Funding Waste Recycling - Report - 03 December 2009

Environment Scrutiny Panel

Funding Waste Recycling

Presented to the States on 3rd December 2009

S.R. 12/2009

 Contents

1. Introduction....................................................................................................... 2
2. Terms of Reference.......................................................................................... 5
3. Panel membership............................................................................................ 5
4. Methodology..................................................................................................... 6
5. Recommendations............................................................................................ 7
6. Allocation of additional £0.5m funding in 2009 ................................................. 9
7. Collection systems.......................................................................................... 11

1. Bring Banks'................................................................................................... 11
2. Reuse and Recycling Centre.......................................................................... 13
3. Island wide Kerbside Collection Schemes...................................................... 14

8. Waste recycling streams................................................................................. 16

1. Paper and card:.............................................................................................. 16
2. Fridge recycling .............................................................................................. 19
3. Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) ...................................... 20
4. Home composting........................................................................................... 23
5. Waste Demolition Timber ............................................................................... 24
6. End of Life Vehicle Recycling......................................................................... 26
7. Cooking oils.................................................................................................... 27
8. Green Waste Recycling.................................................................................. 28
9. Waste Prevention, Education and Awareness Raising................................... 34 Appendix 1 - Waste Team Submission to the Environment Panel ............................ 36 Appendix 2 - Kerbside Collection Scheme - Responses from Parishes.................... 46

1. Introduction

In the 2010 Budget the States will be asked to approve new taxation measures which will be applied to the support of environmental initiatives, including home insulation grants, waste recycling and sustainable transport options.

Members of the Environment Panel felt that was particularly appropriate to investigate the funding requirements for waste recycling as it has been made it clear in successive Business Plan statements that funding for waste recycling was a serious problem for the Transport and Technical Services department and that without additional funding some recycling initiatives might have to be curtailed.

The other environmental initiatives will be examined by the Panel in due course. The draft Sustainable Transport Policy is currently subject to public consultation and the Panel will therefore look more closely at the proposed funding of transport initiatives at a later date. Meanwhile the Energy Efficiency Programme launched by the Planning and Environment Department earlier this year is still in the early stages of development and the Panel felt that a review at this stage would be premature.

Recent years have seen a rapid growth in recycling opportunities in the island. The Department's programme of operations has been reaching out to the population with various schemes including the expansion of Bring Banks which now exist in every parish, and the introduction of kerbside collection schemes, albeit in a limited number of parishes for the time being. The Solid Waste Strategy in 2005 set a recycling target of 32% to be achieved by 2009 .The Department has been successful in reaching this target, as shown in the table below, and this target has now been revised upwards to 36% by 2018.

Source: Transport and Technical Services Dept

The Department is to be applauded for its success which has been achieved to date without the additional £450,000 in funding which the Solid Waste Strategy identified as necessary.

The Panel's review however has revealed two major concerns:

• The high cost of subsidising the recycling of green waste, paper and cardboard.

Until now it appears that the Department's focus has been on high tonnage material streams which the public expect to be recycled, such as paper, cardboard and green  waste.  These materials  contribute  significantly  to  the  overall  tonnage  of recycling; however their low market value means that the Department pays a high cost in dealing with them. Paper and card have to be transported off-island to recycling centres in the UK. Green waste is composted on Island but farmers are currently paid to receive the product on their land.

• The potential conflict between maintaining and expanding these high tonnage recycling streams and the ability to prioritise the suitable treatment of more toxic waste streams.

The success in achieving recycling targets masks a failure to deal appropriately with the removal from the waste stream of hazardous materials including Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE), fridges and end of life vehicles, all need to be recycled in ways that conform to modern standards. Jersey is currently exceptional in not applying the latest EU Directives. The burning and shredding of these products contributes significantly to both emissions to air from the Energy from Waste plant and to the toxic elements in waste ash from the plant which prevents its recycling. The Department has identified alternative ways of dealing with these products and has commenced implementation of new processing methods; however the operations are costly and require a reprioritization of the Department's budget unless significant new funding is secured.

Finally, the Panel is conscious that its review on waste recycling has been conducted with a narrow focus on the department's immediate funding pressures. It acknowledges however that there is a broader environmental perspective, outside the scope of this review, on the economic value of recycling activities which would take into account the carbon price' of the various methods of waste disposal. The Panel suggests that Transport and Technical Services should follow the lead of the UK government and be prepared, as part of a wider policy to tackle CO2 emissions, to factor in the cost of carbon into their decisions on how to dispose of waste.

Thus, for instance, if the sums showed that CO2 emissions were saved by shipping and hauling paper to a mill to be recycled, as against burning that same used paper and making paper from new to replace it, then that would become a factor in the decision as that CO2 has a cost.

In the UK the Prime Minister has instructed Ministers that they should take account of the economic cost of climate change damage when making policy and investment decisions by factoring in the shadow price of carbon'. This was set at £25.50 a carbon tonne for 2007, rising annually to £59.60 a tonne by 2050. The price is intended to take into account the full global costs of the damage carbon causes over the whole of its time in the atmosphere.

Calculating the carbon cost for its various different waste disposal options would clarify the prioritisation choices the Department has to make in its budget allocation and would also lend further weight to the Department's arguments that recycling should receive adequate funding from the States.

Main Recommendations:

Transport and Technical Services should review its recycling priorities and focus its cash limit on updating its treatment of the more toxic elements of the waste stream.

Transport and Technical Services should be preparing, as part of a wider policy to tackle CO2 emissions, to factor in the cost of carbon into their decisions on how to dispose of waste.

2. Terms of Reference

1. To review

1. the current revenue budget arrangements for recycling, including the allocation of temporary additional funding granted in the States Annual Business Plan 2009 and
2. the additional capital and revenue budget requirements identified by Transport and Technical Services for 2010 and 2011,

2. To assess

1. the  prioritisation  of  waste  recycling  projects  by  Transport  and Technical Services; and
2. the possible implications for waste recycling projects if the additional funding through the introduction of environmental taxes was not secured.

3. To consider any other pertinent matters that may arise during the course of the review.

3. Panel membership

The Environment Scrutiny Panel is constituted as follows:

Deputy P.J. Rondel, Chairman Connétable J.M. Refault Deputy D.J.A. Wimberley Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire

Officer Support: M. Haden and M. Orbell

4. Methodology

The Panel conducted a desk study focussing on the additional revenue funding requirements for current waste recycling operations which will be met by new taxes if approved in the Budget 2010.

In June 2009 the Panel requested a report from the Minister on waste recycling initiatives including details of how the £0.5m allocation in 2009 Business Plan was being spent and specific proposals showing how the future additional funding through environmental taxes would be allocated. This report was received in July when the Panel visited the Reuse and Recycling Centre in Bellozanne. The Panel's request for information and the Waste team's response are attached at Appendix 1 of this report.

Further enquiries were made subsequently at officer level.

In October 2009 the Panel held a public hearing with the Minister for Transport and Technical Services focussing on the Department's priorities.

In the following report the Panel has examined in turn each of the budget headings supplied by Transport and Technical Services. The opening box in each section contains summary information on the Department's current revenue budget, the proposed budget if additional funding is approved by the States and the consequence of the funding not being forthcoming.

5. Recommendations

1. Overall Recommendation  Transport and Technical Services should review its recycling  priorities  and  focus  its  cash  limit  on updating its treatment of the more toxic elements of the waste stream.

Transport  and  Technical  Services  should  be preparing to factor in, as part of a wider policy to tackle CO2 emissions, the cost of carbon into their decisions on how to dispose of waste.

2. Bring Banks  Further  investment  in  extending  the  bring  bank system should be deferred for the time being.
3. Reuse and Recycling Centre   The Council of Ministers should restore the proposed Reuse  and  Recycling  Centre  to  the  Capital programme at the earliest possible opportunity.

