Ministry for the Environment Proposed ... - plastics.org.nz · This submission is on behalf of the New Zealand plastics industry and its customers. It is also specifically endorsed

Plastics New Zealand: Proposed priority products and product stewardship scheme guidelines Page 1

To the:

Ministry for the Environment On the:

Proposed priority products and product stewardship scheme guidelines

4 October 2019

Submission by:

Industry Association

Chief Executive Officer: Rachel Barker

PO Box 76378, Manukau, Auckland 2241

M: 022 0812 936

E: [email protected]

www.plastics.org.nz

This submission is on behalf of the New Zealand plastics industry and its customers. It is also specifically endorsed by the following companies:

Packaging manufacturer General Manager: Chris Williams

32 Link Dr, Rolleston www.packtechmoulding.co.nz

Farm Plastics brand-owner (Hugo) Electrical Equipment brand-owner (TPE)

Managing Director: Simon Jones 8 Matiu Close, Porirua www.hugoplastics.nz

www.thermoplastics.co.nz

Packaging manufacturer Farm Plastics component manufacturer

General Manager: Scott Laurence 18 De Leeuw Pl, Hamilton

www.tekplas.co.nz

Packaging manufacturer Sustainability Director APAC: Alan Adams

3 Foreman Rd, Avalon, Hamilton www.sealedair.com


Veterinary products manufacturer Director: Paul Jancys

3 Kordel Place, East Tamaki, Auckland www.jaychem.co.nz

Packaging manufacturer Managing Director: Mike Ristrom

23 Sheffield Cres, Burnside, Christchurch www.ristrom.co.nz

Packaging manufacturer Director: Ashley Hope

570 Wairakei Rd, Burnside, Christchurch www.pbc.net.nz

Packaging Manufacturer General Manager: Dene Wilson

4 Zelanian Dr, East Tamaki, Auckland www.plasticpackaging.co.nz

Farm plastics component manufacturer Packaging manufacturer

General Manager: Tim Beere 9 Kamiro St, Hamilton

www.elitepolymers.co.nz

Packaging manufacturer CEO: David Tsui

59-65 Portage Rd, New Lynn, Auckland www.bonson-savpac.co.nz

Packaging Manufacturers Recycler/Reprocessor

Executive GM New Zealand: Eric Kjestrup 8 Maui Stree, Pukete, Hamilton

www.pactgroup.com.au

Farm Plastics brand-owner (incl. electronic controllers) Managing Director Aliaxis NZ: Mike MacDonald

32 Mahia Rd, Manurewa, Auckland https://aliaxis.com/businesses/new-zealand/

Australasian Rotational Moulders Association CEO: Leisa Donlan

NZ Representative: Sally Beets PO Bo 826, Ipswich QLD, Australia

www.rotationalmoulding.com

http://www.jaychem.co.nz/

http://www.ristrom.co.nz/

http://www.pbc.net.nz/

http://www.plasticpackaging.co.nz/

http://www.elitepolymers.co.nz/

http://www.bonson-savpac.co.nz/


Packaging manufacturer Director: Abbie Watson

21B Hannigan Dr, Panmure, Auckland www.waddingsolutions.co.nz

Resin Supplier (incl. Packaging) Director: Ivan Tottle

137 Great North Rd, Grey Lynn, Auckland www.chemiplas.co.nz

Agrichemical container manufacturer Director: Heather Allen

7 McKee St, Pukete, Hamilton www.esplastics.co.nz

Packaging manufacturer Director: Chris McBride

518 Kaikorai Valley Rd, Dunedin www.packit.co.nz

Packaging manufacturer Managing Director: Steve Morrison

220 Bush Rd, Albany, Auckland www.linkplas.com

Packaging brand-owner CEO: Sarah Kennedy

24 Kawana St, Northcote, Auckland www.calocurb.co.nz

Farm plastics component manufacturer Veterinary products component manufacturer Electrical products component manufacturer

Managing Director: Steve Wilson 78 Wigram Rd, Christchurch

www.talbottechnologies.co.nz

Packaging manufacturer Managing Director: Ray Hughes

30 Mowbray St, Christchurch www.formriteplastics.co.nz

Plastics Recycler / Reprocessor Managing Director: Rob Fowler

12 Prairie Place, Hornby, Christchurch www.comspec.co.nz

Packaging manufacturer Sustainability Manager: Ally Hopwood 125 Sunnybrae Rd, Hillcrest, Auckland

www.pharmapac.co.nz

Packaging manufacturer General Manager: John O’Sullivan

27 Ross Reid Pl, East Tamaki, Auckland www.cospak.co.nz

Packaging manufacturer General Manager: Victoria Dickinson

220 Bush Rd, Albany, Auckland www.pacrite.co.nz

http://www.waddingsolutions.co.nz/

http://www.pharmapac.co.nz/

http://www.cospak.co.nz/

http://www.pacrite.co.nz/


Packaging brand-owner Director: Julie Hayes 85 Tetley Rd, Katikati

www.beenz.co.nz

Packaging manufacturer Director: Paul Lightowlers

41 Aniseed Valley Rd, Hope, Nelson www.hmp.co.nz

Packaging Manufacturer Managing Director: Gavin Fong

10A Earl Richardson Ave, Wiri, Auckland www.pluspac.co.nz

Farm Plastics brand-owner Electrical & Electronic brand-owner

Supply Chain Manager: Paul Morrison 25 Carbine Rd, Mt Wellington, Auckland

www.tru-test.com

Consultant to Plastics Industry Director: Mark Hanlon

PO Box 307, Cambridge www.hanlonconsulting.co.nz

Packaging brand-owner CEO: Sarah Kennedy

24 Kawana St, Northcote, Auckland www.happyvalley.co.nz

Packaging Manufacturer Managing Director: Owen Embling

5 Latham Court, Hamilton

www.convex.co.nz

Packaging Manufacturer Director: Eddie Devine

11 Bremner Road, Drury, Auckland www.simaplas.co.nz

www.morrowindustriesltd.com


1. Introduction: Plastics New Zealand is the trade organisation representing the New Zealand plastics industry. Our Membership comprises over 185 businesses including manufacturers, suppliers, recyclers (reprocessors) and consultants to the industry. The industry has a broad range of company sizes from several very large corporates to a larger number of small to medium enterprises.

