Analyzing Product Stewardship...

Northwest Product Stewardship Council

Analyzing Product Stewardship Policiesfor Packaging and Printed Paper in Washington State

www.productstewardship.net

March 2011

Table of Contents Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................. 1

Purpose and Scope ............................................................................................................................. 6

Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 7

The Environmental Impacts of Packaging and Printed Paper ....................................................... 8• Life-cycleEmissions......................................................................................................................................... 8• GreenhouseGasEmissions(GHG)............................................................................................................. 9• Packaging-andProduct-RelatedGHGEmissions................................................................................... 9• LandPollution.................................................................................................................................................. 10• PlasticsandOceanPollution...................................................................................................................... 11

Overview of Solid Waste Management in Washington ................................................................. 12 • SolidWastePlanning...................................................................................................................................... 12• BeyondWastePlan......................................................................................................................................... 13• RoleoftheWashingtonUtilitiesandTransportationCommission(WUTC)..................................... 14• WashingtonStateLitterProgram................................................................................................................ 15

Regulatory Structure of Recycling in Washington State .............................................................. 16 • EconomicsofRecyclingandSolidWasteManagement...................................................................... 16

• EmploymentDatafortheRecyclingIndustry...............................................................................18• GovernmentExpendituresonRecyclingEducation...................................................................18

• MaterialsCollectedinCurbsideRecyclingPrograms........................................................................... 19• RecyclingProcessingCapacity..................................................................................................................20• EndMarketsforRecyclables........................................................................................................................ 21• Future-MarketConsiderations.....................................................................................................................22• RecyclingTrendsinWashington................................................................................................................22• PackagingandPrintedMaterialRecyclingRates................................................................................... 24• CurrentandPotentialGHGReductions....................................................................................................26

Introduction to Product Stewardship .............................................................................................. 27• KeyElementsinProductStewardshipSystems.....................................................................................29

Global Packaging and Printed Paper Stewardship Programs ..................................................... 32• TheEuropeanUnionPackagingDirective................................................................................................32• ProductStewardshipinCanada..................................................................................................................34

• CanadianCouncilofMinistersoftheEnvironment:TheCanada-wideStrategyforSustainablePackaging.............................................................................................. 34

• Purpose............................................................................................................................................... 34• ProductStewardshipforPackaging............................................................................................. 34• SelectedPrograms........................................................................................................................... 34

• TheOntarioBlueBoxProgram....................................................................................................................36

Recent Policy Development in the U.S. .......................................................................................... 38• VermontExtendedProducerResponsibilityActof2010(ProposedLegislation)..........................38• ProductStewardshipFrameworkLegislation..........................................................................................39

Analyzing Product Stewardship Policies for Packaging and Printed Paper in Washington State

Overview of Product Stewardship in Washington.......................................................................... 40• Electronics........................................................................................................................................................40• FluorescentLighting.......................................................................................................................................40

Context for Stewardship for Packaging in Washington ................................................................ 42• CoordinationwithExistingRecyclingInfrastructure..............................................................................42• ImplementationMechanism.........................................................................................................................43• DesignatedWastesandProducts..............................................................................................................43• LevelofFinancing...........................................................................................................................................44• ProgramPlan....................................................................................................................................................44• PerformanceGoals/ServiceLevels...........................................................................................................45• RolesofKeyStakeholdersinaProductStewardshipSystem.............................................................45

• RoleofStateGovernment............................................................................................................... 45• RoleofLocalGovernment............................................................................................................... 45• RoleofHaulers................................................................................................................................... 46• RoleofRetailers................................................................................................................................ 47

• Conclusion........................................................................................................................................................ 47

AppendicesAppendix A: Recent Developments in Packaging in the Public and Private Sector .................. 48

• Wal-MartPackagingScorecard..................................................................................................................48• SustainablePackagingCoalition................................................................................................................48• NationalPackagingDialogue......................................................................................................................48

Appendix B: Summaries of Product Stewardship Programs for Packaging in Europe, Canada and Australia ............................................................................ 50

• SustainableProductPackagingProgramSummaries..........................................................................50• Manitoba“New”BlueBox................................................................................................................51• Ontario“BlueBox”............................................................................................................................ 55• Germany“GreenDot”...................................................................................................................... 58• Belgium,InterregionalCooperationAgreement......................................................................... 62• TheNetherlands,TheDutchPackagingDecree........................................................................ 66• France,Eco-Emballages.................................................................................................................. 69• Australia,NationalPackagingCovenant...................................................................................... 72

Appendix C: Current Solid Waste and Packaging Regulations in Washington .......................... 78

The Northwest Product Stewardship Council

Analyzing Product Stewardship Policies for Packaging and Printed Paper in Washington State

Page 1The Northwest Product Stewardship Council

Executive SummaryToday,manufacturedproductsandtheirassociatedpackagingmakeup75percentofthewastegenerated in the United States each year, yet less than half of this material is being recycled.Packagingandprintedpaperaregeneratedat therateof95million tonsperyearandonly49milliontons(52%)arerecycledeachyear.Thisrepresentsover45milliontonsofwastedpackagingresourceseachandeveryyear.1

TherecyclingrateforpackagingandprintedpaperinWashingtonStatehasreached54percent,slightlyhigherthantheUSaverageandotherstates.Unfortunately, thepercentageofmaterialsrecycledhasplateauedoverthepastfewyearsdespitethefactthatcurbsiderecyclingprogramshave expanded and are now available to 80 percent of Washington residents and drop-offrecyclingisavailabletotheother20percentofthepopulationwhodonothaveaccesstocurbsiderecycling.2

Thepurposeof this report is tostimulatedialogueamongthevariousstakeholders in thesolidwasteandrecyclingsystemsinWashingtonStateandtoexaminealternativewaystofinanceandincentivizerecyclingprogramsinthestate.ThegoalofthedialoguewouldbetohelpidentifyandcraftviableopportunitiestomovetowardincreasedrecyclingofpackagingandprintedpaperinWashington.

ThereportprovidesanoverviewofthecurrentrecyclingsysteminWashingtonStateandexploresways to increase the rate of recycling, especially for packaging and printed paper. SeveralsuccessfulrecyclingprogramsinEuropeandCanadaarefeaturedinthisreportasexamplesofprograms thathaveachievedrecyclingratesbetween60and90percent.Recyclingprogramsinthosecountriesemploytheconceptofproductstewardship,wherebytheproductproducerisresponsibleforfinancingandensuringthedeliveryoftherecyclingprogram.Inmanycountries,local municipalities and private sector waste hauling companies are utilized to provide thecollectionservices.

Indraftingthisreport,wehavekeptthreethemesinmind.Thesethemesprovideanorganizingstructuretoconsiderwhenevaluatingordesigninganyprogramintendedtoincreasethereuseandrecyclingofpackagingandprintedpaper.Theprogramshould:

1. Divertmorematerialfromdisposaltorecycling.a. Robust goals for recycling and material quality will incentivize the diversion of more

materialsintoproductiveuse.b. Morerecyclingequalsmorejobs,lessmarinepollution,lesslitterandlessgreenhouse

gasemissions.

2. Utilizetheexistingpublicandprivatesectorcollectionandprocessinginfrastructure.a. WashingtonhassomeofthehighestrecyclingratesintheUSandtheexistingpublic

1 MunicipalSolidWasteGeneration,Recycling,andDisposalintheUnitedStatesDetailedTablesandFiguresfor2008,U.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgencyOfficeofResourceConservationandRecoveryNovember2009.

2 SolidWasteinWashingtonState;18thAnnualStatusReport,Waste2ResourcesProgram,December2009Publication#09-07-038.


Page 2 Analyzing Product Stewardship Policies for Packaging and Printed Paper in Washington State

andprivatesectorcollectorshavebeenaninstrumentalpartinmakingthathappen.Theexistingcollectorshavetheexpertiseandexperiencetooffercost-effectivecollectionandprocessingservices.

b. Transition the financing of recycling programs from local government and theirratepayerstothemanufacturersandusersofthematerialscollected.

3. Localgovernmentsandtheirratepayersarenolongerabletoinvestthenecessaryfinancialresourcestoincreasethediversionofmaterialsfromdisposaltorecycling.

a. Transitioningtoamanufacturerfinancedsystemimplementsthe“polluterpays”principleandbringsnewfinancial incentives intoplaywhichshouldpromotebetterpackagingdesignandencouragetheuseofmorerecycledmaterials.

What is included in Packaging?Packagingmaterialsareusedforthecontainment,protection,handling,deliveryandpresentationof goods. The most common packaging materials are cardboard, aluminum cans, tinned steelcans,PETLDPEandHDPEplastics,andglass.WiththeexceptionofglassandLDPE,allofthesematerials are commonly collected in residential curbside recycling programs. Many programsalsoincludeprintedpaperintheprogramsastheseareoftenpartofthestandardmixofmaterialscollectedincurbsideanddropboxprograms.

What is included in Printed Paper?Printed paper includes newspaper, magazines, third-class mail and paper generated byhouseholdsandbusinessesfromhome-oroffice-basedequipmentsuchasprinters,scanners,faxmachinesandcopiers.

Packaging and Printed Paper Disposal and Recycling Rates in Washington AccordingtothenumbersprovidedbytheWashingtonStateDepartmentofEcology(Ecology),over 2.3 million tons of packaging and printed paper are generated in the state each year,representing28percentofthetotalsolidwastegeneratedwithinthestateannually.Ofthistotal,1.1milliontonsarediscardedeachyearand1.3milliontonsarerecycled.Packagingandprintedpaperrepresent23percentofthetotalsolidwastethrownawayeachyearand35percentofthetotalthatisrecycledannuallyintheStateofWashington.

The54percentrecyclingrateforpackagingandprintedpaperhasremainedrelativelyflatoverthelastfewyears.Theoverallratealsoconcealssomeverygoodrecyclingnumbersandsomeverypoorones.Newspaperandcardboardarerecycledataverageratesof76percentand72percentrespectively.However,plasticsarerecycledatanoverallrateof15percent,despitetheexpansionofcurbsiderecyclingprogramsandtheincreaseofrecyclablecontainersinthemarketplace.3

3 WashingtonStateDepartmentofEcology,2009StateofWashingtonWasteCharacterizationStudy,


Figure 1: Packaging and Printed Paper Recycling Rates in Washington

Source: Washington State Waste Characterization Study, Department of Ecology 2009 and Solid Waste in Washington State: 19th Annual Status Report

Why Recycle Packaging and Printed Paper?Thefailuretorecovermorepackagingandprintedpaperfromthewastestreamresultsinmultiplenegative impacts, including lost jobs and tax revenue, the wasting of irreplaceable resources,increasedmarinepollutionandincreasedgreenhousegasemissions(GHG).

Theconverseisalsotrue.IfweweretoincreasetherecyclingofthesematerialsinWashingtontolevelscurrentlybeingachievedinCanadaandEurope,thestatewouldcreateanadditional2,000jobs, reduce GHG emissions by 467,000 metric tons of carbon equivalent (a reduction equaltoremoving314,000passengercars fromtheroadeachyear)andgenerateanadditional$48millionofcommodityvalue toWashingtonresidents, recyclingbusinesses,wastemanagementcompanies and municipalities. In turn, this additional tonnage would be available for use asfeedstockinmanufacturingprocesses,reducingrelianceonvaluablenaturalresources.

Current Recycling System in Washington StateCurbside recycling services are now available to 80 percent of the population and drop-boxrecyclingisavailableto100%ofthepopulationinWashington.4Nationalstudieshaveshownthatthehighestrecyclingratesareachievedwhenthefollowingfactorsexist:

• Recyclingcostsareembeddedinfeespaidforoverallsolidwasteservices,i.e.thereisonefeeforgarbage,recyclingandyardwasteservices.

• Thecontainerforgarbageisnolargerthan32gallons(andpreferably19-21gallons).

6

Figure 1: Packaging and Printed Paper Recycling Rates in Washington

Source: Washington State Waste Characterization Study, Department of Ecology 2009 and Solid Waste in Washington State: 19th Annual Status Report Why Recycle Packaging and Printed Paper? The failure to recover more packaging and printed paper from the waste stream results in multiple negative impacts, including lost jobs and tax revenue, the wasting of irreplaceable resources, increased marine pollution and increased greenhouse gas emissions (GHG). The converse is also true. If we were to increase the recycling of these materials in Washington to levels currently being achieved in Canada and Europe, the state would create an additional 2,000 jobs, reduce GHG emissions by 467,000 metric tons of carbon equivalent (a reduction equal to removing 314,000 passenger cars from the road each year) and generate an additional $48 million of commodity value to Washington residents, recycling businesses, waste management companies and municipalities. In turn, this additional tonnage would be available for use as feedstock in manufacturing processes, reducing reliance on valuable natural resources. Current Recycling System in Washington State Curbside recycling services are now available to 80 percent of the population and drop-box recycling is available to 100% of the population in Washington.4 National studies have shown that the highest recycling rates are achieved when the following factors exist: 4 Email communication with Washington State Department of Ecology Staff and map entitled “Access to Residential Recycling in Washington State 2009”.

76%

72%

50%

26%

22%

9%

11%

60%

43%

30%

Newspaper

Cardboard

Mixed Paper

PETE

HDPE

LDPE/Bags and Film

Other PlasJc Products

Glass

Aluminum Cans/Foil

Tin Cans

2008 Packaging and Printed Paper Recycling Rates in the State of Washington

4 EmailcommunicationwithWashingtonStateDepartmentofEcologyStaffandmapentitled“AccesstoResidentialRecyclinginWashingtonState2009”.


• Significantratedifferentialsareusedtoprovideanincentivetorecycle(variablepricingora“payasyouthrow”pricestructure).

• Wastemanagementcompaniesarerequiredtoreportdisposedandrecycledtonnages.5

Washington already has many of these factors in place. Variable rates are mandated by statelaw forallof the jurisdictionsunder theauthorityof theWashingtonUtilitiesandTransportationCommission(WUTC),thestateagencythatregulatessolidwastehaulingservicesinunincorporatedareasof thestate.Citieshave theoptionofcontracting forgarbageservicewith localgarbagehaulersoutsideoftheWUTCpurviewandmostofthesejurisdictionsalsousevariablerateswherethesmallestavailablecontaineriseither20or30gallons.Inaddition,statelawrequiresannualreportingbywastemanagementcompanies. (RCW70.95)Despite thesefactors,Washington’srecyclingrateisstillbelow50percentoverall.

Barriers to Greater Packaging RecyclingSowhyhaverecyclingratesstalled,especiallyforpackagingmaterials?Somecontributingfactorsincludetheproblematicnatureofcertainpackagingmaterialssuchasmulti-materialpackagingthatincludepaperandmetalinonepackageorthenew“biodegradable”packagingthatmayormaynotbecompostableinmoderncommercialscalecompostfacilities.

Additionally, material recycling facilities (MRF’s) often have difficulty separating specific typesof packaging materials from other recyclables. As a result, materials that have been put intothe recycling stream by residents and businesses may not end up being fully recycled. Glass,for instance, when collected in the current single stream systems can break and become acontaminant that lowers the value of the other collected materials. Broken glass in paper alsohassignificantnegativecostimpactsonpapermillsinWashington.Onelocalmillestimatesthatglass in their recycled paper stream costs them an additional $360,000 per year in increasedmaintenanceandoperationalcosts.6Thesecostsdonot include the loss invalueof thepaperproductstheyproduceduetothepresenceofglassfines.

“Away-from-home”consumptionofbeverageshasincreasedinthepastdecadeandwherethereisnoincentiveforconsumerstokeepthebottlesforredemption,or,typicallyanabsenceofaway-from-homerecyclinginfrastructure,thesecontainersusuallyendupinthegarbagestream.

Recyclingoptionsforcommercialandindustrialcustomersarelimited.Recyclinginfrastructurefor residents is greater than the infrastructure for commercial and industrial customers. Thereare several reasons for this including federal commerce issues but the lack of commercialinfrastructureisanongoingchallenge.

Finally, in the current economic climate, local governments are unable to devote significantadditionalresourcestorecyclingprogramsanditisunlikelythefuturewillbeanybetter.Todate,recyclingprogramshavebeenalmostsolelyfundedbylocalgovernmentandtheirratepayers.Thefirstcurbsiderecyclingprogramsbeganinthemid1980sandsincebeginninglocalgovernmentsinWashingtonhavespentmillionsofdollarspromotingandeducatingresidentsandbusinesses

5 Skumatz2001in“MSWManagement”http://www.mswmanagement.com/september-october-2002/recycling-waste-diversion.aspx.

6 McClelland,S.WashingtonStateDepartmentofEcology,Waste2ResourcesProgram(2010).


about their local recycling programs.7 These efforts have resulted in Washington achievingoneof thehigheststatewiderecycling rates in thecountry.Nevertheless,evenwithallof theseexpenditures, less thanhalfof thewastestreamgetsrecycled.Newfundingsourcesandotherstepsneedtobetakenforourrecyclingprogramstoachievethehigherlevelsofperformance.

European and Canadian Programs for PackagingIn Europe and Canada, a product stewardship approach to packaging and printed paper hasresulted in recycling rates that average more than 65 percent for all packaging materials, withrecyclingratesforsomematerialsmuchhigher.

Theseprogramsvaryinstructureandoperationbutarebroadlyreferredtoasproductstewardship,producerresponsibilityorExtendedProducerResponsibility(EPR).Theprogramshaveseveralthingsincommon:

• Producers (also known as brandowners) of packaging materials share in the cost ofresidentialrecyclingcollectionprograms.

• Producershavetheoptionofjoiningtogethertopoolresourcesandadministertheirfinancialobligations.

• Producerspayintothepoolbasedonthequantityandtypeofpackagingmaterialstheyuse.

• Producerorganizationsreportannuallytothegovernmentoversightagency.

• Producers contract with the private sector or with local government to provide collectionservices.AccordingtothesummaryreportoftheEuropeanCommissionontheperformanceof theEuropeanPackagingDirective, theprivatesectorhaulingcommunity isextensivelyinvolvedwiththeEPRprogramsintheEU.

InEurope,recyclinggoalshavebeenestablishedbytheEuropeanUnion,andinCanadathesegoals are set by the individual provinces. For the most part, these recycling goals have beenachievedonschedule.

Givenalloftheseconsiderations,aproductstewardshipapproachoffersapromisingopportunitytoboostrecyclingratessignificantlywithoutadditionalcoststolocalgovernmentswhilekeepingmuchofthecurrentrecyclinginfrastructureintact.

7 CascadiaConsulting&IndustrialEconomics,Inc.WashingtonStateDepartmentofEcology,SolidWasteandFinancialAssistanceProgram(2007).SolidwastemanagementcostflowsinWashingtonState.


Purpose and ScopeThepurposeofthisreportistostimulatedialogueamongthevariousstakeholdersengagedinthesolidwasteandrecyclingsystemsinWashingtonStateandtoexaminealternativewaystofinanceand incentivizerecyclingprograms in thestate.Thegoalof thedialogue is tohelp identifyandcraftworkableopportunitiestomovetowardincreasedrecyclingandrecyclingofpackagingandprintedpaperinWashington.

ThereportprovidesanoverviewofthecurrentrecyclingsysteminWashingtonStateandexploresways to increase the rate of recycling, especially for packaging and printed paper. SeveralsuccessfulrecyclingprogramsinEuropeandCanadaarefeaturedinthisreportasexamplesofprograms thathaveachievedrecyclingratesbetween60and90percent.Recyclingprogramsinthosecountriesemploytheconceptofproductstewardship,wherebytheproductproducerisresponsibleforfinancingandensuringthedeliveryoftherecyclingprogram.Inmanycountries,local municipalities and private sector waste hauling companies are utilized to provide thecollectionservices.


IntroductionThecompositionandtheamountofwastegeneratedintheUnitedStateshavechangeddrasticallyoverthepastfiftyyears.AsFigure2shows,productwastehasgonefrom50milliontonsin1960toover175milliontonsin2000.

Figure 2: Changes in Waste Composition Over Time

Source: EPA

Today, manufactured products and their associated packaging make up 75 percent of wastegenerated.8 This “trash” is made primarily of glass, aluminum, steel, various kinds of paper,and plastic. On average in the U.S., 66.8 percent of all recyclable items (primarily packaging)go unrecovered, thus wasting the opportunity to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, energyconsumptionandresourceusethatwouldaccompanyincreasesinrecycling.

0

50

100

150

200

250

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

Changing Waste

Mill

ion

Tons

per

Yea

r

TOTAL

Products

Mineral

Food/Yard

Source: EPA

8 “TheProblemisManufacturedProductWaste,”CaliforniaProductStewardshipCouncil.http://www.calpsc.org/solution/problem.html


The Environmental Impacts of Packaging and Printed PaperTherearemanyenvironmentalimpactsassociatedwithpackagingandprintedpaper.Thissectionsummarizessomeoftheimpactscausedbythecreation,useanddisposalofthesematerials.

