J. Pack. Sci. Tech. Vol. 12 No.6 (2003)

IPS '03 招待講演論文

Global Package Recycling Mandates
Cost or Opportunity?
Michele RAYMOND*
Recycling policies worldwide are having an impact on the design of packaging. While mostAmerican manufacturers see recycling policies as a "compliance" issue which costs themmoney, a few savvy companies are finding that if they do their homework on regulations, anduse current technologies available, they can reduce their costs, as well as achieve company
environmental goals. In fact in some cases, "producer responsibility" or EPR laws for
packaging have inspired companies to push the limits for source reduction.

This paper I will review:・ What's new with package recycling policies worldwide
・ Effects of producer responsibility laws in Europe
・ Case histories from major US and British firms on environmental packaging
・ U. S. versus European, Japanese approaches

U.

S.

BackgroundIn the early 1990's, packaging -- especially plastic packaging - was under attack in the U. S.
There were hundreds of state bills introduced that would have banned or required "rates anddates" for packaging. Under special attack were plastic bags because of marine issues and litter- they did not degrade - and retail polystyrene (PS) foam.
When the dust cleared in 1994, manufacturers had managed to defeat all but a few laws. Whatremained were a few degradable bag laws, which were later repealed, a number of city level PS
foam recycling mandates. Oregon, California and Wisconsin did enact recycled content
mandates on rigid plastic packaging (RPCs). However, Wisconsin did not enforce its law, andOregon never had to because industry always met the required 25% recycling rate (deposits________________________________________________________________________________________*Raymond Communications, Inc., 5111 Berwyn Rd. #115, College Park, MD 20740 USA michele@raymond.com- 3 2 7 -

Global Package Recycling Mandates : Cost or Opportunity?

enabled this). The attacks did affect use of certain plastic resins - namely polyvinyl chloride
andpolystyrene.

California is the only state which ended up enforcing its recycled content mandate 1) , because
until 2002, industry did not meet the required 25% recycling rate. The law requires use of 25%
postconsumer recycled content in RPCs 8 ounces to one gallon - or 10% source reduction or
make the container reusable. The state has tried to certify about 1,500 manufacturers, andcontinues to struggle with smaller firms this year. We note that the state has not tried to
enforce this law on any foreign manufacturer - we presume they would have some GATT
problems.

Meanwhile - EPR Laws Pass Around the Globe (but NOT in the US)
So as the legislation died down, U. S. manufacturers lost interest in environmental packaging
issues. Meanwhile, Germany enacted its famous packaging ordinance in 1991. This remains
the most stringent and most expensive takeback system in the world. It is one of the few that
requires direct takeback from manufacturers - government is not involved with collection. The
packaging directive was enacted in Europe (1994) and the European manufacturers foundthemselves saddled with a $15 billion takeback system in 25 countries. Most Americancompanies preferred to relegate compliance with the European laws - and their pesky fees - totheir distributors or European managers. The fees and policies vary widely from country tocountry.
Today, there are takeback laws for packaging in 31 countries, including Canada. There are
packaging collection fee systems in more than 25 countries, including Asia. As the Ascension
countries move to gain acceptance to the European Union, the Eastern European countries arealso adopting laws with fees and collection organizations.
Taiwan, Korea and soon China have very different package recycling laws, which they are
expanding this year.

Plastics Under Attack Again...
But lets get back to the U. S. for now.
Today, there are about 9,000 curbside recycling programs in the U. S. We are recycling about
22% of our municipal solid waste (MSW), including much commercial waste, (excluding
composting). Our MSW is dwarfed by our construction and demolition waste, and ourindustrial waste - but those are not sexy issues in the U.S.

