The City Of Calgary ICI (Industrial, Commercial, Institutional) Waste Diversion Stakeholder Engagement Project

Transcription

1 The City Of Calgary ICI (Industrial, Commercial, Institutional) Waste Diversion Stakeholder Engagement Project APRIL 2013 ISSUED FOR USE EBA FILE: C ISC PROTECTED

2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A stakeholder engagement team consisting of team members from EBA Engineering Consultants Ltd. operating as EBA, A Tetra Tech Company (EBA), Sonnevera International Corp., and Ipsos Reid, was retained by The City of Calgary (The City) to conduct stakeholder engagement sessions with regard to Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional (ICI) Waste Diversion. Based on the significant portion of the waste stream represented by the ICI sector, this stakeholder engagement project is an important step in achieving The City s 80/20 by 2020 waste diversion strategy that targets 80% diversion of waste from city landfills by the year Stakeholders from industry groups including Associations, Generators, Haulers, and Processors were included in a series of three engagement workshops throughout Three key topics were discussed throughout the workshops: 1. Opportunities to pursue to increase ICI waste diversion; 2. The challenges to ICI waste diversion; and 3. The role of The City in ICI waste diversion. Potential opportunities for ICI waste diversion were divided into three program options: Economic, Regulatory, and Voluntary. ICI waste diversion options from each of the options were given a support rating by the stakeholders, as shown in the following figure: i

3 EBA FILE: C APRIL 2013 ISSUED FOR USE: ISC PROTECTED The key waste diversion challenges stakeholders discussed were: Lack of convenience; Cost of diversion; Infrastructure limitations (space and capacity); Lack of diversion options available; Limited public awareness and education; The difficulty associated with accessing processors; Lack of incentives to participate in waste diversion; Limited service providers; and Lack of markets for materials. ii

4 Feedback from stakeholders on The City s role in ICI waste diversion was grouped into four categories: Partnerships and Collaboration Infrastructure and Programs Policy and Legislation Education and Promotion Provide information on waste diversion options. Serve as a data bank. Report on ICI waste diversion results. Research and Development. Assist small businesses with their ICI waste diversion. Demonstrate leadership. Develop organics infrastructure. Tie waste management planning to business licenses. Work with the haulers to educate the ICI sector regarding regulations. Promote ICI waste diversion. Develop recycling business case to educate industry on the cost benefits of waste diversion. These categories were used to create a modified planning model, thus building a foundation for an ICI Waste Diversion Strategy. Stakeholders felt there was a need for development of measurement and reporting procedures and setting of industry standard benchmarks. In order to carry out sufficient tracking, most haulers and processors indicated they would be willing to share their aggregate data. After the conclusion of each session, online surveys were sent out to obtain additional feedback from stakeholders unable to attend the sessions. This feedback was integrated into the reported results. For the final session, a final survey was conducted on the engagement process, with stakeholders showing strong satisfaction. Based on the feedback throughout the engagement sessions and online surveys, there were a number of key stakeholder engagement outcomes: iii

5 Economic Program Options Stakeholders encourage The City to expand the list of materials to which a differential tipping fee would be applied and to increase fees for loads containing specified materials. Regulatory Program Options Stakeholders feel ICI mandatory recycling and source separation is a viable option for The City, but adequate infrastructure and enforcement would be needed. The majority of stakeholders do not feel a franchise waste system would be a viable waste diversion option for The City. Voluntary Program Options Stakeholders encourage The City to increase the availability of waste diversion assistance to the ICI sector. Stakeholders support The City increasing promotion of waste diversion within the ICI sector through mechanisms such as recognition of progressive businesses. Stakeholders feel The City can take a leadership role with promoting zero waste special events in the city and should encourage larger events to adopt this initiative. As long as the potential risks to stakeholders (liability, tax implications, etc.) are managed, stakeholders believe The City should take a role in implementing a food redirection program in the city. Stakeholders feel that working groups are a positive component to promoting waste diversion in the city and encourage the distribution of waste diversion success stories amongst ICI sector members. ICI Program Options Stakeholders expressed that they would be more willing to participate in ICI waste diversion programs if they involved incentives rather than disincentives. ICI Waste Diversion Challenges Stakeholders see the need for an increase in recycling collection and processing options. Stakeholders feel there is opportunity for increased diversion of organics if a processing facility is constructed, creating a market for collection and hauling of organics. Measuring ICI Waste Diversion Progress Feedback suggests that waste haulers and processors would be willing to share their data on an aggregate basis for The City s use in setting industry standard benchmarks and for tracking waste diversion. To assist The City in developing an ICI Waste Diversion Strategy for the future, the engagement team has provided overall recommendations and suggested next steps. It will be necessary for ICI waste data to be collected from key stakeholders in order for The City to properly track ICI waste diversion and set industry standard benchmarks. It is recommended that there be a further increase in differential tipping fees and to add more readily recyclable materials to the list of materials that have a higher tipping fee. If The City feels regulatory options are necessary, implementing ICI mandatory recycling/source separation would be the suggested program option. Additionally, mandatory waste audits and waste diversion plans are also suggested but may pose to be more difficult to implement due to enforcement challenges. There is an obvious need for increased voluntary ICI waste diversion options in The City of Calgary. Zero Waste Special Events, increased waste diversion assistance, increased organics collection and processing options, convenient recycling programs for smaller businesses, and waste diversion promotion are all recommended. Voluntary and economic waste diversion options are suggested to be implemented where possible, followed by regulatory options if a significant impact in waste diversion is not being observed. iv