Life-cycle EmissionsTheprimaryenvironmentalimpactsofpackagingandprintedpaperareillustratedbytheenergyand emissions associated with the typical product life cycle. Recycling packaging and printedpapersignificantlyreducestheamountofenergyusedintheextractionofrawmaterials;quantifyingthosesavingsisanexcellentindicatorofthepotentialenvironmentalbenefitstobegainedfromincreasedrecycling.

Figure 3 below shows a typical product life cycle from resource extraction to final disposition.The figure shows that energy and water inputs and emissions to air, water and land occur ateverystage.Recyclingofmaterialseliminatestheresourceextractionphaseofthelifecycleandcan eliminate or modify intermediate processing steps, further reducing the energy needed totransformtherecycledmaterialsintonewproducts.Accordingtoarecentevaluationreport,“themain environmental impact throughout a material’s life cycle occurs during the manufacturingphase(over90percent),soareductionofthevirginresourcesused,throughclosed-looprecycling,couldgreatlyreducethisimpact.[…]Additionally,thelifecyclesofthesematerialshavearangeofeffectsontheenvironment,includinggreenhouseeffect,acidification,carcinogenicsubstances,summersmog,wintersmog,ozonelayerdepletion,pesticides,heavymetals,andeutrophication.”9

Figure 3: Typical Product Life Cycle

Source: State/EPA 2020 Vision Workgroup obtained from “Sustainable Materials Management; The Road Ahead, U.S. EPA 2009


Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHG) Whenpackagingandprintedpaperareusedonceanddiscarded,theenergyusedtomineandprocess the materials that went into them is wasted. Using recycled materials to make paper,plastics,glass,andmetalproductssavesenergyandthusgreenhousegasemissions.Collecting,processing,andtransportingrecycledmaterialstypicallyuseslessenergythanextracting,refining,transporting,andprocessingrawmaterials.

A U.S. EPA report noted that there are twenty-one single-material items most likely to have thegreatestimpactongreenhousegasemissions.Thesetwenty-oneitemsincludeallthematerialsthatareutilizedforpackagingandallofthecommonprintedpaper.TheU.S.EPAselectedthesematerials based on, “the quantity generated, the differences in energy use of manufacturing aproductfromvirginversusrecycledinputs,andthepotentialcontributionofmaterialstomethanegenerationinlandfills.”10

Thetwenty-onematerialsarelistedbelowwiththepackaging and printed paper highlighted.

• Aluminum Cans, Steel Cans,CopperWire;

• Glass

• HDPE (high-density polyethylene), LDPE (low-density polyethylene), PET (polyethylene terephthalate)

• Corrugated Cardboard, Magazines/Third-class Mail, Newspaper, Office Paper, Phonebooks, and Textbooks

• DimensionalLumber,Medium-densityFiberboard

• FoodDiscards,YardTrimmings,ClayBricks,Concrete,FlyAsh,Tires

Packaging- and Product-Related GHG EmissionsFigures4and5belowgeneratedbytheProductPolicyInstitutefromEPAdatashowU.S.GHGemissionsbyultimateuseoftheenergyconsumed.Thechartstakeasystemicviewofemissionsratherthanasector-basedapproach.TheadvantageofthesystemsapproachisthatitprovidesabetterroadmapforpolicymakerswhoaretaskedwithprioritizingprogramsthatwillreduceGHGemissions.Thetraditionalsector-basedapproachistoobroadandgenerictoprovideadequateguidanceforeffectiveprogramdevelopment.

As shown in Figure 4, the provision of goods, the packaging materials associated with thosegoods and the use of those goods account for 37 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.WhenincludingemissionsthatoccuroverseasduetothemanufacturinganduseofproductsandpackagingintendedforU.S.consumption,thispercentageincreasesto44percent.11

9 Huang,Chien-ChuangandHwong-WenMa.“Amultidimensionalenvironmentalevaluationofpackagingmaterials.”ScienceoftheTotalEnvironment324(2004)161-171.http://ntur.lib.ntu.edu.tw/bitstream/246246/96881/1/10.pdf

10 “SolidWasteManagementandGreenhouseGases:ALife-CycleAssessmentofEmissionsandSinks”EPA.3rdEdition,September2006.http://epa.gov/climatechange/wycd/waste/SWMGHGreport.html#sections

11 JoshuahStolaroff,U.S.EPA,2009.


Figure 4: Domestic U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Purpose

Source: U.S. EPA 2009, Joshuah Stoloski

Figure 5: Global U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Purpose

Source: U.S. EPA 2009, Joshuah Stoloski

Land PollutionThemostrecentWashingtonState littersurveyfrom2004reportedthatpackagingandprintedmaterials represent 32 percent of the litter on roadways in the state by weight.12 The biggestcomponentof this litter isglassbeveragecontainerswhichaccountedfor12%of thestatewidetotals.

12 Washington2004StateLitterStudy;LitterGenerationandCompositionReport,March2005,Publication05-07-029.SolidWasteandFinancialAssistanceProgram.

* Use of Appliances and Devices

7%

Provisionof Food

12%

Non-local PassengerTransport

9%

Building HVAC and Lighting

21%

Local PassengerTransport

13%

US Greenhouse Gas EmissionsConsumption View – Global

Source: PPI 2009 – Joshuah Stolaroff

Products & Packaging44%

Use *Provision of Goods

37%

Infra-structure

1%

© 2009 Product Policy Institute


Thestatehasalittertaxonpackagingmaterialsof.015percent,whichequatesto$150foreverymillion dollars of gross proceeds of either the manufacturers or the retailers of the productscoveredbythetax.Thetaxratehasnotchangedsince1971.

Plastics and Ocean Pollution Marinepollution,demonstratedmostvisiblybythe“GreatPacificGarbagePatch”inthenorthernPacificgyre,isnowamajorenvironmentalconcern.Researchhasfoundthatthemassofplasticsinthegyrenowexceedsthetotalmassoflivingcreatures(plankton)by6to1.Worldwide,plasticscomprise 60 to 80 percent of marine debris on average with some areas as high as 90 to 95percent.Urbanrunoff—materialenteringthewaterviastormdrainsorbeingsweptorblownintothewater—istheprimarysourceofmarinedebrisandlitteristhemajorsourceoftrashinurbanrunoff.13LittermakesitswaytotheoceaninWashingtonthroughthestormdrainagesystemsandwaterways,bywindactionandbydirectdisposalintothewater.

The2009 InternationalCoastalCleanupreportdocuments thatworldwidepackagingmaterialsaccountfor40percentofmarinedebrisitemsandthedataforWashingtonshowsthat50percentofthematerialcollectedduringthecleanupwaspackagingmaterial.14

Accordingtothestate’sworkplantotacklemarinedebris,“WashingtonStateisuniqueinthatalarge percentage of its marine shorelines are located in Puget Sound. Many beaches in PugetSound are privately owned, which makes monitoring and removing land-based marine debrischallenging.Despitemuchfocusontoxicpollutionandhabitatrestoration,litterandsolidwastearearealproblemforWashingtonwaterways.”15Anyeffortsthatincreaserecyclingandcompostingandreducedisposalandlitteringofpackagingmaterialswillhelpreducetheamountofpackagingmaterialsthatendupinourwaterwaysandoceansandreducethreatsposedtotheanimalsthatcalltheoceantheirhome.

13 Gordon,M.StateWaterResourcesControlBoard,CaliforniaCoastalCommission(2006).Eliminatingland-baseddischargesofmarinedebrisinCalifornia:aplanofactionfromtheplasticdebrisproject.

14 OceanConservancy,(2010).ARisingtideofoceandebrisandwhatwecandoaboutit.Retrievedfromhttp://www.oceanconservancy.org/site/PageServer?pagename=icc_report

15 MarineDebrisActionCoordinationTeam.(2009).Westcoastgovernor’sagreementonoceanhealth.


Overview of Solid Waste Management in Washington IntheUnitedStates,solidwastemanagementhasbeenastateandlocalgovernmentfunctionwithmanywell-establishedrolesandresponsibilitiesforover100years.ThissectionofthereportlooksattheplanningrequirementsandthecurrentregulatorystructureforsolidwastemanagementinWashingtonState.

Solid Waste PlanningWashingtonStatelawrequirescounties,incoordinationwithcities,toadoptcomprehensivesolidwasteplansforthemanagement,handling,anddisposalofsolidwasteforthenexttwentyyearsand,ifnecessary,toupdatetheplanseveryfiveyears.Plansmustreflectthewastemanagementhierarchywhichemphasizesreuseandrecyclingoverlandfillingorincineration.Citiesmaychoosetobejointparticipantsintheplan,delegatetheplanningtotheircounties,orchoosetodotheirownplan.

Counties are responsible for overall planning, disposal, and waste reduction and recyclingeducation.Citiesmaytakeresponsibilityforrefusecollectionandthedevelopmentofanyrecyclingprogramsspecifictotheirjurisdictionsortheymayestablishinterlocalagreementswithotherlocaljurisdictionstoprovideorcontractfortheseservices.

Stateregulations(RCW70.95.090)andtheEcologyGuidelinesforLocalSolidWasteManagementPlans detail what is required within comprehensive plans. The waste management hierarchyrequires that counties and cities consider a number of waste reduction and recycling (WRR)programs,whichinclude:

• Residential recycling collection for urban and rural areas and for single-family and multi-familyresidents;

• Yardwastecollection,publicinformationandeducationalprogramsonwastereductionandrecycling,andprogramstomonitorcollectionofrecyclablesfrombusinessesandindustries;

• Procurementplansand“in-house”recyclingcollectionprograms.

Countiesmustalsoadopturban/ruralboundariesforrecyclingcollectionprogramsandimplementspecialwastecollectionprograms,ifnecessary.Intheirsolidwastemanagementplans,countiesmust also maintain an inventory of all existing solid waste handling facilities, identify potentialdisposalandrecyclingfacilityneeds,andassessdisposalcapacityneedsbasedon20yearsofpopulation growth for all participating jurisdictions. Counties must also review potential areasthatmeetsitingcriteria fordisposal facilities.Also,countiesmustplan forfinancingcapitalandoperationcosts;haveasix-yearcapitalimprovementprogram;andanassessmentoftheplan’s


impactonthecostsofsolidwastecollectionpreparedinconformancewithguidelinesfromtheWashingtonUtilitiesandTransportationCommission.

Beyond Waste PlanIn 2004, Ecology published the Beyond Waste Plan, the combined state solid waste andhazardouswasteplan.It identifiedissuesandnecessarychangestomoveWashingtontowardsasocietywherewasteisviewedasinefficient,andwheremostwastesandtoxicsubstanceshavebeeneliminated.Oneofthebackgroundpapersfortheplanfocusedonfinancingthesolidwastesystem.Theproposedactionssectionofthepaperidentifiedseveralstepsthatshouldbetakenwithinthenextfiveyears.Thestepsrelevanttotheissueofpackagingandprintedpaperinclude:

• Examine a range of potential financing mechanisms and other actions, if needed, andcollaborativelyworktoinformandeducateallparties,andtoimplementsuccessfuloptions.

• Evaluateoptionsformovingfromendoflifefinancingtoup-frontfinancing.

• Identifyregulatorybarriersthatneedtobeaddressed.

• Expand partnerships where needs can be funded and carried out by non-governmentalorganizationsandthebusinesssector.

• Worktowardtheeliminationofsubsidies,taxbreaksandincentivesthatservetoencouragewaste generation and toxic substance use. Replace with incentives to reduce wastes,use fewer resources, reduce use of toxic substances, and reduce overall environmentalfootprints.16

TherecentlypublishedBeyondWastePlan2009Updateidentifiesfivecommonmisconceptionsabout the current solid waste management system. The three misconceptions applicable topackagingandprintedpaperare:

1. Landfillssolvethewasteproblem.

2. Recyclingsolvesthewasteproblem.

3. Eliminatingwasteandtoxinswillbebadfortheeconomy.

The report identifies key principles and strategies that are important to the successfulimplementationof theBeyondWastePlan.The followingstrategiesare thosemost relevant forpackagingandprintedpaper:

• Incentives,especiallyfinancialones,arekeytoolsinimplementingBeyondWaste.

• Eliminatewasteandtoxicsubstanceswhereverpossible,ratherthanjustmanagingthemafteruse.

• Chooseactivitieswiththegoalofcreatingtheleastdamagingecologicalfootprintpossible.

• Changethemindset,asindividualsandasasociety,thatwasteis“normal”or“necessary.”

• Workwithmanufacturerstotakeresponsibilityforend-of-lifemanagementoftheirproducts.

16 Financing Solid Waste for the FutureWashingtonStateDepartmentofEcologyPublication04-07-032.


• Workwithproductdesignersandmanufacturerstoencouragethedevelopmentofproductlinesthatconserveenergyandwaterandeliminateunnecessarymaterialsandwaste.

• Inaddition,workwithdesignersandmanufacturerstomakeproductsthatareleasttoxicornon-toxic,reusablewherepossible,andreadilyrecyclable.

• Encouragepeopletobuyanduseenvironmentallypreferableproductsandservices.

Finally,sustainableandongoingfinancingareanessentialcomponentinaBeyondWasteworld.With most solid waste systems financed by end of life disposal fees, reducing the volume ofmaterialsgoingfordisposalwillalsoreducetheleveloffundingavailableforsolidwasteprogramsandservices.Accordingtothe2009update,

Business and government investment at all levels will be needed to meet BeyondWastegoals.Achievinglargeincreasesinwastereductionandclosed-looprecyclingwill require extensive technical assistance, education, planning, and collaboration.We should seek ways in which financing structures can reinforce rather than workagainst Beyond Waste goals. For example, there are regional and national efforts toshiftfromchargingfeesattheend-of-life(disposalfees)toincorporatingcostsatmoreappropriate points in the life cycle (such as cost internalization, where product lifecyclecostsaresharedbyparticipantsintheproductlifecycle).17

Role of the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission (WUTC)StatelawgivestheWUTCtheabilitytosetratesandtograntmonopolycollectioncertificatestoprivate sector haulers for the provision of residential garbage service in a defined geographicarea.Thecertificates(franchises)authorizesolidwastecollectorstoprovideserviceindesignatedfranchise districts in cities and unincorporated areas that either do not have contracts withprivatesectorhaulersorthatprovidethecollectionthemselves.Solidwastecollectioncertificatesauthorizethecollectionofgarbageandrefusefromallresidentialandnon-residentialgeneratorsby the collection company that holds the certificate. The WUTC website has maps by countiesshowingthesefranchiseareasatthislink:http://www.wutc.wa.gov/webimage.nsf/0/9D70C4EC7AAFC39888256C44007034EE.

Sincethesolidwastecollectorshaveexclusiverightstotheirgeographicareas,theyhaveoftenbecome the sole provider of curbside recycling services in those areas as well. Their existingpresenceintheareaandcollectioncapacitygivesthemacompetitiveadvantageoverotherswhomightwant toenter themarket tocollectonlyrecyclables.Countiesdohavethe legalauthorityunderstatelawtocontractdirectlywithprivatesectorhaulersforresidentialrecyclingservices,butonlyonecounty,Clark,currentlydoesso.

Theratesrequestedbythecertificatedcollectioncompaniesmustreflectthestate’ssolidwastemanagementprioritiesandmustbeapprovedbytheWUTC.CountiesdonotcontrolcollectioncostschargedtocustomersbutdoworkwiththefranchisedcollectioncompanyandtheWUTCtoimplementsolidwasteprogramsandsetminimumservicelevelsforrecycling.TheWUTCdoesnothavejurisdictionovercitiesthatchoosetocollecttheirownsolidwasteorforthosecitiesthatcontractwithprivatesolidwastecollectioncompanies.

17 Beyond Waste Plan; 2009 Update WashingtonStateDepartmentofEcology,Publication09-07-026.


Washington State Litter ProgramChapter 70.93 RCW, the Waste Reduction, Recycling, and Model Litter Control Act, makesEcology the lead agency in managing statewide litter programs. In 2008, Ecology focused onincreasing awareness of and compliance with Washington’s secured load laws. The Waste 2ResourcesProgram(W2R)carriesoutthefollowingcoreelementsofthestatewidelitterprogram,asfundingallows:

1. Helpingwithcoordinationoflittercontrolandpreventionactivities.

2. Conductingperiodicstatewidelittersurveys.

3. Managing allocations from the Waste Reduction, Recycling and Model Litter ControlAccount.

4. RunningEcologyYouthCorpslittercleanupcrews(EYC).

5. ManagingtheCommunityLitterCleanupProgram(CLCP).

6. Strengtheningpartnershipswithotherstateagenciesandlocalgovernments.

Theprogramsarefundedbyalittertaxonpackagingandotherdesignatedmaterialsof$150permillionofgrossrevenue.Thetaxwasimplementedin1971andthetaxratehasnotbeenincreasedovertheyears.


Regulatory Structure of Recycling in Washington State It is important tounderstandthecurrentregulatorystructureandeconomicsofrecycling inthestatetounderstandthepotentialpathsforwardtogreaterrecyclingofmaterials.ThenextsectiongivesanoverviewofhowrecyclingisregulatedandpaidforinthestateofWashington.

RecyclingprogramsinWashingtonareeithermadeupofcollectionservicesat thecurbside inlargerurbanareasordrop-offprogramsofferedinmoreruralportionsofthestate.Countiesandcitieshaveseveraloptionsforimplementingcurbsiderecyclingprograms:

1. Citiescanbetheexclusivedirectcollectorofresidentialrecyclables.

2. Cities can contract with private sector haulers for the exclusive collection of residentialrecyclablesunderRCW81.77.020.

3. CitiesmaychoosetoremainundertheWashingtonUtilitiesandTransportationCommission(WUTC)systemandusethedesignatedsolidwastecollectioncompanytoprovidecurbsiderecyclingservicesfortheirgeographicarea.

4. Counties must use the designated WUTC solid waste collection company for curbsiderecycling in their geographic area unless they are collecting source separated recyclingauthorizedbyRCW36.58.040.OnecountyinWashington(Clark)haschosenthisoptionofcontractingforresidentialrecyclingcollection.

ASeptember2009reportissuedbyRWBeckonbehalfoftheAmericanBeverageAssociationindicatedthatin2008,72percentofWashingtonresidentshadaccesstocurbsidecollectionwhile94percenthadaccesstodrop-offlocations.18Ecologydataindicatesthat80percentofresidentshaveaccess tocurbside recyclingand theother20percenthaveaccess todrop-off locations.Regardless of which data set is more accurate, the vast majority of Washington residents (94-100%)haveaccesstocurbsideordrop-offrecyclingprogramsforatleastsome—thoughusuallynotall—packagingandprintedpaper.

Economics of Recycling and Solid Waste Management ThesolidwastesysteminWashingtonisfinancedprimarilybyuserfeespaidforbythecollection,haulinganddisposalofgarbageandrecycling.Thesefeescantaketheformof tippingfeesat

18 2008ABACommunitySurveyR.W.Beck.


transferstations, landfillsor recycling facilities,and/ormonthlyorbi-monthlyutilitybillings fromprivatesectorwastemanagementhaulersorlocalgovernmentutilities.

In2007, theWashingtonStateSolidWasteAdvisoryCouncil (SWAC)commissionedastudyonthecostflows in thestatesolidwastesystem.Thereportestimated that$1.8billion isspentonsolidwasteoperationsannuallyinthestate(basedon2005data).Ofthat,$722million(40%)isspentondisposalactivitiesand$275million(15%)isspentonrecyclingprograms.Therecyclingexpendituresinclude$33millionbylocalgovernmentsand$243millionbysolidwastecollectioncompanies,boththroughtheirratepayers.Ninetypercentofthetotalamountspentonrecycling($247million)isspentoncollectionandprocessingofrecyclables,7percent($19.5million)onequipment, capital needs, facilities operations and other activities, and 3 percent ($8.5 million)isspentonrecyclingeducationandoutreach.Basedon2000censusdata,eachhousehold inWashingtonspends$121peryearonrecycling(or$41.26perperson)and$3.74perhousehold($1.27perperson)onrecyclingeducationandoutreach.

Figure 6: Estimated Expenditures on MSW Recycling by Sector

Source: Solid Waste Management Cash Flows in Washington State, Project Synopsis Report, Washington State Department of Ecology, 2007.