Our Member’s interests in this consultation cover a number of the proposed priority products including:

• Electrical and electronic products

• Agrichemical containers (including packaging for veterinary medicines)

• Farm plastics

• Packaging – beverage bottles

• Packaging – single-use plastic consumer goods packaging

In some cases, the Member is the brand-owner for the product (e.g. electronic equipment) but in the majority of cases the Member is sub-contracted (i.e. a supplier) to produce components or packaging for the brand-owner.

As our Membership is across a wide variety of sectors and may have mixed views on the merits or otherwise of mandatory product stewardship, we have recommended that individual Members make their own submission raising issues specific to their own situation. Some of the companies endorsing this submission may also send in their own to cover off specific points.

Plastics NZ is happy to discuss our submission with MfE in more detail if this would be of value.

2. Low Emissions Circular Economy The proposal states that the Government wants New Zealand to have a productive, sustainable, inclusive and low emissions economy and expresses that the aim is for a more prosperous and fairer society, and economic growth within environmental limits. The transition to a circular economy is also discussed extensively.

Plastics NZ is in full agreement with the Government in these goals and is working towards the realisation of a low emissions circular economy with our Members. There are many initiatives within the NZ industry, the global industry, and across associated sectors, which support and drive movement towards achievement of these aims.

It is very important that a cradle-to-cradle view of systems and products is taken, however. While the proposal effectively expresses a desire for a low emissions circular economy, it appears to be focusing only on end-of-life solutions. This is counter-productive and likely to have significant unintended consequences which will ultimately provide poor environmental outcomes and increased emissions. This discussion will be developed further for specific priority products.

Recommendation #1: Ensure all priority product declarations and product stewardship scheme development occurs under a cradle-to-cradle perspective rather than just end-of-life perspective.

3. General Observations These observations are across all proposed priority products and/or the proposed scheme guidelines.


3.1. WMA Requirements for Declaring Priority Products Under the WMA (section 9(2)(b)) the Minister must not make the declaration of a priority product unless he or she is satisfied that the product can be effectively managed under a product stewardship scheme.

The included scope for several priority products is extremely broad and includes materials that are already known to be difficult to deal with (eg. multi-layer packaging films, farm plastics contaminated with sulphur or copper1). For these more difficult materials the end-of-life solution in NZ is currently either landfill or is problematic from a commercial/end-market point of view (e.g. the soft-plastics recycling scheme).

There appears to be an underlying assumption in the proposals that systems used in Europe, North America or Australia can be easily implemented into the NZ context. This is a flawed approach due to NZ’s small population being spread over a large geographical area. These overseas areas also utilise other technologies, such as pyrolysis and waste to energy, as part of their waste management systems. Members of the New Zealand plastics industry are interested in supporting exploration into these technologies and would welcome engagement with the Ministry on this.

Recommendation #2: Work with NZ industry to develop a roadmap for each of the proposed priority products. Ensure that the systems for managing the materials, and funding required for infrastructure, are in place before declaring any priority products.

3.2. Clarity of Definitions Required There are several terms and concepts used within the proposal which need clarification before any priority products can be declared. These are required to provide a reasonable framework for development of the product stewardship schemes.

• Product stewardship is not defined in quantitative terms. While waste minimisation is a key factor under the WMA the amount required is not defined. There is no discussion around other environmental factors that need consideration to achieve a low-emissions circular economy.

• Environmental Limits is not defined and yet the entire aim of the consultation is for a more prosperous and fairer society, and economic growth within environmental limits. All human and business activity has environmental impact. The environmental limits need to be well defined in order to assess the overall benefits or adverse effects of any proposed scheme design. These need to be considered from a cradle-to-cradle perspective to ensure that unintended negative environmental consequences are avoided or minimised

• Plastic needs to be defined very clearly, particularly for priority products under farm plastics and packaging. It is not sufficient to state all plastic made of resin codes 1 through 7 as this also covers bio-based, biodegradable, compostable, oxo-degradable and naturally occurring polymers. There is already confusion in the market around this with some brand-owners stating their packaging ‘is not plastic’ despite it falling within the definition.

As there is clear potential for cross-contamination in both the mechanical and biological recycling systems it is important that this is well defined. Industrially compostable

1 These chemicals/compounds act as degradants during reprocessing resulting in shortening of the polymer chains and poor quality end material.


materials such as PLA have the same issues with collection and sorting as the more traditional plastics.

A claim that a plastic material is ‘home compostable’, should also not automatically exclude that material from being part of the priority product scope. For these materials the onus to provide evidence of certification (for the product not the material) and proving compostability should fall on the producer. This would help avoid green-washing claims in marketing and prevent harm from materials which are claimed to be ‘biodegradable’ but spend decades in the environment as microplastics before they degrade enough to become bioavailable.

Recommendation #3: Clearly define product stewardship and environmental limits in quantitative terms before declaring any priority products. This should be done in conjunction with the stakeholders outlined for co-design of the stewardship schemes.

