As delays creep in Mont Cuet fills

AND so the waste strategy crumbles again.

Given his recent statement that the export plans were delayed by years and on-island treatment of food waste had been dropped, it was no wonder when PSD announced the annual recycling figures just days before that the minister was so coy on what was happening with the waste strategy that has been so integral to his political career.

Back in February 2012 the department was promising a new dawn – high recycling levels were top of the agenda with its plans, it made sure it sold that hard, and no nasty old-incinerator because of this and the out of sight, out of mind shipment philosophy that had taken over.

This column has argued before for a rethink in the way the island sees waste, a shift to viewing it as a resource to be used on island rather then being sent away at questionable environmental and social costs.

PSD's latest move is exactly the opposite of that.

It says that treating food waste on-island is not value for money, although three years ago it was seen as an absolutely vital move and integral to the strategy.

The department spent considerable time and effort formulating the plan then, persuading Guernsey Water and farmers that what would be produced from food waste could be used on land here despite objections in previous incarnations of the strategy.

Now, if food waste collections are going to happen, it will only be so that it can be shipped off island, so someone else benefits, we pay, and the voice of those who ask about the environmental impact and pollution of all these ships carting our resources around only get rightly louder and louder.

Should we be surprised that PSD now believes it is too expensive an option?

Not really, given that it has already in the intervening time since the States backed its strategy had to put its hands up to getting predicted capital costs badly wrong.

Its costings were only saved because the market price of export fell, pure chance and something that given the new time-frames becomes a risk factor – they may go up again.

There is only one consortium in the running to build the facilities needed on-island to deliver the strategy after others dropped out, leaving serious question-marks over whether the department can guarantee value for money.

And as delays creep in Mont Cuet fills.

There is a predicted six-and-a-half year lifespan left, so if export doesn't happen until 2018 the buffer is marginal – remember a time when the States was told it was vital to keep 10 years of life at the tip?

What next? There still needs to be an on-island facility to cope with whatever is not recycled or shipped away – it will come at a cost which has not been factored in to the new bills islanders already face.

Could Mont Cuet become higher and higher, sure, but it has been earmarked for the green waste processing – this is a puzzle that becomes more pressing as time moves on.

It also runs parallel to the need for a new site for inert waste – Longue Hougue only has six-and-a-half years remaining. More reclamation, more cost to cover.

Given the history of setbacks on waste already, the island is fast becoming boxed into a corner, any more delays and the word crisis will be used readily.

Food waste collections have always been fundamental to the strategy, it is the only way the 70% recycling target agreed by the States can ever be reached and therefore make its predicted costs add up.

It accounts for some 8,000 tonnes of the domestic waste stream each year.

To put that in perspective, currently in total some 33,250 tonnes is going into Mont Cuet – export, and its cost to the public is predicated on sending away 28,000 tonnes a year.

For all the success that an additional 800 tonnes has been collected through kerbside, it is not going to get close to making up the difference alone.

Behavioural change and less packaging all have a role to play.

PSD believes it will be able to do some form of food waste collection, something that was meant to be already under way, but not when, or how, and it all has something of a hollow ring to it now.

It says on-island treatment will not offer value for money, but you will have to take its word for it, because it is refusing to say how the cost compares to the £1.2m. it had predicted back in 2012.

Is it this element alone that isn't value for money, or is it the entire infrastructure for Longue Hougue could only be delivered close to its budget if this element was dropped?

Now, if it is the latter, than calls for a wider re-examination of the strategy deserve to be heard.

It all means the waste strategy will straddle another change in membership of the States.

When that first happened back in 2003 it led to the first plans for an incinerator being axed, and then another smaller incinerator went the same way as the political sands shifted again.

These missteps and misdirections have all come at a cost to the taxpayer and the environment.

Money wasted on infrastructure and staff time, continued use of landfill – it would be illuminating to do the sums, not that Frossard House would want anyone to.

There is also the potential impact on households if food waste is dropped.

While it makes life easier, it could also end up hitting them in the pocket as they would have to throw away more rubbish in the more expensive black bags through no fault of their own.

PSD has continually made the case in the last few years that the cost of waste disposal will rise for households whatever the strategy, it has to.

But it will also have to manage the inevitable backlash when that happens and answer questions if it hasn't done all it can to help people reduce their black bag waste in the first place, food waste is part of that equation.

It will also have to manage the expectations it has developed and when reality bites about what export really means in terms of infrastructure around the harbours, lorry movements and waste storage.