60% Waste Diversion by 2008 – Pipe Dream or Reality?
Contents |
Introduction
In June 2004, the Ministry of the Environment released “Ontario’s 60% Waste Diversion Goal – A Discussion Paper,” which described various options for achieving the goal of diverting 60 per cent of waste from disposal by the end of 2008. In the Paper, MOE proposed taking “a new comprehensive approach to waste diversion, one that will reduce the amount of waste generated, increase the rates of reuse and recycling, and reduce the amount of waste going to disposal.”
MOE noted that the goal of increasing the overall provincial diversion rate from 28 per cent in 2002 to 60 per cent in 2008 is ambitious, but that it was achievable if everyone, including the provincial government, is committed to finding solutions.
MOE’s waste diversion goal applies to non-hazardous solid waste produced by the municipal sector, primarily residential waste such as Blue Box materials and leaf and yard waste. The goal also applies to non-hazardous solid waste produced by the construction and demolition (C&D) sector, and by the industrial, commercial and institutional (IC&I) sectors, which include restaurants, stores, offices, schools, hotels and manufacturers.
Waste diversion programs are based on the recognition that sending waste materials to landfill sites and incineration uses energy and resources and increases demand for virgin materials, which could have been fulfilled by recycling or by reusing these waste materials. The production of recycled materials usually results in fewer pollutants being released to the environment. Waste diversion programs also reduce the demand for landfill space, which can often be used for better purposes and which must be monitored for decades for contaminants that may migrate offsite.
In this year’s annual report – more than two years after MOE announced its 60 per cent goal – the ECO is concerned about Ontario’s lack of progress toward achieving this goal.
Background
During the 1980s and early 1990s, concerns about waste issues – such as opposition to landfill sites, lack of provincial leadership, inadequate public consultation, unclear processes, and lack of financing and markets for recyclable materials – spurred the Ontario government to establish a goal of diverting 50 per cent of residential and IC&I waste from landfill sites by the year 2000. In 1991, a set of regulations was proposed to encourage the 3Rs – reduction, reuse and recycling. A Waste Reduction Action Plan was prepared that included activities to support the development of markets for recyclable materials.
In 1992, the diversion rate was about 21 per cent. By 1995, the Blue Box Program had become the cornerstone of waste diversion programs; the 3Rs regulations requiring recycling by the municipal, IC&I and C&D sectors had been passed; and various reports on the technological and financial challenges associated with waste diversion had been prepared. However, waste management issues began to attract less attention after the Ontario government decided to withdraw from significant involvement in municipal waste approvals in the late 1990s, and the 3Rs regulations were soon ignored. By 2000, Ontario’s diversion rate was only about 27 per cent. The goal of diverting 50 per cent of waste from landfill sites by the year 2000 had become a pipe dream.
In our 2000/2001 annual report, the ECO reviewed the implementation of the 3Rs regulations in the IC&I sector and raised concerns about non-compliance and the lack of enforcement, as well as the need for awareness of the 3Rs regulations. Three years later , the 2003/2004 ECO report raised a concern about the need for a provincial waste management strategy that addressed both disposal and diversion of waste.
By 2004, the state of affairs was reminiscent of the early 1990s. Reported waste diversion rates indicated that by 2002, municipalities were still diverting only about 27 per cent of their waste, the IC&I sector about 20 per cent and the C&D sector about 12 per cent. (The Canadian Construction Association disagreed with the C&D figure and estimated that it had diverted about 26 per cent of its waste.) Once again, spurred by concerns similar to those expressed in the early 1990s, the Ontario government announced in 2004 another waste diversion goal – 60 per cent by the end of 2008.
At the time of the 2004 announcement, some positive steps had already been taken. In 2002, legislation to encourage the development of waste diversion programs, namely the Waste Diversion Act (WDA), was enacted, and the first program under this Act, the Blue Box Program Plan (BBPP), was approved in 2004. (For a review of the WDA, refer to The Waste Diversion Act, 2002.) Encouraged by the expectation of new funding provided under the BBPP and concerned over diminishing landfill space, some municipalities had been improving their diversion rates by expanding their organics programs to include food waste, encouraging diversion in multi-unit dwellings, and adopting user-pay systems. In 2003, municipalities diverted about 53 per cent of generated Blue Box wastes. The BBPP was amended in 2004 to make the Blue Box waste diversion target 60 per cent to make it consistent with the overall waste diversion goal. Also in 2004, MOE requested that a waste diversion program be developed for electronic and electrical equipment, and in April 2006, MOE announced that it plans to request a waste diversion program for household hazardous and special wastes. (For an overview of provincial waste diversion initiatives, refer to the Supplement to this report, Section 10. For additional information on the BBPP, see The Blue Box Program Plan.)
