Taranaki Solid Waste Management Committee agenda May · PDF fileP Grennell (Transpacific ... trialling a composting and worm farm lesson for schools and early childhood centres to

Taranaki Solid Waste Management Committee

Thursday 28 May 2015 10.30am

Taranaki Regional Council, Stratford

Doc# 1512755-v1

Agenda for the meeting of the Taranaki Solid Waste Management [Joint] Committee to be held in the Taranaki Regional Council chambers, 47 Cloten Road, Stratford, on Thursday 28 May 2015 commencing at 10.30am. Members Councillors N W Walker (Taranaki Regional Council) (Committee Chairperson) C McFarlane (New Plymouth District Council) R Thomson (Stratford District Council) I Armstrong (South Taranaki District Council) Attending Mr G K Bedford (Taranaki Regional Council) Ms H Meintjes (Taranaki Regional Council) Mrs K van Gameren (Taranaki Regional Council) Messrs M Hall (New Plymouth District Council) M Baker (New Plymouth District Council) Mrs K Hope (New Plymouth District Council) Messrs S Hanne (Stratford District Council) M Oien (Stratford District Council) B Manning (South Taranaki District Council) H Denton (South Taranaki District Council) R Simeon (Waste Management NZ Limited) P Grennell (Transpacific Industries Group) Apologies Councillor A Jamieson Stratford District Council Notification of Late Items Item 1 Confirmation of Minutes – 19 February 2015 Page 1 Item 2 Resourcing of Regional Waste Management Officer Page 2 for 2015-2016 update Item 3 Update from the Ministry for the Environment re Page 22 priority products and product stewardship schemes Item 4 Update Organic Waste Diversion Project Page 36 Item 5 Update National Food Waste Project Page 38 Item 6 Update on Taranaki Regional Solid Wastes Page 57 Services Contract

Item 7 Report on general matters regarding waste management Page 61 Item 8 General Business

Agenda Memorandum

Date 28 May 2015

Memorandum to Chairperson and Members Taranaki Solid Waste Management Committee

Subject: Confirmation of Minutes – 19 February 2015

Item: 1

Approved by: G K Bedford, Director-Environment Quality

B G Chamberlain, Chief Executive

Document: 1513005

Resolve

That the Taranaki Solid Waste Management Committee:

1. takes as read and confirms the minutes and resolutions of the Taranaki Solid Waste Management Committee meeting held in the Taranaki Regional Council chambers, 47 Cloten Road, Stratford, on Thursday 19 February 2015 at 10.30am

2. notes that the unconfirmed minutes of the Taranaki Solid Waste Management Committee meeting held in the Taranaki Regional Council chambers, 47 Cloten Road, Stratford, on Thursday 19 February 2015 at 10.30am, have been circulated to the Taranaki Regional Council, New Plymouth District Council, Stratford District Council and South Taranaki District Council for their receipt and information.

Matters arising

Appendices

Document #1470335 – Minutes Taranaki Solid Waste Management Committee Thursday 19 February 2015

1

Doc# 1470335-v1

Minutes of the Taranaki Solid Waste Management Committee held in Taranaki Regional Council chambers, 47 Cloten Road, Stratford, on Thursday 19 February 2015 commencing at 10.30 am. Members Councillors N W Walker (Taranaki Regional Council) (Chairperson) C McFarlane (New Plymouth District Council) A Jamieson (Stratford District Council) Attending Mr G K Bedford (Taranaki Regional Council) Mrs K van Gameren (Taranaki Regional Council) Mr P Ledingham (Taranaki Regional Council) Mrs N West (Waste Minimisation Officer) Mrs H Meintjes (Taranaki Regional Council) Messrs M Hall (New Plymouth District Council) M Baker (New Plymouth District Council) H Denton (South Taranaki District Council) S Hanne (Stratford District Council) M Oien (Stratford District Council) Mrs K Hope (New Plymouth District Council) Miss E Letendre (South Taranaki District Council) Mr R Simeon (Waste Management NZ Limited) Mr B Monkley (EnviroWaste Services Limited) Apologies The apology from Mr B Manning (South Taranaki District Council) was

received and sustained. Notification of Late Items There were no late items of general business. 3. Resourcing of Regional Waste Minimisation Officer for 2015-2016 update

3.1 Mr G K Bedford, Taranaki Regional Council, spoke to the memorandum updating the Committee on the outcome of discussions around identifying resourcing requirements for the role of Regional Waste Minimisation Officer (RWMO) for 2015-2016 since the Committee’s last meeting in November 2014.

3.2 Mr Bedford outlined to the Committee the costs to the Taranaki Regional Council of

providing the services and administration of the RWMO as a fulltime position. Members agreed on the need to have a RWMO, but budget constraints on the financial resourcing of the RWMO by each council going forward has resulted in council officers investigating a more efficient way to resource the position.

3.3 Mr S Hanne, Stratford District Council, spoke to the meeting on their intention to

develop an alternative funding proposal, from the current funding model for

2

3

Taranaki Solid Waste Management Committee Meeting Thursday 19 February 2015

2015/2016, to establish a RWMO position within their council that will result in savings for each council. Mr Hanne advised that the funding proposal was not finalised but would be presented to the next Committee meeting schedule for May 2015.

3.4 Mrs K Hope, New Plymouth District Council, noted to the Committee that the regional

solid waste officers group agreed that the RWMO be retained, but that each council were required to look at efficiencies within their budgets and supported the consideration of an alternative funding proposal from the Stratford District Council.

3.5 Committee Chairperson, Councillor N W Walker, noted the work achieved to date by

the RWMO under the current funding arrangement and the in-kind support of the Taranaki Regional Council including public information and graphics and design services. Councillor Walker noted that the RWMO position needs to retain its effectiveness should the role be undertaken by another local authority.

Resolved THAT the Taranaki Solid Waste Management Committee

1. receives the memorandum updating discussion around the future resourcing requirements for the position of Regional Waste Minimisation Officer

2. notes Council staff have met to discuss a revised funding model

3. notes that the proposed funding model recommends that the position of Regional Waste Minimisation Officer continues, at the resourcing level of $168,970 for 2015-2016

4. notes that the proposed funding model recommends that the Taranaki Regional Council continues to administer the position on behalf of the four councils of Taranaki

5. notes that the proposed funding model recommends that the District Council contribution be set at $112,908 for 2015/16, and that this plus usual adjustments set through the annual planning process remains the contribution for the subsequent two years

6. notes that the proposed funding model recommends that the district council breakdown is split between the three district councils on a 60:10:30 basis to NPDC, Stratford and STDC respectively

7. following discussion, invites the Stratford District Council to present an alternative funding proposal for a Regional Waste Minimisation Officer role for 2015-2016 for the next Committee meeting to be held on 28 May 2015.

Jamieson/McFarlane

Mr S Hanne, Stratford District Council, left the meeting of the Taranaki Solid Waste Management Committee at 10.50am.

4


1. Confirmation of Minutes – 20 November 2014 Resolved

THAT the Taranaki Solid Waste Management Committee

1. takes as read and confirms the minutes and resolutions of the Taranaki Solid Waste Management Committee meeting held in the Taranaki Regional Council chambers, 47 Cloten Road, Stratford, on Thursday 20 November 2014 at 10.30am

2. notes that the unconfirmed minutes of the Taranaki Solid Waste Management Committee meeting held in the Taranaki Regional Council chambers, 47 Cloten Road, Stratford, on Thursday 20 November 2014 at 10.30am, have been circulated to the Taranaki Regional Council, New Plymouth District Council, Stratford District Council and South Taranaki District Council for their receipt and information.

Walker/McFarlane Matters Arising There were no matters arising.

2. Waste Minimisation Officer’s Report 2.1 Mrs N West, Waste Minimisation Officer, spoke to the report memorandum on the

significant activities the Waste Minimisation Officer has undertaken, in collaboration with district council waste officers, since the previous meeting of the Committee.

2.2 Mrs West noted to the Committee that recycling bins have recently been installed at

Tupare Gardens which now means that public place recycling is available at all Regional Gardens. An annual audit of landfill waste from the main Taranaki Regional Council building in Stratford was undertaken on 2 February 2015. The latest audit results show that there has been a 42% reduction in waste to landfill since 2009. Agrecovery will be undertaking an agrichemical collection later in 2015. Bookings for the collection close on 24 April 2015.

Resolved

THAT the Taranaki Solid Waste Management Committee 1. receives the memorandum and notes the report on significant activities of the

Waste Minimisation Officer.

McFarlane/Walker

4. New Refuse and Recylcing Contract update

4.1 Mrs K Hope, New Plymouth District Council, spoke to the memorandum updating the Committee on the new refuse and recycling contact for Taranaki due to start on 1 October 2015.

