Waste BIUt:'s . http://www.solidwastemag.com/library/Wastebl.

htm
I

Waste Blues
apeared in; The Financial Post Magazine, September 1997

,)
Curbside recycling reassessed
by David Menzies

Ontario's Blue Box system had an enthusiastic reception from politicians, environmentalists, the
soda industry and the public when it was launched. A decade on, guess who's really footing the
bill?

Shunted away in the industrial wasteland that is Commissioners Street, the Metropolitan Toronto
Materials Recovery Facility-a sprawling structure that embodies an architectural blend of both the
modem and the medieval-rises above its desolate surroundings, From the early '50s until the late '80s,
this concrete bunker-like facility incinerated Toronto's trash on a daily basis. These days, the plant's
towering smokestack no longer belches thick, black smoke into the air; the adjoining ash room no longer
overflows with cinders. Yet the facility still handles the voluminous output of a throwaway society. Each
year, dump trucks from the cities of Toronto, York, Scarborough, Etobicoke and the borough of East
York haul 30,000 tonnes of discarded packaging material into the compound. A bright-yellow front-end
loader methodically plows each new load into a pile that quickly grows into a multicolored mountain of
discarded containers, from Coke cans and Jifpeanut butter jars to bottles of Johnnie Walker and Jack
Daniel's.

Most of Metro Toronto's 2.5 million residents will never set foot in the Commissioners Street plant.
Still, they play a key role in keeping the aged facility humming, since this is the graveyard for
recyclables derived from the Blue Box.

Since it hit Ontario's streets 11 years ago, the Blue Box has quickly emerged as the urbanite's favorite
method of practising hassle-free environmentalism. Rather than chucking spent pop cans or wine bottles
into the trash, one merely tosses them into a blue cube proudly bearing the stencilled declaration "We
Recycle!" The Ontario version of the program was even given a United Nations environmental award in
1~89. Today, Ontario's Blue Box system is the most comprehensive in 1'-!°rthAmerica. Indeed, by law,
every municipality in the province with a population greater than 5,000 must operate a Blue Box
program.

However, a decade after its introduction, the system that once carried sacred-cow status is now being
questioned by a gi()~ing number of interests, ranging from municipal officials to environmentalists. Last
year, Metro's program.ended up costing taxpayers more than $5.5 million. And despite the heavy
household penetration of the Blue Box, less than 30% of recyclable packages are actually recycled. The
remaining 70% end up either as garbage in landfill sites or simply as litter.

Why is such a widespread environmental program so ineffective? Usman Valiante, a principal with
Toronto-based environmental consultants General Science Works Inc., believes that "the Blue Box was
never, ever an environmental measure. It was a business strategy put forth by certain vested-interest
groups."

One of the largest of those groups is the soft-drink industry, and not surprisingly, it disagrees with that
kind of assessm~nt. "Our biggest success in recycling has been our participation and sponsorship of the

1of 12 11/2/9810:12 AM
 Waste Blues. http://www.solidwastemag.comllibraryfWastebl.htm
/
" - - - -
Ontario Blue Box recycling program," says Tina Warren, director of public affairs for Toronto-based
Coca-Cola Beverages Ltd. "This has been a success for the entire Canadian soft-drink industry."

There's nothing like environmental issues when it comes to the complicated, the convoluted and the
contradictory. Yet when it comes to the Blue Box program in Ontario, there is one undeniable truth: the
Blue Box has indeed turned out to be a sweet deal for the soft-drink industry-at taxpayers' expense.
./ "Using the Blue Box is considered to be a motherhood issue," says Councillor Judy Sgro, a member of
Metro Toronto's budget advisory committee. "But it's really a terrible drain on resources that could be
better spent elsewhere."

