I beg to move

That this Assembly believes that investment in new and replacement farm buildings is essential to improving agriculture’s environmental footprint in Northern Ireland; criticises the decision to drop the published ammonia standing advice used by the Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA) to assess the air quality impacts associated with many planning applications; recalls that this decision was made without ministerial approval or prior consultation; notes with concern recent research conducted by KPMG on behalf of the Northern Ireland agri-food industry, which found that more stringent ammonia regulation could lead to fewer successful planning applications, a 20% to 25% decline in on-farm investment and reduce family farm incomes by up to 38% in some sectors; calls on the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs to acknowledge that the investment in, and modernisation of, farm facilities will promote animal welfare and reduce future emissions; further calls on the Minister to reject policies that constrain plans to invest in and modernise farm facilities; and calls on the Minister to place the needs of primary producers and consultation with the agri-food industry at the forefront of any new ammonia strategy.

The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes in which to propose and 10 minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who are called to speak will have five minutes.

For context, Northern Ireland is required to tackle ammonia to improve air quality and habitats. In Northern Ireland, approximately 96% of ammonia emissions come from agriculture. When ammonia is emitted into the air, it is subsequently deposited as nitrogen onto land and water, acting as a fertiliser. If it falls on sensitive species, that can result in damage and loss. That is particularly the case in areas designated as special areas of conservation (SACs), special protection areas (SPAs) and areas of special scientific interest (ASSIs). NIEA estimates that most of those designated areas and other priority habitats receive levels of nitrogen that are significantly above their critical load, which is the concentration at which damage occurs. Because of that, DAERA wishes to reduce emissions to protect those habitats to allow them to comply with their legal biodiversity obligations.

Set against that, food and drink production is worth £6 million to the Northern Ireland economy. It is our largest manufacturing sector, supports a workforce of around 113,000 and is served by other sectors such as transport, animal health and construction. It should not be understated how important farming is to our economy, our environment and our people. It is for that reason that the debate has been tabled today.

Our planning system is under considerable stress. One of the primary causes of that is gridlock in our statutory agencies. We are already aware of the delays and workarounds that have taken place as a result of the underfunding of Northern Ireland Water (NIW). In my constituency, we see considerable delays caused by staffing shortages in the southern divisional office of DFI. We are also seeing — this is a key part of the motion — the issues surrounding ammonia impact on the planning system.

Farmers need to reinvest in their businesses and replace existing buildings in order to modernise and meet new standards, including animal health and welfare and environmental targets. New and replacement buildings help them to improve the environmental impact in Northern Ireland. They also help the industry to remain competitive. Over-stringent bureaucracy or uncertainty in the application of regulation causes delay, and that impacts on development and progress.

The rules around ammonia adversely impact on local farmers when they apply for planning permission. The rules require an assessment to be carried out of the impact of a development on protected habitats, and NIEA will be consulted if there are any designated sites or priority habitats within 7·5 kilometres of the proposed project. Ninety-seven per cent of Northern Ireland's land mass is within 7·5 kilometres of a designated site or priority habitat.

Large pig and poultry farms are required to conform to additional requirements. However, previous ammonia standing advice was suspended by DAERA following concerns raised by the Office for Environmental Protection (OEP). In its place, NIEA has adopted an interim policy until the final policy is developed. However, that has not provided the certainty or clarity that decision-makers need. The reality of the issue is that, for a farmer, bringing an application could involve costs of between £10,000 and £30,000. With uncertainty and no clarity, such a spend is, in itself, a huge gamble on the part of the farm business. It has been well recognised that there have been considerable delays and uncertainty in the past seven years or so around agricultural planning applications. The Department's start-stop approach to ammonia advice has not just been frustrating for farmers but deeply disruptive to those with clear and legitimate aspirations to upgrade or invest in new agricultural buildings.

Between 19 December 2023 and 31 May 2024, NIEA responded to 48 agriculture-related cases under its interim ammonia policy. Of those 48, six raised no air quality concerns, seven raised air quality concerns, and only four were supported by the Department. In the remaining 17 cases, further information has been requested.

I know that the Minister has accepted that a backlog of cases has accumulated since November last year, but we need evidence of a sustained effort to deal with those cases for the benefit of all involved. It is alarming that, out of 48 relevant planning cases dealt with by NIEA between December and the end of May this year, only four have been given the green light.

Farmers find themselves in an almost impossible position: targets are being placed upon them while they struggle to remain competitive. The Department should therefore step up and assist them, either through funding or a workable, pragmatic and clear policy. Take, for example, a pig unit built in the 1980s, which would not have been subject to current environmental regulation. A farmer may want to invest to improve that, but he is faced with a gamble in the planning system and a lack of funding to drive innovation. Even setting aside the contradiction in how the current policy undermines the transition to net zero, it is clear that complexity and delays in securing planning permission for new buildings and technologies degrade the ability of our farm businesses and agri-food firms to compete at a time of great volatility and high-input costs. Furthermore, we all want to see health and safety improvement in agriculture and on farms. Yet, too often, those aims are stifled by the gridlock around ammonia.

