Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr McAleer): I welcome, by StarLeaf, Arron Wright, director of green growth, Dave Foster, director of regulatory and natural resources, Michael McCallion, head of waste, and David Kyle, divisional veterinary officer, international trade facilitation. I invite the officials to begin the briefing, then members will ask some questions.

Mr Arron Wright (Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): On behalf of the team, I thank the Committee for the invitation to meet you today. We welcome the opportunity to share some of the ways in which we believe the Department's work will contribute to the Programme for Government (PFG) and to hear members' views on that.

I will give you an overview of how we have been engaging with the Executive Office and other Departments to develop the Programme for Government draft outcomes framework, and also highlight some of the DAERA work streams that will help to deliver it. I will refer to the briefing paper provided to members and touch on how the Department addresses the New Decade, New Approach commitments. Using green growth as an example, we will illustrate how we are putting processes in place to embed collaborative working across Departments. Almost all the outcomes will require the involvement of a number of Departments, if they are to be realised, and members will note, from annex B in the briefing paper, that the Department will input to eight of the nine proposed outcomes, while cross-cutting strategies, such as green growth and the food strategy, will contribute to most of them.

To help make the session as informative as possible, I have been joined by Dave Foster and Michael McCallion, who lead on natural environment and waste plastics policy, and David Kyle, who leads on the international engagement and trade facilitation work. All those areas cut across a number of Programme for Government outcomes, and I plan to touch on a few of those during today's briefing.

Members will be aware that the Programme for Government is the Executive's highest-level strategic plan, setting an ambitious direction for government to deliver long-term outcomes that people want to see. Achieving this will require collaborative working across government and with its partners over many years and will be underpinned by a series of strategies, policies and programmes and a corresponding budget.

Annex B shows the strategies and policies, which the Department either has in place or are in development, linked to each outcome. At this stage, programmes for delivery and the budget are yet to be determined. The Executive Office, which leads on the Programme for Government, is following the process that is outlined in New Decade, New Approach, ensuring that there is widespread engagement and co-design in that process. Engagement has involved workshops, feedback sessions and citizen surveys, and I want to assure the Committee that the Department has been fully engaged throughout and has provided input to the framework, which issued for consultation in December and closed, I think, on Tuesday past. I understand that the Executive Office hopes to be close to a final version of the outcomes framework by the end of April, which will allow us to begin identifying the appropriate actions. We will aim to complete this work and enable the PFG to be brought before the summer. We will be happy to return to the Committee in advance of that to outline the actions that the Department plans to take and to seek members' views.

The consultation on the draft Budget for 2021-22 has concluded, and the final Budget is due to be agreed by the Executive before the end of this month. At present, the draft strategic Programme for Government excludes associated expenditure targets, so, at this stage, it is not possible to determine how the departmental contributions to the Programme for Government will be reflected in the Budget.

DAERA's draft business plan for 2021-22 has used the PFG outcomes to frame its targets, and, once approved by the Minister, it will be presented to the Committee for members' consideration. Work has also begun on the first of DAERA's five-year plans to achieve the strategic aims set in its multi-decade strategy, 'Sustainability for the Future: DAERA's plan to 2050', which was shared with the Committee last month. Once finalised, the new PFG outcomes will feature heavily in the first of our five-year plans.

Our purpose remains sustainability at the heart of a living, working, active landscape that is valued by everyone. That is reflected in the Department's strategic priorities, which are to support the food, forestry, fishery and farming sectors in contributing to a sustainable economy; to protect and enhance our environment; to champion thriving rural communities; and to be people-focused, making a difference to those we serve.

I want to now focus on some examples of how, in furthering these priorities, the Department is progressing the Programme for Government outcomes. The current outcomes delivery plan (ODP), which was developed in the absence of the Assembly, provided Departments with an outcomes focus, so this kind of model is not new to us. As outcomes are long term, aspirational and generational, many of them in the ODP have carried across into the new draft outcomes framework, and this is reassuring because it demonstrates that the policy goals are largely aligned with people's expectations, as they should be.

Annex A of your briefing paper includes a table showing some of the indicators associated with outcome 2 of the ODP:

That has carried across into the new Programme for Government. The Department has lead responsibility for the outcome and five of the six indicators there, and these include waste and recycling, air quality, water quality, greenhouse gas emissions and biodiversity, and both Dave and Michael have been involved in this work.

The Department also makes a significant contribution to other outcomes. For example, the application of the sanitary, phytosanitary and public health requirements underpins our valuable export markets and keeps trade flowing. This is a challenge at any time but has become more significant as we manage the transition following EU exit. Recently, this has included working towards recovering international disease freedom following the avian influenza outbreaks here and regaining access to the pork market in China for one of our pig processors, the first premises in the UK to be approved since the COVID outbreak. In addition, putting safeguards in place for the use of critically important antimicrobials helps to ensure the sustainability and future efficacy of life-saving drugs. Through the College of Agriculture, Food and Rural Enterprise (CAFRE), we ensure that young people entering a career in the agri-food industry have a broad range of knowledge and skills that equips them to make real impact. CAFRE also delivers a wide range of knowledge transfer and innovation programmes to those working in the industry to drive economic performance in line with ensuring improved environmental performance. All of that delivers towards the outcomes linked to global competitiveness, children and young people, and health.

