States Assembly | Report - Reducing use of plastics in Jersey

The official version of this document can be found via the PDF button.

The below content has been automatically generated from the original PDF and some formatting may have been lost, therefore it should not be relied upon to extract citations or propose amendments.

PDF version

Reducing use of plastics in Jersey

Environment, Housing and Infrastructure Scrutiny Panel

8th March 2019 S.R.5/2019

Contents

4 Government initiatives to reduce plastic usage ..........................................................26 Jersey: the current position ........................................................................................................................... 26 Collaborative working ............................................................................................................................. 26

Chairman's Foreword

Our review on reducing plastics in Jersey was stimulated by the Blue Planet II TV series and the significant public interest which followed. There are a number of individuals, groups and businesses that have raised public awareness of the risks of doing nothing, so the Panel considered an examination of what we are doing or what could be done in Jersey would be appropriate.

We have tried to be pragmatic in our recommendations in the knowledge that plastics can be extremely important in terms of hygiene in the medical and food supply industries. The use of plastic sheeting in Jersey's potato growing industry is crucial and PVC windows and doors are common in many buildings.

One of the issues we felt to be of great concern was the end of life' disposal process and whether what was being offered by Government was adequate to deal with lifestyle changes, industrial and public need.

It is clear that there is an appetite to recycle but if we are to raise our percentages it has to be made easier. Kerbside collections are picking up momentum and public demand will doubtless stimulate this, spreading eventually throughout the island. There is a cost to this, however, and our island situation dictates that transportation costs of recyclables to the UK or France will reduce potential financial returns. It may well be that Government will find itself having to accept higher costs if Jersey is to increase its recycling rates or put effort into the reduction in the use of single-use plastics in the island.

The creation of the recycling centre at La Collette and the various satellite bring banks' throughout the island have proved to be well received and effective but there is more that could be done in terms of public waste bins, plastic bottle and recyclable collection points. Co- ordination of effort between the Infrastructure Department and the Parish of St. Helier appeared to be lacking and whilst the Parish kerbside collection arrangements are relatively efficient; Government refuse vehicles are collecting unsorted refuse from public bins throughout the island.

There is work to be done in the areas of worn out fishing gear and plastic fibres in the sea and this must receive early consideration by the Government Departments responsible, if we are to play our part in keeping our waters clean for future generations.

Connétable Mike Jackson

Chairman

Environment, Housing and Infrastructure Scrutiny Panel

Executive Summary

Plastic is an extremely useful material for many aspects of modern day living. However, the devastating effects of plastic pollution, on a global scale, are ever-increasing. Countries around the world are starting to take action against plastic pollution. Notably, the European Union announced it will be banning all avoidable single-use plastics. The evidence gathered from submissions to this review, generally suggests a high level of support for such bans, as well as the introduction of a plastic' tax to reduce and discourage the use of single-use plastics. The Government of Jersey, however, is yet to take such robust action.

Public engagement on how to reduce plastic consumption and on the recycling of plastic bottles is currently carried out by the Government of Jersey's Eco active programme on limited resources. The Panel considers that there needs to be much higher profile government public relations and engagement on the issue of plastics.

Local businesses which use or sell plastic materials, particularly plastic packaging, also have an important role to play and many businesses are taking steps to reduce plastic packaging. Evidence obtained during this review reveals that they often face challenges in doing so and further government support is needed to reduce plastic consumption. For those who have been able to start taking steps already, this will help them to achieve their targets sooner.

Jersey's plastic recycling rate for plastic bottles is 6% and whilst only an estimated figure, it is much lower than plastic packaging recycling rates achieved by other countries around the world. Jersey currently only recycles plastics bottles, agricultural crop cover and supermarket film and whilst the estimated figure for plastic bottles is 6%, the figures for the latter two plastic materials are not known. In order to set realistic recycling targets into the future, the Panel considers that there needs to be more robust methods for calculating the amount of plastic waste in the waste stream and, specifically, how much of this is recycled and incinerated. Jersey's Waste Strategy was last published in 2005, the Panel has recommended the Government of Jersey revisit the strategy as a matter of priority in 2019 and that tackling plastic reduction should be a prominent feature within the new strategy.

In addition, the findings of this report indicate that there needs to be a more unified and consistent approach to kerbside recycling collections, with currently only half of the Parishes offering this. Other alternative approaches Jersey could look to introduce to encourage plastic reduction are public water fountains / refill stations and a bottle deposit scheme.

The importation of plastic packaging into Jersey has its challenges, however there are various economic and regulatory policy levers which can be utilised by government to reduce and minimise the amount of plastic coming into the island, especially with regard to avoidable single-use plastics for which other eco-friendly alternatives exist. Manufacturer obligations due to be imposed by the EU will also go some way towards influencing the market on plastic packaging.

In consideration of the Panel's findings, a number of key recommendations follow on in this report. The two main recommendations are that Jersey should adopt the same regulatory bans the EU are looking to introduce on many single-use plastics; and that Parishioners should look to encourage the remaining six Parishes to offer kerbside recycling collection schemes.

Key Findings

Plastic pollution is a global issue which causes harm to the environment in the form of air, water and land pollution and has negative effects on plant life, wildlife and the human population.

Plastics have some extremely useful purposes such as for the safe and hygienic transportation of food, for medical purposes and some evidence even suggested that plastic materials which are able to sink in the ocean can promote bio-diversity. It is also an extremely useful material for the fishing and agricultural industries.

The European Union is introducing rules to target the 10 most common single-use plastics found on Europe's beaches. Where alternatives are readily available and affordable, single-use plastic products will be banned from the market.

Jersey currently only recycles agricultural and supermarket film and plastic bottles and it is estimated that only 6% of all plastic bottles that enter Jersey's waste stream are recycled.

Currently, only 6 out of the 12 Parishes carry out kerbside recycling and the plastic bottles collected are exported to the UK for recycling; with the exception of St. Helier , where plastic bottles are exported to France for recycling.

There is confusion amongst the public about how and what to recycle in Jersey and a public desire to recycle more types of plastics.

F7 A re-occurring theme throughout submissions was the need for more

recycling bins to be installed across the island to make it easier for people to recycle more.

Being able to recycle more types of plastic relies on there being a stable

recycling route and often there is not for the lower grades of plastic.

Previously, countries in Asia had been accepting exports from countries

around the world but has recently closed its doors to plastic waste imports. F9

There is conflicting advice about what to do with plastic bottle tops. Advice from the Department is to remove bottle caps from plastic bottles before placing in the recycling bins as they are not recyclable. However, the Panel was advised that the UK re-processor is able to recycle the bottles and the caps. The Parish of St. Helier advise to leave the caps on.

F10

If the amount of plastic waste going through the incinerator was reduced (due to a higher rate of recycling) this would not impact negatively on the plant's efficiencies, in fact it would help extend its lifetime. Recycling is placed above energy recovery in the waste management hierarchy but below reuse, minimization and prevention which is preferential.

F11

The Government of Jersey programme, Eco active has been working in partnership with the Surfer's Against Sewage organisation on the Plastic Free Jersey' campaign which is centred around raising public awareness to reduce plastic usage. Currently there are no other regulatory or economic policy levers being implemented by government to complement awareness campaigns.

F12

Jersey does not appear to have a clear strategy on how to tackle plastic litter (or litter in general) and the last time the waste strategy was looked at was 2005.

F13

Analysis of a range of models from other countries demonstrates a wide range of policy instruments and initiatives, which used in conjunction with one another, appear to be where countries achieve successfully higher rates of plastic recycling. Bans, taxes, public water fountains and a bottle deposit scheme were the most popular initiatives highlighted in submissions to the Panel.

F14 A significant number of submissions called for businesses to eliminate or ban' was a popular phrase – single-use plastics from their business.

F15

Many businesses are already taking steps to eliminate and/or reduce single- use plastics where possible/practical but submissions highlighted there are still challenges that they face and a need for more government support, engagement and awareness raising initiatives.

F16

In 2015, plastic packaging waste accounted for 47% of plastic waste generated globally. The importation of some plastic packaging is necessary for the safe and hygienic transportation of foods, although some single-use plastic items could be eliminated such as plastic straws, provided provision is made for the disabled.

F17 Some businesses find it difficult to eliminate many single-use plastics which

are imported by external suppliers and so feel limited to the extent to which they can eliminate plastic packaging.

F18

There are effective policy levers which can be utilised to target the manufacturer / producer and the most effective are the internationally based ones such as the EU directive.

Recommendations

The Panel recommends measures should be put in place to properly assess how much plastic packaging waste is generated in Jersey, specifically, how much is incinerated and how much is recycled by Q1 2020.

The Panel recommends Parish administrations which are currently not offering recycling, present an appropriate, properly costed recycling scheme to their respective Parish Assemblies at the earliest possible opportunity (taking into consideration current contracts). Parishes with existing recycling schemes already in place should consider setting recycling targets.

The Panel recommends that further consideration is given to the planning approval process to ensure that recycling-friendly infrastructure is included as a necessary requirement in future developments across the island and that this should be incorporated into the new Island Plan 2021.

The Panel recommends that more priority and resources should be given to public relations and engagement in respect of recycling, in order to send out a clear message to the public of how and what to recycle. This should be undertaken by Q3 2019.

The Panel recommends that the Department substantially increases the number of public three-compartment recycling bins across the island by Q2 2020.

