Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr McAleer): I thank Dr Mike Johnston, the chief executive of the Dairy Council, for joining us this morning. Thank you for your indulgence. I am conscious of the fact that you should have been on earlier, but the previous session lasted longer than we expected. Mike, you may brief the Committee, and that will be followed by members' questions. Members, please be concise so that we can keep within the time slot.

Dr Mike Johnston (Dairy Council for Northern Ireland): Thank you, Chairman and members, for the opportunity to meet you and provide our views on the private Member's Bill. The Dairy Council for Northern Ireland acts on behalf of the dairy industry by promoting the natural goodness and quality of Northern Ireland milk and dairy products, and it represents the interests of the sector to government and others. In taking those roles, we represent dairy farmers and dairy processors.

Dairy farms and dairy-processing businesses are an important part of the Northern Ireland economy and sustain the livelihoods of over 3,200 dairy farming families and over 2,200 employees of dairy processors. Worth almost £1·5 billion annually, the dairy sector is an important pillar of rural communities and contributes significantly to the economy. Our products are in demand locally, nationally and internationally, with customers in over 80 countries. To put that into perspective, one in five of all farm employment is on dairy farms; dairy products account for almost one third of farm output in Northern Ireland; and almost 20 litres of every 100 litres of milk produced at UK level are produced in Northern Ireland. In other words, the dairy sector is one of the main pillars of the Northern Ireland agri-food sector.

We recognise that with that comes responsibility to produce milk and dairy products in a sustainable way. Since 1990, the Northern Ireland dairy sector has reduced fuel and electricity emissions by around 70%, manure emissions by 27% and enteric fermentation emissions by 30%, and the sector has increased milk production by 50%. That shows that we take our environmental responsibility seriously by investing to reduce our emissions per litre of milk by one third while continuing to grow to the benefit of the Northern Ireland economy.

It is against that background that I will highlight the concerns that we have about the private Member's Bill. At the outset, I make it clear that we agree that climate change is one of the most important issues of our age, and we need to get it right if we are to achieve the sustainable future that we want and deserve. As a sector, we are fully supportive of the ambition for the UK to achieve net zero carbon emissions by 2050 and of the need to ensure that Northern Ireland makes its allocated contribution to that overall target. In contrast, however, the Bill asks industry and society in general to embark on a journey to a destination of 2045 without being told why 2045 is the desired destination or how we will get there. Such is the nature of a private Member's Bill that there is no onus on its proposers to provide either an economic impact assessment or a rural needs assessment, meaning that neither society nor industry has any indication of the consequences of the journey that they are being asked to undertake. Let me pose you a question. Would you and your colleagues in the Northern Ireland Assembly entertain a private Member's Bill for something as important as, for example, major changes to the health service or education? I do not think that you would. Yet this is the parliamentary tool that is being used for something as important as climate change.

Our issue is not with the need for a climate change Bill for Northern Ireland but rather that, as a parliamentary tool, a private Member's Bill is not fit for the purpose. A Bill dealing with something as important as climate change should be based on robust scientific evidence and should have been subjected to a proper process of consultation, impact assessment and analysis. That is not the case with this Bill. The targets that a climate change Bill will set will be achievable only with the cooperation of industry. The Northern Ireland Assembly needs to be aware that, by embarking on such a journey on the basis of this private Member's Bill, in sporting parlance, it risks losing the changing room and precipitating a loss of the industry's confidence in the Assembly's leadership on the matter.

Without doubt, the Bill would have a significant impact on the Northern Ireland dairy sector. The development and implementation of policies to deliver net zero by 2045 would mean that the sector's trajectory towards that goal would not be linear. Significant reductions in cow numbers, with consequential reduction in milk production, would mean that a series of tipping points would be reached in dairy-processing plants, where falling throughput would render plants inefficient and unprofitable. Inevitably, unprofitable plants would have to close, triggering rationalisation and job losses and, as milk production continued to fall, so the cycle of plant closures, job losses and rationalisation would be ongoing, eventually transforming what is currently a thriving Northern Ireland dairy sector into little more than a cottage industry. In addition to that, it would have significant consequences for the many ancillary and service businesses that engage with the dairy supply chain as well as negatively impacting on the Northern Ireland economy and rural communities.