- 3 2 8 -

J. Pa ck. Sci. Te ch. Vol. 12 No. 6 ( 2 003 )Recycling legislation has become more of a hot issue in North American this year, for two
r e a s o n s :1. General Frustration - Plastic resin producers have mismanaged the issue in the U. S., andhave abandoned their 25% recycling goal for all plastics. Producers gave up trying to run
recycling plants themselves, and there is no coordinated national program. Beveragemakers remain staunchly opposed to any bottle deposit legislation to improve the PET
collection rates. States are frustrated they are not achieving recycling goals (only 11 areachieving goals) - and at least in California, plastics are under attack again. Plastic bag
restrictions in Ireland and Taiwan seem to be inspiring governments around the world tolook at plastic bags as well. The marine issue is arising again, and California activists wanta fee on disposable cups and bags !
2.

Canadian Provincial Laws: Ontario enacted Bill 90, and Quebec passed a similar law.
These laws allow the Province to require takeback of just about anything, and for industry
to reimburse local governments to 50% of their costs of curbside recycling programs. This
will be the first time North American manufacturers will have to track and weigh the
packaging to pay fees. This is also the first time extended producer responsibility will be
enforced on a Provincial level, as opposed to a national level The implementation of thelaw has become quite convoluted, and the big brandowners that supported the legislation
are now up in arms. Industry portion of the curbside bill is now expected to zoom to about$60 million (CDN) by 2005. (See table in Appendix)

No Place to Export?
The big focus in the U. S. is currently on electronics waste - there are now 52 bills in thehoppers of 26 states on this subject. There has been major press on the topic, and local
governments are pressuring state lawmakers to pass electronics waste takeback laws - they
don't want to pay for collection or recycling.
However, interest in this topic has not stopped California activists from keeping the pressure on
plastic packaging.
Moreover, an expose on poor working conditions of family enterprises in China who
disassemble electronics waste is having a global impact on policy, which will be affecting
packaging as well. To wit :1. New draft amendments to the packaging directive in Europe include provisions that
disallow exports to count towards recycling rates unless the exporter can prove thatworking conditions in the receiving country are comparable to Europe- 3 2 9 -

Global Package Recycling Mandates : Cost or Opportunity?

2. China is passing new regulations that not only require EPR on electronics, but they haveadded plastic packaging to the list ! 2 )Deposits and CashTen states currently have deposit programs - only California and Maine have expanded lawsthat cover most beverages. Hawaii recently adopted a new deposit law, somewhat similar to
California's. California has a government-run system, and charges beverage makers extra forusing glass and plastics. The law is being updated this year again to provide an incentive forcompanies to use PET or HDPE instead of less recycled plastics; and to increase the deposit
amount.
Nearly all Canadian Provinces except Ontario have bottle deposits - most of them expanded toinclude even aseptic and milk jugs. Unlike the American systems, the Canadian beveragemakers cooperate with each other on joint systems, which keeps their costs at less than half of
the U. S. per container 3 ) .
This year, local and state governments are strapped for cash, as the economy sags. Thus it is
not surprising that there are 70 bottle deposit bills in state hoppers. Few bills will makeprogress, as the beverage industry will do what it takes to defeat such measures. Not
surprisingly, a number of states are raiding their unclaimed deposit funds to make up for budget
deficits. In good times, the beverage industry is sometimes forced to subsidize other recycling
programs. In bad times, that money goes into the general fund.

Europe : Hanging on to Refillables?
While major beverage makers have managed to kill small refillable packaging systems in the
U.S., brewers and other bottlers outside the U. S. have retained their refillables systems. The
Ontario Canada brewers try to compete with US giants by various fees and voluntary deposit
systems. The 1,200 brewers in Germany went farther - and now keeping them happy will becosting consumers dearly. The refillables quota of 72% , (for all beverages except milk)required under Germany's 1991 packaging ordinance, has not been met. Last year there were
100 lawsuits over whether the government could institute mandatory deposits on one-way
containers, required under this law. The situation made your press here. When industry lostthe battle, no one was prepared, so there is no national clearinghouse for one-way deposits, andconsumer must return beverages to the same store to redeem !
According to a presentation from reverse vending machine maker Tomra at Take it Back! 2003,- 3 3 0 -

