Packaging & Printed Paper Programs across Canada: … · CSSA Annual Meeting for Stewards October,...

Packaging & Printed Paper Programs across Canada: Look Back & Look Forward

Annual Steward Meeting

October 31, 2013

Version 2

CSSA Annual Meeting for Stewards October, 2013 2

4

Part 1: Canadian Stewardship Services Alliance—Beginning the

Journey Towards Harmonization

Businesses participating in Packaging and Printed Paper (PPP) programs across Canada (also

known as “Blue Box” programs) have been advocating for a simpler way to interact with

stewardship programs for the better part of a decade.

As provincial governments regulated new PPP programs in different provinces the business

community responded by creating a number of stand-alone provincial stewardship

organizations (SO (Ontario)—2003; EEQ (Quebec)—2005; MMSM (Manitoba)—2010) resulting

in duplication of administrative investments and a lack of coordination and sharing of best

practices across provincial jurisdictions. The fragmentation of data and management systems

also interfered with the ability to systematically identify cost drivers and scale up efforts to

manage or oversee reverse supply chains for PPP consistently over a broader geography.

Ultimately, this arrangement has led to higher costs and a fragmented experience for Canadian

consumers whose recycling services differ markedly from one province to another and from

one municipality to another.

In the fall of 2012, Canadian Stewardship

Services Alliance (CSSA) was formed to begin

the process of harmonizing PPP programs

across the country and to arrest the

development of new stand-alone

organizations in provinces that were at the

early stages of issuing regulations. CSSA is a

national, non-profit organization, founded by

leading retailers and manufacturers, bringing

together key players to achieve better

recycling performance. We’re industry-led

and industry-funded, working on behalf of

Canadian businesses that participate in stewardship programs, as well as partnering with

provincial stewardship organizations, provincial governments, local governments and waste

management companies to provide recycling and waste management services, and leading


expertise to nearly 20 million Canadians. We are proud to include the following members of

our family of recycling organizations managed under one administrative umbrella.

We expect this family to grow as other provinces such as Alberta and Nova Scotia (together

with the other Atlantic provinces) begin to consider new extended producer responsibility

regulatory frameworks for packaging and printed paper.

For our stewards (sometimes known as “producers”) CSSA aims to deliver a seamless,

administratively harmonized service to make it easy and convenient to discharge your PPP

obligations regardless of how many provinces you do business in.

2013 marked the first step in the journey to

deliver a One Window approach to registration

and reporting for stewards. CSSA assumed

responsibility for the WeRecycle portal and

enabled it for use by stewards reporting for

MMBC. 2014 will see the further

enhancement of this single system to

incorporate SO, MMSM, and MMSW

registration, reporting and invoice payment.

The fragmentation of data and management

systems was successfully arrested. Our

national stewardship services centre stands

ready to assist you with any question you may have regarding any of the PPP programs we

administer.

We are also standardizing a number of stewardship program features providing for a common

definition of who is an obligated party, a national list of PPP materials, consistent reporting,

invoicing and audit processes. By introducing national standards and developing national

benchmarks to measure program performance, we will be in a better position to control

steward fees and costs into the future.

Completing the administrative harmonization process will take time and there are a number of

areas where we see opportunities for future improvement. We look forward to engaging with

stewards and learning more from you about what makes an optimal stewardship services

experience.

Onewindow• Singlerepor ngandpaymentportal

• CommonDefini ons

• Na onalListofMaterials

• Na onalStandardBenchmarks

• ANa onalVoice

HARMONIZINGADMINISTRATIVEFUNCTIONS


On the legislative and regulatory front--harmonization is more complex and arguably, a bigger

prize to achieving some of the results we seek. We will work with provincial governments to

ensure that regulatory frameworks are harmonized to the greatest extent possible and we will

advocate for core issues in all legislative frameworks. Provincial and local governments can be

confident that we will develop program plans that are consistent across the country in order to

promote predictability and stability for all our stewards, consumers and government

stakeholders. As a national organization with a perspective that spans provincial borders, CSSA

aspires to stimulate a different dialogue, and offer non-partisan, evidence-based perspectives

on the design of programs, the nature and scope of regulatory incentives to deliver desired

policy outcomes, and the best ways for engaging the consumer to maximize participation and

support.


