Vol. 576 No. 2
59 Mr. J. O'Keeffe asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food the cost and method of disposal of the 172,000 tonnes of meat and bonemeal held in storage under the responsibility of his Department; the number of tenders received; and when disposal will commence. [29103/03]
My Department launched a tender competition for the disposal of meat and bonemeal on 7 October last. The deadline for receipt of tenders was Friday, 28 November, by which time 18 tenders were received. My Department is currently assessing the tenders and hopes to be in a position to place contracts before the end of the year with operational activity likely to start in the new year. This material will be disposed of by incineration abroad and the overall cost can only be determined when successful tenders have been selected.
How has such an enormous quantity of meat and bonemeal accumulated? I understand that in 1996, the Minister's predecessor, Ivan Yates, drew the line under the meat and bonemeal issue. Has this been accumulating and growing like Topsy since 1996? While I do not want the Minister to disclose the details of the tenders, will he provide a ballpark figure of the cost of dealing with this quantity? Who will pay the cost of disposal in future?
This country is unusual in many ways. For example, the numbers of livestock, at 7 million, and sheep, at 8 million, are both almost twice the human population. The livestock population generates about 550,000 tonnes of offal annually, which consists of carcasses and various other material. When rendered, this material creates 150,000 tonnes of meat and bonemeal. As the House will be aware, while this was once a valuable by-product, it is now waste material which we cannot process because we do not have thermal processing facilities, unlike the United Kingdom and other European countries where this material is used as a source of energy.
Meat and bonemeal has a high calorific value but disposal is costly. I cannot be specific on costs because the tenders are still being assessed. It is regrettable that we cannot deal with this problem as this domestic issue is being dealt with using European Union solutions, which impose considerable costs on the industry. The answer to the Deputy's final question is that the unfortunate taxpayer pays the cost.
The Minister did not touch on my question concerning disposal plans for the future. Will he give a broad figure on the costs of disposal? He also stated that this material was a saleable commodity. I assume disposal now incurs a substantial cost per tonne. Will the Minister give us a rough figure of the cost per tonne and what is the overall prospective cost to the taxpayer of disposal?
I do not know what will be the position in future. As I stated, this material is used in other European Union countries, for example, in the cement industry where it is co-incinerated and is of considerable financial benefit and significant energy value. Applications have been made for permission to use this material here but, to date, no such facility has been provided. The Department established an interdepartmental committee to examine this issue and I hope to publish its report in the coming week. The general conclusion of the group, which consisted of representatives from all relevant Departments and the Food Safety Authority of Ireland, was that we could beneficially utilise this material in this State as an energy source in some industries, particularly the cement industry, thus reducing the cost to the taxpayer. I assume a fair amount of the cost is incurred by the individual producer or farmer. I cannot, however, be specific about the cost per tonne as this is a public tendering process and the 18 tenders we have received have not yet been fully assessed.
Is research being carried out to examine methods other than incineration, which is not an option? Has the Department examined other countries which may employ alternative methods of disposal? Are there any options available in this regard?
There are a number of options, which I have discussed on previous occasions with Members, including Deputy Upton. One of these methods, the use of alkaline hydrolysis, is being kept under constant review. The Department is in discussions with the scientific committee of the European Union on this issue, but further evaluation needs to be carried out, especially under field conditions, as to the suitability of dealing with bulk material such as meat and bonemeal. As I stated, the annual amount of this material produced here is 150,000 tonnes. Given that alkaline hydrolysis produces a substantial residue, which must be disposed of, thermal treatment is the only practical, high volume method currently available.
I am interested in the Minister's responses, particularly with regard to cement kilns. Has the Department included other technologies in the tenders? A court case in Newcastle upon Tyne regarding the placing of ash from such operations into cement does not bode well and could yet emerge as a Trojan horse for a problem.
The Irish Farmers' Journal of 22 November 2003 features a proposal to build an ESB site for alkaline and acid hydrolysis in Ferbane, County Offaly. Is this one of the tenders to which the Minister referred? Does he recognise the energy potential of methane following anaerobic digestion of the residue? Initially, the Minister described this as a problem, but it could be turned into a resource if alkaline hydrolysis was to be followed by anaerobic digestion. In addition, the energy derived from the methane could also be beneficial. Has the Minister given this option consideration, particularly as a European Union steering committee has approved it?
The budget Estimates for the Department show a significant cut in the allocation for the control of disease. Will the cost of disposing of meat and bonemeal continue to be borne by the taxpayer? This is an important issue and a cause of anxiety for the agricultural sector. Is the Minister satisfied that sufficient effort is being made to find alternatives? I understand a number of groups have expressed an interest and commitment to utilising this product here. We are playing ducks and drakes in that we are happy to see this material being exported to Germany and elsewhere, but not prepared to deal with it here.
Has the Minister examined every option for disposal apart from incineration? At a recent meeting with a group involved in this issue, I was informed that this material is disposed of in Northern Ireland in landfill and used in some countries as fertiliser in forestation. Is this true?
We have a problem in that an important natural resource industry, our livestock industry, produces a considerable amount of a certain by-product – 550,000 tonnes per annum – which must be disposed of. It is incredibly difficult to do this in normal circumstances. Currently, the offal is rendered into meat and bonemeal for which there is no method of disposal in this State. Many options have been pursued without success to date, including using it in the electricity industry, the cement industry and landfill. To facilitate the utilisation of meat and bonemeal as a source of energy and power, a licence is required from the Environmental Protection Agency and to my knowledge, none of the relevant companies has applied for or been granted one.
Landfill is used in the North and some of the material produced here is exported to the North for that purpose. Thermal treatment is facilitated in many EU countries, but it is a cost for the industry. As regards alkaline hydrolysis, that has many attractions. The use of methane as a by-product is being actively considered. There is a considerable volume of by-product from alkaline hydrolysis, which causes problems. We will require the approval of the new scientific committee before we embark on any one of those processes. However, in the meantime there is a considerable cost to the taxpayer, the industry and the farmers concerned in disposing of 150,000 tonnes of meat and bonemeal per annum.
On a point of order, I thought approval had been given by the scientific committee.
