Dear Karen

 

I refer to your request below and provide the following:

The DCC sought advice from WasteMINZ, our industry body who do a lot of
research in the waste area, as to which bags to purchase, and they advised
us that “if you have to give out a plastic bag then their recommendation
would be to use a compostable bag as at least if it does break up in the
environment it will have no toxic inks and heavy metals in it. Whereas
plastic bags and oxo degradable bags will have heavy metals in them and
may also have more toxic inks”.
[1]https://www.wasteminz.org.nz/wp-content/...

(a) The survey (or other source of information) that concludes “many” dog
owners still relied on single-use plastic supermarket bags (rather than
having already changed to re-useable bags), and also used the bags for
collecting dog poop.

 

We did not conduct a survey. This is based on general knowledge and
observation by the Animal Services staff while out patrolling the streets
and when visiting dog parks.

(b) The environmental cost (broken into the usual components) of current
dog owner behaviour compared to the environmental cost (broken into the
usual components) of the corn-starch poop bags from point of origin to
break down.

 

We do not hold this information.

(c) The environmental cost of the “wallet cards”, broken into the usual
components of design, printing, delivery, waste management immediately
created by the surplus “tear-off” sections, recycling when no longer
needed, etc.

 

Design – free

Printing - $0.097/card

Delivery – free

Waste management and recycling - we do not hold this information

(d) The environmental cost of dog owners travelling to service centres to
collect their allocated roll of bags every two months.

 

We do not hold this information.

(e) The financial cost (broken into the usual components) of current user
behaviour and the financial cost (broken into the usual components) of the
scheme, including the cost of each roll of bags, cost of collection by dog
owners (mileage, parking, time lost travelling to the service centre every
two months), and subsequent disposal.

 

The Council does not hold the information in relation to the cost of
collection by dog owners etc.  In respect  to the cost of each roll of
bags, the Council has a number of potential providers and therefore,  this
information is withheld pursuant to section 7(2)(i) of LGOIMA to enable
any local authority holding the information to carry on, without prejudice
or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial
negotiations).

 

(f) The research showing compostable materials compost in landfills,
especially when encased in ordinary plastic rubbish bags. (Noting this is
requested because all available evidence-based credible research shows
they fail to compost and increase methane and other environmentally
negative impacts.)

 

There is no research to show that compostable materials compost in
landfills, when encased in ordinary plastic rubbish bags.

 

The DCC have not claimed that these compostable bags compost in the
landfill if encased in an ordinary plastic rubbish bag. The statement on
the DCC website only says that if they are sent to the landfill, the bag
and contents will breakdown”. The advice also goes on to say that if dogs
owners wish to compost the bags at home to use a pet waste separate
compost system.

 

The DCC sought advice from WasteMINZ, our industry body who do a lot of
research in the waste area, as to which bags to purchase, and they advised
us that “if you have to give out a plastic bag then their recommendation
would be to use a compostable bag as at least if it does break up in the
environment it will have no toxic inks and heavy metals in it. Whereas
plastic bags and oxo degradable bags will have heavy metals in them and
may also have more toxic inks”.
[2]https://www.wasteminz.org.nz/wp-content/...

(g) The economic (or other principle) that allows the bags to be stated to
be “free” when they are funded from registration fees already paid by the
targeted user group.

 

We acknowledge that the bags are not 'free' in that there is a cost. 
However the approach taken is that unlike the previous (non compostable)
bags - there is not an additional charge for the bags.  In future we will
state that there is no extra cost for the bags rather than stating that
they are free.

 

(h) The evidence-based research that shows that people who do not
currently pick up dog poop will make the effort to obtain and use these
bags so they can commence doing so now the bags are available.

We do not hold this information.

 

As we have declined to provide some information you are advised that you
have the right to seek a review by the Office of the Ombudsman.

 

Regards

 

 

 

Jennifer Lapham

Governance Support Officer
Civic               

P  03 477 4000  |   E [3][email address] 

Dunedin City Council, 50 The Octagon, Dunedin

PO Box 5045, Dunedin 9054

New Zealand

[4]www.dunedin.govt.nz

 

 

 

 

[5]DCC Main Page

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

If this message is not intended for you please delete it and notify us
immediately; you are warned that any further use, dissemination,
distribution or reproduction of this material by you is prohibited..

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Karen Anderson <[6][FOI #10960 email]>
Sent: Monday, 12 August 2019 3:14 p.m.
To: Official Information <[7][email address]>
Subject: Official Information request - Free compostable dog poo bags.