J. Pack. Sci. Tech. Vol. 12 No.6 (2003)

4the new one-way deposit system will run about Euros 4 billion through it. That's on top of
about $2 billion spent on the dual system (DSD). Germany is one of the few countries in which
manufacturers must ensure separate collection for all sales packaging - government has nofinancial responsibility.
There is also now one-way deposits in Denmark, - to replace the old can ban. But it seems thatthe marking requirements are so onerous, importers are just as discouraged. The Netherlands
may have to institute one-way deposits in 2005 if litter mandates are not met by industry.
The German situation, which has cost jobs in packaging, is drawing attention throughout thecontinent, as there is much opposition to one-way deposits.
As you know, the EC is debating amendments to the packaging directive that will push therecycling goals up even higher - to about 55% by the end of 2006. This will probably force
collection organizations to raise their fees to importers, as countries will have to collect about
39% more material5).

Please note that the amendments will push the European countries to enforce the "essential
requirements." This is one set of paperwork you cannot delegate- it must be done where thepackage is designed. You are supposed to assess each package as to its recyclability orcompostability or burnability, etc. Currently only the UK, France and the Czech Republic6)
are enforcing this. CEN just recently finalized amended packaging standards for the ER, which
we expect to be approved by the European Commission in 20047)

ASIA : Adding to Mandates
CHINA : As we indicated above, China is attempting to crack down on illegal enterprises, andthe government has announced it will require EPR on electronics, but it somehow added "nonferrous metals" and "plastic packaging and containers" the preliminary list. It will probably
legislate packaging separately from electronics later this year.
TAIWAN : Taiwan's government has announced it will expand the list of packaging that it
included in its EPR scheme - which involves paying fees to a central fund. Taiwan has alsobanned various plastic bags - which has cost thousands of jobs - and has indicated it will also
restrict disposable food packaging later in 2003. Taiwan also requires packaging reductionplans for electronics products. The EPA recently announced it was cracking down ontransboundary movements of waste as well.
KOREA : Korea's government plans to expand its list of packaging subject to takeback for June
2003. This country also has empty space and layer restrictions, as well as restrctions on PVC- 3 3 1 -Global Package Recycling Mandates : Cost or Opportunity?

wraps and PS foam packaging, including transport packaging. Enforcement is uneven- andsome companies are just paying extra fees on the EPS. However, fast food places havevoluntarily started charging a deposit on disposable cups.
The Philippines has the authority to ban packaging, but has not used it so far. Most other
Asian countries are trying to improve recycling, but do not want to upset large manufacturers
because they want to continue attracting foreign investment so no fee systems are expected
packaging any time soon.

Wood Packaging : Beetles Under Attack

The U. S. has a serious pest infestation problem from the Asian Longhorn
beetle. It has destroyed thousands of trees in New York , Illinois as well as
parts of Canada. We now require any wood packaging coming in from
China/Hong Kong, etc. to be properly fumigated or heat treated for pests.
A number of countries, including Australia, Argentina and Finland haveadopted their own import regulations, and the European Union now also
requires such treatment. While the IPPC has adopted new international
standards for all wood packaging on a global basis, there was a copyrightproblem with the proposed "NO Beetle" graphic in the U.S., so the graphic
at right was agreed to last spring.
The USDA issued a draft regulation to adopt the IPPC standard in late May.
American companies must now have all coniferous raw wood packaging forexport be treated, inspected and stamped. Heat treatment for coniferous wood is 56C for 30
minutes or chemical treatment. Chemical pressure treatment has not been approved by theinternational standards committees, and renders the pallet non-recyclable. Methyl bromide is
the least expensive treatment.

