COMMITTEE FOR AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT
OFFICIAL REPORT
(Hansard)
Inquiry into Renewable Energy and Alternative Land Use
22 May 2008
Members present for all or part of the proceedings:
Dr William McCrea (Chairperson)
Mr P J Bradley
Mr Allan Bresland
Mr Thomas Burns
Mr Willie Clarke
Mr William Irwin
Mr George Savage
Witnesses:
Dr Lindsay Easson ) Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute
Dr Peter Frost )
Dr Alastair McCracken )
The Chairperson (Dr W McCrea):
We begin today’s final evidence session. I ask the witnesses, Dr Lindsay Easson, Dr Peter Frost and Dr Alastair McCracken, from the Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute (AFBI), which has been treating the Committee royally today, to make their presentation. I remind Members that the session is being recorded by Hansard, and, therefore, mobile phones and similar equipment must be turned off.
I wish to thank AFBI. It has been the Committee’s pleasure to come here. I found the first evidence sessions very profitable, and I trust that the final evidence session will also be profitable.
Dr Lindsay Easson (Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute):
Thank you very much. AFBI welcomes the opportunity to make a presentation in support of our written submission on the issue of renewable energy and alternative crop or land uses.
In that document, we detailed AFBI’s past research and present work on renewables. We described the development of the environmental and renewable energy centre at Hillsborough. That centre was one of the key targets in strategic objective 2 of the sustainable development strategy for Northern Ireland, published by the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister. We are, therefore, hitting one of the key targets that have been set.
We also discussed the important contribution that research plays in delivering solutions on renewable energy and alternative crops to Government, industry and the community. I will not repeat what has been submitted in writing, but I will explore in more depth how research can help future development.
The welter of material on renewables that we hear in the news and debates, read in newspapers, or watch on television, creates confusion about what is happening, what is possible, what impacts there may be and where we can go. That confusion has arisen because there are many widely differing interpretations of the limited scientific data that is available. Information comes from a range of sources. Not all of it is relevant to Northern Ireland. It has been developed in, and come from, other countries and places with different scenarios and stories. Therefore, we must have locally based information that is relevant to our situation, which is where AFBI has a key role.
There are two fundamental reasons for turning to renewable energy. The first is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, which are responsible for global warming. The second is to replace dwindling fossil-fuel resources, which has been discussed in earlier sessions. However, producing renewable energy has a business role for Northern Ireland’s farming industry. Prospective new enterprises provide business opportunities for agriculture. That is a third reason for Northern Ireland agriculture to be interested in renewable energy and alternative crop production. As well as the big issues of global warming and fuel supplies, there is the question of how agriculture can tap into the business opportunities. The potential income must be considered in relation to the current structure of agriculture, and the worldwide issue of food production. AFBI recognises that food and energy production from our own resources are key challenges for the agri-food industry internationally. In future, food and energy must be produced hand-in-hand.
The scientific understanding of whole-life carbon emissions, not just CO2, informs us that agriculture is responsible for 25% of carbon emissions and, therefore, greenhouse warming. That is a high proportion and must be taken on board when thinking about how to reduce carbon emissions. We must have a community-wide, holistic approach.
Any changes in agriculture will have knock-on effects. As we have seen, rising grain prices in America have had knock-on effects in Brazil and Argentina — let alone on Northern Ireland’s food industry. Research is needed in those areas to evaluate the wider impacts. We do not necessarily need studies on the ground, but we need economic, carbon-footprint and carbon-economy studies. Those are areas in which AFBI has skills, and it can play a valuable role in contributing to our understanding of them.
If agriculture is to be able to justify its place in developing renewable energy strategies, it must have a strong evidence base to take to Government and to industry. It must have evidence that the work can be done sustainably, economically, justifiably and on a sound scientific base.
There are two key areas in which our research has a particular role. The first function of our research is to provide an evidence base for policy-makers at whatever level. As we have seen, renewable energy production from land, in itself, is rarely economically viable. One can produce willow, biogas, other renewable crops and materials, and liquid biofuels through various processes, but if one can add value to such processes — for example, by adding bioremediation, by adding value to the biogas or by adding other streams into the process to give higher yields — they are more likely to become economical. We are involved, therefore, in seeking ways to make such enterprises viable.
