Agricultural Product Stewardship & EPR in Canada

By Barry Friesen, P. Eng, General Manager, CleanFARMS

Packaging and product waste in Canada is almost equal in volume between commercial and residential sources. To date, regulated extended producer responsibility (EPR) programs have targeted mainly household and general consumer products. The crop protection industry, on the commercial side however, has been delivering product stewardship programs to farmers on a voluntary basis for 24 years. Since 1989, the crop protection industry has been operating what is now a Canada-wide collection program for commercial pesticide and fertilizer containers and obsolete commercial pesticide products.

Farmer Guide - CleanFARMS, established in 2010, took over the pesticide container program and has now expanded it to include liquid fertilizers. It is now extending its reach to establish permanent programs for a variety of products such as grain storage bags, bale/silage wrap, twine and netting. To assist farmers in Ontario, CleanFARMS, with funding from the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, produced a ‘GUIDE TO RECYCLING NON-NUTRIENT AGRICULTURAL WASTE IN ONTARIO’.  This guide offers a one-stop reference to permanent programs available to Ontario farmers.

http://www.cleanfarms.ca/documents/studies/OntarioFarmerRecycHB_FINAL_20120614.pdf

Studies - CleanFARMS has also been working with all provinces to establish permanent programs for the collection and recycling of all non-nutrient agricultural wastes. CleanFARMS’ approach has been to conduct waste characterization studies, farmer attitude and behavior surveys, collection and processing option evaluations and pilot programming. The end result of this work is to lead the way to establishing permanent programs.

It should be noted that not every program needs to be regulated.  The pesticide container program, which recently expanded to include liquid fertilizer containers, is voluntary in most provinces and has a 66% recovery of all commercial containers. The studies will include determining if backdrop regulation is necessary or if a voluntary (the preferred) approach can suffice for other products. Results of the studies can be found on CleanFARMS’ website under its ‘Resources’ tab at www.cleanfarms.ca .

Governance of Producer Responsibility Organizations

By Christina Seidel, Executive Director, Recycling Council of Alberta

Extended producer responsibility mandates are often carried out by collective non-profit Producer Responsibility Organizations (PROs) that discharge individual brand owner responsibilities.  The makeup of the PRO governing board can determine the extent to which an EPR program serves broader commercial interests and achieves outcomes in the public interest.

PRO governing boards should include multi-stakeholder representation. This provides for more robust discussion around the board table, which is where the real decisions are made. It broadens the discussion to include important issues like the environment, in which producers have little expertise or often even interest. Purely producer PROs tend to focus on compliance and economic efficiency unless there is a broader conscience on the board. This conscience can be provided by other stakeholders.

At the same time, the list of stakeholders is likely best to not include those directly benefitting financially from the legislation, such as the recyclers/ haulers who are directly paid by the organization. This is just good board governance not to have these stakeholders at the table. However, their input is still desirable, so this is where an advisory group can come in. That way their input is still incorporated but not in a potentially conflicted way.

However, advisory groups can end up being a token gesture if there are no stakeholders on the governing board other than producers. There is no mechanism that requires the governing board to take the advisory board’s input into consideration.

Producers can be threatened by the notion of other stakeholders on their board. But, there are examples of multi-stakeholder boards that operate effectively. I think the best model is one where no single group has a majority vote, requiring more consensus building around the table. However, it may be necessary to compromise by giving producers a majority vote. This may provide them with the feeling of control they want, while still bringing broader opinions and expertise to the table.

An example of a multi-stakeholder stewardship board with broad representation is the Alberta Recycling Management Authority. This board manages the tire, electronics and paint stewardship programs in Alberta. Board representation includes one member from each of the tire, electronics and paint industries, as well as urban and rural municipalities, professional engineers association, environmental services association, Recycling Council of Alberta, Alberta Environmental Network, and public at large. In addition, there are three industry councils to address issues specific to tires, electronics or paint, and present recommendations to the Board.

