Brian Leddin (Limerick City, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The purpose of the second session this afternoon is to have a discussion regarding progress in relation to the sustainable development goals, SDGs. On behalf of the committee, I welcome Mr. Ian Talbot and Mr. James Kiernan from Chambers Ireland; Ms Michelle Murphy from Social Justice Ireland; and Mr. David Rossiter, Ms Karen Ciesielski and Mr. Johnny Sheehan from Coalition 2030. They are all very welcome this afternoon.

Before we begin, I will read out the note on privilege to remind our guests of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of the person or entity. If their statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity, I will direct them to discontinue their remarks and it is imperative they comply with any such direction.

I call on Mr. Talbot to make his opening statement.

Mr. Ian Talbot:

I thank the Chair and committee for inviting us today. Chambers Ireland is the State’s largest business representative network. We are an all-island organisation with a unique geographical reach. Our network understands the necessity of sustainable development and our chambers campaign for improvements in the economic, social, environmental well-being and sustainability of the cities and communities of which they are members. All our chambers have pledged their commitment to the sustainable development goals. We were delighted to be nominated as SDG champions by the Minister for the environment, Deputy Eamon Ryan, and we are now an SDG ambassador.

We are also members of the global International Chamber of Commerce, which has observer status at the UN and played a central role in the delivery of both the Paris Agreement and in shaping the UN SDGs from the perspective of business. Though most of the 17 goals are relevant to the work of business, we focus on five - 5, 8, 9, 11 and 13. We are passionate about the SDGs and use them in our role as business leaders to inspire companies and their employees to engage with them. We use the goals as a framework to make Ireland a better country for our society. We also use our policy outputs to target individual goals and we use our influence with business to build awareness and engagement.

Our work through the Chambers Ireland sustainable business council, the sustainable business impact awards we run and our toolkit for business are a selection of examples of the way we advocate for and support action towards meeting the goals among our membership.

In particular, the SDG toolkit for business has been very successful. We are also delivering a modest member-funded grant scheme for member companies delivering on SDG projects.

With regard to our perspective on Ireland's progress, we have had a lot of information today about latest the reports ranking countries' progress on the goals. Ireland is now ranked 28th, which is down from 13th. While we are making progress in a lot of areas, including on poverty and gender equality, we are performing less well on responsible consumption and production and climate action. From a national perspective, progress on the measurement and delivery of the goals in Ireland is positive. Ireland's hub for the sustainable development goals notes that 164 of the 169 targets are capable of being assessed. It states four-fifths of the assessable targets are on track to being achieved, while 14% are of concern and 4% are not being achieved. We do seem to be making progress but, equally, we know that we are struggling to meet our climate targets, for example. Are things as good as they seem? We have to look very deep into budget 2025 documents to find the goals mentioned.

With regard to the particular areas of concern in our sector, our key priorities for our members are based on four areas. These are productivity and competitiveness, housing and urbanisation, energy and decarbonisation, and skills and talent. Continued investment in infrastructure is key to addressing these challenges. Housing has long been a concern for Irish businesses because of the impact of the housing shortage on operations and staffing. It also contributes to sustainable cities and communities.

Transport investment, activation of vacancies and planning reform are all interlinking elements of solving the housing problem. They would also help to address our goals on the climate action agenda and on decent work and economic growth. Attracting and retaining skilled employees continues to be a challenge for business. We believe that aligning businesses with the SDGs will help attract and retain staff who have an interest in sustainability.

We are concerned that a proliferation of reporting and other standards will impact smaller businesses, and while regulations such as CSRD are ostensibly targeted at large companies they will have a significant impact on smaller companies contributing to the supply chains of larger ones but lacking awareness and skills to complete the forms required.

As a business organisation with more than 8,000 member businesses, we hold a position of influence in the business sector. With the proper resources we can continue to engage these businesses on the importance of the goals and build towards achieving them by 2030. Among our members we see great commitment to the goals. They realise that sustainability is something that can be marketed and sold by businesses as consumers become more conscious of their environmental footprint. Businesses are also conscious of this for their own operations and are continuously reviewing supply chains to secure more sustainable methods of doing business. Many organisations have exhausted the low-hanging fruit opportunities and we do not want fatigue to set in. A fresh impetus is required. Citizen awareness must be increased. Progress from here could be more difficult and investment is required.

Brian Leddin (Limerick City, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank Mr. Talbot for his opening statement and I now invite Ms Murphy to make her opening statement.

Ms Michelle Murphy:

Social Justice Ireland welcomes the opportunity to address the committee. The SDGs call on all nations to combine economic prosperity, social inclusion and environmental sustainability. Through our annual sustainable progress index, Social Justice Ireland has been tracking our progress annually since we adopted the SDGs in 2015. This index measures our progress across all 17 SDGs and compares us against 14 comparable EU countries. My opening statement and the bulk of our submission document are based on the findings of our 2024 report.

We assess Ireland's performance on each individual SDG and we create an overall ranking. We also divide each SDG into three indices, which are environmental, economic and social. We look at our progress through these three lenses and highlight the areas where we are making progress, areas where we are stagnating and areas where we need to implement new policy goals. In terms of Ireland's overall ranking in 2024, we came eighth out of 14 comparable EU countries. In the economic index we came ninth overall out of 14, on the social index we came seventh, which is in the middle of the ranking, and on the environment index we come towards the bottom of the ranking in 11th place. The economic index comprises SDG 8 on decent work and economic growth and SDG 9 on industry and innovation infrastructure.

The society index has eight SDGs, including no poverty, zero hunger, good health and well-being, gender equality and quality education, while the environment index comprises seven SDGs, including those relating to clean water and sanitation, responsible consumption and affordable and clean energy.