Part 2: A Consolidated View of CSSA's Family of Recycling

Programs

2.1 Program Performance Measurement

Measuring program performance consistently across jurisdictions is an important aspect of

CSSA’s harmonization scope. To set a first year (Y1) benchmark, CSSA has selected a core suite

of indicators that are intended to provide a snapshot of how PPP programs are performing

from an environmental, operational, consumer accessibility and financial perspective. The

purpose of such a “scorecard” is to:

• Allow each program to track and improve performance over time

• Facilitate comparisons and benchmarking between jurisdictions

• Demonstrate and communicate accountability for performance to stewards, regulators

& other stakeholders

• Feed systems for learning—within CSSA as well as the broader stakeholder community.

The initial suite of performance indicators were chosen on the basis of the following five

principles:

1. Representative of Performance – The indicator conveys something meaningful about the

program’s performance. It is responsive to change and within the program’s capacity to

influence over time. (Note: In the case of municipally managed supply chains for PPP

(Ontario/ Manitoba/ Quebec/ Saskatchewan in the future) where industry does not have

control over materials captured in each municipality, the ability to influence collection

performance may not be under industry’s control.)

2. Easily communicated to and understood by stakeholders – The indicator is intuitive to

understand and easily communicated to stakeholders.

3. Data accessibility and reliability – The indicator should be based on data that is feasible

for the program to collect, maintain and report with accuracy. Data must be amenable

to independent verification by a third party. Where estimates are used they should be

clearly stated. Because estimates produced through modeling techniques cannot be

independently reviewed and verified, they should be used only sparingly and under

highly controlled circumstances. For example, during program development where


there is little or no data to inform Y1 budgets or collection estimates, data from other

provinces is often modeled on a pro rata basis. Both the Manitoba and BC program

plans and budgets were modeled in some cases using available provincial data or using

data from Ontario. In Saskatchewan where a PPP program plan has been recently

submitted, Manitoba data has been used to model the initial baseline.

4. Cost effectiveness – The indicator should be cost effective to collect and report.

5. Comparability across programs – The indicator should facilitate comparisons across

programs and with other jurisdictions.

The initial comparative indicators for CSSA’s family of PPP stewardship organizations comprise

the following:

Operational/environmental indicators – seek to characterize program performance

based on recycling rates and collection volumes of PPP diverted from landfill.

Material generated or supplied

Material recycled

Percentage of material recycled & variance to provincial target

kgs recycled / capita

Consumer accessibility indicators – to describe the ease or convenience associated with

collection and recycling.

% households with access to PPP recycling

Consumer awareness indicators – measures, often obtained through public surveys to

characterize program success in terms of public awareness and engagement.

% population aware of recycling program

Promotion & Education expenditures/capita

Financial indicators – reflecting program performance in financial terms, including costs

associated with collection, transportation, processing, public education and program

management.

Total program costs/tonne (net of commodity revenues)

Program management costs as a percentage of net costs


2.2 – Program Performance: Operational/Environmental/Consumer Accessibility

An initial baseline comparison based on the above indicators is provided below to initiate a

dialogue about differences and similarities between PPP programs. Note that programs range

in maturity from Stewardship Ontario’s Blue Box program (with almost a decade of data that is

subject to regular third party authentication) to MMBC’s program that has not yet launched

and whose performance is projected based on limited provincial data supplemented by

modelling (the least preferred method to generate data but a legitimate starting point for

programs out-of-the-gate).

Our objective is to note differences in performance, provide explanations where data is

available to support them and suggest possible hypotheses in cases where data is as yet,

inconclusive or incomplete.

Table 1: Recycling and Accessibility Program Performance


Ontario: Stewardship Ontario’s program is maturing and entering its 10th year, and while

recycling performance remains ahead of target, there appears to have been a year over year

decline in the overall recycling rate. A few possible explanations in order of probability are

offered below and will be subject to further analysis; namely:

Trend toward lighter-weight packaging that is less recyclable. PPP recycling indicators

are weight based. As highly recycled (and heavy-weight) printed paper decline in

relative proportion to less well recycled materials like light-weight plastics, the overall

recycling rate will decline (until such time as the recycling rate of plastics improves to

levels approaching printed paper). Newspapers that make up the bulk of the printed

paper category by weight continue to diminish in size as digitization replaces physical

formats. The prevalence of printed paper with recycling rates approximating 80% has

declined by almost 58,000 tonnes over the last decade, while plastics generation with a

much more modest recycling rate of 27% has increased by almost 36,000 tonnes over

the same period.

