Integrated Waste Management Public Policy Challenges and Potential Solutions
May 2007
Integrated Waste Management Public Policy Challenges and Potential Solutions
THE PUBLIC POLICY FORUM Building Better Government The Public Policy Forum is an independent, not-for-profit organization aimed at improving the quality of government in Canada through better dialogue between the public, private and voluntary sectors. The Forum’s members, drawn from business, federal and provincial governments, the voluntary sector and organized labour, share a belief that an efficient and effective public service is important in ensuring Canada’s competitiveness abroad and quality of life at home. Established in 1987, the Forum has earned a reputation as a trusted, neutral facilitator, capable of bringing together a wide range of stakeholders in productive dialogue. Its research program provides a neutral base to inform collective decision making. By promoting more information sharing and greater links between governments and other sectors, the Forum helps ensure public policy in this country is dynamic, coordinated and responsive to future challenges and opportunities.
LE FORUM DES POLITIQUES PUBLIQUES Vers une meilleure gouvernance Le Forum des politiques publiques est une organisation indépendante sans but lucratif qui vise à améliorer la qualité de l'administration publique au Canada grâce à un meilleur dialogue entre les secteurs public, privé et bénévole. Les membres du Forum, issus des entreprises, des administrations fédérales et provinciales, du secteur bénévole et des syndicats partagent la conviction qu'une fonction publique efficiente et efficace est essentielle à notre qualité de vie et à notre compétitivité à l'échelle mondiale. Établi en 1987, le Forum des politiques publiques s'est acquis une réputation d'intermédiaire neutre et de confiance, capable de rassembler une vaste gamme d'intervenants dans un dialogue productif. Son programme de recherche constitue une base neutre destinée à éclairer un processus décisionnel collectif. En favorisant le partage accru de l'information et le resserrement des liens entre les administrations publiques et les autres secteurs, le Forum des politiques publiques fait en sorte que les orientations futures du gouvernement deviendront plus dynamiques, coordonnées et adaptées aux défis et aux possibilités qui nous attendent. Public Policy Forum Forum des politiques publiques 1405-130 Albert Street Ottawa, ON KIP 5G4 Tel.: (613) 238-7160 Fax: (613)238-7990 www.ppforum.ca
ABOUT THE SYMPOSIUM This symposium was organized under the direction of Lee Alison Howe, Senior Advisor – Ontario, Public Policy Forum, with the support of Michael Lister, Research Associate; Kelly Cyr, Office Manager; Roxanne Ali, Research Associate; Eddy Thai, Research Assistant; and Elodie Button, Research Assistant. ABOUT THE AUTHORS This report was prepared by Michael Lister, Research Associate, under the direction of Lee Allison Howe, Senior Advisor – Ontario, Public Policy Forum. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The Public Policy Forum would like to thank the sponsors of this project for their generous support:
TABLE OF CONTENTS
WHAT WE HEARD ................................................................................................................. I
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................... II SOMMAIRE ......................................................................................................................... IV INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 1 INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT: SETTING THE SCENE ............................................ 3 EMERGING ISSUES IN WASTE MANAGEMENT ................................................................... 3 OPTIONS FOR DEALING WITH WASTE .............................................................................. 5 PUBLIC PERCEPTION .......................................................................................................... 7 CONCLUSION - KEY MESSAGES AND NEXT STEPS ............................................................ 8 ANNEX 1 – AGENDA .......................................................................................................... 12 ANNEX 2 – REGISTERED PARTICIPANT LIST ................................................................... 14 ANNEX 3 – SPEAKERS’ BIOGRAPHIES .............................................................................. 20
PUBLIC POLICY FORUM
INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT
i
WHAT WE HEARD
“It’s incredibly important that we engage in a discussion about how we manage our waste, because it remains central to our sustainability, yet is rarely mentioned as an issue of importance in the mainstream media.” “And while we all must continue reducing the quantity of materials that enter the stream in the first place and divert more (through the 3-Rs of reduction, re-use, and recycling), nevertheless, 30 million tonnes is a lot of material. What should we do with it? Where some see nothing but a large amount of useless garbage, others are starting to view this mix as a valuable commodity that – with the right a level of technology and the flexibility to put it to use – can provide a long list of benefits.” -
Dr. Patrick Moore, Chair and Chief Scientist, Greenspirit Strategies
“The fundamental problem is that there is a disconnect between the companies that produce and sell products, the consumers that use them and discard them, and the municipalities and waste management companies that manage the resulting waste; as a consequence there is a lack of accountability for solving waste issues.” “The Province needs to decide if residential waste left over after recycling and composting should be converted to energy rather than be landfilled. If the answer is yes, then financial incentives need to be put in place to encourage the development of EFW facilities…”. -
Andrew Pollock, Director, Waste Management, Region of Peel
“Technology, by itself, will not provide all the solutions.” -
Jerry Leonard, Executive Manager, Management Centre of Excellence
Edmonton
Waste
“Waste management does not occupy a spontaneous ranking on issues that must be dealt with today by political leaders – however it is an issue which activates when certain local issues and conditions coincide…” “Provincial governments are not connecting with the public in providing the apparent and expected leadership that is necessary to provide an overarching assurance that there is a framework or plan for the province or region and for assisting communities in their garbage/ waste needs.” -
John Wright, Senior Vice-President, Ipsos-Reid
ii INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT
PUBLIC POLICY FORUM
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On February 1, 2007 the Public Policy Forum held a symposium in Toronto to discuss the public policy challenges and opportunities associated with implementing an integrated approach to waste management. The one-day event was attended by leaders from three levels of government, academia, the not-for-profit sector, and the private sector. Following the event, the Public Policy Forum convened three conference calls with participants who volunteered to continue a dialogue on integrated waste management. The purpose of the symposium and follow-up conference calls was to provide insight into the following questions: what are the essential elements of an integrated waste management system; what would an integrated waste management system look like in Canada; what are the potential benefits of implementing an Integrated Waste Management system; what are the barriers in the way of implementing an integrated waste management system; and, what are the key next steps and/ or recommendations moving forward? There was a general consensus that governments need to show leadership in waste management. This consensus was reflected in a number of key messages: •
Effective waste management requires a national policy framework
Though the policy levers for waste management are located mostly at the provincial level, we heard that a national framework is necessary because the challenges are nationwide. While land in Canada is abundant and disposal costs (“tipping fees”) are often low, Canada’s major urban centres – the Island of Montreal, the Greater Toronto Area, and British Columbia’s Lower Mainland – all face a looming waste crisis, in terms of capacity to dispose waste. The capacity crunch is being driven by population and economic growth, which thus far have outstripped diversion efforts. Moreover, many participants noted the critical, but often overlooked, role of the industrial, commercial and institutional (IC&I) sector. Though IC&I sources generate fully 60% of waste in Canada, we heard that all stakeholders need to gain a deeper understanding of this waste stream. Some participants suggested that a national policy framework could knit together provincial regulations dealing with packaging. Furthermore, participants identified a lack of clarity around key terms in waste management. Most Canadians, according to John Wright, cannot correctly identify the “3-R’s” (reduce, re-use, recycle). Provinces define key terms such as “diversion” differently, which restricts stakeholders’ ability to share information and promising practices across jurisdictions. And participants noted that “integrated waste management”
