Use two indicators to examine treatment-facility operations
MLIT released a dashboard on October 22, 2026 for comparing fertilizer use of sewage-sludge resources and the progress of related planning. The downloadable Excel workbook provides views for national and prefectural comparisons, local authorities and treatment plants.
For a local authority managing a treatment facility, reporting that planning has advanced and reporting that resources have actually been used require different evidence. Planning progress alone can overlook an established outsourcing arrangement. Utilization alone can turn differences in sludge generation or demand into apparent judgments about operational quality. Using this tool to review facility operations or contract conditions starts with separating those measures.
What the two rates measure
The official explanation（外部サイト、新しいタブで開きます） defines the sewage-sludge fertilizer utilization rate as the share of generated sludge used as fertilizer, measured on a dry-weight basis. That is a different reporting basis from simply adding the transported weight of materials with different moisture contents.
The fertilizer-use planning progress rate instead represents progress through the planning process. A higher figure means that planning is further advanced; it is not the share of sludge actually used. Expressing both measures as percentages does not make one a substitute for the other.
MLIT explains that high utilization does not necessarily coincide with high planning progress. It suggests possible explanations including outsourcing fertilizer production from the start of service, or smooth arrangements with a contractor that made some preliminary surveys or analyses unnecessary. That does not establish those explanations for every individual local authority.
The explanation also identifies a tendency for ordinance-designated cities and regional sewerage systems to have relatively advanced planning but lower utilization. It suggests that fertilizer demand may be small relative to sludge generation. This is a possible explanation, not proof that larger facility size causes lower utilization.
Align denominators and outsourcing scope before comparing
The following checks should be matched against facility records, operational reports and contract specifications. They are this article's suggested procedure, not a claim that the dashboard contains every item.
| Item | Further checks |
|---|---|
| Generation and fertilizer-use volumes | Align dry-weight conversion, reporting year and treatment-plant coverage |
| Demand and destinations | Check accepted volumes, seasonal variation, storage and transport conditions |
| Outsourcing | Distinguish contractor treatment from final use and identify supporting records |
| Planning progress | Return to explanatory documents to identify completed and outstanding work |
Identical utilization rates can represent different actual volumes when generation differs. Different receiving conditions or transport distances also mean that the same equipment need not produce the same outcome. Cost and contract assessments should therefore examine the scope of operations, storage, transport and outsourcing alongside utilization. This article does not establish which arrangements cost less from the release alone.
Keep local authority and plant comparisons separate
The three views described in the explanation cover national and prefectural comparisons, local authorities, and plants. The local authority view can filter comparable bodies by attributes such as scale; the plant view provides a corresponding filter for plant attributes. Start with the appropriate reporting unit, select candidates with similar conditions, then investigate their operational and outsourcing histories.
Display limitations matter too. Hovering over the scatter plot does not reveal local authority or plant names; individual data are shown in the bar chart below it. Pie-chart categories with very small shares may not appear. A category missing from the display is not evidence that the activity does not exist.
Check the required Excel environment in the official instructions. MLIT specifies Excel 2021 or later, or Microsoft 365. For this article, workbook structure and terminology were inspected statically; macros were not run, individual records were not reconciled, and local authority rankings were not calculated. No assessment of an individual local authority's superiority follows from this work.
What to do next
For the facility concerned, bring together the reporting year, dry-weight generation and fertilizer-use volumes, contractor details and records supporting actual use. Then use the dashboard to find comparable local authorities or plants and prepare questions about which operational stages or conditions may account for differences.
When reviewing specifications, compare reporting frequency, evidence requirements and responsibility for transport and storage against the current contract. Relate actual use to costs before deciding on contract changes or investment. The public facility management guide covers the broader management process; this article addresses the specific task of checking resource-use outcomes.
References
Release of the Sewage-Sludge Fertilizer Dashboard, October 22, 2026 — Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism. MLIT press release
Sewage-Sludge Fertilizer Dashboard: Definitions and Usage Notes — Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism. MLIT Sewerage
Dashboard Release: Attached Press Document — Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism. MLIT attachment