No low-cost solution to our waste problem
YOU recently published a letter from Gerry Tattersall in which he described a perfect world as one where Guernsey had its own incinerator. Many of your readers may agree, but history has shown not all islanders share that view. In the absence of such a facility he implored the States to do a deal with Jersey to ship our waste there, instead of the current proposal to send it elsewhere. That was preceded by a letter from a different correspondent a few days earlier, proposing we 'recycle' our waste by filling former quarries, and another since suggests reclaiming land from the sea. All of which is a good illustration of why the issue of how we deal with our waste has dominated so much time and effort over so many years. There are lots of opinions as to why we should not be going down a particular route, but far less agreement on what the right path should be. A perfect recipe for going nowhere.
I am not criticising anyone for wanting the best deal for islanders. However there is great danger in deluding ourselves that there is a low-cost solution to our problem.
Even those who advocate continuing to bury our waste for future generations talk about 'modern' landfill. That requires facilities to treat our waste beforehand, which will cost tens of millions of pounds; plus tens of millions of pounds to engineer any quarries we will need for this. Even if it were the best solution, which it is not, it most definitely will not be cheap.
As for Mr Tattersall's suggestion we should look to do a deal with Jersey, that is not ruled out in the future. However he is wrong to imply the reason it is not our current preference is somehow due to a lack of engagement or lack of will to co-operate with our neighbours. That is simply not the case, so let's deal with that once and for all.
In 2011, before the strategy was agreed, Jersey provided an indicative price for accepting Guernsey's waste. That is how we knew it was a firm possibility, but complicated by the suggestion we might have to take back the ash residues as part of any deal. We also had advice that other destinations may be available and would present a better financial deal for Guernsey. It was important to establish what was in our island's best interests.
We subsequently received indicative costs from 18 plants interested in receiving our waste. Jersey was the second most expensive. Nevertheless we continued to engage at officer and political level and it was logical not to exclude the possibility.
So Jersey was included in the shortlist presented in early 2014, even though it was no secret they had put forward a far more costly proposition than others. That fact was highlighted in Jersey's own States and widely reported in both islands. Our States resolved to go out to tender, but to continue to include Jersey.
It is that tender process that identified our current preferred option. That is to contract with a company called Geminor UK. They will take processed waste from the transfer station at Longue Hougue and be responsible for it from there. Where they send it is largely a matter for them – it will simply join the half-million tonnes a year that Geminor already exports from the UK and Ireland.
Geminor has indicated they plan to ship via the UK to Sweden. However, provided they consult us they could choose to send it to any of the 70 or more plants that they have contracts with throughout Europe. Many of those facilities will have economies of scale and higher levels of efficiency that make it difficult for Jersey to compete with financially.
Rival bids to use Jersey's facility were therefore more expensive. That is not the only reason Geminor scored higher. Their network also offers us more robust contingency arrangements in the event that their preferred plant becomes unavailable for any reason.
And crucially, any deal with Jersey requires their States first to agree to the principle of importing waste from Guernsey. That was known before the waste strategy was agreed, in 2012, and is still outstanding. At ministerial level Jersey may be keen to reach a deal, but we do not know what appetite there is among their public and politicians to receive our waste. One could argue they have had time to resolve this, but the proposed initial three-year deal with Geminor provides ample opportunity to do that. It is simply a non-starter while there is a risk imports could be rejected. In the meantime it is not in the interests of our island to ignore the result of a properly conducted tender process.
The States will next month be asked to approve some additional capital funding for the strategy. That is now urgent, given that Mont Cuet is fast approaching its fill capacity and we face a very tight timeline to have new waste facilities up and running before we run out of landfill space. However, the decision is anything but hurried.
We have spent decades debating waste before the current strategy was agreed and have since spent years implementing that.
In pursuing the best outcome for the island, no sensible option has been overlooked.
What we have to avoid now is the temptation to keep going around in circles, because that recipe for going nowhere will cost us dearly.
DEPUTY CHARLES PARKINSON,
President, States' Trading Supervisory Board.
