COMMITTEE FOR AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT
OFFICIAL REPORT
(Hansard)
Inquiry into Renewable Energy and Alternative Land Use
1 May 2008
Members present for all or part of the proceedings:
Dr William McCrea (Chairperson)
Mr Tom Elliott (Deputy Chairperson)
Mr P J Bradley
Mr Allan Bresland
Mr Thomas Burns
Mr Trevor Clarke
Mr Willie Clarke
Mr Pat Doherty
Mr William Irwin
Mr Francie Molloy
Mr George Savage
Witnesses:
Ms Patricia Mackey )
Dr Peter Christie ) Northern Ireland Environment Link
Professor Sue Christie )
The Chairperson (Dr W McCrea):
The Committee will now hear evidence from Northern Ireland Environment Link. I am delighted to welcome Professor Sue Christie, Patricia Mackey and Dr Peter Christie. It is our pleasure to have you here. I invite you to make your presentation, after which members will have the opportunity to ask questions.
Professor Sue Christie (Northern Ireland Environment Link):
Thank you, Chairman, for allowing us to address the Committee this morning.
Northern Ireland Environment Link is an umbrella networking and forum body for environmental non-governmental organisations (NGOs) in Northern Ireland. We have 50 full members — all NGOs — and they represent, near enough, 100,000 citizens of the Province. Both Action Renewables, who have just given evidence, and WWF, who will address the Committee later, are full members. We support fully their expert testimony. They can provide much greater detail than we can; we will give more of an overview.
First of all, I will put this in a strategic context. Climate change offers many threats, both globally and locally, but it also offers many opportunities. Addressing the need to move to a low-carbon economy will, we feel, give Northern Ireland many economic advantages, both in the urban and rural communities, which can be seen not as threats but as opportunities for rural residents. We need to adapt to the inevitable 2° rise, which we are already committed to because of the carbon dioxide that has emitted over the last few hundred years. However, we also need to act to mitigate the emissions in the future in order to avoid more severe problems of rises in global temperature above 3° centigrade.
The UK Climate Change Bill [HL] and supporting Northern Ireland legislation should aim to meet the current best estimates of a need for an 80% reduction on 1990 emissions levels. That equates to a 3% reduction in our CO2 emissions per year. To achieve that, we feel that we must have local Northern Ireland targets in order to fulfil our international moral responsibility and to realise the local benefits of a proactive approach for our local population. The switch to a low-carbon economy offers us many opportunities, but it also introduces many costs if we do not address those issues proactively.
The rising cost of fuel is already apparent. Just a few months ago, $50 a barrel for oil was unheard of. However, even by the end of 2008, that could rise to $200 a barrel. That will have proportionate and disproportionate impacts on our rural communities where fossil fuels are relied on for the fuelling of transport and farm machinery, heating homes and the manufacturing and production of farm outputs. The delivery and production of many of the chemical fertilisers and pesticides that we rely upon are also based on fossil fuels. Therefore, the rising costs of fossil fuels will have big impacts on rural communities, and we need to act proactively to avoid those.
We should not be dragged late into addressing these issues; rather we should develop our resources and industries to take our place in international and local markets to meet local and international needs. We need to increase the diversity and self-sufficiency of our energy supply if we are to do what is best for the rural community.
As was said a few moments ago, many Committees — in fact, we would say all Committees — of the Assembly have a real responsibility to address climate-change issues. We welcome the forethought of this Committee in addressing the matter now, but if we are to address it in a way that will benefit all of our rural communities, we need to engage the entire Assembly, all Government Departments, and all local authorities.
Agriculture has a special role in greenhouse gas productions. They are present in the chemicals that are used and the production of them, the agricultural machinery and management on the farm, emissions from the animals themselves, and, largely, although less thought of, the waste that we produce on farms and management of that waste.
We need to address the impacts of climate change and rising fuel costs now and address them in a more proactive manner, which was one of the main recommendations of the Stern Review. We understand that he has recently revised his figures and is now even more in favour of early action, as opposed to late action, which will incur a much greater cost. We must also think always about the local economic and job benefits to Northern Ireland that moving forward proactively will bring.
