Montreal’s Plan to ban food waste disposal in garbage

,

The City of Montreal recently announced a plan to ban the disposal of food waste generated at large grocery stores from being disposed of in the garbage. Under the plan, grocery stores will be required to divert edible food to charitable organizations such as food banks. Inedible food waste is to collected separately from other wastes so that it can be aerobically composted or anaerobically digested.

According to the City of Montreal, approximately half the the waste disposed of in landfill is organic material.

Under the plan, anything that cannot be donated must be composted or anaerobically digested. If businesses do not comply, Montreal Mayor Valérie Plante said they could face fines, as a last resort.

That enforcement would come in phases, starting with large grocery stores.

“We’re serious about doing the ecological transition, and all the areas need to be looked at, whether it’s transport, about food, about recycling,” Plante said.

A successful partnership between several Montreal grocery stores and food banks have been in operation since 2013. The food bank Moisson Montréal accepts edible food not sold at Provigo, IGA and Metro grocery stores. In 2018, it is estimated the food bank received more than 1 million kilograms of food from the grocery stores.

Interestingly, Second Harvest has developed a mobile app, called FoodRescue, designed to put organizations wanting to donate food to those we want it. FoodRescue.ca is a connection that works on a local level
for any food business to donate any type of unsold, good food to any organization that feeds people in need.

City of Montreal awards contract to build, operate, and maintain a SSO Anaerobic Processing Facility

, , ,

The City of Montreal recently signed a contract with SUEZ to design, build, operate and maintain a source separated organics (SSO) waste treatment center. This contract, worth $167 million (Cdn.), provides for a two-year construction period of the plant followed by a five-year operating period. This is the second contract won this year by SUEZ in Montreal, which is currently building a composting facility. The new plant will convert organic material into biomethane, producing enough renewable gas to power around 3,600 households.

SUEZ will build an organic waste biomethanation center that can process 60,000 tons of organic material each year, on the east side of Montreal Island. This plant will recover organic waste produced by nearly 1.5 million inhabitants of the east side and the city center into biomethane. SUEZ will equip the plant with innovative technologies allowing for the anaerobic digestion of organic material to generate biogas, which will then be purified using high-performance membranes to produce biomethane. Expected to be commissioned in 2022, the facility will be operated and maintained by SUEZ for a period of five years.

This plant will contribute to the City of Montreal’s efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. First, it will significantly reduce the distances traveled in treating this waste, which is currently taken to a facility around 50 kilometers (31 miles) northeast of Montreal. Moreover, the new plant will convert the organic material into biomethane, a renewable energy that offers the same advantages as natural gas. Non-polluting and locally produced, the biomethane will be injected into the local gas network.

This facility is the second organic waste treatment centers planned by the City of Montreal to recover and divert away its organic waste from landfills by 2020. In April 2019, SUEZ was selected by the City of Montreal to design, build and operate the city’s first organic waste treatment center, located in the Saint-Laurent borough.

About SUEZ North America

SUEZ North America operates across all 50 of the United States and throughout Canada. It has 2,825 employees. The company provides drinking water, wastewater and waste collection services; treats water and wastewater ; delivers water treatment and advanced network solutions to industrial and municipal sites; processes waste for recycling; rehabilitates and maintains water assets for municipal and industrial customers; and manages $4.1 billion in total assets. The company posted revenues of $1.1 billion in 2018 and is a subsidiary of Paris-based SUEZ.

Unintended consequences: How Environmentalism is becoming a luxury that poor and marginalized communities cannot afford

, , , ,

Written by Calvin Lakhan, Ph.D, Faculty of Environmental Studies at York University

The title of this article may seem like a bit of “click bait”, but the topic itself is one near and dear to my heart, but is often neglected in conversations surrounding waste. How socio-economic inequality manifests itself in the form of impeded access, or participation in waste management initiatives is a poorly understood topic. Much of the existing academic research on environmental justice has been on the unequal distribution of environmental hazards and benefits along racialized lines, where there are consistent indications that waste facilities and waste related hazards are disproportionally located in lower income areas (or those predominated by minorities). Perhaps more alarmingly is the epidemiological link between waste exposure-related health effects and low income areas.

But that isn’t what this article is about – My hope is to begin an uncomfortable conversation about a two tiered waste management system in Ontario (one for affluent “woke” Ontarians, and one for lower income groups making the daily grind), that by all indications is going to get worse, before it gets better.

I want to preface by saying I don’t think this is necessarily the result of deliberate, malicious design (or least I wouldn’t like to think so). Equitable access to a clean and sustainable environment is an issue that has garnered enormous attention, and I would expect this issue to grow in importance moving forward.

I just ask that from the perspective of waste management (diversion, recycling etc.), that we take the time to consider how changes in our industry affect, or are going to affect, the most vulnerable or marginalized groups of our society.

In all fairness, the connection between waste management and socio-economic inequality is not something that is top of mind for most policy makers. Generally speaking, there is an idea that a municipality will provide waste management services to a particular area, support that initiative through a combination of promotion and education efforts, and hope for sustained public participation.

The help provide some boundaries on this wide ranging discussion, I am going to break my comments down into three key areas: Economic Access and 2) Knowledge Access, and 3) Infrastructural Access

Economic Access

I was recently interviewed by the CBC, and almost inevitably, the conversation shifted to the perils of plastic packaging.

Given that I am actually an advocate of some single use plastics, I was trying explain how a cucumber wrapped in plastic isn’t the world’s worst idea, considering that it can help mitigate against spoilage.

That’s when the interviewer said something that surprised me a bit “Don’t you think consumers should be paying a little more to ensure that less waste is being generated?”

I actually didn’t know how to answer that question, largely because it depends on so many different factors. Do I think all consumers should be willing to pay a little bit more to avoid waste? No – absolutely not. I do however I think that consumers who have the discretionary purchasing power to make more sustainable choices should try and do when possible, but I ascribe no right or wrong in doing so.

What people can and choose to purchase is largely a function of economics –those of us that have the luxury of being conscientious consumers that can shop locally and participate in programs such as Terracycle’s Loop should be applauded.

However, it is important to recognize that the ability to do so is a luxury – in a focus group conducted of more than 1800 consumers in the Greater Toronto earlier this year, more than 80% of respondents indicated that price was the primary determinant for making a purchase. If possible, respondents indicated that they would like to make more sustainable purchases, but budgetary restraints largely impeded them from doing so.

More than 70% of respondents also indicated that they did not have the ability to travel outside of a 5km range to make daily purchases, and often shopped at specific retailers because of a mix of multiple factors such as: convenience, price, familiarity and purchasing agglomeration (one stop shopping).

