[As published in July/August BayBuzz magazine.]

Substantial changes are in the cards for how we deal with waste in Aotearoa New Zealand, and many have a direct impact on councils and their ratepayers.

The Ministry for the Environment recently called for submissions on proposed changes to waste legislation which are aimed at altering how the waste minimisation funding is allocated to councils and how they can spend it. Waste minimisation funding is allocated to councils by central government and comes from the waste levy, which is charged at landfills.

The waste levy is a central government charge that’s part of the fee you and I pay when we dump waste at a disposal facility. Some of it is automatically allocated to councils, and some is available for projects through the contestable Waste Minimisation Fund. 

The proposals also look to make changes to improve compliance, monitoring and enforcement, and shore up controls on litter, among others

We chatted to council waste minimisation staff in Hawke’s Bay to get their thoughts on the proposals and how they could impact their work.

Changes to councils’ share of funding

At first glance the proposals may seem technical – not something the average ratepayer worries about. However, as Central Hawke’s Bay District Council Environmental Waste Manager Robert Hon points out, it’s often councils (and ratepayers like us) which pick up the tab for dealing with waste.

The highlight of the proposals for him is a ‘80-20 split’ of the total portion of waste minimisation funding allocated to councils. 

Currently, the funding is allocated according to the size of the population a council serves. The proposal is to allocate 20% of the total waste minimisation funding across all councils as a flat rate, with the remaining funding based on population size.

The result will be more funding for smaller councils to use on waste reduction projects. It’s been well received in the region.

“Overall, we feel the proposals are very practical, which is good. In terms of the funding allocation, the proposed 80-20 split is a fairer way of doing it and is long overdue,” Robert says.

Napier City Council’s (NCC) submission on the proposals agrees and suggests this could even be extended in future. “There should be consideration for regions which experience significant seasonal population fluctuation, and perhaps the base flat rate should increase to accommodate seasonal variation.”

Hastings District Council Waste Planning Manager, Angela Atkins also agrees and calls for a more nuanced approach to allocating the flat rate. “We would encourage a more data-driven approach which would account for populations spikes due to tourism, sparsely populated areas, and base costs of delivering minimum services,” she says.

More teeth for litter enforcement

Another win for the councils is the proposal to change enforcement around littering. Currently the legislation places a cap on the financial penalties that can be levied on an offender subject to prosecution through the courts. When you consider that even very hazardous illegally dumped waste is subject to a cap, it puts things into perspective, Robert says.

“Imagine if someone dumped a tonne of asbestos. The cap may be much less than the cost of cleaning this up. The proposed change is a better system for disincentivising illegal dumping,” he says.

Changing how waste funding is spent

What waste levy funding can be used for, is another area which is potentially set to change. While the councils are largely in favour of the proposed changes, there are two areas of concern.

The first proposes that councils can use this funding to deal with emergency waste – think Cyclone Gabrielle. Angela says while she agrees funding from the waste levy can be used for emergency waste, it shouldn’t compete or take away funding allocated for delivering a council’s Waste Management and Minimisation action plan and activities.

“The experience of Cyclone Gabrielle has shown that the costs of dealing with emergency waste can run into many millions and this could wipe out funds for any other local waste minimisation activities for many years. There is potential for the Government to turn down funding requests for emergency waste management, as there would be an expectation that council’s levy funding would be used,” she says.

Government should have a separate pool of funding to support councils facing the significant and unexpected costs of managing waste after major emergencies, such as severe weather events, she says.

The Ministry for the Environment has since announced an Emergency Waste Fund, but this is limited to 60% of the total eligible costs.

Another issue is the vague wording around the proposal looking to broaden the scope of what councils can spend waste minimisation funding on. 

The wording – “reduce environmental harm or increase environmental benefits” – is open to interpretation.

NCC’s submission says, “There is a significant risk as to how this could be interpreted and/or applied by councils to various activities. It can potentially dilute the effect on actual waste minimisation.” 

While Angela shares these concerns, she points out there are circumstances when broadening the scope could be good. Food waste is a particular example, she says.

“Reducing food waste by upcycling cannot currently be funded by waste levy funding. But if we’re running projects to redistribute food so it gets used by humans rather than going to animal feed, or upcycling food waste into food products, it would increase the environmental benefit and potentially allow the projects to be eligible for waste levy funding,” she says.

Robert expressed similar worry around the vagueness of the language. “There is concern the money could be used on things which aren’t waste related. But for us at CHB District Council, it shouldn’t be a problem because we are a small team which works very closely together,” he says.

Dealing with problem waste 

Most notable for us at 3R are proposals around extended producer responsibility (EPR) schemes. You may know another term for the same concept, ‘product stewardship’ – where manufacturers, importers, and retailers take responsibility for their products at end of life.

What’s proposed is a new framework for EPR schemes in New Zealand, potentially speeding up their development. It would also remove government accreditation for voluntary product stewardship schemes.

This takes the burden off councils and ratepayers for dealing with problematic waste – think tyres, electronic waste, mattresses, single-use plastic etc. The regulated product stewardship scheme Tyrewise, for end-of-life tyres, is a good example of how product stewardship can have a big, positive impact.

Tyrewise, has been hugely successful in keeping tyres out of landfill or being dumped in paddocks, since it began operating last year. It’s funded by the Tyre Stewardship Fee, which is paid on new tyres and covers the cost of their collection and recycling at their end of life.

For example, residents can now take up to five tyres at a time to public collection sites (such as transfer stations) for free, so they can be recycled. Tyre shops, vehicle dealerships, and anyone who generates end-of-life tyres around the country must register with the scheme and in turn has access to free tyre collections on demand. There are currently over 5,000 registered partners across the motu.

The proposals are welcome Robert says. “We’re really happy to see there is discussion around EPR and how it will work. Too often profits are privatised, while the costs of dealing with the waste are socialised – which isn’t fair. Our strong preference is to increase the pace of dealing with problematic waste through EPR schemes,” he says. 

The NCC submission agrees, saying the proposals “should make the system more workable” and allow for faster implementation of EPR schemes.

We at 3R also support the creation of this framework but have highlighted a number of concerns with the details of the proposals, which we feel should be refined and improved to have the best outcomes for business, society, and the environment.

You can read our submission in full on the 3R website news page.

Overall, the proposals have the potential to make it simpler to bring EPR schemes to life and could really shift the dial on resource efficiency and waste.

While submissions have closed you can still have a look at the proposals on the Ministry for the Environment website. 

Dominic works at 3R, which designs, implements and manages product stewardship schemes for individual businesses or industry-wide groups. They also help businesses take a fresh look at their waste to first minimise and then recover what would otherwise be wasted.