Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): I welcome the departmental officials who will brief the Committee on the upcoming consultation on the draft climate action plan (CAP). We are joined by Dr Claire Cockerill, the director of the Department's climate action delivery division; Dr Alistair Carson, the Chief Scientific Adviser; Mr Patrick Savage, the deputy director of the Department's climate action delivery division; Mr Niall Boyd, the head of the CAP economics branch in the climate action delivery division; Mr Martin Mulholland, who is representing the food, farming and rural affairs group; and Ms Fiona Dickson, the deputy director of the land and land use change branch in the Department's natural environment policy division. Did we get seats for you all?

The Committee Clerk: Fiona is in the Public Gallery.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Fiona is in the Public Gallery. OK, good. I invite you to brief the Committee, if that is OK.

Dr Claire Cockerill (Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): Good morning, and thank you very much for the opportunity to update you on our cross-departmental work to develop Northern Ireland's first climate action plan.

The draft plan was launched today for a 16-week consultation, following Executive agreement to do so. That marks an important milestone in our journey to net zero. Our progress in publishing Northern Ireland's first climate action plan for consultation delivers a key commitment in the Programme for Government (PFG) and progresses another commitment of the Climate Change Act (Northern Ireland) 2022, which is our first climate change legislation in Northern Ireland.

Minister Muir has been clear that tackling climate change is a top priority. The Committee has had the opportunity to provide input into DAERA's delivery on other key requirements of the 2022 Act, including the setting of public body reporting regulations last May, the setting of the first three carbon budgets, the 2040 emissions target, reconfirming our 2030 target in December and consulting on arrangements to establish a just transition commission earlier this year. Launching the public consultation on Northern Ireland's first climate action plan marks another step forward in delivering the Minister's programme of climate-related work.

The draft climate action plan sets out, for the first time, a cross-government approach to achieving a legally binding carbon budget. It gives shape to how Departments collectively intend to reduce carbon emissions in the first carbon budget period from 2023 to 2027 and beyond. Whilst DAERA leads on the Executive's climate change agenda, tackling climate change is not the sole responsibility of the Department. The legislation places a duty on all Departments to exercise their functions in a way that is consistent with meeting our emissions targets, and we have worked closely with Northern Ireland Civil Service (NICS) Departments to achieve that.

We have a number of formal governance structures to support the collaboration, including a strategic oversight group, which is chaired by the DAERA permanent secretary with senior representatives from every Department. We have other operational and technical governance groups, including an evidence-of-analysis group led by Alastair, who is our Chief Scientific Adviser. The Act is clear that delivering the carbon budget is a shared responsibility, and every Department has a legal obligation to contribute to its development by providing DAERA with policies and proposals from all sectors for inclusion in the plan. The sectors are energy production and supply; business and industrial processes; public building sectors, on which DFE leads; transport, on which DFI leads; residential buildings, on which DFC leads; and agriculture, land use, land-use change, forestry, waste and fisheries, on which DAERA leads.

Together, the reduction in emissions from those sectors must be sufficient to meet the carbon budget. For this carbon budget, that is an annual average reduction of 33% against the base year across the five years. It is very much a whole-economy approach. Some sectors will reduce emissions more quickly initially, while others have a slower transition due to the complexity, economic impact and need for behavioural change. The draft climate action plan contains over 50 policies and proposals that will deliver change. They include measures to increase the proportion of electricity that comes from renewables; reduce vehicle emissions by switching fuels to electric and low-emission alternatives; reduce the overall energy consumption in business premises and our government estate; improve energy efficiency in residential homes; divert waste from landfill and increasing recycling rates; introduce a programme of sustainable agriculture measures; and increase forestry cover and restoring peatland habitats.

The plan is grounded in the best available science. The policies and proposals put forward by Departments have been assessed through quality-assured modelling and quantification methodologies. Estimates indicate that, if delivered as proposed, the plan will just exceed the required budget, with an annual average reduction of 33·1%. The central scenario that has been used for quantification includes clear criteria. The proposals must have a credible delivery mechanism, realistic timeframes and either secured funding or a high confidence of available funding, which ensures that delivery is realistic to create a credible plan to meet our legal obligations.

The cost to the Northern Ireland Executive Budget has also been estimated. Over four years of the carbon budget period, we estimate that capital investment of around £718 million, and that is about £93 per person per year. It is important to note that not all the investment is additional. Some measures would have occurred without the climate action plan, and not all investment can be solely attributed to the climate action plan. Some measures will have been accounted for in the cost of delivering other strategies.

