welcome to the agrichem review 2012 workshop

© 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


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)


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


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).


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?


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


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


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

AGRICHEMICALS

REVIEW 2012

A HAZARDOUS WASTE OFFICER’S

PERSPECTIVE

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

PANEL DISCUSSION

Questions?

37

ADDITIONAL SLIDES WHICH MIGHT

BE REQUIRED

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


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


Sale of priority products only in

accordance with an accredited scheme


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)


• 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

welcome to the agrichem review 2012 workshop

Documents