New Decade, New Approach makes a specific commitment to tackle climate change head-on with a strategy to address the immediate and longer-term impacts. Green growth will be that strategy. That is because tackling climate change needs a holistic approach, requiring transformation of our society and economy and also addressing the challenges facing our environment. Achieving that will make a difference to people's quality of life, living up to the overall aim of the Programme for Government.

Members received a written update on the development of the green growth strategy last month and will have received the draft strategy framework document, I think, as a written briefing for today's session. It outlines the approach and timeline for developing the strategy, and we would welcome members' views on that document. We plan to return to the Committee with an update on progress early in May. By its very nature, this work is cross-cutting, involving many sectors of the economy, society and multiple Departments. In keeping with the scale of the challenge, it will be a multi-decade Executive strategy led by DAERA, reflecting our permanent secretary's role as the proposed owner of the environment outcome. It will also be embedded in other major strategies such as those on investment, energy and the economic recovery action plan.

However, realising green growth will require more than strategies and plans. It needs ownership and commitment toward a shared vision of the future, and that means real partnership working at all levels. Minister Poots has established an inter-ministerial group to provide the necessary direction and decision-making. A strategic oversight group has also been created, comprising senior officials from a range of Departments. Its role is to align policies and make sure that they, and the funding that supports them, remain outcome-focused. A forum of external representative bodies, organisations and local government stakeholders has also been created to engage the views and interests of the private sector and the voluntary and community sector. We feel that these structures will help to ensure the collaborative and collegiate relationships that are required to deliver the outcomes.

The Climate Change Committee's sixth carbon budget makes recommendations on how Northern Ireland can make a fair and equitable contribution to the UK Government commitment to achieve net zero emissions by 2050. It identifies the sectoral challenges and points towards areas where gains are most likely to be made. The agriculture sector here faces particular challenges, largely due to the importance of livestock farming. However, these challenges go beyond greenhouse gas emissions and extend to the production of ammonia and excess nutrients, which affect water quality and air quality and can damage the environment. Therefore, the Department, through the development of its future agriculture policy, will assist the industry in meeting these challenges and in availing itself of opportunities it presents. Like Forests for our Future, it is hoped that this, too, will become a foundation programme for green growth.

Chairman, that concludes my opening remarks.

The Chairperson (Mr McAleer): Thank you, Arron, for that briefing and for the written submission that you provided to the Committee in advance of the meeting.

I want to reference the last couple of points that you made, Arron. In relation to future agriculture policy and ammonia, when are we likely to see the ammonia action plan published?

Mr Wright: Dave, can you pick up on that one?

Mr Dave Foster (Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): Yes. Thank you, Arron. Good morning, everyone. Chair, you asked about the ammonia action plan. We have been working quite hard on the draft of a discussion document on a future ammonia action plan. It is very close to completion, and I know that Ministers hope to launch that very soon.

The Chairperson (Mr McAleer): Thank you, Dave. Have you any idea of how soon, because we were told that back in the summer?

Mr Foster: Granted. Officials have recently updated a document to reflect one or two changes since the summer to make sure that it is as up to date as it can be and reflects, for instance, the fact that we have recently consulted on the discussion document on the clean air strategy. Therefore, those are things that are just being completed. With the Minister's consideration, I know that he is keen to start the discussion via the consultation as soon as is possible.

The Chairperson (Mr McAleer): Secondly, with regard to Arron's reference to the future agriculture policy, given the fact that we have left the EU and we no longer have the common agriculture policy here, along with the fact that we do not have our own agriculture Act and have been waiting for months for the publication of a new rural policy, can you give me any indication of when we might see the draft publication of an agriculture policy and a rural policy? With the vacuum that has been created by the EU exit and the fact that we do not have that policy, does that not impede our PFG commitments and our progress towards meeting the various outcomes?

Mr Wright: With regard to the timeline, Chairman, there are a lot of strands and elements to the work that is ongoing on the future policy. At this stage, a lot of engagement is happening, right across the Department. That policy will be being worked up over the coming months. I am not sighted on the detail of that, but I can certainly try to come back to you with a bit more detail on it.

You mentioned it holding up a Programme for Government, but, at this point, it is not holding up the delivery of the Programme for Government. However, for us to really start to get into the long-term and detailed actions that are required to deliver on climate change and environmental improvements, we really need the policy and the programmes behind that to start that ball rolling. We are looking at how we can do that now, even within the current budgets that we have.

The Chairperson (Mr McAleer): That is great. Thank you, Arron. We will move on to questions from members. Maurice Bradley is first to indicate.

Maurice, you can unmute now.

