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

The purpose of this morning's meeting is to have a discussion in advance of COP29. Before the recess the Minister, Deputy Eamon Ryan, attended at this committee to give his outlook ahead of this very important conference of the parties in Azerbaijan. On behalf of the committee I welcome Ms Siobhan Curran, head of policy and advocacy, Trócaire; and Mr. Ross Fitzpatrick, policy and advocacy officer, Christian Aid. They are very welcome.

Before we begin I will read a note on privilege. I 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. It is imperative that they comply with any such direction.

Members of the committee are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. I remind members that they are only allowed to participate in the meeting if they are physically located in the Leinster House complex. I ask members joining us via Microsoft Teams to confirm they are on the grounds of Leinster House prior to making their contribution to the meeting.

I invite Ms Curran to make her opening statement.

Ms Siobhan Curran:

I thank the Chair and members of the committee for the opportunity to present this morning. We know the climate crisis is spiralling out of control and we all saw the scenes in Valencia last week. In the work Trócaire does and in the countries in which we work in southern Africa we have seen countries declare states of disaster due to drought. We continue to see human suffering due to crop failure, food insecurity and the loss of livelihoods. We know the climate crisis is a crisis of inequality.

In Somalia, where Trócaire works, more than 43,000 people lost their lives due to the recent drought across the Horn of Africa which was the worst in 40 years. Half of the 43,000 people who lost their lives were children under five years of age. Somalia has minimal emissions - 0.03% of global emissions - so there is a great injustice here in that richer countries and corporations continuously fail to reduce emissions or to mobilise climate finance on the scale that is needed. This COP is a climate finance COP.

It is a chance to redress the inequality and ensure that climate finance, an obligation of developed countries, flows from north to south. It is a matter of justice and will allow so-called developing countries to develop ambitious climate action plans.

I will speak specifically to the issue of loss and damage while Mr. Fitzpatrick will speak to the broader climate finance goal. The losses and damages caused by climate finance are pushing countries into unsustainable debt and diverting public finances from development needs. Members will remember that, after decades of struggle, a new loss and damage fund was operationalised at COP28 last year. This was a milestone. The first financial pledges were announced, with $702 million pledged to the loss and damage fund. However, this covered less than 0.2% of what was needed. With Christian Aid Ireland, we conducted research that found that Ireland’s fair share of loss and damage finance was projected to be at least €1.5 billion per year by 2030. Ireland pledged €25 million last year at COP for loss and damage, representing less than 1% of our fair share. Given the global picture, the milestone that was the loss and damage fund will be meaningless if it is an empty fund. It needs to be filled. Otherwise, developing countries will be let down again. We need a clear commitment to scale up new public finance for loss and damage.

A critical issue at COP will be the inclusion of loss and damage as a subgoal of the overall new climate finance goal, as no money has yet flowed to the loss and damage fund under the UNFCCC and there has historically been an imbalance between mitigation and adaptation finance. There should be a subgoal of identifying a floor of $400 billion for loss and damage out of an overall climate finance goal of at least $1 trillion. We can discuss the figures further if members have questions about them. This point can seem very technical, but it is crucial. One of the main problems in climate finance is the lack of transparency and accountability. This is an accountability measure, but it also consolidates loss and damage as the third pillar of climate finance that it should be. We call on Ireland to progress these matters at COP. We are also looking for a commitment from the next Government to scale up Ireland’s loss and damage finance.

The figures can seem quite large. We are talking about going from millions to billions in Ireland and, globally, to trillions. This is very possible, though. It is a question of looking at new sources of climate finance. For example, oil and gas companies have taken an average of $2.8 billion per day in profits since 1970. There are widespread calls for windfall taxes on oil and gas companies, including by the UN Secretary General, who has called for the “immoral” soaring profits of oil and gas companies to be taxed and argues that “grotesque greed” is punishing the poorest and most vulnerable people while destroying our only common home. We call on Ireland to advocate at COP29 for windfall taxes and, thereafter, to engage in initiatives to mobilise new sources of public finance that we need for climate finance. The most marginalised and poorest are facing the worst impacts of the crisis and being left to pick up the pieces with no support. We are looking at this COP for Ireland to ensure that climate action is centred on justice and equity.

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

I thank Ms Curran for her opening statement. I now call Mr. Fitzpatrick.

Mr. Ross Fitzpatrick:

I thank the committee for the invitation to speak today. As an international aid and development organisation, we see the impact that climate change is having around the world. It is a profoundly unequal process. Many of the world’s poorest communities are facing increasingly extreme climate disasters despite having minimal responsibility for causing the crisis and the least resources to adapt.

In the interests of time, I wish to focus on the issue of climate finance and, more specifically, the new global climate finance goal - the so-called new collective quantified goal, NCQG - that is expected to be agreed by countries at COP29.

At COP15 in 2009, wealthy countries pledged to provide $100 billion per year in financial support to developing countries for climate action by 2020. The underlying rationale here was that wealthy, high-polluting countries in the global north are largely responsible for causing the climate crisis and should therefore take the lead in providing the finance needed to address it. However, the $100 billion goal was fundamentally flawed in a number of key respects. First, it was a top down, wholly political figure, not based on any scientific assessment of need and therefore only a drop in the ocean compared with the actual scale of needs in developing countries. Second, the goal was poorly defined, with little clarity on what types of funding actually counted towards the target. As a result, the overwhelming majority of finance has been provided in the form of loans, only adding to existing debt burdens in developing countries.