Recommendation #4: Work with NZ Industry bodies (Plastics NZ, WasteMINZ, PacNZ) and our scientific community (Scion, Royal Society, PM’s Chief Science Advisor) to determine a definition of plastic for use in scheme development. Ensure that this definition is internationally recognised so as not to cause any trade issues.

3.3. Even Playing Field International Competition: It is pleasing to see importers and retailers included under ‘producer’ as well as brand-owners. The importance of including importers and retailers cannot be emphasised enough. If they were excluded this would create a significant competitive disadvantage for local manufacturers. This is a critical factor given New Zealand’s reliance on exports and the Government’s desire to improve productivity.

Recommendation #5: Ensure that international producers and importers are included from the start of any product stewardship scheme to ensure an even playing field for local industry. This must also include fully finished goods for resale as well as any imported packaging for use in New Zealand.

Online Purchases: 1.8 million New Zealanders made online purchases in 2018 totalling 4.2 billion dollars. A third of this, $1.376 billion, was spent internationally2. As shown below several proposed priority products are included in these online purchases. This raises questions as to how these would be handled in regard to mandatory product stewardship and how individual consumers would be levied.

• Electrical and Electronic Products (E-Waste): A wide variety of electrical or electronic products are purchased online such as toys, electronic devices and tools.

• Packaging: All online products purchased internationally will arrive in New Zealand packaged in some form or other. In general, this will include some form of plastic packaging.

2 New Zealand Post 2019 NZ eCommerce Review: https://thefulldownload.co.nz/


Recommendation #6: Prior to setting timeframes on any product stewardship scheme accreditation, ensure that a mandatory method is in place to capture online purchases in terms of the types of product and the packaging materials protecting the items.

Legacy Products: There is minimal or no data on the amount of legacy product covered by the proposed priority product groups. As a general principle, any changes to the law should not apply retrospectively. The cost of dealing with legacy issues (e.g. pre-existing electrical and electronic equipment) will therefore become an issue.

Producers should not be required to deal with older product that they have not imported or manufactured. Government funding will be required to assist with dealing with end-of-life issues of legacy product.

Recommendation #7: Analyse the scale of legacy product across the proposed priority product groups before declaring them a priority product. Determine the amount of government investment that will be required and include this in the investment mapping being undertaken by MfE.

Costs to the Regions: New Zealand’s population is low and spread over a large geographical area. In the regions there are many towns with smaller populations. Transport costs are high, particularly where mountain ranges must be crossed, or where transfer across the Cook Strait is required.

Management of scheme funds must be undertaken in such a way as to allow for variances between smaller communities and larger cities to avoid unfairly burdening the overall costs of a stewardship scheme. Costs will be relatively higher for these areas as waste-streams must be aggregated several times prior to shipping to reprocessing facilities.

Recommendation #8: Ensure a mechanism is in place to account for the relatively higher costs in the regions.

3.4. Lack of Data: For successful product stewardship schemes to be developed, there needs to be accurate data on the proposed priority products. Without this, it will be difficult to make evidence-based decisions and the viability of any schemes designed will be in question. Areas of concern are:

• Minimal or no data on the types and quantities of materials used to make or package products sold in New Zealand. This means that volumes of materials and products covered by the proposed priority product groups cannot be determined.

• No current method of control – particularly for imported products. Levy application is extremely problematic when there is no quantifiable measure on the amount of product coming into the country. Especially when it comes to packaging.

• Minimal or no data on the amount of legacy product in the system. This is particularly problematic for electrical and electronic products.


Recommendation #9: Prior to setting timeframes on any product stewardship scheme accreditation, ensure that a mandatory data collection system is in place.

3.5. Social Impacts The consultation document implies that councils and the wider community carrying the costs of collecting and managing waste is inequitable and that producers and users should directly pay for costs. Where a product is broadly used by the majority of those in the wider community this reasoning is flawed.

Several of the proposed priority product groups are items that are purchased by almost all individuals and families within New Zealand; electrical & electronic goods, packaging, and for many families Agrichemical containers through inclusion of veterinary medicine packaging.

For food packaging in particular, there is the risk of introducing inequity for those in lower socio-economic bands. The ratio of packaging cost to product is higher for basic staples than it is for discretionary or luxury items. This means that the relative burden will be highest on those with the highest proportion of income spent on food and lower-value goods.

Recommendation #10: Do not declare a product ‘priority’ where it is broadly used by the majority of those in the wider community. Work with MSD, Treasury and Te Puni Kokiri to assess social impacts before declaring any product a ‘priority’.

4. Specific Priority Product Observations

4.1. Packaging A considerable number of our Members are involved in the manufacture of packaging products for brand-owners, across both beverage and general categories. Our brand-owners also purchase packaging for their own products. The two sub-categories for this priority product group are discussed separately below as we consider them to be quite different propositions.

4.1.1. Beverage Containers: We do not oppose the declaration of beverage containers as a priority product. Product stewardship provides a mechanism for increasing recovery and recycling rates and ensuring the value of the material is maximised.

Our major concern here relates to scheme design and ensuring that the underlying system is not irreparably damaged. Diversion of these beverage containers will lower the amount of materials being collected at kerbside. While not ideal, or consistent across the country, the commercial nature of the existing system may be threatened through removal of some of the most valuable resources.

Based on international levels of collection under Container Deposit Legislation (CDL), New Zealand will still continue kerbside collection for many years into the future. Care needs to be taken to ensure that current commercial operators (MRFs in particular) are not impacted to such a large degree that they decide to cease operations. This would result in major logistics and waste issues across New Zealand. Without an economic analysis to determine where trade-off points are it will be difficult to manage a transition from the existing recycling systems to improved or modified systems.