There is a misconception that farmers are reluctant to take up new ideas. History has shown that when enterprises are economically viable or profitable, farmers will move quickly into those areas. There have been huge changes in agriculture. We heard earlier that about 7,000 hectares of willow would be needed to produce 1% of the electricity that we require. However, potato crops been reduced by about four times that amount in recent years. Changes take place in agriculture all the time. Therefore, new schemes and systems can be adopted. Farmers will readily take up new opportunities if they are economically viable.
Government intervention and schemes are currently necessary to enable farmers to take forward renewable projects, which are not, in themselves, viable. That is why our research can feed through the policy areas to guide Government and show where incentives, obligations and targets can play a valuable role. AFBI can provide the science base for justifying that sort of investment of time, effort and resources. Government, regional authorities and Administrations will have to achieve their targets, and they must know how to do so.
Northern Ireland has patterns of land use, topography and structure of industry that differ widely from those in other regions of the UK, let alone Europe. Northern Ireland requires very different approaches to achieving its obligations and renewable energy targets. That is why AFBI’s locally based research is necessary: to provide relevant information that will assist our industry to take on board the opportunities. We can provide information on the yields that we can achieve, on husbandry systems and the management of crops such as willow or miscanthus, and on the yields that biogas can produce from manures from our animal systems. For example, we have different animal feeding systems, and the manure might have different properties and achieve different results. Our research will investigate that sort of issue.
We require appropriate-scale renewable energy projects that tie in with arrangements here, and we must understand the markets and their potential to contribute to targets. Apparently, the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment (DETI) is funding reports, but which data is going into those reports? On what basis is the Department reaching its conclusions? Are they based on real, locally-derived information? We are interested in reading those reports, and our comments about them will reflect the information that we have.
We are keen to consider the impact of renewable energy projects on other agriculture sectors; for example, on employment in the agrifood industry and in the food processing, dairy and beef sectors. Although we wish to support the whole industry, at the same time we wish to encourage change and look at the impacts of that.
The carbon cycle is important to any enterprise’s life cycle, and, considering the whole process — from ground level to utilisation — we must determine whether the carbon savings are genuine. AFBI has the required breadth of expertise to monitor complete cycles — from planting through to harvesting, storage, drying, utilisation and energy production. We are able to examine the whole carbon life cycle — few organisations possess such a capability.
Hence, our first role is to provide policy-makers with the required depth of locally based source information. The second key research role that we perceive is to prepare, and think about, the way ahead. When new ideas come along, we must already be working in the field and immediately be capable of identifying problems and providing answers, or at least partial answers.
I shall illustrate that point using an example that is not related to renewable energy, but which, nevertheless, is important for the agriculture industry. When Northern Ireland agriculture was faced with the nitrates directive, we were able to go to Brussels armed with data from the research that ABFI had been conducting for many years into the effects of nitrate excretion by ruminant cattle, and that resulted in more favourable regulations for the industry in Northern Ireland compared to GB and the Republic of Ireland — we had the evidence base. That research did not start when the nitrates directive was issued; we had been doing it for years and the data was available. That is why research is vital and why we must conduct the sort of research that I have been describing. Consequently, when new challenges — and opportunities — come along, we will have the evidence to argue that we are capable of producing the required carbon-emission reductions. If asked, I can give other examples of the value of research.
There are many areas in which ABFI has scientific expertise, and, by investing in research now, we can be ready to help the industry to avail itself of new opportunities and to face new problems. Anaerobic digestion, biomass utilisation and biomass crops are rapidly changing scenarios, and, through the resources that we are employing, we are creating multiple levels of expertise. For instance, we will have practical information of immediate value on subjects such as biomass drying, because farmers want to know now whether that works and how much it costs.
We are also undertaking medium-term research into biogas outputs, which will feed through to developing new opportunities. We are investigating miscanthus crop management and attempting to produce best-practice guidelines, similar to those produced for willows in a linked project in Loughgall. Strategic research is required on carbon footprints, and we are considering even more far-reaching research — although it may be rather too much to call that blue-sky research — into areas such as grass biofractionation. We have heard about wood being a lignocellulosic source, but grass is also a lignocellulosic source that can be used for biofuel production. Therefore, opportunities exist to take crops that we are familiar with and use them for biofuels in a way that other countries are not interested in, but that we should be. That is an area in which we want to make progress.
