Over the last decade or more, Michigan has fallen behind other states in its recycling and waste diversion performance and, with a recycling rate of just over 14 percent, is now among the lowest performing recycling states in the Great Lakes and broader United States. Discussions of Michigan’s poor recycling performance and potential program and policy changes to improve the state’s efforts have been ongoing for more than a decade. Analyses conducted in 2001, 2003, 2006, 2009, 2011, and in this report have demonstrated that Michigan is not achieving recycling and waste diversion results comparable to those in neighboring states or other bottle bill states, despite the high recycling rate of bottle bill materials. As noted in previous studies, recycling and better utilization of waste offer significant opportunities to increase jobs in the recycling sector, increase sales and income of the state’s manufacturing sector, and expand Michigan’s tax base (PSC 2006, PSC 2009, MRC 2011). Improved recycling also reduces greenhouse gas emission and provides broad environmental benefits by reducing resource use and litter (PSC 2009). In its review of best practices from other states, PSC found that there is no single silver bullet for high recycling performance. States with high-performing recycling and other waste diversion programs know: ‹ Where they are by tracking performance and reporting on progress ‹ Where they want to be by setting and enforcing strong targets or goals for waste diversion ‹ How to get there by ™ Dedicating statewide funding to recycling efforts ™ Investing in state staff to provide leadership, technical assistance, and education ™ Providing financial support to local communities to develop recycling infrastructure and programs ™ Investing in outreach and education to teach people about the benefits and opportunities for recycling and to change their recycling behavior ™ Developing and implementing strong, enforceable recycling and waste diversion policies Michigan could apply many of the best practices from high-performing states to expand statewide leadership and local recycling efforts in order to achieve its goal of 50 percent waste utilization. In particular, the state should: ‹ Implement a recycling data tracking and reporting system ‹ Incorporate its waste utilization goal into law ‹ Identify and implement dedicated funding to support statewide recycling efforts ‹ Add 8 to 10 state staff to provide overarching leadership, technical assistance, outreach, enforcement, and management of the state’s recycling efforts ‹ Provide financial support to local recyclers to help build infrastructure and program capacity for expanded collection and processing of recycled materials ‹ Implement an education and outreach campaign that will help change people’s hearts, minds, and behaviors on recycling ‹ Implement and enforce strong policies such as local recycling program requirements, waste bans, and commercial recycling requirements The potential benefits of greater recycling performance to Michigan’s economy and natural resources—to its Pure Michigan brand—are simply too great to ignore. A more comprehensive and effective recycling program could be achieved under Michigan’s current system of both bottle bill and community recycling programs (“dual recycling system”) or an approach that replaces the bottle bill with strong and widely available local curbside and drop-off recycling opportunities (“community-based, non-bottle bill system”). While either a dual recycling or community-based, non-bottle bill system is feasible, investment at the state and local level will be required either way. Estimated costs for statewide leadership efforts are fairly comparable under both systems—between $14.8 million (dual recycling system) and $16.5 million (community-based, non-bottle bill system). Predicted costs for the local collection and processing of materials, however, are significantly higher under a dual recycling system compared to a community-based, non-bottle bill system and potential revenues are slightly lower. The total extrapolated costs and revenues for a statewide recycling system are summarized below.