Why our current policy vacuum is failing the UK’s triple bottom line

Interactive discussion with the conference audience, exploring challenges which are often mentioned but rarely discussed.

Defra’s sole sludge policy commitment currently comprises a review of landspreading regulations, which was translated into a consultation that didn’t say how this might be achieved or include any cost-benefit analysis for the proposed options. This was followed by a consultation on fertiliser regulations which acknowledged supply chain risks resulting from geopolitical events (LNG and sulphur from the Middle East being vital ingredients in fertiliser manufacture) without making any provision whatsoever for recovery of nutrients from the resources already under our direct control. In the meantime, our sector has been busily centralising sludge processing and converting labile carbon to biogas (which doesnt stack up financially without support), producing a cake which (on its own) isn’t particularly attractive for downstream thermal treatment – increasing its reliance on landbank in the face of obvious gaps in the scientific evidence and tightening regulatory conditions linked to crop nutrient availability. We have an ever-wider selection of technical solutions that allow us to approach bioresources differently, but unless the current economic regulatory framework starts to look more outcome or market-centric we’re going to be stuck with asset-centric approaches which severely limit the appetite and opportunities for adoption of these solutions. None of this is casting our policy makers or regulators in a particularly positive light – but who and how should be advocating for change, to deliver a policy framework that provides space for timely transformation and doesn’t continue to leave us exposed to media brickbats – and is that exposure deserved in the face of a lack of commercial drive?