Speech to the Victim Support Conference, 12th October 2007

First of all let me thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today, and let me thank you for the work that you all do to support and assist victims of crime - people often in an extremely vulnerable position as a result of offending against them.

Despite efforts by people such as yourselves, though, I think it is fairly clear that complainants and victims need to be much better recognised and supported in a number of ways within the criminal justice system.

My own thinking on this begins with a basic question. What is justice? Well, it’s pretty straightforward. Justice is about fairness. It’s about treating others fairly, and in relation to dealing with crime it’s about ensuring a fair outcome.

It’s obvious to me that a fair outcome must firstly include the restoration of the victim, as far as possible. It must include a consequence for the offender which incorporates elements of both punishment and preventing further offending. Ideally that should be driven by genuine remorse. And it should be fair in the eyes of the community as a whole.

I do believe most people recognise justice being done when they see it.

However the common notion of justice, of fairness, is not what drives the justice system. There the focus is on procedural correctness, on proving technical guilt and then sentencing offenders.

In sentencing policy we seem confused about whether we are trying to punish, contain or rehabilitate and so don’t do any of then particularly well. As a result of that confusion, and the complexity of sentencing, many people in the community do not often see sentences received as fair.

As a result the victims’ rights agenda has been confused by some as all about tougher sentencing policy. In the absence of evidence that tougher sentencing actually reduces offending, the tougher sentencing lobby has cast their campaign as one supporting victims. The implication is that the purpose of tougher sentencing is to make victims feel better.

Well first of all I’m not at all sure that most victims of crime would agree with all the objectives of that campaign - which seems to now include the death penalty at some time in the future, judging from comments today by the Sensible Sentencing Trust.

Of course victims have an interest in sentencing – and victims have argued for both longer and shorter sentences in their own cases at times. Sentencing should include elements that contribute to the restoration of the victim, such as reparation. The primary aim of sentencing though must be to reduce reoffending. It’s about protecting the interests of wider society.

As I said before, sentencing should be able to be seen by the wider community as fair, to be appropriate, to fit the crime. Partly that’s about expanding the options for judges so that more creative sentencing can be applied, and that’s what the recent sentencing amendments have done, but it’s also about people having the information to accurately evaluate the case.

We know that surveys demonstrate that people consistently overestimate levels of crime, especially violent crime, in society and also underestimate the typical sentence given for violent offences. Games like “you be the judge” which the Victorian Sentencing Council has developed to demonstrate how sentencing works, show that despite criticisms of sentencing length, ordinary people would usually give very similar sentences to what judges give when apprised of all the facts of a case.

Having said that, sentencing is only one thread. I don’t think we do it well in this country, but we expend a lot of energy talking about it. What we don’t as a society spent a lot of energy talking and thinking about is how the system could better restore victims of crime to well being.

It’s often said that the system is set up in favour of the offender not the victim. I don’t think that is precisely accurate. The problem is that the system has evolved to meet the needs of its inhabitants – the judges, counsel for the prosecution and the defence, the registrars and court staff. Everyone else is kind of like an extra, the only ones in the play that don’t have a script.

Offenders do get some recognition. Since the enlightenment there has been an evolving focus on what constitutes a fair trial, to try to guard against wrongful conviction. Of course that has not prevented wrongful conviction, but has reduced them. It is probably largely those procedural safeguards that some victims perceive as an “unfair advantage to the criminal”.

I do not see the right to a fair trial as incompatible with recognising victims’ rights. To me they are about different things. We cannot, in seeking to better recognise victims of crime, undermine the safeguards in our justice system that prevent innocent people being wrongfully imprisoned.

How do we better recognise victims? The Justice and Electoral Committee initiated an inquiry into victims’ rights last May. The terms of reference are:

To examine the place of, and outcomes for, victims of crime and their families in the criminal justice system by:
• reviewing legislation affecting victims, including the Victims’ Rights Act 2002
• considering the terminology used for victims
• identifying services available to victims
• examining the concept that criminals owe a debt to individuals as well as society, including issues of compensation and reimbursement of costs
• examining the effect of the current court system on victims, including the role and status of complainants during court proceedings and the adequacy of court room layout and facilities
• examining the place of restorative justice programmes in the criminal justice system and their impact on victims
• considering any other relevant matters.