6 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY... i 1.0 INTRODUCTION ENGAGEMENT SESSIONS OPPORTUNITIES FOR ICI WASTE DIVERSION Economic Program Options Disposal Surcharges Differential Tipping Fees Regulatory Program Options ICI Mandatory Recycling and Source Separation Franchise Waste System Landfill Bans Private Sector Requirement to Supply Recycling Services Mandatory Waste Audits and Waste Diversion Plans Voluntary Program Options Waste Diversion Assistance Waste Exchange Program Waste Diversion Promotion Food Redirection Recycling and Organics Collection Zero Waste Special Events Working Group on Waste Diversion Incentives Versus Disincentives CHALLENGES TO ICI WASTE DIVERSION PARTICIPATION Food and Yard Waste Paper and Cardboard (Fibre) Overcoming the Barriers THE CITY S ROLE IN ICI WASTE DIVERSION Partnerships and Collaboration Infrastructure and Programs Policy and Legislation Education and Promotion MEASURING BASELINE AND PROGRESS TOWARDS ICI WASTE DIVERSION ADDITIONAL IDEAS/SUGGESTIONS FROM STAKEHOLDERS STAKEHOLDER RECOMMENDATIONS v

7 9.0 STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT PROCESS FEEDBACK OVERALL RECOMMENDATIONS AND NEXT STEPS Economic Program Options Regulatory Program Options Voluntary Program Options ICI Waste Diversion Options Implementation Approach REFERENCES vi

8 ACRONYMS & ABBREVIATIONS AESRD Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development BOMA Building Owners and Managers Association C&D Construction and Demolition EBA EBA Engineering Consultants Ltd. operating as EBA, A Tetra Tech Company EPR Extended Producer Responsibility FCM Federation of Canadian Municipalities ICI Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Ipsos Ipsos Reid MSW Municipal Solid Waste RCA Recycling Council of Alberta Sonnevera Sonnevera International Corp. The City The City of Calgary W&RS Waste and Recycling Services (City of Calgary) vii

9 EBA FILE: C APRIL 2013 ISSUED FOR USE: ISC PROTECTED 1.0 INTRODUCTION The City of Calgary (The City), Waste & Recycling Services (W&RS) retained EBA Engineering Consultants Ltd. operating as EBA, A Tetra Tech Company (EBA), to conduct stakeholder engagement sessions with regard to Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional (ICI) Waste Diversion. EBA partnered with Ipsos Reid (Ipsos) and Sonnevera International Corp., (Sonnevera) working togetherr with The City representatives to create a highly qualified engagement team. As displayed in Figure 1, ICI waste composes 39% of the waste being sentt to The City s landfills. Therefore, this stakeholder engagement is a critical component to The City s 80/20 by 2020 waste diversion strategy that targets 80% diversion of waste from city landfills by the year Figure 1: Breakdown of Waste Disposed in The City's Landfills (by weight) in 2010 (City of Calgary 2011) The engagement of stakeholders in the ICI sector was a cruciall step to help determine: 1. The challenges to ICII waste diversion; 2. Opportunities to pursue to increase ICI waste diversion; and 3. The role of The City in ICI waste diversion. There are four key industries within the ICI sector that are responsible for just over half (51%) of the ICI waste sent to landfills. These key industries are highlighted inn yellow in Figure 2. 1

10 EBA FILE: C APRIL 2013 ISSUED FOR USE: ISC PROTECTED Figure 2: Contribution of ICI Waste per Industry Sector (City of Calgary 2011) Therefore, it is importantt for The City to initially focus on these contributors to ICI waste. In addition, as seen in Figure 3, Food and Yard Waste (Organics) and Paper and Cardboard (Fibre) are the two main materials composing ICI waste being sent to landfill. Therefore, these two waste categories should be targeted and programs implemented that directly focus on thee diversion of these materials. 2

