« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
Executive Summary
Mike Pringle
MSP has tabled a Members Bill in the
Scottish Parliament to impose an environmental levy on
lightweight plastic carrier bags as provided by shops and
other retail outlets. It is understood that this would
cover all bags made partially or completely of plastic,
with the exception of those used for directly packing of
fresh meat, fish, fruit and other foods.
This brief study, commissioned by the Scottish Executive
and undertaken by
AEA Technology Environment and
associates, has addressed the likely impacts of such a levy
and variants of it on:
- The environment.
- Consumers.
- Business.
- Waste.
- Local authorities.
Advocates of a levy on plastic bags cite the main
benefits as being reduced littering (including marine
litter), reduced use of resources and energy, lower
pollutant emissions and increased public awareness of
environmental issues.
Opponents argue that lightweight plastic carrier bags
are hygienic, convenient and durable, that they are often
reused for other purposes, that they form only a small part
of the litter stream and that they have a lower overall
environmental impact than paper bags. They also claim that
a levy would impact unfairly on poorer households and would
lead to job losses in Scotland (from reduced plastic bag
manufacturing and importing).
The study has considered these and other arguments for
and against a levy, quantifying the probable effects
wherever possible. It considered a range of different
scenarios:
- Scenario 0: No levy,
i.e. business as usual.
- Scenario 1A: A levy of 10p on plastic but not paper
bags, covering all businesses (as proposed in the
Bill).
- Scenario 1B: A levy of 10p on plastic but not paper
bags, covering all businesses except small and medium
sized enterprises (
SMEs) and charities.
- Scenario 2A: A levy of 10p on plastic and paper
bags, covering all businesses.
- Scenario 2B: A levy of 10p on plastic and paper
bags, covering all businesses except
SMEs and charities.
A wide range of evidence has been used to inform the
study. This includes experience from the PlasTax in Ireland
and voluntary schemes in the
UK along with results from life cycle
analysis (
LCA) studies from France and
Australia.
The study does not make a judgement on whether, on
balance, such a levy should be introduced, but provides
evidence on the main effects expected under each of the
four levy scenarios.
Overall Effects
A levy would cause a set of interacting effects. The
study is predicated on evidence that a levy would stimulate
a switch away from use of plastic bags (by typically 90%).
If only plastic bags were to be levied (scenarios 1A and
1B), then studies and experience elsewhere suggest that
there would be some shift in bag usage to paper bags (which
have worse environmental impacts). This study is based on
this experience of behaviour change.
In each of the areas considered - environment,
consumers, business, waste and local authorities - there
would therefore be a complicated set of effects, but in
general:
Environment | The environmental impact of each of the four
levy scenarios was assessed using 8 indicators.
These include energy, water, waste and litter.
Under the levy as proposed (scenario 1A) 5 out
of the 8 indicators show an improvement. There are different impacts under each levy
scenario. In particular, including paper bags
increases the potential environmental benefits
of a levy (
e.g. scenario 2A or 2B) where all
8 indicators improve. In all cases the changes in environmental
indicators due to a levy are modest (
i.e. 1% or less) in comparison to
overall environmental impacts from other
activities in Scotland (as shown in Table
A3.7). |
Consumers | Consumers act to reduce the financial impact
by switching away from use of carrier bags.
This limits the detrimental financial impact
for consumers to a maximum of £10 per person
per year. |
Business | The impacts would be positive for food
retailers, and detrimental for non-food
retailers and other businesses such as plastic
bag manufacturers. |
Waste | Under scenarios 1A and 1B waste increases
due to a switch from plastic to paper bags.
When paper bags are included in the levy (
e.g. scenario 2A or 2B) waste
arisings fall. The greatest increase, 5,409
tonnes, is for scenario 1A, while the greatest
decrease, 4,993 tonnes, is for scenario 2A.
