Recycling Roles and Responsibilities

Draft Consultation Report

The Works and Utilities Committee recommends the adoption of the report dated March 11, 1998, from the Interim Functional Lead for Solid Waste Management.

The Works and Utilities Committee reports, for the information of Council, having requested:

(1)the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to consider proposals for handling specific components of the waste stream as part of the City=s ongoing work in this area; and

(2)that a copy of the report be forwarded to the proposed Toronto 3Rs Sub-Committee.

The Works and Utilities Committee submits the following report (March 11, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead for Solid Waste Management:

Purpose:

To report on the ARecycling Roles and Responsibilities Draft Consultation Report@ prepared by the Recycling Council of Ontario (RCO) after its multi-stakeholder consultation process on product stewardship.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

There are no immediate financial implications of these recommendations.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the Ontario Minister of the Environment be advised that funding municipal recycling solely through municipal waste management user fees or property taxes is unacceptable; and

(2)the Province of Ontario be requested to collect and distribute environmental levies on all non-durable consumer products and packaging (other than beverage containers managed through deposit/return systems), with the monies received through the levies flowing into a dedicated, single purpose fund to pay the full net cost of municipal recycling programs.

Council Reference/Background/History:

At its meeting on June 4, 1997, the former Metropolitan Council adopted, as amended, Clause No. 1 of Report No. 7 of The Environment and Public Space Committee, headed ADeposit/Return Systems for Beverage Containers@, which recommended that:

(3)Metro participate directly in the Recycling Council of Ontario=s product stewardship consultation process; and

(4)the Senior Manager - Waste Diversion and Planning, Mr. Andrew Pollock, accept an invitation to join the Recycling Council of Ontario=s Waste Management Roles and Responsibilities Steering Committee.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

The Recycling Council of Ontario=s multi-stakeholder consultation process on product stewardship, which involved consultation with representatives from a range of industry sectors, Ontario municipalities and environmental organizations, has resulted in the completion of a report entitled ARecycling Roles and Responsibilities Draft Consultation Report@. The report was published on February 23, 1998. Copies of the report were sent to all City of Toronto Councillors on February 25, 1998.

Written comments on the draft report are being accepted by the RCO until March 24, 1998. These comments will be incorporated into the final report which will be forwarded to the Provincial Minister of the Environment by the end of April 1998.

The draft report focuses on the sharing of responsibility for the recycling of residential non-durable products and packaging. The report estimates that Ontario municipal recycling programs are diverting approximately 507,000 tonnes of material per year at an average net cost of $86.00 per tonne. Basically, the report identifies four municipal recycling funding options. These options include:

Funding Option No. 1 - Municipal Jurisdiction:

Variation A - Recycling funded through property taxes;

Variation B - Recycling funded through garbage user fees;

Variation C - Recycling funded through recycling user fees.

Funding Option No. 2 - Provincial Measures:

Variation A - Tax on specified products/containers at point of sale;

Variation B - Levy per product unit/container paid by product manufacturers or importers.

Funding Option No. 3 - Industry Funded:

Variation A - Voluntary industry funding of municipal recycling;

Variation B - Mandated industry funding of municipal recycling.

Funding Option No. 4 - Industry Funded and Operated:

Variation A -Industry funds and operates curbside recycling system;

Variation B -Industry funds municipal recycling and operates alternate recycling systems, for example a deposit-return system for liquor and wine containers.

The report does not recommend one particular option, but instead evaluates each of the options against a set of five Guiding Principles and six other evaluation criteria. The report also states that the options are not mutually exclusive, since user fees (Option No. 1) and deposit/return systems (Option No. 4) are compatible with municipal recycling funded through environmental levies under Option No. 2 or No. 3. An Executive Summary of the RCO report is attached (Attachment 1).

This Department has provided written comments to RCO on the draft report, copy of letter appended (Attachment 2). We would have preferred to have the draft report discussed at the Works and Utilities Committee prior to submitting our comments, however, this was not possible since a meeting of the Committee was not scheduled between February 23, 1998, when the report was released and the March 24, 1998 deadline for comments.

The attached letter to the RCO addresses our comments on the report, which can be summarized as follows:

(a)Municipal waste management user fees are not an acceptable funding mechanism for municipal recycling systems since this option is inconsistent with the principle of a shared responsibility (i.e., the full cost of municipal recycling remains with municipalities).

(b)Industry funding of 100 percent of net municipal recycling costs is entirely consistent with the principle of shared responsibility, since municipalities would continue to have financial responsibility for managing recyclable materials, and all other non-durable goods and packaging, that remain in the waste disposal stream.

(c)A deposit/return system for liquor and wine containers would reduce municipal recycling and waste disposal costs, and therefore is compatible with other funding options.

(d)Provincially mandated environmental levies on non-durable consumer products and packaging can be an effective funding mechanism provided that the monies flow into a dedicated, single purpose fund for municipal recycling administered by an arms-length multi-stakeholder board.

Based on the above, we propose that the following two recommendations be adopted by Toronto Council and forwarded to the Province:

(1)the Ontario Minister of the Environment be advised that funding municipal recycling solely through waste management user fees or property taxes is unacceptable, since the full cost of municipal recycling and all other waste management would remain with the municipalities; and

(2)the Province of Ontario be requested to collect and distribute environmental levies on all non-durable consumer products and packaging managed in municipal waste management systems, with the monies received through the levies flowing into a dedicated, single purpose fund to pay the full net cost of municipal recycling programs.

Recommendations regarding deposit/return systems for beverage containers are provided in a separate report on this agenda.

It should also be noted that a separate Interim Funding Proposal has been prepared by the Association of Municipal Recycling Co-ordinators (AMRC), after consultation with a number of municipal staff throughout Ontario, and submitted to the Minister of the Environment. The Interim Funding Proposal was originally developed by the Commissioners of Works from the former Area Municipalities and Metropolitan Toronto and was modified slightly after consultation by the AMRC with other municipal staff in Ontario. The purpose of the Interim Funding Proposal is to ensure that the immediate financial needs of municipal recycling programs in Ontario are met. A copy of the Proposal is appended (Attachment 3).

Conclusions:

The preferred option for funding municipal recycling programs is for the Province of Ontario to collect and distribute environmental levies on all non-durable consumer products and packaging (other than beverage containers managed through deposit/return systems), with the monies received through the levies flowing into a dedicated fund for municipal recycling programs.

Contact Name:

Andrew Pollock, Senior Manager - Waste Diversion and Planning

Solid Waste Management Division (Metro Hall)

Phone: (416) 392-4715; Fax: (416) 392-4754

E-mail: Andy Pollock@metrodesk.metrotor.on.ca

The Works and Utilities Committee also submits the following communication (March 24, 1998) from Councillor Joan King, Seneca Heights:

With respect to Item No. 1, ARecycling Roles and Responsibilities Draft Consultation Report@, on the March 25, 1998 agenda of the Works and Utilities Committee, please be advised that AMO will be considering a response to the Draft Report at its March 26, 1998 executive meeting.

 I will be pleased to make the AMO response available to all Members of the Works and Utilities Committee.

The following persons appeared before the Works and Utilities Committee in connection with the foregoing matter:

-Ms. Karen Buck, Toronto, Ontario; and

-Mr. Gord Perks, Toronto Environmental Alliance.

(A copy of each of the attachments referred to in the foregoing report has been forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda for the Works and Utilities Committee meeting of March 25, 1998, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)