11 EBA FILE: C APRIL 2013 ISSUED FOR USE: ISC PROTECTED Figure 3: ICI Waste Composition by Materiall Type (City of Calgary 2011) By focusing on the primary materials composing ICI waste, organics and fibre, as well as the top four ICI waste generators, a 4x2 matrix approach to ICI waste diversion was created (City of Calgary 2012). Figure 4 depicts this matrix. This allowed for a focus on these primary materials within the key industry sectors. Figure 4: 4x2 ICI Waste Diversion Generators and Materials Therefore, the primary focus of this report is the discussion and stakeholderss representing the top four ICI waste creators. recommendations provided by 2.0 ENGAGEMENT SESSIONS There were a total of three rounds of stakeholder engagement sessionss throughout the duration of the project. Initially, there was a round of sessions completed onn April 23, 2012 and April 24, 2012, with two sessions on each day. The morning sessions involved Associations and Haulers on April 23 and 24, respectively. Generators and Processors were engaged in the afternoon sessions on April 23 and 24, 3

12 respectively. The groups of stakeholders were divided up into the four groups to incorporate all members of the ICI waste sector in the engagement project. Associations included groups from the Calgary area and provincial associations that were considered to have industrial, commercial, or institutional components. Examples of the associations included were Calgary Board of Education, Alberta Beverage Container Recycling Corporation (ABCRC), and Calgary Hotel Association. Haulers that collect ICI waste for businesses, industry, or institutions were marked as the Hauler group. For example, The Garbage Company, BluPlanet Recycling, and Super Save Disposal were categorized as Haulers. Generators comprised the largest group and contained any member of the ICI sector that produces waste. London Drugs, Alberta Health Services, Telus Convention Centre, and Safeway were all considered Generators. The last group, Processors, was the smallest and was made up of any ICI sector member that process ICI waste. BFI Canada Inc., Cascades Recovery, and Waste Management were considered processors. The City, W&RS, is somewhat unique in that it is a generator, hauler, and processor. Separating the groups for the first round of sessions was intended to encourage free expression of ideas and views from participants of a common background. The engagement discussion used Ideation Technology, having the stakeholders digitally submit scores and feedback in response to questions developed by the engagement team. There were a variety of question formats, but the primary format had stakeholders rating the appropriateness of economic, regulatory, and voluntary program options on a scale from 1 to 10. Stakeholders rated each program option in terms of how supportive they were of it and also how successful they felt the program option would be if it were implemented. The second round of engagement sessions was delivered on one day, July 18, 2012, with stakeholders grouped as Associations and Generators (one group) and Haulers and Processors (second group). The key focus of the second sessions was to expand upon the results and feedback received previously. To achieve this result, a more traditional workshop format was used with stakeholders divided into table groups to discuss and record their feedback. Discussion was facilitated and recorded by engagement team members. Since one of the goals of the second session was to further explore suggestions and ideas relating to waste diversion, the main topics discussed in detail were cost of diversion, incentives, waste diversion progress as well as education and communication. The role of The City was also addressed in relation to promotion and facilitation of waste diversion, as well as infrastructure and processing. Particular ideas that were brought to attention in the first session by stakeholders were reviewed, including a focus on organics, small businesses, and space limitations. The third and final round of sessions occurred on September 17, 2012, engaging all stakeholders together in one morning session. Information and feedback previously gained from stakeholders was grouped into a modified Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) planning model. This model was presented to the stakeholders with the goal of confirming the synthesis of input from previous discussions. A diagram of the model is shown in Figure 5. 4

13 EBA FILE: C APRIL 2013 ISSUED FOR USE: ISC PROTECTED Figure 5: City of Calgary Modified FCM Planning Model Each quadrant of the model had sub-categories including: Barriers to Increasing Diversion; Top Initiatives; Specific Ideas; and Role of The City. In each of these sub-categories the top-ranked ideas and options from the previous sessions were included, building a foundation for an ICI Waste Diversion Strategy. For the first two sessions, those stakeholders that were unable to attend the session in person were given the opportunity to take part in an online survey following thee sessions. The online survey was tailored to mirror the format and content of the engagement sessions. Following the final session, a simple survey was sent out to the attendees asking them to give their opinions and ratings on their overall impression of the engagement process. A separate summary report was completed by the engagement team for each of the surveys. 3.0 OPPORTUNITIES FOR ICI WASTE DIVERSION The ICI waste diversion options that are currently available inn the city are voluntary program options, with the exception of differential tipping fees, which are controlledd by The City. Discussions with stakeholders show a demand for the continuation and expansion of many off these programs. There are many different ICI waste diversion program options that may be suitable for The City. These options can be grouped into threee basic types of ICI waste diversion program options: economic, regulatory, and voluntary. Program Options from each of these categoriess were chosen by the engagement 5

