‘Uncertainty ahead': Northern Ireland's economy shrinks in first quarter of 2025
However, the index from the Northern Ireland Statistics & Research Agency (Nisra) also said output had increased by 1.6% over the year.
And it had grown by 2.7% on a rolling four quarters basis to March 2025.
Overall, Northern Ireland's economic output is now 10% above the pre-pandemic level seen in the final months of 2019, Nisra said.
It said the contraction in early 2025 had been driven by a fall in activity in the construction sector and in the production sector over the three months.
However, over the year, all sectors had grown, with the services sector – which covers everything from restaurants to law firms – the biggest driver of growth since the pandemic.
And while economic output had dropped here over the quarter, it had increased by 0.7% in the UK.
However, over the year, Northern Ireland's 1.6% was stronger than the 1.3% growth experienced in the UK.
And our 10% growth in economic activity since the pandemic was stronger than the growth of just 4.1% in the UK as a whole.
Over the first quarter, private sector output had dropped by 0.9%, though it had increased by 1.9% over the year. Output in the private sector is now 10.5% above pre-pandemic levels recorded in the final months of 2019.
And the Nicei public sector employee jobs index had grown by 0.3% over the quarter and by 0.7% over the year.
Overall, economic activity in Northern Ireland had increased in 24 of the last 40 quarters.
Richard Ramsey, professor of practice in economics and policy at Queen's University, said the Nicei had confirmed a 'reversal in fortunes' for the private sector.
'Continued growth within the public sector and agriculture failed to compensate for declines in output for both industrial production, mostly manufacturing, and construction.
'Services activity, the economy's largest sector, saw output flatline. It was interesting to note that 2024's annual growth rate was revised upwards from 2.2% to 2.7%.
'Outside of Covid-19, which saw freak increases and decreases in economic activity due to implementation of/lifting lockdowns, 2024 marked the strongest rate of economic growth since 2006, when there was a 3.2% increase year on year.'
But he warned that US President Donald Trump's tariff policy announcements of April 2 meant there was now little room for complacency – though a delay in the implementation of tariffs is due to end on July 9.
Mr Ramsey said: "The latest figures for Q1 2025 pre-date Donald Trump's 'Liberation Day' which announced widespread tariff increases and unleashed uncertainty.
'As a result, economic growth forecasts have been scaled back.
'The local economy is expected to see a growth rate of around one-third of last year's figure.
'That marked slowdown will be felt.
"With the pause in Trump's tariffs set to expire in the next two weeks, it remains to be seen what Trump plans to do next.
"One thing is certain, more uncertainty looks set to prevail for the rest of the year".
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
16 minutes ago
- The Guardian
India and China hail warming ties amid Trump-induced geopolitical shake-up
India's prime minister and China's foreign minister have hailed 'steady' progress in their countries' fractious relationship, agreeing to resume trade and other ties, as well as work towards resolving the long-running Himalayan border dispute, amid a global geopolitical shake-up instigated by Donald Trump's tariff regime. According to statements from China's foreign ministry, the two sides agreed to resume direct flights – reiterating a pledge made in January – as well as issuing visas to journalists and facilitating business and cultural exchanges. On social media, India's prime minister, Narendra Modi, noted 'respect for each other's interests and sensitiveness', while China's foreign ministry said the countries had entered a 'steady development track' and should 'trust and support' each other. The visit by Wang Yi, China's top diplomat, to Delhi came ahead of an expected visit to Beijing by Modi to meet with China's leader, Xi Jinping, in October. It will be Modi's first trip to China since 2018. Relations between the two nuclear powers plummeted in 2020 when a border dispute in the remote Himalayas turned deadly. Their soldiers engaged in hand-to-hand combat as the worst episode of violence between the neighbours in decades left an official death toll of 20 Indian and four Chinese soldiers. Since then, the two sides have held a series of talks to de-escalate the situation. Modi and Xi last October in Russia had their first meeting in five years. Both sides have continued to fortify borders, but have agreed to a pact on border patrols, and withdrawn additional forces. India's foreign ministry on Wednesday said Wang and the Indian national security adviser Ajit Doval discussed 'de-escalation, delimitation and boundary affairs'. Chinese state media phrased the discussion as agreeing to 'explore the possibility of advancing boundary demarcation negotiations'. 