Ecolomondo Provides update on Waste-to-Product Facility

, ,

Ecolomondo (TSX-V: ECM), based in St. Laurent, Quebec, recently provided an update on its efforts to convert its Contrecoeur, Quebec Thermal Decomposition Process (TDP) facility in a partially commercialized TDP facility.  Contrecoeur is a small town in Quebec, approximately 70 km northwest of Montreal.

The Company achieved a major milestone and completed the installation and commissioning of a post-process treatment line to refine the recycled carbon black that it produces at its Contrecoeur facility. This facility now has the equipment to produce a commercial grade recycled carbon black, which was easily approved and purchased by customers that are large consumers of carbon black, a major step towards its commercialization of the Contrecoeur facility. During this period, the Contrecoeur facility operated on a limited commercial basis and the Company expects to complete its partial commercialization in the fourth quarter of 2018. Partial commercialization is considered to be achieved when the Contrecoeur facility processes three batches of seven tons per week.

Thermal Decomposition Process (TDP) facility in Contrecoeur, Quebec

About Ecolomondo

Ecolomondo is a cleantech Canadian company that is commercializing its waste-to-products technology. The Thermal Decomposition Process (“TDP“) converts hydrocarbon waste into marketable commodity end-products, namely carbon black substitute, oil, gas and steel.

The Company’s main revenues will come from the sale of TDP turnkey facilities and royalties from their operations. TDP facilities will generate revenues from the sale of end-products, tipping fees and carbon credits. Ecolomondo’s first focus is to market TDP turnkey facilities that use scrap tires as a feedstock, because scrap tires yield end-products with a higher commercial value, especially the recycled carbon black.


The growing trend of green finance: the Green Loan Principles

, ,

By Sarah Dyke and Rebecca Urry, Dentons

In March 2018, the Loan Market Association (LMA) launched a new form of Green Loan Principles (the Principles), to support the loan markets in funding projects that contribute to environmental sustainability. This article explains the reasons behind the issuance of these Principles, and looks further into the growing trend of green asset finance in the current market.


The Principles

The Principles were introduced to build on and develop the Green Bond Principles that were issued initially in the Autumn of 2017, and subsequently updated in June 2018, by the International Capital Markets Association to support the debt markets in providing investment for new and existing projects with environmental benefits. It is hoped that whilst the two codes develop alongside each other, it will promote consistency across the financial markets.

The LMA has stated that the aim of the Principles is to create a high-level framework of market standards and guidelines that provide a consistent methodology for use across the wholesale green loan market, whilst allowing the loan product to retain its flexibility, and preserve the integrity of the green loan market while it grows.

The LMA has framed the Principles around four main components:

  • use of proceeds;
  • process for project evaluation and selection;
  • management of proceeds; and
  • reporting.

The Principles also introduce the definition of “Green Loan” stating that it is any type of loan instrument made available exclusively to finance or refinance, in whole or in part, new and/or existing eligible green projects. Appendix 1 of the Principles contains a non-exhaustive list of categories setting out what constitutes green projects, and includes climate change adaptation, clean transportation and green buildings.

Environmental sustainability

Even before the Green Bond Principles and Principles were introduced, the concept of a “Green Loan” had become increasingly popular with stakeholders increasingly asking their companies to illustrate that they are socially aware. Whilst initially this lead to some companies treating sustainability simply as a reporting requirement tick box exercise in their corporate reports, others were eager to take the issue more seriously. Much of the recent drive to encourage green investment stems from the influence of national and international climate change and sustainability targets. Under the Paris Agreement, the signatories agreed to work to limit the rise in global temperature to well below 2 degrees Celsius. The UK government has subsequently set a target of seeing 15% of the UK’s energy generated from renewable sources by 2020, whilst the 2008 Climate Change Act commits the UK to reducing emissions by at least 80%, from 1990 levels, by 2050. In light of this legislation, many corporates have developed internal sustainability statements. They are keen to show that they are cutting their carbon emissions in order to enhance their organisation’s environmental credentials, as well as helping to meet their corporate social responsibility targets. For others, however, the most compelling reason to join the “green bandwagon” continues to be simply to save money as they look to become more efficient.

Types of green asset finance

With the interest of corporate borrowers growing in this sector, financial institutions have also identified green loans as a potential expanding market. BBVA, for instance, announced in February 2018 its pledge to use €100 billion by 2025 to fight climate change and drive sustainable development. In 2017, responsAbility Investments conducted a survey of green lending experts from around the developing world to provide an overview of the current state, and perceived potential, of the green lending market. The survey concluded that the main green lending opportunities are to be found in the manufacturing and agricultural sectors, with small to medium-sized businesses being the most attractive entry point for green lending.

Within this emergent sector, there are many different areas of renewable technology that may be utilised by companies wishing to improve their sustainability, and which can be financed under an asset finance structure. Some examples are:

Biomass boilers: Biomass boilers are used within the market to reduce both carbon emissions and annual fuel bills. They generate heat by burning different kinds of feedstock, such as wood chips or pellets from sustainable sources.

Light-emitting diodes (LED) lighting: LED lights help to reduce maintenance costs as they are up to 80% more energy-efficient than normal fluorescent or incandescent bulbs, and last up to six times longer.

Solar photovoltaics: Roof-mounted or standalone solar PVs capture the sun’s energy using photovoltaic cells which convert sunlight into electricity. Whilst becomingly increasingly popular in the residential market, more and more companies are looking to them as a way to save energy and reduce their costs.

Wind turbines: By harnessing the natural force of the wind, the installations blades are forced round, driving a turbine that generates electricity.

The future of green finance

Over the last few years, the requirements of the Paris Agreement and similar regulations have assisted in the adaption and evolution of the political, economic and social agendas of companies, and now such issues are becoming increasingly central to corporate business plans. By launching the Principles, the LMA has clearly shown that it at least thinks it is likely that we will see a growing popularity in the market for green loans. With this in mind it is currently working with the Loan Syndications and Trading Association to introduce similar principles to the North American market, as well as further develop them to accommodate a wider range of financings. It will be interesting to observe, as use of the Principles becomes more common, the extent to which they will drive the structuring of such financings in the future.

The article was first published on Denton’s website.


About the Authors

Sarah Dyke is a partner in the Banking and Finance department of the firm’s London office specialising in asset finance. Sarah has broad domestic and cross-border asset finance experience and acts for UK and overseas financiers, banks, leasing companies, lessees, airlines, borrowers and high net worth individuals and family offices.


