Plastic Bags - COAG Standing Council on Environment and Water

More documents

Recommendations

Info

A number of the benefits of implementing this option (such as social benefits) have not been quantified. According to the ACG analysis, these unquantified benefits would need to be greater than $586.47 million over the period before this option provides an improvement in social welfare. 5 10 15 20 25 30 Other key findings Environmental impacts The following table shows the impacts of this option over the period from 2005 to 2016 compared with the ‘no further government action’ option. Bag consumption 20,732.5 million fewer bags would be consumed <strong>Plastic</strong> bag litter 300.5 million fewer plastic bags would be littered Value of environmental benefits $181.5 million in NPV terms Economic impacts: • Over the period, GDP will be $767.9 million less under this option when compared with GDP achieved under the ‘no further government action’ option. • Over the period, retailers face net costs $433.9 million greater than under the ‘no further government action’ option. When compared to Option F, this option results in a loss to value added for the retail industry of $36.4 million, a loss to value added for the plastic products industry of $36.3 million, and a gain to value added for the paper industry of $12.8 million. • Household income is $544.8 million less over the period, including an initial economic cost of $195.5 million. • Governments also have a cost of $10.8 million when compared to the ‘no further government action’ option. Implications In summary, an ADF provides for government administration and litter management. Social benefits to consumers are in the form of consumers having access to bags while at the same time being able to recoup the money saved by refusing a bag. By retailers applying a fee, money is put aside for future litter and waste management activities. The ADF option gives a low result in terms of litter reduction. In addition, it would be unlikely to result in a significant change in plastic bag consumption behaviour because the cost of the ADF would be too low to drive behaviour change. 7.4. <strong>Plastic</strong> Bag Consumption Focused Options 35 40 Option F: Baseline scenario – no further government action (ACG scenario 2) Description and assumptions The baseline option against which all other options are compared is that no new arrangements are put in place following the expiry of the ARA code on 31 December 2005. Under this option, there would be: • no extension of the ARA code • no replacement voluntary industry arrangement • no requirement that any retailers maintain any of the actions already implemented under the ARA code Consultation Regulatory Impact Statement: Investigation of options to reduce the environmental impact of plastic bags January 2007 54
• governments do not implement regulations to maintain existing or compel further bag use reductions • no alternative approach is adopted targeting plastic bag litter. 5 10 15 There would be some ongoing plastic bag obligations on brand owners and signatories to the National Packaging Covenant but, as discussed, these obligations are not onerous and they exempt a large number of organisations that are using plastic bags. Current government anti-litter regulations would continue with the same level of enforcement, and the activities of nongovernment organisations such as Keep Australia Beautiful and Clean Up Australia would continue. Effectively, this option would see efforts to reduce plastic bag use limited to voluntary measures by motivated consumers and a few proactive organisations. Under this option it was assumed that voluntary efforts initiated under the ARA code would cease and the consumption of plastic bags would increase over time. 105 Option F (baseline): assumptions For the purposes of this cost-benefit analysis, this option is assumed to consist of the following features: 106 Timing: • from 1 January 2006 (after expiry of ARA code) Industry • reduction for retailers of the costs of complying with the code (approximately $21 million annually) Households • continuation of 2005 plastic bag consumption levels, increasing gradually over time (2.5 percent annually) based on the average rate of economic growth Governments • no change 20 25 Findings Economic impacts The economic impact of ‘no further government action’ is not explicitly depicted here, as this represents the baseline option against which other options are compared. ACG found the following: Under Option F, Group One retailers no longer incur the estimated annual cost of $21 million currently necessary to comply with the ARA code. That is, ‘no further action’ 105 ACG Report May 2006 p 27. 106 Assumptions used for modelling purposes by Allen Consulting Group in report Phasing out light-weight plastic bags: costs and benefits of alternative approaches, p.57 Consultation Regulatory Impact Statement: Investigation of options to reduce the environmental impact of plastic bags January 2007 55
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 and 12: 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Litter
Page 13 and 14: 5 10 analysed in Option G, is an op
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: • one-off costs to all retailers
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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?