To:	Local Government and Environment Committee Bowen House, Parliament Buildings, WELLINGTON
From:	Wanaka Wastebusters PO Box 16 Wanaka Contact person Sue Coutts - Manager PH: 03 443 8606 or 027 322 9675 [email protected]
Date:	1st September 2006
Submission:	To the Waste Minimisation (Solids) Bill
I request the opportunity to appear before the select committee to speak in support of this submission.

About Us

Issues at the heart of the Waste Minimisation (Solids) Bill

a) What is waste and why should we do anything about it?

b) What has waste got to do with Central Government?

c) Looking into the Business case

d) Issues for the Community sector?

e) The New Zealand Waste strategy

f) Zero waste

g) Waste Hierarchy and Life Cycle Analysis

h) Economic Instruments and Measurement of Value

i) The role of Territorial Authorities

Linear discussion of provisions of the Waste minimisation (Solids) Bill

Part 1 - Preliminary provisions

Part 2 - Waste Minimisation Authority

Part 3 - Waste Control Authorities

Part 4 - Prohibition on Disposal of materials

Part 5 - Waste Disposal Levy

Part 6 Extended Producer Responsibility

Part 7 Organisational Waste Minimisation Plans

Part 8 Public Procurement Policy

Part 6 Extended Producer Responsibility

Part 6 Extended Producer Responsibility

Wanaka Wastebusters is a resource recovery based community enterprise, owned by, and operated for the benefit of local residents. We felt so strongly about waste and inefficient resource use in our community that we built our own resource recovery centre. After 5 years successful operation we won the tenders for Kerbside collection in our area. We now have the capacity to take our work one step further. The provisions of the Bill would put in place the support we need to continue to work towards Zero Waste.

Mission:

• To protect and enhance our environment by working towards Zero Waste

Vision:

• Zero Waste will become a reality as producers and consumers take responsibility for sustainability
• We will translate theory and policy into practical steps towards this goal
• Environmental and social benefits will accompany the economic development of this area
• Our achievements will provide a model to other communities and to our many visitors

The Wanaka Community has shown real commitment to sustainable development by creating and financially supporting their own recycling service. This investment has built a substantial community asset. WWB have demonstrated a creative and resourceful approach to providing recycling services in an area many thought could not be serviced effectively due to long distances to market and a relatively small population. We now have 7 years experience in recycling and re-use.

WWB have succeeded through establishing sound working relationships and networks within our local community. These formal and informal links with business and other community based groups enable an effective, co-ordinated approach to the sustainability based initiatives that are vital in ensuring the viability of our social economy heavily dependent on tourism and the 100% pure brand.

WWB has an ongoing relationship with other community recyclers throughout Otago and Aotearoa New Zealand. We have actively sought and developed these relationships with the long term aim of transferring skills, experience and support between ourselves for the mutual long term benefit of our respective communities.

WWB currently employ 13 FTE staff working in the following areas;

• Public Drop Off and On-Site Processing of Recyclable Materials
• Commercial and Kerbside Collection of Recyclables
• Restore - Re-usables Drop Off and Resale:
• Education, Promotion and R&D

Top

Wanaka Wastebusters (WWB) strongly support the intent of the Bill to reduce waste with the associated environmental, social, cultural and economic benefits this would bring. We welcome the opportunity the Bill affords to develop a broad based policy approach to resource conservation and waste reduction.

Top

Waste is essentially a social problem. Production and consumption behaviour worldwide has resulted in the degradation of environmental and social resources, along with the production of large volumes of waste.

Both our society and our economy are dependent on a healthy environment for long term survival. Recognition of the limits to the availability and accessibility of natural resources and the earth's capacity to assimilate solid, liquid and airborne waste products has made us aware of the need to break the links between economic development and waste generation.

'Sustainable Development' has become the catch cry of our generation. However, few of us have any real understanding of what action this might require in our every day lives. What we do know is that making a commitment to Sustainability requires that we embrace change and rise to meet the challenges we are confronted with.

Our economy is extremely successful at transforming resources and distributing the final products to consumers. Conservation and recovery of resources for re-use and recycling, at each stage of the product life cycle, is the weak link in our goods and service provision process.

There are complex relationships to be considered. Market failures associated with the generation and disposal of waste need to be addressed in a broad policy framework that sets them in the context of sustainability. Products embody materials, capital and labour as well as energy and water. Re-use and recycling enable these embodied resources to continue to provide value beyond a single use.

End of the pipe approaches to waste management have reached the limits of their effectiveness. We cannot go on this way. All of us need to change our behaviour to enable a shift towards sustainability. Efficient use of natural resources will strengthen our economy by improving productivity and reducing costs early in the product lifecycle. These benefits flow on reducing costs at every step. Taking action requires a change in the way we value every kind of resources and considerable proactive investment to move us beyond the straight line consumption model currently holding sway.

Knowledge, Understanding and Action are the keys to transforming our behaviour to give more positive outcomes. We already know of many policies, tools and technologies that could deliver a more sustainable nation. We understand how these tools work, and something of the complex relationships between them from studying models of action in other places. What remains is for us to put in place the policies and practices that will support sustainability in action.

Top

Putting the Waste minimisation (Solids) Bill in place would ensure that Government is well placed to meet it's responsibilities in this area which include;

• Providing leadership in developing comprehensive strategies for moving New Zealand towards a more sustainable future.
• Effective consideration of waste issues, taking a big picture view of resource use and growth with an eye for broad scale, long term public and private goods.
• Considering social, economic, environmental and cultural aspects of 'waste issues' as they stand in relation to one another, in line with Quadruple bottom line imperatives.
• Ensuring national targets for waste reduction are set and followed up with clear, simple monitoring and reporting.
• Facilitating development of best practice by creating an enabling framework of taxation, regulation, government procurement and investment, along with market based instruments to support the private sector in innovating to develop a sustainable economy.
• Coordinating the development of waste policy with broader greenhouse, resource and sustainability policies to ensure consistency and effective implementation.
• Developing and implementing policies that show a clear commitment to resource efficiency and waste reduction.
• Identifying institutional barriers and supporting Local Government to ensure effective waste minimisation and management.
• Coordinating various players actions including; investing in the 'Whole of Government' approach and facilitating effective working relationships between all parties contributing to the issues faced by the 'waste sector'.
• Funding investment in the R&D and infrastructure required to give effect to policy where there are no immediate natural income streams or investment capital available.

