COMMITTEE FOR THE ENVIRONMENT

OFFICIAL REPORT

(Hansard)

Inquiry into Climate Change

21 May 2009

Members present for all or part of the proceedings:

Mr Patsy McGlone (Chairperson)
Mr Cathal Boylan (Deputy Chairperson)
Mr Roy Beggs
Mr Trevor Clarke
Mr David Ford
Mr Tommy Gallagher
Mr David McClarty
Mr Ian McCrea
Mr Daithí McKay
Mr Alastair Ross
Mr Peter Weir

Witnesses:

Mr Sam Knox )
Mr Gary McFarlane ) Chartered Institute of Environmental Health
Dr Brian Hanna )
Ms Karen Smyth ) Northern Ireland Local Government Association
Ms Eileen Campbell )
Mr John Best )
Mr James Brown ) Ulster Farmers’ Union
Mr Graham Furey )
Ms Aileen Lawson )
Ms Patricia Mackey ) Northern Ireland Climate Change Partnership
Ms Emer Murnaghan )
Mr Raymond Smyth )
Mr Colum Delaney ) Royal Society for the Protection of Birds
Mr James Robinson )
Mr Glynn Roberts ) Northern Ireland Independent Retail Trade Association
Mr Paul Stewart )
Mr John Hardy ) CTS Projects
Mr Connaire McGreevy )
Mr Hans Schreuder

The Chairperson (Mr McGlone):

We will now take evidence from the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health (CIHE), which is a registered charity and the professional voice for environmental health. It sets standards, and accredits courses and qualifications for the education of members and other environmental health practitioners. It also provides information, evidence and policy advice to local and national Governments, and environmental and public health practitioners in the public and private sectors.

Members have been provided with the CIEH’s submission and a copy of the specialist adviser’s comments. We are joined by Gary McFarlane, who is director of the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health, Brian Hanna, who is president of the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health, and Sam Knox, who is chief environmental health officer for the Southern Group Environmental Health Committee. Mr Knox, you are a man of many hats.

Mr Sam Knox (Chartered Institute of Environmental Health):

Absolutely.

The Chairperson:

It is good to see you all today. We already have your submission, so this is an opportunity for you to provide a synopsis, lasting about 10 minutes, of your position and any supplementary information. After that, members will have the opportunity to raise queries. Have you agreed on the order in which you want to speak?

Mr Gary McFarlane (Chartered Institute of Environmental Health):

Yes; however, first, I thank you for the opportunity to come here. The gentlemen with me need no further introduction, because you introduced them admirably; thank you. I hope that their expertise and experience will add to today’s evidence session.

From the outset, I want to make a couple of points. As you might have gathered from our submission, our approach is that climate change is a critical health and quality-of-life issue that needs to be addressed. Mitigation and adaptation will be required in order to do that successfully. Members will also have gathered from our submission that we are a part of the Climate Change Coalition — now the Stop Climate Chaos Coalition — in Northern Ireland. I do not propose to reiterate its submission. The CIEH fundamentally agrees with and supports the coalition’s primary call for a proper statutory framework and mandatory targets for Northern Ireland. It is essential that the Assembly provides leadership, direction and commitment on that. The coalition will elaborate on that.

I will not go through the entire paper that we submitted to the Committee on the health implications associated with climate change. I have picked three matters to illustrate in detail the implications for Northern Ireland that arise from not investing positively in addressing climate change. I say “positively” because it should be seen as an investment not a cost. The three elements that I have chosen from the many available are food poisoning, skin cancer and extreme weather events.

In the case of food poisoning, evidence demonstrates that doing nothing to mitigate climate change and to contain global temperature rises at a manageable level could result in around 10,000 additional food-poisoning cases in the UK. An extrapolation of that figure, based on population size and the known cost to the economy of food-poisoning incidents, shows that food poisoning could result in approximately £3·9 million in extra spending in Northern Ireland.

The consequence of doing nothing in response to the challenge posed by skin cancer will be a significant rise in its incidence. A study carried out in England and Wales in 2002 — there is no similar study for Northern Ireland — estimated that, at that time, skin cancer cost the economy around £190 million overall.

Finally, it is now fairly widely accepted that the pattern and frequency of extreme weather events are caused by climatic changes. We are all familiar with the flooding incidents in Northern Ireland. The Assembly’s research puts the cost to the public purse of flooding incidents in 2007 and 2008, in Northern Ireland, at about £6·2 million.

The point that I make in those three examples is that if the Assembly and public and private society do not collectively respond to the challenge, the economy and the public purse will face significant additional costs. That is why I used the word “investment” in my opening remarks. Let me be very clear: it is still possible to deal with climate change. Northern Ireland can play its part and step up to the plate to meet the targets that we must set, but time is running out. Action and investment are needed quickly.

The latter section of CIEH’s submission to the Committee goes into some detail on the health impacts. Climate change is not an issue for the Department of the Environment or the Committee alone; it is a matter for society as whole. It is important that investment comes from across Government. However, suffice it to say that the impact and the detail of health costs have not been terribly well extrapolated yet. That is important work that should be done. When the Committee draws up its recommendations, it may wish to consider the need for further scoping work and a clearer understanding of the health costs — human and financial — to Northern Ireland. The institute is happy to work with the Committee on those matters.

Dr Brian Hanna (Chartered Institute of Environmental Health):

Ultimately, there is worry and concern about the whole issue. The chartered institute’s approach to the matter is the same as that for all policy that it develops, and on which it tries to influence others, and is based on the best possible scientific evidence that can be found, whether it is on food poisoning, climate change or anything else.

In legal parlance, the institute’s view on climate change is that man’s contribution is beyond reasonable doubt. Climate always changes, and, as we all know, there are natural rhythms. However, our view, which is based on the evidence that we have considered, is that there is an unparalleled dimension that is speedily moving forward.

There are positives. Putting another hat on, I am the deputy chairperson of the Northern Ireland Science Park, and I am involved in job creation and innovation to create new types of jobs. Doing nothing will cost an awful lot of money in GDP terms, and that was well articulated in the Stern Report. However, we can also invest in the future and create added-value and knowledge jobs. Another Department has commissioned the regional innovation strategy to nurture and sustain a fertile innovation environment in which the region’s knowledge economy can grow, prosper and create jobs and wealth.

From our studies on environmental health and public health, we know that improving health is not just about getting people into hospitals, trying to make them well and prescribing various drugs for them; it is also about the social implications and pressures that people experience. That is why we have a problem with inequalities; the poorest people suffer from the worst health. The poorest people in the world will suffer the most from climate change, and we have to play our part in addressing that.

Within the regional innovation strategy, MATRIX, the Northern Ireland science industry panel, recently examined new types of jobs. MATRIX is a business-led body that has university involvement, and it focuses on clean and green future world markets. It focuses on the types of industries and businesses that could add value to Northern Ireland, create jobs for our own people, continue to make an impact on climate change and provide support for the rest of the world. We also have the jobs that are so important to us in health and well-being organisations, and the European Connected Health Campus is based in Belfast.

All of that is happening at a time when our traditional industries have been run down, and we have to look for a way forward. Therefore, although we have to mitigate certain factors and adapt to issues such as flooding, climate change presents opportunities for us. One hundred years ago, we were at the cutting edge of technology with businesses such as Harland and Wolff, which was a big marine engineering company. Presumably, Harland and Wolff still has the skills to develop tidal and wave technologies to generate energy. Therefore, I want to present those positive aspects as part of the argument for Northern Ireland playing its full part in combating climate change.

Mr Knox:

I want to bring the discussion down to local district council level. Councils are well placed to deliver locally on climate-change issues and can thereby demonstrate good civic leadership to our communities. To do that, some of our councils have engaged in environmental-management systems accredited to the internationally recognised environmental standard ISO 14001, such as the Sustainable Together through Environmental Management (STEM) project, which has demonstrated the work that we do with local businesses, and the Community Eco-Challenge. The Chairperson will remember the latter, because it provided an opportunity to visit south Armagh and Craigavon to see how interventions by councils on transport, food, waste and energy had changed the behaviour of those communities. I will not dwell on those projects, because the Northern Ireland Local Government Association (NILGA) presentation will go into a wee bit more detail on them.

I will concentrate my remarks on what is required at district council level. Mention has already been made of the sustainable development strategy, which was launched some years ago by the then Secretary of State. My understanding is that that has now been parked and a new sustainable development strategy and implementation plan are being written. That is so long in the making that it is creating major problems for Departments, district councils and other public bodies because we do not have the strategy that we need. Chairperson, if you have any influence over the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister (OFMDFM), it would be helpful if you could give the new strategy a push in the right direction.

A statutory duty on sustainable development has been created for all public bodies. However, no guidance has been issued on what they should do to fulfil that statutory duty. Simply because sustainable development and climate change are inextricably linked, something must be done about those issues.

Furthermore, a sustainable development stakeholder group, which had representatives from all Government Departments and other agencies, was created by the DOE some years ago, and it was then taken on by OFMDFM. That has foundered, and it must be re-formed, re-actioned and revitalised as a matter of considerable urgency.

A declaration for climate change for councils has been actioned, and I understand that it has been written but has never seen the light of day. A funding stream is necessary to enable councils to take forward their duties in the context of such a declaration. That exists in all other parts of the United Kingdom apart from here. The need for funding must be recognised, and moneys must be ring-fenced for councils to work with communities, the business sector and the like.

Moreover, there should be a requirement in law for councils to produce sustainable development strategies and action plans. Even more importantly, if that is done, a system must be put in place whereby councils report on their progress in meeting actions, particularly with regard to climate change in their areas.

Over the past few days, flooding has been on everyone’s minds. We had significant hailstone showers yesterday. Some of the changes in weather patterns are undoubtedly due to climate change. I reflect on the flooding of August 2008 and the difficulties that elected members and councillors had because people in their communities looked to them for help when their houses were being flooded.

On 21 April 2009, a draft flood and water management Bill issued for consultation in England and Wales. The draft Bill does not relate to Northern Ireland, but it would be well worth looking at a similar Bill for Northern Ireland. Such a Bill would reduce the likelihood and impact of flooding in future years. It proposes to give councils a significant lead role in calling agencies to task for non-delivery of actions that they should have taken.

The Sustainable Development Commission published its report ‘Stock Take: Delivering Improvements in Existing Housing’ in 2006. That report was commissioned by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. It talks about existing homes throughout the United Kingdom and how they can contribute to major gains in energy efficiency and waste reduction. Given that 27% of carbon dioxide emissions into the environment come from existing domestic buildings, could communicating with the general public and making a grant available to them simply and easily make a major impact in the reduction of CO2 emissions from housing?

The building fraternity must be encouraged to think about building carbon-neutral homes for the future. In 2011, there will be a new regime of 11 councils. Those councils will have community-planning powers, and, as sustainable development begins to manifest itself properly in Northern Ireland, they will be well placed to help deliver what is needed locally, let alone nationally.

The Chairperson:

Thank you, Mr Knox. Much of what you have said has been extremely informative and useful. We will probably have to follow up a number of your points.

Mr Boylan:

Thank you for the presentation. Policies, such as the waste management strategy, are being introduced. Are the targets high enough? Under the present policy, are those targets achievable and are they robust enough to deliver results?

Most politicians are out canvassing for the elections, and, as we hear about more outstanding issues such as job losses and the recession, perhaps people think that the climate issue is not pressing. The issue must be addressed anyway.

How might we bring awareness of the practicalities and realities to the ground? We need to change attitudes and to secure public buy-in. How might we tie that in?

The Chairperson:

I want to follow up briefly on a point on which Dr Hanna touched. A big selling point is that there is a win-win situation. There can be a win for the environment, and there can be a win for the economy, and that seems to have been lost on some ill-informed people. Can you expand on that idea?

Mr G McFarlane:

I know that time is of the essence, but your point is one that I was going to reinforce in our closing remarks. You are absolutely right. Furthermore, it is not only the economy that will win. Other significant issues that are critical priorities for society will benefit if climate change is tackled. Obesity, for example, is fundamentally linked to climate change. It is not a coincidence that the most obese nation in the world, the United States, is also the most carbon intensive.

However, to return to the question about engaging the wider community, I said that tackling the problem will require a partnership approach. It will require leadership and commitment at Government level but also, ultimately, roll-out and delivery on the ground. Local government is a key element of that, which is why we have aimed some remarks at it, in particular. I mean local government in its widest context; not simply environmental services in local government, although they have a particularly unique opportunity, especially with the business community. Therefore, one must look at local government as a conduit through which to act. Frankly, there has been a policy vacuum and a lack of leadership from central Government on sustainable development. Sam Knox made that point. Local government has tried to get on with it despite that, but they need support, commitment, resources and investment from central Government.

Dr B Hanna:

Climate change is largely focused on energy issues. All sorts of complications arise, such as the security of the supply of energy. However, we all know that, to have a low-carbon economy, we must reduce the use of fossil fuels. We have to create a new approach to the way in which we design and build our houses. The Government have huge influence over such matters. Sustainable development is about economic, social and environmental well-being: the Government cover all those areas. One of the crucial tasks for the Government is to produce a central sustainability policy that cuts across all Departments and Committees and that can be delivered cohesively. That started out in the Department of the Environment but was moved to OFMDFM, where it sits at present.

I sat on the Sustainable Development Commission UK for six years. The biggest problem with Northern Ireland during my time there was political instability and the fact that we were dealing with direct rule Ministers. We now have a devolved Administration with a number of Departments. The economy clearly sits within the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, as does the Northern Ireland Science Park, which I mentioned. Transport sits in another Department, and housing in another. One of the biggest policy challenges for the Committee is to pull all that together to find a cohesive way in which to address sustainability.

There is no doubt that if we are to produce a low-carbon, prosperous society in Northern Ireland, we will have to change the whole balance of the way in which we do things. That means creating new types of industry. We do not have a set of simple answers to what are very complex problems, but the way forward must embrace every Department, all aspects of local government and the various other public bodies that exist. It must, of course, embrace the private sector, too, because it is the private sector that will deliver wealth creation. That is why it is important that we have initiatives such as the Northern Ireland Science Park, which is a place for the best brains coming out of universities to work to develop new industries and help them to grow. It is not generally known, but there are around 1,500 graduates working in that area of Belfast. If that particular initiative were not there, those people would not be in Northern Ireland. They would be in the Republic of Ireland, Great Britain or further afield.

The Chairperson:

Or they would be on the dole.

Yes.

Dr B Hanna:

Yes. We believe that we do.

