packaging & printed paper programs across canada: … · cssa annual meeting for stewards...
TRANSCRIPT
Packaging & Printed Paper Programs across Canada: Look Back & Look Forward
Annual Steward Meeting
October 31, 2013
Version 2
CSSA Annual Meeting for Stewards October, 2013 2
4
Part 1: Canadian Stewardship Services Alliance—Beginning the
Journey Towards Harmonization
Businesses participating in Packaging and Printed Paper (PPP) programs across Canada (also
known as “Blue Box” programs) have been advocating for a simpler way to interact with
stewardship programs for the better part of a decade.
As provincial governments regulated new PPP programs in different provinces the business
community responded by creating a number of stand-alone provincial stewardship
organizations (SO (Ontario)—2003; EEQ (Quebec)—2005; MMSM (Manitoba)—2010) resulting
in duplication of administrative investments and a lack of coordination and sharing of best
practices across provincial jurisdictions. The fragmentation of data and management systems
also interfered with the ability to systematically identify cost drivers and scale up efforts to
manage or oversee reverse supply chains for PPP consistently over a broader geography.
Ultimately, this arrangement has led to higher costs and a fragmented experience for Canadian
consumers whose recycling services differ markedly from one province to another and from
one municipality to another.
In the fall of 2012, Canadian Stewardship
Services Alliance (CSSA) was formed to begin
the process of harmonizing PPP programs
across the country and to arrest the
development of new stand-alone
organizations in provinces that were at the
early stages of issuing regulations. CSSA is a
national, non-profit organization, founded by
leading retailers and manufacturers, bringing
together key players to achieve better
recycling performance. We’re industry-led
and industry-funded, working on behalf of
Canadian businesses that participate in stewardship programs, as well as partnering with
provincial stewardship organizations, provincial governments, local governments and waste
management companies to provide recycling and waste management services, and leading
CSSA Annual Meeting for Stewards October, 2013 3
expertise to nearly 20 million Canadians. We are proud to include the following members of
our family of recycling organizations managed under one administrative umbrella.
We expect this family to grow as other provinces such as Alberta and Nova Scotia (together
with the other Atlantic provinces) begin to consider new extended producer responsibility
regulatory frameworks for packaging and printed paper.
For our stewards (sometimes known as “producers”) CSSA aims to deliver a seamless,
administratively harmonized service to make it easy and convenient to discharge your PPP
obligations regardless of how many provinces you do business in.
2013 marked the first step in the journey to
deliver a One Window approach to registration
and reporting for stewards. CSSA assumed
responsibility for the WeRecycle portal and
enabled it for use by stewards reporting for
MMBC. 2014 will see the further
enhancement of this single system to
incorporate SO, MMSM, and MMSW
registration, reporting and invoice payment.
The fragmentation of data and management
systems was successfully arrested. Our
national stewardship services centre stands
ready to assist you with any question you may have regarding any of the PPP programs we
administer.
We are also standardizing a number of stewardship program features providing for a common
definition of who is an obligated party, a national list of PPP materials, consistent reporting,
invoicing and audit processes. By introducing national standards and developing national
benchmarks to measure program performance, we will be in a better position to control
steward fees and costs into the future.
Completing the administrative harmonization process will take time and there are a number of
areas where we see opportunities for future improvement. We look forward to engaging with
stewards and learning more from you about what makes an optimal stewardship services
experience.
Onewindow• Singlerepor ngandpaymentportal
• CommonDefini ons
• Na onalListofMaterials
• Na onalStandardBenchmarks
• ANa onalVoice
HARMONIZINGADMINISTRATIVEFUNCTIONS
CSSA Annual Meeting for Stewards October, 2013 4
On the legislative and regulatory front--harmonization is more complex and arguably, a bigger
prize to achieving some of the results we seek. We will work with provincial governments to
ensure that regulatory frameworks are harmonized to the greatest extent possible and we will
advocate for core issues in all legislative frameworks. Provincial and local governments can be
confident that we will develop program plans that are consistent across the country in order to
promote predictability and stability for all our stewards, consumers and government
stakeholders. As a national organization with a perspective that spans provincial borders, CSSA
aspires to stimulate a different dialogue, and offer non-partisan, evidence-based perspectives
on the design of programs, the nature and scope of regulatory incentives to deliver desired
policy outcomes, and the best ways for engaging the consumer to maximize participation and
support.