4. Paper and Card
5. Fridge recycling
6. Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE)
7. Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE)
8. Home composting
9. Waste Demolition Timber

The  Department  should  not  seek  at  this  time  to expand its current targets for recycling paper and card.

Immediate  steps  should  be  taken  to  ensure  full compliance with the EU Ozone Depleting Substance Directive 2002. If necessary this should take priority over  the  processing  of  less  environmentally detrimental  waste  materials  in  the  Department's revenue budget.

The Council of Ministers should support renewed efforts  by  Transport  and  Technical  Services  to negotiate with the UK Environment Agency, and if necessary UK and continental suppliers of electrical goods, to allow the Island to participate in the EU scheme for the funding of disposal of WEEE.

The problem of smaller electrical items being included in household waste should be highlighted in ongoing education/publicity campaigns.

The  Panel  believes  that  this  initiative  should  be supported by an education programme encouraging islanders  to  make  the  most  of  composting possibilities.

The  Department  should  consider  introducing  a simple  charging  mechanism  for  the  reception  of demolition timber with a view to minimising amounts

coming to Bellozanne for disposal and encouraging contractors  to  re-use  or  recycle  waste  timber wherever possible.

10. End of Life Vehicle Recycling  Meeting EU End of Life Vehicle standards should be mandatory and support for the necessary upgrading of the existing scrapyard is therefore recommended.
11. Cooking oils  The department should investigate the possibilities for  providing  additional  support  for  the  production and  marketing  of  a  quality  biodiesel  product  to encourage  its  take-up  by  both  commercial  and private users. This could include consideration of tax incentives or other forms of subsidy which may be appropriate to avoid the need to ship waste cooking oil off island for disposal.
12. Green Waste recycling  Transport and Technical Services should consider introducing  a  user  pays  charge  for  the  public reception of green waste. A single charge could be applied in the form of a small gate fee per vehicle delivering green waste. This proposal could assist in driving  down  the  revenue  budget  requirement  for green  waste  recycling  and  also  encourage householders to reduce the amount of green waste delivered to the Department.
13. Green Waste recycling  A review of the current arrangements for disposing of the compost product to agricultural fields should consider the implications of a phased reduction in the payments to farmers and the conditioning of area payments  under  the  Rural  Economy  Strategy  to farmers' acceptance of the product on their fields.

6. Allocation of additional £0.5m funding in 2009

In its submission the Department provided the Panel with the following information on how the funding provided in the 2009 States Annual Business plan

The monies allocated in the 2009 Business Plan were only secure for 2009 and conditional on the approval and introduction of a new environmental tax thereafter, the Department therefore did not consider it appropriate to enter into long term commitments while funding is not secure.

It was agreed that the following one off projects to be funded by the additional monies in 2009. Further longer term initiatives will be proposed once future funding is secure. These activities tie in with specific objectives of the Solid Waste Strategy.

Note 1 – The proposal is to fund the temporary relocation of domestic green waste in 2009 from recycling  funding. The  cost  of  funding  the  reception  facility  in  the  long-term  will  be  met  from reprioritising the Department's 2010 revenue cash limit.

Commentary:

The table shows that the 2009 allocation of additional funds has been used principally to supplement a significant shortfall in the Department's budget for recycling of green waste, packaging wood and cardboard and to deal with a backlog of WEEE (Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment) accumulated from 2008. Without additional funding in 2010 each of these recycling streams, which are important components of the Island's Solid waste Strategy, would have to be reviewed and possibly withdrawn.

Other than meeting this budget shortfall, the funding has been used for a one-off item of expenditure, namely, the new Exhibition Trailer.

The  funding  for  pump  priming  the  Parish  Kerbside  recycling  scheme  has  been unnecessary so far as the start up costs for the recently introduced parish schemes have been covered through a sponsorship deal.

Key Finding

Several  key  components  of  the  recycling  service  are  currently  underfunded. Without continuation of the temporary funding provided in the States Annual Business plan for 2009,  the  Department's  current  revenue  allocation  for  them  would  not  capable  of sustaining, let alone increasing, these recycling activities.

7. Collection systems

1. Bring Banks'

Transport and Technical Services: Waste Recycling proposals

Current Revenue Budget: £60,000. There are currently 14 sites across the Island, with a minimum of one site per Parish providing collection facilities for mixed paper, drinks cans, plastic bottles, cardboard and textiles. The cost of providing the service includes emptying the  sites  delivering  direct  to  the  baling  contractor,  cleaning  and  servicing  the  bins, whereas, apart from paper and card, the processing of recyclable materials is cost neutral to the department.

Current recycling output: 2,000 tonnes of materials (including paper and card) Solid Waste Strategy target: 3,000 tonnes.

Additional budget requirement to meet this target: £80,000 which would be used to

i.  extend the service to 25 sites

ii  add cardboard to existing service (currently only available on 2 sites)

Proposed Budget for 2010 if funding proposals

1. approved: Current revenue budget of £60,000 would not be increased. Additional funding from environmental taxes will be used for other priorities.
2. not approved: The budget for this service would be halved to £30,000

Commentary: Significant investment has been made since 2005 in expanding the number of collection points around the island in order to bring recycling opportunities within easy reach of all residents wherever they live around the island. The infrastructure has been improved with the installation of multiple bins in selected sites providing comprehensive coverage throughout the Island and enabling the collection of a variety of key materials including paper, card, cans, plastic bottles, textiles and batteries.

The Department conducts regular surveys to measure the use of the sites which provide evidence that their popularity appears to be growing. A key objective for the department is to increase publicity and public awareness of the bring bank locations.

The  Bring  Bank  system  is  serviced  by  a  private  contractor  who  clears  the  14  sites (typically 3 times each week) cleans and services the bins and delivers materials direct to the baling contractor.

Apart from paper and card, the processing of recyclable materials collected at the Bring Banks,  is  cost  neutral  to  the  Department:  the  export  and  sale  of  the  materials  are undertaken by private firms or charities, which and use the revenue to cover their costs[1].

The Department's view is that a potential income stream from these recyclable products is currently insignificant in view of the low volumes of materials derived within the island coupled with the high transportation costs of exporting materials to UK or continental recycling centres.

Furthermore,  dealing  directly  in  the  recycling  of  these  materials  would  require  an increased manpower commitment from TTSD which is unlikely to be justifiable in the current financial climate.

The processing of paper and card is also undertaken by a private company but this requires a significant payment to the contractor as the costs considerably outweigh the sales value of the materials. The current budget for this subsidy is £225,000 per annum[2]. In 2009 it was necessary to apply an additional £60,000 to this budget[3] as the market value for cardboard fell due to the recession.

The TTSD stated target is to improve the current output of bring banks from 2000 tonnes to 3000 tonnes. The Recycling Officer told the Panel that achieving this target in a fairly mature market would not be easy as there were diminishing returns from the continual roll out of new Bring Banks with a finite amount of recycling spread over an increased number of sites.

The obvious way to improve the output from Bring Banks would be to increase the number of  locations  capable  of  receiving  cardboard.  However,  due  to  the  significant  cost  of subsidising the recycling of cardboard, this would require a further allocation of funding to this element of the department's budget. In the Panel's view, the recycling of other, more harmful elements of the waste stream should be given greater priority in the allocation of the limited funding available.

Key Finding: Significant investment has been made since 2005 in expanding the number of collection points around the Island in order to bring recycling opportunities within easy reach of all residents wherever they live around the island. Further expansion of the Bring Bank service would have the effect of increasing the subsidy payments for paper and cardboard.

Recommendation: Further investment in extending the bring bank system should be deferred for the time being.

2. Reuse and Recycling Centre

Transport and Technical Services: Waste Recycling proposals

A capital funding requirement of £1.4 million was identified in the Solid Waste Strategy to allow for additional recycling materials to be accepted and segregated. The Centre would provide improved and more cost efficient reception and segregation facilities, as well as storage facilities for reusable items such as unwanted furniture.

