Contact Front of Pipe:
PO Box 140, Lewes, BN7 9DS, UK.
Email: enquiryfrontofpipe.net
Web: www.frontofpipe.net
Telephone: +44-1273 401 331

front of pipe homepage > Cambridgeshire County Council's last ditch misinformation

James Greyson issued a press release in advance of the Cambridgeshire County Council meeting on 15th May 2007 to agree the PFI. Deputy Chief Executive of the Council Brian Smith responded by misrepresenting Mr Greyson' views; circulating the following text (in black) to all Councillors and the PFI Board but not to Mr Greyson. This tactic was uncovered and corrections (in red) were returned to Councillors, with a copy to Brian Smith though many Councillors would have had no opportunity to consider the facts before voting. Ironically it was Brian Smith who had upheld a complaint that allegations of "incorrect statements" by Mr Greyson were previously circulated to the PFI Board by senior staff without informing him. If the Council's PFI was legitimate it should have been able to proceed without repeatedly falsifying opposing views.

15th May 2007
Dear Councillor

I am grateful to John Rudkin for forwarding the Council's circular to me. You may like to know that this latest information is no more reliable so I offer corrections below in this larger red type. Locking residents into long term payments for MBT to turn waste into more waste at the expense of all other future opportunities is not the only way forward. You now have a choice between unsustainability and democracy - good luck!
Yours sincerely
James Greyson

Background

1. An email has been received from two concerned residents attaching a press release prepared by a former resident expressing concern about the Waste PFI project. The email and attachment have been sent to all County Councillors and the Waste PFI Procurement Board.

2. The papers for Full Council on 15 May 2007 include a detailed report on the Waste PFI Project and a recommendation to award the Waste PFI contract to Donarbon Waste Management Ltd.

Need for residual waste treatment

3. The Press Release included with the email was issued by Mr James Greyson, a waste and sustainability analyst, well known to many Members for his interest in the Waste PFI Project. He advocates waste prevention, reuse and recycling and believes that facilities to treat residual waste are not needed or necessary.

No, I've not said that. My belief is that the proposed PFI will block possibilities for reduction, reuse and recycling (RRR) and will block consideration of other fast emerging technologies. The Council has no known assessment of opportunities for RRR as part of a strategy for a delayed procurement and more advanced treatments .

4. Whilst we would not disagree with him on the need for more waste prevention, re-use and recycling, we believe that it will be impossible to meet our LATS targets without the ability to treat residual waste. The additional housing and population growth planned for Cambridgeshire compounds the issue because the LATS targets do not take this future waste growth into account.

The Council's 2002 Waste Strategy (4.7) predicts that LATS targets will be met with 45% recycling by 2010. In fact 50% recycling was achieved in 2006 so any claim of needing to rush a procurement is not credible. 

5. We have done extremely well to increase recycling and composting rates to around 50% over the last three years. However, it gets more difficult to continue to increase recycling rates once these levels are being achieved and the same rates of increase cannot be expected in the future. 

The Council has performed no known assessment of the potential future rates of increase in recycling. Bernard Warr's February 2006 commitment to investigate this and to arrange a follow-up meeting was not honoured. It is possible that increases in recycling rates may slow above 50% due mostly to the effect of psychological barriers for government staff and their consultants. A Freedom of Information request in 2006 revealed that the 60% maximum recycling rate was advised by DEFRA's consultants and that Council staff had advocated higher levels. The setting of a maximum rate involved no assessment and no correspondence.  

My prediction that the PFI's long term 2025 target of 60% recycling being met before the PFI even commences in 2009/10 is based upon annual improvements of only half the recent rate, which has been a 5.8% increase between 2001 and 2006. This is a very conservative assumption and would leave the PFI making potentially no contribution whatsoever to Cambridgeshire's future recycling.

6. In line with our Waste Strategy we are continuing to focus on waste prevention, reuse and recycling but we would need to achieve a recycling and composting rate of 75%-80% to be sure of meeting our LATS targets by prevention, reuse and recycling alone.