Managing agricultural waste is, potentially, a large source of alternative fuels that has not, to date, been exploited. Agricultural waste has largely been thought of as a waste product that we dispose of, mainly by spreading it on land, often not in the most productive way. However, slurry, silage, manure, plastics and even food waste are, potentially, an enormous source of energy production, and the transforming of what is now deemed a waste problem into a source of energy could be a possible way forward.
Renewable energy has a potential on farms in Northern Ireland as individual installations for the farm; for clusters of farms; for rural communities and also as an alternative land use. I appreciate that we do not want to cover the entire Province with wind farms, but there is a major goal of education to ensure that communities see the advantages in these installations, as well as the disadvantages.
Northern Ireland has very good resources that can be exploited in a wide variety of ways. I am sure that Action Renewables will have talked about resources, so I will not go into the details. We have wind, tidal, solar, geothermal, and ground- and air-source resources, which are only beginning to be exploited here and which have great potential.
Micro-generation and macro-generation on farms and for agricultural businesses are likely to become increasingly prominent and important as electricity and gas price rises — even in the last few weeks — will encourage the change to local generation, because it will be financially viable. In the past, one of the big arguments against renewable installations for farms, homes or companies was the payback time; it took years to pay back the cost. Given the rapid rise in charges for traditional energy sources, that payback time will rapidly decrease.
We can reduce significantly the costs of farming and other rural enterprises through local generation. The situation will get worse. Prices will continue to rise, and we will see, in the near future, the introduction of carbon pricing and other international schemes that will increase energy prices further. If we develop and exploit local sources of energy, not only will we decrease transmission losses, which will mean that we will not need to generate as much energy, but we will diversify the supply, and that will make us more secure and less vulnerable to President Putin turning off the tap.
Many crops are, and can be, used as sources of renewable energy. There are two major areas — biomass and biofuels — and we will look at them separately. It is highly likely that the shifts in land-use management that we have seen in recent years, such as the increased growing of oilseed rape and fodder maize, will continue. The common agricultural policy (CAP) is changing. There is consumer pressure for different sorts of products, more local products, and more environmentally and animal-welfare-friendly products. Climate change will allow different crops to be grown, and there will be different financial drivers, and we hope that those drivers will encourage renewable energy.
The Committee was talking about biomass crops, such as willow, earlier. Much work has been done to produce the background research that is necessary for willow to become a significant crop in Northern Ireland. The problem about ensuring that we develop markets and supply simultaneously is being tackled, although there are still some issues with that. We must examine those issues coherently before developing particular programmes, so that we do not end up with demand outstripping supply or vice versa. We need stability in order to develop both of those aspects in tandem.
Combined heat and power (CHP) is very important on the farm, as well as in local communities, in larger urban areas, in housing, and in large factories. We have not really been involved with combined heat and power in Northern Ireland to date, but we must examine it extensively in the future. We waste about one third of the electricity that is produced, and we waste an even greater percentage of the potential energy in fuel, due to both the transmission of energy from large-scale plants to the user and waste heat. Combined heat and power is one positive way of using that energy. Often, it is also a logical way of using effectively the waste that we produce.
For some time, biofuels were thought to be a panacea, especially by the Americans, whose policies promoted their use and brought about large-scale and negative consequences around the world, including in Northern Ireland. However, we did not climb so high on the biofuels bandwagon that we caused the sort of widespread environmental damage that can be seen in other parts of the world, where virgin rainforest has been ripped up to make way for palm oil or soya plantations.
We must be very careful about choosing large-scale biofuels and, in particular, be wary of seeing it, or any single technology, as a panacea. It has a role and a place, but it is only one of many. We must look at the lifetime carbon costings of any biofuels — how much it would cost to transport it, how much energy it would use in production, and so on. It has a role but we have to be very careful. In a global climate of food shortage, care must be taken when suggesting the use of food to power our cars and other aspects of a perhaps wasteful lifestyle, as opposed to feeding those who are starving to death, literally, in other parts of the world. It is part of the solution, but only one part of the solution. It is only possible where we have a true lifetime’s savings in carbon or fuel. That applies to primary crops.
Another aspect is secondary crops. Secondary biofuels are derived from waste materials —forest brash, straw, waste food, for example. That is a much more promising area, and one in which Northern Ireland could become involved. More research and development is needed. We must learn from elsewhere and develop local waste sources to simultaneously solve a lot of our waste promises and develop new opportunities for energy.