Consumer Participation. A decline in consumer participation is unlikely as consumer

awareness about the Blue Box system remains high in Ontario at 100% and promotion &

education expenditures have also risen. Newspaper campaigns have recently been

stepped up to encourage residents to place more plastics such as clam shells into their

Blue Boxes to offset what appears to be either a declining or levelling off of the recycling

rate and to generate feedstock for plastics recycling. This trend will be closely watched

especially given that there is a very small margin before the recycling rate falls below

the mandated provincial target of 60%.

Manitoba: As the newest and smallest program entering its third year, Manitoba experienced a

year over year increase to the overall recycling rate based on a greater number of tonnes being

recycled against a lower number of tonnes generated which, like Ontario, was likely caused by

a shift to lighter material and declining amounts of newsprint. Manitoba continues to operate

under its first program plan which is due to be refreshed and resubmitted in 2015.

British Columbia: MMBC’s program will not launch until 2014 therefore performance is

projected based on limited data sample gathered in 2010 and 2011 from municipalities and

processors during the preparation of the MMBC stewardship program plan. Performance may

differ significantly from these projections once actual material tonnage is reported as part of

the requirement imposed by contracts with collectors and processors. True performance will

begin to reveal itself once the program launches in May 2014.


Of note, is the projection that MMBC will achieve its 75% recycling target during the first

year of program operations. MMBC has various methods of controlling the amount of

PPP that it procures on behalf of its steward members, and will enter into collection

agreements for up to 75% of the PPP that its members have reported as supplied into

the marketplace. There is both upside and downside risk to this approach as collection

contracts are based on estimates of household kgs to be collected from each local

government with whom MMBC has chosen to contract. Should MMBC’s household

estimates be over-stated, the program may fall below its recycling target and vice versa.

Based on current projections, MMBC expects to achieve its recycling target by providing

78% of BC households with access to recycling services—coverage that is 15%-17% less

than what is provided in Manitoba and Ontario respectively. As more stewards join our

plan increasing the reported tonnage supplied, MMBC will be able to buy more PPP

tonnes from collectors and expand its accessibility to greater numbers of BC

households.

BC lags behind both Ontario and Manitoba in kilograms of PPP recycled per capita based

on the above results. However, BC has a comprehensive beverage container deposit

program that includes all beverage categories. (Ontario by comparison has a deposit

program only for beer bottles and LCBO wine bottles while in Manitoba only beer is on

deposit.) The estimated low recovery rates of PPP per capita in BC are discounted for

materials that are on deposit. According to Encorp Pacific’s 2012 Annual Report, 19.1 kg

per capita of beverage containers were collected through BC’s network of 171 depots.

The combination of Encorp’s performance and MMBC’s expected performance in 2014

would put BC’s recycled kg per capita on par with Ontario’s.


2.3 – Program Performance: Financial

The following section is a comparison of each stewardship program’s full system cost,

normalized for BC to represent a full calendar year. Ontario’s and Manitoba’s system costs for

2012 is shown in the chart next to their respective 2011 system costs for comparison purposes.

Table 2: Financial Program Performance

Ontario

The net cost of the Blue Box recycling system increased some 24.6% or $48M from 2011

to 2012 principally for the following reasons:

o Depressed commodity revenues. Ontario Municipalities reported $36M less

revenue for 2012 than for 2011. Commodity market prices for post-consumer

PPP were down significantly in 2012 driven largely by setbacks in the global

economy that depressed demand for fibres, metals and petroleum—key PPP

components for packaging. Recyclables typically receive much lower revenues

when the price of virgin materials decline as they did beginning in Q2 2012 in

response to a major slowdown in the economies of emerging countries. The

commodity composite index fell 31% from 2011 ($169/te) to 2012 ($118/te). It is

also trending downward in 2013 although not as pronounced as the previous

year. (Note: It is difficult to pinpoint with precision the effect of commodity

decreases on Blue Box system costs because individual municipalities have varying

commodity revenue-sharing arrangements with their processors affecting how

gross costs and revenues are realized and reported. Driving consistency in the


reporting of costs and revenue results is a subject of dialogue with municipalities

and will result in consistent comparisons once achieved.

o Year over year gross cost increases of $12M in municipal costs. While the overall

increase is in line with broad economic indicators (such as CPI and fuel index), the

increase can be specifically attributed to municipal costs.

