PSD and the whole sorry saga of a wasted strategy

BACK in 2012 there was a very real promise that whatever the rights and wrongs of it, this States would deliver on a new waste strategy.

But as the sun goes down on this term, what has been left is a pale shadow of all the pledges made four years ago.

So much so that any scrutiny committee worth its name should quickly shine a spotlight on the whole saga next term to find out if where we are now is the best solution for the island and one that provides value for money when compared to other options that were discounted on cost and visual grounds.

It is no longer enough for the minister to offer reassurances when so many deadlines have been missed and key elements dropped.

Soaring capital costs have beset the waste strategy.

First up there were miscalculations because Public Services failed to include a Guernsey factor in its prices – the overall cost to the public kept in check only because the predicted export costs were much lower than expected.

We were told that these rises did not matter because the elements impacted were common to all the different options for dealing with Guernsey's waste – even if there was to be an on-island incinerator, the States would still need an in-vessel composter and materials recovery facility to hit the high recycling targets that had been set.

Now plans for the States to build the IVC and the MRF have been dropped.

The former would have dealt with food waste separated by householders, the later the material from kerbside collections.

Food waste is important to the whole strategy because it makes up such a large amount of rubbish that is thrown away.

It is central to hitting the high levels of recycling needed to make the amount of rubbish left over to be dealt with as low as predicted and hence hit the costs expected.

PSD has two options for this now, either export it to be 'composted' or export it to be burnt.

Both leave it exposed to the vagaries of contract negotiations and changing market forces in a way that an on-island solution would not.

Shipping it with general waste undermines the 'green' philosophy that underpins the strategy.

Dropping plans for a States-owned MRF at Longue Hougue also leaves PSD dependent on private operators to do the job for it – and it is not in the box seat when it comes to negotiations and securing the best deal for taxpayers given the background.

Now the 2014 report left the MRF idea as an 'option' when all the tendering for facilities went ahead, so perhaps it is not as fundamental a change as the IVC, but it is still a shift in emphasis.

Dropped also are a fleet of collection vehicles which were included in the original report.

There was no mention when we found out what was being ditched during the minister's speech last week what had happened to the costs of capping Mont Cuet that were also part of the £29.5m. anticipated bill.

No mention also of the contingency that had been built into the original costs, nor the potentially better than anticipated loan rates coming from the States-issued bond.

All that remains from the original capital shopping list is the waste transfer station and household waste recycling centre, the latter much grander sounding than it really is.

We do not know how much these will cost as the States continues negotiating – indeed, we do not know how much each element was expected to cost and what the actual bill was that caused them to be dropped.

The question remains now that if this is the 'best and most cost-effective way of delivering the strategy', why had PSD spent so many years going down a different route?

We are also being told that the revised strategy will still come within the anticipated average cost of £200 to £300 a year to the householder.

It is a nice wide margin for the department to be working within – and remarkable that it has remained the same despite the shift from a build-it-all mentality.

For those who doubted the path PSD was heading down, these major revisions are all the more reason to have a fresh look at the strategy.

How does it now compare with an on-island solution?

Originally, PSD seemed to want to take control of the whole waste operation – now it has moved to rely on private operators.

That might be a good deal given the inefficiencies that exist in the public sector, but it might not – at the moment, there is no detailed analysis to argue either way.

Too much has happened for the public to have confidence in the waste strategy – that needs to be instilled one way or another because when the States does finally implement this, it will have some very apparent impacts.

Charges will go up significantly. How a household sorts its rubbish will change. Fines could be introduced. Significant facilities will be built on Longue Hougue. There will be extra lorry journeys shifting rubbish along the seafront for export.

At the moment these are all abstract concepts – when they become real in a few years' time, they will become anything like acceptable only if people believe value for money has been achieved.