Until recently this project was included in the States capital programme for construction in 2010. This funding, however, was withdrawn by the States in the 2010 Annual Business Plan on the basis that the Centre would be funded from environmental taxes'.

Commentary: The Panel visited the recently improved Reuse and Recycling Centre at Bellozanne  and  noted  that  a  reorganisation  of  collection  facilities  has  enabled  the reception  of  additional  recyclable  materials  and  has  made  public  access  to  the  site considerably easier and cleaner.

The current site however is severely constrained and suffers from being split on two sites. There are currently two reception areas for the general public: one for green waste and one for household recycling. This arrangement is inefficient and significantly increases manning costs. A new Reuse and Recycling Centre which combined these two services would reduce departmental costs.

An enhanced Reuse and Recycle Centre would enable the Department to deal with the proposed  increased  quantities  of  recycling  materials  received  from  other  collection services, including Bring Banks and the Parish Kerbside Collection service, It would also enable the Department to promote new recycling initiatives such as the storage and reuse of second hand furniture and the recovery of demolition timber.

Key Findings The Panel notes that deferral of this planned development will delay the establishment of an efficient and modern recycling service and hinder the development of recycling initiatives.

The Panel also notes that the Treasury's current taxation proposals for environmental initiatives are insufficient to cover the capital investment required to fund this project. This implies that the proposed development would only proceed if new taxation proposals are brought forward and creates a perception that recycling is not a mainstream function of government. The Panel does not believe that this is acceptable.

In the Panel's view, this decision, which reverses the plans previously agreed in the Solid Waste Strategy and the States Capital Programme, reflects a weakness in the States stated  commitment  to  increasing  the  environmental  protection  regime  in  the  Island (Strategic Plan Priority 13).

Recommendation: The Council of Ministers should restore the proposed Reuse and Recycling Centre to the Capital programme at the earliest possible opportunity.

3. Island wide Kerbside Collection Schemes

Transport and Technical Services: Waste Recycling proposals

Current revenue Budget: There is no separate budget heading for this service. The operational costs are borne by the Parishes themselves. The start up costs (boxes and advertising  leaflets  to  households)  have  so  far  been  covered  by  sponsorship arrangements. The cost implications to TTSD of kerbside schemes have so far been confined to providing an outlet for the recycling of paper and cardboard.

Commentary:  Implementing  an   Island-wide  kerbside  collection  scheme  for  dry recyclables, such as paper, cardboard, drink cans, plastic bottles and glass, is considered in the Solid Waste Strategy as a key way of involving a greater number of households and increasing the overall recycling rate.

These schemes require residents to sort and store selected materials for collection on a monthly basis. Household collection schemes for recyclables are now a requirement for all local authorities in the UK. Here in Jersey the scheme is dependent on the voluntary participation of the twelve parishes.

In its 2009 Business Plan the Department set a target of six Parishes to be involved in a Kerbside Collection scheme. Currently, only four parishes have introduced the scheme (St John, St Lawrence, St Mary and Trinity ), while a further four parishes have made enquiries at Transport and Technical Services about starting a service[4].

A survey of all parishes has been conducted by the Panel to ascertain views on the expansion of the scheme. A summary of the comments is attached as an Appendix. The following key points emerged:

• Two parishes ( Grouville and St Clement) have indicated that they would not support a Kerbside Collection scheme at present largely because of the increased costs to ratepayers. Both preferred to see further development of the Bring Bank system.
• Some parishes are waiting for current contracts with service providers to come to an end before reviewing their operation with the possibility of introducing a kerbside collection scheme.
• The integration of the large urban parishes, St Helier, St Saviour and St Brelade, would  be  problematic  for  Transport  and  Technical  Services  in  current circumstances  as  dealing  with  the  increased  volume  of  recyclables  would  be unmanageable  logistically  within  current  resource  levels  and  would  put  further strain on overstretched budgets for paper and cardboard.

Key Finding. Extending the Kerbside Collection scheme to all twelve Parishes is a long term goal for the Department as it broadens the possibilities for households to engage in recycling activities. However, the further expansion of this scheme at the present time, and in particular the integration of the large urban parishes, would significantly increase the department's costs and challenge the limited infrastructure at the Reuse and Recycling Centre.

8. Waste recycling streams

1. Paper and card:

Transport and Technical Services: Waste Recycling proposals

Current  revenue  Budget:  £225,000  provides  a  subsidy  to  a  private  contractor  who receives and exports materials to UK paper mills. Details of the contract arrangements are provided below

Additional one off funding in 2009: £60,000 was provided as an increased subsidy to the private contractor to offset poor market conditions for paper and card in the UK.

Current recycling output: 6,000 tonnes

Solid Waste Strategy target: The SWS model indicates a peak output of 12,000 tonnes if all proposed activities are delivered.

Additional revenue requirement to meet this target. £240,000. Proposed Budget for 2010 if funding proposals

1. approved: £260,000. This would be a small increase on current budget which would assist in addressing ongoing low prices for paper and card. Effectively current levels of recycling would be capped.
2. not approved - The current level of subsidy, which is already insufficient for current volumes  of  paper  and  cardboard,  would  be  reduced  slightly  to  £220,000.  As  a consequence it would be necessary to scale down current volumes of material received by the department.

Commentary:  The  Island  produces  a  large  quantity  of  paper  and  cardboard  in  its municipal waste - the annual total arising identified in the Solid Waste Strategy in 2005 was 15,000 tonnes. This is consequently an obvious target for recycling[5] and was one of the earliest schemes subsidised by the States. Since 2001 there has been a tenfold increase in recycling of paper and card. The problem for the Department is that the costs considerably outweigh current sales value. As a result the Department is faced with an increasingly expensive commitment to subsidising this recycling stream.

Since 1995 TTSD have contracted a private firm to operate a paper and cardboard recycling scheme. The materials are received bulked, exported and sold by the private company. The contract is for the company to provide a reception facility for commercial deliveries of paper and card (including from TTSD collection sites) 6 days per week including basic sorting, baling, export and to run the administration of selling the products to UK mills and meeting all regulatory requirements.

Shipping and hauling the product from Jersey to a mainland mill costs between £40-£50 per tonne. A 5 year contract exists (currently in year 2) which includes a subsidy to the company in the form of payment per tonne for paper and card (currently £31 per tonne) based on an annual review of the cost of recycling. The reference for the price review is based on weekly figures published in a national publication called Materials Recycling Weekly averaged over the year. The price paid for the year following the anniversary of the contract is based on the previous year.

The current market for paper and card is low and unpredictable. Average material prices have dropped in the last two years from £67 per tonne for card and £72 per tonne for paper in 2008 to £41 per tonne for card and £51 per tonne for paper in 2009. Price s recently have improved after hitting a low point at the end of 2008.

Despite the economic downturn there is little sign that the quantities of paper and card for disposal are diminishing. The expansion of the Island wide bring system, improvements to the Reuse and Recycling Centre and the addition of new Parishes to the Kerbside Collection scheme have all resulted in increasing tonnage of both paper and card being received by TTSD. As a result, the Department has exceeded its current target of 6000 tonnes of recycled paper and card in the last two years (7,654 tonnes in 2007 and 7,985 tonnes in 2008).

The Department's revised target for this waste recycling stream in 2018 is 12,000 tonnes, double the current target. This could be achieved through further expansion of the bring bank collection facilities, particularly for cardboard, and through new initiatives to encourage the commercial producers to participate in recycling schemes. Achieving this target however will bring increasing pressure on the department's revenue budget.

Given the current financial restraints and the changing global economics relating to recycling the Panel believes that it would be appropriate to call a halt for the time being to the onward expansion of this recycling stream and for the department to reconsider its current strategies.