14 team based on their success in other North American jurisdictions and feasibility of success in The City, to present to stakeholders. Feedback from stakeholders on each of these options is discussed in the next sections. 3.1 Economic Program Options The following economic ICI waste diversion program options were discussed in detail in the engagement sessions. Stakeholders rated each of the ICI waste diversion program options on a scale from one to ten on whether or not they support the implementation of the program option. ICI Economic Waste Diversion Program Options Disposal Surcharges Dedicated Landfill Levy Differential Tipping Fees Description Levy or surcharge placed on all waste entering City landfills. This surcharge serves the dual purpose of creating a financial disincentive, while also providing a funding mechanism for diversion programming. Increased fees for loads containing specified/designated materials. *Note: All rated from 1 to 10 with 1 being Least Supportive and 10 being Most Supportive. Stakeholder Support* Disposal Surcharges Overall, many stakeholders were accepting of disposal surcharges, giving it a score of 6.4, but were worried about the potential increase in illegal dumping and diversion of waste to non-city landfills. Engagement team recommendation: Conduct an investigation into illegal dumping and determine whether or not it is a valid concern with the implementation of economic and regulatory ICI waste diversion program options, and potential options to mitigate illegal dumping impacts Differential Tipping Fees Stakeholders were the most supportive of this economic program option, giving it a score of 7.2, and believe that the program has potential for development province-wide. Differential tipping fees were seen as an efficient incentive and stakeholders supported an increase in the difference between general Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) tipping fees and the tipping fee for loads of specified materials. Additionally, stakeholders thought more readily recyclable materials should be added to the specified list, such as cardboard. Key Stakeholder Engagement Outcome: Stakeholders encourage The City to expand the list of materials with a differential tipping fee, and to increase fees for loads containing specified materials. Potential area for research: Economic assessment and feasibility study of increasing differential tipping fees. 3.2 Regulatory Program Options The following regulatory ICI waste diversion program options were discussed in detail in the engagement sessions. 6

15 ICI Regulatory Waste Diversion Program Options ICI Mandatory Recycling/Source Separation Requirements Franchise Waste System Landfill Bans Private Sector Requirement to Supply Recycling Services Mandatory Waste Audits and Waste Diversion Plans Description Businesses must participate in recycling and/or must divert designated materials through a recycling program. Mandatory recycling or source separation places a regulatory requirement on business to participate in diversion programs as part of their daily operations. This requirement may take the form of physical diversion infrastructure, including separate collection containers, or proof of material diversion. Franchising the waste system would see The City administering ICI waste collection service contracts. This would give The City control over how this waste stream is managed, allowing for establishment of targets and diversion mechanisms. Landfill bans prohibit the disposal of certain material streams at City landfills. The standard enforcement mechanism is rejection of loads containing banned material. Waste Haulers must also provide recycling services. The private sector can be required through bylaw to provide recycling services to complement disposal services they offer. To encourage consideration of waste diversion options, businesses can be required through regulation to complete waste audits or management plans that set out plans and targets for diverting waste materials. *Note: All rated from 1 to 10 with 1 being Least Supportive and 10 being Most Supportive. Stakeholder Support* ICI Mandatory Recycling and Source Separation This program option was rated highest by Processors who gave it a score of 8.4. Between all stakeholder groups, ICI mandatory recycling and source separation received an average score of 7.9. Although this program option received a fairly high rating, it is seen as a potentially significant cost for smaller businesses. There was also concern with the enforcement needed to make ICI recycling and source separation mandatory. Key Stakeholder Engagement Outcome: Stakeholders feel ICI mandatory recycling and source separation is a viable option for The City, but adequate infrastructure and enforcement would be required Franchise Waste System With an average score of 4.6, the concept of a franchise waste system was heavily resisted by the Haulers and many felt that The City could set standards without resorting to franchising. At the same time, there were some stakeholders that spoke out about the appeal of centralized collection. 7

16 Key Stakeholder Engagement Outcome: The majority of stakeholders do not support a franchise waste system as a waste diversion program option for The City Landfill Bans Generally, stakeholders were not opposed to landfill bans, but were unsure if there were suitable markets and enough easily accessible collection sites for the potentially banned material. The average score given by stakeholders for landfill bans was 5.9. The importance of having the infrastructure in place prior to the landfill ban being implemented was expressed, and similarly to differential tipping fees, stakeholders thought it would be most successful if the ban was province wide rather than limited to the municipality. It was also recommended that there be a two year lead time for most type of bans in order to allow for sufficient time to coordinate the planning and proper development of programs and infrastructure Private Sector Requirement to Supply Recycling Services Stakeholders did not seem to have overly strong opinions on this program option, giving it an average score of 6.3, but did comment that they felt industry was headed in this direction already. Many haulers already provide recycling services along with waste services. Additionally, a suggestion was made that if this program option was to be implemented, that it could easily be tied in with business licenses, making the haulers accountable through this mechanism Mandatory Waste Audits and Waste Diversion Plans Mandatory waste audits and diversion plans was given an average score of 7.0, and stakeholders emphasised the need for The City s leadership if this option was to be implemented. There was concern over enforcement and questions about what the repercussions of non-compliance would be. 3.3 Voluntary Program Options The following voluntary ICI waste diversion program options were discussed in detail in the engagement sessions. 8

