposed from EU directives. The directive on packaging and packaging waste of some 15 years ago included targets for member states.

This may be the first time we have had quantitative targets in non-financial legislation. There is a degree of State planning about this. There will be people who want the targets to be legally binding and there will be those whose political perspective is that there should be flexibility. It does not have to be one or the other. A target has a value even if it is not legally binding. It has symbolic value. There are a range of reasons one could cite for wishing to surpass EU or international targets which bind one. Different countries have their own motivation for imposing domestic targets separate from or above international or regional targets. It would be unworkable to make the targets legally binding in the sense of allowing someone to go to court on the basis that the Government is straying from them to seek a mandatory order compelling the State to get back on track. Someone would need to police that. The courts are extremely reluctant to make mandatory orders against other organs of State and the most they might do is make a declaratory order and leave it up to Government to implement the decision. If, on balance, the committee would like to see a domestic target included but the Attorney General is concerned people would run into court every other day to try to stop this or that project or to force the Minister to act in a certain way, they should be reassured. Nevertheless, a target has a value which is more than symbolic. The Minister would be under a duty to try to achieve the target but such duty would not constitute an all-or-nothing obligation. It is a duty to use best endeavours. I would like to think we can assume there will not be cynicism around the target and, once it is in there, Ministers will not turn their backs on it. There will be a bona fide effort to achieve it. Perhaps that will go some way towards answering Deputy Kevin Humphreys, part of whose question I may have missed.

Deputy Kevin Humphreys

Mr. Linehan gave examples of legislative targets, each of which had a related penalty. The purpose of legislation is to allow the citizen to take legal action if the provisions are not followed. Mr. Linehan referred to waste management and landfill directives and legislation, which include targets and associated penalties. Is he juggling balls a little bit?

Mr. Conor Linehan

I am not. Those relate to two different legal systems. The landfill targets are obligated by EU membership. We have subscribed to that legal regime and if we ignore or fail completely to achieve the targets, we are open to the potential imposition of penalties by the European Court of Justice. That is the way directives operate in the context of the relationship between the EU and the State. Climate change legislation is domestic legislation which we are negotiating internally and concerns the relationships between organs of the State. I do not agree that, of itself, enacted legislation provides the citizen with the right to go to court to ask why it is not being observed. One has to ask what the duty provided for is. If a domestic target is created, that does not of itself create an all-or-nothing duty.

Certainly, there is no breach of the duty as long as the Minister and the Government are using their best endeavours to try to achieve the target. For that reason, we have to look at how it is expressed. I suggest that a target, of itself, does not create the right to have it enforced if it is not reached. It is a "best endeavours" obligation.

Chairman

I thank Mr. Linehan for this exchange. Míle buíochas. We will suspend until 12 o'clock.

Sitting suspended at 11.30 a.m. and resumed at noon.

Irish Dairy Industries Association

Chairman

I welcome Mr. Paul Kelly, director of Food and Drink Industry Ireland, FDII, Ms Catherine Joyce-O’Caollai, a senior policy executive in the energy and environment unit in IBEC, and Ms Audrey O’Shea, Glanbia Ingredients.

Before we commence I remind the witnesses of the position regarding privilege. Witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they give to the committee. However, if they are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and they continue to do so, they are entitled thereafter only to a qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. They are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given. Witnesses are asked to respect the parliamentary practice that where possible they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice and ruling of the Chair to the effect that members should not criticise, comment on or make charges against any person or persons outside the House or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

The delegation’s submission has been already circulated to members and will be taken as read. I now invite Mr. Kelly to make his opening statement.

Mr. Paul Kelly

The Irish agrifood industry supports the development of climate policy that supports the objective of sustainable development and economic recovery and contributes to the alleviation of hunger and undernourishment. Our industry is committed to a process of continual improvement in sustainability and efficiencies so that increased production is achieved with reduced environmental impact. This commitment is embedded in the industry’s development strategy, Food Harvest 2020, prepared by the industry and the Government, which sets out an ambitious growth target for Ireland’s food industry based on the principles of smart green growth.

The agrifood industry broadly welcomes the outline heads of the climate action and low-carbon development Bill. It is our hope that in a collective approach to the development of a low-carbon strategy for growth, Ireland’s agrifood industry can become part of the solution to achieving sustainable growth in the world’s most carbon-efficient food-producing country.

Sustainable agricultural production is about ensuring man’s production of food does not result in undesirable consequences but allows for the continual production of food in harmony with nature. Agricultural systems can, therefore, be managed to ensure the least impact on the environment while producing increasing volumes of sustainable food.

While some suggest that the route to a low-carbon economy can best be achieved through the limitation of agricultural production, the reality of a rapidly growing global population means a growing global demand for food. This food can be produced from sustainable agricultural systems or unsustainable production systems. In short, carbon cannot be engineered out of cows. The largest portion of non-ETS emissions from Ireland’s agrifood industry is composed of emissions from enteric fermentation, namely cow digestion. This is a natural process that cannot be engineered out. Accordingly, animal numbers will continue to be the primary driver of emissions from Irish agriculture.

Irish farming is efficient, however. The greenhouse gas, GHG, efficiency - that is, the unit product per unit GHG emitted - of Irish agriculture is really high, especially compared to the developing world, due to intensive pasture management and the relatively high-yielding animals to be found here. This undeniable conflict between sustainable agricultural practices and accounting practices poses a very real challenge to policymakers. However, global and EU institutions are now considering this dilemma as they face the challenge of feeding a growing population from more sustainable food-producing regions. Accordingly, it is not inconceivable that a differing approach to dealing with global agricultural emissions will be developed as part of the 2030 and 2050 strategies.

The proposal for sectoral roadmaps to be developed as part of Ireland’s climate action and low-carbon development Bill is, therefore, appropriate and consistent with the global policy developments. This will allow for the alignment of the Food Harvest 2020 strategy for smart green growth with a national strategy for carbon reduction. This logical alignment will ensure sustainable agriculture will become the central pillar for Ireland’s agricultural growth, underpinned by independent farm sustainability audits that identify where improvements can be achieved.

Deputy Brian Stanley

I thank Mr. Paul Kelly and his team for their submission and presentation. There are targets outlined in Food Harvest 2020 along with reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Will Mr. Kelly explain how we can strike a balance between increased production in the agrifood industry and reduced environmental impact? For example, agricultural machinery is powered by fossil fuels and increased production will mean tractors and so on will be used more. With the rapidly growing global population and the subsequent demand for food, how would the agrifood industry produce it in a sustainable way?

