Farm plastic recycle push

More than 4000 tonnes of silage wrap -- enough to circle the earth eight times -- and millions of plastic chemical containers are used by New Zealand farmers every year, but getting rid of such waste in an environmentally safe way is proving tough going, reports Peter Watson.

Nelson farmers are coming under increasing pressure to recycle their plastic waste rather than burn or bury it.

The Tasman District Council already bans their burning while Nelson City Council is weighing up whether to require people to have a resource consent if they want to burn silage wrap or chemical containers.

With just an estimated 10 per cent of these products recycled nationally, the councils are trying to cajole farmers into improving their often outdated waste-management habits by using the programmes offered by two rival recyclers, Agrecovery and Plasback.

Burning most plastic wrap and containers, particularly at bonfire temperatures, is polluting and releases a range of dangerous gases, including cancer-causing dioxins, and when mixed with chemicals can produce an even more toxic brew which increases the health risk for those nearby.

Plastics also don't break down when buried, are unsightly and can be a hazard to stock and machinery if left lying around.

While many farmers still burn or bury, neither council actively monitors whether they are getting rid of their waste safely.

Council figures show 24 collections were made at Richmond and Mariri Agrecovery depots last year and 23 so far this year.

Tasman District Council policy planner Mary-Anne Baker, who is also the local government representative on the Agrecovery trust board, said a low-key approach had been adopted while recycling collection points were established around the district with council help as some farmers had no option other than to burn or bury.

But now they were up and running, the TDC had phased in a rule banning burning and would be increasing its efforts to inform landowners of their responsibilities.

While the TDC didn't know how much plastic waste was out there and where it ended up, it was aware some farmers had stockpiled containers waiting for a recycling scheme to be set up, she said.

Recycling was relatively easy to do and could be combined with a trip to town, while the cost of collection was embedded in the container through a 12 cents per litre levy on the price, Ms Baker said.

Compliance and enforcement manager Carl Cheeseman said the council hadn't received any complaints regarding the burning of plastics since it was banned and hadn't found any problems in the outdoor fires it had inspected.

"But we don't actively monitor farms for compliance to the rule, we rely on people doing the right thing."

Richard Frizzell, a policy planner working on air-quality issues for the Nelson City Council, said now there were recycling options available, the council was considering requiring anyone wanting to burn agricultural containers and wrap to have a resource consent in the hope the cost and time of such a move would encourage them to recycle instead.

This change to the air-quality plan was likely to be notified next month, which would give farmers and others the opportunity to make submissions, he said.

The council first leaned towards banning burning but reconsidered as "it seemed a bit of a extreme step to go from permitting it to straight to prohibiting it" and wasn't sure of the long-term viability of the recycling schemes, Mr Frizzell said.

While burning plastics didn't appear to be a huge problem, most farmers at a recent recycling information meeting admitted they had done it, he said.

"We have had some comments from the public and councillors in the past who have observed this burning, and given the sensitivity of air quality in Nelson generally, it was a question of whether it was appropriate to continue to allow burning of these products when there are alternatives available."

Federated Farmers Nelson president Edwin Newport said while some farmers might see recycling as yet another extra cost, they would just have to bite the bullet as such schemes was inevitable given the public was becoming more aware of pollution and air quality.

Like many farmers he had burned plastics and until recently was unaware the TDC had now banned the practice.

"There probably needs to be a bit more education about what farmers need to do."

That should included informing them of the health risks of burning such material, he said.

Plasback programme manager Chris Hartshorne said with just 10 per cent of silage wrap collected, nobody could claim recycling was a success yet.

"It's a start. We're trying to change farmers' behaviour which is a big ask and what Tasman and Nelson [councils] have done is going to help enormously because it draws attention to the issue that people shouldn't be burning plastics."

Last year Plasback, which has been operating for four years, collected 8.3 tonnes of wrap from Tasman-Nelson region and Mr Hartshorne expects to see it at least double this year.

"It's growing all the time and we've had a big run on selling our recycling bins in the last couple of months."

It has just taken 47 tonnes of vine net out of Marlborough and hopes to extend this to Nelson.

"In our first year we collected nine tonnes nationally, last year it was 288 tonnes, and this year we've got some ambitious targets to get up somewhere around 900 tonnes.

He's adamant Plasback's user-pays approach is fairer on farmers and manufacturers than a levy on products, saying product stewardship should be voluntary. "Levies are an added cost to manufacturers."

He argues the hidden cost of levies just encourage farmers to leave "great big piles of this very dirty plastic lying in corners of paddocks as they don't see they've paid for anything, so they will still burn and bury because they can't be bothered to do anything else with it".

But Agrecovery chairman Lewis Metcalfe, of Nelson, said a levy on containers was widely used internationally and recognised that the manufacturer as well as the farmer or grower had a responsibility to contribute to recycling. It also didn't make sense for farmers to pay Plasback to collect many of their containers when they had already paid for recyling them via the levy and could take them to Agrecovery recycling depots scattered throughout the country.

Such best practice programmes as adopted by Agrecovery were becoming increasingly important as there was a real risk to New Zealand's reputation as a clean, green country if chemical containers and plastic waste weren't handled safely, he said.

"It's a chance for New Zealand to take up a natural niche, where we act sustainably and responsibly. It may not necessarily get us a premium, but will ensure access to markets."

Agrecovery, which has been collecting containers since 2007 and chemicals since 2009, last year recovered 91,064kg of container plastic, up 21 per cent on the year before. This represents 21 per cent of the containers produced by brand owners participating in the scheme, which Agrecovery hopes to increase to 60 per cent by 2012.

Last year it launched a user-pays silage wrap recycling scheme and has so far sold more than 20,000 recycling liner bags and collected 2500 full bags in the past six months.

While Plasback had been running a similar, larger scheme for much longer, Mr Metcalfe said Agrecovery was happy with the response from farmers and confident there was room for two.

(Source: www.stuff.co.nz/nelson-mail August 2010)

Back to Ag Plastics main page

Back to Resources main page

Back to Home page