An example of an industry-oriented board that incorporates some external stakeholder representation is the BC Used Oil Management Association. Its board is comprised of seven industry members from manufacturers, brand owners and retailers, as well as one municipal member and one from the public-at-large. The other used oil management boards across the country have similar board make-up.

It is somewhat intuitive that broader stakeholder representation will raise a wider range of issues at the board table, as well as bring an increased range of skills and expertise to the decision-making process.  Getting the right mix on the governing board is an important consideration in enabling legislation or regulations.

British Columbia's New EPR Handbook for Consumers

By Bill Sheehan, Executive Director

I just received the new updated British Columbia’s Recycling Handbook.  It provides a fascinating glimpse, for Americans, of how discarded products will be managed when those who design, market and use products and associated packaging – producers and consumers – are responsible for managing them at end of life.  It's called extended producer responsibility, or  EPR for short.

The booklet is for consumers.  As the subtitle states, this is A Simple Guide to What Can Be Recycled Under BC's Stewardship Programs.  Industry stewardship agencies, also known as producer responsibility organizations (PROs), are organizations established by manufacturers, distributers or brand owners to discharge their responsibility for ensuring that their products are recycled when customers are done with them.  In British Columbia, such programs are "100% industry funded," meaning that program costs are internalized in the price of the product, at no cost to taxpayers or local government.

British Columbia has more stewardship agencies covering more product categories than any other jurisdiction in North America.

The first edition of the Recycling Handbook, issued two years ago, was 20 pages and covered the 8 stewardship agencies operating at the time.  The new edition is 28 pages and includes 17 stewardship agencies (see list at end). 

Some of the new product categories that have been added since the last version of the Handbook include toys, small appliances and power tools, a vast array of electronics, outdoor power equipment, lighting products, and alkaline batteries. (A stewardship program for residential packaging and printed paper is under development.)

One thing that is striking about the Handbook is the diversity of return channels available for different products.  A chart lists, for each product type, whether it can be taken to depots, retailers, collection events, regional drop-off sites or put in curbside bins.  Each of these return avenues creates opportunities for entrepreneurs and jobs, since stewards pay to have their products collected and sorted.

A nice touch for a consumer guide is a graphic showing what kinds of new things each of 15 product categories are made into.

The Handbook is published by the Stewardship Agencies of British Columbia.  You can find it, and an informative video, Evolution of Industry led Product Stewardship Model in British Columbia, on their website at http://www.bcstewards.com/

Here’s a list of industry stewardship agencies operating in B.C., from the Recycling Council of British Columbia website (see also this summary table of programs):

AlarmRecycle | BC Used Oil Management Association | Brewers Association of Canada | Call 2 Recycle |Canadian Brandowners Residual Stewardship Corporation | Electrical Equipment Manufacturers Association | Electronic Products Recycling Association | ElectroRecycle Small Appliance Recycling Program | Encorp Pacific (Canada) | Light Recycle | Post-Consumer Pharmaceutical Stewardship Association | Outdoor Power Equipment Institute of Canada | Product Care | Recycle My Cell | Switch the 'Stat | The TELUS Return and Recycle Program |  Tire Stewardship BC | 

The Handbook portrays a commonsense world in which the costs of managing products at end of life are included in product prices and not off-loaded onto government, taxpayers or general garbage ratepayers.  While EPR programs in British Columbia have their warts, they give those of us in other jurisdictions a lot to learn from as we develop more rational materials management systems.

###

PPI-PSI Response to the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA)

Product Policy Institute (PPI) and Product Stewardship Institute (PSI) today released a white paper responding to a recent GMA report that concluded that Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) should not be applied to packaging, and that government, not themselves, should be responsible for their packaging when consumers are done with it.

The PPI-PSI white paper, Grocery Manufacturers Seek Government Aid to Recycle Their Packaging, identifies four areas in which the GMA report “gets it wrong:”  (1) Limited data, poorly interpreted; (2) False conclusions about cost-effectiveness; (3) Misleading recycling rates; and (4) Premature conclusion on packaging design. 