'The setbacks we experienced in the past few years were not in the interest of the people of our two countries. We are heartened to see the stability that is now restored in the borders,' Wang said on Monday. India said its foreign minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar raised concerns about China's plans to build a giant dam on the Yarlung Tsangpo river in Tibetan territory – set to be the world's biggest hydropower project – which Delhi fears will impact downstream communities and areas. The thawing of relations between Delhi and Beijing comes as Donald Trump's unprecedented trade tariffs continue to shake up the global order. Sana Hashmi, a fellow at the Taiwan-Asia Exchange Foundation, said the US president's tariffs and the perception of a reduced US presence in Indo-Pacific partnerships had contributed to and accelerated efforts to stabilise the India-China relationship. But there remained 'fundamental differences' between the two. 'Core security issues and the overall nature of India-China relations will not change because of Trump's policies, and the Indo-Pacific framework will continue to shape regional dynamics,' Hashmi told the Guardian. 'For now, India's priority lies in managing tensions with China while navigating turbulent waters with the US.' After India, Wang will travel to Pakistan, a close ally of China but rival of India. China's foreign ministry said Beijing wanted to 'enhance friendly cooperation with both countries'. With agencies and additional research by Jason Tzu Kuan Lu
The Herald Scotland
42 minutes ago
- The Herald Scotland
Trump's clean energy cuts put future of wind, solar power in peril
Instead, the administration is promoting energy production from oil, natural gas and coal, which the Biden administration had made more expensive through regulations Trump is now dismantling. "They're basically trying to make it impossible or next to impossible to build wind or solar power in this country while at the same time rolling back regulations on fossil fuels," said Nick Krakoff, senior attorney with the Boston-based Conservation Law Foundation, a nonprofit environmental organization. Wind and solar power are two of the fastest-growing energy sectors in the United States and produced as much as 17% of the country's electricity last year, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, the statistical agency of the Department of Energy. Since taking office, the Trump administration has paused permits on all new wind and solar projects on public land, onshore and offshore. The vast majority of renewable energy projects - 95% - are on private land, according to a report by the Brookings Institution. But many of those require some type of federal approval and are also being stalled by the new rules. It's this push to end large-scale energy projects on private property as well that some in the energy industry consider especially troubling. "It's expected that every time you have a major change in administrations, policies on public land might change," said Jason Grumet, CEO of the American Clean Power Association. "But the willingness of this administration to create political and bureaucratic barriers to private economic activity on private land is something nobody anticipated." A shift that began Jan. 20 The dozens of new rules, mostly issued by the Department of the Interior, add multiple layers of permit requirements to an already thorough process - requirements that could slow or stymie some projects. "It looks like they are just trying to find any moment at which the federal government interacts with a project and putting it on this list," said Michelle Solomon, manager of the electricity program at Energy Innovation, Policy and Technology, an energy think tank based in San Francisco. The flood of new regulations began on Jan. 20 when the administration temporarily withdrew all permits for offshore wind projects. On July 7, all subsidies for wind and solar projects were ended, though federal subsidies for coal, oil and natural gas were left in place. On July 15, the Department of the Interior added multiple layers of review for all wind and solar projects on public land, including a requirement that the secretary of the interior sign off on each one. It was not clear whether these requirements will stop new projects from being permitted, but "at the very least it will slow decisions down - and a lot of the decisions are not controversial, they're routine," Krakoff said. On July 29, the department required wind or solar projects that have been approved but are being sued by opponents be federally reviewed and possibly canceled. Nearly a third of solar projects and half of wind projects that completed Environmental Impact Statements faced lawsuits, according to research by Resources for the Future, a Washington, DC-based nonprofit research institute. Targeting the renewable energy industry Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin said in March that the administration's efforts "are driving a dagger straight into the heart of the climate change religion." The new rules will ensure that wind and solar projects "receive appropriate oversight when federal resources, permits or consultations are involved," Department of the Interior senior public affairs specialist Elizabeth Pease said in a statement emailed to USA TODAY. The directives are already having an effect. On Aug. 6, the agency announced it was reversing a permit for a 1,000-megawatt wind facility that had been approved in Idaho. "They're canceling meetings and taking down web pages," Grumet of American Clean Power said, adding that he sees the moves as "an unprecedented effort to weaponize bureaucracy to undermine an American industry." In early August, Nevada's Republican Gov. Joe Lombardo complained to the secretary of the interior in a letter that solar projects deep in the project pipeline have been frozen. "This