PUBLIC POLICY FORUM
INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT
iii
itself lacks a commonly understood definition. Participants suggested that a national policy framework — in encouraging clarity and coherence in waste management terminology — would help generate a common understanding of the issue among all stakeholders. •
Provincial governments need to show political leadership on waste issues
There was general agreement that provincial governments need to create the conditions for success for a long-term solution to waste issues, rather than just setting targets for diversion and expecting municipalities and businesses to meet them. Specific prescriptions, however, differ: many argued for an integrated approach that would consider a range of waste treatment options including reduction, diversion, recovery (Energy-From-Waste or EFW, composting) and landfill; others argued for a plan focused solely on increased reduction and diversion. Though the juxtaposition of EFW and diversion is a recurring theme in debates about waste management — particularly the concern that EFW would undermine diversion efforts — we heard that the two strategies are compatible in an integrated waste management system. Ultimately, participants highlighted the importance of a comprehensive strategy and policy framework that would guide these decisions. •
Stakeholders should establish a National Waste Advisory Group
Participants suggested establishing a “National Waste Advisory Group”, representing a broad range of stakeholders, to move the agenda forward on the critical issues identified at the symposium, including: filling research gaps with respect to the IC&I sector; achieving clarity among stakeholders with respect to key terms, and improving the public’s level of general understanding of basic concepts; addressing looming disposal capacity shortages in major urban centres (either through increased diversion, disposal capacity or a combination of the two); and, promoting and facilitating provincial political leadership. The purpose of the advisory group would be to drill deeper into these key waste management issues and to recommend potential solutions. Participants could include municipalities, industry, non-governmental organizations, and academics. This group could make its recommendations to the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME); additionally, it could request the CCME look at the broad policy question of integrated waste management — what it is and how it could be applied across Canada. Speakers’ presentations can be found at http://www.ppforum.ca/en/events/
iv INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT
PUBLIC POLICY FORUM
SOMMAIRE Le 1er février 2007, le Forum des politiques publiques a organisé, à Toronto, un colloque visant à s’entretenir des enjeux et des possibilités liés aux politiques publiques et associés à la mise en œuvre d’une approche intégrée concernant la gestion des déchets. L’événement, d’une durée d’un jour, a réuni les dirigeants des trois paliers gouvernementaux, du monde universitaire, du secteur privé et du secteur à but non lucratif. À la suite du colloque, les membres du Forum des politiques publiques ont décidé d’organiser trois conférences téléphoniques avec les participants qui souhaitaient poursuivre un dialogue sur la gestion intégrée des déchets. Le colloque et les suivis par conférences téléphoniques visaient à offrir un aperçu des questions suivantes : Quelles sont les éléments essentiels d’un système de gestion intégrée des déchets; à quoi pourrait ressembler un tel système au Canada; quels sont les avantages éventuels que pourra offrir la mise en œuvre de ce système; quels sont les obstacles auxquels nous seront confrontés; et, quelles sont les prochaines étapes et/ou recommandations clés en allant de l’avant? L’avis est unanime en ce qui a trait à la gestion des déchet : les gouvernements doivent faire preuve de leadership. Ce consensus s’est démontré dans plusieurs messages clés : •
La gestion efficace des déchets nécessite un cadre national de politique
Alors que les leviers politiques concernant la gestion des déchets se situent principalement au palier provincial, les participants au colloque ont indiqué qu’un cadre national s’avérait nécessaire, compte tenu du fait que l’enjeu touche l’ensemble de la nation. Même si les terres canadiennes sont abondantes et que les frais d’élimination (redevances de déversement) sont bien souvent peu élevés, tous les grands centres urbains du Canada, notamment l’île de Montréal, la région du Grand Toronto et les basses-terres continentales de Colombie-Britannique, sont néanmoins confrontés à une crise imminente concernant la capacité d’éliminer les déchets. La limite de capacité dépend de la croissance économique et démographique, laquelle a devancé de loin les efforts de réacheminement.
PUBLIC POLICY FORUM
INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT
v
De surcroît, bon nombre de participants ont indiqué qu’en matière de déchets, le secteur industriel, commercial et institutionnel (ICI) jouait un rôle crucial, quoique bien souvent méconnu. S’il est un fait que les sources ICI génèrent exactement 60 % des déchets au Canada, nous avons constaté, lors des discussions, que tous les intervenants souhaitaient en savoir davantage sur ce flux de déchets. Certains participants ont suggéré qu’un cadre national de politique pourrait servir à rassembler sous une même bannière les règlements provinciaux concernant l’emballage. Par ailleurs, les participants ont noté qu’il existait un manque de clarté par rapport aux termes clés entourant la gestion des déchets. La majorité des Canadiens, selon John Wright, ne sont pas capables d’identifier les « Trois R ». Les provinces donnent aux termes clés, par exemple à celui de « réacheminement » des sens différents, ce qui restreint la capacité des intervenants à mettre en commun les renseignements et les pratiques prometteuses, pour l’ensemble des domaines de compétences. En outre, les participants ont spécifié que la « gestion intégrée des déchets » est un concept en soi qui n’est pas totalement compris par l’ensemble de la population. Ils ont donc précisé qu’un cadre national de politique permettrait d’améliorer la clarté et la cohérence en matière de terminologie de gestion des déchets et contribuerait par là même à établir une compréhension commune de la question, pour tous les intervenants. •
Les gouvernements provinciaux doivent faire preuve de leadership politique pour les questions relatives aux déchets
Les participants se sont tous entendus pour dire qu’il incombait aux gouvernement provinciaux de mettre en place les conditions requises pour trouver, à long terme, une solution efficace aux questions entourant les déchets, plutôt que de se contenter de fixer des objectifs de réacheminement et d’attendre que les municipalités et les entreprises les réalisent. Il est toutefois bon de noter que les moyens pour parvenir à cet objectif diffèrent. Certaines personnes souhaitent la mise en place d’un système intégré combinant un nombre d’options de traitement des déchets, notamment la production d’énergie dérivée des déchets (EDD), tandis que d’autres veulent un plan axé intégralement sur la réduction et le réacheminement accrus des déchets. Si la juxtaposition de l’EDD et du réacheminement représente un thème récurrent dans les discussions relatives à la gestion des déchets, tout particulièrement la préoccupation voulant que l’EDD pourrait saper les efforts de réacheminement, il a été établi que les deux stratégies peuvent coexister au sein d’un système de gestion intégrée des déchets. Pour finir, les participants ont souligné l’importance de mettre en œuvre une stratégie globale et un cadre politique permettent d’orienter ces décisions. •
Les intervenants devraient mettre sur pied un Groupe consultatif national sur les déchets
Les participants ont proposé de créer un « Groupe consultatif national sur les déchets », qui réunirait tout un éventail d’intervenants et qui viserait à faire progresser le programme concernant les questions cruciales mises de l’avant lors du colloque, à savoir : rétablir l’équilibre sur le plan de la recherche en ce qui a trait au secteur ICI;
vi INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT
PUBLIC POLICY FORUM
parvenir à ce que l’ensemble des intervenants s’entendent sur la terminologie clé relative au domaine et améliorer le degré général de connaissance de la population des concepts fondamentaux; faire face aux pénuries imminentes en matière de capacité d’élimination auxquelles sont confrontés tous les grands centres urbains (par l’intermédiaire de l’accroissement du réacheminement, de l’augmentation de la capacité d’élimination, ou par la combinaison de ces deux moyens); favoriser et faciliter le leadership politique provincial. L’objectif du groupe consultatif sera d’approfondir les questions clés concernant la gestion des déchets est de proposer des solutions éventuelles. Les municipalités, l’industrie, les organisations non gouvernementales et les universitaires pourraient faire partie de ce groupe consultatif. Les membres de ce groupe pourraient proposer leurs recommandations au Conseil canadien des ministres de l’environnement (CCME); de surcroît, ils pourraient demander au CCME de se pencher sur la question politique générale entourant la gestion intégrée des déchets, en vue de définir ce concept et d’établir de quelle façon il pourrait s’appliquer au Canada.