In a 2019 analysis of consumer purchasing preferences in the Greater Toronto Area, households characterized as “low income” (household income less than $40,000 per year) consumed 18.4% more pre-packaged goods (namely grains, produce and frozen meats), when compared to families whose household income exceeded $100,000 a year. There is an inverse, statistically significant correlation between household income and % of prepackaged foodstuff of overall weekly purchases.

The expectation that households have the ability to readily switch between products based on packaging type doesn’t appear to be a realistic one. People might like the idea of Loop, or want to participate in more sustainability initiatives, but at present, they are priced out of “taking part”.

A particularly interesting phenomenon is that more than 30% of respondents indicated that they are increasingly feeling a “shame” factor from friends or family, who were questioning why they continue to make “unsustainable” choices in light of increasing awareness surrounding single use plastics (i.e. using plastic bags, seran wrap etc.). An anecdote provided during one of the focus group sessions included “A co-worker admonished me for purchasing frozen meat products for my children, alluding to the fact that fresh is better… obviously it is, but I can’t afford that every time and I was left feeling guilty”

While the results of these focus groups/surveys are merely a subset of the diverse range of experiences faced by Ontarians, the sample was designed to be statistically significant and stratified to reflect different demographic contributions.

What was not considered in this study is the potential impact on packaged good prices once a 100% producer responsibility model is implemented in Ontario. Given that lower income groups are the greatest consumers of packaged goods (both in absolute terms, and as a relative % of the overall purchasing basket), any upwards pressure in the cost of food stuff could have potentially adverse impacts.

Knowledge Access

Did you know that I could now schedule my used clothing bin pickup with Diabetes Canada? Or that the TOwaste App allows users the ability properly sort more than 2000 materials?

Even the University’s own Waste Wiki site offers users the ability to download thousands of resources related to waste.

While advents in technology that allow us to engage and communicate in new ways with city residents, we have to remember to ask ourselves: Who is my intended audience? And who is my tool designed for? We often erroneously presume that the majority of people are social media savvy and have the ability to navigate and use a smartphone, but research conducted by York University suggest that smartphone ownership among first generation immigrants is as follows:

Figure 1: Smart Phone Ownership

No alt text provided for this image

Amongst the more than 1200 survey respondents, only adults between the ages of 17-44 reported owning and regularly using a smart phone. The average across all age groups was actually less than 50%. A perhaps more salient finding is that the majority of first generation immigrants using smartphones DO NOT have English as their primary system language (in fact, for ages 45 and older, smartphone users almost exclusively navigate using their native language)

Figure 2: Primary System Language

No alt text provided for this image

Now, you may be asking yourself why does this matter? And what does this have to do with socio-economic inequality?

Simply put, these applications have largely been designed and tested with a demographic that assumes a person is: fluent in English, knows where to download and remove applications from the Play Store, possesses the technical proficiency to consent to location tracking, cookies etc. and lastly, cares enough to see out these types of resources.

In a 2016 study conducted by York University examining “Effectiveness of Recycling Promotion and Education Initiatives among First-Generation Ethnic Minorities in Ontario, Canada” (Lakhan, Social Sciences, 2016), focus group participants struggled to navigate online promotion and education materials and resources (such as the Waste Wizard). The following is an excerpt from this study:

48 of 77 focus group participants expressed difficulty in navigating to and within municipal waste websites (commonly coded phrases included “It’s hard to find the information I’m looking for”). Of particular note, The second most frequently coded response for this question was that the municipality’s web pages were often translated incorrectly (coded 33 times), making it difficult to locate the appropriate waste related resource. While the Google translate feature was available on each of the municipal web sites, the translation was often inaccurate (mistranslated words and phrases, grammar, etc.). 24 study participants indicated that this was actually insulting to them—anecdotes recorded during the sessions include “If you’re not going to do it properly, don’t bother doing it at all” and “It shows how much they (the municipality) care about us”. The notion of “us” and “them” was a recurring theme during the focus group sessions. There was a sentiment that municipalities catered to “white” households and ignored (or placed less emphasis on) the needs of ethnic minorities.

Returning to the conversation of equitable access, how do we ensure that all participants within the system are aware of the tools that are available to them, and by extension, how do we ensure those tools are usable and meaningful to communities?

As an anecdote, I am going to pick on my late father again. As I have noted before, he was a brilliant man who was a professor in Environmental Science, (but he wasn’t exactly the best environmentalist). In spring of last year, as he was cleaning his house post retirement, I told him he could now schedule a pick up on his phone for someone to come get all of his clothes for a donation – no need to leave the house. He just scoffed at me as he loaded bag after bag of used clothing in to my car, ordering me to drive to the Salvation Army. The tool that gets a person like my father to participate, someone who wouldn’t have previously participated if not for this app, is what’s going to be the game changer. Tech savvy recyclers are already taking advantage of these services, and it is unlikely that future increases in diversion are going to come from them. 

Infrastructural Access

Infrastructural Access to waste management services is something that is more difficult to readily quantify, but perhaps, is most insidious in that it highlights that services (not just those pertaining to waste management) are two tiered: One for the rich, and one for everyone else.

Having done extensive work in multi residential buildings throughout the Greater Toronto Area, I have been privy to see the unique challenges that building managers face when attempting to promote diversion. While these are not an exhaustive list of observations (ultimately, every building is unique), but based on data collected over a three year period (which included gauging self-reported recycling behavior among building residents), the following was observed.

1)     Very few buildings are equipped with floor level recycling chutes, with most older buildings having a “recycling room” that required residents to drop off their recyclables at a designated location (normally in a room in the basement). Only recently constructed condominiums have floor level tri sorters.

2)     Not all building managers have the same level of commitment in promoting and maintaining waste management services in their building. City Staff are routinely engaged with building managers to provide materials to residents instructing them about various elements of the City’s waste management programs. 

3)     Recycling/Waste rooms located in building basements or parking garages were seen as an inconvenience, and potentially unsafe

4)     Many “waste/recycling” rooms were seen as dirty, poorly lit and heavily contaminated, which significantly deterred participation among residents. As an extension of this, a household’s willingness to use the waste room was directly related to the building manager’s commitment to maintaining the waste room.

5)     Residents wanted to recycle, but found the inconvenience of both storing and transporting waste to the designated room acted as a deterrent

6)     Residents had much lower rates of recycling awareness compared to single family households, as it was a situation of “out of sight, out of mind”. In the absence of weekly/bi-weekly collection, people forgot about it.