is part of a pattern of targeting the renewable energy industry," said the Conservation Law Foundation's Krakoff. "It's pretty unprecedented to target an entire industry and undermine the rule of law." Power demands are at an all-time high and rising These actions could stop cold what has been the biggest contributor to U.S. power supplies at a time when power demands driven by global warming and the needs of artificial intelligence and data centers are pushing power consumption to all-time highs. "We need to build more power generation now, and that includes renewable energy. The U.S. will need roughly 118 gigawatts (the equivalent of 12 New York Cities) of new power generation in the next four years to prevent price spikes and potential shortages," said Ray Long, CEO of the American Council on Renewable Energy." Only a limited set of technologies - solar, wind, batteries and some natural gas - can be built at that scale in that time frame." As of last year, 17% of electricity in the United States was created by wind or solar power. Of the new power generation projected to come online this year, 93% was expected to come from solar, wind or battery storage, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Solar power appears to be less impacted by the policy shifts than wind, Solomon said. "Certainly the administration is seemingly trying to do everything they can to slow progress for wind and solar - but they don't have unilateral control over everything," she said. "I think there's a decent chance that there's a lot of projects on private land, at least solar projects, that will not have federal permitting requirements." China has overtaken the United States on clean energy The shift comes as the rest of the world - especially China - make significant strides in moving to cheaper power from wind and solar. "I don't think the administration fully appreciates that if they were to tie their own hands, we could be retreating in that competition with China," Grumet said. China is installing wind and solar projects faster than any other nation and today has almost half the world's wind farms. In 2023 it built out more wind and solar than the rest of the world combined. In May, its solar power reached 1,000 gigawatts. The United States' current solar capacity is 134 gigawatts. A 1 gigawatt solar facility generates enough power to support about 200,000 households, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. In the first quarter of this year, China was able to produce more energy through wind and solar than through coal and gas. As of July, the country made up 74% of all wind and solar projects under construction globally. China's enormous buildout of wind and solar power caused its carbon emissions to fall by 2.7% in the first six months of this year. Some experts believe its greenhouse gas emissions may have peaked. The country's combination of clean energy production along with the success of its electric vehicles has earned it the title of the world's first "electrostate." Fossil fuel-based nations are called "petrostates." None of this bodes well for the future of the United States on the world stage, said Julio Friedmann, an expert on carbon, hydrogen and biofuels at Carbon Direct, a company that provides climate solutions. "In all likelihood, the actions will strengthen China's position as global leader," said Friedmann, who also taught at Columbia University. "At worst, the U.S. may surrender its many advantages."
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
We had one chance to sink the Russian economy and we blew it – Putin knew we would
In the weeks following Vladimir Putin 's invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, Europe 's leaders followed the trail blazed by Boris Johnson to Kyiv to express their undying support for the war effort. Each, in different ways, echoed the Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau's mantra that they would give Ukraine 'as much as it takes, for as long as it takes' to resist Putin. Johnson himself assured Volodymyr Zelensky that 'we are with you, and we are on your side' and vowed that Ukraine's right to 'choose its own destiny is a right that the United Kingdom and our allies will always defend'. Three years later, the successors of those leaders crowded into the White House's Oval Office to applaud Donald Trump's opening of direct talks with Putin. Despite the deaths of hundreds of thousands, and billions in military aid to Kyiv, Putin's forces continue to advance beyond the 20 per cent of Ukraine he now controls. His missiles rain nightly death on Ukraine's cities; Moscow's army launched 270 drones and 10 missiles at central Ukraine just hours after President Zelensky concluded peace talks at the White House. Though Putin's economy is floundering, it is by no means crippled. And while Putin has failed to subjugate the whole of Ukraine to his will, he is on course to accomplish many of his war aims, including the 'liberation' of the Russian-speaking region of the country and blocking Kyiv's membership of Nato. The West carries much of the blame for this failure. Oil and gas are the lifeblood of Russia's war machine – yet from the outset of the war, the US prioritised protecting steady world oil supplies over properly punishing Putin. Europe, too, has imposed 18 rounds of sanctions against Russia – yet itself has continued to find ways to import Russian oil, piped and liquefied gas (LNG), and refined oil