Energy from Waste facility: rescindment (P.8/2009) – addendum.

STATES OF JERSEY

ENERGY FROM WASTE FACILITY: RESCINDMENT (P.8/2009) – ADDENDUM

Presented to the States on 3rd February 2009 by the Deputy of St. Mary

STATES GREFFE

ADDITIONAL REPORT ON PROPOSITION P.8/2009 CONTENTS

1. I N T RODUCTION
2. C I R CUMSTANCESHAVERADICALLYCHANGED
   1. T H E CREDITCRUNCHANDTHEGLOBALECONOMY
   2. S U STAINABILITY
   3. C L IMATECHANGE
   4. P O LICIESONWASTEELSEWHERE
   5. T H E POLITICALCLIMATEHASCHANGED
3. P U BLIC ATTITUDESANDBEHAVIOURHAVECHANGED
   1. IN TRODUCTION
   2. C H ANGEINATTITUDES
   3. C H ANGEINBEHAVIOUR
   4. T H E STATESANDPUBLICOPINION
4. T H E DECISIONWASTAKENONPOORORMISLEADINGINFORMATION
   1. T H E WASTEARISINGSMODEL
5. T H E PROCESSESLEADINGTOTHEDECISIONWEREFLAWED
   1. F A ILURETO LISTEN ONTHEPARTOFTTS
   2. F A ILURETOCONDUCTANADEQUATE EIA
   3. C O MPLETEEXCLUSIONOFRAMSARFROMTHEPROCESS
6. T H E DECISIONISSIGNIFICANTENOUGHTOMERITREVIEW
   1. IM PACTONHEALTH
   2. IM PACTONRAMSAR
   3. IM PACTONINTERNATIONALREPUTATION
   4. IM PACTONLANDVALUE
   5. IM PACTONWASTEPOLICY
   6. IN FLEXIBILITY
   7. T H E INCINERATORPRE-EMPTSCREATIVITY
   8. T H E INCINERATORHASDEMANDSTHATMUSTBESATISFIED
   9. T H E INCINERATORHAS A LARGEELEMENTOFRISK
   10. T HEINCINERATORDAMAGESSUSTAINABILITYEFFORTS
7. T H E ALTERNATIVESOLUTION
   1. O U TLINE
   2. P A RISHESANDCOMMUNITY
   3. F IN ANCIALINCENTIVESANDDISINCENTIVES
   4. M A KINGMONEYFROMWASTE,NOTTHERATES
8. C O STS

Abbreviations used in this report:

EEA  E uropean Environment Agency

EIA E nvironmental Impact Assessment

EIS E n vironmental Impact Statement

RW R ecycling Waste – Report of the Environment Scrutiny Panel, July 2007 SOS  S ave our Shoreline

SP S tr ategic Plan 2006–2011

SWS  S olid Waste Strategy 2005 PsD

INTRODUCTION

On seeing the title of this proposition, members of the old Assembly may feel an understandable reluctance to "go there again". However, reviewing policies, frameworks, service delivery, legislation is our bread and butter as parliamentarians – that is what we have been elected to do.

It is our job as States members to struggle with these knotty questions in order to arrive at the best decisions. How else can things be improved to the benefit of all Islanders, whether it be Income Support or the shape of our education system, or in the case of this proposition, our approach to the question of reducing, re-using and recycling our waste?

When should something be looked at again?

I believe that the following conditions for a review of a decision all exist in this case. Therefore to look again is not vexatious or frivolous but necessary –

• When circumstances have radically changed

• When public attitudes or perceptions have radically changed

• When the previous decision was taken on poor or misleading information

• When the process leading to the decision was flawed

• When the decision in question is significant enough to merit the effort involved in looking at it again.

There is no virtue in sticking with a mistake, if that is what it was. There is every virtue in having the courage to re-visit and, if necessary, cancel a decision in order to set off in a different direction if that is the right thing to do.

WHEN CIRCUMSTANCES HAVE RADICALLY CHANGED

The SWS, a policy of which the incinerator was an integral part, was put forward and adopted by the States, in 2005. Few would deny that circumstances have radically changed since that time. This report looks at 4 major aspects of our changing world.

