Trevor Sargent
Ceist:51 Mr. Sargent asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment the Government plans for IFI. [32023/01]
Written Answers. - Semi-State Agencies.
IFI, Irish Fertilizer Industries Ltd., was formed in 1987 from a joint venture between Nítrigin Éireann Teoranta, NET, and Imperial Chemical Industries plc, ICI. NET then became the holding company for the State's 51% shareholding in IFI, with the remaining 49% shareholding owned by ICI.
I am aware that ICI is keen to sell its shareholding in IFI. The Government would only sell the State's 51% shareholding in IFI if a suitable purchaser was found for the company. There is no active sale process at present because market conditions are not considered suitable for a successful sale.
IFI mainly produces chemical fertilisers. I understand that IFI's plant and equipment is not suited to the manufacture of organic based fertilisers or composts. The company have advised me that all animal manure is already recycled by farmers and that, with good nutrient management planning, fertiliser is used to supply the outstanding balance of nutrients for crop production after taking due account of the contribution from animal manure. IFI strongly advocates proper nutrient management planning and strongly supports Teagasc and the retail trade in its promotion.
As well as animal manure, other potential sources of organic based fertilisers are sewage and organic waste. IFI participated with a UK company in a feasibility study of the farm utilisation of dried sewage sludge in counties Meath and Louth in 1996 and 1997. It necessitated the movement of bulky material with quite low nutrient concentrates large distances. IFI did not deem it to be a commercial proposition.
IFI carried out a major feasibility examination of anaerobic digestion of waste materials in the 1996-1998 period. It was concluded that the investment was not warranted due to the high cost of transporting the relatively low concentration residual liquid to farms and the cost of its application to the soil. The combination of income from "gate" fees for waste removal, as well as income from the biogas yield and from the value of the residual liquid to farmers did not seem to be sufficient to make the project viable.