In terms of Ireland's strengths overall, we are doing well in some areas. We should acknowledge that progress and look at building on it, as well as at how we might apply where we are making progress to some of the other SDGs. We are in the top five for quality education, peace and justice and sustainable cities and communities. The latter means we have a relatively safe quality of life in our cities and communities. We perform very well and rank first in terms of quality education from basic education upwards. One area we should pay attention to is adult participation in lifelong learning but, overall, we perform very well there as well as in terms of sustainable cities and communities, which shows that we do offer a good quality of life for people. In comparison with the other 14 countries, we compare quite well in terms of air quality.

There are some weaknesses in the system and areas in which we are not making progress. We are in the bottom five for seven SDGs, including those relating to zero hunger, gender equality, clean water and sanitation, affordable and clean energy, industry, innovation and infrastructure, responsible consumption and production and the partnership for the goals. Several of those obviously reflect environmental concerns. Even though we are making progress on delivering some of our programmes and policies, much more could be done, particularly around energy. Some people might find the score on zero hunger surprising, but when one is measuring that SDG in this context, one is looking at things like obesity, food prices, and the sustainability of our agricultural and food production systems which really brings down our score.

For the rest of the SDGs, we are in the middle of the rankings. These SDGs include good jobs and economic growth, reduced inequalities, climate action, life below water, life on land. While we are in the middle of the ranking, there is certainly scope for improvement and we should not become complacent because the proportion of the indicators that are progressing too slowly or not really changing from year to year is concerning. Also, in terms of data on progress that we can collect and measure, in some areas we need to look at more data for some of the indicators to really determine how we are doing, particularly for life below water, for example.

We are at the midpoint of the 2030 agenda now. While we are marking some progress, much more needs to be done. We need to look at those areas that are really dragging down our performance. One way that could deliver progress in terms of progressing the SDGs is linking them to the 11 dimensions of the well-being framework which is part of how we measure the budget, both in terms of social impact and well-being. The 17 SDGs complement the well-being framework. Linking them would lead to more policy coherence. They would mutually reinforce each other going forward, looking at how we can promote both our national targets and our international commitments. Ultimately, it is coherent policy-making and investment that will lead to improved outcomes in the final five years of agenda 2030 and lead to Ireland actually achieving what we have set out to do in the context of the sustainable development goals.

Mr. David Rossiter:

We thank the members of the committee and the secretariat for the opportunity to discuss progress on achieving the SDGs. We represent a coalition of civil society organisations and trade unions dedicated to holding Ireland accountable for its commitment to achieving the SDGs by 2030, as outlined in the transformative 2030 agenda for sustainable development.

Our vision is for Ireland to fully implement the sustainable development goals at home and to contribute to their achievement internationally so that no one is left behind. The goals present a policy roadmap to address interconnected challenges and help us to eradicate poverty, meet universal needs, tackle inequality and operate within planetary boundaries. They ought to be our guiding principles, ensuring we stay on course towards a sustainable future.

While our collective focus spans the 17 SDGs, today we will concentrate on two key areas, namely life below water through the Fair Seas campaign and peace, justice and strong institutions through the policy proposal to establish a future generations commissioner for Ireland. We will also outline five key requirements to ensure Ireland's commitment to the SDGs is fully realised. The Fair Seas campaign, a coalition of Ireland's leading environmental NGOs and networks works to build a movement of ocean stewardship and to ensure that Ireland honours its commitment to SDG 14 which calls for the conservation and sustainable use of oceans, seas and marine resources.

Ireland's maritime territory is vast, yet it faces significant threats from overfishing, habitat destruction and the impacts of climate change.

The Fair Seas campaign advocates for the establishment of marine protected areas, MPAs, covering at least 30% of Ireland's waters by 2030, with 10% strictly protected. This would not only protect biodiversity but also contribute to sustainable economic opportunities in coastal communities. Ireland is currently playing catch-up with the rest of the EU in designating MPAs. The Irish Government has a commitment to having 30% of our ocean designated as MPAs by 2030. Marine protected area legislation is being developed, which was a commitment set out in the programme for Government, and we are still waiting to see the Bill. This process needs to move more quickly if we are to effectively meet our targets and turn the tide on biodiversity loss in the ocean. The written statement contains a couple of asks from the Fair Seas campaign which I will let members read rather than read out here.

I turn our attention to a future generations commissioner, which will help us to achieve sustainable development goal, SDG, 16. Goal 16 is central to creating strong, just and inclusive institutions. Coalition 2030 believes that one of the most impactful steps Ireland can take towards achieving this goal is establishing an independent future generations commissioner on a statutory footing. The commissioner would safeguard the interests of future generations, ensuring that policies enacted today do not compromise the ability of tomorrow's citizens to thrive. A future generations commissioner would ensure that sustainability is embedded in all Government decision-making processes; hold the Government accountable for long-term impacts, especially in areas like climate change, biodiversity and social inequality; and act as an independent advocate for the rights of future generations in all legislative and policymaking processes. The establishment of this role is crucial for embedding SDG principles in governance structures and ensuring that Ireland not only meets its 2030 targets but also adopts a long-term perspective on sustainability. We must stop providing short-term financial wins in Ireland and instead create strategic long-term investment that protects the future of our nation.

I turn briefly to whether we are on track and some of the measurements and goals which some of my partners here have also outlined. Internationally, we see that we are not on track to achieve the sustainable development goals. The global Sustainable Development Report 2024 was recently released at the UN Summit of the Future 2024. It outlined that, on average, 16% of the SDG targets are on track to be met globally by 2030, with the remaining 84% showing limited progress or a reversal in progress. The report also outlines that the pace of SDG progress varies significantly across countries. Nordic countries continue to lead on SDG achievement, with the BRICS countries making significant progress, while poor and vulnerable nations lag far behind. As mentioned earlier, Ireland was ranked 28th on the SDG index and scored behind European counterparts such as Moldova, Hungary and Latvia.