The Grocery Manufacturers Association is a trade association representing large consumer packaged goods brands, such as Procter and Gamble, General Mills, Kraft, and Pepsi.  The conclusion of the GMA report is that the recycling collection system status quo, in which local governments and taxpayers pay to collect and sort packaging waste, is viable and only needs some tweaking. America is different, they argue, from the many countries in which EPR for packaging is established policy and has been delivering superior results.  In essence, GMA proposes more government aid and higher taxes to deal with their packaging waste.

What’s wrong with this picture?  The PPI-PSI white paper points out that local governments cannot afford to maintain or expand recycling infrastructure—or do so at the expense of vital services; local governments are not optimal participants in  a global commodity supply system; and internalizing recycling costs in products and packaging is inherently fairer than taxpayer-funded recycling.

The PPI-PSI paper concludes:  

“An underperforming recycling system is a long-term threat to U.S. consumer packaged goods companies. Many companies have made sustainability or sustainable packaging statements; however, what is often missing is the articulation of strategic or tactical plans to achieve the stated goals. Rather than fighting what its members already do in 47 other countries, companies could work to create superior producer-led EPR systems in the U.S., develop predictable supplies of raw materials, and earn positive public recognition from assuming this level of corporate social responsibility.   Those companies within GMA that eventually come to the realization that EPR may deliver benefits toward their sustainability goals might start to question their trade organization’s opposition.”

European Businesses Advocate 10 Golden Rules for EPR

By Bill Sheehan

Eight multi-national corporations operating in the European Union have released a 2-page position paper on Extended Producer Responsibility.  The companies are Procter & Gamble – Unilever – 3M – GE – Microsoft – Philips –Suez /SITA – Umicore.  

Note the language accepting EPR as a “useful business model to promote sustainable production and consumption,” and constructive proposals on  how to make it work better.

Compare the statements in this position paper with those of the U.S. trade associations opposing producer responsibility, including the Product Management Alliance and the recent report dismissing EPR by the Grocery Manufacturers Association (P&G, Unilever, 3M are members of GMA)

Excerpts

• Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR), if well applied in combination with other policy instruments, is a useful business model to promote sustainable production and consumption, enhance waste management performance, and thus move towards a resource-efficient society.

• EPR has delivered positive outcomes, notably through a better understanding of the product and waste management chain, taking into account the whole life-cycle of a product, while introducing investment to develop separate collection and effectively increase recycling and recovery rates of under-performing waste streams. However, EPR has also had adverse impacts - for example the development of low quality recycling, scheme failures due to the involvement of too many and/or mismanaged EPR organizations, and the development of freeriding behaviours due to poor enforcement - which should be designed out through the application of EU golden rules.

On Competition:

•  An optimal number of EPR organizations per material or product should be found to guarantee sound competition: not too many EPR organizations to keep the overall system manageable by the competent authority, but sufficient to avoid a monopoly position developing in the market.

On Enforcement:

• Control and enforcement mechanisms enabling effective and strengthened public oversight, should be set up by EPR.

GMA conclusions disputed by Ramsey County MN

By Bill Sheehan, Executive Director

Extended Producer Responsibility for packaging is getting the attention of consumer packaged goods companies.  Some are using their trade associations to argue  for bigger government and higher taxes to increase packaging recycling.

The Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA) released a report (written by the consulting  firm SAIC) in September highly critical of EPR for packaging.  On October 26, the new trade association AMERIPEN adopted an internal policy:  “We are committed to increasing recycling and recovery rates in the U.S. through collaboration and teamwork among key stakeholders, by bringing more efficiency into our existing system, and incorporating best practices, all without the financial and administrative burden of an EPR system.”

More on both of these positions in coming weeks.  For now, you should know that the GMA report’s analysis and conclusion that “U.S. communities and states that have instituted non-EPR policies can achieve high recycling rates within a reasonable cost…” is based  on a single data point – from Ramsey County MN – and Ramsey County does not concur with GMA’s conclusions. 

