19 minute read
Textile Stewardship
Clothing textile waste, myths, stewardship, and circularity
By Omer Soker
IT’S a myth that Winston Churchill once said ‘Never waste a good crisis’.
It was President Barack Obama’s chief of staff Rahm Emanuel who coined the inventive phrase in response to the 2008 Global Financial Crisis. And what he meant is that it’s an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.
Fast forward to Australia in 2022. Make no mistake, sending 780,000 tonnes of textile waste to landfill every year is a very real and imminent crisis. And it’s a myth that Australia has anything near an end-of-life solution for clothing or the recycling infrastructure to tackle that volume. It’s no wonder clothing textiles have been added to The Minister’s Priority List, which identifies the products and materials considered to be most in need of a product stewardship approach.
The Australian Government is sending a clear signal to the entire clothing textiles sector that it’s time for action and for industry to clean this up, and that taking responsibility for waste on this scale needs to be part of the cost of doing business.
Concurrently, the government is also presenting a massive opportunity for the sector to come together in a coordinated action to create a vibrant, circular economy for clothing textiles. The government is presenting us an opportunity to do things we thought we could not do before. To positively transform the sector and engage the next generation of customers demanding brand sustainability and confidence in downstream textile solutions. Let’s not waste it.
Clothing Textiles Product Stewardship Scheme
The Australian Government has awarded the Australian Fashion Council-led consortium a $1 million grant to design, develop and implement a Product Stewardship Scheme for clothing textiles, along with a National Roadmap for Clothing in Australia.
The consortium partners include Charitable Recycling Australia, WRAP, Sustainable Resource Use and QUT. Key collaborators such as the National Retail Association (NRA), Australian Retailers Association (ARA), Waste Management and Resource Recovery Association (WMRR) and Australian Council of Recycling (ACOR), and dozens of other stakeholders across the entire clothing value chain including brands, retailers, industry, academia and federal, state and local governments, are also involved.
The stewardship scheme will be co-designed through consultation and collaboration to create a voluntary accredited, industry-led, self-supporting and economically sustainable scheme, covering all imported and domestically produced clothing.
Far more than just an end-of-life program, the purpose of the scheme is to transform how clothing is made, used and recirculated in Australia to create clothing circularity by 2030. It will achieve this through the waste hierarchy’s R-strategies in not just reducing waste, but accelerating reuse, repair, refurbishment, remanufacture, repurposing, recycling and recovery.
The scheme will bring together all clothing ‘Stewards’ (organisations that place clothing products onto the market) and ‘Recirculators’ (organisations operating in R-strategies). They will create the new investment fund Australia needs for substantial infrastructure and commercial support to find the highest value and best use for clothing textiles across the entire supply chain. With its focus on a shift to circular economy principles, the scheme will address: • Design and production – incentivised design practices, support to adopt circular economy principles, and industry-set
Australian targets. • Consumption, use and disposal – promotion of durability of use, reuse, repair and responsible disposal through behaviour change campaigns and upholding consumer confidence. • End-of-life and recirculation – pathways to recirculate clothing, fibres and materials with investment in commercial-scale collection, sorting and recycling infrastructure.
With collaborative engagement with all clothing stakeholders, success is defined by the creation of an industry-led, self-sustaining scheme by March 2023, and the establishment of an independent Product Stewardship Organisation governed by a board, charter and members with oversight on all funding and investment decisions required.
This is a rare and exceptional opportunity for all clothing textile stakeholders to come together under a co-ordinated plan for the future of clothing textiles in Australia.
Charitable Recycling Australia’s Omer Soker.
