Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

OECD & Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment Waste Management Seminar Sept. 2011 Moscow Love Environment Inc. 126 William Street, Stratford, Ontario.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "OECD & Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment Waste Management Seminar Sept. 2011 Moscow Love Environment Inc. 126 William Street, Stratford, Ontario."— Presentation transcript:

1 OECD & Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment Waste Management Seminar Sept. 2011 Moscow Love Environment Inc. 126 William Street, Stratford, Ontario N5A 4Y1 loveenvironment@routcom.com Tel: 519- 305- 0984 Cell: 647-248-2500

2 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 2Love Environment Inc.

3 3 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 non- residential 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 What is Municipal Solid Waste (MSW)? Love Environment Inc.

4 MSW Management is a Shared Jurisdiction 4 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.

5 MSW Generation 5Love Environment Inc. 2000 2002200420062008 % change (2002-2008) Tonnes (million) 29.330.732.333.734.3+12% Kg/capita9529801,0111,0331,031 +5% Population (million) 30.831.43231.633.3+6% Quantities of MSW* generated (diverted + disposed)

6 MSW Diversion & Disposal 6Love Environment Inc. Quantities of MSW* diverted (recycled + composted) 20002002 200420062008 % change (2002-2008) MTonnes6.16.67.17.78.5 +29% Kg/capita199212222237254+20% % diversion2122 2325 +14% Quantities of MSW* to disposal (landfilling and thermal treatment) 20002002200420062008 % change (2002-2008) MTonnes23.224.125.225.9 +7% Kg/capita752768789796777+1% * Includes Residential, ICI and C&D

7 Opportunities 7Love Environment Inc. 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

8 Defining EPR Love Environment Inc.8 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” Recycling DisposalUse Manufacturing Processing Extracting Life Cycle Flow Diagram

9 Why EPR ? What benefits? 9Love Environment Inc. 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

10 10 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 Canada has been at this a long time! Love Environment Inc.

11 11 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-you- throw programs & dedicated waste utilities Consumer education, engagement & demands Social media exploding Key developments in waste management/waste diversion in Canada & internationally in the 2000s Love Environment Inc.

12 12 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.

13 Key EPR Program Elements 13Love Environment Inc. 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!!)

14 14 CANADIAN STEWARDSHIP AND EPR PROGRAMS (StewardEdge) Love Environment Inc.

15 15 CANADIAN STEWARDSHIP AND EPR PROGRAMS ( MGM Management ) Love Environment Inc.

16 16 Packaging and Printed Paper: Ontario 50% Shared responsibility model 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.

17 17 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” Stewardship Ontario – Ontario collective “steward” for printed paper and packaging Love Environment Inc.

