Debate contribution: Nutrients Action Programme 2026-29: Opposition

Debate contribution by Mr Cathal Boylan on 10 June 2025.

MLA: Mr Cathal Boylan
Party at the time: Sinn Féin
Date: 10 June 2025
Type: Debate contribution
Business: Private Members' Business
Heading: Nutrients Action Programme 2026-29: Opposition
Assembly identifier: Official Report component 5001237

Text

I rise to voice the growing concern shared by thousands of farming families across the North, including my constituency of Newry and Armagh — concern not just about policy but about the future of their livelihoods, their communities and the land that they have cared for across many generations. We are all united in the belief that water quality in our rivers and in Lough Neagh must be protected and improved. Pollution must be tackled — no one disputes that — but, when the solutions proposed are far removed from the realities of family farming, we must ask who exactly is being listened to. The latest nutrients action programme, for 2026 to 2029, has landed like a hammer blow to small and medium-sized farms. It proposes to make low emission slurry spreading equipment mandatory, to impose tight phosphorus fertiliser restrictions and to introduce more buffer strip requirements on arable and horticultural land. Those changes are not minor, technical tweaks; they are a fundamental shift in how farms operate, and they come with serious costs. Let me be clear: family farms are not the problem; they are part of the solution. For more than two decades under earlier NAPs, farmers have changed their practices. They have invested in new infrastructure, they have adapted and they have worked with government. They cannot be expected to keep absorbing the financial and operational burden of every new regulation, especially when the support to do so is either insufficient or non-existent.
Yes.
I accept the Member's point. As the Ulster Farmers’ Union has said, the latest proposals feel more like enforcement than partnership. There is too little emphasis on education, collaboration or real-world feasibility. That is a dangerous direction in which to travel. Take hill farmers, for example. The idea that every field is accessible for trailing shoe or injection slurry spreading is simply unrealistic. They are not flat, open lands with large gates and gentle gradients. They are sloped and rugged, often with wet conditions, making it impossible to use machinery without putting safety, animals and soil at risk. A blanket rule applied to all farms without exception will leave many unable — not unwilling — to comply. We also hear the argument that reducing fertiliser use is essential, but the proposed limits could drastically reduce grass yields. For many small dairy farms, that means having to feed more concentrates, which not only increases costs but could lead to greater phosphorus run-off, completely undermining the intended environmental benefits. Real-life case studies and farm trials show that meeting the new phosphorus-balance target will be nearly impossible for high-yielding dairy herds without either cutting stock numbers or expanding land, neither of which is realistic for most family farms, which are already stretched to capacity. Let us not forget that more than 90% of the North's farmland lies within 7 kilometres of a protected habitat. That means that even minor errors in paperwork or location disadvantage could see a farmer lose their derogation or face more restrictions. Compliance should not be a game of chance. We need policy that recognises the good work that is already being done. Programmes such as the soil health scheme, funded slurry innovation pilots and voluntary investment in low-emission equipment are all examples of how farmers are leading change. They are not looking for excuses; they are asking for practical, science-based support. Environmental progress must not come at the cost of rural collapse. The idea that we can achieve sustainability by hollowing out the most sustainable food-producing sector that we have is not just flawed but dangerous.
If local food production declines, we will simply offshore it to countries with lower standards and less oversight. That is not environmental leadership; it is environmental hypocrisy.
I urge those who are crafting these proposals to take a step back and engage meaningfully with our farmers. They should not lecture them or penalise them but work with them, because, if family farms are lost, it is not only a way of life that will disappear but a key part of our food security, our rural economy and our environmental stewardship. Let us not allow good intentions to be undone by poor execution. Let us work together for a future that protects our —
— land and those who farm it.

715 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Awaiting analysis

This record has not been analysed yet. It is not counted in any total until it has been assessed.

Disagree with this assessment?

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

Challenge this classification