CSSA Annual Meeting for Stewards October, 2013 5
Part 2: A Consolidated View of CSSA's Family of Recycling
Programs
2.1 Program Performance Measurement
Measuring program performance consistently across jurisdictions is an important aspect of
CSSA’s harmonization scope. To set a first year (Y1) benchmark, CSSA has selected a core suite
of indicators that are intended to provide a snapshot of how PPP programs are performing
from an environmental, operational, consumer accessibility and financial perspective. The
purpose of such a “scorecard” is to:
• Allow each program to track and improve performance over time
• Facilitate comparisons and benchmarking between jurisdictions
• Demonstrate and communicate accountability for performance to stewards, regulators
& other stakeholders
• Feed systems for learning—within CSSA as well as the broader stakeholder community.
The initial suite of performance indicators were chosen on the basis of the following five
principles:
1. Representative of Performance – The indicator conveys something meaningful about the
program’s performance. It is responsive to change and within the program’s capacity to
influence over time. (Note: In the case of municipally managed supply chains for PPP
(Ontario/ Manitoba/ Quebec/ Saskatchewan in the future) where industry does not have
control over materials captured in each municipality, the ability to influence collection
performance may not be under industry’s control.)
2. Easily communicated to and understood by stakeholders – The indicator is intuitive to
understand and easily communicated to stakeholders.
3. Data accessibility and reliability – The indicator should be based on data that is feasible
for the program to collect, maintain and report with accuracy. Data must be amenable
to independent verification by a third party. Where estimates are used they should be
clearly stated. Because estimates produced through modeling techniques cannot be
independently reviewed and verified, they should be used only sparingly and under
highly controlled circumstances. For example, during program development where
CSSA Annual Meeting for Stewards October, 2013 6
there is little or no data to inform Y1 budgets or collection estimates, data from other
provinces is often modeled on a pro rata basis. Both the Manitoba and BC program
plans and budgets were modeled in some cases using available provincial data or using
data from Ontario. In Saskatchewan where a PPP program plan has been recently
submitted, Manitoba data has been used to model the initial baseline.
4. Cost effectiveness – The indicator should be cost effective to collect and report.
5. Comparability across programs – The indicator should facilitate comparisons across
programs and with other jurisdictions.
The initial comparative indicators for CSSA’s family of PPP stewardship organizations comprise
the following:
Operational/environmental indicators – seek to characterize program performance
based on recycling rates and collection volumes of PPP diverted from landfill.
Material generated or supplied
Material recycled
Percentage of material recycled & variance to provincial target
kgs recycled / capita
Consumer accessibility indicators – to describe the ease or convenience associated with
collection and recycling.
% households with access to PPP recycling
Consumer awareness indicators – measures, often obtained through public surveys to
characterize program success in terms of public awareness and engagement.
% population aware of recycling program
Promotion & Education expenditures/capita
Financial indicators – reflecting program performance in financial terms, including costs
associated with collection, transportation, processing, public education and program
management.
Total program costs/tonne (net of commodity revenues)
Program management costs as a percentage of net costs
CSSA Annual Meeting for Stewards October, 2013 7
2.2 – Program Performance: Operational/Environmental/Consumer Accessibility
An initial baseline comparison based on the above indicators is provided below to initiate a
dialogue about differences and similarities between PPP programs. Note that programs range
in maturity from Stewardship Ontario’s Blue Box program (with almost a decade of data that is
subject to regular third party authentication) to MMBC’s program that has not yet launched
and whose performance is projected based on limited provincial data supplemented by
modelling (the least preferred method to generate data but a legitimate starting point for
programs out-of-the-gate).
Our objective is to note differences in performance, provide explanations where data is
available to support them and suggest possible hypotheses in cases where data is as yet,
inconclusive or incomplete.
Table 1: Recycling and Accessibility Program Performance
CSSA Annual Meeting for Stewards October, 2013 8
Ontario: Stewardship Ontario’s program is maturing and entering its 10th year, and while
recycling performance remains ahead of target, there appears to have been a year over year
decline in the overall recycling rate. A few possible explanations in order of probability are
offered below and will be subject to further analysis; namely:
Trend toward lighter-weight packaging that is less recyclable. PPP recycling indicators
are weight based. As highly recycled (and heavy-weight) printed paper decline in
relative proportion to less well recycled materials like light-weight plastics, the overall
recycling rate will decline (until such time as the recycling rate of plastics improves to
levels approaching printed paper). Newspapers that make up the bulk of the printed
paper category by weight continue to diminish in size as digitization replaces physical
formats. The prevalence of printed paper with recycling rates approximating 80% has
declined by almost 58,000 tonnes over the last decade, while plastics generation with a
much more modest recycling rate of 27% has increased by almost 36,000 tonnes over
the same period.