This is the range that Marin County in California achieved in 2004 with 77% diversion of both household and business wastes, with no burning of mixed wastes. (See http://groups.google.com/group/GreenYes/browse_thread/thread/8fa6ccc35153901?hl=en). The Council could usefully follow its own Waste Strategy proposal (at 4.5) to consider separate collections of biodegradable wastes from businesses. A valuable starting point would be collections for composting from all Cambridgeshire schools and public buildings (or on-site composting).

If for some reason Cambridgeshire cannot match the recycling achievements of some the world's most consumerist communities (such as in California) then enough time would have passed to allow the Council to consider forms of waste treatment (already on the market) which can do better than to make "products" that are good only for either landfill or disposal to people's lungs. It is also possible that by that point The Council may have investigated the alternatives to a Waste Strategy dominated by "end of pipe solutions" (as promised at 2.1.3 of the 2002 Waste Strategy but not undertaken). DEFRA may also in future allocate effort and funds which reflect the needs of the waste hierarchy rather than a policy of tripling waste incineration. Dependence on disposal and disposal-based waste treatments is nothing more than a bad habit and can be rewritten by any level of government willing to try.

7. We believe this would be a higher risk strategy than providing facilities to treat the part of our waste stream which is not, or cannot be, recycled. 

The part of the waste stream which cannot physically be recycled (except by gasification) is around 10%. The part which is not recycled is close to 50%. To equate these distinct fractions is a masterpiece of illusion. This kind of misinformation is sufficient to confuse almost the entire population and this PFI hopes it will confuse Councillors. It does not serve to support the County's ability to reduce the unrecycled fraction closer towards the unrecyclable fraction.

As the Council doubtless knows there is no need to rule out the possibility of waste treatment for all time. The highest risk strategy is for the Council to have such a weak vision of the opportunities as to be unable to consider that delaying procurement is even an option.

8. We know of no other waste disposal authorities proposing to meet their LATS targets without some form of residual waste treatment. 

Again, this is a false argument, based on the false premise that if the Council do not rush ahead now it will need to do without any form of waste treatment in future. Given Cambridgeshire's recycling excellence, and sufficient imagination and will of its public servants, it is however conceivable that this County could be the first to keep ahead of LATS targets with no need for mixed waste treatments of any kind. This seems highly achievable, though some degree of leadership would be needed among Council management.

9. The Government has stated that authorities failing to meet their LATS allowances will be fined £150/tonne. Once the first councils are fined, we would expect surplus LATS allowances to start trading at a much higher level than the current level of £20/tonne.

The £150/tonne fine remains a scare tactic irrespective of the level of LATS allowances since the per tonne cost of greater reduction, re-use, recycling and composting is likely to remain a fraction of this amount over the next 30% increase in recycling (up to 80%). The majority of the "unexplored opportunities in my 2006 report (http://www.sdinnovation.co.uk/Resources/Cambs_PFI2.pdf) would support the wide availability of low-cost routes to meeting LATS targets. A year after the Council received the report, they have yet to generate sufficient interest in exploring them to discuss any of them. The Council has made no known assessment of opportunities and costs of RRR above 60%.

Mechanical Biological Treatment

10. We believe that residual waste treatment capacity is needed and that of the more proven and bankable technologies available, MBT offers greater flexibility than incineration because it enables residual waste to be separated into different outputs for different uses or disposal.

Point 4 above shows that by the Council's own data, there is no pressing need for residual waste treatment capacity. If in future there is a pressing need for this then carbon-separated residuals may be considered for a clean fuel option such as plasma gasification (now ready for large scale use). European producer responsibility rules will also increasingly improve recyclability and fund schemes for take-back and recycling (as noted at 2.3.2 in the 2002 Waste Strategy).

MBT is an old technology that may be considered obsolete in any community with; a need for genuine uncontaminated compost (to reduce fertiliser use and soil erosion); an awareness of the benefits of placing carbon in the ground rather than the atmosphere; and an enjoyment of their health (unencumbered by the fine particulates generated by incineration).