Wealthy countries ultimately failed to meet this relatively meagre target by the 2020 deadline. Despite data from the OECD showing that the target was finally met two years late, in 2022, colleagues from Oxfam have estimated that only around $28 billion to $35 billion of that was actually in public climate finance. Therefore, the negotiation of a new global finance goal at COP29 that will ultimately replace the $100 billion target is a crucial opportunity to get this right and restore the trust in the process. The new unifying target ought to provide financial support for all three facets of climate action: emissions reductions; building resilience; and reacting when disaster strikes.

I wish to briefly set out some of the core political questions regarding the NCQG that still remain live ahead of COP29. First, the new finance goal must be based on the needs of developing countries. The most recent review by the UN's Standing Committee on Finance estimates that around $5 trillion to $6 trillion is needed by developing countries out to 2030. Alongside our civil society partners, we are calling for an NCQG that reflects the scale of needs in developing countries, with a strong focus on the provision of public climate finance and sub-targets for mitigation, adaptation and loss and damage. While the scale of finance required is significant, it is important to remember that governments spent $7 trillion on subsidies for the fossil fuel industry in 2022 alone. Similarly, it also underscores the need for bold, ambitious economic measures to raise new revenue, many of which have been discussed in this committee before. This is set out in further research from ourselves, Trócaire, Oxfam and others, and includes proposals for fairer taxation of extreme wealth, taxation on fossil fuel production, as well as new international levies on aviation and shipping.

Second, the NCQG must be provided largely in the form of new and additional grant-based finance. A key weakness of the $100 billion goal was the lack of transparency around reporting on climate finance contributions. As a result, many wealthy countries, including Ireland, have significantly double counted or relabelled existing finance flows to developing countries, such as official development assistance, ODA, as climate finance commitments. The NCQG must ensure that climate finance is new and additional to existing development funding and does not detract from already limited ODA budgets, leaving the world’s poorest to choose between existing development needs, like schools and hospitals, or adaptation measures, like flood defences.

Third, wealthier developed countries, including Ireland, must take the lead in providing the bulk of the finance under the new goal in line with principles of historical responsibility and equity. Under the UNFCCC, countries defined as developed, such as the US, Japan and Ireland, have obligations to provide climate finance. However, many wealthy countries contend that the new finance goal can only be agreed on if additional obligations are placed on countries currently defined as developing but whose economies have grown.

While these are legitimate questions, renegotiating criteria for contribution to climate funding raises complex questions of historic responsibility. There is also a huge lack of trust from developing countries that these questions are being raised as a means of avoiding responsibility, particularly given the lack of delivery on targets to date. The countries we work in, and communities waiting on financial support, simply do not have the time to wait. Under any new goal, the wealthiest, historically highest-emitting states will still need to step up and provide the bulk of climate finance support. Rather than risk delaying the negotiations at COP29, we urge Ireland and the EU to focus on meeting their own unfulfilled obligations and to lead by example.

The new climate finance goal could be an historic step towards addressing the injustice at the heart of the climate crisis. However, in order for that to happen, wealthy countries, including Ireland, need to take the lead in playing a constructive role during the negotiations in Baku.

Ireland played a crucial role as the lead negotiator for the EU in brokering the political breakthrough on the loss and damage fund at COP27. Last year, the Minister, Deputy Ryan, effectively negotiated on behalf of the EU during the finance talks. Ireland can play a similarly important role at COP29 and use its voice within the EU negotiating bloc to push for an outcome on the NCQG that is both ambitious and based on the key climate justice principles I have just outlined. The Minister has emphasised the need for a political breakthrough on climate finance at COP29. We very much agree with his assessment that Ireland’s position can be a bridging position between the global north and the global south.

Beyond playing a constructive role in Baku, and I will conclude with this, the most important thing Ireland can do immediately is to step up and provide our fair share of the existing global target, which we along with our colleagues from Trócaire have calculated at approximately €500 million per year. As Ireland’s annual climate finance reports have shown, our contributions have steadily risen over the past few years, but we are still providing far less than our fair share of the existing global target, which is due to be revised significantly upwards in less a month’s time. As such, the green line representing a fair share on the graph should be considered the absolute floor of our ambition, and something that should be delivered now rather than pushed out to 2025. We recognise that the scale of finance required, both at a global level and for Ireland specifically, is very significant. However, it is important to remember that this is ultimately a reflection of the seriousness of the situation we find ourselves in.

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

I thank Mr. Fitzpatrick for his opening statement. I will go to members now to ask questions. Would Deputy Murphy like to go first?

Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, RISE)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Yes. I thank the witnesses for their presentations and their work. I also mention the presence of representatives from Friends of the Earth, who similarly have obviously been doing a lot of work on this. They have not been invited due to an oversight which we attempted to resolve earlier but were unable to due to various rules about privilege. Hopefully we will not make that mistake in the future if we are all back and re-elected to this committee.

I will start with a question which is partly an assessment of COP28 and then look forward to COP29. Obviously, there were positives in COP28 - for example, in some of the language around pointing towards a phase-down of fossil fuels in energy systems - but I felt that some of that analysis was overblown and greenwashed. When you get into the meat of it in Article 28, there is stuff about unabated coal power as opposed to even just coal, never mind the rest of the fossil fuels, and there are references to technologies. All of this points to something substantially less than what the science indicates we need, which is a rapid phase-out of all fossil fuels, We should not rely on the magic of future technology, which allows us to put off the radical changes we need now. How do the witnesses feel things are shaping up in terms of COP29? Friends of the Earth has pointed out that the Presidency's action agenda does not include any mention of phasing out coal, oil and gas, which is obviously worrying. How do they see the prospects of getting substantially stronger language into the final outcome?