Comparatively, Ontario’s Blue Box program is generally a more expensive program than

Manitoba’s, on both a per tonne (by 10%) and a per capita basis (by 27%). Ontario

accepts more material than Manitoba in its recycling program (largely a greater variety

of plastics) and is recycling 9 kg more per capita. These PPP materials fall in the more

expensive to recycle material categories.

Program management costs in Ontario as a % of total system net costs have decreased

YOY primarily as a result of the cost synergies associated with joining the CSSA group of

managed companies.

Manitoba

Costs per tonne were up in Manitoba by 3.8% due to softer commodity markets—the

same trend impacting Ontario as noted above.

Manitoba’s comparatively lower cost per tonne may be due to the fact that its recycling

rate falls below that of Ontario and current BC projections. It is possible that costs per

tonne may increase as recycling performance increases—especially if that performance

is driven by harder to recycle materials.

Program management cost as a percentage of total cost (13.8%) is higher than other

provinces as is to be expected when a financially modest program like Manitoba is

required to carry certain fixed administrative expenses in order to comply with the

requirements of its stewardship program plan.

British Columbia

The BC program is projected to be the highest cost per tonne program in the CSSA

family of recycling programs with net cost per tonne projected to be 67% higher than

Ontario. It is likely that there are many variables contributing to higher costs, including

the loss of aluminum and PET revenues from beverage container deposits as well as

lower recycling per capita which means that household collection costs are spread over

a smaller base of materials. Geography and topography challenges such mountains and

islands, and the need to provide service to low density areas all add complexities and

cost to the supply chain. Data gathering over the next several years will be geared


towards understanding both the causal and multivariate effects of these multiple factors

on recycling costs.


Part 3 – Steward Obligation & Comparative Fees

3.1 – Full or Partial EPR Obligations Determine Steward Obligation

Each recycling program carries a different financial obligation depending upon whether it is

deemed in legislation to be a full or partial Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) Program.

Ontario stewards must transfer up to 50% of the net costs of recycling to Ontario municipalities

as per the requirements of the Waste Diversion Act, while Manitoba stewards are required to

transfer up to 80% of net costs of municipal recycling as per the requirements of the Packaging

and Printed Paper Stewardship Regulation and Guidelines. In the partial EPR provinces,

municipalities operate or contract for recycling services for PPP while SO and MMSM perform

an audit and due diligence function in the computation and vetting of supply chain costs.

British Columbia on the other hand is a full EPR program where stewards will pay 100% of the

costs for recycling their materials. Under a full EPR business model, MMBC contracts for

recycling services directly with a variety of supply partners including local governments,

processors, transporters and depots. Differences in EPR obligations result in significant fee

variances from one province to another making it difficult to compare fees on an apples-to-

apples basis.

The total steward obligation for 2014 across all three CSSA programs is $199.5 million. While

the 2014 steward obligation for Quebec is not known at this time, it was approximately $120

million in 2013. Assuming Quebec’s costs remain stable for next year, PPP stewards in Canada

will pay upward of $320 million towards recycling programs in 2014. It is worth noting that in

transfer payment jurisdictions (Ontario/Manitoba), stewards are paying for costs already

incurred in the past. Fees in these provinces are set on a known cost base. In the case of BC,

where industry will manage the supply chain for PPP in “real time”, costs are estimated for the

future year. Stewards are paying for projected costs.

3.2 – Program Cost Components & Steward Obligation

In addition to supply chain costs (collection, transportation, processing), all stewardship

programs incur program management and promotion & education costs. In the case of BC, the

2014 obligation also includes one-time set up costs for program plan development and working

capital accumulation. The following section is a comparison of each EPR’s cost components for

2014.


Table 3: Steward Obligation by Province

Ontario Steward Obligation

Despite having a 50% shared responsibility with the municipalities the Ontario steward

obligation is the largest of all CSSA programs.