5


4.2 Mr Brett Monkley, EnviroWaste Services Limited, was introduced to the Committee. Envirowaste Services Limited is the Regional Solid Waste Services contractor from 1 October 2015.


1. receives the memorandum and notes the New Plymouth District Council update on preparation for a new regional solid waste services contact due to start on 1 October 2015.

McFarlane/Jamieson

5. National Food Waste Prevention Project

5.1 The memorandum updating the Committee on the activities that the region’s waste officers are planning to undertake as part of the National Food Waste Prevention Project launch was received and noted.

5.2 Mrs N West, Waste Minimisation Officer, outlined what was being planned in

Taranaki to support the launch on 11 March 2015, using local radio and media advertising, website developments and raising awareness to the regional community.


1. receives the memorandum and notes the activities that will be undertaken by the region’s waste officers as part of the National Food Waste Prevention Project launch.

Jamieson/Walker

6. Composting and Worm Farming at Pukeiti

6.1 Mrs N West, Waste Minimisation Officer, spoke to the memorandum outlining the new composting and worm farming lessons that will be trialled at Pukeiti gardens as part of the Taranaki Regional Council’s Rainforest School visits.


1. receives the memorandum and notes that the Taranaki Regional Council will be trialling a composting and worm farm lesson for schools and early childhood centres to be offered at Pukeiti as part of a day visit to the Rainforest School.

Jamieson/McFarlane

7. Illegal Dumping

6


7.1 Mr G K Bedford, Taranaki Regional Council, spoke to the memorandum updating the Committee on the activities of the illegal dumping working group.

7.2 It was noted that following the working group meeting in November 2014 it was

agreed that the enforcement officers from the four councils would now facilitate the group with less involvement from council waste officers. Effective systems were now in place (ie signage and cameras) that allow enforcement officers to respond to illegal dumping.

7.3 The Committee agreed that continued response and enforcement (where possible) to

illegal dumping was important and requested the working group report back to the Committee in August 2015 on their progress for the previous twelve month period.


1. receives the memorandum and notes that the illegal dumping working group will now be facilitated by the enforcement officers from the four Taranaki councils and that their next meeting is planned for May 2015.

Walker/McFarlane

8. Reports on Taranaki Regional Solid Wastes Services Contract

8.1 Mr R Simeon, Waste Management NZ Limited, spoke to the Committee on the transition plan from the Waste Management to EnviroWaste Services Limited in September 2015. Mr Simeon noted to the Committee a 25%-30% increase in volume of rubbish and recycling over the Christmas and New Year holiday period. General staffing and operational matters within Waste Management NZ Limited were noted.

9. Report on general matters re waste management

9.1 Mr Baker, New Plymouth District Council, advised the Committee that the Council was recently subject to a Ministry for the Environment audit on the spending of the waste disposal levy and the operation of the Colson Road landfill. An update on the Colson Road landfill fire on 12 January 2015 was provided to the Committee. New We Can Recycle signs were displayed at the meeting which will be placed at each Council service centre. Two groups have visited and had a tour of the Colson Road landfill and composting operations.

10. General Business

There were no items of general business.

There being no further business, Chairperson, Councillor N W Walker (Taranaki Regional Council), declared the meeting of the Taranaki Solid Waste Management Committee closed at 11.45am.

7


Confirmed

Committee Chairperson: ___________________________________________________ N W Walker Date: 28 May 2015

Agenda Memorandum

Date 28 May 2015


Subject: Resourcing of Regional Waste Management Officer for 2015-2016 update

Item: 2



Document: 1512436

Purpose

The purpose of this memorandum is to provide an opportunity for individual councils to update the Committee on the outcome of decision-making around identifying resourcing requirements for the role of Regional Waste Minimisation Officer for 2015-2016.

Executive summary

Over the last six months the three district councils and the regional council have considered a number of options with regard to the administration and delivery of the Regional Waste Minimisation Officer (RWMO) role. It has been agreed that the councils would like to retain this role, while there has been some ongoing discussion as to where the role should be located and the apportioning of funding contributions from the different councils. Presently the councils are considering two options, both of which are presented in this report. One involves the relocation of the role to the Stratford District Council (SDC) and the other is retaining the role at Taranaki Regional Council (TRC).

Recommendations


1. receives the memorandum Resourcing of Regional Waste Management Officer for 2015-2016 update

2. notes the options available to the councils

3. receives comment from the individual council representatives on their preferred option in regard to resourcing of the Regional Waste Minimisation Officer

4. agrees that the Regional Waste Minimisation Officer position be administered and funded as follows (to be determined at the meeting).

8

Background

At its meeting of 20 November 2014, the Taranaki Solid Waste Management Committee (the Committee) received and considered a memorandum on the proposed funding of the RWMO role for 2015-2016. The proposed budgetary allocations for resourcing the RWMO for 2015-2016 were presented to the next Committee meeting on 19 February 2015. At that meeting, individual staff representing the three district councils were invited to provide feedback regarding their council’s view of the 2015/2016 resourcing of the RWMO. At the time, the following information was provided by Mr G K Bedford to district council Members on the actual and operating costs from TRC for the full time RWMO role: As per the commitment from the last meeting of the Regional Solid Wastes Committee, I set out below the anticipated costs to the Regional Council of providing the services and administration of the RWMO. Please note that the Council has firmed up on its LTP costings since the time of the meeting, and overheads are higher than first estimated and allowed for.

Salaries and wages: N West 100%, G Bedford 5%, H Meintjes 10% (incl training, Kiwisaver, ACC etc)

$ 92,637

Vehicles and operations incl depreciation $ 16,700 Overheads $ 59,633 Total $168,970 Proposed DC recoveries: $112,908

Members agreed on the need to have a RWMO, but budget constraints on the financial resourcing of the RWMO by each council going forward resulted in council officers investigating whether there might be a more efficient way to resource the position. Mr S Hanne, Stratford District Council, spoke to the meeting on their intention to develop an alternative funding proposal, from the current funding model for 2015/2016, to establish a RWMO position within their council that will result in savings for each council. Mr Hanne advised that the funding proposal was not finalised but would be presented to the next Committee meeting schedule for May 2015. Mrs K Hope, New Plymouth District Council, noted to the Committee that the regional solid waste officers group agreed that the RWMO be retained, but that each council were required to look at efficiencies within their budgets and supported the consideration of an alternative funding proposal from the Stratford District Council. At this last meeting the Committee invited the Stratford District Council to present an alternative funding proposal for a RWMO role for 2015-2016 for the next Committee meeting to be held on 28 May 2015.

Discussion

At the start of March, Mrs N West resigned from the role of RWMO and accepted a role with the Policy and Planning Section of TRC. The position has remained vacant until present awaiting confirmation from the councils on the future of the resourcing arrangements for this role.

9

SDC provided a proposal to relocate the position of the RMWO to their council. This document is attached. Waste officers from the district councils enquired how the TRC’s contribution would be affected if SDC’s proposal were accepted. At a regional council meeting held on 11 May 2015, the TRC received an agenda memorandum and resolved the following: The Taranaki Regional Council: 1. received the memorandum ‘Waste Minimisation 2015/2016’ 2. noted that the delivery of regional waste minimisation activity may be transferred to Stratford

District Council 3. noted that should this occur, the fiscal implications for the Council are essentially neutral 4. retained the waste minimisation activity and estimates in the 2015/2025 Long-Term Plan,

noting that if the service is transferred to Stratford District Council the Council will not incur significant expenditure nor will it recover contributions (hence the removal of the activity is essentially fiscally neutral).

Therefore TRC indicated that further funding in the event of the relocation of the position would not be offered. On 12 May, at a meeting of officers regarding resourcing of the waste minimisation officer’s role, Mrs K Hope of New Plymouth District Council set out a proposal that had been previously circulated to each of the district councils. It was proposed that the position be retained with the regional council and that TRC contribute 30% of the costs of 0.8 FTE, at $40 553 for 2015/2016, with the district councils contributing 70%, at $94 623 for 2015/2016. This proposal was presented to TRC senior management who have accepted it and agree that there is and has been value in working with the district councils in delivering this service with the officer based at TRC. Further it was agreed that although the costs would be subject to the usual adjustment for inflation, TRC will offer to continue to fund 30% of the costs for the next three financial years. It was noted that should this latest proposal be accepted, the agreement will need to be revisited in three years’ time. TRC has maintained its position that the role should be funded by the district councils via the Waste Minimisation levies, and will request that the district councils reconsider their level of contribution with a view to TRC significantly reducing theirs when the time arises.

Decision-making considerations

Part 6 (Planning, decision-making and accountability) of the Local Government Act 2002 has been considered and documented in the preparation of this agenda item. The recommendations made in this item comply with the decision-making obligations of the Act.

Financial considerations—LTP/Annual plan

This memorandum and the associated recommendations are consistent with the Council’s adopted Long-Term Plan and estimates. Any financial information included in this memorandum has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting practice.