Some see the sectoral roadmaps as being aspirational. Some corporate leaders argue that there must be a collective responsibility to agree these targets. This may mean more concessions for agriculture as cattle emissions cannot be engineered out. This would involve trade-offs with other sectors such as transport. It can be argued that specific national targets would give more certainty to the agrifood industry. What is Mr. Kelly’s view on this?

Mr. Paul Kelly

It is worth noting that approximately 80% of emissions in the agrifood sector are pre-factory. They are happening at farm level and I believe that is where a large amount of the focus will have to be.

By virtue of Ireland's having a large agrifood sector in comparison to the rest of the economy and Europe, our non-ETS emissions are much higher than those in other EU member states. That also highlights the importance of the sector. However, it must be taken into account in European terms that agricultural production here, particularly meat and dairy, is very environmentally sustainable.

At national level, while the overall agrifood strategy, Food Harvest 2020, is expansionary and has targets of a 42% increase in agrifood exports and a 50% increase in milk production, it has smart green growth as its vision. The "green" part of this is particularly relevant to this committee.

I would also argue that "smart" is relevant as well because much of the intellectual property development that will take place in food products, processing systems and production systems is interlinked. These things are not being looked at in isolation and are highly relevant to the subject matter today.

In respect of it being a large percentage of non-ETS emissions and the issue of targets versus roadmaps, we would strongly argue that in terms of the accounting practices, this needs to be done at European level, as is the case for the emissions trading scheme, namely, industry. I mentioned that in my opening statement. When we are looking at agricultural emissions, we should be looking at them in a European context rather than exclusively in an Irish context.

If we look at specific targets from an Irish perspective, because of the outlier status of Ireland - for good reasons as it is a very important sector - all we would do is disadvantage Irish agriculture in comparison with competitors who, in our view, have less sustainable farming practices. This is backed up by the facts about which Ms O'Shea will speak shortly.

In respect of the roadmap itself, we would argue that sectoral roadmaps are the appropriate approach to take, provided they are dealt with in a rigorous fashion. Our understanding is that to date, the work done by the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine and its agencies on independent environmental analysis of Food Harvest 2020, which has been under way since last year, is appropriate and rigorous. That is being done in consultation with the Environment Directorate-General, is following the principles laid down for strategic environmental assessments and is examining all the relevant criteria, including greenhouse gas emissions. Our view would be that the outputs of that process will lead to an appropriate roadmap for the sector in question.

In respect of the business imperative behind this, we are an exporting country. We export 80% by volume of our food production. We are very much a business-to-business operator. In other words, we are selling an awful lot of our products directly into food service companies, directly into retail as private label and directly to multinational food companies as food ingredients. Those companies now have very rigorous sustainability criteria. That is the simple business reality and is what we must deal with at company and national level. All this additional growth that will come out of the sector will not be sold here in Ireland. We are a small domestic market. There are about six million people on the island. If anything, over the past few years, we have seen a reduction in demand here because of the economic climate we are in. All the additional food that will be produced here will be sent off the island and we must meet those stringent criteria of our international customers. Much work has been done at national level by the Department in terms of the environmental analysis but a lot of work has also been done by Teagasc and Bord Bia in terms of Origin Green and the carbon navigator tool. I will pass over to Ms O'Shea who will explain how that manifests itself at enterprise level.

Ms Audrey O'Shea

To reiterate what Mr. Kelly said, quite rigorous studies have been carried out on the carbon footprint per unit of product at farm level. It is coming out at the lowest across Europe with maybe the lowest globally with the exception of New Zealand. That number is 1 kg of carbon per 1 kg of milk. When we talk about the litre or kg of milk, we are talking about fat corrected milk produced so that we are talking about the same thing on a global scale. The only other country in Europe that can match that is Austria.

Mr. Kelly already alluded to the carbon navigator tool that has been developed by Teagasc. This is a tool that will be rolled out to all farmers participating in the scheme to allow them to see the changes they can make on the farm and their effect on their carbon input. There are five key measures that have been identified that can reduce the carbon number per unit produced on farms. They include extending the grazing season. For example, if one extends the grazing season by one more day out in pasture, it will reduce the carbon footprint by 0.17% per kg of milk produced.

I will provide an example from industry and other schemes happening elsewhere. FrieslandCampina has a scheme abroad where it is enticing its farmers to have their cows out on pasture 120 days per year for six hours per day. It happens naturally in Ireland every year for more than 200 days so we have a significant advantage straight away because of our unique selling point of grass-fed cows. The second thing that can reduce the carbon footprint is the economic breeding index, EBI. Many of our farmers are using the EBI in the breeding of their cows. Again, this can reduce the carbon footprint by 0.2% per kg of milk.

Deputy Brian Stanley

Could Ms O'Shea explain what the EBI is?

Ms Audrey O'Shea

It is the economic breeding index. It is choosing the sire for one's cow to ensure the cow is as efficient and productive as possible.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

In respect of the number of grazing days we have as a natural advantage, that assumes the climate stays as it is. Essentially, we saw how in the past year, there was a very high level of mortality compared with other years because of the shortage of feed. It shows the kind of issue that could arise if there was a dislocation of climate and if our climate changed substantially between now and 2050. The science is telling us that this is what is going to happen. There will be an implication for the number of cattle if that is the only way, and clearly it is, that one can impact on that because one cannot engineer out the emissions.

The UN has identified climate change as a major threat to food security. We all understand, from the point of view of the national economy, that the food industry is very important. If climate change causes food insecurity, could it not equally be argued that there is an obligation on agriculture to take a proportionate share of the reductions in national greenhouse gas emissions?

Ms O'Shea referred to New Zealand. Could she elaborate on that? New Zealand has obviously developed a policy on climate change, yet it seems to be doing as well as us, if not slightly better. Could Ms O'Shea give us some comparisons? Perhaps it is not the big bogey if it can be done in New Zealand, which practices intensive agriculture.

What realistic target for overall agricultural emissions does Ms O'Shea see for 2020? Obviously, we have legal obligations nationally, but what would be a realistic target for agriculture for 2020 and up to 2050? Is that something Glanbia Ingredients Ireland has modelled?

Ms Audrey O'Shea

Glanbia Ingredients Ireland has not carried out any modelling on targets up to 2020 or 2050. Perhaps members of Teagasc would be the most appropriate people to answer that question.