While upfront investment will be required, the cost of inaction is far higher. Delays encourage the risk of having to adopt more expensive technologies in later years, missing out on co-benefits such as cleaner air, the protection of our environment, inward investment, the development of green jobs and improvements to our health and well-being. In contrast, the plan helps position Northern Ireland to compete for UK, EU and international funding to unlock innovation and transition in a fair and managed way. The principle of a just transition is central. It aligns with the work to establish a just transition commission and a just transition fund for agriculture. Members will be aware that the Minister secured £12·3 million in this financial year to support the agriculture sector.

The changes required to mitigate the damaging impact of climate change will touch every part of our economy, institutions and daily lives. A suite of impact assessments has been carried out and will form part of the consultation. The results report no major adverse impacts and identify appropriate mitigation measures. The draft plan before you has been built through cooperation across Departments and with a wide range of stakeholders, but we know that it is not the finished article. The consultation is a very important part of the process, and we are keen to hear the voices of the public, sectors and stakeholders to help inform the final version of Northern Ireland's first climate action plan. We have planned an extensive consultation process that will comprise 10 regional in-person events and two online events, and those will be supplemented with sector-specific sessions facilitated by lead Departments to provide an opportunity to explore sectoral input in detail. The consultation will run until 8 October, and responses can be submitted online via Citizen Space. Given the extensive nature of the climate action plan documents, a summary consultation document has been produced, and an easy-read version is also available.

The launch of the consultation is a key milestone in implementing an important requirement of the Climate Change Act. It is the first time that we have had to deliver this complex work, and we have learnt much in the process. The plan represents the culmination of considerable effective collaboration, and it sets out a credible pathway to meeting our first carbon budget through policies and proposals across all sectors that are achievable and deliverable. We are pleased to be in a position to be bringing forward the draft, and we look forward to receiving feedback through consultation.

We are happy to take your questions.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Thank you so much for the work that has gone into this. Tackling the environmental pressures and failures of the past is everybody's priority, and this a significant part of that.

The consultation sets out mitigation measures for the first carbon budget. You have highlighted the potential positive impacts and challenges for rural communities, and the report goes into that in reasonable detail. Among the challenges that have been highlighted are adaptation to new agricultural and environmental policies without adequate engagement, training or support. As a Committee, we have been discussing those challenges, particularly as we consider the roll-out of the sustainable agriculture policy. A main one, I presume, is the financial support to changes in farming practice. What do you see as the main challenges in meeting the timescale in respect of the challenges to the agriculture sector in particular?

Dr Alistair Carson (Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): Do you want to pick up first, Martin, and then I will follow?

Mr Martin Mulholland (Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): The mitigation measures that we have modelled for the agriculture sector of the climate action plan include a range of animal productivity aspects to reduce emissions while maintaining the current level of milk and meat output from the agriculture sector. We have already launched a number of those schemes on the beef side of things to improve beef productivity through the beef carbon reduction scheme, launched in the beginning of 2024. The suckler cow scheme was launched a couple of months ago at the beginning of April.

Quite a number of the other mitigation measures are being delivered through knowledge transfer and applied research — for instance, showing farmers how they can reduce nitrogen fertiliser use going forward. College of Agriculture, Food and Rural Enterprise (CAFRE) knowledge transfer staff had an open day two weeks ago that was fairly well reported in the press, and other ongoing research has been commissioned by DAERA with the Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute (AFBI). Recently, a net zero farm research project was established. On the CAFRE farms, a lot of work has gone on over the past three years to incorporate legumes in the swards to fix nitrogen and, hence, reduce fertiliser use. There is ongoing knowledge transfer on things such as low-emission slurry spreading to allow better utilisation of the nutrients in the slurry and, hence, reduce the need for fertiliser. We are also looking at novel slurry treatment systems which, again, would retain more of the nutrients in the slurry to get better utilisation and, hence, reduce the need for fertiliser.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): We seem to be pretty well advanced in the discussions about how we will tackle it at that stage. When we had the Office for Environmental Protection (OEP) here, it talked about the fertiliser and the low-emission slurry-spreading equipment (LESSE) stuff, but one of the things that it pointed out to us was the challenge in relation to feeding — that balance in part of the feeding for cattle and those things. That is where the significant challenge was. Has there been any work in that space to come up with solutions?

Mr Mulholland: CAFRE has provided a wide campaign on how farmers can reduce age at slaughter without necessarily increasing concentrate feed use. Those are things like management practices to decide when to start finishing animals; grassland management efficiency to get better weight gains at grass; producing better-quality silage so that the animals will grow faster on the forage that they eat; and improving animal health. Those things will all contribute to improving the gains from the animals' diet.