 

Dear Dunedin City Council,

My preference is to receive the requested information through the
fyi.org.nz platform.

Background to Request:
On 6 & 7 June 2019 the Otago Daily Times ran articles about the Dunedin
City Council providing “free compostable dog poo bags”.
[8]https://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/free-...
[9]https://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/dcc-o...

Statements about the bags also appeared on the Dunedin City Council
website in the Animal Control section on 6 June 2019, and in the June
edition of the FYI pamphlet delivered to every Dunedin household early
that month.
[10]http://web.archive.org/web/2019072620493...
[11]http://web.archive.org/web/2019072620521...

The two newspaper articles include the same quoted statement attributed to
the Manager Compliance Solutions:
“Many people use plastic shopping bags to dispose of their dog poo, but
after July 1 these won't be available, so we've introduced this trial to
encourage people to pick up their dog poo while offering a plastic
alternative and reducing the environmental impact.”

The information in the "FYI" pamphlet and on the DCC webpage reiterates
the bags are free. The Otago Daily Times articles also state the bags are
funded from dog registration fees and the Council has budgeted $25,000 for
the bags.

We note that dog owners identified the enormous negative environmental
impact of the 2016 Dog Control Policy and Bylaw. Therefore we applaud the
Dunedin City Council for finally recognising environmental issues. However
we note that it is necessary to carefully assess schemes to confirm they
are environmentally positive.

Request:
Accordingly please provide all information used to conclude this scheme
when would reduce environmental impacts.

Notes:
Given this is a very recent project it is reasonable to expect the
information will be immediately and easily to hand so that providing it
will take little time.

Based on the usual type of analysis performed it is reasonable to expect
the information provided will include, at the minimum, the following
critical information:
(a) The survey (or other source of information) that concludes “many” dog
owners still relied on single-use plastic supermarket bags (rather than
having already changed to re-useable bags), and also used the bags for
collecting dog poop.
(b) The environmental cost (broken into the usual components) of current
dog owner behaviour compared to the environmental cost (broken into the
usual components) of the corn-starch poop bags from point of origin to
break down.
(c) The environmental cost of the “wallet cards”, broken into the usual
components of design, printing, delivery, waste management immediately
created by the surplus “tear-off” sections, recycling when no longer
needed, etc.
(d) The environmental cost of dog owners travelling to service centres to
collect their allocated roll of bags every two months.
(e) The financial cost (broken into the usual components) of current user
behaviour and the financial cost (broken into the usual components) of the
scheme, including the cost of each roll of bags, cost of collection by dog
owners (mileage, parking, time lost travelling to the service centre every
two months), and subsequent disposal.
(f) The research showing compostable materials compost in landfills,
especially when encased in ordinary plastic rubbish bags. (Noting this is
requested because all available evidence-based credible research shows
they fail to compost and increase methane and other environmentally
negative impacts.)
(g) The economic (or other principle) that allows the bags to be stated to
be “free” when they are funded from registration fees already paid by the
targeted user group.
(h) The evidence-based research that shows that people who do not
currently pick up dog poop will make the effort to obtain and use these
bags so they can commence doing so now the bags are available.

Yours faithfully,
Karen Anderson
On behalf of the Dunedin Dog Bylaws Group

-------------------------------------------------------------------

This is an Official Information request made via the FYI website.

Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[12][FOI #10960 email]

Is [13][Dunedin City Council request email] the wrong address for Official
Information requests to Dunedin City Council? If so, please contact us
using this form:
[14]https://fyi.org.nz/change_request/new?bo...

Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be published on
the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:
[15]https://fyi.org.nz/help/officers

If you find this service useful as an Official Information officer, please
ask your web manager to link to us from your organisation's OIA or LGOIMA
page.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

References

Visible links
1. https://www.wasteminz.org.nz/wp-content/...
2. https://www.wasteminz.org.nz/wp-content/...
3. mailto:[email address]
4. http://www.dunedin.govt.nz/
5. https://au-api.mimecast.com/s/click/V5cK...
6. mailto:[FOI #10960 email]
7. mailto:[email address]
8. https://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/free-...
9. https://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/dcc-o...
10. http://web.archive.org/web/2019072620493...
11. http://web.archive.org/web/2019072620521...
12. mailto:[FOI #10960 email]
13. mailto:[Dunedin City Council request email]
14. https://fyi.org.nz/change_request/new?bo...
15. https://fyi.org.nz/help/officers

 

Dear Karen

 

I refer to your e-mail below, and provide the following clarification:

 

With respect to the response to question (c) we have provided the cost to
produce the wallet cards.  However, in relation to the environmental cost,
the council does not hold this information, therefore you are advised that
pursuant to section 17(g) of the Local Government Official Information and
Meetings Act 1987 (LGOIMA) your request for this information is refused. 