Ontario’s 2014 steward obligation will decrease by 3.1% YOY. Stewardship Ontario’s

negotiation with municipalities to determine the final 2014 obligation is still underway.

The 2014 share of supply chain costs have not yet been confirmed. In the event that the

negotiations result in a higher obligation, SO will cover any additional costs with

program reserves.

Direct program management costs have decreased year over year from $6.3m in 2013 to

$4.9m in 2014 largely due to benefits from harmonized back office functions with other

provincial PPP programs.

Manitoba Steward Obligation

The Manitoba supply chain obligation has increased by 3%, which is generally in line

with economic indicators such as CPI and fuel prices.


Despite increased cost obligations to municipalities, MMSM’s steward obligation

decreased by approximately 10% YOY due to its drawdown of program accumulated

surplus.

British Columbia Steward Obligation

MMBC is the first true EPR program for PPP in Canada. Industry is required to pay the

full cost for contract managing a full reverse supply chain for PPP. As May 2014 is the

start of MMBC supply chain operations, the 2014 obligation includes 7.5 months of

supply chain costs.

The supply chain cost of $55.5 million reflects the cost of collecting and processing 75%

of the PPP tonnage reported by MMBC members.

Included in the 2014 fees, are one-time charges for i) program start-up; and ii) working

capital accumulation.

3.3 – Fee Setting Methodologies

Once the steward obligation is determined, weight-based fee schedules are developed.

Stewards of PPP in Canada pay fees on the basis of how many kilograms of PPP their business

supplies into the provincial marketplace.

The fee setting process is designed to fulfill the following three objectives:

• Ensure sufficient funds are raised from stewards to meet industry’s financial obligations

to operate the stewardship program in accordance with corresponding provincial

regulations and approved program plans while incurring neither a profit nor a loss.

• Ensure program costs are fairly and equitably allocated among the various PPP

materials.

• Provide signals and incentives to promote recyclability of material.

The mechanics of fee setting involve allocating costs for managing materials in the supply chain

(collection, transportation, processing, material specific P&E and R&D). These costs are

allocated on the basis of a financial calculation using a 3-factor formula as depicted below.

Promotion and education, and research and development costs are added only to those

materials that benefit from these investments. Program administration costs are then


allocated to all materials on the basis of the volume of material generated and the number of

stewards reporting within each material group.

CSSA has kept the fee-setting methodology generally consistent across the three programs

wherever possible. This includes: adopting the 3 factor formula above for all provinces, using

actual steward reported tonnes as the denominator for fees; aggregating materials

consistently across the SO, MMSM and MMBC fee schedules wherever current data supports

it; and allocating program management-like costs in the same manner.

Fees for Ontario are based on municipal data and cost analytics undertaken over a ten-year

period. Manitoba’s program is relatively new and province-specific data is beginning to mature

but cost calculations in some cases continue to be based on Ontario cost studies. Similarly, in

BC comprehensive cost and recycling performance data was not available at the time of fee-


setting; therefore the fee setting methodology augmented best available BC data with

assumptions and extrapolations based on Ontario’s experience. The schedule below shows the

material-specific fees for the three provinces. While a similar methodology was used to arrive

at the fees it is important to note that the schedules reflect some notable differences; namely:

Costs, recycling rates and recycling targets differ among provinces. This will affect how

the 3-factor formula is applied. Poor performing materials in jurisdictions with higher

recycling targets, such as BC, will end up being more expensive than in jurisdictions

where recycling targets are lower.

Steward reported quantities differ among provinces as would be expected due to

differences in market size. Materials in jurisdictions with smaller amounts of PPP will

bear a higher burden of fixed costs.

Each province mandates a different steward obligation as defined by the regulation (ON

50% costs, MB 80% costs, BC 100% costs). This affects the fee rate and makes province-

to-province comparison of fees more difficult.

In some provinces (Manitoba) program surpluses have been used to lower fees from

what they would otherwise have been.

Manitoba fee rates are, on average, expected to be 13% higher than Ontario, likely due to a

higher steward obligation and relatively lower steward reported quantities. In addition, the

size of the program itself presents challenges to achieving full economies of scale from the

program management costs and other mandatory expenditures. Without the surplus

drawdown, the average fee rate would be 28% higher than ON, which is in line with

expectations given MMSM’s program is required to fund 80% of municipal costs.

