Page 6 - EPR-Report-Card-2011

Basic HTML Version

What the Jurisdictions are Doing
Under its Waste Reduction and Prevention Act, Manitoba has 13 product categories which are
managed under EPR regulations, including four of the CCME’s Phase 1 materials, as well as
others originally operating as voluntary programs that have been transitioned to regulated EPR
programs (agricultural pesticide containers, batteries, cell phones and lead acid batteries). Once
products are regulated, Manitoba typically sets aggressive timeframes for program develop-
ment and implementation.
Manitoba has transitioned the funding of its packaging and printed paper program, origi-
nally financed by a levy on soft drink beverages, to a partial EPR model with 80% of net mu-
nicipal recycling costs reimbursed by producers from a broad range of sectors, not just beverage
companies. Manitoba has indicated it intends to transition a number of stewardship programs
to an EPR model and has reviewed stewardship plans for products such as thermostats, anti-
freeze and pharmaceuticals in the past year.
Program targets and performance metrics are determined by producers or their organiza-
tions with performance set out in an annual report. While the government has committed to
review annual reports and has authority to require program adjustments, any direction given
to producers is not made public. Programs are required to have financial audits but there are
no consequences for failure to meet program targets or performance metrics.
Manitoba has adopted a disposal tax, the funds from which are dedicated to support ad-
ditional waste reduction initiatives. Examples of funded activities include green procurement
and increased organics collection and processing capacity in the province.
The Waste Diversion Act, 2002 is the framework that provides the overarching policy direc-
tion for EPR in Ontario. The Act delegates program development and operational oversight to
Waste Diversion Ontario (WDO), an arm’s length organization. The Act requires that WDO
form industry funding organizations (IFO). Producers are obligated to the IFO following ap-
proval of the IFO’s diversion plan but can then choose to submit an alternate plan to finance
and operate their own program. (While alternate programs have been approved, these were
subsequently abandoned when the Minister rescinded producers’ obligations for Phases 2 and
3 MHSW.) Ontario has designated four waste streams under its waste diversion framework
since 2002 and three IFOs have been established.
Packaging and printed paper was designated in 2002 with municipalities continuing to
deliver the diversion program and producers obligated to contribute 50% of municipal costs.
Producers of used tires and Phases 1 and 2 electronics are responsible for diverting materials
from both the residential and the industrial, commercial, institutional (IC&I) sectors. The last
product category to be implemented was municipal hazardous and special waste (MHSW) in
2008. When the MHSW program was launched, producers were required to assume responsi-
bility for post-collection but this was transitioned to full responsibility when Phases 2 and 3