Dr Carson: Really strong linkages between research, education and knowledge exchange are so important in this space, because the adoption of low farming practices and the development of subsequent future climate action plans will need new innovations coming through. That interface is really important in driving adoption. It is good that the metrics for some of the key parameters are heading the right way and driving forward production efficiency, which is key for reducing the overall environmental footprint from the livestock sector in particular. We all know that that integration is absolutely crucial, and science and evidence informing the way forward in a just way is absolutely crucial in that space.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): The knowledge transfer one is really important, but unfortunately, at the moment, I would suggest that the relationship between the Minister and the farming sector is probably at its lowest since the Minister took over. That is not a slight; it is just that, through the nutrients action programme (NAP) proposals, that linkage was broken. Have you thought about how the relationships can be improved or repaired to the point where knowledge transfer is not just accepted but sought to build up that confidence again in the farming and agrisector? Knowledge transfer will be absolutely critical to achieving the targets outlined in the consultation.

Mr Mulholland: If we look at the targets that we need to achieve from a government perspective to meet the requirements of the legislation, we see that that sits alongside the requirements from the marketplace for food processors and the communication through to their supply base in respect of reducing scope 3 emissions. Many of our main food processors have published targets to achieve that. In the long term, we all need to work together on it. That is absolutely crucial going forward.

Dr Carson: From a science perspective, new programmes, such as the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA)-funded dairy farm carbon network, are a really important factor. That programme has a major Northern Ireland component. It is led by AFBI, with significant input from AgriSearch. Developing that interface between the science and adoption through such initiatives is really important. We also have really good examples of case studies where European innovation partnerships went really well. That overall dissemination of projects such as ARCZero is really important. As Martin said, there has been considerable engagement with stakeholders in the development of the overall policies and proposals that have been quantified.

Mr Mulholland: Very much so. Alistair referred to the dairy carbon network project; we have worked closely with DEFRA colleagues to include Northern Ireland-specific requirements in that project, going beyond reducing greenhouse gas emissions to reducing ammonia emissions through measures such as reducing dietary crude protein and, from a Northern Ireland water quality perspective, reducing the phosphorus content of feeds. The feedback that I have got from the other research organisations involved in the consortium of the project is that they have seen that they need to do that in Great Britain as well as the focus that we are putting on those issues in Northern Ireland.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): There is a great deal of work to be done to ensure that the relationships are right for the knowledge transfer piece. Having the science and all the data is OK, but, if you cannot get it delivered, it will not mean a whole lot.

The OEP was in here a few weeks ago, and one of the members asked a question about its targets and whether it had to consider the rural impact assessment or dichotomy of pressures on the sector. It was quite clear and said its legislative function was to create and assess against the legislative targets. It also indicated that herd reduction was something that it saw as a component part of achieving the reductions that it wants to see. However, the Minister is the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, so it difficult for the Minister and the Department to achieve that. How do you see it being played out so that we achieve that 33·1% in the four years, possibly — hopefully — within budget, without seeing any diminution or reduction in our farming and agrisector? Part of that question — it is my final one — is that we have talked about green jobs in rural areas. Are the green jobs in rural areas seen as a displacement of farming and agriculture or complementary to the rural offering?

Dr Cockerill: I will start and maybe ask Paddy to come in.

In terms of the deliverability of the climate action plan, we have engaged with all Departments, which have input their policies and proposals. Those have been put forward on the basis of criteria to ensure that they are achievable and deliverable. In relation to the cost aspect of that, those policies and proposals are the ones that have funding in place or a high likelihood of funding being available. From that perspective, the policies and proposals in the climate action plan are those that we see as deliverable in that four-year period, specifically in agriculture.

I will ask Paddy to come in.

Mr Patrick Savage (Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): Specifically on that 33·1%, effectively those are the policies and proposals that are in the draft CAP and the assessment that has been done on those across all sectors. That has concluded that our projected emissions will achieve that 33·1% average annual reduction, which meets the carbon budget. Effectively, we meet the carbon budget by simply implementing what is in the draft CAP.

In relation to the agriculture sector and the question around livestock numbers, the Minister has been really clear that the advice received from the Climate Change Committee (CCC) around mandatory reduction in livestock numbers is not something that he will take forward at this stage. As Martin said, the policy is to maintain output from beef and dairy but deliver greater efficiency, therefore achieving the reductions set out in the report on the agriculture sector.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Just for clarity, there is a bit that I would like you to touch on also: the green jobs pitching up in rural areas. Does the Department see that as displacement and rearrangement of jobs that already exist on farms, or is that a bonus? Is it seen to be additional? It is in the consultation; it is part of government documents; it is obviously an ambition there, which is good. However, on herd reductions, for instance, I am trying to understand how collective the Department is as regards its functions. We have the NAP proposals, on which, the Minister now says, he has listened and will do something different. However, those were drawn up with this in view, and all of those in the industry said that it would lead to herd reductions and was undeliverable in its current format. Is the Department collectively engaged to deliver on this if it is coming up with something that is undeliverable — I use NAP as an example — to achieve the targets of 33·1% in particular and possibly the even more difficult targets to meet in the next phase?