17 ICI Voluntary Waste Diversion Program Options Waste Diversion Assistance Waste Exchange Program Waste Diversion Promotion Food Redirection Recycling/Organics Collection Zero Waste Special Events Working Group on Waste Diversion Description Technical and information assistance to companies that want to implement waste diversion programs. This can be helpful to businesses that may not have the technical knowledge or capacity to investigate diversion opportunities. Online Waste Exchange System, such as the former Calgary Materials Exchange. Promote waste diversion in the commercial sector. Promotion and education can encourage waste diversion awareness and participation in the ICI sector. Options include recognizing businesses that show progressive initiatives in this area, and certification of businesses that achieve certain diversion standards. Excess food from restaurants and grocery distributors redirected to food bank/ shelters. Redirection of consumable food waste from grocers and restaurants to those in need through providers such as social agencies can provide a higher level use of these materials, while also filling a social need. These programs already exist through agencies such as the Calgary Interfaith Food Bank, but could potentially be further encouraged and expanded. Municipality provides collection of recyclables or organics to local businesses. Builds on residential recycling program. Special events offer an opportunity for focussed waste diversion as well as public education. To avoid the waste associated with these events, organizers can be required as part of their permit to include waste diversion opportunities and meet certain targets. This can be first introduced on a voluntary basis, and can also be led by The City as part of its special events. An ICI working group could be formed with members of the ICI community to provide focussed discussions around common issues and challenges related to waste diversion in this sector. Stakeholder Support* *Note: All rated from 1 to 10 with 1 being Least Supportive and 10 being Most Supportive Waste Diversion Assistance Receiving an average score of 7.2, the voluntary program option of The City providing waste diversion assistance was generally supported by stakeholders. Concerns regarding The City s resources required for such a program were mentioned, as well as the possibility of combining it with an ICI waste diversion regulation. Stakeholders did feel it necessary that The City work with organizations such as Green Calgary that are already providing a similar service. 9

18 Key Stakeholder Engagement Outcome: Stakeholders encourage The City to increase the availability of waste diversion assistance to the ICI sector, potentially in partnership with an agency such as Green Calgary Waste Exchange Program The waste exchange program received an average score of 6.8 from stakeholders. Overall, the idea was well accepted and they felt that it would be beneficial in community clean-ups and in helping promote waste diversion within the community. There were associated barriers, with the cost of set-up and maintenance being mentioned Waste Diversion Promotion Receiving an average score of 8.3 from stakeholders, waste diversion promotion was very well supported. It was mentioned that there need to be sufficient programs in place prior to the promotion campaign commencing. Key Stakeholder Engagement Outcome: Stakeholders support The City increasing promotion of waste diversion within the ICI sector through mechanisms such as recognition of businesses with progressive waste diversion programs Food Redirection Also being given an average score of 8.3 was food redirection. Again, this voluntary program option was very well received by stakeholders and it was noted that there are already success stories of this in Calgary. There was a list of potential concerns; liability, storage, collection logistics, and tax and regulatory implications. Even so, stakeholders believed that leadership from The City and an organized program, food redirection could be a success. Key Stakeholder Engagement Outcome: As long as the potential risks to stakeholders (liability, tax implications, etc.) are managed, stakeholders believe The City should take a role in implementing a food redirection program in the city Recycling and Organics Collection Associations and Generators were supportive of The City offering a collection service for recycling and organics, but Haulers were very opposed. Haulers gave this program option a score of 1.6, bringing down the average score from all stakeholders to 5.8. It was mentioned that the key to success for this program option is having adequate processing opportunities, as well as end markets Zero Waste Special Events Stakeholders were very enthusiastic about the zero waste special events option. It was the best-received of all the waste diversion program options discussed with stakeholders. Zero waste special events were seen as an opportunity for education of the public and promotion of waste diversion within the community. Stakeholders supported The City promoting zero waste special events and mentioned having a policy implemented on zero waste special events. Stakeholders stated it was a way for The City to take a 10

19 leadership role in the community, and even encouraged The City to have a focus on including larger events, such as The Calgary Stampede, in the zero waste special events program. As with any program, some negatives were identified. Stakeholders had concerns over contamination and the extra cost and time associated with the organization of events. It was also mentioned that currently zero waste special events bring in small volumes of recyclable material, but stakeholders did feel there is significant room for growth and that the program could become very successful if managed properly. Key Stakeholder Engagement Outcome: Stakeholders feel The City can take a leadership role with promoting zero waste special events in the city and should encourage larger events to adopt this initiative Working Group on Waste Diversion Having working groups on waste diversion was also very well received by stakeholders, having an average score of 7.8. Stakeholders did feel there were similar opportunities through organizations like the Recycling Council of Alberta (RCA), but still agreed it was a great step for The City to take. They felt that working groups would provide for idea sharing and success stories to be distributed and discussed within the industry. Key Stakeholder Engagement Outcome: Stakeholders feel that working groups are a positive component to promoting waste diversion in the city and encourage the distribution of waste diversion success stories amongst ICI sector members. 3.4 Incentives Versus Disincentives Throughout the engagement process, stakeholders made it quite clear that they strongly prefer the use of incentives over disincentives when it comes to ICI waste diversion programs/options. Stakeholders felt that incentives are the best method to help promote waste diversion programs within the city, including the following examples: Tax credits; Deposit programs; and Differential fees. Key Stakeholder Engagement Outcome: Stakeholders expressed that they would be more willing to participate in ICI waste diversion programs if they involved incentives rather than disincentives. 4.0 CHALLENGESTO ICI WASTE DIVERSION PARTICIPATION A number of barriers preventing stakeholders from participating in ICI waste diversion were noted during the sessions. Generally, similar challenges were documented across all four stakeholder groups. Standard issues, such as lack of convenience and cost, were raised by each group. Convenience issues connected with infrastructure problems, with many buildings and businesses not designed to accommodate waste diversion practices. The storing of material for collection, along with the space requirement of recycling and/or organics bins, was seen as a significant barrier for many businesses. 11