Mostofthemoneyspentoneducationandoutreachcomesfromlocalgovernments.Furthermore,spendingonrecyclingprogrameducationrepresents25percent($8.5million)oflocalgovernmentexpenditures.19

19 CascadiaConsulting,,&IndustrialEconomics,Inc.WashingtonStateDepartmentofEcology,SolidWasteandFinancialAssistanceProgram.(2007).Solidwastemanagementcostflowsinwashington


Figure 7: Estimated Expenditures on MSW Recycling by Activity

Source: Solid Waste Management Cash Flows in Washington State, Project Synopsis Report, Washington State Department of Ecology, 2007.

Employment Data for the Recycling Industry Theprocessofrecyclingcreatesjobs.In2008,therecyclingindustryinWashingtonemployedatleast4,456peopleinjobssuchascollection,hauling,transport,processing,orremanufactureofrecyclablematerials.20Onapertonbasis,sortingandprocessingrecyclablesalonesustains6-10timesmorejobsthanlandfillingorincineration.21

The largest economic pay-off, however, is from making new products from recycled materials.Recycling-basedmanufacturersemploymorepeopleandathigherwagesthanwhatispaidfortheinitialsortingofrecyclablesatmaterialsrecyclingfacilities.AreportfortheArizonaDepartmentof Commerce estimates that four new jobs in recyclables processing and recycled-contentmanufacturingarecreatedforevery1,000additionaltonsofrecoveredrecyclables.22

BasedoninformationfromthestateOfficeofFinancialManagement(OFM2004,seewww.ofm.wa.gov/economy/io) and the Arizona study, if Washington increased its diversion of packagingmaterialsto80percent,anestimated545additionaljobscouldbecreated.OFMestimatesthatforeveryjobdirectlycreatedthereisanindirectjobgainfactorof2.74basedoneconomicmultipliereffects. If you apply that multiplier to the estimated 545 jobs created by increased packagingrecycling,atotalof1,480jobscouldbecreated.23

Government Expenditures on Recycling EducationEducationisonemeanstoincreasetheratesofrecycling.Asshownina2001studybySkumatzandGreen,140Iowamunicipalitiesweresurveyedanditwasdeterminedthatrecyclingeducationexpenditures averaged $1.00 per household per year. The study found that adding $1.00 in

20 2008GreenEconomyJobsinWashingtonState.WashingtonStateEmploymentSecurityDepartment,LaborMarketandEconomicAnalysis,January2009

21 InstituteforLocalSelfReliance,2006.Wastetowealth-recyclingmeansbusiness.Retrievedfromhttp://www.ilsr.org/recycling/recyclingmeansbusiness.html

22 U.S.RecyclingEconomicInformationStudy,PreparedfortheNationalRecyclingCoalitionbyRWBeck,July2001.

23 OFM2004,seewww.ofm.wa.gov/economy/io


expenditures(perhouseholdperyear)adds3percenttorecyclingratesincommunitieswithlowerthanaverageexpendituresand1percentincommunitieswithhigherthanaverageexpenditures.Basedonthisdata,andWashington’salreadymuchhigherthanaveragerecyclingrate,itwouldtakeanadditional$22.7millionperyear(inadditiontoothermeasures)toboostrecyclingratesby10percent.24

Materials Collected in Curbside Recycling ProgramsWhile decisions about which specific materials are collected for recycling are determined byindividual local governments, the typical residential curbside and drop-off recycling programincludesthefollowingpackagingandprintedpaper:

• Cardboard

• Printedpaper,includingnewsprint,mixedpaperandmagazines

• Plasticbottles(PETandHDPE)

• AluminumCans

• Tin/steelcans

• Containerglass

ThefollowingtablewasdevelopedfromastudyofthesouthwestregionofWashingtonStatebytheDepartmentofEcology.Whileitislikelythatthelistofmaterialswouldbevalidfortheentirestate,thishasnotyetbeenconfirmed.25Noteagain,theprevalenceofpackagingandprintedpaperinthelistofitemscollected.

24 EvaluatingtheImpactsofRecycling/DiversionEducationPrograms–EffectiveMethodsandOptimizingExpenditures,reportpreparedforEconservationInstitute,forIowaDepartmentofNaturalResources,August2001.

25 McClelland,S.WashingtonStateDepartmentofEcology,Waste2ResourcesProgram.(2010).Beyondthecurb-trackingtheresidentialrecyclablesfromsouthwestWashington.June2010,Publication10-07-009.


Table 1: Materials Collected in curbside recycling programs in southwest Washington region

Collected in All Programs Collected in Some Programs Not Collected Corrugatedcardboard Glassbottles&jars WaxedboxesAluminum&Steelcans Aluminumfoil&pans Non-bottle/jarglassPhonebooks Pots&pans LargescrapmetalMail Aerosolcans HangersMagazines Scrapmetal(<2ft&35lbs) JuicepouchesCatalogs Frozenfoodboxes BatteriesBoxboard(shoe&cerealboxes) Shreddedpaper AmmoPaperbags Milkcartons/Juiceboxes PapertowelsNewspaper&inserts Eggcartons Plates&cupsPET/HDPEbottles&jugs Soda/Beercartons Napkins

Asepticcartons TissuesIcecreamcartons FoodsoiledpaperPapercores/rolls MetallicgiftwrapPapergiftwrap StyrofoamPaperbackbooks ChipbagsPlasticbags Trays&ClamshellsBuckets FrozenfoodbagsDairytubs&cups Lids&CapsPillbottles ToysNurserypots HazWastecontainers

Source: Washington State Department of Ecology 2010

Recycling Processing Capacity A2006report fromKingCountySolidWasteDepartmentevaluated the fourmaterial recyclingfacilities(MRF)operatinginthePugetSoundregionatthattime.Thereportconcludedthatbasedontheprojected2010volumeof640,000tonsofrecyclables,thefourMRFswouldbeatcapacityby2010.TheseestimatesassumedthatMRFswould increase theiroperational times, invest inadditionalequipment,and/orincorporatednewsortlines.

Since2006,onenewMRFhasbeenbuiltinthePugetSoundregion:SPRecyclinginFredrickson,Pierce County. The SP facility has the capacity to process168,000 tons per year bringing thetotal capacity in the region to over 800,000 tons per year.26 Department of Ecology’s recentrecyclingdatashowsthatthePugetSoundareacounties(King,Pierce,Snohomish,KitsapandThurston) generated almost 950,000 tons of recycling in 2010, 150,000 more tons than theestimatedcapacity.Thiswouldindicatethattheregionisatcapacityforrecyclingprocessingandtodramaticallyexpand theamountof recyclingwouldrequireadditional investments insortingcapacityleadingtomoreemploymentopportunities.

26 PersonalconversationwithChrisThomas,June2010.


End-Markets for Recyclables Theend-marketsforWashington’srecyclablesareglobal,withatleast75percentofthecollectedvolumeexportedoutofthestateforprocessing.Eachmaterial—oldcorrugatedcontainers(OCC),glass,metal,mixedwastepaper(MWP),oldnewsprint(ONP),andplastics—requiresdevelopmentandmaintenanceofitsownend-markets.

For thesouthwest regionofWashington, themostcommonend-markets for recyclablesareasfollows:

Old corrugated cardboard • GeorgiaPacificandInternationalPaperinOregon

• LongviewFiberinLongview,WA

• ExportedtoJapan,MexicoandChina

Glass Containers • Localaggregateoperationsforuseinroadbed

• Non-commingledglasstoStrategicMaterialsinCaliforniaforprocessingintofiberglassandaggregate

Aluminum • ProcesseddomesticallybyAnheuserBusch(70%)

Steel • ApproximatelyhalfofthecollectedsteelisprocessatNucorSteelinSeattleandSchnitzer

SteelinMcMinnville,OR

• Theremainingportionisexported

Mixed waste paper• AlmostallexportedtoChina

• NineDragonsPaperIndustriesandseveralothersmallerChinesemills

Old newsprint• Thelocalend-marketsforONP(andsomeMWP)are:NORPACinLongview,WA;Nipponin

PortAngeles,WA;andSPinNewberg,OR

• ExportedtoNineDragonsPaperIndustriesinChina

Plastics• Domesticend-marketsare:MerlinPlastics,B.C.;KWPlastics,Bakersfield,CAandTroy,AL;

andMohawkIndustries,Calhoun,GA

• ExportedtoChina


Future-Market Considerations Severalimportantconsiderationsareonthehorizonfortherecyclingcommoditiesmarkets.Firstistherapidgrowthoftheconsumerculture inAsia,andChinaspecifically,andthepotential fordomesticgenerationofrecyclablesinthosecountriestodisplaceimportsfromtheUnitedStates.

Anotherfactoristhesignificantexpansionofdomesticcapacityforprocessingcertaincommodities,most notably PET. For example, Coca-Cola opened the world’s largest PET recycling plant inSpartanburg,SouthCarolina.Thefacilityisa$60millionjointventureofCoca-ColaandtheUnitedResourceRecoveryCorporation.Theplantwillhavethecapacity,whenfullyoperational,toprocess50,000tonsofrecycledPETannually—enoughtoproduce2billion20-ouncebottles.27Similarly,Clear Path Recycling, a joint venture between Shaw Industries Group, Inc. and DAK Americas,isbuildingaplantinFayetteville,NCtorecycleover280millionpoundsofPETannually.28BothfacilitiesdemonstrateasignificantexpansionofdomesticprocessingcapacityforPETandlikelywilldrivelocalimprovementsinthecollectionandprocessinginfrastructure.

Finally,newbio-basedpackagingmaterialsarecomingonthemarket.OneexampleisthePLA-based clear beverage bottle developed by Nature Works.29 But these changes are not withoutchallenges.Bio-basedpackaginghasgeneratedconsiderabledebateintherecyclingcommunityaboutitsrecyclability,andhowtheyshouldbeaddressedinexistingrecyclingprograms.

Recycling Trends in Washington Overthepastfiveyears, therecyclingrate inWashingtonhasonly increasedby6percent.TheWashington recycling rate appears rather stagnant compared to 20 percent recycling rateincreases in Canada and the EU, which are the result of initiatives to increase the scope andrequirementsofrecyclingprograms.

Table 2: Recycling Trends 2003-2009

Program Washington State 2003 2009

Population 6,098,300 6,668,200Area(km2) 184,827 184,827Wastegenerated(lbs/person/day)

11.41 12.27

Recyclingrate 38.42% 55.00%Source: Data obtained from US Census and data from Washington State Department of Ecology 19th Annual Solid Waste update

The 2010 annual report published by the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology)showsthatdisposal,recyclingandtotalgenerationrateshavedeclinedsince2007afteralevelingoffperiodbetween2005and2007.Thisdeclineislikelyduetotherecession’simpactonconsumerpurchasing.Figure8belowshowsthistrendgraphically.

27 AccessedOctober15,2010http://www.thecoca-colacompany.com/presscenter/nr_20090114_bottle-to-bottle_recycling.html

28 AccessedOctober15,2010,http://www.clearpathrecycling.com/facilities.html

29 AccessedOctober15,2010http://www.natureworksllc.com/product-and-applications.aspx


Figure 8: Solid Waste Disposition, Washington State 1999-2009 (Data in tons)

Source: Solid Waste in Washington State; 19th Annual Status Report, Washington State Department of Ecology

Table3belowshowsthepercapitadisposal,recyclingandgenerationratesformunicipalsolidwaste in Washington since 2001 in pounds per person per day. Again, these numbers show alevelingoffbeginningin2006andaslightdecreasefrom2007to2009.

Table 3: Municipal Solid Waste Disposed, Recycled/Diverted and Generated (pounds/person/day)

Per Capita MSW Only 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009MSWDisposed 4.29 4.23 4.27 4.32 4.37 4.43 4.52 4.48 4.14 3.79MSWRecycled 2.29 2.48 2.28 2.69 3.14 3.43 3.46 3.38 3.38 3.05MSWGenerated 6.58 6.71 6.55 7.01 7.51 7.86 7.97 7.86 7.52 6.84

Source: Solid Waste in Washington State; 19th Annual Status Report, Washington State Department of Ecology.30

Total diversion of solid waste from disposal to recycling and composting has also remainedstagnantuntiltherecessionbeginningin2007whenthetotalwastegeneratedbeginstodecline.

22

Recycling Trends in Washington Over the past five years, the recycling rate in Washington has only increased by 6 percent. The Washington recycling rate appears rather stagnant compared to 20 percent recycling rate increases in Canada and the EU, which are the result of initiatives to increase the scope and requirements of recycling programs.

Table 2: Recycling Trends 2003-2009

Source: Data obtained from US Census and data from Washington State Department of Ecology 19th Annual Solid Waste update The 2010 annual report published by the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) shows that disposal, recycling and total generation rates have declined since 2007 after a leveling off period between 2005 and 2007. This decline is likely due to the recession’s impact on consumer purchasing. Figure 8 below shows this trend graphically.

Figure 8: Solid Waste Disposition, Washington State 1999-2009 (Data in tons)

Source: Solid Waste in Washington State; 19th Annual Status Report, Washington State Department of Ecology

-‐

2,000,000

4,000,000

6,000,000

8,000,000

10,000,000

12,000,000

14,000,000

16,000,000

18,000,000

20,000,000

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Other Waste Disposed

Recycled Materials (MSW)

Diverted Materials

MSW Disposed

Program Washington State 2003 2009 Population 6,098,300 6,668,200 Area (km^2) 184,827 184,827 Waste generated (lbs/person/day) 11.41 12.37 Recycling rate 38.42% 55.00%

30 Notethatthesenumbersdonotincludewastesgeneratedfromallsources.Forexample,theydonotincludewastesproducedbybusiness,industriesandothermanufacturingactivities.Theyalsodonotincludehistoricwastesthatarebeingremovedfromtheenvironment,suchaspetroleumcontaminatedsoilsfromleakinggastanksatservicestations,asbestosbeingremovedfrombuildingsthataretorndownorremodeled,andcontaminatedsoilsthataredredgedfromPugetSound.Thesetypesofwastescannotberecycledandshouldbeplacedinalandfill.


Figure 9: Washington State Diversion Rates – 1999 to 200931

Source: Solid Waste in Washington State; 19th Annual Status Report, Washington State Department of Ecology.32

Packaging and Printed Material Recycling RatesTheDepartmentofEcologyhasrecentlycompletedastate-widewasteaudit.Theresultsof theauditandtheresultsofthe2009recyclingsurveyshowtheoverallrecyclingrateforpackagingandprintedpaperis54percent.Thisnumberaveragesoutsomeverygoodandverypoorrecyclingnumbers. Newspaper and cardboard are recycled at 76 and 72 percent respectively while onaverageonly24percentofplasticbottlesarebeingrecycled.

31 Diversionratesareadjustedretroactivelyeachyeartoreflectadjustmentsindisposalandrecyclingordiversiondataandmethodologyfordeterminingtherates.

32 WashingtonStateDepartmentofEcology,Waste2ResourcesProgram.(2010).Solidwasteinwashingtonstate;19thannualstatusreport(09-07-038).


Table 4: 2009 Washington State Packaging and Printed Material Recycling Rates

MaterialRecovery Rate

Disposed Tonnage

Recycled Tonnage

Total Generation

Totals 54% 1,083,604 1,284,352 2,367,956 Paper 64% 600,651 1,086,564 1,687,215

Newspaper 76% 82,682 267,524 350,206Cardboard 72% 189,205 491,266 680,471

MixedPaper 50% 328,764 327,774 656,538Plastic 15% 345,235 58,574 403,809

PETE 26% 47,907 16,767 64,674HDPE 22% 49,584 13,876 63,460

LDPE/BagsandFilm 9% 147,471 15,407 162,878OtherPlasticProducts 11% 100,273 12,524 112,797

Glass 60% 68,435 100,823 169,258 Metal 36% 69,283 38,391 107,674

AluminumCans/Foil 43% 28,457 21,098 49,555TinCans 30% 40,826 17,293 58,119

Source: Washington State Department of Ecology 2010.

Washington’s recycling efforts are ahead of the majority of other state’s programs and U.S.averages.In2009,theU.S.averagewasat33.8percentandWashingtonStatewasat55percent.33Compared with other developed nations, however, Washington’s program is significantly lesseffective.

TherecyclingrateforpackagingandprintedpaperinWashingtonStatehasplateauedatalevelwellbelowratesachieved incountries thathaveadoptedproductstewardshipsystems.This isthecaseeventhoughWashingtonhasimplementedmanyofthebestpracticesshowntoboostrecyclingrates, includingvolume-basedratesorpayasyouthrow(PAYT)andbundledrates. Infact,volume-basedratesareinusein100percentofthecitiesandcountiesinthestatethataresubjecttotherate-settingprocessbytheWUTC.

AccordingtotheSkumatzEconomicResearchAssociates(SERA)studywhichexaminesnationalrecyclingprograms,themosteffectiveprogramsincorporatethefollowingelements:

“ThebestPAYTlegislation(state)orordinances(local)includethefollowingelements:

• Recyclingcostsembeddedinthegarbagefees,

• Smallestcontainernolargerthan32gallons(andpreferably19-21gallons),

• Require significant rate differentials to provide an incentive—perhaps requiring 75%incrementalrateincreaseforeachlevelofservice(i.e.1can,2can,3canlevelsofservice),and

• Requirehaulerreportingofdisposedandrecycledtonnages.”

33 WashingtonStateDepartmentofEcology2010.


DespitethefactthatmanyjurisdictionsinWashingtonhavealreadyimplementedallfourofthesebestpractices,theoverallrecyclingrateisstillbelow45percent.34

Current and Potential GHG ReductionsThe1.3milliontonsofpackagingandprintedmaterialrecycledinWashingtonin2009resultedinthefollowinggreenhousegasemissionreductionsandenergysavings:

• Savedenergyequivalentofmorethan445milliongallonsofgasoline,comparabletotaking719,000passengercarsfromtheroadwayeachyear.

• Preventedcarbonequivalent(MTCE)GHGemissionsofmorethan1,071,000metrictons–comparabletoconserving20,508railwaycarsofcoal.

IfWashingtonStateincreaseditsdiversionforpackagingandprintedpapergeneratedinthestateto 80 percent as has been accomplished in other countries, the GHG emission savings wouldincrease dramatically. At an 80 percent recycling rate, the state would recycle an additional575,000tonsofmaterialwhichwouldresultinanadditional467,000MTCEofGHGreductionsandsaveenergyequivalentto194milliongallonsofgasolineortheremovalofanadditional313,991passengercarsfromtheroadwayeachyear.35

34 ModelPayAsYouThrow(PAYT)VariableRatesLegislation:Elements,OptionsandConsiderationsforStateorLocallevellegislationinSolidWaste.SERA2008.

35 EnvironmentalProtectionAgency(EPA)WasteReductionModel(WaRM):http://epa.gov/climatechange/wycd/waste/calculators/Warm_home.html.EnergyuseinformationfromEnergyInformationAdministration:http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/states/_seds_updates.html.


Introduction to Product Stewardship Inordertoachievethegoalsofthestate’swastemanagementhierarchyandtheBeyondWastePlan,newincentivesandmodelslikelywillbeneeded.Thefollowingsectionsofthisreportexplorethe concepts of product stewardship and provide examples of how these policies have beenadoptedinBelgium,Germany,andCanadatoincreasetherecyclingofpackagingmaterialsandotherrecyclablecommodities.

Product stewardship is an environmental management strategy that means whoever designs,produces,sells,orusesaproducttakesresponsibilityforminimizingtheproduct’senvironmentalimpact throughout all stages of the products’ life cycle. Product stewardship efforts aim toencourage manufacturers and others influencing the life cycle of a product to take increasingresponsibilitytoreducetheimpactsofthatproduct.Theseimpactsincludeenergyandmaterialsconsumption,airandwateremissions,theamountoftoxicmaterialsusedtocreatetheproduct,worker safety, and waste disposal in product design and in the end-of-life management of theproductsproduced.

Commonly, in product stewardship systems, the end-of-life management costs are internalizedinthecostof theproductbytheproductbrandowners.Thesecostsareoftenpassedontotheconsumersratherthantaxpayers,sothosethatbuyandbenefitfromtheuseoftheproductareactuallypayingfortherecyclingcosts.ThesecostscanbeeitherseparatelyitemizedandvisibleasindepositsystemsorcanbeinvisibleasisthecaseinWashingtonwiththeelectronicsproductstewardship program. In some examples of product stewardship, the brandowners are alsoresponsibleforarrangingforthecollectionandrecyclingoftheirproducts.

Byengagingbrandownersinfinancingandensuringtheprovisionofthecollectionandrecyclingsystem,theproductandpackagingend-of-lifecostsarefactoredintotheinitialdesigndecisions.Not only do the products and packaging more truly reflect their environmental costs, butopportunitiesexisttoreducetheoverallcollectionandrecyclingsystemcostsonaperunitorpertonbasisduetoincreasesincollectionvolumeandsupportforinfrastructuredevelopment.

