Storm Brews Over Nutrient Action Programme Amid Lough Neagh Algae Crisis

Anyone from a rural or semi-rural part of Northern Ireland knows the familiar smell of freshly spread slurry. Love it or hate it, the application of organic and inorganic fertiliser is an intrinsic part of modern day agricultural practices.

So what's the problem?

Since the 1990s there has been a threefold expansion of agricultural output from Northern Ireland due to sustained government efforts to grow the sector (1). Despite Northern Ireland having a population of just under 2 million people, we now produce enough protein to feed 10 million people (2). Whilst that might sound like a good thing, the intensification of agriculture has led to a decline in our water quality.

Lough Neagh is now so toxic they it turns green each summer due to the presence of blue-green algae arising from excess nutrients from farm run-off, sewage and industrial pollution. Residents living near Lough Neagh have raised concerns over the potential health risks of algae blooms.

Government proposals

The Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs (DAERA) has launched a Consultation on the Nutrient Action Programme 2026 - 2029 (NAP) which proposes targeted measures to limit nutrient run-off from farms (3). However, agri-food companies have expressed grave concerns about the lawfulness and fairness of the consultation exercise and have called on Minister Muir to withdraw the NAP consultation (4). Environmental organisations on the other hand have welcomed the NAP stating that maintaining the status quo is not an option when it comes to water quality (5).

Famers, unfortunately, are caught in the crossfire the debate. Coming from a farming background, it is clear something needs to be done about the looming water quality crisis. Action should focus on the worst offenders, the industrial scale farms that operate more intensively and contribute most to the problem, which aligns with the approach set out in the NAP.

Blame game

Whilst urgent action is required, farmers should not be painted as the villains. Most farmers are passionate about conserving the environment and see that change is necessary. Protecting agricultural jobs and farm incomes are driving political opposition to the NAP. It is worth noting though, that average farm business incomes have been in decline for many years (6). Farmers face challenges in securing a fair share of agricultural profits, particularly in the face of rising input costs and fluctuating market prices. 

It may be time to face an uncomfortable truth: our agricultural policies are no longer fit for purpose. The traditional model of farming is struggling — economically unsustainable for many and environmentally damaging for all. A bold rethink is needed, including the possibility of capping livestock numbers to reverse the harm caused by decades of unchecked agricultural expansion. Predictably, some media outlets may cry “livestock cull,” but this is a distortion. In practice, herd sizes can be responsibly reduced through planned breeding — an approach that empowers farmers rather than punishes them. 

Farm incomes could be sustained by transitioning to alternative sustainable agricultural enterprises including agroforestry, agri-tourism, organic farming and conservation tillage. Farmers may even be better off in the long run, if the right financial incentives are applied.

Reaching a consensus 

In the short term, consensus should be reached between the environment and agri-food lobbies on a pragmatic way forward. Failing that, let's remind our politicians that 73% of householders are concerned about the state of the environment (7) and call on them to exercise their democratic responsibility to ensure urgent action is taken to address the ongoing water quality crisis.

More information