20 Additional concerns included the need for more options/programs. This directly links with the issue that there is limited organics collection available in the city for general businesses. Also, the stakeholders felt there are a limited number of service providers for the collection of recyclables. Education, especially of employees, was a key concern raised by all stakeholder groups. The groups felt there was a need for increased education in all aspects of the ICI sector, from senior management all the way down to individual employees, along with consumers. Another significant barrier for many stakeholders is the difficulty in measuring diversion rates. With it being challenging to monitor ICI waste diversion/progress, stakeholders lack the justification within their organizations for spending time and budget on waste diversion. Lack of accessibility to processors within the city was a major concern for diverting materials (excluding fibre) and a major barrier to increasing waste diversion activities. One of the most commonly raised challenges was the lack of incentives to participate in waste diversion. All stakeholder groups expressed concern regarding the lack of encouragement to participate in waste diversion programs. A general list of the key waste diversion barriers for ICI waste materials is listed below: Lack of convenience; Cost of diversion; Infrastructure limitations (space and capacity); Lack of diversion options available; Public awareness and education is limited; The difficulty associated with accessing processors; Lack of incentives to participate in waste diversion; Limited service providers; and Lack of markets for materials. 4.1 Food and Yard Waste The largest barrier preventing stakeholders from participating in organic waste diversion in the ICI sector is the lack of service providers and diversion options. This is believed by stakeholders to be due to the absence of sufficient processing infrastructure available in the city. Currently the stakeholders find it challenging to have their organics collected and processed for an economical fee. Therefore, there is an opportunity for either The City or additional service providers to take an initiative on organics collection and processing. There is significant demand from stakeholders for an organics program, suggesting the need for a processing facility to be constructed. With proper processing infrastructure and a city wide program and/or private collection service providers, it is likely a significant amount of organic material could be diverted from landfills. 12

21 Key Stakeholder Engagement Outcome: Stakeholders feel there is opportunity for increased diversion of organics if a processing facility is constructed. Once the facility is operational, stakeholders think a market will be created for the collection and hauling of organics in the city. Other hurdles that the stakeholders are experiencing in regards to organics diversion are related to the storage of organic material. Concerns include: Unpleasant smells; Messiness factor ; and Space. 4.2 Paper and Cardboard (Fibre) Overall, stakeholders felt there were fewer barriers associated with fibre diversion than organics diversion. Many stakeholders already participate in fibre recycling, but they still feel there is a need for increased infrastructure. Stakeholders voiced concerns over the limited options of processors available for delivering their recycling. One potential option that was suggested was that more recycling collection options be accessible at the city landfills. Key Stakeholder Engagement Outcome: Stakeholders see the need for an increase in recycling collection and processing options. Other challenges expressed by stakeholders in regard to fibre recycling were: The time and effort required to train custodial staff to properly separate and recycle fibre materials; The lack of standardized practices of diversion; and Space limitations for the storage of the material. 4.3 Overcoming the Barriers Throughout the engagement process, stakeholders were encouraged to come up with ideas and possible solutions to the barriers discussed. These potential solutions are listed in Table 1. 13

