21/08/07
Using treated sewage sludge (biosolids) as fertiliser and soil conditioner in agriculture is the most important and, by general consent, the most sustainable way of dealing with civilisation’s most basic problem. Yet its viability is threatened.
The land available to farmers for biosolids use is being reduced because some of their customers are worried that regulation is not strong enough. As a result they are demanding crops grown without biosolids.
Ironically a flagship government policy – the commitment to Better Regulation – may be part of the problem.
One of the most sacred texts of the Better Regulation (BR)movement is the Hampton Review published in early 2005 by J Sainsbury chairman Philip Hampton on commission from the Treasury. It complemented a report from the Better Regulation Task Force recommending a one-in-one-out regime for regulations and suggesting a 25% target for reduction in four years (1). The two papers led to a big shake-up.
Henceforth government departments would have their own BR Units to challenge proposed regulations; a BR Executive would drive the Units; and an independent BR Commission would scrutinise the government’s overall regulatory performance.
How is all this working two and a half years on? Consider three witnesses: government itself, the National Audit Office (NAO) and business including the water industry.
Keeping the faith
The government has certainly kept the faith. This summer’s changes in departments have lifted Better Regulation (as 'Regulatory Reform') to title status alongside Business and Enterprise in DBERR. Prime Minister Brown said that policy making would benefit from "a fuller and more rounded consideration of public risk"; and asked the BRC to build on its 2006 report to propose a way of ensuring that "this ambition is embedded in real policy action, even when facing pressures to react to events". Good plan, because the report’s focus on the importance of evidence and the role of the media, as well as 'red tape', was well-received (2).
The NAO has doubts but is encouraging in a 'critical friend' sort of way. Last month it said that regulatory impact assessments produced by government departments often failed to consider fully the cost and benefit of regulation, and did not take account of long term implications for compliance and enforcement (3).
Business, including the water industry, remains supportive. As always though, it looks for a practical, evidence-based approach. In the long-running debate about revised Sludge (Use in Agriculture) Regulations this approach seems to be missing.
Best environmental option
Use of biosolids on farmland is now accepted by all, including government, as the best environmental option. In the late 1990s this was not the case. There were growing questions about safety and negative public perceptions and it looked as if the process would have to be replaced by less beneficial alternatives.
In 1998 the British Retail Consortium, representing many farmers' customers, and Water UK agreed the terms of a 'Safe Sludge Matrix' specifying how biosolids should be used. The Matrix was voluntarily adopted by water and sewerage companies. Part of the arrangement was a government promise to give statutory backing to the Matrix; this was in recognition that dealing with sewage sludge required a level of assurance that could not be satisfactorily provided by a voluntary commitment.
To date this undertaking has not been fulfilled. The issues are complex but the fear is that 'Better Regulation' has been one barrier to action.
We might have hoped that it would smooth a path to the most sustainable outcome – even if regulation were judged necessary. But the direction seems to be away from regulation whatever the circumstances, towards a reduction in regulation target whatever the consequences. What has happened to the importance of evidence (BRC) or the long-term implications (NAO)?
This matters: to customers, companies, the environment and the credibility of a key government policy.
In an essay for Green Alliance Dr Stephen Smith of Imperial College said: "The lack of progress...(towards statutory backing)...has been a serious constraint to the agricultural recycling of biosolids in some areas and has the potential to seriously undermine confidence in the practice within some sectors of the food industry that control the land bank for applying sludge" (4).
The benefits of giving statutory backing to the Safe Sludge Matrix within revised sludge regulations include:
• continuing to provide arable farmers with low cost fertiliser
• increasing the confidence of businesses in the supply chain (including farmers' customers) allowing them to manage commercial risk
• protecting water customers and companies from unnecessary alternative investment costs in the region of £2 billion
• making use of a valuable resource that will otherwise be wasted.
If helping to ensure that these benefits are retained is not Better Regulation it is hard to see what would be.
Ends
Notes
1) Less is more, Better Regulation Task Force, March 2005
2) Risk, Responsibility and Regulation – Whose risk is it anyway? Better Regulation Commission, October 2006
3) Evaluation of Regulatory Impact Assessments 2006-07, NAO, July 2007
4) The nutrient cycle – closing the loop, Green Alliance, June 2007
Newsletter