TUV warns of “RHI Mark 2” as costly net zero policies threaten farming and food security

Speaking in the Assembly on Tuesday the north Antrim representative said yet “just one week later, the Ulster Unionist Party has moved to push a debate that risks endorsing one of the most expensive forms of green energy currently available”.

"This raises serious questions about the direction of travel,” he added.

"Rather than addressing the financial burden of climate policies, we now appear to be accelerating towards costly interventions without a clear understanding of their long-term impact”.

The TUV MLA added: "I cannot help but recall the NAP consultation event held at Greenmount in May 2025.

"The clear impression from that meeting was that the Department was steering towards the development of large-scale anaerobic digestion (AD) plants, with farmers expected to bear the cost of separating slurry solids and transporting them to these facilities.

"Notably, the outcome of that consultation has yet to be published.

"Yet, despite that, we are already debating proposals that appear to support the creation of new “super” AD plants.

"There is a need to step back and assess this from a farmer’s perspective.

"A well-organised lobby is seeking to establish AD plants across Northern Ireland. While cost-effective green energy has a role to play, any solution must be economically viable in its own right.

"At present, AD plants are heavily reliant on renewables obligation certificates (ROCs), which are due to expire within the next five years.

"That raises a fundamental question: what happens when those subsidies end? Will they simply be rebranded under another scheme?”

Mr Gaston added that “"any credible energy model should stand on its own feet”.

"Otherwise, the taxpayer ends up paying twice — first to build the infrastructure and then to sustain it.

"There are also significant implications for land use. Large-scale AD operations require energy-dense feedstock, which slurry alone cannot provide.

"This means diverting land away from food production to grow crops for digesters.

"Every acre taken out of food production is an acre lost to feeding people.

"Farmers located near existing digesters are already facing competition for land from operators who can outbid them, not through efficiency but through subsidy. In some cases, up to 75% of AD income is subsidy-driven. That is not a level playing field.

"At a time when food security is increasingly recognised as a serious issue, it is deeply concerning that policy appears to prioritise expensive energy schemes over sustainable food production.

"This reflects what happens when ideology overtakes evidence.

"There is also a growing concern that farmers will ultimately be required to separate slurry at their own expense and transport it to AD plants, effectively providing free feedstock.

"Meanwhile, plant operators profit from the gas produced. Unless these facilities are farmer-owned and farmer-led, the financial benefit risks flowing out of the local agricultural sector.

"Earlier today, I raised concerns with the Agriculture Minister regarding draft climate action plan targets, which include proposed reductions of 18% in dairy cattle, 17% in beef cattle and 18% across sheep, pigs and poultry”.

Mr Gaston said that “despite assurances to the contrary, there is a clear fear within the farming community that current policies will lead to reduced stock levels and diminished food production capacity”.

"During the debate, it was acknowledged that anaerobic digestion, if “used badly, can cause harm.”

"That is precisely the concern being voiced by farmers.

"While food waste may contribute some feedstock, large-scale expansion of AD inevitably raises the question of where the additional material will come from.

"If this path continues unchecked, there is a real risk that Northern Ireland will sleepwalk into a repeat of past mistakes.

"In time, this could become an “RHI mark 2” — and responsibility will lie with those who first pushed these proposals forward in the Assembly."