Solid Waste Management Seminar

Report
OECD &
Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment
Waste Management Seminar
Sept. 2011
Moscow
Love Environment Inc.
126 William Street, Stratford, Ontario N5A 4Y1
[email protected]
Tel: 519- 305- 0984
Cell: 647-248-2500
Presentation Outline

Background
◦
◦
◦
◦

what is counted as MSW in Canada
MSW management as a shared responsibility
national MSW tonnes generated, disposed and diverted
current status of MSW in Canada
EPR
◦ what is extended producer responsibility - OECD definition/history
◦ Why/benefits of EPR
◦ Canadian Stewardship Programs
◦ BC/Quebec/New Brunswick/Ontario new initiatives
◦ packaging and printed paper in Ontario
◦ voluntary vs Mandatory programs

Lessons Learned
◦ harmonization and the role business
◦ EPR issues and opportunities in Canada
◦ Possible implications as the Russian Federation considers EPR
Love Environment Inc.
2
What is Municipal Solid Waste (MSW)?

MSW is any material (generally known as garbage,
recyclables and compostables) for which the generator
has no further use, and which is managed at disposal,
recycling, or composting facilities
 Includes materials from the residential and nonresidential sectors:
◦ Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional (ICI); and
◦ Construction and Demolition (C&D)

In Canada (unlike the Russian Federation) residential and
ICI waste are measured, managed and paid for separately
Love Environment Inc.
3
MSW Management is a Shared
Jurisdiction
Jurisdictional Roles:
 Municipal:
◦ responsible for the collection, diversion, and disposal of MSW from residential
sources; commonly own landfills and implement by-laws to drive diversion;
primary service or contracting agent for residential waste services
 Provincial/Territorial:
◦ movements of wastes within jurisdiction, licensing of generators, carriers and
treatment facilities, extended producer responsibility policy and program
development; provincial generation, diversion and disposal tracking
 Federal:
◦ international agreements; transboundary movements of hazardous waste,
hazardous recyclable material, and non-hazardous waste; CEPA 1999
◦ Developing national initiatives, gathering statistics and performing analyses,
supporting innovation, providing information, and building capacity;
encouraging inter-provincial collaboration (e.g. EPR program harmonization
through Council of Ministers of the Environment)
Love Environment Inc.
4
MSW Generation
Quantities of MSW* generated (diverted + disposed)
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
% change
(2002-2008)
Tonnes
(million)
29.3
30.7
32.3
33.7
34.3
+12%
Kg/capita
952
980
1,011
1,033
1,031
+5%
Population
(million)
30.8
31.4
32
31.6
33.3
+6%
Love Environment Inc.
5
MSW Diversion & Disposal
Quantities of MSW* diverted (recycled + composted)
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
% change
(2002-2008)
MTonnes
6.1
6.6
7.1
7.7
8.5
+29%
Kg/capita
199
212
222
237
254
+20%
% diversion
21
22
22
23
25
+14%
Quantities of MSW* to disposal (landfilling and thermal treatment)
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
MTonnes
23.2
24.1
25.2
25.9
25.9
% change
(2002-2008)
+7%
Kg/capita
752
768
789
796
777
+1%
* Includes Residential, ICI and C&D
Love Environment Inc.
6
Opportunities
 MSW between 2002 and 2008:
◦ Generation: 12% increase
◦ Disposal: 7% increase
◦ Diversion rates: 22% to 25% (stagnant)
 Residential waste between 2002 and 2008:
◦ Generation: 6% increase
◦ Disposal: 9.6% decrease
◦ Diversion rates: from 23% to 34%
 Non-residential waste between 2002 and 2008:
◦ Generation: 16% increase
◦ Disposal: 18% increase
◦ Diversion rate: from 21% down to 19%


97% of the MSW for disposal is landfilled
GHG emissions from landfills are decreasing slightly
Love Environment Inc.
7
Defining EPR

Extended Producer Responsibility:
◦ an environmental policy approach in which a producer’s responsibility, physical
and/or financial, for a product is extended to the post-consumer stage of a
product’s life cycle (OECD, 2001)
◦ In Canada, EPR programs are commonly called “stewardship programs”;
producers are responsible for the impacts of their products and
packaging and are called (often in legislation) “stewards”
Life Cycle Flow Diagram
Extracting
Processing
Manufacturing
Use
Disposal
Recycling
Love Environment Inc.
8
Why EPR ? What benefits?

