| BURWOOD
KATE
VALLEY
OTHER LANDFILLS
WHAT
POLITICIANS HAVE SAID
PHOTOS
LINKS
CONTACT
any comments?
Would you like to be a volunteer or support the
P.B.B.U.A. in some way?
|
|
Pegasus Bay photo taken from Mt.
Cass opposite Kate Valley
The Pegasus Bay Beach Users Association was setup to investigate landfills in New Zealand. Especially with Landfills in Canterbury the current Burwood Landfill and the proposed Kate Valley Landfill. The
views expressed here are personal views of P.B.B.U.A. We will show you a
very different view of landfills in New Zealand. Photos with diagrams
are approximations.
THE SHOCKING TRUTH
The shocking truth in
pictures of Burwood landfill
The shocking truth in
pictures of Kate Valley
The shocking truth about
Redvale a claimed 'state of the art' landfill on which Kate Valley is
based
The beautiful Beech Remnant A
LATEST NEWS
Adobe Acrobat reader is required to open some pdf
documents on this website if u dont have acrobat
reader you can get it here
The following represents the views of the P.B.B.U.A. and have
been prepared with the aim of assisting interested parties develop
what PBBUA considers to be an informed opinion about the events
in the Waste Industry in Canterbury.
INTRODUCTION
PBBUA has found that future landfills of the type being considered
for Kate Valley are banned in Europe on account of their numerous
environmental hazards. In Europe discussion over leachate and
landfill gases is over because they are no longer generated by the
methods employed to treat residual waste. Europe views waste as a
resource from which valuable materials and energy are recoverable.
Ten years ago landfills were still considered as an option for waste
but not any longer ...
It is public knowledge that in 1992 the Christchurch City Council
(CCC) applied to the Canterbury Regional Council (CRC) to renew its
consent to continue using the landfill at Burwood. The consent was
due to expire in 1994 and the CCC sought to renew it for 25 years,
until 2019. Waste Management NZ Ltd (WM) lodged an appeal
against this.WM then offered to withdraw the appeal if the CCC
entered into a Joint Venture with it.
PBBUA has found the CCC was not in favour of involvement with
WM as evidenced in a letter written by the Mayor Gary Moore to the
Campaign Against Foreign Control of Aotearoa. ". . . the Christchurch
City Council representatives on the joint committee had a preference
for the Local Authorities themselves to develop the landfill, the
representatives of the other Local Authorities had a preference for
contracting with a private company to build, own and operate the
landfill. . ."
PBBUA therefore believes that WM exerted pressure on the CCC
directly, as well as lobbying and working through the District
Councils, to enter into monopolistic arrangements for a regional
landfill in Canterbury. The CCC appears to have been drawn into a
process and is now locked into a binding and largely secret
agreement.
PBBUA also believes that the CCC insisted on having Envirowaste
Ltd involved in an attempt to try and balance WM's influence, but the
bottom line is that WM had successfully maneuvered its way into a
partnership with the Councils as seen by its well published threats
made to the CCC as reported in the "Christchurch Star" of March
22nd 1995. From this point on PBBUA considers the entire decision-
making process was flawed.
PUBLIC CONSULTATION
The initial public consultation documentation was dated February
1997, some months after the Specifications for Registrants of
Interest in a Joint Regional Landfill was drawn up. PBBUA believes
this fact alone demonstrates the Landfill was a clearly orchestrated
fait accompli.
SELECTION PROCESS FOR PRIVATE SECTOR PARTNERS
PBBUA has found that only companies within New Zealand were
invited to become registrants of interest.
In the Working Party Staff Group Meeting No 1 held 31 May 1996, in
the opening statement of the minutes both WM and Envirowaste
were identified. PBBUA's research has shown that 18 months later
both these companies were selected as joint venture landfill
partners. All others were excluded.
If the process had gone to international competitive tender to
consider a full range of options (as it should have done in the first
place on a project of this scale), PBBUA believe the chances of this
happening would have been zero.
