Ernst & Young’s review of public services recommends the outsourcing of waste collection in the Cayman Islands, but recognizes the need to first establish a system for paying for the service.
The review’s report, titled “Project Future: Creating a sustainable future for the Cayman Islands,” also recommends the outsourcing of landfill operations to a private sector entity, the development of a comprehensive solid waste disposal management system and the engagement in a public-private partnership to facilitate the capital funding needed for the project. “A [public-private partnership] that develops, operates and maintains the landfill solutions that will effectively deliver needed capital investment in exchange for a revenue stream could be part of an effective solution,” the report states. “This option requires the introduction of waste disposal fees for users of the landfill site.”
By implementing the report’s recommendations with respect to outsourcing waste collection and landfill services, EY estimates the Cayman Islands government could save $2 million annually, which is the amount of the current subsidy it provides in relation to those services.
The EY report notes that waste disposal fees were “effectively abolished in 2010 due to difficulties and costs of collection.”
“Current waste collection fee arrangements in the Cayman Islands are ineffective with most residents and many commercial entities not paying for services,” the report states.
To realize the estimated $2 million cost savings, the EY report makes it clear that the initiative would require the enforced collection of waste disposal fees.
“In order to successfully outsource waste collection, it is a necessary preceding step to implement a collection fee structure and system.”
In addition to fees for waste collection, the report states, charges are likely to be introduced for those bringing waste to the landfill site “for both private garbage collection companies and private citizens.”
EY suggests a feasibility study into the most appropriate and effective mechanism for collecting fees and states that the “pay as you throw” model is the preferred method for government bodies.
“Pay as you throw is a usage-pricing model for disposing of municipal solid waste whereby users are charged a rate based on how much waste they present for collection,” the report states. It goes on to highlight three types of pay-as-you-throw programs:
Full-unit pricing requires users to pay for all the garbage they want collected in advance by purchasing a tag, a custom garbage bag or a selected size container.
Partial-unit pricing involves a local authority deciding on a maximum number of bags or containers of garbage that can be collected and paid for through taxes, with additional bags or containers available for purchase.
Variable-rate pricing allows users to choose to rent a container of varying sizes, with the price corresponding to the amount of waste generated.
The EY report lists several risks to implementation of collection of waste disposal fees, stating that there would be a cost to collection, plus the need for enforcement and regulatory change. In addition, it states that those not willing to pay may illegally dump their waste.
“Managing the public perception and awareness of the need to embrace collection fees is also an important consideration,” the report states. “As with many services in Cayman, it is currently considered a ‘free good’ and information and education will need to be provided for this shift in approach, with the emphasis on the community benefits achieved through more efficient waste management.”
The EY report states that imposing a financial cost to users of waste collection should lead to better behaviors and incentives to reduce waste production. This would in turn lead to a more “ecologically friendly society that adheres to the waste management hierarchy: prevention, reuse, recycle, recover and disposal.”
“Studies have indicated that waste collection fees shift waste generators up the waste management hierarchy, reducing the amount of waste disposed of.”
However, the report also notes that the government would need to make improvements in procedure, regulation and enforcement to waste management processes, including recycling, as part of the wider incentive.
One surprising aspect of the report is that it seems to assume the need for a new landfill site, noting the “potential for local sensitivity in relation to any new site for the landfill.” “This may be offset by the satisfaction of those currently inconvenienced by the exiting site.”
The report’s implementation plan for the introduction of waste collection fees and the outsourcing of collection shows a three-phase time line, with transition and completion within 20 months.
Related Videos
Even with a free collection service, too much garbage ends up on waste land or the beaches.
While charging for waste collection may be an admirable idea, I suspect it will greatly increase the likelihood that people will dump their trash rather than paying for collection.
They had the right idea with the tyres, just no follow through.
By charging for disposal at point of import, no-one can evade payment.
The added benefit is price will reflect cost of disposal – many goods are over-packaged but also available in minimalist versions often at the same cost. Importers tend to favour the over-packaged version as it has better eye appeal on the shelf. But if the minimal package version has a few dollars saving the benefit to the landfill is clear. Maybe drinks companies will start to import syrups and bottle soda’s on island – refilling recyclable glass bottles at zero landfill / zero cost – like the Caybrew model which has been working well and is popular with customers.
By having district recycling centres set up where the public can dump their separated waste and recycling firms provide the dumpsters there by eliminating the majority of the waste stream to landfill to cost of collection is vastly reduced.
The recycling firms in return has presorted material that they can directly reprocess in bulk thus reducing their costs as well; this all can be done at little to no cost to the government and save collection costs.
The balance of waste would then fall into two categories wet (food waste) and dry ( other non recyclable). The government could licence a firm to collect the food waste, which can be simply converted in compost and sold back to public. The market is created by banning the import of compost from abroad once again a no cost solution. This would leave a small proportion of waste to be collected and could be burnt which would once again be licensed as the process could process electricity or government chooses the firm that will do this at least cost.
In this way privatising waste collection need not cost the public increased fees across the board as the private collection firms would directly bill the waste producers as a part of the licence. Therefore families who produce little to no waste are rewarded with less fees compared with wasteful families.