 

You have also raised concerns about our response to question (e) 

 

(e) The financial cost (broken into the usual components) of current user
behaviour and the financial cost (broken into the usual components) of the
scheme, including the cost of each roll of bags, cost of collection by dog
owners (mileage, parking, time lost travelling to the service centre every
two months), and subsequent disposal.

 

As advised we do not hold the information relating to the financial cost
of this scheme including collection by dog owners and subsequent disposal,
and therefore pursuant to section 17(g) of LGOIMA your request is
refused. 

 

We declined your request for the cost of each roll of bags pursuant to
section 7(2)(i) of LGOIMA, to enable the local authority holding the
information to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations,
 as this programme may continue in the future.  It is in the best interest
of the Council and ratepayers to achieve the best price possible for the
dog rolls.  Subsequently other parties may tender for this contract and
therefore the information is declined.  If however the programme does not
continue, then this information can be provided in the future. 

 

As advised in the earlier e-mail as information has been refused your are
entitled to seek a review by the Office of the Ombudsman.

 

 

 

 

Jennifer Lapham

Governance Support Officer
Civic               

P  03 477 4000  |   E [1][email address] 

Dunedin City Council, 50 The Octagon, Dunedin

PO Box 5045, Dunedin 9054

New Zealand

[2]www.dunedin.govt.nz

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[3]DCC Main Page

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

If this message is not intended for you please delete it and notify us
immediately; you are warned that any further use, dissemination,
distribution or reproduction of this material by you is prohibited..

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Karen Anderson <[4][FOI #10960 email]>
Sent: Thursday, 5 September 2019 12:59 a.m.
To: Jenny Lapham <[5][email address]>
Subject: Re: Local Government Official Infomation and Meetings Act Request
1987

 

Dear Dunedin City Council,

I acknowledge your response dated 3 September 2019. Please note the
following:

(a) The information requested at (c) was the environmental cost. You have
provided some financial costs. That is not the information requested and
no reason has been given for refusing to provide it.

(b) The information requested at (e) concerned financial costs at the time
of the request. You have refused to provide the information on the basis
of s7(2)(i) Local Government and Official Information and Meetings Act
1987. Leaving aside all other elements of that subsection, it applies to
negotiations. The bags have already been purchased therefore negotiations
have ended. I also note your obligations in relation to procurement as
well as the Dunedin City Council Procurement and Contract Management
Policy.

If you do not indicate you will be providing the requested information
before 6 September 2019 I will complain to the Ombudsman on at least these
grounds.

Yours faithfully,
Karen Anderson
On behalf of the Dunedin Dog Bylaws Group

-----Original Message-----

 

Dear Karen

 

I refer to your request below and provide the following:

The DCC sought advice from WasteMINZ, our industry body who do a lot of
research in the waste area, as to which bags to purchase, and they advised
us that “if you have to give out a plastic bag then their recommendation
would be to use a compostable bag as at least if it does break up in the
environment it will have no toxic inks and heavy metals in it. Whereas
plastic bags and oxo degradable bags will have heavy metals in them and
may also have more toxic inks”.
[1][6]https://www.wasteminz.org.nz/wp-content/...

(a) The survey (or other source of information) that concludes “many” dog
owners still relied on single-use plastic supermarket bags (rather than
having already changed to re-useable bags), and also used the bags for
collecting dog poop.

 

We did not conduct a survey. This is based on general knowledge and
observation by the Animal Services staff while out patrolling the streets
and when visiting dog parks.

(b) The environmental cost (broken into the usual components) of current
dog owner behaviour compared to the environmental cost (broken into the
usual components) of the corn-starch poop bags from point of origin to
break down.

 

We do not hold this information.

(c) The environmental cost of the “wallet cards”, broken into the usual
components of design, printing, delivery, waste management immediately
created by the surplus “tear-off” sections, recycling when no longer
needed, etc.

 

Design – free

Printing - $0.097/card

Delivery – free

Waste management and recycling - we do not hold this information

(d) The environmental cost of dog owners travelling to service centres to
collect their allocated roll of bags every two months.

 

We do not hold this information.

(e) The financial cost (broken into the usual components) of current user
behaviour and the financial cost (broken into the usual components) of the
scheme, including the cost of each roll of bags, cost of collection by dog
owners (mileage, parking, time lost travelling to the service centre every
two months), and subsequent disposal.