According to a recent study published in the trade journal Waste News, industry paid $41 million into
the Ontario Blue Box system between 1985 and 1996, the lion's share coming from soft-drink
companies. Municipal and provincial taxpayers, on the other hand, contributed a staggering $2.33 billion
(including landfill costs of$1.75 billion) over the same 11-year period. "The Blue Box," says Gord
Perks, a spokesperson with the Toronto Environmental Alliance, "is basically a form of welfare for Coke
and Pepsi. And I think it's time we got Coke and Pepsi offwelfare."

For cash-strapped municipalities, the news only gets worse. Last March, the Ontario government ended
its financial commitment to the Blue Box. All provincial communities of more than 5,000 people are
now essentially left holding the box when it comes to funding what is already a money-losing
proposition (see sidebar page 47).

When the idea of rolling out a Blue Box program in Ontario came to fruition in the mid-'80s, it was a
time of renewed environmental attention. It seemed not a day went by when there wasn't a news story
outlining the latest environmental crisis, ranging from global warming to vanishing landfill space.
During this period, environmentalists targeted the big soft-drink companies for their lack of commitment
to the ultimate environmentally friendly container-the refillable bottle. In the late 1970s, the industry had
struck a handshake deal with the provincial government of the day, promising to sell 75% of its soda in
refillable containers. It never happened. Thanks to the proliferation of such disposable packaging as cans
and polyethylene terepthalate (PET) plastic containers, the refillable glass bottle virtually disappeared
from storeshelves. .

This suited the beverage behemoths just fine: distributing refillable bottles no longer fitted their North
A{Ilericanmarketing strategies. During the '70s and '80s, many local bottlers were bought out and shut
down as the soft-drink companies consolidated operations. For the pop producers, it made far more
bottom-line sense to market soft drinks in one-way containers at centralized manufacturing facilities than
it did to devote resources to recovering and refilling glass bottles.

The phase-out of r~filIables did not go unnoticed. "Ban the can" emerged as an environmental rallying
cry in the early to mid-'80s, and it downright spooked the soft-drink industry. Heaven forbid that Ontario
might become another Prince Edward Island, where, in 1984, the provincial government ruled that all
soft drinks sold there must be in refillable bottles-legislation that is still strictly enforced.

The Blue Box was, however, a tailor-made method of assuaging the soft-drink industry's fears and
giving the David Peterson Liberal government's an environmental win. Billed as a "multi-stakeholder
agreement" involving industry, the provincial government and municipalities, the Blue Box program, in
hindsight, proved to be an awesome arrangement for the soft-drink czars. The deal was this: the province
would slash the refillable quota from 75% to 40% (later to 30%) on the condition that the soft-drink
industry contribute $20 million over a five-year period toward expanding the Blue Box program across
Ontario. A non-profit corporation, Ontario Multi-Material Recycling Inc. (OMMRI), was established to
. .11... --. .1 -,. . ,.. .1...' 1. .1 T" 1'... .L'... .1.. -noL.. -no -_. 1.1 .L' .1.. .. "--:'"''

2 of 12 11/2/9810:12 AM
\\ <ISle:BlUes http://www.solidwastemag.comllibrary/Wastebl.htm
/
C01H::C{
ana manage mau~{ry ~ ~nare. r unamg ror me .l:HUenox program WOUla come rrom me provmce,
municipalities and OMMRI (which has since expanded to include other industries and is known today as
Corporations Supporting Recycling or CSR). Today, almost 3.5 million households-representing 85% of
the population-use the Blue Box.

"It's always the responsibility of big business to lower its costs any way it can," says Valiante of General
Science Works. "To the credit of the big soft-drink guys, they saw the Blue Box as this great opportunity
.) to move to a system that was cheaper for themselves, given that they had chosen consolidation. But
nobody predicted the financial implications."

Fast-forward to March, 1996. Provincial funding for the Blue Box program has ended. At the same time,
most recyclable-commodity prices continue to free-fall, to the extent that Ontario municipalities find
themselves picking up Blue Boxes chock-full of materials that don't even begin to cover the costs
associated with their collection and processing.

