Plastic Bags - COAG Standing Council on Environment and Water

More documents

Recommendations

Info

option of retailers abiding by the letter (and not the spirit) of the agreement, by continuing to use the cheaper HDPE bags up to the ‘50 percent of 2002 quota’, and using biodegradable bags beyond that. This would significantly reduce the costs and benefits of the option. 5 10 15 Option O: The ANRA proposal, with added targets for reduction (ACG supplementary scenarios 2a and 2b) Description and assumptions The ANRA proposal does not currently have any targets for further carry bag reductions beyond 2006. As a further hypothetical option, ACG was asked to provide analysis of the likely environmental and economic impacts of the inclusion of a 10 percent additional reduction per year. The inclusion of targets in future years has not been endorsed by ANRA or its members to date. As with Option N, ACG was asked to consider two variations of this option to consider different rates of take-up by retailers. Two variations on the ANRA proposal were considered. The significant difference was the assumed take-up by the retail sector. 20 25 30 Oa) The ‘high take-up’ scenario assumes acceptance and achievement of targets by all Group One retailers, plus all other retailers with an annual turnover greater than $5 million per year. Such a threshold would apply if the proposed ANRA code of practice were appended to the National Packaging Covenant. Ob) For the purpose of this analysis, a ‘modest take-up’ scenario is projected, including all Group One retailers plus 25 percent of Group Two retailers. Without a form of free-rider coverage such as that offered by the National Packaging Covenant, take-up of the code is likely to be much lower, with moral persuasion and customer demand being the major drivers of sign up to the code by non-ANRA members. Option O: assumptions For the purposes of this cost-benefit analysis, this option is assumed to consist of the following features: 123 Timing • programme begins from 2006 (assume maintenance of infrastructure established under the ARA code), and runs for 5 years, with bag numbers maintained at that level thereafter Industry • eligible retailers in each option reach their 50 percent target by the end of 2006 • eligible retailers achieve an annual reduction in plastic bag consumption of 10 percent based on end-2005 levels (i.e. the quantitative bag target each year is set at 90 percent of the previous year’s outcome) 123 Assumptions used for modelling purposes by Allen Consulting Group in report The ANRA proposal on plastic bag Management: Supplementary economic analysis to the EPHC Report, pp. 16-17 Consultation Regulatory Impact Statement: Investigation of options to reduce the environmental impact of plastic bags January 2007 80
• otherwise, similar commitments to those in the ARA code (i.e. education, support for litter eradication, continued promotion and provision of alternatives, etc.) Households • consumers respond to suasive efforts of retailers, and therefore face increased costs due to their switch to more expensive substitutes o initial costs are therefore associated with savings from plastic bags that are no longer consumed, and costs associated with a switch to single-use bag alternatives Government • ongoing costs in monitoring and administration o ‘modest take-up’ scenario, estimated as the same as baseline – conservatively estimated at 0.1 full-time equivalent employee for administration and monitoring compliance for each jurisdiction (nine jurisdictions at $11,000 each, totaling $99,000) o ‘high take-up’ scenario, assumed to be slightly greater if appended to the covenant (costs to be scaled accordingly) • reduction in expenditure on litter clean-up for stray plastic bags, using the same assumptions as used in earlier analysis 5 10 15 Findings Costs and benefits (compared to baseline) High take-up (scenario 2a) Benefits (PV, $m) Costs (PV, $m) Net impact (NPV, $m) Required unquantified benefits (NPV, $m) Reduction in plastic bag litter $93 -$799 -$706 $706 148 million Modest take-up (scenario 2b) Benefits (PV, $m) Costs (PV, $m) Net impact (NPV, $m) Required unquantified benefits (NPV, $m) Reduction in plastic bag litter $84 -$535 -$450 $450 134 million The supplementary ACG analysis estimated that the benefits of the proposed ANRA code would range from $84 million to $93 million in present value terms over the period from 2006 to 2016, depending on the number of participating retailers. Costs identified would range from $535 million to $799 million over the same period. A number of factors (such as social benefits) have not been quantified for this option. According to the supplementary analysis, these would need to be a benefit greater than $706 million over the period before the ‘high take-up option’ provides an improvement in social welfare, and $450 million before the ‘modest take-up option’ does so. Consultation Regulatory Impact Statement: Investigation of options to reduce the environmental impact of plastic bags January 2007 81
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 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: 5 10 15 Findings Costs and benefits
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?