As the agricultural industry gathers at Balmoral, there will be plenty of discussion about the future of farming in NI and issues such as food security, farm profitability, environmental regulation, succession, investment and the agri-food supply chain.

But one issue sits across all of those themes: ammonia.

Ammonia has too often been presented as a problem to be managed by restriction. That is a mistake. Properly handled, ammonia reduction is not simply an environmental win – it’s an economic opportunity.

Nitrogen lost to the air is nitrogen no longer available to grow grass or crops. These are pollutants, but they are also wasted resources which cost money to replace. On top of the cost of replacing what is lost in the farming system, there is the cost of the effects of pollution.

That is why the real question for Balmoral week should be whether policies will allow farmers and the wider supply chain to install technologies that achieve those reductions.

Frustrating

Farmers, at present, face a deeply frustrating contradiction.

DAERA’s own draft Ammonia Strategy has pointed towards technologies such as slurry acidification as part of the answer.

During the consultation on ammonia, we asked whether we could install an acidification system on our farm and reduce ammonia. The response: “where it is determined that there is a likely significant effect, without a spatially targeted approach and with current exceedance levels, the opportunities to grant further permissions are necessarily limited.”

In other words – we won’t even give permission to the technology that forms part of our own ammonia reduction roadmap.

This is effectively a very narrow focus on Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive – and the wrong approach.

The result – there is a wide range of technology that would support reductions in ammonia which will be frustrated by the current position taken around how emissions are assessed.

Potential

The International Nitrogen Measures Database outlines a range of potential technologies, many of which would require permitted development or planning permission – and therefore appropriate assessment.

Our own research in collaboration with the UK Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, under DAERA’s Sustainable Utilisation of Livestock Slurry project, concluded that 12% (and potentially up to 30%), of the national ammonia reduction target could be met through an integrated manure management supply chain.

However, the lack of clarity as to whether the static slurry separation technology will be able to be deployed by a farmer who wishes to use it, is becoming louder and louder.

In plain speak, the farmer is told: ammonia is too high, you must reduce it. The farmer then proposes a system to reduce ammonia. The response is: ammonia background levels are too high, so permission may not be granted.

Pointless

Everybody with a stake in this issue should be scratching their head – from environmental organisations to farmers. It is pointless if systems that reduce losses to air, reduce losses to water and cut greenhouse gas emissions are blocked because the pollution they are designed to reduce is already too high.

There is a way forward and the case for changing the manner of the assessment is not complicated. It would involve accurately counting the existing emissions as part of the baseline, and then permitting technologies that show a reduction in ammonia on that farm.

This is already an approach taken elsewhere. Natural England, who provide guidance on the assessment for ammonia in England has a clear and relatively simple ‘you will get permission if you show reduction in ammonia emissions’ process. The Office of Environmental Protection (OEP) regulate Natural England, as they do DAERA and NIEA.

If DAERA takes a positive step in this direction it will be a win for farmers, the environment, agri-food, the public and our rural economics.

Farmers are under pressure from fertiliser costs, slurry storage constraints, nutrient limits and planning risk. Technologies that retain nitrogen value, improve manure management, reduce emissions, and produce reusable fertiliser products can help address several of these pressures at once.

For agri-food, the prize is equally significant. Our food system needs a credible environmental pathway if it is to maintain market confidence. Demonstrating that the sector can cut ammonia, reduce nutrient losses, and lower our environmental footprint is not a threat to farming – instead it might give us competitive edge.

For the public, the win is cleaner air, cleaner water, lower greenhouse gas emissions and a more resilient rural economy. For environmental groups, the win is that pollution reduction moves from strategy documents into real infrastructure on real farms.

For government, the win is delivery after successive Ministers have kicked the can down the road.

But that delivery will not happen if every pollution-reduction technology is assessed inappropriately in NI.