Proposed product stewardship regulations for agrichemicals, their containers, and farm plastics

Sections 22 and 23 of the WMA set out several regulations that can support product stewardship. To improve timely end-of-life management of the in-scope products, we propose using existing WMA powers, and only considering options that the current legislation can bring into effect. We may look at other options in future if they become available under revised legislation.

We are considering a package of WMA regulations that would support the accredited product stewardship scheme. They cover the following product groups:

• agrichemicals sold in plastic containers and drums of 1,000 litres or less (including household pest and weed control products)
• plastic bale wrap and silage sheet
• small plastic bags (40 kilograms or less when full) containing products such as seed, feed, fertiliser, soil and crop inputs, farm and animal supplements
• bulk woven polypropylene bags (over 40 kilograms when full) containing products such as seed, feed, fertiliser, soil amendments, minerals and bulk nutrition.

The regulated parties would be the scheme manager, and those that sell and distribute the regulated products into the New Zealand market. Farmers, growers and other consumers of these products would not be regulated.

If the Government decides to proceed with regulations, we anticipate these would come into force 6 to 12 months after their publication, to give industry time to prepare.

As outlined in table 1, the accredited scheme may gradually expand to other products, including: irrigation piping, shrink/pallet wrap, tunnel house covers, wool fadges, potted plant pots, vineyard netting, hail netting and other coverings. Although these are also covered by the Declaration of Priority Products Notice 2020,²⁶ the proposed regulations will not cover them at this stage. Further information and engagement with the sector are required.

The scheme may include these products on a voluntary basis. It will encourage producers and importers of these products to join field trials under the scheme, to determine cost-effective logistics and costings for end-of-life management. When the trials are completed, the scheme will propose an appropriate product fee structure. We may then consider regulations mandating sale in accordance with the accredited scheme and fee payment (subject to further public consultation and government consideration).

Table 2 sets out the regulatory option under consideration, and the no-action option. Section 3.2 and section 3.3 present each option in more detail.

For an overview of discarded options, see the consultation website.

²⁶ New Zealand Government. 2020. New Zealand Gazette. Declaration of Priority Products Notice 2020 (updated 29 September 2020).

What does this option involve?

The sale of agrichemicals and certain farm plastics (listed in section 3.1) would only be permitted in accordance with the accredited scheme for these products. To sell a product ‘in accordance with the scheme’, producers (including onshore manufacturers, brand owners and importers) would be required to:

• abide by scheme rules, including registering with the scheme and reporting sale or import volumes
• pay a stewardship fee to the scheme per unit of product sold or imported.²⁷

²⁷ Such a requirement has recently been put in place for tyres. See Waste Minimisation (Tyres) Regulations 2023 (New Zealand Legislation), which entered into force on 1 March 2024.

Stewardship fee

The regulated parties liable to pay the fee would be the producers, importers or brand owners that first place the product on the New Zealand market. For agrichemicals and their containers, the fee would be per container of packaged product, based on volume and the chemical management group assigned to that product. For bale wrap and silage sheet, the fee would be collected on rolls of sheet, by weight. For small and bulk bags, the fee would be per bag of the packaged product.

The fee would cover the costs of running the scheme and managing the products at end of life (eg, setting up and running the take-back services, transporting and processing the collected products). A small part of the fee revenue would be transferred by the scheme manager to the Ministry, to cover the cost of monitoring the scheme’s performance. This cost is likely to be up to one full-time equivalent staff member per year, invoiced based on actual time spent on monitoring.

Take-back service

The PSO would be required to provide a take-back service for the products. Requirements could include, for example, that the collection network has sufficient geographical coverage.

Farmers and other consumers of the products would be able to either:

• drop off their agrichemical containers (including residual agrichemicals) and in-scope farm plastics at no charge to one of the collection sites
• have the products picked up from their premises, if they meet criteria for remoteness and product weight.

This participation would not be mandated by regulation.

The scheme manager would collect and provide data to the Ministry about the above requirements (eg, the fees paid by producers and importers), so the Ministry can monitor compliance. This reporting would be strictly commercial-in-confidence – in aggregate at set intervals, and in detail if enforcement of regulations was required.

Collecting the fee

The PSO would be responsible for collecting the fee.

Producers and importers would be required to pay the stewardship fee for regulated products at entry into the market. Most farm plastics used in New Zealand are not manufactured here. Because it would not be feasible to collect fees directly from overseas producers, the fee for regulated products manufactured off shore would be collected from importers or domestic downstream first suppliers to the New Zealand market. As is the case now for the Agrecovery agrichemicals scheme, fees would typically be collected from brands within the responsible supply chain.

Producers, importers or downstream suppliers would have to declare to the PSO (for example, every three months) the amount of products sold or imported. Based on these self-declarations, the PSO would charge the applicable fee. This is the approach with the voluntary Agrecovery scheme. The PSO would also verify the self-declared data – for example, through independent audit as required – and resolve any discrepancies.

Proposed fee rates

As part of the accreditation process, the PSO calculated a fee rate for each product stream. This takes into account the total estimated costs of delivering the take-back and recycling services for each stream at a national scale, and the forecast sale quantities of the products. Table 3 sets out the proposed fee rates.

