How much could producers of products help with reducing & recycling packaging waste in NY? – waer.org

Report on New York State’s Recycling Challenges and the Role of Extended Producer Responsibility in Achieving Sustainable Development Goals

1.0 Executive Summary

A significant discrepancy exists between recycling accessibility and actual recycling rates in New York State. Despite 97-98% of residents having access to recycling services, only 15% of waste is successfully recycled. This inefficiency poses a challenge to achieving key United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities) and SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production). A proposed Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) bill aims to address this gap by shifting the financial and operational burden of post-consumer waste management from municipalities to product manufacturers, thereby fostering more sustainable production and consumption patterns.

2.0 Analysis of Current Recycling System Inefficiencies

The current municipal waste management system is failing to capture the vast majority of recyclable materials, directly impacting the state’s ability to meet targets for sustainable urban living.

• Low Capture Rate: According to Dawn Timm, Director of Solid Waste for Niagara County, 85% of recyclable material is lost and not captured by the existing infrastructure.
• Economic Unsustainability: Municipal recycling programs are under severe financial strain, with operational costs often two to four times greater than the revenue generated from recycled goods. This financial model hinders progress towards SDG 11.6, which calls for reducing the adverse per capita environmental impact of cities, including through effective waste management.

3.0 The Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) Framework as a Solution

The proposed EPR legislation for paper and packaging offers a policy solution designed to integrate the principles of SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production) into the state’s economy. The framework is built on making producers accountable for the entire lifecycle of their products.

3.1 Core Objectives of the EPR Bill

1. Producer Accountability: The bill requires manufacturers and producers of goods to finance the collection, sorting, and recycling of their packaging materials.
2. Incentivizing Sustainable Design: By placing financial responsibility on producers, the policy encourages them to reduce overall packaging, design for recyclability, and use more sustainable materials. This directly supports SDG 12.5, which aims to substantially reduce waste generation.
3. Alleviating Municipal Burden: A primary goal is to provide financial relief for over-stressed municipal recycling agencies, allowing for more robust and efficient local waste management systems.

4.0 Legislative Status and Broader Environmental Impact

The EPR bill for paper and packaging passed the New York State Senate but did not receive a vote in the Assembly during the last session. It is scheduled for reintroduction. The legislation’s scope extends beyond financing to include critical environmental protections that align with multiple SDGs.

• Plastic Reduction Goals: The bill mandates specific targets for reducing the use of plastics, a key action for protecting terrestrial and marine ecosystems as outlined in SDG 14 (Life Below Water) and SDG 15 (Life on Land).
• Chemical Bans: It includes provisions to ban certain hazardous chemicals in packaging, contributing to public health and environmental safety.
• Multi-Stakeholder Collaboration: The debate and implementation of the EPR bill involve government, private industry, and environmental organizations, reflecting the partnership model essential to achieving SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals).

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

• SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities

  • The article focuses on the challenges faced by city and county officials in New York regarding municipal waste management. It discusses the high costs and low efficiency of recycling programs, which are critical components of urban environmental management.

• SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production

  • This is the most central SDG in the article. The discussion revolves around waste generation, low recycling rates (only 15%), and the proposed Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) bill, which aims to make producers financially responsible for the entire lifecycle of their packaging. This directly addresses the need to reduce waste and promote sustainable production patterns.

• SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals

  • The article highlights the need for a new policy framework (the EPR bill) that creates a partnership between the public sector (local governments managing waste) and the private sector (producers of goods and packaging). This legislative effort, involving government, industry groups, and environmentalists, exemplifies the multi-stakeholder collaboration required to achieve sustainable development.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

1. Target 11.6: By 2030, reduce the adverse per capita environmental impact of cities, including by paying special attention to air quality and municipal and other waste management.

   • The article directly addresses this target by detailing the struggles of New York’s municipal waste management systems. The fact that “85% is lost” and recycling programs are financially unsustainable points to a significant adverse environmental impact that the proposed EPR bill seeks to mitigate.

2. Target 12.4: By 2020, achieve the environmentally sound management of chemicals and all wastes throughout their life cycle… and significantly reduce their release to air, water and soil in order to minimize their adverse impacts on human health and the environment.

   • The proposed EPR bill is a mechanism for the environmentally sound management of packaging waste. The article explicitly mentions that the bill would “ban certain chemicals in packaging,” which directly aligns with the goal of managing chemicals to minimize adverse impacts.

3. Target 12.5: By 2030, substantially reduce waste generation through prevention, reduction, recycling and reuse.

   • This target is at the core of the article. The low recycling rate of 15% is a key problem identified. The EPR bill is presented as a solution to “substantially reduce waste generation” by incentivizing producers to “change their materials or packaging to reduce the amount of waste” and to “help recycle products or package.” The bill also aims to “set plastic reduction goals.”

4. Target 17.17: Encourage and promote effective public, public-private and civil society partnerships, building on the experience and resourcing strategies of partnerships.

   • The EPR bill is a clear example of a public-private partnership model. It shifts the financial and operational burden of waste management from local governments (public) to the manufacturers and producers (private), creating a new collaborative framework for managing packaging waste.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

1. National recycling rate, tons of material recycled (Indicator 12.5.1)

   • The article explicitly states that “only 15% of waste gets recycled” in New York. This percentage is a direct indicator of the current recycling rate. An increase in this rate would measure progress towards Target 12.5.

2. Municipal solid waste collected and managed in controlled facilities (Indicator 11.6.1)

   • The article implies this indicator by discussing the high volume of waste that is not properly recycled (“Eighty five percent is lost”). The cost of these programs (“two-to-four times what the recycled goods ever return”) is also an implied measure of the efficiency and sustainability of the current waste management system.

3. Hazardous waste generated and treated (related to Indicator 12.4.2)

   • The mention that the EPR bill would “ban certain chemicals in packaging” implies that the presence and quantity of these specific chemicals in the waste stream is a measurable indicator. Progress would be measured by the reduction or elimination of these banned substances.

4. Adoption of national policies for waste reduction

   • The EPR bill itself is a policy-level indicator. Its passage and implementation would represent a significant step towards achieving Targets 12.5 and 11.6 by establishing a new framework for waste management. The article notes that similar EPR laws for batteries, electronics, and paint are already in place, serving as existing policy indicators.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: waer.org