The Panel is conscious that capping the current level of recycling would mean continuing to send large quantities of paper and cardboard to incineration. This puts a strain on the existing Energy from Waste plant, and militates against the strategy for minimising waste for the new plant at La Collette. However, it believes that burning cardboard would have a minimal environmental impact, compared to other more hazardous materials.

The Acting Chief Officer, TTSD, told the Panel that he agreed with the need for a review; however, he stressed that it was essential not to undermine public confidence in the principle of recycling:

One of the things that we have strived to do as a department, and been very defensive of, is if we collect something for recycling, we recycle it. Now, I think there is a discussion to be had potentially with the new Energy from Waste plant whereby we challenge whether we should be recycling paper and card, and I think that should be a healthy debate we have annually based on the throughput of the incinerator, the success of recycling and the economy of the Island. But the principle, so far as I am concerned, is if we collect something for recycling, we recycle it. I think the credibility of T.T.S. (Transport and Technical Services) must be upheld.

What we can do is not roll out schemes; we can stop schemes and I would rather be upfront with the general public and say: "We cannot afford to recycle cardboard any more; we are going to stop doing it" and we give a date when we stop doing it and then it goes into the waste. But what I do not want to do is keep collecting it as though people think that it is being recycled and then we do not, because our credibility will disappear[6].

The Panel welcomes this reassurance. It is conscious there is a degree of mistrust among the general public about the destination of recyclates and the capability of the Department to  deal  with  the  quantities  of  materials  it  collects.  Some  people  believe  that  large quantities of materials are simply stockpiled for ultimate incineration. The Panel suggests that the Department should ensure that a clear public message is given countering this perception.

Key Finding The Panel applauds the Department's success in developing the recycling of paper and card but is alarmed at the high cost of subsidising this recycling stream. The Panel believes that other, more hazardous waste streams should be given higher priority in the Department's limited budget.

Recommendation: The Department should not seek at this time to expand its current targets for recycling paper and card.

2. Fridge recycling

Transport and Technical Services: Waste Recycling proposals

Current  Revenue  Budget:  £12,000  CFCs  are  currently  extracted  from  refrigeration condensers; however this accounts for only 10% of the total CFCs in fridges.

Current recycling output: 40 tonnes recycled metal; 200kg of recovered CFCs

Solid Waste Strategy target: 40 tonnes recycled metal; >1500 kg CFCs; >5 tonnes plastic

Additional Funding required to deliver SW strategy: £50,000 to enable export and de- manufacture of fridges for CFC recovery in accordance with the EU Ozone Depleting Substance Directive 2002.

Proposed Budget for 2010 if funding proposals

1. approved: £50,000.
2. not approved: This service would be delayed.

Commentary: Three to four thousand fridges are discarded each year locally. Currently all fridges have CFCs (Chlorofluorocarbons) extracted from the refrigeration condensers (200kg  of  CFCs  recovered);  however,  this  accounts for only  10%  of  the  total  CFCs contained in fridges. The remaining CFCs (1500kg) are contained in the insulation in the body of the fridge and are vented to the atmosphere when this is incinerated.

Extracting  CFCS  from  insulation  requires  a  specialist  processing  operation  with  an hermetically sealed system which is not available on Island. This was trialled in 2006 with a shipment of 650 fridges to UK. However, continuing this exercise has not been possible within current TTSD budget.

The latest generation fridges use pentane (hydrocarbon) rather than CFC refrigerant, but there may be new legislation on the horizon regarding their disposal also.

Key  Finding:  Jersey  is  currently  exceptional  (with  other  Channel  Islands)  in  non compliance with the European Ozone Depleting Substance Directive which has been in place since 2002. The Panel believes that this is unacceptable.

Recommendation: Immediate steps should be taken to ensure full compliance with the EU Ozone Depleting Substance Directive 2002. If necessary this should take priority over the processing of less environmentally detrimental waste materials in the Department's revenue budget.

3. Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Transport and Technical Services: Waste Recycling proposals

Current revenue budget: £65,000. This is wholly inadequate to meet the volumes of items for disposal and has led to a significant backlog of WEEE held in storage at Bellozanne.

One  off  funding  in  2009:  £155,000  was  provided  to  enable  the  processing  of  this backlog. This enabled the shipment of 44 trailers loads of television screens and computer monitors  to  a  specialist  processing  plant  in  the  UK  for  dismantling  in  a  controlled environment.

Current recycling output: 250 tonnes  

Solid Waste Strategy target: 500 tonnes of WEEE recycled in accordance with the EU WEEE Directive

Additional funding required to deliver this target: £100,000 Proposed Budget for 2010 if funding proposals

1. approved:: £165,000. This service will be fully funded
2. not approved: Even without the additional funding this service will be fully funded, but other services will be scaled down, deferred or stopped.

Commentary: The SWS target is to re-use or recycle 60% of WEEE items arising. Before 2007 the majority of this equipment, such as IT equipment and home appliances, was received at Bellozanne for shredding and incineration. This resulted in the release of toxic heavy metals into the atmosphere and the contamination of the bottom ash within the Energy from Waste plant preventing its recycling as construction aggregate.

Due to its complex nature and the lack of a local market for most of this equipment, the recycling process requires significant financial input from TTSD. TTSD have investigated the possibility of outsourcing this service to a private contractor; however following a tendering process this solution proved to be too expensive. The current operation involves a local contractor to deal with on island handling while shipping and dealing with the UK reprocessor is handled by the Department.

In 2008 TTSD processed 148 tonnes of materials which is nearly 100 tonnes short of the current SWS target of 250 tonnes. With new funding TTSD hopes to double the existing target.

There are two categories of WEEE; firstly, waste display screens (TV's and monitors) which require palletising and export to a specialist recycling facility in the UK where a gate fee (£1.70 per unit) is paid for each screen processed.

The cost of exporting these items is increased by the requirement for a special hazardous waste licence from the local waste regulator and the UK Environment Agency to ship these items across an EU frontier.

For non-display WEEE such as videos, computers, music centres etc., TTSD have recently set up a dismantling system with HM Prison which results in items being stripped down into metals, plastics and circuit boards. Some of these commodities have a precious metal content and are hoped to provide a sales revenue – the level of this income will not be known until the end of the year when enough of the materials will be segregated to justify a shipment.

Since 2007 all large WEEE items, including all TVs and computer display screens, have been diverted from incineration. Due to budget limitations a large backlog of items has been built up in storage awaiting transportation; however, additional funding provided in 2009 has enabled this problem to be addressed in the short term.

Many smaller household electrical items, such as curling tongs and hair dryers may escape the recycling process because they are included in household waste. The Panel believes that this problem will be addressed through continuing education about responsible disposal and recycling.

Disposal charges The EU[7] has recently introduced charging mechanisms to ensure that manufacturers of electrical electronic and electrical equipment have responsibility for the costs of recovery and treatment of goods at the end of their life. Currently Jersey does not participate in this scheme. Consequently TTSD bears the full cost of disposing of these items, despite the fact that a cost for their disposal has already been applied by manufacturers prior to their importation to the island.

TTSD has investigated the possibility of Jersey participating in this scheme with the UK Environment Agency. Under such a scheme Jersey would be responsible only for transportation costs and be relieved of the gate fee at the recycling plant. This proposal however was rejected by the Environment Agency due to Jersey's position outside the EU and currently further attempts are being made by the Department to pursue this source of funding.

An alternative funding solution would be to impose a local charge, or environmental tax, on imported electrical and electronic goods to cover the expense of disposal (estimated for display screens to be between £12 - £15 per unit[8]). However, this would mean that local consumers would be in the position of having to pay the disposal charge twice, as the manufacturers will already have included the costs of the disposal charge in the purchase price.

A further factor to consider would be the administration of such a charge which would fall to the Customs Department. Previous Scrutiny Reviews[9] have revealed the manpower and resource pressures already faced by this department. It is likely that the introduction of such a scheme would require a substantial level of resources. It is to be noted that the States, in considering the level of de minimis waiver to apply to the payment of the Goods

and Services Tax (GST) on the importation of goods, decided to adopt a high waiver in order to avoid administrative expenses.

