The Australian Government Productivity Commission has released its final report (Dec 2006) into waste generation and resource efficiency. The inquiry made recommendations on how resources could be better employed to increase social, economic and environmental results. The final report included the evaluation of plastic bag usage within Australia and suggests numerous practical policies that could prevent and/or minimise waste generation resulting from littering.
The findings and recommendations put forward by the Productivity Commission reflect the longstanding views held by the Australian Retailers Association and the retail industry more generally. Unfortunately the Environment, Heritage and Protection Council (EPHC) have largely ignored recommendations put forward by the Productivity Commission and it appears the EPHC still strongly support a ban or levy. The EPHC released a regulatory impact statement outlining 15 options for plastic bag management - the greater portion of which focuses on bans or levies.
The ARA fully supports a reduction in the quantity of plastic bags issued by retailers where suitable alternatives are available or bags are not needed. There is widespread concern in the retail sector about the environment and a genuine interest in how sensible plastic bag management can help.
The Commission’s report is therefore of significant importance to the ARA, its members and the retail industry. The Commission has suggested that there is no clear data proving plastic bags endanger wildlife and the evidence to date has been misleading.
According to the report, much of the data which suggests over 100,000 animals are killed each year directly from plastic bags is misunderstood research from past marine studies in Canada in relation to fishing nets. The Commission said that much was still unknown about how littering plastic bags impacts wildlife and it is nearly impossible to establish. The Commission’s views were corroborated when it approached a number of wildlife organisations that said they were unaware of any alternative studies which support the claims made in the Canadian research. The Commission’s report also indicated that the impacts of plastic bag litter on wildlife could remain unknown in the future without further evidence.
The Commission also claims that the Australian State and Territory Governments do not have a substantial reason to phase out retail plastic bags. The Commission reiterated the findings from a cost-benefit analysis last year which indicated that a phase out or plastic bag levy is overshadowed by the costs associated with it. The report stated that a move towards litter prevention was more cost effective than other policies (such as levies or phase-outs) because other policies penalise the majority of retail plastic bag users whereas litter prevention techniques directly focus on reducing the amount of refuse that ends up on the land or in the sea. According to the commission, such a strategy will deliver better results both economically and environmentally and does not directly target retailers or consumers.
The Productivity Commission did say, however, that it was encouraged by the overall results of campaigns to reduce plastic bag reduction. It recognised the positive outcomes many large retailers, especially supermarkets, had achieved in plastic-bag reduction and acknowledged the ARA’s contribution through its Code of Practice for the Management of Plastic Bags. The report estimated that retail plastic bag usage had reduced by as much as 34 percent between 2002 and 2005 as a result of some of these campaigns. In the case of the major supermarkets chains the reduction of plastic bags was 45 per cent.
However, according to the Productivity Commission’s report the decrease in plastic-bag usage had no significant impact on plastic-bag littering. Between November 2005 and May 2006 plastic-bag littering actually increased in each state by around 17 per cent.
Despite these findings, the Productivity Commission said that Commonwealth, State and Territory Governments are proposing the development of several policies to counter the increase of plastic-bag littering. These potential policies include a total ban on plasticbags, government levies, disposal fees and retailers charging for the issuing of bags. The Commission’s report cautions governments to consider these policies carefully as it believes that these policies are unfeasible.
The Commission used the example of Ireland to highlight the potential problems with government levy policies. When Ireland imposed a plastic bag levy plastic bag consumption increased by a third. It’s unclear why plastic bag consumption increased in this case, but the report does indicate that levy policies might not persuade retailers and customers to reduce plastic-bag usage. The Productivity Commission also makes the contentious claim that a plasticbag levy might cause an increase in shoplifting, however, there is no evidence to support these claims.
The report also examined the ARA’s research survey on small businesses that reveals many small operators in the retail sector would switch to paper bags if government policies imposed a plastic-bag ban. The Commission claims that the introduction of paper bags may have a negative environmental impact because of the rise in greenhouses gases that are created in their production. According to the report, producing paper bags could create up to five times more greenhouse gases than producing plastic bags.
The Productivity Commission’s report on waste generation and efficiency has shown that plastic-bag consumption and litter is a universal problem which has resulted in a variety of government policies. The overall reduction of major supermarkets’ plastic bags has been a success over the last few years, but in comparison overall littering of plastic bags has increased. The focus in the past has been to reduce plastic bag consumption by either finding alternatives or by imposing bans or levies, however all indicators suggest that this solution is not viable. A more feasible solution would be to address the problem of littering within Australia through research and education.
To ensure governments use more workable policies, the Productivity Commission suggests that the Environment Protection and Heritage Council:
- Evaluates recent plastic bag reduction programs and finds out why they haven’t resulted in better outcomes for the environment.
- Produces a clearly specified objective to reduce plastic bag littering which will provide a net benefit to the community.
- Reviews all evidence on the impact plastic bags have on the environment, to give a complete and more accurate picture of the situation.
- Assesses alternative policy approaches that involve strengthened litter reduction policies.
It is now becoming clear to governments, industry and consumers that bans and levies are not the appropriate approach to take. The ARA is pleased with the findings from the review process however are disappointed by the regulatory impact statement released by the EPHC.
The ARA has been consulting with members on the issue and will be putting forward a submission this month. The ARA will be continuing to represent members on issues of plastic bag management and will also support retailers wishing to appropriately reduce and encourage the reuse of plastic bags.
