Welcome…

+ Click here to view our FULL submission to this question

☑ Yes in part

We believe practical alternatives exist to replace the hard-to-recycle packaging items proposed for phase-out. However, ensuring uptake of the most desirable alternatives (reusable and refillable packaging or highly recyclable packaging with recycled content) and guaranteeing that these are accessible to everyone, requires more than simply phasing-out some of the undesirable options.

The Government says that in the long-term it would like to see more reusable or refillable alternatives operating within innovative reuse models (39). This is such a pleasing statement to read; we support this vision wholeheartedly. We note that this vision is unlikely to occur spontaneously, and certainly not with the requisite level of urgency, without higher levels of Government support through both targeted policy interventions that level the playing field between single-use and reuse, and investment in the necessary infrastructure for accessible reuse models to work at scale.

We note the Government’s concern with the environmental impact of alternatives to the items proposed for a ban (40). We agree, and reiterate our call for policy & regulatory levers to accompany a ban that direct businesses and consumers towards the best alternatives. We note that it’s already possible to BYO reusable containers and tableware for takeaway food and drink. In many cases, washable crockery is a realistic alternative instead of disposables. A handful of reuse schemes exist for reusable takeaway packaging, such as Again Again, CupCycling and Reusabowl. Furthermore, many grocery outlets, from butchers to dedicated zero waste grocers, offer unpackaged, fill your own models or reusable packaging systems. Business to business reuse schemes exist for transport packaging also. The issue is not a lack of ideas or models, but barriers to scale and normalisation within our entrenched linear economy, and lack of adequate incentives to ensure uptake of reusable alternatives when they are available. Furthermore, these barriers promote ad hoc product and system development that isn’t always conducive to accessibility.

Accordingly, sustained policy interventions and investment are required to level the playing field between single-use and reuse. As mentioned above, this requires levies on single-use items and delivery systems (which will encourage uptake of reusable and refillable models), deposit return systems on food and beverage packaging, mandating reusable serviceware in certain situations, and reuse quotas/targets.

Furthermore, Government oversight is needed to direct the market towards a high-performing, zero waste, circular economy based on reuse that is low emissions and accessible for everyone. While even poorly designed reuse systems likely have far lower impact lifecycle analyses (LCAs) than any single-use system, well-designed reuse systems can have extraordinarily lower LCA impact. Also, some reusable options are less accessible than others - Government oversight can ensure a co-design process for reuse schemes that guarantees reusable alternatives follow principles of universal design. In addition, it may be appropriate to establish a reusables fund under the umbrella of the Disability Allowance to enable those who are eligible for this allowance to purchase accessible reusables if they would like to.

The consultation document also states that where plastic packaging is in use, it should be made of higher-value and recyclable materials, with recycled content. Again, regulatory interventions such as levies and legislated mandatory recycled content are required for this outcome. If the powers to achieve this do not exist under the WMA, then part of the present proposal should include a plan to progress the necessary amendments through Parliament.

+ Click here to view our FULL submission to this question

☑ Yes

Thank you for proposing a blanket ban on oxo-degradable plastics – we wholeheartedly support this. We would prefer to see this ban occur more quickly. Many overseas jurisdictions, including the EU, will be phasing-out oxo-degradable plastics by July 2021. We believe New Zealand should follow this timeframe too.

+ Click here to view our FULL submission to this question

☑ Yes

The consultation document sets out a comprehensive list of costs & benefits of the mandatory phase-out of the targeted plastics. We agree with all listed. We also appreciate acknowledgment of the potential cost savings for retailers if customers BYO containers and the cost savings for the wider community of reducing the complexity of our waste & recycling streams. We also like how the Government has recognised that bans help to put all retailers in the same boat.

Overall, we think the analysis would be more meaningful if the environment was not treated as an affected party separate to our human or economic benefits – human society (including the economy) can only thrive if our planet is well.

+ Click here to view our FULL submission to this question

One benefit that is currently missing is the new potential opportunity for businesses and communities to develop reuse schemes and reusable packaging systems to replace the targeted plastics. If this opportunity is harnessed, it will not only reduce waste and recycling, it will also have a positive job creation impact. Preliminary studies indicate that reusable packaging systems tend to produce higher numbers of jobs than systems based on disposal or recycling. Furthermore, those jobs are more dispersed across the country, which meets provincial development goals.1

The growth of reuse schemes will also lead to a reduction in single-use/one-way packaging generally (not just targeted plastic), which will further reduce costs for local authorities and thus ratepayers.

