© 2012 3R Group Limited • All rights reserved 1 Welcome to the Agrichem Review 2012 Workshop Friday, 19 th October 2012 9:00am- 10:30am Maximising effectiveness of product stewardship for agricultural chemicals and their containers in NZ
© 2012 3R Group Limited • All rights reserved 1
Welcome to the Agrichem Review
2012 Workshop Friday, 19th October 2012
9:00am- 10:30am
Maximising effectiveness of product
stewardship for agricultural chemicals
and their containers in NZ
2
Facilitated by Graeme Norton
Speakers - time for questions at end of each presentation
ADELE ROSE, Project Manager
Process & Progress of the Working Group
GRAEME NORTON, Director, 3R Group
Sustainable Supply Chains
DON CHITTOCK, Programme Manager, Waste & Hazardous Substances,
ECan
Public / Private Partnerships
FRED KING, Advisor, Hazardous Waste, HBRC
Hazardous waste officer’s perspective
Panel Discussion - balance of time
Workshop
© 2012 3R Group Limited • All rights reserved 3
Agrichemicals Review 2012
Process and Progress of the Working
Group
Adele Rose
Project Manager
4
July ‘11, industry concerned re effectiveness of Agrecovery
Chemical programme
Meeting held included MfE
Issues tabled
Flexibility needed for urgent Agrichemical Collections
Funding / User pays impact
Impact on viability of collectors’ business
Opportunity to explore alternative infrastructure already in place
via Tredi / TTS into existing PCBs collection programme
Industry raised concerns
5
Fact-based evidence required
Whether or not a “legacy” stock pile exists; if yes....
Need for clear and auditable data on the volume of intractable
agrichemicals remaining in each region including supportive
evidence;
Whether or not the current users pays arrangements (non funded
chemical collection, aggregation and disposal) leads to stockpiling
behaviour;
Whether or not expiry dates imposed on agrichemical products
generate more waste (chemical and packaging)
A review was called for
6
Development of guiding principles for future agrichemical
and associated container “stewardship programme(s)”,
and
Desired outcomes of the review
Note: As at 12 October 2012 the Plasback Scheme for HDPE Plastic Containers were out of scope; however we understand that work is being undertaken to bring them back into scope into the near future.
A range of options tabled
including how to
maximise the
effectiveness of current
accredited product
stewardship programmes
(chemicals and
containers).
7
WMF Deed 20102: The Project
Funding support provided via the Waste Minimisation Fund for the
Agrichemicals Review 2012 project - the grant covers 79% of the project
cost and is payable on delivery of six milestones.
PROJECT SCOPE: Engage in a collaborative process to find
ways to improve the cost-effectiveness, efficiency and
environmentally sound management of waste agricultural
chemicals and their containers in New Zealand.
8
Industry led ... Govt. Supported
This review is an industry approach supported by
government. This is not ‘just another academic exercise’ -
the expectation is that outcomes and
recommendations should be realistic rather than
theoretical, with fewer barriers to implementation.
The Ministry for the Environment has an observer
attending the Working Group meetings to monitor the
project
9
Works begun ... tight timeframes
Scoping Report (draft 1) sent to working group Sept ‘12
Next working group meeting late Nov ‘12
10
No one knows for sure how much is out there so we
can’t say for sure the extent of future financial
investment that will be required!
There will always be intractables that must be treated with HT
Incineration;
We do need to ring-fence what constitutes legacy chemicals in
order to stop the problem growing;
What we understand so far
11
Sustainable Consumption & Supply Value Chains
Evidencing sound disposal of chemicals and containers is critical to
meeting supply chain expectations for our export markets;
Supply chain and their auditors provide an integral link in the success of a
“good” scheme (e.g. GAP, AsureQuality, QCONS);
Significant gap between standards required/set by supply chain and those
required/set by local councils and all parties in-between – has an impact
on future programme design, particularly the need to model a programme
that meets our current and future evidencing of good agricultural practice
for trade.
Use of packaging and packaging types (recyclable, disposable, bulk,
reusable)
What we understand so far
12
No matter how “good” the scheme is
it will require farmers to engage with it
if it is to achieve the twin hopes of
substantial clearance of legacy materials
(chemical and packaging) and ongoing
minimisation of future stocks on farm;
Council’s financial role in the disposal of
agrichemicals potentially diminishing;
changes as a result of the review of the
Local Government Act 2002
Importance of Private / Public Partnerships
What we understand so far
13
Complexity leads to confusion
Complex eligibility criteria and funding models creates
confusion and potential barriers to interaction, and;
User pays for chemical recovery reduces effective volume
collected.