These should be compared against total
household waste arisings of 2,094,872 tonnes pa
[
SEPA], a 0.26% increase and
a 0.24% decrease respectively. In all scenarios litter reduces, but plastic
bags are only a small percentage of reported
litter. |
Local authorities | There will be set-up costs and on-going
costs to administer the levy. In general the
revenue from the levy is expected to cover the
on-going administration costs. However there
are important differences between the on-going
costs and revenues between local authorities.
For example smaller authorities could receive
lower revenues without a proportional reduction
in administration costs. |
Impacts on the Environment (Section 4 in the
main report)
The study used an
LCA approach to evaluate the changes in
a range of different environmental indicators (
e.g. energy use, water use, waste etc). The
analysis shows that there would be an environmental benefit
for some of the indicators depending on what consumers
choose to use were a levy to be introduced.
In all scenarios where the levy is applied, consumption
of non-renewable energy, atmospheric acidification and
formation of ground level ozone and the risk of litter
would be considerably less than the current situation.
In scenarios 2A and 2B, where the levy is applied to
paper bags as well as plastic bags, these environmental
benefits increase. In addition there are reduced impacts in
terms of consumption of water, emissions of greenhouse
gases and eutrophication of water bodies (rivers, lakes,
etc.). This is because paper bags have a
higher environmental impact in these categories relative to
plastic bags.
As these results depend on key assumptions we undertook
a sensitivity analysis to assess how this changes the
results. This shows that scenarios 1A and 1B, which
increase use of paper bags, are more sensitive to key
assumptions than scenarios 2A and 2B. Excluding
SMEs in the levy (scenarios 1B and 2B)
accentuates the impacts.
For each of the environmental indicators used in this
study we have assessed the total impact from all activities
in Scotland. This analysis shows that the environmental
benefits in all indicators from a levy are modest (
i.e. 1% or less) when compared to overall
environmental impacts from other activities in
Scotland.
Impacts on consumers (Section 5 in the main
report)
Consumers would obviously have to pay the levy itself
overtly, on levied bags they continue to use, but the true
additional financial burden of a levy on consumers in
Scotland depends on a number of other factors as well. This
draws upon experience from Ireland of the change in
behaviour and therefore bag use. The total cost was
calculated from the amount of levy paid for carrier bags,
the relative hidden costs of plastic and paper bags
1, the costs of buying additional heavyweight plastic
carrier bags (so-called 'bags for life'), the costs of
buying additional bin liners, and additional
VAT.
The cost to the consumer also depends on whether or not
certain costs (in particular the 'hidden costs/savings')
are passed on to the consumer by the retailer.
This leads to a wide range of estimated costs to the
consumers, depending on assumptions. In Scenarios 1A and 1B
(no levy on paper bags) the estimates ranges from £7.41 to
£10.58 per year. In Scenarios 2A and 2B (levy on paper bags
as well) the range is from about £2.50 to £6.11 per
year.
Including paper bags in the levy would therefore reduce
the financial burden. Indeed this has a bigger effect on
the range than whether or not
SMEs are included.
The estimates of financial impact on consumers should be
compared with average household expenditure in Scotland,
this is £365 per week.
Impacts on business (Section 5 in the main
report)
a) Retailers
After taking set-up and administrative costs into
account, the food retail industry would benefit from net
cost savings from the proposed bag levy. Savings would
result from having to buy far fewer plastic carrier bags
(now usually given away for free
2), while sales of 'bags for life' and bin liners
would increase.
However, this would not be the case for non-food
retailers (
e.g. clothing), as experiences in the Republic
of Ireland following the introduction of the so-called
PlasTax has seen a more pronounced shift to paper bags in
these stores.
In terms of systems needed to comply with the proposed
levy, larger retailers are expected to find this easier,
having computerised systems and greater resource available.
Smaller retailers may well not have computerised systems
and the levy would thus represent a greater burden
b) Other business
There are an estimated 15-20 manufacturers, importers
and distributors of plastic carrier bags in Scotland, most
of which are
SMEs. All will be affected by the
proposed levy. It is believed that the imposition of a
plastic bag levy in Scotland would lead to job losses, as
it is considered unlikely that plants that currently
manufacture plastic carrier bags would switch to
alternative products (
e.g. production of bin liners). Losses have
been estimated at between 300 to 700 direct jobs, with
further indirect jobs being affected (
e.g. in support and distribution
services).
