Packaging Stewardship and EPR in Canada. Catherine Abel VP, Environment and Sustainability February 15, 2011

Transcription

1 Packaging Stewardship and EPR in Canada Catherine Abel VP, Environment and Sustainability February 15, 2011

2 Who is FCPC? Canada s largest association representing over 95 food, beverage and consumer goods manufacturers Canada s largest employer in manufacturing over 300,000 jobs. Public policy priorities include food & product safety, environment and sustainability. 2

3 Manufacturing Members 3

4 Manufacturing Members 4

5 Canadian EPR: How does it work? Responsibility for stewardship regulation rests with the provinces, not the federal government. Province by province regulations Left to industry to try and achieve harmonization EPR based on premise that producers (stewards) take responsibility for their packaging at the post-consumer stage. Shifts responsibility for recycling and management of waste from local government to consumer packaged goods industry, i.e. producers. Producer is the brand owner or first importer the local legal entity. 5

6 FCPC Guiding Principles for Stewardship Programs Level playing field: Programs should seek to create a level playing field with all stewards paying their fair share of managing their postconsumer waste. Free riding is discouraged. Harmonization of provincial regulations and requirements to greatest extent possible. Accountability and transparency of costs No cross subsidization Costs proportionate to costs of managing packaging a product waste. Fees/costs should be traceable and visible. Cost effective and efficient programs Integrated management to minimize inefficiencies and costs. 6

7 Keys to Program success 1. Non-prescriptive regulations 2. Harmonized definitions across jurisdictions 3. Industry designs, develops and implements the program 4. Targets setting is data based 5. Effective and cost efficient programs 6. Consumer engagement 7

8 Roles and responsibilities Government Initiates Regulation Approves Program Plan Reviews industry annual reports to ensure compliance Program Plan includes details about program funding, collection and processing, accessibility, governance, consumer education etc. Enforcement of regulation at request of program Industry Operates under Regulation Develops Program Plan and implements the program. Registers stewards & collect fees Market development Annually reports to government 8

9 Status of Printed Paper and Packaging Programs Ontario Blue Box program today based on 50/50 industry- municipality cost share Shift to full EPR model anticipated but timing uncertain Alcoholic beverage containers on deposit Quebec Blue Box program based on 50/50 industry municipal cost share Soft drinks are on deposit New Bill 88 recently introduced to shift program to full 100% industry funding. 9

10 Western Provinces: Printed Paper and Packaging British Columbia Expected to soon regulate 100% industry funding EPR program for Packaging and Printed Paper (PPP) Saskatchewan Proposed 75/25 industry/municipality shared responsibility packaging and printed paper program Beverage containers to remain on deposit Manitoba New 80/20 industry/municipal shared program was launched April 1, Voluntary parallel province-wide beverage container recycling program also launched to capture public space beverage containers 10

11 Atlantic Provinces Deposits on beverage containers largely fund recycling programs in Atlantic provinces Half-back deposits Unredeemed deposits and half of deposit goes to government 11

12 Examples of what works Harmonization: Provinces willing to work with industry to harmonize definitions: designated materials, obligated stewards, target waste stream (residential) Level playing field All legally obligated companies pay their fair share Different costs for different packaging means costs are apportioned fairly balanced with need to keep costs down for stewards. Stewards using easy to recycle material pay lower fees than stewards using difficult to recycle material Additional fees on underperforming materials are used to address market barriers Common costs shared 12

13 Examples of what works (con t) Efficient and Effective Programs Multi-material curbside offers greatest consumer convenience at least cost per tonne Ontario meeting its mandated recycling target at lowest cost per tonne Weight-based fees promote reduction Market development fees enhance material value and support packaging choice Single stream collection in larger communities such as Toronto draws more material out of people s homes and is less costly to stewards and the environment 13

14 Challenges Harmonization can also be a challenge: Multiple compliance programs deposits and multimaterial curbside drives up costs per tonne and are inefficient; Various cost share formulas (80/20 in MB, 75/25 in SK); Material specific targets (75% for beverage containers in MB, and 50% reduction target for plastic bags); Results in different reporting requirements. Timing governments continue to aggressively regulate new products/programs, providing short window for implementation. 14

15 Challenges (con t) Targets need to ensure accurate data is collected before targets are set. Internalization of costs visible fees are a sensitive political issue, but is ultimately a business decision. Costs to stewards increasing with 100% EPR for packaging on horizon for biggest provinces: Material-specific targets and financial penalties. Not all municipalities can collect and recycle the same materials which drives up costs. 15

16 Conclusion Industry pleased to be at the table in developing and implementing programs Pleased with multi-material curbside collection model For existing programs focus is continuous improvement: Fine tune effectiveness of programs Achieve higher performance and cost efficiencies 16

17 Questions?