AFBI’s strength is based on our breadth of experience from plant sciences; animal sciences; veterinary practices; sustainable animal production; microbiology; soil science; environmental science; economics; and years of research in biomass and industrial crops. I have not said much about industrial crops, but we have been working on alternative uses for flax since the 1980s. It is no longer active, but it was our work from 1996 on hemp that resulted in farmers’ currently growing hemp.
Another of AFBI’s strengths is our international and national links. We are currently working with Queen’s University Belfast and the University of Ulster to develop more projects. We are considering gasification possibilities with the University of Ulster. We have international links with North Carolina State University, and we are trying to start a joint project on anaerobic digestion, which would be funded by the United States Department of Agriculture. We are hopeful that that will happen.
EU projects have helped to us to form links in Europe. Dr McCracken’s work on the renewable energy networks for environmental welfare project has involved a number of collaborators across Europe. We have been successful in obtaining research stimulus funding in the Republic of Ireland for work on anaerobic digestion. We also have strong links with the Central Science Laboratory, and with the former Institute of Grassland and Environmental Research in north Wales, which has now been restructured but still works in the area of biomass, and with the Rothamsted and Teagasc centres. Furthermore, we have links with the Forest Service, and we are currently developing links with the further education sector. Therefore, there are many international collaborations and national links.
Through the unique facilities that are developing across AFBI, our research can embrace the complete production cycle from raw materials, and also consider added aspects such as nutrient management in relation to anaerobic digestion. We can perhaps handle those nutrients through bioremediation as well, and there are many links in that area.
The advantage of what we can produce is that is not a desk study. We will be producing results from the ground up. Many reports, such as those that DETI may be commissioning, will come from desk studies. We hope to produce our results from real data. We will be well positioned to consider second-generation biofuels as the opportunities arise to consider those from lignocellulosic sources.
Our current position has been described in our submission. We are committed to the further development of the environment and renewable energy centre, and to the development of our work across AFBI. We have secured funding of a further £1·8 million over the next three years through the innovation fund for Northern Ireland, which will provide resources for the research programme. To a large extent, our technology transfer will be in conjunction with the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (DARD) and the College of Agriculture, Food and Rural Enterprise (CAFRE), although we will be happy to have many groups visit our centre. Our commitment is to work with DARD; our projects are approved through DARD in line with its renewable energy strategy. That strategy has also resulted from the sustainable development programme.
In summary, our vision is that AFBI can provide a strong stimulus to support the local agrifood industry, which will enable Northern Ireland to meet the challenge of food and energy production together from land. We consider that to be a major challenge globally over the next decade and beyond.
Our research programme will provide a solid base for the formulation of policies on renewables centred on locally appropriate information, which may be significantly different from that of other areas and regions of the world. Secondly, it will provide an insight into development of the next generation of renewable-energy solutions; we are looking to the future, with schemes tailored for the needs and opportunities Northern Ireland presents, such as grass. Thirdly, it will develop international links with leading research centres across the world, so that we can rapidly introduce worldwide developments into Northern Ireland.
Finally, we will provide the essential information that Government, the industry, businesses, and the country need to ensure that agriculture plays a sustainable, economically viable and constructive role in addressing the issues of renewable energy, carbon emissions and secure food supplies.
The Chairperson:
Thank you very much. We appreciate that.
As we have been taking evidence, I have sensed tension between the idea of food production and the provision of energy. There is a concern that one comes at the expense of the other. That does not have to be the case. Food production creates waste products that can be used to provide energy solutions. That issue is of interest to me. Evidence-based research is vital. This place provides a lot of that evidence, which is essential to deal with the subject effectively.
You mentioned farmers; they are not reluctant to adopt new schemes, but they are reluctant to go into the unknown. Farmers trying to get out of an unviable position feel that they are trapped in a pit of darkness, which causes them to be careful what they get into, lest they descend deeper into darkness.