In addition to that, there are concerns about what the replacement policy from the Department will be. That pig farmer's proposal may improve his emissions by 50%, which would be a significant betterment. However, the current process impacts all farm development, including the replacement of existing livestock and poultry sheds, which are effectively treated by the Shared Environmental Service (SES) and NIEA as new developments. Even where improvements can be demonstrated, NIEA can still recommend refusal, because it does not differentiate between new and replacement buildings in its approach. That means that farmers continue to use older, out-of-date buildings. This does not help farmers to tackle environmental issues. Will the new policy take betterment into account? Will it recognise that economic sustainability means that environmental targets are best achieved as a journey? Where else is the incentive to move?

The other concern is that the policy will be so restrictive as to indirectly result in a reduction in herd sizes to meet targets, rather than that happening through innovation. Although not explicitly mandating herd reductions, an overly restrictive policy can make that the only alternative. I hope that that is not the path that the Minister is considering. I hope that he will instead look at encouraging our farmers to adopt innovation and betterment. That is the only way to keep our sector competitive and economically sustainable.

Such concerns are borne out of a lack of engagement by the Department with the Ulster Farmers' Union (UFU) on new protocols despite consistent and repeated offers from the sector. Last year, DAERA consulted on a draft ammonia strategy, focusing on a range of measures that could be adopted on-farm to reduce emissions. That was underpinned by the following ambitions: reduce the total Northern Ireland agricultural ammonia emissions by at least 30% from 2020 levels; and reduce ammonia at internationally designated sites by 40% from 2020 levels. Last autumn, DAERA launched a survey to harness attitudes to investment among farmers and stakeholders. The Department is developing a capital investment measure under the new programme of farm support and development that, it claims, will provide financial support to help primary producers in the agricultural and horticultural sectors. Yet, since the Department and the Minister have not taken up the opportunity to discuss those proposals with the most affected and those who would be required to abide by them — the primary stakeholders — no one is any clearer on what the direction of travel is.

It is important to strike a fair balance between improving farm performance and improving environmental performance. Can the Minister confirm when he intends to bring forward updated air quality standing advice? Given that equality screening was lacking in the original decision to suspend the standing advice, will he ensure that that is not repeated? Will he consult the UFU on his plans? Perhaps the Minister could also look at other jurisdictions in the UK with similar stringent ammonia restrictions. In England, for example, consideration has been given to how permitted developments could be extended to support investment. I encourage the Minister to speak to his counterpart in the Department for Infrastructure. I ask that he provides clarity and certainty to this hugely important sector. Help it to help him achieve the targets.

Will the Member draw her remarks to a close, please?

It is a fine balance between economic and environmental sustainability, and, at this time, it is simply unfair to expect farm businesses to make informed decisions where that clarity does not exist.

I call Tom Elliott, Chair of the AERA Committee.

I am not speaking as the Chair.

In that case, I call Tom Elliott.

[Laughter.]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am not speaking as Chair of the Committee; I am speaking as a Member of the Assembly. I welcome today's debate. I think that we all have something in common: we want to improve our environment, air quality and sustainability. We also need to ensure that we have a proactive, positive agricultural sector that can provide for many nations. We rely on it for our food in Northern Ireland, but our farmers provide food for many communities throughout Great Britain, Ireland, the European Union and further afield.

I note that the overall agricultural planning caseload in the system at the end of May was 185 planning applications. I am not sure whether it has since deviated slightly from that figure, but that was the figure that I was given. For some time, there was quite a bit of confusion between the rules and assessments of the Northern Ireland Environment Agency and those of the Shared Environmental Service. Trying to make sense of which of those bodies' figures should be accepted provided quite a lot of difficulty for planners in whatever council area they were in. In fairness, I understand that the Shared Environmental Service does not have anything to do with the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs; it is a body that is engaged by local councils, but that confusion did not help the situation.

The system that we currently have is stifling development and production in Northern Ireland. At the same time, without the allowance for replacement construction, the situation is proving extremely difficult. The Member who spoke previously, Miss McIlveen, talked about the issue around replacement buildings. I want to focus a wee bit on that issue. Replacement buildings are treated the same as a new building. You may have a livestock house that houses 100 cattle or 200 sheep — it may only be 50 sheep or 10 cattle — which is a replacement and fulfils the criterion of being 7·5 km away from a protected site to need an emissions or ammonia assessment. That is quite a distance if you have to walk it, and I am sure that many of us would be tired by the time we got there. It is a significant distance, and those people — almost all my constituents who fall into that criterion — have to make planning applications. They no longer have permitted development rights, so they have to make a planning application and try to meet that stringent criterion.

Even if farmers are making a betterment to their system and previous construction by having improved facilities, which may even have mitigation measures to stop some emissions, they are still treated as though it is a new construction. That is a huge downside for those individuals. They are left with old buildings that may not be fit for purpose for the animals and livestock housed in them, but they cannot build a new one, even though the mitigating measures would reduce emissions, because the NIEA treats that the same as it would a totally new construction. If I am asking for anything to come out of this debate, it is that the Minister and the Department look very seriously at that issue and at least allow for a replacement where there is a betterment, clearly giving significant weight to that.