The common thread across each of these observations is that the more affluent the building (ownership was a significant predictor of diversion behavior), the more building/site staff were committed to promoting and maintain a safe and accessible recycling room. It should be noted that this was not universally the case, and overall, building residents expressed strong positive attitudes towards recycling, but low levels of perceived behavioral control that ultimately deterred recycling behavior. Generally speaking, these behavioral obstacles were most prevalent in buildings characterized by lower income and/or immigrant families.

Figure 3 below is taken from as an excerpt from a study I had conducted examining the link between public space recycling and neighborhood income levels (2017)

Figure 3: Density of Bin Per Sample Area

1 – # of Recycling Bins Per Transit Stop

2 – # of Recycling Bins Per 1km sampled roadway/sidewalk

3 – # of Recycling Bins per sampled area

No alt text provided for this image

While the scale makes it a bit difficult to follow, what the figure above shows is that the frequency of recycling bins in three public spaces (Transit Stops, Sidewalks and Parkettes/Playgrounds) is in direct correlation with neighborhood income level (greater income = greater density of bins).

It is important to note that incidents of illegal dumping or littering were not necessarily shown to be higher in these areas, but the purpose of this exercise was to merely determine whether “access to recycling” was equitable across all income groups. The answer, at least based on the time this data was collected, was no. Higher income areas have greater opportunities to recycle, at least with respect to the density of public space Blue Bins.

With respect to infrastructural access, it is very much a tail of two cities (although it would be difficult to say that was the result of deliberate design). Higher income households have greater opportunities to participate in diversion programs, experience more regular/predictable service and have access to supplementary tools and resources that are tailored more specifically to an English speaking audience. These experience further reinforce positive attitude attachments towards the environment, and may subsequently lead to recycling habituation. While this is a desired outcome, high income English speaking households already participate in household recycling at rates that exceed 90% – the next diverted tonne is unlikely going to come from these groups.

Stop and Think

I would strongly caution the reader from jumping to any conclusions based on this information – questions surrounding environmental equality is complex and multi-faceted, and I certainly don’t do any justice to them in this short article.

However, what I do want people to think about what our waste management system is going to look like moving forward. Will we all be using reusable ice cream cans and storing our mouth wash in artisanal metal bottles? I say that tongue in cheek, but conversations surrounding sustainability cannot be had without considering equitability and inclusiveness.

Both brand owners and policy makers cannot stop at saying “We found a divertable solution” and pat ourselves on the back for a job well done. Instead, we need to be thinking about how can we deliver this solutions at scale, across all income groups, so that everyone can participate in creating a circular economy?


About the Author

Calvin LAKHAN, Ph.D, is currently co-investigator of the “Waste Wiki” project at York University (with Dr. Mark Winfield), a research project devoted to advancing understanding of waste management research and policy in Canada. He holds a Ph.D from the University of Waterloo/Wilfrid Laurier University joint Geography program, and degrees in economics (BA) and environmental economics (MEs) from York University. His research interests and expertise center around evaluating the efficacy of municipal recycling initiatives and identifying determinants of consumer recycling behavior.

Fun with Waste: UK Students create Boat Sculpture from Waste

Students from a School in Britain recently created a boat sculpture from waste. The sculpture, called HMS Revival, is made from discarded bottles, bin bags, shopping bags and plastic cups held together with bamboo, rope and glue.

The purpose of the sculpture was to raise awareness about the problem of litter in Henley and the River Thames. Henley-on-Thames is a town and civil parish on the River Thames in Oxfordshire, England.

It took the 12 teenage students a total of two days to create sculpture after spending the previous week collecting waste from along the river bank.

The sculpture will be displayed in the River & Rowing Museum‘s community gallery until December as part of its Nature on Your Doorstep exhibition.

Raining on the parade: A critique of packaging “take back”​ programs (Terracycle,Loop, Nespresso etc.)

, , , ,

Written by Calvin Lakhan, Ph.D, Faculty of Environmental Studies at York University 

I want to preface this post by saying that I wan’t to be proven wrong – while it may be a peculiar stance to take as a researcher, I want to believe in the environmental benefits of packaging take back programs offered by Terracycle, Recycle Bank etc.

The idea that we are now finding innovative ways to recycle problematic materials and transition towards reusable packaging is a breath of fresh air in an industry that finds itself in a waste crisis.

With that being said, it is important to fully understand what it is we are trying to achieve as we work towards a circular economy. A circular system is our end point, but the path that we ultimately take to get there is where we should focus our attention.

The following is an excerpt from the study (I have attached the full white paper for people to download). Please note that I welcome any and all questions, criticisms and comments – my goal is not to pick on any particular organization, but shed light on the challenges of using a decentralized network for waste collection.

Study Excerpt

In Spring of 2019, York University’s Waste Wiki team was asked to investigate the environmental and economic impact of take back programs involving coffee pods, and other reusable/recyclable items that have de-centralized collection networks (i.e. Terra Cycle programs for shampoo bottles, cigarette butts etc.)

It is a relatively recent phenomenon that consumer packaging goods companies are exploring end of life waste management solutions that exist outside of conventional curbside collection. Increasingly, CPG companies are announcing partnerships with “niche” recyclers (where niche is characterized as a company that specializes in the recovery of problematic/difficult to recover materials), enabling consumers to directly return used packaging to re-processors and have it be diverted from landfill.

However, scant attention has been paid as to whether these types of programs offer legitimate environmental benefits when taking a life cycle approach. While it may seem intuitive that keeping material of a landfill is a good idea, what constitutes recyclability is a much more nuanced question that requires a careful consideration of environmental benefits, costs, accessibility, availability and infrastructural capacity.

In the case of most take back programs offered by companies such as Terracycle, problematic materials are down-cycled into “one off” products. As an example, Terracycle presently has take back programs offered for a range of commonly used household products, including razors and other personal hygiene items, chip bags, multi laminate pouches, sharpies/markers and cigarette waste.

While this initially seems like a good thing, each of the aforementioned items are down-cycled, wherein the end of life secondary product cannot be subsequently recovered, and ultimately is disposed of (i.e. a shampoo bottle is converted into a running shoe, but that running shoe cannot be recycled at its end of life, and will either be landfilled or incinerated).

While Terracycle and their peers should be celebrated for their innovation and commitment to finding new uses for problematic materials, their approach to recycling and reuse creates a dangerous perception among the public about what items can (and should be) recycled/reused.

At present, the processing technology involved in any of the aforementioned take back programs is economically prohibitive, and is really only available in jurisdictions in which the collection program is being offered. Simply put – municipal waste management infrastructure is not designed to either collect or recycle problematic materials.

As an example, the only cost analog that can readily be found in a municipal waste system is for multi-laminate plastic packaging (chip bags, yogurt squeeze containers etc.). In 2018, for the limited number of municipal programs that accepted multi laminate materials as part of their Blue Bin, the cost of recycling exceeded $2000 a tonne.

