FORMER panel of inquiry chairman Roger Dadd has questioned whether the States has pursued reduction, reuse and recycling of waste as vigorously as recommended. He hit back at claims by Treasury minister Lyndon Trott that the panel got it wrong in its report on the strategy.

Advocate Dadd said the conclusions and recommendations made in its January 2005 report were as valid now as they were then.

‘I question whether our conclusions with respect to reduction, reuse and recycling of waste have been pursued by the States of Guernsey with the required vigour,’ he said.

‘Whether the commercial recycling organisations have been provided with the commercial certainty they need to do their job properly and whether the three arms of government directly involved in the disposal of solid waste ‘the Environment, Public Services and Health departments’ have worked with the commercial organisations as closely as they might to build trust and establish a common sense of purpose.’

Advocate Dadd said that while several initiatives had been implemented, the private sector had made repeated calls for an opportunity to address the issues of recycling and reuse of waste arisings, without the degree of success the panel had envisaged.

Enviros has analysed the work of consultants employed by the former Board of Administration when it recommended an incinerator.

It does not believe there were any significant errors in the waste arisings, potential for diversification, growth and the resulting facility size.

Deputy Trott, a former BoA member, also believed that alternative technologies had not arrived as predicted and the panel had led the States down the wrong path on contract form.

‘A reading of the panel’s report shows that the advantages and disadvantages of proceeding with the proposed energy from waste plant at Longue Hougue were carefully weighed,’ said Advocate Dadd.

‘It was found to be too big, too expensive and the contract for its construction and operation too tightly drawn.’

The BoA presented the market with a single option: to design, build and operate an energy-from-waste facility for two years.

‘Other options which the professional waste industry offered elsewhere, and which might be more suitable for Guernsey, were ruled out without proper testing or evaluation,’ said Advocate Dadd.

‘As a result, there was a lack of competitive pressure in the tendering process.’

Only two bids were received – one from Lurgi was compliant.

‘The panel therefore recommended that all procurement options be independently tested in the market, to determine which was likely to provide best value for money.’

He admitted that the Defra New Technologies Demonstrator Programme was behind schedule.

‘Nonetheless, it was the panel’s recommendation that Guernsey should re-examine what the market can offer in 2007 or 2008, when the state of knowledge should have advanced, and that must surely remain the case.’

Some of the alternative technologies had been in sustained operation outside the UK. The report mentions both Scandinavia and the Pacific Rim.

‘It is the in-depth evaluation of these alternatives – composting, anaerobic digestion, mechanical and biological treatment, pyrolysis, gasification and autoclaving – which is required of the Environment Department, whether or not the Defra programme suffers slippage.’

The possibility of working with Jersey and the interim export of waste, both recommended in the report, have been rejected by the States.

‘While those decisions may be correct, the inescapable conclusions – that the Lurgi plant was too large, too costly and the contract too tightly drawn – remain,’ said Advocate Dadd.

‘The search for a combination of alternatives needs to be progressed with complete focus, initiatives for reducing or recycling waste in conjunction with the professional waste contractors need to be implemented as a matter of urgency and no amount of reports from yet more consultants is going to change any of that.’