The data that have come out of New Zealand are a couple of years old at this stage. They relate to the type of cow found in New Zealand and the intensive, factory-type model it has.

We have been constrained due to quota regulation to the present day. Our farmers, depending on the number of cows they have, have a certain quota per litre of milk that they can produce. We expect to catch up with New Zealand quickly once the quota regime is reduced post-2015 because our cows will be able to produce more milk. This will reduce emissions and rumen because what happens is when the cow eats the food, it either converts into methane and belches it out or converts it into milk. If our cows are able to produce more milk, they will be more efficient. Each unit of cow will produce less methane and more milk, thereby reducing the amount of carbon associated with a litre of milk produced.

Deputy Brian Stanley

I asked a question about the five methods to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Ms O'Shea outlined two but then we were cut off because the Chairman moved on. Could she outline the other three methods because this is the crucial issue for agriculture?

Deputy Catherine Murphy

With regard to food security, is there an obligation on the agriculture industry?

Ms Audrey O'Shea

On the five methods, I have discussed the grazing season and EBI. The others are managing the nitrogen application through fertiliser, manure management, which is associated with that, and energy usage on farm. Nitrogen fertiliser and manure management are inextricably linked and they are covered under the nitrates directive. It is related to the methodology of application of fertiliser on farms and the volume of fertiliser applied.

Mr. Paul Kelly

With regard to food security, the projections for the global population are an increase of between 7 billion and 9 billion and, therefore, there is an apparent hugely increased food requirement. There is increasing consumption of nutritionally valuable dairy and meat products. That will increase as people get more protein into their diets. This needs to be examined at the very minimum on a European level, if not on an international level. Using targets from an Irish perspective disadvantages production in Ireland and, as I outlined generally and Ms O'Shea did specifically, the production methods in this State are highly sustainable. All that will be happen is production will move to more unsustainable parts of the world. In some respects, a similar analogy can be made with the concept of carbon leakage, which is provided for under the emissions trading scheme. That is very much looked at in an economic sense in that certain industries can be restricted in Europe as a result of emissions trading and move offshore out of Europe, which is effectively carbon leakage. The same will happen here in some respects, the difference being from a sustainability perspective, food production will move to other pars of the world where it will be done in a more unsustainable fashion. Ireland is the right place to do it.

Deputy Kevin Humphreys

Mention was made of unit carbon inside the farm gate. Are distances from market taken into account? The dairy industry has a significant export market and, therefore, that is not a true measurement. Is transportation of exports accounted for in any measurement?

Ms Audrey O'Shea

There have been numerous life cycle analyses of the production of milk ingredients and transportation comprises a low percentage by comparison. More than 80% of the carbon generated between cow to customer through dairy milk ingredients is behind the farm gate.

Deputy Kevin Humphreys

Sectoral and national roadmaps have been done. The sectoral maps are added together to comprise the national road map. Would it not be better for each sector if we had an overarching figure and the sectoral road map was then applied?

Mr. Paul Kelly

We are very much a major producer of food and agriculture and, as a result, we have greenhouse gas emissions from the sector, which as a percentage of overall emissions, are much higher than other member states. If a target is applied on a pro rata basis, all this would do is disadvantage the agriculture industry, which is among the most sustainable in Europe, hence our view that the roadmap is the correct approach to take.

Deputy Kevin Humphreys

There will be a 12% increase in emissions in the dairy sector by 2020. Currently, it produces approximately 19 million tonnes of carbon. The 2020 figure for the entire nation will be 11 million tonnes. Many of the representatives from the sector say we are the best placed environmentally to produce food. While I can accept that, for us to meet the 2020 target, surely the sector will have to reduce emissions. The target for 2020 is 19 million tonnes and it will be difficult to meet that without agriculture playing a key role in the reduction.

Mr. Paul Kelly

That is why if we look at the 2020 and 2030 targets, there is a need to go back and examine how those accounting methodologies consider agricultural production across the EU. At domestic level, the comprehensive work done to date by the Department and Teagasc shows relatively limited amounts of potential mitigation based on the current available technologies. The reason for that in part is we cannot engineer methane out of cows because of the enteric fermentation process but also because the processes in this country are efficient. That is the dilemma we face. We are probably close to being as efficient as is possible.

Deputy Kevin Humphreys

Is Mr. Kelly implying that we will have to trade emissions to reach the targets and to allow the agriculture industry to remain at the same level? Does he suggest emissions trading?

Mr. Paul Kelly

No, what we are suggesting is that we need to look at the agriculture emissions as is and continue in the areas of research and so on. Given that we are such a strong country in terms of agrifood, we have a huge and world class scientific capability in all aspects of dairy science from processing to production and it is a case of continuing to invest in that to see where there are further measures to increase the mitigation figure.

Deputy Paudie Coffey

I welcome the delegation and I thank the representatives for their submission, which was helpful. Mr. Kelly has just discussed the nub of the issue. The dilemma the committee and the country faces is the alignment of the roadmaps. The agriculture sector is the main driver in our economy in terms of exports, food production and jobs. We need to acknowledge the work being done by Glanbia, Kerry Group and so on. If food production was reduced as a result of targets set by the State, will it be displaced? Where else would the food be produced? What would be the effect on the economy and carbon emissions globally? If targets are set and companies are forced to reduce production, the food will be produced elsewhere because the demand will still be there. Will it be produced, resulting in greater carbon emissions than Ireland produces? This is what the issue boils down to. We must align our roadmaps with national policy and sectoral policy. We cannot say on the one hand we want jobs, exports and food security while, on the other, set targets that will reduce them and result in the food being produced elsewhere while carbon emissions remain at the same level.

There is a dilemma here and as a committee member I am very concerned that the matter needs to be addressed.

I commend the work done on initiatives to reduce carbon emissions in the sector generally with regard to breeding and other areas. However, there is scope for further progress if corporate entities such as the co-operatives, Glanbia and the Kerry Group, would engage more with farming organisations and individual farmers on the ground to make progress with regard to renewable energy. It needs subvention or to be incentivised more. We need initiatives on energy production through the use of methane. We need buy-in from the stakeholders that we need to reduce our carbon emissions generally. Have the witnesses done any work on that area to progress it further?