Dr Cockerill: On the green skills and green jobs, we have been working closely with the Department for the Economy. It has done some analysis, looking at skills development and what is required. The green skills action plan came out, for example, which is a positive development. It puts measures in place that will help to ensure that those gaps are being addressed, so we see it as opportunity. There is opportunity for the wider rural economy, and it can be addressed through the draft climate action plan. The rural needs impact assessment is being considered, and the opportunities for green jobs and development of those green skills are seen as a positive impact. In the mitigation measures, we will have to continue to work on ensuring that the accessibility to that training is regionally spread. That will be addressed going forward.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): And the correlation of things like NAP?

Dr Carson: There are some mitigation measures that impact on nutrient loss to waterways and to greenhouse gas emissions, and there are win-wins associated with them, because they cut across both. For example, precision nutrition, reducing the protein content of livestock, where it can be done without affecting overall production efficiency, reduces overall nitrogen losses to the environment. Within our mitigation measures, reductions in fertiliser — nitrogen fertiliser, inorganic fertiliser — is one of the measures. That is driven not by the overall NAP regulations, which are just to make sure that nitrogen is not over-applied above overall crop requirements, but in order to have major initiatives through the industry and to maximise the use of legumes to drive efficiency on farms in that way.

Measures such as LESSE, which are not quantified in the main bits, can have advantages. Obviously, LESSE is primarily about reducing ammonia emissions, but, in doing so, there is longer-term, longer-scale nitrogen deposition that can increase nitrous oxide, which is a greenhouse gas. There are some indirect benefits. There are measures that cut across in improving overall environmental metrics from the livestock sector, but I do not see them as a juxtaposition or a barrier that will create major obstacles to the delivery of the climate action plan. Nonetheless, it represents significant and continued change in the industry as we look to develop the overall sustainability and environmental credentials of the sector.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): This is my final one. I do not want to trample on anybody's toes here, but, on anaerobic digestion opportunities via the creation of energy or the gas network, it appears to me that DAERA is much more ambitious than another Department in what it is looking at. Has there been any significant collective work between DAERA and the Department for the Economy to — I am not going to say "turbocharge" at this stage. We have to be careful, when we move into the energy sector, about how we do this, but it seems to me that, whilst it may not be a silver bullet, it could be a significant enabler in meeting our climate credentials.

Dr Cockerill: Yes. You will be aware of the sustainable utilisation of livestock slurry (SULS) project. That is ongoing, and DAERA leads that work, but we work extremely closely with the Department for the Economy on that. There is a lot of engagement on the issue. As the findings from the Small Business Research Initiative on the sustainable utilisation of slurry come forward, we learn lessons from that. It is really important that that is part of DFE's wider energy agenda, but there is significant ongoing engagement through the likes of the interdepartmental biomethane group.

Does anybody else want to come in on that?

Mr Savage: In terms of the policies and proposals in the draft CAP and what we have been able to quantify and assess emissions savings for, biomethane is very much there. It is across a number of sectors, including the business and industrial sector that is led by the Department for the Economy, so it is very much in the CAP and there are savings associated with it — well, projected savings.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Within the overall targets that we have and hope to achieve, yes?

Dr Carson: Within the overall quantification that has been done, yes.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Brilliant. Thank you so much. That is really useful.

Mr McAleer: Obviously, from an agriculture perspective, a lot of emphasis will be put on the farming sector. What support — capital or training support — will there be for farmers? You touched on the LESSE. In the context of the recent motion on the NAP proposals, I and others have made the point that a lot of that LESSE equipment is not adaptable for areas of natural constraint (ANC), for example, so what has been put in place to support farmers on the journey?

Dr Carson: The starting point of that is the sustainable agriculture programme. Martin can touch on that, and we can move on from there.

Mr Mulholland: As I mentioned, we have launched the beef carbon reduction scheme and the beef sustainability package — the suckler cow element — to support farmers on the beef side of things to transition on that journey towards improving productivity of their animals through earlier age at slaughter, earlier age at first calving, reduced calving intervals etc.

Dr Carson: We know that further work will be required in other areas as part of the just transition. We will need to examine how some of the new innovations, such as the exploratory work on feed additive variation, can be incentivised to ensure their adoption.