1. See, for example, Miller, M. Bolger, L. Copello (2019) Reusable solutions: how governments can help stop single-use plastic pollution (3Keel, Oxford, United Kingdom: A study by the Rethink Plastic alliance and the Break Free From Plastic movement), p.15; Patrick Albrecht, Jens Brodersen, Dieter W Horst and Miriam Scherf (2011) Reuse and Recycling Systems for Selected Beverage Packaging from a Sustainability Perspective: An analysis of the ecological, economic and social impacts of reuse and recycling systems and approaches to solutions for further development (PriceWaterhouseCoopers), pp.ix, xvii, 53.

+ Click here to view our FULL submission to this question

As noted above, concrete Government regulation and investment is needed to move reusable alternatives from the niche to the mainstream. Furthermore, a coordinated universal design approach is needed to ensure these alternatives are accessible for everyone in our community (taking into account potential barriers, such as cost or disability).

Government direction and oversight in all this is necessary. A hands-off, pro-voluntary, awareness raising approach from the Government that leaves the development of reuse schemes entirely up to the whims of private interests will not guarantee a baseline reusables system that is widespread, accessible and environmentally, socially and economically efficient.

The consultation document notes that removing the targeted plastics could lead to greater use of other hard-to-recycle materials, such as composites. The proposal for mitigating this risk is “pairing the phase-out with best practice guidance on sustainable packaging… an opportunity to educate businesses and the public, and raise awareness of the environmental impact of different choices.” (46) We do not believe this approach is sufficient to achieve the outcomes the Government seeks. Nor is it the best use of government resource (not least because it risks duplicating the mahi that many community groups and NGOs have been doing for some time now). What’s really needed is for the Government to play its part and back up our collective effort with policy, regulations and investment that make “best practice… sustainable packaging” (i.e. reusable/refillable packaging wherever possible) standard practice.

+ Click here to view our FULL submission to this question

☑ Agree in part

We fully support banning almost all of the listed single-use plastic items, including their oxo-degradable, degradable, biodegradable and compostable plastic counterparts.

However, we do not support a ban of plastic straws. Takeaway Throwaways has always excluded plastic straws from our campaign & petition because some people with accessibility needs require a plastic straw to drink. While some reusable alternatives work well for some people, for others there may be no reusable alternative that is suitable. An exemption to a plastic straw ban can mitigate the potential harm (for example, exemptions to permit plastic straws’ availability “on request” at hospitality outlets and pharmacies), but they are difficult to design without being stigmatising. There is also the risk that disabled people seen using a straw will face backlash from uninformed hospitality staff or the public.

We believe that direct consultation with the disabled community about a possible straw ban and/or exemptions should have occurred before this consultation document was released. In any case, this consultation must now occur before any decision is made to ban plastic straws.

We otherwise support the proposed list of items for phase-out, and would like to see the list extended to include other disposable serviceware items that also cause harm in our environment, exist in the litter stream and contaminate recycling:

1. Disposable coffee cups & lids

We are extremely disappointed that coffee cups & lids have been expressly excluded from the ban list. The Packaging Forum estimates that New Zealanders use 295 million coffee cups a year. The overwhelming majority get landfilled. Huge confusion surrounds their recyclability and/or compostability. They’re also light and prone to escaping into the environment, and their lids are fully detachable, increasing the potential for litter.

We strongly disagree with the Government’s assessment that practical alternatives are lacking. Virtually all outlets accept BYO reusables, most outlets have in-house ceramic options if people forget their cup. There’s also a growing range of reuse schemes/cup loan systems across New Zealand (reflecting international trends in this direction). There are towns, such as Wanaka, that have a vision of being free of disposable coffee cups by 2022. And, nationwide, a growing number of cafes (over 50 to our knowledge) have gone single-use-cup-free already by implementing strategies that combine discounts with surcharges, retail of personal ‘keep cups’ and the adoption of homegrown or national reuse systems, with invitations to BYO, and importantly, encouragement to build community by making time to stay.

Even if alternatives are not yet fully established in every corner of the country, the expertise about alternatives and systems for delivering them does exist in New Zealand. Under the present proposal, none of the bans would occur overnight. If coffee cups were included, businesses and consumers would have ample time and notice to prepare and adopt alternatives (particularly if a ban were to phase-in by 2025). A ban with a lead-in time would also grant security for cup reuse schemes to invest to scale.

