Debate contribution: Nutrients Action Programme 2026-29: Opposition

Debate contribution by Miss Michelle McIlveen on 10 June 2025.

MLA

Miss Michelle McIlveen

Party at the time

Democratic Unionist Party

Date

10 June 2025

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Private Members' Business

Heading

Nutrients Action Programme 2026-29: Opposition

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5001086

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I beg to move

Often, when we debate motions in the Chamber, we face the criticism, sometimes correctly, that we are not discussing the big issues. Today, we are debating an issue that will decide the future of our rural economy, our food security and the very people who feed us, many of whom are with us today. Undoubtedly, we will face the usual barrage of unsubstantiated, pejorative comments about being anti-environment or not caring about Lough Neagh. However, you can disagree with the nutrients action programme (NAP) proposals without being anti-environment, and you can seek a more pragmatic way forward while still caring about the quality of our water. The nutrients action programme currently proposed by DAERA is not just flawed, it is dangerously disconnected from the on-the-ground reality. The measures laid out — stricter phosphorus (P) limits, mandatory low-emission slurry-spreading equipment (LESSE) and compulsory buffer strips — are not just challenging, they are unworkable, unaffordable and unjust. They amount to an economic sledgehammer being brought down on one of the most productive sectors of our economy. This is a cross-cutting and controversial matter that has ramifications across sectors, communities and our economy. The consultation comes with a £40 million price tag in new costs: £33 million for LESSE alone, and £7 million for phosphorus separation systems at anaerobic digester plants. That does not even include the £3·6 million each year for inspections, databases and added bureaucracy. However, DAERA has failed to carry out a proper economic assessment to go alongside those proposals. A minimum of 3,500 local farms will be affected by one of the toughest new measures: phosphorus balances. Those measures, while, on the face of it, seemingly well intentioned, fail to recognise the economic realities faced by our farmers. To comply with the P rules, some farmers would need to double the land that they currently use for slurry spreading. That land is simply not available, and, if it were, its price, thanks to the proposals, would be pushed up to such a degree that it would be utterly unaffordable to the average local farmer. The only alternative is reducing livestock numbers — a forced contraction of our agri-food sector that would hit local food production hard and drive a greater dependence on imports. The Ulster Farmers’ Union (UFU) has expressed deep concerns about the financial implications of the proposals, particularly for smaller farms and those located near designated sites. Low-emission slurry-spreading equipment is prohibitively expensive, never mind the availability of the machinery at the scale required, and the requirement of buffer strips could reduce the land available for productive use, further straining farm incomes. Those are not green investments, they are shackles. Small and medium-sized family farms, especially beef and sheep producers, cannot absorb those costs. The dire situation already faced by many of those farms has been starkly laid out in the Chamber on numerous occasions over the past year. Put bluntly, LESSE is totally impractical without proper financial support. Given that agriculture contributed £2·87 billion to the local economy last year and food and drink processing contributed another £6·5 billion, it goes to the core of our economy. The DUP believes in evidence-based policymaking, but what we see here is evidence distortion, not evidence direction. Previous NAPs were designed around robust scientific evidence, with the data published and peer reviewed. While the measures being added under the proposed regulations are referred to as being based on scientific research, much of that has not been provided to be examined, which is a failure in the consultation process. There are concerns about the gathering and analysis of water quality monitoring data, and, in the DAERA NAP review, no statistical analysis was presented to support the conclusion of increased concentrations of nitrate levels in surface freshwaters between the reporting periods. The proposals suggest a new, reduced maximum limit for nitrogen fertiliser, with no scientific rationale behind it being offered and no discussion with stakeholders having been had in advance, yet that limit would significantly reduce the competitive advantage of Northern Ireland's ruminant livestock sector, which is based on high yields of grass. Research by the Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute (AFBI) has shown that growing high yields of grass removes more P from the soil. Other AFBI research concluded that grazing systems emit less ammonia than indoor house systems, yet, perversely, the NAP proposals will limit grazing systems. Specifically on new grazing limits that are included in the consultation paper, AFBI stated that it:

"does not hold sufficiently robust scientific evidence to support or otherwise the grazing system limits presented in table 8 of the consultation."

The new chemical limits are not even covered in the draft regulations that have been provided. Bizarrely, the proposals ignore the time required to evaluate ongoing initiatives such as the soil nutrient health scheme (SNHS) and the sustainable utilisation of livestock slurry (SULS) project, both of which are intended to provide industry with solutions to help with nutrient redistribution in Northern Ireland. Let us see the outworkings of those initiatives before layering on more regulation. There is concern that the changes to NAP derogation will also provide the derogation with limited value. It will impact on the take-up of derogation, because of the necessity to incur additional costs and bureaucracy. Furthermore, the Department proposes lower fertiliser rates for derogated farms, despite no evidence being presented to support that action. That will ultimately negate the positive environmental impacts that have been observed on derogated farms to date. We are seeing a continual pattern of abrupt policy changes and inadequate consultation that undermines the trust between DAERA and the farming community. The consultation paper is evidence of a rushed job, with inaccuracies and inconsistencies between proposals and the draft regulations making it difficult for stakeholders to comment. Farmers are being asked to invest in expensive equipment and to make expensive and significant changes to their operations without clear guidance or support, which creates an environment of confusion and frustration. We believe in taking a balanced approach to environmental protection that should recognise the vital role played by agriculture in our economy and society. We must tackle the pollution that is affecting water quality in Lough Neagh and our rivers, but that must be done in a way that is fair, workable and supportive of our farmers. The Alliance Party wants to paint that as a binary choice: either one cares about Lough Neagh or one sides with polluters. That is unfair and untrue. Our farmers live and work on that land. The health of Lough Neagh and its surrounding catchments is not just a policy concern but personal. Farmers want clean water. They want to protect biodiversity, and many already do. For example, our dairy sector has cut greenhouse gas emissions by 37% per litre of milk since 1990. Instead of recognition, however, it gets blame. Instead of support, it gets red tape. Instead of collaboration, it gets consultations written without it. That is not how change is built. Rather, it is how resentment builds. While farmers are hounded, other sectors face little scrutiny. Where is Northern Ireland Water (NIW) being held accountable for repeated untreated discharges into our rivers? Where is the accountability for the construction sector, for councils and for industry? The consultation reads like an exercise in scapegoating, whereby farms are being asked to bear the cost even though the problem is much more complex. The DUP's position is clear: we support a multi-agency, cross-sectoral response; we support serious action on waste water treatment; and, yes, we support enforcement action against deliberate polluters. We cannot and will not accept agriculture being treated as the sole culprit. Over 1,000 farmers came to the Greenmount campus last month, and the Minister was nowhere to be seen. There was palpable anger, and it should not be ignored. The Minister has been in his role for 16 months. From the farmers' perspective, he has failed to grasp the TB crisis, has offered no robust ammonia strategy and now offers a nutrients policy that is so tone-deaf that the entire agri-food sector is united in opposition to it.

It is not anti-environmental to oppose the proposals; it is pro-common sense. The DUP believes in balancing sustainability with survival and environmental action with economic reality. We are not asking to abandon water protection; we are asking for a different approach that is rooted in partnership, practicality and progress and a plan that engages with farmers instead of lecturing them; supports adaptation instead of mandating unviable change; invests in waste water infrastructure; uses actual field data, not flawed modelling; and builds consensus, not conflict. We need to stand with our farmers today. We need to stand with the keystone of our local economy and the thousands of rural families who —

— put food on our tables.

1,470 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 12:41 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.

Disagree with this assessment?

Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.

Challenge this classification