Top

The provisions of the Bill have the potential to support industry in the move towards Sustainable Development.

The provisions the Bill contains will make a valuable contribution to creating consistency and coordinating environmental policy. Industry will welcome the clarity and certainty this will bring to planning and operational decision making.

Waste is essentially inefficiency, something all business people work to eliminate. Waste is created as a by-product of production and consumption. However meeting people's needs and wants is theoretically possible without creating large volumes of waste in the process.

The environment and sustainability industry is one of the fastest growing sectors worldwide. Changes in European Waste policy due to the EU directives have led to major investment activity in resource recovery; 20 billion Euros in Germany 10 billion in France. Industry is already moving to make changes to systems and flows, reflecting society's desire for cleaner production technologies and environmentally sustainable development. Product stewardship, manufacturing efficiency and supply chain management are important elements in improving companies' profits while reducing their environmental impact.

Key drivers of change include;

• the emergence of clean development as a market
• industry's desire to build competitive advantage
• efficiencies gained through engaging in cleaner production
• personal commitment of key personnel to sustainability
• realisation that embodied water and energy are valuable commodities
• clean products have access to premier marketplaces worldwide
• procurement practices are creating a market for clean products and services
• resource efficiency's potential for increasing profits, managing risk, reducing costs and increasing opportunities.

Top

The provisions of the Bill have the potential to resolve a number of difficult issues facing Community Enterprises engaged in the Resource Recovery sector.

Community Enterprises, like Wanaka Wastebusters, have positioned ourselves at the bottom of the cliff attempting to moderate the harm waste causes in our communities, our land and our waters. This Bill offers a vital opportunity to have an impact on wasteful behaviour further up the chain where there are real opportunities to create lasting change.

Community Enterprises like ours have become involved in this industry for the following reasons;

• awareness of the environmental costs of traditional waste disposal practices
• desire to recover resources for community economic development
• provision of meaningful employment and creation of training opportunities
• to give effect to community desires for more sustainable lifestyles
• provide infrastructure required for general public and businesses to engage in re-use and recycling
• pursuit of quadruple bottom line outcomes for our communities
• desire to make re-use available as a purchasing option
• desire to back the '100% pure' tourism branding with sustainable practice
• desire to conserve resources and environmental quality for future generations
• to put into practise policies of local, regional and central government

Wanaka Wastebusters recovered $213,000 of resources in 2004-2005 providing employment for 6 full time equivalent staff and the opportunity for 4500 households and 140 businesses in the Wanaka area to take part in re-use and recycling. Without community enterprise all of those resources would have gone to landfill and there would have been no flow on economic, social or environmental benefits.

1. Quadruple bottom line valuation of costs and benefits
The Provisions of the Bill, applied thoughtfully, will create a market that values resource recovery, re-use and recycling in an economic sense.

Community Enterprises model Sustainability in Action, recognising and explicitly working with social, environmental and cultural costs and benefits alongside economic ones. As many of the elements we work with are not valued in traditional economic models, it can be difficult to generate the revenue we need. Borrowing for infrastructural development on a business plan showing only a social, environmental and cultural profit is not as easy as one would hope.

Eco-system services and resources have traditionally been under priced resulting in many wasteful practices. Recognition of this drives communities try and resolve issues in their own ways. Activities with no natural income streams fall into the community and voluntary sector cracks. Community Enterprises, like Wanaka Wastebusters, compensate for current market failures and externalities.

Sustainable Development and the 100% Pure brand are dependent on key services being provided. Access to these services means businesses are able to trade at a premium, eg Environmentally Friendly Products packaged in 'recyclable' containers depend on wide spread public recycling for this to be a competitive advantage. The providers of these services are not always paid a fair rate. They are expected to operate profitably as well as take on environmental and social responsibilities other 'pure Businesses' do not.

Key issues in our area include;

• Rapid growth, 45% increase in population over the last 5 years requiring ongoing capital investment in infrastructure
• Large number of visitors who tend to use more disposable goods and packages than the average householder; e.g glass bottles 13% of our Waste stream compared with 4% in Dunedin, currently glass recycling is not economically viable in our area.
• All products and their packaging are priced for shipping to remote areas like ours but no financial provision is made for their recovery transport to re-processors etc.
• Commercially viable recovery and recycling opportunities are taken over by straight commercial operators leaving marginal product streams for community sector to deal with.
• Waste is discussed in tonnes, many recyclables are light and bulky so volume measurements give a more meaningful picture of landfill space and transport to landfill saved, as well as the volume of material that needs to be handled to prepare a tonne for market. It takes 2 shipping containers of loose HDPE milk bottles to make a tonne of product for market.

2. Product design and composition
Product stewardship provisions could be used to influence the range and presentation of materials requiring recovery and processing - consolidation into fewer, larger streams would be an advantage in recovery.

New Zealand's population is small and widely dispersed, collecting enough of a single material to reach critical mass can be an issue. It can be difficult;

• On a local scale to collect enough of less common materials to make it worthwhile
• On a single site separating, handling and storing a wide range of products is a challenge, each different stream adds complexity and space requirements
• to gather enough material nationwide to develop onshore reprocessing facilities

Many products on the market are not designed with re-use, recyclability or resource conservation in mind. Current consumption patterns create waste at a very fast rate. Shopping is now a leisure activity, and the marketplace skewed towards dumping of materials after a cursory first use.

• Meadowfresh milk cartons, sold in the South Island, combine HDPE plastic with waxed card. They attract no revenue, although they can be sent to an offshore market if we transport them to a port 350 km away at our own cost. They replace HDPE milk bottles which are easily recyclable and generate $4-500 tonne.
• Products and parts of products are often not labeled by material, making it difficult to sort materials for recovery. Fisher and Paykel are a good local example of a company designing for disassembly and clearly labeling materials.
• Many products sold have very short working lives, cheap electrical items being sold in big chain stores cannot be repaired and are made of low value, hard to separate materials. They are brought to our re-use store but have no use value and little scrap value.
• About 10% of the clothing brought to our reuse shop has never been worn.