AsshowninFigure10,inaproductstewardshipsystem,productsaremadeanddeliveredtostoreswheretheyarepurchasedbyconsumers.Whenconsumersaredoneusingtheproductsandthepackaging,theproductproducersareresponsibleforfundingandsometimesdirectlyprovidingprograms to recycle the materials. End-of-life management becomes a cost of doing business,justlikeadvertising,manufacturing,distribution,healthandsafetycomplianceandotherbusinesscosts,anditisinthebusiness’interesttominimizethesecosts,whichoftencanbedonethroughintelligentdesignchangesandselectionoflesstoxicmaterials.

Theproducercancontractwitha“stewardshiporganization”toimplementandmanagethetake-backprogram.Asnoted,becauseproducerspayforthisprogram,theyhaveanincentivetomakeproductsthatarelesstoxic,andeasierandlesscostlytorecycle.


Figure 10: Product Stewardship Overview

Source: King County Solid Waste Division with permission from Annie Leonard

StewardshiplawshavebeenenactedbyvariousstatesintheUnitedStatesforseveralproducts,mostnotablyunwantedelectronics,batteriesandmercury-containinglighting.However,interestis expanding to other products including carpet, paint and now packaging and printed paper.Product stewardship regulatory activity has been left to the states with little Congressionalconsideration to date. However, as stewardship measures continue to proliferate, the federalgovernment’spotentialroleandtheopportunityforsynthesisofstateprogramslikelywillreceiveincreasedattention.

At multiple states’ requests, the U.S. EPA has prioritized packaging as a candidate materialcategoryforproductstewardship,andisconveninganationaldialoguetoaddressthetopic.Suchactivity will present an opportunity to promote consistency between various states’ regulatoryinitiativesregardingpackagingandprintedpaper.

Because individual packaging and printed paper often have higher recycling rates than othercomponents of municipal waste, tremendous opportunities exist to increase recycling ratesacrosstheU.S.andthusconserveresources,reducegreenhousegasemissionsandincreasetheavailabilityofcommoditymaterials.

Thefollowingsectionsareintendedtoserveasatooltoinitiateadiscussionabouttheopportunitiesand challenges of a stewardship program for packaging and printed paper. These sectionsoutlinethecontextforpackagingandprintedpaperstewardship,assesstheexistingstewardship


programsthatareinplacearoundtheglobewithanemphasisonEuropeandCanada,andofferconsiderations as to the necessary components for packaging and printed paper stewardshippolicydevelopment.

Key Elements in Product Stewardship Systems ProductstewardshipprogramsforpackagingandprintedpaperhavebeenadoptedacrosstheglobestartingwiththeGermanPackagingOrdinancein1991,commonlycalledthe“greendot”program.Thesemeasuresgenerallyplaceresponsibilityforensuringthecollectionandrecyclingof packaging and printed paper on the brandowners and importers. In the jurisdictions wherestewardshipprogramshavebeen implemented,suchas theCanadianmulti-material initiatives,the volume of recyclables has increased, the municipal expenditures on waste managementhavedecreasedand source reduction andshifts tomore recyclablepackagingmaterialshaveoccurred.

The following section is taken from the Canada-wide Action Plan for Extended Producer Responsibility:

Thefollowingisasuggestedsummaryoftheprogramelementsthatarekeytoconsideringwhen structuring product stewardship programs. These elements may or may not beprescribedinproductstewardshipregulations.Theseelementscanberepresentedthroughsuchmeansasregulationandbestpracticesguidance.

Scope Intheinterestsofclarityandalevelplayingfieldinthemarketplace,theresponsibleproducerneedstobeclearlyidentified.

Product Definition Theproductsfromboththeresidentialandnon-residentialwastestreamsshouldbecoveredbythePRODUCTSTEWARDSHIPprogramandbothneedtobeclearlyidentified,definedandlisted.

Responsibilities of Designated Producers and Producer Responsibility Organizations (PROs) Identified producers should be individually and fully responsible for the financing andoperationofthePRODUCTSTEWARDSHIPprogramandhavetheabilitytoraiseandspendfundstomeettheprogramobjectives.PROsneedtooperatewithdueregardtotheneedsforaccountabilityandtransparency.

Stewardship Plan AstewardshipplansetsouthowthedesignatedproducerorproducersandthePROwillmeettheirobligations.Theelementstobeconsideredorincludedintheplancanbespecifiedinagoverningregulationorsetoutinotherguidancedocuments.Generallystewardshipplanscontaindetailsonsuchthingsashowdiscardedproductsaretobecollectedandrecycled,key program performance indicators, recycling rate targets, timelines for implementationandreportingprotocols.Stewardshipplansshouldbereviewedandrevisedonaregularbasisandatleasteveryfiveyears.


Approvals Producersareaccountable for thecontent, technicaldetailsand formeetingestablishedperformancetargetsarisingfromastewardshipplanandproductstewardshipobligation.Jurisdictions require proper reporting of program outcomes, environmental benefits andwaste diversion performance. Stewardship plans need to be available for review andconsultation.

Information Requirements/Reporting/Communications Documentation and public reporting of the product stewardship program’s performancewill be necessary and should follow established or recommended key performanceindicatorandreportingformats.Effortsshouldbemadetolimitreportingrequirementsandconcentrateonkeymeasureswhicharestrongindicatorsofprogramperformance.

Training and Education Training and education of staff working for the product stewardship program’s PRO isessential to ensure compliance with environmental and occupational health and safetyrequirementsandbestmanagementpractices.

Performance Measures Product stewardship programs should operate using recognized and comparable keyperformance indicators in keeping with the recommended indicators cited in this ActionPlan and in Environment Canada’s guidance document on Performance Measures andReportingforproductstewardshipprograms.

Targets Productstewardshipprogramsshouldsetmeasurableandquantifiabletargetsforproductscapturedand/orrecoveredandreusedand/orrefurbished.Targetsshouldbedesignedtoensuremeasureable,wastediversionandenvironmentallysoundend-of-lifemanagement.

Design for Environment Producers are encouraged to improve the life-cycle environmental performance of theirproducts,toundertakethenecessaryresearchanddevelopmenttoimprovetheirproductsandtovoluntarilyreportontheirprogresstoimprovedenvironmentalproductdesign.

Fees Costsassociatedwithanproductstewardshipprogramshouldbeinternalizedasafactorofproductionoftheproduct–i.e.,thecostsforend-of-lifemanagementofproductsshouldbe treated similarly to other factors of production (such as manufacturing, distribution,marketingandsales)andincorporatedintowholesaleandretailproductprices.Jurisdictionsmay or may not choose to regulate the visibility or non-visibility of such fees at the point-of-consumer purchase. Fees should be differential and should be linked to material- andproduct-specificcostsanddesignedtorewardimprovedenvironmentalperformance.Feesshould be structured with due regard to the nexus principle, which means those leviedshouldbecloselyconnectedtotheproductoffered.

Auditing Productstewardshipprogramsshouldbeauditedforfinancialandoperationalperformanceandsuchauditsshouldreportonthefinaldispositionofthesecondarymaterialscollected.


Effortsshouldbemadetonotincreasetheadministrativeburdenoroverheadforcompaniesinmeetingtheseauditingrequirements.

Compliance and Enforcement Jurisdictionalauthoritiescanenforceregulationprovisionsbyrestrictingaproduct’smarketaccessasprovidedforunderthegoverninglegislation.

End-of-Life Management Recyclingandotherend-of-lifemanagementpracticesshouldbeconductedinaccordancewith the appropriate environmental regulations and recognized environmentally soundmanagement standard or guidance document. Producers and PROs should be requiredto report on the ultimate disposition of materials recovered by the product stewardshipprogram.

Competition Supportingcompetitionbetweenplayersisakeyfeatureofanystewardshipprogram.Notonlydoesthisreduceprogramcostsbutsupportsinnovationinprogramdesign.However,itisimportanttorecognizethatbrandownersmayneedtocollaboratetoestablishcertainaspectsofthestewardshipprogramsuchasifsettingoffeesisappropriateandpotentiallyarrangingcollectionandprocessingcontractssothatexistinglawandpolicymayneedtobeamendedtosupportsuchactivity.

Consultation Consultation should be undertaken with all interested stakeholders and members of thepublicinthepreparationofstewardshipplansandregardingotherprogramproposals.35

36 Canada-wideActionPlanforExtendedProducerResponsibility.http://www.ccme.ca/assets/pdf/epr_cap.pdf


Global Packaging and Printed Paper Stewardship Programs PackagingandprintedpaperhavelongbeenafocusofgovernmentsoutsidetheU.S.andproductstewardship approaches to increase the collection and recycling of packaging materials andprintedpaperhaveyieldedimpressiveresultsinmostcases.FollowingtheenactmentoftheGermanPackaging Ordinance in 1991, many nations have stepped forward to implement packagingstewardshipprograms,mostprominentlyinEurope,Japan,AustraliaandseveraloftheCanadianProvinces.Whiletheprogramsdifferintermsoftheirhistoryandscopeofproductsaddressed,theyshiftthesolefinancingresponsibilityfromlocalgovernmenttoengagebrandownersandfirstimportersinthefinancingoftheseefforts.

The European Union Packaging Directive Following the example in Germany, the European Union took steps to address discardedpackaginginthemembercountriesin1994withtheenactmentofa“PackagingDirective”whichrequiredmemberstatestoenactprogramstoreducepackagingwaste.Thedirectiveestablishedrecovery and recycling rates for discarded packaging, required reductions in the heavy metalcontentofpackagingandobligatedmemberstatestoimplementrecyclingeducationcampaigns,amongotherprovisions.This legislationsought topromoteenvironmentalprotection, resourceconservationandtospurmanufacturerstodevelopmoreenvironmentally-preferablepackagingwhileensuring the functioningof theEUmarketandstriving forconsistency.Thedirectivewasamendedin2004toraisetherecoverygoalsandtoaddgoalsforthenewmembersoftheEU.

Asanillustrationoftherecoveryandrecyclingrates,memberstateswererequiredtointroducesystemsforthereturnand/orcollectionofdiscardedpackagingtoachievegoalsasdefinedinthedirective.Thefollowingtargetswereestablishedbyinthe2004amendment:

• Recoveryofatleast60percentandrecyclingofbetween55and80percentbyweightofdiscardedpackagingbyDecember2008

• Material-specificminimumrecyclingratesstartingat15percentforwoodandclimbingto60percentforglassandpaperbyDecember2008


Table 5: European Union Packaging Directive Goals and Recovery/Recycling Rates 1994 and 2004

Source: European Experience with Industry Stewardship Programs. Presentation by Joachim Quoden, Managing Director, PRO Europe

AsFigure11indicates,asof2006almostalloftheEUcountrieshadachievedthe2008goals.

Figure 11: Progress Towards the EU Recycling Targets (2006 recycling rates)

Source: Packaging and Packaging Waste Statistics, EUROPEN, 2009.

The European Parliament and the Council, acting on a proposal from the Commission, areexpectedtoestablishnewtargetsfor2014.37

33

Figure 11: Progress Towards the EU Recycling Targets

Source: Packaging and Packaging Waste Statistics, EUROPEN, 2009.

The European Parliament and the Council, acting on a proposal from the Commission, are expected to establish new targets for 2014.37

37 The European Organization for Packaging and the Environment (EUROPEN) Packaging and Packaging Waste Statistics 1998-2006.

37 TheEuropeanOrganizationforPackagingandtheEnvironment(EUROPEN)PackagingandPackagingWasteStatistics1998-2006.


Product Stewardship in CanadaCanadian Council of Ministers of the Environment: The Canada-wide Strategy for Sustainable PackagingIn2005,theCanadianCouncilofMinistersoftheEnvironment(CCME)establishedanExtendedProducerResponsibilityTaskGroupwithamandatetoprovideguidanceonthedevelopmentandimplementationofproductstewardshipprograms.Packaging,which inCanadaandelsewheremakesupasignificantportionofthewastestream,wasidentifiedasafirstpriority.Tothisend,theTaskGroupdevelopedthefollowingtwodocuments:

• ACanada-wideActionPlanforExtendedProducerResponsibility38;and

• ACanada-wideStrategyforSustainablePackaging.39

TheCanada-wideStrategyforSustainablePackagingispartofthebroaderCanada-wideActionPlanforExtendedProducerResponsibility,whichprovidesguidancetoprovincesandterritoriesastheydevelopproductstewardshipprograms.

Purpose ThepurposeoftheCanada-wideStrategyforSustainablePackagingistobuildontheCanada-wideActionPlanforproductstewardship.ItsmajorgoalsincludecreatingamoreconsistentCanada-wide approach to product stewardship for packaging, and to support a shift by all packagingactors towards greater packaging sustainability. The strategy aims to increase awareness andinformationaboutpackagingsustainabilityamongallpackagingactorsandtopromotereductionsinpackagingandmoresustainablepackagingchoicesatallstagesofthepackaginglifecycle—from design to waste management. CCME’s ultimate goal is to reduce the overall quantity ofpackaging materials generated and disposed throughout Canada, with an aspirational goal ofzero-waste.

Product Stewardship for Packaging The Canada-wide Action Plan for Extended Producer Responsibility report commits alljurisdictionstoworktowardstheestablishmentofoperationalproductstewardshipprogramsforpackaging(amongotherthings)withinsixyears,andsetsoutgeneralprinciplesandguidanceforprovincial/territorialregulatorsandprogramdevelopersforregulating,developing,designingandimplementingconsistentproductstewardshipprogramsacrossCanada.

ThestrategyforpackagingbuildsontheProductStewardshipActionPlanapproachtoproductstewardshipprogramrequirements forpackagingacrossCanada. Itprovidesguidanceonkeyprogramelementsforproductstewardshipforpackaging, includingstewardfees, targets,datacollectionandreporting.ACanada-wideapproachtoproductstewardshipforpackaginghelpstocreatealevelplayingfieldforindustry,easeregulatoryburdens,andplaceprovincesandterritoriesinabetterpositiontodrivesustainablepackagingdesignandreduction.

Selected Programs FollowingareviewofthepackagingprogramsdescribedinAppendixB,theNorthwestProductStewardshipCouncilselectedtheprogramsinManitoba,Ontario,GermanyandBelgiumasmostrelevantforfurtherinvestigation.

38 http://www.ccme.ca/assets/pdf/epr_cap.pdf.

39 http://www.ccme.ca/assets/pdf/sp_strategy.pdf


TheCanadianprogramswereselected,inpart,duetothesimilaritiesbetweentheUnitedStatesand the Canadian Provinces in the structure and financing of their solid waste managementsystems.Also,becausemanyofthesamebrandownersoperateinbothCanadaandtheU.S.,acomparisonwillprovideinsightastohowtheprovincialexperiencecouldbeadaptedhere.

The German packaging program was selected because it has been operational for nearly twodecadesandillustrateshowaprogramhasevolvedovertime.Finally,theprograminBelgiumwasselectedsinceitdemonstratesaremarkablelevelofrecyclingandhasbeenprofiledbyseveralkeyconstituencygroupsintheU.S.

Table6belowsummarizesthekeyfeaturesofeachprogram.

Table 6: European and Canadian Product Stewardship programs for Packaging Materials and Printed Paper

Program Hauling Services

Government Role

Retailer Role

Who Pays? How is $ calculated

What is Covered?

Packaging Covered

Manitoba PublicandPrivate-TPO*Contract

RegulationEnforcementCompliance20%ofprogramcosts

Onlysellproductsinsystem-payfeesiftheyarefirstimporter

80%stewards20%gov’t

Weightofmaterial

Collectionandprocessing

Allresidentialpackagingconsistingofplastic,glass,paperormetal

Ontario PublicandPrivateSector-PublicSectorContract

Provideorcontractforcollection,provideprogramdataforcostcalculations.Pay50%ofprogramcostsbutwillbemovingto100%soon.

Onlysellproductsinsystemorjoinsystemiftheyarefirstimporter

50/50splitbetweenstewardsandgov’twithdeductionsforefficiencyfund.Movingto100%stewardfunding

Collectioncostsbymaterial,recoveryratebymaterial

CollectionandProcessing

Residentialglass,metal,paper,plasticandtextiles

Germany PrivateSector724wastemgt.partnerscurrently-TPOContract

Enforcement/Compliance

Mustensurereuseorrecyclingofpackagingleftbycustomer.Mustbememberofsystemiftheyaremanufacturerorbrandowner

Manufacturersbrandowners100%

Weight,andamountsoldpluscostsincurredforcollectingandsorting(GreenDot)

Collectionandprocessing

Transport,SalesandSecondarypackaging

Belgium PublicandPrivateSector-PublicsectorcontractwithFostPlus

Contractforservices,attendeducationsessionsputonbyFostPlusforbestpracticesinsortingandcollection

Mustbeamemberiftheybringpackagingtomarket

Manufacturers-BrandOwners100%

Weightandamountsold(GreenDot)

Collection,andprocessing

HouseholdpackagingorequivalentsbyFostPlus,TransportpackagingbyVal-I-Pac

Source: Summary of data from Appendix B.*TPO=Third Party Organization typically set up by the industries whose products come under the legislation


Table 7: Comparison of Program Data

Source: Summary of Data from Appendix B

For further illustration and guidance, it is useful to look at the details of the Ontario Blue Boxprogram.

The Ontario Blue Box Program TheOntarioBlueBoxprogramisoneoftheoldestcurbsiderecyclingprogramsinNorthAmerica,as well as the most comprehensive. Moreover, since industry has paid half the costs of theprogramsince2004,performanceandcostdataarecloselytrackedbythebusinessesrequiredtoparticipate,makingtheOntarioBlueBoxprogramanidealmodelforexaminingthestrengthsandweaknessesofan advancedmunicipalcurbside recyclingprogramasabasis forproductstewardshipforpackaging.

StewardshipOntariowasestablishedin2004astheindustryfundingorganizationtocollectfeesfromproducersandallocatetherequiredfundingtomunicipalities.StewardshipOntariogathersdetailed province-wide cost and performance data in order to assess producer fees. Blue Boxmaterials are divided into two basic categories: Printed paper and packaging. Printed paperincludestwoclassesofnewsprint,aswellasmagazinesandcatalogs,telephonebooks,andotherprintedpaper.Packagingincludespaper-basedpackaging,plasticpackaging,steelpackaging,aluminum packaging and glass packaging. Within each of these packaging categories areseveralsub-categories.Foreachcategoryandsub-category,StewardshipOntarioprovidesdataonquantitygenerated,percentageofgenerated,quantityrecovered,andrecyclingrate(quantityrecovereddividedbyquantitygenerated).

Program Germany Belgium Ontario Manitoba2003 2007 2003 2008 2003 2008 2003 2008

Population 82,476,000 82,329,758 10,318,000 10,414,336 12,262,600 13,150,000 1,161,600 1,213,815

Area(km2) 357,002 357,002 30,528 30,528 1,076,395 1,076,395 649,950 649,950

Packagingwasteper

capita(tons/person)

0.1875 0.1957 0.1573 0.0700 0.0696 0.0568 0.0761 0.0920

Recoveryrate 86.30% 94.70% 91.50% 96.60% 46.00% 63.00% 56.00% 63.00%

Recyclingrate

70.60% 66.90% 73.90% 93.00%

Numberofbrandowners

25,000 6,244 5,644 1,653 1,038

Fundsfrombrandowners

(inmillions)

$2,387,908,647 $1,438,499,185 $116,682,422 $95,739,313 $35,822,639 $70,695,695 $7,274,416 $8,377,564

Brandownerspay%oftotal

costs

100% 100% 100% 100% 50% 50% 80% 80%

Annualprogramcost

percapita

$28.95 $17.47 $11.31 $7.03 $5.84 $10.42 $7.83 $6.92


Keyresultsincludethefollowing:

1. Printed Paper and OCC & Boxboard both have significantly higher recycling rates (80%)thanOtherPackaging(40%).

2. Printed Paper constitutes more than half (52%) of all materials collected in the Blue Boxprogram,butaccountsforlessthan6%ofnetprogramcosts.

3. Together, OCC & Boxboard and Other Packaging comprise less than half (48%) of thediversionachievedbytheBlueBoxprogram,butaccountsfor94%ofallnetcosts.

Thetotalnetcostofmanagingpackagingwasmorethan$157million.Theonlymaterial intheBlueBoxprogramthatincursanegativenetcost(revenuesource)isaluminum($937permetricton),whereasthenetcostforothermaterialsrangesashighas$2,604forpolystyrene,$2,380forplasticlaminates,and$2,318forplasticfilm.Printedpaper,ontheotherhand,incursamuchlowerpermetric-tonnetcost(average$20,range$10to$77permetricton).

