Posts

When Theory Meets Practice: Lessons from Decades of Packaging EPR Experiences in Europe

,

Written by the Continuous Improvement Fund

Ontario is undertaking a transition to full extended producer responsibility (EPR) for packaging and paper products under the Resource Recovery and Circular Economy Act (the “RRCEA”). At their core, EPR policies seek to ensure that the pricing of products incorporates their social and environmental life-cycle costs, including end-of-life treatment and disposal. When products accurately incorporate such costs, industry is incentivized to design them in a way that considers their end-of-life environmental effects.

Decades of experience with mature packaging EPR systems in Europe, however, have not brought all the results that EPR intended to bring about. As Ontario undertakes its transition to full EPR under the RRCEA, there are lessons to be learned from Europe’s experiences with EPR.

European Packaging EPR Lessons on the Ground

In the European Union (EU), the Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive 94/62/EC (the “PPWD” or the “Directive”) creates the framework for implementing EPR programs in EU Member States. The Directive aims to reduce packaging and sets collection and recycling targets for packaging waste. The Essential Requirements provisions laid out in the PPWD provide criteria for packaging, such as weight and volume minimization requirements, hazardous substances levels and packaging reuse and recovery. It is notable, however, that while the Essential Requirements define the results to be attained, they do not specify or predict technical solutions, giving manufacturers the flexibility to meet the requirements of the Directive.

The PPWD has resulted in certain successes including an impressive increase in recycling rates for all Member States. By 2017, Member States achieved an average 42% recycling rate for plastics, well above the Directive’s requested 22.5%. There have likewise been improvements in individual packaging weight. On the other hand, the Directive has also had its shortcomings.

Vague definitions leave too much room for interpretation

Despite decades of packaging EPR in Member States, the European packaging market demonstrates a trend towards difficult-to-recycle packaging such as flexible multilayer composite packaging. Some trace this trend to a deficiency in the Essential Requirements in requiring design changes for re-use and recyclability and on definitions that leave too much room for interpretation, such as what qualifies as recyclable. Many producers have, as a result, tended to light-weight their packaging at the expense of its recyclability. At the same time, the amount of packaging waste generated in Europe continues to grow reflecting growth of global population and demand.

Enforcement left to Member States with varying resources

The vague and general formulations of the Essential Requirements also create enforcement challenges for Member States. Member States are responsible for reaching the national targets and ensuring good enforcement of the legislation. Authorities in Member States have expressed frustrations with judging which packaging is noncompliant with the Directive’s requirements. The Directive’s formulations are insufficient to enable a clear assessment of violations.

Many Member States do not have formal procedures in place to enforce or implement the requirements of the PPWD. Authorities also cite other priorities such as issues with food safety, or a lack of staff and finances. The few countries that have implemented measures and enforcement procedures for the requirements, including France and the UK, have delayed setting up systems to assess the effectiveness of their enforcement mechanisms.

Municipal costs are not fully covered

It should be noted that, despite producer responsibility for packaging waste, European municipalities generally remain in charge of waste management programs. Yet financial transfers from producers may not be covering the full amount of municipalities’ costs. A study of the cost coverage of packaging EPR programs in a number of European countries found that these programs failed to account for the full costs of the waste management of packaging. When excluding avoided costs (i.e., collection, landfilling, incineration, etc.) and subsidies (i.e., public grants), only 68% of the costs of packaging waste management in Portugal and 56% in France were being supported by industry in 2010. It bears mentioning that industry in France is obligated to cover 80% of local authorities’ “efficient costs” of collection and sorting.

Another study observed that producers’ motivation to improve waste management has also largely depended on the type of collection and management contracts that they establish with municipalities or on their dialogue with municipalities. Producers can tie their financial contributions to the municipalities’ collection or recycling rates, the quality of their collection or recycling, or on meeting requirements on the type of collection and treatment schemes to be implemented. When it comes to the fulsome reimbursement of municipal costs, the choice seems to be with Member States to determine what percentage of local authorities’ costs should be covered by packaging EPR. New amendments to European EPR laws, however, will ensure that industry will have to cover the full “necessary costs” of EPR schemes. Member States that wish to deviate from this requirement will have to justify their choices.