3. Community willingness to pay
There is strong community support for action taken towards improving environmental outcomes. We see Government having a responsibility to understand and inform community values.

Communities are willing to give financial and practical support to sustainable outcomes, including waste reduction programmes and activities wherever it is reasonably convenient to do so. The primary outcome defined through the Long Term Community Planning process for the Queenstown lakes District was Sustainable Development. Wanaka Wastebusters was set up in 1999 when the District Council of the time was unwilling to become involved in reuse and recycling, local people established and provided these services for ourselves, successfully operating for six years so far.

People are looking for simple practical ways to put sustainability into practise in their day to day lives. Apparently small volumes of waste such as plastic shopping bags become symbolic of wider concerns with plastics, packaging and the environment. Kerbside recycling programmes are generally well supported as they provide people with an important opportunity to feel that they are doing something worthwhile.

Top

We welcome the opportunities the Bill provides to locate the Strategy in a more substantial legislative context, to dedicate a body to the Strategy's implementation and to put in place the policy, practices and resources that will enabling key targets and goals to be met.

The New Zealand Waste Strategy (NZWS) was developed by Central and Local Government to provide a new direction for waste management. The strategy's vision Towards Zero Waste and a Sustainable New Zealand reflects the importance of this work, recognised as a cornerstone in Government's commitment to fostering sustainability.

Benefits that will flow from this approach include keeping in step with our OECD trading partners, backing our 100% pure brand, meeting public expectations regarding valuation of social and environmental outcomes, awareness of best practice, enhancing business and employment opportunities and linking into energy and water policy.

Avenues for effective action outlined in the strategy's core policies are developed and enabling provisions put in place through this Bill. The responsibilities of the groups involved are tied to the principles, priorities and goals of the strategy. Core policies of the NZWS include;

1. Sound legislative basis for waste minimisation and management
2. Efficient pricing - User pays and internalisation of costs of products over the life cycle
3. High environmental standards - prioritising environmental quality in policy direction
4. Adequate and accessible information - reporting requirements for WMA, Territorial Authorities and Industry
5. Efficient use of materials - encouragement of resource and energy conservation.

The three core goals of the strategy, lowering the risks and costs of waste to society, reducing environmental damage from generation and disposal of waste and increasing economic benefit by using material more efficiently are clearly embedded in the provisions of the proposed legislation and the responsibilities of those charged with giving effect to the provisions of the bill are clarified and outlined.

The strategy challenged us all to come up with a more effective, integrated approach to material and resource efficiency at every stage of production and consumption. The Bill cements in place the programmes outlined in 2002;

• Institutions and legislation - WMA, WM solids Bill
• Information and communication - Education, R&D, Reporting
• Standards and guidelines - Clear responsibility is allocated to the WMA for setting and monitoring of targets through time.

The Bill will address many of the factors considered to be blocking the path to Zero Waste at the time the Strategy was written including;

• Movement towards proactive 'whole of life' waste reduction
• Addressing market externalities
• Clearly prioritising waste reduction and resource efficiency as outcomes
• Creating a means of funding infrastructural development for recovery and processing.

Top

We strongly encourage a clear focus on Zero Waste as a strategy for moving into the future.

This is a Holistic approach, providing a;

• Philosophy; aimed at eliminating, rather than managing, waste and changing the way materials flow through society.
• Toolbox; including the Waste Hierarchy; Redesign - Reduce - Reuse - Recycle - Refuse. This encompasses the whole life cycle of a product from design oriented elimination of waste at source to end of pipe diversion to recycling.
• Destination: a waste free world with sustainable local social-economies, this is an aspirational target, in the same way that 'Sustainable Development' is something we aspire to.

Zero Waste has been embraced locally and internationally. A substantial majority of New Zealand's City and District Councils have adopted Zero Waste policies.

Companies, nations and regions are implementing Zero Waste practices as resources become increasingly scarce and expensive;

• radically increasing resource efficiency
• redesigning processes to resemble closed loop natural systems
• shifting from the sale of goods to the provision of services
• re-investing in natural capital as the basis of future productivity.

South Australian Government is committed to Sustainability and Zero Waste using the following strategies to move forward:

• Establishing Zero Waste South Australia and the legislative framework to drive the strategy for avoidance, reduction, reuse recycling and disposal
• Building on innovative policy, providing incentives to local government and industry to better manage waste and resources, developing the first state wide strategy
• Implementing very successful Container Deposit Legislation
• Limiting development of new landfills and increased Environmental Protection Agency powers, adding value to void space in existing landfills
• Creating educational initiatives including schools programmes
• Strategically funding investment in infrastructure
• Reducing waste in government through the greening of government programme
• identifying litter and illegal dumping issues
• Researching new markets for recycled materials through grants programmes
• Collecting household and farm chemicals for treatment or disposal
• Giving incentives to councils to provide high performing kerbside systems
• Sponsoring the development of regional waste plans
• Promoting recycling at events
• Reducing plastic bag use by the community

Many of these strategies would be given effect by the implementation of the Bill's provisions.

Top

Two useful conceptual tools for informing the policy development process, communicating with stakeholders and designing effective Product Stewardship programmes are the Waste Hierarchy, Life Cycle Analysis.

Waste policy can legitimately include interventions at various points of the product life cycle. These tools provide information and highlight the range of options for action.

Interventions enable correction of market failures that lead to;

• inefficient market and waste outcomes
• adverse disposal outcomes.

1. The Waste Heirachy
A nationally and internationally accepted guide for prioritising waste management practices with the objective of achieving optimal environmental outcomes. Enables meaningful consultation and engagement with the community.

Recycling and rubbish disposal are bottom of the cliff options. When we consider that;

• 90% of the resources we use get thrown away during production
• 80% of what we produce gets thrown away after one use

the benefits of focusing on ways to have an impact earlier in the process become obvious.