Green Labeling : Not VoluntaryMore than 20 nations now require some sort of labeling requirements for various packaging.
For example, in 39 U. S. states you are supposed to have the SPI plastic resin code on thebottom of the bottle for containers 8 ounces and up, molded in. The code differs slightly in the
U. S. from that used in Europe. For example, we use PETE in the U. S. instead of PET
because of a copyright issue. We also use V for PVC instead of PVC.
Of late, marking for Asian countries is getting more complex. In addition to the newly- 3 3 2 -

J. Pack. Sri. Tech. Vol. 12 No.6 (2003)

required recyclable plastics and paper markings in Japan, South Korea now requires you to put
yet a different symbol, with the appropriate resin abbreviation in the middle, with the words"separate, please" in Korean below it. Taiwan continues to require the four arrow symbol on
certain packages.
The U. S. states are also passing mercury restrictions - there are about 65 bills in state hoppers
this session. A number of states require mercury product labeling. While these labeling laws
differ from each other slightly, it appears the states are deferring to the Vermont labeling law,and regional enforcement for Northeast states. Vermont also requires a labeling plan on someproducts. Al told, there are restrictions on mercury in 19 states.

Effects of EPR Systems

Reporters frequently ask me : Do these EPR laws in Europe work?
The answers are not simple. There is no perfect EPR law out there. The European EPR laws
for packaging are expensive, and the amendments will cost billions of Euros more. One
consultant estimates the current system is now costing industry about $15 billion in Europe
alone.
First of all, there hasn't been much real enforcement of the current packaging takeback laws in
Europe, except for about five countries. It is up to the collection organization to go out andfind "free riders" and get them to pay. I suspect many importers are simply avoiding any
compliance when they can. Too many companies are relying on their distributors to guarantee
compliance.
Even though the EC has not gotten around to studying if the packaging directive has actually
helped the environment, studies from the trade group ASSURE indicate the laws have indeed
reduced packaging put on the market, or at least slowed its growth in many countries.
According to ASSURE :・ Packaging consumption declined 10% in Germany (1991 ~ 1998)
・ Consumption declined 12% in the Netherlands (1986 - 1998)
・ 18% reduction in Sweden (1993 -1999)
・ Packaging waste declined up to 35% in some countries
However, ASSURE says that packaging consumption started to increase again between 1997
and 1998. We note that between 1990 and 1995, packaging consumption in the US increased
13%, despite source reduction efforts.
In terms of recycling, we know that Europe is obviously recovering more packaging than the
U.S. , though it is difficult to get accurate figures because of differences between how material is- 3 3 3 -

Global Package Recycling Mandates : Cost or Opportunity?

collected, and which countries count what. Overall, European countries said they wererecycling about 47% of packaging in 1997, including 8% recovery of plastics. At that time theU. S. was recycling about 38% of packaging - we note with NO EPR mandates - and about
13% of plastic containers8). We can only refer to containers in the U.S., because we don't
really recycle other plastic packaging, such as yogurt cups, blisters, etc. A number of European
countries do try to recycle all packaging, including aseptic and blisters. By now I am sureEurope is surpassing the US in collection of plastic packaging, though much of it still gets
exported to Asia, like Western bottle scrap in the U. S.
So, it appears that the takeback laws have had a definite impact on the amount of packaging
used in Europe. Even though consumption is going back up, industry sources say this isbecause the population is growing. What is clear is that the laws have affected per capita growthin packaging use.
Two other positive aspects of European packaging laws :1. They have provided a stable funding mechanism for recycling of consumer packaging. In
many countries, recyclers are guaranteed enough funds to continue operations even whenmarkets are very poor. Moreover, in many cases, municipalities receive subsidies from thecollection organizations to help them fund collection systems, without the politicaldifficulty of raising taxes. In the U. S., local governments use property taxes to fundrecycling in most cases (though about 2,000 use pay-per-can systems) and when budgets get
tight, local governments will try to cut back on recycling. Recyclers and cities are at themercy of commodities markets, so there are recycler bankruptcies in bad times.
2. European collection organizations must educate the public on recycling, at a national level.
In the U. S., local governments are supposed to educate, and each program is collecting
different commodities, so there are few opportunities for industry to help educate even if it
wants to. Cities have little budget for education.
On the negative side, there is no incentive for anyone to actually use recycled material inproducts or packaging - except perhaps the fee system in France9). Thus, much of the plastic
material is shipped to Asian markets, as is the case in the U. S.
The problem is that some countries laws are a bit extreme - eg. Germany, and no one hasreally studied the true cost to industry. Moreover, no one has actually determined theenvironmental benefit from the packaging directive - the EC has not gotten to it.