The Panel recommends that as part of public awareness campaigns, it is important that a clear message is given to the public as to why it might not be possible to recycle other (lower) grades of plastic by Q3 2019.

The Panel recommends that the Department liaise with Jayplas recycling plant to investigate the possibility of Jersey's bottle caps being recycled and report back to the Panel by Q2 2019.

The Panel recommends that the Department, in collaboration with Jersey Dairy, assess in further detail the feasibility and commercial viability of Jersey recycling milk cartons and provide the Panel with the outcome of this analysis by Q3 2019.

The Panel recommends that the Minister for the Environment and the Minister for Infrastructure work in collaboration to produce a clear, joined up strategy on single-use plastics by Q3 2019.

R10

The Panel recommends that the waste strategy, having last been published in 2005, needs to be revisited as a priority and that a plastic litter strategy is incorporated as part of this strategy. Furthermore, the Panel recommends that as part of the waste strategy, the option of a waste charge for household refuse bags is explored further, including monitoring the Guernsey model for any lessons learned by Q2 2020.

R11

The Panel recommends that budgetary allowances need to be made a priority to enable the Department to undertake monitoring of pollutants in marine species by Q4 2019.

R12

The Panel recommends that following the introduction of any new policy initiatives, whether levies, bans, or other, that sufficient monitoring practices are put in place from the outset to enable their impact to be measured appropriately.

R13 The Panel recommends that initial discussions are held with the Department

and Jersey Water by Q2 2019 regarding the installation of public water fountains and how a partnership approach might work and the outcome reported back to the Panel by Q3 2019.

R14

The Panel recommends the Department consult further with the Jersey Fishermen's Association, boat owners and yacht clubs to work out how a Fishing for Litter' scheme could operate effectively in Jersey by Q2 2019.

The Panel recommends that an initial assessment of whether Jersey has the volume of plastic bottles in circulation to make a bottle deposit return scheme work efficiently should be carried out by Q2 2020.

R16

The Panel recommends that further work is undertaken to research the range of policy measures implemented in other jurisdictions and to assess viable initiatives that can be feasibility introduced in Jersey by Q2 2020.

R17

The Panel recommends that the Department should consider the use of public-private partnerships between government and supermarkets, in order to work in collaboration to reduce plastic packaging by Q2 2019.

R18

The Panel recommends that consideration should be given to providing increased engagement and support to businesses, whether that be financial support, practical advice and partnership working between government and industry by Q3 2019.

R19

The Panel recommends that, as far as practical, measures should be put in place to assess the quantity of goods being imported which contain plastic packaging. For example, plastic bottles. This could involve working in partnership with retailers to extract data on the volume of plastic goods they import by Q4 2019.

R20 The Panel recommends that work to scope a suitable analysis of adopting

legislation in line with the EU directive of banning all avoidable single-use plastics should be undertaken by Q2 2020.

1 Introduction

At present there has been no clear and detailed strategy from Jersey's Government on reducing or eliminating single-use plastics, many of which are now avoidable with the availability of affordable environmentally friendly alternatives. The Common Strategic Policy 2018-22, approved by the States on 4th December 2018, pledges to reduce plastic waste and review options for a coordinated and consistent Island-wide recycling programme but there is still no commitment to follow the European Union with regards to issuing bans on all avoidable single-use plastics.

The aim of the Panel's Review was to understand how Jersey can reduce its use of plastics. The Panel's membership and Terms of Reference for the Review can be found in Appendix 1 of this report.

Predominantly, the focus is on single-use plastics as these have been identified as the main contributor to plastic pollution. However, other types of plastics such as abandoned fishing gear are also a cause for concern in the environment.

Single-use plastics are commonly used for plastic packaging and are generally intended to be used only once before they are thrown away or recycled. Some examples of items include shopping bags, food packaging, bottles, straws, containers, cups and cutlery.

The Panel received evidence from a range of sources including: written submissions, fact- finding visits, posts to social media, a social media poll and public hearings. A public call for evidence' was advertised on local radio and newspaper and through social media channels. In addition to this, the Panel wrote to 18 local businesses and organisations to request written submissions. A total of 9 out of 18 responded to the requests. Overall, the Panel received 36 submissions to the Review. Public hearings were held with the Minister for Infrastructure, Minister for the Environment and the Director of JPRestaurants.

In addition, the Panel visited Jayplas recycling plant in the UK. The purpose of this fact-finding visit was to learn more about what happens to Jersey's plastic bottles which are exported to the UK plant for recycling.

Chapter 2 will explore the global issue of plastic pollution, as well as the benefits of plastic materials. It will also examine the European Union's approach to tackling the issue.

Chapter 3 will explore how plastic waste is managed in Jersey and what environment benefit this has. It will consider Jersey's recycling of plastic and whether the current scheme is fit for purpose.

Chapter 4 will consider what Jersey' government is doing to reduce plastic consumption. It will examine other country case studies and determine whether Jersey is doing enough.

Chapter 5 will consider the role businesses can play in the reduction of plastics, as well as the challenges they face.

Chapter 6 will consider Jersey's importation of plastic packaging and any challenges this may pose in reducing plastic consumption.

2 The global issue of plastic pollution

As the world's population continues to grow, so does the amount of rubbish that people produce. On-the-go lifestyles demand easily disposable products, such as shopping bags and bottles of water, but the accumulation of these products, amongst many others, has led to increasing amounts of plastic pollution around the world.

Plastic is composed of major toxic pollutants and has the potential to cause great harm to the environment in the form of air, water and land pollution. Plastic pollution creates problems for plants, wildlife, and the human population. Often this includes destruction of plant life and posing dangers to local animals. Plastic is an incredibly useful material, but as it is made for durability, it is not biodegradable. The main types of plastic and their acronyms are listed below, along with their common uses:

Figure 1 - Main polymers used in the production of single-use plastics [1]

As reported on the BBC's Blue Planet II in 2017, the effects of plastic pollution on marine wildlife is particularly devastating, and as further shown in Figure 2 below.

Figure 2 - United Nations Environment Programme, A Roadmap to Sustainability, 2018

The ingestion of plastic by marine species, in particular, raises concerns over plastic pollutants entering the human food chain. This was highlighted by Jersey Marine Conservation in their submission to the review:

Here in Jersey substantial quantities of plastic are ending up in our sea and water systems. As the plastic and chemical quantities increase in our local species, the quantities of safely edible fish and other marine life will diminish [2].

As highlighted in a further submission to the Panel's review, the threat"s o f plastic pollution extend even further than marine life. Plastic particles pollute our soil, with it being estimated

that one third of all plastic waste ends up in soil or freshwater. This only adds to concerns that plastic is entering the food chain [3].

A recent small study conducted by the Medical University of Vienna found that microplastics were found present in human stools. The study only consisted of 8 participants from Europe, Japan and Russia and little is known about the effects microplastics have once they enter the human body, but nonetheless the findings have prompted concerns and a call for further research in this area [4]. Whilst the study acknowledges that the effects of microplastics in the human body are not yet known, chemicals used in the manufacturing of plastic are known to be toxic. The Panel heard evidence about additives in plastics, such as Bisphenol A (BPA), which is an endocrine disruptor which can imitate and interfere with the body's hormones. Furthermore, chemical pollutants called Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) found in plastics

Source: Getty Images

can have significant negative effects on human health where even low levels of POPs can lead to increased cancer risk, reproductive disorders, alteration of the immune system, neurobehavioural impairment, genotoxicity and increased chance of birth defects [5].

Plastic pollution is a global issue which causes harm to the environment in the form of air, water and land pollution and has negative effects on plant life, wildlife and the human population.

Notwithstanding clear evidence of the effects of plastic pollution on the environment and the risk it poses for human health, peer reviews will analyse such allegations – it does have some extremely useful purposes.

The Panel heard evidence from one submission which acknowledged that plastic loss to the marine environment should be minimised, although went onto explain how some plastic materials remain essential for marine activities and a simple increase in lime filler could in fact help to enhance ocean bio-diversity by creating sites for biological settlement where some subtidal areas around the world are currently deserts' due to lack of settlement surfaces [6]. In addition to this, a further submission suggested that the plastic rope used in lobster pots has a long life and that old disused pots often provide a good habitat for juvenile shellfish [7].

Conversely, a further submission indicated that many plastic objects encountered during marine surveys are breaking down and that if algae forms on the plastic then potentially particles will be digested by various marine species, since this is a key food source. Furthermore, Jersey Marine Conservation has not seen significant reef growth on such items as sunken buoys on the sea bed, with the exception of crabs which appeared to favour them [8]. It was further suggested that synthetic rope attached to old pots (and even new ones) causes significant damage to small reefs and the sea grass around Jersey. The tidal range and strong current causes the rope to act like a saw and as it rubs against rocks small strands continuously break away. It was acknowledged though that there is not a natural substitute strong enough to replace synthetic rope [9].

In another submission it was highlighted that plastic straws are essential in some cases for disabled people to be able to drink hot drinks, as paper straws are not suitable for this purpose [10]. The case for the necessity of plastics in the medical industry, extends much further than this where the need for disposable, sterile plastic materials is vital for hygiene purposes and infection and disease control.

