Case Studies of Seven Rural Programs Cooperatively Marketing Recyclables Lola Schoenrich April 1994 Funding Provided by the Tennessee Valley Authority and EPA Region IV
To order copies of the full report from which this Synopsis is excerpted: From within the Tennessee Valley Authority service area contact: Tennessee Valley Authority Community Infrastructure Services 400 West Summit Hill Drive Knoxville, Tennessee 37902-1499 (615) 632-3023 From elsewhere contact: The Minnesota Project 1885 University Avenue West Suite 315 St. Paul, Minnesota 55104 (612) 645-6159 This program is financially assisted by the Tennessee Valley Authority and the Environmental Protection Agency Region IV. It is offered on a nondiscriminatory basis, without regard to race, color, national origin, religion, sex, age, or handicap. This document has been funded in part by the United States Environmental Protection Agency. The contents of this document do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Environmental Protection Agency, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. Printed with soy-based ink on 50% recycled, 10% post-consumer content paper
About the Minnesota Project The Minnesota Project is a nonprofit organization working to strengthen rural communities. Founded in 1979, we work with leaders in rural areas as they build their capacity to resolve their own issues of sustainability and natural resource management. We currently focus our mission, values, and project work in six basic areas: Groundwater protection Pollution prevention Recycling market development Sustainable agriculture River protection Renewable energy In each area, we develop citizen involvement and leadership in Minnesota communities, and couple that with broader research and participation in regional and national policy creation. In all of our work, the Minnesota Project serves a clear role of interpreter, educator, and connector between the community and the policy or policy-makers. About the Tennessee Valley Authority TVA is one of the Nation s largest electric power producers, a regional development agency, and a national laboratory, established in 1933 by the U.S. Congress. TVA covers all of Tennessee and parts of six other states, including Kentucky, North Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, and much of Mississippi. TVA s strategic goals are to be an environmental leader, to have competitive rates, and to put people first. As a regional resource development agency, TVA has a staff of engineers, biologists, planners, economists, and technicians skilled in community planning and development, enterprise development, sustainable agriculture, wastewater management, waste management, ecosystem-based management, reclamation of mined land, river management, floodplain management, and environmental communications. TVA has extensive experience in using an integrated approach to achieving a balance between economic and environmental system components. Services are provided to local governments by Community Partnerships, the TVA organization chiefly responsible for TVA s economic and community development initiatives. This publication and work on cooperative marketing of recyclables is sponsored by Community Infrastructure Service s Waste Management Assisstance Team. We have six recycling marketing cooperatives in the Tennessee Valley, each comprised of 5-6 counties with one designed to serve 34 counties. The oldest started in 1987 and the most recent began in 1994. We appreciate the opportunity to fulfill our mission as a demonstration agency and pass along innovative information to a national audience.
ti Introduction Cooperative marketing refers to a group of government entities, sometimes in conjunction with private organizations, that voluntarily agree to work together to sell their recyclable materials. Cooperative marketing programs take many forms and offer a wide array of services. The commonality is that they all market recyclables together on the assumption that they can do this more efficiently together than any one of them can alone. Generally, the communities participating in cooperative marketing groups are not required to work together by any state laws, and groups that are regional by law do not call their work cooperative marketing. Cooperative marketing is widely seen as a solution to the difficulties of recyclers in rural areas, and the number of cooperative marketing programs is growing quickly. The first program in the country, the New Hampshire Resource Recovery Association, proved that cooperative marketing can work, and people began to take notice. In 1992, a survey by the University of Wisconsin1 identified over 15 cooperative marketing groups. By 1994, there were over 50 programs in the United States and Canada. Rural communities face specific difficulties marketing recyclables. In many rural places it is common to find many suppliers of recyclable materials and only a few buyers. At best, a handful of brokers and end markets may dominate the secondary materials markets in any one region. This fundamental imbalance between buyers and sellers leaves the sellers at a distinct disadvantage. Cooperative marketing seeks to correct this imbalance by selling materials from many communities together. Rural programs face additional challenges because of high transportation costs to distant markets. This