As a result, items under £400 in value bought over the internet and imported into the Island currently escape Customs duty on importation. The disposal charge on electronic and electrical items would however be applicable to retail items thus disadvantaging local suppliers.

Key Finding: The Panel agrees that removal of WEEE items from the waste stream is imperative and should be prioritised above other services if necessary. It is supportive of the principle that the cost of disposal should be included in the purchase price of such items and believes it is unfair that Jersey consumers effectively already pay this charge but the Island is unable to participate in the existing EU disposal scheme.

Recommendation: The Council of Ministers should support renewed efforts by Transport and Technical Services to negotiate with the UK Environment Agency, and if necessary UK and continental suppliers of electrical goods, to allow the Island to participate in the EU scheme for the funding of disposal of WEEE.

The problem of smaller electrical items being included in household waste should be highlighted in ongoing education/publicity campaigns.

4. Home composting

Transport and Technical Services: Waste Recycling proposals

Current Budget: £6,000 used to promote the sale of subsidised home compost units at £10 each.

Current recycling output: Over 3,000 subsidised bins provided; estimated 500 tonnes diverted from the waste stream

Solid Waste Strategy target: up to 1,000 tonnes diverted from the waste stream Additional Funding required to deliver this target: £12,000 to continue this service Proposed Budget for 2010 if funding proposals

1. approved: £12,000.
2. not approved: This service would cease

Commentary: Over 3000 composting bins have been sold to Islanders over a five year period in a partnership arrangement with garden centres. The department estimates that this has helped to divert an estimated 500 tonnes of green waste which would otherwise have been delivered to the green waste public reception facility.

As discussed below, the Panel is concerned at the costs of processing green waste and believes that measures which reduce the volumes required to be processed are to be encouraged.

Recommendation: The Panel believes that this initiative should be supported by an education programme encouraging islanders to make the most of composting possibilities.

5. Waste Demolition Timber

Transport and Technical Services: Waste Recycling proposals

Current revenue Budget: £22,000 for recycling of pallet boards and packaging wood recycling

One off funding in 2009 £35,000 was provided to enhance packaging wood recycling Current recycling output: 1,000 tonnes diverted from waste stream

Solid  Waste  Strategy  target:  to  expand  an  initiative  to  separate,  sort  and  reuse demolition timber waste in DIY.

Additional budget requirement £20,000

Proposed Budget for 2010 if funding proposals approved: This activity will not be funded even if the environmental tax package is approved as other services will take priority

TTSD schemes have previously focussed on recycling of pallet boards and packaging wood for shredding and export. Working with two private companies who will collect boards  for  reuse  TTSD  have  now  substantially  reduced  the  amount  coming  into Bellozanne for recycling and their costs for this service. The Recycling Officer told the Panel that the introduction of a small charge (£1 per board) had effectively diverted boards to the companies collecting them.

TTSD now have plans to develop sustainable recycling of over 2000 tonnes of demolition waste wood which currently is incinerated each year. A partnership arrangement with Acorn  Industries  has  been  discussed.  However,  competing  priorities  mean  that  this scheme cannot be funded from departmental cash limits at this time.

In the Panel's view, the Department should apply innovative thinking to developing a solution  rather  than  delay  their  planned  scheme.  Consideration  should  be  given  to introducing a charging mechanism for the reception of demolition timber. This could have the  primary  effect  of  encouraging  demolition  firms  to  reduce  the  amount  of  timber delivered to Bellozanne and to carry out their own recycling of waste timber. It would also provide additional funding for the department.

Members felt that there may also be a case for a bring and collect centre where unwanted timber could be offered for others to take away.

Key Finding: Recycling of demolition timber would reduce quantities going to incineration or landfill, some of which may include treated or other contaminated wood products. Reducing the amount of such material going to Bellozanne would potentially be beneficial to the environment.  

Recommendation:  The  Department  should  consider  introducing  a  simple  charging mechanism for the reception of demolition timber with a view to minimising amounts coming to Bellozanne for disposal and encouraging contractors to re-use or recycle waste timber wherever possible.

6. End of Life Vehicle Recycling

Transport and Technical Services: Waste Recycling proposals

Current Budget: nil. This project has emerged since the development of the Solid Waste Strategy.

Additional Budget request: £100,000 to upgrade the existing scrap metal operation to meet EU End of Life Vehicle Directive standards

Target: removal of hazardous liquids and chemicals from over 2000 vehicles a year Proposed Budget for 2010 if funding proposals

1. approved: £100,000
2. not approved: This project would be delayed

Commentary: An average of eight vehicles are discarded each working day and are currently not de-polluted and recycled in line with best practice, resulting in hazardous elements from fluids and chemicals being sent for incineration.

The current dismantling exercise includes the removal of hazardous products (such as sump oil and gearbox oil) from cars at 3 or 4 points whereas the EU Directive requires 14 or 15 including the air conditioning system. Moving to compliance would require the development of a workshop facility with more technical equipment and would increase the company's costs.

The  Recycling  officer  explained  that  the  modernisation  of  the  scrapyard  would  be underwritten by TTSD:

The financial relationship that we have with the company is fairly complex but in budgeting this we knew that there would be extra costs involved here. There is clearly debate to be had as to whether the company absorbed that or whether we support those costs. But their costs are tied in very much with the value of scrap metals which fluctuates enormously and so in times when the value is high as it is reasonably at the moment, it perhaps would be reasonable to expect that they could provide that service from their own budgets, but in more difficult times there would be a cost which would inevitably come back towards the States.

The Panel has not seen the details of this arrangement which have yet to be finalised.

Key Finding Currently hazardous fluids and chemicals from scrap vehicles are being sent for incineration. The Panel considers that this is unacceptable.

Recommendation: Meeting EU End of Life Vehicle standards should be mandatory and support for the necessary upgrading of the existing scrapyard is therefore recommended.

7. Cooking oils

Transport and Technical Services: Waste Recycling proposals

Current  revenue  Budget:  £2,000  enables  collection  of  commercial  cooking  oil  for biodiesel production

Current output: 200 tonnes

Additional funding required to deliver SW strategy: £20,000 to fund the annual cost of exporting waste commercial cooking oil to the UK. (This includes the cost of an export licence of approximately £4,000.)

Proposed Budget for 2010 if funding proposals

1. approved: £22,000
2. not approved: The service would cease.

The Department provides a free service to commercial catering operations in order to avoid the disposal of cooking oil into the public sewer. 200 tonnes of cooking oil a year are collected by a private contractor.

The Recycling Officer informed the Panel that attempts in 2008/9 to make this service cover its own costs through local sales of biodiesel had not been successful. He explained that the market had been resistant to the product despite a small cost advantage in the cost of the fuel. TTSD had examined the possibility of using biodiesel fuel in its own operations,  for  example  in  its  fleet  of  vehicles  and  in  powering  its  animal  carcass incinerator but had concluded that both logistical difficulties and cost factors militated against its use.

Consequently, it had been decided to revert to shipping the majority of the waste oil to the UK retaining only a small amount of local biodiesel production. £20,000 is required to continue subsidising the costs of the private operator who delivers the service.

Key  Finding:  Efforts  to  supply  biodiesel  fuel  locally  have  not  been  commercially successful thus far. However, it is understood that elsewhere biodiesel has been more extensively marketed and the potential for wider local use remains. If marketing difficulties can be overcome the fuel offers significant environmental advantages and provides for a sustainable use of a waste product that is otherwise costly to dispose of.

Recommendation:  The  department  should  investigate  the  possibilities  for  providing additional  support for  the  production  and marketing  of a  quality  biodiesel  product  to encourage  its  take-up  by  both  commercial  and  private  users.  This  could  include consideration of tax incentives or other forms of subsidy which may be appropriate to avoid the need to ship waste cooking oil off island for disposal.