Mr McAleer: How will the programme balance reduction in emissions with maintaining output, avoiding carbon leakage whilst meeting global demand for livestock products?

Mr Mulholland: What we have modelled is improving the productivity of the sector while maintaining output so that productivity improvements such as earlier age at slaughter will maintain the same clean beef carcass output, while emissions will be reduced through animals being on the farm for a shorter time. The same applies to, for instance, age at calving, incentivised through the sustainability measure on the beef side of things and the equivalent on the dairy side from a knowledge transfer perspective.

Dr Carson: Again, that will be driven forward on the input side and on the genetics side. The ruminant genetics programme will be key to driving and underpinning improved reproductive performance and overall growth performance of animals in order to achieve the same output with reduced overall wastage in the system.

Mr Mulholland: There will be capital investment to support that. The coming investment measure will provide grant aid for farmers to invest in, for example, better handling facilities to enable them to more regularly weigh animals to make sure that they meet growth targets to improve productivity on farms.

Mr McAleer: Finally, you mentioned the beef scheme. Farmers have mentioned a few times that reducing the age of slaughter could have the knock-on impact of their using additional feeds to beef up the cattle for finishing and therefore encourage the use of additional feed and nutrients and phosphates. Do you see any issues with that? Has that been factored into the scheme?

Mr Mulholland: The knowledge transfer support to farmers for the beef carbon reduction scheme uses CAFRE farm data and benchmarking data from commercial farms in Northern Ireland. That demonstrates that it is entirely possible to achieve earlier age at slaughter well below the incentive targets in the beef carbon reduction scheme without increasing concentrate use. As I mentioned, things such as improved grassland management to increase weight gains at grass, better silage for better weight gains over the housing periods, better animal health to make sure that animals are not held back by poor health restricting their growth rates and, on the genetics side, as Alistair mentioned, selecting for improved genetics to improve growth rates will help to achieve earlier age at slaughter.

Mr McAleer: Thank you, Martin.

Ms Finnegan: Thanks for everything so far. That information has been really helpful.

I have two questions. What economic impact will livestock reductions have on farm incomes, rural employment, related industries such as food processing and exports?

Mr Mulholland: All the improved animal productivity measures should be positive for farmers in increasing their farm profitability if they achieve those targets. I have referred to CAFRE's work on benchmarking farm performance, which shows that farmers who achieve those targets will have better farm performance.

When it comes to mitigation measures such as reducing nitrogen fertiliser use, nitrogen fertiliser is obviously a large input cost so, if farmers can reduce expenditure on the fertiliser, it will improve their farm profitability. That does not mean that it is easy to do — it would have been done to a greater extent before now — but there will be a need for knowledge transfer support to farmers to achieve such things.

Previous questions related to green jobs, for instance. There will be support to farmers in achieving those outcomes. If we look to what has been happening in the dairy sector over many years, we see that the number of nutritionists employed in Northern Ireland has increased to support dairy farmers to give better nutrition to and get better performance outcomes from their dairy herd. I can see the equivalent happening on the grassland productivity side of things. Farmers will learn how best to manage soil fertility by making use of data from the soil nutrient health scheme and incorporating legumes to reduce the cost of nitrogen fertiliser.

Ms Finnegan: OK. Thanks for that. We keep hearing that one of the requirements for the Department to consider when making certain proposals — a good example is the NAP proposals — is that it takes on just transition principles. However, given that the just transition commission has not been established yet, how can those principles be undertaken in practice?

Dr Cockerill: It is a requirement on all Departments to take the just transition principle into consideration. That has been done for this first climate action plan. In putting forward policies and proposals, that just transition principle, which is outlined in the Act, has been taken into consideration. You are right: the just transition commission has not been established. Work is under way to establish it. There was a consultation on the proposals for the just transition commission earlier this year, and we are working to get that in place as soon as we can. That is important because it will provide advice and guidance to Departments as they seek to apply that just transition principle. That is something that we will continue to build on for subsequent CAPs. It has been taken into consideration for this climate action plan in the policies and proposals put forward by Departments, and, with the establishment of the just transition commission soon, hopefully, we will continue to build on that. There will be further support for Departments to do that.

Ms Finnegan: Thank you very much for that.

Mr Irwin: Being a farmer, I declare an interest. I am a partner in a farm business.

The officials talked about the reduction in nitrogen fertiliser, but its use has already been reduced in Northern Ireland by up to 40% in the last few years. The price of it probably dictated that. Should we not encourage grass-based production, instead of using more concentrates? The Deputy Chair mentioned the extra feed needed to kill animals, I think the target is, within 24 months at the end of the day. I have farmed all my life, and I cannot see that being done without the use of extra concentrates. No matter what your trials tell you, it is impossible to do it without the use of more concentrates. Should we not concentrate more on grass-based feed for animals, rather than reducing the use of nitrogen?