Les présentations du colloque se trouvent au http://www.forumpp.ca/fr/events
PUBLIC POLICY FORUM
INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT
1
INTRODUCTION Canadians generate over 30 million tonnes of waste a year, most of which ends up in landfills. Households are responsible for less than half of the total amount. The majority (18 million tonnes) is generated by industrial, commercial and institutional (IC&I) sources. 1 Waste management has been on the public policy radar for thirty years or more. Provinces have set ambitious targets for diverting waste from landfills, and municipalities have made efforts to meet those targets using the “3-R” approach (reduce, reuse, recycle), with varying degrees of success. Despite the growing acceptance and application of the 3R hierarchy, many municipalities and industrial and commercial businesses still struggle to find sustainable ways to manage the amount of waste generated – and we seem to produce more and more of it all the time.2 Faced with this challenge, some stakeholders have called for an integrated approach to waste management. Integrated Waste Management “considers the full range of waste streams to be managed and views the available waste management practices as a menu of options from which waste managers can select the preferred option, based on site-specific environmental, economic, and social considerations.”3 Elements of an integrated system could include recycling and waste diversion, landfills and energy recovery. Key to an integrated approach is the use of Life Cycle Analysis (LCA), which maps the environmental footprint of a particular treatment option — for example the environmental burden of transporting bottles across the province, landfilling organic waste, or collecting materials curbside for recycling — so that the public can make an informed decision.4 While an integrated approach would still prioritize reduction, re-use, and recycling, the precise mix of treatment options would depend on each community’s specific circumstances and conditions. What is Integrated Waste Management? Integrated Waste Management (IWM) systems combine waste streams, waste collection, treatment and disposal methods, with the objective of achieving environmental benefits, economic optimisation and societal acceptability. This will lead to a practical waste management system for any specific region that will meet local circumstances and needs. Source: F. McDougal et. al., Integrated Solid Waste Management: A Life Cycle Inventory, Blackie Science, 2001, p.15.
In Ontario, the debate about how to manage waste has been particularly heated, the result 1
Human Activity and the Environment: Annual Statistics 2005, Statistics Canada, November 2005, pp. 1-6. Environmental Signals: Headline Indicators 2003, Environment Canada, p. 13. 3 “Integrated Solid Waste Management,” Environment and Plastics Industry Council, December 2003, pp. 1-2. Retrieved from http://www.cpia.ca/epic/news/default.php?ID=339, on January 3, 2007. See also, See AMO’s Proposal for a Provincial Integrated Waste Strategy, Waste Management Task Force, Association of Municipalities of Ontario/ Association of Municipal Recycling Coordinators, December 2005. 4 “Integrated Solid Waste Management,” p.3. 2
2 INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT
PUBLIC POLICY FORUM
of local conditions: in 2005, about 4 million tonnes (or 150 truckloads a day) of waste were exported to the United States for disposal or incineration, mostly to Michigan.5 A deal is in place to halt export of municipal solid waste by 2010, but the pressure to find alternatives to exporting waste, along with difficulties in siting new landfills, have forced municipalities to consider other waste management options, including Energy-FromWaste (EFW). This has led to a vigorous debate, focusing on EFW’s potential to generate energy and whether it would undermine waste reduction and diversion efforts. On February 1, 2007 the Public Policy Forum held a symposium in Toronto to discuss the public policy challenges and opportunities associated with implementing an integrated approach to waste management. The one-day event was attended by leaders from all three levels of government, academia, the not-for-profit sector, and the private sector. Following the event, the Public Policy Forum convened three conference calls with participants who volunteered to continue a policy dialogue on integrated waste management. The purpose of the symposium and follow-up conference calls was to provide some insight into the following questions: • • • • •
What are the essential elements of an integrated waste management system? What would an integrated waste management system look like in Canada? What are the potential benefits of implementing an Integrated Waste Management system? What are the barriers in the way of implementing an integrated waste management system? What are the key next steps and/ or recommendations moving forward?
The report is structured in the following way. The first section summarizes Dr. Patrick Moore’s (Chair and Chief Scientist, Greenspirit Strategies Ltd.) keynote address, which sets waste management in the broader context of sustainable development. The second and third sections summarize panel presentations, on emerging issues in waste management and on options for dealing with waste, respectively. The fourth section summarizes the findings of new Ipsos-Reid polling information on public perceptions of waste management, which were featured in a luncheon address by John Wright (Senior Vice President, Ipsos-Reid). The conclusion distils the key messages from the presentations as well as from discussion at the symposium and follow-up conference calls. Speakers’ presentations are quoted directly but, as with most Public Policy Forum events, participant discussion took place on a not-for-attribution basis in order to encourage a candid exchange of ideas and perspectives.
5
“How Ontario Manages its Waste: Basic Facts and Figures,” Fact Sheet, Ontario Ministry of the Environment, August 31, 2006.
PUBLIC POLICY FORUM
INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT
3
Speakers’ presentations can be found at http://www.ppforum.ca/en/events/ INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT: SETTING THE SCENE In his keynote address, Dr. Patrick Moore, Chair and Chief Scientist, Greenspirit Strategies Ltd., set waste management in the broader context of sustainable development. Dr. Moore described sustainable development in concrete terms: “Every day six billion people wake up with real needs for food, energy, and materials. The challenge for sustainability is to provide for those needs in ways that reduce negative impact on the environment.” When applied to waste management, the sustainability question becomes: how can we minimize both the overall amount of waste Canadians produce and the negative environmental impacts of this waste? To formulate an answer to these questions, he suggested, we need to develop a deeper understanding of the waste Canadian generate. He noted, in particular, the fact that 65 percent of the waste generated in Canada comes from Ontario and Quebec, and that the majority of waste materials overall are generated by the IC&I sector. Dr. Moore endorsed the concept of integrated waste management, and emphasized that an integrated approach would still prioritize measures to reduce, re-use, or re-cycle waste. At the moment, however, the majority of both residential and IC&I waste ends up in disposal. “And while we all must continue reducing the quantity of materials that enter the stream in the first place and divert more,” he said, “nevertheless, 30 million tonnes is a lot of material. What should we do with it?” The answer to that question, Dr. Moore suggested, is the “fourth R”: recovery. Recovery strategies include composting organic waste into fertilizer, burning waste to produce energy, or capturing gas from landfills to produce heat and energy. Given the growing emphasis on reducing greenhouse gases, the benefits of non-fossil fuel energy sources are compelling, he added. EMERGING ISSUES IN WASTE MANAGEMENT Speakers on the first panel addressed emerging issues in waste management from a variety of perspectives: a multinational corporation managing global supply chains; a municipal government implementing an integrated approach to waste management; and a provincial government setting the policy and regulatory framework for managing waste. According to Frances Edmonds, Director of Environmental Programs, Hewlett-Packard (HP), HP focuses on waste management for three main reasons: 1) the company generates a large volume of waste materials across the length of its supply chain; 2) the company is faced with waste management regulations in a number of jurisdictions worldwide; and, 3) there is increasing customer awareness of waste management issues.