Europe Takes Action

In 2018, the EU reformed EPR rules in the context of its first Circular Economy Action Plan to require higher overall recycling targets for packaging (65% in 2025 and 70% in 2030) and higher material-specific targets (including 55% for plastics by 2030). At the same time, it moved the calculation of recycling targets based on the weight of municipal waste that enters recycling, removing any losses of materials due to sorting or other preliminary operations. The Directive now also requires Member States to establish “adequate” monitoring and enforcement frameworks to ensure that those responsible under the EPR framework carry out their obligations, use financial means properly and report reliable data.

As of June 11, 2020, the European Commission also published its plan for revising the requirements of the PPWD. The proposed changes will address the limited competitiveness of recycled materials relative to virgin feedstock, which is now even more inexpensive given the oil industry crisis brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic. The changes will also address the rise in public consumption of packaging driven by a shift from reusable to single-use disposable packaging, growing online sales and the over-packaging for goods.

The Commission has not been clear on whether the targets and measures under these upcoming changes will be general or set at the level of specific material or packaging formats, or whether they’ll be mandatory in nature. It is expected, however, that current and seemingly unenforceable definitions of terms such as “recyclable” or “reusable” will likely be updated.

Despite action at the EU-level, Member States appear to be lagging in their implementation of the 2018 update to the PPWD. Most missed the deadline to implement this Directive by mid-2020, some citing delays related to the COVID-19 pandemic.

At the same time, recycling markets were particularly impacted by the COVID-19 crisis. The crisis brought about safety concerns, employee shortages, manufacturing slow-downs and a historic drop to oil prices making virgin plastics much cheaper than recycled resin. European recyclers are encouraged by Europe’s recent focus on improving access to recycled resin as part of the EU’s Green Deal set of programs. However, they urge concrete actions such as mandatory recycled content rules in key products to ensure steady increases in the demand for recyclates.

Conclusion

It is unclear how many of these lessons will be implemented in the new printed paper and packaging regulation under Ontario’s RRCEA. Europe’s experiences demonstrate, however, the necessity of clear definitions, specific requirements for design changes for re-use and recyclability, adequate coverage of local authorities’ costs, and the allocation of resources to the oversight and enforcement of EPR programs. These practices help EPR programs better achieve their intended aims of ensuring that industry internalizes the life-cycle costs of their products and is incentivized to design products to account for their end-of-life environmental effects.

___________________________________

This article was first posted by the Continuous Improvement Fund. The Continuous Improvement Fund (CIF) is a partnership between the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO), the City of TorontoStewardship Ontario (SO) and the Resource Productivity and Recovery Authority (formerly Waste Diversion Ontario – WDO). The CIF’s mandate is to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of Ontario’s municipal blue box Programs.

Study on EPR’s effect on packaging prices: What you can and can’t do with data

, ,

Written by Calvin Lakhan, Ph.D, Co-Investigator: “The Waste Wiki” – Faculty of Environmental Studies at York University

I’m actually really glad that Jodi Tomchyshyn London found and shared the following study by RRS: Impact of EPR for PPP on Price of Consumer Packaged Goods.

In short, after undertaking a fairly comprehensive examination of jurisdictions across Canada (both with and without EPR legislation), the study concluded that EPR policy has no affect on packaging prices.

The University had an opportunity to review this study as part of some technical advice that we were providing to the state of Oregon (specifically surrounding the impacts of EPR). The RRS study directly contravened our own findings, and as a result, we wanted to better understand why.

I want to preface this by saying that the intent of this post is not to criticize or undermine the work that RRS has done. It was well researched, and I applaud them for wading into such a messy and controversial topic and attempting to provide some clarity. However, the point I do want to make in this post is helping stakeholders understand what they can and cannot do with data. Jodi had made a really good point about understanding the context surrounding data – we need to understand how that information was collected, analyzed, interpreted and presented. I couldn’t agree more…. which is why I sometimes cringe when I see the conclusions that people arrive at, due to a fundamental misunderstanding of what you can do with data.

