Waste strategy progress report raises concerns
Friday 8th March 2013, 1:00PM GMT.
A PROGRESS update on Public Services’ waste strategy will not pacify douzaine concern over its cost implications, deputies have warned.
Parish officials will have their chance to quiz the department at a meeting on 14 March on its plans to implement initiatives such as a kerbside recycling scheme.
But politicians who have already received the briefing have said, while it was helpful and welcomed, douzaines will be no nearer to the long-awaited answers over what effect it could have on parish rates and contracts.
Estimated costs provided by the department when it was approved in early 2012 showed the strategy, which includes exporting waste for incineration off-island and a 70% recycling target by 2025, would see the average household waste bill increase by £80 a year.
- To read Guernsey Press stories in full click here for subscription details. Individual editions are now available online.
Tuesday 18 June
- Condor wants security to buy £70m. ships
- Your States - St Peter Port South
- GP 200 LOOKback - St Peter Port Harbour
- CGi Technology Challenge
- Sport - Priaulx's problems continue
Campaigns
Voice For Victims
Voice for Victims is a campaign aimed at promoting the rights of those affected by child sexual abuse.
This is Guernsey
Guernsey Press
Useful Links
So would everyone have to pay for this even though some of us deal 100% with all our recyclables?
Report abuse
£80 a year is very little extra to deal with waste. That is 21pence a day, peanuts for a convenient materialistic lifestyle everyone has jumped on over the last decade that has generated sooo much rubbish.
Report abuse
We shouldn’t be increasing the cost of waste disposal. We fill three separate item recycling boxes (milk cartons, cardboard, and variety of tin, plastic etc) every six weeks and take them to the skip, and put out a small sack of non-recyclable rubbish every three weeks. We don’t expect to have to pay more to have boxes of recyclables lining the streets, especially in the narrow lanes of the Vale.
Report abuse
The amount of recycling material[photo] that is still finding its way into landfill.
Trade skips should be placed around the island for free collection thus prolonging the landfill life expectancy.
Report abuse
Indeed there is still a vast amount of recyclable material going into landfill.
I assume your suggestion of skips is for commercial waste, as there are already 30+ bring bank sites for householders to use as well as the civic amenity site. Commercial companies can take recycling material to Fontaine Vinery MRF at a much cheaper rate than taking it to Mont Cuet.
The PSD team are working hard to reduce the amount of recyclable material going into landfill. Over half of what goes into the tip each year is recyclable under current schemes, so there is enormous scope for improvement.
There are 63000 people (or more!) on this island who produce waste and in the end it is up to every one of us to do the right thing. The less we produce, the cheaper it will be to deal with.
Report abuse
Meanwhile the parish collection rates based on TRP continue unabated
Report abuse
Unfortunately current legislation does not allow charging for parochial waste in any other way than by refuse rate based on TRP. Believe me I have tried hard to find out if there is any legal way round this but regrettably it seems it is a case of waiting for new legislation. However that is in hand so that we can move to a user pays principle for residual waste.
Report abuse
Why does Guernsey fail to invest in legal resources? Why does everything take so long? I was hoping the new states would be more dynamic in moving things along faster. When we find any gap in the law I expect it to be ratified by the states and passed within 6 months not 6 years. If we need more legal resources get them, it’s imperative that we are on top of things not lagging behind.
So here again with the practicalities of the very basic issue of rubbish our attempts at pragmatism and common sense are thwarted by our legislation.
The law should be the foundation of our society but instead it is shamefully inadequate and we are perpetually in the mud.
I suspect we could have another AFR scandal at any minute.
But worse, much worse than that is the fact that our social laws fail our citizens in every way from the seemingly small (and therefore easily solvable?) issues of dog poo and anti social behaviour to the gross inequality and inadequacy of matters such as our education provisions and health services.
I know dog poo is deemed unimportant in the overall scheme of things but this is an issue which comes up in the news and on the on the phone in and message boards every week. Please can those on environment and home please sort out firm and sensible anti social pet avoidance provisions once and for all so that all our deputies and commenters can stop wasting their time talking about it and concentrate on the more serious issues. Surely this at least is an easy fix?