At the centre of the Blue Box system is the question: who pays? As Councillor Sgro notes, every
taxpayer in Ontario is paying a hidden tax to manage billions of one-way soft-drink containers. Would it
not make far more sense, she asks, for soft-drink consumers to pay an extra 5~ or 6~ to cover the costs
incurred in diverting these containers from landfill? As Sgro outlined in a January letter to Norm
Sterling, Ontario's Minister of Environment and Energy: "I find it difficult to believe that the soft-drink
industry would collapse, or that the soft-drink industry would be enormously affected by a price increase
from $.99 to $1.05 for a 2-litre bottle of pop."

Damian Bassett, president and CEO of Corporations Supporting Recycling, becomes noticeably agitated
when asked to comment on the failings of the Blue Box system. The Blue Box has a respectable
reputation amongst the populace, and Bassett wants to keep it that way. He dismisses the criticism of
environmental groups such as the Toronto Environmental Alliance, asserting they are run by
"malcontents" hoping to earn the title "association of the day." The soft-drink industry, he maintains, has
already "more than paid its fair share into the Blue Box," not only through its financial contributions but.
also by selling some soft drinks in aluminum cans, which in turn make money for the recycling system.

Not according to the City of Toronto. In January, the city launched a lawsuit for $1.2 million against
OMMRI/CSR for breach of contract and negligent misrepresentation. In its statement of claim, the city
notes that between 1988 and 1990, OMMRI offered to fund one-third of the Blue Box capital costs if the
city adopted a municipal recycling program. Toronto.fulfilled its part of the bargain, but OMMRI/CSR,
the city maintains, has yet to deliver on those funding promises.

Bassett refuses to comment on the lawsuit, except to say that "the city's case is without merit It has
nothing to do with rect'cling, but is just an example to the depths some municipal officials will fall to cut
costs and balance budgets."
, What he will talk about, though,.is the current mantra of virtually everyone
connected with the soft-drink industry: aluminum is the gold in the Blue Box. And in truth, there's no
denying it. Tom Richard, co-ordinator of materials marketing for Metro Toronto, notes that Metro
currently receives $1,850/tonne for aluminum. At that price, the aluminum collected in the Blue Box
makes for a profitable undertaking. In contrast, other packaging materials such as PET plastic
($160/tonne) and clear glass ($47/tonne) are big money-losers.

To encourage consumers to feed Blue more aluminum, CSR recently launched a $l-million newspaper,
radio and billboard campaign called "Don't Trash Cans!" "If everyone recycled just one more soft-drink
can each week for a year," the newspaper ad copy beams in bright blue letters, "Metro would earn $2.5
million more in Blue Box revenues." Says Bassett: "You see, I'm teaching people how to fish instead of
giving them a fish."

; of 12 11/2/98 10:12 AM
 \.Vaslt: Blues http://www.solidwastemag.comllibrary/Wastebl.htm
'- /

There'sjust one hitch: there are concerns regarding the soft-drink industry's commitment to aluminum
packaging beyond 1999. That's when the Coke and Pepsi contracts for aluminum cans expire, and there's
no guarantee that the soft-drink giants won't switch to other, lower-cost, single-serve packaging
materials such as PET or PEN (polyethylene naterepthalate) plastic.
.J
"Municipalities have no legally binding mechanism to ensure the gold in the Blue Box stays there," says
Robert Power, legal counsel for the Toronto law firm Outerbridge, Miller, Sefton, Willms & Shier.
Power, who also serves as the international convenor for the 1.S.O.(International Standards
Organization) Working Group on Environmental Assessment of Sites and Entities, adds that should
aluminum cans do a fast-fade come 1999, then "the Blue Box will be an even greater money-loser than it
is now."