Ontario is in the process of reviewing the Waste Diversion Act. Currently, industry pays 50% ofnetrecyclingcosts.EnvironmentMinisterJohnGerretsenhasproposedmovingto100%industryfunding.Provincialandlocalgovernmentsunderstandthatatsomepointsomeindustriespaying100%ofcostsmayelect tocontractwithalternativeserviceprovidersandchoosetono longerdobusinesswithlocalgovernment.Anticipatingthatpossibility,thelocalgovernmentdiscussionisturningtofaircompensationfor“stranded”publicinfrastructureassets.Evenwithachangeinproviders,however,recyclingtargetssetbylegislation,stillneedtobemet.

InitsreviewoftheBlueBoxsystemtheOntariogovernmentemphasizesthat“productstewardshipispremisedonmakingthosewhoputproductsandpackagingintothemarketplaceresponsibleformanagingthewasteassociatedwiththem.ProductStewardshipshiftstheresponsibilityforwastediversionto thosethatarebestable to influenceandcontroldecisions throughout the lifecycleofaproductorpackage.”Municipalities“have little influenceover theproductsandpackagingintroducedintotheOntariomarketplace,yetmustmanagethoseproductsandpackagesthroughtheirwastemanagementsystems.”

TheOntariogovernmentisstatingitsintenttomovetowards“outcomes-based”legislation,makingindividual producers fully responsible for meeting waste diversion requirements, as well as forwastedisposalintheresidential,industrial,commercialandinstitutionalsectors.“Thisapproach,”thegovernmentemphasizes,“wouldre-orientthefocusoftheWasteDiversionActfrominstructingproducers on how to fulfill their requirements to making individual producers responsible formeetingoutcomesandlettingthemdecidehowtodoso.”40

40 Evolution of the Ontario Blue Box Program: From Government Responsibility to Full EPRProductPolicyInstitute.


Recent Policy Development in the U.S.Product Stewardship legislation has also been proposed and adopted in the U.S. Twenty-twostatesnowhaveproductstewardshiplawsforelectronics,andwithintheU.S.thereareproductstewardshiplawscoveringpaint,carpet,batteries,mercury-containingswitchesandthermostats,cellphonesandfluorescentlighting.ThefirststatetointroducelegislationimplementingaproductstewardshipapproachtopackagingandprintedpaperisVermont.

Vermont Extended Producer Responsibility Act of 2010 (Proposed Legislation)The Vermont Extended Producer Responsibility Act (VEPRA), which was developed by thebeverageindustry,hasopenedupthediscussionofpackagingandproductstewardshippolicyintheUnitedStates.Theactoutlinedaframeworkforproductstewardshipasthebasisformanagingsolid waste in Vermont. While the proposal did not move forward during the 2010 legislativesession, it did receive an informational hearing and it is anticipated that the legislation will beintroducedagainin2011.

Asdefined in theproposedlegislation,producersofdesignatedproductswouldberequiredtoprovideforthecollectionandrecyclingofthatwasteincludingfinancingfortherecyclingsystem.Thismeans that thecostsof recoveringdesignatedwasteswouldshift frommunicipalitiesandsolidwastedistrictstoproducers.

VEPRAwouldhaveestablishedpackagingandprintedmaterialasthefirstdesignatedwastesinVermontandset forthaprocess,managedbyastateagency,underwhichproducersof theseproductsmustdevelopplansforrecoveringthesematerialsandfinancingtheprogramthroughfees.TheSecretaryofNaturalResourceswouldhaveapprovedtheplansafterwhichtheproducerswouldhaveoneyeartoimplementtheirprograms.

VEPRAwouldhaveprovidedproducerswithflexibilityinhowtheydesign,implement,andmanagerecycling programs, and would have ensured a level playing field for all obligated companies.Producers would work with existing municipal and private sector recycling programs to helpachievethegoalof60percentrecyclingofthedesignatedmaterialsandwouldalsodevelopnewprogramswherenecessary.

Theproposedbillrequiredthattheproducers’plansaddress:

• Governanceoftheproducerorganization(s)

• Programdeliveryandadministration

• Publiceducationandoutreach

• Research&development


• Marketdevelopment(ifneededtoreachrequiredrecyclinglevels)

• Costprojections

• Fee-settingmethodology

Product Stewardship Framework LegislationProductstewardshiplegislationintheU.S.hasbeenfocusedonspecificproductsprimarilyduetotheirtoxicityandtheneedtohandlethemseparatelyfromtherestofthesolidwastestream.TheproductstewardshipframeworkconceptutilizedinmanyCanadianprovincesandEUcountriesstrongly supports a consistent methodology for how products are selected for stewardshipprograms,howproductsaredesignatedforsuchactivityandfinallysuggestsobjectivesfor thestewardshipprogram.

In2010,MainebecamethefirststateintheU.S.toadoptproductstewardshipframeworklegislation.TheframeworkapproachwasalsodiscussedandincludedaspartofrecommendationsfromtheBeyond Waste Implementation Working Group of the Washington State Climate Action Team.Those recommendations are considered key strategies for increasing source reduction andrecycling,thusreducinggreenhousegasemissions.41

41 http://www.ecy.wa.gov/climatechange/2008CATdocs/IWG/bw/110308_beyond_waste_iwg_report.pdf


Overview of Product Stewardship in Washington Washington State has adopted product stewardship laws for electronic waste (computers, TVsandmonitors)andformercury-containinglamps.

Electronics Washington State’s Electronic Product Recycling Law (Chapter 70.95N RCW) passed by thelegislature in 2006 requires producers to pay for and provide recycling services at no cost tohouseholds,smallbusinesses,charities,schooldistrictsandsmallgovernments inWashingtonasofJanuary1,2009.ProducersofTVs,computers(desktopsandlaptops)andmonitorsmustfinancethecollection,transportationandrecyclingoftheseproducts.Theremustbeaminimumofonecollectionsiteineverycountyandineverycitywithapopulationof10,000ormore.

The law requires producers to register with the Washington State Department of Ecology andparticipateinanapprovedrecyclingplaninordertoselltheirproductsinorintothestatebyanymeans including internetsales.The lawalsocreated theWashingtonMaterialsManagement&Financing Authority to administer and operate the Standard Plan for electronics recycling. Bydefault,allproducersmustparticipateintheStandardPlanunlesstheymeettherequirementstooperatetheirownindependentrecyclingplan.

Inthefirsttwoyears,theprogramcollected39,000tonsofmaterial,whichisequalto12poundsperhouseholdbasedon2010Censusdata.Of the totalcollected,61percentof the totalweretelevisions,29percentmonitorsand10percentweredesktoporlaptopcomputers.42

Fluorescent LightingEngrossedSubstituteSenateBill5543waspassedbytheHouseandSenateinMarch2009andsignedbytheGovernor(Chapter70.275RCW.Thebillrequiresaconvenient,statewiderecyclingprogram for mercury-containing lighting from residents in Washington State starting in 2013.No-costrecyclingservicesmustbeprovidedforresidentsineachcountyand,ataminimum,ineverycitywithpopulationgreaterthan10,000.Mail-backorcurbsidecollectionprogramscanbeincludedatextracosttothecustomer.Producersofmercury-containinglightssoldinorintothestate for residential use are required to participate and fund the product stewardship program(retailbusinessesareexcluded).

42 AccessedFebruary2,2011http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/swfa/eproductrecycle/docs/2009AnnualReportfromWMMFA.pdfandhttp://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/swfa/eproductrecycle/docs/2010TotalCEPPoundsWA.pdf


TheDepartmentofEcologycancontractwithastewardshiporganizationtooperatetherecyclingprogram. Producers pay a one-time $15,000 fee providing start-up funds for the stewardshiporganizationandEcologyoversight.Afterthisstart-upfunding,thestate-contractedstewardshiporganization will need to set up an internal funding structure with the participating producers.Alternately, the producer(s) can obtain approval from Ecology to operate an independent plan(and pay a $5,000 annual fee to fund Ecology oversight costs). The bill requires that mercury-containinglampsberecycledbyallresidentsandbyallgovernment,industrial,andcommercialfacilities.Disposalofmercury-containinglightsinthegarbageor landfills isprohibited.ViewtheESSB5543FactSheetorBillOverviewformoreinformation.


Context for Stewardship for Packaging in WashingtonAswehaveseen,productstewardshippoliciesarewellestablishedinEuropeandareemergingasakeystrategy toaddressdiscardedpackagingandprintedpaper inCanada.Basedonthereviewofthepackagingandprintedpaperprogramsthatareinplacearoundtheglobe,productstewardshipprogramshaveshowntobeaneffectiveandefficientmethodofachievingdesiredeconomicandenvironmentalbenefits.Productstewardshipapproachesofferapathwaytowardhigher recycling rates. They support packaging reduction objectives, reduce local governmentexpendituresonrecyclingprograms(animportantconsiderationinatimeofconstrainedpublicresources)andplacethefunding,andsometimesprogrammaticandmanagementresponsibilitiesonbrandownersortheirstewardshiporganizations.

Withinthegeneralapproach,thereareavarietyofspecificpolicyapproachesandimplementationstrategies that have been used. As the case studies indicate, packaging and printed paperstewardshipprogramsoftencontainprovisionscraftedforparticularjurisdictionsandreflectlocalpolitical, business and operational considerations while engaging manufacturers in programfinancing.

Withthatinmind,theoutlinebelowlistskeycomponentsthataretypicallycontainedinpackagingandprintedpaperstewardshipprograms,andoffersadiscussionofseveralofthepolicyoptionsavailable to address those components. A key consideration in Washington is how to mosteffectivelyutilizeandworkwiththeexistingcollectioninfrastructureregulatedbytheWUTC,whiledetermininghowtofinanceprogramsthatwilldivertmorematerialfromdisposaltorecycling.Thepolicyoptionsherearedesignedtooutlinetheissueandserveasatoolfordiscussionamongthefullrangeofstakeholdersthatshouldbeengagedinanyexplorationofproductstewardshipforpackagingandprintedpaper.

Coordination with Existing Recycling InfrastructureOfprimaryconsiderationishowtheexistingpublicandprivatesectorrecyclingprograms—rangingfrom WUTC-regulated private hauler curbside services and municipal contracts with haulers topublically-owned and operated collection infrastructure—will be maintained and integrated intoabrand-ownerfinancedprogram.AsignificantdiscussionwithabroadrangeofstakeholderswillberequiredtoestablishtheoptimumbalancebetweenexistingsystemsoperatingunderWUTChauler franchise regulations and municipal contracted and owned systems and new efforts toincreaserecyclingofpackagingwhileassigningfundingandensuringprovisionofservicesbythebrandowners.

Thisissuehasbeenaddresseddifferentlybyvariousglobalpackagingstewardshipprograms.Forexample,theGermanbrandownershavesubstantialauthoritytoestablishcontractswithvendors


whiletheproposalunderconsiderationinOntariototransitiontofullbrandownerfinancingdoesnotchangethefundamentalcontrolovertherecyclingsystemthatisexercisedbymunicipalities.Threeofthefourproductstewardshipprogramshighlightedinthisreportutilizeacombinationofpubliclyandprivatelyfinancedcollectioninfrastructures.

Implementation Mechanism Regulationwouldcreatealevel-playingfieldtoensureparticipationandestablishconsistencyfortheoperationoftheprogram.This isespecially important inthecaseofpackagingandprintedmaterialbecauseofthelargenumberofbrandowners,aswellasthevariousandoftencompetingmaterial types, sales channels and recycling infrastructure. For example, as of 2009, 2,470companieshaveregisteredwithStewardshipOntario(thenon-profitstewardshiporganizationthatmanagesthesystemfor theobligatedparties) indicatingtheyhaveproductsorpackagingthatfallwithinthepurviewofthestewardshipprogram.Suchalargenumberofentitiescouldnotbemanagedunderawhollyvoluntaryprogramgiventhe lackofconsequencesfor“free-riding”ornon-compliance.

EveninthecontextoftheAustralianNationalPackagingCovenant,oftenpresentedasapurelyvoluntary effort, a legislated National Environmental Protection Measure (NEPM) is in place toaddressthosecompaniesthatfailtoparticipateintheCovenant.DetailsoftheAustralianprogramandotherproductstewardshipprogramsaroundtheglobecanbefoundinAppendixB.

Policiesthatinternalizetheenvironmentalcostsoftheproduct(includingitspackaging),andthatimplementan industry-ledeffort,providesignificantflexibility forbrandowners tomeetspecifiedoutcomes.Suchpoliciesshouldrecognizetheneedforavarietyofcollectionoptions,includingretailers,curbsideandothers,toensureahighlevelofconvenienceforresidentsandahighlevelofrecycling.Theroleofgovernmentistoensurecompliance,performanceandaccountability.

Designated Wastes and ProductsTherangeofpackagingandprintedpapertobeincludedinaproductstewardshipprogramaswellasthebusinesses—productproducers—thatshouldbeincludedarequestionstobeansweredthroughstakeholderinvolvementearlyoninthedevelopmentofanyproductstewardshipprogram.Generally,theglobalpackagingproductstewardshipprogramselsewherefocusonthecollectionofpackagingandprintedpaperthatistypicallygeneratedbyhouseholdsandtraditionallycollectedatcurbside:containersofglass,plastic,paperandmetal.Mostprogramsexcludethepackagingthatisusedinbusiness-to-businesstransactionssuchaspalletsandshrinkwrap.

Specificcategoriesofpackagingmaterialscanbedesignatedbystatute,butthereneedstobeaclearlydelineatedprocesstoidentifyandtoaddordeletematerialsinthefutureaschangesoccurinpackagingtypes,technologyorpublicdemand.

Decisionsonthescopeofpackagingandprintedpapertobeincludedinastewardshipprogramwillaffectthenumberofbrandownersthatwillbeobligatedundertheprogramaswellaspotentiallyimpacting the transition to an industry-financed program. The range of products and materialsaddressed under a product stewardship program also may influence the types of collectionstrategiesthatareputinplace.

Forinstance,thepackagingstewardshiporganizationinBelgium,FostPlus,collectsawidevarietyofpackagingthroughcurbsideprograms.However,glassiscollectedseparatelyatdesignated


glass depots. The extraordinary recycling rate in Belgium (93%) suggests that by placingresponsibilityonthebrandownersforfinancingprograms,experimentationwithvariouscollectionmethodologies—suchasoptimizedsingle-streamwithparallelglassdepots—maybefeasible.

Itislikelythatthemostcost-effectivewaytoincreasethecollectionofpackagingandprintedpaperforrecyclingandatthesametimereducethefiscalburdenonlocalgovernmentandratepayerswillbetofocusonresidentialandsmallbusinesscollectionprograms.

Level of Financing MuchofthedebateregardingpackagingproductstewardshippolicyintheU.S.hasfocusedonthefinancingmechanismsemployedtofundtheprograms.Thedebatehascenteredontwomainfinancingtypes:“sharedresponsibility”and“fullproducerresponsibility”.

Sharedresponsibilitypoliciesapportiontheresponsibilityforthecostsofcollectionandprocessingbetweenbrandownersandgovernmentagencies.Whilethismodelisoftenembracedtoaddresspoliticalobstacles,itdoespresentsomedecision-makingandprogrammaticchallengesforbothparties.Brandownersdonothavesoledecision-makingauthorityoverprogramdesignandmaycomplainasaresultthattheydon’thavetheflexibilitynecessarytoattainrequiredperformancegoals.Itcanalsobeproblematicforlocalgovernmentswhoneedtoknowclearlinesofresponsibilityandsystemcostsinordertosetbudgets.

Alternatively, product stewardship systems where the brandowners assume full financialresponsibilityfortheprogramcreateamoredirectincentiveforthebrandownerstomakechangestopackagingdesigns thatwill reducetoxicity,minimizematerialuse,switch tomorerecyclablepackaging,andincorporaterecycledmaterialsintothecontentofthepackagingbecausethosechangeswillberewardedwithlowercosts.

Inmostifnotallcases,fullindustryfinancingcanbeadaptedtoacommunity’sexistingcollectioninfrastructure. While it has been demonstrated that a full brandowner-financed system candramatically boost recycling rates, moving to an industry-financed system likely will require atransition period to accommodate the infrastructure, stakeholders and regulations that may beimpactedbysuchachange.

Program Plan Anotherkeyelementofproductstewardshipprogramsaroundtheglobeistherequirementthatindividualbrandownersorstewardshiporganizationswithanobligationundertheprogramsubmitaprogramplantoanoversightagency.Suchplansareimportanttosecureagreementamongstthestakeholdersonsystemoperationsandtoarticulaterolesandresponsibilities.Programplancomponents often include a description of the collection infrastructure, financing, processingconsiderations,actionstosupportend-marketdevelopment,programreportingandevaluation.

Program plans are a key tool for surfacing potential challenges to program implementation sotheycanbedealtwithfromthestart.Whiletypicallythevastmajorityofbrandownersparticipatein a single stewardship organization, product stewardship laws usually allow businesses to fileindividualplansor formsmallerentitiesthatmoreadequatelyreflect theirbusinessmodels.Forinstance, multiple stewardship organizations have proven effective in several of the existingprograms such as in Germany where nine organizations give companies options in how theycomplywiththePackagingOrdinance.


Performance Goals/Service LevelsPerformance goals are important tools that can be used to improve and enhance collectionopportunities and at the same time serve as a means to evaluate the effectiveness of thestewardshipprogram.

There are numerous ways to establish performance measures. For example, the packagingstewardship legislation proposed in Vermont would require a 60 percent recycling rate—an“outputmeasure”whichrequiresadditionaldataonthequantityofmaterialproducedorsoldthatissometimesdifficulttoobtain.Someproductstewardshiplawshavechosen“inputmeasures,”suchas“conveniencestandards”wherebythebrandownerisrequiredtoestablishaspecificlevelofcollectionservice.TheWashingtonelectronicslawrequiresthestewardshipprogramtoprovideaccess toadrop-off facility forcomputers,monitorsandTVs inallcountiesand incitieswithapopulationof10,000ormore.

Ultimately, setting—and achieving—high recycling goals will maximize the ancillary benefits ofrecycling,includingjobcreation,reducedgreenhousegasemissions,andreducedwaterpollution.Anoverallrecyclinggoalincombinationwithcommodity-specifictargetswilldrivedevelopmentofcollectionandprocessing infrastructurewhereexistingsystemsfallshort,so that the full rangeofpackagingmaterialsandprintedpaperonthemarketcanreachtherecyclinggoal.Recyclinggoalsshouldnotonlycallforimprovedorexpandedcurbsidecollectionopportunitiesstatewide,butalsodriveexpandedaway-from-homecollectionincludingdropboxandeventrecycling.

Roles of Key Stakeholders in a Product Stewardship SystemRole of State Government Stategovernmentoversight iscritical toensuringa levelplayingfieldandmakingsure that theobjectivesoftheprogramaremet.Stewardshipprogramsplacebrandownersandtheirstewardshiporganizationsinthedriver’sseattodesign,finance,andensuredeliveryoftheprogramsaswellas facilitatecompliancewith theprogramrequirements,however, theultimateresponsibility forensuringcompliancelieswithstategovernment.

TheWashingtonDepartmentofEcologyhasexperiencewithoversightofthestewardshipprogramfor waste electronics and soon will have experience with programs under the recently passedmercury-containinglampslegislation.Thisknowledgecanbesharedandimprovementsmadetoanypotentialstewardshipprogramsforpackagingandprintedpapermaterials.

Role of Local GovernmentProduct stewardship programs offer significant opportunities for upgrading, expanding, orredesigning existing local government recycling programs. Some mature systems, newlysupportedallorinpartbyobligated-brandownerfunding,mayprovethebestoptionforreachingveryhighrecyclinglevelsandimprovingprocessoroutputquality.Otherlocalsystemsmayneedsignificant change and some local governments may choose to withdraw as service providers,transferringthatobligationentirelytoabrandownerfundedandmanagedsystem.Chartingtheroles and responsibilities for local government in a brandowner-driven system would requiresubstantialconsultationanddialoguewithlocalgovernmentsthroughoutthestate.

Packagingandprintedpaperproductstewardshiplegislationlikelywouldleadtoabroadrangeofprograms,varyingbymaterialandbylocalgovernmentpreference.Somelocalgovernments


may choose to continue providing collection and processing services as they do now throughcontractswithprivatehaulersorbyprovidingtheservicedirectly—allfullyorpartiallypaidforbythestewardshiporganization.Localgovernmentscanalsoserveasakeyconduitforbrandownerfinancedpubliceducationashasoccurredinmanyoftheexistingpackagingstewardshipprograms.Localgovernmentsmayalsobeaskedtoprovideinputonthedevelopmentofstewardshippoliciessuchasestablishingservicelevelsandperformancegoalstoensureconsistencystatewide.

