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)

Packaging Issue Front and Center for Businesses

Shareholders of two major corporations, Proctor & Gamble and
General Mills, are asking those companies to implement EPR programs
aimed at elimination of post-consumer waste.

• As You Sow Shareholder Resolution [1]
• As You Sow Shareholder Press Release [2] (April 27, 2011)

Canada Forging Ahead On Packaging

Two very different approaches to packaging EPR are being tested in Canada. This country 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?

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:

• British Columbia Recycling Regulation – Redline showing Packaging-Printed Paper Addition [3] May 19, 2011.
• Differences between product stewardship and municipal collection [4] from Encorp 2008 annual report.
• BC Recycler’s Handbook [5] 2010 Consumer guide to nine full EPR programs.
• British Columbia Trip Report [6] March 2011 Bill Sheehan

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 [7] (October 2009)
  Ontario Environment Ministry’s proposal for revising the Waste Diversion Act
• The Way Forward for Product Packaging EPR [8], Product Policy Institute (July 2010)

• Evolution of the Ontario Blue Box Program: [9] From Government Responsibility to Full EPR? PPI discussion paper (revised July 2010)
• Detailed Calculation Tables for Preliminary 2010 Blue Box Stewards’ Fees [10] Stewardship Ontario, 2008 data for 2010 fees (August 2009)
• Talk by John Gerretsen, [11] 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 [12] 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.

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 [13] Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment 2009.
• Canada-Wide Strategy for Sustainable Packaging [14] 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 [15] 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 [16]. Laurie Gallant for BCPSC, March 2007.
• “What happens when industry takes over?” [17] – PPSReview (May 2009)
• Comments on Proposed Changes to the Ontario Waste Diversion Act [18] Association of Municipalities of Ontario, February 2010.

Environmental Paper Network Webinar, September 2010

Extended Producer Responsibility, Paper Companies and Campaigns [19]. PowerPoint by Bill Sheehan (Sept 2010)

A Zero Waste Vision for Paper [20] GRRN, Nov 2002