8. Green Waste Recycling

Transport and Technical Services: Waste Recycling proposals

Current Budget: £790,000. TTSD provides a free reception service for both commercial and domestic green waste deliveries. Agricultural green waste is dealt with at source by farmers. The budget includes payments to farmers who receive the compost product which is spread on agricultural land.

Additional One off funding in 2009: £170,000 was provided to cover operational costs of temporary relocation of domestic green waste reception. (£97,000 for staff, £22,000 for non-staff costs and £52,000 for leasing costs of vehicles)[10].

Current recycling output: 12,000 tonnes of materials which is processed into compost at La Collette. 80% goes to agricultural land; 20% is sold as premium quality (PAS 100) compost.

Solid Waste Strategy target >20,000 tonnes

Additional funding required: £200,000 to fund the continuation of public reception facility

If funding proposals are not approved: The public reception of green waste would be withdrawn.

Background: Green waste is a very significant part of the total recycling rate in the Island: in 2008 11,200 tonnes were received at la Collette for composting. This was a fall from 15,000 tonnes in the previous year. The target in the Solid Waste Strategy is to reach 20,000 tonnes by 2018.

TTSD has made significant investment in recent years in the development of a processing operation at La Collette where green waste is converted into compost products, 80% of which is used as a soil improver on agricultural land, the remaining 20% being sold as premium quality compost. Materials received are shredded and composted using an open windrow  system.  This  process  has  been  the  subject  of  nuisance  complaints  from neighbouring residents who have complained about odour from the site. TTSD have been developing  an  odour  management  strategy  to  solve  this  problem  and  are  currently investigating technological options. A capital budget of £4.21 million has been allocated for this purpose.

The Acting Chief Executive told the Panel that his department had spent four years reviewing the location of green waste operations and had investigated 32 sites across the island, concluding that La Collette was the least worst' option. This issue is beyond the scope of this review which has focussed on the annual revenue costs of the green waste operation.

Revenue Costs

The Panel was concerned to note the significant annual revenue costs for the composting process, which amount to £790,000. In addition to this, a further £200,000 per year is required from 2010, to be funded from new taxation measures, in order for the Department to  continue  to  operate  a  separate  public  reception  facility  in  compliance  with  the recommendations of the La Collette Hazards Review Group. Following the Buncefield disaster the Hazards Group determined that publicly accessible facilities were unsuitable for the La Collette area; only commercial operations are now allowed to deliver to that site.

As a result of this decision a temporary public reception facility has been established at Compound 6 Bellozanne Valley. Green waste is collected here and transferred at the end of each day's operation to the composting facility at la Collette. In June 2009 Transport and Technical Services was granted planning permission for the development of Warwick Farm as a more suitable temporary location[11] until a permanent site is found.

In 2009 TTSD was able to allocate £170,000 revenue funding for the public operation from the money granted in the States Business Plan for recycling initiatives. However, in order to continue this service ongoing revenue funding is required and the Department intend to allocate £200,000 for this purpose if the Treasury's tax funding proposals are approved in the 2010 Budget.

Key Finding

The Acting Chief Executive informed the Panel that his department was to undertake a fundamental  spending  review  on  green  waste  to  examine  all  aspects  of  its  current operations. The Panel believes that a comprehensive review of spending on the green waste operation is essential. The Panel looks forward to the opportunity to scrutinise the outcome of such an investigation. The Panel would like to see the following two key issues addressed within this review: (a) user pays charges for domestic green waste (b) Current subsidies paid to farmers for accepting the compost product on their land.

1. User pays charges for domestic green waste

Currently both commercial and public green waste is accepted free of charge. However, in the  States  Annual  Business  Plan  2010  the  introduction  of  user  pays'  charges  for commercial green waste was approved, targeted to raise £60,000 per annum. TTSD are currently examining how these charges might be implemented. It has been suggested that a weighbridge would be required; this would represent an unbudgeted expenditure of £100,000,  substantially  higher  than  the  fees  expected  to  be  recovered  in  a  year's operation.  The  Acting  Chief  Executive  explained  to  the  Panel  that  the  rationale  for applying this user pays charge was currently under investigation in his department.

The Panel believes that introduction of user pays charges is likely to have a beneficial effect by reducing the amount of commercial green waste delivered to La Collette and therefore assisting the Department in driving down its revenue costs Commercial gardening businesses will be encouraged to develop composting sites on land where the waste originates. Such businesses have stated in the past to the Working Party on Composting that they would actually favour less use of the composting facility at La Collette: they found that delivering green waste to this site was proving to be unproductive use of time and less profitable to them13.

In the Panel's view, consideration should also be given to introducing a user pays charge for the public reception of green waste. It is suggested that an expensive weighbridge should not be necessary for this purpose. Instead, a single charge per vehicle could be applied in the form of a gate fee for delivering green waste. The Panel believes that this measure could both assist the Department in reducing its revenue budget requirement and encourage householders to develop alternative solutions, such as home composting or shredding garden waste at source.

It has to be recognised however that while general waste collection in the Island remains free of charge there might be negative consequences to applying a charge for green waste collection; in order to avoid paying a fee, householders might dispose of their green waste through fly tipping or place green waste in black bags for collection as part of the routine household waste collection. The Acting Chief Officer, TTSD, explained to the Panel in a public hearing that such actions had potentially dangerous consequences, as experienced in the past at Bellozanne:

One of the reasons we have always advocated green waste recycling and pushed it is because green waste when it goes into black bag waste and then is needed to be stored for any period of time was one of the problems we had at Bellozanne probably 10 to 15 years ago with the fires. The compostibility of the material instigates fires and makes the waste far more unstable. Hopefully with the new Energy from Waste plant, the mountains of waste we will not see again but it is something that we have got to bear in mind. If we had to do that from 1st January we would finish up putting the Island I think in a high risk scenario[12].

In the same hearing, the Panel suggested that Parishes or private operators such as Garden Centres might be encouraged to develop smaller composting facilities. However, this was discounted by the Acting Chief Officer:

We as T.T.S. (Transport and Technical Services) would love the Parishes to take on board composting of green waste but the chances of that happening, the nuisance elements of it, the processing cost, the processing machinery, I do not think you can scale it down much further than what we have got now and save money[13].

The possibility of additional satellite sites for public green waste reception elsewhere in the Island has been explored previously by TTSD. TTSD issued expressions of interest in December  2006  and  January  2007  for  private  sites  for  a  compost  facility  and  also considered six States sites. Over 40 locations, including both States owned and private sites,  were  considered  for  public  green  waste  collection  sites  and  submitted  an assessment process. The result was that the private sites scored poorly in relation to the States owned sites. Problems identified included location within the Countryside Zone and proximity to residential properties, the requirement for additional access roads, reception areas and storage areas.  

The assessment process carried out by Babtie Fichtner established that the area required for composting and maturation accounts for only a small proportion of the total site area, much of the space is required for vehicle reception and manoeuvring.[14]

There have also been attempts in the past to contract with farmers to set up satellite composting facilities[15]. These facilities failed very quickly as the farming industry was unable to allocate time required to turn the compost regularly and produce high quality material. The consequence was unacceptable piles of green waste with potential pollution emanating from leachate from the sites contrary to the Water Pollution legislation.

A report was prepared by ADAS in 1996 for the Agriculture and Fisheries Committee which highlighted the issues associated with satellite composting operations. The report recommended the establishment of a centralised facility. However, the Panel notes that both  the  current  temporary  operation  in  Bellozanne  valley  and  the  (also  temporary) replacement at Warwick Farm involve completely clearing all collected waste at the end of the working day. This appears to be a very practical solution which potentially could be applied successfully at any suitably-sized site with reasonable access for vehicles; the Bellozanne facility is particularly compact and with the possible exception of manning requirements would appear to be a very cost-effective one. With this in mind. members are inclined to wonder whether an expensive permanent establishment involving storage and on-site processing facilities is necessary at all, especially if members of the public could be encouraged to take responsibility for dealing with more of their own green waste at home.