Report abuse
I largely agree Spartacus. And if you read the States Strategic Plan you will see that it talks about better legislation prioritisation but my fear is that this will just mean that all the big things stop all the little things which actually improve the quality of life for people getting a look in.
Report abuse
Yvonne Burford
Thanks for the reply.
Page 13 “Early intervention to prevent social problems arising”
In my view if the little things are attended to and there is a high expectation of respect within society then some of the bigger problems of crime might reduce. Public service eg policing is the first priority as this safeguards quality of life for everyone, it’s not about making money it’s about respect amongst citizens and setting the benchmark of what is acceptable and what is not. Guernsey currently makes a statement that dog fouling is acceptable because the laws are not enforced. Do we need more police or are we really saying the current law is a wasted piece of legislation? What is it?
The process of legal prioritisation is explained in the SSP and there is a priority list on the website however this list only covers 3 months ie legislation which is already a long way down the pipeline and almost complete.
The policy council are advised by the crown officers and civil servants in relation to the workload and priorities however I would like to see a comprehensive list published of all legislation that is at the beginning of the pipeline so that the public have the opportunity to challenge the priorities and call for additional resources if necessary for items which are continually being superseded by matters which are deemed more important.
I believe the public would take an interest in these kind of internal workings and this is where greater transparency really is needed in the states. This is the nuts and bolts of the political agenda.
The current system of government should generally provide more mechanisms for public participation in decisions but I don’t think expensive referendums are necessary to accomplish this.
Report abuse
Disclaimer
I was not meaning to discriminate against dogs in my previous post zero tolerance should apply to all anti social pet behaviour which is contrary to our laws. If the law is inadequate to accomplish it’s purpose it needs to be changed.
Report abuse
“The less we produce, the cheaper it will be to deal with.” Hear, hear, if one of our deputies had the nouse to enunciate that in an immigration debate we might finally be on the right road.
Report abuse
And that really is the key as Yvonne has said, the more that we can get through the recycling chain the cheaper dealing with the rest will be.
I think we should congratulate all those who have contributed to the massive reduction in waste going to land fill, if you remember back to the days when the old Board of Administration were trying to foist the Lurgi incinerator on us we were talking about nearly 80.000 tons now it is down to about half of that.
Report abuse
Ahhh the good old days when Peter Roffey was talking the talk as Health and Social Services Minister?
Report abuse
33,000 tonnes last year I believe, Dave.
And cheaper than recycling is not producing waste in the first place wherever possible.
Report abuse
Very unusual not to hear from Rosie on this subject
Are you well Rosie?
Report abuse
even better still is not importing it in the first place. I believe the Caymans have an import tax, surely we could implement something similar on things like bottled water?
Report abuse
Would be nice to see all catering establishments recycling instead of refuse trucks picking up all for dumping.
Love the days when fish and chips take aways was wrapped in newspapers with greaseproof in between
Report abuse
I agree with IWF post above all this encouragement to recycle but no action on reducing the cost of the single black sack that we send to landfill once a week, whilst our neighbours are putting out 2 bags twice a week, when are PSD going to change the way we pay for rubbish collection from the charge based on the TRP value of your home to pay as you throw, we need carrots not sticks,if you want the people of Guernsey to fully embrace recycling.
Report abuse
DG Totally agree. ‘Pay as You Throw’ can’t come in quick enough for most people and it is almost unbelievable that changing the legislation so that this could happen was not put in motion years ago. But in the past, ‘reducing’ waste quantities was never part of the plan because of the bonkers desire to buy an incinerator.
This current board know that waste reduction is key to the strategy so hopefully, no more time is being wasted about getting this legislation through. It is a shame that changing legislation and old style systems seems to move at such a glacial pace in Guernsey.
Meanwhile, we all owe it to the community we live in, to reduce the amount of waste we generate to as little as is possible. Anyone putting out more than one bag a week, is in my opinion, not doing as well as they could be.