Mr M Bradley: I have a question for Arron around the protection of the environment, the marine strategy and the fisheries strategy. What progress has been made, if any, to reduce the levels of phosphorus in our rivers and to dissolve nitrogen in marine waters? Another major concern that I have is about the high levels of ammonia throughout Northern Ireland, which the Chair has already raised. Therefore, Arron, can you give the Committee some indication on how the Department plans to reduce the levels of phosphorus and nitrogen in our rivers and coastal waters?

Mr Wright: Yes. I am going to defer to David on that because quite a bit of work is going on on that side, exactly on the subjects of soil-nutrient management and the reduction of phosphates and nitrates in the agricultural systems and how that will impact on water and air quality. I will hand over to David.

Mr Foster: Certainly. The member was asking about phosphorus and nitrogen and they are both indicators in the current Programme for Government with regard to water quality. Discussions with the statisticians have indicated that those are likely to remain as indicators in the new Programme for Government, which indicates how important they are for demonstrating progress, or otherwise, with regard to the water environment.

With regard to the current trends, the briefing paper shows that there has not been a positive statistical change in nutrient concentrations in fresh waters for phosphorus and marine waters for nitrogen, so there is certainly more to do there. A number of initiatives are ongoing that will, hopefully, as they come to fruition, start to turn the curve in relation to nutrients.

As regards the regulatory approach, obviously, we have the nutrients action programme (NAP), which was updated just over 18 months ago and includes some updated requirements for the spreading of nutrients, particularly a move, over a number of years, to increase the use of low-emission spreading techniques. The Department has just run a further tranche of the farm business improvement scheme to support a move to that technology, and the interest in and take-up of that has been very strong. That indicates that the industry recognises that more needs to be done and is looking to invest in technologies that allow it to do that.

On the voluntary side of things, as opposed to the regulatory side, we have the environmental farming scheme (EFS) and, in particular, EFS wider level, which looks to support such actions as, for instance, creating buffer strips and the like, which will reduce nutrient input from farm fields to watercourses. The Department is looking to launch further tranches of that this year and next year, subject to business case approval.

Arron mentioned soil quality. Ultimately, the most important thing is to have the right amount of nutrients in the right place on fields at the right time, so that it maximises productivity for the farmer and minimises any excess nutrients entering watercourses. The key way in which to understand that is by having a good, detailed understanding of soil nutrient concentrations. A couple of years ago, the Department ran two pilot soil sampling schemes, which we found were successful in giving farmers the right information about soil nutrient concentrations, and then, by overlaying that with lidar maps, we are actually able to show where the run-off risks are on farms. The Minister is very keen that this launches in a timely manner. At the minute, we are working to set up a further scheme and roll that out across Northern Ireland over a number of years to provide a baseline of information on soil nutrients, which will then underpin further schemes under the new agricultural policy that Arron referred to earlier.

I hope that that gives a quick overview of existing and future programmes to tackle that particular PFG indicator, which is, obviously, a very important one for the water environment, both fresh waters and marine.

Mr M Bradley: Thanks very much, Dave. I will just follow up on that, if it is all right with the Chair. Do you think that the Department is placing enough emphasis on the reduction of phosphorus and nitrates? It is a preventable problem, but not enough is being done to prevent it. Is that a fair comment?

Mr Foster: You are right: it is a preventable problem. It is recognised that more needs to be done. The regulatory approach has been around for a number of years. As I intimated earlier, we have, recently, updated and tightened the controls on that. There are three strands: regulatory, voluntary and education. Those three strands give us the best opportunity to prevent excess nutrients. The fundamental issue is that, if farmers have the right information, they can make the right behavioural changes. There is no benefit to farmers to lose nutrients to watercourses when, if they are in the right place on their fields, they will actually bring them economic benefit.

You are right: it has been a long-term problem. That has been the case across most of Europe. We need to focus more on it. That is why the Minister is keen that the soil health scheme launches to provide the information part of the picture to go in tandem with the regulatory part under the NAP, and for farmers to then have the opportunity do things on their farms, via schemes such as EFS, and use the information from their soil samples to make positive changes for their farm businesses and also for the environment.

Mr M Bradley: Thank you very much, Dave. Chair, that will do me in the meantime.

Mr Blair: I thank the DAERA representatives who are with us. I have two questions. The first relates to paragraph 10 of the briefing that was provided. That tells me that the independent environmental protection agency that was promised in New Decade, New Approach will be dealt with further down the line in a future Programme for Government. Was that a departmental decision, a ministerial decision or both? How was it reached? Was it publicly announced prior to today, or will that happen at some point in the future?

Mr Wright: Again, I will go to Dave for that. I think that he has been involved in some of the work on the Office for Environmental Protection (OEP), so he is in a place to comment on that.

