The demise of the 50% solution

by Jay Arthur

A couple of issues ago, the PPSReview back page opinion piece asked the question: What happened to the big 50?
In it, the apparent amnesia about previous commitments to cutting our waste by 50% was noted and lamented. With the recent report from Ontario's Waste Diversion Organization (WDO), the amnesia that seems to be afflicting government has not infected everyone. The WDO recognizes the goal. It just says we can't afford to reach it. Lower the sights, is the message.
It's funny how these goals come and go. Who can forget our federal government, surrounded by its peers from the other big wealthy nations,  making solemn commitments to cut greenhouse gases? Today, the only thing we have is the recollection of the euphoria, albeit temporary, that came from thinking somebody in power had finally got it, and was prepared to do something about it. Now the only use for Memories of Kyoto may be for the next President's Choice salad dressing. It will likely be too acidic for most tastes.
The other big 50 that we were all expecting to see in the WDO report was the concept of shared fiscal responsibility translated into hard numbers. 
We all knew going into this process that industry might be prepared to pay half the cost of recycling and there were indications that might be the case for household hazardous waste, too. The only issue was how much of that half would be clawed back as the WDO went through the motions of reviewing the stewardship options. Now we know.
Before they sign on the dotted line, however, exactly
what contribution might Ontario municipalities expect to see towards the cost of the blue box program? This assumes, of course, that Ontario's environment minister can persuade his cabinet colleagues to actually bring in the backdrop regulations needed to level the playing field.
The WDO report suggests net costs for recycling will be about $45 million this year. Half of that would be $22.5 million. That would be a nice bonus for local governments.

Not so fast,  though. This does not however include the newspapers and other printed papers.  But the publishers will contribute if their revenues do not cover costs.
Well, actually, no. You need to check the fine print - particularly Part VI:6.1.3.vi. What they will do is provide ad space to the value of up to $1.3 million. So, they will take the money that was to be handed over to the municipalities, take out the cost of buying their ads, then hand over what's left --
if there is any left.
Still, 50 cents on the dollar for packaging would be nice, even if we are not sure at this stage how it will be apportioned to the producers, importers and distributors.
Well, actually, no. You need to check the fine print - particularly Part VI:6.2.2.iv. What is being suggested is that 10% of the 50% should be used to "promote and recognize increased cost effectiveness in municipal recycling programs and pilot projects" - or, to put it another way, to allow CSR and its consultants to carry on with the work they have traditionally done. So, they will take the money that was to be handed over to the municipalities, take out 10 cents on the dollar, give it to CSR, then hand over what's left. CSR will then decide whether it goes to fund more studies or to "reward" efficiency.
Seeing as how they would be paid with what would amount to municipal dollars, you have to wonder about any assumption that this role should be assigned to an industry group.
If funds are to be set aside from monies raised to offset recycling costs, be they from industry levies or local taxes, then surely they should be taken from both the industry and the municipal share.  It is, in theory, in everyone's interest to find ways to make the program more efficient and thus increase recovery and reduce costs.
And if both sides are paying, the question of who should be undertaking or overseeing that work and who should be dishing out the money should be a joint decision. That decision should follow a request for proposals. That would be more efficient.
Who knows? We may just get some fresh ideas. The current process has taken the recycling concept a little too literally.

More editorials