I am afraid that we will enact legislation and suddenly people will discover we have a big problem and have not done the proactive work we should have done. Is the sector doing proactive work to try to involve the stakeholders, including the farmers and others in the sector? Agriculture and transport are two of biggest contributors to the carbon emissions here. I do not want to undermine that in any way because it is a very productive sector that is driving our economy. We need to be very careful about how we handle this. The nub of the issue is alignment and I would be interested to hear the witnesses' views on that.

Mr. Paul Kelly

I will answer Deputy Coffey's questions on jobs and ask Ms O'Shea to deal with carbon emissions and what is happening directly in regard to farmers. Then perhaps Ms Joyce-O'Caollai could address the issue of renewable energy.

Our economics unit has done an analysis using the input-output tables from the CSO. We have used the targets as outlined - the 42% increase in exports, the 50% in milk production and the other numbers for pigmeat production, seafood, beef, sheepmeat and prepared consumer foods. If those targets are met we estimate an additional 25,000 to 30,000 jobs by 2020. Approximately 20% of those would be in manufacturing and the vast bulk of the remaining 80% would be at farm level and in ancillary services. That is the prize in terms of these export targets being reached.

In a broad sense we believe the carbon leakage concept or food leakage concept, if one wants to call it that, would apply. All the additional food that will be produced here will be exported so certainly an economic benefit will arise from the jobs I mentioned. We will be selling that into overseas markets, partly EU markets, but in the main it will be to third countries in Asia and so on. If we do not fill that demand someone else will.

Ms Audrey O'Shea

We believe there would be carbon leakage, particularly to the Americas and South America where it would be more than double the carbon output per unit of produce produced.

We have looked at various studies into what can be done on farm with respect to promoting renewable energy and agribusiness on farm. Policy on the renewable energy technologies and bio-energy crops would be very important. We do not have the same policies and incentives as the UK or Germany would. Perhaps Ms Joyce-O'Caollai can speak more about that.

There is a joint collaboration at industry level in association with Bord Bia. Teagasc is playing a key role with respect to that with the national sustainability dairy scheme. This is where the industry has come together and we are setting out our own roadmap with respect to an audit-based system of continual improvement. Glanbia Ingredients Ireland Limited, the company I represent, has undergone a pilot for several years - we are probably in our third year. We are fully behind the national scheme. We have audited on farms. In the next couple of weeks we will request our board to make it mandatory for all our farm suppliers - more than 4,300 suppliers - to participate in a sustainability scheme. We are doing this because our customers require it.

It covers a number of key indicators. Carbon, animal health and welfare, energy usage and water efficiency would all underpin that as well as health and safety. I am sure I am missing one or two. We are working very hard. We are looking at international studies. We are looking at what companies abroad are looking for. We are looking at what the multinationals want. It is a roadmap towards a sustainable secure supply of food. Many of our customers are looking to Ireland and are commending Ireland on what our companies are doing and what the country is doing. They want to get their product from Ireland. There is no mistake as to why more than 15% of the world's infant formula is sourced from Ireland. It is seen as a secure place to get their infant formula base ingredient and also the traceability with respect to that. Quality and traceability are very important, but so too is the carbon number associated with that production.

Deputy Paudie Coffey

I believe Ms O'Shea mentioned a model that indicates carbon leakage. Is that available?

Ms Audrey O'Shea

There are several reports, including the CE Delft report. The US, for example, has published its sustainable dairy report indicating that it is 3.1 kg per unit produced.

Senator Cáit Keane

I have a question on the accounting methodologies used. At the last meeting we were told that the carbon footprint of the beef sector is the lowest in Europe. Ms O'Shea has said that only New Zealand is ahead of us. How do we take something like that into consideration? We have to use a methodology to recognise that here and to push it when accounting methodologies are being analysed and implemented in the EU. How do we take that into consideration?

We have read that the Mediterranean countries will be reducing agriculture production because climate change will not be conducive to such production, whereas our country will remain sustainable for agricultural production. One can see that the demand from outside might increase and we need to balance that. We have no control over the sun. So the European Union must engineer its policies and we have to take into consideration how climate change will affect food production.

There was mention of bio-methane and bio-gas. I do not see the industry driving anaerobic digestion. In the North of Ireland there are 600 anaerobic digesters in six counties. I believe we have four in 26 counties. The farming industry has the basic raw material for anaerobic digestion sitting on its doorstep. Do the witnesses have a comment on the area? I would like the witnesses to say more about it.

What is the view of the witnesses on emissions trading as a means of allocating emission rights to efficient producers on a pan-European level?

Ms Catherine Joyce-O'Caollai

The question as to why anaerobic digestion has not been deployed more widely has come up in various forums. It is to ensure that the technology is appropriate on each site. There are specifics relating to the technology meaning it may not be appropriate everywhere.

Establishing the emission trading scheme and accounting methodologies would be a massive task. However, it would ensure that Irish farmers are on a level playing field on a European scale. It would require considerable work but would be very worthwhile given the agricultural emissions we have.

Ms Audrey O'Shea

Our audits have been independently verified for both the methodology and the calculation from the Carbon Trust in the UK, which is held up as the lead authority in that regard.

It has also independently verified statistics from a number of countries and regions.

Mr. Paul Kelly

With regard to changing patterns in food production, we have seen that the implications of events such as the fodder crisis can be felt for more than one year. In Europe the managed markets with comprehensive intervention systems that we used to have under the Common Agricultural Policy are largely a thing of the past; the ending of dairy quotas in 2015 and 2016 is a classic example. There will be much greater price volatility as European prices fall much more in line with global prices. Much of this is weather-related and we can see the price of various food inputs increasing and decreasing rapidly, depending on reports on the extent to which yields are affected by weather conditions. This must be faced by the industry in its broadest sense and is something on which everybody keeps a very close eye.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

If I understand them correctly, the delegates are not in favour of the emissions trading scheme. Are they in favour of agriculture being included in the European emissions trading scheme? I take it from the replies given that they are not. It has been stated we are so sustainable that this needs to be seen on a Europe-wide basis, but at the same time what if the European Union does not see it that way? I do not think it does. We still have legally binding targets for 2020 which are at the low end of what we must ultimately deal with by 2050. I do not see how we can square the circle. If the European Union states we must meet our obligations within the targets set at country level, not at Europe-wide level, how will the circle be squared?