Will the Member give way?

I am happy to give way.

Does the Member agree that the Department and the Minister should take that into consideration? The situation is putting off new, younger farmers from entering the industry, because they see the structure that they are about to step into. Having been to our agricultural colleges, where the younger farmers train in the best facilities, they then come home and are held back by the same Department from being able to progress into the updated facilities that they learned about and trained in.

The Member has an extra minute.

Thank you. I thank the Member for those comments. He is absolutely right. It is hugely off-putting and demoralising for young farmers who come back from training to realise that, all of a sudden, they cannot build and develop a farm business as they would like.

We know that there are and have to be restrictions, but the situation is inhibiting the agriculture process. It inhibits the business of agriculture in Northern Ireland and is hugely detrimental not only to young people but, I have to say to the Member, to a few older ones who would like to develop and get into a better farming system, which the current system is prohibiting. I am asking seriously that the issue is looked at and resolved to allow for not only sustainability in the sector but development.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the motion. Sinn Féin responded to DAERA's consultations on the ammonia strategy and the future operational protocol. We support logical, practical and well-thought-out policies and, where necessary, legislation that will support farmers to reduce ammonia emissions. However, in our submission to the consultation on the future operational protocol, we highlighted fundamental issues with some of the proposals. While we support the goal of addressing the impacts of air pollution on the natural environment, we have a number of concerns around some proposed methods of evaluating and reducing ammonia emissions in a future operational protocol. We are concerned that a one-size-fits-all approach to ammonia reduction on farms would not be fair, effective or sustainable. Farms here vary in size, stock and type of land, and any evaluation of their emissions and sequestrations must consider that.

Farmers have raised concerns about the part of the operational protocol about in-combination assessments of emissions. Indeed, I raised that issue at the AERA Committee last week. It appears that, by adopting an in-combination approach, farmers who may have invested in reducing their emissions and taken steps to do that may still not get planning permission, perhaps because neighbouring farms still have high emissions. That is particularly unfair, and previous Members to speak also touched on it. There are situations where, perhaps, a proposed new development is treated as additional to, as opposed to a replacement for, something that may have had high emissions. It is important to note that virtually the whole of the North will be impacted — it is only 5% or less that will not be — by the 7·5 km limit. We believe that the proposed approach could fail to achieve some of its intended outcomes in reducing ammonia, as farmers are deterred from upgrading or replacing old buildings.

One of the Minister's top priorities is the natural environment. It is clear that a reduction of ammonia is possible if financial investment exists. We in the Committee had an interesting fact-finding visit to the College of Agriculture, Food and Rural Enterprise (CAFRE) at Greenmount last week. We saw and heard for ourselves what can be done if investment exists. We saw, for example, the covering of slurry tanks, the low-emission slurry spreading equipment (LESSE), such as dribble bars, and the flooring operation in a dairy farm that separates the cattle's urine from their faeces, thereby preventing or significantly reducing the production of ammonia. We saw how equipment can make a big change, but farmers need support to do that. We also learned about the case of Ballynahone bog, where sphagnum and biodiversity have improved, and we were told during the meeting that one of the biggest contributing factors was the fact that a farmer whose land was adjacent to the bog had adopted the LESSE. That shows that when farmers are supported and get the right equipment, they can do it.

Not all the measures in the draft strategy, however, are practical. Going back to the point about equipment, down in my part of the world, where there are mostly hill farms, a lot of equipment, such as dribble bars and other types of equipment, is not necessarily suitable for that terrain. We need to look at all the different land types and types of farm across the North.

The threshold should be consistent across the island, given the transboundary location of a number of affected sites. A lot of our bogs and protected areas straddle the border, and they are key to achieving a reduction in emissions across the island. The agri-food strategy in the South offers a number of possibilities for increased cooperation on an all-island basis, and that should be considered by the Department. In order to ensure that we can effectively, fairly and sustainably reduce ammonia emissions, any future proposals must be subject to a rural impact assessment that looks at the social and economic impacts of such measures on rural communities and identifies the proposals that work and those that do not. We support the motion.

I speak as the Alliance spokesperson for agriculture, environment and rural affairs, and I am, of course, also a member of the AERA Committee. The motion acknowledges, though only in outline, that Northern Ireland's ammonia levels are unsatisfactory and that the agri-sector's environmental footprint needs to improve. That is laid out clearly in the motion.

In Northern Ireland, the specifics are that the agriculture sector is responsible for 97% of ammonia emissions. Furthermore, despite having only 6% of the land area and 3% of the population, Northern Ireland accounts for over 12% of the UK's overall ammonia emissions. Recent data from 2022 highlights the significance of those high levels of ammonia emissions, as 96% of our areas of special scientific interest have critical levels of nitrogen. Those figures are alarming, to say the least.

Reducing our ammonia emissions is vital if we are to improve the overall quality of our air and protect sensitive ecological environments from the adverse effects of nitrogen. Movement from the Department is, of course, much needed, and I know that Minister Muir will be publishing the long-awaited ammonia strategy and operational protocol later this year, which will be evidence- and science-based and will, I am sure, respect environmental obligations. That, of course, could have been done much sooner had the Assembly not collapsed for nearly two years. I remind Members that that collapse was caused by the party whose Members tabled the motion.