Stakeholder engagement plan
The consortium will launch a comprehensive stakeholder engagement plan in 2022, structured with opportunities for input across the entire supply chain. The consortium includes a lot of the major players in the industry, such as: • The Australian Fashion Council (AFC), which is the peak body for the fashion and textile industry in
Australia and is the lead applicant, with Alex Bowen appointed as the project manager. • Charitable Recycling Australia, which is taking the lead on the stakeholder engagement plan and integrating clothing reuse into the scheme. • Sustainable Resource Use, which is leading on a material flow analysis to ensure we understand the stages of clothing product life. • QUT, which is leading the research in global best practice in policies, processes, and technologies that can be tailored to the unique
Australian context. • WRAP, which is leveraging its global expertise on circular clothing, developing the final scheme structure and leading the economic modelling.
The benefits of clothing circularity
There are massive benefits for clothing brands, manufacturers, importers and retailers to move through sustainability to long-term circularity to meet the fast-changing needs of future consumers. This includes: • taking part in a global issue on a national level; • connecting with peers facing the same challenges; • medium- and long-term economic benefits; • reducing the impact on the environment; • public perception and positive publicity as a green brand; • staying ahead of increasing strict regulatory requirements; and • brand positioning as a global leader
The benefits for consumers include better stewardship with sustainable brands and confidence in recycling. Charities benefit from high-quality donations and more reuse. Collectors and sorters benefit from increased business opportunities. Repair comes out of the shadows to return to the important industry it was once. Renters grow. Refurbishment and remanufacture scales up, and we create a commercially viable longterm recycling sector. To succeed, we must all come together under a co-ordinated industry-led plan.
Project stages
The four project stages under the Commonwealth Agreement are:
• Data and Material Flow Analysis
Report – identifying data requirements, data sources, data gaps, and making recommendations on how these may be filled. • Global Scan Report – a robust analysis of global initiatives promoting circularity in clothing textiles, including systems, policies, technologies, and infrastructure.
• Scheme Recommendation Report
– the final report, in early 2023, of all analyses and recommendations on sustainable improvements based on the finalised scheme design – i.e. the business plan. • Roadmap to 2030 - Including a review in 2024 in preparation for meeting the Minister’s Priority List targets for 2025.
The first step is consultation and engagement with clothing stakeholders, to provide a structured and tiered opportunity to provide feedback and contribute to the scheme’s collective co-design and development.
There will a lot of industry consultation before the textile stewardship scheme comes into being.
CLOSED EXPORT BORDERS NEED OPEN LOCAL MINDS
The Australian ban on the export of whole used tyres from December 2021 demands real-world and innovative thinking from local rubber processors and manufacturers.
Tyre Stewardship Australia support and fund local solutions for end-of-life tyres. If you use raw rubber or tyre derived rubber in your products or have an innovative use for end-of-life tyres, we want to hear from you.
Get in contact with Tyre Stewardship Australia to discuss the myriad of options for virgin rubber right through to tyre derived products and applications.
Freeing Trevor to drive the Circular bus
By Mike Ritchie
“We can achieve a Circular Economy by 2025” was the proposition in a debate run by the Young Professionals of WMRR. I chaired the “No” side. “No chance” we said (and won).
And here is why. The two ends of our economy are broken.
The economy is very efficient at mining, manufacturing, using and disposing of materials. The so called “Take, Make, Dispose” linear flow of materials. To be ‘circular’ our economy needs fixes at each end.
The front end “Design” side (what can be put into the economy) needs root and branch reform to allow for reuse and recycling a “end of life”.
There is not a single law in Australia that requires design for recycling or reuse.
In fact, we have just had a Parliamentary Inquiry into the Right to Repair - for God’s sake. That is, do I have the right to repair something I already own? We are a long way from requiring producers of goods to design them for recycling and reuse.
And at the back end, “Recycling” end of the economy, we still default to landfilling over reuse or recycling. Why? Because the economics of (most) recycling, is broken. Because landfill is cheap.
As long as landfill is the cheapest disposal option for materials that have ended their first life, it will always be the most economically rational outcome for businesses and waste generators. Cheap landfills are like oversized vacuum cleaners. They suck up waste and recyclables indiscriminately.