4 INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT
PUBLIC POLICY FORUM
Though recycling and product return is an important final step, HP’s goal is to “reduce environmental impacts at each stage of the product lifecycle” by: • • • • •
reducing packaging in the design phase (through materials innovation); designing products that are easier to upgrade and recycle; optimizing the environmental performance of the manufacturing stage; ensuring that the operation of the product by customers is environmentally sound; and, offering product return and recycling services.
Ms. Edmonds pointed out that “because HP operates its own state-of-the-art recycling facilities, we can determine the most effective design features to facilitate recycling.” Andrew Pollock, Director, Waste Management, Region of Peel, argued that “to effectively address the waste issues in our society, you have to step back further and look at the market forces that result in the waste being generated in the first place.” As an example, he cited Peel Region’s integrated waste management system, which has achieved only limited success despite running one of the most comprehensive Blue Box programs in Ontario. A high percentage of consumer packaging flows into the garbage stream. “The fundamental problem,” Mr. Pollock argued, “is that there is a disconnect between the companies that produce and sell products, the consumers that use them and discard them, and the municipalities and waste management companies that manage the resulting waste; as a consequence there is a lack of accountability for solving waste issues.” The solution to this lack of accountability, he suggested, is an integrated waste management strategy at the provincial level. This strategy should have three components: • •
•
Extended producer responsibility (EPR) mechanisms to internalize the cost of end of life management into the cost of the product. Use of financial incentives for both producers and consumers to drive desired waste diversion behaviour (i.e. tax the outcomes we don’t want and provide incentives for the ones we do). Appropriate use of waste technologies to extract the highest and best use out of waste products.
“[T]he Province needs to decide,” Mr. Pollock said, “if residential waste left over after recycling and composting should be converted to energy rather than be landfilled. If the answer is yes, then financial incentives need to be put in place to encourage the development of EFW facilities…”. In closing, Mr. Pollock suggested it was a lack of “political ingenuity,” rather political will that is the main barrier to achieving significant progress on waste management issues. The complexity of the modern economy and democratic processes, he argued, means that bureaucrats have to do a better job of making the case to politicians about the long-term benefits of strategies that call for difficult decisions in the short-term.
PUBLIC POLICY FORUM
INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT
5
Neera Shukla, Manager, Policy Development, Waste Management Policy Branch, Integrated Environmental Planning Division, Ontario Ministry of the Environment, provided an overview from the perspective of the Ministry of the Environment (MOE) of the current state of waste management in the province, as well as trends, issues, and challenges in waste management. Ms. Shukla noted that most Ontario households have access to a municipal recycling program. Diversion of household organic waste (through “green bin” programs) is also increasing. Some municipalities are shifting toward a user-pay system of waste management; others are exploring alternative technological solutions to waste management, including energy-from-waste. Meanwhile, the private sector is exhibiting interest in recycling and “take back” programs, and there has been an increase in the number of proposals for energy-fromwaste facilities from the waste service industry. In general, the IC&I sector has a growing sense of responsibility for the waste it generates, she suggested. The key trends in waste management, from the perspective of the MOE, are greater emphasis on diversion; increased interest in exploring energy-from-waste; a focus on “Extended Producer Responsibility” (EPR); more partnerships and voluntary agreements; and, alternative financing methods. The challenges, however, remain daunting. Despite greater emphasis on diversion, the volume of waste continues to grow, driven by population growth and low IC&I diversion rates. Greater industry engagement in this regard, she noted, is a key challenge. Ontario also faces diminishing disposal capacity, and the challenges around creating new capacity will be made worse if and when Ontario has to curb the export of its waste (40% of Ontario’s waste is exported). Further challenges include public education — treating waste as a resource, for example, is hampered by negative public perceptions of incineration and other thermal treatment — and improving diversion from multiresidential buildings. OPTIONS FOR DEALING WITH WASTE The second panel addressed various options for dealing with waste, and assessed their current state, challenges, and future opportunities. Joanne St. Godard, Executive Director, Recycling Council of Ontario began by defining the opportunity presented by waste diversion. The diversion rate in Ontario is stagnant (at around 22%), she said, while the amount of waste disposed each year continues to climb. The key sector, she suggested, is IC&I, because it accounts for about 60% of waste generated in Ontario. The overarching goal of a waste management strategy, Ms. Godard argued, should be to
6 INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT
PUBLIC POLICY FORUM
achieve Ontario’s target of 60% diversion from disposal (set out in 2004). She suggested that – despite having a target and an explicit priority given to diversion – Ontario lacks a comprehensive plan to achieve its waste management objectives. As opposed to an Integrated Waste Management Plan, Ms. Godard proposed an “Integrated Disposal Reduction Plan”, which would: 1) reduce waste generation in the first place – through stewardship, EPR programs, education and outreach; 2) encourage re-use – by supporting capital costs and providing tax incentives for new facilities; and, 3) increase recycling – by supporting capital costs, facilitating siting of new facilities, focusing on end markets for recycled goods, and increasing communication between all stakeholders. André Simard, President, André Simard and Associates Ltd., argued that landfills are an important part of an integrated waste management system and will remain so for the foreseeable future. Both recycling and disposal in landfills, he noted, are on the rise in Québec. Mr. Simard emphasized three main points. First, the environmental impact of landfills can be minimized and resolved through current technology and design. Second, the social nuisances associated with landfills – birds, odours, traffic, and noise – can generally be mitigated. And third, looking at landfills in a Quebec context, the Greater Montreal Area faces a landfill capacity challenge. The main constraint, according to Mr. Simard, is permitting new landfills, which can take more than five years in Quebec. The future of landfills, Mr. Simard predicted, includes life cycle analysis (to assess the environmental performance of a product from cradle to grave), bioreactor technology (which speeds up the decomposition of organic waste), and landfill mining (in which previously landfilled solid wastes are excavated and processed). In conclusion, Mr. Simard noted that: • • •
landfills are a necessary part of an IWM system; landfills can be a safe disposal option; and, permitting is the main constraint to capacity.
Mark Lyons, Vice-President, Wheelabrator Technologies Inc., gave an overview of Energy-From-Waste (EFW) technologies and their status in North America. EFW is the conversion of energy present in waste into usable forms such as steam or electricity, usually through “mass-burn” combustion of waste in specially designed power plants. The EFW industry in Canada — with four facilities nation-wide — has lagged relative to Europe and the United States. There are several reasons for this. Abundant land and low disposal costs (“tipping fees”) make landfills an attractive option in many instances. Low energy prices make EFW facilities un-economical. And negative press has helped fuel public opposition.
