Mr. Se?n Finan:

The two parts of the Deputy's question are linked. We break up our work in this area into two distinct scales. There is what we call farm scale, which is similar to what we are covering through our EIP Department-funded project as we offset the fossil energy usage on the farm by farm-generated feedstocks. The animal by-product regulations govern a lot of this area from the point of view of what we are allowed to bring into a farm, access routes and various other things. Our project is very specifically dealing with farm-generated waste used to produce biogas and that biogas being used to offset existing fossil usage. That fossil usage could involve kerosene used for heating, the generating of renewable electricity through a CHP unit or producing fuel for the farm equipment and vehicles.

It is a circular approach in that you are offsetting chemical fertiliser usage, improving the overall carbon sustainable footprint of the farm and utilising the waste that exists and potentially adding value to it for further nutrient recycling.

We break our work into what we call farm-scale and medium to large-scale areas. Regarding the first part of the question, there is a very distinct difference in the support requirements at what I have described as farm-scale compared to medium to large-scale. It is very clear from our work that the farmer needs a capital grant to offset the initial construction of the anaerobic digestion facility on the farm. The farmer's payment is generated through offsetting his or her fossil fuel bill over a period of time. If you take that to the next level in terms of the medium to large-scale facilities, and these plants could be located on a co-operative-style farm where there could be a number of farmers supplying to it or a site independent of a farm, the role of the farmer in that case is more about supplying the feed stock or a wide variety of feed stocks. The farmer would be paid for that feedstock and the energy output would go to a grid. It might be used locally or it could go to a grid to displace heating or transport energy usage. To answer the first question, there is a very distinct difference in the support requirements across the different scales and a very distinct difference in respect of farmer involvement across the different scales. A framework that would combine all of that is the carbon farming framework. If farmers are going to look at the economics and determine that growing feed stock is a better option, and as a farmer I understand the outlook of farmers on this, they make a business decision as to whether it will be more economically viable to grow feed stock or carry livestock. The framework that ties all of that together is the carbon farming framework in terms of creating a benchmark for carbon levels on farms and putting a value on the various different elements that can contribute to increasing that stock. Reducing the number of animals is an option but that is up to each individual farmer. It is about whether the economics stack up better for the production of feed stock as an alternative. It will be down to an economic decision by the farmer. I hope this answers the questions about the different scales and the distinct differences in terms of support requirements.

The medium to large-scale support requirements are an ongoing support in our opinion. Our members are giving us that view. There are very few models across Europe where at a medium to large scale, capital support has worked or has been deployed. It is mostly all in the form of ongoing support through an obligation scheme and an exchequer support in some European countries but the levels of capital investment are significant at a medium to large scale. We are not aware of any significant capital support schemes across the EU to any great extent at the medium to large scale.