There are already disquieting signs that other, cheaper packaging materials may eventually replace
aluminum. In April, Pepsi Cola Canada Beverages launched a national billboard campaign to promote its
new Pepsi Sixpack: six 710-ml PET bottles bundled together by a plastic ring. The ad copy-"What 12
cans look like when they're easy to carry"-had municipal officials and environmentalists alike shaking
their heads in disbelief. Here was a major soft-drink company not only promoting the merits of
low-value PET plastic but also slamming high-value aluminum in the process.

"These promotions are extremely alarming for those of us concerned about the costs of the Blue Box,"
says John Jackson, co-ordinator of the Citizens' Network on Waste Management. "How long can we
expect the commitment to aluminum to last, when Pepsi and Coke are already encouraging a shift away
from aluminum cans to PET bottles?"

Colleen Newell, Pepsi Canada's VP of environmental and government affairs, defends the Pepsi Sixpack
campaign as "just a new way of getting more people to try something different. We don't expect it to be a
significant part of our packaging mix." As for Pepsi's long-term commitment to cans, Newell says,
"There's a good likelihood that we'll stay in aluminum. Of course, the alternative to aluminum is steel
cans. We've used steel in the past, and we may choose to use it in the future." For municipal officials,
that statement is about as satisfying as a week-old Mountain Dew. Steel cans only fetch about
$105/tonne, less than 10% of what aluminum is worth.

F~r Coke's part, Tina Warren of Coca-Cola Beverages stresses that her company is "committed" to using
aluminum cans beyond 1999, but she quickly adds, "Of course, nothing is guaranteed. The consumer is
the boss here, not the soft-drink industry." To get a taste of what the consumer might choose, Canadians
could glance at U.S.,packaging trends. In the June issue of Beverage World, Jacksonville, Fla.-based
Container Consultin~ Inc. reports that in 1996, PET plastic's share of the U.S. carbonated soft-drink
market (by liquid~olume of packaged goods) pulled almost equal to cans. However, the still-new
570-ml PET package had more than doubled its market share in just two years, going from 4.9% to
10.2%. Container Consulting notes, "Over the next couple of years, six-packs of single-serve-size PET
will roll onto grocers' shelves, while increasingly distinctive cans aim to demonstrate that material's
marketing mettle."

The Citizens' Network John Jackson, like many other observers, believes that in order to protect the
future of the Blue Box, a municipal waste-management strategy should start with a deposit-return system
for all beverage containers. There should also be a greater use of refillable containers, and producers
should be responsible for the full costs of reusing, recycling and/or disposing of the materials they
produce. "Such a strategy will yield higher diversion and recovery rates, improve environmental
protection and s~ve municipalities money," he says.

4 of 12 11/2/9810:12 AM
 - .
Was.e Blues http://www.solidwastemag.comilibraryiw aslcOi-him
/

Alas, selling the soft-drink industry on the merits of either deposit/return systems and/or refillable bottles
is an uphill battle. As long as there is a taxpayer-funded system such as the Blue Box to take care of the
soft-drink industry's one-way packages, there's little incentive to switch.

The industry also appears to be philosophically opposed to the user-pay system of deposit/return, despite
the fact that, outside Ontario and Manitoba, it is compulsory to one degree or another. Soft-drink
companies maintain that deposit/return systems are hopelessly complicated for consumers. and retailers,
and are nowhere near as easy or convenient as the Blue Box. Just look at the product-stewardship
literature from the Canadian Soft Drink Association (CSDA), the lobbying organization for the industry.
One illustration depicts an elderly woman entering a store, pushing a shopping cart overflowing with
returnable bottles and cans. Some containers are marked 5~, others 1O~,and a case of cans is marked
$2.40.

Behind the checkout counter, the shopkeeper gazes at the cargo in slack-jawed amazement. With eyes
bulging and one hand cradling the side of his head, the look on his face suggests he's about to attempt an
exercise in quantum physics rather than simple arithmetic.