A bankable technology is one which the financial community, with their history of ecological understanding, considers either unchallenging or incomprehensible.

The "flexibility" of MBT is the option to dump to both air and land, instead of just land (landfill) or just air (incineration).

11. The principal output from the MBT facility will be a Compost-Like-Output which, in the absence of consent from the Environment Agency to use in land restoration activities or as a crop growing medium, will be landfilled. 

The Council is careful not to use the term "compost" since it is illegal to call it that, or to place it onto soil. Projects to reclaim contaminated land will not even use this stuff. MBT turns waste into waste. 

12. A Refuse Derived Fuel fraction may also be produced which could be landfilled or traded as a commodity fuel. 

The Council continue to imply that RDF has some value when it incurs a disposal cost whether it is dumped to land or air. This cost is significantly underestimated by the Council in their financial planning. See http://www.sdinnovation.co.uk/PFI_tricks.html#information Dumping to air is likely to be slightly cheaper and the waste-burning company which the Council cite in the selection of their PFI technology has recently announced its availability as a secure outlet for RDF (see http://www.sdinnovation.co.uk/PFI_tricks.html#information 6th item under 'ignore sustainable options').

Consultation

13. A chronology of the consultation and democratic processes associated with preparation of the Council’s Waste Strategy and the Waste PFI Project is set out at the end of this note.

14. The Council is aware of the guidance referred to in the email ( http://www.defra.gov.uk/ENVIRONMENT/WASTE/localauth/practice-guidance/pdf/infosheet01.pdf  ) which was issued after the Council embarked on the Waste Strategy and the Waste PFI Project. However, it has been taken into account in more recent consultations and it is our view that we have complied with this guidance.

The Council have not complied with this guidance. No response from the Council has been received to a written complaint in October 2005 about consultations. No response from the Council has been received to a written complaint in March 2006 about consultations. Directive 2003/35/EC requires "continuous" community engagement of the sort that was promised but not delivered in the Council's 2002 Waste Strategy 2.4 - "regular public waste and recycling forums". The Council's view on DEFRA's guidance is contradicted by detailed evidence of extensive manipulation of public engagement and public information, see http://www.sdinnovation.co.uk/PFI_tricks.html.

15. The Waste Strategy was adopted in 2002 after extensive public consultation including leaflets and questionnaires distributed to most households, a travelling roadshow and workshops in each District Council area.

16. The Strategy was reviewed by Defra who described it as “one of the best” they had seen.

Perhaps this says more about the state of waste planning nationally. Cambridgeshire's waste strategy 2002 has no Best Value target for cutting waste generation levels, no waste prevention strategy, no waste prevention policy, no prevention analysis of waste streams, no prevention targets for key streams, no hazardous-waste prevention policy or initiatives, no public dialogue about waste prevention, no dedicated staff to coordinate waste prevention, no forum for discussing waste prevention opportunities, no mechanism for improvement in waste prevention policy or initiatives and no known plans for improving waste prevention.

Despite this, the Strategy contained commitments which would have been valuable had they not been ignored. See http://www.sdinnovation.co.uk/PFI_tricks.html#strategy

17. As well as plans to increase reuse and recycling, the need for new facilities to treat residual waste was clearly set out in the Waste Strategy.

No. The Strategy appears to have no section at all on reuse, let alone any plans for increasing it. Waste reduction is covered at 2.3 and recycling at 2.4. A vague reference to "reuse messages" within a section on the role of central government (2.3.2) may not be seen as a plan for the County. Plans for recycling depended on "defining appropriate ways forward" using the "regular public waste and recycling forums" which were not implemented.

Facilities for treatment considered by the Strategy were distinctly different from those considered by the PFI. The PFI ignores the Strategy's prioritisation of residual waste technologies. Anaerobic digestion and emerging thermal technologies such as gasification and pyrolysis were prioritised. MBT would be considered only if these others were not feasible and the residue would be landfilled. Incineration would be pursued only as a last resort (section 2.6). The Council could have waited for the emerging technologies to emerge (gasification is now being planned for Bristol). The Council have also broken their commitments about waste burning by considering an incineration PFI bid and allowing MBT to produce RDF for burning. The Council have not disclosed this major change of policy to the public or to Councillors.