Mr G McFarlane:

Brian referred to the 80% target, but we do not have that target in Northern Ireland, and that is the point that I was trying to make in my opening remarks. The Climate Change Coalition will expand on the rationale behind that, but, essentially, we do not have any such targets here. Indeed, until the Assembly sets that kind of framework and imposes that target on itself, Government will not be shown to be displaying any commitment or leadership on the issue. Therefore, how can it expect individuals who live here to take those targets seriously?

However, all that needs to be cast in a positive light. It is positive, and Mr Boylan is quite right to say that a response is required from the public as well as leadership to be shown by Government. We must be positive, because the changes that are needed to meet those targets are positive — they are not costs.

Furthermore, I still believe, and I am sure that the Committee also does, that, even in 2009, there is more to life than the amount of money that we make and the amount of money that we have available to spend. This challenge enables us to return to some of the core values that are important to life, such as community and the wider society. We must portray making those adjustments as benefits, not costs.

The Chairperson:

Yes, but do we require primary or secondary legislation?

Dr B Hanna:

It could be that, once primary legislation is introduced that stipulates what Northern Ireland must achieve, everyone in society will react. I was previously the chief executive of Belfast City Council, and the Department that the council worked through set it a target that showed its CO2 emissions at present and what level those emissions needed to be at, and when. People in the council then sat down and worked out how that target would be met. If legislation were to be introduced, that would also happen in other organisations across Northern Ireland. It is like anything — if one is given a financial target, one must try to meet it.

I genuinely believe that a serious effort must be made. I hear people say that this is only a small place, and that anything that we do will not make a difference. It will make a difference to other people in the world. I attended a lecture last week given by an Indian professor at Queen’s, and he made it very clear that what the people in that part of the world expect of the Western World. We will not get away with saying that this is only a small place, and that it does not affect us. It will affect us. It will not wash if we say that it is up to people in India and China to sort themselves out so that it will not affect us as much.

Mr Gallagher:

Dr Hanna has covered most of what I was going to ask. I agree with him about the economic opportunities that are afforded us as we try to become more energy efficient, as we hopefully will in future.

Will you clarify the issue of public health and food poisoning? Why will there be more instances of food poisoning if we do not control global warming? Will you tell us again how much you estimate that that will cost the Health Service?

Finally, Dr Hanna made the point that the different Departments — OFMDFM, DETI, DFP and DOE — must get their act together, and be seen to be pulling in the same direction. Do you agree that we must perform much better in that respect? However, that must be done against a background of the innovation and research centres about which you have spoken. Are you happy with the quality in that particular sector, and, indeed, in our universities? If the Departments do pull together, do you feel that we have the capacity here in Northern Ireland for that other, probably more important, aspect of research?

Mr G McFarlane:

I will answer the query about food poisoning first. In simple terms, the predictions are based on the fact that we can expect a rise in the average global temperature, particularly during the summer in this part of the world. The statistics already show that, for some considerable time, there has been an increase in cases of food poisoning and food-related disease during the summer months. That is because of higher ambient temperatures.

Those figures are based on two things: the increase in temperature that we can expect as a result of climate change; and, potentially more complexly, the responses of certain bacteria and organisms to that increased temperature. Without going into the science, which I do not fully understand, that is a simplistic explanation of it. Those 10,000 additional cases are based on those kinds of projections.

The costs that I mentioned are derived from what the Food Standards Agency estimates to be the total cost to the economy. I should clarify that £1·5 billion is not just the cost to the Health Service but the total cost to the economy. That cost includes days lost from work, treatment by the NHS, and investigatory resources that are used to investigate those outbreaks. The current number of cases is 100,000, and one can extrapolate the outcome of a 10,000 increase.

Dr B Hanna:

The Chief Medical Officer, Michael McBride, said:

“Current predictions on climate change suggest greater long-term impacts on health than any current public health priority.”

That is a major statement.

Mr Gallagher:

I have quoted that in the Assembly myself.

Dr B Hanna:

It is quite an important statement. The Chartered Institute of Environmental Health deals with issues such as pest control. It may be that, given climate change, pests that we have never seen before in our country will suddenly appear. Some of those pests could carry disease.

Mr G McFarlane:

I singled out those three things, but I could have picked others. I was trying to highlight the fact that it has not been scoped properly to find out the potential implications for Northern Ireland and the potential costs to the wider economy. That is a piece of work that is worth doing.

Dr B Hanna:

Dr B Hanna:

The Northern Ireland Housing Executive and the Energy Saving Trust are responsible for improving energy efficiency in dwellings, but, in England, that is a local government function. Therefore, the Housing Executive will hold information about that, but you are quite right to make that point.

People often forget that if an office block is built in the centre of Belfast, it will be there in at least 50 or 70 years’ time. You must get that across to people and ask them how much energy they will have to use to heat or cool the building for the next 50 years. They must factor into their decision-making process the quality of the building that they build.

If people continue to build to the lowest possible standard, which tends to be building-regulations standard, and without a little more common sense and good design, they will continue to build buildings that require much more energy to heat than is necessary. Engineers and architects know more about that than I do. It does not make sense to build a building that will last for the next 50 years, during the very period when we face that problem, without taking that seriously. Existing properties must have much more home insulation.

Mr Beggs:

I want to touch briefly on building regulations, which you mentioned. They have raised another issue in my mind. Of course, building regulations are controlled by DFP. Another critical Department is therefore fragmented on the issue. You have highlighted another significant problem.

We will ask the Department what is happening with the sustainable-development stakeholder group. Can you provide some background on what it did in the past and on when it last met to do anything?

Mr Knox:

Two of us who are present had the opportunity to sit on that group. We tried to call both DOE and OFMDFM to account in the context of slow progress and to help encourage them to produce a robust sustainable-development strategy for Northern Ireland, with key performance indicators, in the hope that a system would be put in place. We asked that Departments right across Government be called to account on their delivery.

Mr Beggs:

When did that happen?

Mr Knox:

It has happened throughout the past five years.

Dr B Hanna:

It has been ongoing for a long time. Practically every non-governmental organisation that had an environmental or, indeed, a social aspect was involved in that. I am sure that your specialist adviser can give you that information.

We went to Government and tried to help them and give them a steer. It was not easy because the sustainable-development strategy started out with DOE. At that time, there were all kinds of issues about whether the Assembly would start up again. It had not been in place for a while. Eventually, the decision was taken that the matter should go to the centre for the very reason that many Departments were involved and that one at the centre should have overall control. I will leave it to the Committee to debate whether that is a good thing or a bad thing. It is not my job to tell you how to run the Government. [Laughter.]

It is very difficult to get every single Department that has input into the matter to work together to produce a sustainable-development strategy.

The Chairperson:

You were a chief executive: you know what would happen if you let that rain on the parade. [Laughter.]

Mr Beggs:

In order to move the issue forward, it is important to go for the low-lying fruit first so that people will see the benefits and will want to progress further.

Initiatives that help to improve people’s health and also help to minimise adverse impact on the environment include ‘Safe Routes to School’ and the Brownlow cycling initiative, which the Committee has seen. Are there any other initiatives in which you or your members are involved that help to improve community health while also being beneficial to the environment?

Mr G McFarlane:

Ms Smyth:

Climate change is a key issue for local government owing to the huge impact that it will have on local communities, the economy and sustainability. NILGA was pleased to be requested to submit evidence to this inquiry, and we hope that our comments are taken into account when an outcome is being developed.

Local government work on issues relating to climate change has already begun. Some councils are more active than others in that area. From our experiences and from the work that has already taken place, we can inform the Committee on a number of issues.

NILGA has developed a draft declaration on climate change that the councils will sign and that is similar to the Nottingham, Scottish and Welsh declarations. I believe that the Committee has access to that work, which is still in draft form.

Due to a lack of resources in local government to implement the commitments that have been identified, and a lack of adequate steer from Government on climate change to take the declaration forward, NILGA is attempting to leverage funding from Europe in order to enable councils to start work on the mitigation and adaptation measures that will be so critical to communities. The INTERREG IVa committee initially rejected our bid for project funding; however, we appealed that decision and are meeting a review panel on 3 June. The details of the project were forwarded to the Committee Clerk for members’ information.

In general, NILGA believes that there is an urgent need for a ministerial champion to take the climate change issue forward, by working in either a climate change interdepartmental working group or a sustainable development working group. We need adequately resourced legislation to be put in place to take forward the work on climate change, which is similar to that of the Climate Change Bill, and to provide an overarching strategy that will enable the implementation of such legislation. Given the current economic climate, if a clear and coherent strategy were implemented, it would save people money, particularly those suffering fuel poverty.

The targets for Northern Ireland should be proportional and appropriately related to the current EU targets. Although we acknowledge that, ultimately, we can have little impact on mitigation, local government in Northern Ireland takes its civic leadership role very seriously and believes that timely implementation of mitigation targets will provide a strong signal to the community and businesses at home and in other countries that they can have more of an impact. It is vital that we take the lead on that core issue.

It is necessary to mitigate climate change, and we have proposed the Achieving Sustainable Councils (ASC) project to assist in doing so. For local government and other public service delivery organisations, the main challenges will be seen to involve adaptation. NILGA, therefore, endorses the Northern Ireland Climate Change Impacts Partnership’s comments to the Environment Committee on adaptation. Government need to plan for change and ensure that the citizens of Northern Ireland are adequately protected in the face of the challenges that climate change presents.

NILGA recommends that the Environment Committee examine the valuable work of the UK climate impacts programme in that area and makes recommendations to the Assembly to take account of that work when planning any future development. It is vital that adaptation measures be built into the Programme for Government and that adequate resources be provided for that work.

The Assembly Departments will need to ensure that any future development can withstand the challenges that climate change will bring and to protect existing development. That will impact on each and every Department. It will be necessary to develop and implement a strategy that ensures that all policy that Government bring forward is proofed for climate change, mitigation and adaptation.

Sam Knox already alluded to the fact that the sustainable development strategy has not delivered. There has been little implementation of sustainable development issues, because they have been frequently put in a box labelled “too hard”. Local government is still waiting for adequate and appropriate guidance on how it should implement the statutory duty introduced in that strategy. There is no point in introducing a strategy that will not be implemented. Critical to the success of any Northern Ireland climate change strategy will be ensuring that all stakeholders are aware of their responsibilities and enabled to carry them out.

A review of all existing Government strategies also needs to take place to ensure that climate change is taken into account. For example, there is no mention of climate change in the existing waste management strategy, even though the targets expressed in it are as a direct result of EU climate change policy. The whole reason for landfill diversion is the reduction of greenhouse gases.

In NILGA’s experience, Government find working on cross-cutting strategies particularly challenging. That has been amply demonstrated by the waste strategy and the sustainable development strategy. To ensure the success of such strategies, it is vital to have cross-governmental ministerial oversight. There must also be ministerial pressure to perform, and an appropriate level of buy-in from officers.

We have witnessed the resolution of particularly difficult issues such as PPS 21 though joined-up ministerial working. Although that is encouraging for issues where there is less pressure from the electorate, in an environment where constitutional politics usually takes precedence, it has been the case that implementation of particularly complex issues such as sustainable development has fallen by the wayside. That leads back to my point about the fundamental need for a ministerial champion.

In the short term, we believe that, at the very least, a budget should be set aside to develop initial action on climate change and a communication strategy to ensure that the public understands the issues and the necessity to take action. As evidenced by the work that NILGA has done on preparing the Achieving Sustainable Councils project, local government is seeking innovative ways of retaining funding for work on climate change.

In our experience, those councils that have started to monitor energy use and reduce their carbon footprint have quickly saved large amounts of money, which has enabled them to pay for the officers whom they have employed. For instance, Ballymena Borough Council has award-winning energy-reduction and carbon-footprinting schemes.

Quick wins initially secured by the regional-government approach are likely to be followed by the need for resources to be made available strategically targeted to those areas in which most work must be done. I particularly draw attention to emergency management. At present, NILGA believes that emergency management, particularly by local government, is under-resourced and ill-equipped to deal with climate change as an ongoing issue.

The emergency-management role of local government will grow after the reform of local government. The proper resourcing of that role will be a key part of protecting public safety. NILGA is talking to the local government emergency management group about how to include climate-change adaptation in the long term and a fast response to severe weather incidents in its overarching local government strategy.

We are keen to continue to serve our citizens well in the face of what is likely to be a huge challenge to our economy and way of life. We are enthusiastic to explore how to prepare communities to adapt to climate-change challenges that they will face. Therefore, I call for the Committee to highlight the need for robust research in that area.

As Gary McFarlane has said, adequate and appropriate research must be carried out on how Northern Ireland can reduce its carbon footprint and on what must be done to implement any climate change strategy. Work must be prioritised and our universities supported in the development of new technologies. There is no reason why Northern Ireland cannot become a world leader in taking advantage of the huge economic development opportunity linked to work on renewable and sustainable technologies.

Eileen Campbell will brief the Committee on some examples of local-government good practice in working with communities and businesses to mitigate, and adapt to, climate change.

Ms Eileen Campbell ( Northern Ireland Local Government Association):

Sam Knox has spoken about the Sustainable Together through Environmental Management (STEM) project. We received €1·6 million for the same project through the east border region INTEREG IIIa partnership. We generated the other 25% in funding from councils and businesses.

The project aimed to help businesses and councils across the east border region to implement an environmental-management system to enable them to manage and reduce their environmental impact. We sought to reduce energy consumption and waste; to increase recycling rates; to prevent pollution of air, land and water; and to increase legal compliance by small businesses. The overall aim was to enhance the economic viability of small businesses by reducing their costs and keeping them out of court on pollution cases.

Small and medium-sized businesses make up more than 95% of businesses on the island of Ireland. They are major employers, but also major polluters and emitters of CO2 — responsible for more than 80% of pollution incidents in Northern Ireland. Likewise, our councils are among the largest employers and play a key role in influencing and guiding the actions of their local business community.

That civic leadership role is displayed through the international standard for environmental management being conferred on councils — the ISO 14000 to which Mr Knox referred. However, all the southern councils are on one joint certificate. Therefore, they must all work together. If one council fails an audit, they all fail, so there is quite a lot of competition and accountability.

At present, 26 services across those nine councils in the east border region (EBR) fall within the system’s scope, the range of which includes technical services, leisure services, environmental health, buildings and grounds maintenance, right through to major services such as roads and water in Louth and Monaghan. They are all on one certificate, and another 10 services are due to be included in the system this year. The INTERREG IIIa money has run out, but our councils are continuing to fund the initiative. As well as having another 10 services to take on board, Antrim and Omagh councils are paying us to roll out STEM in their areas.

