A Provisional Report of Results of the Revised Waste Strategy from the first Workshops on 8 & 9 September 2010

September 30th, 2010 by States of Guernsey Public Services Department

By Jeff Bishop, BDOR and the States of Guernsey Public Services Department



In February 2010 the States directed the Public Services Department to formulate a revised strategy for disposing of solid waste. Since then, the Department has been carefully considering how best to achieve this and, in particular, how it can involve the community in the process, as the Department considers this key to ensuring acceptance of the new strategy.

This has resulted in the Department developing a ten-step framework for this consultation process, involving extensive consultation at each key stage, as outlined in Appendix 1.

Workshop 1

The first Workshop (Workshop 1) formed the first stage of the consultation process, and was held on consecutive evenings of 8 and 9 September 2010, at St Sampson‟s High School, from 7 to 9 30 p.m. The workshops were identical in format and content. To allow for breadth of consultation and convenience of attendees, 2 Delegates were invited to attend the workshop from identified stakeholder groups, 1 on each night.

Provisional Report & Results

This is a preliminary report outlining the provisional results of two identical workshops. It has been prepared as such in order to circulate it to all stakeholders and the public as quickly as possible prior to and at the Public Drop-In event. Further analysis of results will follow.

The report is being sent to all who attended and all who sent apologies. It will also be made available to any others who wish to see it.

These provisional results have been compiled in one report for completeness and ease of reference. The results are set out in attached appendices and comprise of the quantitative and qualitative results of Workshop 1, showing the respective results of the 8 and 9; and the combined results of both evenings. There is also a short summary of each exercise carried out in the workshop.

Aims of Workshop 1

The key aims of the Workshop 1 were as follows:

(i) To consult stakeholders on the 3 draft Objectives of the Waste Strategy;

(ii) To enable stakeholders to score or rate the 25 Waste Strategy Evaluation Criteria;

(iii) To introduce stakeholders to the broader issues governing the development of a waste strategy

In addition, because these were the first events, the format and programme were developed to maximize the opportunity for everyone attending to meet each other, meet the project team, exchange and share views and ideas and enable the project team to gain a fuller picture of everybody‟s concerns and hopes for the strategy.

Background Information: Briefing Pack

In advance of the evening, stakeholders who accepted the invitation to attend the Workshop 1 were sent a briefing pack containing the following background information:

(i) Background outline information on the workshop and the consultation process;

(ii) An information leaflet on waste and recycling in Guernsey;

(iii) The 3 draft objectives;

(iv) The Options Evaluation Criteria; and

(v) List of Stakeholders

Workshop Format

Workshop 1 was run identically on both evenings, containing the same exercises and format as follows:

  • Light Buffet
  • Introduction and scene-setting
  • ‘Walkabout’ in which individuals added their comments to sheets listing the main Option Evaluation Criteria and entitled “ Our Special Island”, “Anything Else” and “Parking Zone”
  • Individual completion of Option Evaluation Criteria Forms asking people to score the importance to them of each main criterion
  • Short feedback from the walkabout
  • Group work to test and sharpen the draft Objectives
  • Short feedback of key points on objectives
  • Questions and Answers from points raised during the session
  • Instant summary of results from the forms
  • End of Workshop Evaluation sheets

Feedback Sessions

It was made clear at the start that the feedback sessions would be kept short to allow people the maximum amount of time to contribute.

Identified Stakeholder List

The invitees to the workshops were drawn from a list of well over 80 identified stakeholder groups and organisations in the island; the list aiming to include as wide a range and as good a balance as possible from across the private, voluntary, community and public sectors. Each group or organisation was invited to send someone to both events. The delegates‟ lists are included in Appendix 9 from which it can be seen that over 50 groups sent people, in nearly all cases to both events.

List of Facilitators

Staff from various States Departments who had received a bespoke 2 day training course on facilitation skills from Jeff Bishop were present on both evenings and are listed in Appendix 11.

Consultation Review Panel

The Public Services Department has also set up a Consultation Review Panel to oversee the consultation process and review the outputs from the workshop events, in accordance with its mandate. The terms of reference and mandate are included in Appendix 10. The important role of the Panel in the consultation process is follows:

Assistance with the Consultation Process

The workshops were planned and led, in close association with the project team, by Jeff Bishop, an independent engagement consultant. He was supported at the workshop by the project team and other officers from States departments acting as facilitators. The list of facilitators appears in Appendix 11.

Exercise 1: Elaboration of Options Evaluation Criteria

This exercise was based on a set of factors that have to be taken into account when assessing the possible waste management options. 25 identified „Criteria‟ were presented to delegates.