Rebecca Urry is a senior associate in the Asset Finance group in London. She has experience in asset finance with a focus on international shipping and aviation finance in the UK and Middle East. Rebecca joined the London office in 2007, where she completed her training and qualified as an English solicitor. She was seconded to Goldman Sachs, London from the spring of 2009 to the autumn of the same year, and to Société Générale, London from the autumn of 2009 to the spring of 2010. Rebecca has also previously worked in SNR Denton’s office in Dubai (2010 to 2012).

Wearable Waste: Fine Fashion and Recycling


Liz Hughes, an Australian artisan has created upscale fashion using recycled materials.  Her Wicked Witch of Waste formal wear dress is made of feed bags and bailing twine.  In an interview with an Australian newspaper, the Dungog Chronicle, she admits that her dress may not meet everyone’s taste but hopes that it will get people thinking of reusing materials.

“A dress made of feed bags and bailing twine may not be the epitome of wearable art but if it helps to get people thinking about reusing materials and products my work will have been a success,” she said.

Liz has long been an advocate of natural fibres for wearable  art works and more conventional clothing and household furnishings.

“Natural fibres are not just beautiful but highly functional, especially in the extremes of climate we are experiencing more often these days,” she said.

According to Liz the big challenge ahead is to develop wearable clothing from recycled or repurposed sources.

“That knowledge and experience needs to be focused on developing innovative ways to repurpose waste into functional and sustainable products.

“This is just as much an artform as any work displayed in a gallery.  It is what the art of sustainability is all about,” she said.

Ms. Hughes is not the only person who has put together a high fashion dress from waste.  Fans of Project Runway (Bravo TV) may recall the Waste Not, Want Not Challenge where fashion designers had to find their dress material at a Transfer Station and Material Recover Facility (MRF) in New Jersey.  The fashion designers were given 30 minutes to source materials for their designs. Contestants sorted through paper, plastic and metal to collect the materials need to create a “wearable outfit.”

The winning designer of the challenge used a vinyl-coated burlap peanut sack to make a svelte skirt and gold mylar to craft a pretty lame’ top. Another designer recycled fashion back a few decades with a frightening gown spangled with bits of litter glued all over it.  Still another designer created an eye-catching dress of newspapers faced with muslin and painted bright green, yellow and teal.

CHAR Announces Successful Commissioning of Biocarbon Facility

, , , ,

CHAR Technologies Ltd. (“CHAR”) (YES – TSXV) recently announced that it has successfully commissioned its biocarbon production facility.  CHAR creates two types of biocarbon, an activated charcoal “SulfaCHAR” and a solid biofuel (bio-coal) “CleanFyre.”  At full capacity, the facility will be capable of producing up to 5 tonnes per day of biocarbon.

“Successful commissioning is a very significant milestone for CHAR,” said Andrew White, CEO of CHAR. “We are now able to produce commercial quantities of SulfaCHAR, as well as enough CleanFyre to test as part of our project with ArcelorMittal Dofasco and Walker Environmental.”

The completion of commissioning is the next milestone in CHAR’s Sustainable Development Technology Canada (SDTC) project.  Upon acceptance of the milestone report by SDTC, the next progress payment can be processed.

CleanFyre is a carbon neutral solid biofuel, and through its implementation will allow users to significantly reduce their GHG emissions.  SulfaCHAR is a zero-waste activated charcoal, with application in the desulfurization of renewable natural gas.  Both are made from low-value materials, including anaerobic digestate and wood-based by-products.

About CHAR

CHAR Technologies Ltd. is a cleantech development and services company, specializing in biocarbon development (activated charcoal ‘SulfaCHAR’ and solid biofuel ‘CleanFyre’) and custom equipment for industrial air and water treatment, and providing services in environmental management, site investigation and remediation, engineering, and resource efficiency.

CHAR Pyrolysis Unit, pre-installation and commissioning (Photo Credit: CHAR)

Cutting the Waste: How to save money while improving our solid waste systems

, , , ,

by David McRobert, Environmental Lawyer and Advisor

Canada’s Ecofiscal Commission (EFC) recently released a report on cutting municipal solid waste (MSW) by promoting incentives and market-based policies. Accordingly, municipalities should implement “pay-as-you-throw” (PAYT) programs for residents and higher “tipping fees” for business. As well, provinces should implement “extended producer responsibility” (EPR) programs.

Are user pay instruments such as PAYT programs and related policy tools the magic bullet that can solve our municipal solid waste problems and reduce the MSW quantities flowing to landfills and energy from waste (EFW) sites? Regrettably, if we have learned anything in the past twenty-five years with respect to MSW in Canada there probably are no easy answers on reduction, reuse and recycling (3Rs) of solid waste.  To my mind, there are just difficult choices that will require combinations of government, municipal, community and corporate mechanisms and policies such as improved enforcement by regulators, user pay, increased producer responsibility, greater corporate social responsibility, improved public education, technological changes and packaging material and equipment innovations.

For example, increased tipping fees seem like a logical policy tool to target and reduce wastes produced by industrial, commercial and institutional (IC&I) generators. However, in the post-US-Canada Free Trade Agreement era (FTA, 1988) and then under the North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA, 1993) municipal solid wastes, recyclables and some hazardous wastes have flowed much more freely between national, provincial, state and municipal boundaries on the North American continent.

In 1988, I was part of an advisory group that strongly recommended the City Toronto implement significant increases in tipping fees, from $17/tonne to $150/tonne in 1990 – to support 3Rs. At the time, the US border was closed to Canadian municipal solid waste (MSW) unless it was incinerated in the USA. At the time, Halton Region had run out of landfill space (and would struggle for more than 16 years to site a new landfill as OMOE regulators kept changing the goalposts).  Consequently Halton Region was shipping its MSW waste to Hooker Chemical in Niagara Falls, New York where it was incinerated for – surprise, surprise — $150 a tonne. So this seemed like the right number.

No doubt $150 a tonne seemed like a bonanza to some haulers in Canada and the US and landfill operators in nearby states. The multinational garbage companies lobbied to get the US border restrictions lifted and in 1991 Ontario’s MSW, especially its IC&I wastes, began to flow to the US for as low as $30/tonne. To facilitate the new collection-transfer-shipping system, makeshift transfer stations also were established in empty industrial buildings and on farmer’s fields in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA).  In short, we created an enforcement mess for Ontario Ministry of Environment (OMOE).