Each of the aspects has practical, symbolic and catalytic value e.g. participation in recycling;

• reduces waste by diverting materials to resource recovery schemes
• is a catalyst for behavioral change. Community Based Social Marketing shows us that once people take one step in a 'sustainable' direction they are more likely to take a second, third, fourth…….
• is a symbol of commitment to environmental care, backs our 100% Pure brand and shows that we are committed to sustainability deed as well as word.

2. Life cycle analysis
Looking at the whole life cycle

• avoids a narrow focus on point of disposal so that physical and market linkages can be considered in the policy design process
• allows consideration of upstream and downstream externalities.
• saves energy and materials through whole life cycle of the product or service: reducing use of virgin materials, avoiding pollution due to toxic leachate, reducing greenhouse gas emissions etc.

Key intervention points are;

• Raw materials extraction and harvesting - to resolve environmental and social externalities eg biodiversity and land degradation.
• Manufacturing of materials and/or components - environmental and social externalities associated with processing: Inadequate price signals e.g. material costs do not reflect true cost of extraction or disposal. Information failure regarding real costs and new technologies. Institutional failure e.g. cognitive limits of staff, time pressure, restrictions, length of plant life.
• Consumption of the product - environmental and social externalities associated with consumption: Inadequate price signals do not reflect external costs or cost of disposal. Information failure regarding life cycle impacts, recyclability of the product.
• Recycling of the product - environmental and social externalities associated with recycling: Information failure e.g. inadequate information on recyclability of products
• Disposal of the product - environmental and social externalities associated with landfilling or litter: Inadequate price signals e.g. disposal does not reflect true cost of landfilling.

Top

This Bill has the potential to put in place a solid base of infrastructure, recovery technologies and policy settings enabling the achievement of NZWS targets.

Government has stated that it is always open to dialogue about effective and appropriate use of economic instruments and how they might contribute to the NZWS. Recent events have put Waste levies on the agenda. We look forward to the clarification of responsibilities and the support this Bill will give us in our work.

It has become clear to us all that engaging with sustainability demands more than economic efficiency. The NZWS and the Bill recognise that there are unacceptable costs associated with current wasteful practices including;

• Environmental effects of storing rubbish in our land
• Inefficient use of energy, material, water resources
• Inefficient deployment of capital and labour used to create products
• Social costs in the form of lost opportunities.

These costs are not reflected in the price of goods and services in the market place, effectively subsidising those performing poorly by environmental standards.

Economic or market based instruments are policy tools that affect monetary costs and benefits. They change market signals, impact on decision making processes and have the power to change behaviour. An effective framework requires a mix of instruments designed to meet particular policy objectives. This framework enables all the other parties to play their role in the business of sustainability by making decisions that contribute to achieving these objectives.

Economic instruments are valuable tools for giving effect to environmental policy, key benefits include;

• Flexibility of response over time and space, making the most of innovation and ingenuity by creating the potential for new solutions to arise. Command and control type regulation assumes the best answer is already known.
• Introduction of an incentive at the margin, this means benefits accrue through incremental changes to practice. Costs are reduced from every successful measure taken e.g. each tonne of waste diverted reduces cost, so there is an incentive to reduce waste disposal to zero.

Issues that need to be addressed to give signals in the marketplace that support sustainable development include;

1. Cost of disposal does not reflect true cost or opportunity cost of alternatives.
Landfill void space is under priced. Recognised in the NZWS, targets include full cost accounting with charging to be phased in over time. The cost of landfilling is still low in comparison with other alternatives making it difficult to build a good business case for recovery options. Waste levies and Producer Responsibility schemes would help.

2. Alternative options are limited and unevenly spread.
NZWS targets can be met but will require investment in market development. Achievable targets will need to be backed by staged investment of capital and knowledge. We will also have to create on-shore markets for recyclables.

Diverting a high proportion of Organic Matter and food scraps will demand infrastructure for collecting and processing, as well as a final market. Around 1 million tonnes of material will be diverted each year. There are obvious cross-sectoral links with the agriculture and horticulture, however a significant marketing campaign will be required to generate an understanding of the ways organic matter contributes to soil fertility, water retention, nutritional qualities of food etc.

3. A policy framework demonstrating a clear commitment to sustainability.
There are a range of scales for effective action;

• the individual household or business unit,
• local communities
• regional
• national

Each has strengths and weaknesses. It is the role of Central Government to put in place policies and the supporting legislation that enables each to work towards the shared goal of sustainable development effectively. Lack of knowledge, expertise, capacity, competing priorities within and between these layers are issues that can be resolved through the co-coordinating, information and goal setting role of Waste Minimisation Authorities. Product Stewardship schemes would also help.

Some sectors compensate for less than optimal performance of others, providing essential services at a net cost e.g. many in the resource recovery industry. Putting in place a policy framework that favors those performing well environmentally by incorporating the real costs of wasteful behavior into the bottom line encourages long run investment in industries with sustainable practices.

4. Design, production and purchasing decisions are disconnected from consideration of the costs of wasteful practices. Rising costs of resources are pushed onto future generations.
Full cost recovery pricing is missing from upstream and downstream activities. The objective is to make sure that the price of a product reflects the real cost of the inputs and final disposal. Covec's background report on economic instruments for the PCE suggests that the ideal application would be a combination of a 'product tax' and a 'recycling subsidy'. Putting in place;

• disposal charges; creates an incentive to put more material through processing options and internalises costs associated with disposal.
• product charges; charge according to waste content or potential recyclability creates an incentive to make products more recyclable and to refill containers
• recycling subsidies; reduce costs or provide net revenues for recycling and reuse to reflect social and environmental values that are difficult to measure.
• new markets; eg cap and trade limits on disposal or credit based rewards for recycling.

The Bill has the potential to positively contribute to the development of these instruments in a way that benefits players at every scale, providing clarity, clear price signals and policy direction.

5. Challenges for policy makers in quantifying environmental and community values alongside costs and benefits.
The key question is how to pass on costs to those that make decisions that result in waste arisings. Costs and benefits are not often borne in the same time and/or space.

