Plastic Bags - COAG Standing Council on Environment and Water

More documents

Recommendations

Info

5 10 Implications In summary, retailers would be subject to increased costs for administration, in-store education and promotion, though this would be reduced over time. Government would have increased administration costs but reduced litter costs. Household income falls (relative to the ‘no further action’ option), but there is an environmental benefit from reduction in litter. Under this option, the consumer decides the worth of the convenience of having plastic bags available and makes a choice as to whether to pay the per-bag levy or use an alternative. There may be some consumers who choose to absorb the cost of the levy in order to retain the convenience, while other consumers will avoid plastic bag use. 15 20 25 30 35 40 Option L: Elimination of plastic bags from 2009 (ACG scenario 1) Description and assumptions This option would come into effect from 1 January 2009. It would provide a regulatory framework for the elimination of plastic bags. The ban would not apply to the plastic bags in circulation prior to its introduction. It would only apply when current plastic bag stocks held by retailers required replacement. The ban would also not apply to the customer wishing to re-use the plastic bags that they had received from the retailer prior to the introduction of the ban. In terms of enforcement, a ban applied at the import and manufacturing stage would be less complex to administer than a ban at the retail end, as there are a smaller number of importers and manufacturers. However, it would also mean greater involvement by Australian Customs officials in enforcing the ban on products entering the country. It could be impractical to require that all shipping containers be searched for plastic bags. It could also be impractical to enforce at the retail level in terms of capturing those retailers not complying with the ban. For simplicity, any exemptions would need to be kept to a minimum and would relate to those areas where plastic bags are necessary to ensure the integrity of the product purchased (for example, for food safety or hygiene reasons). The plastic bag manufacturers’ industry association has signalled that some structural adjustment or support from government may be required. Determination would be required of how, and by whom, the ban would be enforced and likely compliance costs associated with this option. It would also be necessary to determine when the ban would take effect. For the purposes of modelling, the ban has been modelled as commencing on 1 January 2009. There may be a policy challenge in putting a product like plastic bags in the same status as illicit drugs, hazardous chemicals and other banned goods. Consultation Regulatory Impact Statement: Investigation of options to reduce the environmental impact of plastic bags January 2007 72
Option L: assumptions For the purposes of this cost-benefit analysis, this option is assumed to consist of the following features: 119 Timing • comprehensive ban from 1 January 2009 Industry: • one-off cost to retailers of $187 million ($65 million for staff training, $120 million for increased theft, and $1.7 million to modify equipment to cater for plastic bag substitutes • ongoing costs to retailers caused by increased transaction times and administration costs of $60 million annually • no costs to retailers associated with in-store education and promotion • no cost to retailers associated with administration Households • 100 percent reduction in the consumption of plastic bags from 2009 onwards, at $0.03 per plastic bag ($142 million in 2009) • reusable bags consumed as substitutes for 95 percent of plastic bags foregone, at a replacement rate of about 125 plastic bags for each reusable, at $1.40 per reusable ($50 million in 2009) • paper bags consumed as substitutes for 5 percent of plastic bags foregone, at a replacement rate of one for one, at $0.15 per bag ($36 million in 2009) • bin liners consumed as substitutes for 100 percent of plastic bags foregone, at a replacement rate of one for seven, at $0.05 per bin liner ($36 million in 2009) • all other impacts modelled by MMRF-Green Government • reduction in expenditure on litter clean-up for stray plastic bags ($4 million) • ongoing costs of 0.1 full-time equivalent employee for administration and monitoring for each jurisdiction (nine jurisdictions at $11,000 each, resulting in a total of $99,000) • all other impacts modelled by MMRF-Green. Findings Costs and benefits (compared to no further action option) Benefits (NPV, $m) Costs (NPV, $m) Net impact (NPV, $m) Required unquantified benefits (NPV, $m) Reduction in plastic bag litter $217.78 -$1057.08 -$839.30 $839.30 360.6 million 119 Assumptions used for modelling purposes by Allen Consulting Group in report Phasing Out Light-Weight <strong>Plastic</strong> <strong>Bags</strong>: Costs and Benefits of Alternative Approaches, p. 56 Consultation Regulatory Impact Statement: Investigation of options to reduce the environmental impact of plastic bags January 2007 73
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 and 70: A number of the benefits of impleme
Page 71 and 72: This option would be similar to the
Page 73: Government • ongoing costs of 0.1
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?