Plastic Bags - COAG Standing Council on Environment and Water

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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 41,500 million fewer bags would be consumed <strong>Plastic</strong> bag litter 360.6 million fewer plastic bags would be littered Value of environmental benefits $217.8 million in NPV terms Economic impacts: • Over the period, GDP will be $1035.1 million less under this option when compared with GDP achieved under the ‘no further government action’ option. • Over the period, retailers face net costs $620.8 million greater than under the ‘no further government action’ option. • Households get an initial economic benefit of $152.1 million under this option. • Governments also get a benefit of $19.5 million when compared to the ‘no further government action’ option. Implications There may be an issue with allowing the retailer to use the revenue raised for whatever they like. Consumers are likely to expect the money to be used to fund re-use or recycling of plastic bags or assist in clean-up and litter prevention, meaning that transparency will be needed. Another issue may be the lack of consistency in applying the charge. The charge set in regulation would be a minimum charge but some retailers may charge more. Consumers may, for the most part, have a choice in whether or not they accept the plastic bags and also in where they shop. However, this may not be the case for consumers in smaller communities where competition is less, or among groups who lack mobility or are economically disadvantaged. In summary, where there is no obligation on retailers to provide an alternative and they simply charge a fee per plastic bag, issues of social equity may need to be considered. Retailers would incur costs for increased in-store transaction times and education. Householders would incur the cost of bin liners and the purchase of plastic bags but will also gain a monetary benefit by refusing a bag. Governments would face costs for administration and monitoring compliance, with reduced expenditure on litter clean-up. The environment would benefit from less bags being available as potential litter, creating a social benefit of improved environmental quality (aesthetics). 35 40 Option K: Impose a government levy on lightweight single-use plastic bags (ACG scenario 9) Description and assumptions Noting that the Australian Government has ruled out implementing such a measure, a levy could theoretically be applied to all plastic bags and could be collected by retailers when bags are supplied to the customer. Consultation Regulatory Impact Statement: Investigation of options to reduce the environmental impact of plastic bags January 2007 68
This option would be similar to the system applied in Ireland, where the government imposed a mandatory 15 Euro cents (A$0.27) plastic bag levy. This charge is paid by the consumer at the point of sale for every plastic bag issued. 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 If a similar scenario to Ireland’s was chosen, this option may involve a regulation that includes: • a charge to be applied at the point of sale in shops, supermarkets, service stations and all retail outlets that supply plastic bags • a requirement that retailers pass on the full amount of the levy as a charge to customers at the checkout • the charge for a plastic bag to be itemised on all invoices, receipts or dockets issued to customers • the levy to be set at a specified amount (e.g. $0.10 per bag) • exemptions from the levy be given for: o plastic bags that are used solely to contain: • fresh fish, meats and poultry products • fruit and vegetables • nuts, dried fruit and confectionary • dairy products • cooked food (hot or cold) • ice o plastic bags that are designed for re-use and are purchased by the customer for at least an amount equal to the levy o charity collection bags and other plastic bags that are provided for the purpose of being filled and returned to the supplier. • administration and distribution of the levy by governments • retailers keeping records that are able to be reported to governments • penalties for non-payment or non-compliance, and guidelines for addressing issues involving under-payment • appeal rights for retailers and management of complaints against retailers • enforcement by authorised officers. This option differs from an advance disposal fee in that the levy does not have to be set to reflect the cost associated with clean-up or management of plastic bags. This means that the levy can be set at a level commensurate with a charge that would be most likely to deliver significant plastic bag-use reduction. Monies from the levy would be retained by governments. Retailers may have concerns regarding the administration costs of collecting and disbursing the levy to government but there is potential for a proportion of the levy raised to be used to cover retailer costs associated with collecting the levy. This option may not completely eliminate plastic bags, although there would potentially be funding available for the implementation of management options, and consumer education and awareness programmes about the impacts of plastic bags. This would require a policy decision by the government collecting the revenue to hypothecate revenue raised for environmental purposes. Without hypothecation, a levy is likely to be unpopular. The quantum of the levy would need to be established and the price elasticity understood. The levy would need to be large enough to make the consumer think about whether they need the plastic bag or not – or whether alternatives such as reusable bags are more attractive. For example, if a reusable bag costs $1.00 and, on average, a reusable bag replaces four plastic bags, then the levy would need to be in the order of $0.25 per bag. Consultation Regulatory Impact Statement: Investigation of options to reduce the environmental impact of plastic bags January 2007 69
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 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: A number of the benefits of impleme
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?