That inquiry arose out of an agreement that the Government made with the Green Party in 2005. In return for support over the Prisoners and Victims Compensation Act, the Government agreed, among other things, to develop an Independent Prison Inspectorate and to conduct an inquiry into victims’ rights.

In the course of that inquiry the committee heard from a large number of submitters, including your own organisation, and also visited Victoria where we saw some impressive developments centred around their Victims Charter.

That inquiry is still under consideration and so I am unable to tell you what the report will say. I am expecting it to be completed in the next few months.

But I can talk about the issues raised by submitters. They come under 8 headings:

• financial support (including compensation)
• services for complainants and victims
• police and court procedures
• courtroom layout
• sensitivity towards complainants and victims
• organisational processes and policies
• information and communication.
• the adversarial system as a whole, including inquisitorial justice and restorative justice

Compensation
A number of people have argued that there should be better compensation for victims. They say, and I agree, that victims should not be financially disadvantaged by crime.

ACC does, of course, provide some compensation to people who have suffered physical injury, or mental injury as a result of physical injury, and to the families of people who have been killed. It does not compensate for property loss or damage or for mental trauma caused by injury to another. I’d be very interested to hear any comments from you on how ACC fulfils their role in this area.

A number of people said that reparation should be paid by the Crown and then collected from offenders, rather than relying on victims to have to chase reparations. I think that is worth supporting, although whether the government is prepared to bear the cost will be the issue. Certainly we would see more reparation orders being made if this were the case, so it is hard to estimate what the cost would be, but I think it should be supported.

Services
Many people were critical of the level of service available to victims, in that services seemed to stop at the conviction of the offender. So there was a call for a more accessible, comprehensive, and sustained system of support services for victims, which should continue as long as they were needed. These could include advocacy, liaison, counselling for as long as needed, better information etc.

Can I add that the support of Victim Support was acknowledged by many.

Police and Court
People felt poorly treated by police and court procedures. A number told us that they felt that the interests of the Crown had taken precedence, which of course is how the system is set up.

There was particular concern about Victim Impact Assessments, with people feeling pressured into changing their statements. There is a tension between requiring judges to have regard to victim impact statements, in which case they need to be constrained as to what they can say same as with general rules of evidence, or they can be relatively unconstrained but judges will them pay less attention to them in sentencing.

My feeling is that the latter might be preferable in that it may be more important that victims get to express themselves without constraint. Alternatively, it may be possible to develop a system where victims can opt to either do a formal victim impact statement or an informal address to the court.

Courtroom layout
Courtroom layout was a significant concern. This is in contrast to what the committee saw at the Neighbourhood Justice Centre in Yarra, Victoria. This was a purpose built facility with separate entrances and room for complainants and their supporters and a range of services available on site. I believe that we can learn a lot from that example.

Recognition of and sensitivity towards victims
There is just a strong need for better understanding of victims of crime in general, throughout the judicial system. This goes hand in hand with a need for better procedures and processes within all the governmental agencies that complainants and victims of crime have to deal with as they progress through the system. It’s about recognising the needs of complainants and victims and placing a high enough priority on them.

The adversarial system
Lastly, a number of people said that the real problem is the nature of our adversarial system, which turns justice into a game played between lawyers with judges as ref, and which has lost its focus on justice or truth. Exploring inquisitorial models was suggested as a long term solution. More immediately, support was expressed for expanding and enhancing access to restorative justice so that it could be used where appropriate. Lack of access was the major problem, of course acknowledging the need to ensure that restorative justice is used where appropriate (and it is not always appropriate) and that facilitators are well trained and supported.

Coming out of that there are a number of areas that needs some attention it seems to me.

Coordination
In Victoria the Victims Support Agency plays a key role in overseeing all matters related to victims issues, including coordinating and monitoring agencies that complainants and victims may be required to deal with, helping develop policy, and handling complaints. It seems to me that in NZ we have some good things happening but a central coordinating body might help to ensure there are no gaps and to advocate for Victims Rights more generally in government.

This would not be a replacement to current services, but would support and enhance what’s already there.

Compensation
It would be helpful to have something that focuses on recompensing victims for their loss. ACC does provide compensation but it is limited as I have stated.

Comprehensive information
Complainants and victims on the criminal justice system get different bits of information on their rights, and the services available to them. Comprehensive and authoritative information should be available through all the agencies that they have to deal with.