22 Table 1: Stakeholder's Suggestions for Overcoming the Barriers of ICI Infrastructure and Programs for ICI Waste Diversion ICI Waste Diversion Barrier Suggestion(s) for Overcoming the Barrier Have The City construct a facility. Lack of a processing facility Have The City aid a private organization in the construction of a facility (such as in providing the land, organics composition data, etc.). Lack of consistent markets Lack of consistent waste diversion programs Lack of communication Cost of waste diversion Limited space for certain businesses Inconvenient Research relevant and emerging markets. Have The City utilize recycled materials in their own projects. Standardize waste diversion programs across all parts of the city. Provide educational materials in various languages. Develop consistent messaging with a focus on pictorial images instead of text. Promote success stories recognizing the leaders in the industry and promoting waste diversion programs. Have The City lead environmental initiatives such as Zero Waste Event.s Shift disposal responsibility to producers (encourage and promote extended producer responsibility [EPR]). Provide economic incentives for ICI waste diversion. Increase number of communal drop-offs/depots to decrease transportation costs. Provide businesses with information and assistance on full cost analysis of waste diversion. Provide compactors for some businesses. Increased pick-ups. Encourage sharing of bins. Encourage small businesses to use depots. Implement a program for small businesses similar to the Blue Cart recycling program available to residents. 5.0 THE CITY S ROLE IN ICI WASTE DIVERSION Following The City s modified FCM model, the stakeholder s opinions and feedback on The City s role in waste diversion are discussed in sections 5.1 through Partnerships and Collaboration Stakeholders felt it was necessary for The City to serve as a facilitator by providing general information on waste diversion options. Also, stakeholders suggested The City serve as a data bank and report back to industry on the results from amalgamated data being collected and analyzed. Furthermore, stakeholders recommended The City take on an advisory role and present results and certain data to individual stakeholders to encourage them, or reward them, in regards to their ICI waste diversion efforts. 14

23 Research and development was seen as an important role for The City in this category, as well. For example, The City could research other cities that are leaders in ICI waste diversion. It was suggested by an institutional stakeholder that The City look at other municipalities provincially, nationally, and internationally. 5.2 Infrastructure and Programs There were three specific roles that stakeholders drafted for The City, with the first being to assist small businesses in their waste diversion. They felt that smaller businesses need to have increased opportunity and convenience in ICI waste diversion. As mentioned in section 4.3, having a program similar to the Blue Cart program available to small businesses was suggested as a possible way for The City to achieve this. Moreover, it was once again reiterated by stakeholders that The City should be leading the way in waste diversion initiatives by being more involved themselves. To demonstrate leadership, The City should increase the promotion of Zero Waste Events and be using more recycled material in their own projects. Stakeholders also strongly recommended that The City expand organics infrastructure by either designing and constructing a facility or working with a private company in the construction. To develop successful infrastructure, it was encouraged by stakeholders for The City to extensively research infrastructure in other jurisdictions. 5.3 Policy and Legislation Stakeholders believe that The City will need to provide proper education for aggressive policies to be effectively implemented. It was expressed that the responsibility of program adherence will ultimately fall on the haulers. Therefore, there is a need for The City to dedicate time and energy to working with the haulers, who will in turn communicate with the generators. It is desired by stakeholders that The City start setting more firm policies and provide the education to back them up. Additionally, they felt The City should be building on current stewardship programs where possible. Many stakeholders felt that another good step forward for The City would be to use business licenses to make a waste management plan mandatory. Businesses applying for a license would have to complete a waste management plan, or similar, before receiving their license. Stakeholders did make it clear though, that if The City did take this on, The City would need to provide the resources to assist businesses in creating their waste management plans and have a generic template to provide to them with their license application. As well, The City would need to increase its communication with industry and ensure they are properly made aware of the program, along with any new program updates and/or changes. 5.4 Education and Promotion Stakeholders felt that The City could be more proactive in promoting ICI waste diversion across the city by increasing advertising campaigns and being clear on policies and strategies. It was also noted that stakeholders would likely be more accepting of costs associated with recycling if The City provided a transparent cost break down showing the business case associated with recycling. 15

24 The City has completed a webpage on focused on ICI information and news. This will be a key first step in engaging and communicating with the stakeholders and public. 6.0 MEASURING BASELINE AND PROGRESSTOWARDS ICI WASTE DIVERSION The City currently has access to limited information regarding ICI waste management and diversion. Consequently, stakeholders felt there was a need for development of tracking procedures and setting of benchmarks that are standard for industry. Stakeholders were generally supportive of a city-wide data collection program, especially if The City was willing to share the information resulting from the data analysis.. Stakeholders did not feel it was appropriate to share the data that was directly obtained from members, but felt it would be beneficial to share the overall results. Therefore, The City would need to develop a reporting system establishing the information required from stakeholders, as well as clear objectives and standards for the program. Once a common system was created, stakeholders felt there would be a willingness from waste haulers and processors to share their information on an aggregate basis. Additional suggestions provided by stakeholders to assist The City in measuring baseline and progress towards ICI waste diversion were: Work with Statistics Canada to track basic waste data; and Have The City create an impact or reduction calculator that is available to stakeholders. This would permit businesses to track their own waste diversion and understand the implications. Key Stakeholder Engagement Outcome: Feedback suggests waste haulers and processors would be willing to share their data on an aggregate basis for The City s use in setting industry standard benchmarks and for tracking waste diversion. There was however, a measurement challenge recognized by the stakeholders in regards to tracking waste diversion in the city. Many larger retailers currently ship their own recyclable materials out of the city to be marketed centrally. Therefore, it can be very difficult to capture the tonnages of this material, yet it still needs to be considered when tracking diversion rates for the city. 7.0 ADDITIONAL IDEAS/SUGGESTIONS FROM STAKEHOLDERS A few additional suggestions that stemmed from the discussion of the waste diversion program options were provided by the stakeholders. There were recommendations for The City to implement building permit deposits to encourage ICI and C&D waste diversion. This waste diversion program option is discussed in more detail in the parallel consultation process: The City s C&D Stakeholder Engagement Project. An additional idea that was recommended by stakeholders was a certification program, through associations, for businesses that have certain ICI waste diversion initiatives. This program would be developed by The City, but delivered through Associations, such as the Building Owners and Managers Association (BOMA). The City would then recognize the businesses that the Associations have certified, increasing the role of the Associations in the city. 16