18. The Waste PFI Project was set up to deliver this part of the Waste Strategy and has followed a process defined by Government and relevant EU and national public sector procurement rules.

Detailed evidence for how this PFI misled DEFRA is offered at http://www.sdinnovation.co.uk/defra_pfi_guide.html

This PFI's conduct against key Treasury policy is outlined at http://www.sdinnovation.co.uk/PFI_tricks.html#inappropriate

19. The fact that an MBT solution has now emerged as the favoured solution is because the particular type of MBT proposed is considered to offer the best prospect of meeting the Council’s LATS targets and enabling the Council to deliver this part of the Waste Strategy at an acceptable level of risk and affordability.

The emergence of this favoured solution is based on 3 key factors:

1. "Encouraging discussions" with a waste-burning business, as explicit in the Council's Outline Business Case.

2. Omitting the option of continuing increases in RRR as a temporary or permanent residual waste option.

3. Failing to reassess the grounds for rushing into a PFI when recycling rates rose above the 50% target set for the PFI in 2015.

20. An Examination in Public was held by ECS Scrutiny Committee in March 2006 to consider the issues associated with waste treatment technologies at which approximately 30 interested parties and members of the public attended.

Detailed evidence for the PFI seriously misleading this Scrutiny process is offered at http://www.sdinnovation.co.uk/pfimisleading.html

21. Throughout the procurement process, the Council’s website has provided information about the project and leaflets and articles have been written to try to keep people informed. A number of articles have appeared in the local press at various stages of the process.

The PFI's persistent misinformation is elaborated at http://www.sdinnovation.co.uk/PFI_tricks.html#information

22. Consultation carried out by the applicant and the Planning Authority prior to, and following, receipt of the planning application for the MBT facility was extensive and complied with the Council’s adopted Statement of Community Involvement. There were no objections to the planning application.

The Council did not consult members of the public who had attended PFI-associated events. Organising the planning application ahead of any PFI contract may be considered a ploy to avoid objections and to suggest to Councillors that the PFI is a done deal which does not require serious consideration.

23. Other than Mr Greyson’s criticism (of both Defra and the Council in respect of this issue) and negative comment from around 30 other individuals at the time of the Examination in Public 12 months ago, there has been no public opposition to the project in general or the MBT facility in particular. 

The public were unaware of the existence of the PFI during the only stage at which they could have informed the process, the options assessment stage. Instead a local waste burning business and other waste disposal contractors had this opportunity.

The PFI's misinformation (http://www.sdinnovation.co.uk/PFI_tricks.html#information ) precludes any significant public engagement , as may have been foreseen in the PFI's unpublished "communications strategy".

24. The Procurement Board was set up to oversee the Waste PFI project and to help make procurement related decisions in a fast moving procurement process. Ultimately, the Board remains accountable to Cabinet. 

The PFI Board was set up to work "outside the County Council's formal decision making process" and was unknown to the public until 2006. No minutes have been published. No emails have been returned. A formal complaint remains open about Council staff circulating unfounded allegations to the Board in order to block their consideration of critical information.

25. The decision to appoint a Preferred Bidder was a Cabinet, not a Procurement Board decision. The decision to award the Waste PFI Contract is a Full Council not a Procurement Board decision.

It was a Cambridgeshire County Councillor's opinion last year that "the PFI is steaming on ahead regardless and there doesn't seem to be much we can do". This next Council meeting is an opportunity to do something, the last opportunity if the PFI is approved.

Further details of Mr Greyson’s views and criticisms are available on his website

http://www.sdinnovation.co.uk/frontofpipe.html

Public Consultations and events

2001 Public consultation on the Waste Strategy including distribution of 292,000 leaflets and questionnaires, a travelling roadshow and 6 workshops in each District Council area

2002 Waste Strategy adopted

Not a public event. Waste Strategy not followed.