10

Policy considerations

This memorandum and the associated recommendations are consistent with the policy documents and positions adopted by this Council under various legislative frameworks including, but not restricted to, the Local Government Act 2002, the Resource Management Act 1991 and the Waste Minimisation Act 2008.

Legal considerations

This memorandum and the associated recommendations comply with the appropriate statutory requirements imposed upon the Council.

Appendices/Attachments

Document 1494369: SDC- Capturing cost savings through relocation of regional waste management officer position Document 1505085: TRC – Agenda Memorandum: Waste Minimisation 2015/2016

11

DECISION REPORT TO: Taranaki Solid Waste Management Committee FROM: Director Assets, Stratford District Council DATE: 3 March 2015 SUBJECT: CAPTURING COST SAVINGS THROUGH RELOCATION OF

REGIONAL WASTE MANAGEMENT OFFICER POSITION

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. THAT this report be received.

2. THAT the Taranaki Regional Council be invited to present any changes to

their funding and cost recovery model for the Regional Waste Management Officer position that may have arisen since last tabled at the Taranaki Solid Waste Management Committee on 19/02/2015 to ensure the decision made through this report is based on current data.

3. THAT all four councils are invited to clarify the level of financial commitment

they would be willing to make was the position of Regional Waste Management Officer to be relocated from the Taranaki Regional Council to Stratford District Council to ensure the outcome is financially viable.

4 THAT the position of Regional Waste Management Officer be relocated from

the Taranaki Regional Council to Stratford District Council (Option 1) Recommended Reason The benefit of a regionally funded and regionally focused waste minimisation officer is undisputed by the four councils hence there is commitment to retaining this position. However, following moves by TRC to reduce their funding input, the other three councils have reviewed the costs charged out for this position and it has become evident there are significant savings to be achieved by housing this position outside of TRC. These savings are based on the way overheads are calculated and applied by individual organisations.

/ Moved/Seconded

1. PURPOSE OF REPORT

1.1 The purpose of this report is to review and implement the most cost effective

way to employ the Regional Waste Management Officer without compromising the scope or outcomes of this position.

12

2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2.1 The Regional Waste Management Officer position has been a long-standing

position shared by the four Taranaki councils. Following TRC’s announcement that they were looking to reduce their funding contribution, followed by the realisation that overheads were notably higher than first thought, the district councils looked at comparative costs if the position was to be housed in one of the other contributing councils. From initial discussions there appear to be financial benefits in relocating the position to Stratford District Council. By retaining the position in Stratford it is also central to the other two DCs and in close proximity of the regional council.

3. LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 2002 - SECTION 10

How is this proposal applicable to the purpose of the Act? • Is it for the provision of good quality local infrastructure? If so, why?; OR • Is it for the performance of a good quality regulatory function? If so, why?; OR • Is it for the performance of a good quality local public service? AND • Is it in a way that is most cost-effective to businesses and households? If so,

why? Good quality means, infrastructure, services, and performance that are efficient and effective, and appropriate to present and anticipated future circumstances. Local public service means, a service provided for the community which is for the benefit of the District.

The Regional Waste Management Officer position supports all four councils in the provision of their waste management and waste minimisation functions.

4. BACKGROUND 4.1 The Regional Waste Management Officer position has been a long-standing

position shared by the four Taranaki councils. Following TRC’s announcement that they were looking to reduce their funding contribution, followed by the realisation that overheads were notably higher than first thought, the district councils looked at comparative costs were the position to be housed in one of the other contributing councils. From initial discussions there appear to be financial benefits in relocating the position to Stratford District Council while retaining the position in Stratford, central to the other two DCs and in close proximity of the regional council.

Stratford District Council calculated that on an estimated salary of $65,000 to $70,000 its overheads including management time, vehicle, IT and office space come to $32,590, a more detailed breakdown is provided in the background section below. The total cost of this calculation comes to $102,590.

13

To ensure the robustness of underlying assumptions SDC re-calculated the figure using TRC’s base costs as follows.

Utilising TRC’s provided figure for salary, management time, acc, kiwisaver and training of $92,637, SDC’s overheads can be reduced from $32,590 to $17,590 leading to a total cost of $110,227.

Based on the above analysis, Stratford District Council offers to the other three councils to host this position and charge it out on a cost recovery basis based on a split to be agreed between the four councils. Cost recovery in this context is meant to read as the actual cost incurred as a result of the position as demonstrated above and likely to lie in the range of $100,000 to $110,000.

5. CONSULTATIVE PROCESS

5.1 Public Consultation - Section 82 No public consultation required.

5.2 Maori Consultation - Section 81

No separate Maori consultation required.

6. RISK ANALYSIS

Please refer to the Consequence and Impact Guidelines at the front of the reports in this agenda. • Is there a:

- financial risk; - human resources risk; - political risks; or - other potential risk?

• If there is a risk, consider the probability/likelihood of it occurring. • Is there a legal opinion needed?

6.1 The key risk is one or multiple contributors withdrawing from this initiative.

Commitments will be sought from all four councils as part of this report prior to initiating any employment process.

Another risk would be that no suitable candidate can be found within the anticipated salary range. In this case this will come back to the contributing councils for further discussion.

7. DECISION MAKING PROCESS - SECTION 79

7.1 Direction

Explain

Is there a strong link to Council’s strategic direction, Long Term

Yes

14

Plan/District Plan? What relationship does it have to the communities current and future needs for infrastructure, regulatory functions, or local public services?

It meets a current service provision and is in line with Council’s LTP and Solid Waste AMP

15

7.2 Data

• Do we have complete data, and relevant statistics, on the proposal(s)? • Do we have reasonably reliable data on the proposals? • What assumptions have had to be built in?

Underlying cost assumptions: Salary $70,000Computer & Phone $11,590Office Space & various overheads $3,500Management overheads (Mike & Sven) $15,000Vehicle (1/4 use) $2,500Total: $102,590 SDC does not see the need to apply a multiplier for any unaccounted for time as by sharing the total cost of this position, any inefficiencies or unaccounted for time would be shared proportionally as well.

7.3 Significance

Yes/No Explain Is the proposal significant according to the Significance Policy in the Long Term Plan?

NO

Is it: • considered a strategic asset; or

NO

• above the financial thresholds in the Significance Policy; or

NO

• impacting on a CCO stakeholding; or

NO

• a change in level of service; or NO • creating a high level of

controversy; or NO

• possible that it could have a high impact on the community?

NO

In terms of the Council’s Significance Policy, is this proposal of high, medium, or low significance?

HIGH MEDIUM LOW

16

7.4 Options

An assessment of costs and benefits for each option must be completed. Use the criteria below in your assessment. 1. What options are available? 2. For each option:

• explain what the costs and benefits of each option are in terms of the present and future needs of the district;

• outline if there are any sustainability issues; and • explain if the outcomes meet the current and future needs of

communities for good-quality local infrastructure, local public services, and performance of regulatory functions?

3. After completing these, consider which option you wish to recommend to Council, and explain: • how this option is the most cost effective option for households

and businesses; • if there are any trade-offs; and • what interdependencies exist.

Option 1: That the position of Regional Waste Management Officer be relocated from TRC to SDC. Given that the incumbent has resigned, there is no need to see out employment terms or financial years. Any contributions made by any DC to TRC for the covered time frame can either be refunded or transferred to SDC to contribute to the cost recovery of the position.

7.5 Financial

• Is there an impact on funding and debt levels? • Will work be undertaken within the current budget? • What budget has expenditure come from? • How will the proposal be funded? eg. rates, reserves, grants etc.

The purpose of this report is to find the most cost efficient delivery method for this service.

7.6 Prioritisation & Trade-off

Have you taken into consideration the: • Council’s capacity to deliver; • contractor’s capacity to deliver; and • consequence of deferral?

Stratford District Council is in a good position to deliver this service.

7.7 Legal Issues

• Is there a legal opinion needed? • Are there legal issues?

There are no legal issues. Any employment related issues relating to the disestablishment and transfer of the position have been resolved by the resignation of the current position holder.

17

7.8 Policy Issues - Section 80

• Are there any policy issues? • Does your recommendation conflict with Council Policies?

No Policy Issues.

[Click here and type name] [CLICK HERE AND TYPE POSITION] [Endorsed by] [Click here and type name] [CLICK HERE AND TYPE POSITION] [Approved by] S Davidson CHIEF EXECUTIVE DATE

18

Agenda Memorandum

Date 11 May 2015

Memorandum to Chairperson and Members Taranaki Regional Council

Subject: Waste minimisation 2015/2016

Item: COPY

Approved by: G K Bedford, Director—Environment Quality


Document: 1505085

Purpose

The purpose of this memorandum is to update the Council on alternatives for provision of the Regional Waste Minimisation Officer position, and to outline the 2015/2025 Long-Term Plan (including financial) implications.