Furthermore, plastic packaging serves a functional purpose in regard to food safety and for the safe, hygienic transportation of food [11]. The Panel also heard evidence that the agricultural industry also relies heavily on polythene for potato crop cover in order to increase soil temperature, for soil conditioning and also some degree of frost protection [12]. A submission

from the Jersey Fishermen's Association also highlighted that there is currently no suitable alternative material for trawl netting, currently made from polypropylene, and there is unlikely to be any replacement to this material in the near future [13].

That being said, there is still much more that can be done to reduce the amount of plastic we consume globally and many plastic materials are avoidable. On 28 May 2018, the European Commission proposed new EU-wide rules to target the 10 single-use plastic products most often found on Europe's beaches and seas, as well as lost and abandoned fishing gear. Together these constitute 70% of all marine litter items.

The new rules are proportionate and tailored to get the best results. This means different measures will be applied to different products. Where alternatives are readily available and affordable, single-use plastic products will be banned from the market. For products without straight-forward alternatives, the focus is on limiting their use through a national reduction in consumption; design and labelling requirements and waste management/clean-up obligations for producers [14].

Concretely, the new rules will introduce:

Plastic ban on certain products

Where alternatives are readily available and affordable, single-use plastic products will be banned from the market. The ban will apply to plastic cotton buds, cutlery, plates, straws, drink stirrers and sticks for balloons which will all have to be made exclusively from more sustainable materials instead. Single-use drinks containers made with plastic will only be allowed on the market if their caps and lids remain attached.

Consumption reduction targets

Member States will have to reduce the use of plastic food containers and drinks cups. They can do so by setting national reduction targets, making alternative products available at the point of sale, or ensuring that single-use plastic products cannot be provided free of charge.

Obligations for producers

Producers will help cover the costs of waste management and clean-up, as well as awareness raising measures for food containers, packets and wrappers (such as for crisps and sweets), drinks containers and cups, tobacco products with filters (such as cigarette butts), wet wipes, balloons, and lightweight plastic bags. The industry will also be given incentives to develop less polluting alternatives for these products.

Collection targets

Member States will be obliged to collect 90% of single-use plastic drinks bottles by 2025, for example through deposit refund schemes.

Labelling Requirements

Certain products will require clear and standardised labelling which will indicate how waste should be disposed, their recommended disposal route, the negative environmental impact of the product, and the presence of plastics in the products. This will apply to sanitary towels, wet wipes and balloons.

Awareness-raising measures

Member States will be obliged to raise consumers' awareness about the negative impact of littering of single-use plastics and fishing gear as well as about the available re-use systems and waste management options for all these products.

3 How plastic waste is managed in Jersey

The Panel visited Jersey's Energy Recovery Facility and the Household Reuse & Recycling Centre in July 2018 in order to learn more about how plastic waste is dealt with.

Recycling in Jersey

Recycling rate

Jersey currently recycles agricultural and supermarket film and Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) and Higher Density Polyethylene (HDPE) plastic bottles [15]. It is estimated that only 6% of all plastic bottles that enter Jersey's waste stream are recycled. The remaining 94% are incinerated. The EU sets a target recycling rate for plastic packaging of 22.5% for its member states. However, generally, countries tend to supersede this figure and the average recycling rate for plastic packaging across all of Europe in 2016 was 40.9%[16]. It should be emphasised that Jersey's rate is only an estimation which is calculated by looking at the amount of plastic bottles received for recycling and the general waste received for energy recovery. Jersey also recycles agricultural crop cover and supermarket film, although the recycling rate for these plastics is not available. As a result, the Panel questions how accurate Jersey's rate of 6% is. Similarly, the UK's estimated rate is calculated as follows [17]:

amount of plastic packaging waste recycled Recycling rate

amount of plastic packaging waste generated

The Panel recommends that in order to get a more accurate picture of what Jersey's recycling rate is, measures should be put in place to properly assess how much plastic packaging waste is generated in Jersey and how much of this is recycled. Having more robust data will best inform how to set realistic recycling targets going into the future.

Jersey currently only recycles agricultural and supermarket film and plastic bottles and it is estimated that only 6% of all plastic bottles that enter Jersey's waste stream are recycled.

Kerbside collections

Currently, only six out of Jersey's twelve Parishes administer kerbside recycling collections:

St. Brelade

St. Helier

St. John

St. Lawrence

St. Mary

Trinity

Grouville

St. Saviour

St. Martin

St. Ouen

St. Peter

St. Clement

For those Parishes which do, leaflets are distributed to Parishioners explaining how the household recycling collection works. A copy of the Parish of St. Brelade leaflet is provided as an example in Appendix 2. Plastic bottles which are collected through the kerbside collections or at the bring bank stations are exported to UK recycling plant - Jayplas. The PET grade plastic bottles are recycled into items such as food packaging trays.

On a visit to Jayplas the Panel witnessed first-hand how Jersey's plastic bottles are recycled. The Panel also visited the Abbey Waste depot in Jersey. Abbey Waste are contracted by the Government of Jersey to process the plastic into bales and arrange the shipping of the bales to Jayplas. The Panel was informed that the shipments of plastic bales that Jayplas receive from Jersey are considered to be some of the best quality higher grade plastics (PET and HDPE) with very little contamination of lower grade or undesirable materials. It is clear to the Panel following these visits, that Jersey's exported plastic bottles are recycled within the UK. The Panel also learnt that Abbey Waste have adequate facilities to cope with increased amounts of plastic, should demand for recycling increase. To learn more about the plastic bottle recycling process CLICK HERE to view a digital slideshow.

The exception to this is the Parish of St. Helier . On a fact-finding visit to the Parish's recycling depot, the Panel discovered that plastic bottles collected through the kerbside collections in the Parish are not exported to the UK and are instead exported to Romi Recyclage' a re- processor in France. It was noted that bags in two colours were made available to householders via local retail outlets as it was found that these were easier to pick up in a compartmentalised vehicle, to be further sorted at the Parish depot. Whilst it was noted that the St. Helier recycling scheme required a higher staffing level, it was understood that this enabled the vehicles to pass through traffic encumbered areas of St. Helier without causing undue disruption. The Panel considered St. Helier's recycling system a good model, conducive to an urban area and conceivable that a similar system could work in St. Saviour where there is a predominance of concentrated residential areas with limited space to store recyclables.

[18]In addition, the Panel would recommend that further consideration is given during the planning approval process to ensure recycling-friendly infrastructure (such as the storage of recycling receptacles and the accessibility of these for refuse collectors) is included for future new developments across the island.

Recycling: public perception

Submissions to the review highlighted key areas of concern for the public. Kerbside collections: Lack of consistency across the island

One of the most prevalent themes throughout the submissions was that people felt Jersey nefolledoweds: a more consiste"nt, island-wide approach to kerbside recycling. A few commented as

" If there was kerbside recyofchaKerlingpseobascpidale e cr tao ollecreteaatoo bkse ttier iion fheir ustyoisr wato fato recllsittree in gtyo acardle the rweelesthe morsecklyoyfctpliriae pngpristefo h opalac-ille notitcolletwiy eveallntdde. Thryo iaone tlo18e t." twould chroomugpulshtaoutorke py1t9he Il.ace, s"laandnd, itthen fcouldar mbe or"e time for an Island wide recycling operation.

In an Island 9 miles by 5 miles, surely now is the Twelve Parishes all implementing separate

systems does not make any sense, nor can be

efficient from an Island perspective [19]. "

Furthermore, some submissions commented that they wished to see the frequency of the kerbside collections increased in the Parishes that already do [20].

Comments received inferring that an island wide kerbside recycling collection would be more efficient demonstrated a lack of public understanding of how the Parishes currently operate. The reason some Parishes have a scheme and others do not is because some Parishes have discussed the initiative at Parish Assemblies and, generally, Parishioners have accepted the consequent increase in Parish rates to cover the cost of adopting the recycling scheme. The Parishes operate their waste collection services in an efficient, cost effective manner and it is unlikely that an all-island' collection service would be better. It is for Parishioners in the Parishes without kerbside recycling to address their concerns to their Connétable , who can facilitate the process given acceptance of an increase in Parish rates.

However, the Panel considers that there is the potential for a middle-ground between a one size fits all' all-island recycling scheme and a scheme where all the Parishes administer kerbside collections with some degree of flexibility and autonomy to select their own contractor. At present, the recyclables can end up in the UK or France and it is for the collection contractors or Parishes to decide which fits best with their business model.

It is clear from submissions and from Jersey's significantly under-performing recycling rate that kerbside recycling needs to be made more accessible to all islanders, as under the current scheme it is only easily accessible to half of the Island's Parishes.

Lack of public awareness / resources

Another strong theme throughout submissions was a lack of public awareness about how and what to recycle in Jersey. One of these submissions commented as follows:

" We feel there is no encouragement for households to reduce plastic use, coupled with confusion over what plastic can be recycled in Jersey, and how. A few

conversations with friends have highlighted the fact that everyone wants to help but no-one knows what the rules are. As an example, we read an interesting and informative article in a recent Which magazine, which said that plastic caps should be kept on bottles sent for recycling, and explained why. We were under the impression they shouldn't be - mixed messages, and asking at the recycling centre didn't help. We would also like clarification on which plastic bottles can

It is a faibre recassuymcleptiod -n onlthayt a drinklack sobf otawtareness les or anywi lbl ohitndtle ter haJert seycon'staabineilidty ato liiqmuid?prov2e 2 i"ts pl astic recycling rate. Jersey's current approach to public awareness will be explored in the next

chapter. However, the Panel feels this is an area that requires more attention and resources, particularly surrounding public relations and engagement, in order send out a clear message to the public; and that this should come hand in glove with a more consistent island-wide approach kerbside collection.

