RMLA Submission on Waste Minimisation (Solids) Bill

Local Government and Environment Committee Secretariat Bowen House Parliament Buildings Wellington

By email - [email protected]

1 September 2006

SUBMISSION ON THE WASTE MINIMISATION (SOLIDS) BILL

Resource Management Law Association 1. This submission is made on behalf of the Resource Management Law Association of New Zealand Inc (“RMLA”) on the Waste Minimisation (Solids) Bill (“Bill”).

2. Established in 1992, the RMLA was formed to provide a forum for all professionals and others with an interest in resource management and the environment. Currently, the RMLA has over 1,000 members drawn from a wide range of professional backgrounds in the private sector, central and local government. The objectives of the RMLA are to promote within New Zealand:

. An understanding of resource management law and its implementation in a multi-disciplinary framework; . Excellence in resource management policy and practice; . Resource management practices which are legally sound, effective, and efficient and which produce high quality environmental outcomes.

3. In a general sense, the RMLA supports the use of economic instruments (where appropriate) to achieve environmental outcomes – e.g. the proposed national waste levy, but it has reservations about some of the other provisions in the Bill such as mandatory waste plans for all businesses regardless of size.

COMMENTS ON THE “WASTE MINIMISATION (SOLIDS) BILL”

General Comments 4. The RMLA supports the intention of the Bill to improve data collection and the review of waste generation and resource use in New Zealand. Similarly, the RMLA supports the intent to administer, support and implement waste minimisation targets set out in the New Zealand Waste Strategy (NZWS).

5. However, the Bill is not accompanied by an analysis of the likely costs of implementing each scheme, in particular, an analysis of likely costs and revenue generated from the proposed waste levy scheme is required in order

Totara Chambers PO Box 75-945 Manurewa Auckland 1730 Mobile 0275 182 196 E-mail: [email protected] RMLA Submission on Waste Minimisation (Solids) Bill

to ensure that the proposal is likely to be both feasible and effective in the medium to long-term.

Scope of the Bill & Specific Comments 6. The Bill appears to take a “no stone left unturned approach” towards waste minimisation legislation and covers six elements:

. The creation of a national authority dedicated to waste minimisation – the Waste Minimisation Authority – which would be similar in purpose to the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority (EECA) and would oversee a layer of Waste Control Authorities operating at the local government (Parts 2 and 3); . The introduction of a waste disposal levy to discourage the disposal of waste and to provide funding for processes, systems and products to minimise resource use and waste production (Part 5). Further, it is proposed that the levy would be charged at the point of disposal, at $25/tonne and split 50/50 between the local and national waste authorities; . The ability to create regulations for compulsory product stewardship/extended producer responsibility programmes (Part 6); . A requirement for every business and public organisation to create and implement a waste minimisation plan, including public event organisers (Part 7); . The introduction of public procurement and reporting policies, requiring that purchase decisions made by public organisations show a preference for options that minimise waste (Parts 8 and 9).

7. As well as being comprehensive in covering all of these six areas, the Bill also takes a prescriptive approach to regulation in each of these areas. The RMLA’s initial reaction to scope of the Bill is that whilst it may provide an effective legislative vehicle for creating a national waste levy, Parliament should be wary of taking such an all-inclusive approach without evidence from some kind of cost-benefit analysis to demonstrate that those interventions are appropriate and will produce better environmental outcomes than other approaches.

Waste Levy – Part 5 clauses 37-47 8. The RMLA supports (in principle) the provisions in the Bill which enable the introduction of a national solid waste levy. The RMLA considers the key principles of a national waste levy to be:

. That the levy is set at an appropriate level to send an appropriate pricing signal for waste generators to reduce waste to landfill (or other final disposal facility) in accordance with the policies contained in the NZWS; . That revenue generated from the levy be used to subsidise waste minimisation initiatives that would otherwise be uneconomic; . That revenue generated from the levy only be used to fund initiatives that are directly related to waste minimisation, i.e. would not be used as a general taxation device (hypothecation).

9. Although the manner in which waste is collected, disposed of and funded varies at a local/regional level, the RMLA considers that it may be appropriate for a waste levy to be set and regulated at a national level. A nationally

2 RMLA Submission on Waste Minimisation (Solids) Bill

consistent response is required to ensure a fair marketplace and to prevent the creation of negative effects, such as increased transportation of wastes to lower cost disposal facilities.

