EXTENDED PRODUCER RESPONSIBILITY EPR FUNDING AND THE FUTURE

1
EXTENDED PRODUCER RESPONSIBILITY (EPR)FUNDING
AND THE FUTURE
ASSOCIATION OF MUNICIPAL RECYCLING
COORDINATORS HOCKLEY VALLEY, FEBRUARY 14,
2007 Duncan Bury Environment Canada
2
OVERVIEW

• Whats the issue?
• What is Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR)
  and how has it evolved?
• EPR benefits and principles
• Canadian EPR programs - national
• - packaging
• - hazardous and
  special wastes
• - electronics
• EPR and stewardship program models and issues
• Enhanced EPR
• What have we learned?

3
WHATS THE ISSUE?

• Waste quantities continue to grow slowly but
  steadily
• Total disposal 2000 - 23,168,870 tonnes 2004 -
  25,291,015 tonnes
• Per capita disposal 2000 752 kg/capita 2004
  791kg/capita (Statistics Canada data February
  2007)
• Concerns about hazardous and toxic wastes
• E-waste Estimated 160,000 tonnes of e-waste in
  2002 included 5500 tonnes of lead, 6 tonnes of
  mercury, and 4.5tonnes of cadmium
• Batteries Estimated batteries discarded in 2004
  contained 766 tonnes of lead, 0.4 tonnes of
  mercury, and 235 tonnes of cadmium
• Continuing need to address problematic wastes,
  avoid disposal and manage residuals in an
  environmentally sound manner
• Lack of accounting for full life cycle product
  costs, especially end of life costs
• Lack of incentives for product Design for the
  Environment (DfE)

4
EPR DEFINED

• Extended Producer Responsibility
• an environmental policy approach in which a
  producers responsibility, physical and/or
  financial, for a product is extended to the
  post-consumer stage of a products life cycle
  (OECD, 2001)

5
THE EVOLUTION OF THE EPR APPROACH

• Canadian origins in the National Packaging
  Protocol (1989 2000) under CCME Packaging
  Stewardship Principles 1996 shared responsibility
  model
• 1991 German Packaging Ordinance first full EPR
  program DSD Green Dot system established
• OECD EPR Work Program culminated in 2001 with
  EPR Guidance Manual for Governments
• Progressive expansion of EPR from packaging
  batteries, electronics, refrigerants, tires,
  appliances, used crankcase oil
• Producer responsibility first legislated in
  Canada with B.C. paint program in 1994
• Environment Canada stewardship and EPR inventory
  documents almost 50 programs

6
EPR BENEFITS

• Supports waste reduction, reuse and recycling
• The polluter pays
• Addresses orphan products and historic product
  legacies
• A product focused approach that may be more
  efficient than substance- specific risk
  management approaches
• Provides a non-tax funding mechanism
• Can promote DfE e.g. reduced use of toxic
  substances, recyclability, use of recycled
  materials, ease of disassembly
• Funds can be dedicated to the stewardship program
  (not the case with tax based systems)
• Industry producer responsibility programs have
  some built in incentives to operate efficient,
  cost effective programs

7
CCME PRINCIPLES FOR ELECTRONICS PRODUCT
STEWARDSHIP

• Responsibilities are primarily borne by producers
  of the products and not by taxpayers
• Environmental and human health impacts are
  minimized throughout the product life cycle, from
  design to end of life management
• Management consistent with the 4 R hierarchy
• Sufficient education and awareness for consumers
  on programs
• Consumers have reasonable access to collection
  systems without charge equity and consistency
• Adjacent jurisdictions strive for consistency in
  products collected
• Coverage for residential, commercial, historic
  and orphan products
• Specified objectives and targets, performance
  reporting and transparency
• Economic and logistically feasible management
• Export only to facilities with ESM and fair
  labour practices

8
CANADIAN EPR PROGRAMS

• Large number of provincial, regional and national
  industry programs continued growth in use of
  the instrument
• Variations in degrees of producer responsibility
  and level of direct government involvement
• Mix of voluntary, and mandatory approaches
• Most programs are regulated at the provincial
  level
• CCME is active in the area EPR Task Group is
  developing guidance on EPR principles, dealing
  with program free riders, selecting products
  suitable for EPR
• Environment Canada role in advancing thinking
  about EPR through guidance documents, program
  inventory, national workshops
• EPR can be mandated for toxic substances and
  products containing toxic substances by EC under
  CEPA, 1999, Section 93

9
LEGEND FOR NATIONAL PROGRAMS

• Used Cell Phones/Rechargeable Batteries
• Domestic Beer Related Packaging
• Ozone Depleting Substances
• Obsolete, Unusable or Banned Pesticides and
  Pesticide Containers

10
NATIONAL EPR PROGRAMS
11
LEGEND FOR HAZARDOUS AND SPECIAL WASTE EPR
PROGRAMS

• Used or Expired Medication
• Used Tires
• Used Oil, Containers and Filters
• Used Oil Only
• Used Electronics
• Used Paint, Stains and Varnishes
• Spent Lead Acid Batteries
• Used Solvents/Flammable Liquids, Gasoline,
  Pesticides, etc.