Waste quantities continue to grow – slowly but steadily
◦ Total disposal: 2000 = 23,168,870 tonnes; 2006 = 27,249,177 tonnes
◦ Per capita disposal: 2000 = 752 kg/capita; 2006 = 835kg/capita (Statistics Canada
data); now over one tonne per person per year
◦ Waste diversion rate have stalled at about 24%

Concerns about hazardous waste and toxic substances
◦ Challenges with specific waste streams – e.g. used crankcase oil, household
hazardous wastes, electronics, ozone depleting substances
◦ Environment Canada/Health Canada Chemicals Management Plan – categorization,
assessment and risk management (under CEPA 1999)




Need to address problematic wastes, avoid disposal and manage
residuals in an environmentally sound manner
Need for cost accounting for the full life-cycle of a product
Need for incentives for better environmental design
THE KEY : Need to shift to a non-tax funding mechanism
Love Environment Inc.
9
Canada has been at this a long time!
First curbside pilot recycling program – Kitchener,
Ontario 1981 – I was there!!
 Optimism about the waste diversion benefits of
recycling

◦ Municipally funded
◦ Initial Ontario and beverage industry subsidy for operating costs and start-up capital

National Packaging Protocol – 1989 - 2000
◦ Voluntary shared industry, government, consumer responsibility
model
◦ Multi-stakeholder National Packaging Task Force formed in 1989
◦ National target of 50% reduction in packaging waste
by December 2000 – 20% by Dec 1992; 35% by Dec 1996
◦ Statistics Canada surveys; Environment Canada secretariat
◦ Met 50% target in 1996
◦ Mostly business efficiencies - less impact on consumer packaging
◦ Wrapped up in 2000
Love Environment Inc.
10
Key developments in waste management/waste
diversion in Canada & internationally in the 2000s






Advent of single stream recycling – recycling service
must be as convenient as disposal (Ontario 3Rs
Regulations)
Emergence & growth of organics diversion programs –
windrow/in-vessel technologies (more tonnes diverted
now from organics than household blue boxes)
Advancements in collection vehicles, processing
systems (e.g. optical sorting technologies) and markets
(e.g. thermoform PET)
Innovations in program financing – user pay/pay-as-youthrow programs & dedicated waste utilities
Consumer education, engagement & demands
Social media exploding
Love Environment Inc.
11
CCME CANADA-WIDE ACTION PLAN FOR EPR

Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME)
EPR Task Force provided broad guidance on EPR
◦ Canada-wide Principles for Electronics Product Stewardship
◦ Canada-wide Principles for EPR
◦ EPR product evaluation tool

Canada-wide Action Plan for EPR, October 2009 – promotes
co-ordinated and harmonized EPR action on priority products
by an agreed timetable:
◦ Phase 1 (within 6 years) – packaging and printed papers; mercury
containing lamps; electronics; household hazardous and special
wastes; automotive products
◦ Phase 2 (within 8 years) – construction and demolition wastes;
furniture; textiles; carpet; appliances; ozone depleting substances

June 2011 CCME announcement emphasizes priority work on
packaging
Love Environment Inc.
12
Key EPR Program Elements








End-of-life responsibility is transferred to producers from municipal
taxpayers
Costs are borne by producers but can and often are passed on to
consumers through visible point of purchase fees
Producers are free to act collectively or individually
Producers obligated to prepare stewardship plans and meet targets
Governments level the playing field and monitor and enforce targets
Best programs operate within flexible performance-based regulatory
frameworks i.e. minimal government role in operational details
Consumers have free and reasonable access to the program with a
responsibility to participate
Programs aim to encourage environmental design (not very
successfully so far!!)
Love Environment Inc.
13
CANADIAN STEWARDSHIP AND EPR
PROGRAMS (StewardEdge)
Love Environment Inc.
14
CANADIAN STEWARDSHIP AND EPR
PROGRAMS (MGM Management)
Love Environment Inc.
15
Packaging and Printed Paper: Ontario
Shared responsibility model
50%
Program directed and approved through
Waste Diversion Ontario
 Producers, through Stewardship Ontario, fund 50%
of net eligible municipal program costs – annual
municipal data call by WDO
 Municipalities have kept operational responsibilities
 Waste Diversion Act review recommended switch
to100% EPR in 2009 – recommendation has not been
acted on – hampered by MHSW eco fee controversy
 More complex and prescriptive approvals
process than in other provinces