However, a piece of paper or an environmental-management system is worthless unless measures are put in place on the ground. Examples of the progress that we have made in the Northern Ireland councils include the Southern Group Environmental Health Committee reducing its electricity use by 9% and its consumption of heating oil by more than 20%. Recycling has increased from 33% to 75%. The waste going to landfill from Ards Borough Council’s civic buildings has been reduced by 25%. Down District Council has been able to divert more than 60% of its internal waste from landfill and to reduce its use of heating oil by 17% across the council estate. The technical services department in Dungannon and South Tyrone Borough Council has reduced electricity use by 13·7% and its heating oil consumption by 13·4% — 6% in the civic building.

That gives you a feel for what can be done through that one-to-one support and guidance.

We adopted an innovative approach to working with the business community, and we provided a one-to-one confidential advisory service, as opposed to the traditional regulatory approach that local government takes. That enabled our team to identify and overcome the barriers to operating sustainably that businesses face and the barriers that they face in complying with the legislation. We were able to provide funding for audit fees for their certification.

We worked with 287 businesses, and we put an environmental management system in place with those businesses. In fact, we worked with over 300 businesses, but the some fell away because the cost of meeting the legislation was too great for them. At the end of the project, 233 businesses had achieved a British Standard for environmental management. A range of sectors in anything from construction to manufacturing and from hospitality to retail was involved. Some businesses with two or three employees were involved, and some with perhaps 150 employees were involved. A huge spectrum of businesses and sectors participated.

I will give you a feel for what we achieved: 71% of those businesses are making reductions in their energy use, and many businesses who joined later expect to make reductions through programmes that they are putting in place. When we initially went to work with those businesses, they did not even have a clue about what their consumption levels were. One of the first things that we did was to get them to measure what they were using before they started to reduce it. Seventy-four per cent of the businesses are making savings in waste, and the projected savings over the first five years for those businesses are £1·6 million on energy and £1·1 million on waste.

When those businesses joined the project, only one of them was meeting the requirements of the legislation that was applicable to it regarding the environment. We have produced 233 businesses that are effectively self-regulating. One can imagine the financial implications for Government if there are businesses that can regulate themselves through being audited by external bodies.

We trained over 10,000 people in the public and private sector on resource efficiency, climate-change legislation and a raft of environmental issues. In a survey, 80% of businesses said that we made them more competitive. They are now key players and are able to tender for contracts for which they were unable to tender before. They have not necessarily won all of those contracts, but they are in a position to tender because they have an environmental management system and they have reduced risk-management requirements.

We have made a positive contribution to growing the local economy, certainly across the border region, through balanced and sustainable development. On many occasions, we have been recognised as being an example of good practice. We have won many awards, including awards from Queen’s University and the DOE for sustainable development. We won an award from Invest NI for small-business support, and we won regional and national training awards. It has been recognised that we provide an example of good practice in local government. We want that to be followed across Northern Ireland.

The community eco-challenge was launched by the previous Minister of the Environment, Arlene Foster, in 2007, and that project was funded by DOE. Committee members will be aware of that project, because you received a presentation on it and you visited two of the community groups that are involved with it. I will briefly go through some of the achievements that we made.

The project sought to encourage and enable householders to live more sustainably and to look at how we could reduce their ecological and carbon footprints. We worked with 100 households in the five council areas in the southern area. We focused on food, energy, transport and waste, which are the four big hitters on the ecological footprint and the carbon footprint. As we all know, those are also the four big hitters on people’s pockets in the economic crisis.

We tried to encourage householders to make lifestyle changes to reduce their consumption and become more resource efficient. We achieved that in that we succeeded in reducing the ecological footprint of those householders by anything up to 25% and reducing the carbon footprint by anything up to 30%. On food, we reduced the footprint by up to 15%, and we were able to save householders £25 a week through looking at the food that they were buying. We tried to get them to reduce food waste in the home, which is estimated at £440 a year in an average home. The potential saving on food and food waste amounts to over £1,000 a year for many households that are struggling. We tried to focus on the impact of the food that people buy, what they buy and what they dispose of.

We tried to get them to look at local produce and organic produce, which would have a particular impact on the ecological footprint.

I think that the Department has not been able to resource the work to the required level quickly enough to really take that strategy forward. Councils are working very hard at the moment to ensure that they meet the targets so that they do not receive infraction fines; that is the reality. There have been discussions about increasing recycling percentages and being more aspirational, but we must be aware of the financial environment that we are working in. However, we now have business plans at local-government level to take forward a major infrastructure. Therefore, a degree of realism must be brought into the whole thing.

The difficulty with the whole carrot and stick issue that the Committee has been talking about is that we have been concentrating on getting funding for the infrastructure. We have now obtained the capital funding to take that forward, but there is a lack of revenue funding to take forward learning and communication, or data and research.

Therefore, certain arms of the strategy are, perhaps, not going the way that they should. However, we are starting to work on those now to take all that forward.

(The Deputy Chairperson [Mr Boylan] in the Chair)

Mr Ford:

There has been discussion, today and previously, on the crossover between the climate change strategy and the sustainable development strategy. You have highlighted the good work that is being carried out by Brendan Forde’s climate change unit in DOE. However, you also effectively said that that unit has no clout with other Departments, as it is stuck in DOE.

Sustainable development has been transferred from a Department that had some understanding of the issues, to a Department — OFMDFM — that has no understanding but has some clout. Do you have any thoughts on how to solve that particular difficulty?

Ms K Smyth:

I gave the example earlier of a cross-ministerial working group on PPS21, and we have a similar Executive working group on the reform of local Government. Although that cannot be done for every issue, these are really serious, overarching issues that will affect all other policies, and there must be political buy-in at Executive level.

Mr Ford:

Ms Campbell, you highlighted what was clearly a very successful, but relatively expensive project. How does one transfer the lessons from that type of intensive project to the wider community, without having to replicate the same structures everywhere?

Ms Campbell:

I have developed a project, for which I hope to attain further funding from the East Border Region and which involves circulating those lessons. We have developed a toolkit that we hope to roll out to councils. We have also developed a sort of electronic school for sustainable development. That package will involve all of the different elements, such as waste and energy management, and it will be available to local government, as a sort of greening-government school, and to the business community. We also hope to build in an accredited scheme so that one can pick up points and obtain qualifications. Furthermore, the toolkit will be available online, so that businesses can lift it and run through the program themselves, and the same would apply to councils.

Mr Ford:

You said that you have sought funding for that project. How far advanced is that?

Ms Campbell:

We are waiting on a response. We had had to tender for that funding, but, if we are successful, we hope to have the project up and running in the autumn of 2009.

Ms K Smyth:

Just before we leave, the Committee should be aware that NILGA has also given evidence to a current Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution (RCEP) inquiry into climate change, and it may be useful for the Committee Clerk to contact the RCEP. I can forward contact details if necessary.

Evidence was given by all UK local Government associations on what they are doing on climate change. We are also working closely with the Welsh Local Government Association on pilot projects that councils there are running. We are examining those projects to ascertain whether we can take forward similar schemes in Northern Ireland at a low cost.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Boylan):

Thank you very much. Keep up the good work, especially in Newry and Armagh.

We will now hear evidence from the Ulster Farmers’ Union (UFU). Members should note that the Ulster Farmers’ Union aims to serve its members by promoting and supporting a vibrant and sustainable rural economy where agriculture is secure and pivotal to its future. It has more than 12,500 members supported by 25 regional offices, and its headquarters are in Belfast. A summary of the UFU’s submission to the inquiry is provided in members’ packs, along with the special adviser’s comments.

I introduce Graham Furey, who is the president of the UFU, John Best, who is the chairperson of its environment committee, James Brown, who is the deputy chairperson of that committee, and Aileen Lawson, who is the senior policy officer. I will hand over to you for 15 minutes, and then we will open up the floor for questions.

Mr Graham Furey ( Ulster Farmers’ Union):

Thank you for taking time to listen to the Ulster Farmers’ Union’s views on climate change. We will briefly go through the document that we provided to the Committee on the facts about climate change and agriculture. We will discuss that for 10 or 15 minutes, and then we will be happy to take questions.

Agriculture must feed the growing population. That is the first concern in the agriculture industry. People need food, clothing and shelter before they need anything else. From our point of view, that must be kept to the forefront. Food security and food production is essential in all countries. However, we must adapt to a changing climate. We could spend all day discussing how we think the climate is changing and whether the cause of that is man made or natural. There may well be questions on that, and we are happy to discuss that if members wish.

Agriculture is a contributor to greenhouse gas emissions, and we will work towards reducing those. We have provided you with facts and figures relating to emissions from the agriculture industry in Northern Ireland and the UK. Northern Ireland produces a lot of the methane emissions in the UK because it is a livestock-producing country. We produce a lot of nitrous oxide emissions but not CO2. Unfortunately, methane and nitrous oxide gases are more toxic to the environment.

We have provided graphs, which show global population projections as well as the amount of food that it would take to feed those people. There is talk about the world population increasing from 6 billion to 9 billion by 2050, and, if you extrapolate the agricultural production figure, production would have to increase by 50% to feed the population in the same way as they are fed today. Of those 6 billion people, one million are starving, and that always has to be kept in the back of people’s minds.

With regard to climate change, there are projections on water stress and lack of water in countries. That is the main obstacle to food production. Across central parts of the world, more land is going out of production because it is too dry, and there are drought conditions. That is one implication of climate change in southern Mediterranean countries. That will lead to declining land availability, and we have provided estimates of how little land will be available by 2050.

The world population and demand for food is increasing, but the world land bank is limited. I read recently that 1,500 hectares of land are lost to urbanisation every day in Europe. That equates to an area the size of Holland being taken out of agricultural production every four years through building and development. Houses and roads tend to be built on the better land. Houses are not normally built at the top, or up the sides, of mountains; they are usually on the lower-lying, more fertile land. Therefore, good land is being taken away from food production. There is an increased emphasis on the use of the existing land bank, and there is some debate around that. Climate change policy must not reduce our ability to produce food. That is really where we are coming from.

James Brown will deal with the issue of adapting to the changing climate, and John Best will then cover further areas.

Mr James Brown ( Ulster Farmers’ Union):

As farmers, we have adapted to change continually, especially in the past few years, whether due to the climate or other factors. The weather is constantly changing and creating challenges for us. Over the years, we have been able to adapt to those challenges, and, therefore, we are not scared of change. However, there must be adequate backup, advice and research on any changes that take place.

A specific example is plant breeding. More plants that would normally have been grown in southern areas are growing further north. For example, maize is now more easily grown in Northern Ireland, and there is considerable acreage of it here. With plant breeding, such changes will continue, and that is why research is important. New crops offer us new opportunities. New technologies will have to be employed, and the issue of GM (genetically modified) crops will need to be addressed, and John Best will speak about that later.

Any targets for reducing emissions must be based on sound, realistic science. Any action taken must enhance the policies already in place, so that any policy that might be introduced to reduce emissions does not affect the outcomes of the Nitrates Action Plan, renewable energy projects and other similar schemes. I raise that point because, if emissions from dairy cows are considered on a per-litre basis, high-yielding cows have fewer emissions per litre, but high-yielding cows require considerably higher inputs than those in a grass-based system. Grass-based systems are also a carbon sink. That whole area needs to be looked at more closely.

The Nitrate Action Plan is working quite well. The amount of fertiliser used in Northern Ireland has reduced substantially, as has the amount of nitrogen. Therefore, the amount of nitrogen dioxide that is lost into the atmosphere is also significantly lower than in the past. That is one of the positive effects of the plan.

Research on reducing emissions is already being done at the Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute (AFBI). That research should be looked at and enhanced in future; more analysis is needed before targets are set. AFBI is currently running projects on life-cycle analysis, particularly for milk production. For example, it analyses all the inputs to milk production in a total-confinement system, which is a high-input system, including the amount of fuel and energy required to bring the food in and to take it out, and the results can be compared with those from a grass-based system, which requires far fewer inputs.

One of only two facilities that measure total emissions from animals is in Hillsborough. That facility will be of particular use in setting our targets. It is important to look at what is going on; however, more work needs to be done before any targets can be set. It is important that we have targets that are specific to the conditions of the Province rather than the UK.

(The Chairperson [Mr McGlone] in the Chair)

Mr Best ( Ulster Farmers’ Union):

One of our biggest concerns is that there is not a level playing field for the measurement of carbon footprints. For instance, our competitors use growth promoters that can make beef production more efficient; however, that has a carbon footprint. Genetically modified (GM) crops make a big contribution to efficient agriculture, and yet that option is denied to us. It is important that we take a new look at the science behind GM production and the benefits that it can bring to agriculture in Northern Ireland.

No science currently exists to support a ban on GM production. At present, there are more than 100 million hectares of GM crops in the world, and the total land mass of Ulster is one million hectares. Therefore, we must look again at the issue. Agriculture can contribute to carbon sequestration as well as carbon production. Therefore, we need a reward for agriculture’s role as a carbon sink.

Renewable energy offers opportunities; however, at present, the market here is not conducive to small projects, because the distribution monopoly is a barrier to small producers. Northern Ireland agriculture can contribute to renewable energy through the production of crops and the utilisation of agricultural waste.

Climate change creates additional costs for farmers by increasing the risk of damage caused by pests and disease, as typified by the threat from bluetongue, which has moved further north in the northern hemisphere due to climate change. We will also be faced with more frequent extreme-weather events, which obviously will cost more money.

We have big a concern about the carbon labelling of food because it does not take into account production methods that are outside the carbon footprint. For instance, it will be quite easy for Brazil to demonstrate a lower carbon footprint than Northern Ireland in the production of beef, because no allowance is made for production standards or the fact that deforestation of the rainforest is taking place to accommodate increased beef production.

A considerable concern among our processors is the fact that supermarkets here are already looking at the carbon labelling of food. That has started to take place, and we need to keep up. The Northern Ireland agrifood sector is the largest employer outside the public sector in Northern Ireland. Therefore, it is important that we do not deny production here, as that will only allow for increased production of beef in Brazil in or chicken in Thailand.

Mr Furey:

In summary, the agriculture sector in Northern Ireland needs an individual approach that takes account of where it sits. Threats and opportunities exist. Climate change, or changes in seasons, creates potential opportunities for agriculture that we do not want to see stifled. However, threats exist that need to be controlled and dealt with. Careful policy consideration is required, and the Environment Committee can play a role in that by helping to set future parameters for the agriculture sector in a changing climate situation.

