Debate contribution: Nutrients Action Programme 2026-29: Opposition

Debate contribution by Mr John Blair on 10 June 2025.

MLA

Mr John Blair

Party at the time

Alliance Party

Date

10 June 2025

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Private Members' Business

Heading

Nutrients Action Programme 2026-29: Opposition

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5001104

Read the official Assembly record

Text

It will come as no surprise to Members when I say that the Alliance Party firmly opposes the motion calling on the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs to withdraw the consultation on the nutrients action programme 2026-29. The motion fundamentally misunderstands the urgent need for action to protect our environment, particularly in relation to the ecological crisis that we are trying to overcome at Lough Neagh. It also appears to undermine the very purpose of public consultation. Agriculture is a cornerstone of our economy and a way of life for many in Northern Ireland. It is vital for feeding our communities, supporting jobs and protecting our rural landscapes. However, we cannot ignore the stark reality that our agricultural practices have contributed to significant pollution of our waters, including, as I have mentioned, Lough Neagh. The alarming rise of blue-green algae in that vital waterbody is a clear sign that our waters are under severe threat. The nutrients action programme, which has existed since 2007, is not just a set of regulations; it serves as an essential framework for change, providing a solution that balances agricultural needs with environmental responsibilities. Importantly, the NAP consultation is science- and evidence-based, which reinforces its necessity. At this stage, I point out, as clearly as I can, so that we do not hear again what we have heard today, that we know that there is a vital need to address nutrient pollution not only from the agri-food industry but from waste water. The Minister has not been found lacking in that regard. The Infrastructure Department must also take action in parallel with DAERA to address waste water pollution. Supporters of the motion will argue that the proposals could devastate our agriculture sector. However, the reality is that we cannot afford to choose between a healthy environment and a robust agriculture industry: the two are interconnected. That point was made clear by the Office for Environmental Protection (OEP) when it briefed the Committee a couple of weeks ago. It stated clearly that our agri-food sector is not sustainable in terms of our environment and must reduce its impact on our natural resources. The OEP has clearly communicated its position on the NAP consultation. In its guidance to the Department, it states:

"The issue of reducing nutrient pollution is urgent and must be dealt with accordingly."

It pointed out the insufficient progress made so far and stressed the importance of upholding and effectively implementing the NAP regulations in a timely manner. The OEP also indicated that, given the gravity of the situation, any failure to improve in the area may lead it to consider enforcement actions, which will, of course, lead only to further pressures on the Department.

Once, perhaps. I am stuck for time. Go ahead.

I will respond quickly by saying that the environment, with the OEP in its governance role, should be a pretty significant part of the discussions. There are farmers who already face the consequences of poor water quality, which threatens the viability of their operations. If the water in Lough Neagh continues to suffer from nutrient overload, it will affect not only those who farm the land but those who rely on clean water for drinking and leisure. It is crucial to recognise that the failure to address the nutrient overload in our waterways will lead only to a worse situation regarding food security; nor should we discount reputational damage to our products. I must also address the misunderstanding in the motion: while the motion calls for the immediate withdrawal of the consultation to allow for stakeholder engagement, the consultation is, in itself, a platform for such engagement. It invites farmers, environmentalists and the wider community to contribute their insights. Instead of opposing the consultation, we should welcome it as a pathway to collaboration and genuine engagement that extends wider than sectoral interests.

I will not give way. I stress that the Minister has made it clear that no decisions related to the NAP have been finalised. Instead, the Minister has taken the initiative to try to establish a stakeholder group made up of agri-food and environmental experts. The group will review the proposals outlined, if it goes ahead, in the NAP, along with feedback from the consultation. Therefore, for clarification, a public consultation should not be seen as a final version, as the feedback from participants in the consultation will, of course, eventually shape the policy proposals and outcomes. I urge the Assembly to consider the consequences of not translating our words into action, as that is, ultimately, what the programme, along with other initiatives and strategies from the Minister, facilitates. Too often, parties call for more action to address Lough Neagh and protect our natural environment, yet, when it comes to making the difficult decisions directly, they pull back. To do nothing or slow down are not realistic options. The evidence shows that. Average soluble reactive phosphorus levels in our waterways have increased by 55% since 2012. That, perhaps not coincidentally, corresponds directly with the introduction of Going for Growth. Research shows that 17% of farms produce 55% of manure nitrogen. Consultations on those matters in the context of the threat to our water quality should not be seen as controversial; they should be expected. If we allow the status quo to continue —

— we risk further deteriorating water quality and the perpetuation of a cycle of pollution that will affect all walks of life in Northern Ireland, including our agri-food sector.

916 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