Going back to the RRS study, regardless of how you feel about EPR and its potential impacts, it is critical that stakeholders understand that the RRS study has some methodological deficiencies, and as a result, leads to erroneous conclusions that cannot be supported by the data. This isn’t a question of opinion – given the way the study was designed, it is not possible for RRS to make any statements regarding the effect of EPR policy on packaging prices. Comparing costs across jurisdictions (even for like products and retailers) is not likely to yield any meaningful inferences with respect to the impact of EPR policies. There are literally hundreds of variables that affect the price of goods across localities (even for the same product and retailer). Demographics, infrastructure, relative purchasing power, proximity to markets, density of competing retailers etc. all effect price. In order for RRS to make the statements they did, they would have to control for all of these factors using statistical techniques such as multivariate regression to specifically isolate the effects of EPR on packaging prices. Given that many of these explanatory variables are collinear, they would also need establish controls for interdependency among explanatory variables.

While the above description may be a tad technical, the best way to look at it is that we are trying to compare identical systems, where the only variable being changed is the presence or absence of EPR programs. All other variables that can potentially impact a product’s price need to be controlled for. As far as I can tell, RRS made no attempts to control for interdependent variables and arrived at a conclusion that cannot be substantiated empirically. The only observation that can be made is that product prices differ from province to province, but provides no insight as to why they differ.

Given that my perspective may be seen as biased given that the university developed an alternative model, I would *strongly* encourage you to have a third party expert with a background in statistics and study design to review the RRS methodology. I am absolutely positive that they would reach an identical conclusion.

This is what is so potentially dangerous about attempting to interpret data without having a sound knowledge of how that data was collected and what you can do with it. In my career, I have countless anecdotes of stakeholders from all walks of life who draw the wrong conclusions, imply causality or infer relationships that simply aren’t there. When a misinterpretation of data leads to policy and legislation, the results can be catastrophic.

In the very first presentation I ever gave on the Waste Wiki, one of the slides says “Data without consideration of context or design does not tell us very much”. That message rings true more than ever today.

____________________________

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.

Dispelling Misinformation about Packaging EPR in Ontario and Canada

,

Written by Neil Savio Menezes, President at EcoCompass

Ontario is at a critical juncture for the future of recycling in the province. Regulations are being drafted to transition Ontario’s Blue Box program to full producer responsibility which will make producers of residential packaging, paper and packaging-like products (PPPP) operationally and financially responsible for managing their materials at the end-of-life. This concept has been discussed ad nauseum for almost two decades in Ontario following the introduction of the Waste Diversion Act in 2002 which gave us our current shared responsibility model.

While there has been no shortage of debate on the merits of transitioning recycling costs from municipalities to producers over the years, the noise has recently grown louder following stakeholder consultations by the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP). Well informed debate is a crucial element of good policymaking but I’m concerned by the misinformation and half-truths circulating and their potential to influence policymakers into weakening the proposed regulations. We are at risk of losing sight of what is most important: implementing a proven policy tool as equitably as possible.

In my experience, clarity is best achieved through thoughtful analysis of good data. Over the last decade, I have worked with producers, municipalities, packaging suppliers, government agencies and stewardship programs to analyze data that has been used to inform arguments on both sides of this debate. I have conducted Activity Based Costing (ABC) studies, updated annual producer fees, verified municipal recycling costs, optimized municipal recycling operations and assessed the limitations of British Columbia’s producer responsibility program. Needless to say, I have had unparalleled access to an abundance of data that has enlightened my views on these issues. Arguments based on misconceptions and data missteps, as outlined below, are muddying the conversation and this is my attempt to cut through the noise.

Claim 1: EPR will not save taxpayers money.

Under a full producer responsibility, municipalities will no longer be regulated to collect and process recyclable materials. This responsibility will now fall on producers, where the regulations will set targets for their materials and they will need to find a way to meet them. Some municipalities may still incur costs if they opt to continue recycling services for non-eligible sources or non-eligible PPPP under the new regulations; however, with one less service for municipalities to provide, it’s hard to imagine a scenario where municipalities will not see net savings overall. These savings will not translate into a cheque in the mail to residents or a direct reduction in property taxes given that recycling programs tend to represent a small percentage of a municipality’s total annual budget (e.g. $60 million out of $11.12 billion in Toronto or 0.5% in 2018), but the savings do free up funds to offset other municipal costs. With the financial toll of COVID-19 rising, these savings could not come at a better time for cash-strapped municipalities.