THE CREDIT CRUNCH AND THE GLOBAL ECONOMY

The scale of what we are witnessing is vast and unprecedented. We may have "got used to it", but that does not alter the scale and the implications of what has happened and is still to happen. Below is a list of names to jog memories and remind us of just what is going on:

Bear Stearns, BNP Paribas, Northern Rock, Merryll Lynch, RBS, Barclays, FTSE 100 down 7 weeks straight, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Lehman Brothers, Washington Mutual

And of course it's still carrying on. The winds of recession are already buffeting Jersey: the close of the Heathrow link, Woolworths, Barrett's, Mercury, Barclays and more to come.

The effects of the credit crunch are very real and this will have an immediate impact on the need for an incinerator. People will cut their spending. There will be less consumption and therefore less waste.

The question then is: is this change permanent? How big and how far-reaching is the change we are experiencing?

In the Financial Times of 7th January 2009, Martin Wolf (associate editor and chief economics commentator of the FT) writes: "We are in the grip of the most significant global financial crisis for seven decades".

Citing the work of researchers Carmen Reinhart of Maryland University and Kenneth Rogoff of Harvard: he writes: "They note the similarities among big financial crises in advanced and emerging countries and, by combining a number of severe cases, reach disturbing conclusions. Banking crises are protracted, they note, with output declining, on average, for two years. Asset market collapses are deep with real house prices falling, again on average, by 35% over six years and equity declining by 55% over three and a half years. The rate of unemployment rises, on average by seven percentage points over four years while output falls by nine percent.[1]

Mervyn King, the Governor of the Bank of England, speaking in front of a VIP gathering in London last week and in front of the TV cameras, said of the crisis that conventional methods no longer work and so "we have to use unconventional methods". In other words, according to the top banker in the country, we are somewhere we have never been before.

Paul Krugman, the USA's most influential economist, regular columnist in the New York Times, and winner of the Nobel Prize for economics in 2008 said in a TV interview, on Channel 4, in October, that the recession (in the USA) would last 3 years.

And there are plenty of people from all parts of the political spectrum who say that there is more to come (see Appendix 1).

There is also a view that, were there to be a recovery in the conventional sense of rising production of goods and rising consumption, then the price of oil would immediately rise due to scarcity. This would stop any recovery of that kind (see Appendix  2 for up-to-the-minute analysis from top oil analysis site the Oil Drum).

The Assembly would be wise to look for, in these uncertain times, a solution that is flexible and adaptable. These are not qualities you can honestly associate with a £100,000,000 incinerator.

SUSTAINABILITY

Since 2005 knowledge and awareness of the issues around sustainability, growth and well-being has grown

rapidly. The Sustainable Development Commission was set up in 2000 and expanded in 2006[2] to advise the British government in this area. The New Economics Foundation began work in 1986 and now conducts research

and programmes in a wide range of related fields around sustainability, well-being and green economics,[3] for example the Happiness Index which received extensive media coverage recently.

"Consumption of resources is rising rapidly, biodiversity is plummeting and just about every measure shows humans affecting earth on a vast scale. Most of us accept a need for a more sustainable way to live by reducing carbon emissions, developing renewable technology and increasing energy efficiency." So wrote the New Scientist opinion piece in the Special Issue on "The Folly of Growth" sent recently to all States members. The graphs are shown on page 40 and 41 and demonstrate how impossible it is for consumption to continue on its present upward path.

As US economist Kenneth Boulding said: "Anyone who believes that growth can continue forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist". We have to transition away from an economy where we take inputs from the planet, process them and throw them away to an economic model where the resources go round and round. The inevitable waste that occurs has to be "within the regenerative and assimilative capacities of the eco-

system" (Herman Daly[4]).

The new Welsh Minister for the Environment said this recently in an interview: "Each of the individual agendas should not be treated as individual – waste, planning, energy, recycling, contributing to the quality of the environment and contributing to our overall approach to sustainable development."

Sustainability is living in a way which does not compromise the needs of future generations. High level policy in Jersey has recognised the importance of sustainability for some time. It is, quite rightly, enshrined in the Strategic Plan 2006-2011, which has as the second bullet point in the VISION on the first page:

"People living here enjoy a good standard of living based on a strong environmentally sustainable and prosperous economy".

This aspect of the vision is spelt out on page 14, commitment 1, Para.  1.1:

"S  h o w the world that economic and environmental success can work together, indicated by:

• A reduction in per capita consumption of resources

• Targets and timescales for reductions in per capita waste arisings that reflect best practice globally."