Mr Mulholland: There is the opportunity to increase the amount of grass and more that we grow currently by using alternative technologies such as the incorporation of legumes into swards to fix that nitrogen along with some of the other management practices that I mentioned.

Mr Irwin: It will take a massive change for that to happen. That will not happen by 2030.

Mr Mulholland: It will take time, but steps are already taking place, as I mentioned, in relation to the demonstration at CAFRE. As Alistair said, there are the previous environmental improvement plan (EIP) ARCZero projects that showed the potential there. That is being rolled out. There is also the AgriSearch work with the zeroNsile project, looking at growing silage crops without any nitrogen fertiliser use. Similar work has been carried out in Great Britain and south of the border with the Teagasc Solohead farm, which they refer to as their "wet farm", with the most difficult and heaviest soils. They produce 13 or 14 tons of grass with about 20 kilos of nitrogen fertiliser, and that nitrogen fertiliser is applied only when they reseed.

Mr Irwin: I hope that that works, but in my eyes — I could be totally wrong — the targets set out here are totally unachievable. I cannot see them being achieved. For instance, afforestation — planting more forest — was one of the targets. Does that remain the case?

Dr Carson: Maybe Fiona will pick that up, as she covers land use.

Yes, afforestation is to increase. Afforestation is one of the measures in the land use programme, with an overall target of having an increased area of over 9,000 hectares by 2030. The projections for 2023 to 2027 have been quantified by Forest Service colleagues. Obviously, for something such as forestry, there is a lag between planting and significant sequestration. It is really important to have additional planting now for the 2040s and 2050s, because that is when those planted trees will achieve significant carbon sequestration. Whilst the plantings during the period of the first carbon budget do not have a significant impact on overall carbon reductions, they will do in subsequent decades.

Mr Irwin: How will tree planting be encouraged? One guy was in my office yesterday — another has made an appointment for tomorrow — who had planted trees 20 years ago, but they are full of ash dieback, so they will see no return on their money. They will not plant trees again. How will you encourage people to plant trees, when a lot of people, having planted trees, have been left with a bad taste in their mouth? That will just not work. Unless there is a big incentive for people to plant trees, they will not do it.

Dr Carson: Others may pick up on the quantification exercise, if appropriate, but the increases in afforestation that are quantified in the first carbon budget are relatively modest. A lot of policy development work will be needed to get the increased afforestation to hit the target of 9,000 hectares post 2027.

Mr Irwin: I understand that, but those who have already taken part in the scheme are sick to the teeth of it and would not touch it again with a bargepole. You will have difficulty in encouraging a lot of those people to plant trees.

Dr Carson: It is important to make sure that we have learnings and that they are fully considered in the development of new policy on this.

Mr Irwin: It is vital that lessons are learned.

Dr Cockerill: Through the consultation, there is an opportunity for that feedback to be provided and taken into consideration.

Mr Irwin: OK. Thank you.

Mr McAleer: Were any plans thrown up by the small woodland grant scheme? It is not currently available.

Dr Carson: I cannot talk to that specifically. Maybe Fiona can. We can come back to you on it, Declan.

Mr McAleer: We were on-site last week at the peatlands. The Ulster Wildlife Trust raised the peatland issue with us. It made the point that the Department does not provide enough incentives to landowners and farmers to make their peatlands and bogs available for restoration work. That should be factored into the new sustainable agriculture programme.

Dr Cockerill: With the Chair's permission, maybe we can invite Fiona to come to the table and speak about the peatlands, if that is OK.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Yes. That is absolutely fine. Declan has made an interesting point about where carbon capture and storage capacity fit in. Significant ambition has certainly been demonstrated as to how that would impact on the wider piece.

I have a further point on afforestation. I have submitted questions to the Department and the Minister not necessarily just on incentivisation in the round for farmers but on the wider afforestation piece, including the Forest Service and the other sectors. There is a fear that the target of 9,000 hectares will not be met. Given the most recent answer that I have had from the Department, there seems to be reasonable confidence, but that means that things will have to ramp up significantly in 2026. The Department will have to multiply significantly what it did in 2023, 2024 and 2025. Would you have confidence in that?

Mr Savage: Yes, what you have outlined is correct, and that is the basis on which we have quantified that there would be increases as we go through the climate action plan period 2023-27 and that the amount of extra woodland coverage will need to increase. That is the basis on which it has been quantified and the basis of the assessment at the moment.