PUBLIC POLICY FORUM
INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT
7
In the U.S., after a lull in the 1990s, EFW facilities are poised for renewed growth, according to Mr. Lyons. There are currently 89 facilities in the U.S. processing about 13% of the country’s solid waste. Mr. Lyons suggested that the resurgence can be attributed to increased landfill and energy prices, demand for alternative sources of energy, and growing awareness that EFW is environmentally safe. According to Mr. Lyons, public approval of EFW has increased in Canada as well over the past several years, particularly in Ontario and Quebec where large majorities approve of EFW as a garbage disposal option. The key message, he said, is that EFW produces energy and reduces the amount of waste going to landfill. Mr. Lyons outlined an integrated waste management system in which EFW could play an important part: 1) reduce, re-use, and recycle as much waste as is technically and economically feasible; 2) use EFW for the remaining waste that has recoverable energy value; and, 3) dispose the residuals in a state-of-the-art landfill. There are significant challenges, however, in developing new EFW facilities. These include finding a suitable site and energy customer, securing long-term agreements to use the facility (energy costs have to be locked in at a certain price to make the site sustainable), and developing public support and political commitment for a long-term project with significant start-up capital costs. Jerry Leonard, Executive Manager, Edmonton Waste Management Centre of Excellence, described Edmonton’s experience implementing an integrated waste management system and the City’s use of new technologies in waste management. The precipitating factor in the development of Edmonton’s integrated system, according to Mr. Leonard, was a crisis of landfill capacity and difficulty in finding a new site. The City had to dramatically reduce the amount of waste being sent for disposal. In response, Edmonton implemented a waste management system that integrates recycling, composting, disposal, and landfill gas recovery. The results are impressive: the system has achieved a 60% diversion rate. Mr. Leonard emphasized that state-of-the-art facilities and technology are necessary, but not sufficient, preconditions for a successful waste management system. Other elements of success include good management (e.g. a culture of continuous improvement), public support, and education and training. The Edmonton Waste Management Centre of Excellence helps support and create synergy between these elements by combining leading edge facilities, expertise, and experience, with education, research, and technology demonstration. PUBLIC PERCEPTION
8 INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT
PUBLIC POLICY FORUM
In his luncheon address, John Wright, Senior Vice-President, Ipsos-Reid, presented new polling information on waste management and the public opinion environment. The national survey was conducted between January 16-18, 2007. Mr. Wright’s broad conclusion from the polling was that “waste management does not occupy a spontaneous ranking on issues that must be dealt with today by political leaders — however it is an issue which activates when certain local issues and conditions coincide, and appears to have more intensity as an ‘environmental’ issue.” At the same time, however, garbage is on the long-term issues agenda of most Canadians — particularly in Ontario and Quebec — and while most think that municipalities are doing the best they can to manage their waste, many believe the issue is at a crisis stage. In particular, many Canadians feel that their provincial governments “don’t have a plan and are not helping the communities manage this issue.” This was a key conclusion of the polling information, according to Mr. Wright: a sense that provincial governments are not providing the necessary leadership to communities, either in providing an overarching framework or in enforcing environmental regulations. There is general support, Mr. Wright noted, for waste solutions that are linked to positive by-products, such as energy production (96% of Canadians believe that waste should be regarded as a resource where added value can be derived from recycling or energy production). But there are issues around communication and public education, including the public’s low knowledge of the 3-Rs (only 43% of English Canadians answered all three correctly), as well as a lack of understanding about the significant IC&I component to the waste stream. “What we are ultimately dealing with,” according to Mr. Wright, is “whether Provincial governments will fulfill a role in giving their citizens’ leadership that is necessary to provide assurance, enforcement vigilance, and confidence in the end result.” CONCLUSION - KEY MESSAGES AND NEXT STEPS In break-out groups and subsequent conference calls, participants discussed the essential elements and key benefits of an integrated waste management system. They also worked through some of the challenges and opportunities identified at the symposium around the volume and type of waste generated in Canada, capacity issues, public perception and education, as well as recommendations for next steps. A number of key messages emerged. •
Effective waste management requires a national policy framework
Though the policy levers for waste management are located mostly at the provincial level, we heard that a national framework is necessary because the challenges are nationwide.
PUBLIC POLICY FORUM
INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT
9
First, while land in Canada is abundant and disposal costs (“tipping fees”) are often low, Canada’s major urban centres — the Island of Montreal, the Greater Toronto Area, and British Columbia’s Lower Mainland — all face a looming waste crisis, in terms of capacity to dispose waste. The capacity crunch is being driven by population and economic growth, which thus far have outstripped diversion efforts. There are also significant barriers to creating new capacity for diversion and disposal, including: low energy prices (which make EFW un-economical); slow approval processes (for landfills); high capital costs for new facilities (for EFW, composting and recycling); and a weak market for recovered products. This reality, according to some participants, means that even if Toronto, for example, meets the province’s 60% diversion target, disposing the remaining 40% will remain a challenge going forward. In Ontario, the situation is complicated by the fact large volumes of waste (both municipal and IC&I) are exported to the United States. A deal is in place to halt export of municipal solid waste by 2010; the export of IC&I waste from Ontario, however, was described by one participant as a “ticking time bomb”. Second, many participants noted the critical, but often overlooked, role of the IC&I sector. Though IC&I sources generate fully 60% of waste in Canada, we heard that all stakeholders need to gain a deeper understanding of this waste stream. Small- and medium-size businesses, for example, were said to generate a significant amount of the waste in the IC&I sector. Multi-national corporations such as HP can dedicate substantial resources to waste management strategies; small businesses often cannot. But how much waste do small- and medium size businesses generate? In general, how much of the IC&I waste stream can be diverted? Some participants suggested that a national policy framework could knit together provincial regulations dealing with packaging. Third, participants identified a lack of clarity around key concepts in waste management. Most Canadians, according to John Wright, cannot correctly identify the “3-R’s”. Moreover, provinces define key terms such as “diversion” differently, which restricts stakeholders’ ability to share information and promising practices across jurisdictions. And participants noted that “integrated waste management” itself lacks a commonly understood definition. Participants suggested that a national policy framework — in encouraging clarity and coherence in waste management terminology — would help generate a common understanding of the issue among all stakeholders. •
Provincial governments need to show political leadership on waste issues
There was general agreement that provincial governments need to create the conditions for success for a long-term solution to waste issues, rather than just setting targets for diversion and expecting municipalities and businesses to meet them. Specific prescriptions, however, differ: many argued for an integrated approach that would consider a range of waste treatment options, including reduction, diversion, recovery (EFW, composting) and landfill; others for a plan focused solely on increased reduction and diversion. It was also suggested that integrated waste management requires a horizontal approach from within government.
