Your browser is no longer supported

For the best possible experience using our website we recommend you upgrade to a newer version or another browser.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of MRW, please enable cookies in your browser

We'll assume we have your consent to use cookies, so you won't need to log in each time you visit our site.
Learn more

Concerns over GIB data and GIB response

Chris Holmes, managing director for waste and bioenergy at the Green Investment Bank, comments on criticisms of the bank’s report on EfW capacity.

Four key points of contention

Criticism

GIB response

Not following the waste hierarchy

The GIB chose to focus on EfW before exploring investment opportunities for recycling.

We have not ignored the hierarchy. The GIB paid attention to recycling in the report and we are cognisant that there is a strong investment opportunity in it, which we may address in further studies in due course. What we wanted to do was address the bigger questions being asked by the industry: how do you process and manage the C&I waste? And what is the extent of it?

Lack of transparency on the underlying data andmethodology

Data on C&I waste sector remains scarce. The GIB has not published the figuresunderpinning the study,nor its methodology.

Tolvik is expert in this field and we engaged with the company knowing it would have access to that data and would be able to analyse it. Some of the data is publicly available. We are happy to share the data behind the graphs and the charts of the reports. But clearly there is some intellectual property behind the assumptions and the calculations, and this remains the property of Tolvik.

Ignored facilities that have planning permission

The GIB has not taken into account the EfW plants that have already received planning permission. Consultancy Eunomia says there is already around 20 million tonnes of planned capacity in the pipeline. The GIB report estimates 8.3 million of planned capacity.

We excluded planned facilities from the report because there have been a number of examples where developers have achieved planning permission, but that is only one part of a complex equation to get a project financed and built. We discounted [planned capacity] because our feeling is that most of those projects are a long way away from achieving financial close.

The work was given to Tolvik Consulting

The director of Tolvik Consulting is Adrian Judge, former managing director for waste and bioenergy at the GIB.

We are not trying to hide anything. When Adrian left the GIB, there was a clear statement that we would continue to work closely with him in his role as director of Tolvik and the services he could provide.

 

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions. Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.