Recommendation: In the Panel's view, TTSD should consider introducing a user pays charge for the public reception of green waste. A single charge could be applied in the form of a small gate fee per vehicle delivering green waste. This proposal could assist in driving  down  the  revenue  budget  requirement  for  green  waste  recycling  and  also encourage  householders  to  reduce  the  amount  of  green  waste  delivered  to  the Department.

2. Current subsidies to farmers for accepting the compost product on their land

TTSD require an outlet to dispose of the product of their composting operation. Only a small proportion (20%) is sold as a premium product through garden centres achieving a low level of income[16]. TTSD has consequently developed an arrangement with farmers for the disposal of the bulk of the compost product which is spread as a soil improver on agricultural land.

No income is generated from this arrangement; in fact considerable costs accrue. The department pays £10 per vergée to farmers for accepting the product and bears the cost of both transporting the materials from La Collette and spreading the compost on the fields (£60 per vergée). The cost of this operation for the year 2009 to the end of October amounted to approximately £126,000[17].

The Acting Chief Officer explained that the outlet for the composting product was vital to the department. He claimed that the current arrangement was of mutual benefit to both parties:

What we cannot afford to do is to lose that market as such for this material because we need some tension in the market and we need to have the relationship which both parties feel as though they get something out of it21.

He explained why the Department was prepared to pay the full costs of hauling and spreading the compost:

It is based on a unit cost per cubic metre of compost, regardless of which area of the Island it goes in because basically the composting application is dependent to where the potatoes have been planted and the crop rotation. One of the reasons we administer that is because we have tried to control and make sure in terms of quality that the correct amount of compost is being put on the correct fields because you should only apply one nitrogen load per annum or one compost load per annum. We make sure that it is not dealt with in a pile it up in one field scenario which could happen if we were not in control of it22.

The Acting Chief Officer was asked whether farmers would be prepared to continue taking this product if they did not receive a payment. He said:

It will be an interesting discussion and my goal has always been to cut the subsidy to zero over time because I think the benefits of the green waste back on to the agricultural land in the medium term far outweigh the [risks] ... there is a perceived risk because the compost that goes out to agriculture is immature i.e. it has not been through the full maturation process. It has been through a pathogen kill

process but not the full maturation. So there is a small risk to the farmer but they prefer the compost to be slightly immature because it helps with the soil[18].

In a subsequent radio interview the Minister warned that if the payment arrangements were withdrawn, farmers might refuse to take the product. In that case TTSD would have to find alternative ways of disposing of their compost and would have to pay for its disposal elsewhere, possibly off island which would incur further costs.

The Panel consulted a leading grower informally on this question. He commented that the payment for accepting the agricompost was fair in view of the co-ordination required on the part of his operation to manage the process of spreading the product on his fields. He commented that he was not actively looking for such compost which he considered to be of marginal benefit and would be likely to cease the arrangement if required to pay for the product.

Key Finding: The Panel believes that the payment to farmers is in effect a supplementary subsidy to the agricultural industry in addition to that already provided by the Economic Development department in the form of area payments of £37 per vergée, under the Rural Economy Strategy. Given the recent transition in farming towards fewer and larger units, the Panel questions whether these additional payments for taking the soil improver are still appropriate.  It  suggests  that  consideration  could  be  given  to  whether  the  farmers' agreement to accept this compost on their fields might in future be linked to the area payments.

Recommendation:

A review of the current arrangements for disposing of the compost product to agricultural fields should consider the implications of a phased reduction in the payments to farmers and the conditioning of area payments under the Rural Economy Strategy to farmers' acceptance of the product on their fields.

9. Waste Prevention, Education and Awareness Raising

Current revenue Budget: £12,000 provides educational materials, promotional leaflets, advertising, school activities and attendance at public events (does not include staffing costs)

One  off  funding  in  2009:  £30,000  which  enabled  the  purchase  of  a new  recycling exhibition trailer in partnership with Eco Active campaign.

Additional Funding required to deliver SW Strategy: £38,000 would enable delivery of an  enhanced  education  and  awareness  programme  which  is  considered  vital  to  the encouragement of cultural change necessary to raise recycling targets to 36% by 2018.

Proposed Budget if environmental taxes approved: £30,000.

If environmental taxes are not approved: Spending would remain at the current level: £12,000.

Raising the levels of recycling activity to the target set for 2018 will require a significant increase in engagement both from the general public and commercial operations. The Department's  programme  of  education  and  awareness  raising  includes  school  visits, attendance at public events and media advertising to ensure that the recycling and energy conservation message reaches as broad an audience as possible.

In a presentation to the Panel the Department demonstrated that it has been successful in diversifying  recycling  activities  in  recent  years.  However,  to  achieve  full  use  of  the available infrastructure the Department must continue to promote public awareness of its facilities.

The Kerbside Collection scheme is an example of an operation which can play a vital part in educating householders in the possibilities for recycling. However, as noted above, access to this scheme is currently limited to four rural parishes.

The education programme is currently delivered by a small team consisting of one officer with the assistance of the Recycling Officer. The Department has joined forces with the Environment Department's Eco-Active campaign in order to share costs and manpower particularly at weekend events.

The Recycling Officer informed the Panel that W.R.A.P. (Waste and Resource Action Programme),  the  UK  government  agency  for  recycling  and  resource  efficiency, recommended a spend of £1.50 per household per year on education and awareness on recycling alone. For the States to meet this target a substantial increase in budget would be required.

Key Finding The Panel agrees that education and awareness of recycling initiatives is important to the success of the SWS and therefore supports the application of funding for this purpose. However, members feel that funds should be carefully targeted to support specific initiatives to obtain the best results.

Recommendation: The department should continue to use existing funding for education regarding current recycling initiatives. Any new funding (if available) should be directed towards specific objectives needing wider support, such as encouraging the public to take up home composting, make more use of bring bank facilities, and separate waste electrical appliances from household refuse.

Appendix 1 - Waste Team Submission to the Environment Panel

Information requested by the Panel

1 A copy of the current Business Plan for the Waste Recycling section 2 A financial report covering:

1. Specific details of how the £0.5m allocation in 2009 Business Plan is to be spent this year
2. Specific proposals showing how the requested additional funding in 2010 and 2011 would be used
3. Previous year's actual departmental spending on waste recycling
4. Previous years' and current departmental income from all recyclable materials (including Tipping charges at La Collette) giving evidence of trends in prices being achieved for recyclables

3 Costs and benefits relating to the following schemes:

• The parish kerbside collection scheme including the extent of the support provided by the Department and the extent to which a market exists for recyclable materials collected in this process
• The inert waste recycling scheme at La Collette and the extent to which the States currently subsidises this scheme
• The scheme for processing hazardous waste electrical and electronic equipment

4 General issues related to recycling:

• Current progress in reaching overall recycling targets
• The state of the market for the range of potentially recyclable materials, including those currently accepted at the recycling centre as well as others which may not currently be recycled locally, together with identification of materials which are considered uneconomic to recycle,
• The market for the disposal of cars and their components and other scrap metal
• The extent to which the States provides financial subsidies, if any, to private recycling operations and initiatives.
• The feasibility of possible alternative funding mechanisms eg whether a charge might be levied on imported goods (eg TVs, cars, fridges) to fund their final disposal
• Potential impact of a States decision not to provide additional ongoing funding for the identified recycling initiatives
• Further potential recycling initiatives which may have been considered but are currently unfounded, or which could be considered in the future.

37

Waste's response to the questions raised by the Environment Scrutiny's Panel in its letter dated 17th June 2009

• A financial report covering:

1. Specific details of how the £0.5m allocation in 2009 Business Plan is to be spent this year.

Recycling

The monies allocated in the 2009 business plan were only secure for 2009 and conditional on the approval and introduction of a new environmental tax thereafter, the Department therefore did not consider it appropriate to enter into long term commitments while funding is not secure.