There is confusion amongst the public about how and what to recycle in Jersey and a public desire to recycle more types of plastics.

Another re-occurring theme throughout submissions was the need for more three compartment recycling bins throughout the island, to be able to separate waste and make it easier for the public to recycle more [21]. In particular, the Panel recommends that additional

separate plastic refuse bins are placed in prominent coastal beach locations around the island.

F7 A re-occurring theme throughout submissions was the need for more

recycling bins to be installed across the island to make it easier for people to recycle more.

The Panel recommends that the Department substantially increases the number of public three-compartment recycling bins across the island by Q2 2020.

Public desire to recycle more types of plastics

A consistent theme throughout submissions was a strong desire from the public to recycle more types of plastics:

" particular, only plastic bottles are stated as being accepted at I feel that recycling is reasonable but limited in some areas. In

[22]reofcpylcalisngtic praointhters, rathathn erthe tthayn pe ofa sy sctonemtatihnerat 2is4. ba"sed on the type

" is only an opportunity to recycle plastic bottles. When Regarding the recycling of plastics, in the Island there will there be facilities to recycle other plastics?[23]

" " Ideally it would be good to be able to recycle more

plastic (such as cartons, yoghurt pots, food

packaging etc) but I am also trying to eliminate as

mucThe h Panofelthese was pmlaasdeticaws aare s posthasibt rleel2i6an. ce "on recycling more types of plastics hinges on their being a stable recycling route:

" Recycling Manager:

Other household plastics? I think it is always the department's intention, and we know that there is huge public appetite, to be recycling a broader range of plastics but where we started off this morning, John talking about the market forces and market pricing, unfortunately when we look at mixed sort of household packaging it is extremely complicated. While we are collecting plastic bottles for recycling, we are asking for specific grades of plastic and they are the higher grades. They are more desirable and easier to recycle in the plastic recycling market. Plastic bottles are consistently made from high grades of plastic. When you look at broader plastic packaging - yoghurt pots, food trays - they are inconsistently made from a broader range of plastics. So just because your yoghurt pot has a little triangle with a grade 2 in it when you have done this week's shop, it does not mean in future shops it will be a grade 2. It could be anything from a grade 2 to a grade 7. The lower grades of plastic are recycled separately to the higher grades and if we did collect those specific grades of plastic for recycling now, they would not be processed in the U.K. They would be processed further afield and this is where the link back to China closing its doors on U.K. imports of recyclables has an impact because potentially we could have nowhere to send them at present. Finding a sustainable outlet is one complication. Also we work very hard on our contracts to know where our recycling is going and exactly what is happening to it [24]

With Asia now closing its doors to plastic recycling exports and with othe"r European countries introducing further restrictions, it means that the lower grades of plastics which were being recycled in the UK are now being incinerated [25].

In light of the above, the Panel recommends that the Department needs to tackle this as part of a public awareness campaign as it is important that the public understands not only what it can recycle but also the reasons why it may not be possible to recycle other (lower) grades of plastic.

F8 Being able to recycle more types of plastic relies on there being a stable

recycling route and often there is not for the lower grades of plastic.

Previously, countries in Asia had been accepting exports from countries

around the world but has recently closed its doors to plastic waste imports. R6

The Panel did, however, learn during their visit to the Jayplas recycling plant that the plant is now able to recycle more types of the lower grade of plastics, such as yogurt pots and bottle caps. Staff at the recycling plant advised that the bottle caps should remain on the bottles when placed in recycling bins, so that these can also be recycled. Currently, advice from the Department for Growth, Housing and Environment is that the bottle caps cannot be recycled and should be removed. The Panel recommends that the Department liaise with the recycling plant to investigate the possibility of Jersey's bottle caps being recycled.

The Panel recommends that the Department liaise with Jayplas recycling plant to investigate the possibility of Jersey's bottle caps being recycled and report back to the Panel by Q2 2019.

The Panel also discovered during a visit to the Guernsey Recycling Group that tetrapak milk cartons are collected for recycling in Guernsey. The cartons are separated from other plastic materials and sent to the UK for recycling. The response given by the Minister for Infrastructure on whether Jersey could recycle milk cartons was that initial research had previously been carried out on the feasibility, however, it was found that the recycling process did not recover 100% of the composite materials from the cartons and that some of the material would be sent overseas for energy recovery. Furthermore, milk cartons in Jersey are currently processed locally for energy recovery which produces local electricity and so the Department did not progress the research [26]. Whilst accepting that Guernsey may be in a slightly different position (as it does not process materials locally for energy recovery), it can be argued that recycling, where at all feasible, is the preferred method of waste management over energy recovery.

Therefore the Panel recommends that the Department, in collaboration with Jersey Dairy, assess in further detail the feasibility and commercial viability of Jersey recycling milk cartons.

Incineration vs. recycling

Other plastics and plastic bottles which are put in general waste bins are disposed of through incineration at Jersey's Energy Recovery Facility. The Panel heard evidence that if plastic waste going through the incinerator was reduced through a higher rate of recycling, it would not impact negatively on the plant's efficiencies and would in fact help to extend the life of the plant:

" Deputy K.F. Morel :

Can I just ask, and this comes in response ... this question arises because of submissions we have been receiving. People are concerned that one of the reasons recycling is not perhaps doing so well in Jersey with only 6 per cent is that there is a need to feed the Energy from Waste plant. If we were to take the plastic, paper, cardboard out of that then it would be less efficient. Is that correct and, if so, at what point would it be viable to use the Energy from Waste plant?

Director General:

The Energy from Waste plant operates at 38,000 tonne very efficiently. It was designed to be able to do that. It was designed so that we would move forward as an Island into the 21st century where we recycle more. We currently have waste going through the Energy from Waste plant that has too much energy in it, it has too much plastic in it and it causes huge amounts of problems. The Energy from Waste plant has been built at great expense to Islanders to have 2 streams so you can turn it down and you can adjust what it does at keeping it as efficient as possible. The turbine has been designed to run on one stream as opposed to 2 streams. So I can answer that question but it is just not as exciting as the answer that we need to keep feeding it with stuff. So the truth is not really that exciting and sexy but the truth is it can run down to very little waste and be very efficient for our Island. It will just last longer.

Deputy K.F. Morel :

So there is a reason to stop putting waste through it in the sense it would extend the lifetime of it?

Director General:

Absolutely, it would extend the lifetime and putting the wrong waste through it. The uPVC hard plastic is the worst possible waste you can put through an Energy from Waste plant but we get deliveries every day.

In the same public hearing, the Panel also heard evidence t"hat Jersey's EFW plant had recently been presented with EU certification that the plant operates to the best environmental practice [27].

Nevertheless, burning plastic waste does create carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and academic evidence suggests that the recycling of plastic waste is preferable:

Figure 3 - Waste management hierarchy, United Nations Environment Programme, Single-use plastics: A roadmap to sustainability, 2018

Figure 4 - CO2 Benefits of Plastics Recycling, European Commission, Plastic in a circular Economy, 2018

F10

4 Government initiatives to reduce plastic usage Jersey: the current position

Collaborative working

The issue of plastic pollution is one which is both an environmental and a waste management issue and therefore cuts across two different teams within government: the previously known Department for Environment and the Department for Infrastructure. As of this year, both these Departments have merged together under the implementation of One Government' to form the Department for Growth, Housing and Environment. In public hearings, the Panel asked both the Minister for Infrastructure and the Environment what collaborative working there was between them both on combatting the issue of single use plastics. The Panel was advised that the Departments communicate with one another on a regular basis, particularly surrounding waste management, public awareness and regulation. Both Ministers acknowledged that under the new One Government regime there is now more opportunity for collaborative working [28]. However, it was apparent to the Panel that it is still very early days and that this joint working needs to be built upon to deliver concrete action to tackle the issue of single-use plastics.

The Panel recommends that the Minister for the Environment and the Minister for Infrastructure work in collaboration to produce a clear, joined up strategy on single-use plastics by Q3 2019.

Eco active

Eco active is a Government of Jersey programme administered through the Department for Growth, Housing and Environment. The programme works with schools, businesses, States Departments and the general public to increase awareness and lower environmental impacts. In November 2017, Eco-active were approached by Surfer's Against Sewage to discuss the issue of single-use plastics in Jersey. This saw the launch of the Plastic Free Jersey' campaign, where eco active has been working towards fulfilling the criteria in order for Jersey to achieve Plastic Free' status. On 6th December 2018, it was announced that Jersey had met the criteria to be awarded Plastic Free Jersey' status. In addition, the States Assembly has also been awarded Plastic Free Parliament' status by eliminating single-use plastic items such as: cutlery, straws, bottles and cups [29].

The current initiative is centred on an awareness campaign to help change attitudes towards the consumption of plastic materials. In a public hearing with the Minister for the Environment, it was recognised that appropriate policy and regulatory levers are needed to complement the awareness campaign but there has been no further commitment as to when and how this would be introduced [30].