The Sustainable Development Report 2024 outlines where Ireland is underperforming. For example, under SDG 12, relating to responsible consumption and production, Ireland underperforms in electronic waste, air pollution, nitrogen emissions and non-recycled municipal solid waste. This highlights a real need for the Government to consider more robust policies regarding the circular economy. SDG 13, relating to climate action, and SDG 14, relating to life below water, also remain areas of concern, with significant challenges in reducing carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel combustion and improving marine biodiversity. SDG 7, relating to affordable and clean energy, and SDG 12, relating to responsible consumption and production, are also issues. This raises questions about whether Ireland’s energy needs, particularly its focus on data centres as part of its enterprise strategy, could hinder the country’s ability to meet the sustainable development goals. It is also worth noting that Ireland is performing poorly on SDG 17, which is partnerships for the goals. Indicators here relate to Ireland’s corporate tax haven score and profit shifting of multinationals.

The results outlined in the global Sustainable Development Report 2024 contrast with Ireland's 2023 voluntary national review, where the Government emphasised progress in green transitions. According to the voluntary national review, the Government considers that 81% of the targets are being achieved, 11% of the targets are being partially achieved, and 5% of the targets are not being achieved. There is no data available for 3% of the targets. However, as outlined, the global Sustainable Development Report 2024 considers Ireland to have achieved or to be on track to achieve only 50% of those targets, with 15% of targets achieving limited progress.

I have probably gone on a little too long, but I will give a quick rundown of asks from the coalition. We have mentioned the future generations commissioner, which we would like to see put on a statutory footing. This commissioner would act as a guardian for future generations, ensuring that the long-term impacts of policy decisions are considered across Government Departments. We would like to see the establishment of a permanent Oireachtas committee for the future, similar to Finland's committee for the future. This is a dedicated committee that would ensure ongoing parliamentary oversight of future-focused policies, ensuring that long-term planning and sustainability are central to Ireland's legislative agenda.

We would like to see the SDG unit moved to the Department of the Taoiseach and its resources increased. We would also like to ensure the Government presents an annual report on SDG progress to the Dáil and the Seanad. This transparency and accountability are critical to achieving the SDGs. Finally, we would like to see budget lines, such as those seen in last week's budget, corresponding to SDG targets. By aligning budget allocations with SDG targets, Ireland can ensure that financial planning reflects the priorities outlined in the SDGs.

Ireland stands at a critical juncture in its efforts to meet the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. As mentioned, through the Fair Seas campaign, we can protect our marine environment for future generations. At the same time, by establishing a future generations commissioner, we can ensure that SDG 16 is fully realised, embedding sustainability, accountability and long-term thinking in the heart of Irish governance.

Pauline O'Reilly (Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank all of the witnesses for all of the good work of their organisations. It is timely that they are here. We know that there will be an election before the end of February. I am not going to give my prediction for when exactly that will be but I raise that point because now is the time when all the political parties are putting together their manifestos. We had a fairly robust session on advertising just before the witnesses came in. I want to raise the issue of the part bringing the public on board plays in achieving the SDGs. It is really important that we have all of the policies in place and that we measure the results but, at the end of day, as politicians, we cannot achieve things unless we also drive forward with the minutiae of getting something over the line. I am conscious that the Cathaoirleach must leave for a vote.

Brian Leddin (Limerick City, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

A vote has been called and the clock is ticking. I will have to go to vote. Does the committee wish to continue? If so, I invite one of the Senators to chair the meeting. Otherwise, I can suspend it and we can come back after the vote.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We will alternate chairing.

Pauline O'Reilly (Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Yes, we will alternate until the Cathaoirleach comes back to us.

Pauline O'Reilly (Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Do the witnesses have any suggestions or advice for bringing the public on board?

We are now going into a phase where Coimisiún na Meán in particular is looking at regulations in respect of advertising. Many people are lobbying an coimisiún as to what they would like to see in those regulations and codes. My experience of several parts of the community is that it has been fairly patchy as to whether people have the correct information or incorrect information. I will speak about cycle lanes in particular because they are a hot topic in Galway, as they are in Dublin. It concerns me when incorrect information is put out. As politicians, we then have to combat incorrect information. That can be really challenging when not everybody is on the same wavelength. I am partly looking for advice and I am partly asking what the witnesses' organisations can do to be part of getting minute things over the line with proper information.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The questions were widely addressed. Who would like to come in first? Do those who spoke last wish to come in?

Ms Karen Ciesielski:

I thank Senator O'Reilly. Bringing the public along with us in addressing the climate and biodiversity crisis and in tackling inequality in these broader issues under which the SDGs align us all is a great challenge. As the Senator rightly said, we also see a rise in misinformation and disinformation. We in the civil society sector are certainly not immune to that. One thing we have found really useful is pooling our resources through Coalition 2030. That is where we can come together to address these challenges with one voice.

Regarding advice, we have found what works is engaging communities and people at an individual level. That takes time, money and resources. We are all experiencing the same challenges with breaking through the noise and reaching people where they are at. We have found that when we talk to people on a one-to-one basis or certainly at community level, they get it. Reinforcing the local authority climate action plans is an excellent way to reach people in their communities using the resources already in existence. The PPN is another excellent way to reinforce the messaging and drive policy at local level while still doing the work that needs to happen at national level.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Mr. Talbot from Chambers Ireland might wish to come in to talk about that local level also.

Mr. Ian Talbot:

I would be happy to. I think I mentioned some of these things in my introduction. It is a bit perplexing. We did a check outside. I do not want to embarrass anybody but we are all wearing these pins. I have three or four, one on every suit. I wear them all the time. I have never had anyone come up to me and say, "Wow, you're supporting sustainable development goals." Lots of people come up to me and say, "What's that?" As it goes back to 2015, it is now nearly ten years later. That lack of awareness is really worrying.

Regarding Ms Karen Ciesielski's point, I thought that as part of the country's commitment to the goals we were supposed to align policy measures. For example, we do that. We are preparing our manifesto. We will have a grid of all the proposals we have and the goals that they actually meet to help profile it. All we are doing is profiling it. We cannot sell that to the media and the public. The media will not be very interested in that grid. That is a big part of the challenge for us. We are doing an awful lot and it can be quite frustrating. That is also why I put in the comment about lethargy and the budget. Unless we are talking about some of the big measures people are listening to, I am not sure there are many other ways.