We need all brand owners in a scheme(s) to cease free
riding and to simplify the process for all products to
minimize confusion for farmers & growers;
There needs to be strong demonstrable correlation
between financial investment in a scheme (in whatever
form this occurs) and uplift in take-back activity and
quality assurance (best agricultural practice).
What we understand so far
14
Where to next?
Development of Guiding Principles
Emphasise the waste management
hierarchy
Encourage Public / Private partnerships
& community engagement
Enable System / Scheme capacity
“fit for purpose”
Embrace Sustainable Principles
Working Group meeting end Nov ’12
Are we asking for priority product
declaration?
© 2012 3R Group Limited • All rights reserved 15
SUSTAINABLE SUPPLY CHAINS
Graeme Norton
Director 3R Group Ltd
PAST PRESENT FUTURE
Extended Producer Responsibility
(EPR)
Product Stewardship
(PS)
Sustainable Consumption & [Supply] Value Chains
(SCVC)
Brand Owners Stakeholders Whole of Value Chain
16
What is Product Stewardship? … understanding where we’ve been and where we’re going …
Collaboration
17
Sustainable Consumption & [Supply] Value Chains (SCVC)
Sustainable Consumption
Build a vision and a pathway for a sustainable consumption by 2050
Sustainable Value Chains
Help companies to improve the sustainability of their value chains
World Business Council for Sustainable Development / Vision 2050
18
Collaboration between the value chain … what are the drivers?
Reputation (NZ Inc),
Risk &
Opportunity!
Reputation Consumers, media, investors, suppliers
Purchasers of our produce are asking how we are applying sustainability principles to the products we produce?
19
Risk Extreme weather events, water scarcity, supplier impacts
Understanding health and safety risks of stockpiled chemicals
Integration of compliance and evidencing issues - can support G.A.P, recycling and safe disposal activity
By 2050 – some 8 Million people live well within the limits of NZ
SBC, Vision 2050
Collaboration between the value chain … what are the drivers?
20
Opportunity
Design improvements &
Opportunities for innovation
Moving from measuring travel emissions to indirect emissions from raw materials and use/disposal of products
Innovation in packaging and use of chemical application
LeaderBrand use 40-50 tonnes of agrichemical products
p.a; they minimise usage through Integrated Pest
Management programmes & application technology (GPS)
which results in reduced volume of chemicals used;
packaging minimised through use of returnable bulk
containers
“LeaderBrand’s vertical integration allows capture of any
benefit and provides consistency and speed of adoption along
the value chain” Reagan Bayly, LeaderBrand Produce Ltd
Collaboration between the value chain … what are the drivers?
21
The role of the supply chain and the Agrichemical Review project
NZ Inc
Responsibilities of all parties in the working group
Relevance to Project
PUBLIC / PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS
Don Chittock
Programme Manager, Waste & Hazardous
Substances Environment Canterbury
Brief origin of PPP
• 1970’s & 80’s
– pressure around public debt
– Public procurement based
• 1990’s
– negotiated individually – one off deals
– Infrastructure based
Current PPP aspect
• Collaborative & network management
– More strategic
– Trust focussed ‘partnership’
– Economic and social change
• Informal strategic partnerships to design
build finance and operate
Regional Perspective
• Challenge
– Strategic partnership with industry vs.
bureaucratic approach
– Example: Pollution Prevention Programme
• Voluntary advocacy based EMP
– Targeted industry groups and business - IAG
• Outcome:
– Access to IAG service providers (panel beaters)
– IAG wrote PPP into service level agreements.
