This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.

281414Z Apr 05

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 AMMAN 003396 
 
SIPDIS 
 
STATE PASS USAID 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: SENV EAGR PREL XF IS JO
SUBJECT: PARTICIPANTS IN PEACE PROCESS BIOSOLIDS WORKSHOP 
EXCHANGE INFORMATION AND E-MAIL ADDRESSES 
 
 
¶1.  Summary: Twenty-five representatives from Israel, Jordan 
and the Palestinian Authority plus five USG officials met in 
Sydney March 7-10 in a Peace Process workshop on using 
biosolids in agriculture.  The workshop was sponsored by the 
State Department and presented by USDA and EPA. 
Participants represented a wide range of ministries, were 
well-qualified professionally, prepared and gave detailed 
presentations, and collegially engaged in substantive 
discussions.  They want related, on-the-ground, practical 
activities in the region as a follow-up.  Support from 
ConGen Sydney was exemplary.  End summary. 
 
Multi-Agency Approach to Biosolids 
---------------------------------- 
¶2.  The Sydney workshop was the fifth in a series of 
workshops organized under the Multilateral Working Group on 
the Environment related to the Middle East peace process. 
Dr. Sylvana Li from USDA/FAS/ICD was the principal 
organizer, Bob Brobst (EPA), Bob Bastian (EPA) and Dan 
Sullivan (Oregon State University) planned the agenda, and 
Jim Smith and Bob Brobst from EPA managed the workshop 
itself.  The core party participants came principally from 
water authorities, agriculture ministries, environment 
agencies and health agencies in Jordan, Israel and the 
Palestinian Authority.  There were also legal and energy 
specialists in the group.  Consul General Stephen Smith 
opened the workshop with remarks highlighting the importance 
of water and the knowledge of the participants about how to 
manage it. 
 
"Beneficial Use" Builds Agriculture, Protects Environment 
--------------------------------------------- ------------ 
¶3.  Previous workshops in this series in Cyprus, Athens, 
Amsterdam and Barcelona covered a variety of topics on 
hazardous waste and wastewater reuse.  The genesis of 
biosolids as a topic came from suggestions made at prior 
workshops.  Biosolids are a processed form of the sludge 
that results from wastewater treatment.  Currently handled 
as a waste product in Jordan and the West Bank, sludge 
processed into biosolids can serve as a fertilizer when 
processed and applied properly.  Termed "beneficial use," 
the use of biosolids in agriculture has twin benefits: 
reducing environmental damage from dumping sludge in 
landfills or in the ocean, and enhancing crop yields and 
soil quality. 
 
Public Acceptance is Crucial 
---------------------------- 
¶4.  There is science to using biosolids appropriately, and 
there are major management challenges as well.  Scientific 
issues include eliminating pathogens, managing heavy metals 
and determining appropriate application methods and 
quantities.  The key issue, though, is public acceptance. 
Participants recognized that the best science would be 
useless if the public opinion turns against biosolids. 
Educating the public about the actual risks from pathogens 
and chemical contaminants in biosolids is critical. 
Paradoxically, animal manure, although fundamentally the 
same as human biosolids, is much less regulated than 
biosolids for historical reasons and is perceived as a 
"natural" and organic substance.  Chemical fertilizers are 
also lightly regulated and do not arouse strong public 
views.  Biosolids, however, have the potential to engender a 
negative public reaction in the form of consumer rejection 
of crops grown with biosolids. 
 
Israel has Experience; All Parties Cautious 
------------------------------------------- 
¶5.  Of the three core parties participating in the workshop, 
only Israel is currently using biosolids in agriculture on a 
large scale.  As a measure of Israel's concern over public 
opinion, Israel is carefully testing and regulating the 
production and application of biosolids.  Israel plans to 
move by 2007 to producing solely "Class A" biosolids that, 
although they contain fewer nutrients than "Class B," have 
virtually no pathogens.  Current regulations include 
restrictions on transportation, standards for maximum 
amounts of a long list of potential contaminants, warning 
labels, and restrictions on when, where and how biosolids 
can be applied.  Many of the restrictions focus on limiting 
human exposure to biosolids, for example by prohibiting its 
use in parks and gardens, near water sources, and on produce 
directly consumed by people.  Israel has adopted a go-slow 
approach that promotes biosolids for less sensitive 
applications such as growing animal fodder, reclaiming 
rangeland and growing trees.  The "beneficial use" of 
biosolids as fertilizer is prohibited in Jordan, but Jordan 
is moving cautiously towards legalization, in part with 
USAID-funded research by the International Arid Lands 
Consortium.  The Palestinian Authority is also researching 
biosolids with an eye towards permitting its use in 
agriculture. 
 
Benefits to Agriculture are Clear 
--------------------------------- 
¶6.  Results of scientific studies presented at the workshop 
demonstrated the agronomic benefits to the farmer of using 
biosolids instead of conventional fertilizer.  Test plots in 
long-term studies showed distinct improvement in both crop 
quality and quantity when using biosolids in place of 
chemical fertilizers, although these gains don't emerge 
until after the first year.  Side-by-side test plots showed 
that plants treated with biosolids were larger, had a richer 
color, had more blossoms and contained higher quality grain 
(e.g. more protein) than conventionally farmed crops.  These 
benefits stem from the natural condition of the principal 
nutrients (nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium) and the presence 
of iron, zinc and other micronutrients in the biosolids. 
 
Participants Want More Focused, Practical Follow-up 
--------------------------------------------- ------ 
¶7.  At the wrap-up session and in follow-up comments, the 
overall reaction of participants was that the workshop was 
excellent and highly appreciated.  One participant wanted to 
see more presentations from the United States and other 
international experts, and fewer from regional participants. 
This was because the U.S. and international experts 
generally are seen as having more experience and knowledge, 
and because there was significant overlap between the 
participants' presentations.  Several participants felt that 
a more focused and practical event with more depth on fewer 
topics would serve their needs better than the format used 
in this workshop.  They also suggested that the next 
activity could take place in the Middle East.  Several 
participants asked about funding for similar activities in 
the future. 
 
¶8.  The atmosphere at the workshop was focused, 
participatory and professional, with occasional flashes of 
humor that remarkably included references to some of the 
touchiest aspects of Israeli-Palestinian relations.  In the 
wrap-up session, participants offered several ideas for 
additional workshops, and stressed the need for practical 
discussion that goes beyond theory.  They also offered 
unvarnished comments on the workshop and the field trip, 
which provided useful feedback to workshop organizers. 
 
¶9.  Comment: These workshops clearly advance U.S. interests 
on several fronts, including expanding scientific knowledge, 
building capacity, building person-to-person contacts in the 
region, and advancing a sustainable development agenda in 
the Middle East.  The productivity of these workshops has 
been increasing over the years, and participants are ready 
to undertake practical projects in the region as a 
supplement to the more theoretical workshops. 
 
¶10.  This message was cleared by Dr. Li from USDA/FAS. 
 
HALE