The number of people who do not know what the local authorities are doing for them is also staggering. We can sometimes all get into our own little bubbles. To Senator O'Reilly's point, we work very closely with local government. Obviously, there are issues in Galway relating to roads and things like that. Generally around the country we are working with local government. They also have a sense of frustration about getting that message through. We could do a better job on things like mentioning the budget. It was not in the budget speech. I think to find any reference at all required going to an appendix of one of the subsidiary reports from the Department of Finance. It is not front and centre in the messages that people are listening to. People are listening very carefully to the messages on carers grants and disabilities. There would have been an opportunity to say that this contributes to the goals of gender equality and stuff. However, we are not making that connection for people.

Unfortunately, I think Government will need to spend some money advertising this and providing stronger messages. I do not know where that should be. Mr. Kiernan has been incredibly supportive in rolling this programme out among our chambers and setting up sustainability councils around the country. What should we do differently as champions or ambassadors? It is a double-edged sword in ways. As a result of the work we are doing, we were nominated as ambassadors. We cannot do much more than we were already doing. It is great to see the involvement of organisations like the GAA. It gets crowds of 80,000 into Croke Park and large crowds into other stadiums such as Pairc Uí Chaoimh. Regarding building up that visibility, there is considerable onus on many people to just talk about these things. There are only five years to go.

Mr. James Kiernan:

I will add to that. Mr. Talbot has hit on all the main points. The Senator's question is really timely.

The framework for the goals is about having a country which is a better place for the people to live in. We should really bear in mind as we head into an election where we must ask what representatives we will elect to deliver that for us. There is not enough awareness among the public on the SDGs and where they fit in. It is an opportune time to do that. We probably also missed an opportunity around the SDG week in doing more around that. If we are looking at public campaigns, they should align with those SDG weeks. It has been outlined by us all here that we are not at the top of the list on engagement with the SDGs. That is because there is not enough public awareness. One rarely sees the SDGs displayed anywhere in public, especially if one leaves Dublin and goes down the country. I am involved in engaging with chambers all around the country. An awareness campaign is a way to do that, one that is timely, is ahead of the elections and is about how one's vote fits in with each SDG.

On the work that is being done on SDGs, some great work is being done in areas around it but the understanding on the part of the public is just not there at the moment. Even within companies, we find that senior management would be aware but it is not permeating to the staff. We are trying to do that and do more on it through our toolkits but as Mr. Talbot has said, we have established committees around the country to look at doing that.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I know that Social Justice Ireland has come up with ideas in its submission today around that question of how those goals are linked and made visible within budgets or elsewhere.

Ms Michelle Murphy:

Our proposals are linked to all of the SDGs around engagement. One of the elements would be capacity building within communities and within county councils because I can guarantee that the SDGs did not come up on the campaign trail for anyone looking for election to the local council this year, or the European elections, which gives an idea of where these goals sit. One needs to have them linked to improved well-being for everyone, the common good and that overall piece. Ultimately, much of this is going to happen at county council level and they really have not permeated there to date despite work, progress and commitment. It is about capacity building and using the public participation networks, PPNs, more and linking them, particularly in budgetary terms and Mr. Talbot made a good point in that regard. There was no reference in the budget speeches or no announcement, even looking at the capital spend with the additional money in that capital spend. It was not linked, in particular to the affordable and clean energy one where we really fall down, as well as the industry, innovation and infrastructure work. We should be performing much better in those and we are not. They were not even mentioned in the capital piece which was very much a missed opportunity.

It is about that linking where it does not just relate to international commitments but that it is going to improve everybody's quality of life and getting that out into the community. If it is not coming from Members of the Dáil and the Seanad and if it is not permeating into that realm - it does at times but not everywhere - then it will be more challenging to get it into the communities. There is a job of work to be done with county councils and we have a series of proposals there.

On the advertising piece and Coimisiún na Meán, there needs to be some regulation around it. We regulate advertising in other areas. The recent information campaigns from Government which one now hears being broadcast on radio as Gaeilge and in English have been very positive. We need more of that but with the linking of it to that local element. We have many targets with CSO and Government reports on it, we also have the voluntary national reviews but as both Mr. Talbot and Mr. Kiernan have said, most people one would meet and speak with do not actually know what they are. There are some obvious things that could be done to improve visibility.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will bring Senator O'Reilly back in now.

Pauline O'Reilly (Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There are two pieces to this. There is the advertising of the SDGs so that people understand what they are, as Mr. Talbot has been saying. One meets people. I have my pin somewhere but just not on me, just to let him know. The bigger piece, I suggest, is not the advertising of the SDGs but the work which underpins achieving under the SDGs. I must say that I do not think that the public get it even when one does have conversations. I hate to be depressing about it but people look at what is happening on their street. I am obviously having many conversations with people.

A pedestrian crossing might, overall, be good for people who are flocking towards a particular area. However, where we see the resistance is from the people on that particular street, for instance. That is the level of it and that will always be the level of it. If we try to do it in a different space, people are not going to get it. It is not going to permeate down to the local authorities because, ultimately, local decisions will be made about it. That is the challenge for us. We can put everything into policy documents but that is where the advertising and the push needs to come. I am sure everyone sees this but Chambers Ireland might particularly see it because it is working in a different area, where people have differing pressures, such as those to make money, to get footfall into retail businesses and also the pressure to be sustainable. Social Justice Ireland, SJI, has different pressures as well. It is about putting food on the table versus doing something that has an overall public good. There is a lot there that advertising of the sustainable development goals, SDGs, does not get us to. I love the idea of linking things in the budget to SDGs because that is where interest is generated for people.

Pauline O'Reilly (Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

You are welcome to come back in on any of those points before I bring in Senator Higgins.

