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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

No. I believe it could be strengthened.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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

We got an increase actually.

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.

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?

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.

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