12
HAZARDOUS AND SPECIAL WASTE EPR PROGRAMS
13
LEGEND FOR PACKAGING EPR PROGRAMS

• Milk Jugs and Cartons
• Deposit-Refund Beverage Containers
• Blue Box Program
• Wine, Spirits and Cooler Containers
• Refillable Glass Containers

14
PACKAGING EPR PROGRAMS
15
ELECTRONICS PROGRAMS
Regulations adopted and implemented
Regulations adopted but NOT implemented
Approval pending
Other types of engagement (working groups,
studies, etc.)
No activity at this time
16
STEWARDSHIP AND EPR PROGRAM MODELS

• Degrees of producer responsibility
• Government
• Quasi government delegated agency
• Shared responsibility industry and
  municipalities
• Industry Light
• Industry Premium

17
GOVERNMENT

• The taxation model
• Revenues collected as a tax at point of purchase
• Indirect funding of environmental programs and
  recycling through a government department
• EXAMPLE former tire program in B.C
• ISSUES
• money raised as a tax goes into general
  government revenue no dedicated funding, no
  guarantee an equivalent amount goes to the
  program
• complex and slow approvals and money transfer
  mechanisms
• no producer responsibility
• commonly no municipal role

18
QUASI GOVERNMENT

• Delegation to a quasi-government agency which
  directs program
• Agency includes variety of stakeholders
• Industry will play an advisory role only and have
  no direct responsibility for program funding or
  operation
• Advanced disposal fees/levies sometimes set by
  government regulation
• Dedicated funds
• EXAMPLE Alberta Recycling Management Authority
  (AMRA) Alberta electronics recycling program
• ISSUES
• no connection between producers and end of life
  management of their products weak or
  non-existent producer responsibility
• changing and setting regulated fees can be
  difficult
• commonly no municipal role option of
  municipality offering its collection system for
  a fee paid by the agency

19
SHARED RESPONSIBILITY

• Operational responsibility and funding shared
  between industry and municipalities
• Industry can be apportioned part of the total
  system cost of a stewardship/recycling program
• Industry can be assigned responsibility for part
  of the operational system
• Often used to share and offset costs of existing
  programs avoids replacing one system with
  another
• EXAMPLE Ontario Blue Box Eco-Entreprise Quebec
• ISSUES
• degree of producer responsibility and influence
  limited to proportionate system responsibility
• requires a degree of trust between partners which
  may not be there
• large data requirements to establish legitimate
  costs
• municipalities commonly fund and operate
  collection - public perception that
  municipalities are still 100 responsible

20
INDUSTRY LIGHT

• Industry is given legal mandate to operate a
  producer responsibility program
• Industry has control over funding mechanism,
  recycling, promotion
• Government retains control over some key issues
• EXAMPLE Saskatchewan Waste Electronic Equipment
  Program (SWEEP) was directed by the province to
  negotiate exclusively with SARCAN for the
  operation of the collection system
• ISSUES
• industrys ability to negotiate program costs and
  efficiencies may be limited by things like
  mandated sole sourcing
• start up can be delayed when prescriptive
  directions compromise full producer
  responsibility
• municipalities can negotiate industry access to
  municipal collection systems unless constrained
  by government direction

21
INDUSTRY PREMIUM

• Industry is given broad legal mandate for program
• Industry has full responsibility to fund and
  operate the program from collection through to
  end of life management
• Industry sets fees, determines collection
  mechanism, promotes program, contracts for
  recycling etc.
• Government only provides high level policy
  direction, targets etc.
• EXAMPLE British Columbia e-waste program due to
  start this summer
• ISSUES
• needs rigourous performance measurement and
  reporting and assurance of efficient operation
  while meeting environmental objectives
• can provide a small incentive for DfE
• industry decides whether there a municipal role
  municipalities negotiate to provide their
  services

22
ENHANCED EPR

• Designed to push higher levels of premium EPR
  and ensure greater environmental improvements
  beyond simple recycling
• Ensure signals within industry for DfE are
  stronger and clearer
• industry stewardship plans should not require
  government approval industry should be fully
  responsible for plans and their implementation
• government should be ultimately accountable for
  program performance
• truly shift costs away from the taxpayer
• promote the fact that industry is responsible
• view EPR as one of a package of instruments for
  pollution prevention and environmental
  sustainability
• back up environmental objectives with other
  regulation (e.g. EU RoHS Directive toxic
  substances limits)

23
AFTER A DECADE OF PRACTICE WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED?

• EPR is supported by all quarters of the political
  spectrum and is now a well established policy
  instrument in Canada and world wide
• EPR is a successful non-tax environmental
  instrument
• The early view that EPR would automatically lead
  to DfE was naive
• EPR lets industry do what industry does best
• EPR should be integrated with other waste
  management and product focused policies and
  regulations to ensure that broader environmental
  objectives are met
• Enhanced EPR could be used to strengthen the
  cost and responsibility signals for industry
• True EPR doesnt happen when governments are too
  prescriptive and municipalities dont want to let
  go of their historic authority

24
VISIT OUR WEBSITE