Mr. David Rossiter:

To add to that, there is some precedent internationally for how governments take decisions based on achieving SDGs that can increase that awareness. This is why at the coalition we have been talking about the future generations' commissioner. For example, in Wales, when an Act was implemented to create this role, the person appointed was able to offer some policy analysis around a new road that was due to be built. The future generations' commissioner was able to say that in order to achieve the SDGs and prioritise future generations there was a need to divert that spending into other transport and active travel measures. They were able to promote a new metro public transport system for the south Wales area. The Welsh public was then able to very clearly see their Government had taken a decision in order to achieve the SDGs. That is something we can try to emulate. Deputy Marc Ó Cathasaigh also has a Bill on this issue.

Pauline O'Reilly (Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Yes, he does. I am a big fan of the future generations' commissioner. I will Deputy Leddin come back to his seat.

Brian Leddin (Limerick City, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank Senator O'Reilly for stepping in for me.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will pick up on one of the places where the discussion had left off. The discussion was about the small things making it visible. Sometimes, the very big things are what make it easier to communicate the many small changes. If the SDGs are downstream people may feel that it is all on them. Mention was made of the very good example from Wales making quite a different decision and naming this as part of the reason, naming future generations which links back to that commissioner being established with a vision for a more equal and sustainable future. Some of those big decision pieces can be something that gives heart and strength to those who are making the case at a local level.

I thought a comment from Social Justice Ireland was very interesting. Both Chambers Ireland and Social Justice Ireland spoke about the importance of naming this in the budget and making it be visible. One way that Social Justice Ireland set it out was that it has mapped the SDGs onto the well-being indicators, which are meant to be in the budget.

My concern with the well-being indicators has to do with constantly attaching new grids. I was involved in the previous pressure to have gender- and equality-proofing of our budgets. Following that proofing, wellness indicators were included. An advantage of trying to map those onto the SDGs is that it starts a conversation across various countries and we can see how some of the elements in our wellness indicators that are also in the SDGs are being dealt with elsewhere. The witnesses might comment on this.

I would also like to hear their comments on the future commissioner, for example, and the importance of not only puncturing the complacency around the SDGs and the sense that we will get there eventually and they are a nice add-on, but of naming when we are working against the SDGs and making decisions that take us backwards. There are two clear examples of this. One of Social Justice Ireland’s recommendations for the budget was a universal social welfare pension. What we instead saw was an increase in the private pension tax relief. From a gender equality perspective, that relief has been shown to predominantly benefit men in higher income brackets, so it is a step backwards under the income and wealth well-being indicator.

Another serious concern is the fact that one of the areas where we score the lowest is in affordable and clean energy. A worrying provision in the planning Bill relates to the potential introduction of liquefied natural gas as named strategic infrastructure, thereby facilitating its access to an accelerated planning process. I believe we are already in the bottom five when it comes to clean energy, so how further back would a decision like that push us?

Each of us could pick a hundred policies, but these two are examples of where we can not only have a robust conversation that gets attention and wherein the Government takes a leap forward, but where decisions that take us backwards can be challenged. LNG also has implications from a fair seas perspective, given the onshore and offshore components of such terminals.

I will leave it there. I have another question on the international side that I might ask in a minute. Do the witnesses have comments on these matters?

Ms Michelle Murphy:

We have been producing this index for a number of years. The SDGs are not permeating the consciousness at all, so we have been trying to find a way of progressing that slightly. We looked at the well-being framework because it is one of those areas that the Government reports on every year and, like social impact assessments, is meant to be a part of the budgetary process. One hopes that, in the long run, we will see an SDG impact assessment along the lines of what the Senator mentioned. It would bring us to the point of making SDGs applicable to people’s lives. The dimensions are: subjective well-being mental and physical health; knowledge and skills; housing and local area; safety and security; work and job quality; community; social connections; and so on. These are matters to which people can relate, so it is a question of trying to make the SDGs more relatable while also trying to progress them in terms of seeing improved outcomes. Of course, the new Government will have different priorities, but we ultimately want to see progress on all of the goals.

The Senator mentioned some matters that would see us negating progress, for example, the pension relief. The budget also contained a universal energy credit. It does not progress the reduction of energy poverty. Where the allocation of resources is concerned, different decisions could be made around affordable and clean energy. Energy poverty is one of the indicators measured, as are emissions from our energy system, so we have a long road to go.

An SDG impact assessment could be implemented.

The CSO is doing work on ecosystem accounting, which is another way of natural capital accounting. It looks at what that adds to the economy overall but also what leads to reductions in quality in our ecosystems such as reduced biodiversity and reduced air and water quality. Those are seen as a cost to the State and should be accounted for as a cost. Ecosystems accounts becoming part of economic and fiscal reporting is one way to measure it. We have a long way to go but trying to link it to the well-being framework was a means for us to make it applicable to people so one can tell them this is going to improve their housing and the built environment around them. It makes it easier particularly for councillors and county councils to engage on this because it is the councils that have to produce mitigation plans for local areas and communities. They will be responsible for progressing a lot of these measures, whereas the budget line for a lot of them comes from central government. To Mr. Talbot's point, there is the disconnect between resourcing and knowledge.

Ms Karen Ciesielski:

I thank Senator Higgins. Something that struck me when the Senator spoke about the potential introduction of LNG as part of the planning Bill was a lack of policy coherence. Sustainable development goals present a useful lens, particularly when we ask ourselves how this Bill, enacted today, will affect the lives of future generations to come far behind us. If it does not enhance the life, well-being or health of our planet, the answer must be "No". When looking at the enactment of policies across the spectrum, the sustainable development goals ensure that legislation and policies are rooted in sustainability and operating within planetary boundaries. Those are self-fulfilling prophecies when policymaking. The planning Bill is an excellent example of that because it also looks to limit the rights of the public to engage properly and authentically and with capacity and timeframes. Those are fundamental to creating a healthy society now and a healthy planet tomorrow. The MPA Bill is also a once-in-a-generation opportunity to get it right. At the moment, just over 9% of our marine is protected. That Bill provides the scope and opportunity to map out a future roadmap of how to sustainably protect our seas in the long term, with 10% of that area strictly protected and a prohibition on extraction or damage to it. Senator O'Reilly spoke about small or micro examples of real conflicts or differences of opinion played out things like cycle lanes. We see them at a much bigger scale concerning wind farms and new developments. It is the importance of social dialogue and constructive engagement with stakeholders. That goes back to public participation.

