What is EPR?
In the U.S., Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) is a legislative strategy designed to promote the integration of environmental costs associated with goods throughout their life cycles into the market price of the products. The goal of EPR programs is to relieve local governments of the cost and burden of “end-of-life management” for “priority products” by forcing manufacturers to internalize recycling costs within the product price.
EPR can be expressed as state policy through:
· Specific product legislation
· Framework legislation
· Governor’s directive
· Solid Waste Management Plan
State and local governments continue to pursue legislation imposing product and packaging fees and “take back” measures in an attempt to divert waste from landfills.
The First EPR Programs
Triggered by a critical shortage of landfill space in 1991, Germany passed the world’s first EPR law that specifically addressed packaging. The Packaging Ordinance, as they termed it, held manufacturers financially responsible for their product’s packaging waste. Since then, in stores where their products are sold, German manufacturers are required to provide consumers with free recycling bins for their packaging waste.
In 1991, Germany also set up the Duales System Deutschland (DSD), or “dual system,” in which producers pay fees to license a “green dot” symbol to print on their packaging. DSD then collects and sorts all discarded “green dot” packages and redirects them to recyclers.
DSD licensing fees, which are used to subsidize the costs for packaging collection, sorting, and recycling, are based on the package’s weight, material type (paperboard, plastic, tin, glass, etc.), and the volume of product produced per annum. Because they are the most easily recycled materials, glass and paper-based substrates are charged the lowest fees while plastic and metal are charged the highest. EPR policies have also been adopted in 23 European nations as well as in Canada, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Australia, and New Zealand.
The first products to be impacted by EPR mandates in the U.S. were batteries in 1991. Since then, 32 states have enacted at least one EPR law, mostly including the collection and disposal of toxic and hazardous materials, such as used automobile switches, paint, carpet, thermostats, and fluorescent lamps.
In 2011, 13 states introduced 17 pieces of EPR legislation focused on paper and paper-based packaging. These bills include product stewardship studies, framework legislation, landfill bans, and product-specific legislation. The goals of the proposed legislation are to place the “end of life” responsibility on the manufacturer as a way to pay for the disposal or recovery of the targeted materials.
What Should I Be Concerned About?
According to research conducted in 2010 by R.W. Beck on behalf of AF&PA, 87 percent of Americans have access to community paper and paperboard recycling programs. In 2010, 63.5 percent of the paper used in the U.S. was recovered for recycling—that’s 334 pounds for every man, woman, and child. Paper recovery has increased 77 percent since 1990, making it a true environmental success story. As a result of these large strides in recycling, paper being sent to landfills is estimated to have declined by approximately 50 percent since 1990, the year when the paper industry first began benchmarking its recovery goals.
Because paper and paper-based packaging has become one of the many targets of EPR legislation, it is important to address EPR policies and mandates at the local, state, and federal levels to communicate the paper and paper-based packaging industry’s well-established sustainability record and the success of existing recovery and recycling programs.
What We Believe
We support voluntary paper and paper-based packaging recovery efforts and seek to improve upon the existing recovery and recycling programs in the United States. However, government-imposed fees unnecessarily increase costs for consumers, are regressive in nature, and create distortions in the free flow of recoverable commodities. Obligating the manufacturer to assume all costs associated with managing waste from its products—or requiring the manufacturer to take back all of its products and packaging introduced into the commerce stream—is impracticable.
Rather, in order to promote waste reduction we believe market forces should guide paper and paper-based packaging recycling and recovery systems. We also think that EPR mandates will place businesses at a comparative disadvantage relative to domestic and foreign competitors by making them pay more for packaged intermediate products.
What Can I Do?
Submit letters to the editor or op-ed pieces to local newspapers and trade journals to remind community leaders about the sustainable nature of our industry, as well as the negative effects that EPR may have on your business. Remind them that 87 percent of the U.S. population has access to curbside or drop-off paper and paperboard recycling programs and that the Federal Trade Commission has authorized packaging companies to use a recyclable logo on most paperboard packaging as a way to encourage consumers to recycle their used packaging. Finally, reiterate the paper industry’s environmental success story in the U.S.
If EPR legislation is introduced in your state or local community, contact your legislators to point out that any EPR legislation that includes paper and paper-based packaging has the potential to be economically damaging to your business. Explain that market forces should determine where recycled materials should go and respectfully request that paper and paper-based packaging be exempted from the proposed EPR legislation. Suggest that further support be provided to our existing voluntary community recycling programs.
For more info on PPC’s recyclable logo for paper-based packaging, visit www.ppcnet.org/recyclable.