Three or four years ago, there was no problem with food security. There were not necessarily grain mountains, but there was probably overproduction on most products. Two or three years of bad drought around the world have caused food surpluses to reduce. There are numerous examples. Australia, for example, has had five or six very bad years; last year was its first half-decent year for five or six years. We know people and have family members out there who are dealing with that.

Argentina is an interesting case, because it has gone from being a net exporter to a net importer of beef. Some might say that that is because Argentina has swung from beef production to grain production, and there is some truth to that. That has also happened Brazil. No one has a handle on how many cattle there are in Brazil; there may be anything between 150 million to 200 million cattle, but they cannot count them.

The Chairperson:

I would not want that task.

Mr Furey:

Mr Best:

I am confident that there is a place for willow chip.

Mr Furey:

In a meeting with Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment (DETI) officials yesterday, we talked hypothetically about a fifth power station’s being sited in Northern Ireland. A 300 MW power station that was powered solely by biomass would require 250,000 hectares of land for biomass production, which is 25% of the size of Northern Ireland. That is not a runner, because more carbon would be blown on transportation, and so on.

However, small sites in local areas are possible. We consider Government and local-council buildings to be a market for that, but there must be a profit margin. A farmer needs encouragement to develop it.

Ms Lawson:

The other technique is anaerobic digestion, which has huge potential for reducing methane emissions, and also for producing renewable energy and improving water quality. The amount of capital that is required to implement those systems is so large that it is not an attractive option. However, if electricity were better priced and the market was more open, anaerobic digestion could be an option that would assist a number of environmental issues, including the reduction of emissions.

Mr Boylan:

Thank you very much for your presentation. I am glad that you raised the valid point about the single electricity market, because that may be examined after the Committee’s inquiry. There is no point in our considering low-carbon fuel if we are unable to buy into the grid or if complications arise.

Roy Beggs touched on the opportunities for low-carbon fuel. Are you looking at how Ireland and other European countries are trying to adapt to climate change through diversification, for example? Some people think that diversification represents a move away from farming and into light engineering, but that is not the case. Diversification could merely be farmers using different crops.

Graham Furey mentioned land use. I appreciate that planning policies are being dealt with at present, and that there is an attempt to move everyone out of the countryside and back into urban areas. You said that the 15% figure is being used in Europe, and everyone is entitled to their opinion on the issue. How should we use our land? Should that be done through policy alone? Are there any economic benefits? I know that you have submitted responses on certain policies, but have you put any thought into the questions that I have posed? A figure of 15% indicates that land use will be a major issue for us.

Mr Furey:

I do not know what the figure is in percentage terms, but it represents 1,500 hectares a day, which is an area the size of Holland every four years. I have views on land use, but those are not necessarily the union’s views.

Mr Boylan:

A valid point is being raised.

Ms Lawson:

After the Committee’s inquiry, where we may end up in our approach to tackling climate change is at the point at which some other European countries are already.

Therefore, we can learn from what those countries are doing today. In the short term, however, it is important that we continue to adapt to the climate by plant breeding and by undertaking more production-based research so that we can learn from other countries. We should also continue the research that is done here and ensure that our farmers continue to produce food. That will become more and more of an issue as our population grows. We cannot lose the ability to produce food, so we must keep up with production.

Mr J Brown:

We do not have to tell the Committee how important the agricultural sector is to the Northern Ireland economy. It has been the biggest employer outside Government.

Mr Boylan:

It is not hard to work out that we have a problem with that. One just has to mention roads and the major planning phases are rolled over.

Mr Furey:

We need to produce more from the available land that we have, and that brings us back to GM crops, the introduction of which would help to reduce carbon emissions. If we were allowed to grow GM crops, fewer pesticides and, potentially, less fertiliser would be required. The whole subject must be considered. I am not saying that we should jump headlong into it, but, if growing GM crops has the potential to reduce Europe’s carbon footprint, consumers must be educated about them. At the end of the day, we will go with what consumers demand, but they must be practical and realise that we cannot do everything else that is required of us and still produce quality, extra-large food yields unless we have the equipment with which to do so. Regardless of whether that equipment is pesticides, fertilisers or GM crops, such decisions must be made.

Mr Gallagher:

Thank you for your submission. On the subject of ongoing climate change, earlier, the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health told us of their worries for the future about alarming increases in the incidence of food poisoning as a result of higher temperatures. That may not sit happily with our reputation for producing quality food, which is very much your interest.

You mentioned the ongoing experiment to determine whether dairy farmers should keep their stock indoors for 365 days a year or continue in the traditional way. Has anybody considered the adverse implications that doing the former would have on animal and plant life? In Northern Ireland, we no longer have corncrakes. Despite what scientists have told us about reintroducing them, they are not here, and we all remember when they were. Those birds disappeared largely as a result of silage cutting, which impacted on their habitat during the season in which they came here. Surely there would be serious implications if you were to move to a farming system based on keeping livestock indoors for 365 days a year. Who is considering that matter on behalf of the Ulster Farmers’ Union?

You made another serious point about low-carbon food labelling. This island has a reputation for producing quality food, which is the natural business of farmers. You said that labelling food as quality and low-carbon would be at cross purposes. I would hope that achieving low-carbon labelling in the way in which you described would not jeopardise Northern Ireland’s reputation. Whose business is it to get to grips with that matter so that our reputation is not damaged?

Mr J Brown:

If one solely considers carbon emissions per litre, one must encourage the highest level of production per cow. The higher the litreage per cow, the more that that cow’s ability to graze grass decreases, because she needs a higher level of dry-matter intake. One ends up needing more maize and whole crops — a more cereal-based diet for the cow. In a country that comprises 96% grassland, traditional farming methods would have to change. One would move more towards a total diet in a dairy animal. That would impact on the consumer’s view of friendly agriculture, with cattle grazing in the field. People have just tried to get hens out of cages, and that proposal would put cows back in houses, which would not be particularly welcomed.

AFBI, under Dr Vanessa Woods at Hillsborough, is looking at the situation in Northern Ireland. An increasing trend is to move towards a confined system, under which fossil fuel carries all food in and all slurries out. That type of system also results in a higher use of fertiliser than a grass-based grazing system, which is more environmentally friendly. Growing forage for over winter would take more fertiliser than it takes to produce quality grass for the cows to graze. It is important that there are Northern Ireland figures to suit the Northern Ireland situation. The work at Hillsborough tries to look at the situation and to take it one step further by looking at the manufacturing of machinery, and so on, to keep cows indoors.

Mr Furey:

Keeping cattle outside for 365 days is the extreme scenario, as opposed to keeping cattle out to graze for 10 months of the year. That must be considered in research. If cattle were housed intensively, their gases could be caught or their slurries could be put through an anaerobic digester, and it would not have to be taken out to the land at all. On the basis of those considerations, that sort of research can be, and is being, done at Hillsborough. The extremes must be considered to decide where in the middle we should fit.

Mr Best:

You have highlighted one of our big issues. It is quite easy to demonstrate how keeping cattle indoors for 365 days a year and milking them intensively will have a lower carbon footprint than keeping cattle outside. However, that does not take any account of other potential impacts; for example, the impact on the corncrake, the welfare of cows, and so on. It is a big concern of ours that intensively produced milk will have a lesser carbon footprint than an extensively produced system in Northern Ireland. That applies to milk, beef, sheep, cereals and all other aspects of farming, and we must be aware of that.

Mr Gallagher:

How do we try to sort that out?

Finally, what incentives are there for farmers to adopt so-called environmentally friendly policies?

Ms Lawson:

Farmers can receive payments through agrienvironment schemes to help them move away from production to some sort of environmentally friendly practice. Moreover, farmers in certain sectors can receive discounts on their climate-change levy and aspect of electricity bills if they improve their farms’ energy efficiency. More and more farmers are moving towards introducing renewables energies on their farms.

Farmers have been doing other basic things to save money, such as reducing fertiliser inputs and using organic manures more efficiently. Those actions reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, improve water quality and help Northern Ireland to move towards its targets.

Mr Furey:

The nitrates directive is a classic example of how the industry worked with scientists and policymakers to develop a strategy that we could cope with in Northern Ireland. There has been a good response to the nitrates directive, because it benefited not just the environment and farmers but everyone. We reduced fertiliser usage by using organic manures. Although, at times, it is a difficult piece of legislation with which to deal, it has brought all-round benefits.

We feel that R&D over the past number of years has been neglected on a wide range of agricultural issues. It was put on the back burner, because enough food was being produced in the world and there were no problems. However, we feel that extra R&D is now needed in agriculture production. As James Brown said rightly, we need to look at the impacts of what is now called “evidence and innovation” — as opposed to research and development — on the environment. Much more work remains to be done on evidence and innovation for production, the environment and other issues.

Mr Ford:

I have a couple of questions. You spoke about carbon sequestration as being an option. What opportunities are there for that in traditional agriculture as opposed to alternative-energy crops? Are there opportunities for that kind of remediation?

When you talked about considering new technologies, Graham, you included anaerobic digesters. Given that those were operating in places such as Portglenone 20 years ago, is the issue really that the necessary funding to get people moving in that direction is unavailable, or is the technology still a problem?

Mr Furey:

I will take the final point first. Anaerobic-digester technology is proven all over the world. I meant to say, however, that it is new to Northern Ireland. The initial costs are high, but if a reasonable price were set for the produce, there would be no need for a grant-based stimulus. John Best mentioned the renewable obligation certificates (ROCs), but we also feel that the banks may become involved if they thought that there would be a payback within five years. At present, there is no five-year payback; it is more like 25 or 30 years. In fact, some people say that it will be a 400-year payback, because the return is so low. John Best has more information on that. If the price for what is produced is profitable and the operator can pay off what he owes, the initial start-up cost becomes less relevant — not irrelevant.

Ms Lawson:

I will deal with the issue of carbon sinks. Discussions are ongoing about trading mechanisms, whereby producers can offset their emissions. Under existing policy, industrialised countries can do that by purchasing credits from less-developed nations for forestry and other ventures. There may bean opportunity, where trees or grass are being grown, for example, to reward a farmer for offsetting emissions.

Mr Ford:

I was thinking specifically about grassland crops. Where is the evidence for what the agriculture industry is currently achieving?

Mr Best:

That has not been measured yet. Any growing crop takes in CO2, so it can be regarded as a carbon sink, be it wheat, grass, or so on.

Mr Ford:

It is not a carbon sink if it is eaten by a cow that converts some of it back into CO2. It is a carbon sink if it is sequestrated into the soil. That is the point that I am trying to get at.

Mr Best:

Yes, but that balance needs to be measured, and everyone needs to be singing from the same hymn sheet. We need results that apply to Northern Ireland. New Zealand has its own results; we need our own, which must be robustly backed up by science. That is the direction in which the research must go. The facilities and the equipment are available.

Anaerobic digestion has been around for centuries. It is only recently, however, that energy pressures and environmental pressures have moved the technologies forward. Portglenone was a flagship for that technology, but the technology has moved forward considerably in the past few years because of the pressures on the environment and the need to develop renewable energy sources. There are now many opportunities to develop anaerobic digestion.

The Chairperson:

Thank you very much for your time. Your contribution has probably raised more questions than answers, but we will try to elicit a few of those along the way. It is a big topic, but it is very interesting.

Mr Furey:

If you require any further information, please get in touch with us.

The Chairperson:

Thank you again. I intend to conclude the next evidence session at 1.50 pm, after which we will break for lunch.

The next set of witnesses is from the Northern Ireland Climate Change Impacts Partnership (NICCIP).

The NICCIP was established to widen the understanding and knowledge of the impacts of climate change within Northern Ireland and the adaptation actions necessary to deal with it. It promotes, through partnership, the ownership across relevant social, economic and environmental sectors of issues relating to climate-change adaptation.

I welcome Mr Raymond Smyth from the Northern Ireland Chief Environmental Health Officers’ Group, Ms Patricia Mackey from Northern Ireland Environment Link and Ms Emer Murnaghan from the Institution of Civil Engineers Northern Ireland. You have been very patient; thank you for coming along to give evidence.

You have already ascertained the format; you have 10 minutes to provide an overview, after which members will ask questions.

Mr Raymond Smyth ( Northern Ireland Climate Change Impacts Partnership):

Thank you for the introduction and for the opportunity to speak to the Committee. Unfortunately, because of the slippage in today’s schedule, our chairman, Douglas McIldoon, has had to leave. However, we will press on regardless and endeavour to answer members’ questions.

The Chairperson:

I am sure that you will be more than capable.

Mr R Smyth:

Without repeating other groups’ comments, I will explain the unique role of the Northern Ireland Climate Change Impacts Partnership.

Early in 2007, a report entitled ‘Preparing for a Changing Climate in Northern Ireland’, which was commissioned by the Department of the Environment and undertaken by the Scotland and Northern Ireland Forum for Environmental Research (SNIFFER), was published. It focused specifically on the impacts on the public sector and the need for adaptation, and made several recommendations for various areas, particularly the natural environment, the built environment, economic infrastructure and social well-being. It recognised that, as impacts and actions of one sector or organisation could significantly affect others, it was imperative that actions were developed in partnership on a regional basis.

The report recommended the establishment of a Northern Ireland climate change partnership to enable sectors to consider climate change matters, and, thereafter, the Northern Ireland Climate Change Impacts Partnership was established. NICCIP aims to widen understanding and knowledge of the impacts of climate change in Northern Ireland and highlight the necessary adaptation actions. NICCIP’s main focus is on adaptation and building adaptive capacity in partners and others. However, we appreciate that adaptation and mitigation are complementary and that it is not always possible, or even meaningful, to consider either concept in isolation.

The partnership has a wide base and has representatives from central and local government, the business community, the voluntary sector, and professional organisations. All member organisations and objectives of the group are listed in our earlier submission. Furthermore, the partnership benefits from the participation and support of a representative from the United Kingdom Climate Impacts Programme, which was established to help key decision-makers plan their response to climate change.

Although the partnership was formed relatively recently, it has been active in several areas. For example, NICCIP commissioned a survey of attitudes to climate change among the public, politicians and other key decision-makers. The Committee will be interested to know that the survey discovered that MLAs underestimated the public’s willingness to make lifestyle changes to reduce the impact of climate change. In fact, 89% of the public indicated a willingness to make lifestyle changes, provided that Government showed leadership and took action.

