Annex A
IRELAND
1. The Irish plastic bag levy entered into
force on the 4 March 2002, in response to a consultancy study
on plastic bags (1999) commissioned by the Irish government. In
addition to potential environmental impacts, the study gave consideration
to issues relating to administrative costs, secondary environmental
impact and effects on employment.
2. A range of differing policy options to
address the environmental problems created by plastic bags were
identified, with the conclusion that some form of levy offered
the most appropriate means of reducing the consumption (and subsequent
disposal) of plastic shopping bags. It was decided that the levy
should be introduced at the point of sale, in order to adhere
more tightly to the "polluter pays" principle. The purpose
of the levy is to discourage the use of plastic bags by consumers
in order to protect the environment, decrease the amount of litter
and reduce the volumes going to landfill each year.
3. The levy is set at 15 cents (or 9 pence)
for every plastic bag used by consumers at retail outlets (supermarkets,
service stations and other sales outlets), and is added onto their
till receipt. Levies collected by the retailers are remitted to
Revenue on a quarterly basis. The monies collected from the levy
are paid into an Environment Fund that will be used to finance
a range of waste management, litter and other relevant initiatives
aimed at protecting the environment.
4. Although some consumers initially viewed
the levy as just another assault on their wallets, evidence suggests
that reactions to the levy have generally been positive, and that
the number of disposable polyethylene bags being used by consumers
has decreased. The tax has been in place for nine months and no
rigorous assessment has yet been done. However, the Irish Environment
Department has stated that the levy has already led to a 90% decrease
in the number of bags used. However, there appears to have been
an increase in purchases of bin bags and some anecdotal evidence
of an increase in shoplifting (with some customers not using any
sort of bag, it is difficult to be sure that the goods have been
paid for).
5. Supermarkets in Ireland have tended to
support the levy because it saves them the cost of supplying plastic
bags to customers. According to Superquinn, one of the biggest
supermarket chains in Ireland, the number of bags it distributes
since the introduction of the levy has decreased by 97.5%. Tesco
Ireland has estimated that the levy will reduce its distribution
of plastic bags to consumers by 40%. Anecdotal evidence suggests
that some retailers have changed to paper from the traditional
plastic bag, in order to avoid passing the levy onto customers.
6. The Irish Business and Employers Confederation
(IBEC) have reported that businesses' views towards the levy have
been mixed, but overall supportive, due largely to the wide-ranging
consultation that took place prior to its implementation. Meanwhile
in the United States, the Film and Bag Federation, a trade association
representing the plastic film and bag industry, has stated that
it has met with the US Department of Commerce in order to discuss
the potential impact of the Irish policy (along with similar policies
of other countries) on the ability of US manufacturers to conduct
business in such countries. The Commerce Department has stated
its intention to continue to monitor the compliance of such countries
with international trading rules.
OTHER COUNTRIES
7. Elsewhere in the world, more stringent
policy instruments have been introduced to deal with the environmental
and nuisance impacts associated with the use and disposal of plastic
bags:
— South Africa—in
November 2001, the South African Cabinet prohibited the distribution
of thin plastic grocery bags (thinner than 80 micrometers), which
was due to be effective from January 2003. However, in the
face of fierce resistance from the packaging and retail industries,
the government has hinted it may relax this regulation.
— Bangladesh—in
March 2002, polythene bags were banned after they were found to
have been one of the key causes of the 1998 floods which led to
the inundation of approximately two-thirds of the country. It
was discovered that discarded plastic bags were choking the drainage
system.
— Taiwan—has taken
steps to ban the distribution of free plastic shopping bags in
an effort to cut down on pollution. The law is being gradually
phased in and will apply first to government agencies, schools
and the military first, and will later be expanded to include
supermarkets, fast food outlets and department stores.
— India - the council
in Bombay banned plastic bags in 2000 in order to stop them littering
streets and clogging up the city's sewerage system. It has recently
stepped up its campaign by undertaking police raids on factories
and shops that may be manufacturing or handling them.
REACTION IN
UK
8. There was considerable media interest
in the Irish scheme that in turn stimulated interest amongst organised
and disparate groups within the UK:
— Consumers—According
to a BBC News survey carried out on shoppers in Belfast, mixed
views exist on the potential introduction of a plastic bag levy
in the UK. A number supported any potential levy and viewed it
as a useful tool for reducing waste. However, some members of
the public stated that they used the bags for collecting their
household waste and that they would not be in favour of the introduction
of charges.
— Food Retailers—Supermarket
chains have publicly provided a wary response to the potential
introduction of a tax, saying their own bag recycling schemes
are doing the job. Sainsbury's, for example have estimated that
their "Bag for Life" campaign has led to a 64 million
reduction in the numbers of new plastic bags supplied to consumers.
A representative from Tesco has commented that additional regulation,
particularly in the taxation field may be unpopular with consumers
as well as commenting that it would be bad for business, and that
it could have unforeseen and unintended consequences. Safeway
(now Morrisons) considers that retailers are already being taxed
on carrier bags in the form of the UK packaging regulations, and
that any additional taxation imposed on them (should the UK choose
to impose the levy upon retailers and not consumers) would be
viewed as a double tax. However, the annual cost to retailers
of giving away eight billion bags is estimated to be in the order
of £1 billion, and therefore the introduction of a tax discouraging
their use by consumers is likely to result in significant savings
to the retail industry.
— Non-food Retailers—Department
stores and clothes and shoe chains feel that their interests have
not featured in the debate. While their usage of plastic bags
is less, it is still significant and their bags tend to be of
a higher quality than the bags used by food retailers. The other
main difference is that their customers did not necessarily go
out to buy something from their store so would not come prepared
(eg by bringing a store plastic bag). Those stores that have turned
to paper bags have had a significant increase in their transport
costs (including fuel usage), because of the greater bulk.
— Industry Associations—The
British Plastics Federation along with the Packaging and Industrial
Films Association have argued that the introduction of a levy
on plastic bags would result in "insignificant" environmental
improvements due to the fact that plastics manufacture requires
significantly less energy than for other materials, such as paper.
— Bio-degradable Plastic Bag
Manufacturers—These manufacturers believe their
products are more environmentally sound and this fact should be
reflected in any new policy.
|