 

The Council does not hold the information in relation to the cost of
collection by dog owners etc.  In respect  to the cost of each roll of
bags, the Council has a number of potential providers and therefore,  this
information is withheld pursuant to section 7(2)(i) of LGOIMA to enable
any local authority holding the information to carry on, without prejudice
or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial
negotiations).

 

(f) The research showing compostable materials compost in landfills,
especially when encased in ordinary plastic rubbish bags. (Noting this is
requested because all available evidence-based credible research shows
they fail to compost and increase methane and other environmentally
negative impacts.)

 

There is no research to show that compostable materials compost in
landfills, when encased in ordinary plastic rubbish bags.

 

The DCC have not claimed that these compostable bags compost in the
landfill if encased in an ordinary plastic rubbish bag. The statement on
the DCC website only says that if they are sent to the landfill, the bag
and contents will breakdown”. The advice also goes on to say that if dogs
owners wish to compost the bags at home to use a pet waste separate
compost system.

 

The DCC sought advice from WasteMINZ, our industry body who do a lot of
research in the waste area, as to which bags to purchase, and they advised
us that “if you have to give out a plastic bag then their recommendation
would be to use a compostable bag as at least if it does break up in the
environment it will have no toxic inks and heavy metals in it. Whereas
plastic bags and oxo degradable bags will have heavy metals in them and
may also have more toxic inks”.
[2][7]https://www.wasteminz.org.nz/wp-content/...

(g) The economic (or other principle) that allows the bags to be stated to
be “free” when they are funded from registration fees already paid by the
targeted user group.

 

We acknowledge that the bags are not 'free' in that there is a cost. 
However the approach taken is that unlike the previous (non compostable)
bags - there is not an additional charge for the bags.  In future we will
state that there is no extra cost for the bags rather than stating that
they are free.

 

(h) The evidence-based research that shows that people who do not
currently pick up dog poop will make the effort to obtain and use these
bags so they can commence doing so now the bags are available.

We do not hold this information.

 

As we have declined to provide some information you are advised that you
have the right to seek a review by the Office of the Ombudsman.

 

Regards

 

 

 

Jennifer Lapham

Governance Support Officer
Civic               

P  03 477 4000  |   E [3][email address] 

Dunedin City Council, 50 The Octagon, Dunedin

PO Box 5045, Dunedin 9054

New Zealand

[4][8]www.dunedin.govt.nz

 

 

 

 

[5]DCC Main Page

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

If this message is not intended for you please delete it and notify us
immediately; you are warned that any further use, dissemination,
distribution or reproduction of this material by you is prohibited..

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Karen Anderson <[6][FOI #10960 email]>
Sent: Monday, 12 August 2019 3:14 p.m.
To: Official Information <[7][email address]>
Subject: Official Information request - Free compostable dog poo bags.

 

Dear Dunedin City Council,

My preference is to receive the requested information through the
fyi.org.nz platform.

Background to Request:
On 6 & 7 June 2019 the Otago Daily Times ran articles about the Dunedin
City Council providing “free compostable dog poo bags”.
[8][9]https://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/free-...
[9][10]https://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/dcc-o...

Statements about the bags also appeared on the Dunedin City Council
website in the Animal Control section on 6 June 2019, and in the June
edition of the FYI pamphlet delivered to every Dunedin household early
that month.
[10][11]http://web.archive.org/web/2019072620493...
[11][12]http://web.archive.org/web/2019072620521...

The two newspaper articles include the same quoted statement attributed to
the Manager Compliance Solutions:
“Many people use plastic shopping bags to dispose of their dog poo, but
after July 1 these won't be available, so we've introduced this trial to
encourage people to pick up their dog poo while offering a plastic
alternative and reducing the environmental impact.”

The information in the "FYI" pamphlet and on the DCC webpage reiterates
the bags are free. The Otago Daily Times articles also state the bags are
funded from dog registration fees and the Council has budgeted $25,000 for
the bags.

We note that dog owners identified the enormous negative environmental
impact of the 2016 Dog Control Policy and Bylaw. Therefore we applaud the
Dunedin City Council for finally recognising environmental issues. However
we note that it is necessary to carefully assess schemes to confirm they
are environmentally positive.

Request:
Accordingly please provide all information used to conclude this scheme
when would reduce environmental impacts.

Notes:
Given this is a very recent project it is reasonable to expect the
information will be immediately and easily to hand so that providing it
will take little time.