Key factors for achieving the goal of 60 per cent waste diversion
In its June 2004 Discussion Paper, MOE suggested that five factors are key to achieving its goal of 60 per cent waste diversion. The five factors include: creating “a sense of public ownership of the need to manage our wastes differently”; convenience to users, such as residents in multi-unit dwellings, and removal of obstacles to waste diversion; creating sustainable markets for diverted waste, particularly organics; enforcing the 3Rs regulations, such as in the IC&I and C&D sectors and multi-unit dwellings, and timely environmental approvals of waste diversion initiatives; and developing a waste diversion strategy. MOE noted that increasing the diversion of organics is critical to achieving the 60 per cent goal.
Creating a sense of public ownership
Under the Blue Box Program Plan, funding is provided to municipalities to promote Blue Box recycling to residents, particularly those living in multi-unit dwellings. The BBPP also improved the availability and reliability of municipal waste diversion statistics, since it requires that industry report how much Blue Box material they generate annually and that municipalities report how much Blue Box waste they collect and market. (However, under the 3Rs regulations, only the largest establishments in the IC&I and C&D sectors are required to collect waste diversion statistics, which must be reported to MOE on request.)
Building on the BBPP and the 3Rs regulations, MOE identified several potential actions in its 2004 Paper that could enhance the public’s sense of ownership of waste diversion issues. They include assigning mandatory waste diversion targets to municipalities; requiring some businesses to report their waste diversion rates publicly; requiring all waste generators in the municipal and IC&I sectors and waste site operators to report waste diversion and disposal statistics as part of a province-wide waste monitoring system; and developing awareness and educational materials that promote the 3Rs.
Creating sustainable markets
In the 2004 Paper, MOE stated that “part of the challenge is to construct an effective and efficient system that connects homes, offices, factories and schools to the industries that need and want waste materials to make new products.” A sustainable market for recyclable materials requires a reliable supply of materials of acceptable quality. According to industry experts, sustainable markets are in place for some Blue Box wastes, such as aluminum, steel and paper. Sustainable markets could be established for some plastics and clear glass if the supply and quality are improved for these materials. Factors such as contamination and inadequate technology for processing these materials make this task more difficult. In its 2004 Paper, MOE suggested that providing financial incentives would encourage the development of new waste diver- sion technologies to address the technological obstacles.
A sustainable market has not been established for organics. According to MOE’s 2004 Paper, recycling of organics into compost costs about $100 per tonne, but revenues from the sale of compost are much lower at this point because contamination with plastic has resulted in low-quality compost at some composting facilities. In its paper , MOE pointed out that high-quality compost would produce not only significantly higher prices, but also better marketing opportunities.
Convenience to users and removal of obstacles to waste diversion
MOE’s 2004 Paper noted that if technological issues in multi-unit dwellings were not resolved, significant amounts of recyclable waste would not be diverted. Lack of convenience and technological obstacles have been cited as reasons for low diversion rates in multi-unit dwellings. For instance, garbage rooms may be too small to hold recycling bins or are not readily accessible by residents, and garbage chutes are not designed to handle recyclables or organics.
Another obstacle is the high cost of building or expanding recycling facilities and of operating waste diversion systems. Prices for Blue Box wastes, with the exception of aluminum, do not cover the cost of recycling them, and for some types of glass, recyclers may demand payment to take the material. Cash-strapped municipalities and businesses often find that disposal of waste in landfill sites, even in sites in the United States, is cheaper than recycling Blue Box wastes – even with the additional funding from industry.
Since organics comprise 38 per cent of municipal waste, MOE has suggested that if the 60 per cent goal is to be met, the number of backyard composters should be increased from 1.25 million to 2 million households, and the capacity of central composting facilities should be increased from 360,000 to 960,000 tonnes per year. These proposals are estimated to cost hundreds of millions of dollars to implement.
To cover the costs of expanding recycling capacity and to lessen the financial advantage of disposal, MOE suggested in its 2004 Paper that a financial strategy that identifies sources of funds such as user-pay systems, product stewardship and grants should be developed, and that the ministry may consider providing financial support.
Enforcement of 3Rs regulations and timely environmental approvals
Although the 3Rs regulations have existed since 1994, MOE conducted only one major inspections sweep, and only in multi-unit dwellings, before it published its 2004 Discussion Paper. In the paper, MOE acknowledged that the ministry must “more consistently” enforce the 3Rs regulations in the IC&I sector, a key factor in achieving the 60 per cent diversion goal. In July 2006, MOE announced that it was taking steps to improve compliance with the 3Rs regulations.
MOE suggested that industry would be more likely to develop new waste diversion technology if the process to approve small-scale research and demonstration projects under the Environmental Protection Act were streamlined, and if the exemption for municipal research projects under Regulation 334, R.R.O. 1990, of the Environmental Assessment Act, were clarified. This exemption allows “research” projects – e.g., pilots using emerging technology – to forego an environmental assessment. In a separate initiative, the Environmental Assessment Advisory Panel, appointed by MOE to make recommendations on how to improve Ontario’s environmental assessment process, made the same recommendation in March 2005.