Consumer Participation. A decline in consumer participation is unlikely as consumer
awareness about the Blue Box system remains high in Ontario at 100% and promotion &
education expenditures have also risen. Newspaper campaigns have recently been
stepped up to encourage residents to place more plastics such as clam shells into their
Blue Boxes to offset what appears to be either a declining or levelling off of the recycling
rate and to generate feedstock for plastics recycling. This trend will be closely watched
especially given that there is a very small margin before the recycling rate falls below
the mandated provincial target of 60%.
Manitoba: As the newest and smallest program entering its third year, Manitoba experienced a
year over year increase to the overall recycling rate based on a greater number of tonnes being
recycled against a lower number of tonnes generated which, like Ontario, was likely caused by
a shift to lighter material and declining amounts of newsprint. Manitoba continues to operate
under its first program plan which is due to be refreshed and resubmitted in 2015.
British Columbia: MMBC’s program will not launch until 2014 therefore performance is
projected based on limited data sample gathered in 2010 and 2011 from municipalities and
processors during the preparation of the MMBC stewardship program plan. Performance may
differ significantly from these projections once actual material tonnage is reported as part of
the requirement imposed by contracts with collectors and processors. True performance will
begin to reveal itself once the program launches in May 2014.
CSSA Annual Meeting for Stewards October, 2013 9
Of note, is the projection that MMBC will achieve its 75% recycling target during the first
year of program operations. MMBC has various methods of controlling the amount of
PPP that it procures on behalf of its steward members, and will enter into collection
agreements for up to 75% of the PPP that its members have reported as supplied into
the marketplace. There is both upside and downside risk to this approach as collection
contracts are based on estimates of household kgs to be collected from each local
government with whom MMBC has chosen to contract. Should MMBC’s household
estimates be over-stated, the program may fall below its recycling target and vice versa.
Based on current projections, MMBC expects to achieve its recycling target by providing
78% of BC households with access to recycling services—coverage that is 15%-17% less
than what is provided in Manitoba and Ontario respectively. As more stewards join our
plan increasing the reported tonnage supplied, MMBC will be able to buy more PPP
tonnes from collectors and expand its accessibility to greater numbers of BC
households.
BC lags behind both Ontario and Manitoba in kilograms of PPP recycled per capita based
on the above results. However, BC has a comprehensive beverage container deposit
program that includes all beverage categories. (Ontario by comparison has a deposit
program only for beer bottles and LCBO wine bottles while in Manitoba only beer is on
deposit.) The estimated low recovery rates of PPP per capita in BC are discounted for
materials that are on deposit. According to Encorp Pacific’s 2012 Annual Report, 19.1 kg
per capita of beverage containers were collected through BC’s network of 171 depots.
The combination of Encorp’s performance and MMBC’s expected performance in 2014
would put BC’s recycled kg per capita on par with Ontario’s.
CSSA Annual Meeting for Stewards October, 2013 10
2.3 – Program Performance: Financial
The following section is a comparison of each stewardship program’s full system cost,
normalized for BC to represent a full calendar year. Ontario’s and Manitoba’s system costs for
2012 is shown in the chart next to their respective 2011 system costs for comparison purposes.
Table 2: Financial Program Performance
Ontario
The net cost of the Blue Box recycling system increased some 24.6% or $48M from 2011
to 2012 principally for the following reasons:
o Depressed commodity revenues. Ontario Municipalities reported $36M less
revenue for 2012 than for 2011. Commodity market prices for post-consumer
PPP were down significantly in 2012 driven largely by setbacks in the global
economy that depressed demand for fibres, metals and petroleum—key PPP
components for packaging. Recyclables typically receive much lower revenues
when the price of virgin materials decline as they did beginning in Q2 2012 in
response to a major slowdown in the economies of emerging countries. The
commodity composite index fell 31% from 2011 ($169/te) to 2012 ($118/te). It is
also trending downward in 2013 although not as pronounced as the previous
year. (Note: It is difficult to pinpoint with precision the effect of commodity
decreases on Blue Box system costs because individual municipalities have varying
commodity revenue-sharing arrangements with their processors affecting how
gross costs and revenues are realized and reported. Driving consistency in the
CSSA Annual Meeting for Stewards October, 2013 11
reporting of costs and revenue results is a subject of dialogue with municipalities
and will result in consistent comparisons once achieved.
o Year over year gross cost increases of $12M in municipal costs. While the overall
increase is in line with broad economic indicators (such as CPI and fuel index), the
increase can be specifically attributed to municipal costs.