cuts into market revenues and also makes recycling logistically more difficult. Small communities may not have the space to store materials long enough to accumulate the full truck load of one type of material needed for shipping. Cooperative marketing programs seek to improve transportation efficiencies and often combine loads of materials from more than one community, allowing more frequent shipments. New rural recycling programs have the additional problem of inexperienced staff and little time to learn about marketing recyclables. Cooperative marketing programs provide guaranteed outlets for collected materials and usually provide information and training - through informal sharing, market databases, workshops, and other types of technical assistance to participants. This is a synopsis of a full study, Case Studies of Seuen Rural Programs Cooperatiuely Marketing Recyclables. The study offers in-depth information about seven very different rural cooperative marketing programs. The study came about because of the firm belief of the Minnesota Project, the Tennessee Valley Authority, and the Environmental Protection Agency that people learn best from one another. Given the tremendous interest in cooperative marketing, it is well worth taking a careful look at existing programs. There is much that can be learned from experience. The case study format is an excellent way for local decision makers to learn about what has worked well and not so well in other places, to compare strategies, and to develop informed local solutions. 1. Mary Kohrell & Holly Johnson, Cooperative Marketing in North America: Report on the results of a Comprehensive Survey, University of Wisc: - Extension Solid & Hazardous Waste Education Center, June 1992
The seven case study sites were chosen with the assistance of a project Advisory Committee from among the 50 or more identified programs. Each of the seven programs was studied in detail. The research began with calls to key people working with each cooperative marketing program, and review of the written literature about the program. The most important part of the research was conducted on-site during two to three day visits to each program. At each location, meetings were held with cooperative marketing program staff, participants - including local recycling staff, private and nonprofit haulers and recyclers, and local elected officials - and state agency staff funding the programs. These people talked about their work and answered a predetermined set of questions. By interviewing a number of people with different perspectives, we attempted to get a good sense of the history, operations, and success of each program. The locations of the case study sites are shown in Figure 1 and the programs are summarized in Table 1. Figure 1 Location of Case Study Sites ARK Recycling I sf.svicg L I I Southeast MN I Recyclers Exchange wokerage Authority
Table 1 General Program Information About Case Study Sites Program ARK Recycling Services Service Area Ten communities and nonprofit recyclers in the southeast quarter of Wyoming Population Served 136,000 Services -Processing -Storage -Shipping -Marketing -Technical assistance -Loaned processing equipment Materials Handled -Newspaper -Corrugated -Office paper -Magazines -Steel cans -Aluminum -Glass containers -HDPE & PET Tonnages 4,500 tons Structure Nonprofit or g a-n i za t i o n providing services to the developmentally disabled Central New York Cooperativ Marketing Program Kentucky Recycling Brokerage Authority Midshore Regional Recycling Program Ozark Recycling Enterprise, Inc. Southeast Minnesota Recyclers Exchange Southwest Public Recyciing Assoc. Five counties in upstate New York Counties, communities, private recyclers, and businesses in the state of Kentucky Four counties on the Eastern Shore of Maryland Seven counties, six cities, and seven private and nonprofit recyclers in northern Arkansas Five counties, one private and one nonprofit recycler in the southeastern corner of Minnesota Six states in the southwest: Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, Utah, and west Texas 250,000 3.7 million 109,000 370,000 136,000 5 or 6 nillion -Market information -Storage -Shipping -Marketing -Market information available for a wide ranqe of mat e rials -Market information and other information sharing -Shipping -Market contracts -Training & info -Market develonment -Collection -Material consolidation -Minimal p r o c e s s i n g -Shipping -Marketing -Information sharing -Mobile plastics baling -Market contracts -Shipping -Training & info -Information sharing -Shipping -Market agreements -Local market development -Training -Shipping -Market contracis -Market development -Buy recycled -Tin cans -HDPE plastic -Mixed paper -Aluminum cans -Steel cans -HDPE & PET -Newspaper -Corrugated -Glass -Bimetal cans -Mixed office paper -Newspaper -Corrugated -Glass -Aluminum -Steel cans -HDPE & PET -HDPE & PET -Newspaper -Corrugated -Mixed paper -Aluminum -Steel cans -Corrugated -High-grade paper - N e w s p a p e r -Magazines -Glass -Textiles -HDPE & PET -Steel cans -Glass /-. L.J -Lo1 I uydteu -Newspaper -Magazines -High grade paper -Poly coated paper 8,477 tons (1/93-12/93) 300 tons (6/93-12/93). Tonnages will increase in 1994 as more programs come on line 8,500 tons yearly (based on 1992 actual tonnages) 114 tons of HDPE and PET in 1993. Tonnages will increase in 1994 with other materials added. 1,400 tons (2791-2/92) 680 tons (6/93 - i c) Inn! I&/ 73). Tonnages will increase in 1994 with the addition of other materials. lntergovernment al agreement relating to cooperative marketing public corporation created by the Kentucky legislature to operate a statewide cooperative marketing p r o g r a m Intergovernment al agreement between counties to create a region waste management entity Nonprofit formed to provide recycling related technical assistance in northwest Arkansas Informal, except for non-binding agreement to participate in cooperative marketing Nonprofit organization L-..--J I- IUIIII~U tu strengthen recycling markets in the southwest
