*Integrated Resources & Solid Waste Management Plan Update (with Appendices) - Dec 2009

Home

3.0 SOURCE REDUCTION legal texts have proposed a framework that encourages elements of individual responsibility to be incorporated in any operational programs that are developed. A good example of how local governments can work together to promote EPR is the California Product Stewardship Council ( http:// www.caproductstewardship.or & /). It is an organization of local governments from throughout California who aim to shift California's product waste management system from one focused on government funded and ratepayer financed waste diversion to one that relies on producer responsibility in order to reduce public costs and drive improvements in product design that promote environmental sustainability. Its function includes the following: • Build capacity and knowledge among local governments, and build relationships with stakeholders, to bring about producer financed and managed systems for product discards, including, but not restricted to, products covered by the Universal Waste Ban. • Provide a forum for the exchange of information regarding existing and proposed EPR programs. • Develop and recommend practical local and statewide EPR policy and educational tools such as model ordinances and legislation, newsletters, articles, policy briefings, and so forth • Provide effective leadership on EPR initiatives in California and develop a prioritized list, with timelines, of future EPR programs. • Educate elected and appointed officials and other decision makers on the benefits to local government of EPR. At the local level, New York City has tabled its own law on the take -back and recycling of certain WEEE categories. This sentiment for a fundamental shift in the financial burden of dealing with end -of -life products from municipalities to producers and consumers seems to be gaining momentum in the U.S., as highlighted by the recent resolution by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors that supports state -wide legislation and local initiatives requiring manufacturers to take responsibility for collecting and recycling their products at the end of their useful life. Many other municipalities are preparing EPR plans and working with industry and state and federal EPR advocates to advance EPR programs. Although the County of Hawaii has some limited programs that resemble EPR, such as the HI -5 program in which qualified containers can be returned to Certified Redemption Centers for a rebate, significant progress would be required to implement a fully - functional EPR program. Given its relatively small size and geographic isolation, it would be difficult for Hawaii County to effectively implement an EPR program on its own. However, the County could prepare and adopt resolutions stating its support for EPR, and could work to lobby state and federal lawmakers to advance EPR initiatives. It could collect and review various city/ county resolutions related to EPR and state its strong support for EPR to its citizens and state and federal officials. Some policy statements the County may want to consider include the following: • Express support for state and federal policies to eliminate subsidies, internalize externalities for virgin material production and wasting, and involve producers in December 2009 3 -15