BC fee rates on average are expected to be some 3.5 times higher than Ontario given BC is a

full EPR program with a much higher target recycling rate than any of the eastern provinces

(75% v. 60% ON), higher cost supply chain costs due to a number of factors including

geography, population density and carbon taxes. BC also loses out on economies of scale and

commodity revenues due to the existence of a comprehensive deposit system for beverage

packaging that runs parallel to the MMBC PPP curbside program.


3.4 – Comparative Material Fees by Province Ontario Net

Costs - 50% Obligation

Manitoba Net Costs - 80% Obligation

BC Net Cost Projections* - 100% Obligation

Category Material Fee rates 2014 (cents/ kg)

Fee rates 2014 (cents/ kg)


PRINTED PAPER

Printed Paper Newsprint - CNA/OCNA (excl. in-kind)

0.30 ¢/kg 1.96 ¢/kg

Newsprint 4.18 ¢/kg 20.00 ¢/kg

Magazines and Catalogues 6.74 ¢/kg 5.97 ¢/kg

24.00 ¢/kg Telephone Books 6.46 ¢/kg 6.03 ¢/kg

Other Printed Paper 12.29 ¢/kg 5.45 ¢/kg

PACKAGING

Paper Based Packaging Corrugated Cardboard 8.10 ¢/kg 9.96 ¢/kg 29.00 ¢/kg

Boxboard 8.10 ¢/kg 10.27 ¢/kg

Composite Paper Packaging

Gable Top Cartons 18.19 ¢/kg 25.22 ¢/kg

52.00 ¢/kg Paper Laminates 18.19 ¢/kg 25.22 ¢/kg

Aseptic Containers 18.19 ¢/kg 25.22 ¢/kg

High Grade Plastics Packaging

PET Bottles 14.02 ¢/kg 17.13 ¢/kg

31.00 ¢/kg HDPE Bottles 12.62 ¢/kg 15.93 ¢/kg

Low Grade Plastics Packaging

Plastic Film 22.54 ¢/kg 29.19 ¢/kg

54.00 ¢/kg Polystyrene 22.54 ¢/kg 31.72 ¢/kg

Other Plastics 22.54 ¢/kg 31.72 ¢/kg

Plastic Laminates Plastic Laminates 22.54 ¢/kg 31.72 ¢/kg 70.00 ¢/kg

Steel Packaging Steel Food & Beverage* Cans 5.06 ¢/kg 7.70 ¢/kg 52.00 ¢/kg

Steel Aerosols 5.06 ¢/kg 6.68 ¢/kg

Steel Paint Cans 5.06 ¢/kg

Other Steel Packaging

Aluminum Packaging Aluminum Food & Beverage* Cans

1.77 ¢/kg -2.63 ¢/kg 45.00 ¢/kg Aluminum Food & Milk

Containers

Other Aluminum Packaging 6.57 ¢/kg 9.99 ¢/kg

Glass Packaging Clear Glass 2.71 ¢/kg 5.91 ¢/kg 25.00 ¢/kg

Coloured Glass 4.36 ¢/kg

*Please note that beverage containers are on deposit in British Columbia and therefore fee rates do not apply to them.


Part 4: Provincial Fee Schedules & Commentary

Section 4.1 – Stewardship Ontario Fee Schedule

Category Material Fee rates 2014 (cents/ kg)


Variance (%)

