Putting Greenland to the test
Publication: Sunday Sun
Paper Section And Page: 11A
Paper Date: Sun, Sep 3, 2000
Byline: by Terry Ally
MAGISTRATE Carlisle Greaves recently said he "smelt a rat" with the announcement that use of the Mangrove Pond Landfill would be extended by three years.
As much as it might pain Magistrate Greaves and his neighbours in Arch Hall, St. Thomas, to admit it, Mangrove Pond/Vaucluse is the best location for the landfill.
Evidence of this is that even though the landfill is moving, the area will remain the hub of Barbados' garbage operation because of its central location. And the decision to move was political, not scientific. At the same time, Government's policy remains largely steadfast, with a slight change towards incineration.
These are among the issues embodied in the recent announcements by Minister of Health Senator Phillip Goddard.
Move to Greenland
Against the hope of those opposed to the "environmental madness" of placing a rubbish heap in one of the most high-risk areas in Barbados, Government remained consistent in its decision. The decision to put the national dump at Greenland was a political one, originally taken by the Democratic Labour Party and later confirmed by the Barbados Labour Party (BLP).
The environmental impact assessment originally identified Mangrove Pond as the most suitable location but the Government of the day sent away the consultants to find another area because of the pollution problems, which affected the residents of Arch Hall and Bennetts. In sending them away, they also permitted them to consider the Scotland District, which was previously out of bounds because of the general instability of the area.
Today, the decision remains political even though "experts" and politicians have said all that is required was to make a good job of Mangrove Pond.
"Properly managed, the (extended Mangrove Pond) landfill will not create a problem," Goddard admitted at his recent Press conference.
After spending $20 million on Greenland, it could be political suicide not to open it, according to my colleague, Albert Brandford, the Nation's political editor.
He thinks there would be "political fallout if that money goes to waste; at the same time, if the landfill is opened and there is a washout, then it will definitely affect them at the polls".
The timing of the completion of remedial work means that Greenland would be opened, possibly 14 to 16 months before the next general election is constitutionally due. If during that time there is any incident with the St. Andrew landfill, the BLP will face a public relations and political nightmare.
Rain is the mortal enemy of the Greenland Landfill and since its construction, Mother Nature has been very kind to it. Rainfall has been nowhere close to historical averages. The one-in-one-hundred-year storm event, for which engineers are now redesigning the drainage system, is over 20 inches in a 24 hour period which occurred in July 1901, three months before the massive landslide in the Scotland District. The long-range climate outlook is also in the BLP's favour. A waning La Niņa is expected to be replaced with an El Niņo at the end of this year and should continue for at least two years. This means that Barbados will see brown times, and possibly drought, right through to 2003, the year before the elections and by the time the rains come, elections would probably be over. Of course, there is the odd system that could come our way and dump 20 inches of rain on Barbados. That's the risk with weather. The prognosis for the BLP in relation to Greenland looks good but the real test will come with the rains, and they will come.
Consistency
Government remains consistent in the Greenland matter. It consistently says that Mangrove Pond Landfill will be closed while extending it each time and it also consistently says it takes the professional advice available on Greenland, professional advice, which is now costing us at least $3 million more.
Actually there were two schools of professionals. The ones against the project, whose advice was not accepted, and the ones hired by Government to do the state's bidding. So Government continues to listen, really, to selected professional advice.
The actually cost of putting a landfill at Greenland is much more than $20 million. In fact it could be between $30 million and $40 million because of other environmental and associated costs not factored into the original estimates and which are skilfully omitted in public utterances. When the construction was well under way, environmentalist Richard Goddard discovered hairline cracks in the Shorey Village, St. Andrew bridge which was one of only two access points to Greenland and then he posed a serious question: should the two access roads be washed away, what is the provision for storing garbage for the year or so while the roads are repaired? That led to a $10 million fix to construct a highway from the Walker's sand pit where the cover material for Greenland is stored. Then the environmental impact assessment said the most logical route to Greenland is too narrow and dangerous for the transfer trailers. So more roadworks to widen the roads from Mile-And-A-Quarter to Rose Hill in St. Peter, Greenland or no Greenland, these are welcomed fixes.
This takes us back to Mangrove Pond as a garbage hub. Even when Greenland opens, the majority of the island's garbage will still go via Mangrove Pond. That's where it is to be separated. The organic material will be taken out and composted at the same location. A hazardous chemicals disposal plant is also to be constructed there. The remaining garbage will be placed on larger trucks and sent to Greenland. When incineration was being looked at a few years ago, the leading proposal before Government was for the facility to be located at Mangrove Pond/Vaucluse Plantation because it was the most central point in the island.
Senator Goddard has now said that Government was looking at an "aggressive and thorough" incineration programme - the same thing which was ruled out five years ago because it was too expensive, according to the Inter-American Development Bank, which preferred the "least cost option" which was interpreted to be a landfill.
Today, Government sees it differently.
"We do see a need for incinceration with co-generation (electricity production) and we will be moving in that direction with an appropriate degree of haste," Goddard said.
Despite the dismissal five years ago, government received about 40 proposals for incineration and from these a shortlist was created. Topping that list was a proposal from the Williams Group of Companies for a "Build, Own, Operate" plant at Vaucluse Plantation which would produce electricity and sold to the Barbados Light & Power (BL&P). It is the same arrangement under which the Desalination Plant operates. The BL&P and Williams Group could not reach agreement on the price of electricity. What the BL&P and Williams Group could not reach agreement on the price of electricity. What the BL&P was offering was the conventional rate and considered unreasonable and far too low. There was no agreement and the proposal has since gathered dust.
Goddard stresses that Government is taking a holistic approach to garbage management. This will be done by recycling, reusing, and composting first, and then landfilling whatever is left.
When the incinerator is constructed, the non-recyclable garbage will be burnt and the ashes landfilled whatever is left. When the incinerator is constructed, the non-recyclable garbage will be burnt and the ashes landfilled at Greenland. Under this plan Greenland could last several decades ... if it does not wash out.