Regional Perspective
• Focussed on outcomes
– Collaboration with industry = Solution
– Example: Air Quality
• Industry association secured project funding
– Improve wood fuel quality in home heating
• Outcome:
– Council seeking improved air quality
• Industry seeking to maintain market
Key Factors
• Relationship development takes time
– Challenge views - seek commonality
– Constructive & collaborative ‘win-win’
– Leveraging of position
• Stronger ‘fix’ or solution
– Industry supported & community benefit
– Other opportunities
A HAZARDOUS WASTE OFFICERS
PERSPECTIVE
FRED KING
Hazardous Waste Advisor Hawkes Bay Regional Council
Outline of
Information • Operation of HBRC Unwanted Agrichemical
collection
• Practical Issues – collecting from Growers
• Why HBRC believes Mandatory product Stewardship
is required
Operation of HBRC
Unwanted Agrichemical
Collection • Started 1994 – a “one off” collection – 18 years later
• Purpose – reduce legacy stocks / education re
storage
• 24/7 operation – free
• Collected 110 tonnes
• Cost - $1.6 million
• Averaging 4.5 to 5 tonne per year
Practical Issues
With Collecting
From Growers • Conservative by nature – wary of Council
involvement
• Hard to reach with advertising
• Suffering from information overload / paperwork
• Focus on economic survival
• Older growers reluctant to give up
agrichemicals
• Burying of agrichemicals – audits
• Do not prepare agrichemicals for collection
• Property sales – requirement for disposal
Why HBRC believes
Mandatory Product
Stewardship is required • HBRC collection currently funded by general rates
• Local Government reform may reduce or stop funding
• HB region is reliant on export of primary produce
• Refusal of Growers to pay
• Financial crisis in Europe – subsidies
• National system for the collection of legacy
agrichemicals
• All Manufacturers & Growers will have to take more
responsibility for agrichemicals
• Mandatory Product Stewardship will enable on-going
funding for collections
Waste Minimisation Act 2008 (WMA)
• The Waste Minimisation Act provides a framework for product stewardship to reduce waste from products.
• Product stewardship means that producers, brand owners, importers, retailers, consumers and other parties take responsibility for the environmental effects of their products – from ‘cradle-to-grave’.
• Can be Voluntary or Legislative
• Legislative = Mandatory Product Stewardship - Regulations define duration of the PS scheme, expected waste reduction & environmental benefits, time frames for implementation & receiving benefits, reporting & information requirements that must be provided; will bring with it requirements to meet Ministerial guidelines.
39
Product Stewardship and Legislation … what do we have to work with?…
Regulations may or may not be made
Requirements for a product
stewardship scheme to become
accredited
(Section 14, WMA 2008)
Application to Minister for scheme accreditation
(Section 13, WMA 2008)
Accreditation of product stewardship scheme. if it
meets the requirements and is likely to achieve
good outcomes. (Section 15, WMA 2008)
Priority product
declaration
(Section 9, WMA 2008) Not a Priority Product
Nothing more
needs to happen
under Part 2 of
the Act..
Ministerial Guidelines for priority
product product stewardship
schemes (Section 12, WMA 2008)
An accredited scheme may
- be varied (Section 16)
- expire (Section 17)
- be revoked (Section 18)
Scheme(s) implemented
Voluntary product
stewardship scheme
may be developed (if a
business decides to)
(Section11 of WMA)
Product stewardship scheme
must be developed
(Section 10, WMA 2008)
Sale of priority products only in
accordance with an accredited scheme
(Section 22, WMA 2008)
Product Stewardship – Part 2, Waste Minimisation Act 2008 (WMA)
Responsibility of this working group is to
A) Propose a set of guiding principles for a future
agrichemical and associated container product
stewardship programme that will support optimal
economic, social and environmental outcomes.
B) Include a range of options which will effectively contribute
to the safe disposal of legacy agrichemicals including
clean up of current stocks and mechanisms to ensure
that stockpiles do not build up again.
C) To include partnerships and connections with regional
councils and industry
D) That supports NZ meeting its obligations under the
Stockholm Convention including phasing out pathway,
nationwide “clean, green NZ” and “NZ Inc” strategies;
and
E) Enables producers to demonstrate safe and appropriate
disposal of agrichemicals and associated packaging to
the supply chain to satisfy requirements of NZ trading
partners
F) Address compliance with regulations (eg RMA, HASNO
etc)
G) Consider regulations which may / may not be applied
( as per Section 22 and 23 WMA 2008) that may be
necessary for effective functioning of a product
stewardship scheme for agrichemical and associated
containers
Responsibility of the Minister for the Environment
Before the Minister declares a priority product he or she must :
-- obtain advice from the Waste Advisory Board,
-- consider public concerns,
-- provide the public with an opportunity to comment, and
-- consider the effectiveness of any relevant voluntary product stewardship scheme
(Section 9, WMA 2008,).
Responsibility of the Agrichemicals 2012 Working Group is to
A) Provide sufficient evidence that the current voluntary product stewardship programmes
are not sufficiently effective relation to the product (agrichemicals and their associated
packaging), in terms of risk of harm from waste and/or benefits from recycling (Ref
WMA sections 9(1)(2) and 9(3)(d).
Regulations may or may not be made in relation to
products (whether or not priority products)
(Section 23, WMA 2008)
• Controls on disposal, manufacture or sale
• take-back services, fees, or refundable deposits
• Labeling of products
• Quality standards for reuse, recycling or recovery
• Collection and provision of information
Page31