10 INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT
PUBLIC POLICY FORUM
Though the juxtaposition of EFW and diversion is a recurring theme in debates about waste management — particularly the concern that EFW would undermine diversion efforts — we heard that the two strategies are compatible in an integrated waste management system. Ultimately, participants highlighted the importance of a comprehensive strategy and policy framework that would guide these decisions. •
Stakeholders should establish a National Waste Advisory Group
Participants suggested establishing a “National Waste Advisory Group”, representing a broad range of stakeholders, to move the agenda forward on the critical issues identified at the symposium, including: filling research gaps with respect to the IC&I sector; achieving clarity among stakeholders with respect to key terms, and improving the public’s level of general understanding of basic concepts; addressing looming disposal capacity shortages in major urban centres (either through increased diversion, disposal capacity or a combination of the two); and, promoting and facilitating provincial political leadership. The purpose of the advisory group would be to drill deeper into waste management issues and to recommend potential solutions. Participants could include municipalities, industry, non-governmental organizations, and academics. This group could make its recommendations to the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME). Additionally, it could request that the CCME look at the broad policy question of integrated waste management — what it is and how it could be applied across Canada. •
A successful integrated waste management system requires both technical and “process” components
The technical components of an integrated waste management system include diversion – i.e. programs to reduce, re-use, and recycle waste – disposal in landfill, and recovery strategies, including composting and Energy-From-Waste. But as participants pointed out, technology is only half of the equation. A successful integrated system requires political leadership, particularly from the provincial government, which sets out the policy and regulatory framework. Public education, participation, and buy-in are also critical and to achieve these aims municipal officials need to provide the public with transparent and comprehensive information. Several participants identified Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) tools — which measure the environmental performance of a product or system from “cradle to grave” — as a key enabler of this process. •
There are significant potential benefits to implementing an integrated waste management system
Participants suggested that an integrated system could enable and support a long-term, sustainable approach to waste management, which would yield environmental and economic benefits. For some, this meant a reduction in overall waste generation; for others it meant added capacity to deal with increasing waste. Some participants argued that an integrated system and approach would result in improved scientific and research
PUBLIC POLICY FORUM
INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT
11
capacity in Canada, specifically in terms of developing new technologies. Still others suggested that an integrated system could contribute to cross-cutting issues such as climate change.
12 INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT
PUBLIC POLICY FORUM
ANNEX 1 – AGENDA Program – Integrated Waste Management Conference Location: Third Floor, Toronto Board of Trade, First Canadian Place, Adelaide Street Entrance just west of Bay Street) Morning (Plenary Session) 8:00 a.m. Registration and continental breakfast 8:30 a.m. Welcome and introductions •
Jodi White, President, Public Policy Forum
8:45 a.m. Our Current State •
Patrick Moore, Chair and Chief Scientist, Greenspirit Strategies Ltd.
9:15 a.m. Emerging Issues Panel • • • •
Len Crispino, President and CEO, Ontario Chamber of Commerce (Moderator) Frances Edmonds, Director, Environmental Programs, Hewlett-Packard Andrew Pollock, Director, Waste Management Programs Region of Peel John Vidan, Director, Waste Management Policy Branch, Ontario Ministry of the Environment
Open Discussion 10:15 a.m. Break 10:30 a.m. Options for dealing with waste • Paul Murray, Gartner Lee (Moderator) • Joanne St. Godard, Executive Director, Recycling Council of Ontario • Andre Simard, Andre Simard and Associates • Mark Lyons, Wheelabrator Technologies Inc. • Jerry Leonard, Executive Director, Edmonton Waste Management Centre of Excellence Open Discussion 12:15 p.m. Lunch/ Keynote address: •
John Wright, Senior Vice President, Ipsos Reid
PUBLIC POLICY FORUM
Afternoon:
INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT
13
Part One (Table Discussion groups)
1:30 p.m. What are the essential elements of an Integrated Waste Management System? What would an integrated waste management system look like in Canada? What are the potential benefits of implementing an integrated waste management system? Part Two (Plenary) Moderator : Jodi White, President, Public Policy Forum 3:00 p.m.
Report back on what an integrated system could look like.
3:30 p.m.
Open Discussion: What are the barriers and next steps to achieving this system?
4:30 p.m.
Next Steps and Wrap Up
5:00 p.m.
Reception
14 INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT ANNEX 2 – REGISTERED PARTICIPANT LIST Ms. Catherine Abel Manager, Policy and Government Relations Food and Consumer Products of Canada Ms. Judith Andrew Vice President, Ontario Canadian Federation of Independent Business Ms. Milena Avramovic Senior Policy Advisor Association of Municipalities of Ontario Mr. Kevin Bechard Director, Public Affairs, Ontario Waste Management of Canada Ms. Carmen Bohn Capacity Building Program Officer Federation of Canadian Municipalities Mr. Cecil Bradley Vice President, Policy Toronto Board of Trade Mr. David A. Brown Counsel Davies Ward Phillips and Vineberg LLP Mr. Jack Bryden Environmental Management Officer Ministry of Environment Government of British Columbia Ms. Danielle Buklis Project Coordinator The Composting Council of Canada Mr. Richard Butts A/Deputy City Manager City of Toronto Mr. Andrew Campbell Director, Solid Waste Management York Region
PUBLIC POLICY FORUM
PUBLIC POLICY FORUM
INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT
Mr. Michael Cant Vice President Municipal Waste Integration Network Mr. Tom Carpenter Senior Manager Queen's Institute for Energy and Environmental Policy Queen's University Mr. Quentin Chiotti Director, Air Program Pollution Probe Ms. Cathy Cirko Vice President, Environment and Health Canadian Plastics Industry Association Mr. Julian Cleary PhD Candidate-Geography University of Toronto Mr. Rob Cook President Ontario Waste Management Association Mr. Len Crispino President and Chief Executive Officer Ontario Chamber of Commerce Mr. Harry Dahme Senior Partner Environmental, Real Estate & Urban Development Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP Dr. Ibrahim Dincer Professor of Mechanical Engineering Program Director Faculty of Engineering and Applied Arts University of Ontario Institute of Technology Ms. Louise Duguay Project Officer, Green Municipal Fund Centre for Sustainable Community Development Federation of Canadian Municipalities Mr. Martin Dussault Director, Public Affairs, Quebec
15
16 INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT Waste Management of Canada Ms. Frances Edmonds Director, Environmental Programs Hewlett-Packard Canada Mr. Michael Fagan A/Managing Director Centre for Earth and Environmental Technologies Ontario Centres of Excellence Mr. Michael Gagnon Manager, Government Relations Procter & Gamble Canada Inc Mr. Murray Gale President, Ontario Chapter Solid Waste Management Association of North America Ms. Beth Goodger Director, Waster Management Public Works Department City of Hamilton Dr. Murray Haight Associate Professor and Director Faculty of Environmental Studies University of Waterloo Ms. Maryanne Hill Executive Director Municipal Waste Integration Network Ms. Lee Allison Howe Senior Advisor, Ontario Public Policy Forum Mr. Joe Hruska President Environment & Management Strategies Group Hruska & Associates Mr. Dennis Jackson Senior Program Officer, National Waste Programs Environment Canada
PUBLIC POLICY FORUM
PUBLIC POLICY FORUM
INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT
Mr. Stuart Johnston Senior Vice President, Policy and Government Relations Ontario Chamber of Commerce Ms. Rachel Kagan National Manager, Government Relations (Environment) Retail Council of Canada Mr. Patrick Kane A/Section Head, Pollution Prevention and Conservation Section Alberta Environment Government of Alberta Darwin Kealey The Briarhill Group Ms. Maria Kelleher Kelleher Environmental Mr. James W. Knight Chief Executive Officer Federation of Canadian Municipalities M. Pierre Lachance Conseil des entreprises de service environnementaux Mr. Claude LeFrancois Chief, National Waste Programs Environment Canada Mr. Jerry Leonard Executive Manager Edmonton Waste Management Centre for Excellence Mr. Michael Lister Research Associate Public Policy Forum Mr. Mark Lyons Vice President, Projects Wheelabrator Technologies Inc Dr. Virginia Maclaren Associate Professor Department of Geography and Program in Planning University of Toronto
17
18 INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT
Dr. Patrick Moore Chair and Chief Scientist Greenspirit Strategies Ltd Mr. Wes Muir Director, Corporate Communications Waste Management Inc Mr. Michael N. Murphy Executive Vice-President, Policy Canadian Chamber of Commerce Mr. Paul Murray General Manager Gartner Lee Ltd Ms. Lisa Mychajluk Waste Management Policy Branch Ministry of Environment, Ontario Mr. Andrew Pollock Director, Waste Management Region of Peel Mr. Christopher Quirke Senior Advisor Ministry of Economic Development and Trade Government of Ontario Mr. Geoff Rathbone A/General Manager Solid Waste Management Services City of Toronto Ms. Teresa D. Sarkesian Director, Business Development Cement Association of Canada Mr. Brandon Seegmiller Hewlett-Packard Canada Mr. André Simard André Simard & Associates Ltd Ms. Joanne St. Godard Executive Director
PUBLIC POLICY FORUM
PUBLIC POLICY FORUM
INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT
Recycling Council of Ontario Mr. Tom Tevlin President Greenspirit Strategies Ltd Mr. John Vidan Director Waste Management Policy Branch Ministry of the Environment Government of Ontario Ms. Jodi White President Public Policy Forum Mr. John Wright Senior Vice President, Opinion and Social Research Public Affairs Ipsos-Reid Corporation
19
20 INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT
PUBLIC POLICY FORUM
ANNEX 3 – SPEAKERS’ BIOGRAPHIES Jodi White, President, Public Policy Forum Jodi White is President of the Public Policy Forum, an independent, national, not-forprofit organization with a mandate to promote better public policy and better public management through dialogue among leaders from the public, private, labour and voluntary sectors. Ms. White’s career combines experience in journalism, in politics and government, in the private sector and in international affairs. As a journalist, she spent six years at the CBC, first as a television news reporter and subsequently as a network radio producer. Her experience in government and politics includes positions as chief of staff to the Minister of External Affairs (1984 – 1988) and chief of staff to the Prime Minister (1993). From 1994 – 2000 Ms. White was vice-president, Corporate Affairs, at Imasco Ltd. in Montreal where she was responsible for issues management and strategic positioning across the spectrum of public affairs, government relations and public policy. From 2000 – 2003 she was president of Sydney House, a public affairs consulting firm. Ms. White has been and continues to be an active participant on a number of boards including Chair of the National Theatre School, Woodrow Wilson Center’s Canada Institute Advisory Board, the Canadian Institute of International Affairs, the Southern Africa Education Trust Fund, Bishop’s University and the Ottawa General Hospital. She served on the board of the Public Policy Forum from 1989 – 1998, including three years as chair, and has participated as both a member and chair of numerous juries for national awards including the Pearson Peace Medal, the Hy Solomon Award for Public Policy Journalism and the Michener award for journalism studies. Ms. White is a graduate of the University of Toronto with a Bachelor’s degree in Political Science and Carleton University with an honours Bachelor of Journalism.
Patrick Moore, Ph.D. “The Sensible Environmentalist”, Chair and Chief Scientist, Greenspirit Strategies Ltd. Dr. Patrick Moore has been a leader in the international environmental field for over 30 years. He is a co-founder of Greenpeace and served for nine years as President of Greenpeace Canada and seven years as a Director of Greenpeace International. As the leader of many campaigns Dr. Moore was a driving force shaping policy and direction while Greenpeace became the world's largest environmental activist organization.
PUBLIC POLICY FORUM
INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT
21
In recent years, Dr. Moore has been focused on the promotion of sustainability and consensus building among competing concerns. He was a member of British Columbia government-appointed Round Table on the Environment and Economy from 1990 - 1994. In 1990, Dr. Moore founded and chaired the BC Carbon Project, a group that worked to develop a common understanding of climate change. Dr. Moore served for four years as Vice President, Environment for Waterfurnace International, a manufacturer of geothermal heat pumps for residential heating and cooling with renewable earth energy. He is now a Director of NextEnergy Solutions, the largest distributor of geothermal systems in Canada. As Chair of the Sustainable Forestry Committee of the Forest Alliance of BC from 1991 2002, he led the process of developing the "Principles of Sustainable Forestry" which were adopted by a majority of the industry. In 2000, Dr. Moore published Green Spirit – Trees are the Answer, a photo-book that provides a new insight into how forests work and how they can play a powerful role in solving many of our current environmental problems. Dr. Moore currently serves as Chair and Chief Scientist of Greenspirit Strategies, a consultancy focusing on environmental policy and communications in forestry, agriculture, fisheries and aquaculture, mining, biodiversity, energy and climate change. • • • •
Honorary Doctorate of Science, North Carolina State University, 2005 Ph.D. in Ecology, Institute of Resource Ecology, University of British Columbia, 1974 Ford Foundation Fellowship, 1969-1972 Honours B.Sc. in Forest Biology, University of British Columbia
John Wright, Senior Vice President, Ipsos-Reid John Wright is Senior Vice President of the Canadian Public Affairs component of Ipsos Reid—Canada’s largest market research and public opinion firm. The company is part of Ipsos— the third largest market and opinion research firm in the world with annual billings of $1.4 billion. In addition to his client work involving public affairs research, John has been the lead media spokesperson for the company for since 1990 on politics, policy and consumer trends. He also hosts a weekly radio show for Canada’s largest News Talk station, Toronto’s CFRB, called Your Opinion Counts, and is a regular Co-Host on ROB-TV’s Squeeze Play. A graduate of the University of Toronto, John was an Ontario Parliamentary Intern and an Executive Assistant to a provincial cabinet minister. His almost 25 years in public affairs have included positions as Senior Co-ordinator of Government Relations for Manufacturers Life, Vice President of Camp Associates Advertising, and Executive Vice President of Advance Planning and Communications Limited.
22 INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT
PUBLIC POLICY FORUM
John served on the Board of Directors of the Clarica Life Insurance Company of Canada from 1999 to 2002 and Alegro Healthcare Inc. from 2001 to 2005, and the Alzheimer Society Canada from 2001 to 2006. He is currently a member of the Advisory Board of the Dominion Institute of Canada, and currently serves on Boards of Directors for the Canada Institute at the Woodrow Wilson Center for Scholars, the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences (ICES), the Alzheimer Society Canada and the Hincks Dellcrest Centre, and is a member of the Canadian Health Policy Implementation Initiative (CHPII). John’s voluntary work also includes fundraising for the Prostate Cancer Research Foundation of Canada. John has served previously on the Boards of the Heart & Stroke Foundation of Ontario; Diabetes Canada, Ontario Division; The Empire Club of Canada; and the Association for the Defence of the Wrongly Convicted. John is a recipient of the 2004 Arbor Award for outstanding volunteer service to the University of Toronto, a founding Director, Past President and “Life Member” of the Public Affairs Association of Canada, an author of the Carswell Public Affairs Handbook, and he shared in the International Association of Business Communicators’ Jake Wittmer Awards in 1995 with the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants and in 1997 with the Royal Bank Financial Group for outstanding research for communications programs. He is also Co-Author of the recently released best-seller “What Canadians Think…About Almost Everything” (Random House, initial 20,000 printing Spring 2005; 30,000 copies reprinted in June 2006). Len Crispino, President and CEO, Ontario Chamber of Commerce As Ontario Chamber of Commerce President and CEO since April 2002, Len has worked tirelessly to build a stronger chamber network. The Chamber has thrived under Len’s leadership with an expanded research and advocacy capability, an ISO 9001 designation, and with the founding of the Ontario Economic Summit, an event that brings together leaders from business, labour, government and academia. Len has served as Assistant Deputy Minister in the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade and as the President and Chief Executive Officer of Ontario Exports Inc. from 1993 to 2001. During his distinguished career with the Government of Ontario, Len served for three years as the province's chief trade representative to Italy, promoting Ontario's trade and investment interests, and was awarded the Order of Merit from the Italian Government for fostering business ties between Canada and Italy. Prior to his work overseas, he held senior management positions in policy, planning and operations with the government. As an active community volunteer with a number of organizations, Len has served as Director of the Council of the Americas, Co-Chair of the William Osler Health Centre Foundation Board, past Chair of Seneca International, a member of the Governor General’s Study Group on private sector financing, and is the past President of the
PUBLIC POLICY FORUM
INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT
23
Etobicoke Parent-Teacher Association. Len’s passion extends beyond community service and the Chamber network. During his free time, Len can most often be found in the Niagara region, where he owns a modest vineyard. Len has an MBA (Marketing) from York University, a Masters and BA from the University of Toronto. The Ontario Chamber of Commerce represents over 57,000 Ontario businesses through 160 local Chambers of Commerce and Boards of Trade, and has been Ontario’s business advocate since 1911. Its advocacy and policy initiatives focus on six areas key to the economic well-being of the province; health; education; energy; finance and taxation; transportation and infrastructure; and border issues. Frances Edmonds BSc.(hons), Dip H&S, CRSP, Director, Environmental Programs Hewlett-Packard (Canada) Co. Frances Edmonds started her career in the UK Government as an enforcer of environmental health and safety requirements. On moving to Canada, Frances worked in the chemical and pharmaceutical industries as Canadian manager of environmental health and safety, before joining HP Canada seven years ago. Frances has worked in a number of areas for HP including environmental health and safety. Currently she is HP Canada’s Director of Environmental Programs. Frances assisted HP Canada in launching its hardware takeback program and its inkjet recycling program and is now working with many Canadian jurisdictions to develop effective endof-life management systems for electronics. Frances has worked with EPSC (Electronic Product Stewardship Canada) from its first meeting more than five years ago, and today she is chair of the advisory committee for EPSC. She represents the electronics industry on Alberta’s industry advisory council, and sits on the board of Electronics Stewardship British Columbia. Frances has a degree in Environmental science from Bradford University (UK), a post graduate diploma in Occupational Health and Safety, and is a Canadian Registered Safety Professional (CRSP). Andrew Pollock, Director of Waste Management, Region of Peel Andrew Pollock is the Director of Waste Management for the Region of Peel where he is responsible for waste collection, recycling and disposal services for over one million residents in the Region. He joined the Region of Peel in 2001 after ten years with the City of Toronto, where he was Director of Waste Policy and Planning. Prior to working for Toronto, he was a Senior Consultant with the consulting firm RIS Ltd.
24 INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT
PUBLIC POLICY FORUM
Andrew is Vice-Chair for Waste Diversion Ontario, a joint government-industry organization established to oversee producer responsibility initiatives in the province of Ontario. He is a graduate of Queen’s University and has a MBA degree from the University of Toronto. Neera Shukla, Manager, Policy Development, Waste Management Policy Branch, Integrated Environmental Planning Division, Ontario Ministry of the Environment. Neera has worked in the Ontario Public Service for the past 15 years in a number of ministries, including Education and Social Services. She is currently Manager, Policy Development in the Waste Management Policy Branch, Integrated Environmental Planning Division at the Ministry of the Environment, where she has worked on waste management and nutrient management policy. Prior to this, Neera was Manager in the Ministry’s Environmental Innovations Branch where she worked on voluntary initiative pilot projects with industry, including compliance assistance and environmental programs. Paul Murray, Chief Administrative Officer, Gartner Lee Ltd. Paul Murray, P. Eng., is the Chief Administrative Officer for Gartner Lee Limited a consulting firm providing sustainable strategies and solutions for clients throughout Canada. Mr. Murray graduated from Queens University in Civil Engineering in 1974. He was designated a Consulting Engineer in Ontario in 1988. Mr.Murray has been providing consulting services for 31 years. Initially, Paul provided general municipal design services. Over the last 20 years, Paul has specialized in waste management consulting. Paul provides services to both municipal and private waste companies. He manages waste system strategic and business planning and strategic facility approval projects. André Simard, President, André Simard and Associates (ASA) André Simard is a civil engineer with a master’s degree in land-use planning from Laval University in Québec City. He has more than 25 years experience as consultant in the environmental engineering sector and more particularly in the planning, design and construction of landfills. M. Simard was the first engineer to incorporate geosynthetics in a landfill in the province of Québec, namely the Clermont landfill in Charlevoix in 1987, and has since been involved in the majority of such projects in the province. Mr. Simard is president and owner of the firm André Simard and Associates (or ASA) in Québec City, the most important Québec engineering firm in the landfill sector. The firm has designed more than 15 modern confinement landfills in Québec and is active in over 25 sites. The firm offers integrated services including planning, permitting, design,
PUBLIC POLICY FORUM
INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT
25
construction management, quality assurance and operations assistance for landfill cells, leachate treatment, biogas systems and related works. Joanne St. Godard, Executive Director, Recycling Council of Ontario Jo-Anne has been with the Recycling Council of Ontario for 6 years, the last 3 as the Executive Director. Through her role with the RCO, Jo-Anne has been intimately involved in negotiating, facilitating and informing businesses, governments and individuals, supporting their transition toward environmentally sustainable philosophies, policies and practices. Over the past 3 years, Jo-Anne has been intimately involved in the development of waste diversion and stewardship programs and policies at both a provincial and national level. Through her role on the RCO, she has been involved in the development of new provincial, regulated stewardship programs for blue box packaging waste, used tires, used oil and electronic wastes. Mark Lyons, Project Vice President, Wheelabrator Technologies Inc. Mark Lyons joined Wheelabrator in 1990. He is responsible for managing select new waste-to-energy facility development projects in the U.S. and Canada for the company. He is also responsible for managing several revenue generating activities at Wheelabrator’s existing waste-to-energy facilities, including the company’s scrap metal recycling program and special waste/assured destruction business. Mark also manages Wheelabrator’s ash treatment and beneficial use activities, which include marketing the company’s patented ash stabilization technology, known as the WES-PHix Process, to waste-to-energy plants and ash recycling facilities in North America and Asia. Before joining Wheelabrator, Mark was Vice President and Regional Landfill Manager for Browning-Ferris Industries. He was the solid waste regulatory program coordinator for the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection from 1981 to 1984, and also worked for the Bureau of Remediation and Waste Management at the Maine Department of Environmental Protection. Mark holds a B.A. in Environmental Studies from Colby College, a M.S. in Environmental Engineering from Tufts University, and a MBA from Franklin Pierce College.
26 INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT
PUBLIC POLICY FORUM