Ms Siobhan Curran:

We share the Deputy's assessment of COP28. It was interesting to see earlier versions of the text that referred to a just and equitable phase-out and then the language being eroded and eroded and included unabated technologies as well. This COP will be no different. We are not following the process as closely as Friends of the Earth but it is a constant battle and we can see that short-term politics is taking precedence over the climate action we need. Very linked to that is the need to unlock the finance debate. Last year, COP nearly fell because of adaptation and developing countries again feeling that they are not being listened to regarding the finance that is needed for overall mitigation and their overall climate plans. Therefore, the point for this COP as well will be seeing the interlinkages between the two and the fact that we will not be able to move forward on our climate targets unless the finance is provided.

Mr. Ross Fitzpatrick:

I can add briefly to that. It will be very difficult this year to achieve any progress on fossil fuel phase-out in addition to what we saw last year and that is primarily due to the fact that as this has been billed the finance COP, all of the negotiations and political attention will be on the NCQG. Having said that, it is worth pointing out that the single biggest delegation at COP28, after the UAE and the United States, was the fossil fuel lobby and this has been the case for the last few COPs.

It is important that Ireland should at the very least reject the inclusion of industry lobbyists at this COP and at future COPs. We must lend our support to the need for increased ambition on fossil fuel phase-out. On there being better language achieved in the decision text relating to fossil fuel phase-out, I think the likelihood is low.

Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, RISE)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Could our guests give their opinions on the idea of a fossil fuel non-proliferation treaty? We are seeing the real structural limitations of the COP process, although that does not mean we should throw it in the bin, particularly as it is global in nature. Effectively, the slowest moving and most powerful countries in the world, which are beholden to fossil fuel interests, are able to stop us doing what we need to do. The idea of those countries that have a greater ambition coming together to drive that in a parallel process would, in turn, have positive reverberations within the COP process.

Mr. Ross Fitzpatrick:

Friends of the Earth are probably better placed to comment on this than we are. Our call is for Ireland to endorse the fossil fuel non-proliferation treaty. There is no treaty text that yet exists, as far as I understand. We are calling for political endorsement of the idea to develop such a treaty. That is a pretty low-bar risk, rather than securing the State's legal entry into any new international agreement. It will take time. It is not going to solve the issue overnight. International treaties take years, sometimes decades, to negotiate. It is something we are looking for Ireland to endorse, at the very least.

Ms Siobhan Curran:

We completely agree. We have seen how globally, multilateral spaces are under such pressure at the moment and COP is no different. It is so important that we get ambitious decision text at COP but we need other tools. We fully support Ireland endorsing the fossil fuel non-proliferation treaty. Ireland played a role before in respect of the treaty to ban cluster munitions. It can play an outsized role sometimes in these global negotiations. It is very clear that if we do not curb fossil fuels we are not going to get to where we need to be. We need binding regulations. There is this idea that somehow fossil fuel industries are going to change their behaviour and practice while they are still raking in profits and while investment is still flowing in completely the wrong direction. That is why with climate finance, looking at the global picture, we are seeing the money going completely the wrong way and climate finance just being ignored year after year. We definitely call on Ireland to endorse the treaty at COP. It is the perfect opportunity to do it. We know the Minister, Deputy Ryan is due to attend a meeting of those who have signed up already to endorse the treaty. He has been invited as an observer. It would be a great opportunity for Ireland to wholeheartedly endorse it.

Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, RISE)
Link to this: Individually | In context

To focus on the climate finance question, what are the obstacles and the forces behind those obstacles to the sort of agreement and ambition that our guests are arguing are necessary? I agree with what they have said.

Mr. Ross Fitzpatrick:

Probably the major obstacle is the debate around the contributor base question. Currently under Article 9 of the Paris Agreement, developed countries have responsibilities and obligations to provide climate finance. Developed countries, including Ireland, are essentially arguing that the global landscape has changed significantly since 1992, when the developed country list under the UNFCCC was agreed, and should be expanded to include economies that have grown and are big fossil fuel producers. In our view, it is still very much the case that countries in the global north are largely responsible for the extraction of fossil fuels in the global south, and the burning of those fossil fuels, and that they are responsible for causing the crisis and therefore still bear the major responsibilities. Many NGOs in the global south see this as a technique to distract from the fact that there are responsibilities that have to be met and have been unfulfilled for decades. Whether or not China or other countries provide climate finance, and in many cases they already do, it does not change the fact that we have obligations which we have not met. We have to meet those obligations.

Ireland should not get drawn into this long tedious debate about whether and which countries should pay into this new goal. We have obligations and we have to pay them first and foremost.

Ms Siobhan Curran:

I would like to add to this. This is something civil society will really focus on at this COP. The debates often get stuck on technocratic arguments. It is very important that we call out that at present the EU's position is that it does not agree to the subgoals of the NCQG. This could seem insignificant but it undermines accountability. The biggest problem with climate finance is there is zero accountability. There is a new report by the ONE campaign which refers to this area as the wild west of reporting. There is no uniformity, the definitions are loose and countries use different criteria to report climate finance. It is becoming meaningless because the whole point was that it would mobilise new money that would be directed to the countries that needed it but this is not happening. Often, climate finance takes away from development finance. The EU's position is not to agree a figure for the new goal or even have discussions on it. It is very difficult to see how developing countries can have trust in this process when it is being blocked at every pass. What is needed is a collective coming together to say we have an historical responsibility, we have broken promises for decades, and now we will chart out new era of climate finance in order that the action we need can be implemented.

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

With regard to the new collective quantified goal, Ireland will have a key role in negotiating and representing the EU position in the discussions. To be clear, among the key obstacles in the EU's position is the unwillingness to declare a goal, although it is called the new collective quantified goal. Subgoals were mentioned. Is it correct there will be subgoals on loss and damage? The witnesses might go into the detail of what we need to have in the subgoals.