Recommendations

That the Taranaki Regional Council:

1. receives the memorandum ‘Waste Minimisation 2015/2016’

2. notes that the delivery of regional waste minimisation activity may be transferred to Stratford District Council

3. notes that should this occur, the fiscal implications for the Council are essentially neutral

4. retains the waste minimisation activity and estimates in the 2015/2025 Long-Term Plan, noting that if the service is transferred to Stratford District Council the Council will not incur significant expenditure nor will it recover contributions (hence the removal of the activity is essentially fiscally neutral).

Background and discussion

When the position of Regional Waste Minimisation Officer was set up some years ago (2003), the funding of the position was agreed as 50:50 between this Council and the 3 district councils. In 2008 the Waste Minimisation Act was enacted. Importantly, this brought two major factors into play. There was no function for regional councils within the field of waste minimisation/waste management. This function was assigned fully to district councils. Secondly, a funding stream was set up for waste minimisation activity, through the return (to district councils only) of waste management levies collected on waste disposal to landfills. These returns were to be used specifically to fund waste minimisation activities.

19

Consequently, in 2012 it was agreed that the Regional Council’s contribution to the regional waste minimisation activity should be capped at $50,000 per year for the next three years, with the remainder of costs being met by the district councils. In terms of true and full costs for the position, including overheads and a time allocation from senior staff to oversee the implementation of the Regional Waste Strategy through the work of the Regional Waste Minimisation Officer, the Regional Council was in reality providing closer to $80,000 of the costs. The initial 2015/2025 Long-Term Plan sets out the estimated full costs of providing the waste minimisation function for the 2015/2016 year as $169,974. It was proposed through the Taranaki Solid Wastes Committee that the district councils should provide $112,908 towards this function. In response, the district councils have resisted committing to this level of funding, and Stratford District Council have offered a proposal that they can provide the regional waste minimisation activity for $100,000 to $110,000, including some, but not all, overheads. The Taranaki Solid Wastes Committee next meet on 28 May 2015, when it is hoped that a decision on service delivery can be made. Given that the district councils have both the statutory function and the stand-alone funding stream to support the regional waste minimisation activity, and this Council has neither, and that the function can be transferred to the Stratford District Council at an overall lower costs for the district councils, it is suggested that should the transfer occur, this Council should support the transfer and need not make any provision for providing its own additional funding of this position to Stratford DC. The position of Waste Minimisation Officer is currently vacant due to the recent resignation of the incumbent. Therefore, it is timely for the future of this position to be considered by all parties. It is stressed that this Council would remain a full actively participating member of the Taranaki Solid Wastes Committee regardless, and would carry those incidental costs. In terms of the 2015/2025 Long-Term Plan, it is recommended that the current levels of activity and budget remain in the Plan. Should the service transfer to Stratford District Council, the Council will not incur significant expenditure nor will it recover contributions (hence the removal of the activity is essentially fiscally neutral). If the service does not transfer to Stratford District Council, the Council will deliver the activity as planned in the 2015/2025 Long-Term Plan.



20

Financial considerations—LTP/Annual Plan






21

Agenda Memorandum

Date 28 May 2015


Subject: Update from the Ministry for the Environment re priority products and product stewardship schemes

Item: 3



Document: 1512122

Purpose

The purpose of this memorandum is to provide an update from the Ministry for the Environment (MfE) relating to priority products and product stewardship schemes.

Recommendation


1. receives an update from the Ministry for the Environment relating to priority products and product stewardship schemes.

Background

A discussion document was circulated by the Ministry for the Environment last year. It was entitled Priority waste products for product stewardship intervention: A discussion document with submissions required by 2 July 2014. The Ministry was seeking comment on whether Central Government should intervene to improve the management of four product waste streams - electrical and electronic equipment (e-waste); tyres; agrichemicals and farm plastics; and refrigerants and other synthetic greenhouse gases. This Committee discussed and submitted to the Ministry for the Environment on the matter of identifying priority products (as defined in the Waste Minimisation Act) for consideration for controls upon recovery and disposal options (see agenda item of 28 August 2014). The Committee’s submission asked for all four waste groups to be declared priority products, and for this to be done as soon as possible so that industry can start preparing. It also suggested that used motor oil be included, given the positive assessment against four of the five criteria used in the discussion document.

22

The original submission is attached to this item. MfE have advised that a summary of all submissions is available at:- http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/fresh-water/waste-minimisation-new-zealand-summary-submissions/waste-minimisation-new

Discussion

The MfE has recently provided the following commentary to the Regional Waste Officers’ Forum. It is provided to the Committee for information.

What is happening in the area of Product Stewardship? For the moment the Ministry’s main effort is focused on Resource Management reforms and other areas. This means that while waste is an important issue, it is not currently a primary candidate for legislative or regulatory reform or amendment. There are a range of funded projects currently in progress which I will discuss against your remaining questions. I can share these at a high level only as they are yet to be announced. Will work be continuing on priority product declarations or development of mandatory PS schemes? It is imperative that there is a credible foundation of evidence formed in the next phase to help determine if regulatory change is warranted and prior to any further consultation. In essence this could be summarised as an broader economic analysis, including environmental effects of the waste streams to ensure that any proposed priority products for declaration have the potential to deliver a net benefit to New Zealand. The current priorities are Waste Electrical Equipment and End of Life Tyres. We have heard that agricultural chemical PS development has been delayed – is the true? if so why. There wasn’t any timeframe for Agriculture Chemical Mandatory Product Stewardship – Although there are existing voluntary Product Stewardship Schemes that are increasing in their effectiveness. There is also a project funded from the Waste Minimisation Fund (WMF) that builds on the Waikato Farm Waste study conducted by GHD and focuses on providing rigour behind the environmental risks associated with on-farm management of waste streams, barriers to managing those waste streams in a way that would reduce potential environmental risks and then seeks to identify a range of interventions that can assist with overcoming those barriers. There is another current WMF project that seeks to collect and responsibly attend to Legacy Persistent Organic Pollutants and Unknown Chemicals to remove significant legacy risks from the rural sector. Noting that in previous years the WMF was utilised by Transpacific Services (now Waste Management) to reduce the number PCBs in the rural sector. What is the next phase for PS – particularly for those materials identified as being high priority such as e waste, agchems, tyres etc Progress on the evidence base for e-waste (report under preparation by SLR Consulting) and tyre waste (report under preparation by KPMG) streams is advancing and it is anticipated that the reports will be complete in late May or early June. In addition to the investment mentioned in the Agricultural / Rural sector the Waste Minimisation Fund is currently being used by projects that are targeting infrastructure to capture and reduce harm from refrigerants and Halon gases. In short it appears from the above email that there might be some consideration in the second half of this year by MfE on determining whether e-waste and tyres might be deemed priority products, but in terms of MfE’s work schedule this determination is well down their list.

23








This memorandum and the associated recommendations comply with the appropriate statutory requirements imposed upon the Council. Attachment: FRODO 1366924 Submission on behalf of the Taranaki Solid Wastes Management Committee

24

Priority waste streams for product stewardship intervention discussion document: OFFLINE SUBMISSION FORM 1

Priority waste streams for product stewardship intervention discussion document OFFLINE SUBMISSION FORM

Purpose of the consultation The Government is seeking your feedback on whether it should intervene to improve the management of four product waste streams: electrical and electronic equipment; tyres; agrichemicals and farm plastics; and refrigerants and other synthetic greenhouse gases.

Detailed information is provided in the Priority waste streams for product stewardship intervention discussion document available on the Ministry’s website.

This offline submission form has been provided to help you make a submission on this discussion document.

Your submission may address any aspect of the discussion document, but we would appreciate you paying particular attention to the questions posed as a guide for your feedback.

How to make a submission There are three ways to make a submission. You can use our online submission tool available at http://consultation.mfe.govt.nz/content/priority-waste-products-product-stewardship-intervention, use this form (offline submission form), or prepare your submission in a separate document.

If you are using this form or a separate document please send your completed submission:

• by email: [email protected] with Priority Waste Streams Consultation in the subject line, or

• by post: Priority Waste Streams Consultation, Ministry for the Environment, PO Box 10362, Wellington 6143.

The Ministry asks that electronic submissions be submitted as a PDF, Microsoft Word document (2003 or later version), or other compatible format.

Please phone the Ministry on 0800 499 700 if you do not receive any form of acknowledgement from us 2-3 days after you have emailed your submission. Occasionally our email protection system prevents emails reaching us.

The closing time and date for submissions is 5:00pm Wednesday 2 July 2014.