Reducing our dairy sector to a cottage industry would have a further important consequence. Without a corresponding reduction in consumption, dairy products would have to be imported from other countries, many of which are less efficient and have higher emissions compared with the Northern Ireland dairy sector; in other words, we would create carbon leakage without any benefits.

Like many aspects of climate change and sustainability, decisions in one area can have unintended consequences in another. Nowhere is that more obvious than in relation to diet. In 2010, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization recognised that a sustainable diet is multifaceted. It should be:

In other words, we should not focus on environmental impact in isolation. We must also consider aspects such as health and nutritional value, the economic impact and cultural aspect of our diet.

In Northern Ireland, milk and dairy foods make an important contribution to the nutritional quality of the diet. The dairy food group is the largest contributor to the intake of calcium, iodine and vitamins B2 and B12, supplying around one third for adults and even more for children and teenagers. Those nutrients are not readily replaced by other food groups, and there is evidence that delivering the same nutritional balance without dairy increases the cost of the diet. The outworking of the Bill, which would move Northern Ireland from being self-sufficient in dairy products to being a significant importer, is that the cost of dairy products in Northern Ireland would increase, forcing lower-income families in particular either to change their diets and consume fewer dairy products or pay higher prices for imported dairy products.

In either case, without any environmental benefit, food poverty will increase.

It is difficult to see how the Bill, which downgrades the Northern Ireland dairy sector from a vibrant sector in the Northern Ireland economy to a cottage industry, with dairy products having to be imported, is in line with the UN's position on sustainability. That being the case and for the international reputation of Northern Ireland, the enactment of a Bill that is not in harmony with the UN's sustainable development goals would not be helpful.

It is our view that the Northern Ireland dairy sector, rather than being reduced to a cottage industry, has the ability, track record and willingness to join you in the journey to the UK achieving net zero by 2050. Delivering the changes that deal with climate change will need the involvement of farmers. Change cannot be delivered without the knowledge and expertise imbued in each farmer over generations. Dairy farmers and their families have enormous pride in their land. They are taught from a young age to respect the land, their animals and the natural environment so that their heritage can continue to be passed to future generations. It is part of their DNA. With that generational passing of the baton comes knowledge of how to manage the land and work with nature and its seasonal variations to produce high-quality dairy products. At any point in time, that generational model usually represents in excess of 100 years of accumulated knowledge and experience per dairy farmer. The challenge for any Northern Ireland climate change Bill is to engage and harness that wealth of knowledge and experience to deliver the results that we need.

A Bill of this nature is not fit for the purpose of addressing an issue as important as climate change. It does not provide an appropriate process for engaging and working with the agri-food sector and with farmers, in particular, without whom targets will not be achievable. The Northern Ireland dairy sector has the experience and track record to deliver the changes that will be necessary as part of the UK's journey to net zero. Our ask is for a Bill that provides a framework that is evidence-based and provides targets that we can support in the knowledge that they are achievable without transforming our sector into a cottage industry.

The Chairperson (Mr McAleer): Thank you very much for that address, Mike.

Mr Blair: I thank Mike for his presentation. As ever, it is good to see him.

Mike, I will draw on a couple of things that you said and try to build a comparison. I would be grateful if you could reference in your replies the all-island situation and the fact that a neighbouring jurisdiction already has its own target. We will have to interface and interact with it. More specifically, can you shed some light on what might appear as a lack of clarification on where, in relation to the UK Climate Change Committee (CCC) target, 82% might be achievable but 100% would not? Also, where might 2045 not be achievable but 2050 would? I am keen to get more clarification on the rationale of saying that one is OK or might be achievable, and the other is not.

Dr Johnston: I tend to look less at what is achievable and more at what is the impact. We do not know what the impact will be of achieving net zero by 2045. In the previous session, Conall said that an impact assessment was being carried out on behalf of the wider agri-food sector. That is because there is no such requirement under the Bill, so it is looking at the impact. The initial assessment from that work for the Northern Ireland dairy sector is that the impact would mean the scale of the Northern Ireland dairy sector having to reduce and a level of milk production output that we last saw in 1946. Let that sink in: the evidence that we are getting is that the necessary scale of reduction in the Northern Ireland dairy sector would result in levels of milk production that we last saw in 1946. That is why I talk about a cottage industry. The Bill would take us back to the future.