Table 3: Proposed stewardship fee rates – agrichemicals and farm plastics

²⁸ Plasback estimates that a tonne would typically include about 40 rolls of stretch film, and each roll would conservatively make about 22 large bales. The cost per bale would therefore be about $0.52.

The current schemes are financed through voluntary fees from participating producers²⁹ or payments by farmers, who are invoiced the cost of collection.³⁰ Voluntary producer participation creates free-riding opportunities, and fees charged to consumers at the point of disposal may discourage people from using those services.

A requirement to act in accordance with the scheme, and for brands to pay a regulated fee, would:

• ensure that all producers and importers of in-scope products contribute to the cost of managing these when they become waste or unwanted
• help avoid free-riding
• ensure that there are enough resources for taking back and managing the products.

Through the increased revenue from fees, the scheme could expand take-back service coverage. The scheme would also raise awareness of available services among farmers and other users. Improved user access and awareness is expected to lead to increased collection of end-of-life agrichemical containers and farm plastics.

Overseas evidence suggests that regulated schemes can achieve higher rates of collection than voluntary ones. For example, the regulated Irish farm plastics recycling scheme reached a collection rate of 90 per cent in 2021.³¹

In turn, increased collection would reduce inadequate disposal, such as burning or burial. This translates to lower emissions of toxic substances, with a corresponding drop in the risk of harm to the environment and human health. If the collected waste is recycled rather than sent to landfill, the option also prevents a lost economic opportunity associated with landfilling of recyclable waste.

By ensuring national coverage of take-back services compared to the voluntary schemes, a regulated scheme would make it easier for farmers to safely dispose of their residual agrichemicals and waste plastics, and to meet market demand for sustainably produced farm products. Key overseas markets for New Zealand’s meat, dairy and horticultural products (eg, major EU and UK supermarket chains) now require evidence of sustainable production. Farmers using Agrecovery and Plasback schemes have been able to document sustainable practices in initiatives such as Fonterra’s Co-operative Difference programme,³² and to benefit from higher payouts. 

The proposed fee would be paid by producers and importers placing the regulated products on the New Zealand market, and the take-back service would be free to farmers and other consumers. Ultimately, the fee would likely be passed on to consumers through the sale price of the in-scope products. Since the proposed fees are a relatively low proportion of product cost, the cost impact on consumers is expected to be low. In some cases, where voluntary fees are already being paid, the proposed fees may result in reduced costs.

The impact of the fee on the price of in-scope products will depend on how much of the fee the producer passes on to the consumer. The full cost of the fee is estimated at less than 0.2 to 1.73 per cent of the product price, depending on product type (see table 4).

Table 4: Examples of proposed stewardship fees relative to product cost³³

Without the regulations proposed in this option, the following outcomes are expected.

• There would not be a level playing field among producers and importers of agrichemicals and farm plastics, as no party would be required to participate. This would result in continuation of the free-rider issues currently experienced by voluntary schemes and the majority of producers and importers already paying into them.
• The PSO would not receive enough funding for the safe and cost-efficient management of end-of-life products and associated infrastructure at a national scale.
• It is unlikely that the current rates of disposal to landfill, burning or burying on-farm would decrease significantly.

 
²⁹ In the case of the Agrecovery scheme for agrichemicals and their containers, and a recently commenced small bags trial.

³⁰ In the case of the Plasback scheme for farm plastics.

³¹ Irish Farm Film Producers Group. 2022. Operational report 2021 (PDF 3.7MB), p.3.

³² For more information, see Fonterra. Together we make the difference. Retrieved 21 March 2025.

³³ Product cost estimates provided by Agrecovery, and for bale wrap by Plasback. For bale wrap, the proposed fee on a full roll of stretch film would be about $11.50, which would make about 22 large bales. This results in an estimate of $0.52 per bale to run an expanded take-back and recycling system.

³⁴ This is the typical charge to farmers for cutting, baling and wrapping a bale of feed.

What does this option involve?

Under this option, no WMA regulations would be introduced to support product stewardship of agrichemical containers, residual agrichemicals, and farm plastics. Producers’ and importers’ participation in stewardship schemes for these products would remain voluntary.

If regulations are not made, the new scheme could either start operating on a voluntary basis, or not proceed (see section 2.3). If the new scheme does not proceed, Agrecovery and Plasback may continue their voluntary schemes. However, this is not guaranteed, and both schemes face challenges, primarily due to free-riders and to the inability to increase capacity and create efficiencies under a voluntary framework.

Under this option, producers’ and importers’ participation in Green-farms (or other product stewardship schemes) is unlikely to increase beyond current levels. Without additional revenue from new participating producers and importers, the scheme could not expand current take-back services to keep up with demand from farmers. Continuing with only one collection truck each for the North Island and South Island, some parts of New Zealand would likely continue to be poorly serviced (especially in the North Island).

Free-riding would continue to be a burden on the voluntary scheme and the producers and consumers who are participating already. It is not always possible to identify and exclude products from non-participating brands at collection.

Some of the producers currently in the Agrecovery scheme voluntarily may decide to withdraw if their competitors are not paying fees (meaning those competitors can therefore keep their prices lower).

At the same time, it would not be financially viable for the scheme to invest in additional processing infrastructure unless higher quantities of materials are collected, to ensure new equipment operates at full capacity.