How Companies are Coping

As there have been no EPR mandates in the U.S., the driving force for American designers has- 3 3 4 -

J.Pack.Sci. Tech. Vol. 12 No.6 (2003)

been only marketing and cost. Since the mid-1990's, there has been little pressure from thepublic or legislation to make packaging more environmentally friendly. In fact, you cannot
even use the word "environmentally friendly" in the U. S. on a package under Federal Trade
Commission guidelines. It is considered too vague.
Moreover, since most U. S. companies
delegate responsibility for calculating
package recycling fees to European
distributors, there has been little effecton design that I can tell.
However, in some cases, it may be just^as well. American companies continue
to make new designs in plastic. Plastics
fees are ten limes as high as paper inmany parts of Europe. There was atrend to use more paper dunnage - evenin Japan - and use of more heavy paper packaging.
My customer at Hewlett-Packard complained that when they sell through a particular Japanesecompany in Japan, they must switch from EPS cushioning to paper, which is very expensive.
The paper suppliers claim that some of the packaging fee systems discriminate against paper.
On the other hand, the new draft Ontario Canada packaging fees end up favoring packages thatare recycled less. (EG plastics) because the fees must be based on "fee for service." Thus, theless your material is recycled, the less you pay ! (See table in appendix)
From a transport and lifecycle standpoint, I am not convinced it makes sense to use paper for
everything, especially if there are recovery systems in the country for the plastic version.
In the U. S., from a design standpoint, we see a trend to make packaging more clear - eg.
moving from shadow boxes to all clear plastic. The cosmetics and beverage industries are
discovering shrink sleeves because they add high color and major shelf presence. The shrink
sleeves, even if they are not in PVC, tends to reduce recyclability of the package.
Even though the cosmetics industry pays some of the highest recycling fees in the world, we
have not seen the recycling issue or fees having much impact on sales packaging design. In fact,cosmetic makers want a heavier package at times, to give the feeling of value - or disguise howlittle product is in the bottle! One of the leaders, Estee Lauder, spends $3 million per year on
package recycling fees alone. A bit ironically, while Estee spends millions to be in exact
compliance with all recycling and labeling laws, its closest competitors do not even track theissue from headquarters in the U. S. !

- 3 3 5 -

Global Package Recy cling Mandates : Cost or Opportunity

The trend to clear packaging is even reaching theelectronics sector. For example, HP has introduced a
new clear PET printer package this fall. (Weunderstand it flopped in the U. S. but is going well inEurope.) The company designed a special sealing
system that enables re-closure. They also plan to use
10~25% postconsumer recycled content in the newmega-clamshell. Obviously, this is was not a costsaving move, but a bold attempt to gain market share and stand out. However, the company isconfident the package is recyclable.
We find that companies are making very small reductions in sales packaging to save money.
For example, Wrigley's saved $300,000/year by reducing foil and paper thicknesses on its little
blisters, and its switched to a PVDC layer. (See photo opposite)
We note that companies that do understand fee systems in Europe can save good money withrather subtle changes. For example, when you are using a laminate that includes paper, you
can reduce your Germany fees 90% if you can get the non-paper layers to 5% or less. That is
because Germany charges packaging as a laminate if the layers are more than 5% of the weight.

