Waste strategy may end up being dumped – again

AND so here we go again.

A new States, a problem which just will not be put to bed.

Will the next few months finally see a new waste strategy signed, sealed and delivered – or will the sceptics succeed in undermining it and opening the whole argument up again?

While the last States backed the export option in 2014, we have been here before. Decisions being made before the feet get cold.

Remember the Lurgi incinerator? In 2003 the Assembly agreed to build it, but the contract was not signed and just months into 2004 a review was ordered which eventually led to it being ditched.

Even a last-minute redesign made no difference.

Then we had the age of the Suez plant, given preferred bidder status in 2009. Early the following year that was binned.

Now we are in another epoch, this time to export our waste, with Sweden the chosen destination.

There are enough questions and concerns for this Assembly to want to have its own debate.

That could well happen.

The business case to build all the new infrastructure at Longue Hougue, and it will be a significant development whatever people may unwittingly believe, will go to Policy & Resources by October.

Those five senior politicians have a choice – use their delegated authority and finally get things moving, or take the whole thing to the States for a debate.

You can see the attractiveness of the second option.

It gives the whole States ownership of the strategy, which given the proportion of new States members is important and will settle the nerves of those who fear P&R will begin operating like a cabinet.

Plenty of members are either hostile or at least questioning of the project as it stands – if it is robust, those leading it will easily be able to answer away those concerns.

For those who argue it has little resemblance to what the last States agreed – gone are things like on-island treatment of food waste, for example – they will get their chance to debate it.

If P&R used its delegated authority, it risks being undermined by a private member moving a requete to bring the issue to the States anyway.

The key political champions of the waste strategy are no longer in the Assembly, which is another loss of ownership and another good reason for a debate.

If it went ahead in its full glory, there will be a significant impact on householders.

Separation of waste will be necessary, fines for not doing so the ultimate sanction, the cost goes up (and would whatever the solution), someone needs to be the figurehead to answer why and justify it. The States cannot just fall back on saying we debated this last term so you should all know – there needs to be someone to answer the critics and they will want to know they have the majority of their colleagues on board, not sniping from the sidelines.

In the background, recycling rates have fallen largely due to a downturn in green waste.

Less waste went to landfill –economic factors play a part here.

When the economy grows again, the population grows and there is more waste to deal with – that rate gains in importance.

It is nothing like approaching the levels promised in the strategy and the millions spent so far on providing a kerbside recycling scheme that is free for the public to use has failed to continue to grow the amount being recycled.

Food waste separation will be a big win if it goes ahead – it is key to making a step-change in the recycling rate, but will come at a cost, like everything.

This States will look at the project through a very different financial filter to the last.

The deficit remains and the books won't be balanced this year unless some moves already announced are successful.

Money has been put aside in what the States borrowed for the capital element of the strategy and the repayment and ongoing revenue costs are meant to be covered by the 'user'.

But that 'user' is also a taxpayer – it all makes life more expensive to them, whether it is a charge or a tax for a public service – for those keen to raise revenue from the public, the less the States squeezes for this the more opportunity there is elsewhere.

Other capital projects could also be brought to life if less was spent on waste, so there is a lot to play for.

Whatever decisions are made, they need to be made quickly.

Mont Cuet continues to be mounded up above the ground.

This project should have been operational this year, that is now more likely to be 2018 even if things go smoothly.

Guernsey's reputation was shot long ago on this issue, while the public has been stuck with temporary solutions and interim measures for more than a decade.

We are already back to the stage where different people come out the woodwork claiming they have found new solutions that meet our needs, smaller burners that are efficient and would sit neatly on Longue Hougue – probably blowing out nothing but perfumed bubbles.

Members will be asking themselves if the island should, like other jurisdictions, see waste as a resource to be used to produce power to benefit the island, or shipped away and used to produce power to benefit others, and weighing up the cost of that.

If the current waste strategy is the right one, it would survive any challenges that could be thrown at it on the floor of the States.