The 2050 target, which is based on the Climate Change Committee's recommendations, still poses big challenges for us. At the minute, it suggests a reduction of something in the order of 20% in the level of livestock. There are still big challenges that would have to be addressed in that, and we should not underestimate them. It is the relativity of the impact, John, that concerns us.

Mr Blair: I appreciate that, but I want to draw out a bit further, if you do not mind, the comparison between the North and the South on this island and Northern Ireland's position in relation to other jurisdictions of the UK, be that England, Scotland or Wales. What are your thoughts about the comparison between what they have already committed to achieve and what we are trying to achieve or, in some cases, resisting achieving?

Dr Johnston: We need to bear it in mind that, in the area of environment and sustainability, there are probably three main drivers. One is legislation, the second is what customers are asking for, and the third is what competitors are doing. Legislation is but one of the drivers here, so our industry, whether North, South, east or west, will have to be cognisant of the legislation in its state, but it will also have to be cognisant of what customers are asking for. That could mean not just customers in the United Kingdom or in Europe but customers overseas. We also have to be cognisant of what our competitors are doing and achieving and what they are trying to do to get a competitive advantage. We go into third-country markets, such as China, Taiwan, etc, and we are competing with the United States, New Zealand and Australia, so we need to be cognisant of the competitive elements as well. These are all coming together to mean that it is about more than legislation.

Look at the drivers of the trade element. Declan has raised on a number of occasions the island-of-Ireland issue, and he makes a valid point. However, island-of-Ireland trade in dairy products is not just about the product going from Northern Ireland down South for manufacture; product of mixed origin comes from the South of Ireland, through Northern Ireland and into Great Britain. Once you start to say that more than one jurisdiction and more than one piece of legislation are involved, it becomes a very complex issue, and it begs this question: can you look in isolation at one aspect of trade, which will be whatever the environmental or sustainability criteria are, or do you need to take into consideration other things, as we do, such as animal health and welfare, through Ireland being a single epidemiological unit? Fine, but what about the marketing? We do not have joined-up marketing, and we are not joined up on some other aspects of standards. It is a complex issue that is important and needs to be addressed, but it needs to be addressed within those three pillars: legislation, customers and competition.

The Chairperson (Mr McAleer): Thanks very much. Mike, now that you have raised the three drivers and the island-wide approach, I want to mention that, a couple of weeks ago, you and your counterpart in the South were, as part of an Irish Government inquiry, making the case that the milk on the island of Ireland should be deemed not to be of mixed origin, because that was undermining our ability to access third-country markets as a result of EU deals. You also highlighted how other competitors were undermining our milk because it was deemed to be mixed origin. Is it not a contradiction that you now advocate that, as part of the response to climate change, there should be different emission levels on each part of the island? On one hand, you argue that we should have a single pool of milk for the island of Ireland that is not deemed as mixed origin; on the other hand, you ask for legislative differences on the island. Are those two positions not contradictory?

Dr Johnston: I do not think so, Declan. What I am saying is that we need to recognise that there are three drivers here. The requirements of customers and the need for competitive advantage or making sure that we are not competitively disadvantaged are drivers that mean that the milk that, for example, goes from North to South will have to meet the requirements of the end customer, whether there is legislative coherence or not. Things other than legislation will come into play. You cannot look only at the island of Ireland and what is moving from North to South. Product moves from the South into Northern Ireland for further processing and then into Great Britain. That product then has to relate to whatever the legislative requirements are. Ideally, if you are going down that island-of-Ireland route, you need to talk about harmonising the legislation that is in place in Ireland and the United Kingdom, do you not?

The Chairperson (Mr McAleer): Yes. I hear what you say, and I suppose that that is the case. Britain and the South of Ireland are looking towards 2050. On the same island, we, if we adopt the route that the UK CCC suggests, will be looking at a different target.