None of that can move forward without full and clear impact assessments. We cannot rush into things; we need to understand all of the impacts that are involved. There are dangers to the global environment, the global economy and to local producers if we decide to go all out for one particular technology or solution. That chosen technology, for various reasons, could collapse on the global market. Full impact assessments are needed on the economic, environmental and social impacts.
Lifetime carbon costings are certainly one part of that. We need to be very careful that, in changing land use, we do not release more greenhouses gases. The peatlands of Northern Ireland, for example, are a great store of greenhouse gases. Care must be taken that we do not solve one problem by creating others, or that we do not release more carbon dioxide than is being utilised by the alternative use. We must think carefully about those issues before engaging in them.
Estimates must be based on realistic financial costings and increasing fossil-fuel prices. The new concepts, taxes and systems being introduced throughout the European community on carbon budgets, fuels and costings will also have to be taken into consideration.
To sum up, we feel that a number of actions are necessary. First, new and creative financial packages are needed, including grants. Those should also include allowing payback to producers for the energy that they produce. This is similar to systems that operate in other parts of the EU where people are paid a very favourable rate for introducing renewable technology and for the excess fuel that they generate as well as obviously getting the saving in not having to buy the energy that they use. We need to support rural communities and farmers to develop and use renewables. The success of the European Renewable Energies Federation (EREF) — indeed, it has been over-successful — demonstrates that there is a demand and that that demand is there to be optimised.
Secondly, good environmental impact assessments are needed of all proposals, specific and strategic, where we look at alternative land-management regimes. Those need to take into account climate-change impacts on crops that we are going to be able to grow and their possible use for adaptation — woodland can be used to avoid flooding as well as to produce a biofuel — and we should look at how we reduce our waste. We must look at all aspects in moving forward, not just one or two.
Thirdly, we have a major resource in the waste products that we produce. There are huge opportunities for mutually beneficial programmes; everything from on-farm, to food production, to sewage, any of which could be developed for renewable energy generation.
Fourthly, there is the possibility of reducing greenhouse gas emissions from farm practices — from the animals themselves, through modifying the feed that we are providing them with and the way in which they are housed. Substantial savings could be made in the amount of greenhouse gas emissions produced by the animals and on-farm practices. Those need to be researched, promoted and supported.
There is a need for more research and promotion in all of those areas if they are to move forward, so that the rural communities can support them and see the opportunities and are not unwilling to try new ways of doing things. A lot of education is needed.
Finally, we need to look at lots of solutions to lots of problems. There is no single magic bullet; there is a very “useful” buckshot approach, and that is what we need to consider in Northern Ireland. A solution that is appropriate for farm A in County Down will not be appropriate for farm B in County Fermanagh. There is a need to develop a number of different solutions to our problems and to work on all of those simultaneously, if we are to meet our requirements for a sustainable rural community that provides livelihoods for local farmers, a place to live for other rural residents, and which plays a part in global, climate-change scenarios. Thank you.
The Chairperson:
Thank you very much indeed. Your written submission states that small renewable-energy generators have an important role to play in providing a significant proportion of Northern Ireland’s energy needs. Will you perhaps add some detail to that? How can family farms or small rural businesses make that significant contribution?
Professor S Christie:
Obviously, to start with, they could provide for their own resources on the farm. As I said before, if CHP can be generated on a single farm or farm cluster and fed into local communities, an enormous proportion of the energy that is currently being transmitted to them from major power stations could be saved. That would increase the diversity of supply, as well as the self-sufficiency of those farms, because there would obviously be a decrease in the amount of money that they have to pay directly for energy, and it would allow them to take advantage of their own particular resources. They may have very good wind resources, or they might even have a stream that is big enough to be used for hydropower. They are likely to have a source that could be used for anaerobic, or even aerobic, digestion. The local resources of farms should be taken advantage of, and support should be structured to encourage that sort of local generation to meet local need. That would decrease the reliance on external energy, which at the moment is all generated by fossil fuels, whereas that local generation would be through renewables.
