Policy: a critical ingredient to increasing recycling

Recently there has been a lot of activity by several organizations, companies and governments looking to focus on all of the various components necessary for successful recycling. I’m optimistic about these efforts and the collaborative approach being fostered and am eager to see the outcomes as these efforts get under way. Policy, of course, is one crucial element.

Various policies have been implemented by state and local governments with the aim of increasing recycling in the United States. Most of these policies have been in place for decades, while some have been adopted in just the last few years. The Carton Council of North America is a strong believer that, in addition to other elements, well-crafted and implemented policy can be an important driver to maximizing recycling.

Assessing policy

With this guiding belief, the Carton Council recently contracted with Reclay StewardEdge (RSE), Toronto, to perform a policy assessment. The assessment included investigation of policy initiatives that could support our carton recovery efforts in the U.S. and identification of best practices at the state and local levels that the private and public sectors at large can learn from and employ.

Early this summer, the Carton Council announced we had reached 50 percent household access for carton recycling. This means that now, half of U.S. households can recycle cartons in their communities, whereas only around 18 percent could do so when the Carton Council was formed in 2009. With carton recycling access continuing to grow, it is important for the Carton Council to further focus on boosting carton recovery. We recognize that when it comes to recovery, a rising tide lifts all boats, and therefore the research looked into policy affecting all postconsumer packaging and printed paper.

The Carton Council has been sharing the findings from this policy assessment in the hopes that it will help state and local governments to be better informed and more prepared to consider policy initiatives as one piece of the pie toward improved material recovery. Additionally, the Carton Council hopes to play a leadership role in fostering further dialogue around policy. We also firmly believe, and the research reiterates, that there is no “one-size-fits-all” approach. Decisions should really be made based on local circumstances, including the nature of the existing recycling infrastructure and policies already in place as well as stakeholder concerns and interests.

We chose three types of policies as the focus of the assessment:

• disposal bans;
• recycling policies; and
• pay-as-you-throw service (PAYT) fees.

Defining policies

Once the defining process for policies begins, it might be useful to provide a description and a bit of background on each.

Disposal or landfill bans. These are often put in place to save landfill space and typically are implemented to restrict the disposal of a certain type of material. Almost all states have enacted bans on the disposal of specific hazardous materials. According to the research, only four states have adopted disposal bans covering selected printed paper and packaging materials: North Carolina, Massachusetts, Wisconsin and Vermont (where implementation is currently pending). A number of local municipal governments also have enacted disposal bans.

Disposal bans are rarely implemented alone. They are usually paired with measures designed to assure the banned material has the infrastructure in place to be properly recycled.

What was at the time known as the National Solid Waste Management Association (currently this group is called the National Waste & Recycling Association [NW&RA]), the Solid Waste Association of North America (SWANA) and the National Recycling Coalition (NRC) joined together to promote a platform calling for “no ban without a plan.” In particular, these groups were concerned that disposal bans on electronics would be implemented without the necessary collection and processing infrastructure for the recycling of these devices.

Recycling policies. This term refers to policies that can be enacted at the state or local level. These policies typically come in three primary forms:

• recycling participation/source separation — This policy requires waste generators to source separate designated materials for collection and recycling. It is commonly referred to as “mandatory recycling.”
• recycling service provision — This policy places responsibility on the local government and/or private hauler(s) by requiring that they provide recycling services or a specific level of service based on criteria such as population.
• recycling target/goal — This policy requires entities such as local governments and state agencies to achieve a set recycling target or goal. For example, a local government must reach a 50 percent recycling rate by a given year.
   

The Carton Council research identified 18 states that have one or more of these types of recycling policies in place. Additionally, thousands of municipalities across the U.S. have mandatory recycling in place. In some cases, they are mandated by state laws or reflect local community environmental ethics and values.

PAYT service fees. PAYT policies can be enacted by state or local governments. Hundreds of local governments have instituted PAYT policies. However, according to the research, only five states have policies related to PAYT. Minnesota and Washington mandate PAYT at the state level to varying degrees, and Oregon, Iowa and Wisconsin have policies that expect PAYT adoption by specific local governments under certain conditions, such as failure to achieve specified recycling goals. Ultimately, PAYT is applied at the local level, where costs for solid waste disposal are incurred. PAYT fees, when set with a sufficient pay differential, provide an economic signal to encourage waste reduction and recycling.
 

