An on-line community for the environment sector
NEA's Scrutiny and Policy Board — Waste Management Study
As Jo and Gareth will be aware, I responded to the North East Assembly's consultation last week with such comments as "both documents smack of the worst excesses of quango-speak", amongst other comments that will hopefully have been seen as more constructive (though I consider my attempts at wake-up calls like this equally valuable in the real world I endeavour to inhabit). It certainly got the attention of Nicola Boyne, their Development Manager who responded within an hour or two of it landing on her desk. Credit to her for that, and she sounds like a very nice lady. I look forward to receiving a copy of the report in the next few weeks and will by doing a little scrutiny myself, have no fear.
However, am I the only one that feels as if there is a lot of public money being spent going around in circles re-inventing the wheel? As I pointed out in my response, there were 23 acronyms, a few of them referring to strategies, but many representing bodies with fingers in the pie ... and I wonder how many are really productive with solid actions resulting from their outputs rather than simply more rhetoric, more studies, more consultation, in a self-procreating spiral?
I would like to see a family tree of these acronymic bodies (am I becoming an acronimby do you thik?) so that the uninitiated can understand how they might fit together and in what pecking order. Also a matrix of all the reports and studies carried out to look at any unnecessary overlap and duplication and whether they resulted in coherent action following their publication (tell me if I'm becoming delirious won't you?). I freely admit to lacking a clear understanding of exactly what the NEA does .... and studying their sluggish website, I am disappointed to immediately see that 70% of its make-up is the local authorities of the region. By the time such other quangos and sectors as The Learning and Skills Council, Further Education, Health, Higher Education, National Parks, Culture Sport and Tourism, Faiths and the Voluntary Sector have been granted representation, the make-up appears to be predominantly publicly funded either indirectly or directly. For me, the danger of this is that far too many involved have a vested interest in keeping that sort of ball rolling and private enterprise is very much under-represented. The Environment Network should be on their panel without a doubt. Does anyone know who makes up the environment fraction of NEA?
Getting back to waste and recycling for this forum, NEA had a study into regional waste strategy carried out by ERM in 2003. Entec were commissioned in 2005 to produce a regional residual waste capacity study and again this year to produce a study on waste capacity and arisings in the region. NEA supposedly appointed a waste advocate for 6 months this year (not that he came knocking on my door - did he knock on yours?) ... and now we have yet another consultation process going on. Has a single extra sheet of paper been recycled or investment in one major re-processing facility been achieved in the 5 years since Entec's first report? Not that I'm aware of. I do however know of recycling businesses closing down and funding that elicited real actions being withdrawn from the sector. Studies and reports and consultations are all very well, but local authorities only collect the waste, they don't make anything useful out of it .... it's private industry that processes tonnage. It's educators within private industry that reduce waste at source. Local authorities have demonstrated that the limit of their wit and investment is pretty much £1.50 per household in plastic boxes for kerbside collections. Where's the long-term vision? Where's the investment in partnerships with entrepreneurs and where is the consideration of waste as a resource (a fancy idea for something that was clearly never going to go away anyhow) and the application of industrial principles to the topic?
Any comments?
Best wishes,
Doug
However, am I the only one that feels as if there is a lot of public money being spent going around in circles re-inventing the wheel? As I pointed out in my response, there were 23 acronyms, a few of them referring to strategies, but many representing bodies with fingers in the pie ... and I wonder how many are really productive with solid actions resulting from their outputs rather than simply more rhetoric, more studies, more consultation, in a self-procreating spiral?
I would like to see a family tree of these acronymic bodies (am I becoming an acronimby do you thik?) so that the uninitiated can understand how they might fit together and in what pecking order. Also a matrix of all the reports and studies carried out to look at any unnecessary overlap and duplication and whether they resulted in coherent action following their publication (tell me if I'm becoming delirious won't you?). I freely admit to lacking a clear understanding of exactly what the NEA does .... and studying their sluggish website, I am disappointed to immediately see that 70% of its make-up is the local authorities of the region. By the time such other quangos and sectors as The Learning and Skills Council, Further Education, Health, Higher Education, National Parks, Culture Sport and Tourism, Faiths and the Voluntary Sector have been granted representation, the make-up appears to be predominantly publicly funded either indirectly or directly. For me, the danger of this is that far too many involved have a vested interest in keeping that sort of ball rolling and private enterprise is very much under-represented. The Environment Network should be on their panel without a doubt. Does anyone know who makes up the environment fraction of NEA?