25

2 Priority waste streams for product stewardship intervention discussion document: OFFLINE SUBMISSION FORM

Publishing and releasing submissions The Ministry may publish all or part of any written submission on its website, www.mfe.govt.nz. Unless you clearly specify otherwise in your submission, the Ministry will consider that you have consented to website posting.

Contents of submissions provided to the Ministry may have to be released to the public under the Official Information Act 1982 following requests to the Ministry. Please advise us if you have any objection to the release of any information contained in your submission, and, in particular, which part(s) you consider should be withheld, together with the reason(s) for withholding the information. The Ministry will take into account all such objections when responding to requests for copies of, and information on, submissions to this document under the Official Information Act.

The Privacy Act 1993 establishes certain principles with respect to the collection, use and disclosure of information about individuals by various agencies, including the Ministry. It governs access by individuals to information about themselves held by agencies. Any personal information you supply to the Ministry in the course of making a submission can be used by the Ministry only in conjunction with the matters covered by this document. Please clearly indicate in your submission if you do not wish your name to be included in any summary of submissions that the Ministry may publish.

Contact details Complete the information below

Name (person or organisation) Gary Bedford, Chief Administrating Officer of Taranaki Solid Waste Management Committee, a Joint Committee under the Local Government Act comprising councillor representatives from the four Taranaki councils.

Address Taranaki Regional Council, Private Bag 713, Stratford 4352

Phone number 06 7657127

Email address [email protected]

Consultation questions The consultation questions are only a guide and all comments are welcome. You do not have to answer all the questions. If you have no comment, please leave the question blank.

Consultation theme 1: Product stewardship priorities 1a The following waste stream criteria for selecting product stewardship priorities are being

proposed:

- risk of harm

- resource efficiency opportunities

- voluntary measures insufficient

- industry readiness

- current producers (not just legacy products).

26


Do you agree that these waste stream evaluation criteria are suitable to select product stewardship priorities, consistent with Waste Minimisation Act objectives?

agree with all proposed criteria

agree with all proposed criteria, plus propose extra criteria

agree with some of the proposed criteria

disagree with all the proposed criteria

unsure

Please expand on your response:

Yes, we agree with the proposed criteria but we do not think it is necessary to wait for ‘industry readiness’ before taking action. Government can provide leadership and impetus. Some sectors of industry may need this, or be waiting for this as a signal that government is ready to take action. The criteria of ‘risk of harm’, ‘resource efficiency opportunities’ and ‘voluntary measures insufficient’ are more significant in terms of the intentions of the WMA than 'industry readiness' or even 'current products', especially if products are not current yet have high potential for risk of harm. These last two criteria therefore should not be given equal weighting with the other three.

1b Do you agree with the assessment of waste streams against these criteria outlined in Appendix 4 of the discussion document?

agree

agree with amendments

disagree

unsure


Yes, except for: ‘Other farm plastics’: Industry Readiness - we understand that at least one company is ready (Plasback). The ‘unknown’ classification for this criterion could be resolved by engaging with the other companies in this industry. ‘Packaging’: there is a risk of harm from plastic packaging such as loose plastic bags, other plastic films, bottle cap rings and confectionary packets. While we recognise that the 'Packaging' category is a 'catch-all' for a variety of packaging types and materials, not all of which have a similar risk, the risk of harm from plastic packaging which is dropped as litter or otherwise escapes into the environment needs to be acknowledged. This material often enters the sea (e.g. via stormwater drains), where it has potential to harm marine life. For example, plastic items are mistaken for food and ingested causing death by starvation, or can get caught around animals’ bodies causing injury or death. These risks and the long persistence in the environment are well known. Photodegradable plastics are also

27


an issue as these break down into smaller pieces which are able to be ingested by smaller and smaller animals like zooplankton, themselves food for animals higher in the food chain.

1c The following four product groups have been identified by the Government as priorities for product stewardship intervention at this time. Do you agree that these four product groups should be a priority for the Government to consider regulatory interventions?

Electrical and electronic equipment

agree

disagree

unsure


We believe that industry needs to be responsible for dealing with these waste products, rather than councils being left to deal with it, or money coming from the landfill levy funded WMF. Compulsory product stewardship, with disposal free to the end user at time of disposal, is the preferred solution of the Taranaki Solid Waste Management Committee (on which all four councils in the region are represented), and has been since July 2009 when the Committee first wrote to the Hon Nick Smith, then Minister for the Environment, on this matter. In a second letter to the Minister in January 2011 the Committee expressed its concerns about limitations inherent within the e-Cycle scheme and disappointment with the lack of progress in implementing mandatory product stewardship. Many councils, including those in Taranaki, have contributed time and money to providing a way for the public to dispose of ewaste responsibly, initially through eDay events (which were a great awareness raising exercise as well as being highly successful in terms of recovered volumes) and then through the e-Cycle collections. The three territorial local authorities in the region have been subsidising the costs to the public to drop off ewaste at the three e-Cycle sites in Taranaki, as well as spending money advertising the service and advertising TV Takeback. For example, NPDC and STDC have spent over $17,000 in subsidies and advertising in the 2 years since the scheme began. This cannot continue indefinitely. Any on-the-ground scheme is clearly still several years away, not, unfortunately, meeting eCycle’s earlier expectation of a scheme being in place ‘by the end of 2014’.

Tyres

agree

disagree

unsure


28


We support the 2013 recommendation of the Tyrewise working party that tyres be declared a priority product (Report 7: Tyrewise Summary Report, July 2013 [Updated 15 August 2013], accessed 26 June 2014 from www.tyrewise.co.nz/milestones/update-on-the-tyrewise-project/): 'To ensure full participation and regulatory support, a “priority product” approach is preferred. The working group want priority product declaration for tyres from the Minister for the Environment under the Waste Minimisation ACT 2008. Voluntary approaches have been tried in New Zealand and have not been sufficiently effective.' (Report 7, p8)

Agrichemicals and farm plastics

agree

disagree

unsure


Agrichemicals: We support the recommendation of the 2012 Agrichemical Review that the current voluntary product stewardship scheme be made mandatory, to bring all agrichemical manufacturers and distributors on board. It is concerning that a significant proportion of companies are not members of the scheme. Their products currently fall into the user pays category, so when local government and the WMF cover the collection and disposal costs these companies are effectively ‘free-riders’. For the 2013 collection in Taranaki, the combined contribution from the four councils was $8000, with $14000 coming from the WMF. Past experience has shown that chemicals attracting user pays fees are generally not collected if farmers have to pay the fee, so it has become relatively common for local government to pick up the tab to prevent these chemicals from causing harm. If not collected, products either continue to be stored, often at risk of leaking (with attendant high risk conseqeunces for product contamination and trade impacts), or could be disposed of inappropriately.

Refrigerants and other synthetic greenhouse gases

agree

disagree

unsure


Do you think other product groups should be included?

yes, include other products

no, do not include other products

29


unsure

Please specify which product groups and the reasons why or why not.

We would also suggest used motor oil as a fifth product given the positive assessment against four of the five criteria. The fifth criterion, industry readiness, is classed as ‘unknown’. We suggest industry’s position should be established. However, if the addition of used motor oil was likely to delay the start of regulatory intervention for the other four product groups identified in the consultation, then we would be less inclined to add it.

1d Do you have or know of any other information that can improve the assessment of priorities in the discussion document?

yes

no

unsure

If yes, please provide the information.

The impact of certain plastics in the environment, as referred to in the answer to 1b above.

Further comments on the selection of priority waste streams.

Consultation theme 2: Priority product declaration 2a Do you think that the Minister for the Environment should declare any product groups as a

priority product under the Waste Minimisation Act?

yes

no

unsure

If so, which ones, and why?

All four suggested.

2b If you support priority product declaration, what timing do you think is appropriate? Should it be done soon, or wait until all regulatory framework and scheme design options are explored in a future discussion document?

soon

30


wait until all regulatory framework and scheme design options are explored

unsure

Please explain your reasons why.

Immediately. There can be little justification for waiting for further work to be done such as exploring the regulatory framework before making the declarations. Industry groups need a clear signal from the government. This is especially so given the 2009 consultation gave a mandate for government to actively pursue mandatory schemes, particularly for some of the same products being consulted on again now: ewaste, agrichemicals, tyres and refrigerant gases. Waste oil and packaging also featured prominently in submissions in 2009. Disillusionment sets in when industry, local government and the general public are repeatedly consulted on the same issues and no real action results. Industry is ready, and in some cases well past ready, as shown by this example from the summary of submissions in 2009: 'A number of submissions from the electronics industry discussed a proposal for an advanced fee to fund recovery of used equipment. This proposal includes the requirement for regulation as some businesses would not participate in the scheme if it is voluntary.’ www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/waste/waste-minimisation-summary-submissions/index.html accessed 12 June 2014. Local government in many cases has been left to be the responsible party, sometimes in conjunction with the Waste Minimisation Fund, for example, by covering the user pays component for agrichemicals collections and subsidising ewaste collections (as covered in 1c). It would be helpful to have government declare these four classes of products as Priority Products as soon as possible so local government can plan for a time when its financial contributions to cleaning up these products will not be needed, and industry, particularly brand owners, can start planning for their financial contribution. It is well past time for New Zealanders to have access to affordable product stewardship programmes. The enormous response to eDay events, the response to TV TakeBack and responses to agrichemicals collections in the region have demonstrated a willingness to dispose of problem wastes in the most environmentally responsible way, as long as it is free or at low cost to the end user at time of disposal. Anecdotally, the responses to e-Cycle in the Taranaki region indicate that many people are not willing to pay the (subsidised by council) cost of $20 to drop off a TV, and some even were reluctant to pay the $5 fee during TV TakeBack; the same reluctance to pay also seems to apply to agrichemicals. The most acceptable schemes, at least for these two types of products, are likely to be ones where disposal is free to the end user at end-of-life.

