 I thank you very much for your introduction, Peter, and good morning, everybody. I know that Minister Hogan, when he was here at the end of February, thanked the Institute for its intensive engagement with our work on climate change and I want to re-echo that appreciation of the institute's work. This is a very welcome event, I think at a pivotal time as you've mentioned in our consultation. Ac I'm very pleased to have been invited here this morning to perhaps give a little bit of food for thought at the start of your deliberations. I don't think anyone in the policy field should be surprised at the technical and political complexity of climate policy, or at the challenge which specific aspects of this policy presents for us, fel ydych chi'n gael ei wneud o'r syniadau sydd wedi'i gwahodd o'r gweithio'r gwahodd ymgylchedd o'r rhywbeth yn bywydol, iddyn nhw'n gallu'r ffaswnol i'r cyhoedd yn llwyddoedd. Dwi'n credu cydweithio'r cysyllt o'r cyfnod o'r cyhoedd gwaith ymgylchedd yn llwythau. Mae'n gweithio'r cyfnod o'r cyfnod o'r cyfnod o'r cydweithio i'r cyfnod o'r gyfnod o'r cyfnod, ac yn ymdangos gennymiaeth agnod, fel gyfer newydd yn gweithio bach ar gyfer cael eu gennymau. Ddiolch i gyfaint anafolau a ffanslaenau sydd wedi gyrdd wysig o bwrddol, nad o'ch gyrsd eraill ym gyhoedd, os y bydd y cyfaint anafol mae'n bwysig o bwysig o bwysig o'r bwysig. Mae'n gwybod i gydigio i'r cyfaint anafol i'r bwysig o bwysig, a'i cynnwysau cyrfaith yn gwybod a hynny'n adnoddolwysgol ac yn yw'r gwybodaeth socialeg. Rydyn ni'n gobl ei wnaeth a'r phoesgolwysgol. Y cyfnodig arna ni'n gwirioneddau am ddeithasol yn y cyfnodol bryd i gweithio gyda'r profi honiad felly reall o bobl y pethau'r eu hawliau. Mae'r cyfnodol o'r pethau sydd fod yn edrych i sydd ymgawr wedi o ffordd cyfnod o syniad, for new environmentally sustainable economic jobs, and jobs in the low carbon world of tomorrow. So the critical starting point for any informed debate on national policy and legislation should be a clear commitment as a nation to playing our part in mobilizing an effective global response to greenhouse gas mitigation but our determination at home to grasp the green growth and to flourish in a low carbon world. The pace of progress on climate policy development can seem quite frustrating for stakeholders. But we're not talking about development of a discrete standalone policy framework. The challenge is far more complex and it involves us in developing policy and integrating into our immediate and our long term vision for Irish society. Yn edrych ynglynig. Mae cymdeithasol yn ymdyn nhw'n gweithio ar gyfer y maen nhw, mae'r cyfrannu bach yn ddiddordebeth, neu'r cyfrannu bach, maen nhw'n gweithio'n gyfrannu, ac yn cyfrannu, yn cyfrannu, mae'n gweithio'r cyfrannu i gweithio i gweithio i gweithio'r gennaeth. Felly mae'n ddweud o ddweud o gweithio'r cyfrannu. Mae'n cyfrannu bach, mae wedi'u cyfrannu bach. We are a positive and progressive nation, even though we have present difficulties and we shouldn't fear change. Many improvements in our lives result from foresight in embracing change, but it's entirely reasonable that people would expect us to manage change well. Just as I acknowledge the frustration of some stakeholders at the pace of policy development, I would equally have to appreciate the natural concern on the part of others as to the implications for their own livelihoods and their future. So I'm dwelling a little bit on the spectrum of legitimate concerns, because finding an ambitious but realistic balance across those concerns has to be a policy development priority. I'm not aware of a monopoly of wisdom in any quarter or in any one view. Social and economic sectors can and do very, very considerably, but it shall be a priority for all of us to set both the right level of ambition and the right pace of transition having regard to our circumstances, to our commitments as a responsible society, and to our long-term vision for our country. With the benefit of hindsight, perhaps many of us are wiser and perhaps somewhat more measured, if not cautious, in light of the experience which we had with the Climate Change Response Bill in 2010. I say that advisedly because there was a wholly positive objective and a very positive commitment lying behind that bill, but it might now be fair to say that the national policy debate, particularly on the opportunity side of the climate agenda, simply hadn't matured enough to allow a broad level of stakeholder support for advancement straight into primary legislation. The Minister's roadmap for national climate policy and legislation sets out a clear program to support national policy debate on an informed, transparent, inclusive basis. The work currently being carried out by the Nesc secretariat will help to inform the debate through further analysis of the issues that we face and analysis of viable policy options that are available to us for consideration. This ongoing consultation also provides an open opportunity for constructive participation by all stakeholders, and it's great to have such a wide spectrum of stakeholders represented, Peter, as you identified, and as I said, the session is particularly valuable in that regard. It's also a welcome development that the Iraqis Committee on Environment, Transport, Culture and the Gael Cwgth will take a central role in the policy development process. The committee's involvement will further strengthen transparency and inclusiveness of the process. It will bring authority to the central objective of coming to a clear national understanding of how to meet Ireland's binding EU and wider international mitigation commitments, as well as setting and pursuing ambitious national objectives in the emerging low-carbon global economy. We have an inherent strength for innovation, for creativity, for flexibility, and we have an ability to adapt quickly to gain competitive advantage in response to new opportunities. We have to mobilise those strengths and we have to do that with considerable vision and considerable determination. I said you asked me here to provide some food for