Update on the Waste Diversion Act Review

1
Update on the Waste Diversion Act Review

• MWA Workshop
• October 15, 2009

2
Purpose

• Context WDA Review
• Background on waste diversion in Ontario
• WDA review outcomes of consultation and
  implications
• Next steps

3
Waste Diversion Act Review

• WDA requires the Minister to initiate a review of
  the Act, five years after coming into force
• WDA review launched in October 2008
• Discussion paper Toward A Zero Waste Future
  Review of the Waste Diversion Act, 2002 posted on
  the Environment Registry for public comment
• Ministry held public consultation sessions in
  Fall/Winter 2008/09 in Kitchener-Waterloo,
  Sudbury, Ottawa, Toronto and Thunder Bay
• Meetings with individual stakeholders were also
  held in Winter 2009, to provide the Ministry with
  more focused perspectives and in-depth feedback
  on significant issues.
• Minister also requested WDO to conduct a review
  of the Blue Box Program using the principles of
  Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) as a basis
  to provide recommendations on 10 key issues

4
Context - Waste Management Framework

• Complex set of roles and relationships in waste
  diversion
• Province sets overarching policy framework
  through
• Diversion
• Waste Diversion Act, 2002 (focuses on producers)
• 3Rs regulations under the Environmental
  Protection Act (focuses on municipalities and
  generators)
• Management/Disposal
• Part V of the Environmental Protection Act
  (focuses on approvals, enforcement and
  compliance)
• Regulation 347, General Waste Management
  (defines, designates and exempts wastes)
• This framework has resulted in evolving
  relationships between the province,
  municipalities, waste generators, product
  manufacturers and sellers, and service providers

5
Ontarios Waste Diversion Legislative Framework
WDA Promotes the 3Rs and provides for the
development, implementation and operation of
waste diversion programs
EPA sets requirements for ICI recycling and
approvals for diversion and disposal sites
3Rs Regs Regulate Waste Generators
2007 Amendments to Reg 347
Focus on Producer Requirements
101 Municipalities over 5000 people to have
residential curb side recycling programs, and
leaf and yard waste collection
exempts specific recyclable materials and
recycling activities from approvals
Blue Box residential printed paper, glass,
metal, and plastic packaging
MHSW Phase1 paints, solvents, oil filters and
containers, single use batteries, antifreeze,
etc. Phase 2 fluorescent bulbs, rechargeable
batteries, aerosol containers, etc.
102 - 103 Large ICI establishments waste
reduction workplan, audits, and reasonable
efforts to recycle
streamlines approvals for pilot or demonstration
facilities (e.g. EFW)
WEEE computers, printers, monitors,
televisions, peripherals, copiers, faxes, phones
and cell phones, and audio visual equipment
104 Large Manufacturers, Packagers and Importers
to reduce packaging
Used Tires passenger, truck and off-road tires
6
Experience to Date

• Achieving progress in waste diversion is
  challenging to date 22 overall diversion (37
  residential, approx. 12 ICI)
• 3Rs regulations are challenging for businesses,
  apply to only larger generators and only cover
  a portion of wastes
• Four waste diversion programs have been
  established under the WDA
• Blue Box Program
• Municipal Hazardous or Special Waste Program
• Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Program
• Used Tires Program
• Programs vary in scope
• Blue Box residential cost-shared
• MHSW residential and small quantity ICI
  cost-shared
• WEEE all electronics producer funded
• Used Tires all tires producer funded
• Except for the Blue Box Program, these programs
  do not deliver large volume diversion.

7
WDA Consultations

• WDA review discussion paper released in October
  2008 - Toward A Zero Waste Future Review of the
  Waste Diversion Act, 2002
• Paper discusses the application of the principles
  of extended producer responsibility (EPR) and the
  associated issues
• Other topics include waste reduction, ICI waste
  diversion, and the governance and administration
  issues related to programs under the WDA
• Series of consultations held with municipalities,
  producers, importers, retailers, stewardship
  organizations, waste management industry, ENGOs
  and the public in Fall/Winter 2008/09
• Several common themes / issues were raised by
  stakeholders through the consultations

8
Consultations What We Heard

• Full Responsibility
• Different views among stakeholders on placing
  full responsibility, both physical and financial,
  on the producers of products and packaging that
  end up as waste
• Municipalities mixed views
• Support full financial responsibility, but not
  always physical responsibility
• Concerned with potential loss of control, impact
  on infrastructure, union staff and service levels
  with shift to full physical responsibility
• Many industry stakeholders prefer a shared
  responsibility model however, with shift to full
  responsibility (i.e. physical responsibility)
  decision-making control is necessary
• Individual Responsibility
• Most municipalities and ENGOs support placing
  responsibility on individual producers of
  products and packaging
• Could impact product design allows for greater
  competition in waste management services, and
  provide opportunities for innovation and
  efficiency
• Industries mixed views some support current
  model (collective/IFO), while others support
  greater individual flexibility
• Some have concern regarding inefficiencies and
  costs (although equally related to both
  collective and individual models)
• Some have concern with current approach to
  program development seen as one size fits all
• Need to recognize the success of current
  diversion programs within the revised framework
• Support greater flexibility in order to achieve
  outcomes in ways that best suit their business

9
Consultations What We Heard

• Focus on Outcomes
• Most stakeholders support a framework that
  focuses on outcomes rather than process
• Linked for many to idea of flexibility to enable
  businesses to develop their own approaches to
  addressing diversion obligations
• Recognition that there are impacts on competition
  and existing market relationships that must be
  considered
• Municipal role may be to compete as service
  providers within a competitive marketplace
• Long-term Planning
• Stakeholders support the concept of a long-term
  waste diversion plan, identifying priority
  materials, reasonable timelines, and achievable
  targets
• Long-term planning provides certainty
• Enables planning for current and future waste
  diversion obligations, including contracts and
  investments such as service provisions,
  infrastructure, etc.

10
Consultations What We Heard

• ICI Diversion
• Stakeholders support the use of a range of
  approaches to help drive diversion in the ICI
  sector
• EPR framework may be appropriate for certain
  materials, such as packaging, but may not for
  others, such as construction and demolition waste
• Other approaches may continue to be required
  (i.e. 3Rs regulations, supporting measures, etc.)
  
• Municipalities support an EPR framework for
  management of some ICI generated materials
• Many producers expressed support for maintaining
  and simplifying 3Rs regulations, with enhanced
  enforcement
• Scope of Diversion
• Range of views among stakeholders regarding what
  activities should be considered diversion under
  the WDA, and the role of energy-from-waste (EFW)
  and other emerging technologies
• Mixed positions among producers and
  municipalities _ many support the inclusion of
  EFW within the definition of diversion, counting
  toward diversion calculations
• ENGOs and public stakeholder groups continue to
  equate EFW with disposal, and express broader
  environmental concerns, and concerns related to
  the impact of EFW on recycling efforts

11
Consultations What We Heard

• Complementary Measures
• All stakeholders have supported the need for a
  range of measures to support EPR that would
  further encourage waste reduction and diversion
• Many suggest the need for incentives that would
  encourage innovation and better support the
  concept of design for the environment
• Most support the use of complementary measures
  such as landfill bans and a disposal levy to help
  drive the recycling market
• Many see a key role in the use of green
  procurement approaches to reward those producers
  and service providers that also focus on
  environmental considerations

12
Next Steps

• Ministers Report on the WDA review
• Consult, through the Ministers Report, on the
  proposed waste diversion framework and any
  potential changes to the WDA