The CSDA also believes that a deposit/return system will inevitably destroy the whole Blue Box system,
although that wasn't the case in Prince Edward Island, where 97% of all soft-drink bottles are recovered.
Nor is that the experience in Nova Scotia, which, in February oflast year, launched Canada's latest
deposit/return system. Every beverage container (with the exception of milk) is subject to a 1O~deposit.
When the container is returned to one of the province's 100 Enviro Depots, the consumer receives 5~ of
his original deposit back; 2.5~ goes to the depot for handling, while the remaining 2.5~ goes to the
province's Resource Recovery Board. At the end of the year, money collected by the fund is dispersed to
the municipalities to help them manage environmental initiatives.

Elwood Dillman, group environment co-ordinator with Hantsport, N.S.-based Scotia Investments Ltd.
and former head of the Resource Recovery Board, says the province's beverage-container collection rate
went from "something less than 20% in areas that had a Blue Box system to somewhere between 80%
and 90% across the board in just eight months," results that are echoed in a 1993 study by the D.S.
Library of Congress. In fact, Dillman says, following the launch of the system, "We didn't see a lot of
pop cans or juice containers on roadsides and corner lots any more. People don't like to throw that nickel
o~t the window."

The soft-drink industry also claims that maintaining a system of refillable pop containers is actually
more environmentally taxing than recycling them. Even though bottles destined for recycling must be
collected by the municipalities, compressed into bales and then sent to a recycler (where they are then
smelted and reformdd into new containers), this process is supposedly less environmentally taxing than
simply cleaning existing bottles and refilling them several times over.

Coke's Warren maintains that refillables aren't as environmentally friendly as some believe, due to the
"transportation costs and the energy costs involved with those heavy glass bottles." As well, she points
out, "There's a breakage problem with glass."

That glass bottles are heavy and prone to break cannot be disputed. But Valiante of General Science
Works notes that when soft-drink companies denigrate refillable glass bottles, "they're talking about the
Model T of refillable packaging." In other words, no longer are bottles made of thick, blue-green glass.
What's hot outside Canada and the D.S. these days are refillable PET bottles. Tens of millions of these
bottles are in use all over Europe, Southeast Asia, Mexico and South America-their market share ranges
from 20% to 99%-and Valiante loves showing off the l-litre model he acauired in Germanv. Even

5 of 12 1112/98 10:12 At-.

 Wl!5te Blues. http://www.solidwastemag.comllibrarylWasteb1.htm
/
-- . u---, --' "---0 - 1 U_--J--'---
though it contains one-third more cola than a 750-ml glass bottle, the container is one-sixth the weight.
The refillable PET bottle is compatible with those plants currently refilling 750-ml glass and
disposable-plastic bottles, and it can be refilled an average of20 to 50 times. As for structural integrity,
Valiante likes to perform a physical demonstration. Standing up, he cocks his arm back and with Roger
Clemens-like velocity, pitches the bottle against the wall. It ricochets off the paneling and drops to the
floor, completely unscathed. "That's the other really great thing about this bottle," he says. "You don't
have to worry about it breaking."

Eva Ligeti, the environmental commissioner of Ontario, is another person who doesn't buy the
antirefillable argument. In April, she presented the Ontario legislature with her 1996 annual report. Part
of it made for a scathing indictment not only of the soft-drink industry's packaging practices but also of
the laissez-faire attitude adopted by the Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy. While soft-drink
firms in Ontario are legally obliged to sell 30% of their products in refillable bottles, the real figure is
less than 2%, and regulators continue to turn a blind eye. "I have asked [Ontario Environment and
Energy Minister] Norm Sterling to enforce his laws," says Ligeti. "I don't know why it's so difficult to
either enforce the law or, at the very least, change the law."