Transport Packaging

The biggest transport packaging case history we have seen in the U. S. was John Deere tractor
company. They invested $20 million to switch to reusable crates on supplies coming in andmost product going out, and created their own reverse logistics system. The payback was justtwo years10).
Most U. S. plants have moved to reusable crates inside the plant, though Johnson and Johnson
has been able to use reusable crates moving parts between its plants internationally.
More recently, Wrigley's saved about $1 million per year by switching from a white heavy
carton for its gum to a natural kraft, lighter weight box.11 HP is eliminating case lots all
together for shipping in product to the U. S. Products are just stretch wrapped on a pallet.
The company gets major savings by putting the sales packaging on in the U. S.
One barrier to further reductions in the U. S. is the policies of the American retailers. Eachretailer seems to have its own requirements, so manufacturers must make different case lots.
The warehouse stores want your case lot to turn into a display! For example, we observed caselots of locks - two going into a corrugated box ! A Wal-Mart requirement, to reduce labor.
Why shrink wrap could not be used puzzled me.

- 3 3 6 -

J.Pack.Sci. Tech. Vol.12 No.6 (2003)

Another unique barrier to takeback is that one company has patented a transport packaging
takeback system using third party refurbishers in the U. S. Thus, if you want to use this system
you must use of the licensees. Since there are no packaging mandates, big companies have not
moved to invalidate this patent.

Intranet Use

Companies in the U. S. are increasingly turning to sophisticated software tools to re-thinklogistics, design packaging on the web, share bid specs and other data between plants. We seethat Boots, the UK's largest drug store chain, is using its intranet to ensure its packaging
managers throughout the world understand various country requirements. (See Boots slides inAppendix)12)Centralizing Packaging Data

Another trend for a few savvy Fortune 500 companies is to centralize their packaging data toensure the best compliance with all packaging laws worldwide. It takes a while to gather all of
this data if you have thousands of SKUs. However, long-term this concept gives you greater
control, not only over your packaging fees but packaging costs. H. J. Heinz UK saves about$150,000 per year in labor by using the Pack.NET software from Foresite Systems Ltd. The
company plans on expanding its use to its other European divisions. A major photo products
maker in the U. S. has centralized its packaging data, replacing several unwieldy databases,
using Pack. NET. They saved about $100,000 in one month, as they were overpaying their feesin Europe.
Once your data is under control, you can do powerful "if-then" calculations to determine if aparticular packaging change will save you on fees. But it will also give you ideas on how to
reduce packaging costs on a global basis. As with most new software, Pack. NET is also webbased, to be used by managers worldwide with a browser.
We note that the retailers are taking a closer look at their packaging in the UK because of a
convoluted and complex packaging waste law that requires retailers to pay fees. Whilegathering the packaging data and calculating was initially a major cost, the retailers are now
finding that knowing the weights of their packaging - and others - will enable them to save bigmoney.
For example, the UK's largest retailer, Tesco is using the Foresite database of 1.5 million
packages to compare the weights of its on-brand packaging with all competitors weights. It- 3 3 7 -

Global Package Recycling Mandates : Cost or Opportunity?

found that, for example, all tuna cans, wine bottles, bread wraps, soda bottles and many others
are not equal. This data will enable Tesco to embark upon a major source-reduction program,which the company says will save it about $30 million per year in materials! If this is true,
Tesco will have the largest source reduction program in the Western hemisphere.

Comparing Approaches

It is very difficult to tell if Americans or Japanese companies are doing more to source reduce
their packaging. Japanese electronics companies (the only sector we studied) are verytransparent in their environmental reports, so we know exactly what they are doing and what
they are saving. Sharing this information helps other companies. American companies tend to
put less data and more public relations in their environmental reports.
It does appear from the reports that Japanese companies are having an easier time using
recycled materials when they set their mind to it. Since the U. S. is spread out geographically,and has no central EPR law driving the issue, companies that want to use recycled content havea difficult time getting quality and quantity they want, at a decent price.