Claim 2: Costs of Producer-Led EPR are rising in British Columbia and the same will happen in Ontario.

British Columbia adopted a full producer responsibility model for PPP in 2014. As the only province to have done so, it is often used as the benchmark for producer responsibility in Canada. Opponents of producer responsibility have latched onto rising costs in BC to argue that producer-led programs are no more effective than a municipally-operated program. This argument is being made in Ontario to influence policymakers but they should be wary of drawing concrete conclusions from the BC experience about the efficacy of full producer responsibility.

For one, Recycle BC (formerly Multi-Material British Columbia) did not service all municipal programs when it started. Notably, City of Vancouver did not fully transition to Recycle BC until October 2016. As municipal programs were added each year, it follows that Recycle BC costs would increase in turn. Secondly, the program is relatively young. With only five years worth of data and much of it not publicly available, any modeling or projections for Ontario based on the BC experience are imprecise at best. Lastly, BC has a parallel beverage deposit program that removes much of the high-value materials (PET and Aluminum) from the program. Given that this is not an apples to apples comparison, using BC data to estimate system costs in Ontario under full EPR is nonsensical. A direct comparison of system costs between BC and Ontario, without accounting for these variations is misleading, and inaccurate.

Claim 3: EPR will be an economic burden on Ontario households.

According to a York University Study, a transition to 100% producer responsibility in Ontario for PPPP has been modeled to increase the “basket of goods” costs for consumers by anywhere from 6-12%. As always, the value of a model is dependent on the quality of the data used and the assumptions made by the modeler. According to my calculations, the increase is more realistically less than 1% – a number that would barely register on an individual receipt. Unfortunately, the study has not been released to allow for a proper peer review. I tried to replicate the results of the model from a bottom-up and top-down approach, and I can’t come close to the results:

Example 1: Let us cherry pick the most damaging example of the impact of producer responsibility on an individual product in the Blue Box. The simplest way to do this would be to pick the material with the highest cost to manage (EPR fee) and the lowest retail cost to consumers.

In Ontario’s program, the packaging with the highest EPR fee is a multi-layered drink pouch, also called a plastic laminate. The cheapest product I could find was a case of 10 juice pouches that retails for $2.00 (20 cents per pouch). With a weight of 4 grams per pouch and a 2020 EPR fee of 35 cents per kg, this would equate to a total EPR fee of 0.14 cents for each pouch. The EPR fee on a case of ten drink pouches would be 1.4 cents today, and if you doubled it (transition to full producer responsibility) it would be just under 3 cents or 1.5% of the total cost. A household would need to buy approximately 700 juice pouches to see a one dollar increase to their grocery bill over the course of a year. If that’s as scary as it gets, I don’t think consumers have much to worry about.

Example 2: Even the “frightening” example above overstates the impact to consumers as it incorrectly assumes that brand owners will apply the packaging recycling fee to every bill. System costs post-transition will be addressed through national or international pricing structures. In other words, the cost of recycling borne by producers post-transition will be spread out across all of their products across Canada. To put things into perspective, retail sales were over $225 billion in Ontario and $605 billion nationally in 2018, according to the Retail Council of Canada. The Blue Box program at its current cost of $300 million a year represents a total of 0.15% of total retail sales in the province, or 0.05% nationally. Since producers in Ontario are already footing half the bill today, you can see how negligible the cost will be in the grand scheme of things.

Claim 4: There have yet to be any examples in Canada where stewards have been able to develop new end markets or viable end use applications for composite and light-weight materials.

Ultra-specific statements like these always illustrate to me either an inherent bias or a lack of understanding of producer responsibility. Limiting the discussion to Canada where EPR is relatively new obscures the impact EPR can have on recycling investments. In Europe and Asia where EPR has been around for decades, this policy tool has resulted in significant investments to recycle obligated materials, including those that are considered difficult to recycle. One example is Hahn Plastics which manufactures new plastic products from used rigid and flexible plastics. I had an opportunity to visit their facility three-years ago and saw first-hand how the Packaging Regulation introduced by Germany in 1991 has incented investments in innovative processes to recycle lightweight plastics.

