Stewardship and EPR in Canada Presentation Feb 2011€¦ · February 15, 2011 Packaging Stewardship and EPR in Canada. 2 Who is FCPC? • Canada’s largest association representing

Catherine AbelVP, Environment and Sustainability

February 15, 2011

Packaging Stewardship and EPR in Canada

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.

3

Manufacturing Members

4

Manufacturing Members

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.

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 post-consumer 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.

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

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

9

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.

Status of Printed Paper and Packaging Programs

10

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 depositManitoba• New 80/20 industry/municipal shared program was launched April 1,

2010.• Voluntary parallel province-wide beverage container recycling program

also launched to capture “public space” beverage containers

Western Provinces: Printed Paper and Packaging

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

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 addressmarket barriers

– Common costs shared

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 pertonne

– 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

14

• Harmonization can also be a challenge:– Multiple compliance programs – deposits and multi-

material 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.

Challenges

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.

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

Questions?