products. A large proportion of Russia's oil exports are carried in tankers ultimately owned by EU – especially Greek – shipping companies. And the shocking truth is that over the course of the war, Europeans have paid far more into Kremlin coffers in the form of payments for oil and gas than they have given to defend Ukraine. Europe had one chance to sink the Russian economy and blew it. Since its full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Russia has pocketed nearly €1 trillion from oil and gas. After China, the EU has been the second biggest buyer of Putin's gas, handing over €260bn. While the EU has repeatedly pledged to reduce its reliance on Russian gas, it has never actually placed any sanctions or price caps on it. Ironically, it was saboteurs rather than European governments that put the biggest dent in Gazprom 's revenues after three of the four Nord Stream undersea gas pipelines were blown up in September 2022. The culprits, according to arrest warrants issued by German police, were Ukrainians. But even after the Nord Stream sabotage, Europe quickly switched to Russian LNG exported from the Baltic terminals of Ust-Luga and Vysotsk. Over three years of war, European leaders have promised Kyiv their support is absolute, or 'your fight is our fight,' in the words of European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen. But rather than cut off Putin's core revenues, the thing that could have really inflicted serious damage, Europeans have chosen legal workarounds. The price of crude oil legally exported by Russia was capped at $60 a barrel – an American strategy to keep oil flowing while squeezing Russian profits. In practice, though, millions of tonnes of Russian crude were fraudulently pumped from one tanker to another with 'clean' paperwork off the coasts of Denmark and Greece. At the same time, Lukoil, Russia's largest private oil company, continues to operate refineries in the Netherlands, Romania and Bulgaria, and can with perfect legality sell its own oil to itself at capped prices, but retail the products at normal market prices. Not wanting to make the crucial economic sacrifice that would accompany any real boycott, other European countries have opted for legal fig-leaves to disguise the true source of their energy. Hungary, Slovakia and other central European countries continue to import oil and gas via Russian pipelines – but it's labelled as coming from Kazakhstan. Amazingly, until 1 January 2025, Russian natural gas kept flowing through Ukraine's pipeline network — set up when Ukraine and Russia were both part of the Soviet Union – to Europe, under a five-year agreement. Russia's state-owned energy giant Gazprom earned money from the gas, and Kyiv collected hundreds of millions in fees for the transit of gas to Europe via pipelines running through Ukrainian territory into Slovakia. Those payments also made Gazprom one of the largest single contributors to Kyiv's state budget. The rest of southern Europe buys billions of piped gas via the Black Sea Turk Stream and Blue Stream pipelines that run from Russia to Turkey, but because it's mixed with gas from Azerbaijan, European customisers can claim they're buying from Baku, not Moscow. Europe now imports more refined Russian oil products than before the war, except that rather than buy directly, much of the petrol, diesel and aviation fuel is refined in India, which has more than doubled its imports of Russian crude and grown rich on the proceeds. Oil and gas are Putin's achilles heel. He needs his economy to survive to keep his war machine running. With the pressure of war, high interest rates and an economic slowdown, another year and he would be in significant problems which would make his negotiating position weaker. But still we cannot sever that vulnerable spot with an arrow because it's our achilles heel too. In Germany, a fateful electoral deal with a now long-departed Green coalition partner led to the closure of the country's nuclear power stations. That left Germany and its neighbours dangerously dependent on cheap Russian gas. Europe's pledges for net zero have also helped rob the continent of the excess energy capacity it would need to 'just say no' to its addiction to Putin's energy. The price for this refusal to countenance economic suffering for the sake of Ukraine has been paid by Ukrainians in blood. When Putin launched his war he was sure that Europe's talk of international law was hypocritical nonsense – not least because he remembered that in the aftermath of his 2014 invasion of Crimea, Germany's chancellor Angela Merkel swore that 'military aggression in Europe cannot go unpunished' and yet little more than a year later signed a €9.5bn deal to build a second Nord Stream pipeline. And though Putin has been undoubtedly surprised by the scale of Europe's military aid to Kyiv, ultimately he has been proved right about the fundamental hypocrisy. 'Ukraine must win this war,' Von Der Leyen boldly told the assembled European elites at the 2022 Davos conference. 'And Putin's aggression must be a strategic failure.' Though Ukraine has not exactly lost the war, it certainly has not won it. And by the same token, while Putin may have failed to dominate Ukraine, he has nonetheless succeeded in snapping up large chunks of it. If a peace deal is struck, it will be on Putin's terms. That outcome could have been very different if the actions of Ukraine's self-declared allies had been as bold as their words.
