RRS was asked to research a number of outstanding questions generated by the Oregon Recycling Steering Committee (RSC) during the framework and scenario review and evaluation process. This is the first in a series of memos responding to the RSC’s questions. In this memo, RRS has compiled available data on recycling rates in jurisdictions that have implemented extended producer responsibility (EPR) for packaging and, in some cases printed paper, before and after program implementation. In every jurisdiction where data was available, the recycling rates increased after implementation of EPR for packaging. The increases in recycling rates following the implementation of EPR for packaging are likely driven by program expansions required to meet the performance standards placed on producer responsibility organizations (e.g., access, collection, and recycling rates). For example, the Manitoba EPR for PPP program includes the Recycle Everywhere campaign that targets event, venue and other away-from-home recycling collection, and the RecycleBC Program plan reports expanded access for multi-family and depots collection. In addition, EPR programs typically drive program consistency, which fosters improved messaging and consumer education. However, it is challenging to compare recycling rates pre- and post-EPR implementation because in some cases data is not available for the period prior to EPR implementation, and in others the pre-program data is not comparable to what is reported after implementation. In some jurisdictions, one of the benefits of EPR is that it provides a structure for more clear, consistent and transparent reporting, often verified by an independent, third-party entity. Due to differences in data sources, data quality, reporting frameworks, and definitions, it is even more challenging to compare recycling rate data between jurisdictions. As such, the data provided in this memo is best utilized to compare data within the same jurisdiction (one year vs. another), as opposed to comparing across jurisdictions (ON vs. OR). Importantly, the purpose of this is exercise is not to compare Oregon against other jurisdictions, but rather to document whether the introduction of EPR for packaging contributed to an increase in recovery rates in the jurisdictions where it has been implemented. Please note that the scope of the research did not include an investigation of other factors that may have impacted recycling rates in these jurisdictions during this time. However, RRS did compare the packaging recycling rates in jurisdictions with EPR to those in the US during the time frames studied. The US EPA reports indicate recycling rate for containers and packaging increased substantially between 2000 (38%) and 2010 (49%) and remained relatively flat between 2010 and 2017 (51%). The recycling rate for non-durable paper, which incorporates the printed paper material categories in Canadian programs, was 17% in 2000, 35%in 2010 and 30% in 2017.1