Takeaway Throwaways is involved in the movement to phase-out throwaway takeaway packaging in New Zealand. One of our founders has been working alongside hospitality outlets since 2017 through Use Your Own, to support hundreds of cafes across the country to reduce their use of disposable coffee cups (or cease using them completely). Through our work, research and daily engagement with the public and hospitality outlets across New Zealand, we can attest to how far public and media perception has turned against disposable coffee cups. These items are increasingly recognised as a burden to hospitality outlets financially. Due to their propensity to pollute roadsides and waterways, they are a growing source of embarrassment for brands and of public ire and frustration. We believe that most businesses would willingly cease to use disposable cups if all outlets were in the same boat. The only way to achieve this is through a nationwide ban.

2. Plastic lollipop sticks: These present a similar hazard to plastic cotton buds (which are proposed for a ban) and there are also alternatives, such as cardboard.

3. Single-serve/Portion Control Unit pottles, sachets & containers for condiments. For example, soy fish, pottles with peelable plastic lids for jam, butter and other condiments, sachets of sauces, condiments and sugar. We note that the consultation document highlights the impact of the Fox River Landfill disaster - one of the items commonly picked up by volunteers were these types of single-use/PCU packets from the accommodation and hospitality providers in this popular tourist destination. We note that these types of products have been earmarked for banning by the Irish Government in their recently released National Waste Policy (p.33).

4. Soft plastic wrappers for individually packaging mini confectionary items For example, mints given out at restaurants as breath fresheners or lollies on flights. The wrappers are very small and thus easily escape rubbish collection, and are an unnecessary level of packaging as confectionary is easily purchased in bulk packaging.

5. Place-based phase-outs We would support the Government pursuing a place-based phase-out approach to items that we aren’t ready to ban completely, including sustainable public procurement. For example, a mandatory phase-out of disposable serviceware for all dine-in contexts (i.e. like Berkeley, California); single-use free zones in towns and cities (like Plastic-Free Precinct trials in Australia 1); on campus or institutional bans of bottled water and disposable coffee cups, including Public Procurement Policy that excludes disposable serviceware etc. 2

1. See, for example, www.plasticfreeplaces.org; https://www.greenindustries.sa.gov.au/plastic-free-precincts
2. For example, https://source.wustl.edu/2016/04/water-bottle-ban-success-bottled-beverage-sales-plummeted/ https://phys.org/news/2017-05-students-plastic-bottles-campus.html; http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/san-francisco-bans-sale-plastic-water-bottles-climate-change; https://edition.cnn.com/2019/08/02/business/plastic-water-bottle-ban-sfo-trnd/index.html; https://australianfoodtimeline.com.au/bottled-water-ban-bundanoon/

+ Click here to view our FULL submission to this question

☑ Yes with changes

We strongly support the proposal to include items made of degradable, oxo-degradable, biodegradable and compostable plastics within the ambit of the proposed phase-out - we applaud the Government for taking this step. As the consultation document notes, many of these products are not certified, and/or not home compostable nor marine degradable. Those that are certified compostable regularly do not arrive to the types of environments they are designed to degrade in (48). If they go to landfill, they produce methane in the anaerobic conditions.

Furthermore, whether compostable or not, these products are still designed for single-use applications, with all the wasted embodied energy and resources that that status represents. As the consultation document notes, the items selected for phase-out in this proposal represent an ‘unnecessary’ use of plastic. Therefore, even if genuinely home compostable plastic alternatives were developed, they would remain an unnecessary application of that technological innovation.

We recommend the following alterations or clarifications of the proposed definitions:

• Plastic straws: The proposed definition refers to an exemption to allow access to plastic straws for disabled persons and for medical purposes. If the Government does decide to ban plastic straws then we would support an exemption because some people need a straw to drink. However, we note that an exemption is unlikely to fully redress the loss in accessibility brought about by a plastic straw ban. Furthermore, the extent to which the risk of stigmatisation or discrimination is mitigated depends on how the exemption is drafted and the surrounding policy for its application and enforcement. Unfortunately, the potential impact of the exemption is impossible to assess because the proposed exemption has not been drafted for feedback (other than an indication that it may look like the UK or EU approach). There is also no specific field in the submission form to provide specific feedback on the proposal to include plastic straws in the phase-out, the suitability of an exemption, or what an exemption could look like to maximise accessibility. We believe the active participation of the disabled community is not sufficiently upheld by this consultation process.
• Single-use plastic tableware: The proposed definition should be amended to clarify that this includes paper bowls and containers with plastic or wax linings (similar to the plastic cups and lids definition).
• Single-use plastic cups and lids: Disposable coffee cups should be included in the proposed phase-out (as discussed in our answer to Q16). We also do not support exempting single-use plastic cups made of plastics 1, 2 and 5 from a ban – even if these are easier to recycle plastic types, the cups are likely to be too food contaminated to recycle. Furthermore, as takeaway, on-the-go products, the cups are likely to be used away from home where the public has reduced access to recycling services. Nevertheless, if the exemption goes ahead, we recommend that it applies to cups only and that any lids are expressly excluded from the exemption as their size effectively makes them ‘hard-to-recycle’ items in most kerbside systems that rely on automated MRFs for sorting. Furthermore, they are detachable so can easily be lost to the environment.

+ Click here to view our FULL submission to this question

☑ Depends on the item

We believe a 12 - 18 month time period would be achievable for most items.

For some items, the Government needs to have conversations with parties likely to be affected by the ban, which may require a longer timeframe.

For example, if plastic straws are to be banned, the Government must take the time to properly draft the exemption to ensure access for the disabled community (see our answers about this in Q17).

+ Click here to view our FULL submission to this question

Takeaway Throwaways is a campaign focused on serviceware, so we focus only on disposable coffee cups in this response. Please refer to the joint submission by the zero waste community for comments in relation to wet wipes.

As noted elsewhere in this submission, the Government must consider regulatory & policy interventions and investment to increase the uptake, accessibility and availability of reusable alternatives to disposable coffee cups. We note that many of these regulations & policies can be achieved under s 23 of the WMA and/or without the need for new Parliamentary legislation. These include:

• Adding disposable coffee cups to the proposed phase-out list as this will motivate industry and consumers to find alternatives faster.
• Levies on disposable coffee cups and/or a producer fee on all disposable cups put on the market to cover estimated costs associated with clean-up or disposal.
• Mandating reusable serviceware only for dine-in customers.
• Phasing-in disposable coffee cup free zones or sustainable public procurement policies that prohibit disposable serviceware (e.g. university campuses and other institutional spaces, buildings associated with local and central govt and Parliament etc.)
• A deposit return scheme for both disposable coffee cups and reusable cups, offered through a reuse scheme, combined with a requirement that hospitality outlets offer a takeback service for the cups they give out (whether for reuse or appropriate disposal).
• Ensuring that reusable alternatives and the systems to deliver them adhere to the principles of universal design so that they are accessible for everyone in the community.
• Investing in the infrastructure needed for reuse models to operate effectively, such as reverse logistics and washing/sterilisation infrastructure.
• Creating a more welcoming environment for BYO cups by working with the Ministries of Health and Primary Industries to inform businesses that accepting BYO cups is consistent with food safety regulations (including during covid-19), and amending food safety legislation to require outlets to accept BYO cups (in accordance with appropriate food safety requirements/food control plans) rather than leaving this to the discretion of individual businesses.
• Working with the Ministry for Primary Industries to develop specific food safety guidelines for reusable and refillable packaging systems (not to create onerous regulations, but rather to give businesses a sense of security and confidence in accepting reusables).
• Compulsory labelling requirements for disposable coffee cups that inform consumers about the availability of reusable alternatives and a ban on branding cups.

We note that Ireland’s recently released National Waste Policy provides a useful blueprint for how a Government can accelerate an eventual phase-out of disposable coffee cups and cold drinks cups (pp.33-34).

