From Lara Luke.
I AM writing in response to the article about the Ramsar site in the JEP, dated 16 December.
I e-mailed on 15 October both Senator Ozouf and Senator Cohen to express my concerns about the location of the proposed new incinerator due to the close proximity of the Ramsar site and the potential adverse effects that it will have on the surrounding environment. I raised my concerns on Planet Jersey and through the JEP some months ago.

I also made them aware of the duties with reference to the Ramsar Convention. One fantastic example of a Ramsar site is the Great Barrier Reef in Australia (imagine if they wanted to build an incinerator there).
My reply from Senator Ozouf basically said maybe he would adjust the line of the Ramsar site. He wrote on 25 October:

‘I have said that I believe that as far as future land reclamation is concerned I think that there could be a case for reconsidering the precise line of the Ramsar line out from St Helier Harbour.’
Senator Cohen said for me to get in touch with Planning as soon as possible, so I did. A representation went in to Planning for the protection of the Ramsar site on my behalf but it was unfortunately turned down.

Since I have tried all available routes in Jersey, and have had no satisfactory answers, I was left with no option other than to contact the Ramsar organisation in Switzerland to ask for their views on the matter, firstly on 15 October and more recently on 15 December. I am waiting for a reply from the senior adviser for Europe.

I would like to challenge the article in respect to what has been written about the environmental impact assessment of the proposed incinerator.

The EIA starts with a legal disclaimer that the company has only used the information that has been given to them and has not investigated any of this information themselves. Section 10 of the EIA only states that there is a possibility of water pollution affecting the Ramsar site; no air pollutants are taken into account.

Section 16 of the EIA again only deals with water resources and drainage. It does state that the main receptor of possible pollutants will be the Ramsar site and therefore the site is potentially vulnerable to the adverse effects of these various pollutants.

The only reason I can see for the absence of the effects of air pollutants on the Ramsar site is the fact that they will be piping the waste gases through the existing JEC chimney, which in actual fact comes under the exempt works under the law. This means that it does not have to comply with any regulations in place on, for example, air quality, even though Jersey has not yet adopted air quality standards.

Is this the get-out clause for when all surrounding areas have been adversely affected by these pollutants? Air pollutants have a potential of travelling up to around 5,000m from the source, so the area potentially affected is quite large.

Lastly I would like to say that after reading all 236 pages of the EIA, I now feel like I know a lot more about Bellozanne than the proposed new incinerator. Is this a case of highlighting how bad our current incinerator is and therefore anything is good in comparison?
48 Le Grand Clos,
St John’s Road,
St Helier.