The Solid Waste Strategy says (p.32) "Sustainability is a critical underpinning principle for the island". However, the Solid Waste Strategy does not follow this through by taking into account the embodied energy in all waste, i.e. the energy consumed in the making of that product in the first place. To be fair, research into the global warming impacts of different ways of dealing with our waste was not so widespread and mature as it is now. This research is cited in the next section.

This rescindment proposition is in line with the sensible and forward-looking goals stated in the Strategic Plan above. The incineration solution is incompatible with them. It presupposes that we will fail to reach our own goals as it is based on the assumption of ever-increasing waste per head.

CLIMATE CHANGE

The need to tackle climate change is now accepted by virtually all decision-makers – they argue only over how to achieve the necessary reductions in carbon emissions. A new round of negotiations to replace the Kyoto treaty is

currently under way and Jersey is signed up to comply with global targets.[5]

In contrast to this accepted need to tackle climate change, the Solid Waste Strategy back in 2005 did not consider carbon emissions as a relevant strategic factor. It was not on the radar at that time. For example SWS, in its discussion of paper and card, makes no mention of the embodied energy in these materials, and there are no references to life-cycle research on global warming impacts of different approaches to dealing with waste.

With respect to glass the Solid Waste Strategy states –

" th e main benefits of re-cycling glass are from reduced energy consumption compared to manufacture from virgin materials."

Yet, 4 paragraphs later, SWS states –

" H i st orically, glass bottles were often collected, washed and re-used. Advances in technology have made manufacture a cheaper option, or led to a switch to alternative packaging materials"[6]

This may be true for 2005 but fails to consider trends for the 25-year period of the strategy.[7] Climate change and the absolute need to reduce energy consumption and cut carbon emissions was not a priority in 2005.

By contrast the Scrutiny Panel, in WR 2007 says –

" F r o m a global perspective, it is also important to limit carbon emissions. Recycling materials as an alternative to incineration makes substantial carbon savings"[8]

And the Scrutiny Panel, just 2 years after SWS, had both climate change and sustainability firmly in view –

" T a k ing value from the waste stream by re-cycling individual elements or mixed components has many benefits.

• It reduces the use of raw materials

• It saves energy

• It reduces polluting industrial processes

• It treats waste as a resource rather than a problem"[9]

They continue –

" T h e advantages of recycling need to be considered within the life cycle of a product. Raw materials are used to produce products, which are transported to consumers and then purchased. The consumer may discard the product, which will then be collected and either recycled or disposed of. Environmental and financial costs accrue at each stage of this process and a full impact of recycling and disposal needs to be

measured against the full life cycle."[10]

The global warming impacts of recycling versus other routes are now a major research and policy area within DEFRA. Jersey should take this new approach on board if we are to as environmentally responsible as we claim to be.

It is sometimes said that it is "not worth" recycling, as it takes more in carbon to move the materials around than you save. Members may have seen a recent front page story in the Telegraph, a story which the Mail also ran, quoting Peter Jones of Biffa Ltd. (a major firm in the recycling world) as saying just that. In fact he was angry

that he had been misquoted, and WRAP (Waste Resources and Action Programme[11]) issued a press release calling the story "misleading and inaccurate".[12]

In order to cast light on the debate and to see "who was right" WRAP had long before commissioned a major review of Life Cycle Analysis research from all over Europe.

The conclusion of the 253 page report was –

"T h e results are clear. Across the board, most studies show that recycling offers more

environmental benefits and lower environmental impacts than other waste management options. Further analysis by WRAP of the research findings has provided an assessment of the relative greenhouse gas savings associated with current UK levels of recycling for paper/cardboard, glass, plastics, aluminium and steel. Again, the results are clear and positive. The UK's current recycling of those materials saves between 10-15 million tonnes of CO2 equivalents per year compared to applying the current mix of landfill and incineration with energy recovery to the same materials.

T h i s is equivalent to about 10% of the annual CO2 emissions from the transport sector, and equates

to taking 3.5  million cars off UK roads."[13]

POLICIES ON WASTE ELSEWHERE

In line with all the above considerations of sustainability and climate change and in line with public opinion (see next section) policies on waste in neighbouring jurisdictions are rapidly evolving.