Economic valuation of costs and benefits tends to be weighted in favour of things that can be counted in the present. Benefits are more difficult to value so they tend to be discounted, economic costs are generally over-represented. The opportunity costs of alternative activities are rarely given adequate consideration. The further into the future we project the less accurately we are able to represent value.

Quadruple bottom line approaches attempt to consider all the aspects involved as well as the relationships between them. Sustainable development requires that we consider intergenerational equity issues. Most of our day to day decision making is quadruple bottom line, we all juggle complex relationships and weigh up incomparable costs and benefits.

The issue for public decision making is making these explicit and attempting come to some agreement about appropriate valuations. Currently there is a lot of disagreement about how to quantify and aggregate costs, benefits and risks. It is challenging to value environmental impacts in economic terms as it requires a definitive assessment of systems that are dynamic and indeterminate. There is also a high level of uncertainty regarding the long term impacts of particular courses of action for society and the environment.

Top

Have a duty to promote efficient and effective waste management by;

• adopting a waste management strategy
• having regard to environmental costs and benefits
• ensuring management of waste does not cause a nuisance
• prioritising action using the waste hierarchy

Councils manage Waste disposal, Resource recovery, Litter and street bins as well as public education. They attempt to meet their responsibilities at least cost or net cost, taking into account local costs and benefits. Difficulties already outlined with valuing the benefits of waste reduction also apply at this scale. Costs in the present are often closely debated and readily apparent. Cost recovery through user charges, rather than general rates, is a useful strategy as pressure to reduce rates is greater than pressure to reduce user charges.

It can become more complex where waste services are user pays and recycling services are rates funded. Increased net cost of recycling through increased use of the service cannot be justified by landfill savings as a tonne diverted provides a saving for the user but not the council. Current collection contracts may not encourage collectors to increase throughput, higher volumes can be a net cost, ie no additional payment for more materials. Markets can swing wildly, e.g. Glass prices in 2005, market swings are currently under priced in New Zealand contracts. Disposal contracts often have no incentive to reduce waste to landfill.

The key is to transfer cost from the rate payer to those benefiting from the sale of the product; the producer and the consumer. A combined product charge and recycling subsidy can resolve this; e.g. Container Deposit legislation for beverage containers would;

• provide a revenue stream to subsidise collection and processing costs
• provide a revenue stream to subsidise collection of litter and street bin recyclables
• reduce the volume of waste to landfill with all the associated benefitsreduce the amount of litter overall (beverage containers - approx 50% of litter by volume)

Top

It is our opinion that the Bill would benefit from significant revision, the consultation undertaken through the submissions process will give clear direction to that process. For that reason we have concentrated on matters of principle rather than detail in the following parts.

Top

3 Purpose
We strongly support the purpose of the Bill;

• It is vital that the New Zealand Waste Strategy is backed by effective legislation if we are to make progress in this area.
• Reducing the amount of waste to landfill will have significant environmental, social, cultural and economic benefits in both the short and long term.
• Resource efficiency is a key driver in the move towards a more sustainable future
• This legislation will give a clear signal that the Government is serious about supporting those who are showing leadership in this area, whether they be the general public, community, industry, local, regional or central government players
• Effective action in this area will ensure we continue to benefit from trade and tourism opportunities in the future

We suggest the following as an appropriate alternative purpose statement, we consider this better reflects the broad Quadruple bottom line benefits aimed for and the enabling and proactive stance to taken in enacting this legisalation.

"The purpose of this act is to ensure environmental, social, cultural and economic benefits arise through encouragement and support of resource efficiency and reduction in waste disposed of in landfills, cleanfills and incinerators, in line with targets and dates to be set, through instituting measures to give full effect to the principles of the New Zealand Waste Strategy."

5 Definitions
Metals
Suggest changing definition to "includes but is not limited to iron, copper, tin, lead, aluminium, brass and steel" as there are many different ways of categorising and combining metals.

Top

Suggest renaming the Authority 'Zero Waste Authority' reflecting the Waste Strategy vision and building on similar branding in South Australia. A majority of New Zealand's Territorial Authorities have adopted Zero Waste Policies and are now actively engaged in incorporating Zero Waste philosophy and practice into their Waste plans. Zero Waste is an internationally recognisable aspirational target and has the power to motivate significant action. A Zero Waste Authority would provide leadership and direction to a pre-existing local Government shift in direction.

6 Purpose
We strongly support the establishment of a Waste Minimisation Authority for the following reasons;

• The NZWS noted that sound Waste minimisation and management legislation was hampered by 'the lack of a central agency with explicit responsibility for coordinating waste minimisation and management activities'.
• An organisation charged with giving effect to the Waste strategy with specific responsibility for funds and staffing not subject to movement to other priorities will enable the achievement of the long term challenges.
• In a coordination role this organisation could support projects more effectively delivered at the national level e.g. R&D avoiding duplication.
• An independent body may be better placed to review the role and progress of all sectors including Central Government. It may be wise to have the PCE doing a periodic state of the Nation type review of progress against key goals as well.
• Balance between national direction and decisions and actions on the local level will be crucial and a single coordinating body has the potential to be effective mediating this.

8 Functions
Suggest changing the wording of the function to;
"The function of the Authority is to encourage, promote, facilitate and support efficient resource use and reduction of waste disposal as key drivers in moving towards Zero Waste and a sustainable New Zealand."

The Vision of the New Zealand Waste Strategy is 'Towards Zero Waste and a sustainable New Zealand'. Given that the Authority is charged with giving effect to the strategy it is appropriate that this is included in the title.

Suggest the following changes as they strengthen and clarify the functions of the authority as well as maintain consistency with changes suggested elsewhere.

1 (a)(i) the use of material resources and the relationships between the use of material resources and embodied energy and water

These are closely related concepts and it is important that they are considered together. adding (a)(v) zero waste and it's contribution to sustainability

(c) monitoring progress in waste reduction including comparing performance with reduction targets

(d) administering, facilitating, supporting and enforcing the implementation of the NZWS with due regard for the following in determining priorities;

• movement towards Zero Waste
• the waste hierarchy

Rationale for the inclusion of these concepts; both are valuable tools for considering and communicating the value of different strategies and actions.