Comparatively, Ontario’s Blue Box program is generally a more expensive program than
Manitoba’s, on both a per tonne (by 10%) and a per capita basis (by 27%). Ontario
accepts more material than Manitoba in its recycling program (largely a greater variety
of plastics) and is recycling 9 kg more per capita. These PPP materials fall in the more
expensive to recycle material categories.
Program management costs in Ontario as a % of total system net costs have decreased
YOY primarily as a result of the cost synergies associated with joining the CSSA group of
managed companies.
Manitoba
Costs per tonne were up in Manitoba by 3.8% due to softer commodity markets—the
same trend impacting Ontario as noted above.
Manitoba’s comparatively lower cost per tonne may be due to the fact that its recycling
rate falls below that of Ontario and current BC projections. It is possible that costs per
tonne may increase as recycling performance increases—especially if that performance
is driven by harder to recycle materials.
Program management cost as a percentage of total cost (13.8%) is higher than other
provinces as is to be expected when a financially modest program like Manitoba is
required to carry certain fixed administrative expenses in order to comply with the
requirements of its stewardship program plan.
British Columbia
The BC program is projected to be the highest cost per tonne program in the CSSA
family of recycling programs with net cost per tonne projected to be 67% higher than
Ontario. It is likely that there are many variables contributing to higher costs, including
the loss of aluminum and PET revenues from beverage container deposits as well as
lower recycling per capita which means that household collection costs are spread over
a smaller base of materials. Geography and topography challenges such mountains and
islands, and the need to provide service to low density areas all add complexities and
cost to the supply chain. Data gathering over the next several years will be geared
CSSA Annual Meeting for Stewards October, 2013 12
towards understanding both the causal and multivariate effects of these multiple factors
on recycling costs.
CSSA Annual Meeting for Stewards October, 2013 13
Part 3 – Steward Obligation & Comparative Fees
3.1 – Full or Partial EPR Obligations Determine Steward Obligation
Each recycling program carries a different financial obligation depending upon whether it is
deemed in legislation to be a full or partial Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) Program.
Ontario stewards must transfer up to 50% of the net costs of recycling to Ontario municipalities
as per the requirements of the Waste Diversion Act, while Manitoba stewards are required to
transfer up to 80% of net costs of municipal recycling as per the requirements of the Packaging
and Printed Paper Stewardship Regulation and Guidelines. In the partial EPR provinces,
municipalities operate or contract for recycling services for PPP while SO and MMSM perform
an audit and due diligence function in the computation and vetting of supply chain costs.
British Columbia on the other hand is a full EPR program where stewards will pay 100% of the
costs for recycling their materials. Under a full EPR business model, MMBC contracts for
recycling services directly with a variety of supply partners including local governments,
processors, transporters and depots. Differences in EPR obligations result in significant fee
variances from one province to another making it difficult to compare fees on an apples-to-
apples basis.
The total steward obligation for 2014 across all three CSSA programs is $199.5 million. While
the 2014 steward obligation for Quebec is not known at this time, it was approximately $120
million in 2013. Assuming Quebec’s costs remain stable for next year, PPP stewards in Canada
will pay upward of $320 million towards recycling programs in 2014. It is worth noting that in
transfer payment jurisdictions (Ontario/Manitoba), stewards are paying for costs already
incurred in the past. Fees in these provinces are set on a known cost base. In the case of BC,
where industry will manage the supply chain for PPP in “real time”, costs are estimated for the
future year. Stewards are paying for projected costs.
3.2 – Program Cost Components & Steward Obligation
In addition to supply chain costs (collection, transportation, processing), all stewardship
programs incur program management and promotion & education costs. In the case of BC, the
2014 obligation also includes one-time set up costs for program plan development and working
capital accumulation. The following section is a comparison of each EPR’s cost components for
2014.