The Committee has heard evidence that short-rotation coppice willow is often unattractive to farm businesses, because it requires a long-term commitment and has limited market outlets and price structures. Do you agree with that?
Dr Alistair McCracken (Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute):
It takes four years to get the first returns from short-rotation coppice. We talk about keeping it in the ground for up to 20 years, which is a long-term commitment. If farmers simply grow willow to produce woodchip as a commodity, then the opportunities are not all that attractive. In my work, I have tried to encourage farmers to link up with other parts of the community that they perhaps do not normally talk to.
I cite the example of a group of farmers from Cookstown, who secured a long-term contract with their district council. That is an important part of business development. Farmers need those long-term contracts to give them the confidence to grow a crop over a prolonged period of time. That example demonstrates how farmers can work with the community. Farmers should also consider end use: to whom will they sell their woodchip? Unless they have thought that out, I would encourage them to rethink their business plan. Growing willow to produce a commodity is not the way to go.
Dr Easson:
Development of energy supply companies is a key area, and there are groups operating as such companies. The group producing the willow also installs the boiler and stocks it so that all it does is sell heat. They add more value to the product by selling heat.
Mr W Clarke:
An element that changed the economics of willow farming was introduction of payment for the bioremediation role for which the crop can be used. Can you expand on the research, or tell us its conclusions or recommendations?
Dr McCracken:
We are involved in two types of research and we have held a number of trials. We are investigating liquid effluents, and sewage effluents in particular. Northern Ireland Water has a large number of inefficient water-treatment works and small water-treatment works, including septic tanks. The research that has been done so far indicates that willow copes with large volumes of high-nutrient, particularly high-nitrogen, effluents. It is not as effective on phosphorous, although it will take some up. A trial that we are pushing to the absolute limit — and we are now working at a level far in excess of commercial usage — is to test whether nitrogen will leak out of the system, and so far, that has not happened. Scientists are never absolutely dogmatic, and I should like to complete a few more tests before declaring myself satisfied. There are also one or two examples of the commercialisation of this, using food-industry effluents, which tend to have less phosphorous in them and are lower in concentrations of nitrogen and lower in volume. That will work effectively.
The second area where willow can be used is in the treatment of sludge. We have monitored a sludge trial on the land of Mr John Gilliland in Derry. Again, results tell us that willow copes with that and utilises it. There is no indication that nitrogen is escaping into the groundwater, which is the main concern.
Mr W Clarke:
Does the willow-grower get an income from taking that sludge? Is there a guarantee for that?
Dr McCracken:
John Gilliland has had a contract with Northern Ireland Water, in which sludge has been taken from the local treatment works. That has been an important source of income for him. He lost that contract, and the sludge then went to conventional forestry. There are issues around that. I am not biased, but the science on the use of sludge in conventional forestry does not stack up, because very high volumes are applied at one go. The issues there need to be seriously addressed. Willow is not regarded as a forest crop; it is an agricultural crop and, therefore, is dealt with differently. It can be an important source of income to the farmer.
Mr W Clarke:
I agree that there is great potential for the use of willow with foul water. NI Water is currently considering several drainage plants throughout the North, where the problem is how to deal with contaminated water. For example, storm water has been contaminated by sewage and that overflows into waterways. Is any long-term work being done on the use of willow with foul water, instead of building holding tanks?
Dr McCracken:
We are negotiating with Northern Ireland Water for one of the treatment works on the Ards Peninsula. If we could take even a small percentage of the effluent that NI Water produces, many water treatment works would come into compliance with EU regulations. We do not want to take all of the effluent. However, if even 10% was taken, compliance would be achieved.
The other issue is that this is not a 365-day-a-year solution — willow will only work effectively during the summer. We are examining ways of putting on a reduced amount during the winter. However, that depends on site location and local soil conditions. Nevertheless, one of the issues that must be addressed is what to do during the winter. The solution might lie in storage or by using another conventional method of treatment. One suggestion has been to use reed beds, which function much more effectively during the winter than during the summer, and it might be possible to use both approaches. Technologies exist that need to be examined. However, that is certainly as issue as far as short-rotation coppice willow and liquid effluent are concerned.
Mr Irwin:
I have a few more questions: may I ask them at the end?