12 Eligibility for Appointment as a member of the Authority
Suggest adding in (1) (c) members to between them reflect the geographic spread and cultural mix of the population.

The aim of this addition is to ensure Rural and Urban, South and North Island interests are represented along with adequate consideration of cultural diversity with particular regard to obligations under the Treaty.

Suggest adding in (2) (j) consumption
The aim of this is to include consumers/users in the mix as this aspect of the product lifecycle is not represented in the relevant knowledge and experience list. A representative with experience in Consumers Institute or Consumer Advocacy would be a valuable addition to the Authority.

Top

19 Purpose
Would restate as
The purpose of this part is to clarify and redefine the role and powers of Territorial Authorities in relation to waste minimisation and management.

20 Territorial Authorities to be Waste Control Authorities
Do not support the creation of Waste Control Authorities, suggest it is possible to clarify Territorial Authorities rights and responsibilities without creating an additional body. TA's already have primary responsibility for waste in their geographical areas. with clear links through to LTCP responsibilities.

Many territorial Authorities already co-operate with one another to achieve waste Minimisation goals, formalisation of this process may be a useful step.

Alternative to 21
delete (1)
(2) Territorial Authorities may join with other Territorial Authorities to exercise waste minimisation and management functions over the joint territory of the co-operating territorial authorities.

21 Duties of Waste Control Authorities
As these provisions are essentially revising those of the Local Government Act 1974, would like to see a more expansive vision of duties reflecting movement towards Zero Waste and a sustainable New Zealand.

22 Waste Minimisation and Management Plans
(d) source separation of fractions will need to be staged in many areas, while the required systems and infrastructure are put in place.

23 Powers in respect of waste minimisation and management
Suggest removal of (5) as do not consider Organisational waste minimisation plans are a priority

26 Assessment of Organisational waste minimisation Plans
Suggest removal of this section as do not consider Organisational Waste Minimisation plans a priority.

28 Allocation of costs
(1) Support the emphasis on user pays approach to residual waste disposal
(2) Imagine this enables them to charge more at tip than disposal cost and recover cost of waste minimisation initiatives.

29 Waste Control Authority to establish a dedicated waste minimisation unit
Imagine this may be a function that would be shared between several smaller TA's as it could require significant input of resources. It is likely that this will encourage cooperation across several TA's which may be a positive outcome.

30 Requirement for Waste Control Authority to report to the Waste minimisation Authority
Consider it important that a balance is struck between the value of the information gathered for assessing progress towards targets and generating effective interventions and the compliance costs of reporting process.

Imagine the WMA would develop standard reporting procedures to ensure nationwide consistency.

Top

33 Purpose
Strongly support the concept of banning particular materials from disposal where viable alternatives exist or could be readily developed.

34 Prohibition on disposal
Geographical variations exist regarding the practicality of recovering and or recycling particular materials, this creates some complications in making and enforcing prohibitions. How readily alternatives can be put in place depends on many factors.

National bans on specific materials may offer a way to create a net under poorly performing Territorial Authorities who lag behind current best practice in recovery and recycling, forcing them to come up to speed. Compliance costs would vary area by area. Remoteness from markets and low population density tend to drive up the net cost. Services in large metropolitan areas may be provided by commercial operators on a purely economic basis. In other locations compliance may require subsidised service provision to a greater or lesser degree. There would need to be an agreed mechanism for managing this disparity.

Bans could provide a mechanism for enforcing Producer Responsibility programmes e.g. materials that cannot be readily recycled may be banned, making it more likely that Producers/Importers will shift to a recyclable product. This could create more viable recyclable collections and processing by creating greater flows of a smaller number of plastic types.

Bans would also be valuable for removing hazardous products and materials from landfills and diverting them to more appropriate treatment options.

Some Territorial Authorities Waste Plans ban particular materials from disposal to Landfill already, would s34 remove this power or be in addition to it?

35 Power to inspect waste transported or accepted
Seems to be an enabling provision rather than a requirement so cost of compliance should be manageable.

Top

37 Purpose
We strongly support a levy being imposed on the disposal of residual waste.

Waste levies are economic instruments with a proven ability to address market failure and influence waste management. They play a role in ensuring that the price signals of disposal adequately reflect; environmental externalities, the benefits of alternatives and community expectations.

Levies will perform two key functions:

1. Levies will generate revenue that can be used to put in place the infrastructure needed to move towards NZWS targets. A levy is a relatively effective, straightforward and low cost way of raising revenue. Zero Waste South Australia funds a successful waste reduction programme through levy revenue. We support the funds from a waste levy being applied directly to waste reduction and resource efficiency initiatives. The polluter pays principle is well established, there is a commonsense logic in imposing a cost on a particular behaviour with the aim of discouraging it.
2. Levies have the power to change behavior. They are direct charges, more closely connected with the individual decision making that will change behavior than rates based charges. The cost implications of the charge will encourage input reduction and substitution supporting Product Stewardship schemes. Revenue from the levy will be unpredictable, the more material diverted the lower the revenue. As a large reduction would tend to indicate targets are being met, we do not see this as a significant problem over the long term.

38 Disposal Authorities to have weighbridges
May need to be staged implementation, many smaller sites estimate volume using measurement tools. May be more useful to develop agreed methodology for volume calculations than to require all sites have a weighbridge.

40 Imposition of Levy
Agree that tonnage to disposal facility is an appropriate point for imposing the levy.

41 Amount of levy
Would support a staged levy price,

    $10 per tonne in year 1
    $20 per tonne in year 2

This would enable businesses to incorporate the fee into their cost structures more gradually. Most businesses do not have waste disposal as a major cost however those that do would need time to budget, re-price and adapt systems to encompass new behaviour.

Support the ability to set this fee each year as there is the potential to adjust up or down as required.