Tom Brown, a policy and program officer for the Ministry of Environment and Energy's Waste
Reduction Branch, notes that between 1987 and 1991, the Ministry of Environment did indeed lay
approximately 800 charges (representing about $170,000 in fines) against soft-drink companies failing to
meet the refillable-quota rule. But since June, 1991, Brown says, the Ministry of Environment has come
to the conclusion that the 30% refillable regulation "is unfeasible in its current form It's just not
workable to try and force an industry to sell a product to consumers that they don't really want."

For now, Brown says, the ministry is "looking at a number of alternatives" to the 30% refillable rule,
including everything from lowering (or even revoking) the minimum refillable requirements to
establishing a deposit/return system for pop bottles like those that exist in other provinces.

So why does the soft-drink industry believe that North American consumers aren't interested in refillable
PET bottles? According to the industry, there are several reasons, one being the shopping patterns of
North Americans. "In Europe and South America, people tend to shop daily for fresh produce and
breads. This makes returning refillables convenient," states literature published by the Canadian Soft
Drink Association. "In Ontario and North America generally, people shop once every 1.5-2 weeks; they
also shop once per month for a stock-up shop at grocery stores/club stores. Using the car, they tend to
buy 24-can cases of soft drinks."

The CSDA goes on to note that current consumer preferences and shopping habits "suggest plastic
refillable bottles woufd be no more popular here than current refillable containers are," even though
plastic refillables 4ave never been test-marketed in Canada or the U.S.

The CSDA also makes the pro-environment argument that dispatching trucks to each retail location to
collect the empties would "create more emissions to the air." True, trucks give off exhaust, but these
same trucks are already delivering cargoes of soft drinks in the first place, and could easily pick up the
empties as part of their route.

This is, of course, exactly what happens at beer stores. Jan Westcott, executive director and CEO of
Brewers of Ontario, notes that Brewers Retail Inc. services 429 beer stores and more than 16,000
licensed establishments across the province. Nearly 99% of all beer bottles sold are recovered and then
refilled an average of 15 to 20 times; 83% of beer cans are recovered; and almost 99% of all cardboard
packaging is retu~ed. In a typical year, Brewers Retail will internally recover 450,000 tonnes of

6 of 12 11/2/98 10:12 AM
 /
WjiSte BllJes . http://www.solidwastemag.comllibrarylWastebl.htm

packaging-at no expense to the taxpayer. "We've kept our refillable bottles over time, but it's not due to
altruism," says Westcott. "Recovering and reusing our bottles gives us a distinct competitive advantage
over recycling thess:(tmtainers."

Despite this experience, soft-drink makers still aren't sold on the idea of a deposit/return or refillable
./ system. Five years ago, fearing Ontario was going to adopt a half-back deposit/return system for soft
drinks, Stuart Hartley, the vice-president of the Canadian Soft Drink Association, wrote a letter to then-
Ontario environment minister Ruth Grier. Looking at it now, it's a fascinating document. These days, the
soft-drink industry claims to be helping the environment by rejecting refillables, but in the letter, Hartley
put forward the opposite point of view. The CSDA's proposals included reintroducing single-serve
refillable bottles to give consumers the choice of refillables in all sizes; a variety of initiatives to ensure
refillables were as attractive as recyclables; and the introduction of refillables into the hotel, restaurant
and institutional sectors.

In the intervening five years, the CSDA has altered course, and aside from the proliferation of one-way
PET containers, nothing much has changed. Ontario Environment Commissioner Ligeti says the
Ministry of Environment and Energy maintains it is still consulting with the soft-drink industry. "The
thing is, they've been 'consulting' for years," she comments. "Ijust don't get it."

However, the soft-drink industry isn't the only sector drawing the ire of environmentalists and
municipalities. Consider the Liquor Control Board of Ontario. Each year, the province, which owns and
operates the LCBO, collects more than $38 million in so-called environmental levies (a misnomer, since
the money goes straight into general revenues and not into an environmental fund). Yet the LCBO does
not contribute a single penny to Blue Box recycling, even though on pick-up days, Blue Boxes are
stuffed with near-worthless glass purchased at LCBO stores. What many municipal officials find
particularly galling is that the LCBO enjoys an annual net profit exceeding $700 million. Says North
York Mayor Mel Lastman, "We are being robbed every day and we can't even call the cops."