O u t l o o k

As of this writing, the European Parliament has approved more stringent recycling goals 55%
by only 2008, and it has strengthened the heavy metals ban in packaging. In addition, it put
back in a proposal for the EC to study a "Packaging Environmental Indicator" This would
require companies to do lifecycle analysis - in addition to the "Essential Requirements."
The current trend is to require more "due diligence" on your packaging - you have check yourentire supply chain to prove there are no toxics, and to ensure it is recyclable or burnable, etc.
We expect the packaging fee systems top expand to more countries with EU expansion, and forexisting fees to increase with amendments to the packaging directive.
The EU has done little to provide an incentive for use of recycled content, and to makecompliance easier for smaller companies. (For example, there could be a pan-European
clearinghouse for fees.)
About 99% of U. S. State government recycling managers we surveyed favor an EPR
approach. It does look like we will have EPR for electronics, (in addition to the existing
system for rechargeable batteries) in the U. S., but no one knows if the electronics system will
be piecemeal or national.
If Ontario Canada is successful in continuing is "reimbursement" approach, this could set a very

- 3 3 8 -

J.Pack.Sci. Tech. Vol.12 No.6 (2003)

dangerous precedent for other parts of North America. Remember, local governments in the
U. S. are currently strapped for cash. There is no telling if some sort of EPR for packaging will
start to look better to the U. S. states in the near future.
The American companies have been taken by surprise with the Canadian developments. I
strongly recommend you follow these regulatory trends globally, as you can see they will impact
your designs.
Long term, it will make sense to look for ways in which to utilize your plastic packaging andelectronics, and even leaded glass scrap in new replacements for lumber in construction, marineand decking applications. Both the U. S. and Europe have moved against use ofpentachlorophenol and copper chromium arsenate for treating lumber. We need to find new
ways to make these wood replacements cost-effectively. Perhaps with its shortage of naturalwood, and culture of cooperation, Japan would be in a position to become a world leader inwood replacements - from old packaging !

- 3 3 9 -

Global Package Recycling Mandates : Cost or Opportunity?

APPENDIX
Ontario Vs. a European Producer Responsibility System for Packaging

Ontario Proposed
EuropeMostly financial - raise $30 million (CDN) – to Recycling Goals – Required under PKG$60 mill ion by 2005 to subsidiz e 50% of directive eg: 25% recycling of all PKG; no lesscurbside "Blue Box" program costs
than 15% each material; To increase underamendments. Countries vary a bit in specificrequirements of collection orgs
Jurisdiction
Provincial level law
All EPR laws in Europe. Asia are nationalQ u e b e c h a s a u t h o r i z a t i o n a s w e l l a n d i s (exception Belgium, but there are agreements
expected to copy system; Education will be to make collection org. national Education
Provincial level
done nationally
Who Manages What L o c a l g o v e r n m e n t h a n d l e s a l l c o l l e c t i o n , Germany, Austria - industry handles ALL;s e p a r a t i o n , m a r k e t i n g ; e a c h m a y c o l l e c t o t h e r c o u n t r i e s s h a r e d . Go v t . c o l l e c t s ,different items; too many MRF's. Industry org separates. Industry eonsortium(s)then lakes(Stewardship Ontario) to collect money; do over; contracts with haulers or sub-orgs to
public education; divvy money to local govts; ensure recovery; handles public education.
do market development
Little market development except DSD in
Germany. Government not involved in market
development.
Fees($2 mill CDN sales exemption) Fees must
No financial goals - industry programs expand
reach financial goal; de-minimus means if not as they are able to get to many players toenough is raised one year to meet fin. Goal,
collect
fees go up among larger payers to make up
Fees arc set by collection org- based on cost todifference! Fees based on complex formula
collect per kg. Plastics fees arc 5~10 times
must reflect "cost of service" so if yourhigher than paper. If new collection org; does
material is not recycled in many cities, yournot get enough members first few years,
fees arc lower. Thus pla stic s fees areexisting members are not necessarily
relatively lower" than they would be in a
penalized with very high fees
European system. Paper industry feels this iswrong. The more that's recycled, the more youpay!
SubsidiesThis is a subsidy. Industry docs not actually Many collection orgs. Provide top-up fees torun any recycling and has little control over local governments to help offset recycling
what is recycled by cities !
collection costs. They vary! Many are designed
to even out markets for recvclers.
Administrative Details SO must deal politically with what all the Collection Org. sets what its payments will be;municipalities think are their "costs.
completes various contracts with cities.
Curbside mandates
A l l c i t i e s o v e r 5 , 0 0 0 M U S T d o c u r b s i d e Curbside NOT as common in Europe, no city is
whether its efficient or not!! So industry must mandated to do curbsidt
s u b s i d i z e s o me t i me s i n e f f i c i e n t c o l l ec t i o nsystemPhase In New Systems No real phase in time
Usually given 12~24 months
Enforcement
S O h a s a f e w m o n t h s t o f i n d 5 , 0 0 0 Collection orgs stuck doing most of their own
manufacturers = ! Ministry allocated some of enforcement; Governments of UK, France.
funds for enforcement.
Czech Republic, Austria; some Nordic
countries trying to enforce
Materials Used
Cities want to keep $11 million (CDN) income Very little aluminum used - steel low value sofrom aluminum!! Not much alum, income in this is not an issue. Governments apparently
Quebec because of bottle deposit.
don't WANT to market materials !
GOALS- 3 4 0 -