The cheaper the price, the higher their suction power. No rational recycler will set up a business to compete with low cost landfills.
Here is a quick snapshot of the resources our economy ‘wastes’ into landfill: • 7 million tonnes of construction and demolition material. • 6 million tonnes of commercial material. • 7 million tonnes of organics. • 85 per cent of all food waste is landfilled. • 84 per cent of all plastic is landfilled. • 93 per cent of all textiles and clothing is landfilled. • 50 per cent of all glass is still landfilled. • 45 per cent of all consumer packaging is still landfilled.
And the reason is, it is rational to do so.
We need to dispense with the myth that if only we “thought” about these materials as resources, that that would somehow fix the problem. The problem is real world economics. Scarcity and demand are not sufficient to compete with cheap landfill.
Sure, there are plenty of recyclers doing the right thing and trying to grow their businesses. But they are doing so in the face of massive competition from landfills.
Recycling cannot be the default option whilst there are cheap landfills strewn across the country sucking in resources and recyclables.
Landfills are mindless. They don’t discriminate between resources and residual waste. A cheap landfill gate fee means cheap disposal.
Put it another way, to make the economics work, almost all recycling in Australia is subsidised by someone (except for cardboard and aluminium/ steel which have enough commodity value to overcome the costs of recycling collection and reprocessing). Most mixed stream recyclables are not so valuable.
Think kerbside recycling – it is subsidised by ratepayers to the tune of $150/tonne.
We have no chance of creating a Circular Economy while landfill can outcompete recycling on a daily basis.
That is why landfill levies are so important. They have started (and I emphasise started) to level the playing field.
The average landfill levy in Europe is A$250/tonne. In Australia, the weighted average levy is $107/tonne. Most of regional Australia has no levy. Who would try to recycle and create jobs under these commercial realities?
“What about all the specific streams that are being recycled?” I hear you say. “What about the Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) schemes that drive specific stream recycling?” While these are important the common factor is that they all require specific government intervention (the Minister’s List and/or regulation) because the economics don’t work alone. They all require ongoing manufacturer subsidies (paid by you and I).
Here are a few facts: 1. Mobile phone recycling has been in place for 21 years. 6.5 million handsets are sold each year. 1.12 million are recycled. That is 17 per cent. Eighty-three per cent are still landfilled (or stored in drawers). 2. Lithium-ion battery recycling is only 10 per cent. 3. Solar panel recycling is less than 10 per cent and almost all are landfilled. 4. TV and computer recycling is around 50 per cent. 5. 42 per cent of waste paint is still landfilled 6. Plastic packaging recycling is 16 per cent. That is 84 per cent of plastic packaging is still landfilled. The target is 70 per cent by 2025. No chance.
You get the picture. It would be much easier if the whole economy defaulted to recycling rather than governments having to cherry pick individual streams and regulatory interventions.
That means shifting the economics. How? The obvious candidates are landfill levies, tax incentives for recycling, removing virgin commodity subsidies, carbon pricing to value embodied energy, grants and positive procurement policies. These will drive the economics.
Governments are trying but just too slowly.
All the Governments of Australia (including local government) have signed up to an 80% diversion from landfill target by 2030. That is a critical step in creating a circular economy.
But there is no chance of achieving it without reform. The figure below shows where it is broken or needs work.
How a circular economy is supposed to work.
The key drivers of a Circular Economy are not going to mysteriously invent themselves. The economy is a political creation, so is circularising it.
Here is a list of the key framework (structural) changes that are “must haves” if we are going to make any headway. Some are easy but most require political intervention and courage.
Design end of the economy:
1. Design for reuse and recycling rules including bans on composite packaging (for example plastic inserts in envelopes, plastic windows in paper bread bags, banning PVC drink containers, bans on those ridiculous plastic fruit stickers etc.) 2. Recycling labelling rules on all products sold in the economy 3. Recycled content rules (including minimum levels) 4. Extended Producer Responsibility regulated schemes for difficult to collect materials (e.g. mattresses, solar panels, tyres, batteries, fire alarms etc.)