Some agencies currently give this a low priority. For example the police have acknowledged that while they do have forms available, in some stations they are below the counter and you have to know they are there to ask for them.

It’s interesting once again to look at Victoria where the police have established a Victims Advisory Unit, with a high ranking officer in charge, which has given these issues real momentum. They have initiated training and simple procedures to ensure that complainants and victims are treated with respect.

Of course it is difficult for police. We expect them to be hard arses on the one hand and then demand compassion and sensitivity on the other. It is a challenge but with good procedure I don’t think it’s insurmountable.

There are a number of other specific issues, like whether involvement in the Victim Notification scheme should be opt in or opt out. I think I favour an opt out approach, as it may be a bit much to expect people to decide to opt in early on in the process. Also issues like whether victim impact statements should only be taken by accredited people, and what role the complainant should have in court. That last is a more complex debate but one worth having.

There are various gaps in service delivery, and the government has initiated a review of services for victims of serious crime. I welcome that. One thing is certain, any changes made in this area need to be preceded by good consultation and discussion with agencies such as yours. This will ensure that any well intentioned changes do not cut across the excellent work you already do and are informed by your considerable expertise in this area.

Opening address at the Waste Minimisation Legislation Conference, 24th September 2007

The first question that it is appropriate to ask at a conference about waste, is why bother about waste at all?

There are, of course, numerous reasons. Let’s begin with the environmental ones. Landfills contribute about 3% of New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions, mostly in the form of methane from anaerobically decomposing organic matter, such as kitchen waste, greenwaste and paper. This same organic matter is also a significant source of toxic leachate.

On the other hand, following the permaculture principle that the problem is the solution, by diverting and composting it, we create a nutrient rich soil conditioner that not only builds fertility but increases the water and nutrient holding capacity of soils, meaning less water need be extracted for irrigation and less run-off to cause eutrophication of waterways.

There is growing evidence as well that building living soils, which is at the heart of organic farming methods, may be as significant as afforestation in storing carbon. Of course compost plays a key role in that.

But environmental problems do not end with organic matter. There is growing concern about the heavy metals associated with e-waste, treated timber, batteries, CFL bulbs and the like.

There are also economic reasons for worrying about waste. The Zero Waste Trust suggests that in Auckland alone about 30,000 tonnes of office paper is still landfilled each year at a cost of approximately $9 million to Auckland businesses. It costs around $1000 to dump a tonne of screwed up paper (in rubbish bags). When cardboard or flat paper is mixed with other materials and sent to landfill it can cost up to $400 per tonne. This compares with $40-60 per tonne to recycle flat paper or cardboard.

At the production end, using for example recycled glass instead of virgin allows furnace temperatures to be considerably reduced, lowering energy demand and cost.

On the social development side, the Community Recycling Network in particular has shown that permanent work, good work, work to be proud of, can be generated through resource recovery. Interestingly, Xtreme Waste Whaingaroa has stated that any grants they receive are more than paid back in income tax from the jobs leveraged off that money.

What often gets forgotten, though, in the triple bottom line equation, are the long term benefits of resource efficiency. I want to dwell on this for a moment because a failure to understand its importance can mislead us when deciding what kinds of recovery are worth doing and what are not.

The seriousness of this issue was brought home to me recently when I read in the May issue of New Scientist a special report about the state of the earth’s mineral resources.

As with the earth’s oil reserves, estimating the extractable reserves of many metals is difficult. These figures are kept a closely guarded secret by mining companies, especially where rare metals such as indium and gallium are concerned. In addition, we don’t have an exact picture of the annual global consumption of most precious metals.

Nevertheless, people like Armin Reller, a materials chemist at the University of Augsburg in Germany, and his colleagues have been investigating the problem. One of the metals he looked at, indium, is used to form transparent electrodes in liquid crystal displays (LCDs). It is also widely used in thin-films for lubrication, and it's used for making particularly low melting point alloys, and it is a component in some lead-free solders.

An important metal, Reller estimates that we have, at best, 10 years before we run out of indium.

New Scientist did its own audit based on the US Geological Survey's annual reports and UN statistics on global population. Their calculations are rough, but alarming. Without more recycling, antimony, which is used to make flame retardant materials, will run out in 15 years, and silver in 10. Reller used a more sophisticated analysis than New Scientist to include the effects of new technologies. He estimates that zinc could be used up by 2037, hafnium - which is increasingly important in computer chips – like indium, could be gone by 2017, and terbium - used to make the green phosphors in fluorescent light bulbs - could run out before 2012.

