Extended Producer Responsibility
Extended producer responsibility (EPR) is an environmental / economic policy approach in which producers of products and packaging bear responsibility for ensuring those products and packages are properly managed at the end of their life-cycle (OWMA, 2013).
Packaging and paper products (PPP) include all packaging and paper materials designated by provincial regulation as PPP. This may include both PPP generated by the residential and the business sectors (e.g., primary packaging, transport packaging, printed and non-printed paper). The current list of designated materials varies nationally; producers recommend working towards a harmonized national list of materials.
- Some jurisdictions have or are considering expanding this category to include packaging-like products (e.g., tin pie plates that may be sold as a package or a product) and single-use products (e.g., disposable cutlery), which often end up in the recycling stream.
Exciting news on the EPR file in Alberta! A motion was tabled and passed unanimously on October 26 with support from the government and opposition: Be it resolved that the Legislative Assembly urge the Government to examine the feasibility of implementing measures such as extended producer responsibility that balance the environmental and economic needs of Albertans. https://docs.assembly.ab.ca/LADDAR_files/docs/houserecords/vp/legislature_30/session_2/20201026_1200_01_vp.pdf
The RCA continues to be engaged and supportive of advancing EPR in the province and will share when we hear about next steps.
A number of recent reports have contributed to the advancement and awareness of EPR in Alberta.
- Usman Valiante, a senior policy analyst with Cardwell Grove Inc., has provided this response letter addressing statements, comments and recommendations in a review of the Environmental Law Center (Alberta) Society’s report released earlier in 2020 titled Extended Producer Responsibility: Designing the Regulatory Framework. Usman also provides policy design considerations for Alberta’s advancement of EPR for PPP.
- The Extended Producer Responsibility for Residential Packaging and Paper Products: Alberta Collaborative Extended Producer Responsibility Study released in March 2020 shows a compelling vision for extended producer responsibility (EPR) for residential packaging and paper products (PPP) with a made-in-Alberta solution. The Recycling Council of Alberta participated with the Alberta Collaborative Extended Producer Responsibility (ACES) Group, including municipal and producer representatives, to provide guidance and oversight on the report. For the full announcement visit: https://auma.ca/news/news-release-new-study-makes-strong-case-packaging-and-paper-extended-producer-responsibility-alberta. For the full report visit: https://recycle.ab.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/ACES-Summary-Report-Final-For-release-March-10-2020.pdf
More on EPR
EPR System Explanation
- Government (provincial, territorial or federal) must set a legal framework that requires producers to meet specific outcomes and enforce the law.
- Producers must finance, design, and implement a system to meet the outcomes set by law. Producers accept all risks and liability associated with the system.
- Municipalities can choose whether to provide service to the program or choose whether to allow producers to provide all program services.
In Canada, every province from Quebec west to British Columbia, except Alberta, has implemented some degree of producer funding for packaging and paper products and is benefitting from reduced taxpayer costs. British Columbia was the first to implement full EPR and is the model program in Canada.
When fully implemented, EPR shifts the costs and operational responsibilities for managing recycling systems from local governments to producers.
- Province-wide programs means every community should have an opportunity to recycle the same list of materials. Less material is littered and disposed of in landfill.
Local governments and taxpayers
- Unless they choose otherwise, local governments should be freed from planning, paying for, and implementing recycling systems, and from the consequences of fluctuating material markets.
- EPR for packaging and paper products (PPP) would save Alberta municipalities an estimated $65 to 70 million (i.e., the estimated current spend of Alberta municipalities on residential packaging and paper recycling programs).
- EPR for additional material streams could provide further municipal cost savings by eliminating municipally-subsidized recycling programs.
- Because Alberta is the only province west of Quebec without a producer funded PPP recycling program, and because the cost of producer funded PPP program recycling is built into products’ pricing at point-of-sale (i.e., no additional eco-fees are charged on PPP), and because large producers tend to price their products nationally or at least cross-provincially, this means that Alberta’s consumers pay for the cost of PPP recycling in other provinces in the price of their goods. This also means Alberta’s consumers could be paying ‘twice’ for the cost of recycling (at point-of-sale and at the curbside).
- Consumer confusion over ‘what can be recycled’ would be reduced. Province-wide recycling programs would enable the consumer to recycle the same list of materials where they live, work and play.
- EPR levels the playing field for producers. All producers have the same incentive to green their products and packaging. No competitive advantage based on status quo.
- Must meet regulated performance targets and standards (e.g., minimum recovery rates, minimum recycling rates, minimum program accessibility rates, definition of recycling).
- EPR provides producers the incentive and freedom to innovate. Producers can:
- Design and implement collection, processing and marketing systems that achieve efficiencies and economies of scale (regional, provincial, and even national) that are unattainable by individual municipalities.
- Innovate and implement recycling best practices and invest in new technologies to reduce costs and produce higher value recycled commodities.
- Reduce packaging that is not recyclable; improve packaging and product design; implement recycling best practices.
- EPR systems divert more material from landfill and littering through coordinated recycling systems creating a greater economic opportunity for service providers (e.g., processors, haulers).
- EPR systems for PPP across Canada have exempted small businesses (i.e., those that fall below a sales threshold) from paying into the system by law or practice.
Optimal Legal Framework for EPR
- The regulation should create a modern, enforceable, outcomes-based framework that requires producers to meet specific performance requirements (e.g., targets, and standards).
- The EPR system’s governance structure should enable full EPR.
- Producers should have maximum ability to self-organize their system, including their program’s governance structure.
- A statutory regulatory authority should hold producers accountable to regulated outcomes and seek input from affected stakeholders on system performance as part of its oversight processes.
- Regulated outcomes should, at a minimum, include evolving targets for: collection, recycling (including material specific); recovery (for material that can be recovered but not recycled), accessibility, coverage, service, and reporting.
- There should be regulated consequences for not meeting targets, e.g., required contributions to litter clean-ups, investment funds for local recycling initiatives.
- The definition of designated materials should include all packaging and paper products, regardless of source.
- This would ensure that businesses in small communities that currently receive municipally offered PPP recycling services continue to receive service.
- Phased implementation with defined dates could be considered.
- The definition of producer should be harmonized nationally, wherever possible, to ensure the greatest harmonization and least administrative burden for producers. This helps keep administrative costs low.
- A Small Business Exemption should be applied and harmonized nationally, wherever possible. This helps keeps administrative costs low for producers and small and medium sized businesses.
- Municipalities should be offered ‘first right of refusal’ to continue local collection and education. This will provide municipalities with time to assess the ‘new EPR world’ options, exit any collection or processing contracts to avoid breach of contract, and avoid or manage any potentially stranded assets.
- Other prescriptive measures should be avoided. Producers should have maximum flexibility to creatively achieve government-defined outcomes to enable maximum system and packaging innovation (e.g., some businesses may switch to return-to-retail or refillables, which could have better environmental outcomes).
 OWMA, 2013. Extended Producer Responsibility Policy Paper. Available at: https://www.owma.org/articles/extended-producer-responsibility-policy-paper Retrieved August 18, 2020.