Let’s have a conversation. No, not about a united Ireland, which just involves nationalists talking to each other. Let’s have a conversation which involves everybody about one of our most pressing problems – Lough Neagh.
The largest fresh-water body in Britain and Ireland has been dying a slow death for decades. It is covered in toxic, blue-green algae, which are a threat to human and animal health and which represent a disaster for industry, tourism and a host of outdoor activities. It is also the source of drinking water for nine regional towns and most of Belfast.
Agriculture minister, Andrew Muir, brought a report on the problem to the Stormont executive, but they refused to discuss it until this week. Sinn Féin and the DUP will talk all day about constitutional matters, but they remain silent on a key issue for our social and economic wellbeing.
So what’s the problem with Lough Neagh? Although no official figures have been issued, it appears that the lough’s pollution is caused mainly by agriculture, with additional contamination from domestic sewage.
The main source of agricultural pollution comes from slurry (a mixture of manure and water) which is spread as fertiliser on fields.
This results in run-off into rivers which reduces their oxygen levels, producing a growth explosion of bacteria and algae. If farmers stopped spreading slurry today, it is predicted that Lough Neagh would take 25 years to return to its natural state.
This means that the lough itself is a consequence, not the cause, of the problem. About 43% of the north’s land drains into the lough, as well as some border areas of the south.
So what’s the solution? If farming is the main pollutant, it must be the main part of the solution.
One environmental argument is that agriculture should be reduced in size. However, reducing agriculture by say, 30%, would make many farms uneconomical, with a knock-on effect on rural economy and society.
It would also mean that our internationally competitive meat and poultry processing (worth about £2 billion annually) would find it difficult to survive, with a huge negative impact on rural employment. So which should we kill: Lough Neagh or rural society?
The answer is that these are not the only two options. Rather than reduce agriculture, why not develop a new approach to it?
Since the 1970s traditional mixed farming (animals and crops) has been largely replaced by specialist farming, such as dairy, beef and sheep, largely fuelled by EU subsidies. Whereas manure was formerly used to fertilise crops, for example, today beef and dairy farms produce so much of it that there is simply not enough grassland to spread it on.
Meanwhile wars and trade disputes have pushed up the price of artificial fertilisers.
So why not revert to the mixed farming model? In an increasingly uncertain world, it would boost our food security. Of course, it would require significant subsidies and strategic direction from government.
Farmers already receive subsidies for agricultural activities which pollute Lough Neagh and many other lakes and rivers. This raises the biggest conversation topic of all: should farming become a public service funded by government, or should it be allowed to carry on as it currently operates?
It is a question which might not please farmers, but they might reasonably be asked, “What is farming for?” and, “Who is farming for?” (Vice-chancellors could be asked the same about universities, but that’s for another day.)
Farmers already receive subsidies for agricultural activities which pollute Lough Neagh and many other lakes and rivers. This raises the biggest conversation topic of all: should farming become a public service funded by government, or should it be allowed to carry on as it currently operates?
Within a new system of agriculture, manures and slurries could secure a local fertiliser source, free from global price increases. Organic matter such as manure can be broken down to generate electricity or fuel as well as fertiliser. There is also the possibility of drying manure, compressing it and exporting it to countries which supply us with animal feedstuffs.
Of course, we also need to address the issues of NI Water’s discharges (investment in sewage treatment would help) and septic tanks. However, tackling agriculture’s input to Lough Neagh’s pollution would go a long way to resolving the problem.
So far, the solution to Lough Neagh’s pollution has been seen in terms of the lough’s ownership, but no matter who owns the lough, the pollution will remain until it is tackled at source.
A more important issue is ownership of the problem. That’s the executive’s responsibility. It must then look at a new approach to agriculture, but with both SF and the DUP relying heavily on rural votes, that is unlikely to happen. Environmental pollution can be resolved. The politics of pollution may take longer to tackle.