Recommendation #11 Ensure that economic analysis of the impact of CDL on the existing collection and sorting system is performed prior to initiation of any stewardship scheme.

Ensure measures are put in place in any scheme design to prevent anti-competitive behaviour on the awarding of collection and recycling contracts.

4.1.2. Single-Use Plastic Packaging used for Consumer Goods at Retail or Wholesale While we are supportive of product stewardship, we do not support the declaration of plastic packaging as a priority product. There are a wide number of reasons for this.

Focus should be all packaging not just plastic packaging: Anti-Competitive Policy: Declaring plastic packaging a priority product rather than all packaging is anti-competitive and would have a significant impact on New Zealand Manufacturers and the employees within the plastics industry. This policy would drive brand-owners towards other materials in order to avoid levy’s and mandated actions under the WMA.

Unintended Consequences: There is limited understanding of cradle-to-cradle life cycle impacts amongst consumers and brand-owners. This means that many brand-owners are already considering moving away from plastic packaging based purely on consumer pressure. There are some serious unintended consequences in declaring plastic packaging a priority product:

• Increased fuel consumption and associated emissions: Plastic packaging provides a better carbon footprint than most other packaging. Particularly when the plastic packaging is in a recycling loop as intended in a circular economy. Moving away from plastics to other materials, glass in particular, will have a serious negative impact on New Zealand’s carbon footprint. (See example in Appendix A). This runs in absolute opposition to the government’s expressed goal of having a productive, sustainable, inclusive and low emissions economy.

• Increased Food Waste: Plastic packaging, flexible packaging in particular, has evolved over decades to reach extremely high standards in terms of food safety and shelf life. Alternatives often do not meet these same standards. Packaging that doesn’t meet requirements in terms of food safety and shelf life represents both an environmental and economic issue. It leads to increased human health issues and increased emissions.

• Non-Recyclable or Compostable Alternatives: A number of brand-owners have moved away from plastic packaging to environmentally retrograde solutions. This is generally done in an attempt to pacify consumers, and often done with the best intentions but a total lack of understanding of recycling and resource recovery. Many of these solutions are from offshore and the sales-pitch is full of greenwashing when the packaging is considered in the NZ context. Recent examples of this are:

▪ Plastic supplement containers replaced by foil-lined cardboard (adhered) with aluminium base.

▪ Multi-layer packaging made from individually certified compostable layers but not certified compostable as multi-layer product.

▪ Oxo-degradable bags and pouches (which exist as microplastics for decades before becoming ‘bio-available’).

• Increase in materials already over NZ recycling capacity: NZ is already well over capacity for the paper, cardboard and fibre products that flow through our waste system. It is generally the number one priority for Councils and MRF operators during discussions around waste. Much of this material also has low value in global markets meaning there


are issues with selling it offshore. Declaring plastic packaging a priority product will drive brand-owners towards fibre-based products increasing this existing problem.

• EPR globally focuses on all packaging: Extended Producer Responsibility legislation globally, and subsequent stewardship schemes, covers all packaging, not just plastics. We are not aware of any jurisdiction in the world that has implemented product stewardship / EPR for plastic packaging alone.

Recommendation #12 If packaging is declared as a priority product it must not be limited to just plastic. Packaging must include ALL materials to avoid unintended outcomes.

Clarification of Terms is Required: • Single-Use: What is meant by single-use needs to be clarified to ensure the intended scope is

clear. While some products fall clearly under this category (e.g. take-away containers, single-portion packaging), others are less clear. Examples of this are products with multiple ‘serves’ or ‘doses’. e.g. tomato sauce bottles, cosmetic containers, shampoo bottles, tubes of toothpaste. These items are not used once but used multiple times over weeks and months. It can therefore be argued that they are not single use.

• In-Combination with Plastic: While this is clear for items such as plastic-coated cardboard, and other multilayer products it is less clear for others. Where exactly is the line being drawn on this? For example, a cardboard box around a tube of toothpaste, plastic bag inside a cardboard cereal box, secondary and tertiary packaging for wholesale.

• Consumer Goods at Retail & Wholesale: Where is the line being drawn between ‘consumer goods’ and ‘business goods’. There can be considerable overlap here where many business-to-business operations also allow consumers to purchase from their stores (e.g. Farmlands, Southern Hospitality).

Most of the wholesalers in NZ are business-to-business sales only. How is ‘consumer goods’ being defined for this scenario?

With wholesale included is there an expectation that secondary (removed before display) and tertiary packaging (used for shipping) be included? Particularly for retailers selling primarily to consumers.

Recommendation #13 Clarify the terminology used to describe the scope of this proposed priority product before any declaration of priority status is made.

Scope of ‘Packaging’ is too broad: Even if only plastic packaging were included for this proposed priority product group, the scope is enormous. It covers almost all products, brands and industries. The scope of a scheme would require the participation of an enormous range of brand-owners and importers and would need a robust and expensive system to enforce, particularly for imports.

It is impractical to cover all plastic types and packaging formats in such a unilateral manner. Particularly given we have no data on the amount or types of packaging that is imported on products. It will also take a number of different approaches to effectively deal with such a variety of materials and formats. A one-size-fits all approach is not practical. For example, a container deposit/return scheme may be suitable for beverage containers but would not necessarily work for soft-plastics or medical packaging.


Before this vast amount of material can be effectively dealt with a mandatory data collection system should be implemented. Analysis could then be carried out on the quantities and types of materials. This then allows evidence-based decisions on how to deal with our packaging waste. With the current lack of data, and this massive scope, this cannot be effectively done at present.