The partnership has arranged sessions through which partners can understand the tools that are available from the United Kingdom Climate Impacts Programme. Those will help organisations to develop their own adaptation responses. NICCIP has a programme to promote the climate change declaration for district councils, which Karen Smyth from NILGA mentioned earlier, and to organise training events for stakeholders on the release of the new UK climate projections for 2009, which are expected to be issued before the end of the year.

Ms Patricia Mackey ( Northern Ireland Climate Change Impacts Partnership):

Our way of life in Northern Ireland is under threat from the changing climate. Northern Ireland will have to adapt to overall warming, wetter winters, rising sea levels and more intense storms. In order to deal with the impacts of climate change in Northern Ireland, we require a much better understanding of why we are vulnerable to those impacts. We must identify areas that are sensitive to current and projected climate conditions. Moreover, we must identify the present adaptive capacity of communities, infrastructure, economic activities and the ecosystems that support us.

That must be done across all sectors and all 11 Departments.

Adapting to climate change will be a continuous process, and continual risk assessment will be key. In line with assessing our physical vulnerabilities, the Executive must climate-proof existing legislation and policies across all Departments and ministerial responsibilities. Adaptation and mitigation need to be mainstreamed into existing policy frameworks. That will include policies that deal with infrastructure such as energy, transport and flood defences, but also policies on agriculture, health, education, economic development, investment and so on.

For Northern Ireland to stand any chance of being able to adapt to the inevitable impacts of climate change, we have to put in place legislation that will allow climate change to be treated as a cross-cutting theme. It will have to be mandatory for every Department to report on its adaptation measures. We must review how cross-cutting initiatives can work in the Northern Ireland context. Each of the 11 separate Departments must have a role to play and a means for input. Policies and budgets that are needed from one Department may affect another Department. We must review how all of that can happen in a given set-up.

Having sat in the public gallery, I realise that sustainable development has already been mentioned several times today, but I am going to mention it again. Sustainability is a cross-cutting theme in the Programme for Government, but we do not feel that that it has been dealt with at all successfully to date. It has not been handled as it should have been, and we need to look at the reasons for that. Although there is a statutory duty, no mandates are in place for any Department’s failure to input — there is no real power behind the legislation. As good as the strategy may have been, the entire initiative has no teeth.

We cannot afford the same situation to arise with climate change, because the issue is far too important. We need legislation that will make all public bodies more accountable and oblige them to report against a Northern Ireland Executive mandatory climate change programme. The UK Climate Change Act 2008 stipulates that Northern Ireland should produce its own adaptation strategy. We have to ensure that we have the adequate legislation in place for all our Departments to actively contribute.

Do we need to review how Departments can be held to account for failing to contribute or for lacking an understanding of how they fit in with the agenda? Do we need to review the capacity for dealing with climate change in each of the different Departments? Those are questions that need to be answered. Along the lines of the cross-cutting nature of climate change, we need to look at how energy, climate change and sustainable development all link together. Energy and climate change cannot be looked at as two completely separate issues, and having both of those issues dealt with by the same Department would help to better integrate adaptation and mitigation for climate change.

We need to put in place a Northern Ireland framework for how we will manage adaptation to climate change. We should be able to repeatedly assess where our vulnerability lies and climate-proof existing and emerging policies across all Departments. We also have to put in place the legislation that is required to ensure that all Departments actively contribute and work together across the various silos in a Northern Ireland Executive climate change adaptation programme.

Ms Emer Murnaghan ( Northern Ireland Climate Change Impacts Partnership):

Good afternoon. I represent the Institution of Civil Engineers on the NICCIP committee. We only have to compare life in Northern Ireland to life in developing countries to appreciate that the more civilised a society becomes, the more we depend on the infrastructure of water, waste water, energy, transport, waste, housing, health and education. In a sense, infrastructure becomes synonymous with standard of living.

It follows that the ongoing maintenance and replacement of such infrastructure is crucial. That infrastructure is an asset to modern society, and we fundamentally depend on it for our well-being, economic growth and ability to attract inward investment.

However, climate change probably presents the greatest risk to our critical infrastructure, and therefore it is the biggest challenge that we currently face on a local, national and global level.

As Raymond Smyth stated, NICCIP focuses on adaptation. So, how can we adapt? First, we should look at existing infrastructure. Patricia Mackey spoke about vulnerabilities; we need to identify critical infrastructure across the sectors. For example, in the energy sector, we must identify where power stations are located and consider how vulnerable the distribution networks are. In the water sector, we must consider how vulnerable water and waste-water treatment works are, given the fact that they are all located in low-lying areas for the purposes of abstraction and discharge. In the transport sector, we must identify the main strategic routes. A few days ago, traffic in the city was almost brought to a standstill because of heavy showers. I am not saying that that had anything to do with climate change; however, if it is an indication of things to come, we cannot allow that to continue to happen.

We suggest that a national database should be set up to help manage and defend our critical infrastructure. The database will be used to assess assets for resilience to the effects of climate change, particularly flooding, which is likely to be the biggest challenge to face us in Northern Ireland. Once that information is assessed, the work required will need to be prioritised.

We can learn from experiences elsewhere. For example, in 2007, power stations in the UK came under threat from flooding, which would have had a knock-on effect on power supplies. We need to look at new infrastructure. What should we be doing to adapt infrastructure, and is that happening? We must ensure that all new infrastructure is designed to cope with climate change. Doing nothing is not an option. The Stern Review highlighted that fact. To do nothing will only cost us more in the long term. That point has been reiterated several times today.

The reviews that we are calling for will take time; however, the climate is changing now, and it will not wait for Northern Ireland to catch up. We must simultaneously develop and communicate our emergency response to deal with events that are happening and will happen. Consider the way we react — or do not react — when there is a crisis: we run around like headless chickens. However, we are not the only ones; people in America and the UK have reacted in the same way. We need to tackle climate change by developing a response.

We must produce an integrated flood-risk management plan. If that is our challenge, we must face it. We must engage all the statutory authorities that have responsibilities for certain areas of water management — the Rivers Agency, Roads Service and Northern Ireland Water — the blue-light emergency services, and the councils, through the local resilience forum, because there is no joined-up thinking at present. The identification and prioritisation of the critical infrastructure that must be protected will be one of the outputs of the earlier review. Responsibility for protecting the critical infrastructure can then be allocated on a regional or local basis.

The public must also buy into that. They must be advised and informed of what needs to happen. We need to communicate that message. There must be lots of joined-up thinking. People need to be told whether their properties are at risk of flooding because they are situated on a flood plain, and they need to know what to do in order to flood-proof their properties and assets. We must develop an early-warning system, communicate that emergency plan and practise it. There is no point having an emergency response if we do not know whether it will be effective.

We need Government and this Committee to champion cross-party consensus on climate change. We need strong leadership on this non-partisan issue. Climate change affects everybody, and we need you to agree that Government must carry the financial responsibility for this public-interest issue. We need you to commence reviews of critical infrastructure to promote sustainable development, including adapting to climate change.

We need the Committee to give guidance on standards. The current design standards and specifications also need to be checked to ensure that they are climate-proofed; that is a big task in itself, but the climate projections that both Patricia and Raymond mentioned should help with that exercise. Hopefully, they will be published in the summer.

We need to agree the approach to fast-tracking the planning and statutory consents for critical infrastructure projects, because those must be delivered if we are to meet any of the time frames. We want to make sure that there is joined-up thinking across Government. Policies must be supportive, as Patricia has highlighted, and legislation should reflect that.

Thank you very much for your presentation. You spoke a lot about policy, and one of the earlier presentations referred to a ministerial champion. We have also spoken about the Minister taking the lead, and an intergovernmental group being set up to address the issue of resources, and all other related issues. There is also an issue concerning the time frame involved in formulating policies. What is your view on that? How do you think we could address it?

You also spoke about ring-fenced funding, and that that should come from public funding and the Executive. If that is the case, how then do we drive competition? I was thinking about what was said earlier about the single electricity market. If we are to tackle the issue of renewables, we must consider how they will get into the market. Obviously competition will lead to better prices. You also mentioned the green new deal. What proposals have you in mind to address that issue?

The Chairperson:

If at all possible, I would like one person to respond on behalf of the group.

Ms Mackey:

Because climate change is such a cross-cutting issue, it is a factor in every Government Department. There is a need for some method through which each of those Departments can be held accountable. I do not know whether the most efficient way of doing that is to have one ministerial champion or a cross-party group with representation at a senior level from each of those Departments. Obviously, the ongoing review of public administration, which is scheduled to consider the make-up of the central Government Departments, may be an opportune moment to consider the way in which we deal with climate change and sustainable development, and all of those other issues that are cross-cutting, and on which all of the Departments need to work together.

Mr Boylan:

To follow on from that, you used the terminology “fast-tracking”. Should we not be looking for proper implementation of policy, as opposed to fast-tracking the issue? If the policy is correct, and is inclusive at the start, would that not defeat the purpose?

Ms Murnaghan:

Yes, if we agreed what the regional development and spatial planning should be.

Mr R Smyth:

I think that it is important that we start developing policy, but it is also important that we get it right. Climate change will not be solved overnight.

Mr Boylan:

I agree.

Ms Murnaghan:

Going back to your question, I believe that Government must carry the financial responsibility. I am not suggesting that it comes up with all of the funding, but if there is a stable, cross-party approach to this matter, we will be able to attract private investment in the form of PFI or PPP agreements. However, we should not waste time debating who is going to pay, because asset owners will have no appetite to do it unless they are forced to, and consumers cannot pay.

Mr Beggs:

You have indicated that we may need different standards here as a result of our land border with the Republic of Ireland. Obviously, if their policies were significantly different from ours, we may not achieve our objectives. What practical things should be done to deal with that issue?

Mr R Smyth:

That obviously needs to be considered. In recent years, fuel prices have fluctuated on either side of the border and there has been a consequential movement of consumers in search of the best prices. That is the sort of thing that we should avoid.

It is important for us to make contact with our counterparts in the Republic of Ireland and reach some form of agreement with them on the issues. It is very complex area, but entering into discussions with them is a very important first step.

Ms Murnaghan:

Ms Mackey:

You have mentioned the issue of building standards and retrofitting the existing housing stock to bring it up to scratch. Someone told me last week about figures that exist that deal with trying to get us out of the current economic by combating the redundancies in the building and construction sectors.

Embracing things like the green new deal and bringing the existing housing stock up to scratch in Northern Ireland would be a really good way of bringing employment to the people who need it, and it would help us in tackling the recession. However, fast action is needed to get that done.

Ms Murnaghan:

If we do nothing, climate change will be a threat. If we do something now, there are lots of opportunities.

The Chairperson:

Thank you for your time. You are all welcome to join us for a light lunch. You have been very patient. The meeting will resume at 2.20 pm.

The Committee was suspended.

On resuming —

The Chairperson (Mr McGlone):

The Committee will now hear evidence from the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB). The RSPB aims to secure a healthy environment for birds and wildlife, thereby helping to create a better world for everyone. The charity has more than 10,000 local members and believes that acting locally is the best way in which to address local issues. The RSPB, as members know, works in partnership with people and organisations throughout Northern Ireland. It aims to influence policy and legislation by working with politicians and decision-makers.

Members have received copies of the RSPB’s written submission to the inquiry and the specialist adviser’s comments. Today’s witnesses are Dr James Robinson, the conservation manager for RSPB in Northern Ireland and Colum Delaney, the policy advocacy officer in the North.

Members have copies of your submission in front of them, gentlemen, so please try to keep your overview to approximately 10 minutes. After that, members will put questions to you.

Mr Colum Delaney (Royal Society for the Protection of Birds):

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to be here. I hope that our submission was of use to the Committee.

The Chairperson:

Yes, it was.

Mr Colum Delaney:

We are pleased to be here to give oral evidence to the Committee. Members may be aware that the RSPB is the largest nature conservation charity in Europe and is supported by more than one million members. As the Chairperson mentioned, approximately 11,000 of those members are local and support our work here. The RSPB employs a number of scientists who are devoted to identifying the threats to wildlife posed by climate change and the best mechanisms to avoid impacts.

I will start by explaining why the RSPB believes in human-induced global climate change. The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) involves many thousands of scientists from across the world. The RSPB considers the work of the IPCC to provide the most authoritative opinion on the causes of climate change. The IPCC states:

“Warming of the climate system … is unequivocal … most of the observed increase in global temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.”

Based on the IPCC’s work, the RSPB considers that human-induced climate change is the greatest long-term threat to global biodiversity and will have serious affects on wildlife locally, nationally and globally. If we are to avoid dangerous climate change, rapid and deep emission cuts in developed countries, including ours, are essential. That will require a massive reduction in energy use, action to curb the growth in aviation emissions and a rapid switch from high- to low-carbon sources of energy.

For many years, the RSPB has been encouraging the Assembly to introduce targets for a reduction in greenhouse-gas emissions and measures to help local wildlife to adapt to the inevitable changes that the climate will experience in the coming decades.

Dr James Robinson (Royal Society for the Protection of Birds):

Thank you, Colum. We would like to focus the rest of our brief time here on the threats faced by wildlife from climate change and the need to ensure that Northern Ireland helps wildlife to adapt to the effects of that change.

A paper that was published in a scientific journal estimates that, even in medium-range climate-warming scenarios, approximately one third of the species studied across the globe are committed to extinction unless immediate action is taken to tackle climate change.

Other research has shown that many species of frog in Costa Rica, which is suffering greatly as a consequence of climate change, have already become extinct because higher temperatures have encouraged outbreaks of disease. That is one of the first examples of climate change resulting in extinction.

The RSPB has been working with collaborators from the University of Durham to attempt to predict the potential changes in the distribution of European breeding birds by the end of the twenty-first century by showing where suitable climate conditions are likely to be present. In brief, we found that the range — the areas where those bird live — could shift nearly 550 km north-east and would be 80% of the size of the current range. The actual areas where the birds could live would move north-eastwards. For some species, the potential future range does not overlap with the current range at all, so those birds would be living in different areas from where they live now.

Our projected changes for some species found only in Europe, or with only small populations elsewhere, suggest that climate change is likely to increase the risk of extinction. In Northern Ireland, recent colonisation by the little egret, which was once a bird found in the Mediterranean, demonstrates that the work is accurate and that climate change is impacting already on the distribution of birds in Northern Ireland.

We have also demonstrated that those species that are facing deteriorating climate conditions tend to be declining, whereas the population of those that have improving climate conditions are increasing. If birds are facing a threat from climate change, that is now having an impact on their population; therefore, birds are declining as a consequence.