Will the witnesses speak about the amounts that will be publicly financed and grant based and speak about why this is very important? The NCQG is being negotiated and the witnesses might indicate where Ireland and Europe are on the idea of it being science based. This should be obvious. There should not solely be a political negotiation on what we can make people do. There should be some joining with the science of what is needed and the actions needed. Is there at least progress on the principle of it being science-based rather than being a purely accounting fantasy exercise? Will the witnesses give us a sense of the European position on these issues and what the witnesses think is needed from this? This is the part that we can try to influence.

I also have questions on some of the wider aspects. Perhaps the witnesses will also touch on how the new collective quantified goal and what we need to do in climate financing are separate from Article 2.1 on how we should reform the finance system in general. Where are Ireland and Europe on this? In many sectors of society big changes are needed, such as with regard to land use. As I understand it, Article 2.1 is about why the financial sector in general needs to change so as to be less damaging to our climate but this is separate from climate finance, which is how we fund what is needed.

Ms Siobhan Curran:

On the subgoals of the NCQG, the three pillars of climate finance should be reflected in this context. These should be mitigation, adaptation and loss and damage. There is no figure yet. If we took €1 trillion as a floor, and it should definitely be a floor, this would be based on an assessment of needs that exists in relation to mitigation finance of €300 billion, adaptation finance of €300 billion and loss and damage finance of €400 billion. We believe the structure of the subgoals should be balanced in this way, with more funds going for loss and damage. Historically, no funding has gone towards the costs of loss and damage.

Within that context, the quality aspect is key. Our big call is, essentially, for public, grant-based finance. This is what we see as the obligation of developed countries. The big problem with climate finance to date is that it has been primarily focused on loans, which creates more debt for countries. A statistic shows that 43% of countries suffering severe debt problems paid more in debt payments to lenders than they received in climate finance between 2019 and 2021. Countries are being saddled with debt and not getting the finance they need. We need to flip the system around in this regard. This point must be very clear. It must be crystal clear in the new goal that this funding will primarily be public, grant-based finance. There will be some concessional loans as part of mitigation.

As Mr. Fitzpatrick said, the big problem with the €100 billion figure was that it was an arbitrary, political one. No one can honestly say they know what the climate impacts are we are going to experience and, therefore, what they are going to cost. We can, however, cost NDCs. We have budgets attached to them. There is also the UNFCCC standing committee on finance that does assessments of need in the various areas. There has not been a loss and damage finance gap report. We strongly advocate for this and we would really like to see a commitment to it emerging from this COP. In the absence of a formal loss and damage gap report, we would work off a figure of a floor of €400 billion, which is the latest data projecting loss and damage costs.

Within that and related to it, the new sources of finance are very important. We do not want states to say the figure has risen dramatically and they are going to focus on private finance. We need to be sourcing and mobilising new sources of public finance. If we look at loss and damage and adaptation finance, these elements need grant-based finance. Profits should not be made from supporting people surviving a drought or from those displaced from their communities.

The last point made by the Senator was crucial in respect of the need to disconnect the obligation to deliver climate finance from Article 2.1(c) around financial flows because they are fundamentally different. Both aspects will, potentially, have major impacts. When we look to Ireland and at our own financial flows, the ActionAid report from last year estimated that €6.2 billion of finance flows through Irish investment managers on its way to the global south to fossil fuels and harmful agribusiness. It is clear that, domestically, we also need to look at these financial flows and how we are regulating, because Ireland has a unique position in respect of the companies resident here.

Mr. Ross Fitzpatrick:

I might comment briefly on the kind of obstacles mentioned regarding the quantum and the fact the EU and Ireland have avoided even mentioning any kind of number at this stage. Many developing nations and NGOs are advocating for at least €1 trillion in public climate finance. One of the major problems with the goal of €100 billion was that there was no discussion of a figure until the very last days of COP15, and then one was plucked out of the air.

I think the political calculus this time around, from certain developed countries, is that the same thing will happen, that there will be no discussion in the lead up to this COP. To note as well, there have been three years of preparatory negotiations on the NCQG to date. Developing countries have tried to discuss a quantum and developed nations have been resolute in their ambition to leave that to the final few days. There is a certain amount of cynicism and Ireland should avoid getting dragged into that.

On the importance of grant-based finance, it is worth noting that Ireland's track record here is really strong. We should use the fact that we provide most of our climate finance in the form of grants as a negotiating tactic and push for that. There are both moral and practical reasons we should provide grant-based finance. On the moral side, it is recognition that the responsibility for causing the climate crisis is a developed-country responsibility. From a practical perspective, it simply does not provide sense to provide climate finance in the form of loans which only add to the indebtedness of the recipient national or local governments and essentially hamper further climate action.

Another important point worth mentioning here is access to climate finance. For years it has been a persistent barrier for many of the local communities we work with in their efforts to fund measures to tackle climate change. At present, I think less than 3% of global climate finance goes to the least developed countries. For many, the issue is not so much the quantum or amount of money agreed in Baku, which is critically important, but ensuring that money is made readily available and can start flowing to where it is needed most quickly.

Ireland provides the majority of its bilateral climate finance to least developed countries. Again, there is a reason there for the Minister, Deputy Ryan, to consistently highlight this at COP29 and push for it. He mentioned in his presentation to this committee that Ireland can play a bridging role between the global north and south. There is a case for him to do that on a number of different issues, including the need for high-quality grant-based finance for subgoals for each of three strands of climate finance and for better access for local communities.

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

On where Ireland can come in, Ireland has committed to €225 million. Mr. Fitzpatrick has made it clear that our share of the €100 billion would be closer to €500 million per annum. Interestingly, when loans come through they are very much attached to very strict conditionality to debt repayment. I refer to the pledges and promises that have been made by developed countries such as the €100 billion. Bear in mind we are meant to have been paying our share of the €100 billion for years yet we are still talking about maybe paying 50% of our annual share next year. The Loss and Damage Fund is still a very small fund, if you want to look at something that has a relationship of debt.

