Expert says Lough Neagh plan 'not radical enough' - only radical phosphorous reduction will stop environmental disaster

Stormont parties are agreed that there is no easy or quick solution – but an expert in the effect of slurry on the environment says the only solution is a radical and immediate cut in the amount of fertilisers ending up in the waterways and feeding the algae.

Agriculture and environment minister Andrew Muir has sought to address concerns about the impact of agriculture on the lough – but has also said the situation in which Northern Ireland Water “gets, essentially, a bye-ball for the pollution of our waterways needs to end”.

On Thursday, Minister Muir unveiled the Lough Neagh action plan, which had been held up after disagreement in the Executive over language around regulations on the use of certain fertilisers in the Lough Neagh catchment area – as well as how tough an enforcement regime should be.

Minister Muir said the plan “will be a significant step towards improving water quality, reducing blue green algae and ensuring we can rehabilitate the Lough to a healthy status, enjoyed by generations to come.

“The Action Plan is not a wish list - it is a detailed, science-led, proportionate and ambitious set of actions that will make a tangible difference to our waterways. I must be clear however, that there are no quick fixes, it will take many years, if not decades to see substantial recovery, such is the depth and complexity of the problem.”

However, Dr Les Gornall, a scientist who has worked on the effects of slurry in our environment for decades, says the plan is not radical enough to get the phosphorus out of Lough Neagh.

Phosphorous is a fertiliser found in slurry spread on farms, and excess use causes run-off into streams, rivers and ultimately the lough. Around a quarter of phosphorous in Lough Neagh comes from human waste through water treatment works.

Dr Gornall welcomed the “considerable thought” that has gone in to the scientific monitoring and the education schemes for stakeholders such as farmers, but said it is not enough to deal with the core problem of the fertiliser feeding the toxic bacterial growth.

“It’s good that we are able to monitor it. It’s good that the information is going to be transparent. It’s good that everybody is focusing on it”, Dr Gornall said.

“Will it save the lough? I have a lot more concern [about that]. And the reason is from the point of view of the algae – they’re on the gravy train at the moment. They bloomed two weeks earlier than last year, that implies that they’ve got more favourable conditions. More favourable conditions for an algal cell equals more phosphorous”, he added.

His argument is that only by immediately removing 50% of the phosphorous going into Lough Neagh, can a series of environmental disasters be averted. He says the Lough Neagh fly, which feeds trout in the lough, has disappeared and could replaced by Scottish biting midges or mosquitoes – spreading diseases like malaria in Northern Ireland.

“Forget the politics. Algae are not worried about politics. There is no such thing as catholic phosphorous or protestant phosphorous – there is only molecular phosphorous. That is the only thing that matters”.

Dr Gornall argues that if a 50% reduction in phosphorous entering the Lough happened now, there would be “significant change for the better in about seven years. You would see a 50% restoration in about 10 years, and maybe – if we haven’t killed all the species – complete restoration in about 20 years.

“But if you don’t, you lose it. Then you’ve got no water supply. You’ve got mosquitoes, you’ve got biting insects – and you’ve lost your [human] population” through displacement.

He says the future of Northern Ireland as we know it is at stake if radical action is not taken now.

DAERA committee chair Tom Elliott says that the Lough Neagh report “contains a lot of ideas and plans, very few definitive proposals to be implemented in the short term.

“The report itself will require buy-in from all the major stakeholders. However, it does not mention costs and does not set targets. If it is to be meaningful and not just aspirational, would it not be a good idea to include key indicators and targets within the report?

“The Minister has accepted there is no easy or quick solution to the matter”.