Mr. Johnny Sheehan:

This framework and that framework can be overwhelming but it is critical, from working with communities at a local level, that they can relate to them. There can be a headline and everybody could repeat the sustainable development goals or the UN framework covering these areas and so on but you need to bring it back to people's lives. Ms Murphy and Ms Ciesielski both mentioned public participation networks. Local economic and community plans impact people's lives at a local level.

If those plans are talking about the sustainable development goals, then people will be able to see they are actually relevant to their lives. One thing we can see in respect of the goals and targets is that people can go "Oh, yeah". I work in The Wheel, for example, and the missions of all our member organisations link to one or more of the goals. When we look at the targets within the goals, however, it is often the case that the connection might not be made with what is being done on the ground. The connection might be made to the goal, but something is lost in respect of what the targets and indicators do.

If there can be investment in ensuring that all the local authorities go beyond saying they are committed to the SDGs in their local economic and community plans and actually demonstrate it and reinforce the link to them, that would be critical for engaging groups in this regard. Equally, it is important because members of the public will pause and realise there is no coherence between this plan for building a road, extracting and using natural gas or whatever it might be and what they want to see in terms of having a sustainable environment, economy and society. It is, therefore, extremely important to link the goals back to what is happening on the ground at a local level.

Mr. Ian Talbot:

I thank the Senator. I keep merging the two things together, the big things and the small things and being able to talk about things against the background of the SDGs. It is just very difficult. Carbon tax causes a stir every time there is talk about increasing it. Returning to the point made by Ms Ciesielski about policy coherence and people seeing the long-term vision, going back to a different aspect of the budget, we deal with the budget step by step and year by year. I know there is a plan for the carbon tax that extends out for a few years but nobody is focused on it or talks about it. Every year, there is a budget announcement and we are all wondering if that is what was agreed and what the plan said three years ago about what we were going to do in 2025. The carbon tax is difficult. Stand-alone housing is another difficult issue. We are still signing off on and continuing to build stand-alone houses but these cause all sorts of issues in terms of the grid, water services, etc.

Returning the thoughts expressed by Senator Pauline O'Reilly about things like advertising, for people doing big stuff like putting advertising campaigns together and so on, they do not really feel the SDGs will resonate, even if they did think about it. They would say they will not resonate because people do not understand what they are. There is no point talking in isolation about the clean energy goal if people do not understand the whole context.

Going back to renewable energy and LNG, this is all about policy coherence. From a business perspective, we are looking at the energy transition and asking how we can get from where we are, burning lots of fossil fuels, to where we think we can get to with the amount of renewable energy. As we are not, however, getting there on the renewable energy side, how are we going to ensure we will be able to do the things we need to do to just keep ordinary employment going for 2.75 million people? We have had complications here as well because we have had a growing workforce, which is great. We have never had so many people in work, but in its own way this is also creating emissions. Our population is growing too. There are a lot of factors here. I do not think we are focused enough on the endgame, on where we need to get to and on bringing people along.

Regarding energy, for example, I guess, ultimately, we need lots of renewable energy, interconnectors and the improved grid. Every time we try to do any of those things, however, there is just a huge amount of pushback from communities. It is about how we engage with those communities and get them to understand the greater good. It is very difficult is my summary. I think we are all sympathetic to everyone else's perspective, but our sense overall is that we are not moving quickly enough on the stuff we can do to make a difference.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

While we focused a great deal on communities and how we can get them to do more, I believe it is about the big actors and being willing to ask the corporates and big capital to do things differently as well.

There is an idea that it makes it easier to talk about how we want to put in green energy and wind energy if we do not also see a massive data centre or a big terminal for fracked gas, which we never had before, introduced on one side. Then, it is as if the SDGs are just a colourful piece on which we are telling communities to do better. When it comes to large-scale financial decision-making, the mandate of a lot of corporations is to make as much as they can, and some of these international companies are not necessarily tied into the Irish projects. Our responsibility as legislators and at a national level is to make clearer, stronger decisions that give a weighting to the importance of things like the fact we are in the worst list on clean and affordable energy, which should be treated as a national problem we are stepping up on and on which we should not be taking backward steps.

I have another question, and I will go very local and very international - we are going small and big all the time. SDG 11 is one on which we are actually doing okay according to the indicators, but there is a note on sustainable cities and communities. As I said, the work Chambers Ireland has been doing on place-based decision-making is really good. It is place based because we are in our local towns and communities, but we are also on a planet. They are both places and they are both real. The SDGs are a lot more real than the short-term economic logic that sometimes prevails. It is that joined up thinking at local level.

The point has been made by some of the other speakers that many of the indicators for SDG 11 are almost geared towards developing cities at a very basic level. The asks are quite low in terms of the targets and indicators in that regard. Places like Denmark have sought more ambitious asks under SDG 11 for sustainable cities and communities. Should we not be challenging ourselves to do more as a country with different resources? The baseline internationally on cities is so low that we are getting there. However, I am really interested to hear from Chambers Ireland, because it is so connected in, on what a couple of the more ambitious step-ups on the goals and targets for SDG 11 look like from its perspective.

The second part is on the international side because this is a global picture and, again, it is place based. We are on a planet and we share it. What was radical about the SDGs was that they were universal. What could we be doing differently in terms of policy coherence to ensure we are supporting rather than hindering others around the world in achieving the sustainable development goals? It is meant to be a global piece. One of the great things is that it allows local-to-local conversations like a conversation between Madrid, Dublin and Lagos. These are local-to-local conversations that can happen using the SDGs as a common reference point. The witnesses might also comment on that local-to-local piece internationally.