Under the 3Rs regulations, municipalities are not required by law to provide residents with services to divert food wastes – for instance, Toronto’s Green Bin program – although these wastes comprise 25 per cent of a household’s waste stream. The IC&I sector, particularly restaurants and hotels, are also not required to divert food wastes. In the 2004 paper, MOE suggested that the regulations be revised to require the IC&I sector to divert organics, but did not suggest that they be revised to require municipalities to provide food waste diversion services to their residents. MOE also noted that the 3Rs regulations apply only to the largest generators of waste in some IC&I sectors and suggested that these regulations may need to be changed to reflect a “renewed commitment to waste diversion.” For instance, the regulations apply to only about 10 per cent of manufacturers. Although MOE did not explicitly suggest that the regulations be changed to include more IC&I establishments, there is an implication that this is being considered.
Preparation of a waste diversion strategy
MOE’s Discussion Paper pointed out that the development of a provincial waste diversion strategy is a key factor in meeting the ministry’s diversion goal, but did not elaborate any further as to when or how this strategy would be drafted.
Public participation and the EBR process
MOE’s 2004 Discussion Paper was posted on the Environmental Registry for a 60-day comment period. Six consultation sessions were held during the summer of 2004, and feedback from these sessions was summarized in a report that can be found on MOE’s Web site. As of July 2006, MOE had not posted a decision notice on the Registry. However, it had posted a new notice that proposed amendments to the EPA would eliminate the requirement for some ministry approvals to use organic wastes to produce ethanol and biodiesel as fuel.
ECO Comment
The 2004 Discussion Paper and the subsequent public consultation seemed to signal a new commitment by MOE to resolve waste diversion issues. MOE stated that “without taking action, Ontario will fall far short of its goal of reaching 60% diversion by the end of 2008.” However, MOE has not taken timely action. More than two years after announcing the 60 per cent goal and publishing the 2004 Paper,
MOE has finally posted a proposal on the Environmental Registry that addresses some of the suggestions in the Discussion Paper. Even if MOE acts promptly on the July 2006 proposals, the time required to implement regulatory changes, obtain approvals for new recycling facilities and emerging technologies, and then to build them is usually measured in years, not months. In addition, the IC&I sector and many municipalities have multi-year contracts for their waste collection and diversion programs. Changes to their programs will be delayed until new contracts are signed.
Developing and implementing effective and efficient waste diversion programs can be challenging. The nature and quantity of materials entering the waste stream change as consumer preferences change and are often the result of product and packaging design decisions made in other parts of the world, well beyond MOE’s control. Regardless, jurisdictions including Ontario have implemented programs that divert significant amounts of valuable materials from landfill sites and continue to seek ways of diverting more waste. The ECO also recognizes that the challenge increases with each percentage increase in the target for diverting waste and that at some point the benefits of diversion no longer outweigh the economical, social and environmental costs of disposal. Nevertheless, the ECO believes that there are still significant opportunities for waste diversion that can be pursued, including those outlined in MOE’s 2004 Discussion Paper. Public resistance to waste management initiatives, particularly to the use of emerging technologies and the siting of new operations, has often been warranted. A legacy of poorly managed sites, ineffective environmental monitoring, and inadequate resources for inspecting waste diversion and disposal sites has eroded the trust of many Ontarians that their rights to a healthy environment are being protected by the province. Strong and ongoing enforcement of environmental protection laws is required to regain the public’s trust. The ECO is encouraged that MOE plans to increase its enforcement of the 3Rs regulations in the IC&I sector. Meaningful improvements in waste diversion rates will require new ways of handling waste, including the use of emerging technologies, but progress will be hampered unless the support of the public is obtained.
MOE’s tardy follow-up to the 2004 Discussion paper will make very difficult for many municipalities and the IC&I sector to meet the 60 per cent goal. Most of the suggestions in the 2004 Paper relied on MOE – not municipalities nor the IC&I sector – to take the first step, which it did not take until two years later . The ECO continues to believe that a provincial waste management strategy that addresses both waste disposal and waste diversion for all waste is urgently required. The delays thus far may have already rendered the 60 per cent goal a pipe dream.
| Recommendation 2:
The ECO recommends that MOE develop a provincial solid waste management strategy that addresses the whole waste stream. |
| This is an article from the 2005/06 Annual Report to the Legislature from the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario. |
Citing This Article:
Environmental Commissioner of Ontario. 2006. "60% Waste Diversion by 2008 – Pipe Dream or Reality?." Neglecting our Obligations, ECO Annual Report, 2005-06. Toronto, ON : Environmental Commissioner of Ontario. 26-33.
