New report subtleties an absence of transparency and results from British Columbia’s packaging EPR system.
The West Coast Refuse and Recycling Coalition (WCRRC) just discharged an examines the British Columbia (BC) extended producer responsibility (EPR) system for plastics packaging. Advocates have looked to export the British Columbia EPR model to every one of the three West Coast states to expand recycling and encourage manufacturers to use more recyclable packaging.
A new report dispatched by the WCRRC uncovered various flaws and weaknesses with BC’s EPR Model for packaging. The report additionally documents an absence of transparency, which makes it almost difficult to assess the program’s actual cost, viability or recycling rates. BC’s EPR display has neglected to accomplish huge environmental milestones, according to the report.
The report finds that instances of product redesign because of EPR policy in BC and Europe are “few in number and anecdotal at best.” Furthermore, manufacturers just pass on the expenses of EPR to their clients as an expense of doing business, the report notes.
“BC’s packaging EPR system fails to differentiate products based on recyclability and overall environmental performance,” said WCRRC in a statement. “In fact, the program actively discriminates against lightweight products that are hard to recycle but still have a lower environmental footprint than their recyclable competitors. BC’s EPR system is simply a recycle-only approach to materials management that is uninterested in achieving the lowest environmental footprint.”
The report likewise looks at how BC’s EPR system is falling local governments as a financing system. Cost information is thought little of and needs straightforwardness, as indicated by the report. BC’s EPR system pays incentive fees it determines are “reasonable” to local governments. As many BC communities have pointed out, these fees do not necessarily cover their full costs. As a result, the true costs of recycling are underestimated. Local governments make up the difference where the “reasonable cost” payment does not cover the real costs and residents pay as manufacturers pass on the hidden costs of EPR without notice.