CI General Findings The report discusses the seven cooperative marketing programs as a group, comparing and contrasting their work. Each case study is also presented in-depth, along with appendices that include sample legal agreements, contracts, job descriptions, and operations documents. A summary of findings is as follows. I There are six primary goals for these cooperative marketing programs. The mission of the cooperative marketing programs in this study is to strengthen markets for recyclable materials and by so doing, improve the viability of local recycling programs. The participants in these cooperative marketing programs believe that by marketing recyclables together, they will have increased leverage in the marketplace with larger quantities and higher quality materials. The programs have the following goals: 0 0 0 0 0 0 Improve market stability for recyclables Improve access to markets Provide assistance to newly starting recycling programs Improve prices for recyclables Improve economies of scale for collection, processing, and transportation Attract new end markets for recyclables to the region. I Cooperative marketing programs meet most goals. By and large these cooperative marketing groups do meet most of their intended goals. First, market stability and access to markets is enhanced because of increased quantities and quality of materials sold. Second, economies of scale for collection and processing are improved by making more efficient use of personnel and equipment. Finally, market development is a natural extension of cooperative marketing, because industry is attracted to regions that can guarantee the needed supply of raw materials. Nonetheless, cooperative marketing does not always increase market prices for recyclables. I Cooperative marketing is particularly helpful to new rural recycling programs. Community representatives participating in five of the seven case studies said that cooperative marketing made the difference for them between recycling and not recycling. These small programs have the fewest resources, the least information, and limited time and capacity to market and sometimes to collect and process recyclables on their own. The cooperative marketing programs have helped rural recycling programs by providing: collection and processing; access to markets; shared ixfgrr;..atign and connections to other rura! reqclers; Giie-Gii-Giie training and technical assistance; and processing equipment at no cost through equipment loans or at lower cost through joint purchasing.
4 There are additional advantages to cooperative marketing. In addition to meeting most of the programs goals, program participants, program staff, and state staff working with or funding the cooperative marketing programs also talked about a number of other benefits. Cooperative marketing programs also: Allow participants to share information Improve regional connections Save storage space and improve cash flow Save time for local recycling staff Allow programs to add new materials Give participants peace of mind. 4 Znformation sharing is a key advantage. Informal information sharing is one of the most important benefits for participants in the four smallest programs. Information sharing helps new and smaller local recycling programs and helps to build trust that can lead to other successful regional efforts. 4 Buyers benefit as well. Buyers of recyclables from the cooperative marketing groups also see benefits. The benefits include: coordination of marketing agreements and arrangements with one entity rather than many; high quality materials; access to larger, more consistent sources of materials; and a positive public image. 4 Cooperative marketing programs offer three main services. The case studies represent three types of cooperative marketing programs with respect to services offered. Many characteristics of cooperative marketing groups vary depending on the type of service offered. The three types of services are: Collection, processing, and marketing Processing and marketing Marketing only. 4 Znformation sharing and market development are important additional services. The other services provided by these cooperative marketing programs fall into two general categories. The first category is formal and informal information sharing and technical assistance and the second is market development and buy recycled programs. Information and technical assistance is needed for participating Inca! recycling programs to make good use of the cooperative marketing programs. Market development and buy recycled, along with cooperative marketing, are the integral components of strengthening recycling markets.