2003 Waste PFI Project set up to deliver the new waste treatment facility aspects of the Strategy

Not a public event. Public unaware of PFI until late 2005. 

2005 Consultation on review of the Waste Strategy including distribution of 100,000 leaflets and questionnaires and workshops held in each District Council area

Not a valid consultation - complaints yet to be answered by the Council and DEFRA

2006 Environment & Community Services Scrutiny Committee Examination in Public on the issues associated with waste treatment options

Scrutiny misled by the PFI - see website.

2007 Consultation on review of the Waste Strategy including distribution of 5,000 leaflets and questionnaires, on-line questionnaire and workshops held in each District Council area

2006/7 Consultation on the planning application for the MBT facility

Press release 14th May 2007

Residents set to pay for County Council waste PFI white elephant

The largest ever contract with Cambridgeshire County Council will be decided next Tuesday, for a Private Finance Initiative waste disposal scheme. The contract has already cost local people around £1.5 million to set-up and if Councillors give it the go-ahead, the bill to Cambridgeshire residents will be around £800 million over the next 25 to 30 years. The scheme is criticised by waste expert James Greyson who took part in an unadvertised 'consultation' event about the PFI in 2005 which involved just 10 Cambridge residents. When Mr Greyson asked why just one option was being offered for how to deal with rubbish, a government consultant told him that the public would get a chance to object when the scheme reached planning permission stage.

"That consultation was fudged and this entire PFI procurement is massively flawed ", claims Mr Greyson, whose website www.frontofpipe.net identifies 36 'tricks' allegedly used by the County Council to push through this PFI. If accepted, the contract will turn mixed waste into 'contaminated compost' which cannot be legally used on soil and can only be landfilled. It will also turn mixed waste into Refuse Derived Fuel which is designed for disposal to air by burning and may end up at the controversial Barrington Cement works. According to Mr Greyson, "The Council is planning a form of waste treatment that will turn waste into more waste. All the rubbish that would go into this is preventable, reusable, compostable or recyclable and the Council have not assessed this sustainable option. The Council's scheme is a white elephant with no benefit in reducing dependence on disposal."

Cambridgeshire currently has a soaring recycling rate, rising from 22% in 2001 to 51% at the beginning of 2006. If the waste PFI goes ahead, the prospects for future improvements in recycling look bleak, with the Council proposing a target during the PFI of only 60% in 2025. If Cambridgeshire residents continue recycling more as they have been doing then the 60% target will be achieved before the new treatment plant even starts work in 2009/10. If this PFI goes ahead the County's national leadership will be lost and Cambridgeshire may be known instead for the way it wasted its waste.

Ends.

Contact:

James Greyson, 01273 401 331, 07970 776 779, mediafrontofpipe.net

Notes:

1. Recycling rates in Cambridgeshire: http://www.recap.co.uk/news/newsitem.aspx?action=view&id=1373.

2. Criticisms of Cambridgeshire's waste PFI: http://www.frontofpipe.net

3. The Council's waste PFi webpage: http://www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/environment/waste/about/future/ The 50% target already achieved by Cambridgeshire is the same target that the PFI intends to reach by 2015, so the County is 9 years ahead of schedule and there is no rush to commit to any long-term contract.

4. The threat of a £150/tonne fine from the government is just a scare tactic since the opportunities for reducing biodegradeable wastes are vast and if needed, the Council can purchase allowances for biodegradeable wastes that cost just £20 per tonne: http://www.letsrecycle.com/news/archive/news.jsp?story=577

5. HM Treasury's "key policy" on PFI shows that PFI is unsuitable for sectors which are fast changing (such as waste management) or when public service accountability is weak (such as Cambridgeshire's waste PFI procurement): http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/1E1/33/bud06_pfi_618.pdf page 32.

6. James Greyson is a waste and sustainability analyst who lived in Cambridge until 2006. He is now based in East Sussex and has published a new form of economic instrument using market forces to phase out all forms of waste, including greenhouse gas emissions. See: http://www.BlindSpot.org.uk