PRINTED PAPER

Printed Paper Newsprint - CNA/OCNA 0.30 ¢/kg 0.42 ¢/kg -28.6%

Newsprint - Non-CNA/OCNA

4.18 ¢/kg 3.62 ¢/kg 15.5%

Magazines and Catalogues 6.74 ¢/kg 6.47 ¢/kg 4.2%

Telephone Books 6.46 ¢/kg 6.64 ¢/kg -2.7%

Other Printed Paper 12.29 ¢/kg 9.99 ¢/kg 23.0%

PACKAGING

Paper Based Packaging

Corrugated Cardboard 8.10 ¢/kg 8.39 ¢/kg -3.5%

Boxboard 8.10 ¢/kg 8.39 ¢/kg -3.5%

Gable Top Cartons 18.19 ¢/kg 18.22 ¢/kg -0.2%

Paper Laminates 18.19 ¢/kg 18.22 ¢/kg -0.2%

Aseptic Containers 18.19 ¢/kg 18.22 ¢/kg -0.2%

Plastic Packaging PET Bottles 14.02 ¢/kg 14.70 ¢/kg -4.6%

HDPE Bottles 12.62 ¢/kg 13.52 ¢/kg -6.7%

Plastic Film 22.54 ¢/kg 23.27 ¢/kg -3.1%

Plastic Laminates 22.54 ¢/kg 23.27 ¢/kg -3.1%

Polystyrene 22.54 ¢/kg 23.27 ¢/kg -3.1%

Other Plastics 22.54 ¢/kg 23.27 ¢/kg -3.1%

Steel Packaging Steel Food & Beverage Cans 5.06 ¢/kg 5.51 ¢/kg -8.2%

Steel Aerosols 5.06 ¢/kg 5.51 ¢/kg -8.2%

Steel Paint Cans 5.06 ¢/kg 5.51 ¢/kg -8.2%

Aluminum Packaging Aluminum Food & Beverage Cans

1.77 ¢/kg 2.56 ¢/kg -30.9%

Other Aluminum Packaging 6.57 ¢/kg 6.97 ¢/kg -5.7%

Glass Packaging Clear Glass 2.71 ¢/kg 2.84 ¢/kg -4.6%

Coloured Glass 4.36 ¢/kg 4.84 ¢/kg -9.9%


Section 4.2 – Stewardship Ontario Fee Commentary

Despite the general poor performance of commodity markets for PPP recyclables in

2012, this impact is muted in Ontario by the use of a 3-year rolling average when

accounting for commodity revenue in the computation of material fees. 2014 fee

rates are therefore benefitting from higher commodity revenues realized in 2010

and 2011.

Due to the projected decrease in the overall fee obligation YOY most of the material

fee rates (with the exception of some in the Printed Paper category) will also

decrease from last year. Decreases range from a low of 0.2% for paper laminates and

aseptic containers to 31% in the case of aluminum food and beverage cans.

The following materials however will see increases for the following reasons:

o Newsprint – Non-CNA/OCNA fees increased 15% despite the fact

that tonnage declined by 21% because there are fewer tonnes

against which to spread fixed costs.

o Other Printed Paper--There was a 6% decline in the recycling rate of

Other Printed Paper resulting in a 23% fee increase due to the

negative effects of the equalization component of the three factor

formula.

o Magazines & Catalogues— fees increased by 4% for this material

because it experienced a decrease in the amount of tonnes supplied

(which means fewer tonnes against which to spread fixed costs) and

a downward adjustment in the reported recycling rate.


Section 4.3 – Multi-Material Stewardship Manitoba Fee Schedule

Category Material Fee rates

2014 (cents/ kg)

Fee rates 2013

(cents/ kg)

Variance (%)

Fee rates 2014

(Without surplus)

(cents/ kg)