18 Stewardship Ontario Blue Box Data 2003-2009 18 Data Year 20032005 *2007 *2009 Material 2005 sales Quantity Available (tonnes) Quantity Recycled (tonnes) Recycling Rate (%) 2007 sales Quantity Available (tonnes) Quantity Recycled (tonnes) Recycling Rate (%) 2009 sales Quantity Available (tonnes) Quantity Recycled (tonnes) Recycling Rate (%) 2011 sales Quantity Available (tonnes) Quantity Recycled (tonnes) Recycling Rate (%) Newsprint - CNA/OCNA 271,356 264,800 198,66675% 268,828 268,224 215,71680% 219,315 269,247 236,30188% 188,163 226,370 196,01087% Newsprint - Non-CNA/OCNA 138,202 136,400 102,33475% 161,065 128,557 103,39080% 152,676 129,047 113,25788% 139,537 110,781 95,92487% Magazines and Catalogues 58,844 95,100 68,89872% 65,261 97,267 73,04375% 60,720 91,112 80,01388% 53,751 85,585 74,10787% Telephone Books 16,676 15,000 11,25475% 14,427 21,090 16,96180% 15,381 19,933 17,49388% 9,561 13,852 11,99587% Other Printed Paper 49,763 127,800 49,46339% 63,640 122,082 47,40839% 64,379 120,303 53,01844% 55,770 118,782 61,30552% Printed Paper Total 534,841 639,100 430,61567% 573,221 637,220 456,51872% 512,471 629,642 500,08279% 446,782 555,370 439,34179% Old Corrugated Containers 101,460 140,000 100,27972% 112,836 165,706 115,23070% 139,645 162,847 125,61077% 117,292 173,400 159,07792% Gabletop 12,459 12,800 1,22210% 13,152 15,145 2,10014% 14,782 14,836 2,31716% 13,931 14,638 3,94427% Paper Laminants 26,099 42,000 4201% 20,855 37,673 3771% 21,356 38,387 3841% 24,964 38,504 3851% Aseptic Containers 4,610 2,800 26810% 4,886 3,543 45613% 5,567 3,941 50313% 6,041 4,082 92523% Old Boxboard 134,748 130,500 54,71242% 144,126 127,388 67,67453% 171,350 127,666 73,93158% 147,735 127,275 71,17256% Paper Packaging Total 279,375 328,100 156,90148% 295,854 349,455 185,83753% 352,700 347,677 202,74558% 309,963 357,899 235,50366% PET bottles 37,955 36,200 18,12050% 49,285 45,362 23,19251% 55,210 49,025 26,90455% 49,342 44,553 25,55757% HDPE bottles 24,333 23,000 11,55150% 24,751 25,689 13,32852% 24,255 26,744 15,20157% 27,443 26,551 14,64155% Plastic Film 51,554 53,700 2,9936% 55,444 61,616 4,9958% 54,678 59,213 4,8228% 42,119 53,029 5,20910% Plastic Laminants 16,633 57,400 5741% 16,982 25,613 2561% 20,476 29,186 2851% 23,840 32,317 3231% Polystyrene 14,268 20,400 5413% 12,804 22,544 3942% 14,440 21,971 4172% 13,166 20,780 9925% Other Plastics 36,767 28,300 1,6036% 53,588 44,939 3,5948% 57,627 53,356 5,35310% 56,416 57,887 11,81520% Plastics Total 181,509 219,000 35,38216% 212,854 225,763 45,75920% 226,686 239,495 52,98222% 212,325 235,117 58,53725% Food & Beverage Cans 59,663 57,800 30,44753% 49,387 47,495 31,29066% 44,787 49,351 31,13263% 43,885 47,244 31,47967% Aerosols 5,153 4,300 1,00823% 4,758 3,957 1,03626% 7,344 4,337 1,05424% 4,233 4,172 92722% Paint Cans 7,950 4,800 1,12824% 5,152 6,758 1,15917% 5,780 5,788 1,17920% 5,335 5,382 97818% Steel Total 72,767 66,900 32,58349% 59,297 58,210 33,48558% 57,911 59,476 33,36556% 53,452 56,798 33,38459% Al Food & Beverage Cans 28,352 24,100 9,83241% 27,143 22,604 10,74348% 25,788 22,578 9,92544% 24,016 22,287 10,51547% Other Aluminum Packaging 2,426 2,408 28212% 2,900 3,648 3088% 3,804 3,897 3018% 3,470 3,590 3259% Aluminum Total 30,778 26,508 10,11438% 30,044 26,252 11,05142% 29,592 26,475 10,22639% 27,486 25,877 10,84042% Food and Beverage - Flint 128,922 121,800 69,97657% 78,041 73,980 45,23861% 90,123 70,425 59,52885% 83,233 79,470 74,41394% Food and Beverage - Coloured 68,025 72,900 44,27361% 8,988 15,211 9,06160% 25,219 9,829 7,04172% 25,982 22,868 18,19680% Glass Total 196,947 194,700 114,24959% 87,029 89,191 54,29961% 115,341 80,254 66,56983% 109,215 102,338 92,60990% Packaging Total 761,377 835,208 349,22942% 685,077 748,871 330,43144% 782,231 753,377 365,88749% 712,441 778,029 430,87355% Printed Paper & Packaging Total 1,296,218 1,474,308 779,84453% 1,258,298 1,386,091 786,94957% 1,294,702 1,383,019 865,96963% 1,159,224 1,333,399 870,21465% Love Environment Inc.

19 19 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.

20 20 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.

21 21 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 Harmonization of Regulations and Programs Love Environment Inc.

22 22 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.

23 23 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 Covering the Industrial Commercial and Institutional (ICI) Sectors Love Environment Inc.

24 24 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 Cost Internalization and Fees – an on-going issue and debate in Canada Love Environment Inc.

25 25 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) EPR LESSONS FROM CANADA AND WHAT TO WATCH FOR Love Environment Inc.

26 26 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!) What this might mean for EPR developments in the Russian Federation Love Environment Inc.

27 27 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 What this might mean for EPR developments in the Russian Federation Love Environment Inc.

28 28 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 What this might mean for EPR developments in the Russian Federation Love Environment Inc.

29 29 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! What this might mean for EPR developments in the Russian Federation Love Environment Inc.

30 30 Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) www.oecd.org/environment Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) – Canada- wide 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.cawww.cleanfarms.ca Geoff Love, Love Environemnt, loveenvironment@routcom.com THANK YOU - FOR MORE INFORMATION Love Environment Inc.


Download ppt "OECD & Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment Waste Management Seminar Sept. 2011 Moscow Love Environment Inc. 126 William Street, Stratford, Ontario."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google