Mr. Paul Kelly

I agree that we are not in favour of an emissions trading area scheme for agriculture. A Commission Green Paper is due out later this year or early next year on sustainable food and diet and it is an issue that is being examined in detail. The Common Agricultural Policy negotiations were concluded in recent weeks and a significant element of the budget, approximately 30%, under Pillar 1 which deals with direct payments is directed towards greening measures. The green chapter deals with land use and diversification. Pillar 2 deals with rural development and REPS and also has a very strong green element. The argument at European level is the same as that at national level and is on whether we want to produce food in a sustainable fashion. Policies and frameworks such as the CAP are very focused on sustainable methods of production.

With regard to legally binding targets, from a sectoral road map perspective, the initial work done to date is robust but indicates there is limited potential for mitigation in the food sector. As an economy we need to weigh up the growth potential of food produced in a sustainable fashion versus it shifting to overseas locations where it would be produced much more unsustainably.

Deputy Barry Cowen

I acknowledge what has been stated with regard to CAP reform and what was agreed to recently, particularly with regard to the 30% greening element. Pillar 2 is very dependent on the Government's commitment. Are the delegates happy there is a commitment on the part of the Government to meet the demands placed on it under Pillar 2 and anything which may be contained within it to progress this element?

Mr. Paul Kelly

As we go through the process of developing our submission to the Government for the budget for 2014 co-funding of all relevant schemes is seen as key by the industry to support its continued development.

Deputy Barry Cowen

Is the overall mix between pillars 1 and 2 how the European Union sees it being combined to achieve the targets expected to be achieved by the industry? While specific funding schemes are put in place and agreed between all parties under the CAP, Pillar 1 in particular, the same commitment is not immediately visible under Pillar 2 because it is dependent on budgetary matters. Is there anything emanating from the Government to suggest it will meet its commitments with regard to the various schemes which have become synonymous with pillar 2?

Mr. Paul Kelly

That is probably more a matter for the Government, but our view is clear - we want to see an appropriate level of co-funding.

Chairman

I thank Mr. Kelly, Ms Joyce-O'Caollai and Ms O'Shea for their engagement.

Sitting suspended at 12.45 p.m. and resumed at 2 p.m.

Trócaire

Chairman

I welcome our fourth set of witnesses today, An t-Uasal Caoimhe de Barra, head of environmental international division, Ms Ciara Kirrane, environmental justice policy officer, and Mr. Tom Crowley, programme leader, Trócaire.

Before we commence I remind the witnesses of the position regarding privilege. Witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they give to the committee. However, if they are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and they continue to do so, they are entitled thereafter only to a qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. They are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given. Witnesses are asked to respect the parliamentary practice that where possible they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice and ruling of the Chair to the effect that members should not criticise, comment on or make charges against any person or persons outside the House or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

Trócaire's submission has been already circulated to members and will be taken as read. I now invite Ms de Barra who has five minutes to make an opening statement to the committee.

Ms Caoimhe de Barra

I thank the committee for the opportunity to address it. As an overseas development agency, the advance of climate change is now the context within which Trócaire works. The impacts of climate change are being felt first and most keenly by those with the least resources to cope and least culpability with respect to climate change.

Trócaire is concerned that the heads of Bill do not propose a mechanism fit for ensuring the long-term vision and planning required to bring about the fundamental shifts necessary to adequately address climate change. We are concerned in particular about the inclusion in the Bill of clear, numeric national targets, which are important in order to enshrine our EU and international targets. If, as we assume, the intention is to meet these external targets, then their naming in national legislation should give no cause for controversy. We are concerned that there are differing interpretations of what low carbon means and that in the absence of a clearly defined objective, the practicalities of planning towards an overall emission reduction strategy will be compromised. We believe that it is, therefore, important to place beyond doubt the meaning of a low carbon, climate resilient and environmentally sustainable economy by setting out in head 4 an emission reduction target of 80% to 90% for the period up to and including 2050. We believe this would give clarity, objectivity and measurability to the context. We believe also that consideration could be given to inserting a definition of low carbon into head 2 so that low carbon would in that definition be in line with the European Council agreement for the EU to reduce emissions by 80-95% below 1990 levels by 2050.

We believe that strong accountability and implementation mechanisms are essential to ensure the effective management of the transition to a low carbon future. It is proposed that provision should be made in head 5 for the development of low carbon roadmaps every three to five years. A seven year cycle, as currently envisaged, is too long to ensure an adequate form of political accountability. Further, we believe that the role of the expert advisory body should be strengthened and in this regard propose that provision be made in head 8 for the expert advisory body to have the ability to publish its annual reports independent of Government consent.

We ask that in its considerations the committee reflect on the three principles outlined in our submission, namely, responsibility, justice and coherence. While Ireland ranks highly as an international partner as a result of its development co-operation programme, it has a disproportionately high level of greenhouse gas emissions for its population size and is among the highest users of natural resources in Europe. We believe that an adequate and just response to the threat posed by climate change would require Ireland to reduce its domestic emissions in line with the established international commitments and scientific evidence to ensure that those disproportionately impacted by a problem to which they did not contribute are adequately and reliably supported to cope with the impacts, that the most vulnerable people, domestically and internationally, are not disproportionately burdened in the response but receive an equitable share of the opportunities that action on climate and sustainable development presents.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

I thank Ms de Barra for her opening statement.

The Tánaiste recently stated that Ireland will be one of the first countries in the EU to enshrine its climate change targets in domestic law. Does Ms de Barra agree that is what is happening in the context of this legislation? In terms of our credibility as a development partner, will our approach to climate change be seen in that context and does it add or subtract to our credibility from that point of view?

The White Paper on development emphasises policy coherence. Why is the enactment of domestic climate change legislation important in this regard?

Ms Caoimhe de Barra

On the first question, we believe it is important targets are set in this legislation and that they are not adequately addressed in the legislation as currently drafted. We all know that what needs to be managed must be measurable. We believe that if Ireland is committed to meeting existing and future international targets it is then hard to argue against the setting of specific targets which are measurable in our national legislation.

On credibility as a development partner, this goes to the heart of development. As I mentioned at the outset, for Trócaire climate change is the context within which we work. We work in countries in eastern and southern Africa, which are badly affected by climate change. This is not a matter of short-term variability in climate but of long-term destructive climatic changes. For example, when I was in Malawi recently - I have previously worked and lived there for many years - I met a woman who had harvested her crop in April. She has four months between that harvest and her hitting what previously was a two to three months hungry season. Women and men in developing countries are feeling the impact of climate change. It is literally costing them the lives of their children and making them vulnerable beyond the scope of our imagination. Ireland is a small nation with a proud record and history of supporting developing countries. Our action on this will be a reflection of our continued commitment to that.