Considerations for successful policies

The basics around some of these policy mechanisms are somewhat familiar to most people, but there are many existing variations and that can make it overwhelming. A primary objective for sharing this research is to help recycling stakeholders as they navigate the various policy options and provide some best practices to help them make informed decisions. I cannot stress enough that local circumstances should guide strategy. With that said, our research uncovered some considerations we hope will be valuable for those interested in using policy to help achieve overall recycling success:

1. Employ a comprehensive package of program tools to support policies. This strategy is often referred to as a “carrot-and-stick” approach that uses a comprehensive package of policy paired with programs that facilitate compliance (namely technical assistance), market development research, recycling grants, tax credits and public education.

2. Pair multiple policies to create a synergistic effect. Combining recycling policies with disposal bans and PAYT can prompt recycling infrastructure development and create powerful incentives for residents to recycle.

3. Implement policies that require programmatic best practices. The overall environment for recovery is enhanced when convenient, universal opportunities to recycle exist, such as citywide service, frequent collection, a comprehensive list of accepted materials, sufficient recycling container size, not charging a separate recycling fee and so on.

4. Provide funding support, particularly funding for achieving initial compliance. With respect to state policy, funding is needed to support recovery infrastructure development at the local level. It also is needed to provide state-level support, such as technical and promotional assistance and for policy enforcement.

5. Phase in compliance to provide time to build recycling infrastructure and public understanding as well as to transition to the new system. It is not possible for practices to change immediately, and policies that factor in a time frame for ramping up to achieve compliance are likely to garner more legitimacy and support from key stakeholders.

6. Use a supportive enforcement approach that involves monitoring, feedback and technical assistance, with penalties used as a last resort. Enforcement should not be draconian but rather based on a soft or incremental process that initially informs, educates and encourages compliance, such as tagging noncompliant set-outs prior to refusing service or imposing fines.

7. Clearly define compliance points and mechanisms. The research revealed that state and local governments with clearly defined compliance points exhibit a higher degree of dedication to achieving effective recycling programs. Having clear metrics and procedures provides policies with context and clarity, which should lead to greater success.

8. Require data gathering and reporting to benchmark and track performance. Not surprisingly, data gathering and reporting to track the performance of your recycling program provides state and local governments with valuable information. Without proper data tracking and reporting, these entities may not actually know where they stand with respect to recovery performance.

9. Identify champions to promote policies and shepherd their adoption. Champions can be critical to successful policy creation. Identify well-respected, influential policymakers and/or state agency officials who are able to build the necessary coalitions, engage key stakeholders, craft the language and propel proposals through the legislation process.

10. Establish a confluence of opinion and consensus for action. Public officials who were active in the late ’80s and early ’90s heyday of the passage of recycling laws stressed the importance of broad public consensus to improve material recovery systems. The 1987 “Garbage Barge” incident is widely recognized as a major driver for the passage of recycling legislation at the state level. Dramatic increases in disposal costs and diminishing landfill capacity drove the pursuit of disposal bans and recycling policies in many states.
 

Policy is only one piece of the puzzle

High-performing recycling programs share commonalities. They all collect a wide range of recyclable materials, have strong recycling promotion programs and are supported by a balance of policy and funding that stimulate infrastructure development and incentivize participation in recycling. The Carton Council is not advocating for one policy over another but instead believes that circumstances at the state, county and municipal levels should drive policy strategy and that when stakeholders are well-informed of the options available (and the pros and cons), better decisions get made.

If you are interested in learning more about using policy as a crucial component to improving recycling, I encourage you to visit www.CartonOpportunities.org/policy and to obtain our full, free report, “Research and Analysis of Policies that Drive Increased Recycling,” as well as other related materials.

Elisabeth Comere oversees government affairs for the Carton Council of North America. Additionally, she serves as director of environment for Tetra Pak Inc. in the U.S. and Canada and is a board member of AMERIPEN. She can be reached at elisabeth.comere@tetrapak.com. For more information or to access tools to inform and engage your customers about carton recycling, visit www.cartonopportunities.org.