Last chance to rethink waste disposal strategy - on-island waste-to-energy solution offers best way forward
UPON retirement from the States last year I planned never to publicly inflict my opinion of the proposed waste strategy on the public ever again. However, I find it impossible to let these waste strategy proposals go forward without all new States members being made aware of the history and background to this issue. Hopefully the below facts will enable them to support Deputy Roffey's amendment. My long-term criticism of the strategy had been based on four years' detailed knowledge of waste issues and the previous Suez waste-to-energy contract during my term as a Public Services Department board member, and also my last four years' service as a Treasury and Resources board member. To summarise further, way back in 2010 a coordinated public misinformation campaign denigrating the benefits of the proposed Suez waste-to-energy plant was raging. The basis of the campaign was that incineration was morally wrong and the proposed household costs were too high.
That campaign culminated in a mass demonstration on the steps of the States Chamber, this action persuaded some States members, and critically Deputies Flouquet and Ogier to change their mind during debate, this led the States to overturn its previous decision to accept the Suez Waste-to-Energy Plant project proposals.
I ask all deputies to wholeheartedly support Deputy Roffey's proposed amendment, which seeks a final review of an on-island waste disposal solution.
There is absolutely no need to vote lemming-like for an ill-thought-through, misguided and expensive waste export strategy, a strategy that offers no long-term disposal contract or price guarantees. The waste strategy resolutions agreed by the Assembly back in 2012 bear no relationship to the proposals before the Assembly now. When all is said and done the States decision to overturn the Suez project was based on inaccurate costings, misinformation and unachievable recycling targets, that is a fact.
Background to 2012 States decision
The decision to adopt the current strategy was based on high recycling targets being achieved, i.e. 60 per cent by 2018 and 70 per cent by 2025. It was planned to export 70 per cent of the island's residual waste, the capital expenditure forecast for all plant infrastructure was £3.2m. A dry recyclable material recovery facility would be built and in addition an on-island, in-vessel composting plant was planned for the disposal of food waste. Domestic kerbside recycling would be provided, and a recycling centre would be built. It was also stated that all commercial waste would be handled through the export proposals.
The domestic household annual cost for waste disposal would be in the range of £182 per household per year.
Current proposals
Between 2012 and 2016 two Public Services Department Ministers, Luxon and Ogier consistently avoided providing the States Assembly with accurate facts even when under detailed questioning from myself and other deputies. The consistent mantra was that everything was on schedule and that while some elements of the strategy would be different, the thrust of the agreed strategy would be achieved. Now finally the new States' Trading Supervisory Board has come clean with nearly all the facts.
After five years of planning we now have recommendations that involve the export of only 50 per cent of the island's residual waste. This waste will quite unbelievably be shrink-wrapped in plastic and shipped to Sweden for incineration on the recommendation of the very same people who argued incineration was morally wrong.
The latest capital expenditure cost for the baling plant and infrastructure is circa £36m. There will be no dry recyclable material recovery facility (this is now contracted out to a third party). There is no on-island, in-vessel composting plant for food waste, this will be shipped to the UK.
The cost of domestic kerbside recycling of dry recyclables and food waste has escalated to approximately £2m. per year even though recycling rates have only increased by 2 per cent over the past five years. A recycling centre will be provided, and the latest domestic household annual cost forecast is £350 per household per year.
The disposal of commercial waste is no longer included, which leaves a significant waste stream to be dealt with at a later date, and at what cost?
The current export contract is only secure for three years, so there is no long-term security of export route or long-term contracted cost for the disposal of our waste – what the Suez project proposals offered, prior to the States' decision to reject.
It should be remembered that the Suez waste-to-energy plant proposals included the on-island disposal of 100 per cent of the island's residual waste. The capital cost was £79.8m., but the plant would produce 20m. units of free energy from our waste for on-island use. The plant would handle absolutely all domestic and commercial waste, and after financing costs would cost each household £178 per year.
The agreed contract would run for 25 years.
In conclusion
During the upcoming waste strategy debate I expect some States members will argue that it is too late to change course now. It will be argued that Mont Cuet's waste capacity is running out and that we are where we are with no other option available. However, only two years ago the then PSD minister Deputy Ogier was saying we had six years' tip-life capacity available.
I ask all deputies to think seriously about the impact these proposals will have on households and business.
Deputy Roffey's amendment offers a very last chance to stop and think whether there really is no other more sensible option available.
I remain absolutely convinced that a significantly less complex, more reliable, secure, and less expensive on-island solution can be provided if only the States Trading Supervisory Board act in haste. Work has not even commenced on the proposed baling plant facilities, and just about every conceivable alternative option has already been considered over the past 12 years, so a clear indication of what an on-island alternative would cost could be known very quickly.
EX DEPUTY TONY SPRUCE.