A relevant point about peatland is that it will be critical to get the policy framework right. A lot of what is outlined in the draft CAP sets out the strategic position, the vision and desire for the future, and we have put those emissions savings around that and articulated what current assumptions we will achieve for future emissions. It is really important that the practical policy on the ground is right, and that applies across the piece for all sectors — agricultural land use and buildings energy sectors as well.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Thank you. William, do you want to come back in?

Mr Irwin: Yes, just a quick one. Earlier, one of you said that the cost was £783 million per annum: is that right?

Dr Cockerill: It is £718 million — £93 per person per year.

Mr Irwin: Where will that money come from?

Dr Cockerill: It will come from a number of sources, including the Northern Ireland Government. As I said, not all of the measures in the climate action plan are additional, for example, there is funding in place or there is a high likelihood of the funding being available. There will also be UK policies in the climate action plan, so there would be financial support from the UK Government. Some of it will also come from private investments, and we are exploring other sources of funding, such as the Shared Island Fund. We are engaging with colleagues from the Department of Finance and the Department for the Economy to look at other sources of funding, and Minister Muir is engaging with the Finance Minister and the Economy Minister.

Mr Irwin: So, it has not been nailed down as yet exactly where it will come from.

Dr Cockerill: The draft plan has been drafted on the basis that it is deliverable, and the actions included in it either have funding in place or there is a high likelihood that it will be available. We are saying that it is achievable.

Mr McGlone: Thanks very much for your presentation. We know that it is all around us, we had storm Éowyn, which was just a blast of what climate change is happening. I have it at my own back door with the impact of climate change on Lough Neagh, and we can see it all happening.

Looking at the financial, social and economic impact assessment, a bit glares out of the page at me. It says that the assessment found that:

Can you quantify how short-term and how long-term? Who bears the short-term financial costs? This is where incentivisation comes in for farmers and businesses or, indeed, to meet issues that may arise in some rural areas that I represent.

That brings me to the rural needs impact assessment. It starts with the good stuff, of course, about supporting good jobs, regional balance and all of that stuff. However, our rural areas, in many instances, are being denuded of services, whether that is access to GPs or hospitals. A key element of that is transport, which is briefly mentioned further in the document. Rural transport and access to transport are becoming even more of an issue, whatever about climate action plans. However, I know a maximum of four people who have electric vehicles, and I know quite a few people. Thinking about charging points and, indeed, the storm itself made me ask myself, "If I had an electric vehicle, where would I get it charged?".

There are all sorts of issues in and around that. I have not read the rural needs impact assessment, so I am not sure, but I will go back and read it if I can get access to it.

In your position now, as the policy formulators — you formulate the policy and bring it forward — if you were to do a strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT) analysis, what would you say are the absolute priorities for incentivisation and just transition or for actual support from government?

Dr Cockerill: There is a lot to unpack there. Patsy. I will start with the financial, social and economic impact assessment (FSEIA). The short-term costs that we are thinking about cover the span of the climate action plan. Those will include investing in measures to make our homes more efficient. When we purchase an electric vehicle, that incurs an upfront cost. Ultimately, however, there are savings to be made by being more energy-efficient. Those are the long-term savings that the FSEIA refers to.

DFI could give more detail on the rural needs impact assessment and transport. The climate action plan offers opportunities to address some of those issues. One of the actions in the transport sector is about switching to electric vehicles and providing opportunities for alternative forms of transport, such as walking, cycling and public transport. There are opportunities there to address some of the issues that rural communities face.

Mr McGlone: I am sorry to interrupt you, but, if you live in a rural area such as mine, walking or cycling to your doctor are not an option, especially if you have a lot of health issues.

That brings me on to another point that I want to throw into the mix. I read last night that changes are being proposed to the welfare system. That, in itself, will deprive people of income. There is no doubt about that — I have looked through it — especially for those who are on the personal independence payment (PIP) and the consequential passport benefits for that. That will reduce income across the board. If you take that to a rural area, a person's income, through no fault of their own, be it because of ill health or other problems and difficulties, will nosedive.

If you try to contextualise that in a rural needs impact assessment, those people will not be able to afford an electric car, full stop. This is fine in theory, which is grand. However, if services are being denuded and stripped from rural areas, whether that is about access to a school, a GP, a hospital or whatever, who picks up the pieces to make sure that people, especially those who are most vulnerable, are not worse off.

Dr Cockerill: The climate action plan is not about imposing actions on anybody. Someone with health issues is not being asked to purchase an electric vehicle. The plan is about encouraging the transition to lower-carbon alternatives, where that is feasible. That is what it does. The just transition principle aims to protect people who are vulnerable. It ensures that those who are affected in that way are supported in doing so. There are measures in the climate action plan that will provide that support through schemes to people who need it.

