Producer Responsibility for Packaging

If the concept of EPR makes sense for products, it also makes sense for the packaging that products come in. Excess packaging has been the focus of public concern for decades, and EPR gives us a new tool for solving the problem.

Some examples

• Continuing public concern about wasteful packaging, especially bulky and hard-to-recycle plastic and composite packaging;
• Alarm about the Great Pacific Garbage Patch which consists largely of plastic packaging items;
• A commitment in Canada to a nation-wide EPR Plan with principles for “sustainable” packaging;
• The U.S. soft drink industry sponsoring a bill in Vermont (H696) to repeal, in the name of EPR, the container deposit-refund system and replace it with a program similar to Ontario’s curbside recycling program;
• Ontario’s program proposing to move to 100 per cent producer funding – but being criticized for its lackluster performance;
• The emergence of a return infrastructure in British Columbia and other provinces to handle a range of returnable products and packaging without relying on municipal curbside recycling;
• Significant initiatives by the retail industry to become a packaging EPR player by cutting its own packaging (e.g. carry out bags) and influencing the packaging practices of brand-owners (e.g. WalMart working with its vendors)

But what will EPR for packaging look like? Two very different approaches are being tested in Canada. Canada is home to North America’s most advanced programs for “Industry Product Stewardship” – programs that are entirely industry-run and do not rely on municipal collection. Canada is also home to North America’s most comprehensive curbside recycling program -- Ontario’s “Blue Box” program -- which receives 50% of its funding from producers to collect packaging along with newspapers and other printed materials. What do these two different approaches have to teach us about EPR for packaging? 

Canada

Canada is home to North America’s most advanced programs for “Industry Product Stewardship” – programs that are entirely industry-run and do not rely on municipal collection. Canada is also home to North America’s most comprehensive curbside recycling program -- Ontario’s “Blue Box” program -- which receives 50% of its funding from producers to collect packaging along with newspapers and other printed materials. What do these two different approaches have to teach us about EPR for packaging?

Ontario

The Waste Diversion Act (2002) required producers to fund 50% of the net costs of municipal “Blue Box” recycling programs. That program is now up for review. Read the government’s discussion paper and comments from others on the Ontario approach:

• From Waste to Worth: The Role of Waste Diversion in the Green Economy (October 2009)
  Ontario Environment Ministry’s proposal for revising the Waste Diversion Act
• The Way Forward for Product Packaging EPR, Product Policy Institute (July 2010)

• Evolution of the Ontario Blue Box Program: From Government Responsibility to Full EPR? PPI discussion paper (revised July 2010)
• Detailed Calculation Tables for Preliminary 2010 Blue Box Stewards’ Fees Stewardship Ontario, 2008 data for 2010 fees (August 2009)
• Talk by John Gerretsen, Ontario Minister of the Environment, at the Waste Diversion Ontario Annual General Meeting (April 27, 2010)
  Gerretsen says that the Blue Box program has been a failure in decreasing waste diversion and that full, individual producer responsibility is needed.
• Memo to US bottle bill states: Hang on to your drawers PPSReview (May 2010)
  Advice to Americans who are being enticed to give up high performing EPR (deposit) programs for lower performing curbside programs and a model of “EPR” that Ontario is now rejecting.

British Columbia

British Columbia adopted North America’s first deposit/refund program for beverage containers in 1970, and has since been followed by 7 other Canadian provinces. In the 1990s, BC and other provinces expanded their beverage container deposit programs, and in the process shifted from a primarily “return-to-retail” system to a system that uses different return facilities including privately operated return centers. Read what the emerging “Product Stewardship” industry says about the new recycling system that does not rely on municipal collection:

• Differences between product stewardship and municipal collection  from Encorp 2008 annual report.
• BC Recycler’s Handbook  2010  Consumer guide to nine full EPR programs.

Canada-wide

EPR is now national policy in Canada, with the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment working together to harmonize programs across the country. Read about the CCME work on packaging:

• Canada-Wide Action Plan for Extended Producer Responsibility  Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment 2009.
• Canada-Wide Strategy for Sustainable Packaging   Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment 2009.

EPR & Packaging Issues

Transition Strategies for Local Governments

If we are moving from traditional end-of-pipe municipal responsibility for waste to EPR, how will we manage the transition? Work is underway in Canada to define the issue and suggest solutions:

• Implications of Using Local Government Facilities & Staff to Deliver Stewardship Programs by Alan Stanley, Director of Environmental Services for the Regional District of Kootenay Boundary, British Columbia, June 2010.
• Transitioning to Full EPR: A Cooperative Strategy DRAFT.  Laurie Gallant for BCPSC, March 2007.
• “What happens when industry takes over?” – PPSReview (May 2009)
• Comments on Proposed Changes to the Ontario Waste Diversion Act  Association of Municipalities of Ontario, February 2010.