While comparing Terracycle’s costs (which are not shared) with a public municipal waste management system isn’t a particularly useful comparison, it is done to highlight just how costly it is to achieve, even with established collection, consolidation and sorting systems in place.

Take back programs offered by packaging companies and their partners must find ways to economically consolidate and transport their material to specific facilities, and ensure that those facilities are readily equipped to process that material at scale. The economic and environmental impact of a decentralized logistics network is questionable – take back programs that ask consumers to ship things like coffee pods, chip bags, razors etc. hundreds of kilometers can be both inefficient and costly.

At this time, neither Terracycle nor their partners were willing to share their cost and diversion data with the university, limiting the ability to model our own costing scenarios.

However, as an intellectual exercise, let’s look at a take back program that we have a better understanding of – The “Nespresso” Aluminum Coffee Pod (also managed by Terracycle). 

Results  (See link below)

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rfERnYLOIhPsHcPA7JHf-BxPvErSiezB/view

Closing Comments

For those of you who may not be inclined to read through the entire white paper (although it is a relatively light read at a little under 8 pages – with lots of graphs), the closing comments are as follows:

Nespresso should be applauded for finding a recyclable alternative and innovating in a way that moves us away from single use plastic pods. However, the danger of programs such as Nespresso’s mailer program is that it creates the illusion of being a good environmental citizen (from both the perspective of the packaging producer and the consumer). However, as both consumers and decision makers, we have to perform our due diligence when evaluating whether our actions (in this case, recycling) are achieving our intended objectives (preferable environmental outcomes).

What is perhaps most damning is that Nespresso Aluminum pods is one of the only environmentally friendly packaging types managed by Terracycle that can readily be recycled at a low cost. Table 1 below summarizes the known emissions credits and recycling costs for commonly found Blue Box Materials (managed via curbside).

Table 1: Comparison of Emissions Credits and Recycling Costs

No alt text provided for this image

Please note that the costs per tonne DO NOT include collection costs – these are just the costs of sorting and processing materials at a material recycling facility, net of any revenue received from marketed materials. Curbside collection costs for Blue Box materials typically range from $150-$300 a tonne (as different municipalities have different collection infrastructure, housing densities, labor rates etc.).

While Terracycle did not provide a breakdown of their collection costs for any of their take back programs, the purpose of this study is to highlight that voluntary take back programs, particularly involving those using a mailer system, can only work when there is a critical mass of consolidated material, and that material is being collected at designated intervals. A take back program that leaves it to consumer discretion for how and when they will return end of life materials is in all likelihood significantly more costly from a transportation perspective due to the number of unique trips required. The only way for material to be efficiently transported is when there is a critical mass of material to transport.

As a secondary concern, important questions surrounding the accessibility and affordability of take back groups needs to be considered. Many of the programs offered by Terracycle and their partners exist largely in urban areas – the reason for this is fairly obvious, as it is simply not economically feasible to offer recycling programs to everyone, everywhere. As a tangent to this statement, the introduction of reusable packaging such as Loop has placed upwards pressures on the price of packaged goods – once again, a novel and unique design, but one that is not readily affordable or accessible to a significant percentage of Canadians.

A recent study from York University estimated that lower income marginalized households are those most likely affected by increases in packaging prices, as a greater proportion of their purchases are made up of pre-packaged items.

The findings from this study should be interpreted with a degree of caution – in the absence of having Terracycle’s data, we can only make best guess estimates based on the existing cost of managing a municipal waste system in Ontario. We welcome critics of these findings to share their data, such that we can all have a better understanding of what it is we would like to achieve from our waste management systems moving forward.  

Simply “recycling” is not enough, and we need to be both ready and willing to explore packaging alternatives that “think outside the Blue Box”.

Making the Case for a Zero Plastic Waste Economy: Canada Moves to Ban Single-Use Plastics in an Effort to Reduce Plastic Pollution

, , ,

Written by Selina Lee-Andersen, McCarthy Tetrault

There is no doubt that plastics provide unparalleled functionality and durability across a range of products in our everyday lives. The production and use of plastics is growing faster than any other material due to their many practical uses. However, certain characteristics that make plastics so valuable can also create challenges for their end-of-life waste management. In particular, the low costs of producing and disposing of plastics have increased the amount of disposable plastic products and packaging entering the consumer market. According to the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME), over half of these disposable plastic products and packaging are designed to be used once and thrown away. CCME reports that an estimated 95% of the material value of plastic packaging (or between $100 and $150 billion dollars annually) is lost to the global economy after only a single use.

In recent years, plastic pollution has emerged as a critical environmental issue, one that must be addressed globally. To reduce plastic waste in Canada, the federal government announced in June 2019 that it will ban single-use plastics as early as 2021. The ban is expected to include items such as plastic bags, straws, cutlery, plates and stir sticks. The federal government will also work together with the provinces and territories to introduce Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) programs, which would seek to establish standards and targets for companies that manufacture plastic products or sell items with plastic packaging.

The federal government has indicated that these measures will align with similar actions being taken in the European Union and other countries. In addition, these initiatives complement Canada’s adoption of the Ocean Plastics Charter in June 2018, which lays the groundwork for ensuring that plastics are designed for reuse and recycling. In addition, the federal government’s efforts to reduce plastic pollution includes ongoing work through the CCME to develop an action plan to implement the Canada-wide 2018 Strategy on Zero Plastic Waste.

Policy Initiatives to Reduce Plastic Pollution

The specific policy initiatives announced by the federal government include:

  • Banning harmful single-use plastics as early as 2021 under theCanadian Environmental Protection Act and taking other steps to reduce plastic waste, where supported by scientific evidence and when warranted – and taking other steps to reduce plastic waste. The ban would cover single-use plastic products and packaging (e.g. shopping bags, straws, cutlery, plates, and stir sticks); the specific products and measures included in the ban will be determined once a State of the Science assessment on plastic pollution in the environment has been completed. The assessment will include a peer review, public consultations, and socio-economic considerations. Additional regulatory actions could include requiring products to contain a set amount of recycled content, or be capable of being recycled or repaired.
  • Ensuring that companies that manufacture plastic products or sell items with plastic packaging are responsible for managing the collection and recycling of their plastic waste. EPR programs are recognized as an effective mechanism to support the creation of a circular economy. Under an EPR program, companies making products are responsible for the end-of-life management of their products and packaging. Through the CCME, the federal government will work with provinces and territories to support the development of consistent EPR programs across the country. This will include setting targets for plastics collection, recycling, and recycled content requirements.
  • Working with industry to prevent and retrieve abandoned, lost, or discarded fishing gear, known as ghost fishing gear – a major contributor to marine plastic debris. The federal government will work with stakeholders through a new Sustainable Fisheries Solutions and Retrieval Support Contribution Program. In particular, the federal government will support fish harvesters to acquire new gear technologies to reduce gear loss, and take actions to support ghost gear retrieval and responsible disposal. In addition, the federal government will seek to reduce the impacts of ghost fishing gear in Canadian aquatic ecosystems. It is important to note that a significant amount of plastic in the oceans is comprised of fishing nets. In a study by the Ocean Cleanup Foundation that was published in 2018, scientists found that at least 46% of the plastic in the Great Pacific Garbage Patch comes from fishing nets, while miscellaneous discarded fishing gear makes up the majority of the rest.
  • Investing in new Canadian technologies. Through the Canadian Plastics Innovation Challenge, the federal government is helping small businesses across the country find new ways to reduce plastic waste and turn waste into valuable resources supporting a circular economy. Seven challenges have been launched so far, providing over $10 million dollars to 18 Canadian small- and medium-sized enterprises. These businesses are working to reduce plastic waste from food packaging, construction waste, marine vessels, and fishing gear. They are also improving plastic recycling through artificial intelligence and refining technologies for bioplastics.
  • Mobilizing international support to address plastic pollution. At the 2018 G7 meeting in Charlevoix, Canada launched the Ocean Plastics Charter, which outlines actions to eradicate plastic pollution in order to address the impacts of marine litter on the health and sustainability of the oceans, coastal communities, and ecosystems. As of July 2019, the Charter has been endorsed by 21 governments and 63 businesses and organizations. To assist developing countries in reducing marine litter, the federal government is contributing $100 million to help developing countries prevent plastic waste from entering the oceans, address plastic waste on shorelines, and better manage existing plastic resources. This includes $65 million through the World Bank, $6 million to strengthen innovative private-public partnerships through the World Economic Forum’s Global Plastic Action Partnership, and $20 million to help implement the G7 Innovation Challenge to Address Marine Plastic Litter.
  • Reducing plastic waste from federal operations. The federal government is strengthening policies, requirements, and guidelines that promote sustainable procurement practices, and has committed to divert at least 75% of plastic waste from federal operations by 2030.
  • Reducing plastic microbeads in freshwater marine ecosystems. To reduce the amount of plastic microbeads entering Canadian freshwater and marine ecosystems, Canada prohibited the manufacture and import of all toiletries that contain plastic microbeads (such as bath and body products) as of July 1, 2018. A complete ban came into force July 1, 2019.
  • Supporting community-led action and citizen-science activities. The federal government has committed $1.5 million in 2019 for organizations to start new plastics projects that mobilize and engage citizens. This funding is designed to support community-led action through education, outreach, and citizen science, and support concrete actions through community cleanups and demonstrations to reduce plastic waste.
  • Launching Canada’s Plastics Science Agenda. The federal government will accelerate research into the life cycle of plastics and on the impacts of plastics pollution on humans, wildlife, and the environment. This agenda is aimed at supporting evidence-based decision-making and innovative approaches to sustainable plastics production, recycling, and recovery. Canada’s Plastics Science Agenda will also identify priority areas for multi-sector research partnerships to help achieve Canada’s zero plastic waste goals.

Economic Study of the Canadian Plastic Industry, Markets and Waste

In July 2018, Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) commissioned a study to provide insights into the entire plastics value chain in Canada, from raw material production and products manufacturing to use and end-of-life. In June 2019, Deloitte and Cheminfo Services Inc. delivered its report to ECCC – the Economic Study of the Canadian Plastic Industry, Markets and Waste (the Report).  Highlights of the Report are set out below.

The scope of the Report encompasses most plastics types used across all key sectors. The Report’s authors found that with total sales of approximately $35 billion, plastic resin and plastic product manufacturing in Canada accounts for more than 5% of sales in the Canadian manufacturing sector. The sector employs approximately 93,000 people across 1,932 establishments. In Canada, plastic products are in demand in most sectors of the economy, with approximately 4,667 kilotonnes (kt) of plastics introduced into the domestic market on an annual basis. The packaging, construction and automotive sectors account for 69% of plastic end-use.

In terms of the life cycle of plastics in Canada, the Report notes that it is mostly linear in nature, with an estimated 9% of plastic waste recycled, 4% incinerated with energy recovery, 86% landfilled, and 1% leaked into the environment in 2016. The main generators of plastic waste in Canada are:

  • packaging (43%);
  • automotive (9%);
  • textiles (7%);
  • electrical and electronic equipment (7%); and
  • construction (5%).

The Report found that plastics materials that were not recovered (i.e. 2,824 kt of resins sent to landfill or leaked into the environment) represented a lost opportunity of $7.8 billion for Canada in 2016, based on the value of virgin resin material. By 2030, the Report estimates that Canada’s lost opportunity in respect of unrecovered plastics could rise to $11.1 billion based on a business-as-usual scenario. Given forecasted trends in waste streams and economic drivers, the Report indicates that the linear profile of the Canadian plastics economy will not improve under a business-as-usual situation. The Report concluded that:

  • Given current market prices, structures, business models and the low cost of disposal, there is limited direct economic incentive for plastics recycling and value recovery in Canada. Primary (i.e. virgin resin production) and secondary (i.e. recycled) plastics compete against each other in the same market, based on price and quality of the resins. This competition is difficult for the recycling industry, which has to deal not only with prices, but also with quality issues as a result of uneven feedstock composition. While secondary plastics producers enjoy lower upfront investment than their counterparts in the primary market, they face greater financial exposure during periods of low oil prices (which bring down the price for virgin resins) because their cost structure is more labour intensive. Key barriers to the recovery of plastics include a combination of factors including low diversion rates (only 25% of all plastics discarded are collected for diversion), process losses in the sorting (e.g. shredded residues containing plastic are sent to landfill) and reprocessing stages, and the near absence of high volume recovery options for hard-to-recycle plastics (such as plastics waste coming from the automotive sector).
  • A zero plastic economy would deliver significant benefits to Canada. The Report’s authors modeled a 2030 scenario to examine the potential costs and benefits of achieving zero plastics waste. This scenario used a 90% landfill diversion rate as a proxy for zero plastic waste and assumed that: (i) plastics production and end use applications increased, but followed the same patterns as in 2016; (ii) mechanical recycling was quadrupled from its business-as-usual level; (iii) chemical recycling was significantly scaled up, taking into account readiness levels and associated learning curves; and (iv) energy from waste was leveraged to deal with the remaining volumes and hard-to-recycle plastics. An analysis by the authors demonstrated that the 2030 scenario would result in benefits including $500 million of annual costs avoided, 42,000 direct and indirect jobs created, and annual greenhouse gas emission savings of 1.8 Mt of carbon dioxide equivalent.  
  • The analysis indicates that zero plastic waste cannot be achieved without concurrent, strategic interventions by government, industry stakeholders and the public across each stage of the plastic lifecycle and targeted at sectors. According to the Report, achieving 90% plastic waste recovery will require significant investment to diversify and expand the capacity of current value recovery options including mechanical recycling. Chemical recycling, and waste-to-energy. The Report also notes that significant improvements to current plastic waste diversion rates will be required. In particular, a systematic approach across sectors will be needed because no single public or private sector action can shift the system.
  • The Report identifies the following five sets of interventions (including policies, measures and calls-to-action) to achieve zero plastic waste in Canada:
    1. Creating viable, domestic, secondary end-markets. This includes:
      • Creating stable, predictable demand for recycled plastics that is separate from virgin markets (e.g. requirements for recycled content, taxes/fees on virgin resins).
      • Improving the quality of recovered plastics at both the point of collection and in materials processing.
      • Improving access to domestic supply of recycled content.
      • Supporting innovation in product designs and uses for secondary plastics.
    2. Getting everybody onboard to collect all plastics. This includes:
      • Creating sector-specific requirements for collection (e.g. extended producer responsibility, performance agreements).
      • Restricting disposal (e.g. landfill taxes or bans).
      • Requiring/incentivizing collection (e.g. industry targets, deposit refund).
      • Developing more consistent requirements and rules across Canada (e.g. common curbside recycling).
      • Improving public information on collection and recyclability.
    3. Supporting and expanding all value-recovery options. This includes:
      • Supporting development of innovative value-recovery options, such as advanced mechanical and chemical recycling.
      • Focusing primarily on improving mechanical recycling.
      • Increasing the ease and speed at which new value recovery facilities can be developed by removing policy barriers and investing in innovation.
    4. Increasing efficiency throughout the value chain. This includes:
      • Facilitating collection and value-recovery by creating requirements for the reusability and recyclability of product design (e.g. standards and public procurement).
      • Improving performance by investing in sorting and separation.
      • Educating and engaging actors and consumers throughout the value chain.
    5. Extending plastics lifetime to reduce and delay waste generation. This includes leveraging opportunities to extend the lifetime of durable goods, which account for approximately 51% of total plastics waste, but have a very low recycling rate (2%) compared to that of non-durable goods (15%). In addition, the Report recommends introducing measures that contribute to increased reuse, repair and remanufacturing such as standard requirements for reparability or reusability, and tax exemptions to reduce and delay waste generation from durable goods in Canada.

In order to achieve zero plastic waste, radical changes will be required across the life cycle of plastic products. This includes not only changes in consumer behaviour, but also a significant increase in the number of recycling facilities in Canada, investments in recycling technology and the need for innovative government policies such as landfill taxes or product standards. As noted above, there is no single public or private sector action that can shift the system. Taking into consideration international benchmarks from ten European jurisdictions as well as US and Australian case studies, the Report’s authors note that a systemic approach is needed that is supp

This article has been republished with the permission of the author. It was originally posted on the McCarthy Tertrault Canadian Environmental Perspectives Blog.


About the Author

Selina Lee-Andersen is a partner in our Vancouver office and a member of the firm’s Environmental, Regulatory and Aboriginal Group, Energy & Mining Group, Retail and Consumer Markets Group, Defence Initiative and Asia Group. Recognized for her in-depth knowledge and range of experience, her practice focuses primarily in the areas of environmental law, corporate/commercial law, regulatory law, compliance, and Aboriginal issues in the energy and natural resource sectors.

Sending surplus food to charity is not the way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions

,

Written by Elaine Power, Queen’s University, Ontario

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

With the recent news that Canada is warming twice as fast as the rest of the world, Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) is calling for urgent action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Reducing food loss and waste is one important action we can take. When food waste is sent to landfill, it decomposes to methane, which is 25 times more powerful than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas. In addition, food waste represents a tremendous loss of the energy, land, water and labour used to produce the food.

And we waste a lot of food. An incredible 58 per cent of all food produced in Canada is either lost or wasted. This is an enormous amount of food, worth almost $50 billion, according to a report by the Toronto-based food charity, Second Harvest.

The first proposed strategy, laid out by ECCC in a draft document circulated in early spring 2019 to academics and others with interests and expertise in addressing food loss and waste, is the most obvious: to reduce the amount of food that is wasted, most of which originates in food processing, production and manufacturing.

The second proposed strategy is to enhance the donation of surplus food to feed hungry people. This strategy appears to be a simple “no-brainer,” as demonstrated by the more than 233,000 Canadians who signed a Change.org petition to end food waste. The comments on the petition website show that many Canadians believe it to be morally wrong to waste edible food, especially when some Canadians are hungry.

However, while giving food that would otherwise go to landfill to hungry people may be a convenient part of a solution to reduce greenhouse gases, it will do little to ensure the well-being of the four million Canadians who are food insecure.

Reducing food waste by feeding hungry Canadians is a simplistic solution that is deeply problematic and morally distressing. It provides the comforting illusion of a solution to hunger while the underlying problem — poverty — is not addressed.

Food insecurity

Food insecurity — the inadequate or uncertain access to food because of financial constraints — is a symptom and result of poverty. It is a public health crisis, with profound consequences for individual health and for health-care costs. It cannot be solved by food charity.

Only one in five hungry Canadians use food banks. And even when they do, they remain food insecure. When food banks and soup kitchens distribute edible food that would otherwise go to landfill, it means that some hungry Canadians are less hungry than they would otherwise be. But food charity is not a solution to the problem of food insecurity.

Nobel Prize winner Archbishop Desmond Tutu has recounted the profound poverty affecting black South Africans when he was a boy. He explained that the free school meals provided to white — but not Black — school children were often thrown in the garbage in favour of homemade packed lunches.

Watching another Black boy rummaging in the garbage to find the food that white children had rejected was indelibly marked in his memory of childhood. “It was perfectly edible food. But I knew it was wrong,” he said. For Archbishop Tutu, the idea that some people have to eat the cast-off food that others do not want is a powerful symbol of profound, systemic injustice.

I expect he would be shocked that the government of one of the richest countries in the world, with an international reputation as a just society, would consider endorsing such a proposal.

The right to an adequate standard of living

While Canada has committed to the Sustainable Development Goal of halving per capita food waste globally by 2030 and cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 232 million tonnes by 2030, we must remember that we have other international obligations too.

In 2012, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, Olivier De Schutter, expressed concern about the growing gap between Canada’s international human rights commitments and their domestic implementation. He recommended that Canada ensure income security for all citizens at a level sufficient to “enjoy the human right to an adequate standard of living,” which includes the right to food.

There is no reason why we cannot achieve our goals of reducing food waste and greenhouse gas emissions while also assuring all Canadians the income they need for an adequate standard of living, including the ability to buy their own food. Reducing poverty through effective public policy, such as the poverty reduction strategy introduced by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and the ill-fated Ontario Basic Income Pilot project, reduces food insecurity.

In a country as wealthy as ours, it is immoral, unjust and unconscionable that the Government of Canada would endorse a plan that effectively relegates four million Canadians to second-class citizenry by recommending that they eat the garbage that no one else wants.


Elaine Power, Associate Professor in Health Studies, Queen’s University, Ontario

The Conversation

Fun with Waste: Trashion Fashion

, ,

Created in 2011, Trashionfashion is a not-for-profit organization that is on a mission to contribute to a global reduction of waste through creative solutions. The organization hopes to foster a generation of conscious consumers, creators and communities who will change the way the world sees waste. The organization achieves this through productions, education, and community engagements.

Designer – Kingsley Chukwuocha⠀
Model – Melissa Amanda Walker⠀
Photographer – Justin O’Brien⠀

Ami Merli, adancer and yoga instructor, founded the organization in 2011. Through Trashion Fashion, Amy has created a network of zero waste designers, sustainable fashion companies, and businesses that are using alternative materials for products.

The organization’s Facebook page provides photos and videos of past trashion fashion shows.

Separating fact from fiction – are we really only recycling 9% of plastics?

,

Written by Calvin Lakhan, Ph.D, Faculty of Environmental Studies at York University

It seems like everywhere I turn, I see the headline “Canada only recycles 9% of its plastics” – this figure, taken from a report prepared by Deloitte for Environment and Climate Change Canada, has now become the focal point of both those within the industry and the general public alike.

For a country that prides itself on being environmentally conscious and engaged, can we really be doing that badly?

I want to start this post off by saying that I will readily admit to not knowing what % of plastics are recycled in Canada (or anywhere else for that matter). However, I would venture to say that nobody knows, and we should be cautious about taking any estimate at face value without fully understanding the methodology and limitations used to arrive at that figure.

How do we calculate a recycling rate?

For those of you well versed in the subject, feel free to skip ahead. However, it is important to understand how exactly recycling rates are calculated. At a high level, a recycling rate is total tonnes of waste recycled divided by total tonnes of waste generated. This seems simple enough, but this grade school arithmetic actually involves a tremendous amount of modeling, assumptions, and to be perfectly blunt, guess work.

Solid waste diversion and disposal, Canada, 2002 to 2016
(Source: Government of Canada)

Total Tonnes Recycled (The Numerator)

First, let’s consider the numerator in the equation – total tonnes of plastics recycled. For certain jurisdictions, (i.e. Ontario, British Columbia, Quebec etc.), total tonnes of residential plastics recycled is tracked by municipalities (using total tonnes of material marketed), who then subsequently report those figures to a provincial body. These figures are then summed and aggregated, to arrive at a figure for total tonnes of residential plastics recycled.

Generally speaking, tracking recycled tonnes for residential recycling programs is fairly straightforward, as these are actual measurements being reported by collectors. This sounds simple – until we are asked to determine total tonnes recycled by the IC&I (industrial, commercial and institutional) sector. The vast majority of all waste generated in Canada comes from the IC&I sector – by comparison, it is estimated that the residential waste stream makes up less than 20% of the overall waste stream.

As noted in a previous post, data surrounding plastics generation/recovery in the IC&I sector remains extremely poor, with little consensus regarding who is generating plastics waste, how much is being generated, and how much is being diverted.

The IC&I sectors consist of a range of establishments, including: malls, office buildings, construction and demolition sites, restaurants, hotels, hospitals, educational institutions, manufacturing plants, and multi-residential buildings.

Previous attempts to model IC&I recycling rates have ranged widely, with plastic diversion rates ranging from as little as 10% to as much as 80% depending on the sector and what actually constitutes diversion activity. The reason for this widely ranging disparity is that there is no formal legislative requirement for the majority of the IC&I sector to report the quantities or types of waste being generated, diverted or disposed to provincial authorities.

In Ontario for example, only large IC&I establishments are regulated under existing legislation (which requires establishments to have a formal waste diversion plan and conduct waste audits). However, it is estimated than 80% of waste generated from the IC&I sector comes from small and medium sized establishments, and thus, fall outside the purview of existing regulation. This issue is exacerbated in other provinces which have no formal legislation that monitors the IC&I sector, and relies on voluntary reporting to keep track of waste generation data.

In short, the majority of the plastic waste being generated across Canada is not being tracked – which makes the figures reported by Deloitte all the more curious.

As an intellectual exercise, think about your average food court for a moment and how much packaging waste is being generated (both recyclable and unrecyclable). Are shoppers putting all their papers in the recycling bin? Oops, somebody with a half full drink tossed it in and ruined the material. How many plastic forks, knives and straws are being handed out? Did the person taking out the trash really just put all the recyclables and garbage in the same bag? Variations of this chaotic scene plays out every day, all over the country, and somehow, I am supposed to believe that this is being tracked by the owners of establishments?

One of the reasons why legislation for the IC&I sector has been so challenging in Ontario (and nationally) is due to the poor quality of the data. Whatever estimates do exist, have largely been based on a relatively small sample of waste audits, and modeled using a combination of waste generated per employee estimates (by sector and by NAICS code). If this sounds confusing, it is – at no point have we ever been able to credibly quantify the total tonnes of material recycled for both the residential and IC&I sectors. At best, we are making educated guesses, and at worse, we are producing inaccurate estimates based on a flawed methodology.

In short, the majority of the plastic waste being recycled across Canada is not being tracked – however, this does not necessarily mean that this material is ending up in landfills.

On site recovery, reuse and recycling

Despite the fact that there is very little formal data for plastics waste that is being tracked, many IC&I generators (particularly in the industrial and manufacturing sector), rely on on-site waste management programs to reuse and recycle plastic waste. True to the spirit of a circular economy, many producers use plastic waste outputs from one part of their production process, as inputs for the next. Anecdotally, many producers claim diversion rates close to 100%, as any material of value is reused, recycled or reprocessed internally. It is estimated that more than 50% of all IC&I material being generated is managed using on-site options. While this makes sense intuitively, it is difficult to gather any firm data regarding the quantities or scale of on-site material management for plastics. As noted previously, existing legislation does not require this information to be reported, and as such, any data that is available is left to the discretion of private companies and associations to share publicly.

Previous attempts to gather this data (most recently by the Ontario MOECC in the IC&I Review conducted in 2014) was met with resistance from the IC&I sector, who claimed administrative burden and commercial sensitivity in collecting and sharing this data.

Total Tonnes Generated (the Denominator)

I could probably stop here having made the point that we are working with insufficient data – however, I am also writing this article so that people can fully appreciate what goes into calculating a recycling rate, as very few ever stop to ask how we come up with our numbers.

With that being, I now turn my attention to the denominator in the equation – total plastic waste generated. Unlike total tonnes recycled, which is something that can be measured and recorded using a weigh scale at a material recycling facility, total plastic waste generated is an entirely modeled number. For the residential recycling sector (Blue Box), producers of packaging are asked to report their unit sales into a given market, and generation rates for households are modeled using a series of assumptions based on population density, locality, urban/rural split etc. I have worked in this space for the better part of a decade, and I still could not tell you what exactly goes into the waste generation model used for printed paper and packaging.

Turning our attention back to the IC&I sector, there is no formal requirement for any establishment to report how much of a particular plastic waste they have generated into a market every year. Unlike printed paper and packaging, we cannot assume that unit sales is a proxy for waste generation, as many plastics are durable goods. To use a very simple example, a company may sell 1000 tonnes of plastic lumber into a market every year, but that doesn’t mean all 1000 tonnes will reach end of life during that period.

To accurately model the quantities of plastics needing to be managed at end of life, we would need to know its life expectancy, composition, primary and secondary use etc. To make a very long story short, you would almost need to do a mass balance of all plastics before we could credibly estimate overall generation. Simply put – we do not have that information, and even if it could accurately monitored and tracked, there is no legislative requirement for plastic producers to share that information.

Is “Ball Parking” good enough?

The exact findings from the Deloitte report said:

3.2 million metric tonnes ended up as garbage, 86 per cent went to landfill, 4 per cent to incinerators and 1 per cent — 29,000 metric tonnes — ended up as litter which can contaminate lakes and oceans. Most of the wasted plastic comes from offices, institutions or industries.

To be quite frank, I do not think the above numbers are accurate – however, does that really matter? I suppose that depends on what we are trying to achieve. If the purpose is to highlight that a significant percentage of our plastics is ending up in a landfill, necessitating immediate corrective action, then I am all for it. Communicating the size and scale of the problem is of greater importance than precision.

However, if our intent is to develop policy and legislation, particularly with respect to asking producers to pay for end of life costs associated with managing plastics at end of life, then we have to press pause.

Solid waste diversion rate by source, Canada, 2002 to 2016
(Source: Environment Canada)

Developing a data acquisition strategy

Identifying stakeholders who may have access and be willing to share sector specific data with respect to plastics generation/recycling/diversion will be critical in fully understanding the size and scope of the issue. It is only possible to achieve “Zero plastic waste” if we can understand how much is being generated, and what is presently happening to it.

Potential sources for this data include individual producers, industry associations and waste service providers. The latter has not traditionally been used as a source for data on tracking/measuring plastics waste, but waste service providers must often maintain detailed manifests regarding what they are collecting, and where they are processing it.

It is also the recommendation of this article that extensive research be conducted into on site waste management activity. As noted above, many manufacturing and industrial stakeholders claim to operate on site plastic recovery and diversion programs. However, access to this data (how much is being managed, how is it being managed (technologies, end use applications etc.) has historically been very difficult.

Designating who will be responsible for collecting and maintaining this information is also a critical early step in developing a successful circular economy. Many stakeholders have expressed concerns surrounding the sensitivity of sharing this data (for competitive/proprietary reasons), while provincial governments have cited lack of resources and administrative oversite to collect and maintain data repositories. This problem is compounded when attempting to gather data across multiple jurisdictions.

The report prepared by Deloitte was a critical first step in helping understand the plastic waste issue, but I would caution readers from jumping to conclusions when reading a sensationalized headline like: “Canada does a bad job at recycling plastics” – a more accurate statement would be “Canada doesn’t know what is happening to plastics at end of life”

About the Author

Calvin LAKHAN, Ph.D, is currently co-investigator of the “Waste Wiki” project at York University (with Dr. Mark Winfield), a research project devoted to advancing understanding of waste management research and policy in Canada. He holds a Ph.D from the University of Waterloo/Wilfrid Laurier University joint Geography program, and degrees in economics (BA) and environmental economics (MEs) from York University. His research interests and expertise center around evaluating the efficacy of municipal recycling initiatives and identifying determinants of consumer recycling behavior. Calvin has worked as both a policy planner for the MOECC and as a consultant on projects for Stewardship Ontario, Multi Material Stewardship Manitoba, and Ontario Electronic Stewardship. Calvin currently sits on the editorial board for Advances in Recycling and Waste Management, and as a reviewer for Waste Management, Resources Conservation and Recycling and Journal of Environmental Management.

New global rules curb unrestricted plastic waste exports

, , ,

Governments at the 14th Conference of the Parties (COP14) of the Basel Convention recently acted to restrict plastic waste exports by requiring countries to obtain prior informed consent before exporting contaminated or mixed plastic waste. A deluge of plastic waste exports from developed countries has polluted developing countries in Southeast Asia after China closed the door to waste imports in 2018.

Fourteenth Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Basel Convention

“With this amendment, many developing countries will, for the first time, have information about plastic wastes entering their country and be empowered to refuse plastic waste dumping,” said Dr. Sara Brosché, IPEN Science Advisor. “For far too long developed countries like the US and Canada have been exporting their mixed toxic plastic wastes to developing Asian countries claiming it would be recycled in the receiving country. Instead, much of this contaminated mixed waste cannot be recycled and is instead dumped or burned, or finds its way into the ocean.”

The unanimously adopted actions on plastic wastes include:

  • Removing or reducing the use of hazardous chemicals in plastics production and at any subsequent stage of their life cycle.
  • Setting of specific collection targets and obligations for plastics producers to cover the costs of waste management and clean-up.
  • Preventing and minimizing the generation of plastic waste, including through increasing the durability, reusability and recyclability of plastic products.
  • Significant reduction of single-use plastic products.

A group of cured resins and fluorinated polymers was not included in the requirement of prior informed consent, which means they can be freely traded without notification.

The theme of the meetings was “Clean Planet, Healthy People: Sound Management of Chemicals and Waste”. The meetings, attended by about 1,400 participants, from 180 countries, adopted 73 decisions.