It is interesting that Mr. Fitzpatrick says there is this narrative to try to bring in other countries that have become wealthier but a failure to acknowledge the historical debt piece. As I understand it, in some cases, the debt developing countries are paying back dates from the colonial period. We are not acknowledging the impact of colonialism in terms of the creation of the inequalities that we have now and yet colonial debt is, in some cases, still being paid back by developing counties. Will the witnesses comment on the debt piece?

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

Sorry, Senator, but I want to give Deputy O'Rourke a chance to comment. The Senator has had a lot of time.

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

I will quickly mention two things and then I will wait for a third round.

The danger of money going the wrong way has been mentioned, that is, the danger of money going to fossil fuels companies and others that have created the crisis. They have got these huge subsidies, as mentioned, of many trillions of euro and yet it seems that a lot of new climate finance is, potentially, being routed to the same companies that are the mega polluters in order to de-risk their transition despite their massive profits. Will the witnesses comment on that de-risking piece and the loss and damage piece?

Another good example from Ireland is that Ireland's aid - I know this is not aid but climate finance - has traditionally been untied.

There is a danger of new sources of finance, either public or private, coming with tied conditionalities. In particular, I am thinking of things around access to minerals or resources or land grabs. It is important we do not see a new colonialism attached to some of the finance that comes through.

Ms Siobhan Curran:

The wider context for public finance is a strong campaign by wider civil society to reform the international financial institutions, IFIs, and also to look at debt cancellation. These are parallel campaigns but completely related. On the one hand we are looking at a figure that for decades has not been delivered and is amounting in paltry benefits for developing countries. That obviously needs to be fixed. That is the purpose of the next COP and accountability there. There are also systemic changes that need to be forged out and debt cancellation is one of those.

The statistics between the debt experienced and the amount of climate finance countries are receiving are very stark. In respect of new climate finance and going to private providers and de-risking, I do not have detail of that but it relates to a parallel discussion on corporate accountability and the complete impunity for corporations with respect to human rights, climate and the environment. The parallel process of the UN treaty to regulate transnational corporations, which is approaching its tenth session this year, is very important. We need to connect the COP climate discussions with the parallel UN treaty discussions.

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

Is Trócaire Ireland looking for a levy on corporations as part of the new forms of financing and that there is a tax on the fossil fuel industry?

Ms Siobhan Curran:

That is one option we think should be progressed. There is a whole host of options, such as a levy on profits of corporations, as well as aviation levies and shipping levies. There is a whole host of potential policy options here and some can progress domestically while others are part of EU and international discussions. It is important to advocate at COP for these sources to be based on polluter pays but beyond that for the next Government to grapple with the question of where Ireland is going to source these new sources of climate finance and do a significant investigation into it. The conversation is not going beyond the fact that we need new sources. From our perspective, corporate taxes and taxes on fossil fuel profits seem like a very obvious area to start. The Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive, which will be transposed by Ireland by July 2026, should also have a climate element to it. There are a number of ways in which we can address this. Mr. Fitzpatrick may wish to add to that.

Mr. Ross Fitzpatrick:

I will add briefly to the point the Senator raised about the debt that is owed to developing countries and any acknowledgement around that at the COP process. It is fair to say there has been a very concerted effort among wealthy countries to shift the blame or pass the buck, and this is the root of the contributor-based question. Rather than acknowledge the fact that there have been decades of unmet obligations delivered to developing countries, wealthy countries are asking why this country or that country is not paying, stating that they need to be included in this new, expanded list. I did not mention it earlier but it is worth pointing out that there has been some research done by the climate think-tank, ODI, which has shown that even if the list of climate finance contributors were to be expanded based on cumulative emissions and the financial capacity to pay, there are only around five or six countries in the world that would be added to that list. It does not include China. It includes South Korea, Qatar and Israel. The very idea that adding five to six countries to this list of contributors is going to make the difference is nonsense.

The real difference is going to be made by delivery of unmet targets.

I also wanted to touch on the dangers of some of aspects of private finance which the Senator raised. It is important to acknowledge that we are not saying that the entirety or totality of finance has to come from public finance. The vast majority of it should, and it should be grant based. We acknowledge there is a role for private finance. It is important to note two things on that. First, multiple studies have shown that private finance has proven deeply inefficient. It tends to flow to projects that can deliver return on investment, that is, mitigation-based projects. It is absolutely not suitable for adaptation, loss and damage. There are also questions around accountability.

It is countries, not private entities, which are parties to the UNFCCC. There is no way to determine how money from private entities is being tracked within the international climate regime. There are real issues that need to be grappled with.

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

Okay. I will go back to Senator Higgins as we will have time.

Darren O'Rourke (Meath East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the witnesses. I refer to the potential role of tax harmonisation and policy. There is a UN framework convention on taxation. Do the witnesses think that is an important aspect of policy, in terms of trying to tackle tax havens and avoidance and ensure there is fairness and equity? Can we use taxation policy as a way to take climate action while ensuring sustainability and equality?

Ms Siobhan Curran:

The UN tax convention is a significant process. It is not something we are following in detail. We see it as part of the picture of the question of how the finance flows and whether we will shift from flows into fossil fuels from tax going out of developing companies when we need to invest in them. It holds huge potential. There is also an international discussion around what was the Bridgetown initiative around taxation and other measures pertaining to climate finance. There are a lot of international discussions focused on this. We want Ireland to be part of and to influence these discussions. The key thing with all of them is focusing on the polluter pays principle, as well as justice and equity.

