Extended Producer ResponsibilityDialogue IIIStrategy for Packaging EPRMeeting OverviewPew Charitable TrustsWashington, DCD...
Group Vision     We envision an approach to recycling that will: Advance energy independence while fighting climate chang...
The Objective―To implement a strategy to develop and promote modelmulti-material packaging and printed paper EPR policy in...
Core (Policy) Principles To be economically, politically, and environmentally viable, EPR          policy needs to reflect...
Goals       Preliminary goals include (but not limited to):1. Policy must meet the three core principles: cost   internali...
ProcessThe group favors: An action-oriented process focused on implementation   ‒ Potential of pilot programs or individu...
State Overview                Data Foundation: Paul Gardner’s state analysis▪ FOUR PRIORITY STATES IDENTIFIED: Maryland, N...
National StrategyKey comments from discussion: Advance state strategies while keeping in mind national goals Be mindful ...
Key Takeaways Draft a ―model‖ or ―standard‖ bill, including definitions, and a  brief white paper developing the case for...
Group Next Steps1.    Future 500-led team will draft a “model” bill along with fact sheets      developing case for EPR to...
Appendix     THE FUTURE 500 | (415) 294-7775 | www.future500.org
EPR Dialogue III is the third inner-circle meeting with a widerset of stakeholder participants. The meeting was convened t...
Group Work to Date: 2011In-Person Meetings EPR Dialogue I – New York, 6/16 EPR Dialogue II – Atlanta, 8/24 EPR Dialogue...
Discussion Notes:Policy Options for EPR Legislation                  THE FUTURE 500 | (415) 294-7775 | www.future500.org
“Standard” FeaturesIssue 1: Producers pay 100% of EPR costs through material fees   ‒ Text revision: Add ―and have managem...
“Standard” FeaturesIssue 1: Producers pay 100% of EPR costs through material fees                          (Cont…)  ‒ Mess...
“Standard” FeaturesIssue 2: Authorize creation of a stewardship organization  ‒ Discussion on one or multiple organization...
“Standard” FeaturesIssue 3: Producers internalize costs  ‒ Retailers: Huge need for cost transparency      The increase i...
“Pick One” FeaturesIssue 1: Prohibit sale of non-compliance brands unless first  importers can be responsible for those br...
“Pick One” FeaturesIssue 2: Measure recovery at curb OR measure recycling that exits the MRFs  ‒ This is a quality control...
“Pick One” FeaturesIssue 3: State sets recycling goals by commodity OR state sets oneoverall recycling goal?‒ VT legislati...
Due to time constraints, these issues were not    discussed in depth:Standard Features Issue 4: Require small payment by ...
Key Concluding Comments Good discussion and lively, constructive sharing of ideas. Very high-  level conversation. Size ...
Key Concluding Comments (cont.) We need to establish a strategy: game theory political and industry  obstacles, define ou...
San Francisco – Tokyo – Beijing335 Powell Street, San Francisco, CA 94102    (415) 294-7775 www.future500.org             ...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

EPR Summit III Overview

736 views

Published on

We envision an approach to recycling that will:

* Advance energy independence
* Help free us from oil addiction
* Create jobs and profits
* Grow domestic manufacturing
* Fight climate change
* Respond to the changing fiscal climate
* Internalize environmental costs –
* Privatize costs, not just subsidize them with public $

Published in: Business, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
736
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
268
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
9
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