In December 2006, UK Environment Minister Ben Bradshaw said this –

" T h i s is a fantastic achievement by householders and local authorities. Recycling is a vital part of our battle against dangerous climate change. The emission saved by current levels of recycling is the equivalent of taking 3.5 million cars off our roads. But performance is still far too patchy with some local

authorities recycling more than 50% and some still down in the low teens."[14] In SWS we read –[15]

"U  K  Waste Strategy 2000

T h e UK published this strategy with the aim of setting targets for recycling and composting.these

targets provide benchmark levels to which Jersey can strive.'' (My emphasis)."

Here are the UK 2000 targets for recycling or composting "to which Jersey can strive" –

Year Target 2006 25% 2010 30% 2015 33%

These targets have now been revised (2007) to look like this –

Year Target 2010 40% 2015 45% 2020 50%

The sense of urgency, of the need for rapid progress in this area, can be read from these figures. We should be sharing in that outlook. However Scotland and Wales are progressing even faster.

In Scotland

"Plans for a zero waste Scotland, including tough new targets to increase recycling and reduce landfill, were outlined today. (24/01/2008)

"In a statement to Parliament, as well as announcing that £7.5  million is to be invested in community recycling projects over the next three years, Environment Secretary Richard Lochhead proposed to consult on new targets including:

the amount of municipal waste being recycled or composted is to be increased to 60 per cent by 2020 and a new target of 70 per cent by 2025

landfill from municipal waste is to be reduced to five per cent by 2025; and -no more than 25 per cent of municipal waste is to be used to generate energy by 2025 and large, inefficient incinerators are to be rejected; and -keeping the existing challenging target of stopping the growth in municipal waste by 2010"

The underlying thinking behind the new policy initiative was stated by the Environment Secretary Mr. Lochhead as follows:

"Dealing with waste sustainably is fundamental to the future of Scotland and the future of the planet. Our performance on waste has improved considerably in recent months with notable progress on recycling and reducing the amount of waste going to landfill.

"However, there is much more we need to do if we are to truly make a difference locally and globally and today we are setting out our new waste policy to make Scotland greener and a world-leader on waste management.

"I am determined to increase the focus on waste prevention and am committed to the existing challenging target of stopping the growth in municipal waste by 2010. Householders can play a part by home composting, rejecting junk mail, re-using carrier bags and avoiding food waste.

"Retailers also have key responsibilities in this area such as reducing packaging, working with Government on reducing the unnecessary use of plastic bags and encouraging their suppliers to prepare products which minimise waste and can be recycled."

And:

"But individuals can only do so much. Businesses must also give greater consideration to the impact of their actions and I want to see a much bigger focus on reducing commercial and industrial waste.

"I also acknowledge that there is a role for energy from waste that is compatible with sustainable development, as well as our energy and climate change policies. However, the Government is rejecting the need for large, inefficient, 'white elephant' incinerators."

And:

"As part of that process I am setting up a new Zero Waste Think Tank to ensure that Scotland benefits from the best possible expertise as we move towards a zero waste society."

The new targets for Scotland are –

Percentage of municipal waste being recycled or composted –

Year

2010 40 2013 50 2020 60 2025 70[16]

Compare Jersey's targets:

2010 33.4 2013 35.2 2020 36.3 2025 36.4[17]

And in Wales

The current recycling targets (in Wales) were:

• 15%  combined  recycling  and  composting  by  2003/04  with  a  minimum  of  5%  each  of  recycling  and composting.

• 25% combined recycling and composting by 2006/07 with a minimum of 10% each of recycling and composting.

• 40% combined recycling and composting by 2009/10 with a minimum of 15% each of recycling and composting.

Now, active consideration is being given to a 70% recycling target. The lead paragraphs of a news story in www.letsrecycle.com state –

"11-07-2008

Plans for a 70% recycling target in Wales by 2025 are "not too ambitious" and will get the country talking about recycling, the Welsh environment minister has claimed, writes Caelia Quinault.

"F o r me it's about how we deliver all our policies under the umbrella of sustainability and create virtuous circles"

Jane Davidson, Minister for the Environment.

Speaking exclusively to letsrecycle.com this week about her plans for the revised waste strategy for Wales, which is due to be  published in 2009, minister Jane Davidson said that other countries throughout Europe – such as Italy, Germany and France – were already reaching the recycling level.

And,  she  explained  that  Welsh  councils  had  already  shown  strong  support  for  the  measure  at  meetings

foreshadowing an official consultation on the draft strategy in the autumn.

She said: "I've been having consultations with local authorities about my proposals for 70% recycling and I have to say that local authorities have come up trumps in terms of the political support for a major reuse and recycling agenda."