Mr Foster: Thank you, Arron. The Minister recognises the importance of good environmental governance as we have now left the EU. His focus is on ensuring that the functions that were previously carried out by the EU, such as those that relate to the Commission and the European Court of Justice, are mirrored post-exit, hence the work on the UK Environment Bill and the Office for Environmental Protection. I think that you had a briefing on that. There has been a recent consultation on the principles and governance for it, and officials are working to establish the OEP. The chair designate has maybe met members. The Minister's approach is that the OEP will change the way governance of the environment occurs over here, and it would be appropriate to let that be established and to bed in and then to see what further changes in environmental governance are needed in the context of the New Decade, New Approach requirement on an independent environmental protection agency. I think that the Minister wants to see how things bed in before he considers and scopes out, perhaps in the next mandate and the next Programme for Government, what further changes are needed.

You also asked about the extent to which that had been announced. I think that there have been a number of Assembly questions on it, and we can certainly come back to you and indicate where it has been referenced previously.

Mr Blair: I am not questioning the role or the existence of the OEP, but I am concerned that if New Decade, New Approach commitments are being dropped, there should be a public announcement on that and the rationale for that decision should also be made clear. Hopefully that can be clarified, along with whether that was a ministerial decision, a departmental decision or both and whether it was shared at Executive level. I am very keen for that information to be provided in more detail.

The second question relates to waste management, and there are a number of issues there. First of all, at paragraph 4 of the briefing, it is listed as an indicator, but, at annex B, there does not appear to be any direct action listed for that target, separate to, of course, green growth. Whilst it is listed as a key priority area at annex B, I do not see a matching action. That is a concern to me because, later today, in relation to the green growth strategy, we will look at the contribution of waste to greenhouse gases. Whilst that is a relatively small proportion, there is not, in the nine-year target that we will look at later, any declared intention to reduce it. I am keen to know why that is not highlighted better in the presentation.

Mr Wright: Michael, can you provide a response on that?

Mr Michael McCallion (Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): Yes, I will pick up on that one. It is hard to outline every detail on all indicators, but I assure you that we are producing a package to make sure that we are increasing our recycling.

If you look at the circular economy package, you see that it puts into legislation that we have to have a target of 65% by 2035. We have a lot of initiatives, and a lot is happening at the minute. You may have seen that, yesterday, the extended producer responsibility scheme and deposit return scheme were launched. Other actions are going on at the minute. We are working with WRAP, the Waste and Resources Action Programme, and we sent out a discussion document on future recycling and the separate collection of waste. Lots of initiatives and actions are going on, such as behaviour change campaigns etc, and we are working with various partners on that.

I am sorry that that is not outlined in the document, but there is no lack of work in the Department to ensure that we meet the circular economy package. As you saw over the previous Programme for Government period, we made good steps on that, and we want to ensure that we build on it through the upcoming Programme for Government.

Mr Blair: Thanks for that, Michael. That gives me some reassurance. I will drill down into that briefly and then finish with a question. Is any effort being made to ensure consistency in waste management and handling across council areas? I have pointed out at previous Committee meetings to other representatives that there are disparities, even in individual council areas, in how recycling is collected and managed, let alone across the council areas and the region in general. For that reason, I have to ask this: is any question being asked about how the waste management structures could do that better or whether they might have to be reviewed? I am talking about the group management system.

Mr Wright: I think that we might have lost Michael, which is a shame because —.

Mr Blair: I really did not mean to scare him off. Apologies.

Mr Wright: Yes, you scared him off, John. I am sure that he will be able to get back in. If not, we will take a note of that and get back to you, because it is an area that Michael knows about.

A point was made about the circular economy work. Michael and the team, along with Colin Breen, are working closely with DFE on the circular economy strategy. It is not mentioned at annex B, because we have limited that to the DAERA-led strategies and not all the strategies that we feed into and work with. That might help to explain the omission in annex B.

Mr Blair: Thanks for that, but if I am to have more information sent to me, I am particularly keen to know about how we will review the waste management set-up and structures in Northern Ireland, because they are not hitting the mark, to put it bluntly, if there is disparity in individual council areas, let alone across the group systems.

Mr McCallion: Sorry; I am back in now. I lost my connection for a minute.

Yes, John, we are looking at that. We recently sent out a discussion document on how we can improve on current waste quality and quantity. We are working on that discussion document. I think that it was closed about a couple of weeks ago, so we are drawing that up and seeing what initiatives or actions we can take. You are totally correct: we need to address it, and we recognise that.

Mr Blair: Michael, thank you for that, and thanks for coming back.

Ms Bailey: I want to go back to the point about nitrogen. We all know that there has been no change in the levels of phosphorus and nitrogen in marine water. Will the Department's climate change Bill contain specific targets on water quality and nitrogen?

Mr McCallion: I can come in on that, Clare. My colleague Colin Breen and his team briefed you last week, and, from what he said, we are specifically looking at an overall greenhouse gas emissions target and are not breaking it down specifically into, as you say, nitrogen etc.

At the minute, we are looking specifically at an overall greenhouse gas emissions target.

Ms Bailey: We know that there have been no changes in our greenhouse gas emissions since 2015.

