Plastic Bags - COAG Standing Council on Environment and Water

More documents

Recommendations

Info

The costs and benefits of the initial hypothetical scenarios are indicated in the following table. 5 Table 1: Summary of economic and environmental costs and benefits per Option 1 (scenarios compared against ‘no further government action’) Option Costs (PV, $m) Benefits (PV, $m) Sum of costs and benefits Litter reduction (millions) (A) Enforcement 2 - - - - (B) Behaviour Change - - - - (C) Litter Clean Up - - - - (D) Litter Infrastructure - - - - (E) advanced disposal fee (cost recovery) (F) Baseline option -$767.9 $181.5 -$586.47 300.5 baseline (G) Extend ARA code -$646.0 $156.3 -$489.67 233.2 (H) Escalated charge -$1 293.1 $266.3 -$1026.80 418.4 (I) Voluntary phase-out to 2009; mandatory beyond after 2009 (J) Regulated price (kept by retailers) -$1 093.5 $270.6 -$822.87 422.4 -$1 035.1 $217.8 -$817.34 360.6 (K) Levy on plastic bags -$900.0 $188.7 -$711.29 312.5 (L) Eliminate plastic bags by 2009 -$1 057.1 $217.8 -$839.30 360.6 (M) Out-right ban prior to 2009 -$ 944.20 (Na) ANRA proposal -$562 $170 -$392 111 (Nb) ANRA proposal -$430 $154 -$276 102 (Oa) ANRA proposal with added targets. (Ob) ANRA proposal with added targets -$799 $93 -$706 -148 -$646 $156 $450 134 10 Based on the analytical work by ACG, it appears that there is no one option that can be described as the ‘best’ option. Indeed, based on this economic analysis, the economic and environmental costs of the options considered outweigh the potential economic and environmental benefits by a substantial margin. Major retailers and their representatives have indicated that they do not support a voluntary phase-out agreement as projected in Option I. Extending the ARA code in its current form, as 1 Allen Consulting Group Report May 2006 p. 39 (Phasing Out Light-Weight <strong>Plastic</strong> <strong>Bags</strong>; Costs and benefits of alternative approaches). Table modified from the Allen Consulting Group, The ANRA Proposal on <strong>Plastic</strong> Bag Management: supplementary economic analysis to the EPHC Report, June 2006, p. 19. 2 Options A – D are discussed in more detail in Section 6. Costs have not yet been obtained for these options however are presented in the consultation RIS to invite comment on the approaches. Consultation Regulatory Impact Statement: Investigation of options to reduce the environmental impact of plastic bags January 2007 10
5 10 analysed in Option G, is an option that is likely to be unacceptable to both governments and industry. Given the voluntary nature of retailer activities under these options, lack of agreement by both retailers and government would effectively eliminate these two options. In May 2006, the proposal put forward by ANRA took the focus as the main voluntary proposal coming from the retail sector. If however, the value of the non quantified benefits such as the social benefit of phasing out plastic bags is determined to be sufficient to justify regulatory action, a mandatory charge or a ban on plastic bags implemented at state level in a nationally consistent manner, appear to be the regulatory options that are most appropriate. These options provide mechanisms that can be implemented with less administrative complexity than others. They can also provide substantial reductions in plastic bag distribution and hence litter. Consultation Regulatory Impact Statement: Investigation of options to reduce the environmental impact of plastic bags January 2007 11
Page 1 and 2: 5 10
Page 3 and 4: Contents 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 ACR
Page 5 and 6: Acronyms ACCC Australian Competitio
Page 7 and 8: Glossary advance disposal fee A fee
Page 9 and 10: net present value (NPV) This is a s
Page 11: 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Litter
Page 15 and 16: 5 10 15 20 25 2.1. Definition of
Page 17 and 18: ecome litter if placed in a waste r
Page 19 and 20: 3. Statement of the problem 5 10 15
Page 21 and 22: Figure 1: Summary of plastic bag fl
Page 23 and 24: the lowest value on the availabilit
Page 25 and 26: 5 10 to have had a noticeable impac
Page 27 and 28: 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 totally prohibi
Page 29 and 30: negatively affected as a consequenc
Page 31 and 32: dollars worth of damage to boat eng
Page 33 and 34: 5 3.7.2 Material recovery facilitie
Page 35 and 36: 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 • sector-w
Page 37 and 38: 6. Current Measures in Place 5 10 1
Page 39 and 40: currently exempt from action. Impor
Page 41 and 42: formally being signatory to the ARA
Page 43 and 44: litter, 84 which means that no indi
Page 45 and 46: 7. Statement of Proposed Alternativ
Page 47 and 48: 5 10 • Option M: elimination of p
Page 49 and 50: activities and strategies each year
Page 51 and 52: 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 or socio-econom
Page 53 and 54: 5 10 Questions for consultation •
Page 55 and 56: • one-off costs to all retailers
Page 57 and 58: • governments do not implement re
Page 59 and 60: Industry • one-off cost of $100 m
Page 61 and 62: 5 If expansion of activity by small
Page 63 and 64:
Economic Impacts: 5 10 15 • Over
Page 65 and 66:
etailers, or contribute to a rebate
Page 67 and 68:
The ACG analysis found that the ben
Page 69 and 70:
A number of the benefits of impleme
Page 71 and 72:
This option would be similar to the
Page 73 and 74:
Government • ongoing costs of 0.1
Page 75 and 76:
Option L: assumptions For the purpo
Page 77 and 78:
5 Other key findings Environmental
Page 79 and 80:
5 10 15 20 Biodegradable bags The a
Page 81 and 82:
5 10 15 Findings Costs and benefits
Page 83 and 84:
• otherwise, similar commitments
Page 85 and 86:
8. Consultation The principal form
Page 87 and 88:
5 • Indigenous communities • fa
Page 89 and 90:
5 10 If the value of the social ben
Page 91 and 92:
5 Questions for consultation • Sh
Page 93 and 94:
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 EPA Victoria
show all

Plastic Bags - COAG Standing Council on Environment and Water

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?