Role of HaulersWashington is fortunate to have a progressive recycling industry which has been instrumentalinachievingthehighrecyclingratessignificantlyexceedingnationalaverages.Theindustryhasbeenaninvaluablepartnerwithstateandlocalgovernmentsintheplanningandimplementationofcurbsiderecyclingprograms.

Solidwastehaulersareheavilyregulatedandinreturnareguaranteedcertainserviceareasforsolidwastecollection.StatelawgivestheWUTCtheabilitytograntmonopolycollectioncertificatestohaulerstoprovideresidentialgarbageserviceinacertaingeographicarea.Asaresultoftheseregulations,public-andprivate-sectorsolidwastehaulersinWashingtonhaveinvestedsignificantamountsofmoney incollection infrastructure,providinganexceptionalbaseonwhichproductstewardshipprogramscanbebuilt.Aproductstewardshipprogramforpackagingandprintedpaperwouldputmorematerialsintotherecyclingstream—muchofwhichisalreadycollectedbypublicandprivatesectorhaulersinWashington

PrivateandpublicsectorhaulersareheavilyinvolvedinmanyoftheexistingproductstewardshipprogramsinEuropeandCanada.AccordingtothesummaryreportoftheEuropeanCommissionontheperformanceoftheEuropeanPackagingDirective,theprivatesectorhaulingcommunityisextensivelyinvolvedwiththeEPRprogramsintheEU.

“Withregardtodefinitepackagingwastemanagementactivities,theresponsibilityissharedinthemajorityofMemberStatesbetweenmunicipalitiesandindustry.Whilecollectionandsortingofmunicipalpackagingwasteispredominatelyundertakenbythepublicsector,thecollectionofindustrialpackagingwasteandtherecoveryandrecyclingofbothmunicipalandindustrialpackagingwasteisaprivatelyorganiseddomain.

InAustriaandinGermany,obligatedeconomicoperatorsareexplicitlyrequiredtoorganisethecollectionandsortingofdomesticpackagingwasteandtocomplywithrecyclingtargetsforthiswastestream.Thepackagingregulationsinthesecountriessetoutcriteriaforthecollectionsystem,interaliacapacitiesanddistancesbetweencollectionpoints,extensionsof the collection system. The compliance schemes in Austria and Germany concludecontracts with municipalities (and private operators) for the services necessary in thecontextofseparatecollectionandsortingofmunicipalpackagingwaste.

Summary of three dominant models:

1. Industry is fully responsible for covering all costs; municipalities can be involved inseparatecollectiononbehalfoftheindustry.Austria, Germany, Sweden

2. Industry and municipalities share responsibility, the industry covers costs of sortingand recycling; municipalities are in charge of separate collection and their costs are(completely or partially) reimbursed. Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Portugal, Spain,

3. Industryandmunicipalitiesshareresponsibility,theindustrycoversthecostsofrecycling;


municipalitiesareinchargeofseparatecollectionandreceiverevenuesthroughsellingthecollectedmaterials.United Kingdom, the Netherlands”43

Role of RetailersRetailers in the European and Canadian programs are required to ensure that they are sellingonlyproductssuppliedbymanufacturersthatarepartoftheproductstewardshipsystem.Insomeinstanceswherevertically integratedretailersarealsothemanufacturerorarethefirst importeroftheproducts/packagingintothestate,theretailersarepartofthestewardshiporganizationforthoseproducts.

Some retailers also voluntarily participate in stewardship programs as collectors of products.The Washington electronics program, E-Cycle Washington, is one example. In some Canadianprovinces,retailershavevoluntarilychosentobecomepackagingtake-backlocationsinordertoencourageshopperstopatronizetheirstores.

Conclusion Thetransitiontoa“BeyondWaste”futurewillrequirere-thinkingthefundingandtheprovisionofsolidwasteservices.Adialoguefocusedonhowtomovefromwherewearetowhereweneedtogotoincreasethecaptureofpackagingandprintedpaperforrecyclingneedstooccur.

This paper provides the reader with a) an overview of the current recycling infrastructure inWashington state, b) a summary of product stewardship systems and their effectiveness bothinternationally and locally and, c) a discussion of the basic elements of product stewardshippoliciesthatcouldbeappliedtotherecyclinginfrastructureinWashingtonstate.

Thepurposeof thispaper is tostimulatedialogueamong thevariousstakeholders in thesolidwasteandrecyclingindustriesinWashingtoninordertolookatalternativewaystofinanceandincentivize recycling programs for packaging materials and printed paper in the state. Such adialogue will help to identify and craft more sustainable policies and programs to increase therecyclingandrecyclingofpackagingmaterialsandprintedpaperinWashington.

ThedialogueshouldidentifyandclarifyfactorsthatneedtobeaddressedinordertotransitiontoaworkablepackagingandprintedpaperstewardshipprograminWashingtonState.Thesefactorsinclude:

1. AnalyzingtheWUTCsystemandhowaproductstewardshipapproachcouldworkwithinthatexistingframework.

2. Determininghowtofinanceandprovidepackagingandprintedpapercollectioninruralandotherareascurrentlywithoutcurbsidecollectionservices.

3. Exploringtheremovalofproblemmaterials(suchasglasscontainers)fromsinglestreambins.

4. Exploringthecreationofafinancingandcollectionsystemfortheseproblemmaterials.

5. ProvidingfundingforexistingandnewMaterialRecoveryFacility(MRF)upgradestobetterhandlecollectedmaterials.

6. Providing“marketdevelopmentfunds”thatcouldhelpstimulateandenhancelocalmarketsforrecyclablecommodities.

43 EuropeanCommissionDGXI.E.3ARGUSinassociationwithACRandCarlBroa|s:KarinJordan(ARGUS),JürgenGonser,(ARGUS),FrancisRadermaker(ACR),RoaldJorgensen(CarlBro)


Appendix A:Recent Developments in Packaging in the Public and Private Sector

Wal-Mart Packaging ScorecardIn November 2006, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. released a packaging scorecard to continue itscommitmentofreducingpackagingacrossitsglobalsupplychainby5percentby2013.

Wal-Martstatedthatmorethan97,000productshavebeenenteredintothescorecardby6,371distinctvendors.ThescorecardmeasuressustainabilitythroughvariousmetricsincludingGHGemissions,product-to-packageratio,andtheamountofrenewableenergyusedthroughoutthemanufacturinganddeliveryprocess.Suppliersreceivescoresineachcategoryandareratedincomparisontotheircompetitors.

Sustainable Packaging Coalition The Sustainable Packaging Coalition (SPC) is an industry working group inspired by cradle-to-cradle principles and dedicated to creating a more robust environmental vision for packaging.Through informed design practice, supply chain collaboration, education, and innovation, theCoalitionstrivestotransformpackagingintoasystemthatencouragesaneconomicallyprosperousandsustainableflowofmaterials,creating lastingvalue forpresentandfuturegenerations.Formoreinformation,visitSPC’swebsiteatwww.sustainablepackaging.org.

The Sustainable Packaging Coalition is focused on raising awareness of the sustainabilityissues related to packaging, as well as fostering the development of tools and resources,partnerships,andstrategiestoaddressthem.SPCbelievesthatimprovedcommunicationamongthebusinessesinthepackagingsupplychainwillencouragecollaborationasakeystrategytofacilitate the development of more environmentally responsible packaging and the creation ofeffectivesystemstorecoverit.

National Packaging DialogueThe dialogue, funded by U.S. EPA’s Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery (formerlyOfficeofSolidWaste),convenedkeyinterestedpartiestodiscussissuesandstrategiesaroundsustainablefinancingformunicipalrecyclingprograms.Thegoalofthisdiscussion,whichbeganinthefallof2010,istodeveloponeormorewell-developedandarticulatedoptionsforsustainablefinancingofmunicipalrecyclingprograms,focusingonconsumerpackagingandprintedpaper.


EPAbroughttothediscussioncompaniesandorganizationsthatrepresentthepackagingvaluechain,aswellasgovernmentandNGOrepresentatives,including:

• Brandowners (national consumer packaged goods companies, including food andbeverages,cosmeticsandpersonalcare,andhouseholdcleaningproducts)

• Retailers(“bigbox”storesandgrocerychains)

• NGOs

• LocalandstategovernmentsandEPA

Initialdiscussionswillbefacilitatedbyanorganizationofnationalstaturewithnorealorperceivedbias or organizational conflict. The facilitator will be asked to interview prospective dialogueparticipants and produce a preliminary convening assessment, which will be used to structuretheinitialmeetings.Thefacilitatorshallinvestigateissuessuchasthefollowing,whichwillalsobeaddressedatthefirstfacilitatedmeetings:

• Challenges faced by state and local governments in funding end-of-life management ofdiscardedpackaging

• Sub-goalsorobjectivesofthisinitiative

• Current and planned initiatives in the producer/retail community that impact end-of-lifeconsiderations(e.g.,newmaterials,designinitiatives,collectioninitiativesandstrategies)

• Currentandplannedproducerresponsibilityframeworklegislation

• Lessons learned from similar legislation in other countries, including fee structures andmaterialownership(e.g.,Ontario’sBlueBoxSystemandBelgium’sFostPlus)

• Potentialfundingsourcesandmechanisms


Appendix B:Summaries of Product Stewardship Programs for Packaging in Europe, Canada and Australia

Sustainable Product Packaging Program Summaries

• Manitoba

• Ontario

• Germany

• Belgium

• TheNetherlands

• France

• Australia


Manitoba “New” Blue BoxProgram Description

• The Multi-Material Stewardship Manitoba (MMSM) Packaging and Printed Paper (PPP)ProgramPlanwasdevelopedinresponsetothePackagingandPrintedPaperRegulationenacted inDecember2008under theWasteReductionandPreventionAct(WRAP).TheRegulationestablishedmandatesforapackagingandprintedpaperstewardshipprogram.Through steward fees, 80% of the program will be funded, with municipalities paying fortheremainder.Additionally,thereisaspecificfocusonbeveragecontainers,plasticbags,and litter.TheprogramwasdevelopedbyMMSM,which iscomprisedof representativesofobligatedstewardsinresponsetotheRegulation.So,stewardswerealargepartoftheProgram Plan development process, along with government staff, politicians, municipalorganizations,andotherinterestedparties

Legislative/Regulatory Requirements• The Packaging and Printed Paper Regulation was enacted in 2008 under the Waste

ReductionandPreventionAct(WRAP).ThisregulationyieldedtheMulti-MaterialStewardshipManitoba(MMSM)PackagingandPrintedPaperProgram(PPP)Plan.

Implementation Organization(s)• TheManitobaProductStewardshipCorporation(MPSC)wascreatedwiththepassingofthe

Multi-MaterialStewardship(InterimMeasures)Regulationin1995.Amulti-stakeholderboardortendirectorsgovernsMPSCandrepresentsequally:grocerydistributors,distributorsofbeveragesincontainers,newspaperpublishers,retailsector,Manitobamunicipalities,Cityof Winnipeg, and other at-large appointments by government. This Corporation providedguidance to the implementing organization, Steward Responsibility Organization (SRO),whichistemporary,untilamorepermanentorganizationisfounded.

• ThePPPProgramPlanwasdevelopedbyMMSM,aninterimSROformedwithhelpbytheMPSC,ResourceConservationManitoba,andtheManitobaChamberofCommerce.

Scope of Products• Thisplanincludesallproductpackagingthatconsistsofplastic,glass,paper,ormetal,or

anycombinationofthosematerialsincludingservicepackagingand‘pre-packagedgoods’.Itestablishesabroadscope,buttheintentistoincludeallpackagingnormallymanagedbythemunicipalwastemanagementsysteminManitoba.

• Packagingexempt fromfeesunder theprogram includes: transportationanddistributionpackaging,industrialorbulkpackaging(thatnotintendedforresidentialuseormanagement),durablepackaging(withausefullifeofatleastfiveyearsinassociationwiththeproductuse),servicepackagingthatismanagedonpremise,retailedpackagingcomponents,anditemsthatconstituteanintegralpartoftheproduct.Inaddition,packagingmaterialsthatarenotcoveredbytheRegulation:wood,ceramic,crystal,rubber,leather,andtextile.

Product Design Incentives• Since steward fees are based on material weight, there is incentive to produce lighter or

smaller packaging using less material and therefore pay less in fees. There are no otherspecificdesignincentiveprograms.


Funding Mechanism• Theprogramprovides80%ofthenetcostofrecyclingthedesignatedmaterials.

• TheprogramwillbefundedbytheStewardResponsibilityOrganization,whichisanindustry-operatedWRAPfundthatadministratesthefundswhichwillpayfor:

• establishingandadministeringwastereductionandpreventionprogramsaswellaseducationprograms;

• expendituresfromthecollection,transportation,storage,processinganddisposalofthewasteforthepurposesofwastereductionandpreventionprograms;

• research, developmental, and promotional activities and economic instruments toencouragewastereductionandprevention;

• appropriatedisposalofdesignatedmaterial;• salariesandothercostsofthegovernmentfortheadministrationandenforcementof

theActandtheregulationsandothersuchactivitiesinrelationtowastereductionandpreventionasareprescribedbyRegulation.

Role of Waste Management Companies• Waste management companies contract with a program operator to provide collection

services.

Role of Brand Owners• Stewardsarerequiredtosubmitastewardshipprogramplanproposalforapprovalbythe

Minister.Thefollowingprogramrequirements,assetoutintheregulation,mustbeincludedinanyproposedprogramplan.

“Aplanforapackagingandprintedpaperstewardshipprogramshallincludeprovisionfor:

• theestablishmentandadministrationofawastereductionandpreventionprogramforpackagingandprintedpaperwithwastereductionandpreventiontargetsassetoutintheplan;

• theappropriatemanagementofdiscardedpackagingandprintedpaperinaccordancewithanywrittenguidelinesestablishedbytheMinister;

• a province-wide, convenient collection system for discarded packaging and printedpaperwithoutuserfeesatthepointofcollection;

• a system for the payment of expenditures incurred in the collection, transportation,storage,processinganddisposalofpackagingandprintedpaperinconnectionwiththewastereductionandpreventionprogram;

• the orderly collection of revenues from subscribers to the program in balance withexpendituresfortheprogram;

• the establishment and administration of education programs for the purpose of thewastereductionandpreventionprogram;

• the establishment and administration of a point-of-sale information program for thepurposeofthewastereductionandpreventionprogram;

• the payment of salaries and other costs of government for the administration andenforcement of this regulation and of the Act as it relates directly to packaging andprintedpaper;and

• on-goingconsultationaboutthestewardshipprogramwithpersonswhotheoperatorconsiders the stewardship program may affect, including members of the public,in accordance with any guidelines respecting consultation that the Minister mayestablish.”


Role of Municipalities• MunicipalparticipationinrecyclingprogramsisvoluntaryinManitoba,whichcouldhurtthe

achievementofrecyclingtargets.Thereforeincaseswheremunicipalitiesdonotparticipate,MMSM has the right to “deliver a material recycling program through contracts or othermeansinthemunicipalityandinvoicethemfor20%ofthenetprogramcosts.”

• MunicipalFundingAllocationModel:MMSMwillprovideeachparticipatingmunicipalityupto80percentofthenetprogramcostsfortheefficientcollectionandprocessingofdesignatedmaterial,whichwillbebasedonanefficiencystandard.Thisstandardwillbesetrelativetothemediannetcostoftheprogramswithineachpopulationgroup.Thencommunitieswillbepaid80percentofthemediannetcostpertonforthatpopulationcategory,encouragingcommunitiestooperateatahigherefficiencystandard,sothatthefundingwillcovermoreoftheircosts.

Role of RetailersUnder the regulation, a two-stage hierarchy of obligation is created; “no person shall supplydesignatedmaterialforconsumptionunless:

a. the steward of the designated material operates or subscribes to a packaging andprintedpaperstewardshipprogram;or

b. the person operates or subscribes to a packaging and printed paper stewardshipprogram.”

• Thestewardisdefinedas“thefirstpersonthatsuppliesadesignatedmaterialtoanotherorusesadesignatedmaterialobtainedinasupplytransactionoutsideofManitoba.”Inaddition,obligatedstewards includethosewhosupplypackagingfora“prescribedactivity”,whichreferstoanactivityorprogramof: theGovernment(municipalityor local),aneducationalinstitution,areligiousorganization,oranon-profitorganization.

Collection Infrastructure• TherearethreeprimaryPPPProgramcollectionroutes:

• Municipal residential recycling (with both public and private curbside and depotsystems),

• Publicspacerecycling,asharedcostwithparticipatingmunicipalities,willbeinitiatedbyMMSMasapilotprogram,and

• Publiceventrecyclingonapilotbasisinordertoassessitsfeasibility.

Performance metrics• Recyclingprogramcostandrecyclingvolumedatawillbecollectedandanalyzedannually

sothatmunicipalitypaymentscanbecalculatedforthefollowingyearandinordertomakecontinuousimprovementstotherecyclingrateandprogramcosts.

• Thedatacollectedwillinclude;

• Volumeofmaterialcollectedbyeachmunicipality,• Contractcostsforrecyclingcollectionandprocessing,• Directmunicipalcostsforcapitalitemsandstaff,• Municipalrecyclingoperatingcosts,• Costsrelatedtotransportingmaterialtoabrokerormarket,• AndexpenditureforPromotionandEducation.


• MMSMwillusehistoricalcollectiondatatomaintaincostandvolumetrendsbymunicipalityandoverallaswellasbenchmarkandcomparetherecyclingprogramrecyclingratesandcostswithothermulti-materialrecyclingprogramjurisdictions.

Summary of Program Finances• Thecostofmanagingdesignatedwastematerialsisbornebythestewardsandusersofthe

productorpackagingratherthanbythetaxpayerorsolidwasteratepayer.

• Themanagementofthesematerialsiseconomicallyandenvironmentallysustainable.

• Industrystewardsdeterminedthemethodbywhichthesematerialsaremanagedandhowthese costs are borne by the affected stewards, users of the product or packaging, andpotentialprogrampartners.

• Fees,ifany,requiredtosupportimplementationofanapprovedprogramplanwillbesetandcollectedbyanapprovednot-for-profitIndustryFundingOrganization(IFO)establishedforthatpurpose.

• Funds raised for the management of a designated material or product category will bedirectlyrelatedtothecostsofmanagingthatdesignatedmaterialorproductcategory.

Enforcement/Compliance Issues• Noneidentifiedatthistime

Citations:Packaging and Printed Paper Program Plan. Multi-Material Stewardship Manitoba. 17 June 2009.Guideline for Packaging and Printed Paper Stewardship WRAP Guideline 2008-01 November 2008


Ontario “Blue Box”Program Description

• Implementedin2004,at thetimecurbsiderecyclingprogramswerealreadyinplace, theOntarioBlueBoxProgramPlanhastwomainfeatures:

• Municipalitiesintheprovincearerequiredtooperateorcontractwithaprivateoperatortoprovidecurbsiderecyclingprogramsand

• Brand owners and first importers are required to fund 50 % of the net cost of themunicipallyoperatedcurbsideprogram

• TheIndustryfundingismanagedbyStewardshipOntario.

Legislative/Regulatory Requirements• The Blue Box Progam Plan was established by the Waste Diversion Act (2002) under

Ontario’s Minister of Environment. In addition, the plan follows the waste categoriesdesignated as Blue Box Waste in Schedule 1 of Ontario Regulation 101/94 under theEnvironmental Protection Act.

Implementation Organization(s)• The plan was created by Waste Diversion Ontario (WDO) and Stewardship Ontario.

StewardshipOntarioisthedesignatedIFOforBlueBoxwastesbytheWDO.

• Minimumlevelissetsothatifacompanymakesunder$2millioninannualrevenuesorlessthan15metrictonsofpackagingandprintedpapertheyareexemptfromtheprogram.

Scope of Products• BlueBoxwasteconsistsof:glass,metal,paper,plastic,andtextiles.

• Addressingonlyconsumerpackagingmaterialcommonly found in thewastestream, thedefinitionofpackagingmaterialsadoptedbythisplanis:

• Allproductsmadeoftheabovematerialsusedforthecontainmentprotection,handling,delivery and presentation of goods, from raw materials to processed goods, fromtheproducertotheuserortheconsumer(salespackaging,groupedor“secondary”packaging,andtransportation,distribution,or“tertiary”packaging),

• Serviceorin-storepackaging(plasticbags,take-outboxes,etc.),• Packagingcomponentsandancillaryelementsthatareintegratedintothepackaging;

elementsthatarehungorattachedtoaproducttoperformapackagingfunction• Anelementisnotconsideredpackaging,if it isanintegralpartoftheproductandis

meanttobeconsumedordisposedwiththeproduct.