CSSA Annual Meeting for Stewards October, 2013 14
Table 3: Steward Obligation by Province
Ontario Steward Obligation
Despite having a 50% shared responsibility with the municipalities the Ontario steward
obligation is the largest of all CSSA programs.
Ontario’s 2014 steward obligation will decrease by 3.1% YOY. Stewardship Ontario’s
negotiation with municipalities to determine the final 2014 obligation is still underway.
The 2014 share of supply chain costs have not yet been confirmed. In the event that the
negotiations result in a higher obligation, SO will cover any additional costs with
program reserves.
Direct program management costs have decreased year over year from $6.3m in 2013 to
$4.9m in 2014 largely due to benefits from harmonized back office functions with other
provincial PPP programs.
Manitoba Steward Obligation
The Manitoba supply chain obligation has increased by 3%, which is generally in line
with economic indicators such as CPI and fuel prices.
CSSA Annual Meeting for Stewards October, 2013 15
Despite increased cost obligations to municipalities, MMSM’s steward obligation
decreased by approximately 10% YOY due to its drawdown of program accumulated
surplus.
British Columbia Steward Obligation
MMBC is the first true EPR program for PPP in Canada. Industry is required to pay the
full cost for contract managing a full reverse supply chain for PPP. As May 2014 is the
start of MMBC supply chain operations, the 2014 obligation includes 7.5 months of
supply chain costs.
The supply chain cost of $55.5 million reflects the cost of collecting and processing 75%
of the PPP tonnage reported by MMBC members.
Included in the 2014 fees, are one-time charges for i) program start-up; and ii) working
capital accumulation.
3.3 – Fee Setting Methodologies
Once the steward obligation is determined, weight-based fee schedules are developed.
Stewards of PPP in Canada pay fees on the basis of how many kilograms of PPP their business
supplies into the provincial marketplace.
The fee setting process is designed to fulfill the following three objectives:
• Ensure sufficient funds are raised from stewards to meet industry’s financial obligations
to operate the stewardship program in accordance with corresponding provincial
regulations and approved program plans while incurring neither a profit nor a loss.
• Ensure program costs are fairly and equitably allocated among the various PPP
materials.
• Provide signals and incentives to promote recyclability of material.
The mechanics of fee setting involve allocating costs for managing materials in the supply chain
(collection, transportation, processing, material specific P&E and R&D). These costs are
allocated on the basis of a financial calculation using a 3-factor formula as depicted below.
Promotion and education, and research and development costs are added only to those
materials that benefit from these investments. Program administration costs are then
CSSA Annual Meeting for Stewards October, 2013 16
allocated to all materials on the basis of the volume of material generated and the number of
stewards reporting within each material group.
CSSA has kept the fee-setting methodology generally consistent across the three programs
wherever possible. This includes: adopting the 3 factor formula above for all provinces, using
actual steward reported tonnes as the denominator for fees; aggregating materials
consistently across the SO, MMSM and MMBC fee schedules wherever current data supports
it; and allocating program management-like costs in the same manner.
Fees for Ontario are based on municipal data and cost analytics undertaken over a ten-year
period. Manitoba’s program is relatively new and province-specific data is beginning to mature
but cost calculations in some cases continue to be based on Ontario cost studies. Similarly, in
BC comprehensive cost and recycling performance data was not available at the time of fee-
CSSA Annual Meeting for Stewards October, 2013 17
setting; therefore the fee setting methodology augmented best available BC data with
assumptions and extrapolations based on Ontario’s experience. The schedule below shows the
material-specific fees for the three provinces. While a similar methodology was used to arrive
at the fees it is important to note that the schedules reflect some notable differences; namely:
Costs, recycling rates and recycling targets differ among provinces. This will affect how
the 3-factor formula is applied. Poor performing materials in jurisdictions with higher
recycling targets, such as BC, will end up being more expensive than in jurisdictions
where recycling targets are lower.
Steward reported quantities differ among provinces as would be expected due to
differences in market size. Materials in jurisdictions with smaller amounts of PPP will
bear a higher burden of fixed costs.
Each province mandates a different steward obligation as defined by the regulation (ON
50% costs, MB 80% costs, BC 100% costs). This affects the fee rate and makes province-
to-province comparison of fees more difficult.
In some provinces (Manitoba) program surpluses have been used to lower fees from
what they would otherwise have been.
