Ontarioi Packaging Fees Jump Again
Companies using paper packaging
and those using paper inserts will see their Ontario packaging
fees double in 2005, from those set for the first five months
of 2004.
Stewardship Ontario (SO), which
is responsible for ensuring that 50% of municipal Blue Box recycling
costs are reimbursed by industry, has announced proposed 2005
fees that are 26% higher than its fees for the second half of
2004.
Fees for the “other printed
papers” category were increased 1,200%; paper packaging
fees went up 50%, and plastics up another 75%. Industry has seen
the reported Blue Box program “costs” jump from $61
million (2001-2002) to $118 million (2003 costs), based on datacall
surveys. Obligated companies must also make up for the small companies
- those that sell less than $2 million CDN - and for any shortfall
expected, which could total between $1.5 million and $2.2 million
for this year.
The reason printed papers was
going up so much was because it gets mixed into newsprint, but
does not bring in the same amount of income that ONP does, officials
said.
As of late August, SO had collected
about 90% of the fees it needs to meet its 2004 goal, with 2,484
“stewards” registered so far. Of that, 1,416 are liable
for packaging fees. Of the total, 300 registered but have not
paid fees, while 2,000 have not responded to notices from SO.
Based on negotiations with the
municipalities, SO had only reimbursed cities for 36% of costs
for the first five months of 2004; 44% for the second half, so
the new proposed fees represent the full 50% of what was owed
for 2005.
SO is finding that it over-estimated
the amount of packaging put on the market in Ontario. Once real
reports were in, officials found that industry is placing about
100,000 tons less of packaging material on the market than thought.
Moreover, they said there was over-reporting of aluminum and under-reporting
of plastic and paper in many instances.
Many companies expressed extreme
concern over the fact that SO has no control over costs, and that
the effects of the “efficiency fund” may not be felt
for many years.