  • The aim of this first session was to enable participants, on their own and from their own particular perspective, to enrich, elaborate or add to this list.
  • People did so by noting their comments on large sheets on the wall, each of which featured one of the Criteria.
  • If the comment they wished to add had already been noted they could simply agree it by adding a tick on the sheet.
  • As well as the main sheets there were also two others:
  • One asked for ideas on any special features of being an island that might make waste management easier or more difficult, or even just different.
  • The other asked for „Anything Else‟, 1.e. anything people felt had been totally missed.
  • A verbatim record of the results is attached in Appendix 3, showing the additional points added by delegates and number of ticks. The first column shows how many ticks, if any, were added. The second column notes each comment. Occasional crosses refer to someone disagreeing with a comment.

2. Exercise 2: Scoring the Options Evaluation Criteria Forms

  • As soon as people had added what they wished to on the criteria sheets they were given a form.
  • This listed again the main criteria and asked people to rate the importance of each criterion on a scale from 0 (not important) to 5 (most important). This was not a ranking or relative set of scores; it was simply about the importance of each separate item.
  • Forms were collected and a very basic summary was completed and reported back.
  • People were asked to add in the name of the group or organisation they were there to represent and this will now be used solely to enable the project team to make comparisons, for example between the views of those from the private, community and public sectors. The results of that will follow later.
  • Once the full analysis is complete, all group details will be removed to ensure confidentiality.
  • The results are in Appendix 2.


  • This was the last exercise of the workshop and was done at this stage in the events because it was felt that it was only after people got a genuinely full picture of all the issues that might need to be considered that they could usefully consider the Waste Strategy Project Objectives.
  • As with the criteria, the project team had produced a first draft and people were asked, working in small groups, to check what had been drafted and perhaps make changes and refinements (but avoid great lengthening), even add anything seriously omitted.
  • They were also asked to note down any other points that they felt to be important, even if these were not then contained within the main objectives.
  • The results are in Appendix 4. The draft objectives that they started with were as follows:

1. To endorse the principles of the waste hierarchy, which focuses on waste minimisation.

2. To consider all waste streams and identify the most appropriate methods to manage them in accordance with the waste hierarchy.

3. To develop an economically, environmentally and socially sustainable waste strategy to meet Guernsey‟s needs for the next 25 years.


  • This session took place towards the end of the evening. It was felt that some questions raised at the start might not prove relevant once people had seen the emerging picture; equally, working through the criteria etc. could well raise further questions. It was also possible that some questions would be answered on the spot.
  • In practical terms, the aim was to be able to have time to group the questions so as to focus the limited amount of available time on those asked most commonly or clearly more significant. Some questions might also have needed information not available at the time.  All the questions are contained in Appendix 5.


  • At events such as this, people often think of potentially important issues or ideas that do not fit or would not come up naturally within the given programme.
  • To ensure that these are not lost a flip chart sheet entitled „Parking Zone‟ was made available on which people could add any extra comments.
  • These comments appear in Appendix 6.


Attendees were asked to fill out evaluation criteria sheets on the way out that sought a „snapshot‟ overall evaluation of the evening. These are reproduced in Appendix 7.The evaluation covered two aspects:

(a) whether the evening had been valuable, and;

(b) whether people felt more or less confident about this process producing a robust and agreed strategy.

  • People responded by placing a tick on two scales. Some additional comments on the process from the 9th are also included.


To close the session, Jeff Bishop gave the attendees a summary of the workshop, which included the exercises of the evening and some of the issues raised and addressed.

He then gave a brief outline of the main next stages of the engagement process, as follows:

(a) A public drop-in event to take place on the 1st, 2nd and 3rd October at Beau Sejour Leisure Centre. This will make use of material from the workshops and offer members of the public, or others from all the groups represented at the workshops, an opportunity to raise their awareness, add any further thoughts and suggest what is most important to them.

(b) Deputies‟ Feedback Session & Mini Workshop on Objectives (8 October 2010)

(c) A second round of workshops will take place in January 2011. The main aims of these events will be to suggest a few options for a strategy between the extremes of „do nothing‟ and do „everything‟. Further information will go to workshop participants well in advance of these events.

Jeff concluded by thanking people for their attendance and patience with a challenging agenda, as well as their hard work. The attendees were asked to fill in some evaluation criteria sheets on the way out.




The verbatim commentary results for options evaluation criteria on 8 and 9 September 2010 can be downloaded as a 600 kb PDF file.

For Draft Objectives, Questions & Answers, additional points, and the workshop evaluation questionnaire download this PDF File.

For a list of workshop delegates download this PDF file.

For information on the Waste Consultation review panel and their mandate download this PDF file.

  1. No Comments

Have your say