The Chairperson:
All of the groups that have spoken to us about this subject have referred to the crisis that exists here and now. It is not that we are on the verge of a situation; we are actually in that situation now. All of those groups have indicated in their submissions, as you have done, that there is a need for more research. How long is that research going to take? Are we actually lagging behind other areas where the research is perhaps already done, and is that research relevant to our situation?
Professor S Christie:
We need to adopt and adapt whatever research has already been done. Dr Andy McCrea has probably mentioned that Queen’s University and the University of Ulster have already got some of the best research reports and research capabilities in renewable energy in Europe, if not the world. We can take advantage of that now. When I refer to research I do not mean that we should engage in a 20-year research program. However, we cannot do what has been done in America and decide that the solution is to simply change to biofuels overnight. We need to be a bit more careful than that. I do not think that there is a need to develop a research program. The Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (DARD) has been considering the opportunities presented by willows for many years. First of all, it was not an option, then it gradually became important, and now it is seen as very important.
When I first came here about 30 years ago, I saw that people were attracted to the benefits of anaerobic digestion; they thought it was great. In Portglenone, some of the local farmers were trying to develop a site; the research was done, but perhaps because of costs at the time, it did not get promoted. Those costs might be significantly different now. The will to execute the research did not exist then either; now we need the will to progress. The research need not take years; it can be quick and practical. Some of that research should be implemented in pilot projects. That is already happening in some cases.
Dr P Christie:
I am sure that you are aware of the work that is being done by the Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute at Hillsborough. Much of the research on renewables has not yet been carried out because the infrastructure is still being developed. However, within the next few years, it should provide some interesting data on the use of those systems under our conditions.
There is an analogy between alternative land uses and traditional land uses. For a period of at least 30 years after the Second World War the Government were prepared to provide huge amounts of money to agriculture to maintain production in the UK. That provided farmers with a sustainable business producing a commodity, such as milk or grain. Nowadays and in the future, although producing that commodity may, hopefully, still provide a living for the people who want to continue to do so, it will take an entrepreneur to do something special such as converting potato growers into producers of a new product — some type of mashed potato that is sold in supermarkets nationwide.
A similar analogy can be made about a farmer who grows willow biomass for heat production. He may want to make a profit by selling biomass, but the real way he can make a profit is by supplying heat to a local community hall, school or factory. He installs the boilers, grows the biomass, to which neighbouring farmers can also contribute, and sells the heat. Once he has done that he has sold something of added value. Similar analogies can be found in the food industry.
The Chairperson:
The consistency of supply is important. However, I attended a debate yesterday evening in another place, where concerns about the Energy Bill were discussed. On the one hand, there is the problem of excessive fuel prices, and on the other hand, there is the present concern over food shortages. The discussion was, therefore, about moving the use of agricultural land away from food production and into electricity and fuel production, about which there was major concern. That must be carefully balanced if we are to get it right.
Professor S Christie:
That is one of the dangers of any move towards biofuels that we would be very concerned about. Northern Ireland has its advantages and disadvantages. Some of the land is not particularly productive for growing grains and crops, but is good for grazing. That could be put to alternative uses.
We have already looked at the use of willow, but there are other crops, such as miscanthus, that could be grown in less-favoured areas, as opposed to the best agricultural land. Again, it is horses for courses. We should examine ways to diversify production from our best agricultural land, so that we can meet food needs locally rather than having to rely on imports. In some of the less-favoured areas we should perhaps move away from animal-protein production, which is not always the healthiest option, and use those lands differently. We would not be in favour of diverting significant portions of productive land for the development of renewables.
Some of our most productive land has been used for willow growth in the past. It is obvious that better willow growth will occur on that land. However, in the current global food crisis, I would be wary of shirking our international responsibilities.
Mr Elliott:
Thank you for your presentation. The progress of the proposed climate change Bill will be led by the Department of the Environment (DOE) rather than DARD. How can emissions reductions in the agriculture industry be kept within the “carbon budget”? I hope that you are not going to tell me that we will have to keep all the tractors off the roads and out of the fields.
You used an interesting phrase, which was “alternative land-management regimes”. What does that mean? What role will the farmer, as well as DARD and other Departments, play in that? I am not sure whether you are talking about the bigger picture of taking land out of food production and into biofuels or short-rotation coppice crops such as willow or miscanthus. Perhaps you could explain that in broader terms.
