What now after RPA?

An update on plans for a single waste authority after the collapse of local government reform.

Under Edwin Poots’ reform plans for local government, the new 11 councils were to be served by a single waste disposal authority for the province, but disagreements over its timing led to the proposal being shelved.

In brief, waste is collected by councils and disposed of by the three waste management groups, which are voluntary groupings of councils: arc21, the North West Region Waste Management Group and the Southern Waste Management Partnership (also called SWaMP2oo8).

These groups are also responsible for planning waste management and each one is currently developing facilities to deal with residual waste, which would normally be sent to landfill. Policy, strategy and government legislation is up to the Department of the Environment, but individual MLAs can also bring forward private member’s Bills.

The debate over a single waste authority has been taking place for 10 years, since the first waste management strategy was drafted in 2000. There are differing political views among the 582 councillors, not necessarily party political, over whether the existing arrangements work well or not.

Edwin Poots, a former Lisburn councillor, has long supported a single authority. He told the Assembly last October that it was a “better model to take us on the remainder of [the] journey” to reduce municipal waste.

He supported the model for three reasons. It would firstly ensure a strategic approach to waste management and make the best use of waste as a resource. Ratepayers would also receive the best value for money, just as the three waste management groups had already saved money. A third reason was that a single authority could promote the best and most practical environmentally sensitive solutions.

Ongoing infrastructure contracts would be carried over to the new authority, which would be “wholly owned and operated by local government”.

Councils would remain responsible for waste collection but pass control over disposal and planning to the authority. However, other details needed to be worked out e.g. whether it would replace the existing groups, to whom the authority will report, how it should be funded, and when it should happen.

The current Waste Bill could have allowed the department to set up this authority but a public consultation held last year showed mixed views.

“Some respondents supported the concept, suggesting that it offered potential for efficiency savings,” a DoE spokeswoman said. “Others contended that the existing arrangements were working well, and that there was therefore no need for a single waste authority in Northern Ireland.”

She added that the Minister has expressed his appreciation of the waste management group’s procurement work.

The DoE is now carrying out an economic appraisal into how waste services are delivered. Financial savings will be identified, which could include more efficient procurement and contract management, but the process will also look at the non-monetary costs and benefits of each option.

Waste management groups will receive £2.2 million from the DoE for 2010-2011. They are also funded by councils and details of these costs are to be forwarded to the department and factored into the appraisal.

In the local government reform business case, published last October, consultants said the authority could be governed by a committee of councils or alternatively be a more business-focused, independent organisation.

NILGA wants any discussions around a possible authority to take place after reform, so the procurement process could be cleared up in one round. It has no strong views on the subject but is “satisfied that councils are working well together” within the existing groups.

Writing to Assembly Speaker William Hay on 15 June, Edwin Poots said he would be bringing “fresh proposals” on a timetable to deliver the reform before the Executive over the summer and before the Assembly in September.

Reform, he added, could not work without “robust and properly costed delivery mechanisms” and new councils would be judged on whether they provided “efficient, effective and value for money” services.