"I don't believe that 70% is too ambitious. I'm not about to revise it upwards – I think it is ambitious enough – but I think it is right that we are ambitious about it because I want people to talk about it," she added

She also said: "We are absolutely opposed to mass burn incineration and we are looking at all the issues at the moment for our policy document in the autumn."[18]

Already back in 2007 the Environment Scrutiny Panel were pointing out the awkward gap between Jersey's words and Jersey's deeds, in the shape of TTS predictions –

"6.7.8 Jersey

From a political standpoint, the Strategic Plan 2006-2011 sets an ambitious target in this area with the commitment

"1.1 S how the world that economic and environmental success can work together – indicated by:

• a reduction in per-capita consumption of resources

• targets and  timescales for reductions in per-capita waste arisings  that reflect best practice globally"

6.7.9  S ince the publication of the Strategic Plan , T&TS have not provided any indication of .the policies that will be adopted to achieve this commitment. T&TS have not adjusted their waste arising projections to take

account of the reduction in future years"[19]

Packaging waste

The picture regarding packaging waste is changing also right across the EU –

" T h e target of 25% recycling of all packaging materials in 2001 (in the EU) was achieved by a good margin in virtually all countries. Seven Member States already comply with the overall recycling target for 2008, when not taking into account wood packaging, which has been added as a new category to the recycling targets by the amended Packaging and Waste Packaging Directive (2004/12/EC) (see Table  1). The total EU-15 recycling rate increased from 45 % in 1997 to 56 % in 2004.

Fig. 5: Treatment of packaging waste (Ver. 2.00)

As with consumption of packaging per capita, the total recycling rate in the Member States in 2004 varied greatly, from 22% in Cyprus to 76 % in Belgium."[20]

All targets are steadily moving upwards in response to the environmental imperatives of sustainability (not wasting resources + avoiding polluting processes) and climate change (carbon benefit of recycling over producing from new).

In the light of the above, how are we to explain Jersey's target of 36% to be reached by 2018? Is TTS saying that the  folk  of  Jersey  cannot  or  will  not  co-operate?  Or  that  the  parishes  are  incapable  of  achieving  any improvements?

THE POLITICAL CLIMATE HAS CHANGED

There are fourteen new faces in the Chamber. The new Chief Minister, in his statement to the House, during the election for that post, promised repeatedly "open and inclusive government". "I remain a strong believer in consensus government". "I  am conscious of the  fact that,  as a government, we have lost touch  with some Islanders".

At the hustings, candidate after candidate repeated that they would "control population" in the face of obvious public concern on this issue. If they meant what they said, and one can only assume that they did, this has an immediate impact on the assumptions built into the model. (For discussion of the model see below )

At Imagine Jersey 2035 and in the survey which reached and was completed by for more people than attended the one day event, Jersey residents once again stated that they did not want to see the population rise.

On recycling, this is what some candidates at the Senatorial elections wrote in response to the J.E.P.'s questions on this issue –

Geoff Southern : "We could become a leader in this field and given the problems we continue to have with waste, targets should be high – around the 60% mark".

Ian Le Marquand: "In the U.K. the current targets are 40% by 2010 and 50% by 2020... I favour the States target 36% [by 2018] being brought forward to 2012 with the situation then being reviewed".

Philip Ozouf : "Parishioners have shown that they want to recycle and I believe the household target should be set at a minimum of 50%".

Alan Maclean: "I would set a minimum target of 50% rising to 70% within five years".[21]

The political wind is blowing one way on what our recycling rate should be. Will the Assembly accept that the world of waste has changed?

WHEN PUBLIC ATTITUDES AND BEHAVIOUR HAVE CHANGED

Introduction

The last 3  years have also seen a radical shift in the attitudes and behaviour of the general public.

For some this is a conscious and specific response to the issues of sustainability and climate change. They know that they must take action now if they and their children and the rest of society are going to be able to enjoy life and enjoy the planet in the future.

For others, it is more of a gut response along the lines of "it can't be right to burn all that stuff." Gut reactions are very revealing and should be paid attention to. In this case, the gut reaction is spot on for 2  reasons. Firstly, wasting resources is not right. It damages the environment for the reasons given by the Scrutiny Panel and the gut reaction is simply sensing that this is so. Secondly, there are serious health issues around incineration and the public can sense that too. This report deals with the health effects of incineration below in the section IMPACT ON HEALTH.