Some highlights from the Ramsey County analysis:

• The report only cites recycling rates for three jurisdictions -- Ramsey County, Minnesota, and California -- and only cites one cost figure, the $156 net cost for residential recycling in communities in Ramsey County.
• Ramsey County does NOT concur with the conclusions, which are not adequately supported in the report.
• Ramsey County Board of Commissioners has made support of product stewardship/EPR its top priority in solid waste policy.

One thing the GMA report does admit:   EPR is about fairness, putting responsibility on those who profit from and use products and associated packaging:  producers and consumers.  And EPR is “inherently fairer” (than making taxpayers pay).

[For a copy of Ramsey County's 8-page response, email info@productpolicy.org ]

Extended Producer Responsibility Job and Economic Impact Studies

Guest Blog By Duncan Bury

Duncan Bury currently provides consulting services in producer responsibility and waste diversion and formerly worked with Environment Canada where he led files in areas including Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR), electronics, product focused policies and international waste policy.  In 2011 he co-founded EPR Canada, a not-for-profit association with a mission to help ensure the continued growth and improvement of EPR policies, programs and practices in Canada.   

The potential job creation impacts of extended producer responsibility and recycling polices were the topic of a recent report I prepared for the Western Product Stewardship Collaborative (WPSC).  The WPSC is an informal collaborative consisting of representatives from the Province of British Columbia Ministry of Environment, the California Department of Resources, Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, and the Washington State Department of Ecology. The statements and conclusions contained in this report are mine and not necessarily those of the WPSC.

With the growth of both product stewardship and Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) programs there has been growing interest in understanding and assessing the job and economic impacts of such programs. Ten major studies conducted between 2008 and 2012 were reviewed.

While specific metrics vary and are hard to compare, the studies reviewed confirm that increasing the diversion of wastes, materials and products is more employment intensive and has a greater economic impact than simply collecting these materials and products as wastes and disposing of them. The adoption of EPR or any other kind of product stewardship program increased recycling and increased material throughput. 

This may have some minor negative impacts on jobs in the waste collection and disposal sector but these job loses will almost assuredly be more than offset by a growth in jobs in the collection of a greater number of waste streams, more processing for recycling and more jobs in the use of the secondary materials recovered.

Here’s what was found:

·       Landfill disposal is not job intensive and generates a small number of jobs compared to waste recycling and waste diversion.

·       Recycling and the use of secondary materials create significantly higher net value added and jobs at higher income levels than waste disposal.

·       Recycling businesses create jobs closer to home and have a smaller environmental footprint than businesses that rely on raw material extraction and manufacture.

To review the report in depth, please visit: http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/epd/recycling/resources/reports/pdf/wpsc_dbc_job_economic_impact_study.pdf

Remembering Pat Franklin

By Bill Sheehan, Executive Director

I mourn the passing of my good friend and colleague Pat Franklin.  She single-handedly kept the issue of unconscionable beverage container waste alive through the 1990s. Bottle bills were enacted in 10 US states in the 1970s and 80s. By 1994, when Newt Gingrich introduced his Contract On America to repeal all manner of environmental legislation and regulation, most environmentalists moved on from trying to pass more bottle bills.  Not Pat. She, virtually alone, kept the flame alive through the organization she founded, Container Recycling Institute. 

I learned so much from Pat.  One of the first papers I read on EPR was written by Pat: Extended Producer Responsibility: A Primer, presented at Michelle Raymond’s 1997 Take it Back! Producer Responsibility Forum.  Pat was an early adopter who understood that producer-managed bottle bills were the original EPR laws in North America.

I worked alongside Pat on numerous projects and campaigns, first as the Executive Director of GrassRoots Recycling Network, then as Executive Director of Product Policy Institute. Her house was always open to me when I came to DC, and also to my family. Most of all, I miss Pat’s warmth, clarity of focus, and indomitable spirit.  She was a true pioneer and hero to all of us working to make products and packaging more sustainable.

To read a tribute to Pat from Container Recycling Institute, please click here. 