See Recommendation #9

Recommendation #14 Following application of a mandatory data collection system, analyse the amounts and types of packaging materials. Then work with NZ Industry to break it into sub-categories that can then be prioritised for product stewardship.

Criteria for Declaring Priority Products: In our opinion there were some erroneous assumptions made in regard to the statutory tests against the criteria for declaring priority products for plastic packaging.

• Combined Analysis: Both beverage containers and plastic packaging appear to have been combined under the same assessment. There are big differences in regard to these two sub-categories and it is unlikely that they can be handled effectively under the same type of stewardship scheme. They should therefore not be analysed in a combined manner in terms of the statutory tests.

• Risk of Harm WMA 9(2)(a)(i): o Incorrectly disposed packaging and litter appear to be a large focus of this analysis.

Littering is not a function of the packaging and therefore not an inherent harm. The harm is due to human behaviour. The focus therefore should be on changing behaviours through education programmes and enforcement of existing laws or, if current law is ineffective, by strengthening this mechanism. We do not blame the car when a drunk driver crashes it. Why are we blaming the packaging when a consumer litters?

o Landfill failure due to stormwater or sea level rise is included as part of the analysis. This has nothing to do with packaging failure and everything to do with infrastructure failure. The focus should be on correcting issues with at-risk landfills and on preventing design failures into the. Regulation of packaging will have no impact on the risk of harm from landfill failure.

o The risk of microplastics is discussed as though the majority of microplastics are from littered packaging. This is not the case. As evidenced by Scion’s Auckland microplastics study, and other studies globally, ~87% of microplastics are from textiles and tyres. The risk of harm from packaging is therefore less than implied in the analysis.

o There is no analysis of the value or purpose of the packaging, only the end-of-life outcomes. This type of approach commonly leads to unintended consequences such as increased food waste or increased product damage. All products and various types of packaging have an environmental impact. A cradle to cradle perspective must be used when analysing harm, particularly if comparison with other packaging types is raised.

• Waste Minimisation Benefits WMA 9(2)(a)(ii): o The arguments in this assessment are flawed. They are based on the premise that

packaging does not impact the wider community and the costs can be more fairly spread to those making packaging, purchasing and disposal decisions. However, the wider community generates most of the consumer packaging through purchases of food and beverages and many other commonly purchased items. It is therefore not


inequitable for the costs of managing this waste to be via councils and ratepayer funding.

• Product Stewardship Effectiveness WMA 9(2)(b): o There is reference to regulated packaging product stewardship schemes overseas.

Analysis of the countries mentioned shows that none of these countries focus only on plastic packaging but cover all packaging types. The effectiveness of a general plastic packaging stewardship scheme is therefore not proven (as opposed to container deposit-return schemes).

o Reusable designs overseas are referenced with Australia being one of the examples. One of our Trans-Tasman Members, who is a founding company member of APCO, active in the Australian Institute of Packaging and a current member of the Australian Bioplastics Association, has indicated no awareness of any broad-based reusable consumer-based packaging program in Australia. The June 2019 New Plastics Economy Report3 also indicates that the majority of signees to the global commitment are only at the stage of investigating and exploring options for reuse models for their packaging. There are few examples of implemented reuse models (barring reusable bags) and these are not widescale. Reusable schemes are therefore not a good example of the effectiveness of product stewardship schemes.

Recommendation #15: Reanalyse the two packaging sub-categories separately against the statutory criteria. As part of this:

• Avoid attributing harm from consumer behaviour (littering) and landfill failure to packaging materials.

• Reanalyse the harm from packaging with the correct information around the amount of microplastics they are causing in comparison to the major sources such as textiles and tyres.

• Do not compare plastic packaging to other types unless a full cradle-to-cradle viewpoint is applied.

• Undertake additional research to determine if any general plastic packaging (non-beverage) stewardship schemes exist without access to pyrolysis or waste-to-energy plants.

Timeframes Given the extremely broad scope of plastic packaging the three-year time frame is impractical and unachievable.

• Some of the packaging formats included in the scope are not recyclable and the only NZ end-of-life option is landfill. Longer term solutions for these materials, such as pyrolysis or waste-to-energy, might be options but will take far longer than three years to implement.

• New Zealand sorting and re-processing infrastructure is not currently able to deal with the multitude of packaging formats included in the scope. We are currently struggling to get plastics separated at scale through the MRFs. Improving the sorting, and implementing the equipment required to reprocess this packaging, will take much longer than the three-year timeframe. This is largely due to the challenging economics of having a small population across a large geographical area. Commercial companies will need government support and tax-payer funding to implement the programmes required. Timeframes for WMF applications, resource consents and the lead-times for equipment shipping to NZ mean

3 https://www.newplasticseconomy.org/assets/doc/GC-Report-June19.pdf


that the three-year timeframe is unachievable for the full scope of the proposed priority product group.


4.2. Electrical and Electronic Products We support the concept of product stewardship for some sub-categories of e-waste. However, the scope of the proposed priority product group is too broad, in our opinion, for it to be declared a priority product under the WMA.

Several of our brand-owner Members manufacture electrical/electronic products. Many of the manufacturing Members produce components utilised in these types of products.

The scope of 2(c) ‘anything that requires a plug or a battery to operate’ is massive. The large volume of products would require significant infrastructure and tax-payer funding. Particularly given the uncertain returns from recycling schemes for products where the ratio of high-value resources to other materials is low.

The government’s report on e-waste product stewardship (2015)4 shows significant data gaps around e-waste and a wide variance in the types of products included (11 categories). The information required to make evidence-based decisions around infrastructure requirements is lacking. There is also minimal data on the amount of legacy product that would need to be dealt with.