Many migratory birds are choosing to winter closer to their northern breeding grounds and have had no need to travel west in the recent mild winters on the continent. That change in winter movements has been put forward as a potential cause of the recent massive declines in the number of diving ducks that visit Lough Neagh. Again, we are feeling the impact already. Changes in climate can also affect wildlife indirectly by impacting on food supplies. For example, climate change is detrimentally affecting breeding seabirds such as the puffin in the North Sea, as increases in sea surface temperatures impact on plankton and ultimately reduce the availability of their favourite sand eel prey. Effectively, the distribution of plankton is changing in such a way that the fish that feed on that plankton are not occurring in the seas around some of our largest seabird colonies in the UK. Similar breeding failures for seabirds on Rathlin Island and other colonies around the North Channel may be related to the same pressure, and we are involved in research to understand that. Again, the impacts have been seen here in Northern Ireland. We take this opportunity to invite any members of the Committee for the Environment on to Rathlin Island to demonstrate some of those changes and the impact that that is having on birds right now.

Warmer spring events in recent decades are causing the advancement in the timing of spring events for wildlife. Our research has shown that an increasing mismatch between the hatching of some upland birds and the peak supply of their favourite food is reducing the survival of chicks. Some birds, especially migratory birds, are not able to get back to their breeding grounds to take advantage of some of the peaks of their favourite food emergencies, such as daddy-long-legs coming out in the spring, and that is creating problems for those birds. That is a brief summary of some of the impact that we have seen already.

Mr Delaney:

Nature’s response to climate change suggests that action is necessary to enable wildlife to adapt, so what should be done? The Executive are committed to developing an adaptation framework programme under the UK Climate Change Act 2008. We believe that adaptation measures for wildlife need to be the central elements of that programme, and we have urged the DOE to do that.

Dr J Robinson:

Given that the changes are occurring against a continuing background of the loss of natural habitats and fragmentation of habitats, many species will struggle to survive in Northern Ireland. They are already under pressure, and they are facing those new pressures. It will be necessary to make a wider landscape more suitable for species as they shift in response to climate change. The predictions that we have given about birds moving are some of the things that we are talking about. We must make Northern Ireland accommodating for species as they shift. That will require more than just better protection of existing hot spots, such as Natura 2000 or the network of areas of special scientific interest (ASSIs), bearing in mind that we still do not have any marine reserves, because there is no marine legislation in Northern Ireland, and, therefore, that is an issue that needs to be tackled as a matter of priority.

The Northern Ireland landscape will need to become more permeable to species that are attempting to respond by adjusting their distributions to new conditions. That means that maintaining existing patches of semi-natural habitat in the landscape will be important and creating new ones will be necessary. The Ulster Farmers’ Union talked earlier about the benefits of agrienvironment schemes. The Northern Ireland countryside management scheme offers an excellent mechanism to provide those patches of habitat. However, the recent decision to remove set-aside land in Northern Ireland will add to removed patches of habitat in Northern Ireland and needs to be replaced with another mandatory mechanism to support habitats for wildlife.

As members will know, many of our protected areas are designated as such based on the presence of rare or threatened species and habitats. However, following climate change, those areas will no longer experience the climatic conditions to maintain those species and habitats. Many of the species and habitats for which a site was originally protected will not be able to survive there in future. However, that should not mean that we dispense with those protected areas, because such high-quality areas will become important homes to new species and habitats. If some protection of global biodiversity is to be conserved as the climate changes, those sites will remain important places in the overall network of sites. It is therefore very important that the overdue plans to declare all qualifying sites as ASSIs in Northern Ireland progress as a matter of priority.

Selecting new sites that offer a diverse range of physical habitats, even if they do not host rare or threatened species currently, offers the best way to sustain a wide diversity of species. In other words, we need to take calculated decisions now if we are to maximise our ability to conserve wildlife in a changing climate. Accepting uncertainty requires a refreshed approach to where we designate ASSIs. We must, however, continue to identify and protect less common physical habitats as well. Therefore, we want business as usual but with an extra tier.

To ensure that wildlife can adapt to a changing climate, we propose that the Northern Ireland Government adopt the following principles. We want to see all existing biodiversity laws, policies and strategies implemented across Northern Ireland to create resilient populations of species in healthy habitats. The area of land managed for biodiversity and other environmental benefits needs to be increased, including areas for buffering and linkage outside the protected area network, as we cannot rely on protected sites alone. Furthermore, habitat features need to be protected and created across Northern Ireland to make the land mass more permeable to biodiversity as it needs to move.

We have offered some specific targets in our written response, which the Committee will have seen, and we hope that those will ensure that the Government adopt the right principles and put them into practice, in line with what Colum said are our obligations under the UK Climate Change Act 2008.

Mr Delaney:

We must not forget that, if humans and wildlife are to have any chance of surviving in future, we must act to reduce human-induced temperature rises. We are pleased that the UK Government have agreed that they should aim to reduce Kyoto greenhouse-gas emissions by at least 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. The RSPB campaigned to ensure that that target was adopted.

The UK is also committed to reducing greenhouse-gas emissions by 42% by 2020, relative to 1990 levels, as recommended by the UK Committee on Climate Change. We need to play our part in meeting that target, and we must set legally binding targets to reduce emissions.

Mr Boylan:

Thank you for your presentation. Earlier, the Committee heard from representatives of the UFU, and we spoke to them about the issue of agriculture and what changes may occur. In the overall scheme of things, what impact will agriculture have on land issues, such as how habitats are affected?

James, you talked about Mediterranean species of birds and areas such as Rathlin Island. I had a good day out when I visited that island, and I am interested to know whether, in reality, we have seen the impact that you described — will you please expand on that?

Dr J Robinson:

The issue of land use in Northern Ireland is one that must be debated in the Assembly. Food production is extremely important and is a massive part of the Northern Ireland economy, but there are other public benefits that people get from land and other areas in which land use is important. That includes such things as tacking climate change and halting the loss of biodiversity.

Some of our upland areas that have been struggling over many years as a result of such things as overgrazing are extremely important carbon sinks — they trap lots of carbon because they are based on peat. Those are the sorts of issues that we all need to put into the mix. We must understand how we can use the land in Northern Ireland so that it delivers all the benefits that people here need. That is a debate that needs to be had, and one that would help us to create a truly sustainable future.

We are seeing Mediterranean species of birds coming into Northern Ireland. I mentioned a bird called the little egret, which has served as an indicator that things are changing. We retrofitted that species into the models that we prepared, which I mentioned earlier, that showed how birds would move in the future, and it fits absolutely perfectly.

Our models of how climate affects species are being demonstrated by species that are currently moving. Some southern Mediterranean species are starting to appear very regularly in Northern Ireland seas. We need to accommodate some of those species and help them to survive in future. However, others could become threatening to our existing types of biodiversity. It is a new science, but we need to understand what is going on. That is the purpose of some of the evidence that we have presented today.

The Chairperson:

What types of birds have you noticed in the waters?

Dr J Robinson:

In the waters of Northern Ireland, we are seeing a species called the Mediterranean shearwater, which is very aptly named. That species breeds down in the Mediterranean, but it is appearing in Northern Ireland in increasing numbers. The Mediterranean shearwater is a globally threatened species, and it is starting to use our waters. Therefore, we have a new responsibility to deal with those sorts of species as we move forward. That is a fascinating issue that we need to monitor. We have to develop policies and flexibility in our nature and conservation work to ensure that we will be able to protect those species in future.

However, there are also species of fish, and types of diseases, that have started to appear in Northern Ireland’s waters that we had never seen before. We think that that is partly as a result of climate change.

The Chairperson:

Are the diseases that you have seen more common in places that are closer to the equator?

Dr J Robinson:

Yes.

The Chairperson:

Can you give some examples? Perhaps you can supply that detail to us.

Dr J Robinson:

Yes, we can certainly provide that detail.

The Chairperson:

That would be very useful.

Mr Beggs:

You indicated that there have been changes in the bird population, and you mentioned the movements in plankton and fish population on which species feed. Do you have any evidence of changes in the insect population? Bluetongue is related to midges surviving milder winters and travelling further north. There have also been issues about the bee population, although I do not know whether that is a climate-change issue. Are there any changes in the insect population that will affect the bird population and the agricultural community?

Dr J Robinson:

That is a very good question. There are some very good examples of butterflies moving very close with changes in climate patterns. Butterflies seem to be a very strong indicator of climate patterns. However, butterflies occur across Northern Ireland at the moment, so they will not be a threat to anything. In fact, we may see new species here, such as the holly blue. Those never came here in the past.

We could certainly find some more information about the sorts of things that are happening with other invertebrates, but it would be more related to the bird research that we have been doing. As I said, the emergence of species such as daddy-long-legs is happening at a different time of the year than it was in the past. I am not sure of the impacts that that could have on agriculture, but invertebrates are changing their ecology according what is happening in the climate. We could certainly try to provide the Committee with more information about that.

Mr Beggs:

If we are to make adaptations to try to minimise the effects of climate change, we must acknowledge the fact that we have contributed to it in the first place. Otherwise, people will believe that they cannot change the situation and ask why they should do anything. What information have you based your view on that makes the RSPB so certain that man has contributed to climate change?

Dr J Robinson:

To be quite honest, the RSPB does not employ climate scientists: we are a nature-conservation organisation, and we deal specifically with changes in wildlife. That is where our expertise is. However, we base all our policies on the best available science. We truly believe that the IPCC provides the best possible scientific evidence, which shows that the current levels of climate change are human-induced. We are content with that view. It is a view that is supported by many thousands of scientists. We know that there are sceptics out there, but we are not convinced by their arguments. We base our decisions on what the IPCC says.

The Chairperson:

Does any other member have anything further to ask? James and Colum, thank you very much for your time. The session has been very informative. Will you send that other detail to the Committee?

Dr J Robinson:

Yes, absolutely.

The Chairperson:

The next item of evidence is from the Northern Ireland Independent Retail Trade Association (NIRTA), which is the representative body for the independent retail sector in Northern Ireland. The association represents the interests of 1,000 independent retail members throughout the North, and its collective membership employs 20,000 staff and encompasses an annual turnover of more than £1 billion for the Northern Ireland economy. Its member stores are, in general, owned and managed by local families rather than by large multinational companies with shareholders.

I welcome Glynn Roberts, chief executive of NIRTA, and Paul Stewart, managing director of JC Stewart in Magherafelt. It is good to see you again. You have approximately 10 minutes to provide an overview, after which members will ask questions.

Mr Glynn Roberts ( Northern Ireland Independent Retail Trade Association):

We will split the presentation into two parts. I will discuss the independent retail sector’s overall commitment to addressing climate change, after which Paul will outline the role that he and his business plays. I want to acknowledge Donna McGuinness, who is a PhD student on an internship with NIRTA at the minute, for her help and support in producing the written submission.

As you mentioned, we have more than 1,000 members in Northern Ireland, who employ approximately 20,000 staff and create a collective turnover of more than £2 billion for the local economy. Our member stores include grocery stores, wholesalers, butchers, chemists and many other types of retailers, who are the backbone of the economy and major investors in our town centres and local neighbourhoods. Our members have a real commitment to the environment and recognise their important role in protecting it, not only because they are local, community-based businesses with their feet on the ground but because it adds value to their business.

Given that our members are small businesses, they emit, on average, three times less carbon dioxide per square foot compared with a large multiple retailer. Our members are mainly based in town centres or local neighbourhoods. That allows the public to access shopping easily on foot or by public transport. In England and Wales, because of the growth of big-box, out-of-town multiple retailers, the average person travels 893 miles a year for food shopping, and one can imagine how much carbon is pumped into the atmosphere every year as a result. It underlines another reason why draft Planning Policy Statement 5 must be published to ensure a real focus on retail-led regeneration of town centres.

Our members source 100% of meat and poultry from local farmers and source as many local foodstuffs as possible from local suppliers and processors. That radically reduces the number of food miles. I will provide an example of how that impacts on climate change. For instance, food from Mexico emits over 5,278 kg of CO2, whereas only 17 kg is emitted if food is sourced locally. Although multiple retailers in the UK have improved their sourcing of local meat and poultry, they cannot compete with our members’ commitment to local food suppliers and support for local farmers.

We recommend that the Assembly ensure that information on food miles is included on labelling in order to help consumers make an informed decision on food. Moreover, that development will encourage all retailers to source locally to meet their consumers’ demands. We also have an excellent track record in the reduction of the usage of plastic bags. For the past two years, our members have operated a voluntary scheme that has reduced carrier-bag usage by up to 75% in some small shops. The ‘Do you need a bag?’ scheme has ensured that staff ask that question to customers in local shops. It has already resulted in a reduction of more than 36,000 tons in local carbon emissions and has prevented almost 30 million bags being sent to landfill sites across Northern Ireland.

Furthermore, local retailers significantly reduce their carbon footprint by the way in which they pack their produce. Packaging makes up almost a quarter of household waste, and 70% of that is food-related. In contrast, buying fruit and vegetables from independent shops can produce an estimated 75% less packaging and food waste.

Dramatic hikes in energy costs for small businesses have taken place in recent years, with many of our members seeing their bills rising by as much as 60%, as well as trying to stay afloat in the midst of a serious recession, in which consumer spending has decreased. The Minister of Finance and Personnel must be commended for introducing, after much lobbying from us, a small-business rates-relief scheme, which will result in a 25% rates reduction for some 16,000 local small businesses.

We recommend that that scheme be expanded to provide additional rates relief for small retailers who invest in renewable-energy systems for their businesses. In our view, that is the only real way in which to reduce our reliance on high-cost fossil fuel and to reduce energy costs for small businesses and retailers.

Mr Paul Stewart ( Northern Ireland Independent Retail Trade Association):

Thank you for giving me this opportunity. I run a supermarket in Magherafelt that has been going for 100 years, or for almost the same length of time that the Eiffel Tower has been standing.

We have taken several environmental measures. In 2005 and 2006, we put in a heat-reclaim system, which takes all the energy from refrigeration. Refrigeration engines create a great deal of heat, and through our system, which cost around £40,000, we get that energy back. The payback will come over, perhaps, eight years. When people sell such systems, the payback that they advertise is often more than it really is, so one must be careful. We use a great deal of hot water, and the system heats the water up to 60˚C, which is hot enough for all our needs.

That is an example of our use of a hi-tech system. Sometimes people think that independent retailers all run backward wee shops, but we have special electronic expansion valves and refrigeration switches to make things work more efficiently and to save energy.