PRINTED PAPER

Printed Paper Newsprint 1.96 ¢/kg 2.38 ¢/kg -17.6%

2.40 ¢/kg

Magazines and Catalogues

5.97 ¢/kg 6.19 ¢/kg -3.6%

7.02 ¢/kg

Telephone Books 6.03 ¢/kg 6.19 ¢/kg -2.6%

7.02 ¢/kg

Other Printed Paper 5.45 ¢/kg 6.19 ¢/kg -12.0%

7.02 ¢/kg

PACKAGING

Paper Based Packaging

Corrugated Cardboard 9.96 ¢/kg 10.52 ¢/kg -5.3%

11.43 ¢/kg

Boxboard 10.27 ¢/kg 10.52 ¢/kg -2.4%

11.43 ¢/kg

Gable Top Cartons 25.22 ¢/kg 31.31 ¢/kg -19.5%

27.60 ¢/kg

Paper Laminates 25.22 ¢/kg 31.31 ¢/kg -19.5%

27.60 ¢/kg

Aseptic Containers 25.22 ¢/kg 31.31 ¢/kg -19.5%

27.60 ¢/kg

Plastic Packaging PET Bottles 17.13 ¢/kg 20.33 ¢/kg -15.7%

19.82 ¢/kg

HDPE Bottles 15.93 ¢/kg 24.89 ¢/kg -36.0%

18.69 ¢/kg

Plastic Film 29.19 ¢/kg 34.99 ¢/kg -16.6%

34.08 ¢/kg

Polystyrene 31.72 ¢/kg 34.99 ¢/kg -9.3%

34.08 ¢/kg

Other Plastics 31.72 ¢/kg 34.99 ¢/kg -9.3%

34.08 ¢/kg

Plastic Laminates 31.72 ¢/kg 34.99 ¢/kg -9.3%

34.08 ¢/kg

Steel Packaging Steel Food & Beverage Cans

7.70 ¢/kg 10.89 ¢/kg -29.3%

9.55 ¢/kg

Steel Aerosols 6.68 ¢/kg 10.89 ¢/kg -38.7%

9.55 ¢/kg

Aluminum Packaging

Aluminum Food & Beverage Cans

-2.63 ¢/kg 1.01 ¢/kg -360.4%

-0.83 ¢/kg

Other Aluminum Packaging

9.99 ¢/kg 18.07 ¢/kg -44.7%

13.67 ¢/kg

Glass Packaging Glass 5.91 ¢/kg 5.77 ¢/kg 2.4%

6.57 ¢/kg


Section 4.4 – Multi-Material Stewardship Manitoba Fee Commentary

While the municipal obligation increased in Manitoba, the decision to draw down $1.5 M in surplus funds means fee rates will decline across the board for all materials, with the exception of glass.

Increased glass volume and the lift in its recycling rate increased its costs.

Aluminum and steel fees posted a substantial decline YOY largely due to much

improved revenue performance reported by the larger municipalities despite

operating in an environment where commodity markets overall were down.


Section 4.5 – Multi-Material British Columbia Fee Schedule

Category Material Fee rates

2014 (cents/ kg)

PRINTED PAPER

Printed Paper Newsprint 20.00 ¢/kg

Magazines and Catalogues

24.00 ¢/kg Telephone books

Other Printed Paper

PACKAGING

Paper Based Packaging Corrugated Cardboard 29.00 ¢/kg

Boxboard

Composite Paper Packaging Gable Top Cartons

52.00 ¢/kg Paper Laminates

Aseptic Containers

High Grade Plastics Packaging PET Bottles 31.00 ¢/kg

HDPE Bottles

Low Grade Plastics Packaging Plastic Film

54.00 ¢/kg Polystyrene

Other Plastics

Plastic Laminates Plastic Laminates 70.00 ¢/kg

Steel Packaging Steel 52.00 ¢/kg

Aluminum Packaging Aluminum Food & Milk Containers 45.00 ¢/kg

Other Aluminum Packaging

Glass Packaging Clear Glass 25.00 ¢/kg

Coloured Glass


Section 4.6 – Multi-Material British Columbia Fee Commentary

In BC for the first time, three categories of plastic packaging and two categories of

paper packaging were introduced--each priced in accordance with their recyclability.

The intention is to provide a clear signal that high performing materials attract a

lower fee than low performing (hard-to-recycle) materials. Directionally this

approach should be adopted in other jurisdictions in the future to reflect best

practices.


Part 5: Conclusion

CSSA, together with our family of stewardship organizations, looks forward to working

with and for our stewards to ensure that your extended producer responsibilities for

packaging and printed paper are effectively met regardless of how many provinces you

do business in. While CSSA’s journey has just begun we are confident that with our

stewards’ support we can transform Canadian businesses into world leaders in

responsible product stewardship by delivering sustainable cost efficient stewardship

programs on a national scale.

Contact Us

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us at [email protected] or

call 1-888-980-9549.

www.cssalliance.ca

www.multimaterialbc.c

a www.stewardshipmanitoba.org

www.stewardshipontario.ca

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.cssalliance.ca/

http://www.multimaterialbc.ca/

http://www.multimaterialbc.ca/

http://www.stewardshipmanitoba.org/

http://www.stewardshipontario.ca/

Date post:	12-Aug-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	nguyenkhanh
View:	214 times
Download:	0 times

Packaging & Printed Paper Programs across Canada: … · CSSA Annual Meeting for Stewards October,...

Documents