Discussions with a variety of people over the last month, suggests there is some disagreement over whether the levies will have a major impact on desire to become more resource efficient. Given that levies are a price signal that encourages input efficiency, businesses which argue they will have substantial increases in Waste charges due to the levy and that this will impact on their ability to function, are likely to be creating a lot of waste and need to accept that this is unacceptable in current business environment. The louder the complaints, the more likely it is that the levy will be an effective tool for achieving the desired outcomes.

42 Itemisation of levy
Consider it important that levy is itemised as a separate line item so it is clear to users what the costs/ savings are.

43 Payment and apportionment of levy
Do not support 50% of levies being retained by Waste Control Authorities, those with no landfill in their area will receive nothing through this channel. Suggest central collection and redistribution on a population basis. May require a formula to be developed to account for visitor numbers, population dispersal and distance from markets or ports.

44 Use of Levy
We do not support the use of levy funds to develop organisational waste minimisation plans, our rationale for this is detailed in section on Organisational Plans. We would prefer that infrastructural and market development was prioritised instead, with organisations funding the development of their own plans. We expect costs will be minor in relation to the scale of the organisation. Large organisations will develop plans as part of their Product Stewardship responsibilities.

Support 39(b) and have reservations about 39(a) this is essentially central government funding of local bureaucracy, would prefer to see funds applied to action and initiatives, some of this may flow through the WCA's with Territorial Authorities absorbing the administration costs of the waste minimisation units. Funds will be freed up through Product stewardship initiatives that cover the costs of processing and collecting material, reducing Territorial Authorities need to subsidise recovery activity.

45 Evaluation of effectiveness of levy
It may be valuable to have the PCE act in an advisory capacity during these assessments.

Top

48 Purpose
We strongly support using Producer Responsibility schemes to ensure manufacturers and importers incorporate the real costs of the whole product lifecycle into the final price of a product or service. This ensures that a clear signal is given to the consumers when they make decisions about what to purchase.

It is important that consumer behavior takes into account the 'ecological backpack' and the recovery or disposal implications of a product when they make a purchase. Products embody materials, capital and labour as well as energy and water. Re-use and recycling enable these embodied resources to continue to provide value beyond a single use. Consideration of all the resources that have been involved in the production of a product helps us make sustainable decisions.

Australian Department of the Environment and Heritage suggests that Product Stewardship schemes are most likely to be successful if;

• desired environmental outcomes are clearly specified and policy options prioritised.
• Comprehensive approach is taken, no one solution will resolve all desired outcomes given the diversity of products and services. Need to be developed product type by product type
• co-ordinate with similar schemes overseas and are consistent nationally
• transparent operation of scheme
• Progressively implemented
• sanctions for non participation or compliance available and enforced
• underpinning legislation developed in cooperation with industry and enforced by Government
• third parties including NGO's have opportunity to participate in ongoing development and monitoring.

Product Stewardship schemes complement the work done by Local Authorities who provide waste services as a contribution to the public good. Public demand for recovery services outstrips TA's ability to fund them in many cases. Product stewardship schemes can transfer costs from ratepayers to the producers and consumers who benefit from sale and use of the goods.

The Voluntary Packaging Accord has brought a range of key stakeholders together to work towards a common goal, however it has not resulted in setting targets that are a stretch or moved beyond the levels of recovery that would have been expected with a business as usual approach. Increased levels of recycling are more likely to have resulted from strong commodity markets worldwide over the last few years. The Packaging Accord process does not impose obligations on individual firms in any meaningful way and is unlikely to result in a net social benefit.

OECD review of voluntary approaches found evidence of few cases where voluntary approaches have contributed to improved environmental outcomes beyond a business as usual baseline. Businesses are driven by the signals they are receiving from the market. Introducing Product Stewardship schemes in conjunction with other economic incentives would create a business environment better able to produce sustainable outcomes.

Product stewardship schemes can ensure the market sends the right signals. Well implemented they can be the most efficient and cost effective way of meeting environmental objectives. They reward self starters, encourage innovation and give flexibility to choose the most appropriate course of action. They can encourage big picture thinking taking into consideration the embodied energy, labour, capital materials and water.

49 Brand Owners to take responsibility for products
The Australian Department of Environment and Heritage draws attention to the difference between;

• Extended Producer Responsibility; used to refer to schemes which impose mandatory physical or financial responsibility for the end of life management on producers.
• Product Stewardship; aims to allocate responsibility to most appropriate part in supply chain, can be voluntary, combined with underpinning legislation, potentially more flexible and efficient.

These terms are often used interchangeably, we consider the Product Stewardship model has the greatest value as it allows consideration of the whole product lifecycle and shifts attention for solutions away from disposal.

It is important that those who benefit financially from the sale of products and services, also take on the environmental and social costs. Incorporating them in the final price is one way of passing on information about the impact of a product to consumers.

Support the idea that brand owners could operate a stewardship scheme or contract with another party to do so, there are good models of both these methods in operation round the world. Compliance based schemes are successfully used in Germany where manufacturers pay a fee to cover the costs of a shared recovery process, a Green dot is used to tag products belonging to the scheme.

50 Brand owner and product stewardship organisation to confirm chain of responsibility for product
Product Stewardship schemes are the key to effective policy implementation. The Main Principles of product stewardship outlined by the Product Stewardship Council include;

1. 1. Responsibility; for reducing product impacts should be shared between industry; (designers, manufacturers, retailers) Government and consumers. Those having the most ability to minimise impact having the greatest responsibility to do so.
2. 2. Internalise costs all product lifecycle costs should be contained in the product cost. Gives Manufacturers a direct financial incentive to produce cleaner products.
3. 3. Incentives for cleaner production and sustainable practices should flow right through the product lifecycle.
4. 4. Flexible management strategies allows freedom to determine the form the change will take to achieve reduction of environmental impacts.
5. 5. Roles and relationships - Industry should provide leadership in achieving these principles. Government should provide leadership in promoting the practices of product stewardship through procurement, technical assistance, program evaluation, education, market development, agency coordination, addressing regulatory barriers and provide regulatory incentives and disincentives as a backstop. Both should provide and consumers are responsible for taking note of information required to make responsible environmental purchasing reuse recycling and disposal decisions

We consider it reasonable that the brand owner have primary responsibility as this is the stage of the product lifecycle where most potential to change the impact of a product lies

51 Notice to be given of consideration of need for a product stewardship programme
51(4) Support involving interested parties in an advisory group giving consideration to whether a particular product stewardship scheme is necessary.