Policy coherence is important because work on the development side can be undermined by work in other areas of government policy. We believe it is important that the White Paper in terms of its content, contribution and commitment to policy coherence for development is taken as a core policy piece by the Irish Government. We are aware that these discussions are not easy and that there are trade-offs that need to happen between different areas of Ireland's interest. We believe, however, that an over-arching contribution to the global good is not only good for developing countries and impoverished populations within them, but ultimately is good for the population in Ireland. This is part of the reason we believe that policy coherence is an extremely important element of this and propose that this is taken seriously by the committee.

Deputy Brian Stanley

I thank Ms de Barra for her presentation and for taking the time to come to this meeting today. Ms de Barra mentioned earlier that roadmaps should be developed every three to five years. Is there a particular reason targets should be set every three years? I understand the Government proposal in this regard is seven years. The Bill I produced proposed the setting of five year targets.

On the effects of climate change in Ireland, I have referred on many occasions in the Dáil to the presence during the past couple of years, in particular in June, July and August, of water in the drills of cornfields in Kildare, which is the driest part of the country. If anyone needs convincing on the issue of climate change the sight of corn lying under water during those months would do it. There is still very significant resistance to addressing climate change. There is much denial around this issue, including the constant argument that because Ireland is a food producing country, it does not have to play any part in it.

How will we try to win that awareness campaign?

There is also the media issue. The Protection of Life During Pregnancy Bill had received good coverage before it was even published when the heads were discussed in the Seanad Chamber. We might as well have this meeting in a bunker in south Armagh because the details will probably never get outside the walls of this place.

(Interruptions).

Chairman

Deputy Stanley, without interruption. Please do not put questions about bunkers to the Deputy.

Deputy Brian Stanley

I am making the comparison honestly because very little of what is happening will penetrate these walls. It is unfortunate. We are currently off-track in meeting our targets and a figure of €900 million has been quoted from the Irish Creamery Milk Suppliers Association with regard to the fodder crisis. I may hear five or ten minutes of the media every day but I have never heard that figure before, despite having my ear tuned for that kind of issue. The figure has not got into the wider world, although it may have appeared in the Farmers' Journal or somewhere like it. It is staggering to think nearly €1 billion is the cost of the fodder crisis. We are trying to mainstream this debate, which is one of the bigger issues, along with the economic crisis. Sustainable development and the economy are linked so I wonder how we can present this to a wider audience.

If we are to communicate this to the public, we must somehow or other get across the type of economy, society or community we will be in 20, 30 or 40 years. Do the witnesses from Trócaire agree we must now start painting this picture? They have correctly highlighted what is happening in developing countries, although I have not seen that at first hand. The media reports nevertheless indicate that serious things are happening. What are the main shortcomings of the Bill?

Ms Caoimhe de Barra

On the Deputy's first point regarding the three to five year time-frame, the matter should be seen in the context of a very serious lack of economic analysis and costing, as well as the knowledge that scientific understanding of it is evolving very fast. We consider that a seven year timeframe is simply far too long not only on the political accountability front but also in terms of our understanding of the issue; having a period of seven years without a substantive review is too long.

On the economic evidence, apart from the Irish Creamery Milk Suppliers Association figure - I do not have the details on where it got the figure - the fodder crisis was in the media and research was done, meaning a cost was put on it. There is a very large blind spot with regard to the economic costs to Ireland of doing nothing about climate change. The matter must be taken very seriously, particularly in the context of an intergenerational impact from climate change on the country, as it will affect future generations. I posit that the committee should take it forward and ask those with a relevant background to conduct analysis so we can understand perspectives. In the absence of such analysis, a three to five year timeframe is more appropriate than a seven year timeframe.

We fully agree that the issue needs to be given a national importance but it is always very difficult to get it across. People nevertheless feel strongly about it for different reasons. Trócaire's work is overseas in the developing world; that is our area of competence and we can speak very well on that. We need to join with other sectors in society which have a vision on how this impacts Ireland. I cannot underline enough how important it is to have the evidence of how that affects livelihoods in Ireland. There is a big gap there at the moment.

I was asked to summarise three key points. They are around the need for a clear reduction target of 80% to 95% below 1990 levels by 2050, making a provision in head 5 for the development of the low-carbon roadmaps every three to five years and provision for strengthening the role of the expert advisory body so it has more freedom in publishing annual reports without the process of necessarily having to go through Government.

Deputy Gerald Nash

I wish to tease out a little the reference to the expert advisory group. The witness stated that it should publish annual reports without ministerial consent and have the independence and autonomy to do so. I understand where the witnesses are coming from in that regard. Who should be permitted to sit on and operate within the expert advisory group? Will the witnesses elaborate on how it should be structured and how they believe independence can be maintained vis-à-vis the Minister and the Government? Given that we are in a progressive minority in the European Union, as outside France, Sweden, Austria, and the UK we are the only State to date which has published and is on the road to enacting domestic climate change legislation, what is in the proposed legislation that the witnesses would favour and welcome?

Ms Caoimhe de Barra

I apologise as I should of course have prefaced my comments around some of the positives we see. I will give my colleague an opportunity to contribute in a moment. With regard to the expert advisory body, we know that accountability is critical in a democracy in order to effect change. We consider that there must be the strongest form of accountability around this issue mandated by the Government. I will ask my colleague to comment on some of the more technical questions but it would be a missed opportunity if we did not ensure very strong oversight and accountability built into this mechanism.

Ms Ciara Kirrane

Deputy Nash asked who should sit on the body. The heads of Bill indicate there should be four ex officio members but we believe members should all be scientific experts and there should be no ex officio members from the Departments. It would be a key issue for all members to be independent, and that would feed into the independence of the committee. The members could come from the scientific community, as it would be the most credible way to take forward that body. The members would have to maintain independence by having an ability to publish their own reports, with the mandatory requirement for the Government to consult with the body on the development of low-carbon roadmaps.

Having a Bill in the first place is a very positive step and it will ensure we meet our obligations. There is also a positive in some of the accountability mechanisms, although we need to strengthen the role of the expert body and those roadmaps on a more regular basis.