EPR Summit III Overview

  1. 1. Extended Producer ResponsibilityDialogue IIIStrategy for Packaging EPRMeeting OverviewPew Charitable TrustsWashington, DCDecember 1, 2011 THE FUTURE 500 | (415) 294-7775 | www.future500.org
  2. 2. Group Vision We envision an approach to recycling that will: Advance energy independence while fighting climate change  Reduce overall volume of waste generated  Help free us from oil addiction  Foster innovation in packaging  Grow domestic manufacturing, creating jobs and profits  Increase domestic/local availability of recycled material for manufacturing sector  Respond to the changing fiscal climate  Lower municipal costs and shift burden off taxpayers  Internalize environmental costs – to privatize costs, not just subsidize them with public $ THE FUTURE 500 | (415) 294-7775 | www.future500.org
  3. 3. The Objective―To implement a strategy to develop and promote modelmulti-material packaging and printed paper EPR policy innon-deposit states that will increase the volume ofrecyclables collected in a more economically-efficientmanner” THE FUTURE 500 | (415) 294-7775 | www.future500.org
  4. 4. Core (Policy) Principles To be economically, politically, and environmentally viable, EPR policy needs to reflect three shared principles:1. Internalize Costs — When pollution and waste costs are externalized, pollution and waste increases. But when the costs are internalized, businesses and consumers implement the most cost-effective means of achieving the desired outcomes.2. Brand Owner Financing — Because brand owners make front-end design decisions, they are best positioned to pay the external costs, and have the best opportunity and incentive to reduce them.3. Brand Owner Management — Government may set the performance standards, monitor progress and create a level playing field for EPR, but brand owners are best positioned to design and manage the program to achieve those goals. THE FUTURE 500 | (415) 294-7775 | www.future500.org
  5. 5. Goals Preliminary goals include (but not limited to):1. Policy must meet the three core principles: cost internalization, brand-owner financing, and brand-owner management.2. Address packaging and printed paper. Need mechanisms to build markets for recyclable materials that currently don’t have markets.3. Achieve high rates and quality, to meet the needs of the materials sector: aluminum (75%), glass, plastic, and paper.4. Closed loop system – keep enough volume in domestic market to serve as raw materials for new packaging. THE FUTURE 500 | (415) 294-7775 | www.future500.org
  6. 6. ProcessThe group favors: An action-oriented process focused on implementation ‒ Potential of pilot programs or individual producer responsibility to test EPR for companies – eliminate fear of unknown Outcomes that provide benefits to all stakeholders ‒ We must make a strong business case ‒ Sort out top-line environmental and public benefits Draft state-specific legislation using group-produced ―standard‖ or ―model‖ bill Focus on improving recycling systems and ratesKey barriers: Need more research to prove benefits in order to convince those on the fence ‒ Modeling benefits and costs could aid outreach Streamline efforts in this space to optimize gains ‒ Clarity on terminology & basics of EPR for whole group THE FUTURE 500 | (415) 294-7775 | www.future500.org
  7. 7. State Overview Data Foundation: Paul Gardner’s state analysis▪ FOUR PRIORITY STATES IDENTIFIED: Maryland, North Carolina, Washington, Minnesota. BEGAN W/SIX PROSPECTIVE STATES: Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Washington. FILTERED TO PRIORITY STATES FOR FURTHER RESEARCH: -Pennsylvania was eliminated due to focus on fracking -New Jersey put on the back burner for now because we have a good set of states above, and there are no known local ―heavy lifters‖ interested in advancing EPR OTHER STATES TO CONSIDER: Rhode Island and Delaware THE FUTURE 500 | (415) 294-7775 | www.future500.org
  8. 8. National StrategyKey comments from discussion: Advance state strategies while keeping in mind national goals Be mindful of working with local stakeholders: transparent process with organic stakeholder support Push for EPR at the right time, in the right state Must be replicable in other states Proposed state legislative working group Shouldn’t take our eye off of what is happening in Vermont Lengthy discussion on Voluntary Producer Responsibility (VPR)/pilot programs in states ‒ Could demonstrate how this would work to business ‒ Help to relationship build at the local level ‒ Bottomline: Means to an end - Pilot/VPR programs can be very helpful, but not the purpose of this discussion.Proposed Timeline:2012: Education, Pilots, study-generating bills/hearings, possible legislation2013-2014: Legislation + State-led Campaigns2015: Materials can begin to flow THE FUTURE 500 | (415) 294-7775 | www.future500.org
  9. 9. Key Takeaways Draft a ―model‖ or ―standard‖ bill, including definitions, and a brief white paper developing the case for EPR EPR can reduce net disposal costs, and some of the savings will accrue to businesses – we need to minimize as much as possible burden on brand owners Explore how we can test EPR and develop a strategic timeline Continue to engage brand owners and other strategic stakeholders, and to seek commitments to the coalition along with funds and resources Outreach for funds and resources Strategic project sub-groups to report back to broader group at next meeting THE FUTURE 500 | (415) 294-7775 | www.future500.org