It was agreed that the following one off projects to be funded by the additional monies in 2009. Further longer term initiatives will be proposed once future funding is secure.

Note 1 – The proposal is to fund the temporary relocation of domestic green waste in 2009 from recycling funding. The cost of funding the reception facility in the long-term will be met from reprioritising the Department's 2010 revenue cash limit.

These activities tie in with specific objectives of the Solid Waste Strategy.

2. Specific proposals showing how the requested additional funding in 2010 and 2011 would be used

The funding for the replacement Energy from Waste plant has been agreed by the States on the basis that the final capacity of the plant will not exceed 105,000 tonnes of waste. In order to achieve this, recycling rates must increase from the target of 32% by 2009 set in the Solid Waste Strategy to 36% by 2018. Critical to achieving and perhaps exceeding this more  challenging  target  is  the  implementation  of  an   Island-wide  kerbside  collection system.

The Island wide bring bank system will require considerable expansion and an increase in the capacity Re-use and Recycling Centre will be required. Finally the commercial sector must  recycle  more  waste  than  is  achieved  currently;  this  will  require  investment  in facilities, education and possible legislative changes.

3. Previous year's actual departmental spending on waste recycling.

4. Previous years' and current departmental income from all recyclable materials (including Tipping charges at La Collette) giving evidence of trends in prices being achieved for recyclables

Trends on Tipping Fee Income:

The Department is currently forecasting a shortfall in Tipping Fee Income totalling approximately £200,000 which reflects in part, the economic downturn and contractors using private tips. Shown below is a graph comparing actual v. budget in 2009.

Tipping Fees 2009 Budget v. Actual

Month

2009 Actual 2009 Budget

Tipping Fees Actual Income 2007 - 2009

Month

2007 2008 2009

We are particularly interested in exploring the costs and benefits relating to the following schemes:

• The parish kerbside collection scheme including the extent of the support provided by your Department and the extent to which a market exists for recyclable materials collected in this process.

The 2005 Solid Waste Strategy recommended the introduction (following a pilot) of doorstep collections in all Parishes for the key target materials by 2009. 4 Parishes now have a basic doorstep system in place collecting paper, cans, glass and plastic bottles with St. Lawrence also collecting card.

The operational costs of these services are borne by the Parishes themselves. The details are not known to TTS but are thought to be in the region of £8-£10 per household per year. The only direct costs the Department has incurred are a contribution to the initial equipment purchase (boxes) in the St. John pilot shared with a commercial sponsor. The latest 3 Parishes introducing a system have had all the start-up costs covered by sponsorship.

In broad terms the schemes appear to have been successful to date. Based on data for St. John , which is the only scheme with a full year of records, a recycling rate of 18% has been achieved.  This  is  reasonable  considering  the  collections are only monthly, card is not collected and that green waste recycling is not included in this figure. 2 full surveys have been completed on the St John service each showing a 70% participation rate which is respectable compared to UK schemes.

TTS provides the outlet for the materials collected in the Parishes but, as described above, only paper products have a cost impact – for St. John this was approximately £1,600 for 2008.

The view of the Waste Strategy team at TTS is that an Island-wide doorstep service, for at least the key materials, is required to reach the current recycling target of 40%. Whilst successful and cost effective, the bring system, requiring people to take their materials for recycling will only generate a limited yield. The convenience of a doorstep service brings many more households into recycling.

• The inert waste recycling scheme at La Collette and the extent to which the States currently subsidises this scheme.

The aggregates recycling facility, currently operating on the La Collette II reclamation site, is based on a 5 year contract, let to a private company following an open market tender process in 2006. As there is a local market for recycled aggregate the contract was drawn up on the principle that the operator would not require a direct subsidy.

To provide an incentive to maximise levels of recycling, a land rental rebate scheme was built into the contract. The rental market value for the land, which was unsurfaced and included no services, was set as a gross annual charge'. A model was then drawn up which provides up to a 75% rebate to the operator if certain sales tonnage targets are achieved – these targets become more challenging as the contract years advance.

• The  scheme  for  processing  hazardous  waste  electrical  and  electronic equipment.

Due to the complex nature and lack of a local market for most of this equipment, the recycling process requires significant financial input from TTS. Waste display screens (TV's and monitors) require careful palletising and export to a specialist recycling facility off-island where a fee is paid for each screen processed. This cost is increased by  the  requirement  of  a  special  hazardous  waste  license  from  the  local  waste regulator and the UK Environment Agency to ship these items across an EU frontier.

For non-display WEEE such as videos, computers, music centres etc., TTS have set up a dismantling system with HM Prison which results in items being stripped down into metals, plastics and circuit boards. Some of these commodities have a precious metal content and are hoped to provide a sales revenue – the level of this income will not been known until the end of the year when enough of the materials will be segregated to justify a shipment.

The  overall  cost  of  recycling WEEE  can be  seen  in  the  2008  expenditure  table provided in this response.

We also wish to consider the following general issues related to recycling:

• Current progress in reaching overall recycling targets

As the graph shows progress in the overall recycling rate since 2003 has been steady broadly increasing from 20-30%. The target set for 2009 was 32%. 2008 showed a slight drop on the previous year which is attributable to a reduction in green waste received. As this is a significant total tonnage the rate is very sensitive to these fluctuations. It actually masks a 12% increase in the overall tonnage of recycling compared to 2007 if green waste is excluded.

Interestingly the 2009 recycling rate is forecast to be back above 30% based on figures to half year end helped by new doorstep schemes and increases in green waste received.

It is worth pointing out that the Department expect the recycling rate to stabilise due to most existing schemes having matured. To reach the 36% target by 2015 investment is needed in more doorstep services and a sustained education programme.

• The state of the market for the range of potentially recyclable materials, including those currently accepted at the recycling centre as well as others which may not currently be recycled locally, together with identification of materials which are considered uneconomic to recycle,
• The market for the disposal of cars and their components and other scrap metal
• The extent to which the States provides financial subsidies, if any, to private recycling operations and initiatives.

As the majority of new recycling services have been introduced during the last decade in which States policy has generally discouraged introducing new services requiring further manpower, many are outsourced to private sector partners.

The financial relationship within these contracts is generally based on the operator selling materials and using this revenue to offset their costs. Some form of price mechanism is then used for the benefits of these sales to offset the cost to the States.

Summary of arrangement for key material streams: Scrap metal

A 3 year, renewable Service Level Agreement (currently in year 3) with an open book accounts system. A reasonable price per tonne is agreed as base income for metal sales – in years where this price is exceeded the company pay into a strategic reserve' to cover years when the price falls below the threshold. This system has resulted in no payments being made by the States since 2003 and the current strategic reserve being healthy.

Vehicle Spares

The company operating the scrap metal yard (Picot and Rouille Ltd.) have seen a steady decline in the demand for car parts in recent years. They attribute this to modern vehicles being less owner serviceable, more reliable and increases in general affluence.

Paper and Card

These materials are received bulked, exported and sold by a private company. A 5 year contract exists (currently in year 2) which includes a payment per tonne for paper and card based on an annual review of the cost of recycling. The reference for the price review is based on weekly figures published in a national publication called Materials Recycling  Weekly averaged over the year. The price paid for the year following the anniversary of the contract is based on the previous year.

Typical rates for paper (mainly newspaper and magazines) is £25/tonne and cardboard £30/tonne although this has fluctuated in recent years.

Plastic Bottles

Plastic bottles are handled in the same way as paper and card but at the time of tender submission, no payment was required by the contractor. As the tonnages will always be relatively small (10's of tonnes rather than 1000's) no price mechanism was put in place for this 5 year contract. Despite a 70% drop in plastic bottle values this year the contractor currently receives no payment for this material.