Another harsh and unfortunate reality is that our Departments are facing significant budgetary and resource pressures, with DAERA being no exception. Those constraints are not assisting progress on this or other matters. Separately, I am thankful for the update that was provided by NIEA at the most recent AERA Committee meeting, when it discussed the measures that were taken by its natural environment division over the past three months to address the backlog of applications. Those measures included increasing staff numbers and implementing a new and more efficient approach.

The information that was presented to the Committee, however, made it abundantly clear that outstanding planning applications — those that were mentioned today that are awaiting decisions — are not, in themselves, going to address ammonia emissions at the level that is required. In the discussion with the AERA Committee just four days ago, officials made it clear that the vast majority of applications do not include significant mitigation measures. That being said, the issue that we face with ammonia goes far further than planning application delays. The agriculture sector can introduce cost-effective measures to help reduce ammonia, such as improved storage of farm manure, improved farm manure spreading techniques and improved strategies for cleaning livestock areas.

There is much work to be done if we are to reach the UK target of a 16% reduction in ammonia levels in the atmosphere by 2030. Although Alliance supports the motion's goal of reducing ammonia emissions, it is important to note that the motion does not accurately account for our current environmental, legal and financial situation. The motion, for example, references investment and modernisation but does not specify any of the measures, mitigations or installations that are vital to reducing ammonia levels. A more comprehensive understanding of those factors is necessary in order to achieve meaningful and realistic emission reduction goals.

We will not support the motion for those reasons. We do, however, continue to hope that the agri-sector can work towards a supported just transition in ammonia and on other environmental matters.

I welcome the motion, and I agree that investment in new and replacement farm buildings is essential in improving agriculture's environmental footprint. However, any valid concerns that the proposers of the motion may have about farm investment and farm income can be lost in their complaint about environmental regulations. Let us be very clear: investment in farms cannot be done regardless of the wider environmental cost. We have seen the effects of policy being adopted where increased productivity is prioritised over concerns about the environment. The steady and sharp rise recorded in the levels of nitrates in Lough Neagh since 2017 has been directly attributed to the adoption of the Executive's Going for Growth strategy. The strategy was developed under the stewardship of a Sinn Féin Agriculture Minister and continued by a DUP Minister. That strategy was adopted despite the fact that Northern Ireland was already exceeding safe ammonia thresholds, and the link between ammonia emissions and water quality is absolutely clear. The British Government have established an international commitment to reduce ammonia emissions by 8% in 2020 and 16% in 2030 compared with 2005 levels. However, here, instead of a reduction, unfortunately, we saw an increase in ammonia emissions of over 11% from 2005 to 2021. Those of us who were at the Committee saw the implications and ramifications of that. We heard that from NIEA. The PAC heard recently that, where a proposal comes from a developer — a farmer — that establishes betterment in environmental quality, that can be taken into consideration. I make it very clear that I accept that fully. We should all aim for that.

Almost all the legally protected sites in the North are experiencing levels of ammonia, air pollution and nitrogen deposits that are known to be harmful to the habitats. The Minister and the Executive have a legal and moral obligation to protect those sites. We have known about the problem with ammonia emissions here for some time, and we have known that the approach being taken to address the problem is flawed. The then Minister for Infrastructure, Nichola Mallon, said:

"This has inevitably introduced both confusion and delay into the planning system and created difficulty for planning authorities seeking to make well-informed, lawful planning determinations."

When a new, delayed ammonia strategy eventually went out for public consultation, the DUP had already collapsed the Executive. That is why DAERA officials were left to make the decision that the proposers of the motion are complaining about. The Department introduced an interim approach to dealing with planning applications in a legally compliant way, using site-specific advice. We have to get to the point where that site-specific advice is proven to give a betterment. Those are the situations that we need to see emerging now.

Any new ammonia strategy will also need to be legally compliant, otherwise it raises major issues for the Department. I would welcome clarification from the Minister on that. It raises issues for not only the Department but any approvals granted that the Office for Environmental Protection subsequently finds to be illegal. I certainly do not want to be, in a few years, having to represent constituents who are found to have had buildings erected that are non-compliant. That is certainly not where I want to be. It was outlined to us that DAERA's decision had to be made because of the threat of legal action that was hanging over the Department by the independent Office for Environmental Protection. I do not know how much it would have cost had the Department not taken action. Again, those of us who are concerned about public funds, including those of us who sat through the renewable heat incentive (RHI) inquiry, certainly do not want to see money being spent recklessly or fines being incurred that will then be passed on to other people who got planning permissions based on a decision that the Office for Environmental Protection subsequently found to be wrong.

I agree that investment in and replacement of farm buildings are essential in improving agriculture's environmental footprint and that, where or if a mechanism can be established to show how betterment has been achieved — either collectively, through a number of applications, or individually — that process definitely has to be looked at again. The motion, in effect, seeks —

Will the Member draw his remarks to a close?