In terms of doing our piece, and specifically on our delivery of official development assistance, ODA, and climate finance, which is one of the goals. As I understand it, Ireland is committing to going to €225 million on climate finance, but over €400 million would be our fair share under the commitments in the SDGs, under which a global figure of €100 billion is meant to be delivered by developed countries. The witnesses might comment on those two aspect especially, and any other aspect of how our policy coherence nationally can help the global delivery of SDGs. We have a special responsibility as one of the two countries that chaired the negotiations and helped to deliver the global SDG platform at the UN. I will go to Mr. Talbot first.

Mr. Ian Talbot:

I thank the Senator very much. That is a broad range of questions. On the sustainable towns and cities, we were asking themselves this all the time. Much of it comes down to things like how there is the big picture, and then there is the policy to get us there and how long it takes. All of our chambers talk a lot about public transport.

We talk about a donut effect in cities and towns which we are very worried about and we are getting nowhere with things like living above the shop and city and town-centre living. Some of these measures sound ordinary. We had our 100th anniversary last year. Some of our chambers go back to the 1700s. We turned 100 last year post-Independence as Chambers Ireland. We looked at the agenda for the first meeting in 1923. They talked about education, public transport, shipping routes, tariffs and the price of petrol. We are talking about the same things 100 years later, albeit at a different level.

In Copenhagen in Denmark, they have the 15 or 20 minute city concept, which means everything is within that range. That includes services, schools, education systems and so on. We are not necessarily starting from the best place. We are where we are. However, continued investment into public transport and into making our towns and cities liveable places will help. These measures will also help the restaurant trade, for example. If people are leaving the cities and town centres to go to the suburbs every night, they are not in town to eat in town-centre restaurants. Those are the reasons we continue to call for investment and infrastructure to help make towns and cities more sustainable.

Water is of course another issue. There are towns around the country that cannot develop anymore housing in or outside the town centre as there is no water or sewerage infrastructure available. We stopped investing for many years - we may not have been great to start with - and we have a growing population. We have a lot of challenges coming at the same time.

Briefly, on our international connection, I mentioned our global colleagues, the International Chamber of Commerce. It has observer status at the UN and does a considerable amount of work. I was smiling thinking about it, as the Senator spoke. An awful lot of the work that we do in Ireland and that other countries also do is contributing to help developing countries. The ICC has over 100 member countries. Much of the work we do is based on trying to share the successes we have had with those countries to help bring them along. Countries such as India, which has a population of 1.2 billion, are trying to grow their economies. They question why they have to go straight to renewable energy when we built our economies on fossil fuel. There are difficult messages out there. From a business perspective, there are regular global meetings through the ICC. Zoom and Microsoft Teams are great for bringing people together. There can be 90 countries on a call hearing what is working well in other places and what is not working. We are trying to do that within the business community. Employers talk about these things with their employees. We have a target market of 2.75 million people in Ireland to hear about it through employees. We get that too.

Mr. David Rossiter:

I wish to thank the Senator for some of the points she has raised, particularly on the justice side of things. On the question around supporting rather than hindering others, there are a couple of issues the coalition has previously talked about, in particular policy coherence regarding tax. We know that when multinationals shift profits from the developing world to other countries, it means those developing countries do not have that tax to spend on building their infrastructure. Ireland could look at how to build out that coherent policy to ensure developing countries get their fair share of tax. Some of the members of Coalition 2030 have talked a lot about that.

We as a country can support others through fossil fuel phase-out. Linking back to a previous point around LNG, there is an international move for a treaty that would phase out fossil fuels in the same way that we look at nuclear weapons. The Irish Government could look to endorse a treaty similar to that. This is something that small island nations have already called for. COP is a particular treaty. Our Government has prioritised working closely with some of those countries. Our colleagues in Action Aid who are also part of the coalition have raised the issue of subsidies for fossil fuels and private finance and subsidies. In the most recent report, research found that in the seven years since the Paris Agreement was signed, banks in the global north have provided $3.2 trillion to fossil fuel activities in the global south.

The fossil fuel sector has received an annual average of €438.6 billion in publicly-financed subsidies between 2016 and 2023 so it has certainly done a lot of research on how we in Ireland and the developed world can try to make it a more even playing field to help developing countries also achieve some of the indicators set out in the SDGs.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is quite shocking when we look at the failure to deliver on-----

Mr. David Rossiter:

Every year.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We are literally throwing fuel on the fire, or money on the fuel on the fire.

Ms Michelle Murphy:

I thank Senator Higgins for her comments. I agree with the Senator entirely on a couple of points, such as the need for structural change. It cannot all be little individual pieces. It needs to come from every sector as well. One way to support structural change in the long-term, I have mentioned is the eco-system accounting. If we embed that and start to charge companies for the eco-system services provided by our biodiversity, it would certainly have an impact on activity.

With regard to the ODA, we need to be getting to 0.7% GNI* and we certainly have a road to go. I refer to how we report on that and how we link climate finance to that where we should actually be reporting that completely separately so that we have a clear picture of what we are allocating to overseas development assistance and what we are actually allocating to private finance. The sum of €225 million, while welcome, is still substantially less than €400 million. As the Senator said, as one of the two supporting negotiating countries of the SDGs, we should be taking a lead role here. We have a strong tradition of taking a lead role in the ODA. A commitment to get to 0.7% GNI* in the next two to three years would be really important.

Another area when looking at developing countries is the amount of debt they carry and what we can do globally. How can we expect these countries to take on infrastructure projects and invest in mitigation measures and renewables when the level of debt they already carry is crippling? Often, these countries are paying more in servicing that debt than they are investing in their own services and infrastructure. That is an element that we should be progressing at EU level. I really think we should be seeing progress on that.

These countries face challenges in accessing markets because of the measures put in place. There are more protected measures for more developed countries. As Mr. Talbot said, these countries are trying to develop their economies and ask why they are not allowed to develop in the same way as other countries. The debt forgiveness element could really play an important part there.