2c Please provide information to improve the assessment of whether to declare priority products if you are able to. For example:

Costs your business, industry or council may face if mandatory product stewardship schemes are required for priority products.

None anticipated, other than advice/information/education provision.

Possible benefits that would arise from product stewardship for priority products.

31


Reduced costs to local government through the costs of environmentally responsible disposal (including recycling) of these products being covered by the suppliers/purchasers through a mandatory scheme. Reduced risk of harm to the environment from poor disposal practices.

Any other information.

2d The scope of any declaration of priority product (or regulations) would need to be defined. What products do you think should be covered in scope?

Electrical and electronic equipment:

Should New Zealand start with the same scope as Australia (TVs, computers, and computer peripherals)?

yes

no

unsure

Do you think any other electronic wastes should be included in scope as well?

yes

no

unsure

Please specify which e-waste you think most important to include in scope, and why.

eWaste scope: we would support the scope being broader than the Australian scheme to include, in addition to TVs, computers and computer peripherals, audiovisual equipment like speakers, amplifiers and video players, to reduce confusion in the minds of the general public. These items were often brought to the eDays held in Taranaki but could not be accepted. However, if broadening the scope is likely to delay the timing of declaring ewaste a priority product group, then we would support the narrower scope which aligns with Australia. In the best case, we would suggest NZ learns as much as possible from international experience, both in Australia and further afield like the EU where such schemes have had more time to mature. We can be guided by experts in the process of implementation of product stewardship for ewaste, both in terms of design of schemes and scope.

32


Tyres

Should the scope be all pneumatic (air filled) tyres: those for cars; motorcycles; trucks; buses; off-road vehicles; aircraft; and certain solid tyres (forklifts); but not bicycle tyres?

yes

no

unsure

If you prefer a different scope for tyres, please specify which tyres you think are most important to include in scope, and why.

Agrichemicals and farm plastics

Should the scope be all chemicals which require an Agricultural Chemicals and Veterinary Medicines Act (ACVM) registration and their plastic containers?

yes

no

unsure

Should wider farm plastics (such as silage wrap, twine, crop protection netting) be included in scope?

yes

no

unsure

Please specify which agrichemicals and farm plastics you think most important to include in scope, and why.

Agrichemicals scope: We believe the scope should be broadened to resolve the anomaly in the current voluntary product stewardship scheme of brand owner products becoming user pays 2 years after their registration expires. The longer the scheme operates (it began in 2009) the more chemicals will fall into this category, despite levies having been paid by the brand owners. The 2012 Agrichemical Review, a collaborative process involving key stakeholders aiming to find ways to improve the cost-effectiveness, efficiency, and environmentally sound management of waste agricultural chemicals and their containers in New Zealand, recommended that all Agrecovery Chemical brand owner products have collection and disposal costs funded via the levy. i.e. that the criteria taking them out of the levy funded collection and disposal category which is based on two years from de-registration should be removed.

33


We support the recommendation of the 2012 Review to remove the criteria for a time limit after registrations expire for funded collections. Legacy chemicals are also an issue, for which there is currently no long term funding solution. We would like to see this resolved, so that the scheme operators do not have to continue to apply for funding to the Ministry and local government to cover the costs of collecting and disposing of these chemicals. As noted under 1c, these chemicals are generally not collected if the owner has to pay, with the resulting risk to the environment (and people) of inappropriate storage or disposal, and as a general rule are more toxic and more persistent, and in containers that are by age more unstable, (and hence a greater threat) than modern replacements. Legacy chemicals have by no means been cleared from rural sheds, despite several previous collections in the region, beginning in 1991. Over 1800kg of agrichemicals were collected in November 2013 in Taranaki, of which 284kg were classed as intractable (which generally equates to 'legacy'). For example, the 2013 collection included: 74kg of 24D from five sites, 11kg of mixed 24D/atrazine; 17kg of 245T (3 sites); 34kg of 24DB (2 sites); 14kg of DDT and mixed DDT/lindane (2 sites); 23kg of lindane (1 site) and 31kg of MCPB (3 sites). Farm plastics scope: We believe the wider scope of farm plastics should be included now: i.e. silage wrap, twine, feed bags and crop protection netting. For example, the current Plasback scheme for silage wrap is hampered by the other manufacturers not having to provide a product stewardship solution. Poor management of silage wrap in particular is a visible embarrassment to our ‘clean green’ image in Taranaki (and the rest of the country), and also risks harm to the environment in a similar way to the risks of plastic packaging mentioned under 1b. There is currently no incentive other than the desire to follow environmental best practice for farmers to dispose of silage wrap via a route that means it will be recycled. The majority therefore is still being managed by burning, burying, or 'storing' (often in unprotected piles where it can be dispersed into the environment). Chemical containers will effectively be covered by the declaration of agrichemicals as a priority product.

Refrigerants and synthetic greenhouse gases

Should the defined product be containers holding the target gases, rather than the gases themselves?

yes

no

unsure

Do you agree that other synthetic gases which deplete ozone and contribute to climate change should be included in scope?

yes

34


no

unsure

Please specify which gases you think are most important to include in scope, and why.

Further comments

Further comments on declaration of priority products under the Waste Minimisation Act.

Any other comments you wish to make.

Given the likely timeframe of several (or more) years between when a declaration of a priority product is made and the actual product stewardship scheme is operational, we believe interim solutions need to be found at least for some products. For example, for those products like ewaste where there is already a high level of public awareness of 'doing the right thing' it is important to maintain the momentum already generated by ensuring there is a way to dispose of products into a responsible recycling path, and at a cost which the public will accept. A plan needs to be developed for this, to replace or supplement the current e-Cycle option, the economics of which we understand to be very shaky, to the extent where it might not continue. It would be disappointing if the three e-Cycle sites in Taranaki close without seamlessly being replaced by another everyday solution for ewaste. Such closure seems likely if there is no financial support to enable e-Cycle to continue. Now that people are accustomed to having the e-Cycle sites available, closure would send a confusing message about the recycling of ewaste. If e-Cycle ends we believe it will be more difficult to start ewaste recycling again in the future. There will be losses of both credibility and habitual practice. Alongside this, we know there is resistance from some members of the public to paying even the council subsidised cost, so this also needs to be taken into consideration in any interim solution. As already mentioned, local government subsidies in the region are only intended to be a short-term solution, not an indefinite one. We believe central government must work urgently towards mandatory product stewardship where all costs of collection, transport and recycling are met by the brand owners/parallel importers. This appears to be the only durable, long term solution to the problem of ewaste. In the meantime, we suggest brand owners be approached for a contribution to an interim solution. Most of the larger consumer electronics companies will have experience of product stewardship schemes in other countries and will be well aware of their responsibility to contribute to a solution which is cost-neutral to local and central government and free to the end user.

35

Agenda Memorandum

Date 28 May 2015


Subject: Update: Organic Waste Diversion Project

Item: 4



Document: 1512092

Purpose

The purpose of this memorandum is to update the Committee on the progress towards completion of the Organic Waste Diversion Study.

Recommendation


1. notes the update on the Organic Waste Diversion Project.

Background

The Waste Management and Minimisation Strategy for Taranaki and the district councils’ WMMP’s have identified organic waste as a key area where significant diversion from landfill could be achieved. Item 6 in the agenda of the February 2014 meeting of this Committee, Review of options and implications of emerging technologies for management of organic wastes, provided a brief outline of some existing and emerging technologies for managing these materials and concluded that more information was needed before any recommendations could be made about how organic wastes are best addressed in the region. In June the Regional Council allocated funding through the 2014-2015 annual plan process to investigate options for the management and diversion of organic waste from landfill. Subsequently a draft project brief was prepared outlining the extent of research required to establish a preferred option/options for diversion of organic waste in the Taranaki region. The brief was presented at the August meeting of this Committee where officers were requested to make discussed changes and present the brief to a subsequent meeting for approval. The draft project brief was amended to incorporate changes discussed at the

36

August meeting of this Committee and was approved by the Committee on 20 November 2014. Tender documents were emailed to selected consultants requesting proposals to be submitted by 26 February 2015.

