Formulating the National Waste Policy is going to be a long, hard road. Nick Harford says industry must engage now.

Many industry players were rubbing their hands in anticipation leading up to the agreement on a new national waste policy. In September, one e-waste recycler told a Sydney gathering: “When government legislation comes in later this year, we will be getting something like 20 or so dollars a unit.” Legislation later this year? Legislation even by the end of 2010 will be a startling achievement.

It’s not the only incongruous perspective on timing. The Waste Management Association of Australia (WMAA) expressed impatience at the lengthy timeframe while some government officials have expressed exasperation at its brevity.

By usual standards, the timetable for developing such a complex national policy was short, just 12 months to conduct consultation, undertake research, complete assessments, develop proposals and reach consensus on complex policy that is primarily the responsibility of eight individual jurisdictions.

This frenetic pace will need to be sustained to maintain momentum, so industry players in particular must step up early in 2010 to contribute the leadership needed to breathe life into the policy.

While the promised ‘State of Waste Report’ and other documentation are still pending, the next main step of the process is development of the implementation plan and next steps for release in July 2010. It is again a tight timeframe, especially as most matters are debated and agreed well before the actual meeting – so industry has to be clear now on what it wants and communicate that to national, state, territory and local government officials.

Ramifications for industry
The recycler’s statement above sheds light on key problems for industry. First, there is patchy understanding of the machinery of government. It may have been a long time since the last national policy in 1992, but it takes work and time to embed a policy as comprehensive and complex as this one, especially given its 16 separate strategies.

Second, too many in industry have not been fully engaged. Detailed input is needed to bridge the yawning chasm between policy and practice.

An obvious start is national classifications and definitions (strategy four). State and territory governments are going to need industry guidance, an issue repeatedly and consistently raised in the consultation sessions and submissions.

For example, and as recently reported in WME (October 2009), there are concerns with clinical and medical wastes and a nationally consistent standard and application of regulations. Another is the fundamental issue that some jurisdictions classify secondary resource material as waste, meaning inequality relative to similar materials as well as added licensing and reporting requirements for recycling operators.

Jurisdictions cling to their classifications with passion. The different definitions and classifications have been built on localised needs and are integrated within a range of collection, reporting and regulatory processes. For jurisdictions whose definitions and classifications are not consistent with whatever ends up in the national system, it will trigger a range of other changes to definitions and perhaps operation.

Industry argues that the differences create costs for them, but the change required from governments carries costs too. To grasp this opportunity to streamline systems, industry will need to argue the broader costs and benefits to all stakeholders, and not just self-interest.

The legal aspect
Another gap needing input is the potential impact the policy and associated regulatory changes will have on existing laws and regulations.

Strategy one of the policy envisages a number of schemes under the national product stewardship framework within three years and a number of voluntary schemes accredited within four years. This is going to impact the National Packaging Covenant (NPC) and legislation such as the Environmental Resource Efficiency Plans (EREP) in Victoria.

While the Environment Protection and Heritage Council has agreed to a new NPC, the commitment to getting schemes in place in three years means the NPC would be an attractive scheme to put under the national umbrella. It is well developed, understood by stakeholders, supported by jurisdictions and operating. It could easily be one of the ‘number’ needed.

NPC players should also note strategies two and six, which commit all governments to embody and promote sustainable procurement practices in their operations, and share knowledge with and encourage industry to do the same.

They are enlightened aspirations, and entirely consistent with NPC objectives. Will they therefore override the NPC by taking procurement of all products and packaging to a higher level?

For EREP the issue is one of coordination rather than potential integration. EREP includes waste as an environmental factor for which liable companies must report and present improvement plans. Strategies 10 and 11 of the national waste policy mimic this approach.

Currently, EREP applies to energy, water and waste, with any company tripping thresholds liable to address all three elements – so can the waste element within EREP be excised to satisfy this strategy? If not, will Victoria require company participation under the national waste policy plus EREP compliance?

Pooling corporate knowledge
The next steps for a national waste and resource recovery data system (strategy 16) may be apparent ahead of the implementation plan as a report on the proposed framework is expected imminently. Nonetheless, industry has already expressed disappointment that development is expected to take five years.

Therein lies an opportunity. The Australian Council of Recyclers represents 85 per cent of recycling activity in the country and WMAA has 1,000 members – add in the Waste Contractors and Recyclers Association (NSW and Queensland) and there is a formidable pool of corporate knowledge that could expedite the process.

An added twist in delivering the meat on the national waste policy bones is that any change not only requires consultation with eight states and territories and the Federal Government, but also the multiple departments within each jurisdiction. Industry, health, treasury, environment and others have an investment to protect. When policy turns into legislation, you then add a raft of impact statements and analysis to contend with as well.

Industry response to the national waste policy has so far been supportive but awaiting more details. Well, industry can’t wait for the details. The next phase is here and the deadlines are closing fast.

The policy is a fundamental shift that is a good opportunity for industry. It moves away from an end of pipe approach and offers strategies that can grow the industry through shared responsibility, less duplication, improved market intelligence, lighter touch regulation and support for innovation.

It may have been a long time since 1992, but in many ways the hard work on a national waste policy is just starting.

Nick Harford is MD of sustainability strategy and management company Equilibrium OMG. More at nick@eqlomg.com