However, if citing Canadian examples of end market development for composite and lightweight plastics is the only way to settle this debate, we need look no further than these examples of EPR-induced investment:

When examining the impact of EPR, it’s also important to remember that Canada is unique compared to other jurisdictions in that EPR has been applied at the provincial level rather than nationally, or entire trade blocs as is the case with the European Union. Even with a patchwork of policies across the country, Canadian stewards, steward organizations, municipalities and other stakeholders have made significant investments to improve sorting operations and develop successful end markets for recyclable materials. Take glass recycling for example: Stewardship Ontario funded a glass recycling facility in 2008 and Éco Entreprises Québec (EEQ) committed $40 M to improve glass recycling in Quebec. These investments were made under a shared financial responsibility model. As full EPR spreads across Canada, economies of scale will fuel even greater investment.

I will admit that not all investments have been successful nor will EPR guarantee success after transition; we have seen facilities shutter their operations despite significant investment here in Ontario. However, the current status quo will see investments slowdown until there is clarity and commitment to move forward. We have seen other provinces adopt innovative approaches to recycling and producer responsibility as we fall behind. This transition is an opportunity for Ontario to lead once again.

Claim 5: Packaging that offers greater environmental benefit, such as carbon abatement, but is expensive to recycle should not be recycled.

Setting ambitious recycling targets through producer responsibility does not need to come at the expense of low-carbon packaging. In fact, a recent commitment by major corporate players demonstrates that light-weighting and source reduction can go hand-in-hand with recycling targets. Just a few weeks ago, 60+ brands, retailers, government agencies and NGOs signed the US Plastics Pact. Companies like Coca-Cola, Unilever, Wal-Mart, The Clorox Company, and others agreed to take measures to eliminate problematic or unnecessary packaging by 2025, and by the same year, take steps to ensure all packaging is reusable, recyclable or compostable; recycle or compost 50% of plastic packaging; and, increase the average recycled content or responsibly sourced bio-based content in plastic packaging to 30%. This commitment does not prioritize one environmental issue over another, it recognizes that the combined issues of climate change, resource scarcity and plastic pollution require a suite of measures to overcome. I firmly believe that this embrace of circular economy principles by major corporate players and recognition of the control afforded by full producer responsibility to create circular material flows will improve the lifecycle impacts of packaging in Ontario.

It’s time to move forward.

The transition toward full producer responsibility has been a long-time coming and most stakeholders believe it is the right path forward. Unfortunately, we are seeing a repeat of lobbying efforts to derail this process using exaggerated cost estimates and other misleading arguments as opponents have successfully done in the past. To keep it on track, policymakers must be guided by sound logic and robust data.

Regulated outcomes like producer responsibility policies, coupled with strong corporate commitments, are what is necessary to drive change. Give producers the freedom to decide which is the more economical decision: either change their packaging to meet targets or develop end-of-life solutions for packaging materials that do not have one today. This is the basic intention of full producer responsibility. Ontario has an opportunity to support companies in their pursuit of a circular economy by getting the incentives right, leveling the playing field and giving them the certainty they need. Let’s cut through the noise and get this done.

______________________________

About the Author

Neil Savio Menezes is the President at EcoCompass, an environmental consulting firm that specializes in helping municipalities and companies achieve their recycling and diversion goals.

New York Enacts Legislation Requiring Paint Manufacturers to Establish a Program for Collection and Recycling of Unused Consumer Paint

, ,

Written by Aaron Goldberg and Sarah Kettenmann , Beveridge & Diamond PC

New Yorkers will soon have a convenient way to ensure that their unwanted and unused paints are properly recycled. On December 16, 2019, Governor Cuomo signed into law the Postconsumer Paint Collection Program, a law that requires paint producers to collect, transport, reuse, recycle, and properly dispose of postconsumer paint in an environmentally sound manner. It applies to “architectural paint,” or “interior and exterior architectural coatings sold in containers of five gallons or less.” Architectural paint does not include industrial, original equipment or specialty coatings.

