MORI Revisited [see MORI report]
In the spring of
2003, MORI produced an excellent and informative poll and report commissioned by
SEERA relating to waste management requirements in the Region. Unfortunately
some questions were not developed to a degree where significant and specific
responses from interviewees would have enabled more precise interpretation.
As a consequence,
it was disappointing that several ill-considered and incorrect statements were
made purporting to be substantiated by data contained in the MORI poll. It is
obvious that those making the comments and passing information to the media had
not studied the report in sufficient detail or taken guidance from the
considered and instructive ‘Introduction’ and ‘Executive Summary’ of the
report.
When the
political parties prepared for the parliamentary election on May 5th
and candidates jostled for county council positions, these misquotes and
misconceptions were repeated by some as supporting the argument that the
general populace is in favour of incineration.
NOTHING IS FURTHER
FROM THE TRUTH – WE MUST, THEREFORE, REVISIT THE MORI REPORT
First, let us
look at advice contained in - ‘Interpretation of the data’
Sect 1.3 of the
Introduction [see
MORI report]
“It should be remembered that this survey is based on a
sample, not the entire population of the South East England region. In
consequence, all results are subject to sampling tolerances, which means that
not all differences are statistically significant.”
“Two of the key strengths of qualitative research are
that it allows issues to be explored in detail and enables researchers to test
the strength of people’s opinion. However, it needs to be remembered that
qualitative research is designed to be illustrative rather than statistically
representative and therefore does not allow conclusions to be drawn about the
extent to which views are held. In addition, it is important to bear in mind
that we are dealing with perceptions, rather than facts.”
Second, the
Executive Summary is clearly cautious that any assumption is tempered by
associated caveats when viewing the wider issues of waste management in the
southeast.
Sect 2.3 of the
Executive Summary [see
MORI report]
“We have already touched on the
fact that awareness and positive opinion around waste management vehicles such
as recycling and composting are both high. To provide further context,
minimising packing and materials is also viewed positively, and incineration is
viewed relatively positively while level of knowledge is lower. Landfill,
however, is an issue about which the public says they are relatively well
informed, but also about which they are largely negative.
Incineration and landfill are
clearly the two areas where most care is needed.
- Incineration
receives a conditional endorsement on the basis that quality control and
safety standards are ensured. For example, harmful emissions are kept to a
minimum, and incineration is only used on those materials that cannot be
recycled.
- Negative
perceptions around landfill, which centre on the lack of biodegradability
of materials and use of space, can be used to promote acceptance of
alternative methods of waste disposal.
Indeed, acceptance of
incineration is in part driven by the fact that it is seen as less undesirable
than landfills.”
Note the significant
caveat here – “…only used
on those materials that cannot be recycled”. We need to
emphasise the poor record of the UK in the European recycling league table - only 11% and second from the bottom! If
the government introduced incentives and local authorities provided facilities
to match public demand, we would see dramatic changes and it would not be
economically viable to build incinerators.
Landfill is an
area of waste management that requires closer attention. The traditional
concept of a foul smelling tip frequented by masses of seagulls and other
carrion, can and should be a thing of the past. Witness the high standard of
operation shown in videos from Nova Scotia and other countries where they
employ good management techniques and efficient contractors.
SEGREGATED landfill is the modern answer. Where the biodegradable content of
waste has been processed elsewhere, segregated landfill allows for problem free
disposal and the possibility of resource mining in the future.
Disposal
authorities should be urgently monitoring waste contracts to ensure that
companies are employing modern and effective techniques. Inefficiency in this
area is a danger to public health and public finances.
“Overall, there is a good
degree of support for the draft Waste Management Strategy, which proposes in
the longer term that 60% of waste should be recycled, 25% dealt with through
energy recovery or incineration, and the remainder sent to landfill. Four in
five (81%) say that they strongly support or tend to support the plan that they
are presented with.”
This is a
disappointing and rather timid approach to waste management strategy – 64% is
already topping the European league table for recycling.
If we employed
the techniques used elsewhere, shortened the waste contract periods, monitored
the efficiency of contractors and dictated what is needed, not just accepting
what is offered, then the philosophy of ‘reduce, reuse, recycle and compost’
would set us on the road to success. There will be no need for inefficient
so-called ‘energy from waste’ incinerators – it will be good for the national
budget and for the nations health.