Nitrogen and soil qualities are further issues, and we look for sustainability to be at the heart of everything, as mentioned. Ammonia was brought up as well. We know what the inter-ministerial working group is doing. We have known for a long time that ammonia, for example, is a huge problem that causes serious damage not just to human health but to our environment and biodiversity. We know that the Environment Agency's internal policy on the critical levels that planners have to use to assess applications for anaerobic digesters, for example, has not been legally proved. That critical level is set to between 1 and 10 for each application rather than there being an overall assessment of ammonia levels in an area.

We are looking for quick wins. We keep hearing about the ammonia strategy, which, as the Chair said, we have not yet seen. Can we go for quick wins, or what is the thinking about legally proofing internal policies and working with planners in order to make sure that it no longer happens that damaging planning applications are being passed?

Mr Wright: I will take the first part of that. With the green growth strategy and through the inter-ministerial group, the strategic oversight group and the policy leads across the different areas of responsibility, we are trying to make sure that we align those policies in order to get the outcomes that we need. It is fair to say that a lot of work has been very effective in focused areas until now, but, in some, it has been very difficult to get the level of prioritisation across government policy that we need in order to get that outcomes focus. That is something that we fully believe is possible with the approach that is now being put in place with the green growth strategy.

We have had very positive engagement with the inter-ministerial group and the strategic oversight group. People understand that the outcomes are the priority. It is how we go about aligning that and putting the budget into those areas to make these things happen that will be evidenced.

Dave, do you want to touch on the ammonia work?

Mr Foster: I appreciate that members have been very keen to see the consultation on ammonia issued and will be looking for quick wins in that. There are a number of elements in addressing the ammonia problem. There is the need to take action, and the consultation will set out concrete actions and an action plan to deal with that at a regional and a site-specific level. There will be a mixture of regulatory, educational and voluntary measures that recognise that we need to move quickly on this and to put forward actions that will have the best opportunity to reduce ammonia by the maximum amount as quickly as possible.

There is also a need to work at habitat restoration. We recognise that damage has already been caused, particularly to peatland habitats, and we will ask what we can we do to actively improve the situation and to restore those habitats.

Picking up your point about the agency's operational policy, the consultation will reference that and give options for going forward. Planners have been involved in the discussions on that, and the Committee has had a briefing on it.

That is a broad outline of some of the main themes that a consultation will hopefully address, recognising that it has been a while in its gestation and that there is a need for quick wins. The Department is aware of and recognises that.

Ms Bailey: Maybe this is not of your doing, but I am going to express real frustration because we know about all those problems. We have known about them for a long, long time, and what we are hearing in response is that strategies are being developed. We are hearing about a climate change Bill being drafted and about an ammonia strategy. We know that our water quality has failed, and we know that our air pollution levels are unsustainable. We know all that stuff, and we hear about strategies, consulting on strategies and consulting when we know that there are very quick wins to be had internally just by simply changing an internal policy that does not really have a rationale behind it. I wanted to put that on the record.

Arron, you gave us a quick round-up of the inter-ministerial working group. Who, specifically, is on the inter-ministerial working group for climate change? When does that group meet, how often does it meet and does it have priority issues that it is looking at?

Mr Wright: Given all the other, I guess, pressures that are across government, we have tried to focus initially on the Departments that have the most impact, potentially, on climate and environmental change. Apart from the Minister from DAERA, we have the Ministers from Infrastructure, Communities, Economy and Finance. Obviously, the intention is that, as we move forward, we will have all Ministers involved in it. At this stage, there has been one meeting of that group, and that took place in January. The strategic oversight group of senior officials has now met three times, the most-recent time being the week before last. So, there has been engagement, and we are planning for another meeting of the inter-ministerial group, possibly at the end of April or in May.

Ms Bailey: Have any priority issues been identified by the group?

Mr Wright: At this stage, the main focus for us is to look at the climate change piece. Obviously, that is the big focus in the run-up to the twenty-sixth UN Climate Change Conference (COP26). We want to be in a position to state clearly that, as part of our green growth strategy development, we want to work up a climate action plan for Northern Ireland and to be in a position to highlight the key priorities that we feel that we can take forward that will demonstrate Northern Ireland's commitment to playing its part there.

Ms Bailey: Finally, we know that strategies such as a food strategy framework feed into lots of the key priority areas in DAERA. Does such a framework exist? Out of the 15 policies and strategies that are mentioned by DAERA, how many have actually been published?

Mr Wright: I said in my opening remarks that some of the strategies and policy areas are long-standing and that others are in development, and the food policy framework is in development. There is a heavy alignment with the Department for the Economy on that, and, obviously, we want to try to link in with Health to think about food and to get a healthy diet for people. We also want to link in with Education so that young people can learn about the importance of diet. There are a whole range of aspects to consider outside this Department. That strategy will be quite a cross-cutting piece of work. We are planning to use the governance structures that we have in the green growth strategy to try to facilitate that level of engagement, so we are not restricting the inter-ministerial group and the strategic oversight group to looking purely at the climate piece. They will be able to bring in food as an agenda item. That is the plan at this stage.

Ms Bailey: Thanks. Who is on the strategic oversight group?