Professor S Christie:
I covered a number of issues in my opening remarks. DARD will have a direct impact on issues related to the reduction of emissions. It can play a part by developing different regimes in order to encourage farmers to get involved in addressing the issues of greenhouse-gas emissions from tractors, the chemicals that are used on the farm, and, of course, animals. That does not mean that the farmer cannot drive his tractor or use chemicals on his land or that he has to enclose his animals in boxes to harvest their methane emissions. There is much that can be done, even around the use of fuel in tractors, which is similar to the steps that are being taken to make private cars more efficient.
We have been talking for a long time about reducing the chemical intensity of crops in Northern Ireland, and great strides have been made. Twenty years ago, lots of phosphate was still being used on the land, even though it was not needed. We must make more strides, and we must only apply the levels of chemicals that are necessary to grow crops, and not overproduce.
Dr P Christie:
The conditions in the west of the Province are completely different from those that pertain in the east. Intensive dairy production was only practised in parts of County Fermanagh, for example, because artificial subsidies were available. The soils of County Fermanagh were not suitable for intensive dairy production. Compared with the east of the Province, the length of the growing season in the west was very short, as was the time available to have cattle outdoors.
I am not saying that every area is like that, but there are places where, if you were starting with a blank sheet, you would not introduce intensive dairying. In future, it might be difficult, without subsidies, to maintain dairying in such areas, where the soils and the climate might still be suitable for good growth of willow biomass, for example. By growing biomass and lowering emissions, producers can help to reduce nitrogen problems. Fewer cows producing milk will save on the use of concentrates that are used to feed them.
I am not saying that every farmer should be reducing the intensity of production. It would be sensible to have the more intensive production systems in areas in which the climate and the land are suitable for those purposes. In less suitable areas, it would be better to reduce, or have incentives to reduce, such intensive systems. That is where the alternative systems should be sited. Those systems can be integrated and biomass used for several purposes, such as bioremediating sewage sludge or manures. There will be problems related to compliance with the nitrates directive if too much manure is produced. By adopting an integrated approach, less manure is produced, and can be bioremediated in order to create combined heat and power.
Mr Elliott:
Should alternative land management become Government policy, or should it be implemented by the agriculture industry?
Dr P Christie:
The Government will have to educate people — that is crucial — and encourage them to adopt new methods. There must also be some form of financial incentive, even if it is only temporary, in order to get things moving.
Professor S Christie:
It is not about forcing people; it is about providing incentives and encouraging and educating people. People will, remarkably rapidly, do things that are in their financial interest, especially in the current climate of farming, where things are often marginal. We must keep people on the land and managing it. Alternative land management can mean many things, such as less intensive grazing, or alternative crops. The options will be matched to local conditions and future expected climate changes. If the summers become as dry as we expect them to, some of the crops that are being produced now will not be able to grow, and we may need to examine irrigation, among other measures. We must put some thought into all those issues. The incentives that will be offered, either financial or educational, will have to be geared towards the sorts of land management, in a certain area, that are appropriate to that area, just as, in the past, we had less-favoured area schemes.
Mr Bresland:
You have quoted a useful case study from Germany, which shows how a variety of renewable-energy technologies are being employed on farms. What lessons can be drawn for Northern Ireland in that regard?
Professor S Christie:
We should learn lessons from all over the world, from places where people are beginning to have to address these issues. Some places are ahead of us, and others have similar climatic and soil conditions. We should examine how they are addressing these issues and adapt them to Northern Ireland. Research must be carried out to determine what is happening. Some research is already being done on what is best practice and what we can implement here.
Ms Patricia Mackey (Northern Ireland Environment Link):
That ties into what we said earlier about the need for research. It does not necessarily mean that we have to go back to the drawing board, because many schemes are under way in other parts of the world, and we must examine how those schemes can be adapted in Northern Ireland, how the figures that they have come up with can be used to make the schemes worthwhile, and, more importantly, how they have linked into and got buy-in from rural communities.
Dr P Christie:
There are ways in which we can be quite creative. For example, miscanthus, which is one of the biomass crops, is a grass that is very different from the grass that we are used to growing. However, since farmers here are used to being recognised internationally as experts in producing grass, we can introduce the system to them in a less challenging way, by simply saying that it is a different type of grass, which is true. They will have to use different methods of production to grow it successfully, but if we use that kind of argument, we might be taking some of the fear out of facing these new opportunities. We can still be well known as producers of good grass, but it will be different grass that will be used in a different way.