Even for a number of common-place metals, such as copper, tin, lead and gold, reserves are measured not in centuries but a few decades, and as I said in the case of silver, in years.

A paper published last year in the ‘Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences’ by Thomas Graedel of Yale University estimates that 26 percent of all extractable copper in the Earth's crust is now lost in non-recycled wastes. Let me repeat that. 26 percent of all extractable copper in the Earth's crust is now lost in non-recycled wastes. For zinc, that number is 19 percent.

The problem is that the market will not price materials sufficiently high to generate comprehensive recovery until those materials are substantially depleted. Within our lifetimes, many metals will be depleted, and with global consumption rising, maybe sooner than we think.

As George Bush has demonstrated in Iraq, resource depletion goes hand in hand with war. A number of African nations have been cursed, it seems, with mineral wealth. For example the Democratic Republic of the Congo saw the murder of its first elected president Patrice Lumumba and the arming and supporting of the vicious tyrant Mobutu by Belgium and the CIA over access to its copper reserves. More recently, a driver of the Congolese civil war between 1998 and 2002 was the wealth to be had from its tantalum mines - the biggest in Africa. The war coincided with a surge in the price of the metal caused by the increasing popularity of mobile phones.

So it is timely to see a growing interest in the recycling of e-waste, both in terms of increased collection and scrutiny of where it all ends up. It’s interesting to note that concern about exporting e-waste to places like China, because of the often hazardous working conditions and environmentally destructive processes there, is bolstered by another concern. The Chinese Government is supplementing its natural deposits of rare metals by investing in mines in Africa and by buying up high-tech scrap to extract the metals. They can clearly see the strategic importance of waste even if we have been a bit tardy to do so.

Wise use of resources and resource efficiency are things that the Green Party has been talking about for many years. When then Green MP Mike Ward set out to draft a bill on waste minimisation, he wanted a comprehensive document that would address waste reduction, improve resource recovery and promote a value shift way from the new and disposable towards the efficient and the durable. I think he did a bloody good job.

The original bill consists of seven parts. It sets up a new national Waste Minimisation Authority. It sets up new local Waste Control Authorities, comprised of territorial authorities working together or singly. It sets up a levy on waste going to landfill, starting at $25 a tonne. It requires all brand owners - importers or manufacturers - to establish extended producer responsibility, to take responsibility for the waste generated over the life of their products. It provides for some things to be banned from landfills by regulation. It requires all organisations to write up waste minimisation plans. And it requires public bodies to preference recycled materials in their purchasing.

The bill is undergoing amendments as we speak, and I'll talk about what the Greens and the Government have been negotiating in a moment, but I'd like to just talk a little about the reasoning behind the three main elements.

If I can begin with the landfill levy. It is really an attempt to establish a Pigovian tax. A Pigovian tax is a tax levied to correct the negative externalities of a market activity. In this case the levy attempts to internalise the externalities associated with landfills, some of which I mentioned at the beginning of this talk. In order that this to be effective, the money collected should only be spent on waste minimisation initiatives - that is waste reduction, resource recovery and education and information.

However it would not be a pure Pigovian tax. Landfill prices are variable and reflect to a greater or lesser degree their full costs. Redvale for example is probably closer to being fully costed, but some others much less so. As a result landfill charges range from around $40 per tonne to $130 and a flat levy would not be able to internalise costs with any accuracy.

The other problem is that producers do not currently have any liability for end of life disposal of their products and so no incentive to change their behaviour regardless of the cost of disposal. It is consumers, and often actually ratepayers rather than consumers per se, who pay the disposal costs. So for example when MeadowFresh ended the supply of milk in glass bottles in the South Island a couple of years ago, they were simply shifting a cost onto local ratepayers and consumers. Washing bottles was a cost to MeadowFresh, disposing of single-use tetra paks is not. I don't mean to single out MeadowFresh - all the other milk companies had done the same years before - but simply to say that disposal price signals will have no effect on those who do not pay the disposal cost.