  10. 10. Group Next Steps1. Future 500-led team will draft a “model” bill along with fact sheets developing case for EPR to business, govt and individuals2. Develop research agenda - Evidence of cost-savings to taxpayers from existing programs? - What combination of state laws and/or other aggressive recovery strategies will it take to get to national 60%/70%/80% packaging recovery rates and maximize economic value - Harmonizing of policies - Identify EPR best practice cases: Potential lessons from existing systems (esp. Canadian) - In target states: identify system improvements needed along with likely capital and operating costs and benefits3. Identify issue-focused working groups: messaging, research, outreach, legislative, others? -Goals/deliverables -Participant roles and responsibilities & timeline4. Conference call/webinar5. Plan Dialogue IV, location TBD6. Identify if and when to invite other strategic members THE FUTURE 500 | (415) 294-7775 | www.future500.org
  11. 11. Appendix THE FUTURE 500 | (415) 294-7775 | www.future500.org
  12. 12. EPR Dialogue III is the third inner-circle meeting with a widerset of stakeholder participants. The meeting was convened to further develop: Vision Objective Goals Core Principles EPR Legislation/Policy Platform National Strategy Next Steps THE FUTURE 500 | (415) 294-7775 | www.future500.org
  13. 13. Group Work to Date: 2011In-Person Meetings EPR Dialogue I – New York, 6/16 EPR Dialogue II – Atlanta, 8/24 EPR Dialogue III – DC, 12/1Calls EPR Teleconference -3/23 Policy Webinar – 10/18 State Webinar – 10/20----------------------------------Our group is unique in that we are:1. Highly transparent2. Goal: state legislation3. Bottom up, not top down approach THE FUTURE 500 | (415) 294-7775 | www.future500.org
  14. 14. Discussion Notes:Policy Options for EPR Legislation THE FUTURE 500 | (415) 294-7775 | www.future500.org
  15. 15. “Standard” FeaturesIssue 1: Producers pay 100% of EPR costs through material fees ‒ Text revision: Add ―and have management responsibility‖ ‒ Explicitly incorporate net recycling costs – not just disposal. ‒ Clarify that the Packaging Recovery Organization (PRO) is not going to own the commodity. It’s a reimbursement system. ‒ No micro-management by state gov’t – selling point. ‒ Costs vs. fees: How do we determine the net costs? -- Each material is looked at separately (example: Ontario) ‒ Standards: Under full responsibility, the performance standards must be met by the service provider, set by the private sector – program design should address quality control (lower fees for cleaner materials) while getting politics out of pricing. ‒ Boundary Definition: household versus commercial/industrial obligations? Household typically gets more buy-in (revisit in teleconference). THE FUTURE 500 | (415) 294-7775 | www.future500.org
  16. 16. “Standard” FeaturesIssue 1: Producers pay 100% of EPR costs through material fees (Cont…) ‒ Messaging: How do we sell this to companies who didn’t pay at all and now your asking them to pay 100%? We must translate this language into the language that will appeal to them—i.e., CONTROL is the key. ‒ Heterogeneity: How are community values taken in to account? ‒ Markets: Many localities are worried that we are creating material to be manufactured abroad. ‒ Long-term: Are we talking about reconfiguring how the collection actually happens? ‒ Innovation: System must be adaptable, allowing for new materials. THE FUTURE 500 | (415) 294-7775 | www.future500.org
  17. 17. “Standard” FeaturesIssue 2: Authorize creation of a stewardship organization ‒ Discussion on one or multiple organizations  Let the producers decide (generally agreed)  Case for multiple: We don’t want to stifle innovation  Case against multiple: Extra bureaucracy, increase against free riders, competitive systems cause difficulties, less efficient  If multiple, set basic principles up front (similar to EU) ‒ Time limits: reauthorization after a number of years. ‒ Independent Producer Responsibility: need to be able to incorporate this. ‒ Guidelines/Timelines: Require stakeholder input at all stages ‒ Statutory versus stewardship planning organization. ‒ Harmonization: with existing systems at retailer level THE FUTURE 500 | (415) 294-7775 | www.future500.org
  18. 18. “Standard” FeaturesIssue 3: Producers internalize costs ‒ Retailers: Huge need for cost transparency  The increase in price can be seen as the transparency. Free market principles must include life-cycle costs of product. ‒ Labeling: mandatory versus voluntary.  Retailers should retain the right to publish fees associated with EPR. ‒ Internalization: Effort of calculating the fee on every register is impossible and retailers will flip out. ‒ Value of visible fees: tells the consumer what they are being charged for—that generates dialogue among stakeholders.  Government officials prefer to have it invisible ‒ Concern that this becomes a regressive tax: must convince citizens how this reduces costs they bear for municipal services ‒ Distinction between end of life fee and costs – cost is precise term. ‒ Preference for materials that are already well-recycled? Exemptions? THE FUTURE 500 | (415) 294-7775 | www.future500.org
