The so-called pensions time bomb is ticking all over Europe, but in the Republic the sound is still relatively faint. This year, mass strikes have taken place in France and Austria in response to proposed retirement benefit cuts, while pension reforms are also high on the political agenda in Germany, Italy and Britain. writes Laura Slattery

But it seems unlikely that thousands of demonstrators will materialise on the streets of Dublin anytime soon to protest about pensions as more than a million did in Paris in June.

One reason for this is the truism that pensions are too far in the future to figure in the concerns of younger people and, with a median age 10 years below the European median, the Republic is not ageing as quickly as our neighbours.

Nevertheless, Irish workers are already being warned that they must save more or work longer if they want to avoid depending solely on a State pension that pays the equivalent of about one-third of average earnings - less generous than the state pensions available in most other European Union states.

By pre-funding State and public service pensions through the National Pensions Reserve Fund, the Government hopes to avoid the scenes witnessed in France and Austria earlier this year from happening here two decades down the line.

In addition, 50 per cent of workers in the Republic have private pensions coverage. The introduction of Personal Retirement Savings Accounts (PRSAs) aims to increase this number.

But even people with a layer of protection against poverty in retirement are being advised against complacency.

"People think that they are in a pension scheme, so everything is okay," says Ms Anne Kershaw, an actuary who is joint head of the retirement practice at pensions consultants Mercer.

The reality is very different. The cost of annuities is rising due to increased longevity and low interest rates, so people who are outside the safety net of a defined-benefit - or final salary - scheme have to save more for retirement now than they did before.

Projections on how much workers outside defined-benefit schemes need to contribute in order to reach their target pensions are often based on old assumptions, before stock market crashes tore a hole in pension funds.

Members of defined-contribution occupational schemes will have to start bridging a "contribution gap" to their pensions, a recent report by the Irish Association of Pension Funds (IAPF) declared.

But tell somebody aged 30, who is already seeing 5 per cent of their salary deducted for their pension, that they should be putting aside more than double that if they want a decent pension, and they will simply shrug their shoulders, unable to do anything about the shortfall even if they wanted to.

"People can't afford it," says Mr John McGovern of pensions consultancy firm Hewitt & Becketts. "How can anyone put aside 20 per cent of their salary into a pension, participate in an SSIA and have a young family at home?"

The only other way to avoid a low retirement income is to continue working beyond the standard retirement age of 65.

A retirement "window" for public service workers is expected to be shifted from 60-65 to 62-67 under a new agreement due to be signed off in the autumn.

Ostensibly, this should enable late starters to make up the 40 years' service required for a full pension but some argue that our increased life expectancy means many of us will actually want to keep on working.

In the current issue of its publication 50+, Age Action director and former Taoiseach Mr Garret FitzGerald argues against a compulsory retirement age, calling on policy-makers to address the issue of flexible retirement.

Older people are denied choice about when they want to retire, says Mr Paul Murray, head of information for Age Action, while those over 65 still in the labour market have no protection from equality legislation.

However, there are fears that measures effectively compelling people to work until they drop will be dressed up as choices or attacks on ageism.

Age Action is concerned that large numbers of older people may be forced to continue working out of financial necessity as a result of the pensions crisis. "The desire to get people to work for longer should not be fuelled purely by economics, but should be part of a social charter that says you are entitled to work after 65," says Mr Murray.

Moves to push back retirement have already been touted in other EU states, while the British government has suggested giving those who stay until 70 a substantial bonus in their basic state pension.

Similar incentives would be necessary if moves to increase retirement age were to happen here, Mr Murray believes.

Meanwhile, compulsory pension contributions remain a background threat. There is no guarantee that Irish consumers will take providers up on the offer of PRSAs and the Government has already said it will consider introducing compulsory pension contributions if coverage rates do not increase by 2006.

Ms Kershaw, who favours higher PRSI-funded State pensions, believes compulsory employer contributions could prove counterproductive.

"The good employers that were previously paying more will look over their shoulders and cut back," according to Ms Kershaw.

"Pensions have to be regarded as deferred wages, not as these things employers give their staff in their old age," concludes Mr Murray at Age Action.

But for now, younger employees, less likely to be members of secure final-salary pension schemes, are simply coming up against an affordability brick wall.