Love Environment Inc.
16
Stewardship Ontario – Ontario collective
“steward” for printed paper and packaging
Created as “non-share capital corporation” in 2004
1800+ obligated companies are required to report
packaging and printed paper tonnes sold into
Ontario households each year
 In 2011, stewards paid municipalities $92 million
(50% of total costs) for blue box recycling for 4
million households – system diverts about 1 million
tonnes/year
 Stewards also invest (about $8 million/year)in
municipal program improvements
 Agreement stipulates that stewards pay to “best
practice costs”


Love Environment Inc.
17
Stewardship Ontario
Blue Box Data 2003-2009
2003
Data Year
Material
Quantity
2005 sales Available
(tonnes)
2005 *
2007 *
2009
Quantity Recycling
Quantity
Recycled Rate 2007 sales Available
(tonnes)
(%)
(tonnes)
Quantity Recycling
Quantity
Recycled Rate 2009 sales Available
(tonnes)
(%)
(tonnes)
Quantity Recycling
Quantity
Recycled Rate 2011 sales Available
(tonnes)
(%)
(tonnes)
Quantity Recycling
Recycled Rate
(tonnes)
(%)
Newsprint - CNA/OCNA
Newsprint - Non-CNA/OCNA
Magazines and Catalogues
Telephone Books
Other Printed Paper
Printed Paper Total
271,356
138,202
58,844
16,676
49,763
534,841
264,800
136,400
95,100
15,000
127,800
639,100
198,666
102,334
68,898
11,254
49,463
430,615
75%
75%
72%
75%
39%
67%
268,828
161,065
65,261
14,427
63,640
573,221
268,224
128,557
97,267
21,090
122,082
637,220
215,716
103,390
73,043
16,961
47,408
456,518
80%
80%
75%
80%
39%
72%
219,315
152,676
60,720
15,381
64,379
512,471
269,247
129,047
91,112
19,933
120,303
629,642
236,301
113,257
80,013
17,493
53,018
500,082
88%
88%
88%
88%
44%
79%
188,163
139,537
53,751
9,561
55,770
446,782
226,370
110,781
85,585
13,852
118,782
555,370
196,010
95,924
74,107
11,995
61,305
439,341
87%
87%
87%
87%
52%
79%
Old Corrugated Containers
Gabletop
Paper Laminants
Aseptic Containers
Old Boxboard
Paper Packaging Total
PET bottles
HDPE bottles
Plastic Film
Plastic Laminants
Polystyrene
Other Plastics
Plastics Total
Food & Beverage Cans
Aerosols
Paint Cans
Steel Total
Al Food & Beverage Cans
Other Aluminum Packaging
Aluminum Total
Food and Beverage - Flint
Food and Beverage - Coloured
Glass Total
Packaging Total
101,460
12,459
26,099
4,610
134,748
279,375
37,955
24,333
51,554
16,633
14,268
36,767
181,509
59,663
5,153
7,950
72,767
28,352
2,426
30,778
128,922
68,025
196,947
761,377
140,000
12,800
42,000
2,800
130,500
328,100
36,200
23,000
53,700
57,400
20,400
28,300
219,000
57,800
4,300
4,800
66,900
24,100
2,408
26,508
121,800
72,900
194,700
835,208
100,279
1,222
420
268
54,712
156,901
18,120
11,551
2,993
574
541
1,603
35,382
30,447
1,008
1,128
32,583
9,832
282
10,114
69,976
44,273
114,249
349,229
72%
10%
1%
10%
42%
48%
50%
50%
6%
1%
3%
6%
16%
53%
23%
24%
49%
41%
12%
38%
57%
61%
59%
42%
112,836
13,152
20,855
4,886
144,126
295,854
49,285
24,751
55,444
16,982
12,804
53,588
212,854
49,387
4,758
5,152
59,297
27,143
2,900
30,044
78,041
8,988
87,029
685,077
165,706
15,145
37,673
3,543
127,388
349,455
45,362
25,689
61,616
25,613
22,544
44,939
225,763
47,495
3,957
6,758
58,210
22,604
3,648
26,252
73,980
15,211
89,191
748,871
115,230
2,100
377
456
67,674
185,837
23,192
13,328
4,995
256
394
3,594
45,759
31,290
1,036
1,159
33,485
10,743
308
11,051
45,238
9,061
54,299
330,431
70%
14%
1%
13%
53%
53%
51%
52%
8%
1%
2%
8%
20%
66%
26%
17%
58%
48%
8%
42%
61%
60%
61%
44%
139,645
14,782
21,356
5,567
171,350
352,700
55,210
24,255
54,678
20,476
14,440
57,627
226,686
44,787
7,344
5,780
57,911
25,788
3,804
29,592
90,123
25,219
115,341
782,231
162,847
14,836
38,387
3,941
127,666
347,677
49,025
26,744
59,213
29,186
21,971
53,356
239,495
49,351
4,337
5,788
59,476
22,578
3,897
26,475
70,425
9,829
80,254
753,377
125,610
2,317
384
503
73,931
202,745
26,904
15,201
4,822
285
417
5,353
52,982
31,132
1,054
1,179
33,365
9,925
301
10,226
59,528
7,041
66,569
365,887
77%
16%
1%
13%
58%
58%
55%
57%
8%
1%
2%
10%
22%
63%
24%
20%
56%
44%
8%
39%
85%
72%
83%
49%
117,292
13,931
24,964
6,041
147,735
309,963
49,342
27,443
42,119
23,840
13,166
56,416
212,325
43,885
4,233
5,335
53,452
24,016
3,470
27,486
83,233
25,982
109,215
712,441
173,400
14,638
38,504
4,082
127,275
357,899
44,553
26,551
53,029
32,317
20,780
57,887
235,117
47,244
4,172
5,382
56,798
22,287
3,590
25,877
79,470
22,868
102,338
778,029
159,077
3,944
385
925
71,172
235,503
25,557
14,641
5,209
323
992
11,815
58,537
31,479
927
978
33,384
10,515
325
10,840
74,413
18,196
92,609
430,873
92%
27%
1%
23%
56%
66%
57%
55%
10%
1%
5%
20%
25%
67%
22%
18%
59%
47%
9%
42%
94%
80%
90%
55%
1,296,218
1,474,308
779,844
53% 1,258,298
1,386,091
786,949
57% 1,294,702
1,383,019
865,969
63% 1,159,224
1,333,399
870,214
Printed Paper & Packaging Total
Love Environment Inc.
65%
18
Recent Major Regulatory and Policy Initiatives
British Columbia
◦
◦
May 2011 – mandates 100% producer responsibility for packaging and printed papers
Involved in Western Product Stewardship Collaborative (WPSC) - drafting a pacific
coast EPR Action Plan
Quebec
◦
EPR framework legislation and regulation June 2011
Shifts blue box to 100% EPR – producers fund, municipalities continue to operate
Mandates internalization of program costs
New Brunswick
◦
Clean Environment Act regulations prohibit charging separate fees to
consumers in the waste paint EPR program
Ontario
EPR “eco fees” controversy - failed launch Phase 2 of the Municipal Hazardous
and Special Wastes program – July 2010; Waste Diversion Act review underway
Love Environment Inc.
19
The Move from Voluntary to Mandated Programs
Established and voluntary programs being covered by EPR regulations
 Pesticide Containers