Manitoba fee rates are, on average, expected to be 13% higher than Ontario, likely due to a
higher steward obligation and relatively lower steward reported quantities. In addition, the
size of the program itself presents challenges to achieving full economies of scale from the
program management costs and other mandatory expenditures. Without the surplus
drawdown, the average fee rate would be 28% higher than ON, which is in line with
expectations given MMSM’s program is required to fund 80% of municipal costs.
BC fee rates on average are expected to be some 3.5 times higher than Ontario given BC is a
full EPR program with a much higher target recycling rate than any of the eastern provinces
(75% v. 60% ON), higher cost supply chain costs due to a number of factors including
geography, population density and carbon taxes. BC also loses out on economies of scale and
commodity revenues due to the existence of a comprehensive deposit system for beverage
packaging that runs parallel to the MMBC PPP curbside program.
CSSA Annual Meeting for Stewards October, 2013 18
3.4 – Comparative Material Fees by Province Ontario Net
Costs - 50% Obligation
Manitoba Net Costs - 80% Obligation
BC Net Cost Projections* - 100% Obligation
Category Material Fee rates 2014 (cents/ kg)
Fee rates 2014 (cents/ kg)
Fee rates 2014 (cents/ kg)
PRINTED PAPER
Printed Paper Newsprint - CNA/OCNA (excl. in-kind)
0.30 ¢/kg 1.96 ¢/kg
Newsprint 4.18 ¢/kg 20.00 ¢/kg
Magazines and Catalogues 6.74 ¢/kg 5.97 ¢/kg
24.00 ¢/kg Telephone Books 6.46 ¢/kg 6.03 ¢/kg
Other Printed Paper 12.29 ¢/kg 5.45 ¢/kg
PACKAGING
Paper Based Packaging Corrugated Cardboard 8.10 ¢/kg 9.96 ¢/kg 29.00 ¢/kg
Boxboard 8.10 ¢/kg 10.27 ¢/kg
Composite Paper Packaging
Gable Top Cartons 18.19 ¢/kg 25.22 ¢/kg
52.00 ¢/kg Paper Laminates 18.19 ¢/kg 25.22 ¢/kg
Aseptic Containers 18.19 ¢/kg 25.22 ¢/kg
High Grade Plastics Packaging
PET Bottles 14.02 ¢/kg 17.13 ¢/kg
31.00 ¢/kg HDPE Bottles 12.62 ¢/kg 15.93 ¢/kg
Low Grade Plastics Packaging
Plastic Film 22.54 ¢/kg 29.19 ¢/kg
54.00 ¢/kg Polystyrene 22.54 ¢/kg 31.72 ¢/kg
Other Plastics 22.54 ¢/kg 31.72 ¢/kg
Plastic Laminates Plastic Laminates 22.54 ¢/kg 31.72 ¢/kg 70.00 ¢/kg
Steel Packaging Steel Food & Beverage* Cans 5.06 ¢/kg 7.70 ¢/kg 52.00 ¢/kg
Steel Aerosols 5.06 ¢/kg 6.68 ¢/kg
Steel Paint Cans 5.06 ¢/kg
Other Steel Packaging
Aluminum Packaging Aluminum Food & Beverage* Cans
1.77 ¢/kg -2.63 ¢/kg 45.00 ¢/kg Aluminum Food & Milk
Containers
Other Aluminum Packaging 6.57 ¢/kg 9.99 ¢/kg
Glass Packaging Clear Glass 2.71 ¢/kg 5.91 ¢/kg 25.00 ¢/kg
Coloured Glass 4.36 ¢/kg
*Please note that beverage containers are on deposit in British Columbia and therefore fee rates do not apply to them.