Darren O'Rourke (Meath East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The divestment Bill was mentioned, along with the many opportunities for perverse incentives, workarounds or money to go to exactly the wrong place. It is a huge area and there are a range of strands. I presume the objective needs to be to move as quickly as possible in order to close off those avenues and hold companies to account to ensure the flows of money are properly accounted for and are in line with climate objectives.

Ms Siobhan Curran:

The Fossil Fuel Divestment Act was a milestone at the time and an incredible achievement. In hindsight, it needs to be updated and expanded, in particular to include harmful agribusiness. There are two elements to this. Public finance goes through the Ireland Strategic Investment Fund, which the State needs to ensure is not flowing to fossil fuels or harmful agribusiness, and the State needs take the necessary legislative steps in that regard. There is also private finance, which is something that has to be grappled with. We need to understand the necessary EU tools that are needed to regulate private finance flowing through Ireland and what Ireland needs to do domestically.

As I mentioned, if we see significant financial flows through investment managers based here, that feels like something Ireland needs to address. At the moment, there are no tools to do that. The corporate sustainability and due diligence directive, as I said, will be transposed here. In essence, if investors were included in that scope, that might provide the necessary regulation. At the moment they are not, but perhaps that is something Ireland needs to consider to address its particular situation.

Darren O'Rourke (Meath East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

In the context of the upcoming COP, what indicators, language or text coming out of that regarding movement in the right direction are being considered? I presume the witnesses are encouraging the Irish delegation to use its influence at a European level to push in that direction. Are there particular asks from the witnesses regarding what they want to see at the back end of the COP?

Ms Siobhan Curran:

If we can come out of this COP with a new figure of a floor for a climate finance goal, if we can agree the subgoals and if there can be commitment by developed states to meet their obligations and mobilise new sources of public finance for this, that is the outcome that is needed, and that can be built on. It is quite concerning, however. As Mr. Fitzpatrick said, there have been three years of negotiations leading to this. To see where the conversations are at leaves us very worried that even those things will not be achieved at this COP. We have spoken about the trust of developing countries. It has been eroded. It is difficult to achieve in one area if there is a complete breakdown of trust in another area. It would be great to achieve those basic things from this COP.

Mr. Ross Fitzpatrick:

One crucial thing in terms of the outcome of this COP is that we have a clear distinction between the financial obligations of developed countries under Article 9 and the broader issue of Article 2.1(c), which Senator Higgins has raised. There has been an ongoing and deliberate attempt for the past three years during the NCQG discussions to blur these two issues. That is highly problematic.

A lot of the debate has focused on core public finance provision, which we agree with, but there is also the wider mobilisation goal. When we speak about a wider mobilisation goal, from our perspective we are talking about innovative sources of revenue that focus on new and progressive forms of taxes. We discussed a tax on fossil fuel production. There are also international initiatives for international levies on aviation and shipping. What a lot of developed countries mean by this wider mobilisation goal is private finance and finance coming from the sector, which, as we have already outlined, is highly problematic. In terms of a good outcome, we would have that clear distinction between Article 9 and Article 2.1(c) being very different things, and then language on innovative sources which highlights some examples of the taxes we have talked about already.

Darren O'Rourke (Meath East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the witnesses.

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

That is really useful because we hear about the many issues developing countries have in accessing climate finance and, in a wider sense, accessing finance from private sources. Those are all issues, even in terms of the credit rating issues, and there are a lot of other things that come in, that can be addressed through the debate on Article 2.1, which is basically improving the way our international financial systems address issues of climate and access to finance, and that is also in respect of regulation and ethical issues within there.

That is different from Article 9, which is the money that must be paid. It is about having that distinction. Even when we discussed it with the Minister, Deputy Ryan, he raised the issue of how many developing countries are very frustrated at their lack of access to private finance. That is a separate issue, however. That should not get used as a cover for the public finance. The witnesses mentioned, for example, potential levies on the major profits of certain corporations. As I understand it, because those corporations are not parties to the treaty or to the COP, that is something individual countries or, indeed, Europe could do and that would then develop revenue and that revenue could be channelled as an innovative source of finance. It is really useful to tease those two issues out.

I want to come back a little on the private finance piece. I asked a question previously about how it is an issue that comes up on aid and tied aid. Ireland has been in a really good position compared with others in the European Union with regard to aid. Ireland has a principle of not having tied aid whereas, in fact, many countries in Europe do have very strong tied aid. They say they will lend the money if the recipients buy their thing, for example. They will lend them money, but they need to give them something else in another policy area. Looking especially at Ireland's position as a negotiator for the EU, I am concerned, and we are seeing right now a very massive land grab happening internationally. It was mentioned in the written piece from Friends of the Earth, which talked about the danger of carbon markets as a potential false solution that could be presented and the dangers of large areas of territory effectively being almost ceded from developing countries for corporations or other countries to use them as an excuse to continue with business as usual.

The other issue, of course, is that we are seeing a global scramble diplomatically in some cases and more aggressively in other situations for precious minerals. Are there protective measures that need to be put in place to ensure there is no quid pro quoor that the need for climate finance is not abused either by developed countries or, indeed, corporations and private financers in terms of those issues of the land grab and the minerals? It is just a concern I have. What guardrails might be able to be put into the process to try to protect against that?

I want to go back to the fossil fuel non-proliferation treaty because it is another new instrument. Again, it was mentioned that there is not any draft zero or first draft. Is there a chance for a breakthrough on that, not now, but even maybe for Rio in two years' time? What is the critical mass of countries that need to sign up to it in principle to get to the point that we could have a first draft of text that then becomes a more concrete discussion point? Is that feasible for Rio in two years' time, for example? I know it is a separate process that happens on the outside, but it would be great if that became a discussion point.