The Panel explored further if there was evidence of whether a cost benefit analysis had been carried out as to how effective the eco active awareness campaigns are in directly reducing plastic usage. In the public hearing held with the Minister for the Environment, the Panel was advised that measuring the impact of any reduction in plastic when it is brought for waste disposal is difficult because, by weight, it is a very light material. Instead, the scheme measures its success by monitoring how businesses and schools are doing at meeting their own plastic reduction targets [31]. Whilst it was acknowledged that this may have some way of reaching the wider public with children's awareness making it into people's homes, any impact of these schemes on the general public is still is not clear or definitive.

The Panel heard other evidence suggesting that public awareness campaigns are simply not enough. One submission highlighted the need for a fiscal policy lever such as a bottle bill' to discourage and reduce their use by placing a high enough deposit on the bottle [32]. There was also a significant emphasis for the need to ban all avoidable single use plastics. A total of 16 submissions to the review used the word ban' in their responses.

F11

Plastic litter / waste strategy

Jersey does not appear to have a clear strategy on how to tackle plastic litter (or litter in general). The Panel considers that plastics entering the waste stream whether that be kerbside recycling collections, or waste collected for incineration, is unlikely to find its way to the ocean and contribute to marine pollution. However plastic which is littered in the environment is a greater cause for concern if this litter is then making its way into surface water drainage and into the sea. Therefore, the Panel would recommend that a litter strategy is developed at the same time as the waste strategy is re-visited.

The Panel heard evidence that the last time Jersey's waste strategy was published was in 2005:

" The Connétable of St. Brelade :

Back underground again, or perhaps a bit of over ground as well really, Jersey's solid waste strategy was last published in 2005, I remember it well. What work, if any, has been undertaken to revisit this and what are your plans there?

Group Director, Operations and Transport:

Certainly I think we are going to be developing a new waste strategy over the next couple of years and as part of that waste strategy we will be looking at lots of different things. We will be looking at legislation, we will be looking at charging again and looking at how we encourage other initiatives so we are hoping to start working on that at the end of this year and certainly it is a priority from next year onwards [33].

It is clear to the Panel that re-visiting the waste strategy is long overdue and this needs to be made a priority if Jersey is going to tackle plastic waste appropriately. During the Panel's visit to the Guernsey Recycling Group, the Panel learnt that with effect from 1st February 2019 Guernsey introduced a pay as you throw' waste charge on the collection of refuse bags containing general waste. The cost of the charges are £1.40 per bag up to 50 litres and £2.50 per bag up to 90 litres. This is in addition to an annual charge to all households of £85. There is no charge for the recycling bags placed out for collection as the intention behind the new charging system is to incentivise recycling. Guernsey has also introduced fixed penalty fines of £60 for anyone who attempts to avoid paying the new charges, as well as fines of £20,000 and a criminal conviction for anyone found guilty of fly tipping.

F12

Jersey does not appear to have a clear strategy on how to tackle plastic litter (or litter in general) and the last time the waste strategy was looked at was 2005.

R10

Marine species monitoring

As we explored in chapter two, the threat of plastics entering the human food chain is very real. Furthermore, the Panel's investigation found that Jersey currently does not monitor and test marine species for pollutants in the food chain.

R11" You we resourneehcdesavet3o 7. pdero hmoaprse. asTkhaed"tusis aabn ouexatmamprine le whemonitre we orinngee. Thd moatisre amonexaneymp. Welewheneerde

Minister for the Environment:

The Panel recommends that budgetary allowances need to be made a priority to enable the Department to undertake monitoring of pollutants in marine species by Q4 2019.

Worldwide policy initiatives to limit plastic use

Types of policy tools

Whilst Jersey currently only implements awareness raising initiatives, there are other types of government initiatives which are demonstrated across the world. The table below outlines a range of policy tools utilised by governments on how to reduce consumption of plastic bags as these appear to be the only available statistics, although these same tools could be applied to single-use plastic products in general.

37 Public hearing with the Minister for the Environment, October 2018, p. 16

Table 1 - Policy tools to limit the use of plastic bags [34]

Impact of bans and levies

Regarding plastic bags, in 30% of cases introducing levies and bans has had a positive impact on reduced consumption and pollution, however in 50% of cases either their introduction has only been recent and it is simply too early to tell or there are inadequate monitoring practices which make it difficult to gauge the impact [35]. Therefore, if Jersey seeks to introduce such measures on single-use plastics in general, and there is arguably a strong case that we should, it is imperative that sufficient monitoring practices are put in place to enable their impact to be measured appropriately and any implied charitable donations be audited.

R12

Voluntary public-private agreements

Another policy initiative, predominately utilised in Europe, is public-private agreements. These voluntary agreements between governments and producers/retailers can be an effective alternative to bans, especially as retailers and producers can play an important role in effecting behavioural change through building awareness and providing alternatives [36]. A good example of where this has been put into practice is Austria (refer to case study).

The graph below shows the different types of policy tools utilised by continent in respect of targeting plastic bag consumption.

Figure 5 - Policy tools to limit the use of plastic bags [37]

Other initiatives to limit plastic use and reduce pollution

Public water fountains

In the United Kingdom, in an effort to combat single-use plastic, drinking fountains are being installed in London as part of a pilot scheme. Four were set up, located in Carnaby Street, Liverpool Street station (x2) and Flat Iron Square in Southwark. The scheme is being organised by the London Mayor, the Zoological Society of London, and water cooler manufacturer MIW.

Landowners, community groups, boroughs and others were then granted until the 24th April 2018 to apply for a fountain to be built in their area. It is expected that up to 20 water fountains will be installed, with £50,000 of funding supplied by the Mayor of London, and £25,000 from the provider of the fountains, MIW. Each fountain will include flow meters to monitor their use, with street surveys being carried out to explore if they are changing public behaviour [38].

In tandem, over 65 outlets in five areas of London have signed up to an initiative to offer people free tap water refills. The locations will be listed on a free app and website, alongside over 5,700 additional refill locations across the UK. The Refill London pilot is being run by Thames Water and the London-based Charity City to Sea. The Zoological Society of London are evaluating the first phase of the scheme [39].

Launched at the beginning of 2018, Refill proudly proclaims on its website to have saved 28,601 bottles so far. Individuals can get involved by logging their Refills through the app,

which grants them a 13p donation from their partners upon each refill. Local cafes can also sign up online to be added to the Refill network [40].

The introduction of public water fountains was another common theme throughout submissions. Furthermore, a poll on social media conducted by the Panel as part of the review received 1,800 votes and revealed that 87% of people would use a public water fountain to refill their water bottle. A few commented further to say that they would, provided there were strict hygiene measures in place.

In a public hearing with the Minister for Infrastructure, the Panel questioned whether Jersey could look to introduce public water fountains. The Panel was advised that this was something the Minister and the Department would support [41]. The Panel would therefore recommend that further discussions are held with the Department and Jersey Water as to how a partnership approach to this might work.

R13

The Panel recommends that initial discussions are held with the Department and Jersey Water by Q2 2019 regarding the installation of public water fountains and how a partnership approach might work and the outcome reported back to the Panel by Q3 2019.

Fishing for litter' Project

The Fishing for Litter Project' aims to reduce the amount of litter in the North Sea, by both encouraging fishermen to remove any litter they come across, and by raising awareness of the problems that marine litter causes for the industry, with the aim of bringing about long-term change. It is hoped that this will prevent more litter from reaching the sea. Variations of the initiative operate - or have operated - in the UK, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, The Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, and Sweden, with a total of 108 ongoing Fishing for Litter projects [42].

However, membership for some countries, such as The Netherlands, has been skittish, having left after their trial period was up. In contrast, countries like the UK have seen the scheme spread to a number of other harbours over the course of several years.

The project is funded by the European Fisheries Fund, and carries the support of partners such as the Holderness Fishing Industry Group (HFIG). The Project also works with local communities to collect and dispose of both fishing- related and general litter. Participating vessels are given hard wearing bags to collect marine litter, such as waste packaging. Full bags are then deposited on the quayside or at designated points in fishing compounds, where they are then emptied into a dedicated bin or skip. It should be noted that only harbours with FFL facilities (such as the correct skip) are able to partake in this scheme. Between 2011 and 2014, Scotland reported collecting over 374 tonnes of litter from the sea.

A report for the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (DEFRA) on the scheme in South-West England described the scheme as establishing itself as the leading scheme for fishermen to remove marine litter from the sea. Fishermen have said that the scheme is simple, has improved their waste disposal techniques, and has generated pride/positive press for them in the wider community. As part of the report, fishermen recommended that more advertising and promotion was required, particularly to make the public aware of this scheme. It was also noted that the current scheme only targets fishermen, and that it could be extended to broader groups (e.g. commercial users and pleasure boats) [43].

In a public hearing with the Minister for the Environment, the Panel was advised this scheme was not as successful as it could have been in Jersey as the fishing fleet is largely comprised of small boats which do not have sufficient deck space to collect the litter on board [44]. However, a submission to the review by the Jersey Fishermen's Association (JFA) suggested that whilst Jersey is not specifically a trawl fleet, the initiative could be something which is possible for the industry, with a little support [45]. The Panel would recommend that it would be worthwhile the Minister and the Department consulting with the JFA to work out how a scheme like this could operate effectively for Jersey's fishing fleet.

R14 The Panel recommends the Department consult further with the Jersey

Fishermen's Association, boat owners and yacht clubs to work out how a Fishing for Litter' scheme could operate effectively in Jersey by Q2 2019.