E Cooperative marketing groups are different from private brokers. Cooperative marketing groups differ from private brokers in that they are controlled by the membership. The result of this difference in control is that users of cooperative marketing groups trust that the cooperative marketing program is acting in their best interests, handling all materials, not just those that are the most profitable. Many cooperative marketing groups also differ from private brokers in that they do not ever own the materials that are sold. They merely arrange for the sale, and the revenue and responsibility for quality belongs to the seller. Many cooperative marketing groups sell their materials through brokers. H The size of the service area for cooperative marketing groups varies. The optimum size for cooperative marketing groups depends in part on the services provided. Programs coordinating collection and processing must be small enough to reasonably transport unprocessed materials from the collection sites to the processing facility, usually no bigger than three to six counties. Groups that offer only marketing services range in size from five counties to six states. Larger groups attract the interest of larger, potentially more lucrative and helpful end markets for recyclables. Smaller groups offer the intimacy of regular sharing of common problems and offer the potential to build other regional programs as trust develops between participants. H Good models exist for cooperative marketing program operations. Operations difficulties should not be a barrier to successful cooperative marketing. Each of the seven programs studied here has developed effective operating procedures. Each has procedures for processing and storing materials, communicating with buyers, arranging shipping, dealing with quality control, and tracking materials and payments. These procedures and those of other successful programs can and should be used as models by newly developing cooperative marketing programs. H There are differences in materials handled by cooperative marketing programs. Most cooperative marketing programs intend to handle all commonly collected materials in time, but they differ in how they begin. The programs in this study are evenly split between those that begin by handling all materials, those that begin by handling materials with the greatest value, and those that begin with materials that are the hardest to market. The programs that begin by handling the highest value materials have the greatest potential to increase revenues for local programs immediately. Those that begin with the hardest to market materials provide a popular service if successful, but risk frustration and failure if they are not able to improve market conditions. E A variety of methods are used to find markets. These programs used a variety of methods to find and select markets. Several used a formal request for proposal process and involved participants in the market selection. This helped new cooperative marketing programs get the lay of the land and identify interested buyers. However, this formal process was not always needed. Programs were able to find stable buyers with good prices through informal research.
W Market relationships vary as well. Market relationships vary from long-term formal contracts, to purchase orders, and verbal agreements. The type of relationship depends on both the goals of the cooperative marketing program and the common practices of the program participants and the buyers. Programs with the goal of long-term stability are most likely to use contracts with a designated floor and ceiling price. Cooperative marketing programs that are seeking the highest prices are more likely to use more informal, shorter-term verbal or written agreements. The practices of the local participants also vary by region, from those that require a written contract to make a sale, to those that are averse to written contracts. Cooperative marketing works either way. W There are four possible legal structures. The programs in this study use three different legal structures: nonprofit organization, intergovernmental agreement, and state agency. A fourth possible legal structure, legal cooperative, is not represented in this study. The legal structure chosen depends on the goals of the cooperative marketing program and the resources already available in the community. Some goals can only be met by one legal structure. For instance, the private sector can only participate actively in a nonprofit organization, and states will typically recognize only an intergovernmental agreement as a legitimate region for solid waste planning purposes. H A key decision must be made about the involvement of elected officials. One of the cooperative marketing programs studied cites the active involvement of local elected officials as a special strength. Two list the exclusive involvement of local recycling staff as one of the reasons that they have been successful. There are benefits to both approaches, but they are different. Local elected officials carry the voice of the people and can ensure that the cooperative marketing program serves the policy directions of the local governments. With their involvement and voice, they are ready and able to provide the funding for the organization. On the other hand, local staff tend to have common problems and interests, and little history of conflict. Together, they put aside the larger problems and focus on creating a program that serves their needs. Excluding elected officials, however, can lead to problems when funding is needed from local governments because they may not be familiar with the program. H Grants play a key role in the start-up of cooperative marketing groups. Grants from state agencies, the Tennessee Valley Authority, and others such as the US. Environmental Protection Agency have had a key role in getting cooperative marketing groups started. This is because local governments have been unwilling to invest in programs until they are proven effective and because there is a period of planning and start-up before programs begin to generate revenue. It is quite likely that few of the programs studied would have started without the grant funding they received. Grants have funded the start-up operations of the groups offering marketing services, and capital costs for the groups offering collection and processing.