Recommendations: See #2 and #9

There is a wide variance in the products making up this category. The materials used in the products have different levels of environmental harm meaning that some sub-categories should be considered before others. The same variance exists in terms of commercial viability and resource recovery. Some sub-categories contain more valuable materials than others. Those with less valuable materials will require significantly more investment. There are also sub-categories which contain products that remain in service for 10 to 30 years and are sold in relatively low volumes (e.g. weigh-scales, RFID readers and medical devices). These types of products would be unlikely to fund a stewardship schemes on their own and would need to fit into another scheme which may not be fully compatible.

Recommendation #16: Work with NZ Industry to determine the order that the sub-categories should be dealt with, in line with clarified definitions around environmental limits to ensure fair assessment. Tackle the highest priority streams first and avoid declaring other sub-categories as ‘priority products’ without an agreed framework.

4.3. Agrichemicals and their containers (packaging) We support the concept of product stewardship for agrichemicals and their containers. However, the scope of the proposed priority product group contains some particularly problematic materials. In our opinion, the scope is too broad for it to be declared a priority product group under the WMA.

A fair number of our Members manufacture agrichemical containers and/or veterinary medicine packaging/devices.

4 https://www.mfe.govt.nz/sites/default/files/media/Waste/e-waste-product-stewardship-framework.pdf


If the priority product scope remained in line with current Agrecovery activities (chemical containers, drums and IBCs up to 1,000L) we would have no concerns with the proposals. However, the expansion of this scope is problematic for the following reasons:

• Veterinary Medicines: The expansion to include veterinary medicine packaging is problematic due to the wide variety of materials used (PVC, PP, HDPE, LDPE, PS etc) and the logistics around collection (infection control). These items are unlikely to be effectively washed by the user prior to drop-off as is currently done with agrichemical containers. These items will need to be collected, sorted into type, broken into pieces and then washed. The analysis, planning and set-up of equipment to deal with this expanded scope is unlikely to occur in the timeframe proposed.

• Household pest and weed control operations: The packaging from these items is often contaminated with residues from the poisons and chemicals contained. There are potential health and safety impacts for these items being washed in home prior to drop-off to a collection point. The logistics of this need to be carefully considered.

Recommendation #17: Do not include veterinary medicine, household pest and weed control packaging in the scope for the agrichemical priority product group until such time as full analysis of the required infrastructure and health & safety implications are undertaken.

4.4. Farm Plastics We support the concept of product stewardship for farm plastics. However, the scope of the proposed priority product group contains some problematic materials. In our opinion, the scope is too broad for it to be declared a priority product group under the WMA.

Quite a few of our Members manufacture plastic products used on farms and in orchards.

The scope of this priority product category is very broad and includes a wide range of plastics. This is problematic for a number of reasons:

• Compostable/biodegradable plastics: there is a move towards compostable or biodegradable plastics for many items used on farms and horticultural operations. This is being done with the intention that these materials do not need removal from farm. Given the issues with actual vs marketed compostability, and the high amount of greenwashing being undertaken, work needs to be done to clearly define NZ requirements for composting. i.e. Any items intended for on-farm/orchard degradation need to be certified home-compostable. These types of plastics also need to be handled under a separate stewardship scheme if they are ‘returnable’ as they will be a contaminant for a recycling stream (and vice-versa).

• Fertiliser sacks: Woven polypropylene bags are difficult to deal with. They are made from an oriented material which is very tough and requires specialty equipment to break up. The woven material also retains a high level of moisture which causes issues for reprocessing, adding cost. The fact that the reprocessed material is also relatively low quality, has made it an unattractive commercial proposition for onshore recyclers (as evidenced by failed WMF funded reprocessing plant). Fertiliser bags have an added complexity as the fertiliser can contain copper and sulphur. Both of these are prodegradants and work to break down the plastic during and after re-processing. These further degrade the quality of the output.

• Long-Term Use: ‘and products’ also captures engineered products designed for long term use on farm (e.g. water fittings, dairy-shed couplings, nozzles and hoses, building liners). These longer life products tend to be lower volume and quite different materials to


shorter-term farm plastics. A stewardship scheme for these engineered products is unlikely to be practical until such time as New Zealand’s waste infrastructure is significantly ahead of where it is now.

Recommendation #18: Define New Zealand compostability standards and make it mandatory for any product intended for on-farm/orchard degradation to be certified home compostable. Ensure biodegradable and compostable products are dealt with under a separate stewardship scheme to recyclable materials.

Recommendation #19: Exclude fertiliser bags as a priority product. Continue to work with NZ Industry and Agrecovery on the development of a framework and technology to deal with the problematic nature of this product.

Recommendation #20: Amend the definition of Farm Plastics item c) to ‘other plastic packaging and short-term use (one season) plastic products used for agriculture and horticulture …’

4.5. Tyres We support the declaration of tyres as a priority product. Part of the reason for this is that the use of the tyres in the cement kilns opens up a potential avenue for dealing with other non-recyclable and problematic plastics. We would also like to see education around tyres and wear profiles as they are a significant contributor to microplastics in our waterways.

No other comment on this priority product as none of our Members are involved in their manufacture.

4.6. Refrigerants No comment on this priority product as it has no relation to plastics.

5. Proposed Guidelines The following section discusses the design features (Table 3) of the proposed guidelines. Where a design feature is not discussed this is due to there being no comments or points of concern for this feature.

5.1. #1: Intended Objectives and Outcomes #1 c) discusses incentivising product management higher up the waste hierarchy in priority order. For several of the schemes the ‘waste’ is only made up of packaging materials. To achieve correct outcomes the analysis of this must include a cradle-to-cradle viewpoint of the product and packaging to avoid unintended consequences.