Professor S Christie:
There is a huge opportunity for Northern Ireland to be seen as a leader in renewable-energy technology, as well as the good-quality food, good-quality environmental standards for that food, and good-quality animal welfare standards for which we are already known. All of those things work together to ensure that Northern Ireland is a leader and can be positively promoted on the global market.
The Chairperson:
Farmers were told that the introduction of measures concerning the production of food — quality-assured and, environmentally, produced to the highest standards — would give them great returns. The pig farmers were told that prosperity was looking them in the face. In actual fact, it was bankruptcy that was looking them in the face. Farmers in the rest of Europe were supposed to be complying with those same standards, but they were not doing that at all. They were finding ways around the regulations, while we were actually fulfilling every regulation. The farmers had to bear all the expense, because there were no grants towards that. They were led not only up the garden path, but some were led completely into bankruptcy, and some of them to suicide.
Professor S Christie:
We need to make sure that we are promoting something that is actually followed through with promotion to consumers, because consumers have a huge role to play. Perhaps the Europeans are not doing it, but if we promote good-quality local produce, and local people buy that local produce, the bad practice — and it is bad practice that is going on elsewhere, in Danish pig farms, for example — will be less important.
Ms Mackey:
If our rural and farming communities are not encouraged to start adopting those renewable-energy practices, there will be a lot more farms going bankrupt, because of the increasing prices of oil, and the reliance of our farming practices on fossil fuels. Food shortages have been mentioned as a key issue, but if food shortages are considered in isolation and not in relation to energy production and future energy production then, although there may be more food in the very short term, increasing oil prices and decreasing availability, coupled with climate change, will mean that food shortages are going to be much more apparent, in perhaps 10 years or so. There is a need to make sure that all of that is considered strategically.
Mr W Clarke:
You have answered the question I was going to ask in relation to biofuels, and the possibility that their production might compete with food production. I agree that there has to be an integrated approach to deal with that.
On the bigger, global issue, if the will were there it would be possible to produce enough biofuels and enough food cereals as well. If western powers, instead of fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, looked at irrigation in Africa and the Third World countries, I think that we could get all of the food and biofuels that we need.
I have not heard anyone talk about hemp as a product in less-favoured areas. Perhaps there is an opportunity to put in vineyards, given the climate change.
Ms Mackey:
I know that there is someone around Antrim who grows hemp and uses it in sustainable building production. That is the extent of my knowledge of hemp.
Dr P Christie:
It is a good example of something that grows well under the right conditions, and it could have a niche market. Although not everyone would be involved in it, it is something that someone could choose to specialise in.
Mr W Clarke:
It is something that I have an interest in, because there was a community group in south Down that grew hemp, so it is viable.
Professor S Christie:
That is the sort of thing that we are encouraging — lots of solutions.
Ms Maskey:
Especially when the community can become involved, and there can be community buy-in.
Mr Irwin:
You say that decentralised electricity production should be a very attractive option for farmers. I have an interest in this because I am a farmer myself. What sort of renewable-energy systems would you suggest are best suited to this scheme in rural Northern Ireland?
Ms Mackey:
There is no one solution. The solution depends on the locality of the farm, the type of produce and potential by-products from that, and how close the farm is to other communities, farms or industries. There are many solutions.
Mr Irwin:
In general, farms have grown. Large milk producers and beef producers create a lot of slurry, which is a massive problem.
The Chairperson:
You have declared an interest?
Mr Irwin:
Yes, I have. [Laughter.]
Ms Mackey:
It is good that farmers see those problems as potential solutions. They just need the help to turn those problems into solutions and resources, which is perhaps something that the Committee could help with.
Mr Irwin:
Yes; there must be advice from the top, from Government.
Professor S Christie:
Financial assistance does not always have to be through grants; alternatives include loans and support for capital. Financial assistance does not always have to mean giving farmers a certain amount of money.
Mr Irwin:
Farmers are used to grants.
Professor S Christie:
Yes; but politicians do not tend to like them as much. [Laughter.]