thought, so I've touched on what I see as a critical starting point for any informed debate on the development of national policy and legislation. Before commenting on specific policy issues, though, we might reflect for a moment on our own vision of the future and ask, what is our long-term vision of ourselves in a changing world? What are our ambitions for environmental protection and for economic development? We can't expect to be counted amongst the environmentally responsible and economically visionary countries that are already influencing a dynamic global transition process if our domestic outlook and our actions to support it are not commensurate with that expectation. The case for transition to a low-carbon world is far greater than just climate protection, but the immediate urgency of addressing climate policy presents a good starting point for mapping out a wider socio-economic response to what will be a very different, but potentially a very exciting future. That response should be grounded in our commitment to playing our part in combating dangerous climate change and achieving our aspirations as a competitive player in the global green economy. Our credibility will also be strengthened by a clear recognition and support for core moral principles, including the principle of common but different responsibility, which is a key pillar to the UN Convention and a commitment to climate justice. A final but essential part of the context for debate on national policy is the need to ensure environmentally sound investment across the economy, whether that investment occurs in the public sector or in the private sector. In our efforts to return to economic growth, it's of the utmost importance that we embed rigorous sustainability requirements in both economic and environmental terms. If we get our growth strategy wrong, we run the very real and very significant risk of locking ourselves into unsustainable technology and infrastructure that will undermine our credibility on environmental grounds and will undermine our competitiveness in the global green economy. We can't afford to get our growth strategy wrong. Climb of protection and economic competitiveness must be progressed on a basis that is balanced and is complementary. Turning to a couple of specific issues now and initially our unique greenhouse gas emissions profile in the European context, this flows from factors that I guess everyone here is pretty familiar with, are very high agricultural emissions. The relatively low proportion of emissions within the EU emissions trading scheme are low population density dispersed settlement that encourages car ownership. In 2010 agriculture, transport and energy sectors counted for 71% of the total national greenhouse gas emissions. When we exclude emissions covered by emissions trading, agriculture and transport alone make up about 69% of the remaining emissions with a further 17% from the residential sector. And the non-ETS sector is where Ireland has a target of achieving a 20% reduction on 2005 emissions by 2020. There are also intermediary targets for each of the years from 2013 to 2019, which means essentially we have annual targets for the years to 2020. So the challenge is very significant and very serious. And it must be dealt with in a manner that has regard to our specific national circumstances. In addition, with the elimination of the EU milk quota regime in 2015, we have an agriculture sector with potential for significant new growth while research today shows the sector has very few cost-effects of greenhouse gas mitigation options. Recent data from the EPA have shown improvement in transport emissions, but that has to be seen against the huge increase in transport emissions in the period 1990 to 2008. Some of the improvement is inevitably attributable to economic downturn and transport and travel trends remain unsustainable. I won't talk about transport any further because I'm sure Tom will be dealing specifically with the transport challenges later on today. Energy policy is also central in developing a resource-efficient low-carbon economy. In addition, the increasing focus on green economy potentials opens up new market opportunities for countries with viable and environmentally sustainable renewable resources. And I know Minister Robert spoke on the subject here in the institute in February. But synergy and climate and energy policy is critically important to a long-term vision of a responsible and progressive society. On top of the challenges with emissions from agriculture, it's important to bear in mind that the related inventory sector, land use, land use change on forestry or LULU-CF, as we know it, is still subject to development at both international level and within the EU. In view of our emissions profile, proposals to address this particular area of development are a big priority for us, whether they arise at EU level or at wider international level. Important progress was made on agriculture at the recent Durban Climate Conference, but a great deal of work remains to be done to develop a complete understanding of the role and responsibilities of the global agriculture sector under the broad climate policy agenda. Consistent with its EU leadership in the international arena, the European Commission recently issued a proposal on accounting for emissions and removals in respect of three areas within the LULU-CF inventory sector, forestry, crop land management and grazing land management. Needless to say, proposed legislative provisions are a matter of very profound importance for Ireland. In reality, it's probably impossible to provide absolute clarity and certainty on the final extent of our mitigation challenge or the final shape of an appropriate national policy response until we know the outcome of this particular proposal in due course. So engagement in ongoing negotiations on the LULU-CF proposal is an absolute policy development priority. Some stakeholders have issues with the use of purchased carbon units for compliance purposes. The use of such units is often presented as a fine or a penalty