The Chairperson:
We will come back to them, because there are four other members who want to speak, and we are to be taken on another tour of the institute.
Mr Irwin:
This inquiry is principally interested in determining the potential of rural businesses to play a part in delivering a renewable energy programme that helps to meet Government targets while at the same time contributing to the sustainability of the businesses themselves. Which of the technologies that have been tested here offers the greatest potential to achieve that?
Dr Easson:
We are an early stage in developing many of these technologies. Our aim is to provide data. We are not in a position to tell businesses which option is best for them. However, we expect to provide increasingly firm data, and we have had strong evidence from short-rotation coppice willow research over a number of years. AFBI is about to submit a report on miscanthus, an area in which there is potential and on which we have done research, at least at desk-study level. We are currently doing fieldwork, which, after one year, is already showing interesting results. Research is continuing on anaerobic digestion, which is also at an early stage. Therefore, I respectfully say that we are not yet in a position to provide relevant information, but we hope soon to be able to do so in order to help the industry to make progress.
Dr McCracken:
There is no single solution to the problem of producing renewable energy on a community level or at a national level. Communities and countries must examine a mix of approaches and technologies. A combination of willow and wind, for example, might suit one group but not another.
Mr Bresland:
Your research has evaluated the potential of different biomass crops in Northern Ireland. What conclusions have you drawn?
Dr Easson:
Willow is a crop that has great potential. However, as Alistair explained, willow chip on its own is unlikely to be attractive unless value can be added through bioremediation or by being part of an energy services company that sells heat.
We have evaluated miscanthus, and we feel that it deserves more consideration than it has had in the past. We are also examining novel crops. We have not taken you into the field to see what we are doing, but we have a novel crop, which no one else in the British Isles is considering as a biomass crop. If any of you are involved in farming you will know that one of the biggest weed problems that we have is the dock weed. As part of a review undertaken by our global research unit, it was discovered that a species of dock weed has been developed in Romania as a highly productive crop that produces a great deal of biomass on an annual basis. We have planted a small area of that crop, but the farm manager is not very pleased, because he does not like to see dock weed on the farm. Nevertheless, that is the sort of novel approach that we are trying to take in order to push the boundaries and make new discoveries. There are well-established crops, and there are crops that we believe have potential, and which we would like to try out. We are becoming actively involved in developing those crops. That is all that I have to say about biomass. Perhaps Peter will go further and talk about other ways of going forward.
Dr Peter Frost (Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute):
I will simply reiterate what Lindsay has said. We are at an early stage of our work: I do not think that we are in a position to give the answers that the Committee has asked for. We are at the embryo stage; in five years’ time we will be able to give a straight answer.
Mr Savage:
You have also undertaken research into the potential of liquid biofuels in Northern Ireland. Our inquiry is examining the relative importance of heat, electricity and fuel from renewable sources. What are your thoughts on the importance of biofuels to the Northern Ireland economy?
Dr Easson:
Three years ago, AFBI was asked to carry out a review of liquid biofuels — biodiesel and bioethanol — in the form of a desk study. That review indicated that there was potential for small-scale production of those fuels, but the economics were not particularly attractive. We approached the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development in order to undertake some other research on that subject, but the Department turned down those research applications and advised us that it would not support the development of the current generation of biofuels. We have not begun any research on liquid biofuels here, although we may use some.
I agree that first-generation biofuels are not an attractive proposition. The current price of cereals and oil seeds, even with the fossil fuel price rises, mean that small-scale production will not be viable. However, we are very interested in the next generation of biofuels. We have not initiated any projects in that area, but we are seeking to establish links and partnerships that will enable us to get involved, as information becomes available.
Dr McCracken:
We normally say that our energy use comprises one third heat, one third electricity and one third transport fuels. The technologies for heat conversion are the simple ones, certainly with regard to willow. We examined combined heat and power and electricity production a few years back, but we are concentrating on the heat market. With a good boiler, we can produce efficiencies in energy recovery of up to 85%, which is impressive. Much of the initial application of the work that we are doing at the moment is towards the heat market. As Lindsay said, in the medium and long term we are examining electricity and, perhaps, transport, but heat is the one element of the market in which we can make a significant impact.