At the back end of the economy:
1. Market reform – levies, taxes, subsidies, carbon pricing and grants. 2. Specifically minimum landfill levies across Australia to drive materials to recycling rather than cheap holes in the ground 3. Hypothecation of levy funds to collection and recovery systems (firstly organics) 4. Bans on materials to landfill (firstly organics which in landfill currently generates a significant portions of
Australia’s anthropogenic methane emissions) 5. Government procurement rules to drive recycling markets 6. Government planning policies to allow recycling facilities to be built
and not be built out 7. Supply chain incentives to drive waste avoidance (will partly happen as recycling becomes cheaper relative to landfill)
But we need to face a few realities. Circular Economy will be more expensive in the short term than a “take, make, dispose” economy. Almost all recycling in Australia is currently more expensive than landfill (particularly underpriced or “free” landfills). Governments need to remedy that.
If we (the voting public) are serious about a Circular Economy we must give governments the freedom to change the economics of recycling. We know how to do it. But it requires governments to intervene in the market. That means politics.
The leaders we need right now, are Trevor Evans (Federal Minister for Recycling and Waste Minimisation; first one ever) and State Environment Ministers, many of whom are convinced of the need but don’t have the political mandate to shift the Circular Economy dial.
As voters and advocates we need to give them the political capital to do so. That means convincing our peers that reform is needed, supporting changes to the economics when it occurs (e.g. levies) and most importantly supporting political bravery to encourage more and faster action.
There is no chance we can achieve a Circular Economy by 2025, but achieving the 80% diversion from landfill Target in the National Waste Action plan by 2030, is achievable and we must support it.
Trevor and the State Ministers have given us the Plan. We need to allow (and push) them to drive the bus to achieve it.
There is little chance of a circular economy as long as landfill prices are cheap.
Mike Ritchie is the principal of MRA Consulting Group iw
Trusted Advisors in Property, Environment, Planning, Waste & Local Government Law
Experts in all areas of waste including:
DAs and Land & Environment Court Appeals EPA Investigations & Prosecutions Waste Contracts Operational Issues & Waste Legislation Waste Transportation Asbestos Issues
Contact one of our advisors now:
02 9929 3031 or waste@honeslawyers.com.au
or find out more at:
www.honeslawyers.com.au/what-we-do/waste/
The road to the 2025 National Packaging Targets: now is the time to act
By Brooke Donnelly
OVER the last year, the work undertaken to improve packaging sustainability has been impressive – from expanding the use of the Australasian Recycling Label (ARL) on packaging to help consumers recycle correctly, to increasing the amount of recycled content used in packaging.
This has been made possible by industry continuing to collaborate, innovate and commit to actions that help drive progress towards the 2025 National Packaging Targets.
The recent release of the Collective Impact Report investigated this more deeply – highlighting where we’re on track to achieve the targets and, importantly, those areas that require more attention. Crucially, the report then identified the alternative interventions that were required to get us there.
It also looked at the transformational shift of the packaging system where waste is no longer viewed as waste, but instead as a valuable resource that can provide economic and environmental benefits for Australian communities, as well as proving to be an enabler for businesses to make a tangible and measurable difference.
Report findings
Overall, the report highlighted that we’re making incremental progress with stabilisation in certain areas. However, despite our progress, 45 per cent of packaging ended up in landfill in 2019.
This represents a significant challenge for industry, governments and the broader community to do more.
Three key material losses were identified in the packaging system – from design through to collection, sorting and reprocessing. These include: • 14 per cent of materials are not recyclable by design. • 24 per cent of packaging that is recyclable is not being recycled and collected. • 8 per cent of materials are being lost in collection and recycling processes.
We also know that we need to address consumption as well as recovery if we are to transition to a circular economy for packaging in Australia.