Bottle deposit return schemes

A 2017 UK House of Commons inquiry by the Environmental Audit Committee heard considerable evidence about the potential of Deposit Return Scheme as a solution to the UK's plastic bottle waste. The scheme encourages the consumer to return their plastic bottle into an organised recycling process. It involves adding a small deposit on top of the price of the drink, which is then returned to the consumer when the bottle is returned to an in-store collection point or a reverse vending machine [46].

Bottle deposit return schemes operate in around 40 countries worldwide, as well as 21 US States and typically those operating for the return of plastic bottles, achieve recycling rates of between 80-95%. (Refer to selected case studies on Germany and Sweden in the section below).

A number of submissions to the Panel's review commented that such schemes should be introduced in Jersey as a further plastic reduction initiative [47]. Although in a public hearing with the Minister for Infrastructure, the Panel heard evidence suggesting there was a reluctance to introduce such a scheme at this stage over fears it could undermine household recycling [48].

As part of the investigations during the UK House of Commons inquiry, The Environmental Audit Committee also heard concerns that a deposit return scheme could inhibit household recycling. However after hearing further evidence from an independent environmental consultancy firm, Eunomia, about how these concerns could be mitigated, the Committee concluded that the evidence suggested that a well-designed scheme could overcome these concerns [49]. A bottle deposit scheme was introduced by Iceland supermarket in June 2018 as a trial across four of their UK stores. The machines reward people with a 10p voucher for each bottle purchased in store. The scheme has proved hugely successful, with figures showing that 311,500 bottles have been recycled since the trial began.[50]

The Panel recommends the Department should investigate further how a bottle deposit return scheme could work in conjunction with kerbside collections in order to help bolster Jersey's plastic recycling rate. The Panel acknowledges that an initial assessment of whether Jersey has the volume of plastic bottles in circulation to make a bottle deposit return scheme work efficiently will need to be undertaken and suggests this would be proactive piece of work to

carry out as a starting point. There would need to be enabling investment from retailers or government for this to operate.

R15

Country case studies

Below we will explore several case studies which demonstrate how other countries utilise economic policy levers, regulatory bans and/or other initiatives on single use plastics.

ANTIGUA & BARBUDA Legislative ban on plastic bags

In January 2016, Antigua and Barbuda prohibited the importation, manufacturing and trading of plastic shopping bags. In July 2016, the distributions of these bags at points of sale was banned, allowing retailers to finish their stocks.

Plastic bags sold in large retailers accounted for 90% of the plastic litter in the environment. The ban was first implemented in major supermarkets and later extended to smaller shops.

The success of this policy includes four rounds of stakeholder consultations, to ensure that engagement and acceptance of the policy was sufficiently met. Stakeholders also engaged with major retailers, the National Solid Waste Management Authority, the Ministry of Trade and the Department for the Environment. After obtaining Cabinet approval, the ban was incorporated into existing legislation, allowing for greater expediency than would come from introducing new legislation.

In tandem, a public information campaign was

launched, primarily consisting of frequent television

short clips by the Minister of Health and the

Environment, providing information on the progress of the ban and feedback from stakeholders. Jingles were produced to promote the use of durable bags, and shoppers were provided with reusable bags outside supermarkets. Seamstresses and tailors were also taught how to manufacture such bags to

meet demand, and supermarkets were required to

offer paper bags from recycled material alongside reusable ones. The new legislation also included a list of materials that will remain tax free, such as sugar cane, paper and potato starch.

In the first year, the ban saw a 15.1% decrease in the amount of plastic discarded in landfills within the country. In July 2017, the importation of plastic food service containers and cups

were prohibited in July 2017. As of January 2018, single-use plastic utensils have been banned alongside food trays and egg cartons [51].

AUSTRIA

Voluntary agreements

The EU Plastic Bags Directive dictates that member states of the European Union should ensure that the consumption of plastic bags within respective states should fall to no more than 90 bags per person per year.

In 2016, the Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water Management signed an agreement to reduce the use of plastic bags, aiming for a limit of 25 bags per person per year, including paper bags.

As of January 2017, most of Austria's large supermarket chains have voluntarily stopped providing customers with free carrier bags, with some going one step further and now require customers to purchase reusable bags at counters [52].

COSTA RICA

Total single-use plastic ban

Costa Rica is working towards becoming the first country to ban all single-use plastics by 2021. On the 5 June 2017, the government announced a National Strategy to phase out all forms of single-use plastics by 2021, and replace them with biodegradable alternatives within six months.

The ban aims to eliminate plastic bags, straws, bottles, cutlery, coffee stirrers and Styrofoam containers. The Strategy promotes the substitute of single-use plastic through five actions, which include:

Municipal incentives;
Policies & institutional guidelines for suppliers;
Replacement of single-use plastic products;
Research and development;
Investment in strategic initiatives.

The project is supported by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), local governments, civil society and private sector groups.[53]

GERMANY

Bottle deposit return scheme

In 2003, Germany introduced a mandatory deposit scheme, wherein a 25c deposit was applied to most plastic and glass bottles, including non-carbonated and alcoholic mixture drinks. The regulation stipulates that citizens must pay 0.25 for each bottle's deposit when they buy water or a beverage under a volume of 1.5 litres. If they return the bottle, they get the deposit back [54].

Around 40,000 reverse vending machines' have been installed across the country to capture materials within the scope of this scheme. A total of 96.5% of compatible refillable bottles were returned by customers in 2017, the highest percentage in the world, and 1-2 billion single-use containers have been removed from the bins and streets of Germany as a result of this initiative [55].

A total of 34% of the material recycled from PET bottles are processed into new PET bottles. Other destinations include the film industry (27%), textile fibre manufacturers (23%) and other applications such as tape and cleaning agent container production (16%). 80% is recycled within Germany, with the rest primarily exported to countries near Germany's borders [56].

Since 1 May 2006, retailers and other final distributors have been obligated to accept all compulsory-deposit one-way drinks packaging of the types of material they distribute (i.e. Pepsi bottles from the shops selling them). The collection obligation applies regardless of whether the one-way drinks packaging was distributed by the dealer, or by a competitor. However, retailers such as Aldi and Lidl have now switched to near-exclusively non-reusable PET bottles to streamline the return process, which is seen as a less environmentally-friendly result than hoped [57].

NORWAY

Recycling and tax incentives

Since 1999, plastic bottles have been recycled within a largely closed loop system [58]. This runs in tandem to a tax scheme, wherein the more bottles that are recycled leads to a lower level of tax (usually between 10 to 25p, depending on size). If the country collectively recycles more than 95% of its bottles, which it has done so since 2011, then there is no tax. The tax itself operates in the same way as in Germany; as a deposit system that can be reclaimed if the bottle is recycled. The recycling process is run by Infinitum AS, a corporation that is owned by companies and organisations in the beverage and food trading industries. Overall, 97% of all

plastic bottles in Norway are recycled, with 92% turned back into drinks bottles. Less than 1% end up in the environment [59].

However, the recycled material only provides around 10% of the plastic used in bottles in the country, with much of it coming from newly manufactured "virgin material", thanks to cheap oil. Much of this is then exported [60]. A materials tax' is being investigated to compensate for this issue that would require companies to become less reliant on "virgin" plastic [61].

SWEDEN

Recycling vs. Energy from Waste

In Sweden, recycling stations are required by law to be situated no more than 300 metres from a residential area. As is the case in Germany, the Swedish population recycles their cans and bottles at supermarket processing machines, and collecting the deposit they made when they first purchased their bottles. Furthermore, 84.9% of their aluminium cans and PET bottles are recycled through this method – 1.8 billion total or 177 per person in one year. The pant system, as it is known, was first introduced in 1984 [62].

A total of 48.5% of waste is burnt to produce energy at incineration plants. Recycling rates in Sweden lie at around 49.8%, although this has been the case since 2006 [63]. Due to the amount of plastic incinerated, Sweden often imports waste from the UK, Norway and Denmark to keep incinerators running, with around 2.7 million tonnes imported each year [64].

Emissions from the incinerators, are treated like biomass and considered carbon neutral. The United States' Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), reports that incinerating waste releases 2,988 pounds of CO2 per megawatt hour [65]. This compares unfavourably to coal (2,249 pounds/megawatt hour)[66].

However, Waste-to-Energy (WTE) emissions are only ascribed one-third of the CO2 emissions that can be ascribed to fossil fuels, i.e., burning the coal or natural gas needed to

incinerate the waste. This, therefore, means that the EPA sees WTE transfer as producing 986 pounds/megawatt hour [67].

Nonetheless, WTE plants operate at around 25% efficiency, as opposed to the 55% efficiency for gas-fired power stations [68]. Furthermore, there remains the question over whether using waste for fuel is a positive goal, or if it avoids more complicated issues concerning recycling waste.

What can Jersey learn from this?

It is clear that there are a range of economic and regulatory mechanisms utilised by various countries. The success of actions against single-use plastics, such as plastic bags, hinges on continuous stakeholder engagement and an active participation from respective governments in providing affordable alternatives and educational opportunities to its citizens. In turn, a satisfactory timeframe to suppliers, such as supermarkets, should be ensured to extinguish their stock and obtain satisfactory alternatives. Particular emphasis should be placed on the efforts of Caribbean nations, whose population densities are similar to Jersey's.