Mr P J Bradley:
You mentioned funding schemes from Germany and the Republic of Ireland that are designed to encourage greater use of renewable energy. How could similar schemes best be used to help farmers in Northern Ireland — and, particularly, in Fermanagh? [Laughter.]
Professor S Christie:
Again, there are grants for installation, and there is the possibility of loans for installation and capital equipment. In Germany, there is a guaranteed price for the electricity that is generated by a micro-generator — in a house or on a farm — which is then sold back into the grid. German research has shown that, if that guaranteed price is high enough, there will be a much better take-up and installation of renewables than if there were just grants available. That is because what really matters to farmers is the long-term cost and benefit; although they have to make an upfront injection of capital, their costs will be decreasing — which is a huge advantage because the prices will go up — and the price that they will get from the grid should be at least as high, and preferably higher, than the cost of any electricity that they would buy from the grid. That would contribute to renewable-energy obligations as well as their on-farm generation.
Dr P Christie:
If you decide to grow biomass for electricity generation, the European Union will give you about €34 per hectare. That is not enough to induce people to do it. A nearby state has encouraged farmers to produce biomass to put into the large power stations that are burning peat. That Government have added around €80 per hectare to create a total of €120 per hectare, which is just enough to make the scheme viable. As fossil fuels increase in price, such schemes will become more useful. If the cost of the scheme is compared to the cost to the Government of extracting peat, which is a diminishing resource, the scheme seems to be reasonably viable.
Professor S Christie:
Peat is an intensive carbon source, so mining it is negative and even worse than coal or oil.
Dr P Christie:
Peat is a good way to lock up carbon, so burning it is not a great idea.
Professor S Christie:
You lose a lot when it is mined as well as when it is burned, so it is not a good idea.
Dr P Christie:
That is a simple example of a scheme that changes the economics for the start-up and can make a big difference by encouraging people to invest in a new system. Once the farmer is in that system, hopefully, it is viable. However, it is not the end of the world if it is not viable as the farmer can always change the system. There may be a contract for a specific period to supply biomass and at the end of that period the system can be reviewed and changed to something else.
Professor S Christie:
Technologies are constantly evolving in this scheme. Those technologies that are viable now and have a 10- or 15-year lifespan will be replaced by amazing technology in the future. They may even harness something like hydrogen. However, we are not there yet.
The Chairperson:
Bearing in mind the challenges that farmers are facing financially and also in terms of viability and sustainability, there needs to be an assurance that they are investing in something that is going to have a viable, sustainable return.
Professor S Christie:
That supports my point that we need to have a guaranteed minimum to encourage people into such schemes. I do not mind if it gets higher, that would be great.
There is no question that we are going to have a constantly increasing problem with CO2 levels and the increasing cost of fuel. Therefore, any solutions brought in by Europe are going to have to address those factors, and we will have targets to meet.
The shorts of shifts that we experienced before when farmers were paid to grub up hedges and then replant are a thing of the past. That sort of reversal is not possible in this scenario. We are dealing with a problem that is going to get worse, not one that is going to get better.
The Chairperson:
You mentioned that we have to be careful that we are not solving a problem by creating another problem.
Professor S Christie:
Definitely
Mr T Clarke:
In the report that you sent to the Committee there is a set of recommendations including the need to promote small-scale local uses of bioenergy, particularly the use of biomass for heat and power. How can the Government help to provide the promotion recommended in your report?
Professor S Christie:
Certainly the feed-in tariffs would be useful. It is also important to encourage communities to work together and to encourage farmers to take the CHP out of just their own farms, where it is not going to be obviously viable. The Government could also make grants and loans available for the farmers to buy the capital equipment while ensuring that there will not be significant changes in the structures of electricity provision. However, I think that we can be fairly sure that this is not going to happen.
Dr P Christie:
A problem for micro-generators at the moment is that they have to pay something like 11p per therm for any electricity they use from the grid. However, if they generate and supply the grid they receive only between 3p and 4p per therm from NIE. That is completely ridiculous.
I can see why NIE would not want to pay anything like 11p per therm, but we need to make the differential a lot smaller. It would be as simple as forcing NIE to pay a more realistic amount of money for the electricity that is provided by micro-generators. Indeed, farmers could be seen not as micro-generators, but as macrogenerators, as they have greater scope for producing electricity than, say, an individual urban household.