Discussion

Evaluations were undertaken with the evaluation team comprising of waste officers from each of the four councils in the region. The project was awarded to Eunomia Research and Consulting New Zealand (Eunomia) and the contract agreed on 30 March 2015. Taranaki Regional Council and New Plymouth District Council staff met with Eunomia’s project manager, Duncan Wilson on Thursday 30 April to discuss the project. On 18 May Eunomia provided a brief summary as to their progress as follows: “The focus to date has been on building up a picture of organic waste generation and waste flows (including markets), current infrastructure and arrangements, and likely future drivers. We have engaged with the majority of key stakeholders and have undertaken a range of desktop research including analysis of landfill weighbridge records. We expect to start pulling this information together in the next week or so. This will give us a foundation for understanding potential issues, opportunities and infrastructure gaps. We have also done most of the research and write up on technology options, and have written up a brief analysis of the policy context.” The project deliverable in the form of a report is scheduled for 30 June 2015.









37

Agenda Memorandum

Date 28 May 2015


Subject: Update on the National Food Waste Project

Item: 5



Document: 1512847

Purpose

The purpose of this memorandum is to update the Committee on the activities that the region’s waste officers have been involved in as part of the National Food Waste Prevention Project launch.

Recommendation


1. notes the activities that the region’s waste officers have been involved in as part of the National Food Waste Prevention Project launch.

Summary

In early March a media launch in relation to the National Food Waste Prevention Project was undertaken. This included the release of results from national food waste research. Taranaki’s waste officers were involved in a number of activities associated with this launch and further local involvement in this area is expected. An outline of this project and the waste officers’ involvement has been provided by New Plymouth District Council (Refer attachments).



38

Financial considerations—LTP/Annual plan







Document 1512848: National Food Waste Prevention Project Document 1512849: Project Summary Document 1512850: Daily News Article page 1 Document 1512851: Daily News Article page 2

39

40

When replying please quote: 6367318 Date: 19 May 2015 To: Taranaki Solid Waste Management Committee SUBJECT: NATIONAL FOOD WASTE PREVENTION PROJECT Background Councils around New Zealand have been working together collaboratively on the National Food Waste Prevention Project to investigate the issue of household food waste and to use data gathered to begin a three year education campaign to reduce the amount of food wasted. A memo detailing the research undertaken was presented at the previous Taranaki Solid Waste Management Committee meeting on 19 February 2015. In brief, the first stage of the project involved data gathering. New Plymouth District Council was one of six councils across New Zealand who has undertaken research over the last 12 months to determine resident’s attitudes and behaviours in relation to food waste. Three levels of surveys were completed by NPDC:

1. A food waste survey of 101 households in Taranaki 2. A food waste audit of kerbside rubbish from 120 New Plymouth households 3. Kitchen diaries from a subset of households that were audited.

The research projects for Taranaki are now complete and three reports are available on request. The information from these surveys was then collated at the national level and used to inform the launch of a public education campaign using the UK’s Love Food Hate Waste brand. Discussion The research has shown:

• Nationally we waste $872 million a year on food that we throw away uneaten • We throw away 122,547 tonnes per year • The average family wastes $563 worth of food per year • The waste is equivalent to 325,975 tonnes of CO2 emissions

The top 10 foods that New Zealanders throw away are:

1. Bread 2. Leftovers

41

3. Potatoes 4. Apples 5. Chicken 6. Bananas 7. Lettuce 8. Oranges 9. Pumpkins 10. Carrots

The Project team developed a media pack which was distributed to all Councils wanting to be involved in the launch of the campaign. The key infographics used for the campaign and a project summary are attached. Nationally WasteMinz launched the results of the research into food waste on Thursday 12

March beginning with coverage on Campbell Live who interviewed Paul Evans (Chief Executive of WasteMinz). There was significant coverage throughout New Zealand. In Taranaki, a media statement was released by Taranaki Regional Council which resulted in two great articles – one in the Midweek and a front page story in the Taranaki Daily news (attached). The campaign was promoted on the radio and funded by all three district councils in Taranaki, and through social media. A Love Food Hate Waste facebook page has been established which has regular posts to help people reduce food waste. Next steps WasteMinz has recently applied for Ministry of the Environment funding with support from a large number of councils throughout New Zealand over the next three years. This project will continue to use the Love Food Hate Waste brand. One of the participating councils has funded an advertising agency to design a national campaign strategy and with this, the application to MfE will cover:

• A website • Maintenance of an online presence in social media e.g. regular Facebook posting • Press releases which can be sent out nationally or used locally • A suite of graphic design resources which can printed out and used locally e.g. a

poster series which you can use on bus shelters, bill boards, in service centres etc. • National media coverage to be determined by the campaign strategy • Plus all the resources currently available under the WRAP license which includes

workshop materials, small campaigns etc. NPDC has committed funding of $12,000 over this period, with approximately ½ allocated to the MfE application and the rest allocated locally to implement/use the resources created. Other funding sources are also being sought as part of the application. Kimberley Hope

42

43

44

45

1

National Food Waste

Prevention Project

Project Summary for Councils

February 2015

46

2

47

3

1. Introduction

1.1. The subject of food waste has become increasingly topical with its implications in

global poverty and environmental concerns. It is estimated that a third of the food

produced for human consumption is wasted (UNEP, 2009).

1.2. Although food is lost at many stages of its life cycle, one of the most significant areas

of food waste in the developed world is at a household level. Research conducted by

the Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP) in the UK, has shown that up

to 30% of what the average householder buys is thrown away and of this two thirds is

preventable (WRAP, 2013).

1.3. A Waste Not Consulting report to the Ministry of the Environment “Household Waste

Data 2008”, calculated that in 2008 food waste from residential households was

approximately 258,886 tonnes pa. Figures from the UK revealed that 61% of food

thrown away was avoidable. In the New Zealand context that suggested 157,920

tonnes of food is sent to landfill, which could have been eaten.

1.4. A five year British campaign “Love Food, Hate Waste” has seen an 18% reduction in

food waste to landfill from local authority collections. A similar reduction in New

Zealand would see 41,224 tonnes diverted from landfill.

1.5. District Councils is obliged under the Waste Minimisation Act of 2008 to develop

policies and methods for achieving effective and efficient waste minimisation and

management within its region. With food waste comprising 33% of the rubbish

disposed of through council kerbside collection, reducing food waste is a key strategy

for meeting the goals of the Waste Minimisation Act.

1.6. A collective of councils around New Zealand have joined together to implement a

national campaign to reduce food waste.

48

4

2. Aim

2.1. The aim of the National Food Waste Prevention Campaign is to reduce household

food waste by enabling households to reduce the quantity of avoidable and

potentially avoidable food waste, which is thrown away. The focus is on source

reduction i.e. creating less waste to begin with which is the most preferred option in

the food waste hierarchy. Whilst food is lost at many stages of its life cycle, the scope

of this project is focused on reducing household food waste. Food rescue, food banks

and commercial or industrial food waste are outside the scope of this particular

project.

3. Outcomes

3.1. The primary outcome for this project is to:

3.1.1. Achieve a measurable reduction in household food waste

3.2. Secondary outcomes include:

3.2.1. A reduction in the environmental impacts of this food loss for example

wasteful use of chemicals and pesticides, unnecessary fuel consumption and the

production of greenhouse gases such as methane and carbon emissions.

3.2.2. Savings to households as less money is wasted on food that is thrown

away

49

5

4. Benefits to Local Government

4.1. Assists a region which currently has no organic/green waste kerbside collection

option to reduce food waste to landfill.

4.2. Assists a region which has no composting facility to reduce food waste to landfill.

4.3. Assists regions with organic collections where there are ongoing issues with food

waste still being placed in rubbish bins.

4.4. Assists all councils to reduce methane and carbon emissions.

4.5. Assists those councils experiencing issues with freshwater quality in local streams

and rivers to reduce nutrients entering via wastewater due to insinkerator use.

4.6. It will results in savings to rate payers increasing their disposable income.

5. Project Timeline

5.1. This project began in September 2013 and is anticipated to finish in 2019.

5.2. It comprises of five stages as shown below with the implementation of the campaign

commencing in late 2015.

Project Stages 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019Stage 1 Research Stage 2 Media Launch Stage 3 MfE Application Stage 4 Implementation Stage 5 Evaluation

6. Progress to Date

6.1. Stage 1 began in September 2013 and was completed in February 2015. Council

staff from the following organizations project managed Stage 1 of the project:

Auckland Council, the councils of the Greater Wellington Region, Nelson

Environment Centre on behalf of Nelson and Tasman Councils, Taranaki Regional

Council and Wastenet Southland.