Manitoba – CleanFARMS submitted a stewardship plan for their existing
program
B.C.’s packaging regulation will be expanded in the
future to cover non-residential packaging, potentially
including agricultural packaging

Batteries
The RBRC Chargeup2Recycle program is now expanding to accept all
batteries and is covered under EPR regulations in B.C., Manitoba, Ontario
and shortly in Quebec

Hazardous Wastes
Originally managed through some take back to retail initiatives
In Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec significant numbers of these products are
now or will be soon directly covered under EPR regulations
Love Environment Inc.
20
Harmonization of Regulations and Programs
Harmonization of Regulations and Policy



There is broad agreement on EPR policy in Canada and the need for level playing
field regulations
Provincial regulators communicate regularly, particularly between adjoining
jurisdictions where the lack of harmonization causes program difficulties
Generally regulatory harmonization still appears to be challenge for governments
particularly given an apparent weakening of the CCME role
Harmonization of Programs



Harmonization is increasingly less of an issue for producers who have shown an
ability to work together between programs
Program cooperation and harmonization for electronics and used oil have shown
results
Producers are also starting to coordinate within jurisdictions – e.g. Recently
formed Stewardship Agencies of British Columbia organization – province-wide
EPR program guide
Love Environment Inc.
21
EMERGING CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES



EPR concept is well established in Canada - no
longer any real debate about the merits
Debate has shifted - now focused on how to
make EPR programs more effective and efficient
for both producers and for governments
With growing program maturity there are a
number of emerging challenges and opportunities:
◦ Fulfilling the promise and potential of the CCME EPR Action Plan
◦ Moving beyond residential wastes to those from the industrial, commercial
and institutional sectors
◦ Harmonization of both regulations and programs
◦ Cost internalization and fees
◦ Driving environmental improvements
◦ Increasing complexity with increasing programs and product designation
◦ Moving towards true producer “cradle to grave” responsibility
Love Environment Inc.
22
Covering the Industrial Commercial and Institutional
(ICI) Sectors