The example of cluster munitions was mentioned and, obviously, Ireland really led on the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. There has been some push for military emissions to be counted because we are seeing a massive scaling up in military activity globally. At the moment, they are not there within the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, UNFCCC, process. They are not properly recognised. I know there is a call for that. Is there scope for that discussion to start at this COP? Next summer is when countries are developing their nationally determined contributions. Is there scope for a campaign, for example, to have countries include their military emissions in their nationally determined contribution calculations, which would potentially feed into that? It is one of the big elephants in the room that is not being acknowledged at the moment. Now, unfortunately, we are seeing a re-proliferation in the arms race, which could, of course, scupper our emissions altogether if we are not counting military emissions and so on.

They are responsible for such a huge portion of climate emissions. The witnesses might comment on that.

The last thing is almost outside this; I am jumping ahead as usual and going straight to Rio. What can be done in this COP that might set us up for the COP in Rio to perhaps be the kind of leap or step forward we need? There is a lot of hope being put into it, particularly in terms of civil society participation, which we know has been constrained to a degree, and maybe limits or brakes that might be put on fossil fuel lobbyist participation. Can something be done at this COP that tries to set it up in Rio in two years' time so we do not end up with the exact same situation where fewer civil society voices are coming through and more fossil fuel lobbyists are coming through?

Ms Siobhan Curran:

I can take some of those. Working back, that discussion around minerals and transition minerals and the potential human rights environmental impact is really crucial. The Business and Human Rights Resource Centre does quite a lot of research on this. It has been documenting the number of attacks on communities who are basically protecting their land from mineral extraction. On one hand, it is a much bigger conversation about how we have this extractivist model that got us into this crisis and whether we are able to switch from this model as we try to get out of the crisis. Of course, I do not think anyone believes we can continue with business as usual and yet continue to debate human rights and the environment and somehow tackle the climate crisis. Corporate regulation is needed. It goes back to that same point about linking corporate regulation and climate regulation and making sure they are both working in tandem.

The Senator talked about the quality of climate finance in a sense and the guardrails and making sure it is essentially untied. One of the reasons we so strongly argued that the loss and damage fund, for example, should be under the UNFCCC is for accountability. It is the same as how there are lots of critiques of the Green Climate Fund but, again, it is a fund that sits under the UNFCCC. We would strongly argue that the funds that disburse climate finance should sit under the UNFCCC and then the guardrails should be within the UNFCCC. Therefore, if all the finance moves outside of that structure into private finance, which goes completely back to that description by the ONE Campaign as being like the wild west and people just doing whatever, it is not going to work.

In terms of the quality of climate finance, a big ask from developing countries, or communities anyway in developing countries, is for direct access to climate finance so that the finance starts to flow to local communities to respond to what they are actually experiencing. That in some ways is in opposition to money flowing from private interests to make profit or is at odds with what communities necessarily need. Building that quality argument in discussions of climate finance is crucial.

The submissions for the nationally determined contributions, NDCs, are due in early 2025. At the previous COP, there was a lot more discussion around military emissions than I had heard, but it was very much on the sidelines and from civil society, so it did not seem to necessarily be rooted in the formal COP discussions. There is probably room for a lot more work on that and for building it in. The emissions are one thing. A statistic from 2021 shows how €1.3 trillion was spent on military spending and we are talking about €1 trillion needed for climate finance, so there are those parallels.

On the non-proliferation treaty, I do not know what the tipping point is but it was significant that Colombia endorsed the treaty. It is a massive coal-producing country. The more countries like that which support it, the better. What is also noticeable about the campaign is that it feels like it is growing. It is getting momentum. Not only are states signing up but so are local councils, the equivalent of local authorities and parliamentarians.

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

Ireland could sign up. We would only be signing up in principle at this point.

Ms Siobhan Curran:

Exactly, it is a zero draft. Ireland is not a fossil fuel producing country. It is definitely in our interests to keep fossil fuels in the ground. We know the statistics. The UNEP report shows that the plans to 2030 will bring us to more planned fossil fuel exploitation than what is needed to keep within 1.5%. It will be at 110% of that figure, which is completely off the charts. We know this year's UNEP report shows that current policies have us on track for at least 2.6° and potentially up to 3°. There has to be a dramatic shift.

Mr. Ross Fitzpatrick:

I would like to comment briefly on the guardrails relating to tied aid and conditionality being placed on climate finance. It is a massive issue. The single biggest guardrail, as Ms Curran already touched on, is ensuring that in the COP decision text and in the decision text relating to the NCQG, we have very strong language indicating that public finance which is untied needs to be at the core, rather than this very ill-defined vague notion of mobilised climate finance, which is everything and anything. One of the real issues with climate finance is that there is no internationally agreed definition of what it actually is. This has resulted in countries counting whatever they deem to be climate finance as climate finance. It is unlikely that countries will come together and agree on a common definition at this COP but one thing we could at least have is a list of what does not count as climate finance. Essentially, this would be an exclusion list. This could include carbon credits. One of the big issues is that we need a narrative shift as to what counts and what does not count, not only through an international agreement on what it is or is not.

Much of the debate on Article 6 is that climate finance is the solution and we need to home in on existing initiatives such as carbon credits. Multiple investigations have been carried out, some by The Guardian. One of our partners, Power Shift Africa, produced a report last year at COP28 which showed the host country, the UAE, was buying up vast tracts of land in African countries in order to sell carbon credits to major polluters and was displacing people from their land in the process. This is deeply unjust. At the same time, it does not achieve real emission reductions. It is not the solution. This narrative needs to be brought to the fore by countries such as Ireland, which, to be frank, is currently not doing this. Major developed countries are pushing this as the solution. We need to outline what the false solutions are as well as looking at the actual solutions.