We have considered the options put forward in the consultation document (p.49) and offer the following comments:

• We support the suggestion of investing to scale up reuse systems. We note that this will achieve the best outcomes if accompanied by the regulatory & policy interventions listed above as these are necessary preconditions to level the playing field with single-use. Furthermore, a coordinated approach to scheme design overseen by Government is needed to guarantee basic accessibility and availability of reusable alternatives.
• Non-plastic alternative coffee cups may be appropriate in some contexts (such as medical situations or civil emergencies). However, for more general application this is a false solution as they are still single-use, with all the embodied energy and resource wastage associated with this linear approach. Furthermore, a collection system would be required for composting these cups because they will be too contaminated for recycling and if disposed of to landfill will produce methane in the anaerobic conditions. Thus, they present the same issues as home compostable plastics.
• While public education campaigns to promote reusable alternatives is an option, there are numerous NGOs and community groups in NZ and globally doing this mahi already. We need Government to back our efforts with the powers that only Government has (i.e. regulation, policy and investment) rather than risk duplicating work already being done. However, funding support to some of these NGOs and community groups to conduct their education and campaigning could be appropriate, so long as it operates alongside supportive regulatory measures and infrastructural investment.
• Exploring the feasibility of a scheme to collect and recycle or compost single-use cups (putting aside the technical challenges to successfully recycling or composting them, which shouldn’t be ignored) doesn’t address the fact that these are still single-use items that waste energy and resources - it’s a way of doing things that the circular economy demands we move away from. Furthermore, the investment in logistics and infrastructure to take back these cups and develop facilities to compost or recycle them would be better diverted towards scaling reuse schemes and developing infrastructure centred around reuse. Reuse schemes would also create a greater number of jobs in the collection, washing and redistribution logistics and these jobs would be more dispersed across the country.

+ Click here to view our FULL submission to this question

Takeaway Throwaways does not manufacture, supply or use single-use plastic coffee cups. However, we invite the Government to consult with the 50+ hospitality businesses who are SUC free, and the organisations and small businesses around NZ that support their work such as:

• UYO
• SUC-free Wanaka
• Again Again
• Cupcycling
• Good to Go Waiheke
• The Grey Lynn Koha Jar Project
• Wanakup

These businesses and groups report that the ability to implement alternatives to single use plastic coffee cups enables businesses to move entirely to reuse. Furthermore, many businesses would be willing to cease dispensing disposable coffee cups, but would prefer if all outlets were in the same boat (i.e. through a nationwide ban).

+ Click here to view our FULL submission to this question

Takeaway Throwaways focuses on serviceware, so we only discuss disposable coffee cups here. For discussion of timeframes for wet wipes, please refer to the joint submission from the wider zero waste community.

Disposable coffee cups products should be included in the list of items proposed for phase-out. We should be seeking to remove them from the economy well before 2025. Accessible alternatives exist. Were the Government to commit to supporting reuse schemes & to developing and amplifying guidance (see Q19) we see no reason why disposable coffee cups cannot be amongst the first to be phased-out, i.e. by 2022.

+ Click here to view our FULL submission to this question

☑ Yes in part

A comprehensive list of the costs and benefits of mandatory phase-out of the targeted plastics. We agree with all listed, and appreciate the acknowledgement of the potential cost savings for retailers from a move to phase-out unnecessary single-use items, the cost savings for local govt (and therefore ratepayers) from reduced waste & litter, and the fact that banning items across the board has the benefit of levelling the playing field.

One significant cost missing is the potential impact that a ban on plastic straws will have for individuals with accessibility needs who require a straw to drink, and the potential that needing to rely on an exemption will be stigmatising.

One benefit that is currently missing is the new potential opportunity for businesses and communities to develop reuse schemes and reusable packaging systems to replace the targeted plastics. If this opportunity is harnessed, it will not only reduce waste and recycling, it will also have a positive job creation impact. As noted in Q 14, preliminary studies indicate that reusable packaging systems tend to produce higher numbers of jobs than systems based on disposal or recycling. Furthermore, those jobs are more dispersed across the country, which meets provincial development goals.

The growth of reuse schemes will also lead to a reduction in single-use/one-way packaging generally (not just targeted plastic), which will further reduce costs for local authorities and thus ratepayers.

As noted in Q13, overall we think the analysis would be more meaningful if the environment was not treated as an affected party separate to our human or economic benefits – human society (including the economy) can only thrive if our planet is well.

+ Click here to view our FULL submission to this question

A compliance and enforcement strategy is needed because the range of products being proposed for a ban is quite wide and will impact a variety of sectors, industries, businesses, organisations and individuals. So, the potential for non-compliance to slip through the cracks is quite high.

We saw with the plastic bag ban that some businesses did push the limits of the law and after a year, 400 breaches were reported.

Given the scope of the present proposal, that goes well byoend the plastic bag ban, we support the appointment and resourcing of enforcement officers, alongside relying on community members to report breaches.