Change in attitudes

JASS 2008 looked at Jersey residents' willingness to recycle. The results are set out in the table below –

Table 11.2 W  o uld you recycle any of these items if they were collected from your doorstep? (percentages)

Type of recycle All Most Some None Don't Total product know

Newspapers & 87 9 2 2 1 100 magazines

Other paper & 83 10 3 2 2 100 cardboard

Glass bottles & jars 90 6 1 1 1 100 Cans 85 8 2 3 2 100 Plastic 83 8 4 3 2 100 Clothes/textiles 81 8 5 4 3 100 Batteries 84 7 2 3 3 100

The results are startling and completely at odds with what TTS are assuming when they make their model on which the case for the incinerator is built.

It is worth pointing out that the Scrutiny Panel, writing in 2007, had already made this point about the public's willingness to participate in recycling (section  10.5). TTS unwillingness to listen to what Scrutiny were saying on this and other issues is discussed in the next chapter.

Change in behaviour

When considering these stated good intentions with a view to framing policy there is always the question: are they just froth? Are they a guide to what people would actually do? It would indeed be disappointing, and a blow to the case for rescindment, if they were just froth. But in this case it can be shown that behaviour is likely to follow intention.

Bus ridership

With no marketing or promotion to speak of, bus usage has risen year on year for the last 3  years: 4% in 2005, 7% in 2006 11% in 2007.

The new bus station has undoubtedly improved the experience of bus travel and has demonstrated, to some extent, the Island's commitment to the buses, but cannot explain the increase. The increase was under way before the new bus station existed. In addition, the conditions on peak hour buses have to be endured, not enjoyed; yet, in spite of this, people are increasingly using them.

Plastic bags

After 2  years of persistent and determined awareness-raising by the W.I. and then some promotional work by the Jersey One World in the form of a "beautiful bags" competition and a film showing of BBC documentary "Message in the Waves", the major supermarkets, prodded by the Minister for Planning and Environment, finally agreed to charge for all bags.

The public accepted this charge, virtually completely without protest, and the use of one-trip plastic bags has tumbled. You only have to think back 5  years to realise how big this change is. In JASS 2008 we read –

" T h e proportion of people who always reused carrier bags has increased significantly since 2006, from two-thirds (65%) to four-fifths (80%)."[22]

Recycling trial – Havre des Pas

Finally, as evidence of the shift in public behaviour, the Havre des Pas "zero waste trial" in 2006 achieved a participation rate of 80% and a separation rate of 57.16% from a standing start.[23]

The States and public opinion

The States risks alienating public opinion on this issue. There is a place, sometimes, for the government to resist the public's inclinations, but any such case has to be carefully justified. In this case the instincts of the public, their desire to increase recycling, and their willingness to participate should emphatically not be resisted by government.

Rather  than  resisting  the  good  intentions  of  the  public,  we  should  be  enabling  good  intentions  to  express themselves. The incinerator is a barrier to any ambitious drive to separate, reuse and recycle our waste.

DECISIONS TAKEN ON POOR OR MISLEADING INFORMATION

The two key documents in this matter of the incinerator are the waste arisings model and the EIA. If these are flawed or inadequate then the House is not in a position to take a well-informed decision.

The waste arisings model

The waste arisings model is the key document which predicts the amount of waste TTS expect to have to deal with, in all the various categories, for the Plan period (up to 2035).

This is the document which was listed by Scrutiny's consultants Juniper in their report as not having been made available to them – which is extraordinary as it is THE key document. The figure that emerges in 2035 as the "residual waste" determines the size of whatever solution is to be adopted, in TTS' case, an incinerator.

The 3 key assumptions are – Population growth:

They follow the +250 heads of household scenario which was one of the scenarios presented to Imagine Jersey 2035. This figure has never been debated in the House, and it would lead to an increase in the Island's population

of around 11,000. But the model leaves the problem of housing all these people to others.[24] Increase in waste arisings per household

This is assumed to be 0.9% per year for the entire period of the Plan. The increase is frankly incredible. Compare this assumption, which leads to a waste increase of 27% by 2035 to this statement in the Introduction to SWS (page 16) –

" T h i s  Strategy  describes  initiatives  which  the  Committee  will  undertake  to  change  everybody's

perceptions of waste and our society's attitude to creating it. If we do not move from a throwaway' culture, we will ultimately submerge in the resultant rubbish."