10. The Bill proposes an initial levy of $25/tonne, to be reviewed annually with an investigation of the levy’s effectiveness and increased by at least 50 percent if shown to be ineffective. The RMLA considers that a lower levy may be appropriate initially, to allow for the issues around restricted infrastructure and initiatives to support waste minimisation to be put into place. The levy may then increase annually, with a review period built in after a specified timeframe (3 to 5 years). It is for note that the waste levy previously proposed by the Ministry for the Environment (MfE) suggested an initial levy of $10/tonne, increasing by a further $10 per tonne each year until it reached $30/tonne per tonne at year 3.

11. The Bill proposes that a waste levy be applied to clean fills as well as to landfills and incineration facilities. Clean fills have a range of their own complexities around licensing, level of control, and typically charge on a volume rather than a tonnage basis. It is therefore recommended that clean fills be addressed at a later stage, once a levy scheme has been tested out on landfills, most of which are expected to have better systems in place. The RMLA is not in a position to express an opinion for or against the levying of wastes disposed of to incineration facilities.

12. Rather than specifying that all facilities must have a weighbridge (which appears to be overly prescriptive), the RMLA recommends that a preference for weighbridges be expressed but with a provision to allow disposal facility operators to convert volumes to tonnages, using agreed conversion factors for specified materials. This provision would account for those smaller disposal facilities that do not initially have the funding available to install a weighbridge.

Waste Minimisation Authority – Part 2 clauses 6-18 13. In principle, the RMLA supports the concept of establishing an independent body to compile and store national waste data and to administer funds collected through a waste levy programme. However, it considers that there is a need to further address proposed budget implications for such a body. The MfE waste levy proposal set a cap on the amount of money allocated towards administration of a waste levy scheme, being 2 percent of the total revenue generated from the levy. The RMLA recommends that a similar directive be included within the Bill. It is also desirable that there should be no duplication in roles between the proposed Authority and other central and local government agencies already involved in waste minimisation - in particular, the MfE which has a significant level of involvement in this area.

Extended Producer Responsibility/ Product Stewardship – Part 6 clauses 48-63 14. The RMLA is of the view that product stewardship should be excluded from the Bill, on the basis that the concept of product stewardship extends beyond waste minimisation and that the timing for such legislation is premature given that the MfE is currently consulting on a product stewardship scheme. Accordingly, it recommends that the provisions in the Bill relating to product stewardship should not proceed and that the consultation process currently

3 RMLA Submission on Waste Minimisation (Solids) Bill

being carried out by the MfE should be completed before legislation is contemplated on this topic.

Organisational Waste Minimisation Plans – Part 7 clauses 64-67 15. Although there is a recognised need for business to address and minimise the wastes they generate, the combined approach of both a waste levy payable on disposal and the waste minimisation plan requirement may be perceived as a “double stick” approach. With an objective of the waste levy being to induce behavioural change and reduce waste to landfill, it is unclear why the waste minimisation plan requirement is also included in the Bill.

16. It is also likely that a number of businesses may not have the in-house resources and level of expertise required to prepare the plans, and therefore would incur costs for the engagement of external consultants. As a result compliance costs for the business sector (and public agencies) may not be justified compared with the waste reduction benefits. This is based on the assumption that the benefits from such plans would be significantly less than the waste reduction benefits that would follow on from the pricing signal created by a waste levy.

17. Further, the anticipated use of waste levy funds to subsidise the preparation of organisational waste minimisation plans could redirect funding away from the development of new facilities and markets to support the reduction, reuse and recycling of wastes. This may create a degree of conflict as waste minimisation plans can only be as effective as the available infrastructure (e.g. recycling facilities) and recycling/reuse markets allow. A relevant example is the current issue with increasing volumes of glass recycling which is disproportionate to market requirements for the recycled product. Using this example, increased separation of this waste stream would only add to the problem whereas the development of alternative markets for reuse of this material is likely to be a more beneficial option.

18. On this basis, the RMLA recommends that the alternative funding allocation method outlined in the MfE proposal be considered, whereby the revenue generated from the collection of a waste levy is split between local government waste minimisation initiatives (in initial years including the preparation of waste plans and new council waste minimisation ventures) and a general pool that could be used to fund other initiatives deemed to be the most beneficial in waste minimisation.

CONCLUSION

19. Based on the policies contained in the NZWS the RMLA believes there is a policy case for a national levy on solid wastes. It believes that a Bill focussed on this aspect of waste policy would be of benefit to New Zealand and would assist the implementation of the national waste strategy. However, the RMLA does not support other provisions of the Bill as currently drafted for the reasons given in this submission.

Yours faithfully,

Trevor Daya-Winterbottom Co-Chairperson, RMLA Legislation Committee