Dr Johnston: Are we not being a little pre-emptive, in the sense that we do not yet know what the sectoral targets will be in Ireland? It will be interesting to see what they are. Will the approach taken to farms in Connacht differ from the approach taken to farms in Munster? Will that differ on the basis of their size, their location and the nature of their landscape? We may be jumping the gun a little there. We will have to wait to see what the sectoral approaches will be in Ireland and how those will be applied across the country.

The Chairperson (Mr McAleer): Thanks, Mike.

Mr Irwin: Thank you, Mike, for your presentation. I have been a farmer all my life, and I have a dairy farm, so I fully understand the situation. The Climate Change Committee has made clear recommendations for the four regions of the UK. The main recommendation for Northern Ireland is that we should set a target of an 82% reduction by 2050. In doing that, the UK as a whole would reach net zero. Is that doable, Mike?

Dr Johnston: As I said to John, you need to focus on the impact. Obviously, the impact of going for the UK target would be less severe on our sector than going for what is proposed in this Climate Change Bill. The assessment of the Committee on Climate Change is that the achievement of the UK target would require a reduction of about 20% in the level of livestock in Northern Ireland.

Let us not underestimate that or the impact that it would have. I lay alongside that the evidence that Professor Gerry Boyle gave recently to the Oireachtas. He said, "Yes, that is a worst-case scenario, but we have 35 years before we get to that stage. Science will emerge. Ways of measuring emissions will emerge and evolve. We might have to look at 20%, but we might be able to reduce that. In addition, we should be able to continue on the journey that we are on of improving productivity and the efficiency of production".

At the end of the day, from a dairy industry point of view, it is about the impact. However, it is also about being able to continue to produce the levels of milk that we have been producing so that we keep our processing factories efficient and continue to make the contribution that we are making to feeding the rest of the population in the United Kingdom and meeting the demand from customers in Europe and countries throughout the world. We need to make sure that we can find ways of continuing to maintain our milk production with fewer animals while meeting the future demands of our customers.

Mr Irwin: As you said, the outworking of the private Member's Bill could mean a vast reduction in milk production in Northern Ireland. Would a large number of redundancies or job losses in Northern Ireland be a consequence of that?

Dr Johnston: Without doubt. I was not trying to be overly dramatic in using the phrase "cottage industry". You can join the dots, William, and see what would happen if we went back to levels of milk production that we last saw in 1946. You can see the impact of that on processing.

Ms Bailey: Thanks, Mike. It is great to hear from you today. You said that you did not know why 2045 was picked as a target in the Bill, so I will clarify that for you. The target of 2045 reflects the general trend towards stronger climate legislation in the proven context of living in an interconnected climate and ecological emergency. Even at UK and international levels, we need strong net zero targets to allow us to keep pace with those constantly

global

Recently, Boris Johnson increased the UK's emission reduction target from 68% by 2030 to 78% by 2035. Again, there is no plan for how Northern Ireland achieves that, even within its fair share modelling. We need to be cognisant that, if we do not keep pace in Northern Ireland, we will be at a significant risk if the UK decides to be more ambitious, which we see that it is. That was picked up by the CCC in its letter to Minister Poots on the setting of a net zero target. It stated clearly:

In that scenario and given that the Bill has no sectoral targets — it does not specify the agri-food sector or the dairy sector — where other sectors could move far and fast and measuring and reporting will be absolutely key, do you feel that the dairy sector is sufficiently resourced to begin to measure and report its development?

Dr Johnston: Thanks for that, Clare. We have absolutely no problem with the UK's ambition being tightened as the evidence evolves. There are a couple of key elements to consider from the point of view not only of the dairy industry but of the agri-food sector. We need to have a really good research programme. If we have the right research programmes that are properly financed, there is a good chance that they will deliver the mitigation measures that we will need to continue to meet our commitment towards meeting the targets in 20 years from now. That research is extremely important.

As you said, we need be able to measure better. The College of Agriculture, Food and Rural Enterprise (CAFRE), for example, is putting in place a pilot programme that will look at carbon audits on farms across the piece. That will look at different carbon calculators — a range of calculators is available — to see which ones will be best for Northern Ireland. We can take that sort of evidence and begin to apply it to measure the emissions and set targets at an individual farm level. That is the direction of travel that we need go in.