Historic focus on wastes and products from the residential sector

Waste diversion targets and environmental product improvement objectives
cannot be met unless the ICI sectors are engaged

The CCME EPR Action Plan makes no distinction between residential and
ICI sources

EPR regulations are being proposed to cover ICI sources as well as
residential (e.g. Quebec and BC)

The move to cover ICI sources will bring a new set of producers, who at
the moment are generally ill-informed about EPR

ICI sources will challenge existing recycling capacity - EPR programs will
have to phase in and adapt to new volumes
Love Environment Inc.
23
Cost Internalization and Fees – an on-going issue
and debate in Canada

A complicated issue that needs to be addressed in the context of other
issues such as EPR objectives to incentivize product environmental
improvements

The Canada-wide EPR Action Plan supports program costs being
internalized as a factor of production

A number of programs do operate with no visible fee to the consumer and
internalized costing

The majority of EPR regulations in Canada are silent on the cost
internalization/fee visibility issue
◦ A significant number of programs operate with visible point of purchase fees
◦ Visible fees have been accepted in the majority of cases by consumers; visible fee
proponents point to its consumer education value – ie diversion costs money
◦ Some producers are strongly opposed to cost internalization

Visible fees can however be very controversial - Ontario July 2010

Quebec and New Brunswick are the only two jurisdictions so far to
regulate against visible consumer fees
Love Environment Inc.
24
EPR LESSONS FROM CANADA AND WHAT TO
WATCH FOR

EPR Lessons
◦ EPR is applicable to a wide range of end-of-life products and wastes
◦ EPR programs can meet high waste diversion targets
◦ Producers can organize and operate programs without compromising
other business objectives
◦ Successful programs are built on effective measurement and mature
management systems
◦ The public is supportive, generally governments of all political
persuasions are on side and businesses are engaged

What to look for in the years ahead in Canada
◦
◦
◦
◦
◦
Continuing growth in the number and scope of programs
Harmonization – largely driven by producers to reduce costs
Moves by governments and by producers to internalize program costs
Increasing coordination of program promotion and education
Municipalities vacating direct program operations (partly to reduce
costs)
Love Environment Inc.
25
What this might mean for EPR developments in
the Russian Federation

Canada – Russia similarities
◦ Both large land masses with dispersed
populations
◦ 34 mil vs 140 mil
◦ 3.73 persons km vs 8.4 persons/km
◦ Both also highly urbanized
◦ Canada 80% urban; Russia 74%
◦ Both have three levels of gov’t active in waste
and cold winters (so seasonal organics and
great hockey teams!)
Love Environment Inc.
26
What this might mean for EPR developments in
the Russian Federation
1.
-
Start “small” with something that is:
Manageable (e.g. beverage containers)
Important (e.g. litter reduction)
Sustainable (e.g. plastics/aluminum revenues)
Partners exist (i.e. private sector and other
provinces/states/countries
Lots to learn from Nova Scotia, Alberta and
British Columbia on how to develop/manage
beverage container management programs
Love Environment Inc.
27
What this might mean for EPR developments in
the Russian Federation
2.
-
Data, data, data
Waste generation information
Residential/ICI information
Disposal/licencing information
Material specific data (e.g. on beverage
container generation, packaging types,
shipping
Love Environment Inc.
28
What this might mean for EPR developments in
the Russian Federation
3. Learn from the successes and failures
of other jurisdictions
- Legislation
- Roles of producer companies
- Market development
- Service providers/best practices
- Municipal success stories
Learn from others mistakes before you repeat
them!
Love Environment Inc.
29
THANK YOU - FOR MORE INFORMATION

Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)
www.oecd.org/environment

Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) – Canadawide Action Plan for EPR www.ccme.ca/ourwork/waste

Environment Canada www.ec.gc.ca/epr

British Columbia Ministry of Environment www.env.gov.bc.ca/epd/recycling

Alberta Recycling Management Authority (ARMA) www.albertarecycling.ca

Electronics Stewardship Association of British Columbia (ESABC)
www.esabc.ca

Waste Diversion Ontario (WDO) www.wdo.ca

Used Oil Management Association (UOMA) www.usedoilrecycling.com

CleanFARMS www.cleanfarms.ca

Geoff Love, Love Environemnt, [email protected]
Love Environment Inc.
30

similar documents