50

6

6.2. The aim of Stage 1 was to ascertain the extent to which household food waste is an

issue in New Zealand and to determine the most effective methods to minimise this

food waste.

6.3. A literature review of existing domestic food waste statistics for New Zealand was

completed by Waste Not Consulting in September 2013. The scarcity and currency of

the data indicated the need for a more comprehensive study of how much food was

being wasted and the cost.

6.4. Research by council staff into New Zealand domestic food waste began in April 2014

and was completed in February 2015 using:

• Kitchen diaries with 100 families conducted by council staff

• A national online survey of 1,365 individuals conducted by Key Research

• 1,402 Food waste bin audits conducted by Waste Not Consulting and council staff

6.5. The results from this research can be found in section 7.

6.6. 43 councils throughout New Zealand contributed funding to Stage 1 including New

Plymouth District Council.

6.7. Stage 2 began in December 2014 and will continue to April 2015. A promotional

campaign was developed in February 2015, for launch date 12th March 2015, to

publicise the results of the research and raise public awareness.

6.8. The license has been purchased to use the Love Food Hate Waste brand and

provide councils access to the comprehensive suite of resources that have already

been developed.

6.9. 60 councils including New Plymouth, Stratford, South taranaki district councils and

Taranaki Regional Council have confirmed their support of the media launch in their

area/region.

6.10 Councils who project managed Stage 2 of the project are: Auckland Council,

Dunedin City Council, Hastings District Council, Nelson Environment Centre on

behalf of Nelson and Tasman Councils, Tauranga City Council, Taranaki Regional

Council, the councils belonging to the Canterbury Joint Waste Committee, the

councils of the Greater Wellington region.

51

7

7. Results 7.1. Results from physical food waste audits have been calculated

• Nationally • For the following regions and councils: Auckland, Canterbury, Wellington regions;

Selwyn, New Plymouth and Waipa councils.

National Results

National quantity, per annum, of food waste from domestic 229,022 tonnes to landfill

52

8

kerbside refuse collections to landfill National quantity, per annum, of avoidable food waste (i.e. food that could have been eaten) from domestic kerbside refuse collections

122,547 tonnes avoidable

Nation-wide cost, per annum, of food purchased or grown by households and thrown away, uneaten, through domestic kerbside refuse collections

$872 million

CO2-equivalent emissions of wasted food 325,975 tonnes

Regional Costs

Region Number of

Households in 2013

Cost per HH

Total Cost per region

Cost per region

rounded

Auckland 469,497 $574 $269,491,278 $274 million Bay of Plenty 102,270 $563 $57,578,010 $58 million Canterbury 204,843 $563 $115,326,609 $113 million Gisborne 15,993 $563 $9,004,059 $9 million Hawkes Bay 57,642 $563 $32,452,446 $33 million Manawatu Wanganui 87,003 $563 $48,982,689 $50 million

Marlborough 17,676 $563 $9,951,588 $10 million Nelson 18,543 $563 $10,439,709 $10 million Northland 58,944 $563 $33,185,472 $33 million Otago 78,912 $563 $44,427,456 $45 million Southland 37,449 $563 $21,083,787 $21 million Taranaki 43,014 $455 $19,571,370 $20 million

Tasman 18,261 $563 $10,280,943 $10 million Waikato 150,174 $563 $84,547,962 $85 million Wellington 176,133 $590 $103,918,470 $104 million West Coast 13,248 $563 $7,458,624 $7 million

7.2. The national online survey results are available

• Nationally

53

9

• For the following regions: Auckland, Hamilton, Bay of Plenty, Taranaki, the Greater

Wellington Region, Southland

National Online Survey Results

27% of households • Percentage of households who believe they waste more than $21 per week on food they purchase and then throw away uneaten -equivalent to $1,000 pa

10% of households only

• state that they generally throw away no food

High food wasters are more likely to be • Younger people - those aged 16 to 24 years

• Large households those with 5 or more people living in them.

• Households with children 15 years and under

• Households with a high annual income ($100,000 per annum or more).

Reasons for throwing away food • Leftovers not being eaten or reused (31%),

• Food in the fridge or freezer going off (25%).

Attitudes to food waste • 89% feel wasting food is wrong • 82% consider food waste reduction to

be an important issue.

8. Next Steps

8.1. An application to the Ministry of the Environment’s Waste Minimisation Fund will be made

in May 2015 for funding for a national campaign.

8.2. In the interim the project team will be developing and piloting resources and tools to

support councils, community groups, environment centres and other waste champions to

promote minimising food waste.

54

55

56

Agenda Memorandum

Date 28 May 2015


Subject: Update on Taranaki Regional Solid Wastes Services Contract

Item: 6



Document: 1512853

Purpose

The purpose of this memorandum is to introduce any verbal or written reports or commentary from parties involved in the Taranaki Regional Solid Wastes Services contract.

Recommendation


1. receives any reports on the Taranaki Regional Solid Wastes Services contract.

Summary

Attached is a report prepared by New Plymouth District Council on the planning of the roll out of the Regional Solid Waste Services contract. The contract will commence on 01 October 2015.





57






Document 1512854: Update on preparation for new Regional Solid Waste Services contract 15/SW01

58

59

When replying please quote: ECM6366072 Date: 19 May 2015 To: Taranaki Solid Waste Management Committee SUBJECT: UPDATE ON PREPARATION FOR NEW REGIONAL SOLID WASTE SERVICES CONTRACT 15/SW01 The Regional Solid Waste Services contract, which encompasses kerbside collection and transfer station services for New Plymouth, Stratford and South Taranaki district councils, was awarded to EnviroWaste Services Ltd in late 2014. Planning is now well underway for the roll out of the contract due to start on 1 October 2015. The key change to the existing system for all councils is an improved recycling service which has a separate crate for glass and other mixed recyclables in a ‘wheelie’ bin. Key actions and progress are discussed below.

1. The manufacturing of new recycling bins continues. The design of hot stamps on the bin lids and crates was completed with the help TRC in December and incorporate the We Can brand. The bins are currently stored in New Plymouth and will be distributed to households from late July through to September.

2. The Implementation Plan has been completed which sets out key deliverables leading

up to the start of the contract. EnviroWaste Services Ltd has provided each council with proposed collection routes and days of collection. More detailed route planning will be developed once the collection days are approved by the councils.

3. The Communications Team made up of the four councils and the contractor has been meeting regularly to plan all education and communication requirements for the contract change over period. A Communication Plan has been drafted which defines the key messages and action plan that the councils will follow. TGM Creative Ltd have been engaged to develop a concept design for the trucks and education plan, which can then be adapted to all communication material relating to the roll out of the new recycling service. After four initial concepts were provided by TGM, the team has selected one theme that is now being refined.

60

An official launch of the education campaign will begin in early July with a media release involving the Mayors of the three district councils. An open day in each district is planned during September so that the public get to see the trucks and collection system in advance of the start date.

4. EnviroWaste Services Ltd has undertaken site visits of all the transfer stations during

the week of 16 February 2015 to determine requirements for the new contract.

5. The collection trucks are currently being built and should be completed by the end of August.

6. There have been discussions around contamination management for recycling and organic waste collections. A firm but positive approach to kerbside contamination is being considered and communication material will be developed around this strategy.

7. A transition meeting with Transpacific Waste Management Ltd, EnviroWaste Service Ltd and the councils was held to discuss a transition from the existing contract to the new contract. Actions and issues from this meeting are currently being worked through.

8. NPDC are currently reviewing the Solid Waste Bylaw to ensure that any amendments required to accommodate the new contract and collection methodology can be completed and approved prior to the start of the contract. Stratford and South Taranaki district council bylaws will not require changes as the change in level of service these districts is not significant.

Kimberley Hope Manager Compliance

Agenda Memorandum

Date 28 May 2015


Subject: Report on general matters regarding waste management

Item: 7



Document: 1513284

Purpose

The purpose of this memorandum is to introduce any verbal or written reports or commentary on general matters regarding waste management in Taranaki, other than the Taranaki Regional Solid Wastes Services contract.

Recommendation


1. receives any reports on general matters regarding waste management in Taranaki.




This memorandum and the associated recommendations are consistent with the Council’s adopted Long-Term Council Community Plan and estimates. Any financial information included in this memorandum has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting practice.


This memorandum and the associated recommendations are consistent with the policy documents and positions adopted by this Council under various legislative frameworks including, but not restricted to, the Local Government Act 2002, the Resource Management Act 1991, the Waste Minimisation Act 2008 and the Waste Minimisation Act 2008.

61



62

Documents

Taranaki Solid Waste Management Committee agenda May · PDF fileP Grennell (Transpacific ... trialling a composting and worm farm lesson for schools and early childhood centres to