We also need to make sure that we can maximise the adoption of new knowledge — current knowledge — at the farm level. We know that a lot of our dairy farmers already do the things that deliver the reductions that I have indicated, but there is room for improvement. We can and should do more, and we need a plan for that. The key thing is that, looking at the journey that the dairy sector has taken since 1990 and the reductions that it has achieved, we can do more. That is the starting point. We can do much more to continue to deliver the targets that we will need to achieve whether that is by 2045 or 2050. That is the direction of travel that we need, and we need research that will help us to do that.

Ms Bailey: Where are we with that research, Mike?

Dr Johnston: There are really good research projects. For example, the Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute (AFBI) is looking at what can be done to mitigate biogenic methane emissions from cattle. A number of our dairy farmers have been involved in projects with AFBI that look at soil nutrient management to minimise the leakage of nutrients into the upper Bann catchment area. Those projects look at what we can do to reduce protein in dairy cow feed and to reduce the age of first calving so that we can reduce the number of herd replacements needed. Quite a number of research streams are ongoing.

Once we get the output from that research, we will need, with the engagement of dairy farmers, to make sure that we maximise the adoption of that knowledge on all farms. Then, we need to look at what else will be needed 10, 12, 15 or 20 years down the line and at what the issues will be for which we need that research knowledge to put mitigation measures in place.

Ms Bailey: The Bill does not have sectoral targets, and we know that others can pick up the heavy lifting at the start while we develop the reporting and begin the monitoring. However, as we begin to develop and as behaviours, technology, science, and targets change and the rest of the world moves forward, do you still have real concerns that, rather than making the industry sustainable for 2045 and beyond, the Bill will bring us back to 1945 and a cottage industry?

Dr Johnston: I am concerned that, unless there are significant changes, Clare, that would be the case. However, if we can get the changes, not only will the impact be less severe but showing willingness to change will send an important and clear message to the industry as a whole that you want to engage with it and to work with us. If you can send that clear message, you will get a positive response, because we want to get it right. It is in everybody's interests to get it right. We want to be involved. Give us a chance.

Ms Bailey: Great. Thank you.

The Chairperson (Mr McAleer): OK, I have to keep us moving swiftly on, because our next witnesses are up soon.

Mr McGlone: Thank you very much, Mike, for your extensive evidence. There is only one bit that I want more detail on. You referred to evidence about production reverting to 1946 levels. Is that written evidence? Can that be shared with us, please?

Dr Johnston: It is still a work in progress, Patsy. It is the work to which Conall referred. It is an impact assessment that was carried out across sectors. We hope that it will be available within weeks, and it will be shared with the Committee at that stage, certainly.

Mr McGlone: That is grand. Thank you very much indeed.

Mrs Barton: I want to ask about the genetics of livestock. Is there a difference in methane production etc between breeds of cows: for example, Friesian cows compared with Jersey cows?

Dr Johnston: That is beyond me, Rosemary. I do not have a clue. I do not have that level of detail. I am sorry.

Mrs Barton: You talked about investigations that were going on. You spoke about how different foods affect methane production, and I wondered whether different breeds of animals were being investigated.

Dr Johnston: I would be surprised if, somewhere in the world, that work was not being done. I am just not aware of it. Sorry.

Mrs Barton: That is OK. Thank you.

The Chairperson (Mr McAleer): Mike, thank you for coming this morning. Part of the call for evidence is about listening directly to stakeholders and people like you, who have a huge insight into the potential impact of the private Member's Bill on the industry. It is also about listening to you and finding out ways that the framework could be amended to include some of the things or changes that you would like to see. That is important. I hope that you will feed in to us in the time ahead. You will be aware that, under the Bill’s framework, the five-year climate action plans will be subject to public consultation. It was really great to hear from you this morning, and we would like to hear from you as the scrutiny process continues. Thank you very much.

Dr Johnston: Thank you, Declan. Thank you, everyone.

The Chairperson (Mr McAleer): Take care, Mike. Bye.