The law requires paint producers (either individually or collectively, for example through a non-profit organization) to register with the New York Department of Environmental Conservation (“NYDEC”) by July 1, 2020, and pay a registration fee. As part of the registration process, each producer or collective organization must submit its plan to comply with the new law, including its paint acceptance program, treatment, storage, transportation and disposal plan, and a list of locations within New York where consumers may drop off unused paint (which may include some municipal waste collection facilities, retail stores, and other facilities). 

Within 6 months after NYDEC approves the plan (or by January 1, 2021, if that comes later), the producers or collective organization must begin to implement their plans for collection and recycling/reuse/disposal of unused consumer paint. Paint manufacturers must also provide educational materials to help raise consumer awareness of the unused paint collection program.

The program will be financed by a new fee added to the price of architectural paint sold to retailers and distributors in the state (which may be passed on to consumers). The collection sites identified in the plan of the producers or collective organization are prohibited from charging for receipt of the postconsumer paints.  

Other states have already enacted similar paint stewardship programs, with help from the American Coatings Association and the Product Stewardship Institute.

This law is yet another step forward for New York’s growing Product Stewardship Initiative to address the health, safety, environmental, and social impacts of products and their packaging throughout all lifecycle stages. The State has adopted mandatory product stewardship requirements for managing several categories of products at their end of life, including electronics, rechargeable batteries, and mercury thermostats.  It has more limited programs for other end-of-life products, including beverage containers, cell phones, plastic bags, lead acid batteries, and waste tires.

This are was republished with the permission of the authors. It was first published on the Beveridge & Diamond website.


Aaron Goldberg applies his encyclopedic knowledge of hazardous waste regulatory law to help companies comply under federal and state laws—throughout all 50 states—and abroad. He holds an advanced degree in chemistry, has extensive training in economics, and is a former U.S. Environmental Protection Agency consultant. His unique, multidisciplinary background—law, science, economics, and government—informs nearly every aspect of his work and makes him a useful bridge between attorneys, engineers, business managers, consultants, and regulators.

Sarah Kettenmann uses her knowledge of environmental law and the physical sciences to help clients solve complex problems in a conservation-minded manner. She maintains a diverse environmental practice, which includes litigation matters involving toxic torts and products liability and class action litigation concerning environmental and regulatory claims. Her regulatory practice includes advising clients on compliance with, and enforcement of, land use restrictions and remediation, and due diligence for waste facility permits under federal and state statutes. She also counsels clients on procedural and substantive aspects of permitting and environmental impact review, and related strategic planning for project development.

Halifax Regional Council considering extended producer responsibility program

,

In an effort to manage the cost of managing municipal solid waste generated within the Halifax, Nova Scotia regional municipality, the Regional Council is considering making package producers responsible the their waste.

In a recent report from the Halifax Regional Municipality (HRM) Environment and Sustainability Standing Committee the utilization of fees on package producers is considered.

The recent report is an update to previous reports and staff presentations outlining the opportunities and challenges for HRM with full Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) for packaging and paper products.

EPR is a policy approach in which a producer, who designs and markets a product and/or package, accepts the full cost, risks and liabilities for managing waste at the end of its lifecycle, instead of the municipal taxpayer. A producer has the greatest ability to prevent or reduce waste associated with packaging design.

In 2015, Halifax Regional Municipality spent nearly $110 million on its waste management program. That marked a 50 per cent increase in costs from a decade earlier and almost per cent of its entire budget.

The HRM report draws on the experience in British Columbia where glass bottles/jars, plastic film & bags and Styrofoam products were transitioned from the curbside to a depot drop off model as this was more efficient and cost effective for industry to deliver services.

Concurrently with the HRM Report, Nova Scotia Solid Waste Regional Chairs Priorities Working Group recently led the development of a report entitled: “Preserving the Culture of Recycling: A Proposal for Extended Producer Responsibility for Packaging and Printed Paper in NS” (NS EPR Proposal). The working group engaged with Nova Scotia Federation of Municipalities (NSFM) members, industry and business stakeholders and submitted the NS EPR Proposal to NS Environment Minister Gordon Wilson on May 30, 2019. The NS EPR Proposal responds to NS Environment’s request for a model that demonstrates consensus amongst municipalities and businesses and has sufficient detail for the province to consider public policy impacts. The report identifies how a model could work for NS to further enhance success in diversion.