Based on the usual type of analysis performed it is reasonable to expect
the information provided will include, at the minimum, the following
critical information:
(a) The survey (or other source of information) that concludes “many” dog
owners still relied on single-use plastic supermarket bags (rather than
having already changed to re-useable bags), and also used the bags for
collecting dog poop.
(b) The environmental cost (broken into the usual components) of current
dog owner behaviour compared to the environmental cost (broken into the
usual components) of the corn-starch poop bags from point of origin to
break down.
(c) The environmental cost of the “wallet cards”, broken into the usual
components of design, printing, delivery, waste management immediately
created by the surplus “tear-off” sections, recycling when no longer
needed, etc.
(d) The environmental cost of dog owners travelling to service centres to
collect their allocated roll of bags every two months.
(e) The financial cost (broken into the usual components) of current user
behaviour and the financial cost (broken into the usual components) of the
scheme, including the cost of each roll of bags, cost of collection by dog
owners (mileage, parking, time lost travelling to the service centre every
two months), and subsequent disposal.
(f) The research showing compostable materials compost in landfills,
especially when encased in ordinary plastic rubbish bags. (Noting this is
requested because all available evidence-based credible research shows
they fail to compost and increase methane and other environmentally
negative impacts.)
(g) The economic (or other principle) that allows the bags to be stated to
be “free” when they are funded from registration fees already paid by the
targeted user group.
(h) The evidence-based research that shows that people who do not
currently pick up dog poop will make the effort to obtain and use these
bags so they can commence doing so now the bags are available.

Yours faithfully,
Karen Anderson
On behalf of the Dunedin Dog Bylaws Group

-------------------------------------------------------------------

This is an Official Information request made via the FYI website.

Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[12][FOI #10960 email]

Is [13][Dunedin City Council request email] the wrong address for Official
Information requests to Dunedin City Council? If so, please contact us
using this form:
[14][13]https://fyi.org.nz/change_request/new?bo...

Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be published on
the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:
[15][14]https://fyi.org.nz/help/officers

If you find this service useful as an Official Information officer, please
ask your web manager to link to us from your organisation's OIA or LGOIMA
page.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

References

Visible links
1.
[15]https://www.wasteminz.org.nz/wp-content/...
2.
[16]https://www.wasteminz.org.nz/wp-content/...
3. [17]mailto:[email address]
4. [18]http://www.dunedin.govt.nz/
5.
[19]https://au-api.mimecast.com/s/click/V5cK...
6. [20]mailto:[FOI #10960 email]
7. [21]mailto:[email address]
8.
[22]https://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/free-...
9.
[23]https://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/dcc-o...
10.
[24]http://web.archive.org/web/2019072620493...
11.
[25]http://web.archive.org/web/2019072620521...
12. [26]mailto:[FOI #10960 email]
13. [27]mailto:[Dunedin City Council request email]
14. [28]https://fyi.org.nz/change_request/new?bo...
15. [29]https://fyi.org.nz/help/officers

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[30][FOI #10960 email]

Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be published on
the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:
[31]https://fyi.org.nz/help/officers

If you find this service useful as an Official Information officer, please
ask your web manager to link to us from your organisation's OIA or LGOIMA
page.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]
2. http://www.dunedin.govt.nz/
3. https://au-api.mimecast.com/s/click/V5cK...
4. mailto:[FOI #10960 email]
5. mailto:[email address]
6. https://www.wasteminz.org.nz/wp-content/...
7. https://www.wasteminz.org.nz/wp-content/...
8. http://www.dunedin.govt.nz/
9. https://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/free-...
10. https://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/dcc-o...
11. http://web.archive.org/web/2019072620493...
12. http://web.archive.org/web/2019072620521...
13. https://fyi.org.nz/change_request/new?bo...
14. https://fyi.org.nz/help/officers
15. https://www.wasteminz.org.nz/wp-content/...
16. https://www.wasteminz.org.nz/wp-content/...
17. mailto:[email
18. http://www.dunedin.govt.nz/
19. https://au-api.mimecast.com/s/click/V5cK...
20. mailto:[foi
21. mailto:[email
22. https://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/free-...
23. https://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/dcc-o...
24. http://web.archive.org/web/2019072620493...
25. http://web.archive.org/web/2019072620521...
26. mailto:[foi
27. mailto:[dunedin
28. https://fyi.org.nz/change_request/new?bo...
29. https://fyi.org.nz/help/officers
30. mailto:[FOI #10960 email]
31. https://fyi.org.nz/help/officers

hide quoted sections