Product Design Incentives• Financialincentive,sinceStewardswillhavetopayless,iflessmaterialisusedinpackaging.

Market Development • TheBlueBoxProgramPlanonlyrequiresordinaryrecyclingmarkets,therearenospecialor

specificend-of-lifemanagementrequirements.Severalmaterialsaremoredifficulttomarket,suchasmulti-laminatepackages(asepticsandgabletops).


Funding Mechanism• Stewardsfinance50%ofthenetsystemcosts,includingapproximatelyhalfofthemunicipally-

operatedrecyclingprograms.

• EveryyearWasteDiversionOntarioconductsatonnageandfinancialdatacalltodeterminethetotalnetprogramcosts.Fromthisdata,aswellasstewardsalesreports,StewardshipOntario calculates the fee to charge stewards based on each material type sold into theOntariomarketplace.

• Tocalculatethechargestostewards,threefactorsareincorporated:actualrecyclingcosts(bymaterial type),eachmaterial’srecyclingrate,andafactorthatshiftssomecostsfrombetterperformingmaterialstopoorerperformingorhard-to-recyclematerials.

• 5%ofprogramcostsisputtowardstheEffectiveandEfficiencyFund,nowtheContinuousImprovementFund.Theremaining45%(whichcamefromtheStewards)isdistributedtothemunicipalitiesbasedonindividualprogramperformance(efficiency),“pay-out”model,usingabenchmarkstandard.

Role of Waste Management Companies• Contractdirectlywithmunicipalitiesandarrangetotakemunicipallycollectedmaterialand

recycleit.

Role of Brand Owners• Mustcalculatetheamountofpackagingtheysupplythatgoesintotheresidentialsector.

• StewardshipOntariomustalso:

• Develop/implementprogramsincoordinationwithmunicipalities• Determinecostallocation/financingmechanism• Settheminimumexemptionlevelforstewards• Identify,notify,andregisterstewards,collectfeesandallocatefunds• Implementcosteffectiveness/efficiencyprogramformunicipallyrunprograms• Marketdevelopmentprogram• Executepromotionandeducationprogram• Developadisputeresolutionmechanism,and• ReporttoWasteDiversionOntario

Role of Municipalities• Municipalities (those with over 5,000 people) must provide curbside collection either

throughamunicipalprogramoraprivatecontractor.Thecurbsideprogrammustat leastcollectBlueBoxWaste.Thecollectionofaseptic,gabletop,HDPEandothercontainertypesisvoluntary.

• MustalsoprovideprogramdataandreceivepaymentsfromStewardshipOntario.

Role of Retailers• BrandownersandfirstimportersofBlueBoxwastesarelegallyobligatedundertheWDA

andmusteitherjoinanIndustryFundingOrganization(IFO)designatedbytheWDOorseekapprovalfromtheWDOtoimplementanIndustryStewardshipPlan(ISP).


Collection Infrastructure• Thereareover200municipalprograms,eacheithercontractingorusingtheirownforces

forcollectingandMaterialRecyclingFacility.

• Municipalities (those with over 5,000 people) must provide curbside collection eitherthroughamunicipalprogramoraprivatecontractor.Thecurbsideprogrammustat leastcollectBlueBoxWaste.Thecollectionofaseptic,gabletop,HDPEandothercontainertypesisvoluntary.

Performance metrics• 48%ofpackagingwasrecycledin2006.

Summary of Program Finances• The total costs in 2006 were just over $120 million (Canadian) of which stewards are

responsibleforhalf.

Enforcement/Compliance Issues• Competitionexistsbetweenmunicipalities,becausethemoreefficientmunicipalitiesreceive

more funding. Competition also exists between private sector haulers and end-marketsbiddingformunicipalbusiness.

Citations:Evaluating End-of-Life Beverage Container Management Systems for California. R3 Consulting Group, Inc., Clarissa Morawski, Heidi Sanborn, and Bill Sheehan. May 15, 2009.Blue Box Program Plan. Waste Diversion Ontario and Stewardship Ontario. February 2003. http://www.stewardshipontario.ca/bluebox/pdf/BBPP2003/BBPP_Feb28_Plan_Appendices.pdf


Germany “Green Dot”Program Description

• In response to Germany’s 1991 Packaging Ordinance, the Duales System DeutschlandGmbH (DSD) was established as a contract company to organize the collection, sorting,recycling,anddisposalofpackaging.

• The program was designed to avoid, reduce, recycle, or recover packaging in Germany,placingtheresponsibilityofpackagingonthebrandowners.

• Thebrandownersareencouragedtofirstreducepackagingandtoprovideforthecollectionofpackagingfromallsources(includingcommercialandresidentialsources).

• Service fees,paidby thebrandownersbasedon thequantityandmaterialofpackagingtheyputintothesystem,payfortheDSDsystem.

• TheDSDruns theGreenDotprogram,which isalsopartneredwithPackagingRecoveryOrganizationEurope(PROEurope),whichlicensesthegreendotsymboltoothermemberstates.PROEurope is theumbrellaorganizationforEuropeanpackagingandpackagingwasterecoveryandrecycling.

Legislative/Regulatory Requirements• The Packaging Ordinance holds businesses within the European Economic Community

producingandpackaginggoodsforsaleinGermanyandthosethatarethe(first)importerintoGermanyresponsiblefortheirpackagingwaste.

• ThePackagingOrdinancewasmostrecently(5thamendment)amendedin2008.

• AsofDecember2008therearenineorganizations,whichthemanufacturers/brandownerscancontracttoorganizethecollection,sorting,recycling,anddisposalofpackaging.TheDSDisthemostestablishedandhasthelargestmembershipamongtheseninecompanies.

• ItappliestoallmaterialsubjecttotheClosedSubstanceCycleandWasteManagementAct.

• ItalsoincludestheFoodstuffsandCommoditiesActandEU1994Directiveframework.

Implementation Organization(s)• AsofDecember2008therearenineorganizations,whichthemanufacturers/brandowners

can contract to organize the collection, sorting, recycling, and disposal of packaging.The DSD is the most established and has the largest membership among of these ninecompanies.

• Thereareabout25,000companiesaffectedbythePackagingOrdinanceand20,000thataresmallenoughtobeexemptfromsubmittingadeclaration(butnotfromregisteringwiththesystem).

Scope of Products• AppliestoallmaterialsubjecttotheClosedSubstanceCycleandWasteManagementAct.

• Allpackaging,specificallysales(thatmadeavailableasasalesunitforthefinalcustomer)andsecondary(usedasadditionalpackagingfortransfertothefinalcustomers)packagingareincludedundertheordinance.


• If a manufacturer/brand owner sells below the minimum threshold (in all three specificcategories),thentheyonlyneedtofileadeclarationstatingtheyarebelowtheminimum.

• Thethresholdminimumsare:• Glasslessthan80tons/yr• Paper/cardboardlessthan50tons/yr• Aluminum/plastics/steelandcompositeslessthan30tons/yr

• Productsthatarenotincludedintheprograminclude:

• Salespackagingnotdisposedbyaprivateconsumer(thoughitmustbecollectedbythedistributor).

• Biodegradableplasticpackaging,until2012,andcompostabilitymusthaveacertificateofauthentication.

• Transport packaging (must be collected by the distributor or manufacturer/brandowneratpointofdelivery).

• Outerpackaging(alsomustbecollectedbymanufacturers/brandownersorhavefree,take-backfacilitiesforcustomers).

• Disposablepackagingfordrinks(deposit/refunddutyexists).• Returnable packaging, which is reused—normally through a deposit/refund system

withcustomers.

Product Design Incentives• Weight-basedfeesprovideanincentiveformanufacturers/brandownerstoreducematerial

used in packaging. Analysis suggests that there has been some packaging redesign,though typical first steps have been eliminating non-essential packaging “lightweighting”packaging,andmoreuseofconcentrateandrefillpacks.

Funding Mechanism• Participatingmanufacturers/brandownersarechargedservicefees,whicharebasedon

thematerialtype,itsweight,andtheamountsold.TheDSD2008feesare:

• Glass3.36(USDCent/lbs)• Paper/board/cardboard7.95• Tinplate(Steel)12.4• Aluminum(andothermetals)33.3• Plastic58.9• Compositecartons(LPB)34.2• Othercomposites46.1• Naturalmaterials4.6

• Thefeeispaiddirectlytothecontractcompany.DSDmaintains55-59%ofGermany’smarketshareofsalespackagingsold.

Role of Waste Management Companies• Completecontracts through DSD andothercontractcompanies, responsible for fulfilling

theobligationsofthecontract.

Role of Brand Owners• If located within the European Economic Community, must prepare a ‘declaration of

completeness”andpayfeestopayforcollection,sortingandprocessingofpackaging


Role of Municipalities• In some cases local authority oversees compliance on behalf of the retailers and

manufacturers.Additionally,thestatesdecidewhetheraDualSystemmaybeadmittedasaserviceprovider.

Role of Retailers• Must prepare a “declaration of completeness” if service packaging is sold or they’re a

manufacturer/brandowner.

• ThedeclarationischeckedanditsdataismadeavailablebytheChamberofIndustryandCommercetoregulators.

• Mustensurethereuseorrecyclingofalltransportpackagingandanysecondarypackagingleftbyacustomer.

Collection Infrastructure• TheDSDcollectionofmaterialsiseitherbycurbsidecollection(inyellowbins)ordrop-off

locations.Packagingcanalsoberemovedatthepointofsale(thoughittypicallycannotbereturnedtothestorelater).Ineithercase,collectionisfreeforthecustomer.DSDissupportedby724wastemanagementpartnersandalsoworkswithnewcontractcompaniesofferingtofulfillstewards’obligations.

• Thesortingofmaterialsisdoneafterthewasteiscollectedfromcurbsidepick-up.However,thedrop-offsystemkeepsglass,paper,andcardboardseparate.

• The collected material is either recycled or used as feedstock to generate energy, bothwhichcounttowardsfulfillingtheOrdinance’sstipulations.

Performance metrics• Recycling targets are set and updated regularly. The current recovery targets are: glass

75%,aluminum60%,steel70%,paper/cardboard70%,composites60%andplastics60%.

• The goal is to create “mass flow verification” documents that accurately represent all 16federalstates.However,becausetherearemultiplesystemsandDSDsrecoveryratesareoftenover100duetofree-riding,thecompanieswillneedtobebetterorganizedanduniteoncombiningtheirdatainordertohavemoreaccuraterecoveryrates.

Summary of Program Finances• Thetotalprogramcostsareabout1billionEurosayear.

Enforcement/Compliance Issues• The5thAmendmentofthePackagingOrdinancewastodealwithfreeridingbyreplacingthe

individualcomplianceatpointofsalewithageneralrequirementtojoinandregister/licenseallpackagingbytonnage.Thisamendmentreinforcestheresponsibilityofmanufacturers/brandownersandpreventsthemfromoptingout.

• Free riding also occurs because DSD picks up unlicensed material that is not theirresponsibility. This amounts to about 393,000 tons compared to the 2.9 million tons oflicensedmaterialthatisrecycled.


• SincealloftheGermany’ssalespackagingrecyclingsystemisfinancedbyindustry,thereisanincentivetoensurethattherearenotofewfreeridersinthesystem.

• Freeridersusuallyoccurinservicepackagingandsmallretailoperations.

• TheDualSystemcompaniestrytoensurethatallmanufacturers/brandownerscomplywiththePackagingOrdinance.

Citations:Evaluating End-of-Life Beverage Container Management Systems for California. R3 Consulting Group, Inc., Clarissa Morawski, Heidi Sanborn, and Bill Sheehan. May 15, 2009.Hopstaken, C.F. Review Dutch waste market 2007 FFact Management Consultants BV. September 25, 2007 www.FFact.nl


Belgium, Interregional Cooperation AgreementProgram Description

• In response to the European Directive in 1998, three regions: Wallonia, Flanders, andBrussels created the Interregional Packaging Commission (CIE) to monitor compliancewith theCooperationAgreement.TheCIE isapublic institutiondesignedtooverseeandorganize the recovery of packaging as well as information collection, prevention, andeducationregardingpackaging.

• The Cooperation Agreement requires all companies to take back used packaging fromproductstheyputoutontheBelgianmarket.

• Companies can meet the Cooperation Agreement individually or through membershipinanaccreditedorganization:Val-I-Pac(for industrialpackagingwaste)orFOSTPlus(forhouseholdpackagingwaste).

• Companies are responsible for contributing to Fost Plus and Val-I-Pac to finance thecollection,sorting,andrecoveryofpackagingwaste.

Legislative/Regulatory Requirements• TheprimarylegislativeforceistheCooperationAgreement,whichestablishedthetake-back

obligation, 75% recycling, 15% recycling minimum by packaging material, 80% recovery,preventionobligation,andanobligationforpubliceducation.

Implementation Organization(s)• There are two implementing organizations: Val-I-Pac and Fost Plus focusing on industrial

andhouseholdpackagingwaste,respectively.

• FostPlus,createdin1994andaccreditedin1997,startedwith54associatemembersthatrepresentproducers,importers,distributioncompanies,andtradefederations.TodayFostPlusrepresentsmorethan5,800companies,representing92%ofthehouseholdpackagingsoldontheBelgianmarket.

• Val-I-Pacwascreatedin1997aftertheCooperationAgreementandtodayaidsmorethan8,000BelgiancompaniestomeettheAgreement’srequirements.

Scope of Products• Industrialwasteincludescompaniesthat:

• Have products packaged in Belgium or supply their own packaged goods to theBelgianmarket(TypeA).

• Importproductsandneitherunpacknorusetheproducts(TypeB).• UnpackorusepackagedproductsonBelgianterritory(TypeC).

• Householdpackagingwasteincludesthosematerialswhosesolefunctionistopackagetheproduct.

• Also includes reusable packaging, defined as packaging intended and designed to bereusedaminimumnumberoftimesoveritsnormallifecycle.Itmustsatisfycertaintechnicalrequirementsandbeincludedinasystemthatenablesitsreuse.


Product Design Incentives• Thereisnospecificdesignincentive,exceptthatusinglesspackagingmaterialmeanslower

fees,soitiscosteffectivetoimproveproductpackagingdesign.

Recyclers and Material Organizations• Material organizations are specialized, independent companies that assist Fost Plus

with:competencecentreandsupervision.Theseorganizations“accumulateanddevelopknowledge and expertise on the collection, sorting, and recycling of various types ofpackaging and materials. They monitor technological developments in packaging andrecycling,maintaincontactswithexistingandpotentialrecyclers,andstudytherecyclabilityofnewpackaging.Inaddition,theycarryoutadministrativeandoperationalchecksinthefield,visitingsortingcentersandrecyclerstocheckonandensurethequality.

Market Development• Material organizations, which provide technical assistance to Fost Plus and participating

companies,accumulateanddevelopknowledgeandexpertiseon thecollection,sorting,and recycling of various types of packaging and materials. They monitor technologicaldevelopments in packaging and recycling, maintain contacts with existing and potentialrecyclers, and study the recyclability of new packaging. By doing so, the recyclers andmaterialorganizationslookforbettermaterialsandpackagingsolutions.

• Additionally,FostPlusorganizesinteractivesessionsinprimaryandsecondaryschoolstoencourageandeducatestudentsaboutrecycling.

Funding Mechanism• FostPlusisfinancedbytheGreenDotsystem,whichchargespartiesbasedonthematerial

andquantityofthatmaterialused.

• The materials included by definition are glass, paper/cardboard, steel, aluminum, PETbottles, HDPE bottles/flasks, drink cartons, other recoverable materials, and other notrecoverable.

Role of Waste Management Companies• Collectors and sorting centers are responsible for the collection and sorting of all the

different packaging material types in household packaging. They are contracted by theinter-municipalauthoritiesandmunicipalities;althoughsometimesinter-municipalagenciesdotheirowncollectingand/orsorting.

• Contractsareawardedviapubliccallsfortender.Additionally,FostPlusorganizestrainingsessionsfortheemployeesofthesecompaniestohelpthemcollectandsortefficientlyandcorrectly.

Role of Brand Owners• The Cooperation Agreement contains three principles to which responsible parties must

adhere:thetake-backobligation,anobligationtodopubliceducationandwastepreventionplanning.

• TobecomeamemberofFostPlus,thecompanymustsignacontractandsubmitanannualhouseholdpackagingdeclarationforwhatitputsintotheBelgianmarket.


Role of Municipalities• Fost Plus and intermunicipal authorities enter into contracts that outline which fractions

arecollected,howthatcollectionoccurs,whatactivitiesFostPlusfinancesandunderwhattermsandconditions,whatadministrativeobligationsbothpartieshave,andhowtheyarefollowedupandenforced.

• Fost Plus organizes training sessions for employees of intermunicipal authorities andmunicipalitieswhich includecontainerparkstaff,environmentalofficials,cityguards,andpoliceofficers.Theseemployeesaretaughtaboutcollection,sorting,andrecyclingwastesothattheycancorrectlykeepcitizenseducatedandinformedofnewinformation.

Role of Retailers• Unless,theretailerbringspackagingontotheBelgianmarket,thecompanydoesnothave

anyspecificresponsibilitiesasidefromdoingitspartlikeconsumerstoputoutrecyclingforcollection.

Collection Infrastructure• FostPlusgivesfundstolocalauthorities(municipalities,cities,andintermunicipalauthorities)

• Local authorities organize the selective collection of waste or hire specializedcompaniestodoso.

• Mixedcollectionsystemwhichincludesdoor-to-doorcollectionandvoluntaryreturnsfromthepublicviacontainerparksandabottlebanknetwork.

• Collection is separated by: glass, paper/cardboard, and plastic bottles, metal packaginganddrinkcartons(PMD).

Performance metrics• Awebapplication,ProFost,hasbeenestablishedtomonitorthedataflowbetweenallthe

partners,whichensuresthatdataaboutcollection,sorting,andrecyclingiseasilytraceableandviewableinacentraldatabase.

• ThecostsoftheFostPlusprogramarelessthan10eurosperinhabitantperyear.

• Theoverallcontributionfor2008was66.6meuros,whichwasa15%droprelativeto2007,butisprimarilybecauseofloweredGreenDotrates.

• RecyclingrateinBelgium:93%,recoveryrate:96.6%in2008.

Summary of Program Finances• In2008,FostPlus’sincomefromsalesandserviceswas127.1meuros(a10.5%dropfrom

thepreviousyearduetoweakenedcommoditymarketsworldwide),proceedsfrommaterialswere60.2mEuros,andtheoperatingexpenseswere134.6mEuros.

http://www2.fostplus.be/SiteCollectionDocuments/Over%20Fost%20Plus/Tabellen%20en%20grafieken/Kosten%20per%20inwoner_EN.jpg

Enforcement/Compliance Issues• TheCIEhas thepower toenforce theCooperationAgreement byapproving themethod

an organization chooses to fulfill its take-back obligation, by granting, suspending, orwithdrawingthelicenseofapprovedorganizations,byverifyinghowtheminimumrecyclingstandardsareachievedandbyverifyingtheinformationitreceivesfromparties.


Citations:http://www.pro-e.org/belgium1.htmlhttp://www.valipac.be/Belgium/about-us/history.phphttp://www.fostplus.be/http://www.sectors.wallonia-export.be/en/about.asp?pole_id=5&sector_id=17http://www.fostplus.be/PARTNERS/COLLECTORS_AND_SORTING_CENTRES/Pages/default.aspxAnnual Report 2008: Giving Substance to Recycling Fost Plus. 2008.


The Netherlands, The Dutch Packaging DecreeProgram Description

• AsamethodofcollectivelyimplementingtheDutchPackagingDecree,in2005producersandimportersestablishedNedvang.NedvanghelpscompaniesmeettheirresponsibilitiesunderthePackagingDecree,theprimarytargetbeingtorecycle65%(risingto70%in2010)ofthepackaginggeneratedeachyear.

Legislative/Regulatory Requirements• ThePackagingDecree,signedinMarch2005,wasbasedonEuropeanDirective94/62/EC

andtherevisedPackagingDirective2004/12/EC.

• TheDecreestatesthatDutchproducersandimportersofpackagedproductsarenotonlyresponsiblefortheseparatecollectionandrecyclingofpackagingwaste,butalsoforwasteprevention.

• These companies can either achieve the targets individually or as a collective, underorganizationslikeNedvang.

Implementation Organization(s)• Nedvangisanon-profitorganizationandactsasamediatorbetweenproducers,importers

and distributors and waste disposal and waste processing/recycling companies,municipalitiesandthenationalgovernment.TheyaretheprimaryorganizationresponsiblefordesigningtheinfrastructureforthecollectionofbothhouseholdandcommercialwasteintheNetherlands.