Brian Leddin (Limerick City, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We only have a few minutes left but I want to pick up on the discussion around sustainable cities and communities. One of the more significant pieces of work that the Government is doing at present relates to sustainable cities and communities, which is the national planning framework review. I do not know if any of our guests want to comment on this but it seems that it does not get the prominence in these kinds of discussions. Ultimately, this will decide how our urban centres develop, what kind of resource intensity goes with that development and how transport patterns are modified and the energy associated with that.

Mr. Talbot referenced the difficulty with stand-alone housing. It seems that with the national planning framework review, it is not where we need it to be. What disappoints me is that we talk about some issues that are very obvious from an environmental point of view but not perhaps issues that are having more of an impact. Do any of our guests wish to talk about this?

Do they have positions? Have they made submissions to the review process and where would they like to see it going?

Mr. Ian Talbot:

We made a submission, but I have not looked at it for a few weeks so I cannot remember everything that was in it. The Deputy can look it up.

I mentioned such things as stand-alone housing as an area that can get difficult. Different communities have different views. The farming community has a clear view on stand-alone housing as well. However, every additional stand-alone house contributes to the complexity of building out energy grids and so forth.

I am trying to remember what we said about the national planning framework. More urgency is needed. There is a strong element of us needing to get something done, more than we are doing. If we get some stuff done, we can build on it. However, at the moment we are not getting enough things over the line quickly enough. It is worrying. I am not having a dig at Irish Rail; far from it. I am a commuter who lives in Malahide. We tried to make some changes to the rail line, but the project has fallen apart and we have to revert to the old way, which is very worrying. It was great to see changes being made to try to bring more frequent services, but even on the best bit of railway we have, we struggled to bring in that frequency. What we need to do to fix that is not clear. There was some talk of building four lines to Howth Junction or Balbriggan and that might solve it, but we should have a clearer view.

Brian Leddin (Limerick City, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Irish Rail is not here to answer that, but in fairness to it, it has probably been starved of investment going back decades, if not generations. It has probably been five or six decades. It is at the point now where it is being blamed for the lack of a fourth track on the northern line and for it not being possible to provide the services. People suffer, give up and turn to commuting by car and more energy and carbon intensive modes of transport. It is interesting purely from a sustainability point of view that it is something that does not get headlines, but is hugely important. I am concerned that not enough noise is being made.

We are setting a path. There will be approximately 1 million more people in the country by 2040 compared to now and we do not have a good plan for where they will live. We have a plan; it is just not a good one. The plan is that they will live in low-density, suburban settlements, dispersed settlements and ribbon developments. That is what the national planning framework sets out at the moment and the knock-on consequence of that is severe from the point of view of resource use and carbon, not to mention all the other knock-on impacts, which are serious, such as social deprivation, health and many other things. Others may want to contribute on this matter.

Mr. Ian Talbot:

To clarify, on the point about Irish Rail, I think I said - I certainly meant to, if I did not - that I thought it was great that it had a go at increasing capacity and it was most unfortunate that it has to reverse it. I hope the company will try again. That is our best bit of rail infrastructure and it was just a huge challenge to get any more capacity onto it. These are the things we really need to make progress on. That is where we have a line in place already. In the places we do not have any public transport other than buses, and in many cases we do not even have those, it is critical for the future of sustainable cities and for people's quality of life.

Ms Michelle Murphy:

The Cathaoirleach made a good point that policy coherence and the national planning framework will bring us forward. He is right that it does not get the prominence it probably should. We should all be discussing it because it will determine matters. As he said, there will be 1 million more people here. Our population is growing, but it is also ageing, so we need to think about how people will get from A to B, what kind of transport they will use, how they will access services, how we will deliver the services and how we will promote the town centre and village centre living and over-the-shop living, which, as Mr. Kiernan pointed out, we should be doing to revitalise town centres and make things more accessible.

We also need to be making things more accessible, particularly for people as they age. There is a huge regional element to this. When one looks at the north west, for example, connectivity is non-existent. People have to use their cars. If we are trying to reduce our emissions, get people out of cars and promote electric vehicles, then we have to look at how we connect the regions to Dublin in order to support people to get out of their cars, come to capital and engage in all of their other business. At the moment, in the north west in particular, there has been a lot of discussion around the A5 and it is really good to see some progress on that but we are seeing increased capacity on the road network because the connectivity piece is not there. It is the national planning framework that will, hopefully, deliver that and look at how we do it and how we resource those kinds of things.

It is also important to align the national planning framework with the county development plans. The latter involve significant public consultation but how are they going to align with the national planning framework? How do we, within that, pocket those areas of deprivation that the most recently published Pobal index shows, once again, are still highly concentrated in particular areas? What do we do to address that? It is hugely important and we need to be putting the resources in there. We need to look at the projections that we have for population and align services and infrastructure across transport, water, sewerage, housing and so on. We need to consider all of the different infrastructure we are going to need and how we are going to deliver it to the population across a ten, 20 and 30 year timeframe.

Ms Karen Ciesielski:

The national planning framework, underpinned by a healthy environment and healthy ecosystem, is at the heart of everything. We will not have a functioning economy and will not be able to deliver public services or plan effectively for a growing and ageing population unless we ensure that we are protecting the environment but as the EPA's state of the environment report demonstrated last week, we are not doing a good job of that right now. Our environment, water, rivers and air are under huge pressure. When we look forward to the next 20 or 40 years, we need to ensure that we are protecting healthy rivers, addressing biodiversity loss and reducing air pollution before we do anything else or, at least, as we do other things. Sometimes it seems that the environment suffers when we try to do things too quickly.

Brian Leddin (Limerick City, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Thank you for that. It is past 2 p.m. so that is all we have time for. I thank our guests for coming here today. We really appreciate their time and expertise. The discussions we have had today are part of what has become an annual event. We have set a strong precedent at this committee that we will have an annual discussion on progress on the sustainable development goals. It is something that our guests and those of us on the political side of the room should always be gearing up for in advance of it happening. Again, I thank everyone for being here today.