Report abuse
DG
Introducing ‘pay as you throw’ may be a good idea but it will not necessarily reduce any particular household’s refuse disposal charges. The main beneficiaries of ‘pay as you throw’ would be the occupiers of large houses who assiduously recycle because currently they subsidise the cost of waste collection and disposal for those in smaller properties. Households in such smaller properties might find their refuse disposal costs increase even if they are keen recyclers. In other words there is potentially a regressive element to ‘pay as you throw’ which should be considered.
Report abuse
I know that there are some multiple-occupancy houses in St Peter Port that put out huge quantities of waste each week including bags full of recyclable items….. plastics, cans, tins, bottles, you name it, it’s there. It wouldn’t be a bad idea to target some of these areas to find out why they don’t recycle and why they seem happy to burden the island with the cost and time needed to deal with unnecessary quantities of rubbish.
Report abuse
Oh Rosie,
What a sanctimonious, snooty and upper-class comment! You really do live a cloistered existence in that palatial temple to the environmental that you call home. You say “I know there are some multiply occupancy homes etc etc”, what you need to do is to try living in one not just cycling by and noting them. Folk who live in the type of multi-tenanted properties to which you refer would probably love to have the room to sort and store recyclables but in most cases they simply do not. You probably have the luxury of the odd barn where you can store twenty or so Eurobins to save everything your household produces. I challenge you to try recycling efficiently in a one bed flat with inadequate living space let alone recycling storage. Targeting those less fortunate than you who don’t seem happy to do what you want just about sums you up !
Report abuse
A little OTT but it makes a fair point. Recycling for people with a car in the driveway and outdoor storage space is a doddle; for a single mum with a baby or a pensioner living in a one bedroom flat with no access to a car it is a nightmare.
Kerbside recycling would deal with some of the issues they face but until that comes in we need to cut slack – and as Dave Jones has pointed out generally we’re on the right track.
Report abuse
Sorry Rosie,
Although I wouldn’t put it in such blunt terms I tend to agree with Watcher.
However the answer is to sort out the circumstances in Guernsey which causes people to live in cramped conditions with inadequate facilities to recycle when they don’t have adjacent parking to their property or perhaps no transport at all.
Maybe you could do some door to door research yourself and actually find out what the issues are and then set about presenting workable solutions rather than just criticising people.
I suppose in large single family occupancy homes in rural areas, which have a carbon footprint of a village in india, the householders get one of their home help to sort out the recycling and drive it around the island in their 4 x 4s.
Report abuse
Watcher – unfortunately when you have money you tend to lose sight of what matters to ordinary folk. I like to try and do my bit but object to being lectured by affluent environmentslists. Some of us have to think about paying the bills first.
Report abuse
Whoa there Watcher… only just seen this. I totally agree that it is not easy for many people who live in crowded, cramped conditions which is why I have frequently in the past suggested to the States that incorporating space for recycling should be part of a planning requirement to avoid that situation occurring for others (It is still not a requirement). It is also why I have for years, campaigned for kerbside recycling ( did you?) because I have seen how difficult it is for some to get to the Bring Banks and it is why I suggest in my post that we find out what prevents these people from recycling so that those issues can be dealt with. Maybe I shouldn’t have used the word ‘target’ which I suspect you think I mean ‘hit with fines’ which I do not mean. Maybe ‘focus’ would have been a better word?
Recycling in Guernsey has hit a plateau with most people now doing what they can but there is a significant proportion that are not recycling at all. I think that the recycling campaigns that PSD run, speak mostly to those who are already on board so I think we would make more progress achieving our recycling targets if we instead focused on finding out what the barriers are to those who can’t or won’t recycle. And having been on GRAF (Guernsey Recycling Advisory Forum) for 2 years, I can tell you that there are both. Some who can’t and some who could but won’t or can’t be bothered and we need to find out how to change that either with help or incentives.