Recommendation #21: Where the priority product is only packaging ensure that analysis for this criteria covers both product and packaging to ensure full outcomes are considered and unintended consequences are avoided.


#1 e) discusses the inclusion of orphaned and legacy products as well as current products entering the market. As discussed in Section 3.3 4 of this submission, we do not agree with the retrospective application of this law change and inclusion of these products

5.2. #2: Fees, Funding and Cost Effectiveness #2 c) discusses leakage of materials into other markets. This appears to imply that export of quality, single-material product to profitable markets will be considered ‘leakage’. That is counter-productive when there will be materials that make more sense to ship off-shore due to local manufacturing not requiring those specific resources.

Recommendation #22: Modify guideline to allow for appropriate export of material for recycling.

#2 d) discusses technology for tracking and managing product or waste through the supply chain. There are numerous methods available to gather data. To avoid inconsistency and confusion it would be preferable to mandate a technology across all schemes. This would also allow consistency of data collection and ease of reporting. A good existing technology is the GS1 labelling (barcode) system which already has the capability required.

Recommendation #23: Mandate use of GS1 labelling to allow data capture on the types of product and packaging materials.

5.3. #3: Governance & #4: Non-profit Status To avoid governance by a not-for-profit organisation becoming inefficient, a clear framework will need to be defined. The outcomes of this framework should include cost-effective operation of stewardship schemes and continuous improvement. If this is not achieved the additional costs, due to suboptimal scheme operation, will flow directly to increased cost of living for the wider community.

Recommendation #24: Add another guideline requiring the governance entity to develop a framework which drives cost-efficient scheme operation.

5.4. #5: Competition There are multiple examples of recycling operations running in New Zealand at present. These operations are running without regulation or interference and are profitable. While the introduction of mandatory product stewardship might benefit these operations due to the availability of cleaner resource streams, it is also possible that they will be disadvantaged through the application of scheme funds to assist other operations in setting up equipment to deal with more problematic or inherently unprofitable materials.

Another area of potential concern is in regard to how the schemes will be managed. This must be done so as not to disadvantage smaller brand-owners. Large brand-owners tend to have higher involvement in the governance and operation of stewardship schemes. It is important that there are mechanisms in place which prevent this involvement from giving those involved an unfair competitive advantage.


Recommendation #25: Ensure comprehensive economic studies are performed to assess the competitive impacts of funding decisions.

5.5. #6: Stakeholder Engagement and Collaboration #6 b) The scheme will have been designed with the active engagement of stakeholders currently involved in the product end of life (e.g. collectors and recyclers).

Ambiguity exists in regard to the term ‘recyclers’. In conversations with WasteMINZ and MfE the term has been applied to waste management companies who are sorting and aggregating materials for export or transfer to reprocessors. Within the plastics industry ‘recycler’ refers to a company that is reprocessing the materials for use in new products.

The stakeholder group needs to cover collectors, sorters and reprocessors. The end-users of the recycled materials should also be included where the intent is to create circular systems within NZ (e.g. for plastics). This will help ensure the material quality, types recycled etc, are acceptable for end market. Inclusion of the end-use manufacturers will also generate innovation around use of recycled content in current and new products.

Recommendation #26: Expand stakeholder group included in the guideline to cover collectors, sorters, reprocessors and end-users of recycled materials.

During the co-design phase a number of industry associations, like Plastics NZ, and other not-for-profit groups, such as community representatives, will be involved. While these organisations will provide an important function during co-design (as conduits to larger groups of members) they are not funded to provide this resource or to cover the travel that is likely required. By funding the Auckland and Marlborough Council project looking at the co-design of a container return scheme the government has set a precedent of support for organisations involved in this process. We would like to see this carried out for each scheme.

Recommendation #27: Allocate a WMA funding to the co-design phase of each scheme to support the involvement of non-commercial entities.

5.6. #8: Targets #8 a) discusses setting and reporting on targets for new product and market development to accommodate collected materials. This is not entirely practical as the majority of the stakeholders for any stewardship scheme will not be involved in new product development of the types of products that will use the outputs from the recycling operations. While the NFP operating the scheme could fund projects investigating new uses for materials, the NFP itself cannot be reasonably expected to engage directly in this type of entrepreneurial activity. It is therefore not reasonable to expect the NFP to meet targets on new products and market developments.

Recommendation #28: Remove guideline to set targets for new product and market development to accommodate collected materials.

OR


Modify guideline to set target to fund projects looking to use collected materials in new products and market developments.

#8 d) discusses ‘review, adjustment and reporting on performance targets’, ‘taking account of changes in the market, natural events and technology’. Annual reporting is preferred with a maximum of three years. Given the rapid changes in markets and technology we would recommend a maximum period of two years otherwise targets may quickly become redundant.

Recommendation #29: Modify #8 d) to have a two-year maximum reporting period.

#8 e) requires a clear distinction to be made between funding arrangements and market capacity to manage both potential high volume legacy and orphaned product collections. This will leave NZ businesses to carry the costs for legacy issues and is likely to compromise the viability of a number of schemes where the value of the recycled materials is low. Legacy issues should be funded separately and not placed on current producers.


5.7. #9: Timeframes As discussed earlier in the submission the proposed timeframes are not practical in a number of cases. Proper data collection needs to be mandated and then analysis carried out, in conjunction with stakeholders, to ensure proposed timeframes are reasonable for each separate scheme design. This also needs to be done in such a way that implementation of the recycling recommendations from the National Resource Recovery taskforce is not delayed.