Getting back to waste and recycling for this forum, NEA had a study into regional waste strategy carried out by ERM in 2003. Entec were commissioned in 2005 to produce a regional residual waste capacity study and again this year to produce a study on waste capacity and arisings in the region. NEA supposedly appointed a waste advocate for 6 months this year (not that he came knocking on my door - did he knock on yours?) ... and now we have yet another consultation process going on. Has a single extra sheet of paper been recycled or investment in one major re-processing facility been achieved in the 5 years since Entec's first report? Not that I'm aware of. I do however know of recycling businesses closing down and funding that elicited real actions being withdrawn from the sector. Studies and reports and consultations are all very well, but local authorities only collect the waste, they don't make anything useful out of it .... it's private industry that processes tonnage. It's educators within private industry that reduce waste at source. Local authorities have demonstrated that the limit of their wit and investment is pretty much £1.50 per household in plastic boxes for kerbside collections. Where's the long-term vision? Where's the investment in partnerships with entrepreneurs and where is the consideration of waste as a resource (a fancy idea for something that was clearly never going to go away anyhow) and the application of industrial principles to the topic?
Any comments?
Best wishes,
Doug
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Doug Harris on -
Yesterday, on behalf of the cynical and impatient, I attended the North East Assembly's Scrutiny and Policy Board meeting (much to their surprise), where their waste management draft report was available. Despite being mentioned in the report as a contributor, I had not received an advance copy ....
I dis however have the opportunity to make an initial comment or two and chose to summarise my concerns as follows:
1. It was notable that other attendees' comments on the subject quickly arrived at matters of detail. It was pointed out that this is where the thorny subject of waste management and recycling requires attention. Such general, high-level committee briefs cannot hope to address the detail of the matter and as such, are unlikely to have any great or concentrated effect.
2. The conclusions and recommendations failed to include the accepted upper reaches of the waste hierarchy (despite including it within the report), i.e. avoidance, minimisation and re-use.
3. The participants listed were barely 15% private sector respondents. The vast majority were bodies that draw their remuneration wholly or pretty much directly from the public purse. We need more boat-rockers in there folks!
4. The conclusion that the north east region is a comparitively poor performer is not news. The announcement of how much waste the region produces and recycles is not news either. We are once again repeating ancient studies and re-inventing the wheel. Can we move on from this level of discussion please?
5. It was made clear that the closure of re-processing capacity, the withdrawal of funding for the EIF and 70% cuts in funding for the likes of Envirowise were mistakes that did not reflect the reality of the situation in terms of what needs to be achieved. Do ONE and GONE funding and action plans really reflect world-wide concern for the environment?
6. 'Governance' is an over-used word in the draft report. I stated that while the pyramid of acronyms contributing to the report may be able to influence local authority behaviour and hence household waste recycling, it could not hope to 'govern' private industry. The commercial and industrial wastes of the region are already legislated for to a detailed extent .... however it is up to individual companies how they seek to comply, not to QUANGOS or committees who draw their remuneration from the public purse.
Suffice to say I shall be absorbing the meat of the report over the next few days and shall report back to NEA with my comments on behalf of the cynical and the impatient. If anyone wants a copy, let me know and I'll see if I can obtain an electronic version. Likewise, if anyone wishes me to make specific comments related to the draft report, please let me know and I shall be happy to do so.
Doug -
-
Permalink Reply by Graeme Mills on -
Hi Doug these are very important point comments.
I would have been interested in attending that meeting how did you hear about it?
I would love to see an electronic copy of the report - the comments you have made reinforce my pessamistic and bewlidered view of how the secotr is viewed by the policy makers in the region
Grame -
-
Permalink Reply by Doug Harris on
-
Graeme,
I still only have a paper copy of the 43 page draft report. I admit to not having got around to writing a full formal response to it .... and was thinking of dropping a line in the first instance to Nicola Boyne to find out if there was still time to influence the final publication. I will do this today and if a final electronic copy has been issued in the meantime, will endeavour to obtain one that we may all share.
Doug -
-
Permalink Reply by Graeme Mills on
-
Cheers Doug
Doug Harris said:Graeme,
I still only have a paper copy of the 43 page draft report. I admit to not having got around to writing a full formal response to it .... and was thinking of dropping a line in the first instance to Nicola Boyne to find out if there was still time to influence the final publication. I will do this today and if a final electronic copy has been issued in the meantime, will endeavour to obtain one that we may all share.
Doug -
-
Permalink Reply by John Halliwell on -
Im with you on this Doug, the motto is - If you cant do it - study it.
-
-
Permalink Reply by Doug Harris on
-
Funnily enough I just 'recycled' my copy of the report yesterday. I believe the North East Assembly has now disbanded and if I ever see the report referred to again (outside this forum!) I will publicly eat my hat. There is so much twaddle talked and so many wheels reinvented it's no wonder the planet is in such a state!
-
© 2012 Created by Graeme Mills.
Powered by