Collective action
The report also highlights the gaps that remain across the packaging system that will require collective action. These include: 1. 100 per cent of packaging to be reusable, recyclable or compostable due to: • Uncertainties about the compatibility of packaging items with current and future recovery systems, which is a barrier to change. • Recyclable materials that are lost in the sorting system due to size (too large or too small) or format type. 2. 70 per cent of plastic packaging to be recycled or composted that is hindered by several issues
that include: • Loss of recyclable materials due to poor source separation by households and businesses. • Technical and/or commercial barriers to sorting within Material
Recovery Facilities (MRFs). • Limited end markets for some materials. 3. The phase out of problematic and unnecessary single-use plastic packaging, but there are issues due to: • Uncertainties about the availability or recyclability of alternative materials. • Lack of fit-for-purpose alternatives for some packaging applications. • Capital costs of new processing equipment when changing materials. 4. 50 per cent average recycled content included in packaging with the main issue being insufficient supply of some post-consumer recycled content at the right quality, particularly for glass and food-grade plastics.
The solution
With a large task ahead of us to address these challenges, the following strategies and initiatives have been identified as priorities over 2021-23: 1) Provide brand owners (APCO
Members) and packaging suppliers with the knowledge and tools to design packaging for compatibility with current and likely future recovery system. Led by APCO, this will involve an education program and working with industry to ensure their packaging can be recovered at end of life and has resource value. 2) Build demand for recovered packaging materials as well as increase their value and drive investment in sorting and reprocessing. This will be a shared responsibility between the packaging supply chain and all levels of government. 3) Invest in new and improved infrastructure for sorting and reprocessing including mechanical
and advanced recycling facilities for soft plastics. This work will be led by the waste and recycling sector with financial support from state, territory and federal government.
Financial incentives to drive circularity will also be explored in greater detail over the coming years, as will reuse – which has proven to be a potential untapped opportunity to avoid 2.9 million tonnes of singleuse packaging year on year.
A call to action
It is evident that there is still much work to be done to achieve the targets and transition to a circular economy for packaging.
However, systemic change doesn’t happen overnight – it’s incremental.
If we as a nation can reuse and remanufacture our products and packaging rather than sending it to landfill, we can contribute to reducing greenhouse emissions. In turn, this will help create a circular economy that will see us maximise the use of existing materials, reduce dependence on new raw materials and minimise waste.
This will require us to leverage the good work we’ve done so far and to truly collaborate and work together. It also calls for bold interventions in policy, production, education and engagement.
What’s pleasing to see is that across the industry it’s clear that the conversation about sustainable packaging has shifted – from questioning ‘why’ is this necessary, to ‘how’ do we do this – and it’s fantastic to see such widespread commitment across the country as we work together to achieve the 2025 targets.
Our vision – and the vision Australia needs for a sustainable future for packaging – is for the whole packaging value chain to collaborate to keep packaging materials out of landfill and maximise the circular value of the materials, energy and labour within the local economy.
Unequivocally, now is the time for industry to step up and take bold, systemic and tangible action towards achieving the 2025 targets and the development of a circular economy for packaging in Australia. iw
More urgency is needed by government and industry if packaging targets are to be met.
SPECIALIST DOORS
for the WASTE INDUSTRY
Noise Dust Wind Separation Odour Vermin Security
DMF International Pty Ltd is a fully Australian family owned business, with nearly 55 years of supplying specialist door solutions. We manufacture, import and install a range of high speed and large PVC fold up doors to assist in the environmental controls of the door openings. DMF are proud to be an Australian partner for German brand EFAFLEX Gmbh, who manufacture premium high speed doors for the global market. These doors are designed to operate many cycles a day, with speeds from 0.5-1.5m/sec, and tolerate very dusty applications. For highly corrosive environments, we can even supply doors with stainless steel structures. These door types have been installed for waste processing, waste to energy, recycle and FOGO plants, and are suited to many other industries requiring climate control of large doorways. Call us today!