In 2008, we installed a wood-pellet boiler for all our heating needs. We did that because the price of oil was going through the roof, and I did not want to be reliant on oil coming from Iraq or somewhere similar. Our pellets come from County Fermanagh. You have heard of food miles; these are fuel miles. We are lucky to have that resource in Northern Ireland. That is up and running and is going well.

We had a free consultation from the Carbon Trust, and that was very useful. Out of that, we did some training initiatives. The simplest measure of all is to switch off lights. In some months, we saved around 8% on electricity. At a time when the price of electricity rose by 45%, a saving of 8% on usage was fantastic and a real benefit.

We had a big campaign on the use of plastic bags. We are only a small, 14,000 sq ft supermarket in Magherafelt, and we spent £50,000 on packaging last year. That is an enormous cost for bags that are filled with groceries, taken home and thrown in the bin. We have poster in the supermarket that says, ‘We used 1 million bags last year — that is ridiculous.’

We trained staff to ask customers whether they needed a bag, and we supplied reusable bags. At our own expense, we did a great deal of marketing on the issue. Hopefully, we will save money in the long run. That matches up with the Government’s recommendation for retailers to cut back on plastic bags on a voluntary basis, unlike in the South of Ireland, where statutory legislation was introduced.

We have invested in 200 acres of forest in Scotland. We may be the only carbon-neutral supermarket in the UK, but I have not looked into that.

People may say that the multiples could take all those measures. I recently did an exercise on food miles. We are only one supermarket in Magherafelt, and we spend £1 million a year within an eight-mile radius of Magherafelt. That does not take into consideration that we buy a lot of chickens from Ballymena — I am not counting that. I refer to bakers, pie makers and other suppliers. That is our contribution: multiples cannot do that.

A lot of retailers are voluntarily trying to reduce the number of carrier bags that are used. I have difficulty accepting the imposition of another tax. What is the association’s view on the carrier-bag tax? Should that continue to be encouraged among supermarkets and retailers on a voluntary basis, or do you think that Government or the Assembly should introduce a mandatory tax on all retailers?

Mr Roberts:

Figures show that the voluntary approach has worked. The British Retail Consortium, which represents large retailers, has copied that approach. That is welcome, but it has been shown and can be clearly demonstrated that the voluntary approach works. The Minister of the Environment has ruled out a carrier-bag levy.

Mr Stewart:

We have heavily marketed a voluntary approach, and it works for us. I have been round checkouts myself and seen that a lot of people bring in bags. That did not happen two years ago, and I did not think that it would. I was in favour of the tax at one stage, but now more than 50% of shoppers bring their own bags.

Mr Ross:

Is their only incentive to do that your signs declaring, for instance, that a retailer used 1 million bags last year? Are retailers offering any other incentives?

Mr Stewart:

Yes. Shoppers are given 2p for every bag they bring back. It is only 2p, but it sends a message that a bag has a value. If we were ever brave enough, without a tax, to follow Marks and Spencer and charge for bags, people will already have it in their minds that a bag is worth 2p. Therefore, we give them 2p when they bring back a bag. It has been a big push, but, given that we spend £50,000 a year on packaging, it is been for a reason.

Mr Boylan:

I thank the witnesses for their presentations. I am glad that the question on the plastic bags was answered, because I was going to ask it.

There are two issues that I want to raise. Mr Roberts said that the association was trying to encourage multinationals into town centres. Some of the towns that he mentioned are market towns that could not facilitate multinationals. A car can hardly be driven down some streets in old market towns. Can policies address that? The association raised the issue of PPS 5, but can we use policy to encourage any newbuilds to be energy efficient and low carbon, thus stimulating value for money and competition?

Mr Stewart has explained how he adapted his building to make it low carbon and more energy efficient. Given the current economic climate, what incentives are there to encourage the retail sector to adapt their buildings for low energy and low carbon?

Mr Roberts:

Multiples that have set up in many of our town centres — good examples include Bangor and Ballyclare — have tailored the size of their stores to the town rather than expect the town to tailor itself to the multiple.

Sensibly, some multiples may adjust the size and scale of their operation to fit in with town centres. However, the draft PPS 5 contains a stronger sequential test for that. That would not necessarily be ruled out if there were a big demand for an out-of-town store and all the retail-impact assessments had been carried out. However, the association’s firm policy is that the town centre should be approached first.

At some point after the publication of draft PPS 5, I believe that we will move to the capping system that operates very well in the Republic of Ireland, which prevents buildings extending beyond a specified square footage. That might be the next move.

Mr Roberts:

One difficulty with town-centre regeneration is that three different Departments are responsible for planning. DRD deals with car parks and roads. DOE deals with core planning. DSD deals with town centres. Therefore, it is difficult to get an integrated approach with that number of Departments, which, at times, have overlapping responsibilities. That is perceived to be the case.

As we said in our evidence to the DSD Committee, we want a town-centre regeneration agency to be established that can put forward changes to town centres that are retail led, have focus, and can address issues such as streetscaping, pedestrianisation of certain areas, how public transport supports local towns, and car parking. Therefore, we need a dedicated agency to push the town-centre regeneration strategy. We do not have that.

The number of town-centre managers is also declining. At present, there are barely 10. Just a few years ago, there were 26. Therefore, we need to get back not only to a strong system of town-centre management, but to town-centre partnerships. As you know, one such partnership has been established in Carrickfergus. Other good examples exist in places such as Ballymena, where all the players are on board to try to address those issues. It is important that we do that. That is the most frustrating part of the job that I do to support town-partnership members — the sheer number of agencies with which we must deal. That is frustrating and, at times, makes life incredibly difficult. We must jump through many hoops to deal with the simplest of matters, such as getting a new car park.

The Chairperson:

Thank you very much. It is good to see both of you, and we are grateful for the informative evidence that you have provided. I must declare a maternal interest: my mother has shopped religiously at JC Stewart’s for many years.

Mr Stewart:

I can tell you that it is all appreciated.

The Chairperson:

There is a family connection. It is great to see you. Thank you very much indeed for your time.

The next item on the agenda is the oral evidence session with CTS Projects Ltd. The company offers services including design, installation, commissioning and servicing of specialist products to the private sector and subsidiary companies, partner firms and approved subcontractors. The company offers services that relate to all construction technology throughout the British Isles. Those include facilities management, mechanical and electrical contracts, design installation, maintenance packages and house construction. A summary of the CTS Projects submission to the inquiry is provided in members’ packs, along with the specialist adviser’s comments.

We are joined by Connaire McGreevy, manager of CTS Projects, and his business colleague John Hardy. It is good to see you. You are familiar with the Committee format; you have 10 minutes in which to give us supplementary information on your submission. Members will then ask a few questions.

Mr Connaire McGreevy (CTS Projects):

Thank you very much, Chairperson, for inviting us to speak to the Committee. We greatly appreciate the opportunity to address the Committee and to make our submission. As the Chairperson has explained, our company is involved in renewable energy, mainly to advise homeowners and businesses on how to save energy. I also have personal involvement. I studied climate change and, therefore, have a good working knowledge of the subject, which I have brought to business.

I believe that climate change is natural. Man is having an impact, but other things happen that we are not fully responsible for. There are three major factors: the cycle of the orbit of the earth changes every 100,000 years; the axis of the earth changes every 31,000 years; and the rotation of the axle and the position of polar north changes every 20,000 years. Throughout the last 400,000 years, that has resulted in ice ages and warm periods; however, the difference now is that CO2 levels are rocketing. The levels are now reaching 380 parts per million in the atmosphere, which is unprecedented. We can all make guesses and look at climate models, but nothing can tell us the exact impact of that.

What is clear from the IPCC is that CO2 levels must be tackled. At CTS, we are tackling them through our manufacture of renewable-energy products. It is good to see the Environment Committee carrying out this inquiry, but I would like to see a more joined-up approach from all Departments. Hopefully that can happen in the future.

I spent months in Scandinavia studying ice cores and tree-ring general chronology, from which I learnt a lot about past climates. In Scandinavia, the gross domestic product has been increased since the introduction of 20/20 vision of removing fossil fuels. No other country in the world has addressed that yet. Some 44% of energy used in Scandinavia is renewable. The EU target is 50%. Northern Ireland is lagging behind.

I heard a member refer to the economic recession. A £10,000 grant has been made available in Sweden to get construction workers involved in projects for energy efficiency. That has enabled people to go back to work. Last week in Sweden, I was meeting some businesses and discussing that plan, and I would like to inform the Committee of some of the details of those meetings, as they may be beneficial. The targets for reducing carbon emissions in the rest of the UK must be introduced, and that may be related, so I will pass on the details of that too.

I will now hand over to John Hardy, who is my colleague in CTS, and is also the secretary of the Sustainable Energy Association for all of Ireland. He will provide some more information.

Mr John Hardy (CTS Projects):

Thank you Connaire, and I thank members for having us along today. I will briefly refer to climate change and the opportunities that it presents in Northern Ireland, as well as the need to deal with it. You have probably already heard from various other consultees about the effects of climate change, and the science behind it. This afternoon, various organisations have spoken about climate change and its effects.

In our submission we state that, although climate change is a threat, it can also be an opportunity. Even if one does not believe that climate change is related to CO2 levels, the production of CO2 is a side effect of over-consumption and a lack of sustainable consumption. There is need to consider how we can tackle the core causes of CO2 production. That is obviously strongly related to energy production in Northern Ireland, given the fact that 98% of our energy is produced from imported fossil fuels. It was mentioned earlier that the fact that we have to import so much from overseas, and that we are at the end of a long pipeline, accrues not only food miles but energy miles.

One of the key ways in which we can tackle that is to focus on the CO2 and set targets. Northern Ireland is lacking targets for renewable energy production; we fall well behind the Republic of Ireland, where targets have already been set, and targets have even been set for the rest of the UK. Unfortunately, Northern Ireland is still in the process of establishing what those targets should be. That causes quite a problem, because the Government do not know what they are aiming for. The public perception is that there is no target to aim at, and businesses cannot set long-term targets in their business plans, because they do not know how high the bar that they must reach is set.

We urge that targets be put in place, not only for energy use but for energy efficiency and CO2 emissions. Considerations of CO2 production can tie in with social and environmental aspects of climate change. Our submission includes more specific goals and aims, which Connaire will discuss in more detail.

Mr McGreevy:

“Insist that all homes being bought from private developers for social homes meet the DSD commitment to Code Level 3”.

Point four is to:

“Link PPS 18 & PPS 21 (PPS 14) to Building Regulations”.

There is a conflict, so we need to bring those planning policy statements and the building regulations together. I hope that the building regulations will come through in 2010; the last amendment was dropped in 2008 due to the grants and incorrect prices. We want those building regulations to come through, and there are very simple things that can be done.

We also made a submission regarding the green rebates, but we felt that those were not wide enough to tackle renewable energy. The IPCC and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) have already identified renewable energy as one way of quickly reducing CO2 emissions. However, we need to give the correct costings to the Committee and others.

As the Northern Ireland Independent Retail Trade Association mentioned, another way to reduce carbon emissions is through rates. Energy performance certificates (EPCs) are being created currently; indeed, I noticed a big display certificate in the foyer today. A database has been created, and it is maintained by local councils. That can be used to encourage people to enhance the energy performance of their buildings. The Committee can look at that and talk to DFP to work out how to move forward.

My final point concerns public transport. Only yesterday, a friend mentioned that it costs him £7·50 to travel from Newry to Kilkeel on a big double-decker bus. As he said, it would be cheaper to travel by car. That is a nonsense that must be addressed; if people are to be encouraged to use mass transport, such cost anomalies must be removed.

Following on from that issue, what is the most effective stimulus for promoting the use of renewable energy products? Would it be grants, feed-in tariffs or a mixture of both?

Mr Hardy:

Feed-in tariffs are more effective in promoting the use of renewable energy products to generate electricity rather than heat. Feed-in tariffs are currently being introduced in the UK. We operate under DETI, and we are taking a back seat in order to see how feed-in tariffs work elsewhere before introducing them here. Feed-in tariffs are intended to be front-loaded, so that people get much more money at the start and receive reduced amounts over time. That will encourage people, particularly anyone lending money for a renewable energy system, because they know that they will get paid quickly.

Grants, however, are much more immediate. They can be set up almost straight away, whereas feed-in tariffs involve more bureaucracy on the administration side. Feed-in tariffs for heat ROCs are also going to be introduced.

The Chairperson:

What are heat ROCs?

Mr Hardy:

At present, people get paid for generating electricity from renewable energy sources. Utilities providers are obliged to provide a certain amount of renewable energy. People who use renewable energy electricity systems in their homes get paid a certain amount of money for producing electricity, which they do not have to feed that back into the grid, because those companies can use those production figures to help meet the Government-set targets on renewables.

The plan is to introduce a heat incentive that will encourage people to generate heat from renewable energy sources, such as biomass boilers and solar panels. That will be a massive incentive for people to use renewables. However, a grant system is needed in the interim between now and the date on which feed-in tariffs are introduced.

The Chairperson:

Thank you for your time and for coming along, gentlemen. Your evidence has proven to be very interesting. Please forward to the Committee Clerk at your earliest convenience the information about the one or two things that you mentioned.

We will now hear evidence from our final witness today, Mr Hans Schreuder. Mr Schreuder, am I pronouncing your surname properly?

Mr Hans Schreuder:

Yes, more or less.

The Chairperson:

Mr Hans Schreuder was born in The Hague, in Holland, where he was educated to analytical chemist level. He emigrated to South Africa in 1969 and moved to Gran Canaria in 1986 and then to Ipswich, in the UK, in 1992. He is also a member of Mensa. Members have been provided with a summary of Mr Schreuder’s submission and a copy of the specialist adviser’s comments.

Mr Schreuder, you have been waiting patiently all day. From observing the proceedings, you will know that you have 10 minutes in which to give an overview of your position or to add to the material that you have already submitted. After that, members will ask a few questions.

Mr Schreuder:

Chairperson and members of Committee of the Environment, greetings and thank you for inviting me to present my oral evidence today, which comprises mostly a number of short pertinent quotations from eminent scientists.

First, allow me though to set the scene by going back one century to an equally momentous event.

“The astonishing discovery that atoms are mainly empty was made in 1909 at Manchester University by the indefatigable Ernest Rutherford. He had great courage as a scientist and was prepared to fly in the face of convention… Forced to explain the atom’s mysterious emptiness, scientists had to jettison everything they had believed to be true for the two previous centuries…It was a seismic moment in the history of science.”