Mr Wright: Senior officials at deputy secretary level are the leads on, for example, future agriculture, energy and economic policy and strategy, and they are also the leads on the finance side as well as on communities, housing, planning and transport.

Ms Bailey: OK. Thank you.

Mr McGuigan: Cross-departmental working is essential if DAERA is to achieve its PFG targets. One outcome 2 indicator, for example, states that 25%:

will contribute to the Programme for Government outcome 2, which states:

Will you expand on the cross-departmental working with DFI on that outcome and that indicator?

Mr Wright: I do not have the background knowledge on that indicator because DFI has been reporting on it under the outcomes delivery plan, so I would need to find out and get back to you.

Mr McGuigan: The lack of knowledge maybe adds to the lack of delivery, so I really would appreciate an answer.

A lot of the outcomes require cross-departmental working. We talk about a green growth strategy, a food strategy, future agriculture policy, an environment strategy and fisheries and marine etc. Which Departments are responsible for those outcomes so that our economy can be globally competitive, regionally balanced and carbon-neutral? Will you outline which Department is responsible for that outcome and how its contribution is measured and assessed?

Mr Wright: The idea is that those outcomes will not be departmentally owned. The permanent secretary of a Department will take ownership of an outcome and will ensure that a lead role is taken. To try to improve cross-departmental working, it comes down to trying to ensure that there is an outcome owner rather than a departmental responsibility. DFE, from my understanding, is proposed as the lead Department for that one.

Mr McGuigan: Following on from John's question about waste management, you will have seen the report today that suggests that, through the pandemic, littering across the North has increased and is a problem. I am aware that, in my constituency, community groups are out every weekend cleaning up litter. It is a serious problem that I just cannot get my head around. Has the Department considered a zero-waste strategy that is similar to strategies in other jurisdictions?

Mr McCallion: You are correct about littering. As I said, behavioural change is very important. We have been working with partners to get behavioural change built in, and various programmes on that have been running.

A waste strategy is upcoming. You are due to be briefed somewhere down the line on that. Again, unfortunately, it is one that has not been able to be taken forward, basically because of other pressures, such as the EU etc, but it is on our radar. It is something that we know that we have to look at, so you will be briefed once it has been developed.

Mr McGuigan: You mentioned behavioural change. As I said, I cannot get my head around the levels of littering in public spaces where people go to access the natural environment, particularly in places where there are ample bins for placing waste. It is clear from the increase, however, that, whatever our strategy is on behavioural change, it is not working, so we need to do something different. Otherwise, we are going to keep getting the same results.

Mr Foster: I will pick up on that one. You are quite right, Philip, that there has been an increase in littering during lockdown. We have certainly had correspondence from a number of stakeholders and local councils about it.

We mentioned the environment strategy, on which we will hopefully be consulting later in the spring, and littering will be one of the things that we will be looking at. We will be looking at whether the statutory regulatory framework, the levels of fines and the types of restrictions that we have at the moment are appropriate. Whether we need to have an updated and more robust littering strategy, with legislation behind it, is therefore something that is certainly on our agenda. Ultimately, however, you are right that it is about behavioural change. People need to be minded to do the right thing. We fund Keep Northern Ireland Beautiful and its Live Here Love Here campaign, which aims for behavioural change. It is something that it is very keen to push forward, and there have been successes on behavioural change. I remember that there was a long-running campaign in Texas with the slogan "Don't Mess with Texas". It had some hard-hitting messages and used bikers to get out the message "Don't mess with our state". Instilling that sort of civic pride and sense of wanting to do the right thing is ultimately what will be needed to be done here. That is a behavioural change piece.

As I have said, we are looking at perhaps having a littering strategy, and there are also other initiatives. Yesterday, we launched a consultation on a deposit return scheme for plastic bottles and are working with industry to put in place the infrastructure to make it easier for people to do the right thing. There is therefore a wide variety of levers that can and ought to be used, and there is a need to link those levers. Ultimately, however, people's attitudes and behaviour will be what really delivers change, and, as you rightly recognise, that is a tricky and complex issue.

Mr McGuigan: Thank you.

The Chairperson (Mr McAleer): I agree with Philip on the waste issue. It is desperate and so unsightly around the country, but the Department needs to adopt not just the carrot but the stick to deter people who engage in that type of activity.

Mrs Barton: You spoke earlier, Arron, about a climate change Act being one of the most important outcomes from the climate action plan, so what consultation have you had and what work have you been doing with the agricultural community on that? The reason that I ask that is because you will be aware that in the press about a week ago there was a headline that said that climate change legislation will be capping our farmers' progression. Can you give me some details of the work that you have been doing with farmers? How are you are going to reassure them about their future and about farm succession?

Mr Wright: Thank you, Rosemary. We are now in the process of outlining the co-design for the green growth strategy. As I have said, that will include the publication and production of a climate action plan. Part of that co-design will involve engagement with stakeholders right across the board. We had an initial meeting. We have had engagement with farming unions in recent months, but, a couple of weeks ago, we had a webinar for what we are calling a "green growth forum". That webinar included a lot of the key representative bodies of not just the agriculture sector but right across the board, including the energy and transport sectors. They were represented at that webinar and got to hear about how we are developing the strategy and what engagement they will have going forward.

