An Inexportable Problem: Shifting the Blame on New Zealand’s Recycling Woes
By Emilia Sullivan
New Zealand’s ‘100% Pure’ tourism campaign was established in 1999, devised with the intention to represent our country’s “unique combination of landscapes, people and activities” that cannot be found anywhere else in the world. However, under this shiny, green exterior lies a rotting core. New Zealand was recently ranked second to last in a study of packaging ‘recyclability’, with over half of packaging assessed unable to be recycled. While there are growing calls for waste-reduction initiatives to incentivize consumer recycling on a micro level, some feel as though this problem requires a top-down approach. There are demands for system-wide restructuring that would place the burden on local authorities and wasteful manufacturers rather than having that responsibility fall to the consumer.
New Zealand’s recycling framework has been described as ‘confusing’. Cardboard and glass tend to be converted into new products within New Zealand, but most plastic, paper, and metal waste is sent overseas to be made into new products. Most plastic products have a number embossed inside an arrow which signifies the type of plastic it is. While the arrow symbol was initially adopted to indicate that an item could potentially be recycled, the use of the symbol continues to cause confusion as more and more plastics are found to be non-recyclable. The goalposts frequently shift regarding what can or can’t be recycled, and stockpiles are beginning to build in landfills around the country as companies scramble to find a market willing to accept their waste.
A significant hurdle in New Zealand’s waste management system is that no two authorities are the same - some accept plastic grades 1 and 2, some 1 to 5, and others take 1 to 7. The inconsistency between local bodies causes many people to put recycling matters into the too-hard basket’, which in this case is the rubbish bin, and thus the landfill. This places a responsibility on consumers to be vigilant of what their local facilities can recycle or export - focus being on the word ‘local’. The gist of New Zealand’s fragmented recycling guidelines is that while an item may be recyclable in theory, whether it can be accepted is wholly dependent on the local authority. In some districts, recycling is managed by the council; in others, it is directed by private authorities who may have a different set of standards to the public sector. Council-owned recycling management systems have repeatedly been plagued by underfunding and a lack of interest in exportable matter. The Kaikōura District Council has gone as far as to review whether they’d even offer recycling services at all, as a collapsing recycling market causes expenses to soar.
Following the study that placed New Zealand second-to-last in packaging recyclability, many have devised solutions that would see the country be savvier at recycling. This spans from nationalising our recycling infrastructure, to adopting a “circular economy” approach in which the life cycles of materials are maximised and reutilised so that nothing is wasted. In 2020, the Minister for the Environment commissioned a report by WasteMINZ, in which recommendations were made to standardise curbside collections, reduce confusion, improve quality and reduce the amount of rubbish going to landfill. WasteMINZ suggested a nationwide standardised plastic number system, as well as incentivising consumers to recycle glass and reduce other waste.
However, all of this fails to recognise the root of the problem - the manufacturers creating this wasteful material. While it is wholly beneficial, the increasing push for sustainable shopping overlooks the overarching influence that manufacturers and corporations have in the lives of everyday New Zealanders. Sustainable shopping is not affordable and in reach for everyone - the reason plastic and other types of non-recyclable waste have become an integral part of modern consumption is its affordability, durability, and accessibility. It is difficult to go to a supermarket and find a product with environmentally-conscious packaging at par or a lower price than a wasteful alternative, so what can be done to change this?
Governments worldwide must start pushing back on wasteful manufacturers to prevent waste from entering the system in the first place. The unchecked mindset of global corporations to ‘profit no matter what’, combined with non-existent legislation to force corporate responsibility in environmental decisions requires urgent addressing as the country’s waste problem creeps towards irreversibility. By disengaging manufacturers from this debate, it shifts the burden for recycling of manufactured goods to both consumers and local bodies. In doing this, the manufacturers don't have to deal with the disposal and externalities of their material choices, passing it on to the future generations of consumers.
Since a young age, New Zealanders have had the phrase ‘reduce, reuse, recycle’ ingrained in our psyche. By implementing a strategy that prioritises the ‘reduce’ part of the equation, this will help us reuse far easier, and in turn, recycling would become second nature.
The views expressed in the posts and comments of this blog do not necessarily reflect those of the Equal Justice Project. They should be understood as the personal opinions of the author. No information on this blog will be understood as official. The Equal Justice Project makes no representations as to the accuracy or completeness of any information on this site or found by following any link on this site. The Equal Justice Project will not be liable for any errors or omissions in this information nor for the availability of this information.
Featured image source: Pixnio.