How this assumption arose will be dealt with in a detailed analysis of the Model which members will have before the debate.

The increase is in total contrast not only to aspirations and targets elsewhere, it does not even reflect what is happening now and over the last 5 years in England –

Chart taken from: http://www.defra.gov.uk/news/2008/081106a.htm Ref: 352/08 6th November 2008

MUNICIPAL WASTE MANAGEMENT STATISTICS 2007/08 Defra

The chart below shows the changes in household waste and recycling per capita.

Assumptions around the number of households and waste per household Will be covered in my detailed report on the Model.

Recycling rate

TTS's assumption is that Jersey will manage to achieve 36% by 2018 and thereafter the rate will not increase for the rest of the period up until 2035.

As we have seen above, this is flatly against –

• States' own declared high level policy and goals

• TTS own departmental policy and goals

• The desires of the public

• Policy and goals in neighbouring jurisdictions

Where did 36% by 2018 come from?

We have done work on the effect of different assumptions and this will be released as part of the detailed study of the Model.

The EIA

The process of the EIA was so flawed as to deny members of this House the information needed. Especially, but not only, with respect to Ramsar: the people who were most well-informed and most concerned to protect Jersey's wonderful coastline were ignored. This is the exact opposite of what a correctly run EIA should do which is to involve stakeholders in an iterative process of scoping and review.

That way nothing gets missed, and everything that should be challenged is challenged. That way leads to results which are as robust and safe as possible.

The next chapter covers this aspect in detail.

THE PROCESSES LEADING TO THE DECISION WERE FLAWED They were flawed and for 3 principal reasons:

failure to be open and listen on the part of the TTS

Failure to conduct an adequate EIA

Complete exclusion of Ramsar from the process.

This report does not try to personalise the issue. The failure is systemic and the evidence is that comments, criticisms and offers made in good faith are ignored, and that real discussion about issues is somehow sidelined or avoided

FAILURE TO LISTEN ON THE PART OF TTS

There are 3 instances of this failure which I will cover in this report:

• The scrutiny Report "Waste Recycling"

• The technology review

• Total waste

The scrutiny Report "Waste Recycling" WR states (paragraph 1.3.1, page 3)

" C u r rent UK recycling rates are still low in comparison to many European countries. The Jersey target of 32% to be achieved during the 25 year strategy period is now well below that of the UK. Indeed, some UK local authorities have already exceeded the 50% target, set for 2020. In order to maintain Jersey's international reputation, environmental policies, including recycling, need to be in line with best accepted practise".

TTS raised the target to reach 36% recycling by 2018; this is 4% less than the UK target for 2010, 9% below the

UK target for 2015, and 14% below the UK target for 2020. Wales and Scotland are adopting higher targets still. WR states (paragraph 1.5.1, page 4)

" 1 7 % of household waste is food waste. Keeping this separate from other waste reduces contamination leaving cleaner, dry recyclable materials available for easier separation and collection. The St Helier zero waste trial confirmed that the public are willing to separate food waste and that it is feasible to collect it separately."

Nothing done: TTS kept to their line that: (a) the land bank was not sufficient in Jersey to accept the resultant compost, and (b) the supermarket protocols would not permit the spreading of such compost on potato land.

Did TTS look at trends in this area? Or alternative ways of dealing with the digestate until it is permitted for use on land? This is an another area where rapid change is likely due to concerns about sustainability, the price and availability of agrochemicals into the future, and the absolute priority which must be given to maintaining the fertility of our soils.

WR states (paragraph 1.6.1, page 5):

" R e c ycling is now part of mainstream politics and has a high profile at all levels. There is a keen interest amongst the Jersey public and an overall desire to undertake more recycling than is currently being done."

Since that was written, the recycling bank network has been extended, I suspect, and the St.  John's separation scheme launched. But the recycling rate, one of the key assumptions built into the waste model, was raised just 4% from a 32% target in 2009 to 36% by 2018.

The technology review

The Babtie-Fichtner Technology Review 2008 was issued to all States members as part of P.72/2008. This review applied a criterion to all the technological plants reviewed which effectively excluded everything bar incinerators: "A key factor in determining the sustainability of facilities has been the ability of the proposed process to deal with the whole waste stream."