J.Pack.Sci. Tech. Vol.12 No.6 (2003)

Incentives for cities; SO will pay city 50% what it feels is "average" If the overall cost to recycle your material per
manufacturers
cost. No incentive for packagers to improve kg is reduced, the collection org will reduce
recyclability of their package !! More its the fee for that material. Less recycledmaterials carry much higher fees, France
recycled, the higher the fee!!
No incentive to use recycled packaging gives a discount for use of recycled content!
material.
Otherwise, no real incentive to use recycledmaterial.
Paper EPR
Mandate includes paper fliers, mailings, No other country or local government attempts
manuals, inserts, etc. companies must also to require fees on paper inserts. There areweigh and pay fees on inserts. This adds voluntary agreements on use of recyclednewsprint in a few countries; inclusion ofanother layer of complexity.
printed paper in many collections systems, but
no EPR fees we know of.

REFERENCES :Most material from Recycling Laws International, State Recycling Laws Update, personalcommunications with the author. See http://www.raymond.com
Packaging fee calculations noted are from Environmental Packaging International
Fee software case histories are based on interviews with Foresite System Ltd. UK customers,
for research for an article to be published in Packaging World Magazine.
See http://www.foresite.org
1) SB 235, 1991 required that unless industry met a 25% overall recycling rate for RPCs in thestate, then all RPCs had to meet one of three standards: contain 25% postconsumer
recycled content; source-reduce 10% over 1990 levels or be reusable - in the home is OK.
Law amended to exclude food, beverage, cosmetics from standards but not from counting
the recycling rate.
2) Imports of plastics and electronics continue to get through to Chinese plants, however.
Hong Kong is currently trying to crack down but...
3) Unfortunately, no U. S. study has ever looked at Canadian deposit systems. Americans
frequently ignore Canadian activities.
4) See Proceedings, Take It Back ! 2003, from Raymond Communications; available at
http://www.raymond.com
5) ASSURE statements
6) Note that the Czech Republic requires retailers to keep records for ER compliance - very
unusual - so manufacturers are now being asked for proof of compliance at import. Thishas caused many more U. S. firms to start looking at whether they are complying withrecycling laws.

- 3 4 1 -Global Package Recycling Mandates : Cost or Opportunity ?

7) Communication with David Perchard, who serves on CEN committee
8) US EPA figures; European figures from EC reports
9) Ecoemballages allows a discount on its collection fees when you use recycled material in
the packaging. It also charges more if you introduce a new package for which there is nocollection system in place.
10) Transportation Packaging and the Environment 1997, from Raymond Communications
I n c .
11) Presentation from Wrigley's at Take It Back ! 2002, Las Vegas Nevada March 2002
12) Presentation from Andrew Jenkins, Boots PLC, UK, at Take It back! 2003, RaymondCommunications See examples in Appendix.

- 3 4 2 -