News Feed

October 24, 2016 - Colombians arrested and charged Police have arrested and charged tw ... +++ October 24, 2016 - Man on firearm and ammo charge Police have arrested and charged 54 ... +++ October 24, 2016 - 62-year-old St Lucy resident missing Police are seeking the assistance o ... +++ October 24, 2016 - Today’s weather A tropical wave is affecting the is ... +++ October 24, 2016 - Police probe death at Golden Ridge, St George Police are investigating the sudden ... +++ October 24, 2016 - Possible funding for NGOs The Division of Economic Affairs ha ... +++

Waste war

He has recently been on the losing end of Government’s multi-million dollar waste disposal effort.

Now outspoken garbage hauler Anderson Fat Child Cherry, whose recycling business was recently halted by the Town & Country Planning Department, is dumping his fury on one of the primary beneficiaries of this island’s waste, businessman Ralph Bizzy Williams, who he wants to justify the $24 million in payments his Sustainable Barbados Recycling Centre (SBRC) at Vaucluse, St Thomas gets annually from the State for processing a minimum guaranteed 1,000 tonnes of solid waste.

bizzy and cherry

Ralph Bizzy Williams & Anderson Fat Child Cherry

While claiming that the refuse disposal could be done for far less than $24 million per year, Cherry is also contending that at least a quarter of those payments should really be
made out to him and other private waste haulers.

“SBRC is charging us $64 per tonne to process our waste. SBRC pays us haulers to loan it our trucks and take it to Armag and other quarries in Barbados. Now the haulers are taking the same waste to the same facilities and it costs the customers less and SBRC nothing,” explained Cherry, who is the owner of Jose Y Jose Liquid and Solid Waste Management Inc.

He also took Williams to task over comments he made on January 26 at the start of the annual Pinnacle Safety Solutions health exposition at the Accra Beach Resort that SBRC was receiving about 300 tonnes of garbage, instead of the “negotiated” 1,000 tonnes per year.

“So where is the rest of it going? I don’t know. I have done some research and I have seen where some of it is going. Some of it is being disposed of on Zone 1,” Williams said then.

However, in response, Cherry pointed out that “300 tonnes at $64 equals $19,200 per day, $115,200 per six-day week and $5,990,400 per year,” which is the portion of Government’s $24 million payment to SBRC that he argued should be paid to the private waste haulers.

“I am saying the SBRC is charging the Government to handle the same waste and it is not being received. When will SBRC be willing to give the Government and ultimately the people a refund?” Cherry asked.

However, Williams has hit back strongly, saying it was a case of sour grapes since the Jose Y Jose boss had the opportunity to bid for tender to build a similar facility but did not.

“The bottom line is that having ignored the tender process, Mr Cherry believes that SBRC is making a lot of money, so he wants it.

“He thought he could make a lot of money recycling, but having started it, he has discovered that he is losing his shirt and now he wants SBRC to bail him out with $6 million,” the SBRC owner said.

He insisted that Government had advertised for tenders for the construction of a waste transfer and recycling facility in a location its engineers knew would be safe to receive and process waste, explaining that Williams Industries had bid for the contract and won it “fair and square”.

“He [Cherry] thinks that his emotional appeal to who he calls his people will cause them to overrule the planning authorities . . . and that his people will back him up and allow him to do as he likes and break the law,” claimed Williams, who also rejected Cherry’s claim that the $25 tipping fee which Government imposed last May for waste disposal was paid directly
to SBRC.

He also denied Cherry’s suggestion that SBRC does not recycle the waste
it receives.

“Every tonne of material that SBRC receives is sorted to ensure that no dangerous material that could contaminate our water supply is sent to refill abandoned quarries,” the SBRC spokesman said, while charging that in Cherry’s case,  the Town Planning authority had asked that he not “receive and store material there [at Lears Quarry] because of the danger of contaminating our water supply, yet he continues to do it”.

Williams also called on Cherry to show evidence of how much recycled material he has exported.

Just last week, Town Planner Mark Cummins confirmed that Cherry’s file was to be turned over to the Director of Public Prosecutions after he was found to be operating an illegal waste facility at Lears Quarry.

However, Cherry is contending that his operation is a recycling centre and not an illegal dump. He has also submitted a proposal to the Freundel Stuart administration which he said promotes improved collection, processing and recycling on the island.

4 Responses to Waste war

  1. Kenrick Purcell
    Kenrick Purcell February 2, 2016 at 9:55 pm

    Money wars

  2. Tristan John
    Tristan John February 2, 2016 at 11:03 pm

    Seems like a back and forth thing that really could be avoided. Let cooler heads prevail, guys..

  3. Shawn Daniel
    Shawn Daniel February 2, 2016 at 11:03 pm

    Black an white struggles all over the world , whites feel they are the rulers of blacks so we shouldn’t opposed them an be competitive, just sit back an be robbed by them for life .

  4. Sue Donym February 3, 2016 at 11:23 pm

    Barbados made a bad deal with SBRC. Bad financially, business wise and environmentally short sighted.
    Committing to supplying 1000 tonnes daily was the clearest signal that the government had no interest in promoting reduction in the amount of waste arriving at the centre.

    So while the forward thinkers are calling on gov’t to encourage reusing, recycling and repurposing on an individual level, they’re in no hurry to pay SBRC the guaranteed amount for doing a lot less!

    Next, if indeed people had started to redirect their garbage, it left gov’t not only with a shortfall in material, but a shortage of cash from which to pay SBRC. Thus the tipping fee, which was either a penalty for waste generation or a fee for the services (guess which gov’t needed).

    Remember, gov’t guaranteed that we’d continue to supply SBRC with a minimum amount of material for a minimum payment to them in order for them to sustain a recycling enterprise for their benefit.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *