Comments on Proposed Integrated Management Approach to Plastic Products by Environment and Climate Change Canada
Inputs to inform the
design and development of the proposals in managing single-use plastics,
performance standards, end-of-life responsibility
This document contains comments
and recommendations to the proposed integrated management approach to plastic
products to prevent waste and pollution. These recommendations are an attempt
to support development of regulations concerning banning or restricting
single-use plastic items including development of possible alternatives,
recommended minimum recycled content in plastics, advantages and disadvantages
of minimum recycled content, compliance requirements for businesses, innovative
technologies and suited business processes to aid in the development of
regulations and incentives thereof associated with the ongoing development.
These recommendations also attempt to provide a harmonized outlook for a Canada
wide Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) framework.
Evidence to support development of regulations to ban or
restrict certain harmful single-use plastics
·
The
discussion paper already states that plastic checkout bags irrespective of any
thickness will be banned effective 2021. In a case where internal deliberations
in ECCC are on to keep allowing plastic checkout bags of a higher thickness as
they are comparatively easier to handle and thus are easy to recycle, the
recommendation would be for banning all kinds of plastic checkout bags
irrespective of their thickness. This can be seen in case of India where
plastic checkout bags of thickness <50 mm were banned in 20161. The
policy tools w.r.t the thickness lacked enforcement and the sale and stocking
of thin plastic bags continued and moreover the bigger thickness bags could
also not be recycled effectively due to non-strengthening of local
municipalities’ infrastructure2. A call for strict and blanket ban
for any category which ECCC chooses to go with is required as graded allowances
are difficult to enforce and increases complexity without bringing much
benefits in the long run.
·
The
selection of harmful single-use plastic should be basis a baseline study
identifying the extent of the single-use plastics in the waste stream irrespective
of at either shoreline or inland. While the draft scientific assessment lays
more focus on shoreline rather than inland as less and not much conclusive
studies are currently present, the criterion for selection of problematic
plastics is best as has been considered from the lens of environmentally
problematic and value recovery problematic in the discussion paper. These
criterion should be followed by assessing the extent and impact of those
single-use plastics on both environment and value-recovery in “order of their
extent and impact” and the items should be classified for restrictions or bans
in that order3.
·
Currently
no alternative has been put forward as a government led transition to free the
economy of the six proposed banned single-use plastic items. It has been seen
across various developing and developed countries that paper bag is the best
alternative which is a top of mind recall considering both consumers and
transition by the factories equipped to manufacture the gamut of items in question.
This alternative should be banned after a baseline study of its uses
considering the Canadian context and vis-à-vis other five banned items. Even if
we look at international studies, a paper bag puts much more strain on
environment through its production, use and subsequent disposal as it does not
last the minimum three times trip to the supermarket to offset the environment
effects of a plastic bag currently in usage4. Additionally, a paper
bag requires four times as much energy as a plastic bag to produce.
Ban leading to adverse effects of health or safety of any communities or segments of Canadian society
·
The bans
of the six identified single-use plastics will not cause any impact to the
health and safety of any segment of the Canadian society in case where a sound
replacement is made mandatory. The replacement in question is particularly
related to plastic checkout bags. If they are replaced with paper as has been
the norm in many countries where alternatives were either not mandated or there
was a flexible policy to adopt any alternative but not plastic in its any form,
the outcomes have been in the negative territory. The outcomes would
predominantly be detrimental to senior citizens and differently abled persons
as an easy alternative such as paper checkout bags are not sturdy, difficult to
handle and there is easy wear and tear.
Ban on single-use plastics: Needs of people with disabilities
·
Businesses should be allowed to offer plastic
straws or any alternative material straws to disabled people for a limited time
from the ban with an eventual phase out after a pre-defined time period.
Disabled people have special requirements and straws are made particularly for
offering convenience in the first place for drinking but they are not mandatory
for all segments of the population. Keeping in mind the special needs, disabled
people should be allowed the convenience of straws for a limited phase out
window. Over time, market based solutions would be able to offer reusable
straws which can be used by disabled people as well.
·
In order to support people with disabilities,
government should provide them with cloth or jute checkout bags free of cost at
any of the frequented places such as grocery shops, places of worship, drug
stores, medical facilities etc.
Innovative or non-conventional Plastic Alternatives
Compostable Plastics, bio-based or biodegradable plastics
·
Bagasse (sugar cane fibers) or poly-lactic acid
(PLA) based plastics are made from plants rather than petrochemicals as is the
case with traditional plastics. Bio-plastics made of PLA are a positive
alternative that can decrease the excessive amounts of non-biodegradable
plastics created from petroleum. Compared to plastics made from petroleum, PLA
is bio-degradable, but this is true under certain conditions and with the
presence of specific microorganisms. A noteworthy characteristic of the
currently employed international biodegradation standards is that the applied
temperatures for the ISO and EN standard tests are higher than temperatures in
the unmanaged environments that these tests mimic5.
·
The current waste management and diversion
initiatives under provincial governments has to deal with a lot of plastic
types and by banning six types of single-use plastics but allowing bio-plastics
will not make the task easier for them. Intermixing of bio-plastics with the
common waste stream would only make waste diversion complex in the long run
with no technologies currently existing to separate bio-plastics from the waste
stream in a cost effective manner.
·
Since bio-plastics are plant based, there is a
risk of lowering food availability by increasing price of basic grains as a
result of competition with bio-energy sectors for feedstock. The pricing of
food grains and competition with bio-energy sectors is context and country
specific but can be a threat internally when bio-plastics are allowed at
environmental policy level and can spawn a new market altogether catering to
the increased demand for such products.
·
Production of bio-plastics also result greater
amount of ensuing pollutants, due to fertilizers and pesticides used in growing
the crops and the chemical processing needed to turn organic matter into
plastic.
·
Bio-plastics contribute more to ozone depletion
than the traditional plastics, and require extensive land use.
·
As is known, bio-plastics are degradable under
controlled and high temperature industrial composting facilities to break down
and as of 2019, less than 5% is thermally treated or incinerated and 95% is
landfilled in Canada. Moreover, the existing thermal incinerators would have to
be modified suiting the temperature and incineration requirements of
bio-plastics.
·
Bio-plastics are relatively expensive. PLA in
particular can be 20 to 50 percent costlier than comparable materials because
of the complex process used to convert corn or sugarcane into the building
blocks for PLA6.
Considering the host of negative
factors associated with the use of bio-plastics, these should be banned from
making a foray into the market and should not be allowed to be sold as an
alternative for single-use plastics.
Recommended Minimum Recycled Content in Plastic Products to Spur Secondary Markets
·
With the existing market prices, structures,
existing business models and low landfilling costs, the market is primarily for
plastic is primarily linear with virgin resin being used in almost all
products. Domestically, the size of recycled resin is 30 times smaller than its
virgin counterpart. Significant investments would have to be made both at
government and private organizations to make the shift towards recycled resin.
A graded approach is needed to spur investments in the technology at both
recyclers’ end and user of recycled resin as the industry is not ready to see a
significant modification in their business models.
·
The factors that have the most impact on plastic
recycling markets, irrespective of resin type are virgin material cost, export
markets, transportation cost and supply & demand. Currently, virgin
material costs are lower in Canada due to advantageous positions in
petrochemical feedstock domestically and almost 77 percent of the output is
exported leaving little incentive to recycle and use the recycled resin domestically.
·
Given the above background, the allowance of
recycled content in plastics should be incremental in nature and a graded
increase of around 5% each year starting with 10% in 2021 to reach around 50%
of recycled content by 2030 is recommended. Currently, around 90% of the
Canadian post-consumer plastic across categories is sent to the landfill and
only 9% is ultimately recycled. To spur demand, concurrent, strategic
interventions by government, industry and the public across each stage of the
plastic lifecycle is needed and one which is specifically targeted at different
plastic usage sectors with time-bound targets.
·
The recycled content in plastic should be
managed through CEPA and regulated for domestic plastic manufacturing units
with targets mandated and enforced by appropriate authorities for e.g. RPRA.
Minimum recycled content requirements by sector and resin type
·
Thermoplastics production contributes 89% of
total production among thermosetting and thermoplastics in Canada in 2017. Almost
87% of the specialized thermoplastics domestic production is constituted by
Polyethylene in 20177. This means that a similar ratio is already
under production of plastic products with polyethylene. Even when almost 40
percent of plastic products from domestic manufacturing are destined for
exports, polyethylene garners a major share of the market output by weight.
·
With a good chunk of produce lined for exports,
manufacturers tend to naturally not design the products with their Canadian use
and end-of-life in mind.
·
Global share of plastic products in use is
dominated by packaging industry and Canadian market is no different. Between
2000 and 2015, the share of plastic packaging as a share of global packaging
volumes has increased from 17 percent to 25 percent. Plastic packaging volumes
are expected to continue their strong growth, doubling within 15 years and more
than quadrupling by 20508. HDPE, LDPE and PE are the most commonly
utilized packaging types for products in market and enjoy a majority share
within the category.
·
The price of plastic resins at 26 percent is a
quarter of the share of total cost of plastic manufacturing with another 24
percent coming through labor costs. These are high share of costs in the
industry. Industry is resistant to sudden shocks in operating requirements
which tend to affect labor costs, technology costs, export costs, initial costs
of recycled resins and other market adjusting costs.
·
Polyethylene such as HDPE and PET are the most
recycled types followed by PP and LDPE. They are easier to collect and has good
recyclability properties. Recycled PET is currently allowed in many countries
as a food grade plastic.
·
Considering all above facts while giving enough
room to the industry, Polyethylene resin should be targeted first for minimum
recycled content requirements in a phase manner.
·
Polyethylene resin because of its heavy usage in
the packaging industry and also because of high potential for recycling is also
the best-placed to increase the usage of recycled plastic.
Pre-requisites and Timelines for minimum recycled content
requirements
·
The
recycled content requirement in plastics should be backed by legal certainty and
should be consistent across all provinces and territories while allowing for
exception to geographical and other unavoidable conditions. This would be
beneficial across the value chain viz. collectors and haulers, producers,
recycled-resin producers, manufacturers and brand owners.
·
The
government should considerably invest to create an enabling environment such as
legally backed green procurement quotas for all government departments,
incentives to develop innovative social or technological solutions for more
sustainable management of plastics throughout their lifecycle, harmonized
performance requirements and standards, infrastructure and innovations
investments and an efficient and uniform extended producer responsibility
requirements.
·
With
EPR already existing in most of the provinces and IPR in the offing in some
provinces replacing traditional EPR, the minimum recycled plastic content
requirement should be enforced through EPR principles and producers enforced to
design the product with sustainability and recycled content requirements in
mind.
·
The
minimum recycled content requirements should be enforced starting with the
sector and resin type with the most throughput irrespective of whether the
product is utilized domestically or is destined for export.
·
Baseline
studies should be undertaken and opportunities identified for moving the
recycled plastic content requirements towards being sector and resin type
agnostic.
·
Effort
should be undertaken by both federal and provincial governments to enable a
unified & single market across provinces and a common baseline content
requirement irrespective of whether EPR/IPR already exists in that market or
not.
·
A
minimum recycled content of 30% by 2025 would boost the markets for recycled
plastics within Canada. This should be reached in a phased manner starting with
10% recycled content in the year 2021 and increasing by 5% year on year.
·
By
2030, around 50% of the recycled content requirements should be enforced.
Advantages of distinct minimum percentage requirements for each product grouping, sector or resin
·
The distinct minimum percentage requirements for
each resin and its subsequent product grouping will create a level playing
field for the manufacturers and producers. This minimum percentage should be
arrived at keeping in mind various factors such as resin type and existing
recycling practices, current and potential recycling rates and possible
interventions by government, potential for utilizing recycled resins and
minimum recycled content in new plastic, risk appetite of the industry to cope
with modified business models and feedstock, virgin resin and recyclate prices,
public procurement and green operations.
·
In addition to minimum recycled percentage
requirements, government should enact labeling laws which would require
products to be labeled with their recycled content percentage. This way the
discerning consumers would be able to choose a better packaged product for the
same food/non-food item and thus also propel demand for sustainably packaged
goods.
·
With the further introduction of minimum
percentage requirements for a particular product group and sector,
harmonization of product packaging by food types would occur which would
eventually lead to better product design, standardizations and further improved
recycling rates.
·
By setting distinct minimum percentage
requirements only for post-consumer plastic type and not for pre-consumer
plastic, consumers would be sure that what they are buying has actually passed
through all the stages for a post-consumer product and the recycled content is
authentic.
·
The harmonization led by adopting minimum
recycling content principles through a Canada wide strategy would lead to various
advantages. Eco-certification and standardization offerings by third party
agencies can become a balancing force in the market in future and more such
manufacturers would want to get themselves registered and get their products
recognized.
·
The import and export markets would also have to
be compliant with fair trade rules and treaty obligations of Canada with
various other countries.
Disadvantages of distinct minimum percentage requirements for each product grouping, sector or resin
·
There is an inherent risk of wide variances
among plastic category types and would invite business complexities for those
involved in multiple categories manufacturing.
·
Variances in minimum recycled content thresholds
across categories can bear no relationship whatsoever with the demand and
supply globally and within Canada. Careful baselines and demand supply studies
would have to be undertaken to decide the recycled content percentages across
categories.
·
There are many different types of plastics each
with its own particular usage and based on the usage different additives, resin
and binding agents are used which alter the properties of plastic by a wide
margin. This differentiation would invariably lead to variation in recycled
content between packaging grades of same product type. In that scenario,
harmonization in similar product category would be difficult to achieve.
·
As the government has declared plastics as toxic
material, recycling and repurposing plastic particularly for food grade
acceptability would require careful calibrations in recycling and also long
deliberations on what would be the ideal recycled content for use in food grade
packaging.
·
There can be limitations on increasing the
recycled content across certain product categories as it can limit the quality
of raw material and the capabilities of the finished product.
·
The chain of custody requirements carry the risk
of becoming too complex and a burden on the business involved in the production
of plastics. Traceability, segregation, manufacturing process description
including internal material flows and all material output declaration can
become cumbersome in the long run.
Compliance requirements with minimum recycled content requirements
·
The compliances would primarily be outcome based
and be audited by third party agencies accredited by Environment and climate
change Canada.
·
The environmental labels and declarations made
by companies can be classified using the CAN/CSA-ISO 14021-00 (R2009) standard
and vetted with the third party agencies which can substantiate such claims by
the companies.
·
The marketing claims made by a company can be
conformed by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) guidelines for the use of
environmental marketing claims and vetted by third party audit agencies.
·
A national labeling guideline can also be
established for each product type and certification of products can also be
conducted and certified by product type. The existing Environmental choice
program of Canada can be extended for many product categories.
·
Existing eco-labeling programs can also be extended
to include recycled content claims.
·
On-site inspections and spot checks are another
tool to ensure that the claims made by the companies are true.
Innovative Technologies and Business Processes to improve accuracy of compliance and minimize burden on companies
·
A centralized registry should be developed at
the applicable enforcing authority’s end similar to what RPRA has been building
for batteries, tires and electronic waste. This registry and its associated
database can store, analyze and deliver outcome oriented decisions.
·
Additional digital technology platforms which
can be housed on a cloud platform and easily accessible to all the participants
in the waste management value chain would help in closing the material movement
loop.
·
Implementation of the program though a more
integrated approach to risk management, one that facilitates a strategic and
comprehensive method to risk-taking, the government can reduce administrative
burden on companies and create competitive advantage by rapidly deploying such
measures. Streamlining monitoring of key regulatory risks across businesses is
needed.
·
As per OECD guidance for removing regulatory
burden and administrative simplification strategy, new age information and
communication technologies such as digitization of administrative forms,
simplification through re-engineering and automation of back office processes, electronic
data storage and exchange are some of the steps which the government can
undertake.
·
As OECD recommends to improve administrative
processes, the authority responsible for overseeing the programs should work
with the highest political level for administrative simplification, undertake
effective and efficient use of capacities and resources available, involve all
stakeholders in administrative simplification and develop & improve
measurement and evaluation mechanisms for meeting the objectives.
· The legislation should be outcome based to focus on maximizing compliance and minimize administrative burden on the companies. Additionally, to improve any new regulation in the public sphere which impacts businesses, the intent should be clear and it should focus on evidence-based analysis and move forward with public consultation during every milestone of the regulation.
Additional Incentives for Promoting and Rewarding Recycled Content in Plastics
·
The government should work on establishing
minimum recycling content thresholds with the first year as base year and
simultaneously can come up with a tax incentive policy which would reward
businesses through tax incentives who supply their product with over and above
the minimum recycled content thresholds.
·
Differential tax rates should apply for products
failing to meet the recycled content requirements and also on sale of composite
products which cannot be recycled.
·
Additionally, tax on virgin resin should be
increased and made higher including higher import duty. This tax can provide
the necessary economic incentive for producers to use secondary resins but as a
standalone tax, it would not be very effective as long as there is no adequate
supply of secondary resin in the market.
·
On the products where at least threshold
recycled content is present and a deposit refund fee (DRF) can be applied, the
government should also fund part of the deposit fund and indirectly aid in
recycling.
·
For companies investing heavily in research and
improving design of their products so as to increase the recycled content and
where evidence is present, the government can incentivize their promotion and
education initiatives to alter consumer behavior and adopt more such
generalized products in the market.
·
A reward and punishment model can be used for
businesses8 where producers can be rewarded for improving their
product design, adjusting their recyclate purchase price according to prevalent
market demand and supply, increasing their recovery rate through better
technologies, establishing an independent recycling channel (independent
channel has led to better control over costs, quality of recycled product and
influence on consumer driven recycling) etc. and punished if the evidence
supports their decisions moving away from a adopting a circular economy.
·
Government should also strive and work towards
increasing the overall proportion of businesses who meet recycled content
regulations by increasing the reward and punishments thereby improving the
enthusiasm of producers to actively implement the content requirements and also
guide them towards getting more of their products under the ambit8.
·
Eco-certification standards should be developed
for using recycled content and the corresponding third party audit
organizations should also be developed and promoted by the government. The
registration and continuation costs should be kept low for more and more
businesses to register for the certification schemes and marketing, P&E
activities can be undertaken on behalf of the industry by the government for
initial timeframe.
· Canada’s waste management governance is moving towards Individual Producer Responsibility (IPR) for multiple waste streams across provinces and ultimately individualistic recycled content requirement while being consistent across product categories. With this, the government should also embrace collective EPR in theory to bring improved design outcomes in a large number of businesses by carefully studying the different processing technologies in a recycling infrastructure and looping back to measuring and improving the design effectiveness taken as a collective EPR. This would bring dual benefits of mandating design principles across the board irrespective of any individual businesses and at the same time harnessing the power of EPR by extending the better design principles of one particular business across the product category and industry simultaneously9.
A Harmonized, Inclusive and Transparent Extend Producer Responsibility (EPR) framework for Canada
·
The policy framework should be overarching and
should be brand & geography neutral.
·
There should be a level playing field for all
stakeholders in the production value chain such as Producers, Importers,
brand-owners and for the plastic packaging formats like PET, HDPE, LDPE, carton
and other single-use plastic formats which would be allowed in production after
banning any of the finally decided six items.
·
Robust and enforced national regulation
including minimum recycling requirements to increase recycling of all plastic
packaging formats after baseline study of all material types, strengths and
weakness of those materials w.r.t recycling and demand & supply metrics.
·
Harmonized recycling targets across all
provinces and territories depending upon best effort, underlying geographical conditions
of all provinces and territories and by material type.
·
An outcome based policy framework and regulation
which specifies the objectives the regulated parties should meet, regardless of
the means they achieve it with.
·
A streamlined and consistent mechanism across
provinces and territories should be adopted to determine which products should
fall under the EPR umbrella11.
·
Clear roles and responsibilities of all the
stakeholders in the full value chain such as Producers, Importers, brand owners
on the production/marketing side, processors/recyclers/haulers/collectors on
the collection and recycling side of the value chain.
·
Defined segregation of roles and
responsibilities between the producers, recyclers and provincial government in
terms of implementation of the Extended Producer Responsibility goals as waste
is a provincial subject.
·
An appropriate financing mechanism should also
be developed with clear roles and financing responsibilities including
financing approaches by players in the value chain.
· The framework should also involve submitting of yearly EPR plans by those responsible including submitting the sales data of the product as applicable according to the working life of the product11.
· The framework should also establish total working life of each of the product across waste category types so as to easily establish waste generation and recycling targets by product type and category.
·
The framework should establish a centralized
data registry where all waste generation and producer sales data including
waste collection and recycling data can be populated so as to avoid any double
accounting of recycled waste.
·
A common reporting methodology should also be
developed the aim of which should be to minimize burden on businesses and build
transparency in the system.
11This would not be applicable to single-use plastic products and other categories where life of product is short to be considered for waste generation calculation/does not meet criteria for including in EPR regulations.
References
2. https://wastefree.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/SUPs-Jurisdictional-Scan-FINAL.pdf
5. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7240402/
6. https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2017/12/13/the-truth-about-bioplastics/
7. https://www.taxpayer.com/media/En4-366-1-2019-eng.pdf
8. http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_The_New_Plastics_Economy.pdf
Comments
Post a Comment