52 Product Stewardship programmes required
52(3) Support the range of reasons for implementing a scheme under a-f
52(4) (b) Support drawing the advisory group from a wide range of parties with suitable skills and experience.
Broad view will ensure all perspectives are represented.

53 Approval of product stewardship programmes
Stakeholder involvement will ensure a more successful outcome in the long run and schemes will take many forms so would argue for an empowering rather than a prescriptive approach here.

54 Product stewardship programmes may include deposits or fees
Container Deposit schemes could effectively subsidise recovery, increase resource efficiency, reduce litter and reduce waste to landfill.

Container Deposit Legislation is a successful fee based approach, giving a financial incentive for returning containers as well as contributing to handling costs. They are more rigid than Product Stewardship but have value in a market with many brand owners and eg beverage market where success of the scheme benefits from simplicity form the public point of view.

High recovery rates of containers are achieved using this method in South Australia. The South Australian Government estimate the value of disposing of a single average beverage container to landfill compared with recycling that container is 8-9c. The cost of recovering that container through a combined CDL and Kerbside recycling strategy is approximately 2-3c. Recent information from the USA;

'Americans waste (landfill, incinerate, or litter) twice as many beverage containers as they recycle. In 2006, more than 138 billion beverage bottles and cans will not be recycled. Nationwide, thats about 459 per capita- up from 300 per capita just a decade ago, and this trend of increased wasting is expected to continue. There is a great environmental cost to replacing billions of wasted bottles and cans with new containers made from virgin materials: in terms of pollution, energy squandered, and habitats disrupted by mining, drilling, and other industrial activities'

CDL is a user pays scheme that complements Kerbside by targeting away from home container use.

57 Reporting on stewardship programmes
It is important that Programmes operate transparently so all parties have faith that action contributes towards achievement of NZWS targets and broader policy goals. Transparency will also enable effective monitoring and review over time.

58 Product Stewardship programme to be imposed
Support the idea that non compliant brand owners may be required to act and eventually penalized for not doing so.
Understand that 59-62 are conditions that would apply if brand owners did not come up with their own scheme.

Top

We do not support prioritising the preparation of Organisational Waste Minimisation Plans.

It would be more appropriate for this to be one of the things the Waste Minimisation Authority under 8 (1) (n) and the Territorial Authorities 22 (a) (i) are charged with encouraging and supporting. Other provisions of the act will ensure organisations engage with resource efficiency and waste reduction more directly.

We do not see a lack of Organisational Waste Minimisation plans as the main limiting factor;

• Access to infrastructure and services are key limitations that need to be overcome
• A plan does not guarantee action, energy and resources may be diverted to creating documents rather than activity
• Forward thinking businesses already prioritise Resource efficiency and Waste reduction programmes in the drive towards sustainable business practice.
• Product Stewardship schemes and green procurement policy will require organisations to consider the same issues
• Sound advice regarding best practice is readily available from a variety of web, print and consulting based sources
• Creating the appropriate market signals will encourage all organisations to engage in these practices as it will contribute to their bottom line

Businesses in the Wanaka area have been able to recycle for the last 6 years because a Community Enterprise established the infrastructure required. Approved plans and Public Education would not have been useful first steps. Our experience shows that demand for viable recovery options from business is well ahead of our ability to deliver in the current economic climate.

64 Purpose
Support in principle the concept of encouraging all organisations to actively endeavor to reduce waste and enhance resource efficiency.

65 Organisational Waste minimisation Plans
Do not see the compulsory development of Organisational Waste Minimisation Plans as a priority and recommend that the Bill focuses on other provisions which will achieve the same purpose in the long run eg Procurement practices, Product Stewardship and a Waste Levy.

66 Public event organisers to have waste minimisation plans
Suggest empowering territorial authorities to put this in place as part of their Waste Plan and Resource Consent process. Availability of alternative recovery options varies widely, limiting options in some areas.

67 Offences and penalties
Do not support the application of these penalties.

Top

68 Purpose
Strongly support the use of Procurement policy. It is an important tool for driving towards environmental outcomes for the following reasons:

• Opportunity to provide leadership by bringing procurement practice into line with sustainable development policy
• Influential in developing recovered materials markets eg Government spends $5 billion per year, is responsible for over 30 percent of New Zealand buildings and has an extensive impact on the environment through it's workforce, IT, paper usage and vehicle fleet.
• Builds decision making models outlining best practice assessment of goods and services
• Traditional procurement practices tend to be low risk and low price based, smaller organisations would benefit from an effective model of how to reconcile Sustainability, resource efficiency and zero waste goals
• Clean procurement encourages and rewards those who are doing the right thing by designing for disassembly, re-use and recycling or providing products with recycled content and considering embodied water and energy content.

The MfE led Govt3 programme provides a useful working model, helping central government agencies become more sustainable. Using the programme Transit New Zealand reduced its waste by 51 percent in 12 months and the Ministry of Social Development implemented energy saving measures with cost savings of more than $400,000 per year.

Top

70 Purpose
We support this provision to the extent that it creates an incentive for public Organisations to develop Quadruple bottom line reporting systems that reflect

• Resource, water and energy use
• Waste and resource recovery activity, ie movement towards Zero Waste

71 Public Organisations to report on waste generation and resource use
Would rewrite 71(2) deleting 'judged against criteria to be specified in the organisations waste minimisation plan' as we recommend removing the Organisational Waste Minimisation plan requirements.

72 Information and assessment to be provided to the authority
Suggest the Authority develop a clear, simple reporting format accessible electronically, transferred directly to a database to

• minimise the administration cost of data collection
• minimise compliance costs for Organisations
• guide organisations on acceptable level of information to be provided.

Top