“The qualitative findings very
much support the quantitative findings, while highlighting some important
caveats or public guarantees. Residents recognise the need for a multi-faceted
approach to waste management, and are content that the majority of waste will
be dealt with in an environmentally friendly and ultimately useful manner.
- Perhaps
as an admission that their own behaviour does not match their stated
feelings, this target (60% recycled) is seen to be ambitious.
- There
is conditional acceptance surrounding the use of incineration, but this is
very much contingent on ensuring safe emissions. While there is support
for incineration as a means of creating renewable energy, the signs are
that this is a secondary consideration.
- Landfill
is only to be used as a last resort.
These are, of course, only
perceptions. They can be turned around, but it appears that to do so in the
short term will be difficult. As the strategy is finalised, it will be
important to communicate to the public that extreme care has been taken in the
decision making process. Further, it must be shown how exactly the strategy
will impact on the region, and how a more focused approach to waste management
will benefit wider society.”
Sound advice here
and where the previous observations on improvement are equally relevant.
Commentators
have made the embarrassing mistake of not combining the excellence of this poll
with other management tools that would have allowed them to make well-balanced
and significant judgment before declaration.
The phrase
“…. we are dealing with perceptions, rather than facts” has particular significance when using the
collected data to guide debate and prepare for the exercise to formulate
policy. Important caveats and warnings that the data is illustrative and not
statistically representative have been disastrously ignored.
If this perception
of the behaviour of 800 residents interviewed by telephone across the South
East (using CATI – Computer Aided
Telephoning Interviewing) had
been used “As a complement to the internal
analysis of responses to the consultation from organisations and stakeholders
active in this field” - a more understandable and acceptable
conclusion would have been presented by SEERA.
An opportunistic presentation of a selected item from the MORI poll was made at the SEERA Waste Summit held in March 2004. Here a presenter said that 64% of the region’s residents favoured incineration.
The presenter did
not quote the fact that 91% of the same residents said that they were less than
very well informed on the subject of incineration.
Without detailed
knowledge of the process of incineration, most people would respond well to the
‘carrot’ of obtaining something for nothing with the misnomer – ‘energy
from waste’.
With
incineration, they would not know that -
·
waste is not
completely destroyed.
·
the process
creates a highly toxic residue.
·
for health safety
reasons, air emissions from all installations are monitored
·
the more
efficient the filtering system, the more toxic the residue
·
this highly
toxic residue is destined for landfill.
The most
important phase of the operation is for SEERA to use the MORI poll data from
the 800 respondents - “As a
complement to the internal analysis of responses to the consultation from
organisations and stakeholders active in this field….”
Unfortunately the
several thousand responses from the residents across the counties of the South
East of England relating to the various proposed incinerator installations and
continuous consultation processes have been discounted as not relevant or of no
significance.
When GAIN raised
this issue with detail of known responses from the GAIN campaign, the Chairman
was informed by a very senior member of SEERA, that….
“I am not impressed either by petitions or by pre-printed
letters which individuals have been persuaded to sign.”
and even more
revealing …..
”As a seasoned campaigner, I would like to give you a modest
piece of advice. You refer in your eighth paragraph to the ‘overwhelming
support in Surrey for an incinerator-free approach’. You seem to base this on
76,000 objections in Surrey. I note that the population of Surrey is 1,000,060
and I would hardly regard 76,000 objections as ‘overwhelming’. While hyperbole
may have its place in drama, it is a dangerous tool in serious political
debate.”
One is saddened
and disappointed by this response and must raise several questions -
How does one
accept the findings from 800 but reject the comments from in excess of 83,000?
How does one
describe an objection where the total now exceeds - 83,000?
(Related stats
from Surrey Census 2001: Households – 433,176, residents over 16years - 852,849)
How does one
describe an ‘objection’ that registered as one of the top ten most objected to
proposals in recorded history?
How does one
engage in ‘serious political debate’ if the full spectrum of opinion on an
issue is not presented to the participants?
How well informed
are the members and associated participants of SEERA and would it be wise to
ascertain their answers to MORI questions 4.5 and 4.6?
and lastly –
What do our
elected representatives and supposed guardians of our health and welfare
consider the motive behind the actions of the many residents engaged in all the
campaigns across the country?
- Do we have a dangerous hidden
agenda?
- Do we wish fiscal gain?
- Do we wish political power?