On this basis PBBUA believes the selection of landfill private sector
partners was predetermined which appears to have advanced the
strategic goals of at least one of the private sector partners. Whilst
some might consider this alone to be a travesty, PBBUA believes
there is much worse to come ...
THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU)
The MOU sets out the agreements that make up the joint venture
called Transwaste Canterbury Limited. (TCL) and was signed on 3
September 1998. It was not until after various appeals to the
Ombudsman that a heavily censored copy of the MOU was released
in February 2000,18 months after it had been signed.
PBBUA's research has established that the MOU binds participating
councils not to object to any aspect of the project. PBBUA believes
this turns democracy on its head:-the rights of private sector parties
have taken precedence over the electorate with the public denied
representation. PBBUA believes this issue has far reaching
implications.
Specific Parts of the MOU and their ramifications are now
considered:-
2.5 Remuneration for Selected Site
The MOU states, "In the event that the JVCo Board [Transwaste]
selects any land for the Landfill ... such land shall be sold to the
JVCo immediately after the conclusion of the site selection process."
In light of the fact the site selection process has now been
concluded PBBUA believes it is a matter of public interest to have
the Kate Valley land transaction investigated in detail. It has been
reported that the price paid for this land increased by some millions
of dollars in the space of 48 hours when the land was purchased
from Southern Capital Ltd. Ultimately ratepayers will be paying for
this and it is felt the public should have a detailed explanation. So far
Transwaste is believed to have vigorously resisted all attempts to
have this matter looked into, which only adds fuel to the fire.
2.15 Frustration date 2003 (This clause provided by the
Commerce Commission)
"If, by 31 December 2003, the landfill is not reasonably close to being
operational or all resource consents required to operate the landfill
are not reasonably close to being obtained, the joint venture can be
brought to an end at the election of CWS or the participating
councils.CWS (and WM and Envirowaste) undertake that if the landfill
joint venture is brought to an end in these circumstances, they will
not oppose any extension of the resource consents for Burwood
landfill. . ."
The conclusions PBBUA draws from this are (1) the parties have
identified the point at which they will stop abusing market power to
gain commercial advantage, and (2) There is clear recognition that
Burwood can still be used as a landfill site by the very parties who
claim Canterbury needs a massive new landfill in a remote location
far from the source of most of the waste (75% from Christchurch).
4.1 (d) Directors Fees
". . . CWS [WM and Transwaste] and CWJSC [the Councils] may
elect to make such payments at their discretion"
It is public knowledge that payments in the region of $16,000 per
annum are given to Councillors for attending waste meetings.
PBBUA is of the opinion that such payments could easily be
interpreted as double dipping (Councillors are already paid), or
worse, some sort of inducement condoned by the Joint Venture.
4.2 Operation of the JVCo [Transwaste]
Commercial business with Fair Rate of Return
(a) Withheld from the public - with the note that [The parties agree
that the Company will be run commercially with the principal
objective to operate as a successful business and achieve a Fair
Rate of Return for the shareholders ... ]
The Fair Rate of Return (FRR) can be likened to receiving interest
income on capital expenditure.lt could be argued that it makes good
business sense (especially when using ratepayers' money) for a
landfill to be the opposite of cost efficient as this would increase the
FRR income.lf the waste were to be diverted to some other site (eg
Burwood) PBBUA believes the FRR would still be payable and
estimates this to between $10 to $15 per tonne. This of course would
come out of ratepayers' pockets.
Landfill, transport and other facilities
(c) The JVCo will be run initially as a landfill and waste haulaae
company...
Taking the FRR argument a step further, PBBUA believes it would
also be reasonable to suppose shareholders in a haulage company
would support a Landfill being sited a long way from Christchurch
because waste haulage is paid by kilometer tonnes.
PBBUA believes these factors are influencing the policy of charging
for rubbish bags and at the same time imposing increases in rates.