25 In addition to these ideas, one group of stakeholders suggested there be more focus on ICI waste source reduction instead of diversion. Referencing the waste management hierarchy, source reduction is the first step. Stakeholders noted that if source reduction becomes more of a focus, diversion rates may actually drop. This is obviously still progress, but may not be as evident. 8.0 STAKEHOLDER RECOMMENDATIONS During the sessions, stakeholders presented a number of specific recommendations they felt would facilitate ICI waste diversion. Based on The City s modified FCM model, these recommendations have been grouped into the categories of Partnerships & Collaboration, Infrastructure & Programs, Policy & Legislation, and Education & Promotion. The results from each of these categories are displayed in Table 2 through Table 5. Table 2 : Partnerships and Collaborations Recommendations from Stakeholders Partnerships Collaboration The City and province work together on stewardship harmonization with other provinces. The City have a voluntary registration program for businesses (similar to Green Calgary s database). May be useful to utilize Green Calgary s program. Green Workplace Directory, which is already active since stakeholders suggested that existing framework should be expanded upon and not re-created. The possibility of obtaining information and data from Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development (AESRD) on waste facilities. This may be limited due to the types of facilities (i.e.; landfills) surveyed by AESRD. Have The City request key stakeholders to submit an annual report with their aggregated data The City would likely need to provide a report template, but it would be the responsibility of the stakeholders to complete and submit their report each year. Waste audits for businesses (conducted by The City). Promote collaboration between businesses and municipalities to try and overcome the barrier of cost. Table 3: Infrastructure and Programs Recommendations from Stakeholders Infrastructure Programs Expansion of organics infrastructure should be able to handle public and private material. Emphasize the user-pay aspects of the ICI garbage system promotes waste diversion. Improve the aesthetics of new waste bins. Ensure proper research and development has been completed before an organics processing facility is constructed. The City should work with associations, such as Green Calgary, that already offer waste management assistance. Zoning/permitting of waste facilities; Have more options for waste diversion programs and recycling at landfill facilities to service smaller businesses. 17

26 Table 4: Policy and Legislation Recommendations from Stakeholders Policy Tax credits for business acting as waste diversion leaders. Mandatory waste management plan being incorporated into the business license. Encourage and advocate for Extended Producer Responsibility. Landfill bans. Differential tipping fees; Legislation (Bylaws) Stakeholders supported a larger differential.* User pay system or pay as you throw (bill waste collection services similar to utilities). *Note: Stakeholders are not likely to be able to suggest an appropriate differential amount, but they did make it clear that the differential should be increased in order to encourage more of a behavioural change. Table 5: Education and Promotion Recommendations from Stakeholders Education The City should provide funding to schools to advance their recycling programs and encourage recycling in the schools. Increase forms and quantity of education since it is seen as a mechanism for behavioral change to stakeholders. Include an information/fact sheet on The City s 80/20 waste diversion goal and diversion programs in the city with routine city communications such as taxes, license renewals, etc. Promotion Expand Emerald Awards (specific to City of Calgary). Encourage ICI sector leaders in waste management to share their success stories with other industry members. The City to collect and publish industry success stories. 9.0 STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT PROCESS FEEDBACK In conclusion of the project, a final online survey was sent out to the participants of the last session to gain their feedback on the engagement process. Figure 6 demonstrates the feedback received from stakeholders. 18

27 EBA FILE: C APRIL 2013 ISSUED FOR USE: ISC PROTECTED Figure 6: Final Online Survey Results *Note: Based on 18 respondents Some additional comments that stakeholders provided included: The process was good. It could have additional discussions on mentoring and restrictions. Additional details on how the final session was incorporated and information when the project will be put before Council. More transparency. More clarity when changing subjects and/or questions. Some stakeholders felt reluctant to disclose their own operational strategies. Lots of opportunity to voice your views and opinions OVERALL RECOMM MENDATI IONS AND NEXT STEPS Using the results of the ICI engagement process, the engagementt team has prepared a list of recommendations and potential next steps for The City. These overall suggestions will help direct The City in developing its ICI Waste Diversion Strategy and ultimately assist The City in reaching its 80/200 by 2020 waste diversion goal. 19