That may change. Nort~ York is u.sheringin a tough, potentially precedent-setting bylaw that is expected
to be approved and implemented by late September. Under the new guidelines, wine and liquor vendors
would be required to charge a minimum deposit of 1O~for each bottle sold in a container smaller than
375 ml; deposits of$1 would be required for each bottle containing more than 375 ml. It's virtually
certain the province will challenge this move in court, but if the bylaw survives, the floodgates will no
doubt open as municipalities across the province vie for a piece of the LCBO's revenue base.

Meanwhile, the soft-drink industry can only lament that 01'Blue was never rolled out with the same
magnitude in Canada'lsother provinces as it was in Ontario. Pop producers still cling to the notion that
the Blue Box is the, most appropriate environmental solution.when it comes to handling its billions of
containers. Consider the speech, "Using the Right 'R' in the Right Place at the Right Time," given by
Coke's director of public affairs, Tina Warren. "Let me say up front that Coca-Cola believes in the
wisdom of reuse. Every day we apply this wisdom as we provide Canadians with beverages that are
different, better and special," Warren told delegates attending a meeting of the Recycling Council of
Ontario (RCO), a group representing government, industry and environmentalists, in Toronto last year.
"In our operations, reducing, reusing and recycling are all tools of progressive environmental
management." .

Coca-Cola, Warren went on to say, has undertaken several laudable initiatives in its embrace of the
environmental "Three Rs" of reduce, reuse and recycle. Coke's aluminum cans weigh 41% less than
when they were first introduced, for example, and the weight of Coke's PET bottles has been reduced by
31%. In 1995 alone, 4,000 Coke vending and soda-fountain machines were refurbished and put back in

70fl2 1I/2/98 10:12 AM

 WilSte Blues. http://www.solidwastemag.comllibrary/Wastebl.htm
I

service, which had the net effect of diverting nearly 470 tonnes of material from landfill.

Coca-Cola's strategy has little room for the inclusion of the fourth-and perhaps most important-R:
refilling. Then again, as Warren tactfully pointed out to those attending the RCO meeting, "Using the
right R, in the right place, at the right time, works for Coca-Cola," she said.

.) Sidebar #1

The Provincial Picture: who recycles what and how

Alberta (population: 2,856,086)

-Deposit-refund for all beverages except milk.

-5~/under 20 ml, 20~/over 20 ml.

-Containers returned to depots.

-Draft regulations have been issued expanding the deposit-refund system to the private sector as of
September 1, 1997.

British Columbia (population: 3,886,592)

-Deposit-refund syst~m for soft drinks.

-5~, 1O~and 30~ deposits depending on container size.

-Containers returned to retailers or depots.

-Proposed expansion of the system April 1, 1998 to include all carbonated and non-carbonated drinks,
teas, wines, spirits, water and fruit juices, including aseptic containers (the cardboard and foil boxes used
for juice). The provincial government will not be directly involved in operating the expanded system but
will monitor it.
,
Manitoba (population: 1,143,524)

-Voluntary deposit-refund system (Le. both refundable and non-refundable containers are available to
consumers). J
~ '
-2~ levy on all non-cfepositbeverage containers. Through the levy, the Multi-Material Product
Stewardship Board raises approximately $5.6 million per year for municipal multirecycling services.
Non-deposit container distributors must contribute to the Multi-Material Product Stewardship Fund.

-The province had planned to tax other packaging material by September 1, 1995 but has not yet done
so.

-Since deposits are voluntary, deposit income does not subsidize other recycling programs.

New Brunswick (population: 762,501)

8 of 12 11/2/9810:12 AM