5.4 Community Fund/Host Fee
". . . establish a Community Fund ... benefiting the local community
immediately affected by the landfill operation ... (for the avoidance
of doubt, landfill operations are taken here to mean those operations
within the immediate vicinity of the Landfill itself and not operations
relating to the Landfill such as transport of waste ... )"
PBBUA considers local residents' associations might do well to read
the above carefully. It appears they will get nothing unless they are
living at the tip face in spite of the alleged promises made to them to
try and win their support.
5.7 Commitment of Controlled Waste Volumes
"All of the Participating Councils and all CWS shareholders will
contractually commit their Controlled Volumes to the Landfill for a
fixed period ... If any of the Participating Councils ... breach ... by
ceasing to put all or any part of their controlled volumes ... shall be
liable for... net present value of JVCo future profit before tax. . ."
Keeping in mind the Landfill project would continue for decades,
PBBUA finds it difficult to imagine that any council would be willing
to commit to this, assuming elected representatives were properly
informed at the time of making such a momentous decision. It should
also be pointed out that the commitment of controlled waste
volumes flies in the face of the hierarchy of waste (reduce, reuse,
recycle, recover and manage the residual) enshrined in New Zealand
law, and seriously conflict with grass roots community lead waste
reduction and recycling schemes highly valued in our society.
5.8 Waste Ownership
"All waste transported by the JVCo [Transwaste] to the Landfill shall
become the JVCo's property. . ."
PBBUA believes clause 5.7 and 5.8 raise some perplexing issues as
to how the MOU was negotiated. It is worth noting the private sector
partners did not 'own' any rubbish prior to the MOU.
PBBUA believes the public should ask why the Councils abdicated
their power and responsibility and let private sector partners
apparently walk all over them. The claimed 'threat' of competition
from other Landfills cannot be taken seriously. Councils have the
power to enact by-laws especially over the issue of waste. Besides,
if there was any doubt about this the Councils could have enacted
their own MOU (without private sector partners) to control their
waste flows.
6.5(d) Waste Minimization
"... all practicable financially viable steps (which will vary across the
Canterbury Region) to ensure there is a minimum potential for further
reduction"
PBBUA feels this depends on what is considered to be "financially
viable" and so the rest of the statement could be considered
cosmetic. PBBUA feels a conflict of interest exists between the
private sector partners' responsibility to their shareholders and what
is in the best public interest.
THE MOU AND DEMOCRACY
It is rightfully public knowledge that during the induction process for
newly elected Councillors they were denied basic information about
the landfill. Some elected representatives were ready to refuse to
ratify the decision to go ahead with the landfill, but the MOU locks
them in and so protest was no longer of any account.Keeping in
mind if the MOU were to go unchallenged it would remain for two or
three decades, PBBUA considers this nothing short of a kiss of
death to democracy.
THE MOU AND TECHNICAL INNOVATION
If the MOU were to stand up to legal challenge PBBUA believes the
regional landfill proposal would lock Canterbury into an obsolete and
harmful technology for decades held together by the monopolistic
MOU.In PBBUA's opinion not only would consumers suffer as a
result of this, New Zealand's international standing on environmental
issues would also be severely compromised.
SUGGESTIONS FOR THE WAY FORWARD - WHAT YOU CAN DO
PBBUA asks you to consider supporting the formation of a Select
Committee Investigation with the aim of declaring the MOU null and
void in its entirety, on the grounds that we believe it was structured
out of a badly flawed process and does not serve the public
interest.lf you support this idea PBBUA suggests you fill out the
attached form and cut it out with the above article and send
Further PBBUA asks you to consider supporting the immediate
improvement and upgrading of Burwood as the last landfill in
Canterbury as was originally intended. According to PBBUA if the
facility were to be upgraded to more acceptable standards, it would
provide an interim solution to Canterbury's waste problem whilst
other innovative and environmentally sound solutions are being
investigated and implemented.
PBBUA believes the CCC and District Councils should go out to
international tender for best practice and innovative solutions to treat
and recover resources from residual waste in line with the New
Zealand Waste Strategy recently announced. (PBBUA has
established there are several environmentally sound resource
recovery solutions some of which cost less than the proposed joint
venture regional landfill.)
email comments here to pbbua2003@yahoo.co.nz |