In addition, it should be noted that countries with a small population (e.g. Antigua & Barbuda), or at least a strong level of social cohesion/community (e.g. Norway) have encountered the greatest level of success with their bans/economic initiatives. Furthermore, community involvement and inclusion in environmental initiatives appears to guarantee greater long-term self-sustainability, as well as laying foundational roadwork for further bans on single-use plastics. Likewise, innovative methods of taxation and deposit systems appear to be useful ways of encouraging good recycling practices.

The key underlying points surrounding these case studies appears to be a strong level of engagement with the public, the public space, and private partners. In the case of water fountains, a trial period with strong civic and professional engagement seems key. In turn, granting the public some autonomous involvement in a scheme, such as recommending a site or constant engagement with its targets, appears to be a common mechanism.

Another underlying point appears to be that, if the public are provided with the equipment and resources (such as technology via an app) needed to live in a more environmentally-friendly manner, they will engage with them, as noted in Sweden. By making initiatives into a cultural or pride-based (Fishing for Litter) mechanism also appears to be useful. Financial incentives, such as deposit schemes, discounts, or taxation appear to have a strong effect.

Finally, in the case of Sweden, it is worth noting that the Island should consider how it wishes to define its recycling/waste disposal targets, and whether waste incineration is a positive target, or if a less contentious form of carbon neutrality' is preferable.

R16

5 The role of businesses in plastic reduction How businesses can reduce plastic usage

The Panel heard a range of evidence suggesting how businesses can play their part in reducing plastics.

Chapter four previously alluded to the word ban' repeated in a number of submissions and was considerably the most popular theme. Whilst in some cases it was in response to what government can do it was more frequently associated with what shops, supermarkets, cafés and restaurants could do to reduce plastics. Clearly there is differentiation between government action to introduce regulatory bans and businesses voluntarily eliminating single- use plastics but nonetheless it emphasises the current mind-set of the public and clearly demonstrates public enthusiasm for this course of action. Submissions specifically referred to the banning of the following single-use plastic items [69]:

Shopping

bags

Food packaging*

Cutlery

Straws Coffee cups

*Where appropriate such as for fruit and vegetables (especially for local produce).

F14 A significant number of submissions called for businesses to eliminate or ban' was a popular phrase – single-use plastics from their business.

Many leading supermarkets have recently announced their commitment to reduce single-use items:

Waitrose announced earlier this year that they would be removing plastic coffee cups from their stores. They have also pledged not to sell any own-label food in non-recyclable black plastic trays beyond 2019 and have committed to making all own-brand packaging widely recyclable, reusable or home compostable by 2025. Furthermore, in September this year they announced they were committed to removing all 5p single use plastic bags by March 2019

and that they would replace loose fruit and vegetable bags with a home compostable alternative by Spring 2019. Waitrose claim that by doing so it will save 134 million bags each year, equating to a saving of 500 tonnes of plastic [70].

The Channel Islands Co-operative Society also announced in September that 5p plastic bags would no longer be in circulation in their stores as of 31st December 2018. They have also pledged to have their own brand water bottles 100% recyclable by 2022 and are committed to encouraging brand suppliers to be 100% recyclable by 2025 [71].

Alliance which sells Tesco brand products in the Channel Islands has also committed to remove 5p carrier bags from stores, and only provide 10p bags for life'[72].

Iceland have also pledged to completely remove plastic packaging from their own label range by 2023 [73].

In a submission from JPRestaurants and at subsequent public hearing, the Panel heard evidence that there was also clear demonstrable action to reduce plastic usage within their business. Specifically [74]:

Elimination of plastic straws in all outlets and only supply paper and plant starch compostable alternatives.
Elimination of plastic cutlery and introduction of a biodegradable alternative at Café Ubé. Their customers also now have to opt-in for cutlery.
Introduction of reusable items, such as coffee cups and a re-useable spoon/fork which are sold at cost-price (or below) to encourage their use. The re-useable coffee cups also come with the added incentive of a free coffee and further discounts on coffee for their re-use.
Restaurant and café staff have been provided with re-useable water bottles and head office staff have had a water fountain installed to replace bottled mineral water.

In the public hearing, the Panel was further advised that it was more difficult to eliminate plastic coffee cups entirely due to consumer demand but that a more appropriate measure could be a tax placed on the cups instead:

" Director, JPRestaurants:

No, you could not, but I guess you could put a tax on cups coming in that would make it significantly unattractive to use them. I think that is probably the only way that you would change consumer behaviour.

The Connétable of Grouville :

So the Government would have to put that tax on?

Director, JPRestaurants:

I think so. I was thinking about it, yes, I think you would have to do that on import. I appreciate all of the the technical issues. Obviously we want to make our tax regime as simple as possible here but I am not sure how else you would do that. But you cannot ban them. Well, you could ban them, I guess, but it would that would severely impact the business and people would have to bring their own cups but the bag example is a very good example. I think a lot of people do remember their bags and we will definitely have to remember them when they do not have any there, if we don't we will be buying a larger one [75].

The introduction of levies, or tax, was also a common theme through many sub"missions to the review, as was businesses allowing consumers to bring their own refill containers and to provide discounts on refills [76].

The United Nations Environment Programme comments that businesses that use plastics have a pivotal role to play in reducing them and providing sustainable alternatives. Furthermore that whilst some argue that as recycling targets often tend to be voluntary, legislation is needed to compel businesses to use plastics more sustainably, there are also other mechanisms that can be utilised such as the government offering financial incentives to businesses which introduce alternatives to plastic [77]. Another mechanism are public-private partnerships as demonstrated by the case study on Austria. Arguably there is a strong case that many supermarkets and other businesses are already making commitments to reduce or eliminate plastic product, however government support can only build on this by working with industry to help them achieve, or even expand, their targets and/or meet them earlier.

R17

The Panel recommends that the Department should consider the use of

public-private partnerships between government and supermarkets, in order

to work in collaboration to reduce plastic packaging by Q2 2019. Challenges faced by industry and business

As part of the review, the Panel was keen to learn more about the challenges faced by businesses in being able to reduce or eliminate plastics. One of the key challenges was cost. Some eco-friendly alternatives are more expensive than the plastic option and whilst the Panel was advised that there is growing consumer appetite for eco-friendly alternatives, many consumers still opt for the cheaper plastic option.

Another challenge was a lack of choice in the matter from external suppliers who do not offer alternatives to plastic. Whilst businesses find it easier to commit to reducing or eliminating their own branded items, they have less control over what is supplied to them.

What to do with their waste was also another challenge. A submission from the Jersey Farmer's Union highlighted the following:

" Potin tahe to UcK roapncdoverEur op(pe oltyo thenrecye): cle In allretche entpyoleyatrs heine t habsu tbeethisn eayesayr tito isfinpdrocving ompamniesore difficult. It may be that the move to reduce plastic use generally is having an unintended consequence [78].

Similarly, a submission from the Jer"sey Fishermen's Association highlighted issues with separating rope. The rope cannot be recycled in Jersey and is also not accepted at the Energy

from Waste plant. As a result, the Jersey Fishermen's Association have been working with Ports of Jersey to find an alternative way of getting old rope to a destination where it can be recycled in France. It is understood that the local freight company which had previously provided the transport had folded [79].

Awareness & support for businesses

As highlighted in chapter three on the lack of public awareness around recycling, there were also a number of submissions which commented that there needs to be more awareness raising initiatives aimed at businesses, particularly on the impact of plastic pollution and what they can do to make sustainable choices. A significant theme emanating from submissions was that there needs to be more government support to encourage businesses to help reduce their plastic usage [80]. Furthermore, there appears to be a lack of engagement between government and industry:

" While mplastics sapnecy iffisicheallrmy, Ie n suswipllecbte athawtatrhere ofe athe nere someed twho o redgucive e witalisttte ile n tigmeeneorral and thought There has not been any engagement between the industry and the

environment department on the issue of reducing plastic waste, but we do enjoy a reasonably good working relationship and would be happy to look at any cooperation that may be required to set up any new initiatives [81].

In a submission from the Jersey Hospitality Association it was noted that they felt awareness was picking up but more can be done to show what alternatives are available and how easy it can be to go plastic-free [82].

Government support can be provided through a range of methods, whether it be financial or more practical advice and partnership working.

F15

R18

6 Jersey's importation of plastic packaging

In 2015, plastic packaging waste accounted for 47% of the plastic waste generated globally. It is also the largest industrial sector producing plastic [83]:

Figure 6 - Global plastic production by industrial sector in 2015

F16

The percentage of plastic packaging imported into the island is unknown. The Panel recommends that, as far as practical, measures should be put in place to assess the quantity of goods being imported which contain plastic packaging, for example, plastic bottles. This could involve working in partnership with retailers to extract data on the volume of plastic goods they import.

[84]The Panel recommends that, as far as practical, measures should be put in place to assess the quantity of goods being imported which contain plastic packaging. For example, plastic bottles. This could involve working in partnership with retailers to extract data on the volume of plastic goods they import by Q4 2019.

Furthermore, with Jersey being such a small island, it raises the question as to what extent we rely on the importation of plastic packaging. The Panel explored what challenges or limitations Jersey might face if single use plastics were banned or eliminated. As previously discussed in chapter two, some single use plastics can play an extremely important role in many aspects of society.