Mr T Clarke:
How would we pursue that course of action when we only have one energy provider in Northern Ireland? We have no choice of who we sell the electricity to.
Professor S Christie:
The Northern Ireland Authority for Utility Regulation (NIAUR) can regulate the feed-in tariffs. The feed-in tariffs for micro-generation from renewable sources should not be equal but higher. That can be justified because of the greater need for renewables under the renewables obligation. The regulator has the power to determine the feed-in tariffs that are offered, and therefore Government have the ability to encourage that to happen.
Mr Elliott:
Encourage or insist on it? There is a big difference.
Professor S Christie:
I believe that the Government have the power to insist. There is probably a lag time because there are almost certainly agreements in place between NIE, the regulator and the Government. However, in the future we should be moving towards a situation where that has changed.
The Chairperson:
In the debate yesterday evening, there was much talk about managing agricultural and food waste. That was mentioned in the light of the German experience. What is the German experience?
Professor S Christie:
I am sorry; I do not know the details of that. The Germans are using both anaerobic and aerobic digestion and different processes, but I do not know the details.
Dr P Christie:
About 20 or 30 years ago in Europe, the use of small anaerobic-digester systems on individual farms mushroomed. The same did not happen in the UK. As it happened, many of those systems failed and closed down. Over the last five to 10 years there has been a resurgence of small anaerobic digesters in Europe, particularly in Germany and Denmark. I do not know the details about the difference in technology, but, apparently, those digesters are much more efficient and much cheaper to run than the previous ones. Many of the technological problems have been solved, and that has resulted in the digesters becoming much more economically viable. We must examine seriously how the Germans are doing that. Somebody must go and look at the system, because we can definitely learn from their experience.
The Chairperson:
Will small-scale bioenergy production take off without Government grants?
Professor S Christie:
That will not happen in the short term; it will need support from Government. I assume that you mean without grants, but with education and encouragement. Northern Ireland’s farmers will probably respond much more positively to grants. The environment and renewable energy fund was a grant, and that certainly worked. We probably need grants, although they may not need to be as large as we might think, given the increasing costs of electricity, peak oil, and so on. However, people need to see that —
The Chairperson:
There is a need to be realistic.
Professor S Christie:
The scheme needs to be realistic, but it must be something that the farmer can look at and say, “If I invest now, the installation will have a payback period of five years. I can get a grant to cover half the cost, and I will be able to afford it.” If the cost will be stratospherically high for the farmer — on top of the cost of new slurry tanks, implementing nitrogen directives, etc — he will not invest in the equipment. However, the grant need not be as large as we think, and it might be possible to give loans, rather than an outright gift of money.
The Chairperson:
What about a mix of both?
Professor S Christie:
Absolutely; we need a mix of solutions for a mix of problems.
Dr P Christie:
I know of farms in Denmark where the farmers applied to construct buildings to enable them to raise more pigs, for instance, and the planning permission for that intensification was made conditional on the installation of anaerobic digesters. In many cases, those farms did not have enough land on which to spread the additional manure. The costings showed that it was economically viable for the farmers to comply and introduce anaerobic digestion on their farms, because the profit from rearing additional animals was much greater than the cost of introducing the anaerobic digestion. Therefore, the cost-effectiveness has been proven in some parts of Denmark, in the more intensively farmed areas.
Professor S Christie:
Such a scheme can tie in with the need to comply with the nitrates directive, etc. We will need to manage such things more sensitively, because they are going to increase costs. However, those costs can be converted into benefits. Those farmers could offer a service to other farmers by disposing of their extra slurry, for example.
The Chairperson:
That would also be of benefit to the community.
Professor S Christie:
It certainly would.
The Chairperson:
Therefore, why should the farmer carry the cost for something that will also be a community benefit?
Professor S Christie:
Then he should be looking to Government to support him in that.
The Chairperson:
Professor, Peter, Patricia, thank you for coming. We appreciate your presence very much. It has certainly been very helpful to us in our deliberations.
Professor S Christie:
Thank you. If you have any further questions, please get in touch.
The Chairperson:
Thank you. Good afternoon.