Between 1991 and the late 2000s, hundreds of thousands of tonnes of Ontario’s MSW flowed into landfills in Michigan, mainly ones that were scheduled to be closed because of strict rules implemented after 1991 (and phased) in by US EPA on landfill standards under Title D. By the mid 2000s the US and Ontario media began to track this ongoing and intriguing export issue. Historically Canada mainly had shipped raw materials such as wood, paper products, minerals, aggregates and other resources to the USA. This was something different. Inevitably, there were a couple of incidents graphically reported in the media when giant transport trucks from the GTA were involved in serious accidents, dumping their smelly and messy loads on highways and roads in Michigan. As expected, a strong No Ontario Garbage in My Backyard (NOGIMBY) emerged out of dust and the fumes. This made for great TV and was early fodder for social media banter and colourful photo exchanges.

Governor Jennifer Granholme and other state legislators, then campaigning for re-election in the State of Michigan in the 2006 US midterms, fought back claiming that the GTA’s MSW was full of soft drink containers and used smoke and CO2 alarms (with small amounts of radioactive wastes) and that its import should be banned because these materials supposedly were banned from Michigan’s landfills. Upon taking office in early 2007, the Michigan Legislature managed to stop the flow of Ontario’s MSW into the state’s landfills. This forced Toronto to purchase the Greenlane landfill near London, Ontario in the late 2000s for its MSW. However, Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional (IC&I) waste is still trucked from Ontario to Michigan landfills. In sum, tipping fees proved a challenging tool to use. Cooperation between provincial, state and federal regulators in the US and Canada undoubtedly will be required to make this instrument work well.

In 1993 I drafted a discussion paper on PAYT programs for the OMOE. Our research at the OMOE showed that PAYT programs can encourage scofflaws to “throw without paying” (TWP) in farmer’s fields and forests requiring municipal staff to become garbage detectives.

In 1994, I prepared a summary of my OMOE discussion paper and related research for a seminar on user pay I conducted for several environmental non-government organizations (ENGOs). I also used the 1994 paper for teaching Environmental and Administrative Law (as well as Waste Management Law and Policy) at Osgoode Hall Law School, the University of Toronto and York University between 1990 and 2009. My 1994 brief can be found below.  Although the discussion paper is over 20 decades old, it is uncanny how most of the issues raised back then are still current today.

Discussion Paper: User Fees for Waste Management – Issues and Options (1994)


A. Introduction

In the United States and Canada, most industrial, commercial and institutional (IC&I) waste generators are charged for waste services on the basis of the quantities of waste that they produce. In contrast, the vast majority of householders are not charged user fees. Instead, residential waste management services are financed through property taxes, provincial grants and subsidies, and revenues generated from the sale of secondary materials. Therefore the user of the service often does not directly pay for the service.

B. The Trend Towards User Fees

In the past five years, many Ontario municipalities have considered charging users for waste management services. Between late 1988 and early 1993 approximately 10 different municipalities asked the provincial government for clarification of these powers in the Ontario Municipal Act.(see Note 1) Most municipalities that have examined or implemented user fees are small and ethnically uniform; larger municipalities that have considered user fees include Peterborough and Ottawa.

In 1993 the Ontario government passed Bill 7 amending several parts of the Municipal Act to give municipalities the authority to implement user pay systems for financing waste management if they choose to do so. It is likely that in the coming years Ontarians will see introduced an increasing number of municipal user pay systems.

  1. The Supposed Benefits of User Fees

According to proponents, the main advantage of user fees is that generators are provided with a direct financial incentive to reduce their waste. In other words, the less garbage a household or IC&I user generates, the less it would pay for disposal.  Another advantage is that householders become keenly aware of the major sources of residential waste, and adjust their purchasing habits accordingly.

There also can be significant cost savings to municipalities. In many communities with a generator pay system in place, it has been found that residents pay less for the collection and disposal of solid waste after the systems are implemented.

  1. Experience in Ontario and U.S.

In the United States, a variety of user fee systems for household waste disposal services have been established in many jurisdictions. In most systems, the charges are administered on a per can or a per bag basis. However, in some cases, the generator can prearrange a certain specified level of service on a weekly or monthly basis.

In June 1990, Carlisle Borough, Pennsylvania (estimated 1990 population of 20,000) simultaneously implemented a per-bag waste collection fee and a borough-wide recycling program. Householders purchase 30-gallon garbage bags costing $2.10 each. Borough officials estimated that they recovered more than 30% of previously disposed recyclables during the first 40 weeks of the user-fee program’s operation, saving the Borough $83,504 in avoided disposal costs.(see note 2)

The Borough of Perkasie in Pennsylvania implemented a volume-based bag program in January 1988 for its 6,000 residents. Residents buy bags capable of holding 40 pounds for $1.75 and smaller, 20 pound capacity bags for $1.00. The program has assisted the Borough in achieving a significant diversion rate; between 1988 and 1992, the quantity of waste being recycled increased by 49% (by weight). Similarly, the quantity of waste being disposed at landfill declined by 51% (by weight).

In 1991, Gananoque, Ontario faced an increase in disposal costs of approximately $160,000 per year. In response, the Town started a mandatory tag system in July 1991 for an estimated 2,200 households. Tags cost $1.00, and only tagged bags are collected.

The Town had established a backyard composting program in 1990 and a recycling depot in March 1991. The depot takes in steel, glass, paper, aluminum, PET (polyethylene terephthalate), and old newsprint (ONP). A free tag is given out for every two bushels of recyclables delivered to the recycling depot.

Householder participation in recycling and source-reduction activities increased after implementation of the user fee system in July 1991. By March 1992, the Town had distributed 15,000 free bag tags through the recycling depot and recycling tonnages increased 175% compared with July 1991 (i.e., from 8 to 22 tonnes of recyclables/month). By April 1992, approximately 900 composting units had been distributed to 40% of the Town’s households. The user-fee program also resulted in a decrease of 45% in the amount of solid waste requiring disposal, and an estimated cost savings to the municipality of $216,000 in 1992.(see note 3)

Experience in Canada and the United States suggests that the more 3Rs options householders have to reduce their disposal costs, the more effective user fee systems will be in reducing waste.

C. Discussion

From an administrative viewpoint, funds raised by generator pay charges could be retained by municipalities or regions and then could be used to support development of local infrastructure.

The charge can be administered on a per can or a per bag basis, or the generator can pre-arrange/pre-select a certain specified level of service on a weekly or monthly basis. Obviously, the more options householders have to reduce their costs, the more effective the system will be in reducing waste. Householders will need access to composting and recycling, and they should also have the opportunity to choose a reduced level of service.

Some supporters of user pay for garbage argue that eventually it would be logical to require generators to pay nominal charges for recycling and centralized composting services to ensure that source reduction is maximized.

User fees for garbage usually are supported for the following reasons:

1) user pay seems to be consistent with the argument that polluters (including companies and consumers) should be made responsible for externalities when possible;

2) user pay does not seem to conflict with any of the policies and major programs of the Ontario Environment Ministry such as support for the Blue Box program. Moreover, it was seen as supportive of the home composting program;

3) in theory, user pay would encourage shifts towards the 3Rs by individuals and corporate entities;

4) user pay systems would be simple and cost-effective to administrate, and ideally could be integrated with existing federal, provincial and municipal financial, regulatory and institutional structures;

5) revenues generated could be retained by municipal governments to support the overall waste management system;

6) user pay does not raise all of the messy inter-jurisdictional, trade, political power, etc. issues related to most other (and in my opinion) better economic instruments (such as removal of subsidies to virgin material extraction); and

7) user pay seems to be consistent with the goal of disentanglement of municipal/provincial financing and responsibilities and off-loading of provincial programs onto municipalities.

Here are some of the other major policy issues that should be considered in discussing user pay options.

  1. Equity Issues

The most frequently raised issue with respect to generator pay or Pay as You Throw (PAYT) charges is equity. For example, it is argued that large families may be less able to cope with the additional cost of a generator pay system. Undoubtedly there is some truth to this argument; however, the proponents argue that inequities that would arise could be addressed through appropriate rebates to large or low-income families.

The permissive powers in the amendments to Ontario’s Municipal Act contained in Bill 7 [as it then was] will allow municipalities to exempt or reduce the fees charged to these types of households. In other words, at the Ontario Environment Ministry knew this was going to be a big political issues and designed the law to accommodate municipalities.

  1. Potential for Littering and Illegal Dumping

Municipalities often raise the concern that user pay schemes will result in illegal dumping. There is considerable evidence that PAYT programs can encourage scofflaws to “throw without paying” (TWP) in farmer’s fields and forests requiring municipal staff to become garbage detectives.

Proponents argue the issue that arises is a traditional deterrence argument: should the fact that a few individuals will break the law stop us from putting good laws into place?

In some municipalities, user fees and PAYT charges have increased illegal dumping of waste in commercial dumpsters and littering, particularly in the first year after introduction of user fees. Usually, these problems are addressed through public education, by imposing stiff fines against those caught dumping and by the locking of unattended dumpsters. However enforcement is difficult.

Successful public education campaigns against illegal dumping and littering have been launched in many jurisdictions in both the U.S. and Canada. To discourage illegal dumping in Perkasie, Pennsylvania, officials there publish the names of illegal dumpers in the local newspaper.

Advocates of user pay systems argue that public education could help control illegal dumping. However, in some jurisdictions with pay-by-the-bag systems, illegally dumping problems have not been entirely resolved. For example, in Nanaimo, BC user pay has increased the incidence of illegal dumping in the ocean and in wooded areas near the town.

  1. Dealing with Apartment Buildings

Another problem with implementing user pay is dealing with residents in apartment buildings. At present, garbage collection services for most apartment buildings are part of the cost of doing business for landlords and the cost is passed on to tenants. Thus, most apartment dwellers are, in effect, serviced by private hauling companies and these companies would be very happy to charge a user fee.

Conceivably, apartment dwellers could be required to participate. However, there is the technical problem of how and when a fee would collected (ie. each time they put waste down the garbage chute in their building?).

In large cities where single family dwellings and apartment buildings are scattered in residential districts one could imagine that administering user pay might create a nightmare for officials. There might be an enormous temptation for landlords to try to arrange user pay to gouge tenants and off-load the cost of garbage disposal onto tenants. In addition, there would be an equally great temptation for apartment dwellers to try to avoid the charges altogether. And this might lead to illegal dumping.

  1. Occupational Health and Safety Issues

Pay-by-the-bag user charges are opposed by the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE), which represents between 1,500-2,000 municipal waste management workers in Ontario, because the charges tend to encourage people to increase the density of their garbage by compacting it (ie. to fit more into a bag or can). This could lead to an increase in occupational injuries (i.e. back problems) for CUPE workers. It is unclear if CUPE would support user charges if they are based on weight.

  1. User Pay Focuses on Consumers Instead of Producers of Packaging

Another argument that is made against user pay systems is that there is no direct pressure on the manufacturers of certain products to change their packaging. Many individuals feel trapped by a lack of choice with respect to packaging; they want to purchase a certain good or service but they cannot buy the product inn a reusable container at supermarkets.

In theory, user pay could result in the indirect pressure of consumers on manufacturers and distributors, which can be a powerful force. Market adjustments would certainly occur because supermarkets would begin to provide more bulk foods and reusable packages (smaller health food stores would pick up the slack if they did not) as cost conscious consumers began to demand them to reduce their generator pay charges. User pay also could encourage greater use of some difficult-and-expensive-to-recycle materials like plastics. This trend should be monitored to ensure that taxpayers don’t get saddled with the burden.

Moreover, the main benefactors of this shift will be better educated middle class consumers with time on their hands.

Based on current evidence, I would argue that user pay systems will have, at best, a marginal impact on encouraging product stewardship by manufacturers.

D. Conclusion

In sum, I think user pay systems have good potential to: 1) improve material recovery rates of recycling programs; and 2) increase diversion of waste from disposal in landfills or incinerators.

If user pay is adopted, then I agree with those who say that it should be extended so that charges are imposed for every pick up of blue boxes and and containers brought to centralized composting facilities.

My concern is that, in the absence of other policies to encourage product stewardship, user pay will not necessarily encourage a shift in waste management from recycling to waste reduction.

My guess is that large municipalities in Ontario will continue to avoid implementing user pay because of the difficulties associated with educating an ethnically diverse population and the great potential for increased littering and illegal disposal.

If user pay is worth supporting, I would suggest that the following configuration of measures would be optimal:

  • user pay fees for residential MSW disposal by weight. An appropriate fee should be between $1-2 per bag (about $1 for every 10-15 kilograms?).
  • user pay fees for Blue Box pick up by weight in the range of $0.50-75 for every 15-20 kilograms.
  • user pay fees for pick up of wet waste (food and leaf and yard wastes) for composting at residential dwellings to encourage home composting. However, in the short term it may not make sense to charge for use of centralized composting in the next few years to encourage development of this service in Ontario.


The following list of documents is incomplete but lists some of the key sources on user pay that could be consulted.

Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO)

AMO’s Response to RCO’s “Who Should Pay for Recycling?”. Toronto: AMO, January 1991.

AMO’s Policy Position on Reduction and Re-use. Toronto: AMO, June 1991.

AMO’s Response to Municipal Waste Management Powers in Ontario. Toronto: AMO, July 1992.

British Columbia Ministry of the Environment Guide to Establishing User Fee Systems for Solid Waste Management. October 1992. Victoria: BC MOE.

Canadian Institute for Environmental Law and Policy (CIELAP)

A Regulatory Agenda for Solid Waste Reduction, Report prepared for SWEAP by S. Shrybman. Toronto: Solid Waste Environmental Assessment Plan, Metropolitan Toronto Works Department, July 1989.

Looking Back and Looking Ahead: Municipal Solid Waste Management in Ontario From the 1983 Blueprint to 50% Diversion in 2000 — Conference Background Paper and Conference Report. Edited by M. Winfield. Toronto: CIELAP, March 1993.

Environmentally Sound Packaging Coalition

The Consumer Interest in Economic Instruments, July 1993. Vancouver: ESP Coalition.

Honourable Ruth Grier, Former Ontario Minister of the Environment

“Ontario’s Waste Reduction Action Plan”, Speech to a conference of Eastern Ontario Mayors, Wardens and Reeves, 21 February 1991, Toronto: MOE.

The Road to a Conserver Society, Speech to the Ontario Waste Management Conference, 17 June 1991. Toronto: MOE.

Grocery Products Manufacturers of Canada (GPMC)

GPMC Packaging Stewardship Model: A Discussion Document. Toronto: GPMC, December 1992.

Ontario Ministry of the Environment (MOE)

Blueprint for Waste Management. Toronto: Queen’s Printer, 1983.

The Physical and Economic Dimensions of Municipal Solid Waste Management in Ontario. Report prepared by CH2M Hill Consultants for the Fiscal Planning and Economic Analysis Branch, MOE, November 1991. Toronto: MOE, 1992.

Ontario Ministry of the Environment and the Office of the Greater Toronto Area (OGTA) The Waste Crisis in the Greater Toronto Area: A Provincial Strategy for Action, released by the Minister of the Environment, 27 June 1991. Toronto: MOE and OGTA.

Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs
Municipal Waste Management Powers in Ontario. Toronto: Queen’s Printer, March 1992.

Ontario Waste Management Association (OWMA)

Position Papers on the 3Rs, Flow Control, Incineration of Municipal Solid Waste and the Regulation of Rates Charged. Submitted to the Ministry of the Environment Toronto: OWMA, January 1993.

Recycling Council of Ontario (RCO)

Who Should Pay for Recycling? Toronto: RCO, August 1990.

Achieving a Balance: Public and Private Sector Roles in the Development of a 3Rs Infrastructure. Toronto: RCO, January 1992.

Waste Reduction Advisory Committee (WRAC), Ontario Government

The Shared Model: A Stewardship Approach to Waste Management in Ontario (For Dry Recyclables and the IC&I Stream). Toronto: WRAC, February 1992.

Resource Stewardship in Ontario: A Shared Responsibility. Toronto: WRAC, November 1992.

Generator Pay Charges: A Discussion Paper. Toronto: RAC, December 1989.


1. Most municipalities that expressed interest in implementing user charges for residents in their jurisdiction did not do so because they wish to avoid controversy and possible legal challenges.

2. See Biocycle, April 1992.

3. RCO, Presentation on User Pay Systems to CIELAP Conference, January 23, 1993 in Winfield et al. (1993)


About the Author

Mr. McRobert is a team leader, lawyer, and Policy Advisor with extensive government regulatory sector and Non-Government Organization (NGO) experience.  He has in-depth knowledge of environmental law and policy in Ontario along with experience in the administrative, aboriginal and municipal law fields, providing leading edge advice and analysis on compliance and policy options that empower organizations and clients to make better decisions.  David provides practical ways to solve complex policy and operational problems and implement change.  He works well with diverse management styles to achieve organizational goals; enjoys multi-faceted projects working with multidisciplinary teams where employing well developed analytical skills is essential.

How to Reduce Waste through Food Rescue – Examples in Canada

, ,

The idea of food rescue, or keeping edible food out of the waste stream and getting it to the people who need it, has been gaining traction in recent years.  An extension of food banks, food rescue programs

According to statistics compiled in 2014 from Value Chain Management International, an estimated $31 billion worth of food ends up in landfills or composters/anaerobic digesters in Canada each year. Furthermore, approximately 850,000 Canadians use food banks every month according to Food Banks Canada.  The object of food rescue programs is to match the edible food that would otherwise be wasted with individuals and families that would be the clientele of a food bank.

The Value Chain Management report identified the wasting of food as a major financial cost.  Besides the cost of managing the food waste, there are other costs including energy, labour, water use, and other resources used to produce and distribute food that is wasted. The report estimates that, for businesses, the total cost of waste occurring along a value chain can exceed the combined margins of the involved companies. For consumers, avoidable food waste can increase the cost of food by 10 percent or more.

University of Victoria and Simon Fraser University, British Columbia

This past summer, CBC profiled fifteen initiatives across Canada in which efforts were being made to reduce food waste.  One of the programs, at the University of Victoria is a great example of food rescue.  A student organization, the Community Cabbage serves a free weekly hot meal to the campus community prepared from reclaimed food.  The reclaimed food is edible but is unsold food donated by grocery stores.  A team of volunteers use these ingredients to cook a healthy vegetarian meal at a community kitchen. Anyone is welcome to join in the cooking and/or eating. The organization is also working to develop an on-campus collective kitchen that provides regular free meals, food education programming, and a venue for other organizations to use in their work.

Food Rescue Volunteers at the University of Victoria

At Simon Fraser University, a student led organization called Embark runs a food recovery program.  Volunteers collect healthy yet imperfect-looking produce that do not meet the selling criteria of supermarket chains and redistribute it to the university community for free or by donation.

Durham Region, Ontario

In Durham Region, just east of Toronto, a number of businesses have participated in a food reclamation pilot project that includes the Recycling Council of Ontario (RCO) with funding by a grant from the Walmart Foundation.  In an interview with the Uxbridge Times Journal, Daniel Bida, project Manager at the RCO stated, “This way the food, which is still very much good food, is going to the people who need it.  On the hierarchy of what we want to do with food we want it to be going into people’s tummies before we look at trying to manage it sustainably.

The pilot includes a new partnership between the Oshawa Centre and Feed the Need in Durham, with participating food court restaurants donating left over food that is picked up by Feed the Need every Monday and Wednesday, and dropped off to the Refuge and the Back Door Mission.

“What’s so great about the Oshawa Centre is there’s a cluster of restaurants being managed together, so it gave us the opportunity to aggregate, which for food rescue organizations is extremely valuable, because instead of making seven or eight pick ups, you’re only doing one,” Bida explained to the Uxbridge Times Journal, noting many of the restaurants hadn’t started anything on their own because they felt there was never enough left to make a difference, as it was often side dishes or other small items left over at the end of the night.

“The staff that collect the green bins every night were keenly aware there was perfectly edible food ending up in the bin because there was nowhere else to take it. They just needed somewhere to store it until it could be picked up.”  Those donations, in aggregate, can form complete meals that service organizations can then use in whole or to supplement what they are already serving to clients.

“Anything we can do to improve our recycling practices and get involved in the community, we’re on it,” said Craig Walsh, operations manager for the Oshawa Centre, noting he hopes to expand the programs to the mall’s standalone restaurants in the near future.

Leftovers Foundation, Alberta

With volunteer operations in Calgary and Edmonton, the Leftovers Foundation is an organization that rescues food from being thrown in the garbage, and ensure it gets to service agencies in need. The perishable food is delivered to various agencies and locations that use the food to feed the needy.

As part of the program, four women volunteers at Leftovers Canada are creating a mobile phone app that make a donating food to service agencies more like working for Uber.  Traneice Aranda and Donnattella Salvador, both 16, Veyra Pascual, 17, and Leanne Bui, 18, are currently developing the Leftovers app, in conjunction with the foundation of the same name.





Are street sweepings waste? Ontario’s Environmental Review Tribunal (“ERT”) may soon decide.

By Donna Shier, Partner and Certified Environmental Law Specialist with the assistance of Madiha Vallani and Erin Garbett, Students-at-Law


Each year the City of Mississauga (“City”) has offered street cleaning services as part of its routine winter road maintenance. From 2004-2011, the City accumulated “street sweepings” (the materials it collected during street cleaning) at a City Works Yard.  The City eventually deposited the street sweepings on several private properties throughout the City. The City has not identified the municipal addresses for all of the private properties where the street sweepings were deposited.

Contracted Street Sweeper, Mississauga, (Photo Credit: City of Mississauga)

The Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks considers street sweepings to be a waste under Ontario’s Environmental Protection Act (“EPA”) and O. Reg. 347. According to the Ministry, street sweepings commonly contain traces of glass, metal, and plastic, and may also
include contaminants.

Ontario Ministry of Environment, Conservation, and Parks’ Position
The Ontario Environment Ministry contends that the City unlawfully deposited waste on the receiving properties and issued a Director’s Order requiring the City to:

  • share information in the City’s possession that relates to the street sweepings;
  • retain one or more Qualified Persons to complete work related to the street sweepings at sites where the street sweepings were deposited, and
  • complete a “forensic audit” on other possible deposit sites and prepare a report to submit to the Director and Public Health Officials.

The Ministry argues that the City has failed to demonstrate that it screened or tested the street sweepings to ensure they were free of contaminants in unsafe amounts. The Ministry further argues that the City did not properly inform the receivers about the origins and contents of the street sweepings.

City of Mississauga’s Position
The City claims that it adequately screened and tested the street sweepings to remove debris, and informed receivers about the origins of the street sweepings.  The City maintains that the street sweepings are not a waste and that the Director has not established that there are potential adverse effects associated with the street sweepings.

The City contends that in the alternative, the Director has not demonstrated sufficient potential adverse effects to justify the work in the Director’s Order. The City argues that even if the ERT finds that street sweepings are a waste under the EPA, or that potential adverse effects do derive from the street sweepings, the work ordered is excessive and unnecessary.

In December, 2016, the City filed a Notice of Appeal of the Director’s Order with the ERT, and requested that the ERT grant a stay of the work ordered pending the appeal.

Prior to the stay hearing, the Director consented to stay all but two of the items in the Director’s Order. Namely, the Director maintained that the City must still share any information in the City’s possession relating to the street sweepings, and complete a forensic audit report about
other possible receiving sites.

At the stay hearing, the City argued that if the ERT did not stay the remaining two work items in the Director’s Order, the City would suffer irreparable harm. Specifically, the City argued it would suffer financial loss, lose its reputation for environmental excellence, and face a threat of litigation in relation to the street sweepings.

Respecting the balance of convenience and public interest considerations that are pertinent to the granting of a stay, the City argued that there was no evidence to suggest that human health or ecological life was at risk due to the deposited street sweepings.  The City also argued that absent a stay, the Director’s Order would compel the City to produce possibly prejudicial documentation, before a finding of any obligation to do so.

The ERT dismissed the City’s request to stay the remaining two items in the Director’s Order. The ERT found that the City did not sufficiently prove it would face irreparable harm if the ERT did not grant a stay, or that the balance of convenience supported granting a stay.

The City’s appeal is scheduled to be heard at the ERT in November and early December of 2018. The appeal decision will provide direction on whether street sweepings are waste under the EPA.

The information and comments herein are for the general information of the reader only and do not constitute legal advice or opinion. The reader should seek specific legal advice for particular applications of the law to specific situations. This article was first published in the Wilms & Shier website.


About the Author

Donna Shier is a partner at Willms & Shier Environmental Lawyers LLP in Toronto and certified as a Specialist in Environmental Law by the Law Society of Ontario. With almost 40 distinguished years of experience practicing environmental law, Donna Shier is one of Canada’s leading environmental counsel to major industrial corporations. Donna is also frequently called upon by corporate, commercial and real estate lawyers to assist their clients with environmental legal issues, and provides environmental law expertise to external litigation counsel. Donna is a qualified mediator and is an accredited member of the ADR Institute of Canada. Donna is called to the bar of Ontario.Donna may be reached at 416-862-4822 or by e-mail at [email protected]

Canadian Electronics Makers at Risk with e-Waste Exports

, , ,

by Jonathan Cocker, Partner at Baker McKenzie

“Canada continues to allow exports of hazardous e-waste to flow to developing countries (in this case, China and Pakistan)… These are all likely to be illegal.”
Export of e-Waste from Canada, October 10th, 2018, Basel Action Network

The release of this report by the Basel Action Network, subtitled A Story as Told by GPS Trackers, has thrown a veritable thunderbolt into the midst of the waste electrical and electronic equipment recycling industry in Canada (and beyond as these issues are not unique to any one country). Not only are current stakeholders engaging in the continued export of toxic materials to unlicensed (and unregulated) locations in developing countries, but these exports may well violate one or more laws, including national laws adopting the original Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal.

e-Waste Monopolies and the Limits of Due Diligence
A question arises as to how manufacturers of electronics could allow their products and their industry representatives to engage in these exports long after the harmful environmental and societal impacts of such exports have come to light and addressed through international agreements. The answer lies in their proximity to the compliance activities undertaken on their behalf. In Canada, the makers of electronics are mandated to participate in a single government-approved WEEE recycling organization in each province. Decisions around this reverse supply chain are simply too remote to many in the electronics industry.

More importantly, there is too little incentive for the government designate to rigorously oversee the end-of-life compliance of the waste they transfer, as painfully demonstrated by the Export of e-Waste from Canada Basel Ban report. Instead, the organizations can rest upon the recycler qualifications and standards as due diligence and blame the bad apples when these scandals come to light. Their compliance mandate can be viewed as essentially process, not results, driven and they have little organizational risk, as the monopoly party, in whatever mischief happens thereafter. Equally, individual electronics manufacturers aren’t invested in the environmental outcomes as they are not at risk. It’s no coincidence that the report itself does not name one electronics company as culpable.

Electronics Industry Facing Coming Individual Producer Responsibility
Ironically, it is the Canadian e-Waste government designates which will lose their monopoly positions in the marketplace under the coming individual producer responsibility model (IPR) for many waste streams, including electronics. Under IPR, it will be individual producers who will assume direct responsibility for the proper resource recovery of the electronics they place on the market. These electronics companies will retain the liability for outcomes such as illegal shipments to:

“an area well documented as being a global e-waste trafficking and smuggling hub.”

The risks to the electronics industry participants become real, both regulatory and reputational, truly motivating them to ensure that their oversight role doesn’t end at a qualification program, in the same way that international brands in many other industries are increasingly scrutinizing their (front end) supply chains. Canada’s Province of Ontario will have IPR for e-Waste in 2020.

Small(er) Is Beautiful in Managing e-Waste
To conduct this kind of effective auditing and verification, electronics makers will want to stay closer to their reverse supply chains (and potentially lucrative secondary markets) through individual or smaller, market-segmented groups to best structure reverse supply chains which meet their individual or group needs. Leaving it in the hands of a single monolith entity acting on behalf of a myriad of parties, from manufacturers to retailers and everyone in between, across the broad spectrum of waste-relegated electronics and electrical equipment, will continue to prove ineffective in ensuring e-Waste compliance. It will be up to the producers themselves to finally bring these e-Waste exports to a permanent halt.

This article was originally published on the Baker McKenzie website.


About the Author

Jonathan D. Cocker heads the Firm’s Environmental Practice Group in Canada and is an active member of its Global Consumer Goods & Retail and Energy, Mining & Infrastructure groups. He participated in founding one of North America’s first circular economy producer responsibility organizations. Jonathan is a frequent speaker and writer on EHS matters, an active participant on EHS issues in a number of national and international industry associations, and most recently the author of the first edition of The Environment and Climate Change Law Review (Canada chapter) and the upcoming Encyclopedia of Environmental Law (Chemicals chapter).

Toronto Wins by Turning Waste into Renewable Natural Gas

, , , ,

by City of Toronto Staff

City of Toronto recently won a 2018 Energy Vision Leadership Award for its innovative renewable natural gas project.

The City, in partnership with Enbridge Gas Distribution Inc., will begin installing new equipment at the Dufferin Solid Waste Management Facility in 2018. The new technology will allow the City and Enbridge to transform the raw biogas produced – from processing Toronto’s Green Bin organics – into renewable natural gas (RNG) and inject that gas into the natural gas grid. Once in the grid, the City will be able to use the RNG to fuel its collection trucks.

This project is one of the first of its kind in Canada and North America and will allow the City to reduce fuel costs for its fleet of collection trucks and significantly reduce its carbon footprint. Current estimates suggest that the Dufferin RNG facility will produce approximately 5.3 million cubic metres of RNG per year – enough to power 132 heavy duty garbage trucks, about 90 per cent of the City’s solid waste collection fleet.

The project supports the City’s Long Term Waste Management Strategy and move toward a circular economy by using a closed-loop approach where organics collection trucks are ultimately powered by the waste product they collect.

This is the first of four waste-to-RNG production opportunities identified by the City.

Circular model showing how waste can ultimately be used to create green energy.

Toronto’s Path to RNG

The City of Toronto’s existing and closed landfill sites and anaerobic digestion (organics processing) facilities are some of the largest producers of biogas and landfill gas in Ontario. Over the last few years, the City’s has been looking for opportunities to harness the green energy potential of these gases and identified renewable natural gas (RNG) as a top priority for biogas management.

The City has been transitioning from diesel-powered trucks to quieter and more environmentally friendly natural-gas-powered trucks since 2010, when the first small-scale pilot hit the road. To support the move away from diesel, the City also constructed a number of natural gas fuelling stations.

After identifying RNG as a priority, the City began searching for technologies and partnerships to upgrade its biogas and landfill gas to RNG. When looking at the different technologies and options for upgrading and transporting biogas, the City took a triple bottom line approach that considered the economic, social and environmental benefits.

Through multiple studies, the City identified RNG production opportunities at four locations: its two anaerobic digestion (organics processing) facilities (Dufferin and Disco Road) and two of its landfill sites. The first site to get new equipment to upgrade its biogas to RNG is the Dufferin Solid Waste Management Facility.

Once all four RNG sites are up and running, estimates suggest that the City will be able to produce approximately 65 million cubic metres of RNG per year – the equivalent in greenhouse gas emission reductions of taking 35,000 cars off the road for a year.

Biogas Upgrading

Both biogas and landfill gas can be upgraded to create RNG. The biogas produced through anaerobic digestion is made up primarily of methane, but also includes carbon dioxide, oxygen, nitrogen, water, sulphur, and various non-methane organic compounds.

Biogas upgrading involves purifying the gas to remove carbon dioxide and other contaminants. The result is a gas that is more than 90 per cent methane and can be injected directly into natural gas pipelines. The RNG can then be transported to the City’s natural gas fueling stations and used to fuel its trucks.

Biogas at the City’s anaerobic digestion facilities is currently flared (burned), which is common industry practice for managing biogas, but does not take advantage of its renewable energy potential.

Inside of the Toronto Dufferin Source Separated Organics Management Facility (Photo Credit: CCI Bioenergy)

The Benefits of RNG

While chemically identical to traditional natural gas, RNG is a renewable resource that can be produced using materials that are readily accessible through the City’s Green Bin organics program.

RNG is also less expensive and more environmentally friendly than fossil fuels such as diesel. Once injected into the natural gas pipeline, it can be used to fuel vehicles or provide electricity or heat to homes and businesses.

RNG generated from food waste is actually considered carbon negative, because the reduction in emissions by not extracting and burning petroleum-based fuel, and the emissions avoided by not sending organics to landfill, exceed the direct emissions associated with the production and use of RNG.

Innovations & Hurdles in Asphalt Recycling in Canada

, , , , ,

John McClelland with his ARRA Award

According to Donald Matthews of Pavement Recycling Systems, Inc. in California, asphalt has always been recyclable.  In fact, according to him, it is the #3 recycled product in the world after water.

Proof of the success of asphalt recycling in Canada can in found in Perth County, Ontario, about a 2-hour drive west of Toronto.  In the spring, the director of public works for Perth County, John McClelland, received Asphalt Recycling and Reclaiming Association’s (ARRA’s) annual Charles R. Valentine Award for Excellence in Cold Recycling.

The main reason for the recognition of Perth County by the ARRA was due to the County’s commitment to recycling of asphalt.  According to municipal estimates, since 1991 Perth County has saved approximately $25,000 per kilometre by choosing to rehabilitate its 440 km of roadway using recycled asphalt.

“Perth County has one of North America’s longest running in-place asphalt recycling programs and has been performing CIR (cold in-place recycling) on its roads successfully since 1991,” said Nicholas Cifelli, a technical services manager specializing in pavement products at The Miller Group, prior to presenting McClelland with his award. “Approximately 90% of the county’s road network has been remediated using CIR, averaging 15-20 km per year, and a total capital spend of $4 million.”


There are a number of innovations in asphalt recycling that are currently used in North America including eco-friendly manufacturing and eco-friendly ingredients.

Cold-in-place (CIR) recycling of asphalt has been around in Canada for some time.  CIR is a pavement rehabilitation technique that reduces the life cycle cost of the pavement structure by reusing the existing asphalt pavement. This process generally uses 100% Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement (RAP) mixed with a new binder which may be either emulsion or foamed asphalt cement.

CIR may be considered wherever cracking, permanent deformation and/or loss of integrity in the existing bituminous pavement occur. Structurally sound and well-drained pavements are the most suitable candidates.

When the pavement is distorted, corrective operations may be required prior to the CIR process which include road profiling and/or the addition of corrective aggregate. The addition of a corrective aggregate may be required to modify the gradation or to improve the strength of the recycled material when rutting, shoving, and flushing exists.

CIR is considered the most effective process to mitigate reflective cracking in a cold climate and is widely utilized as a cost effective rehabilitation alternative to traditional reconstruction methods due to its comparatively low cost, higher life cycle and ease of construction.


Cold In-Place Recycling: City of Edmonton 137th Avenue – Standard General Inc.

The asphalt industry considers eco-friendly ingredients to include recycled material.  For example, Canadian Road Builders Inc. offers a mix called Vegecol that is made entirely from renewable, plant-based material and can be used on major roads as well as for walking and biking paths.   As an added benefit, there are no petrochemical ingredients to contaminate run off water.

Besides CIR, there is also hot-in-place recycling on asphalt that involves the recycling of the top layer of asphalt that includes scraping, mixing and then repaving in one continuous chain.  Basically, this process consists of four steps: (1) softening of the asphalt pavement surface with heat; (2) scarification and/or mechanical removal of the surface material; (3) mixing of the material with recycling agent, asphalt binder, or new mix; and (4) laydown and paving of the recycled mix on the pavement surface.

The primary purpose of hot in-place recycling is to correct surface distresses not caused by structural inadequacy, such as raveling, cracks, ruts and holes, and shoves and bumps. It may be performed as a single-pass operation or a multiple-pass operation.

The City of Hamilton used hot-in-place asphalt recycling on a portion of the Red Valley Parkway in the summer.  In an interview with the Hamilton Spectator, Gord McGuire, Hamilton’s new director of engineering services, stated that repaving the Red Valley Parkway would cost around $6.75 million.  Using hot-in-place recycling would safe time and money.

Hurdles to Implementation of Innovations

With the potential savings in time and money (and possibility of an award) through asphalt recycling, it may be surprising that asphalt recycling is not commonplace across Canada.  However, a recent report issued by TARBA, an association of road builders that promote the betterment of the road building industry in the City of Toronto and other municipalities, there are some municipalities not recycling asphalt.

The TARBA report, entitled Leaders and Laggards, provides information compiled by independent research that examines the aggregate recycling policies and practices of a sample of large municipalities. The study also ranked the municipalities based on whether they are “Leaders” or “Laggards” in supporting aggregate recycling. The results follow.

The TARBA report concludes that Ontario’s largest municipalities have a long way to go before they can fully realize the benefits of increased use of recycled aggregate materials. The report notes that the current policies and practices across Ontario municipalities vary. Based on the survey data provided by the municipalities, some municipalities emerge as “Leaders” and others as “Laggards” in this area. The report states that even in the municipalities identified as “Leaders” there is room for continued growth.

There is much that municipalities can learn from one another in this respect, sharing best practices and working together to increase the use of recycled aggregate materials in order to realize more of the associated benefits for their communities.

The report holds the Government of Ontario as an good example of a public tendering agency that accepts and encourages aggregates recycling. About 20% of the aggregates used in Ministry of Transportation (MTO) projects – whether for granular base and fills or new hot mix asphalt – are recycled asphalt and concrete materials.

Finally, the report concludes that increasing the use of recycled aggregate materials in road infrastructure projects represents an opportunity to reduce their impact on the environment, decrease costs, and find efficiencies.