Report abuse
Rosie
There is another group
Those who can /used to ,and ARE bothered but are protesting against the glacial speed of progress whilst still being charged through the roof for half a black sack per week
Yvonne B has explained why.It’s basically because it is in the hands of the States rather than private enterprise who would have had it sorted out two years ago …. or would have gone bust
Report abuse
You now ‘totally agree’ but previously stated that these same people living in shared accommodation are ‘happy to burden’ the island with their rubbish? What pomposity and these few words seem to sum up your attitude towards anyone who cannot aspire to your green credentials.
By the way I suspect there are affluent people living in their large houses who don’t give two hoots about recycling.
Report abuse
IWV. I appreciate how you feel Ray… believe you me, you are not the only one! I do feel tho’ that not recycling is a wasted demonstration because it will go unnoticed by those you are trying to make the point to. Far better would be to badger the department with repeated letters making whatever point it is you want to make. Being a thorn in their side will make your ‘protest’ far more visible and therefore a better chance of being effective.
Dave. I am sure that there are some affluent people who don’t give a toss about recycling and since they would presumedly fall into the ‘won’t’ or ‘can’t be bothered’ category, my comment would have been even better pointed at them… fair comment. Not so easy to find them tho’ without rummaging in their bins whereas I commented on what ‘I knew’ because its so visible since it is all over the road most days. Like it or not, a high recycling target is supposedly what we are aiming for…. it is how we are going to deal with our waste and so we are going to have to find ways of getting the message out to those who are, for whatever reason, not responding to the message.
Report abuse
Maybe it’s time for this video to get another airing?
http://www.storyofstuff.org/movies-all/story-of-stuff/
(sorry local retailers!)
Report abuse
There are private companies out there that already recycle upto 70% of all materials brought into them. I would also bet that they offer a reasonable price for doing so!
Report abuse
All these people who don’t have space to store recyclables ( and so can’t recycle )….
Where do they store their rubbish (including recyclables ) now ?
Report abuse
As the article made clear the main concern of the Deputies interviewed was transparency regarding costs. One of the justifications for spending £millions abandoning our last waste strategy was the promise of a cheaper alternative, part of which would be the kerbside collection of recyclables. As a check the States resolved that a business case for kerbside collections was to be submitted to and approved by T&R before funding was released.
The business case is straightforward and must depend upon the capital and operating costs of the kerbside collections being offset by savings relating to;
a. a reduction in the costs of running the bring banks,
b. a reduction in the frequency of residual waste collections, and
c. the treatment cost of the material being lower than if it was residual waste.
It is the current progress on these figures that is of interest not only to Deputies and Douzeniers but to many islanders.
Report abuse
And who promised that the alternative would be cheaper?
Report abuse
Many of those promoting the idea of abandoning a 50% recycling rate plus incineration in favour of a 70% recycling rate. They may be right but the comparative costs have not been stated clearly. An estimate for the weekly island-wide kerbside collection of recyclables, necessary to achieve the 70%, was £1,685,000 pa (p.586,Billet IV 2012). Offsetting such a cost by savings elsewhere in the strategy is not straightforward. Cost is not the only factor in choosing a waste strategy but it is one of the factors.
Report abuse
There are black plastics going into general waste that were previously recycled, this appears to be a regressive step.
You do not need to have loads of bins to recycle, I dont have a garage or driveway, just a small amount of room in a cupboard under the stairs which I have a plastic draw unit that does paper, cardboard, plastics, bottles and cans and milk cartons. There is me and my partner and we go to the recycle bank about once a month.
Report abuse
I agree – they should stockpile it until a sensible solution is found for it. Just because it costs more to send it away now doesn’t mean it won’t in the future, and it may be that the cost of stockpiling it is cheaper than landfilling in the long term.
Report abuse
@Devil
I asked that question of the recylcing lady when she was there at the bring banks at Waitrose a few weeks ago. The answer is it currently would appear that a ‘sensible solution’ for black plastic may be some years off, because it is down to retailers and the packaging industry to come up with a ‘commercially viable’ alternative. I suspect Rosie may have the space to stockpile stuff for that long (sorry, everyone else seems to be having a go so what the heck!), but I doubt many others of us would.
In the meantime, the ‘sensible solution’ which you seek is in your hands already. Stop buying it. It is your choices that influence retailers.
Report abuse