Understanding British Columbia's EPR Regulation

Guest Blog by Sue Maxwell

Sue Maxwell is a zero waste and sustainability consultant who has worked on developing several new EPR programs in British Columbia and other provinces. She has been an active volunteer promoting zero waste solutions with the Recycling Council of BC and other organizations.

British Columbia’s Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) system is an interesting one to look at in more detail as it has been used as a model for the Canada-wide Action Plan for EPR. The action plan was created by the Canadian Council of Ministers of Environment (CCME). All provinces and territories in Canada agreed to it in 2009. They agreed that by 2015, each jurisdiction would have EPR programs for a common set of products (mercury containing lamps and other mercury-containing products, household hazardous and special wastes, automotive products, packaging and printed materials, electronics and electrical equipment) and a further set of products by 2017 (construction and demolition materials, textiles and carpet, furniture and appliances including ozone depleting substances).^[1]

The Action Plan specifies principles and goals, many of which were based on the BC model. The goals of the Action plan are to have programs that:

·         Move towards full life-cycle cost accounting

·         Treat costs similarly to other factors and are incorporated into prices

·         Shift the expenses from taxpayers to producers and consumers

·         Reduce the amount of waste generated and going to disposal

·         Reduce the toxicity and environmental risks from products and product waste

·         Improve the overall life-cycle performance of products, including GHG

BC has a framework regulation model that for the most part, addresses these goals. The BC Recycling Regulation outlines general requirements for programs with specific schedules for particular product categories. Most programs are held to the same standards but there can be unique requirements for product categories. Beverage containers, for example, are limited to refillable or recyclable containers and have deposits attached. When the province wishes to add another category, it adds a schedule to the existing regulation rather than needing to develop a new, separate regulation. This simpler process allows for quicker implementation for new product categories and more consistency in program requirements which also provides more certainty for the producers.

Producers are essentially the first sellers of the product in BC –ideally the manufacturers, but if not them, then the brand owners and then the distributors and retailers. For most product categories, producers have a choice to develop and submit for approval a program plan (usually as a group, often facilitated by industry associations and resulting in programs run by Producer Responsibility Organizations) or to meet strict regulatory requirements for product stewardship services as an independent producer. The BC regulation allows for more than one program for the same product category, allowing for competition or the creation of producer-specific programs.

With the BC model, it is up to the producers to develop a program that will meet the regulatory requirements. By focusing on the outcomes of the program, it allows producers flexibility in how they achieve those goals and they can better tailor their program to their specific products. For example, the Post Consumer Pharmaceutical Stewardship program has a collection network of most of the pharmacies in BC. This works well for these returned products as there are considerations for toxicity, risk of theft and privacy of individual’s information that are handled by pharmacists already and pharmacies are a natural point of contact for the consumers of those products.

The Recycling Regulation requires new programs to submit a program plan that addresses the following:

·         Stakeholder Consultation

·         Collection System and Consumer Access

·         Consumer Awareness

·         Program Performance Measurement

·         Management of Program Costs

·         Dispute Resolution

·         Product Life Cycle Management

·         Pollution Prevention Hierarchy

Once a program plan is submitted, the Ministry of Environment reviews it for completeness and may ask for revisions before approving it. The Regulation is intended to be outcomes based, rather than prescriptive so the plan should show how the program will meet the intended outcomes. The Regulation requires programs to provide publicly available annual reports and spells out what must be included in the reports. These reports must include a third-party audited financial statement for programs charging fees to members and recently the Ministry has been asking for third party audits of other aspects as well. Every five years, the program plan must be renewed in a process that includes further stakeholder consultation. Programs that do not meet their obligations can have their plan approval revoked.

The BC EPR system, while not perfect, provides a strong model for producer responsibility as was recently affirmed by EPR Canada’s recent report card where it was graded A-, the highest ranking of all jurisdictions in Canada.

---

[1] The territories agreed to slightly lower requirements to recognize some of the unique challenges that they have regarding population density, transport, infrastructure and supply chains.