The proposal by Northern Ireland’s Environment Minister, Andrew Muir, to establish a new independent environmental protection agency may sound appealing on paper. But for many people who live and work in the countryside, it risks becoming yet another layer of bureaucracy that distances decision-makers from the consequences of their policies while complicating an already crowded regulatory landscape.

At a time when farmers, land managers and rural businesses are already navigating an extensive web of environmental rules and oversight bodies, creating a new agency would add yet another institution into the mix. Instead of simplifying regulation and improving outcomes, it is far more likely to slow down decision-making, duplicate existing functions and create confusion about who is ultimately responsible for environmental policy.

Northern Ireland already has a range of mechanisms intended to protect the environment. The Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs (DAERA) holds significant regulatory powers, and numerous statutory processes govern planning, wildlife protection and land management. Establishing a new independent body risks replicating work that is already being done elsewhere, while diverting public funds that could be better spent supporting practical conservation efforts on the ground.

There is also a fundamental question that has yet to be clearly answered: how exactly would this new body be funded? Establishing and running a standalone environmental protection agency would require significant public investment, from staff salaries and office infrastructure to legal and administrative costs. At a time when public finances are under pressure and rural services are already stretched, taxpayers deserve clarity on where that money would come from and whether it represents the best use of limited resources.

Staffing raises another serious concern. DAERA itself is currently struggling with significant workforce shortages, with around 800 posts reportedly unfilled across the department. If the existing system cannot recruit and retain enough staff to carry out its current responsibilities, it is difficult to see where the expertise for an entirely new agency would come from.

Creating a new organisation would likely mean drawing from the same limited pool of specialists, environmental scientists, inspectors, policy experts and regulatory staff, who are already in short supply. Rather than strengthening environmental protection, this could simply spread expertise more thinly across multiple bodies, weakening capacity in the very departments responsible for delivering policy.

Crucially, there is also a question of democratic accountability. Environmental policy is inherently political. Decisions about land use, farming, conservation and rural development inevitably involve trade-offs between competing interests. Those choices should be made by elected representatives who can be held accountable by voters, not outsourced to an arm’s-length body that operates at a remove from the democratic process.

An independent environmental protection agency would make it easier for ministers to deflect criticism when policies prove controversial or ineffective. If decisions are made or enforced by a separate agency, responsibility becomes blurred. Rural communities who are affected by those decisions may find it harder to challenge them or to ensure that their concerns are heard by the people who ultimately set policy.

For those living in the countryside, trust between policymakers and rural communities is already fragile. Farmers and land managers often feel that regulations are imposed without a full understanding of how land is actually managed day to day. Introducing another regulatory authority risks deepening that divide rather than bridging it.

What the countryside needs is not more bureaucracy but better collaboration. Farmers, conservationists and government departments must work together to deliver environmental improvements that are practical, locally informed and economically sustainable. That requires clear lines of responsibility and a willingness by ministers to engage directly with the communities affected by their decisions.

If the goal is genuinely to improve environmental outcomes, the priority should be strengthening existing systems, reducing duplication and investing in practical support for those who manage the land. Creating a new independent agency risks doing the opposite: expanding bureaucracy while weakening democratic accountability.

The countryside deserves policies that are transparent, accountable and workable. Adding another regulator is unlikely to achieve any of those aims.