When it comes to the challenge that is facing agriculture, there is no question that the agriculture sector here is different relative to that in other parts of the UK, as was highlighted in the Climate Change Committee's piece on its sixth carbon budget. We have a significant livestock sector, which will create particular challenges.

The reality is that farmers and landowners are stewards for a million hectares of land in Northern Ireland, and that land can potentially capture carbon. Grassland can capture carbon. Managed peatland and woodland can also capture carbon. As well as looking at what farmers can do to reduce the production —.

Mrs Barton: We have lost you.

Mr Wright: Sorry. Can you hear me?

Mrs Barton: Can you repeat that, please?

Mr Wright: Yes. As well as farmers perhaps being able to reduce the production of greenhouse gases from their systems, they are in control of a land area that can potentially capture carbon. There is a bit of a trade-off there.

The challenge will be to link into future agriculture policy. We are closely linked with the team that is developing that. Another challenge will be around how that policy will enable farmers to contribute to the reduction in carbon and to improve habitat and biodiversity on their farm, as well as how they can link into the reduction in excess nutrients that cause the problems in water and air, to which members referred. It will inevitably come back to what levers the Department or the industry has at its disposal to reduce the impact.

Mrs Barton: A lot of farmers are extremely concerned. I have had a number of phone calls this week about the climate change Bill. A number of people out there are very concerned about the future of farming. Yes, they are prepared to play their part — there is no issue there — but there needs to be a lot more education done and a lot more support given to them that looks at the positives.

Mr Wright: Absolutely. You make a really good point. With green growth, we are trying not to look at anything in isolation. There is a challenge for the agriculture sector around carbon reduction, but the sector has a lot more positives to contribute, through food production and its ability to deliver biodiversity and a clean environment. There are a lot of things that it can do. Some are quick wins while some will take a bit longer, but there is a lot that it can do.

We are looking at the challenge that is facing agriculture and the livestock industry at this point — from now — but we do not know what the industry will look like in five years' time. We have been doing some scoping work and landscape reviews, so we are aware that there is ongoing research in other parts of the world. For example, in New Zealand, there is research into feed additives that can be put into ruminant diets that reduce the amount of methane produced. Methane is the key greenhouse gas for agriculture.

We do not know this now, but it could be that, in five years' time, we are more clear about putting that type of additive into the feed. It would be a game changer if there were something that could be added to animal feed that significantly reduced the amount of methane produced. It would be a very different picture all of a sudden, but we cannot say that at this point.

Mrs Barton: Thank you.

The Chairperson (Mr McAleer): Arron, on Rosemary's point, if there is another round of the farm business improvement scheme, that must be considered for farms of different sizes. Last night, I had an online meeting with people from the agriculture sector. They felt that, under the previous farm business improvement scheme, some of the low-emission slurry-spreading equipment favoured the large farmers greatly. For example, the scheme did not suit small farmers and hill farmers who do not use a dribble bar or trailing shoe. It is therefore important that a future farm business improvement scheme assist farmers to meet the targets in the ammonia action plan but, in order to make sure that no one is left behind, that it also assist the different types of farmers.

Mr Wright: Yes, that is important. I will take that point away, because, as you quite rightly say, we want to be able to ensure that farmers can contribute, no matter what their type of enterprise or size of the farm.

The Chairperson (Mr McAleer): Yes, that is important. It was a local meeting with about 30 people from the sector, and that point was raised on a number of occasions. The smaller farmers felt that the farm business improvement scheme was not tailored to their needs and did not cover the type and range of equipment that they needed. Please take note of that point for inclusion in any future tranche of the scheme.

William is temporarily offline. I will move to Harry and then come back to William.

Mr Harvey: First, thank you for your presentation. I welcome the fact that the green growth draft strategy and action plan will be ready in advance of COP26 in Glasgow, and that is a good thing to aim for.

I will follow on from Rosemary's question. Reducing harmful gases, contaminants and chemicals and cleaning up our air, water and soil is great, but can that be done without hampering our agri-food production levels? In fact, I would like to think that you can tell me that it will enhance our food production. Our agri-food sector is second to none for quality, but, if it is possible, will the quality be enhanced?

Mr Wright: In any discussions on that, one of the key elements is the fact that Northern Ireland is an exporter. Our agri-food industry has been built on exports and on the quality, integrity, food safety and animal welfare standards of our products. Increasingly, consumers, not just here but elsewhere, want to see the sustainability stamp, to give credibility to whatever they are buying. For example, we produce grass-fed dairy products and beef and the like, and, if we can underpin our exports with environmental credentials, it will be more advantageous in securing, retaining and expanding some of the markets in which we operate. It will therefore add value to Northern Ireland's agri-food sector.

