Re: [greenyes] Toronto; TIB track

[Helen Spiegelman <hspie@no.address>]

Helpful added info from Michele, to which I add the following comments in blue:

At 08:50 AM 2/13/2004, Michele Raymond wrote:
> Clarifications on Toronto and Ontario money:
>
> WDO is supposed to fund 50% of "net costs," including transport, 
> collection, marketing, everything

What this means is this: cities pay all the cost of disposal of products 
that are not collected in Blue Box/curbside programs PLUS 50% of the 
difference between total curbside program costs and what they would have 
paid for disposal of curbside materials ("diversion credit). This means 
that producers pay "a fraction of a fraction" of the total costs of 
managing their discards. The lion's share is paid by the public.


> That is not nothing' the the costs have doubled several times
>
> Moreover, Ontario has an inefficient system with 70 MRFs when it only 
> needs 20 I understand.
>
> Industry is being asked to pay for an inefficient system that REQUIRES all 
> cities over 5,000 to have a curbside program even if its NOT 
> efficient.  There is technically no limit on what cities can claim are 
> their "costs" though politically this will all go back to negotiation
>
> This system will cost industry about $150 million over two years., because 
> of set up costs to CALCULATE fees, and not counting the other 50% 
> government continues to foot

Effectively, producers are being forced to pay into the municipal system 
over which they have no control. Indeed, as Michele points out, there is no 
assurance to these producers that the programs provided by cities and towns 
are "efficient". In contrast, British Columbia's programs require the 
brand-owners (or their designates) to design an efficient system of their 
own choosing and deliver it, recovering ALL THE COSTS from consumers (or 
choosing to internalize those costs in the product price). Cities and towns 
are OUT OF THE LOOP if they so choose, freed up to focus their municipal 
programs around materials that are more appropriately managed through 
curbside collection -- e.g. yard trimmings, fibre...


> Industry s only power is that purse to push efficiency
>
> While it is true, the MORE they recycle, a material, the MORE industry is 
> CHARGED  (The WRONG incentive)

This is an inevitable consequence of industry taking on a responsibility 
that they have down-loaded onto the public and Mother Nature for a century. 
The way the incentive will work in a properly designed EPR program (which 
has yet to emerge, due in part to the precedent of DSD in Germany) is that 
the firms that devise the most efficient take-back and recycling systems 
win in the marketplace because they can provide their valued consumers with 
better (recycling) service at a lower cost than their competition.


> ALL packaging, even if it does NOT go into blue box, is being CHARGED 
> these complex fees.

I would think there are grounds here for the fillers to challenge the fees 
in court -- but we can be sure their lawyers are looking into that...


> There are many sides to this debate
>
> I dont like this system.  I dont recommend that other provinces initiate 
> -- if they MUST charge industry and cant TAX which is SIMPLE, then try the 
> European style system which gives industry a little more control.

"Tax" is not simple: it takes the funds and puts them out of reach of 
everyone! Michele and other observers of EPR should look at the BC system 
which gives industry control -- but with accountability to the public 
through reporting and requirement to submit business plans and have them 
approved. I'm not sure which "European" system Michele is thinking of - my 
impression is that there is no single "European" system.


> No system is perfect, and NO fee system will ever be totally fair.

Correct. But there is something inherently unfair about a "fee system" that 
is administered and imposed on all brand-owners by a monopoly (DSD/WDO -- 
or for that matter Encorp & Product Care in British Columbia!). What we 
need to get past in EPR is setting up industry "utilities" that have the 
dangerous power to tax businesses.


> This will be discussed at the Take it Back WEST conference, March 1-3, 
> near San Francisco
>
> Be there!!
>
> We have an affordable government track on March 3 that include the BIG 
> electronics debate!!


> Michele Raymond
> Publisher
> Recycling Laws International/ State Recycling Laws Update
> 5111 Berwyn Rd. Ste 115 College Park, MD 20740)
> 301/345-4237   Fax 345-4768
> http://www.raymond.com