— to instruct the Minister to ignore environmental regulations in order to fast-track that investment, which is not the proper way forward. I would welcome clarification from those who tabled the motion —

Will the Member —?

— of what they seek to achieve by that.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the motion. My colleagues and I have engaged with grassroots farmers following the withdrawal of the ammonia standing advice last December. Farmers, understandably, expressed concern that they may not be able to replace their farm dwellings as a result. As we have heard, many farmers, particularly those who are my constituents, have had their planning applications stalled, with some applications sitting for four-plus years at huge cost.

Will the Member give way?

Not at the minute.

A one-size-fits-all approach will not work, given the diversity of size, stock and designation of farms. DAERA must conduct a further public consultation in advance of any formal policy decision to inform the future operational protocol. The operational protocol must be subject to a full equality impact assessment and a rural needs assessment. The publication of impact assessments must happen sooner rather than later. The publication of the ammonia strategy needs to take place as well.

According to case studies presented in DAERA's call for evidence document, technology to mitigate ammonia emissions is more effective when applied to pig, poultry and dairy farms, as they are more intensive than smaller farm enterprises. Given that the Minister's top two priorities are climate change and the natural environment, I want some clarity on the budget that the Minister intends to allocate to technologies for farmers to improve the natural environment. Furthermore, the Department must acknowledge the transboundary nature of emissions, and the Minister must work as closely as possible with his counterparts in the rest of Ireland to tackle emissions across the island as a whole. The Minister must ensure that the approach to replacement buildings does not inadvertently introduce barriers to farmers who are trying to decarbonise old agricultural buildings.

I welcome the debate insofar as it raises an important issue and challenge for the agriculture sector, but the motion falls short from a number of perspectives. First, and perhaps most obviously, as referenced by Patsy McGlone, it is critical of a decision that was taken by officials in 2023 in the absence of a Minister, without any acknowledgement of or contrition for the fact that the absence of an accountable Minister or scrutiny body was due to the proposer of the motion's party boycotting the Assembly during that time. The motion also fails to attribute adequate weight to the scientific and legal evidence before us that the departure from the previous standing advice was necessary. Fundamentally, it fails to engage seriously with the worrying trends in ammonia levels, with Northern Ireland now being responsible for a disproportionate share of the UK's ammonia emissions.

I am conscious of and recognise the frustrations that exist amongst the agriculture sector and the implications that the interim advice had for planning applications. I am equally clear, however, that we cannot simply wish away the huge challenges posed by ammonia emissions, which have a significant impact on our environment, on our biodiversity and, crucially, on water quality and human health.

The current position is that the Northern Ireland Environment Agency will provide planning authorities with case- and site-specific advice on a case-by-case basis. There is no doubt that a new ammonia strategy and revised operational protocol are required to give our agriculture sector the clarity and certainty that it desires and deserves. We need a science- and evidence- based protocol and strategy that are, importantly, compliant with environmental law and supportive of environmentally and financially sustainable farming. Of course, as others have said, that strategy could and should have been forthcoming much sooner, were it not for the endless merry-go-round of stop-start government in this place. Nonetheless, I welcome the progress that has been made and look forward to Minister Muir publishing the draft strategy later this year.

Of course, Alliance wants to see investment in a just transition for our farmers. In order to achieve that, fair funding arrangements for Northern Ireland are crucial. I welcome the ongoing work by the AERA Minister and the Finance Minister to seek to revise the future earmarked agriculture funding.

I thank the Member for giving way. He raised an important issue around the just transition fund. I wonder whether, when the Minister gets to his feet, he can tell us whether there has been any progress on getting a just transition fund for Northern Ireland, be it one for agriculture or any other sector, because it seems to be lagging behind. Mr Deputy Speaker, I should have declared an interest as a farmer.

The Member has an extra minute.

I thank the Member for his intervention. I am sure that the Minister will respond to it in due course.

The motion talks about the need for investment, and it is true that there is such a need, but it fails to recognise that not all investment is equal. As my colleague John Blair pointed out, the vast majority of outstanding planning applications in the system fail to include significant mitigation measures. We cannot, given our environmental obligations, ignore that fact. We must ensure that investment is consistent with environmental law.

For those reasons and so many others, while we recognise the challenges and are absolutely committed to the publication of a fair strategy that will deliver for our agriculture sector, we cannot support the motion in its current form.

Minister, you have 15 minutes.

Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. This has been a clear and useful debate, and I thank the Members who brought the issue to the House for discussion.

I fully recognise the economic significance of the agriculture industry in Northern Ireland, and I wholeheartedly agree that investment in new and replacement farm buildings is essential to support our farm businesses and rural communities. It is important, however, that investment and development do not have adverse effects on our natural environment. I believe that we can strike a balance that allows the agriculture industry to thrive and be sustainable while protecting our environment. The key to that is making sure that new and replacement farm buildings are designed to deliver environmental improvement as well as to support economic outcomes. That is why the ammonia strategy and the operational protocol to assess the impacts of air pollution on the natural environment are so important. The operational protocol, also referred to as "standing advice", provides the scientific basis for my Department's statutory advice to planning authorities and other competent authorities on the impacts that plans and projects will potentially have on designated sites and protected habitats as a result of air pollution.