Fast forwarding now to 2009, an Australian scientist Dr Jennifer Marohasy stated:

“Our understanding of the natural world does not progress through the straight forward accumulation of facts because most scientists tend to gravitate to the established popular consensus also known as the established paradigm. Thomas Kuhn describes the development of scientific paradigms as comprising three stages: prescience, normal science and revolutionary science when there is a crisis in the current consensus. When it comes to the science of climate change, we are probably already in the revolution state.”

Dr Nasif Nahle from the USA stated:

“Throughout the last decade, supporters of the idea an anthropogenic global warming (AGW) or the impact of an anthropogenic ‘greenhouse’ effect on climate (IAGEC) have been insisting on an erroneous concept of the emission of energy from the atmosphere towards the surface. The AGW-IAGEC assumption states that 50% of the energy absorbed by atmospheric gases, especially carbon dioxide, is reemitted back towards the surface, heating it up.

This solitary AGW-IAGEC assumption is fallacious when considered in light of real natural processes.”

That is the longstanding paradigm that states that because of trace gases, such as carbon dioxide, the atmosphere heats the earth, but that is not true.

The meteorologist William DiPuccio said:

“For any given area on the ocean’s surface, the upper 2.6m of water has the same capacity as the entire atmosphere above it”. Considering the enormous depth and global surface area of the ocean (70.5%), it is apparent that its heat capacity is greater than the atmosphere by many orders of magnitude.”

and:

“The heat deficit shows that from 2003-2008 there was no positive radiative imbalance caused by anthropogenic forcing, despite increasing levels of CO2. Indeed, the radiative imbalance was negative, meaning the earth was losing slightly more energy than it absorbed.”

Members have copies of DiPuccio’s graph that is included in my presentation. It clearly shows an upward trend of the climate model and a slightly downward trend of observed temperatures. I am a scientist, and I go by what I observe, not by computer programmes.

Please understand what this means: there is no evidence for a recent trend of global warming per se, despite increasing alarms about carbon dioxide.

A doctor of meteorology from the USA Joe D’Aleo said:

“Given the current global cooling now in its 8 th year, declining ocean heat content at least in its 5 th year, sea level rises which have slowed or stopped, record rising Antarctic ice extent and rapidly recovering Arctic ice since the 2007 cycle minimum, a sun in a deep slumber, increasing evidence that CO2 is a harmless gas that is in reality a beneficial plant fertilizer, you would think that this proposed legislation”

— he is referring to proposed legislation in the United States,

“and ruling would in a sane world, have no chance of passing. But there is a huge political and NGO machine and all too compliant media and carbon crusaders like Al Gore and James Hansen and literally many billions of dollars behind making carbon evil and subsidizing unwise energy and carbon control solutions.”

The point is reinforced by geologist Professor Ian Plimer from Australia:

“The proof that CO2 does not drive climate is shown by previous glaciations. The Ordovician-Silurian (450-420 Ma) and Jurassic-Cretaceous (151-132 Ma) glaciations occurred when the atmospheric CO2 content was more than 4000 ppmv and about 2000 ppmv respectively. The Carboniferous-Permian glaciation had a CO2 content of about 400 ppmv, at least 15 ppmv greater than the present figure. If the popular catastrophist view is accepted, there should have been a runaway greenhouse when CO2 was more than 4,000 ppmv. Instead, there was glaciation. This has never been explained by those who argue that human additions of CO2 will produce global warming.”

That makes a mockery of saying that today’s level of CO2 is unprecedented.

Finally, Professor Will Alexander from South Africa said:

“If there was strong evidence of undesirable changes, then the whole climate change issue would have been resolved long ago.

The tragedy is that there is a world-wide policy in the opposite direction. Not only has the observation theory route been avoided, but climate change scientists and their organisations have adopted a policy of deliberately denigrating all those who practise it … after 20 years of massive international effort (the overwhelming consensus), climate change scientists have still to produce solid, verifiable evidence of the consequences of human activities….They were unable to produce any scientifically believable, numerical evidence to support their theories. The periodicity in the data and the unequivocal solar linkage were not even addressed. This is not science… The whole climate change issue is about to fall apart. Heads will roll.”

There is little point in adding more observational evidence to what which has been presented to you in these few minutes. Taken in conjunction with my original submission and the additional information that was provided to the Committee before last Friday’s deadline, the case has clearly been made. However, I reiterate the indisputable fact that there is not one single item of observational evidence to support the widely accepted idea that CO2 is the cause of global warming or even has an effect on climate change. Any and all evidence that has ever been presented to support the idea that CO2 has an effect on global temperatures has been biased, opinionated and based on an agenda that pre-emptively dismissed alternative explanations.

Critically, though, the global climate can neither be averaged, nor can it be computerised. Thus, any and all scenarios from computer models are, at best, an exercise in computer programming that stand in no relation to reality, as clearly indicated by the totality of my submitted evidence.

Computer simulations regard the Earth as a flat disk, without a North or South Pole, tropics or clouds and bathed in a 24-hour haze of sunshine. The reality is that there are two icy poles and a tropical equatorial zone, with each and every square metre of our Earth receiving an ever varying and different amount of energy from the sun, season to season and day-to-day. That reality is too difficult to input into a computer. Did you realise that?

The Canadian geophysicist Norm Kalmanovitch said:

“It is inconceivable that even after a decade since global warming ended and seven years into a cooling trend with no end of cooling in sight, world leaders are unaware of these facts and are still pursuing initiatives to stop global warming. Something is terribly wrong with the official international science bodies such as the IPCC who have not come forward and properly informed the world leaders of current global temperatures. If in fact there is any validity to the claims of CO2 increases causing warming; the fact that we are cooling at twice the rate that the climate models say we should be warming is a clear indication that natural forces are about three times stronger than the maximum possible effects from CO2 increases.”

If carbon dioxide is really such a danger to mankind — as the United States Environmental Protection Agency would have us believe — then the upcoming Olympic Games should be cancelled, as well as all other big sporting events. All road and air transport should be stopped and all coal- and gas-fired power stations should be shut down. Clearly there is no need for such drastic action; clearly carbon dioxide is not dangerous at all.

From the word go, the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has provided us with scenarios based on the principle of perpetual mobility that clearly indicate that the world is getting warmer due to re-radiated infrared energy from the increased levels of carbon dioxide. That scenario cannot physically exist — period. The sun heats the earth; the earth then heats the atmosphere, not the other way around. The only possible effect that carbon dioxide could have on the atmosphere is to increase heat dispersion and cause cooling.

As a further rebuttal of the influence of carbon dioxide on the climate, the alleged IPPC greenhouse effect is a non-existent effect. No greenhouse made of glass, plastic, cardboard or steel will reach a higher inside temperature due to the magic of re-radiated infrared energy. If it did, engineers would have long ago been able to design power stations made from air, mirrors and glass that would extract more energy than would be put in. If only.

In conclusion, a century after Rutherford’s momentous experiment, I urge this Committee to consider nothing but the facts before them. Those facts are that carbon dioxide does not and cannot cause global warming; the currently accepted paradigm not withstanding. Any and all schemes to reduce carbon dioxide emissions are futile in relation to having an effect on reducing global temperature or affecting the climate. Any and all carbon-trading exchanges are a fraudulent exercise amounting to nothing more than hidden taxation.

If this Committee comes to the conclusion that emission controls need to be imposed on the people of Northern Ireland to make a difference to global temperatures, it will have failed, to a substantial degree, to understand the issues in hand. Thank you.

The Chairperson:

Thank you for expressing your views to the Committee, Mr Schreuder.

Mr Ross:

None of the Committee members are scientists, and we also have to go on the facts. You mentioned the computer models that have been used, and, as a layman, I find it difficult to see why meteorologists cannot tell us what the climate will be in ten years, yet they seem to be able to tell us what it will be like in 100 years. The cynic in me says that those scientists are not going to be around then to defend themselves, so they do not have to be right.

Obviously, you cannot predict what will happen in the future, but you can look at the past. If you use the models that are being used to predict the future at the moment, and if you take what has actually happened in the past and plug those figures into those models, do the forecasts match up with what has happened?

Mr Schreuder:

Not at all. It is absolutely impossible to mimic the earth’s climate in a computer, because of the very basic fact that the earth is a sphere. A computer cannot handle a sphere; it can only handle a disc. Therefore, similar to the projections in a world atlas, computers draw the world as being flat. That is not what the world looks like, but that is how the computer has to see it. There is no day and no night; there is no icy pole or equator.

The computer averages everything out, and the predictions given are mathematically possible, but they are also mathematically meaningless. A classic example — and I do not wish to be rude with this at all — would be if you put your left foot in a bucket of water at 74°C and put your right foot in a bucket of water at 0°C, and when you touch your crotch it would be the perfect average temperature of 37°C. That is because 74° plus 0° is 74°. When we divide that by two we get 37°, which is the perfect body temperature. However, if you were to stand in those buckets for long enough, you would have to have both feet amputated: one due to heat; one due to hypothermia. You would have no feet, but your crotch would still be 37°C. That is a very simple example, but that is exactly why you cannot average the climate.

A further example is that tonight in Belfast, the temperature will be 6°C, this afternoon it is 20°C. Is the average temperature 13°C? It might have been 13°C at 9.00 am, and it might be 13°C again this afternoon. It is quite meaningless to work with averages locally, never mind across the whole world.

Climate models take the Poles as being -50°C and take the equator as 50°C — sometimes the extremes are greater — and the average is 0°C. That is pointless. The same applies to solar energy. The computer models divide the solar energy across the whole world, but the sun shines for only half the day, not all day long.

Mr Ross:

No. Norm Kalmanovitch states:

“natural forces are about three times stronger than the maximum possible effects from CO2 increases.”

He refers to the “maximum possible” effect. This is by no means an established fact.

I, with my knowledge, and a bunch of professors and PhDs behind me, am at the very cutting edge of climate science. We say that man has no influence on climate change at all. Norm Kalmanovitch, and I met him a few weeks ago when he was in England, still thinks that there is some sort of greenhouse effect. It is so difficult to talk even to sceptical scientists. They still believe that man has some influence. Man has zero influence.

Mr Beggs:

You say that there is absolutely no proof that carbon dioxide has any influence on global warming. Do you accept that science is about observation and constructing theories from those observations, and ultimately constructing computer models and so on to explain that? There are very few absolute proofs of any format in science. That is an easy line to take.

Even if everything about CO2 being responsible for global warming is complete nonsense, do you accept that we have a diminishing hydrocarbon supply; that we are running out of gas? North Sea oil production has already peaked.

Mr Beggs:

What is it based on?

Mr Schreuder:

Crude oil, according to cutting-edge Russian science, is made deep inside the earth from carbonaceous material, and a whole lot of other material.

First, the information about both the Arctic and the Antarctic comes from the Bremen University sites, amongst others, and also from the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in the United States.

However, the newspapers do not pick up on that. As I said earlier, when a block of ice falls off the Antarctic, it makes the news as global warming. When the other 97% of the Antarctic is increasing in ice-extent, no one mentions it. A BBC-sponsored team set out on foot for the North Pole. For nearly two weeks they collected data about the team-members’ core temperature: their body temperature and their heart rate. They kept the same data, day after day. They could not possibly cope with the reality that they were suffering, the equipment was breaking down and, eventually, they came home without ever reaching the North Pole. One day, it happened that a Douglas DC-3 aeroplane flew overhead. The team hoped it was food, but it was not: it was another team of 20 scientists with the latest equipment who found that the Antarctic ice was twice as thick.

I have been on the ice sheet in Greenland. If you could see the extent of that ice, and how it sits, you would understand that they could not know in a millennium, and that carbon dioxide has nothing to do with global temperature.

Mr Beggs:

You seem very certain that carbon dioxide has nothing to do with temperature. I am looking at a graph that was contained in the journal, ‘Nature: International Weekly Journal of Science’. It shows a frighteningly close correlation between CO2 and temperature. You say that temperature follows CO2.

Do you accept that, having burnt all of the hydrocarbon since the beginning of the industrial age, man has certainly added a considerable amount of CO2 to the atmosphere? What if you are the one who is wrong? What if CO2 is what is driving the temperature?

The Deputy Chairperson:

Is it not a fact that people can use technology in their own way to prove or disprove things? You said that computers cannot predict temperature accurately. Surely, modern technology is available to do tests on such issues, and we have to rely on that, whether the outcome is positive or negative for whatever side of the fence on which one sits. How do you answer that point?

As Mr Ross said, none of us are scientists, unless someone has something to confess. How does one prove or disprove global warming by collecting factual evidence using modern technology? As a lay person, I have seen overwhelming evidence that global warming is happening, and you are now saying that there is overwhelming evidence to say that it is not happening. You think that it is a multimillion-pound media —

Mr Schreuder:

Multibillion. Yes, I do think that. My work, and the work of most of the scientists who I have quoted, is based on observation, rather than on fancy computers or on modern instrumentation. We stick to basic science, which involves observation, logical deduction and asking why things are happening and not happening. That has no need for computers or fancy equipment.

The Deputy Chairperson:

Mr Schreuder, to test the depth of the ice, one has to drill down or use equipment of some description.

Mr Schreuder:

Absolutely. That is right. I am talking about the question of carbon dioxide affecting global temperatures and the climate. Despite all of the modern equipment, there is no proof whatsoever that carbon dioxide affects global temperature and the climate. There is not one single piece of evidence for that. Everything is based on computer programmes. The only way in which scientists can tweak to produce the right result is to adjust carbon dioxide. The whole computer programme is based on a world that does not exist in reality.

If you walk down the street and a cloud passes between you and the sun, how long does it take you to feel the difference in temperature? Is it instant, or does it take a minute or two minutes? I feel it instantly, because the atmosphere does not heat the earth or radiate energy towards it.

In fact, the way that the system works is that the sun heats the earth. The sun heats everything on land and sea. The only way that all materials can get rid of energy is by sending infrared radiation into the atmosphere. Some gases, such as water vapour, carbon dioxide, and methane, react to infrared radiation.

The major reason why the atmosphere is warming up is that oxygen and nitrogen molecules, literally, touch and transfer convective heat. If they did not touch the earth, there would be no temperature in earth’s atmosphere. The moon has no atmosphere. In sunshine, its temperature is over 100˚C; in the shade, it is -150˚C. There is no balancing act. Earth’s atmosphere is super-precious. During the day, it acts like an air conditioner. At night, it acts like a blanket.

The Deputy Chairperson:

Thank you very much for your entertaining presentation. I am delighted that you did not fire a real rocket in the room. We certainly would not have been here. Thank you for your contribution, and for your patience.

Mr Schreuder:

You are welcome.