National Waste Policy Regulatory Impact Statement

Co-benefits

The recovery of materials can contribute to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and have co-benefits such as reduced water and energy use when considered on a life cycle basis. A net benefits assessment undertaken by the Australian Council of Recyclers estimated that in 2006 recycling in Australia reduced greenhouse emissions (8.8 MT CO2-e), produced energy (202 TJ) and water (134 GL) savings, and conserved resources (eg 4MT of iron ore) (Australian Council of Recyclers 2008).

RMIT (2009) assessed the environmental benefits associated with recycling of common materials in the waste stream for the NSW Department of Environment and Climate Change and an excerpt of the results is provided in .

Net benefit of recycling 1 tonne of waste material (positive values are benefits, negative values are impacts)

	Global Warming tonnes CO2-e	Energy Gigajoules (Low Heating Value)	Water in kilolitres
Aluminium cans	15.85	171.10	181.77
Concrete	0.02	0.28	1.28
Cardboard/Paper recycling	0.06	9.32	25.41
Food and garden organics	0.25	0.18	0.44
Glass	0.56	6.07	2.30
Mixed Plastics	1.53	58.24	- 11.37

Source: RMIT, Extended Environmental Benefits of Recycling Project, Draft Final Report, 25 May 2009 for NSW DECC, based on Table 4, p14

For resource recovery to be environmentally beneficial on a whole of life cycle basis the impacts associated with material collection and reprocessing need to be offset by the benefits associated with material recovery and avoided landfill capacity.

The role of governments

There is a strong prima facie case for policy maker interest in market performance, environmental outcomes and resource efficiency issues. A suite of problems has been commonly identified that are well recognised areas of market failure. These include environmental externalities, information problems and barriers to competition.

The regulatory framework surrounding the management of waste in Australia is multi-layered. The state and territory Governments have primary constitutional responsibility for regulating waste management in their jurisdictions. The Commonwealth government has responsibility to ensure that Australia meets its commitments under international agreements such as the Basel and Stockholm Conventions and also regulatory responsibilities primarily in relation to the import and export of waste. The Australian Government also has a national co-ordination role through the Environment Protection and Heritage Council and the National Environment Protection Council. Local government has traditionally been responsible for household waste management services (e.g. collection, disposal and resource recovery), as well as ‘much of the away-from-home services offered to the general public (such as street bins and litter abatement)’ (Productivity Commission 2006).

The nature and extent of the problem

This Regulation Impact Statement, in considering the proposal for a National Waste Policy, assesses the key problems with current coordination and consistency in resource recovery and waste policies and regulations in Australia.

It considers the extent of:

• 
  inefficiency of regulation of the resource recovery and waste management sectors due to lack of co-ordination and consistency across Australian jurisdictions;
  
• 
  market impediments to the resource recovery and waste management sectors operating efficiently; and
  
• 
  problems associated with Australia meeting its international obligations concerning waste (including hazardous waste) and chemicals.
  
• 
  Inefficiency of regulation
  

Differences in jurisdictional approaches to waste management, recycling and disposal have created a complex structure of regulations, fees and policies. Industry has identified this as a source of uncertainty, and suggested that it leads to increased administrative costs for government and compliance costs for business. Policy fragmentation across Commonwealth, state and territory jurisdictions also reduces the potential for economies of scale in companies with multi-jurisdictional operations below that which would be available under a truly seamless national economy.

The challenge for policymakers is, therefore, to secure, and if possible extend, the gains from closer alignment and consistency of jurisdictional regulation and approaches. Given that this needs to occur within a framework that is essentially cooperative in nature and recognising the Constitutional rights of State, Territory and Commonwealth governments.

Consultations during the development of the national waste policy indicate that the main areas where jurisdictional inconsistencies are seen to impose a regulatory burden on industry — creating uncertainty and imposing additional compliance costs (Australian Information Industry Association 2009; Plastics and Chemicals Industry Association 2009; Transpacific Industries 2009) are:

• 
  definitions and classifications of waste; and
  
• 
  data and reporting requirements.