Sludge Spreading Reform: ADBA Calls for a Smarter, Product-Focused Approach

The regulation of sewage sludge spreading in England is long overdue for reform. ADBA has submitted its formal response to Defra’s consultation on the future of the Sludge (Use in Agriculture) Regulations 1989, setting out a clear position: the current framework is outdated, process-driven, and ill-suited to delivering the environmental and agricultural outcomes the UK needs. But the solution is not simply to bolt sludge onto an already stretched permitting system — it requires a more fundamental rethink of how we treat organic nutrients in agriculture.

The Case for Change

ADBA strongly agrees that reform is needed. The existing 1989 Regulations are rigid and slow to adapt — any meaningful change requires primary legislation, making it nearly impossible to respond swiftly to emerging pollutant risks or new scientific evidence. We also see a significant missed opportunity: the current framework does not adequately support the co-digestion of sewage sludge with other organic wastes such as food waste. Greater integration with anaerobic digestion infrastructure could unlock both energy and environmental benefits, and the regulations should actively enable this rather than create barriers.

Above all, ADBA’s view is that reform must be outcome-focused. Regulating the process by which sludge is produced is less valuable than regulating the quality of the product that reaches land. A testing-led regime focused on outputs — nutrient content, contaminant levels, persistent pollutants — is more adaptable, more enforceable, and more likely to deliver genuine environmental improvement than one rooted in prescriptive process rules.

On the EPR Option: Preferred but With Serious Caveats

Among the three reform options consulted upon, ADBA prefers Option 1 — moving sludge spreading into the Environmental Permitting Regulations 2016 (EPR) framework. It offers the greatest potential flexibility and, if well-designed, could deliver a more coherent regulatory environment.

However, we are not without reservations. The Environment Agency’s permitting capacity has been under severe pressure since 2010, and the AD sector is already experiencing significant delays. Adding sludge spreading to the EA’s permitting workload without a corresponding increase in resource would risk making things worse, not better. ADBA’s response makes clear that more charges alone will not solve this problem — what is needed is a genuine increase in EA capacity.

Our preferred model would complement the EPR framework by reducing its administrative burden through industry-led assurance. ADBA supports the inclusion of an assurance scheme, but recommends a multi-scheme model inspired by the voluntary scheme approach under RED II/III and the RTFO. Under this model, multiple accredited schemes would verify operator compliance against a common standard, with the EA responsible for setting and auditing those standards — rather than conducting every individual assessment itself. This would make permitting faster, more resilient, and less susceptible to single-point-of-failure risks.

The Bigger Picture: A Unified Nutrient Strategy

ADBA’s most important message to government is one that sits above the three options on the table: the scope of this consultation is too narrow. Focusing exclusively on the mechanism of spreading — permitting, assurance, codes of practice — risks missing the wood for the trees.

What the UK actually needs is a unified fertiliser and nutrient standard that covers all product pathways, whether sewage sludge, digestate, slurry, or manufactured fertiliser. The critical question should be: does this product meet safety standards? Not: what is its origin? A product-quality-led framework, enforced through the existing diffuse nutrient pollution regime, would be simpler, more consistent, and would not discriminate against organic or recycled nutrient sources in favour of imported, fossil-fuel-derived fertilisers.

This matters for decarbonisation too. Agriculture is one of the UK’s harder-to-abate sectors, and reducing dependence on synthetic nitrogen fertilisers — whose production is highly energy-intensive — is a necessary step. Sewage sludge, when safely processed and properly tested, is a valuable circular resource. The regulatory framework should reflect this, not treat it primarily as a waste management problem.

ADBA will continue to engage with Defra and the Environment Agency as this process develops. We are ready to work with government, water companies, farmers, and other stakeholders to design a framework that is genuinely fit for purpose — one that raises safety standards, supports agricultural decarbonisation, and makes full use of the organic nutrient resources the UK already produces.