So simply internalising costs at the landfill will not solve all the problems. It may help recycling by doing away with the environmental subsidy for landfills that advantages them over alternatives, and by creating a fund for waste minimisation, but it does nothing to address the generation of waste in the first place, or the design issues that can make recycling of some products unviable. A good example of this is MeadowFresh's fused card and plastic tetrapaks. Both of those materials are recyclable, but it is not cost effective to employ someone to cut the plastic tops off the card base, rendering the package effectively unrecyclable.

Which is why the bill also focuses on product stewardship as its second key element (or as its called in the bill, extended producer responsibility). This is about requiring producers and importers to take more responsibility for end-of-life collection, diversion and disposal. Most importantly, it creates a motive for manufacturers to redesign their products and packaging to reduce the amount of waste created.

So we need a redesign, both in terms of designing production and packaging so that less materials are actually used, and also ensuring that products can either be recycled as is, for example by ensuring that a single, and recyclable, plastic type is used in a container, or that they can be easily disassembled, for example in the case of electronic goods.

The third key element of the bill as it was introduced to Parliament was the new national body. Some people have asked why a new organisation is needed - why can't MfE do it?
MfE is currently giving a lot of attention to waste, however this has not always been the case, or will it continue to be. Their work programme depends to some degree on the tastes of the Minister, and of the CEO, and so is subject to variation. In addition like all Govt departments MfE has a significant turnover of staff and so has some difficulty holding on to institutional knowledge.

While I share the fear about establishing a self perpetuating bureaucracy, I am still convinced that a small independent organisation with representation from different sectors involved in waste minimisation, and able to play a leadership and advocacy role would be enormously useful.

The Waste Minimisation Bill was referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee last year with the support of the Greens, Maori Party, Labour and New Zealand First. It probably wouldn't have got through its first reading except that a judicial review had been taken by Full Circle and Waste Management NZ against a waste levy introduced by 3 Auckland TA's. That had just been determined when the bill came to Parliament and the court had found that the councils were ultra vires.

My understanding is that the plaintiffs did not object to a levy in principle, but said that if a levy was to apply, it must be consistent across council boundaries, the fund generated must be hypothecated for waste minimisation, and that it should not apply to recyclables but only to waste going to landfill. Of course the levy in my bill meets those criteria.

The Government tried to address the councils’ difficulty with an amendment to the local Government amendment bill going through Parliament at the time, but that was ruled out of scope of the bill. That was the dog chipping bill, if you remember it, and it was just too far a stretch from micro chipping dogs to landfill charges. So my bill was a useful vehicle for the levy.

However there was no indication at the time that the Government would support any of the other parts of the bill. In particular, the Government seemed totally committed to a voluntary approach to product stewardship, citing the success of the packaging accord as proof that further regulation was unnecessary.

As the PCE report into the use of economic instruments for waste pointed out, there are significant weaknesses in relying only on a voluntary approach. In particular, inadequate targets may be set, and the potential for free riders is huge.

Well, if the intention was to gut everything except the levy part, events overtook the Government. Last year was really the year that the environment became a mainstream issue. It was the year of Al Gores 'An Inconvenient Truth' and the Stern Report, following the previous years South East Asia Tsunami and Hurricane Katrina. It was a tidal shift in public opinion.

In addition, the submissions to the Select Committee have largely been supportive in principle of the bill. I'm not sure anyone agreed with everything, but most people agreed with something. It was a constructive process. In addition, the Committee itself has been unusually cooperative and constructive. I think all the members agree that we need to get serious about waste, and have enjoyed the challenge of working through the practicalities of it, and I want to thanks all the members for their good will and hard work.

In addition, and in response to many of those submissions, I have been working with the Minister(s) of the Environment on amendments to go to the Select Committee. I have always acknowledged that a number of amendments would need to be made to the bill, at least partly because members bills don't have the support of ministries in the drafting of them. Working with the ministers has been an opportunity to utilise the resources of the department to get the bill right.

I say Ministers of course because David Parker recently took over as Minister for the Environment, and while the relationships with both David Benson-Pope and David Parker have been constructive and cooperative, the changeover has delayed things considerably.

The amendments finally went to the Select Committee last Thursday as an SOP (Supplementary Order Paper), and the committee has agreed to send them out to the original submitters to allow them to comment on the changes, with a five week timeframe.

So what do the amendments do?