Mr McGlone: Thank you for that. There is a just transition principle, but I am concerned about the practice and the outworkings of that. It is called a just transition because it is about making sure that people are not dropped off the edge in society. I will look forward to more proposals.

I asked you what your priority concerns would be if you were to carry out a SWOT analysis.

Dr Cockerill: Priority concerns in terms of —?

Mr McGlone: Which actions would you prioritise?

Dr Cockerill: For the purposes of the climate action plan, we are saying that all of those actions are required to meet our legislative targets. Taken together, all of the policies and proposals set out in the climate action plan are needed to hit that statutory target — the carbon budget of 33%. That is what we need, so it is all of them together rather than one being more important than the other.

Mr McGlone: OK, thank you.

Dr Carson: From a numbers perspective, the focus is on 2023 to 2027 and on getting on the right trajectory. There is a recognition that there will be a need for new policies and proposals to come in for the second carbon budget and subsequent ones. The monitoring, reviewing and evaluation of the first carbon budget will be really important in informing subsequent ones. That average of 33% is based on getting to around 37% reductions by 2027. That is seen as the minimum reduction to be on the right trajectory for 48% by 2030.

It is a long journey. The key issue is about being on the pathway. The quantification exercise that we have done is specific to the first carbon budget. There will be a need for future policy development across all sectors for the second and subsequent budgets.

Mr Savage: To pick up on the policy choices question, we considered over 50 policies and proposals in the climate action plan and looked at a range of scenarios. The 33·1% that we discussed at the start is the projected central expected outcome of the draft climate action plan. We also looked at a more optimistic scenario in which some policies progress more quickly than we expect and a headwind scenario in which some things do not happen as quickly. The annexes to the draft CAP set out what those different scenarios would achieve. We absolutely understand that there is a range of potential outcomes across all of the policies. We then tried to home in on defining a number, so that we can accurately assess whether what we have in the draft CAP is enough. We then focused on that expected outcome.

Mr T Buchanan: Thank you, folks, for being here today. Your capital investment programme under the agriculture pillar of CAP is classed as "unsubstantiated". No detail is provided on how that would be delivered. Can you give us some indication today of how the programme will be delivered?

Mr Mulholland: One work stream that is under development — I think that it is due to launch later this year or early in 2026 — is the capital investment package measure. As I mentioned earlier, that will include a wide range of on-farm investments that farmers will be supported to adopt through grant aid, such as improved handling systems to aid management and improve the productivity of their livestock etc. There is a wide range of other capital investment measures that will help farmers to improve their sustainability across the piece.

Mr T Buchanan: When will that come on stream? There is no indication of that in the document.

Mr Mulholland: I need to check the detail, but I think that it is in late 2025 or early 2026.

Mr T Buchanan: The research cited under the proposals around biomethane assumes a 50% increase in slurry aeration systems in the dairy, beef and pig sectors. Is that feasible? What consultation has there been with the Ulster Farmers' Union (UFU) on that? Is it of the same mind as you folk on that issue?

Mr Mulholland: We had issues with fatalities around mixing slurry etc for a considerable number of years. At that stage, farmers' representatives and the Health and Safety Executive looked at safer ways to mix slurry. One system that the HSE recommended as a result of that work was aeration. To achieve a 50% increase in aeration, we will start from a very low base, because the data that we have been able to obtain from the industry suggests that between 1% and 3% of slurry is aerated. However, that is just one aspect of the slurry treatment technologies that we are looking at. There are other exciting technologies for treating slurry that are much more retrofittable than aeration. They will reduce all of the associated gases and emissions, such as methane and ammonia, that come from the slurry and, from a safety point of view, hydrogen sulphide emissions. A lot of development is taking place in that space.

Mr T Buchanan: How are you engaging with the Ulster Farmers' Union around all of this?

Mr Mulholland: I have presented the ongoing work on the agriculture sector CAP and the modelling associated with it to the DAERA agricultural policy stakeholder group on five occasions since 2021. We present when a new piece of work is carried out, for example. We presented the new data obtained from the Climate Change Committee on modelling for the Northern Ireland devolved Administration for the UK sixth carbon budget, for instance, as it was made available to us. That is the first of three stages of development of modelling for the agriculture CAP using the ADAS scenario modelling tool to which we have access. That data was presented on three occasions, at each step of the process. The most recent presentation was after the development of the range of scenarios for the CAP — the headwind and tailwind scenarios that Paddy referred to. There has been quite a lot of engagement with representatives of farmers through the agricultural policy stakeholder group.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): We have no more questions. Thank you for your presentation and for taking so many questions.