Senator Fiach Mac Conghail

I thank the witnesses for the presentation and I apologise for arriving late. One question arising from Deputy Nash's question is whether Trócaire is against the use of the four figures as stipulated in head 6 as ex officio members. Are the witnesses clearly stating that these figures, including the director general of the agency, should not be a part of the expert committee?

I get a sense that the purpose and drive of the presentation concerned climate justice, which is clearly related to Trócaire's very important international role. Do the witnesses have any comment on the challenges facing economic growth in Ireland, and specifically a possible clash between Food Harvest 2020 and targets that may be inserted in the Bill? I ask this with regard to the agriculture and energy areas. I know Trócaire has international expertise in this regard.

However, I wish to hear the witness's view on the domestic challenges in that regard.

Finally, clearly the witness's point of view is from the perspective of development and foreign affairs. The Tánaiste was quoted as saying that Ireland could be one of the first countries in the EU to enshrine climate change targets in domestic law. Does the witness have a view on which Department should have this in its remit? At present, it is within the remit of the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government, but as these hearings continue we are continually reminded that it has an impact across all Departments. Does the witness have a view on how this might be implemented differently from what is in the Bill?

Ms Caoimhe de Barra

I will invite my colleagues to speak on some of these points also. My colleague, Ciara Kirrane, will deal with the first question. As regards the challenges we face, as a development agency we often encounter the positing that there is a direct trade-off between global food security and achieving changes in climate change legislation. It is important to understand that these issues are quite separate for us.

I will give our perspective as a development agency. Global food security impacts on the poorest people in the poorest countries. Global food security is an area that we and my colleague, Tom Crowley, focus on primarily. It is about ensuring food availability locally for local populations and the generation of food supply within a region or country. We often hear an argument which we believe is over-simplified, which is about the expansion of food production in countries such as Ireland, which tends to produce high value added products that have a strong and growing market. Sometimes one hears people say, "Is this not part of a response to global food insecurity?". The simple answer is that it is not. It must first be put on the record that those two things do not have a direct link.

Senator Fiach Mac Conghail

Is the witness saying it is a false argument that we should increase our food productivity domestically because it offsets, supports or strengthens food security?

Ms Caoimhe de Barra

Exactly. Ireland is a producer of high quality food produce which goes to markets where certainly there are elements and pockets of hunger. However, people who are living in hunger do not access the type of produce that Ireland produces and exports.

Senator Fiach Mac Conghail

So there is no sense that this trade-off could happen.

Ms Caoimhe de Barra

It is an argument which takes a limited idea to an extreme and which ultimately ends up in a policy paradox. It simply does not hold true that our production could help resolve global food insecurity. Perhaps Tom Crowley will comment on that point.

Mr. Tom Crowley

I will reinforce that. There are two separate issues. We have been working with food security in the developing world for the past 40 years. From our experience in ensuring that the poor have food security it is about their ability to produce their own food locally and to access food locally. That is the key to ensuring their food security. That is what we have learned from our experience. The key element that is undermining their food security at present is climate change. The biggest thing we can do to ensure their food security is rein in climate change and support those communities to adapt to climate change.

It is about who accesses the products we export. I have lived in Latin America and in Africa. As I have learned, when one goes to the supermarket the exported products on the shelves are available to the elites. These are very high value meat and dairy products and they are purchased by the wealthy groups in those communities. In the case of the farmers I worked with in Honduras, the key to ensuring their food security was their own ability to produce food on their own land, and climate change is undermining that.

To reinforce what Caoimhe said, it is very important to disentangle the issues of the opportunities for Irish exports from addressing chronic malnutrition in the developing world.

Ms Ciara Kirrane

With regard to the names on the expert advisory body, our view would be that independent experts should continue to sit on that body and perhaps the role of the four names that were mentioned could be to advise and have some input into the expert body but that they would not sit on the body itself.

Senator Fiach Mac Conghail

Professor Kirby, who appeared before the committee last week, suggested that there be a technical advisory group to support this group. Is the witness suggesting that these experts would be available to the advisory group, that they could be called? What does she think is their role? If they are not to be ex officio, does she think they should have a role at all in this advisory body?

Ms Ciara Kirrane

They should have a role. They have vast experience in their own areas. They should be called on for expert advice, but not sit on the body itself.

To move to the Senator's question about what Department should look after this, responsibility for implementing this should lie with the Department of the Taoiseach. However, the implementation of the Bill and the subsequent roadmaps should be an obligation across all Departments. All public bodies and Departments would be responsible for implementing that.

Senator Fiach Mac Conghail

Does Ms Kirrane think that the obligation regarding each Department is clear in the heads of the Bill?

Ms Ciara Kirrane

No. I believe it could be strengthened.

Senator Cáit Keane

I thank the witnesses for appearing before the committee today. Given their experience over the last 50 years, global climate change was probably on their agenda before it was on anybody else's agenda. They were working in the countries affected by it before we even started thinking about it 20 years ago. Their experience and input are valuable, particularly when they tell us the number of people dying each year. It is worth repeating that 300,000 people are dying each year due to climate change. We must keep that in mind.

The witnesses said responsibility is among their three priorities. As politicians we would love to have to wear just one hat for responsibility, but we must wear three or four hats for responsibility to A, B, C and D. When the witnesses outline their three objectives as responsibility, justice and climate, I presume their responsibility is to the Third World and to the countries that are most affected. That would be their priority. I gave that number of our responsibilities because our responsibility is to those as well. We have an impact on their lives so it is our responsibility as well. However, we have another responsibility and I wonder how to balance the two. We have a responsibility to the people in our own country who cannot afford to eat, if food is going to get more expensive. Have the witnesses any advice on how to balance that? They know we want to be responsible and do the best for the Third World but they also know we are bound by the economic constraints to do our best for the people in our own country as well.

The witnesses suggested that there be a definition of low carbon under head 2. Do they not think the definition of low carbon should be worldwide? We talked earlier about how to do the accounting, definitions and so forth. When they ask us to define low carbon in head 2 do they mean for Ireland, on a European scale or on a global scale?

My third question is also about the submission. It says the way we currently live and do business is not viable in the long term. I always say it would be great if we could go back to the slower pace of life in the Aran Islands versus the east and so forth. I am not picking on the Aran Islands as it is a beautiful place and I am from the west, but what do the witnesses mean by that? I realise we must put a great deal into educating people about the throwaway society and so forth. As the witnesses have mentioned it, if they were to ask us to do two things to stop this, what would be their recommendations?

