Upstream
Upstream is a leading change agency for reusable packaging and foodware in the US and Canada. We work to drive change toward a robust and enduring reuse economy by normalizing reuse, growing and supporting the reuse industry, and ensuring a supportive policy environment.
Upstream is a leading change agency for reuse in the US and Canada. We work to driving change toward a robust and enduring reuse economy by normalizing reuse, growing and supporting the reuse industry, and ensuring a supportive policy environment.
Recommendations for Policymakers Developing Circular Policy & EPR for Packaging Policies:
1. Include strong financial incentives for reusable packaging because they provide support for the nascent reuse sector, which faces many barriers including cost. For example, Oregon, Minnesota and Washington have explicitly stated that reusable packaging should only pay once into the EPR system, when it first enters the market. This provides a built-in incentive for producers to reuse packages as many times as possible, which makes for better environmental and financial outcomes. The one-time fee should also be “eco-modulated” (ie, discounted) to give reusable packaging the credit that it deserves for being a better environmental choice than single-use packaging. This incentive structure has been enacted around the world as a best-practice in packaging EPR programs, such as in France, the UK, and Quebec, Canada. We see reusable packaging proliferating in these jurisdictions as a direct result, whereas reusable packaging continues to struggle in other jurisdictions (e.g., other Canadian provinces) without financial support. Reusable packaging, much like renewable energy, requires significant upfront investments before achieving a longer-term return. Just as with solar power providing more benefits than coal or natural gas, the benefits of reuse far outweigh the benefits of recycling, but we can’t access them until the market adjusts.Subsidies enabled solar power to scale across the US, and the same will be true for reusable packaging if we include these drivers in EPR policies. In states where a more pared-down bill is necessary and reuse targets and funding are not feasible, the best alternative would be to simply exempt reusable packaging from the program altogether, providing producers with the ultimate financial and operational incentive to choose reuse.
2. We believe Washington State’s packaging EPR policy is the most implementable, but we would love legislators to consider also enacting a Deposit Return System, if one is not already in place. Washington’s Recycling Reform Act includes the strongest provisions for reusable packaging to date among US states, while maintaining a reasonable and measured approach to target-setting. Reusables will pay into the program as covered materials, but only once upon first entering the market, and that one-time fee will be “eco-modulated” (ie, discounted) to ensure they get due credit for being the most environmentally beneficial packaging choice. Additionally, the program will set performance targets for a minimum market share of reusable packaging and an associated minimum average return rate to ensure producers convert a share of their packages into functional reusables that actually get recirculated. These provisions are similar to Minnesota’s, but Washington’s RRA goes one step further by ensuring that the packaging PRO must invest in reuse systems throughout the state by creating a Reuse Financial Assistance Program. This piece is crucial because it ensures that producers will contribute their fair share toward the buildout of reuse infrastructure and services - just like they will for recycling. The only drawback of Washington’s RRA is that there is no parallel Deposit Return System (DRS) in place for beverage containers, which would inherently benefit reuse systems as well. Around the world, recycling and reuse systems perform better when there are packaging EPR and beverage DRS programs operating together.
3. Harmonization is key because having strong reuse provisions everywhere will expedite the scale-up of reuse systems. Currently, some bills have weaker provisions for reuse than others. Maryland’s new packaging EPR law, for instance, requires the PRO to set targets for a minimum reuse market share and average return rate, but does not require reusables to be financially incentivized, nor for the PRO to set aside specific funds for reuse systems in the state. This will likely result in the PRO de-emphasizing reuse in Maryland, which limits the potential for reuse systems in surrounding eastern states. If the language in Maryland were stronger, companies could expand reusable packaging throughout the mid-Atlantic by leveraging the infrastructure and services developed under Maryland’s program.
For more information, please consider these external resources available in the Public Facing Statements & Resources Section:
1. Embracing Reuse in Packaging EPR Programs (links to full paper, livestream recording featuring CITEO, and podcast, plus related podcast episodes at the bottom of the page)
2. The New Reuse Economy (links to full paper outlining Upstream’s vision for scaling reuse in the beverage, foodservice and CPG sectors) - related livestream is here!