In response to DAERA’s public consultation on the Nutrient Action Programme (NAP), the Ulster Farmers’ Union (UFU) has highlighted “numerous concerns” regarding the practical implications, economic viability and scientific justification for the proposed changes.

The union’s response runs to 70 pages, with the organisation setting out detailed analysis as to why it is opposed to nearly all of the new NAP proposals.

However, issues are also raised about the wider consultation process, and in particular, the lack of engagement with industry before the plans were published.

The result was “a poor quality and flawed consultation which has triggered significant backlash from the agri-food sector,” states the UFU document.

Released on 1 May 2025, the public consultation was initially planned to run for just eight weeks to 26 June. Following objections from industry, this period was extended to 24 July 2025, which meant it ran for a 12-week period generally seen as best practice for government bodies.

Despite that, the union points out that it has still been “very challenging” to work through the consultation process given that it is a busy time of year for farmers and due to the vast amount of information provided by DAERA. Some of the supporting evidence was uploaded without warning or notification during the consultation period.

In addition, the UFU maintain that online webinars as part of the public consultation were poorly organised, with farmers who registered for the first meeting not sent a link to join the event. The question and answer function did not work at either online meeting and some people who did email in questions to DAERA are yet to receive a response.

“This was a poor effort at providing information to farmers and other stakeholders to help them with the consultation process,” states the UFU response.

The union is also critical of the lack of a full economic impact assessment and include within their consultation response a copy of the report done by AgriSearch which has put a potential £1.6bn cost on farmers and the food industry if the NAP proposals were enacted.

Questions raised over findings of NAP review

The main changes proposed to the NAP from 2026 onwards were set out in a review of the current rules undertaken by a group of officials from DAERA, CAFRE, AFBI and the NIEA.

The UFU has taken issue with much of this review, including a key recommendation that all the rules within the existing NAP should be carried forward.

In particular, the UFU questions the 170kg manure nitrogen per hectare (N/ha) limit set out in the EU Nitrates Directive, which applies to all NI farms, arguing that it leads to inefficiencies in slurry management on farms. “Since the UK has left the EU there is the potential to revisit this limit and its appropriateness for NI,” states the UFU document.

The union also want a review done on another legacy requirement from the EU which prevents arable farmers from mechanically removing weeds after an autumn harvest.

However, there is a welcome for the commitment from DAERA to continue with a derogation that allows grassland farmers to operate at up to 250kg manure N/ha, although the UFU would like to see more flexibility around derogation rules. In particular, given the amount of maize and wholecrop grown on farms, the union believes the requirement for each derogated farm to have at least 80% of land in grass, is a barrier to uptake.

Trends

But in their overall assessment of the NAP review done by government officials, the most pointed remarks from the UFU relate to analysis of water quality trends in NI – fundamentally it is these trends which are the basis for the various NAP changes proposed by DAERA.

The current NAP consultation does note a long-term trend of declining phosphorus (P) and nitrate levels in local rivers. However, more recent data does not follow this trend, states the DAERA consultation.

The union points out that no statistical analysis is provided to support this claim and also questions why 2016 is chosen as a base year for recent analysis, given that it was a “particularly low year” for nitrate levels in rivers and out of line with 2015 and 2017 data.

In addition, there is 2024 data which shows a significant improvement in nitrates, but it is not highlighted by DAERA, states the UFU.

P balance

On the issue of P balance on farms, the union points to data from DAERA which shows that in the five-year period from 2018 to 2023, while P levels in rivers were increasing, the P balance on NI farms dropped 29% from 11.6kg to 8.2kg P/ha.

According to the union, this highlights there is “no clear link” between farm P balance and P in rivers. Instead, the data suggests other factors, including non-agricultural P sources, are increasing and offsetting the progress made by farmers, states the UFU document.

The union also raises concerns about the consistency of water sampling done by NIEA, suggesting that it should be done by an independent organisation.

That lack of confidence in the work done by NIEA also now extends to AFBI, with UFU members questioning their “ability to provide credible independent research” during the NAP consultation process.

When combined with recent confirmation no farmers made it onto the AFBI board, it has “significantly damaged trust and confidence in AFBI,” states the UFU document.

UFU ‘strongly oppose’ most proposed NAP changes

There are around 40 changes proposed by DAERA to the NAP and of the key amendments, most are strongly opposed by the UFU.

That includes a proposal for a 3m-wide buffer strip alongside a waterway in arable fields to help prevent nutrient run-off, with the union pointing out that neither an arable field nor a waterway is properly defined in the consultation.