H There are a variety of sources of revenues, but there is still much grant reliance. Revenue sources depend on the services offered. Grants are the primary source of revenues for four of the seven groups. One is a state agency, funded entirely by legislative appropriation. The two programs offering collection and processing are funded with: a landfill surcharge fund, material revenues, and processing and brokerage fees. The programs providing marketing services augment their grants with a combination of: brokerage fees paid by sellers, service fees paid by buyers, membership fees, contributions by members for certain services, and workshop and conference fees. Table 2, Budgets and Sources of Revenue, compares the seven programs. I I Table 2 Budgets and Sources of Revenue Program ARK Recycling Services Central New York Cooperative Marketing Program H Think about timing. Timing of funding for cooperative marketing is critical. In at least one case, state agency staff felt that the timing was both too late and too early. This particular grant came too late to help newly forming groups and too early for the communities to be ready to consider program improvements that might lead to cooperative marketing. Also, the length of the grants is important. One year seems to be too short a time for a program to get up and running and also prove itself to local participants. Cooperative marketing groups ask for longer term support of up to two years. 1993 Budget Funding $300,000 -Sale of materials (most important revenue source) -Brokerage fees paid by users -Processing fees -Grants for capital costs $36,519 -Grant from New York State (82%) -County contribution (18%) Kentucky Recycling Brokerage Authority Midshore Regional Recycling Program Ozark Recycling Enterprise, Inc. $170,000 $396,872 $36,000 Legislative appropriation (100% of operating costs) -Landfill surcharge fund (100% of operating costs) -State grants for capital costs Grants from the state, EPA and private businesses (100%) Southeast Minnesota Recyclers Exchange Southwest Public Recycling Association $52,850 -Grants from businesses and other private sources (51%) -Brokerage fees paid by users (16%) -County contributions (16%) -1nkind contributions (17%) $283,800 -Grants from EPA, state agencies, and foundations (67%) -Memberships(20%) -Earned Income ( 13%)
ti Role of State and Regional Agencies In some parts of the country, state and regional agencies have taken a lead role in promoting and funding cooperative marketing programs. The availability of state grants catalyzed formation of three of the seven case studies and state funding is an important source of revenue for four of the seven. Staff and elected officials of other states can learn from these experiences. With this in mind, the following reflections are offered. Cooperative marketing programs usually need start-up funding. Most newly forming cooperative marketing groups would probably put funding at the top of their list of needs. While some funding may come from local governments, matching grants from states or other agencies can help make up the difference. As previously discussed, start-up grants have been a helpful source of support for new cooperative marketing programs. It does take time to get a program up and running and it is unreasonable to believe that fees can support a program during start-up. Grants, however, are a double edged sword. Applicants are tempted to provide what the funder is looking for, whether or not it is really the best fit, and can rush a group into a commitment for which they are not really ready. Agencies can provide technical assistance. Sometimes money is not all that is needed. Several cooperative marketing groups commented on the importance of an outside facilitator who helped them to plan their program. Some state agencies have been able to provide this long-term outside support, helping with facilitation, information, and encouragement. In some cases, this kind of help has been what was needed to pull a group together and begin taking action. Regional efforts work best if promoted from the beginning. It is easier to promote regionalization from the beginning than to impose it later. Once counties and communities have started independent programs, invested in capital equipment, and hired their own recycling staff, they are reluctant at best to look for regional solutions. By then each community is proud and committed to their own way of doing things. Like other regional approaches, cooperative marketing is easier if it is started as recycling programs are starting. ti Difficulties and Challenges The seven case study programs faced a number of difficulties in their operations to date. They also face challenges to their future success. Again, there are many commonalities summarized here. Cooperative marketing has not iived up to aii expectations. Despite an almost universal feeling from participants that the cooperative marketing programs have been worthwhile, there are ways that they have not lived up to expectations. In some cases this is because expectations were too high and needed to be adjusted, and in some cases the program would have better lived up to expectations had it been set up or operated differently.
There are several ways that programs have actually offered less than was hoped for. In each case, people have learned from the experience and can talk about what they would do differently next time. The areas of disappointment were: Program development took longer than expected The service provided was not as useful as it could have been Prices did not increase as expected The costs were too high. Financing is an ongoing challenge. Cooperative marketing groups that only offer marketing services face particular difficulties and uncertainty with long-term funding. This is the single biggest challenge for their survival. These groups have not had access to the typical sources of funding for recycling programs like revenues from sale of materials, landfill surcharge funds, household service fees, and local taxes. Some may succeed over time and some may not. If they are to be successful, the local users must see them as worthwhile and be willing to pay for the services. Groups need to learn to quantify the benefits of cooperative marketing to individual participants in order to convince local decision makers of the value. Cooperative marketing does not always raise market prices for recyclables. Larger local recycling programs participating in these cooperative marketing programs did not always see price increases because they are already handling larger amounts of materials and are usually closer to urban areas where markets are located. Also, prices may not increase in parts of the country where buyers have access to more supply than they need. If this is a primary goal for the program, some participants will be disappointed. H There are other challenges in three basic categories. All organizations face challenges and difficulties from time to time. By struggling with them and resolving them, organizations grow and improve the work that they do. These cooperative marketing groups are no exception. Program staff, participants, and state staff talked about the challenges faced by each. Each program is somewhat unique, but the challenges tend to fall into the three basic categories of financing, operations, and the inherent difficulties of working together. 0 Elements of Success There were a number of areas where there were common elements of success in the seven case study programs. They are described here. H The services provided must meet the needs of the -,..4:,:,,, &.. IJUI blblljurlb3. The most successful of the case study programs made the best matches between the services they provided and the needs and capacity of the local participants. For instance, very rural communities and newer recycling programs benefited from access to processing, processing equipment, and even recycling collection services. Established local recycling programs are able to use marketing services that broker materials and arrange shipment to market from the local recycling centers.