Where does this criterion come from? Two observations need to be made; firstly, P.72/2008 refers (Executive Summary, bullet point 5, page 3) to "the pre-qualification criteria (sic) set by the then Environmental & Public Services Committee that companies must have at least two reference plants operating on a commercial basis for at least two years."

But further on in P.72/2008 we come to this additional criterion, which is not stated to have been agreed by the committee, so maybe it was and maybe it wasn't. In the section "Related requirements of P.95/2005'', at paragraph 3.3, page 6, we read "The environmental performance, complexity and energy efficiency of the technology was considered. Finally, whether each technology offered was capable of dealing with the whole of Jersey's waste stream or produced any residual waste stream that required further treatment and/or disposal." (my emphasis)

And so, for example, an Anaerobic Digestion system (BTA), with 20 reference plants, is dismissed in the following comment: "The technology is not considered suitable for Jersey because it is only suitable for processing the organic fraction of municipal waste and would therefore require upstream mechanical separation plant. Non-organic waste would require another disposal route" (SWS Technology Review 2008, page 63).

The solution proposed by Total Waste for Jersey consists of multiple pieces of hardware, each dealing with one element of the waste stream: a crumbing machine for tyres, a film and board separator for juice and milk cartons, and so on. Why was any such multi-plant system ruled out of court by TTS?

Total waste

Steve Le Cheminant wrote to Will Gardiner on 27/09/07 offering a total solution to waste collection and recycling for Jersey. The proposal listed an array of recycling equipment, each capable of dealing with one element of the waste stream: plastics, tyres, food waste, glass, UBCs (Used beverage Containers) electric cable, plasterboard, fluorescent tubes, etc. Mr. Le Cheminant made it clear that he was flexible and would work in with, e.g., collection systems as they stood: "if any of our services suit your intentions that would give us a starting point."

The reply was dismissive: TTS run everything in house, we have a waste to energy plant, and "we short listed four companies to submit tenders for a design and build contract in December 2006." For full text of Mr. Le Cheminant's letter and TTS reply, see Appendix  3.

Yet in P.72/2008 we read –

" A ro bust procurement process has been followed for the proposed facility. Initial expressions of interest were  invited  from  all  potential  waste  technology  providers.  The  9  respondents  were  short-listed  to 4  companies who were invited to tender in November 2007. Three bids were received at the end of February 2008".

Failure to conduct an adequate EIA Two differing views of what an EIA is

The EIA, according to the Environment Director, is the overall process by which the Planning and Environmental Department assesses a project for its environmental impact. Prior to the applicant, in this case the TTS, writing, or commissioning consultants to write, an EIS (often shortened to ES), the Planning and Environment Department are responsible for scoping the EIS. Scoping should involve stake-holders, and it identifies all relevant issues to be covered by the EIS. The EIS is then written addressing all the issues raised, and this is scrutinised again by Planning. The whole process is described in an EU. Directive, which I understand to be accepted as guidance by

the Planning Department, it may even have legal force.[25]

Now consider what TTS write in P.72/2008, page 8, describing the same process

"5.1 F ollowing approval by the States of the La Collette reclamation site for the replacement of the Bellozanne

incinerator in 2006, Transport and Technical Services undertook a full Environmental Impact Assessment for the proposed facility. A short-list of 4 companies and 2 reserves had been agreed, all of which could be defined under the collective term "Energy from Waste", but which included a gasification technology solution in addition to conventional incinerators. As a result the proposed solution was confirmed as being an "Energy from Waste" technology type from this time.

5.2 T h e Environmental Impact Assessment was summarised within an "Environmental Statement" which formed part of an Outline Planning Application submission by Transport and Technical Services in January 2007. The Environmental Impact Assessment concluded that the proposed Energy from Waste facility would result in a considerable improvement in air quality for the Island. The only significant impact from the facility was determined to be the visual impact. The Outline Planning Application was the subject of a full public consultation process by the Planning Department and the Transport and Technical  Services  Department  also  organised  its  own  public  awareness  as  part  of  the  application process."

There is something wrong here – TTS think it is they who run the EIA process, they "undertake the EIA" and it is "summarised within an EIS" whereas in fact it is Planning and Environment that create and carry out the EIA in a regulatory role.  Perhaps regulator and applicant came too close? And perhaps this explains the disastrous failure of the process in this case?

The actual content of the EIS and the conduct of the EIA

Chris  McCarthy,  co-director  of  Battle  McCarthy – a  consulting,  engineering  and  design  company,  with  an