CSSA Annual Meeting for Stewards October, 2013 19
Part 4: Provincial Fee Schedules & Commentary
Section 4.1 – Stewardship Ontario Fee Schedule
Category Material Fee rates 2014 (cents/ kg)
Fee rates 2013 (cents/ kg)
Variance (%)
PRINTED PAPER
Printed Paper Newsprint - CNA/OCNA 0.30 ¢/kg 0.42 ¢/kg -28.6%
Newsprint - Non-CNA/OCNA
4.18 ¢/kg 3.62 ¢/kg 15.5%
Magazines and Catalogues 6.74 ¢/kg 6.47 ¢/kg 4.2%
Telephone Books 6.46 ¢/kg 6.64 ¢/kg -2.7%
Other Printed Paper 12.29 ¢/kg 9.99 ¢/kg 23.0%
PACKAGING
Paper Based Packaging
Corrugated Cardboard 8.10 ¢/kg 8.39 ¢/kg -3.5%
Boxboard 8.10 ¢/kg 8.39 ¢/kg -3.5%
Gable Top Cartons 18.19 ¢/kg 18.22 ¢/kg -0.2%
Paper Laminates 18.19 ¢/kg 18.22 ¢/kg -0.2%
Aseptic Containers 18.19 ¢/kg 18.22 ¢/kg -0.2%
Plastic Packaging PET Bottles 14.02 ¢/kg 14.70 ¢/kg -4.6%
HDPE Bottles 12.62 ¢/kg 13.52 ¢/kg -6.7%
Plastic Film 22.54 ¢/kg 23.27 ¢/kg -3.1%
Plastic Laminates 22.54 ¢/kg 23.27 ¢/kg -3.1%
Polystyrene 22.54 ¢/kg 23.27 ¢/kg -3.1%
Other Plastics 22.54 ¢/kg 23.27 ¢/kg -3.1%
Steel Packaging Steel Food & Beverage Cans 5.06 ¢/kg 5.51 ¢/kg -8.2%
Steel Aerosols 5.06 ¢/kg 5.51 ¢/kg -8.2%
Steel Paint Cans 5.06 ¢/kg 5.51 ¢/kg -8.2%
Aluminum Packaging Aluminum Food & Beverage Cans
1.77 ¢/kg 2.56 ¢/kg -30.9%
Other Aluminum Packaging 6.57 ¢/kg 6.97 ¢/kg -5.7%
Glass Packaging Clear Glass 2.71 ¢/kg 2.84 ¢/kg -4.6%
Coloured Glass 4.36 ¢/kg 4.84 ¢/kg -9.9%
CSSA Annual Meeting for Stewards October, 2013 20
Section 4.2 – Stewardship Ontario Fee Commentary
Despite the general poor performance of commodity markets for PPP recyclables in
2012, this impact is muted in Ontario by the use of a 3-year rolling average when
accounting for commodity revenue in the computation of material fees. 2014 fee
rates are therefore benefitting from higher commodity revenues realized in 2010
and 2011.
Due to the projected decrease in the overall fee obligation YOY most of the material
fee rates (with the exception of some in the Printed Paper category) will also
decrease from last year. Decreases range from a low of 0.2% for paper laminates and
aseptic containers to 31% in the case of aluminum food and beverage cans.
The following materials however will see increases for the following reasons:
o Newsprint – Non-CNA/OCNA fees increased 15% despite the fact
that tonnage declined by 21% because there are fewer tonnes
against which to spread fixed costs.
o Other Printed Paper--There was a 6% decline in the recycling rate of
Other Printed Paper resulting in a 23% fee increase due to the
negative effects of the equalization component of the three factor
formula.
o Magazines & Catalogues— fees increased by 4% for this material
because it experienced a decrease in the amount of tonnes supplied
(which means fewer tonnes against which to spread fixed costs) and
a downward adjustment in the reported recycling rate.