Nova Scotia’s solid waste-resource management regions

For the 2018/2019 budget year, the HRM recycling program cost a net $6 million based on cost of collection and processing of $7.8 million and revenues from recyclables of $1.8 million. Through the implementation of an EPR program, the HRM would save $6 million per year is currently spends on the recycling program.

Ontario: Electronics & Batteries Producer Responsibility Consultation Ends February 6th, 2019

, , ,

As part of the legal directive to transfer current government-overseen waste diversion obligations to a privately-run Individual Producer Responsibility regime (IPR), the Ontario Ministry of the Environment is currently holding consultations with stakeholders in the electronics/electrical equipment (EEE) and batteries industries regarding the coming circular economy regulation for EEE and batteries (and their packaging) and key decisions affecting industry are in the process of being made.

What’s the Mandate?

In understanding the anticipated reach of the EEE/Batteries Regulation, the Ministry is overtly promoting three goals:

  • Improved Environmental Outcomes, including reduction of toxics in landfill and related greenhouse gases;
  • Economic Growth, such as building more “infrastructure for reuse, refurbishment and recycling industries”; and
  • Consistency, Ease, Cost Efficiency and Reduced Burden, with an emphasis on shifting the costs of waste management to individual producers and consumers with the hope that more “competition, innovation and better product design” will result.

To help relieve municipalities of waste handling obligations, and to get itself out of the business of end-of-life product diversion (which it seems intent on doing), the Ministry is giving the EEE/Batteries Regulations a potentially broad and expansionist scope. As of July 1st, 2020, EEE and batteries “producers” will be compelled to resource recover the products (or equivalencies) they put into the Ontario market.

What Could Be Caught under the EEE/Batteries Regulation?

It seems likely that the product categories of one or both of these current diversion programs will be broaden under IPR to include the:

  • likely expansion from the existing 44 types of EEE to capture some or all of:
    • headphones;
    • routers;
    • large and small appliances; and
    • power tools and some categories of lighting.
  • near certain addition of rechargeable batteries;
  • maybe very limited types of EEE and/or batteries embedded in other products; and
  • remote prospect of obligating primary, convenience and/or transportation package used with EEE and/or batteries – given paper/packaging IPR has not yet been implemented in the province.

The addition of products not currently obligated under waste diversion will create immediate needs and opportunities for industries to find new resource recovery solutions to meet these needs.

Who’s Obligated under IPR?

Along with the group of currently obligated producers – namely resident brand owners and resident importers (and, for EEE, assemblers), the Ministry is considering adding one or more other parties which have a “commercial connection” to the products, such as non-resident:

  • importers;
  • wholesalers;
  • licencees;
  • retailers (including on-line out-of-province); and
  • distributors

Many of these companies would not necessarily replace any existing resident parties, but would, instead, be default-obligated for products with no resident “producers”.  The sanctions contemplated for non-compliance under the EEE/Batteries Regulation may well include a prohibition against the sale of products failing to meet their resource recovery targets.

Will it be Like the Tire Regulation?

More than a year ago, stakeholders in the EEE and batteries space were already paying close attention to the Ministry’s implementation of the Tire Regulation, North America’s first comprehensive circular economy law.  Given the breadth of obligations, including the producer’s private obligation to run a reverse supply chain, it’s anticipated that affected companies may respond similarly – coalescing around a limited number of producer responsibility organizations based upon commercial, industry, and market commonalities, to run end-of-life product networks that meet the unique needs of the separate producer groups.

Industry also learned through the Tire Regulation process that critical commercial outcomes can be based upon the content of the regulatory requirements and that full advantage should be taken of the windows of opportunity offered to engage the Ministry on key facets of the coming law.  One such window for EEE and batteries stakeholders is closing on February 6th, 2019.


This has been republished with the permission of Baker MacKenzie. It was first published on the Baker Mackenzie website.

About the Author

Jonathan D. Cocker heads the Baker McKenzie’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).