In the past year, we have learnt how agriculture's footprint can extend to the environment far beyond the farm gate. High levels of excess nutrients, partly from agricultural sources, were a significant contributing factor to the blue-green algae issue in Lough Neagh. The effect of ammonia emissions from farms also has a negative impact on our beautiful countryside beyond the farm gate. There is scientific evidence to support that.

Ammonia is a colourless gas that contains nitrogen, and it is invisible. It is released into the air as the result of many agricultural activities, and it causes air pollution. Ammonia and nitrogen can damage sensitive plants and habitats in the areas surrounding the source of the gas and further afield. The impacts of ammonia and nitrogen on land are not as visible to the untrained eye as a tide of blue-green algae. Monitoring of the state of our protected habitats and sensitive flora and fauna, however, clearly shows the scale of the negative impact of ammonia on the biodiversity and health status of iconic Northern Ireland landscape features such as peatlands and bogs.

Sphagnum moss, the spongy green building block of our bogs, is directly damaged by high levels of ammonia and increased nitrogen levels. Conscious that the motion had been tabled and that the debate would occur today, I visited Ballynahone bog, near Maghera, on Thursday afternoon. I thank officials for supporting that visit in extremely wet weather. I have seen the impact that ammonia can have on our environment, and that is why I am here today to respond to the motion.

The most recent report on air pollution in the UK showed that 93% of nitrogen-sensitive areas in Northern Ireland are experiencing levels of ammonia above the level required to protect sensitive species such as sphagnum, lichens, other mosses and heather. As I have previously stated, our natural environment is under significant pressure, and most indicators are moving in the wrong direction. That is true for ammonia. The National Atmospheric Emissions Inventory (NAEI) report shows that the annual total for ammonia emissions from agriculture in Northern Ireland continues to increase, reaching its highest-ever level of 32 kilotonnes in 2021, the most recent reporting year. The National Emission Ceilings Regulations 2018 include a commitment that the UK will reduce total ammonia emissions by 16% of the 2005 level by 2030. For Northern Ireland, that means that our current total ammonia emissions from agriculture need to be reduced by 24 kilotonnes by 2030. It is a challenging target that is compounded by the fact that our ammonia emissions continue to increase. That vicious circle must be interrupted by urgent action.

In December 2023, DAERA decided to no longer rely on the published ammonia standing advice as the basis for statutory advice on planning applications. The decision was taken by a senior official in the Department under the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2022. After careful consideration and in response to a potential legal challenge by the Office for Environmental Protection —.

I thank the Minister for giving way. Can the Minister expand on the direction from the Office for Environmental Protection? If the Department had ignored the direction, what would the implications have been for the Department and any other approvals given on the basis of the standing guidelines used at the NIEA prior and subsequent to the direction? That include the implications for the Department and approved applicants.

I thank the Member for his intervention. The impact of the Office for Environmental Protection going down the road of legal action against the Department and the Department sitting on its hands and ignoring it would have been significant. I support the officials and their decision because, ultimately, the Minister and the Department should have dealt with this. We could have debated the issue in the Assembly; we could have considered the issue, but the people of Northern Ireland were denied that opportunity. There are now Ministers in post, and I welcome the fact that we can debate the issue in the Chamber and discuss its merits. However, when the Office for Environmental Protection comes a-knocking, action needs to be taken, and that is what officials did.

As a result of the decision, my Department, through the Northern Ireland Environment Agency, is providing planning authorities with case- and site-specific advice on a case-by-case basis. That will remain the case until the new ammonia strategy and updated operational protocol are agreed and in place — hopefully, later in this year. The updated operational protocol will support the Department's statutory obligations to safeguard our natural environment. I acknowledge that the revised operational protocol will have implications for the consideration of new and replacement farm buildings. However, I do not believe that investment in our agriculture industry can proceed at the cost of our environment. Therefore, in response to the call made by Members, I am content to fully support farm development and the modernisation of farm facilities. However, the way forward is through investment in modern, fit-for-purpose farm facilities that promote animal welfare, are environmentally compliant and reduce further emissions.

To date, my Department has offered £67 million in grant support to the farming industry under the farm business improvement scheme, which is a capital support scheme. Of that, approximately £14 million or 21% has been made in relation to ammonia mitigation. I intend to bring forward a capital investment measure under the new programme of farm support and development that will provide financial support to help businesses improve their environmental performance. Initially, it will focus on support for technology and equipment to reduce ammonia emissions, carbon emissions and nutrient loss, and it follows on from the significant support already provided by my Department. I hope that that addresses, in part, the concerns raised by Members and also the recent research conducted by KPMG on behalf of Northern Ireland's agri-food industry.

I am well aware of the potential economic impact of farm ammonia mitigation measures, which were also set out in case studies in the call for evidence on the future operational protocol. I acknowledge that the delivery of my Department's statutory obligations to safeguard our natural environment and ensure sustainable development will have impacts where additional on-farm investment in ammonia mitigation measures is required. The investment required will vary depending on the details of the specific farm and the specific proposal subject to consideration under the new operational protocol. However, as I have asserted, the new programme of farm support and development provides financial support to help farm businesses improve their environmental performance.