in lieu of domestic action. I'm not sure that that's an entirely fair interpretation of the spirit of the Kyoto Protocol. The flexible mechanisms are intended to assist parties in delivering on their mitigation commitments over a reasonable period of time and at a reasonable cost. By easing the fear of failing to comply on domestic action alone, the mechanisms could be said to allow parties to be more ambitious in their mitigation commitments. The mechanisms are a pragmatic short-term option that can and should, where necessary, be used prudently for compliance purposes. While I'm on the issue of compliance, it does raise a far deeper question in the context of the national policy debate. As pointed out in the recent review of national policy, the largely compliance-based approach pursued to date won't be adequate if we're to achieve meaningful early engagement with the challenge of the low carbon world of tomorrow so that we're well positioned to avail of opportunities that it presents. Notwithstanding the absolute importance of greenhouse gas emission reduction targets, a successful transition to a competitive low carbon future is a much broader objective than compliance. An informed long-term planning is key to its achievement. We must and we will comply with our binding EU and international commitments, but the real test of a progressive outlook will be the extent to which we can rise above a compliance focus. Demonstrate both vision and determination to position ourselves among the leaders in the evolution to the low carbon world of tomorrow. Finally, on the issue of cost, the national mitigation agenda to date has been progressed on a least cost approach in which mitigation options are analysed across the economy as a whole. Questions have been raised as to whether we should continue on that basis or change our approach. I see it as a critical policy issue in view of the size of our economy, for example, and our greenhouse gas emissions profile. As pointed out in the policy review, the least cost approach does require mitigation policy to be fully mainstreamed and a primary criterion in decision making at a sector level. I believe it's the right approach, but if, for example, it was to result in all of the main least cost measures arising in one particular sector of the economy, then other wider considerations would inevitably also have to be taken into consideration. Finally, on climate legislation, Minister Hogan set out the government position when he met the Joint Rockless Committee on Climate Change and the Green Economy public session in December last year. The language in the programme for government is clear on the point that policy must be developed first and then underpinned with legislation as required. The Minister was absolutely clear on the intention to bring forward climate legislation within the lifetime of the government, informed by a robust assessment of the policy options. Appropriate institutional arrangements will be essential to support government decisions on the way forward, but a clear understanding of how we propose to meet our commitments and pursue our objectives is essential to identify an appropriate support structure. Sometimes I have the impression that policy is confused with specific mitigation measures. For the purposes of the road map around which the national debate is focused, the policy issues in question relate to the high-level context in which we wish to develop as a society and engage as an economy over the next 40 years or so. It's policy at the level of our long-term vision of ourselves in a changing world and our place in it. It's about our principles on a safe and environmentally sustainable future. It's about our ambition to grow and prosper in a low-carbon global economy. Of course the detailed mitigation and adaptation measures will follow, but we must get the fundamental policy principles right in order to define appropriate national institutional arrangements, including legislation, to embed and to give practical effect to those principles. So I conclude just recapping on a few key points. Climb of policy development is much broader than mitigation and adaptation. It is central to national debate on the challenges and opportunities arising from an inevitable and ongoing global transition to a low-carbon future. It opens up the choice to be a leader or a follower in the transition process and in the low-carbon world of tomorrow. That choice is a key policy development issue. If we wish to join the vanguard of countries whose actions are already shaping the future, we must embrace change and manage it effectively. Our core policy principles must reflect a mature balance between our commitments as a responsible society to sustainable development and our ambition as a competitive economy. The economic rebuilding in which we are engaged is a real opportunity to identify areas where a more environmentally sustainable long-term orientation of the economy can and must begin. The views of all stakeholders are important. The genuine concerns that exist must be respected and must be addressed in the policy development process. Our greenhouse gas emissions profile is unique in a European context, as I've said, on top of which we must manage the policy gap on the Lulu CF inventory sector and the emerging opportunity for new growth in the dairy sector as a result of the abolition of milk quotas in 2015. Valuable policy lessons can be learned from other countries, but our national policy must be shaped to respond to our particular circumstances as well as our outlook and our objectives for the future. The programme of work set out in the roadmap encompasses the development of policy and legislation, but they must be developed in proper order. We must have clear understanding of the fundamental national policy principles in order to define appropriate national institutional arrangements, including legislation. On that final point, I thank the Institute once again for its initiative and its invitation, and I wish you well in your deliberations over the course of today. Thank you.