Scope of Products• Individual recycling percentages for each material have been set as: glass: 90%, paper/

cardboard:75%,metals:85%,plastic:32%,andwood:25%.

• Additionally, packaging is divided into three types: primary (consumer packaging),secondary (packaging used to hold several products together), and tertiary (packagingusedtotransportproducts.

Product Design Incentives• CompaniesthatbringpackagingintotheDutchmarketarerequiredtoreducethequantity

throughwastepreventionaswellascollectandrecyclethematerial.Thisrequirementforminimalpackagingpushesthemtowardefficientproductpackagingdesigns.

Funding Mechanism• Apackagingtax(aSupplementaryAgreement)wasenactedin2008,directedatproducers,

importers,anddistributorsofpackagesproducts,inordertopayforthecollection,sorting/processing and recycling of packaging waste. Those that bring more than 15,000 kg ofpackagingintotheDutchmarkethavetopaythistax.

• Theproceedsof the tax aredistributedamong thegeneral fundsof theDutchStateandWasteFund,whichreimbursesmunicipalitiesfortheirroleintherecyclingandprocessingofwaste.


• Thetariffsarecalculatedbasedontheenvironmental impactofeachmaterial (aluminumbeing the priciest, then plastics), and according to the packaging category (primary:consumer,secondary:packagingusedtoholdproductstogether,tertiary:usedtotransportproducts).

• Additionally, companies must pay an annual fee for membership in Nedvang, whichorganizesthecollectionandrecyclingofthepackagingwaste.

Role of Waste Management Companies• Municipalitiesmanagehouseholdwastecollectionandrecycling,eitherdirectlyorthrough

contractswithwastemanagementcompanies.

Role of Brand Owners• Businessesaresolelyresponsibleforthecollectingandrecyclingallpackagingtheybring

intotheNetherlandsmarket.

• Theyarealsorequiredtomonitorandreportpreventionyearly.

Role of Municipalities• Municipalitiesareresponsibleforthecollectionofhouseholdpackagingwaste.

• Previously,theywerealsopartiallyfinanciallyresponsibleforthecollectionandrecyclingofmaterials,butnowstewardsaresolelyresponsibleforfundingthisactivity.

• Therearecompetitionsbetweenmunicipalities forrecyclingefficiency,basedoncost, foreachmaterial,sothereareincentives(andtoadegreesocialpressure)toincreaseefficiency.

• Eachmunicipalitymustreporttheamountsofcollectedrecyclablepackaging.

Collection Infrastructure• Mostcommercialwasteiscollecteddoor-to-doorbybothprivateandmunicipalcompanies

(withexceptionsbeingwoodandtin)

• Thecollectionofhouseholdpackagingwasteoccursasfollows:• Glass:collected,color-sortedincontainers.• Paper/cardboard:collecteddoor-to-dooraboutonceamonth,additionally thereare

containerdrop-offsitesthatresidentscanuse.• Therearetwooptionsforplastic:1)municipalitiescancollecteitherplasticbottlesand

flasksortheycanaddallotherplasticpackagingwasteaswell.Inaddition,municipalitiescanchoosebetweendoor-to-doorcollectionoracentraldropoffcontainer.

• Woodandtin:separationfromotherwasteatwasteprocessingplants.

Performance metrics• Atleast65%ofthepackagingwastehastoberecycled;atleast70%hastoberecovered.

Recoverygoalsallowforincinerationwithenergyrecovery.

• Furthermore,individualrecyclingpercentagespermaterialhavebeendefined:• glass:90%• paper/cardboard:75%• metals:85%• wood:25%

• Therecoverypercentagehasbeenincreasedto75%for2010.


Summary of Program Finances• 115millionEurosannuallyisreservedinawastefund,whichisdispersedtomunicipalities

topayforcollectionofpackaging.

Enforcement/Compliance Issues• Nedvang,anot-for-profitorganization,actsasmediatorbetweenproducers,importersand

distributorsandwastedisposalandwasteprocessing/recyclingcompanies,municipalitiesandthenationalgovernment.

Citations:http://www.pro-e.org/_Netherlands.htmlhttp://www.nedvang.nl/http://www.svm-pact.nl/web/show/id=80327Hopstaken, C.F. Review Dutch waste market 2007 FFact Management Consultants BV. September 25, 2007 www.FFact.nl


France, Eco-EmballagesProgram DescriptionCompanies, in response to a 1992 French packaging decree, established Eco-Emballages. Itisanon-profit, limitedcompany,with240shareholders:70%ownedbyproducers,20%materialorganizations, and 10% distributors. A second company, Adelphe, representing wine and spiritsectorbottlers,wasestablishedin1993.Adelphe,however,graduallyexpanded,sothatin2000itincludedalleconomicsectorsandallpackagingmaterials.Eco-EmballagesandAdelphewerecompetitorsuntilamorerecentmergerin2005betweenthetwo.

Legislative/Regulatory Requirements• Under Decree No. 92-377 (1992), the packer, importer or person primarily responsible

formarketingisresponsibleforcontributingtoorprovidingforthedisposalofpackagingwastefromtheconsumptionofitscommercialproducts.Thecompaniescaneitherrecoverthe packaging on their own, or help a recycling group adhering to an organization (Eco-Emballages)thathasbeenapprovedbythegovernment.

• European Community Law, European Directive 2004/12/EC requires that all Europeannations reduce packaging volume and recover packaging waste. It also discouragesunnecessaryduplicationofeffortwithintheCommunity.

Implementation Organization(s)• Eco-Emballagesofferslocalauthoritiesfinancialandtechnicalsupportforthecollectionand

recyclingofhouseholdpackagingwaste.

Scope of Products• Underthe1992decree,packagingmeansallpackagedgoodspurchasedbyhouseholds,

including:primary(packagingoftheunitsellingtoconsumer)andsecondary(packagingofmulti-consumersalesunits).

• Packaging for export, non-household consumption, and secondary or tertiary packagingdisposedofinthesupplychainarenotincludedunderthedecree.

• Householdpackagingwaste,consistingofthefollowingmaterials:steel,aluminum,paper/cardboard,plastics,andglassiscoveredbythedecree.

Product Design Incentives• MembersofEco-Emballagesareofferedfreetrainingsessionsonpackagingminimization,

usinglife-cyclemethodologyandpackagingauditstooptimizepackaginguseandminimizewaste.

Funding Mechanism• Feesarecollectedfromparticipatinglicensees

• Licensesfeesarecalculatedbasedonweightofmaterial,withdifferingpricesformaterials,plasticsbeingthemostcostly.

• Ifpackagingwithover50%recycledcontentisusedthenthereisa10%reductionofthefee.

• Ifrecyclablepackagingisreplacedbyonethatisnot,thenthefeewillbedoubled.


Role of Waste Management Companies• Companies are contracted by municipalities to collect, sort, and recycle the packaging

waste.

Role of Brand Owners• Must join Eco-Emballages or Adelphe depending on the packaging material used and

contributebasedonthetypeandweightofpackagingusedintheirproduct.

Role of Municipalities• Localauthoritiesareresponsible formanaginghouseholdwaste.There isaslidingscale

ofcostsbasedonthesortingefficiency(qualityandquantity)oflocalprograms,whichEco-Emballagespaysfor.

Role of Retailers• MustonlysellproductsinpackagingproducedbymembersofEco-EmballagesorAdelphe.

Collection InfrastructureThreerecoveryoptions:

• WarrantyRecovery,

• Reprise Guarantee (Federec, FNADE). Under contract with Eco-Emballages, thesefederations ensure traceability of recycling when their members contract the recovery ofmaterials.

• DirectRecoverybylocalauthority,committedtoEco-Emballagesforeffectiverecycling.

Performance metrics• Recycling75%ofhouseholdpackagingby2012thatrepresentsanadditional500,000tons

ofwastetosortandrecycle

Summary of Program Finances• WhileEco-Emballagescurbsiderecyclingcosts300meuros,theincinerationofthewaste

wouldcostabout600meuros.

• Eco-Emballages supports up to 56% of the disposal costs for packaging, while localauthoritiespaytherest,thusensuringanincentivetominimizecosts.

• 47,000companiespayabout423meurosandthegreendotison95%ofpackagedgoodssold.

Enforcement/Compliance IssuesNoinformationwasobtainedonthistopic

Citations:http://www.pro-e.org/France1.htmhttp://www.ecoemballages.fr/http://www.adelphe-recyclage.com/index.htmlHopstaken, C.F. “Review Dutch waste market 2007” FFact Management Consultants BV. September 25, 2007.


Schematic of the Eco-Emballage SystemSource: www.FFact.nlhttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/prevention/pdf/Eco_Emballages_Factsheet.pdf 2008 Annual Report. Pdf (page 16)


Australia, National Packaging CovenantProgram Description

• The National Packaging Covenant was created by the Australia and New ZealandEnvironment and Conservation Council (ANZECC), built upon earlier strategies and inaccordance with the Intergovernmental Agreement on the Environment and the NationalStrategyforEcologicallySustainableDevelopment.

• Australia’s National Packaging Covenant is voluntary, however, it is supported/backedby the Used Packaging Materials National Environment Protection Measure (NEPM) thataddresses free riders and requires non-signatory brand owners to take responsibility fortheirpackagingcontribution.

• TheCovenantandNEPMwerefirstestablished in1999and1996respectively, theywerereviewedandrevisedin2005whentheyexpiredandrenewedforanotherfiveyears.

• The Covenant is intended to reduce the environmental impacts of packaging, improvedesigns and production processes and help in the re-use and recycling of packagingmaterialsbycreatingaframeworkbasedonsharedresponsibilityandproductstewardship.

Legislative/Regulatory Requirements• TheCovenantactsasanumbrelladocumentforpackagingregulations,towhichstewards,

Commonwealthandstategovernments, localgovernments,andpackagingsupplychaincompaniesbecomesignatories.

• Those thatdon’tsign theCovenantaresubject to theUsedPackagingMaterials (NEPM)regulation, which is also designed to catch the free riders and focuses on a take-backrequirementforbrandowners.TheNEPMisdesignedtoensurenationalconsistencyandpreventsignatoriestotheCovenantfrombeingatadisadvantageinthemarket.

• SignatoriestotheCovenantarerequiredtoalsoadopttheEnvironmentalCodeofPracticeforPackaging(ECoPP),whichpromotestwomainideas:packagingshouldbewelldesignedtohaveminimalenvironmentalimpact,whilestillpreservingproductintegrity.

Implementation Organization(s)• TheCovenantistheprimaryorganizationasitssignatoriesrepresentmorethan80%ofall

packagedretailbrandssoldinAustralia.Thosethatdon’tsigntheCovenanthavetofacemorerigorousstategovernmentregulations,theNEPM.

• The Covenant Council, which oversees its implementation, is comprised of State, Local,andCommonwealthGovernmentandIndustryandCommunityRepresentatives.Theymeetquarterly.

• There is also the National Packaging Covenant Industry Association (NPCIA), which is acommittee of executive and senior representatives from the major industry associations.TheNPCIAisthelegalentitythathandlesthefunds,contracts,legalobligations,andreportsof theCovenant.Theyarealsoresponsible for thedevelopmentandmanagementof theECoPP.


Scope of Products• TheCovenant ismeant to includeallusedconsumerpackaging. It takesavery inclusive

approachinthatitdoesnotoutlinethespecificmaterialsitpertainsto,butratheridentifiesresponsibleproducersandagenciesandtheoverallobjectives,whichare:

• Betterproductdesign;• Increasereduction,re-use,andrecyclingofusedpackagingmaterials;• Reduceuseofnon-recyclablematerials;• Reduceamountofusedpackagingmaterialsgoingtolandfill,and;• Reduceincidenceofpackagingbeinglittered.

• Target recycling rates for specific materials are: paper/cardboard 70-80%, glass 50-60%,steel60-65%,aluminum70-75%,andplastics30-35%.

Product Design Incentives• All signatories must givecarefulconsiderationwhendesigningpackagingandrealize its

life-time,environmentaleffectaswellasitsrecovery,re-use/recycling,and/orfinaldisposal.SignatoriesareobligatedundertheCovenanttoreviewandimprovetheirproductpackagingdesigns.

• Additionally,undertheECoPP,towhichallstewardsareobligatedwhetherornottheyhavesigned the Covenant, packaging design must consider source reduction, potential forpackagingreuse,recoveryandrecycling,abilitytoincorporaterecycledcontent,minimizingimpactsofpackaging,propensitytobecomelitter,andconsumerinformation.

Market Development• Signatories are also required to take action (as appropriate) in market development, “to

ensure that new product development using recovered materials is accelerated and thatinappropriatebarrierstothemarketingofproductswithrecycledcontentareremoved”

• There is no specific fund for market development; rather, signatories are expected to dothisontheirown,orincoordinationwithothersthroughtheCovenantCouncilorNationalProjectsGroup.

Funding Mechanism• Funding between the packaging supply chain and government is a cornerstone in the

Covenant’s funding arrangement. The packaging supply chain will aim to raise at least$3mayear,overfiveyears,aswellasincreasethesignatorynumbers.FundsareusedforCovenantprojects,whichincludesadministrativecosts.

• Signatoriesareresponsible foradoptingappropriatewastemanagementpricingpoliciesandprovidingfinancialandothersupporttooptimizematerialsrecoverysystems.

• The packaging supply chain, in co-operation with state and local governments, will alsoprovidefinancialsupportforthecurbsideandothermaterialsrecoverysystems.

Role of Waste Management Companies• Government contracted recyclers are additionally responsible for secondary market

creationsupportedforrecoveredpackagingmaterial.

• AustralianCouncilofRecyclersrepresentstherecyclingindustry,thepackagingandpaperrelatedmembersare:AlcoaAustraliaRolledProducts,AMCORPaperRecycling,O-I,andVisyRecycling.


Role of Brand Owners• Companies in the packaging supply chain must implement product stewardship policies

and practices towards effective environmental management of packaging throughout itslifecycle.

• Additionally, they must provide financial and information/developmental support forrecovery/collection systems as well as design environmentally conscious packagingfor safety and packaging reduction. Finally, they are also responsible for adopting andimplementingtheEnvironmentalCodeofPracticeforPackaging.

Role of Municipalities• TheCommonwealth,State,Territory,andLocalGovernmentswill:

• Determinetheappropriatemanagementmodelingtoolstobeusedinthedevelopmentofmaterialsrecoverystrategies.

• Promote, in co-operation with industry, the provision of resource recovery communityeducation,particularlywithregardtothecommunity’sroleingoodpracticecollectionandsortingsystems.

• Co-operateinproducingreliabledataonanationalbasisontheperformanceofdisposalandmaterialsrecoverysystemsdealingwithusedconsumerpackagingthatwillassisttheCovenantCouncilinitsreports.

• Identifyandseektoremovebarrierstothepurchaseofrecycledcontentgoodsandservices.

• Ensurethatanyfutureindustrywastereductionmanagementagreements/plansnegotiatedbythemandinvolvingpackagingwillconformtothisCovenant.

• Implement the NEPM, for those parties who decide against becoming signatories to theCovenantaswellasthosethatfailtocomplywithCovenantrequirements.

• Ensuretheirpolicyandstrategicframeworksaresubjecttoregulatoryimpactassessment,includingenvironmental,economicandsocialanalysis.

• Developconsistentandharmoniouspoliciesandsystemsforthemanagementanddisposalofusedpackaging.

• Promote,supportandfundmarketdevelopmentinitiatives.

• EnforcetheNEPMintheirjurisdictionstodiscourageindustry“freeriders”.

LocalGovernmentswillalsobeexpectedto:

• Implementbestpracticesmaterialsrecoverysystems.

• Makemunicipalbudgetsandratesassociatedwithwastedisposalandcurbsidecollectionsystemstransparentandavailabletohouseholdsandthegeneralcommunity.

• As appropriate, apply variable rate (by volume or weight) charging to domestic wastecollection.

Role of Retailers• Companies in the packaging supply chain must implement product stewardship policies

and practices towards effective environmental management of packaging throughout its


lifecycle.Additionally, theymustprovidefinancialandinformation/developmentalsupportfor recovery/collection systems as well as design environmentally conscious packagingfor safety and packaging reduction. Finally, they are also responsible for adopting andimplementingtheEnvironmentalCodeofPracticeforPackaging.

Collection Infrastructure• Thecollectionofwastewillcontinuetobemanagedbylocalgovernmentsand/orprivate

companies

• Thereisnosetcollectioninfrastructure,rathertheCovenantlooksatwaysofimprovingtheefficiencyofrecoveryandwastemanagementsystems,whichinclude:

• Recovery and re-use of consumer packaging and related materials from curbsidecollectionanddrop-offsystems.

• Recoveryofconsumerpackagingatpublicplaces,workplace/commercialpremises,andindustrialpremises.

• Recovery of consumer packaging, distribution packaging, and related materialsthroughoutthepackagingsupplychain.

• Reductionoflitterandtheimpactsoflitteringconsumerpackaging.• Useofsuitablelightweightalternativessingle-useplasticbags.

• TheCovenantwillthencreateActionPlansandfundprojectstoimprovethesesystems.

Performance metrics• Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), Performance Goals, and Overarching Targets are

usedtoanalyzeandreportontheeffectivenessoftheCovenant.DatawillbecontributedbytheIndustry,commonwealth,stateandlocalgovernmentstoprovideayearlyCovenantPerformanceReport.SomeofthisdataisrequiredundertheNEPM.

• TheKPIsusedare:

• Packaging optimized to integrate resource efficiency, maximum resource re-use,productprotection,safety,andhygieneconsiderations.

• Efficientresourcerecoverysystemsforconsumerpackagingandpaper.• Consumersabletomakeinformeddecisionsaboutconsumption,useanddisposalof

packagingofproducts.• Supply-chain members and other signatories are required to demonstrate how they

contributedtotheCovenantPerformanceGoals.• All signatories demonstrate continuous improvement in their management of

packagingthroughtheirindividualActionPlansandAnnualReports.

Summary of Program Finances• Annualcostsareestimatedat$750,000(AUD)peryear for theCovenantadministration,

whichalsoincludestheimplementationofcommunicationandeducationprograms.

Enforcement/Compliance Issues• To ensure that the industry signatories of the Covenant are not at a disadvantage in the

market relative to those that do not sign, the non-signatories will be regulated under theNEPMtopreventthemfromfreeriding.


Citations:http://www.pca.org.au/http://www.packagingcovenant.org.au/The National Packaging Covenant: Strategic Partnerships in Packaging. http://www.environment.gov.au/settlements/publications/waste/covenant/pubs/covenant.pdfEnvironmental Code of Practice for Packaging and Guidelines. 25 May 2005. http://www.pca.org.au/uploads/00439.pdf

ThetwotablesbelowarereprintedfromthepublicationPackagingandPackagingWasteStatistics,1998-2006 published in March 2009 by EUROPEN, the umbrella organization for the variousEUproducerorganizationsresponsibleforpackagingrecoveryundertheEuropeanPackagingDirectiveof1994.

Recycling rates for non-wood packaging


Overall rates for recovery other than materials recycling, as reported to theCommission

Citation (for tables):http://www.europen.be/index.php?action=onderdeel&onderdeel=6&titel=EUROPEN+Publications&categorie=0&item=34&back=%3Faction%3Donderdeel%26onderdeel%3D6%26titel%3DPublications


Appendix C:Current solid waste and packaging regulations in Washington70.93 Wastereduction,recyclingand

modellittercontrolact70.94 Washingtoncleanairact .743Relatedtooutdoorburning70.95 Solidwastemanagement-

reductionandrecycling70.95A Pollutioncontrol-Municipal

bondingAllowsmunicipalitiestoissuerevenuebondsforpollutioncontrolfacilities

70.95C Wastereduction OfficeofWasteReductionestablished70.95D Solidwasteincineratorandlandfill

operators70.95E Hazardouswastefees Feescollectedtoimplement70.95C.200and

.04070.95F Labelingofplastics Requiresthatplasticbottlescarryanumber

indicatingthetypeofresinitismadeofandtherecyclingsymbol.Itdoesnotrequirerecycling.

70.95G Packagescontainingmetals Prohibitsuseoftoxicheavymetalsinpackaging70.132 Beveragecontainers Banstheuseofdetachablepullringsortabson

beveragecontainers.82.06 Retailsalestax RCW82.08.0282

“…shallnotapplytosalesofreturnablecontainersforbeveragesandfoods,includingbutnotlimitedtosoftdrinks,milk,beer,andmixers.


Northwest Product Stewardship Council

www.productstewardship.net

Date post:	30-Sep-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	3 times
Download:	0 times