CSSA Annual Meeting for Stewards October, 2013 21
Section 4.3 – Multi-Material Stewardship Manitoba Fee Schedule
Category Material Fee rates
2014 (cents/ kg)
Fee rates 2013
(cents/ kg)
Variance (%)
Fee rates 2014
(Without surplus)
(cents/ kg)
PRINTED PAPER
Printed Paper Newsprint 1.96 ¢/kg 2.38 ¢/kg -17.6%
2.40 ¢/kg
Magazines and Catalogues
5.97 ¢/kg 6.19 ¢/kg -3.6%
7.02 ¢/kg
Telephone Books 6.03 ¢/kg 6.19 ¢/kg -2.6%
7.02 ¢/kg
Other Printed Paper 5.45 ¢/kg 6.19 ¢/kg -12.0%
7.02 ¢/kg
PACKAGING
Paper Based Packaging
Corrugated Cardboard 9.96 ¢/kg 10.52 ¢/kg -5.3%
11.43 ¢/kg
Boxboard 10.27 ¢/kg 10.52 ¢/kg -2.4%
11.43 ¢/kg
Gable Top Cartons 25.22 ¢/kg 31.31 ¢/kg -19.5%
27.60 ¢/kg
Paper Laminates 25.22 ¢/kg 31.31 ¢/kg -19.5%
27.60 ¢/kg
Aseptic Containers 25.22 ¢/kg 31.31 ¢/kg -19.5%
27.60 ¢/kg
Plastic Packaging PET Bottles 17.13 ¢/kg 20.33 ¢/kg -15.7%
19.82 ¢/kg
HDPE Bottles 15.93 ¢/kg 24.89 ¢/kg -36.0%
18.69 ¢/kg
Plastic Film 29.19 ¢/kg 34.99 ¢/kg -16.6%
34.08 ¢/kg
Polystyrene 31.72 ¢/kg 34.99 ¢/kg -9.3%
34.08 ¢/kg
Other Plastics 31.72 ¢/kg 34.99 ¢/kg -9.3%
34.08 ¢/kg
Plastic Laminates 31.72 ¢/kg 34.99 ¢/kg -9.3%
34.08 ¢/kg
Steel Packaging Steel Food & Beverage Cans
7.70 ¢/kg 10.89 ¢/kg -29.3%
9.55 ¢/kg
Steel Aerosols 6.68 ¢/kg 10.89 ¢/kg -38.7%
9.55 ¢/kg
Aluminum Packaging
Aluminum Food & Beverage Cans
-2.63 ¢/kg 1.01 ¢/kg -360.4%
-0.83 ¢/kg
Other Aluminum Packaging
9.99 ¢/kg 18.07 ¢/kg -44.7%
13.67 ¢/kg
Glass Packaging Glass 5.91 ¢/kg 5.77 ¢/kg 2.4%
6.57 ¢/kg
CSSA Annual Meeting for Stewards October, 2013 22
Section 4.4 – Multi-Material Stewardship Manitoba Fee Commentary
While the municipal obligation increased in Manitoba, the decision to draw down $1.5 M in surplus funds means fee rates will decline across the board for all materials, with the exception of glass.
Increased glass volume and the lift in its recycling rate increased its costs.
Aluminum and steel fees posted a substantial decline YOY largely due to much
improved revenue performance reported by the larger municipalities despite
operating in an environment where commodity markets overall were down.
CSSA Annual Meeting for Stewards October, 2013 23
Section 4.5 – Multi-Material British Columbia Fee Schedule
Category Material Fee rates
2014 (cents/ kg)
PRINTED PAPER
Printed Paper Newsprint 20.00 ¢/kg
Magazines and Catalogues
24.00 ¢/kg Telephone books
Other Printed Paper
PACKAGING
Paper Based Packaging Corrugated Cardboard 29.00 ¢/kg
Boxboard
Composite Paper Packaging Gable Top Cartons
52.00 ¢/kg Paper Laminates
Aseptic Containers
High Grade Plastics Packaging PET Bottles 31.00 ¢/kg
HDPE Bottles
Low Grade Plastics Packaging Plastic Film
54.00 ¢/kg Polystyrene
Other Plastics
Plastic Laminates Plastic Laminates 70.00 ¢/kg
Steel Packaging Steel 52.00 ¢/kg
Aluminum Packaging Aluminum Food & Milk Containers 45.00 ¢/kg
Other Aluminum Packaging
Glass Packaging Clear Glass 25.00 ¢/kg
Coloured Glass
CSSA Annual Meeting for Stewards October, 2013 24
Section 4.6 – Multi-Material British Columbia Fee Commentary
In BC for the first time, three categories of plastic packaging and two categories of
paper packaging were introduced--each priced in accordance with their recyclability.
The intention is to provide a clear signal that high performing materials attract a
lower fee than low performing (hard-to-recycle) materials. Directionally this
approach should be adopted in other jurisdictions in the future to reflect best
practices.
CSSA Annual Meeting for Stewards October, 2013 25
Part 5: Conclusion
CSSA, together with our family of stewardship organizations, looks forward to working
with and for our stewards to ensure that your extended producer responsibilities for
packaging and printed paper are effectively met regardless of how many provinces you
do business in. While CSSA’s journey has just begun we are confident that with our
stewards’ support we can transform Canadian businesses into world leaders in
responsible product stewardship by delivering sustainable cost efficient stewardship
programs on a national scale.
Contact Us
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us at [email protected] or
call 1-888-980-9549.
www.cssalliance.ca
www.multimaterialbc.c
a www.stewardshipmanitoba.org
www.stewardshipontario.ca