Waste: our time and money

THE Public Services Department may be clear over where they are heading with Guernsey's waste strategy

(I wonder), but if so it seems as if they are the only ones.

To the rest of us it's as clear as mud. I have been struggling to understand the masterplan for years and have said so repeatedly in this column. Now it seems I'm not alone.

Even one of PSD's key partners in delivering the new strategy – the senior constable of St Martin's – is expressing his utter exasperation.

I'm not surprised. Let's look at a few of the elements of the complex house of cards which make up the much vaunted waste strategy.

Starting with recycling.

I welcome the fact that the doorstep collection scheme has led to a modest increase in recycling rates, albeit at a fierce cost in relation to the amount of extra recyclables being recovered. But here's a confession. I've never yet used the kerbside service, although of course I still have to pay for it like everybody else.

Currently that £1m. per year cost is coming out of PSD's (for which read 'our') reserves but soon it will fall directly on householders.

So why don't I use it? Not because of any fundamental objection to the scheme, but simply because a fair percentage of my recycling is made up of glass. (Yes, I know the obvious conclusion people may draw about my lifestyle from that statement.) As a result, I still have to visit the bring banks on a regular basis to deposit my glass. So frankly, it's much easier to take the rest of my stuff at the same time rather than being tied to a set collection day.

I had thought I might be a convert to kerbside if glass collections were to be extended island-wide. Now it seems that's not going to happen, because it would be too expensive. Not the only element of the strategy to suffer from escalating costs – I wonder if the initial budget estimates on which the whole strategy was sold to the States were unrealistically low?

Anyway, my point is this. Soonish, islanders will have a choice of either paying per bag to have their recycling collected or else taking it themselves to the bring banks. I presume the second option will remain free, but I don't think that's ever been officially confirmed and it would be very useful if PSD could do so. Surely even they wouldn't have the pure gall to charge people for delivering their recycling to bring banks under their own steam.

Which disposal option will people choose? I suppose it comes down to convenience. A very modest charge for recycling sacks might well be viewed as good value if it prevented the need to take a trip to a recycling site. But now we are going to have to do that anyway to deposit our bottles and jars, why on earth pay for the doorstep collections through bag charges? Surely people will save their cash by using the bring banks for all their recyclables?

What about the residual waste which is due to be exported for incineration elsewhere?

Here, at least, a firm decision is due to be taken very soon. But we still don't know what we are going to export.

What about food waste? At first it was going to be treated on-island in an in-vessel composter. Then the PSD minister dropped the bombshell in the States that the projected costs of that idea had sky-rocketed to a point where they were prohibitive. Now the department is considering whether to export food waste, either as part of the general black bag contract for incineration or as a separate, discrete waste stream. What a crazy level of uncertainty to remain donkey's years after the waste strategy was first approved in principle. It really seems as if PSD has been wading through treacle in trying to make any significant headway.

And it's not as if that's the only uncertainty which remains. We still don't know the final cost of the required on-island waste transfer station. Expect it to cost many millions. Plus there is other infrastructure to put in place.

And what will be the impact of the 11th-hour decision to ship our waste out of the island through St Peter Port harbour rather than St Sampson's? It will be cheaper no doubt, but it hardly sounds ideal.

It's hard to escape two conclusions from all this.

The first is that the States some years ago set the island on the wrong path over waste disposal but are too stubborn/proud/scared to admit they've got it badly wrong. So they carry on trying to deliver an immensely complex and risky strategy despite escalating costs.

The second is that the real pain to Joe Public is being wilfully deferred until after next year's general election.

I make no judgement on the motivation for such a delay. You reach your own conclusions.