The Panel heard evidence explaining the necessity for plastic packaging in the safe transportation of food goods. At the public hearing with JPRestaurants, the Panel was advised that there was a reason for Jersey's reliance on the importation of plastic packaging:

A f"urtheIt hrelp subis people in thmissiaont alikcoreae m8com8. ennve"tednien: ce, they want clean, healthy, tasty food, and plastics

" fWeoodsberelivicevee secplatosr ticto popacerkaagte, ingto isenimpable oratgedricintulto urajersel proydtuco erens ato blpe atche kagIse latheindsr produce and export safely and indirectly as the result of importing food and drink.

In considering policy for plastic packaging all 3 need to be considered. In the case of food on the go it is most important that the policy is not introduced that would negatively impact on the sector without considering the packaging for say ready meals which would then be given an unfair advantage [85].

However, there was also clear indication that there are certain types "of single-use plastics which could be eliminated, dependent on stable alternative supply routes:

" I stharavwse ovanerd tphela slaticst sftew irrermos nwhithsc mh awidlle tbhee redecplisacion edtwio dth ispcontapeinuer str athe wsusande ofwoplodastenic stirrers but due to the increase in the demand for these products I am having great

difficulty in securing a stable supply route which is delaying the discontinuation

of the plastics, we are also looking at all the plastic we purchase over the next few years to see where we can offer an alternative, our next aim would be to look at single use cutlery [86].

In a further response to written questions from the Panel, Pack and Wrap also highlighted the need to mitigate any unintended consequences. One example being banning the importation of plastic straws entirely as there are some categories of disabled people who require the use of plastic straws to be able to drink hot drinks as paper straws would be not be suitable for this purpose. The alternative possibility given would be to have strict controls over the importation and have plastic straws supplied in pharmacies and/or other suitable places [87].

A further submission from another business indicated they are doing what they can to eliminate many single-use plastics from their stock and would like to do more but feel limited by the extent to which they can reduce plastic packaging because of a lack of choice from external suppliers.

" ourOverplasthtice pusase. t fWitew h maollntthshe weitehams ve we womarkekde haandrd tpo achack ourieve a selvhues gwe e redareucatilmoson int there (probably over 80% now) mainly by starting to use a product called Bio

Ware, which although looks and acts like a plastic is actually a plant based product and is fully compostable. There are a few bits and pieces we need to change and we are currently working with our suppliers to find suitable alternatives. The areas we will continue to have the greatest difficulty are those out of our control, the products we buy in to re-sell. Bottled drinks, products delivered into our kitchens etc.. are our biggest use of plastic, and we cannot control this. I believe local businesses are all to aware of the need for change but tlevel he praesss turehis isn eebedysontodboe ur cpuontt on rol thbe ulat rcgleaer rlpyrotdhuce berigsgaesndt ussupe9p2.lier"s on a national

F17

Some businesses find it difficult to eliminate many single-use plastics which are imported by external suppliers and so feel limited to the extent to which they can eliminate plastic packaging.

The new EU-wide rules will clearly go some way to addressing these shortfalls by placing obligations on producers and providing incentives for industry to produce eco-friendly alternatives.

The UK government recently announced it would be introducing measures to ensure that retailers and producers of plastic packaging pay the full cost of collecting and recycling it as part of a new waste strategy. These polluter pay' charges will also incorporate penalties for selling difficult to recycle packaging such as black plastic trays. As a further incentive there will be lower fees charged for packaging that is easy to reuse or recycle [88].

The UK's new waste strategy mirrors that of the EU policies on plastic and in addition to the polluter pay charges for retailers and producers it aims to [89]:

Introduce a tax on single use plastic with less than 30% recycled content.
Consider banning plastic packaging where there are already suitable alternatives.
Legislation to enable government to specify a core set of materials to be collected by all local authorities and waste operators.
Commit to a deposit return scheme for both bottles and cans.
Ensure all households get food waste collections.
Try to build a stronger UK recycling market.

It is inevitable that UK-owned companies operating locally will be affected by these changes. With the UK aligning itself with EU policies on plastic, in spite of its imminent exit from the EU, Jersey should also take a united approach on tackling plastics along with the rest of Europe, as far as practical to do so.

In the public hearing with the Minister for the Environment it was discussed that whilst there is not the resource or means of being able to measure the amount of plastic packaging imported into the island, there are relevant policy levers that can be utilised to target either the manufacturer/producer or the consumer and the most effective policy levers are the ones that are internationally based such as the EU directive.

" Director, Environmental Policy:

We need to encourage consumers to use their choices sensibly and we have to be fast followers of international legislation. What we absolutely cannot do, I believe and will be recommending to the Council of Ministers, is allowing important international pieces of policy to bypass us and not apply here. They have to be enforced in some way or another. The reality is, going back to the E.U. directive, that if we were going to take on full compliance we would be looking at bringing new legislation to the Island. You have asked in your scoping the cost- benefit analysis of doing a small piece of work like the Eco-active campaign. You are absolutely right; what would be the cost-benefit analysis of applying the directive locally and we would have to enumerate that? I am sure we would come out with the right answer but that piece of work would have to be done [90].

This is a fundamental example of where Jersey's government has an opportunity to adopt best practice and implement effective policy levers with the aim of changing supplier behaviour. The Panel recommends that work to scope a cost-benefit analysis of introducing such policy measures should be undertaken.

F18

There are effective policy levers which can be utilised to target the manufacturer / producer and the most effective are the internationally based ones such as the EU directive.

R20 The Panel recommends that work to scope a suitable analysis of adopting

legislation in line with the EU directive of banning all avoidable single-use plastics should be undertaken by Q2 2020.

7 Conclusion

Whilst it is encouraging to see that the Council of Ministers has committed to the principle of reducing plastic waste in the Common Strategic Policy 2018-22, concrete action must be taken and this must be made an immediate priority.

Jersey has its own part to play in the global effort to reduce plastic pollution but further work needs to be done to improve Jersey's significantly low plastic recycling rate. It is apparent from the evidence there is clear public enthusiasm and support for Jersey to introduce a wide range of initiatives to reduce Jersey's plastic consumption. Increasing public awareness of how and what is recycled needs to be tackled effectively and implementing a kerbside recycling scheme in all Parishes also needs to be one of the priorities.

Despite the challenges some businesses face, particularly around the importation of plastic packaging, these are not considered to be insurmountable and there are other wins' businesses can have – the evidence has shown this with a number of businesses demonstrating that plastic reduction is achievable. Whilst some businesses are doing what they can, submissions revealed that they would benefit from further government engagement and support.

Jersey's government has predominately only utilised public awareness campaigns on limited resources and is not making use of stronger, more robust regulatory and/or economic measures. Evidence gained from what other countries are doing has proven that those countries which use a range of measures, achieve a higher recycling rate. Jersey needs to consider implementing a range of initiatives, rather than focusing solely on kerbside collections. Moreover, the Panel re-iterates its main recommendation that Jersey should align with the European Union and impose a ban on all avoidable single-use plastic.

Appendix 1 Panel Membership

Connétable Mike Connétable John Le Connétable Sadie Jackson Maistre (Vice- Le Sueur -Rennard

(Chairman) Chairman)

Deputy Kirsten Morel

Terms of Reference

1 To consider what work the Department of the Environment is currently undertaking to help reduce use of plastics in Jersey and to address the threat they pose to pollution for the environment and its wildlife.

2 TDoepartmedetermintneowfhettheherEnvia suironmetablentcostin benrelatiefitonantalyo sisthehascostbeenof undpublerticakawenarenesby thes initiatives/campaigns and any resulting benefits this has in reducing plastic waste.

3 Tbeno cefitonsids toerthetheenviroleronmentthat busithinesses coulds cbrianngpl.ay in the reduction of plastics and the 4 Tand/oro considchallerengJerseyes 'this ims mayportatiposeon ofofrplJerseasticym'sateriabilitalsy toandsigthnieficpoteantlyntiredaluclimeitplatiastionsc

waste.

5 Tploastiassesscs, andwhetto idherentrecifyywchatlingiminprovemeitiatives ntsin Jersey(if any)arecan fitbe fomader purpand/orose, wspechatifiothecallyr

initiatives could be introduced.

6 Thaso ex. plore how plastic waste is treated and assess what environmental benefit this 7 Tploastiexcplsoreandwidhatentifyothewhatr countrilessonses Jerseypractisecouldin telermarns ofrof mredthiucsin. g / eliminating use of

Evidence Considered

Public hearings

Minister for the Environment – 2nd October 2018
Minister for Infrastructure – 1st October 2018
Director of JPRestaurants – 2nd October 2018

Written Submissions

A total of 37 written submissions were received by the Panel and can be viewed here.

What is Scrutiny?

Scrutiny panels and the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) work on behalf of the States Assembly (Jersey's parliament). Parliamentary Scrutiny examines and investigates the work of the Government, holding ministers to account for their decisions and actions. They do this by reviewing and publishing reports on a number of areas:

Government policy;
new laws and changes to existing laws;
work and expenditure of the Government;
issues of public importance.

This helps improve government policies, legislation and public services. If changes are suggested, Scrutiny helps to make sure that the changes are fit for purpose and justified.

The Environment, Housing and Infrastructure Scrutiny Panel, scrutinise Government on matters within these three remits. To learn more about the Panel's work – CLICK HERE