On that — there was a question from Tom Elliott to Eóin Tennyson — I am working with the Finance Minister on the future agriculture budget for Northern Ireland, because commitments were given until the end of March next year and, obviously, there are concerns about the road map for after that. There will be announcements in the time ahead on what we are doing together, as Finance Minister and Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, on the budget and how it links through to a just transition fund for agriculture. I get the importance of the issues, and that is why Caoimhe and I are working together on this. The more money we can provide for capital support on these issues, the easier the journey ahead. We get the importance and are working hard to address that.

The specific details of the impact on the natural environment of new or replacement farm buildings must be scientifically verified and must comply with the relevant environmental protection legislation. The new operational protocol delivers the legislative requirement to assess the impacts of air pollution on the natural environment in the provision of advice to planning authorities. The draft ammonia strategy sets out measures that show how investing in the right equipment can help to reduce the harmful release of ammonia into the air even where the total number of livestock on the farm would be increased.

I note that Members have called for consultation with the agri-food industry on the strategy and for the needs of primary producers to be fully considered. I am content to take that forward and intend to build on the consultation that has already taken place. During the public consultation on the draft ammonia strategy and a separate call for evidence on the future operational protocol, in 2023, my officials undertook a comprehensive programme of stakeholder engagement. That included public information events across Northern Ireland and further engagement with representative organisations and individuals. As a result, both the strategy and operational protocol have been developed further, and I intend to update representative organisations on the most recent developments on ammonia before the end of this month. That is a commitment that I have given them, and we are planning it in the diary.

Today, I have set out how the draft ammonia strategy and the revised operational protocol pave the way for environmental protection. Rather than constraining the industry, my Department has supported investment in ammonia mitigation measures and the development of farm facilities and will continue to do that through future farm support measures. Therefore, I cannot agree to the Members' call to reject the policy direction set out by the ammonia strategy and the operational protocol.

I recognise that tackling the challenge of ammonia emissions in Northern Ireland will present additional financial challenges and the degree of challenge will vary between farms. It is not in my interest or anyone else's to hinder investment and economic development of the agriculture industry in Northern Ireland. I reiterate that this cannot be done at the expense of our natural environment and our beautiful countryside.

I thank the Minister for giving way. Briefly, I accept what he has said about striking a balance, which is important. Will he accept that NIEA making a response that took three years and three months to a constituent of mine on this very issue is not acceptable? The Planning Service notified NIEA in January 2021, and it did not respond until 26 April 2024.

I thank the Member for his intervention. I know the frustrations about the turnaround and the response times from NIEA as a statutory consultee, and we are doing all that we can within the limited budget that we have to address that.

I will continue to move forward with policies that address ammonia emissions and help us to meet our commitments under the National Emission Ceilings Regulations and statutory obligations.

We all share the same aim: to protect and improve our natural environment and ensure the sustainable development of our agriculture sector. That needs to be achieved in as timely a manner as possible, and I recognise that it is likely to be a longer process than any of us would like. However, as I have highlighted in other contexts, tackling ammonia emissions cannot be seen in isolation from the natural environment more generally, and we cannot tackle its problems in isolation either. Therefore, I look forward to similar support from Members when I bring forward my environment strategy, which, I hope, the Executive will adopt as Northern Ireland's first environmental improvement plan.

If I have another minute, I have one other point to make. The point about betterment has been raised by a number of Members, and officials addressed it at the Committee meeting last week, on Thursday, at CAFRE in Greenmount.

I understand the points that were made, but the advice that we have received is very clear: there is no legal basis for the use of the betterment approach, and if there are adverse effects as a result of the development, the Northern Ireland Environment Agency is legally obliged to advise of such, even if those adverse effects are a reduction compared with the impact of the existing building. I know that that was considered at the Committee.

I thank the Members for proposing the motion, and for what has been a useful debate. My officials and I will review the Hansard report afterwards for the points that have been made. Believe me, this is something that I have put my energy into. There are lots of issues in the Department, but, as officials know, we have met on this matter on a number of occasions. I have agreed to engage with stakeholders later this month. We are listening. I am very conscious of my legal obligations, as any Minister would be in this position. We are looking to find a way forward. The capital funding through the UK Government that has been earmarked to support —.

Will the Minister draw his remarks a to a close, please?

Yes.

It is absolutely critical that we have that funding to support our agriculture industry here in Northern Ireland.

I call Tom Buchanan. You have 10 minutes.

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank all who participated in the important debate today, and I thank the Minister for being here to respond.

Agriculture, as we all know, is the backbone of our rural communities and is vital for Northern Ireland's economy, the environment and its people. Northern Ireland's farm businesses are an essential part of our rural economy and our communities, providing jobs and driving growth in food production and diversified industries, such as renewable energy and tourism. However, to continue to compete in the marketplace, our farm businesses need to continually reinvest in their businesses to increase efficiencies, meet new standards and improve health and safety while improving the environment.