  19. 19. “Pick One” FeaturesIssue 1: Prohibit sale of non-compliance brands unless first importers can be responsible for those brands (note: text change) ‒ Easier on the retailer: should help with alliance building ‒ If no brand owner in the state, then falls to first importer ‒ Enforcement: Some sort of registration requirement ‒ Once you become a steward, you are good across the system ‒ The state agency should retain oversight responsibility ‒ Defective goods: foreign manufacturers issue  Need legal help on this—who owns waste? Commerce clause issues/anti-trust issues. This needs to be addressed at a higher level (teleconference agenda).  Any Constitutional issues must be addressed as well THE FUTURE 500 | (415) 294-7775 | www.future500.org
  20. 20. “Pick One” FeaturesIssue 2: Measure recovery at curb OR measure recycling that exits the MRFs ‒ This is a quality control issue ‒ States like California have diversion goals. If you’re diverting, you’re land filling. We need recyclability. Collection vs. recycling?  Measure this post-Materials Recovery Facility so you know where it goes. ‒ Let the state make the recycling goal—must match state policies. ‒ Members of the TPOs are the highest payers—they are inherently interested in improving value once parameters are set ‒ Correlation between quality and cost. In Canada, recycling rates are built in, ie there is a defined economic incentive. Incentives built in to the fee structure = greater recycling and quality. ‒ Definitions and terminology must be ironed out ‒ If you want industry buy in, you have to convince them that they are going to get more, clean material. THE FUTURE 500 | (415) 294-7775 | www.future500.org
  21. 21. “Pick One” FeaturesIssue 3: State sets recycling goals by commodity OR state sets oneoverall recycling goal?‒ VT legislation has an overall goal‒ Overall recycling goals contribute to the recycling to other things with a better overall profile. Generates environmental benefits.‒ Minimum/maximum recycling targets embedded in definition‒ If you set the fees correctly, you get the recycling goals  Does this change design/what is put on the market?‒ Commodity by commodity would be difficult for the state to set, but are important.‒ Fee for the things not recycled – can iron out details later.  Some products just shouldn’t be recycled‒ Container issue—cost is drastically different from int’l and nat’lIssue 4: Specify covered products in statute OR specify coveredproducts at agency level‒ What are our definitions/parameters of packaging and printed paper THE FUTURE 500 | (415) 294-7775 | www.future500.org
  22. 22. Due to time constraints, these issues were not discussed in depth:Standard Features Issue 4: Require small payment by consortium to state to administer program – administration fee Issue 5: Impose penalties for producers that do not participateOptional Features Permit anti-trust exemption among producers for EPR Addressing public sector for stranded assets Ban disposal of recyclables after system set up Compensate public sector for stranded assets by grandfathering in existing contracts at time of implementation Require consultation process with producers & other stakeholders Standards of service: Options 1-7 in Menu of Options handout *These items will be discussed in smaller working groups or on a group webinar THE FUTURE 500 | (415) 294-7775 | www.future500.org
  23. 23. Key Concluding Comments Good discussion and lively, constructive sharing of ideas. Very high- level conversation. Size of the group: -Not enough ―key players‖ – retailers and consumer package goods companies (CPGs) -Need to be transparent and open the group up to others -This is too big to be a working group -Could serve as an advisory panel Streamline the process: Don’t reinvent the wheel -Need more expertise in the room on niche issues -State-specific shallow dives with data that does exist -Use already existing on the ground knowledge We NEED to get to legislation. Bridging that gap between what we’re saying and what it looks like on paper Honest discussion of where each member stands, what are their issues and what are the obstacles (Buy-in from people in the room) Let’s not lose sight of the environmental benefits to EPR, this puts us on the offensive THE FUTURE 500 | (415) 294-7775 | www.future500.org
  24. 24. Key Concluding Comments (cont.) We need to establish a strategy: game theory political and industry obstacles, define our path going forward. We need a timeline: model legislation in hand can motivate some laggards. Urgent Need: messaging for business and state benefits case -States need numbers, figures, defined modeling. Avoid over-promising to companies, allow them to be constructive participants Action-oriented approach separates our group from others Next stage requires more data on how EPR works in practice. This requires funding. Who will step up? Outreach -Smaller team should splinter off and work on pitches to targeted groups: mills, manufacturers, CPGs, grocers -Must be targeted: pick a state, find the proper coalition -Also labor groups’ benefits: how do we talk to workers about the issue? THE FUTURE 500 | (415) 294-7775 | www.future500.org
  25. 25. San Francisco – Tokyo – Beijing335 Powell Street, San Francisco, CA 94102 (415) 294-7775 www.future500.org THE FUTURE 500 | (415) 294-7775 | www.future500.org

×