With regard to civil society organisation participation and human rights more broadly, the three most recent COPs have been held in petrol states with very questionable human rights records. Unfortunately, given the nature of the COP process, it is very unlikely we will ever have a COP in country with a perfect human rights record. This is not to say Ireland should not take a stance and acknowledge the fact there are human rights issues in all of the COP host countries. In terms of looking ahead to next year, one thing Ireland can do is raise this with the presidency next year. Brazil will host COP next year. We should advocate for greater inclusion of civil society in Rio. We should also advocate for greater transparency around the inclusion of fossil fuel lobbyists. If I am not mistaken, last year for the first time we had a register to determine the presence of fossil fuel lobbyists at COP and we now know how many there are.

What we need in addition to this is a cap on the number of fossil fuel lobbyists. At the very least, I do not think any single delegation should be smaller than the number of fossil fuel lobbyists present at the COP. This is something on which Ireland can push a bit.

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

This COP is primarily focused on finance as opposed to mitigation. Is there scope for progress on the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance at the COP? Will Ireland's credibility be somewhat undermined because we went in with very strong fossil fuel divestment legislation? It is interesting that the fact this may need to be strengthened was mentioned. There is a discussion now about the fact that it allows for up to 10% of mixed investment to still be in fossil fuels but the Minister can lower it. In fairness, I have had constructive engagement with the Minister of State Deputy Calleary, and others on whether this could be lowered to 1% or 2%. At present, it allows for 10% of a mixed investment package to be in fossil fuels. The legislation allows for the Minister to reduce this. The figure is 15%. An audit was carried and 9% is the highest exposure that Ireland has in any investment group. Of course there is scope to reduce it from 15%. This is a legislative signal we could send as part of the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance.

I am concerned about the negative signal we may have sent regarding liquefied natural gas as it is still in the planning Act. Liquefied natural gas is still listed as strategic infrastructure. Now, because of the other provisions in the Bill, it will have fast-tracked access through An Bord Pleanála, bypassing local authority level, when it comes to applications. This relates to importation. We have a bit of a dilemma. On the one hand, Ireland has credit internationally for the fact that we banned fracking but we have new legislation that facilitates and fast-tracks the potential importation of fracked gas from other countries. This means we are contributing to the extraction of this particularly dirty fuel internationally. Will the witnesses comment on what steps we should or could be taking to strengthen our credibility? Do we need to start looking at addressing these anomalies? The fossil fuel divestment legislation originally brought forward by Deputy Pringle and supported throughout the Oireachtas was very good for its time. Could we look at strengthening this or look at how the provisions within it could allow us to divest further?

Ms Siobhan Curran:

Senator Higgins has reminded me of the motion on fossil fuels passed in the Oireachtas last December following the COP. I forget the title of it but it included a commitment to the fossil fuel non-proliferation treaty and to expanding or reviewing the Fossil Fuel Divestment Act. There is precedent for this being discussed in the House. There is a coherence issue. If a fossil fuel non-proliferation treaty is being supported we would expect a commitment to no new fossil fuel infrastructure. We would call for this coherence.

There are also the indications the Minister could give as part of BOGA and perhaps in discussions with the fossil fuel non-proliferation treaty signatories. Beyond that, for the next government, it will be very important to see commitments in the programme for Government. We will certainly be calling for support for the fossil fuel non-proliferation treaty, if that is not achieved before then at COP, but also for the review and updating of the Fossil Fuel Divestment Act, as well as that wider piece around private finance.

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

There is still a concern about liquefied natural gas infrastructure, so it seems there is a need for a very strong signal in the other direction, possibly at COP or elsewhere. This sends a signal that seems to be contradictory to someone who is looking at it as an anti-fossil fuel proliferation activist internationally and who may also campaigning locally against fracked gas in their area, particularly when they see Ireland fast-tracking infrastructure which is going to support that industry.

Ms Siobhan Curran:

The fossil fuel non-proliferation treaty is based on the pillars. This definitely contravenes the first pillar of non-proliferation, so I completely agree with the Senator. Anything committee members can do in discussions with the Minister to ensure that these issues are highlighted at COP would be welcome.

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

I would say to Senator Higgins that the framing of the fast-tracking of fracking or liquefied natural gas infrastructure is strongly disputed. The Senator's view is her own. It is unfair to ask the witness to confirm her subjective view.

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

It is not a subjective view, although the term “fast-tracking” perhaps is. Let us be clear that applications for liquefied natural gas infrastructure would previously have had to go through a local authority and then An Bord Pleanála, whereas they can now go directly to An Bord Pleanála. That is a shorter planning application process than was previously the case. That is not an opinion. It is objective.

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

The Senator would agree it is not fast-tracking.

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

It speeds up the process of planning applications for this infrastructure.

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

We do not have time to reopen the issue. It is the case that if some entity, whether the Government, a commercial entity or a private individual, were to apply to build such a facility, and, hopefully, we will never be in a situation where we need this horrendous fuel, then all of the legislation that recently passed means it would be treated as a strategic in nature and, therefore, it would go directly to An Bord Pleanála, rather than to the local authority. The characterisation that it is fast-tracking is incorrect. I would like to point that out.

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

What the Chairman has described is what I have described. We obviously see that differently.

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

As no other members are indicating, we have reached the end of the session. I thank the witnesses for their time. It has been a very informative session. I thank colleagues for their questions and their consistent interest in the annual COPs. This is the last meeting of this committee but, no doubt, the future iteration of the Joint Committee on the Environment and Climate Action will take COP as seriously as this one has in the past few years.

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

It has been a very positive innovation to always have an annual hearing before COP. I commend the Chair on that.

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

Thank you. I believe that view is shared by all members of the committee.