Mr Burns:
You anticipate that AFBI is well placed to become a centre of excellence in renewable energy research related to agriculture. In what practical ways is your research helping to establish the application of renewable energy in Northern Ireland’s farm businesses?
Dr Easson:
The willow industry is in place because of what AFBI has done over the years. We have already made a significant contribution to taking the matter forward in Northern Ireland. Today, the Committee has seen the facility that we will have to enable us to take forward work on drying and storage. The industry has planted a lot of willows but is not sure how that will be handled. We need research tomorrow — or today — and, hopefully, results can be produced quickly, which will help the industry to go forward.
We are moving forward on a number of levels with some immediate issues and some strategic issues. However, there are medium-term and other issues that will take longer to play out. Our facilities will, primarily, serve for research, but also as demonstration. It is important for the industry to see working examples of schemes that are viable and of an appropriate scale. The on-farm scale digester is a key component, and Dr Frost may wish to comment on that.
Dr Frost:
With regard to what we are doing, practically, to ensure that renewable energy is adopted on farms, I can relate to the track record of willow. However, this is a start. Historically, AFBI — particularly here at Hillsborough — has had close links with many aspects of agriculture to ensure adoption at farm level. If that is taken as a track record, this embryo of research into renewables will follow the same pattern. I am referring to dairy cows, silage making, pig research, crop research and industrial fibre. All of the work that we have been involved in has been linked with farmers, many thousands of whom have been through the doors of this AFBI centre.
Dr Easson:
We have 10 farmers growing hemp in Limavady because we grew the first crop of hemp in Northern Ireland here in 1996. We asked the Department of Health for a licence and went through all the hassle of putting the procedures in place so that we could grow cannabis — and I could tell a few funny stories about that. We went thought the hassle to make it easy for the farmers. We worked in collaboration with University College Dublin to development the system for forage maize that can be seen across the country. Those are the areas that I have been involved in.
However, there are many other areas, and Hillsborough has led the way in technologies that the industry has taken up. We have the track record; we have the relationship with the Greenmount campus and CAFRE; we have groups visiting us here all the time, and we have strong links with industry and research. The Committee can see what we do echoed and reflected and taken up by the industry.
The Chairperson:
I am smiling, Dr Easson, because there are things that you may want to claim and there are other things that you may not want to claim.
Mr W Clarke:
We discussed the bioenergy study group earlier. Have the consultants visited this site or have they requested a meeting with you?
Dr Easson:
I attended the seminar with representatives of the industry, and I spoke to some people individually. However, they have not requested a meeting with us.
Mr W Clarke:
I am alarmed by that. There is a Government programme underway, and consultants have been employed on a cross-cutting Government exercise to look into renewable energy sources. One has to ask whether the Department is serious about developing renewables as a way forward. I am thinking about that in relation to the communal biomass heating systems in the housing sector; for example, anaerobic digestion, the nitrates directive, and so on. Are you not alarmed as well?
Dr Easson:
It is not our job to tell them to come and talk to us. We gave them our details and invited them to do that. Their report will be issued for public consultation and we will consider that in great detail. If we do not agree with the conclusions of the report, we will produce a very thorough response to it.
Mr W Clarke:
I am just putting that on record.
The Chairperson:
Thank you very much for your hospitality in hosting the Committee here in Hillsborough.
Before we finish, I thank the staff here for their excellent preparation of the meal and the presentation. I thank Jim Kitchen, the Committee’s special advisor, for his help over the last few weeks. I also thank David Batty, the Committee’s researcher, and the various officers from the Assembly Broadcasting and Official Report staff who are with us today; not forgetting the Committee’s own staff, who are readily available and are by our side.
I thank those who have done great deal of work in preparing for this Committee meeting. Thank you very much indeed.
The Committee will produce a draft report. It is hoped that that will be completed by the middle of June. Following consideration and approval by the Committee, the report will be submitted to the Business Office for debate in a plenary session of the Assembly. It is intended that that process will be completed before the summer recess. I hope that the Committee can keep to its timetable, as we often give others quite a bit of heat when they do not keep to theirs. The Committee will therefore try to lead by example on this matter.