The current best estimate by UFU members is that 2% of arable land in NI could be lost. There are also concerns these strips will harbour weeds and pests.

An alternative put forward by the union is that DAERA should encourage farmers to plant buffer strips in higher risk fields within agri-environment schemes.

On DAERA proposals to stop farmers stacking silage bales more than two high, the UFU highlight the lack of evidence to support this change and point out that the NIEA has not raised it as an issue before now.

LESSE

There is also strong opposition to various changes related to the use of low-emission slurry spreading equipment (LESSE). That includes a DAERA proposal to amend the definition of LESSE to make it clear that small splash plates attached to trailing hoses will not be classified as low-emission spreading.

The UFU argues that no clear evidence is presented to support this and suggest it will result in “further reluctance” among farmers to use the equipment.

However, the main proposal around LESSE is that all farms must use it by 2030. That is also opposed by the UFU, who warn of the additional cost on smaller farms as well as practical issues such as the need to add water to slurry to ensure it can be spread. There is also the issue of slurry contamination in silage pits when LESSE is used.

“Any moves to drive farmers towards LESSE must be accompanied by a suitable support package,” states the UFU document.

DAERA puts chemical fertiliser in the firing line for NI farms

Within their NAP consultation, the Department proposed a ban on P fertiliser in most situations, pointing out there is enough P in slurry across NI to meet crop needs.

The UFU’s opposition to that centres around practical difficulties spreading slurry on steep or inaccessible land and also a genuine reluctance of some farmers to import slurry for fear of bringing in disease.

On the proposal for new P balance limits on intensive farms of 10kg/ha in 2027, falling to 8kg P/ha in 2029, the union is very critical of the lack of information to support that change, included in the DAERA consultation.

The UFU maintains the targets “will be impossible for the majority of farms to meet in the timescales imposed” and refers the Department to the work done by AgriSearch which suggests it will cost up to £1.56bn to comply with the 8kg limit.

A similar proposal around P balances was suggested in 2005, but it was ruled out on the basis of cost. “This was a totally unrealistic proposal 20 years ago and continues to be totally unrealistic,” states the UFU document.

N fertiliser

Also included in the DAERA NAP consultation are proposed new limits for spreading chemical nitrogen (N) fertiliser on farms, which effectively take into account the N coming from slurry. If implemented, many farms will have to cut N fertiliser use.

In their consultation response, the UFU said it was “shocked” to see these figures as there had been no previous engagement from DAERA on this issue. The union points out the evidence for the change is mainly based on a scientific study by AFBI that is yet to be peer reviewed or published in a scientific journal. The data, along with other evidence, was made available online by DAERA on 20 June 2025.

“It is totally unacceptable to present stakeholders with crucial information in relation to a key proposal halfway through the consultation period,” states the UFU response.

The UFU is also strongly opposed to a proposal to make it mandatory for intensive farms to undertake regular liming, as well as various changes to the rules for derogated farms. It is also strongly against a proposal that would require farmers to pre-notify NIEA before beginning work on new slurry stora, ge.

On proposals for farmers to confirm slurry exports within four days of the movement taking place, the UFU argue it is “unworkable” and will only add to mental stress on farmers.

As an alternative, the union suggest that once the exporting farm notifies NIEA of all slurry movements by 31 January of the following year, an email is then sent out by NIEA to importing farms confirming details of slurry volumes, etc.

The UFU is also against plans for a warning system not to spread slurry due to heavy rain in the forecast, arguing that any potential benefits would be outweighed by costs and the money would be better spent on other things.

Database

On the proposals for a fertiliser database, similar to that which exists in the Republic of Ireland, the union notes from the consultation that development is already under way. “It is concerning that DAERA have proceeded without properly consulting or engaging with those most impacted by this proposal,” states their consultation response.

The union also points out that reports from ROI suggest that the database adds a lot of bureaucracy for little gain. In addition, if DAERA follow through with plans to add in feed sales, it would be “virtually impossible to operate,” states the UFU.

UFU takes aim at ‘focused approach’

Within the DAERA NAP consultation are proposals to develop ‘a focused approach’ in high risk areas, which could ultimately involve farmers within that area having to reduce stocking rates.

According to the union, this extreme proposal risks undermining a lot of work already done in local river catchments. “This is totally unacceptable and has farmers across NI deeply worried in case their farming business is identified as being in a focused area,” states the UFU response.

Enforcement

The union is also strongly opposed to any move towards more farm inspections in focused areas, arguing that resources would be better targeted at education.

On DAERA plans to introduce fixed and variable monetary penalties where NAP rules are breached, the union argue that detail is lacking and the issue should be considered in a separate consultation.