States set to recycle waste disposal options

HISTORY is in danger of repeating itself.

It is the issue that has plagued successive Assemblies with no resolution – how to deal with the island's waste.

In the 1990s the course was set for incineration, a decision to build the 70,000 tonne Lurgi plant was made and backed to the hilt by those behind it and those who inherited it, all of whom argued it was based on high levels of recycling.

But it was stopped in its tracks in 2004 by a Deputy Scott Ogier requete which called for more investigations as concerns about just how committed the strategy was to waste reduction, and more importantly its size, came to the fore.

There was also the feeling that 'something better' was just around the corner technology-wise and that export might be an option.

The next proposal, brought forward by a Public Services board that had Deputy Ogier as a member, was the Suez incinerator and again we heard the same arguments – recycling, technology, export, size.

This was blocked, again at the last minute having gone through the tender process, by a Deputy Mary Lowe amendment, which called for even more investigations – a case maybe of cross your fingers and if we wait long enough something might happen.

Now here we are, some 14 years of filling up Mont Cuet under our belts, with the States on the edge of commissioning a whole new body of work.

Public Services member Tony Spruce – he of the resignation U-turn on the back of the Suez debate – is ready to play the joker in the pack.

The department is being too optimistic with its recycling targets, he argues, and, more importantly, has not done enough to cost out the options.

It has been premature in backing export, he will argue, and an on-island solution should remain in the frame.

Some might think he is playing a dangerous game with an election around the corner – remember the unprecedented scenes of some 600 protesters when Suez was debated – by even raising the prospect of backing Guernsey-based heat treatment.

But it is not a move being made in isolation.

The letters of comment attached to Public Services' waste strategy make awkward reading for the department that has invested so much time in taking hearts and minds with it.

Douzaines, Health and Social Services, Commerce and Employment and the Treasury and Resources Department all raise concerns about the lack of evidence and detail on cost implications.

They are right to do so. For so long, PSD tried to steer everything through on strategy, which is fine, but eventually the detailed cost has to be brought back into the debate.

Three options for dealing with what waste is left over after it has been reduced, reused and recycled made it into the department's report: on-island heat treatment, export of fuel pellets created from it, or export of the untreated waste, most likely to Jersey.

'It is difficult to assess the merits of the three options for residual waste without any information on the development, implementation and operating costs for comparison,' said Health and Social Services minister Hunter Adam in the department's letter of comment.

'Full details of financial information for each option should be provided at the earliest opportunity and prior to any decision in relation to the preferred strategy.'

Commerce and Employment minister Carla McNulty Bauer has also poured some cold water on PSD's proposal.

'The first comment to make is to point to the lack of any costing for the strategic options and the one that is identified in the document as the preferred option for Guernsey,' she said in the department's letter.

'Policy setting (and decision making) cannot be carried out in a vacuum and, while the Waste Disposal and Management Plan is well presented and proceeds in a rational way throughout, it lacks the basic requirement – that decision making should be evidence-based.'

Treasury and Resources also sounds a warning.

'The Treasury and Resources Department believes that the risks associated with pursuing only one option, including the possibility of not being able to negotiate an acceptable agreement and the absence of detailed and reasonably certain costings, mean that at this stage it is not possible to demonstrate value for money and it would be preferable to simultaneously investigate other options,' its statement at the end of the report says.

And this is history repeating in more than one way.

Earlier this month, Public Services lost a debate on its proposed commercialisation of Guernsey Water because it did not provide States members with the figures they wanted.

This was evidence that the States is risk averse – given the option to play it safe, it will 99% of the time.

There is also the Deputy Peter Gillson amendment, which asks that the issue goes back to the States if the costs run more than 10% over what has been predicted so far – you can see few arguments against that.

But the main debate will be won and lost on the floor of the Chamber.

Trust is key – do members trust PSD to tighten up all the loose ends, which also includes getting the nod in Jersey and the issue of what happens with the toxic elements that could be shipped back?

Will they be happy to rule out those all-in-one solutions being touted about by local companies at this stage?

Or will they take the easiest decision and keep all the options on the table?