The Department's stop-start approach to ammonia advice has been not only frustrating for our farmers but deeply disruptive to those with clear and legitimate aspirations to upgrade or invest in new, enhanced, modern buildings. All farms, regardless of size, that are associated with livestock or poultry are impacted by planning rules around ammonia. The policy has impacted on the redevelopment of many farm businesses throughout Northern Ireland that, had they been allowed to proceed, would have been of immense benefit to our environment through the reduction of ammonia levels. To give an example, I have a constituent who was looking for planning permission to replace a milking parlour because the old one that he was using was overdue for replacement and no longer fit for purpose. However, when he looked into getting planning approval, he found that there was no hope of it being granted because of the ammonia target that he had to meet. Had that farmer been granted planning approval and built his new milking parlour, he would have reduced his ammonia levels by at least 80% or 90%. Common sense would tell anyone that that is a way in which to help to reduce ammonia levels across Northern Ireland, but because of the stringent planning issues around ammonia, he is still operating under his old regime. If the Minister is serious about seeking to reduce ammonia levels to protect our environment, he needs to take such situations into account. Let us remember that the farming community is out to protect and enhance the environment, but it is being handcuffed and not allowed to proceed. It is rather absurd that farmers find themselves in the position in which they are expected to do more to protect the environment while working with a planning system that is entirely incapable of responding to their plans to deliver change.

Striking a fair balance between improving farm productivity and environmental performance is, of course, important. We recognise, as does the Ulster Farmers' Union, that 96% of ammonia emissions come from agriculture. Equally, we have to ask how it advances Northern Ireland's GHG emission targets to have a planning policy that, more often than not, blocks the introduction of more efficient and low-carbon infrastructure on our farms. Newer buildings are far more environmentally efficient, requiring less energy.

Significant investment across our farms has resulted in the adoption of new technology to reduce ammonia levels. Livestock diets have been adapted to lower crude protein, which results in lower ammonia emissions. Significant reductions have already been made in the pig sector, and specialist livestock house floors, housing systems, manure scraping systems, tree planting and other management practices have been adopted across Northern Ireland farms to help to reduce emissions, yet much of that work is unaccounted for in ammonia inventories. Nor, indeed, do planners accept it as mitigation measures, and that is a serious problem for farmers who have made the effort to invest in some issues in their business, yet the planning authority does not take that into account. Therefore, farmers are reluctant to make significant investments in ammonia mitigation measures until there is more clarity on what NIEA might accept. Perhaps we could get clarity from the Minister on what NIEA is really looking for with ammonia mitigation measures.

I will deal with some of the issues that were raised in the debate. The proposer of the motion spoke about the importance of the farming industry to our economy, a planning system that is unfit for purpose, delay by over-stringent planning policy and how it costs a farmer between £10,000 and £30,000 to bring a planning application. We need to see evidence of sustained efforts to reduce the applications backlog, and the Minister should bring forward evidence that planning applications are being dealt with in a timely and efficient manner.

There was concern that if policy is restrictive, it will reduce the number of livestock on farms and productivity in Northern Ireland. There was a call for the Minister to provide clarity and certainty for farmers, and that is what we need. We need to see the Minister come forward, and we thank for Minister for being here today, with clarity for our farming community.

Tom Elliott spoke of the need for improvement in air quality and the environment — of course, that is what farming businesses are all about — and a proactive agriculture policy to provide for Northern Ireland and further afield. He spoke about the difficulties. A matter that, I am sure, every Member has faced when dealing with agriculture issues is the difficulty between NIEA and SES with planning applications and the confusion that there seems to be between those two bodies. That really needs to be dealt with. He spoke about the problems with replacement buildings and planning applications being no longer allowed under permitted development rights if they fall within a distance of 7·5 km of particular sites. That is a huge drawback for our farming community.

Declan McAleer said that Sinn Féin supports a logical and well-thought-out policy and said that a one-size-fits-all approach to ammonia was neither "fair" nor "sustainable". That is a fair assessment; a one-size-fits-all approach will not be fair or sustainable to our farming communities. Another issue that has been raised around the Chamber today is that new and replacement dwellings must be treated with different measures; not all measures in the draft strategy are suitable or sustainable. Any proposal must be subject to a rural impact assessment. Perhaps the Minister will take all those issues on board.

The Alliance Members who spoke said, of course, that they were not in favour of the motion. That is no surprise to us.

Patsy McGlone said that investment in improving farm buildings is essential. That process must be looked at again.

The Minister talked about striking a balance that provides new buildings and protects our environment. He talked about bringing forward capital investment measures to help businesses improve their environmental performance.

Will the Member draw his remarks to a close, please?

Thank you. We look forward to those measures, and to the Minister providing the clarity that has been asked for around the Chamber today. I commend the motion to the House.

Question put.

Some Members:

Aye.

Some Members:

No.

As Question Time begins at 2.00 pm, I suggest that the Assembly takes its ease until then. We will return to this debate after the question for urgent oral answer, when I will put the Question again.

The debate stood suspended.

(Mr Speaker in the Chair)