Recommendation #30: Do not propose set timeframes for accreditation, except where a voluntary scheme already exists. The timeframe for that voluntary scheme should only cover products already included in the voluntary scope. Where scope is expanded or a new priority product category is proposed, work with NZ Industry to determine sub-categories, priority order and reasonable timeframes.

This design feature discusses a full review will be undertaken at least once every seven-year period. Given the annual reporting, it is not an unreasonable expectation for this review to occur more frequently. This would ensure adequate visibility of issues before they can cause scheme failure. The review at 6 years would also help with determining the viability of the scheme for re-accreditation.

Recommendation #31: Increase frequency of full review to at least every 3 years.

5.8. #10: Market Development As for #8a it is not reasonable for the NFP to carry out R&D activity to develop new products. In general, an NFP will not have the technical design and materials skills to carry out this activity. New Zealand also already has a mechanism in place to fund R&D projects via Callaghan Innovation. The R&D tax credit could be expanded to include non-R&D innovation (e.g. technical equipment new to NZ) and circular economy initiatives.


Recommendation #32: Utilise the existing funding mechanisms for R&D and expand this to include a wider scope covering circular economy, implementation of new equipment to NZ and other innovations.

5.9. #11: Performance standards, training and certification Holding the non-profit organisation responsible for carrying out training within commercial participants of the scheme (collection, sorting and reprocessing) is not reasonable. Particularly since those who will run the schemes are unlikely to have the technical or health, safety and environmental knowledge relating to the commercial operations. There are provisions already in place under the Health & Safety at Work Act 2015 that adequately cover the activities the NFP is required to carry out in terms of consulting with the other PCBUs.

Recommendation #33: Remove this guideline.

5.10. #13: Design for Environment #13 a), which discusses financial or other incentives for diversion of collected products to highest and best resource use, appears to oppose #5 a) which is ensuring non-discriminatory and competitive processes and #5 b) which ensures that no collectors or recyclers are unfairly excluded from participation.

It also seems to assume that the reprocessor will also be making new products rather than recycled materials that are on-sold to a manufacturer. This will not, and should not, always be the case as this would eliminate NZ’s current reprocessors who have the capabilities to repelletise plastic materials.

Recommendation #34: Consider removal of this guideline as it appears to conflict with competitive and anti-discriminatory interests stated in #5.

5.1. #15: Public Awareness #15 a) states that A link to the online information will be on the product or product packaging. This is impractical for small packaged items (e.g. lollipops). It is also not practicable for purchases made online.

Recommendation #35: Modify guideline to include ‘where practicable’ for link to online information.

#15 b) requires transparent product stewardship fees at point of purchase. It seems improbable that this could be achieved for general packaging across numerous consumer retail operations. This is also not possible for international online purchases.


5.2. #16: Monitoring, compliance and enforcement #16 d) discusses revocation of accreditation under the WMA. In the case of mandatory stewardship this seems somewhat self-defeating. What is the mechanism for correcting this situation if it were to occur? Would the government undertake statutory management of the


NFP and the scheme? This would need to be written into the constitutions of the incorporated society or charity.

Recommendation #36: Add a guideline outlining the expected process if a scheme were to have accreditation revoked, or where it has become unviable commercially.

5.3. #17: Accessible collection networks #17 a) requires schemes to be reasonably accessible for all communities generating that waste product, whether metropolitan, provincial or rural. This guideline raises questions:

• What is the definition of ‘reasonable access’?

• What are the practicalities like for rural communities when it comes to consumer packaging stewardship schemes?

• How will costs be allocated across metropolitan, provincial and rural sectors where those areas with fewer ratepayers are often more costly to collect from?

Recommendation #37 Define specific accessibility criteria rather than leaving it ‘reasonably accessible’. For example – within 20 minutes’ drive of 90% of product utilisation.

6. Other Suggested Priority Products Cigarettes: Litter clean-ups across New Zealand find thousands upon thousands of discarded cigarette butts. Not only do these butts contain plastic in the filter, they leach toxins into the environment. Given the health and environmental damage from these products they should absolutely be included as a priority product. Textiles (synthetic clothing). Textiles and tyres are the largest source of the microplastics in our waterways. Tyres are included as a priority product, but textiles are not. Discarded clothing is also a huge contributor to the waste going to landfill. Declaration of synthetic clothing as a priority product would improve this major waste-stream and would potentially generate research into solutions for microplastics leaching from our washing machines to the environment.


7. Appendix 1: Plastic Packaging vs Glass Moving from plastic packaging to glass can have serious impacts when it comes to the carbon footprint and emissions. The following example illustrates this.

Example Product: 400g of NZ made granola. Brand A is in a glass jar, Brand B is in a plastic pouch.

The following diagram illustrates the journey of the packaging from offshore to the recycler. Currently all glass jars are imported5, the same way the plastic pellets are imported. During the life of the packaging the glass jar goes through 8 lots of transport and the plastic pouch through 9. 1 transport unit is allocated to every 20g of packaging weight for the purposes of the analysis. This leads to a significantly higher fuel use, and associated emissions, for the glass jar.

Plastic Pouch Glass Jar

9 units of fuel

152 units of fuel

Not included in analysis:

• Carbon and water footprint at start-of-life for both materials.

• Increased fuel consumption related to glass jars taking up higher volume for shipping.

• Carbon and water footprint for recycling of each material.

• Reduction in carbon and water footprint if glass jar is reused in home by the consumer.

5 Industry knowledge provided by brand-owners and packaging specialists within our network.

20g Packaging (B) 385g Packaging (A)

Glass jar is 19 times the weight of the plastic

packaging

Documents

Ministry for the Environment Proposed ... - plastics.org.nz · This submission is on behalf of the New Zealand plastics industry and its customers. It is also specifically endorsed