Well, they rename the Bill as the Waste Minimisation and Resource Recovery Bill, to better reflect the dual purposes of reducing waste and recycling resources. Some definitions of terms have changed, and these need to be worked through carefully.

Part 2 of the SOP replaces the original Bill’s term of an ‘Extended Producer Responsibility’ scheme with 'Product Stewardship Scheme'. Although there is a conceptual difference, with EPR suggesting sole responsibility on producers and PS suggesting a responsibility shared with retailers, consumers, local bodies etc, there is little difference in practice.

A list of ‘priority products’ for product stewardship will be developed with public submissions and relevant stakeholders will then be required to design a scheme to address the end-of-life collection, recycling and disposal of that product, and the waste associated with the product over its life including in manufacture and packaging. That scheme can be for an individual company, but it is more likely that it would be a collective scheme. PS can be backed up with regulations, such as mandating take-back provisions, advance disposal fees etc, to address the problem with free riders.

If the sector cannot develop a scheme, one will be imposed upon it.

Part 3 of the SOP retains the Waste Levy. It sets the initial levy at $10 per tonne of waste to landfills, with regulatory power to increase this over time. The New Zealand Business Council for Sustainable Development has suggested raising it to $30 over three years to fully internalise the externalities associated with landfilling. Regulation will also allow the inclusion of further facilities such as cleanfills where appropriate.

With landfill waste at over 3 million tonnes, a levy initially at $10 a tonne is likely to raise $30 million dollars. All levy funds will be recycled into waste minimisation initiatives with 50% going to territorial authorities, and 50% available nationally through a contestable fund. That might include money for loans, grants, research, public education and waste advisory services.

Its interesting to note, given the dodgy Herald on-line poll on this, that a New Zealand Business Council for Sustainable Development Survey showed that 62 percent of respondents either support or strongly support a levy of up to $30 per tonne, and only 19 per cent oppose or strongly oppose it

Support is even higher among business people. Around 69 percent of business managers, proprietors and self employed people surveyed were in support or strongly supported a levy on waste, while only 18 per cent opposed or strongly opposed the proposal.

I think that the small price increase of disposal will have little effect on householders. We are probably talking about 5c a bag of waste. Where they will benefit is from the increased access to recycling facilities, more consistency across the country, and improved access to information.

Commercial operators who dump significant amounts of waste will be affected by price. The levy will shift the balance between costs of recycling and of landfilling, making recovery a more attractive option and it will, through the fund, increase business access to recycling and resource recovery as well. That will benefit us all.

Part 4 of the Bill transfers the waste provisions of the Local Government Act into the bill, so waste legislation all sits in one place and these are mostly unchanged from the current law. It replaces the Waste Control Authority part of the original Bill.

Part 5 sets offences and enforcement.

Part 6 requires better public reporting of waste data.

Part 7 establishes the Waste Advisory Board. This replaces the Waste Minimisation Authority of the original Bill and is a smaller body with more limited functions. It will provide independent advice to the Minister on the effectiveness of the levy and how it should be dispersed, and on elements of Product Stewardship such as priority product lists and scheme design. The Board will comprise of people with strong records in waste management, enterprise, public sector and community groups.
The parts of the original bill that have been removed are the original Part 4 providing for certain wastes to be banned from landfills, original Part 7 requiring every organisation to develop a waste minimisation plan, and original Part 8 around public procurement.

We have agreed to these changes because they are no longer needed: disposal bans have been included as a possible instrument of product stewardship under the regulatory powers in the new Part 2, waste management plans for all organisations are acknowledged as difficult to implement, and public procurement is deemed to be adequately covered by existing Government procurement policies.
Those amendments have gone out for a second round of consultation to those who made representations on the original bill. They have been given five weeks to reply and oral hearings will be by invite of the committee. That gives plenty of time for the bill to be reported back to the house and passed early next year.

I'd like to finish by saying that some diehards will still see this bill as an imposition. That would be in my opinion an error. Yes, if businesses want to continue to dump rubbish in landfills it will cost more. But more and more business people recognise that the environment is a part of the business context, and progressive business people, those who want to stay in business, recognise that they have to address environmental performance.

For those people, this bill presents an opportunity. It is a way of providing improved information, improved research and improved access to materials diversion. It is about helping businesses and householders improve their environmental footprint. Whether it is a benefit or just an added cost, therefore, is largely up to you.