Mr Foster: I will add to what Arron has said. Ultimately, a lot of this is about resource efficiency and helping farmers to be resource-efficient. Every gram of nutrient that runs off a field and into a watercourse is a waste to the farmer and his system. That could be used on-farm to replace bought-in fertilisers or the like. Equally, pesticides cost a lot. If they end up as spray drift or running into rivers, that, again, is not the most efficient use of resources. There is a win-win to be had there. Those things should be kept in a closed system so that the money that farmers spend on managing nutrients or on buying in fertilisers or pesticides is used efficiently. Ultimately, doing that enhances their productivity and has minimal environmental impact, and both aspects are to farmers' benefit.

Mr Harvey: Change how we do things, and support, modernise and adapt without affecting it, yes?

Mr Wright: I think that, in the longer term, we need to be aware that not everybody will be able, for example, to capture carbon. Some will be able to do it better than others. Globally, there are various carbon trading schemes that operate. The industry here could look at asking whether there are things that we can do that will allow us to capture carbon and be paid for doing so? It may or may not be government paying. It may be that the aviation sector will pay farmers here to capture carbon for them, thus allowing carbon trading to happen. That kind of carbon trading is another option that will potentially be open to farmers, who, as I say, own a million hectares of land here.

Mr Harvey: As Rosemary said, the last thing that we want to do is put our farmers off. They are getting it tight and hard enough. We should be providing encouragement. Thank you very much, gentlemen.

The Chairperson (Mr McAleer): William, are you back online?

Mr Irwin: Yes, Chair.

I should declare an interest, being a farmer and a partner in a nectar farm. The vast majority of farmers want to play their part in helping our environment and economy. We have a situation whereby our ammonia strategy is still not out there. Farmers are very anxious at the moment. They are prepared to invest and play their part, absolutely, in that. That is proven by the big uptake of the farm business improvement scheme. We have an agri-food sector that is the envy of many across the world. It has created in the region of 100,000 jobs. It is therefore vital that we get this right. Our approach must be sensible. What we want to do should be doable, and we should bring the agriculture and farming sector with us. I am sure that you will accept that the Department has a big role to play in this. I do not want to be critical of the Department, but we should not drag our feet any longer. We need to get our act together and move on the issues.

Mr Wright: Absolutely. I totally agree. The subject of today's meeting is the Programme for Government. Through the programme and the green growth strategy, there is real recognition of the need for a collegiate outcomes-based focus, and it will be for Ministers and senior officials to prioritise those outcomes and work in a way that will deliver against them. Knowing that a policy direction is set towards a specific outcome and that that will not change will give long-term confidence to farmers. If that is the focus, people can bank on that and know that that is what they are working towards. That is a really important point.

Mr Irwin: Yes. Absolutely. Thank you.

The Chairperson (Mr McAleer): Are you looking back in again, Clare?

Ms Bailey: Rosemary's question was fascinating, and it was followed by a great discussion. I want to follow on from Declan's concerns about a just transition for owners of smaller farms. There has been a lot of talk about beef being a huge carbon producer. What level of difference is being quantified in the Department for what I would class as a farmer? Most of our farms are small and medium-sized concerns, and a lot of farmers do not get good prices. We know about rural poverty and farmers living in poverty. Is the Department creating a difference between intensive factory farming — large corporate production models — and the regular small to medium-sized farming sector, and the supports that both need? Their respective needs are going to be very different. When we looking at environmental problems, particularly ammonia emissions, those are not coming from beef production. Rather, it is about pigs and chickens, as a result of intensification in the factory-farming sector. Are the two being treated differently? Is that being taken on board at all?

Mr Wright: I am happy for anybody else to come in on that, but the short answer is yes. It is being considered in the round. They are not being treated differently, but we are looking to identify the key contributors to the problems and at how interventions can be targeted in the right way in order to ensure that we are getting the outcomes to get, as you mentioned earlier, those quick wins. If there are things that we can do to bring about those outcomes quicker, such as targeting one group over another, if that is where the problem is originating, those will be part and parcel of the approach that will be taken. The reality is that that is being worked out at the moment through the development of future agricultural policy and, on Dave's side, agrienvironment policy.

Mr Foster: I will just add to what Arron has said about future agricultural policy. One of the underpinning principles will be around environmental sustainability and using money to support public goods, recognising the differential between farm types. Some smaller farms might be delivering more public goods, such as peatland sequestration on the hill, habitat provision or contributions to carbon sequestration and water quality. Other farm types are perhaps more intensive. Although they might produce fewer public goods, they might be bringing in more profit, and thus the level of support might need to be tailored to recognise that. It is certainly something that is in our thinking as the Department looks at future agricultural policy.

Although the pig and poultry sectors have a greater level of increase in ammonia emissions compared with other sectors, the beef sector is still the largest single emitter of ammonia in total. There are trends and differences among sectors.

Ms Bailey: Thanks for that.

The Chairperson (Mr McAleer): No other members wish to ask questions. I thank Arron, Dave, Michael and David for coming along this morning and giving us a very comprehensive briefing. You answered all our questions very comprehensively as well. We will see you again in the time ahead. Thank you very much.

Mr Wright: Thank you.