H Successful programs take advantage of existing local resources. Programs were most successful when they made good use of existing local resources. It is far simpler and cost effective to make better use of existing resources than to start from scratch. Local resources used by these cooperative marketing programs included existing recycling centers, collection and processing equipment, host organizations, and funding sources. Those case study programs that offer collection or processing are able to do so because one county or nonprofit organization had already invested in a recycling center or equipment that could be shared with others. Existing nonprofit organizations operate the cooperative marketing programs in Arkansas and Wyoming. One program successfully sought grant funding from agricultural cooperatives in the area that wanted to support other types of rural cooperatives. H New recycling programs need technical information and support. The most successful case study programs working with new recycling programs offer them technical information and support. Simply making markets available is not enough. Staff and volunteers at new recycling programs need help learning how to collect and process recyclables. They are still learning proper sorting, processing, baling methods, meeting buyers specifications, and loading techniques. The technical assistance work both helps to fulfill the cooperative marketing programs missions of promoting recycling and helps local programs make better use of the cooperative marketing programs services. H Combining planning and action leads to success. Programs that take too long to develop any markets frustrate participants. The most successful programs took action early on, either beginning with easier to market materials that had the potential to increase revenues quickly or by successfully developing solutions to the problems of hard to market materials. 1 Legal structures offer a framework for goals. All of the cooperative marketing programs in the study either were preexisting organizations, developed legal structures early on, or had experience working together before they began cooperative marketing. One of the advantages to a legal structure or organization is that it offers a framework within which to work. The successful programs made a good match between their goals and the legal structure they chose. H Having an independent structure can be a benefit. In most of the case study programs, independence from other organizations has been helpful. In one case where the cooperative marketing program was operated by another entity, the program has suffered from changes in the priorities of the parent organization. In another case where the cooperative marketing program is operated by an organization with a different primary mission, some community members worry that the cooperative marketing program could be abandoned.
H Democratic control by the membership offers some advantages. Five of the seven case studies are democratically controlled by the participants or membership through boards of directors and committees. Democratic control by the membership offers a sense of security that the cooperative marketing program is acting in the best interests of the membership. On the other hand, it does take time and energy that may add little to the organization running the program. H Decision-making should be made by sellers of materials. Buyers and sellers of recyclables have different interests, and private recyclers are often buyers as well as sellers of materials. Therefore, putting buyers in decision making roles in the program can create conflicts of interest. H Program participants must make some commitments to the program. Six of the seven programs studied have taken steps to formalize agreements with members or participants using the services. The agreements assist in planning and in attracting and securing markets by providing estimates of the amount of recyclables that will be marketed. They also ensure that participants are committed to their participation in the program. H Good leadership is a critical component of success. Each of the cooperative marketing programs in this study succeeded in part because of strong and competent leadership. Cooperative marketing, however, requires more than one leader. People at each of the member communities must be committed to the strategy and willing and able to advocate for active involvement with their colleagues and local decision-makers. Given the importance of strong leadership, it is also important to make arrangements for staff and leadership transitions to ensure program continuity. H Good staffing is important. Participants in the cooperative marketing groups thought that it was extremely helpful to have a paid staff person. That one person is able to put energy and attention to the task of developing both the cooperative marketing program and good markets for recyclables. 1 Successful cooperative marketing requires trust. Planning a new cooperative marketing program or participating in an existing one means taking risks with other people and trusting others with your interests. Many recyclers, for example, treat market information as proprietary and share it very reluctantly, if at all. A participant in one cooperative marketing program said you need to break the paradigm that there are winners and losers and create new ways for all to win. The most successful programs have created an atmosphere of sharing and trust that respects all the different needs, interests, and concerns of participants. None of this happens overnight. Several of the case study programs began with communities and groups that had a history of successful collaborations. Respectful collaboration through the cooperative marketing program has deepened their trust in one another and paved the way for other successful collaborative efforts.