Impacts on Waste (Sections 4 and 5 in the main
report)
In all four levy scenarios, the total number of carrier
bags (lightweight and heavyweight plastic and paper) used
in Scotland per year would decline as a result of the levy.
However, if paper carrier bags are not subject to the levy
(as in scenarios 1A and 1B), the total tonnage of all
carrier bags used and requiring disposal actually increases
by 5,409 tonnes for scenario 1A (the proposed levy).
Scenario 2A (including paper in the levy) would yield the
greatest reduction in the tonnage of waste relative to
current levels (a reduction of 4,993 tonnes per year). For
comparison, in 2002/03 household waste in Scotland was
2,094,872 tonnes [
SEPA] and 5,409 tonnes extra represents
a 0.26% increase, whilst 4,993 tonnes less equates to a
0.24% decrease.
This analysis suggests some potential for an increase in
solid waste generation for scenarios that favour a switch
to paper bags. This is due to different assumptions about
the relative weight of plastic and paper bags, and the fact
that the
LCA looks at solid waste impacts
throughout the bag life cycle rather than just the
end-of-life disposal phase.
Impacts on local authorities (Section 6 in the
main report)
To determine the costs of set up and administration for
local authorities would require a detailed specification of
the systems and wider discussions. Our preliminary
estimates suggest that the application of the levy to all
businesses could cost Scottish local authorities,
collectively, about £3-4 million to set up and £3.5 million
per year to manage. This would reduce to £1.5-2.5 million
to set up and £1.75 million per year to manage if the levy
was applied selectively,
i.e. based on retailer size or function.
These costs could be more than offset by revenues from
the levy estimated at £7.75 million per year for all
businesses and £5.5 million per year if applied
selectively. However, smaller local authorities could
receive lower revenues without a proportional reduction in
administrative costs.
The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities (
CoSLA) has reservations about the duty
of collection falling to the local authorities and its
concerns regarding the magnitude and potential
administrative costs of the Levy, which they believe needs
a full investigation.
Alternatives to the levy (Section 3 in the main
report)
In addition to the assessment of the impacts of the levy
scenarios, the study examined the details of alternatives
to the levy.
The Carrier Bag Consortium (
CBC) has developed a draft voluntary
code to develop waste reduction and reuse initiatives and
to continue product engineering to make further savings in
the production, transportation and storage of plastic
carrier bags. This has been submitted to the Voluntary Code
of Conduct working group set up by the British Retail
Consortium (
BRC) and the Scottish Retail Consortium
(
SRC).
A voluntary approach has already been adopted in
Australia, where use of carrier bags fell by 20.4% between
2002 and 2004.
Report Structure
This summary provides a brief introduction to the
analysis methodology and results of the study. The main
sections of the report are:
Volume 1
Section 1 reviews the context for the study.
Section 2 sets out background information on the various
types of carrier bags and why they would be subject to a
potential levy and reviews experience in Ireland.
Section 3 presents an assessment of the views for and
against a levy based on experiences from around the world
and from a variety of stakeholders.
Section 4 presents the life cycle assessment (
LCA) analysis undertaken for different
plastic bag levy scenarios.
Section 5 analyses the impacts a levy would have on
consumers and businesses.
Section 6 gives a brief review and commentary on levy
collection and its potential impact on local
authorities.
Section 7 presents our conclusions.
Volume 2
Appendix 1 reviews international
experience.
Appendix 2 provides details of the retail
context.
Appendix 3 provides detail information on
the
LCA approach including the sensitivity
analysis.
Appendix 4 provides graphs on the
distribution of revenue to local authorities.
Both volumes include a glossary and a full set of
references.
« Previous | Contents | Next »