I take their point about food security. We discussed it earlier.

Ms Caoimhe de Barra

I will reply to some of the questions and my colleague, Ciara Kirrane, will also respond. The Senator asked for our advice with respect to the very difficult situation in which Ireland currently finds itself. It is not really our position to give the committee advice. However, in overseas development in situations where we see people facing short-term extremely difficult and harsh conditions, we have been forced to take an intergenerational response. If we try to respond in a short-term way, we are simply storing up problems in the future for the next generation. That is as true in Ireland today as it is in our work overseas.

We need to ensure the policy is as strongly intergenerational as politically possible. This is why we say we need to have accountability measures in place and three to five-year policy-making cycles. We need to bear in mind that what is decided here and now is in a difficult climate and a harsh context but the effect of the decisions will be felt 40 years later.

I am sure Ms Ciara Kirrane would like to contribute on whether it should be a definition worldwide. I underline that the definition we have posited is the one outlined in the European Council agreement regarding the reduction of emissions by 80% to 95% below 1990 levels by 2050. When we talk about justice and responsibility, it is in the context of Ireland having the tenth highest ecological footprint in the world. We have enjoyed the benefits of rapid economic growth and have had to deal with a rapid economic downturn that has been very difficult. We also have responsibility to take what we have, our technology, our knowledge, our capacity and our skills to do what we can across a multiplicity of fronts. There is no single answer to reduce emissions. This will be driven by policy and targets are essential in order for policy to be fulfilled.

Ms Ciara Kirrane

With regard to Senator Keane's first question on balancing responsibility, by passing legislation and by limiting and reducing emissions, we are acting in our own interests as well as in the interests of the developing world. The cost of not acting will have a major impact at the Irish level. We have already spoken about costs in terms of dealing directly with impacts that may come down the line from climate change, like the €900 million figure quoted for the fodder crisis in the Irish Examiner. We also have international obligations in terms of supporting developing countries. The issue of loss and damage arises in international negotiations. That is about compensating developing countries for the loss and damage they experience to which they cannot adapt. It is early days but some of the early proposals are that contributions are based on a per capita emissions basis and per capita GDP. Our levels of emissions per capita are high so we will have a high obligation in that regard. We need to consider these points. By acting to reduce emissions now, we will be acting in our interests in terms of the savings we can make on international obligations for finance, such as loss and damage.

In terms of the definition of low carbon, it makes sense to define this for Ireland and for the Bill. Without defining it, we are using vague language that is open to interpretation. I strongly believe planning would be incredibly difficult when working off a definition that is not clearly defined. The European Council objective of 80% to 95% as indicated earlier is an appropriate definition we can apply.

Caoimhe de Barra has addressed the question but another important point is to provide leadership on the issue. It is not an issue that gets a major amount of attention in the media but it is in our interests to act now, at the earliest possible stages, to prevent catastrophic climate change. It is the responsibility of the Government and the committee to show leadership and to try to address these problems in an adequate manner.

Deputy Kevin Humphreys

I am sorry for being late. I have read the submission although I do not have the opening statement. I will get it later. The Fiscal Advisory Council is a template. Is it a good template to transfer onto this?

With regard to figures in other submissions, such as the dairy sector's submission this morning, we are transposing the Kyoto Agreement into the heads of the Bill, which clearly gives us a target for 2020. There are negotiations in 2015, which will likely come out at 40%. The other day, we heard that in reality it means a 52% figure for Ireland. In negotiations in the EU context, is it likely to include a 40 year target at this stage given that negotiations must take place in 2015? We were listening to the dairy sector. Will the targets for the agricultural sector be the same as those for other European countries that are not as agricultural? We are a very agricultural economy. Within the negotiation pack of 80% to 95% for Europe, Ireland may not have a target if we take it in the European context. Have the witnesses looked at this in the context of the Green Paper for Europe?

Ms Caoimhe de Barra

I think Ms Ciara Kirrane should come in at this point. We do not believe the answers will all come from one particular sector of the Irish economy. There must be fair burden sharing across different sectors. Agriculture is often at the heart of the debate, as is a sector such as transport. A solid piece of work is to be done to identify the work plan through the rolling agendas and how this will be managed within Ireland in a fair and equitable way so that the burden does not fall on one sector which, as we can completely understand, feels vulnerable.

Ms Ciara Kirrane

To address the first question, the Fiscal Advisory Council is a very strong model we could follow. I agree it is a good idea.

In terms of targets and whether it is premature to include targets, it is not premature because the likely target, as stated by the European Council, will be 80% to 95% and the scientific community has stated that is what is necessary. In fact, it may well be an underestimate of what is needed to address climate change problems adequately. Including a target of 80% to 95% does not compromise ourselves but supports us to put us on the trajectory towards meeting our objective. There are ways of dealing with that kind of a target. By including it, we can start planning to give the clarity and benchmarks against which we can measure. There are ways of dealing with it in how we can revise it should the targets change. We can look to including clauses about revising in legislation, as has been done in other Bills.

Deputy Kevin Humphreys

We are talking about a 40-year legislation programme and science will change in that time. At this early stage, if the European target ends up at 80% to 95%, it is not the case that every member state will have a total target for the European Union. Will each individual state have a target of 80%? Others may carry a higher burden because they have a lower dependency on agriculture, which generates higher greenhouse gases. What is the thinking of the witnesses on that? Is it a European Union figure rather than an individual state figure?

Ms Ciara Kirrane

In the effort sharing directive, we were given the uppermost targets to reach.

Deputy Kevin Humphreys

We got an increase actually.

Ms Ciara Kirrane

I assume it follows the same way that, because of our high levels of emissions, the effort will be shared in a similar way where we receive the high end of those emissions targets.

Deputy Kevin Humphreys

Going on that logic, Ireland may not be set that target within the European Union.

Would we prejudice ourselves by putting in a 40 year target at this stage when those negotiations or discussions have not really taken place?

Ms Ciara Kirrane

I take Deputy Humphreys' point that we have to act with caution but that is where other issues come in about revision in terms of whether we need to address the targets that we set. I imagine that it would be highly unlikely that we will not have very high and significant emissions targets such as 80% to 95% and that is what we would need to write in. By putting it into our legislation we would be acting in our own interests in trying to give ourselves the mechanism that we need to develop policy and plans to meet that.

Chairman

We thank the witnesses for their exchange with us. We appreciate it very much. They may now leave.