1 / 17

Christina Seidel

Christina Seidel. Zeroing in on Waste: the Role of Extended Producer Responsibility in a Zero Waste Strategy. Towards Zero Waste. Need to change the perception of waste as a normal by-product of society Redesign processes and systems to eliminate waste. Extended Producer Responsibility.

dot
Download Presentation

Christina Seidel

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Christina Seidel Zeroing in on Waste: the Role of Extended Producer Responsibility in a Zero Waste Strategy

  2. Towards Zero Waste • Need to change the perception of waste as a normal by-product of society • Redesign processes and systems to eliminate waste

  3. Extended Producer Responsibility • OECD defines EPR as an environmental policy approach in which a producer’s responsibility for a product is extended to the post-consumer stage of a product’s life cycle.

  4. Related Features of EPR Policy (OECD) • Shifting of responsibility upstream toward the producer and away from municipalities • Only producers have the ability to redesign • Provide incentives to producers to incorporate environmental considerations in the design of their products • Cradle-to-cradle

  5. Waste Management System • Responsibility to manage consumer waste is traditionally borne by society as a whole (represented by municipality) • Cost of waste management is not reflected in product price • Supported through municipal taxes

  6. Historical Municipal Waste Source: Institute of Wastes Management, 1982

  7. Current Municipal Solid Waste Source: Alberta Environment

  8. Growth of Product Wastes Source: Spiegelman and Sheehan, 2005

  9. Growth of Recycling Source: Spiegelman and Sheehan, 2005

  10. Limitations of Municipal System • Municipal waste management has been subsidizing poor product design • Inadvertently encouraged disposable society • Designed for collection and management of homogenous waste stream • Lacks ability to handle reverse logistics for complex products • Producer lacks input into efficiency and innovation

  11. Potential for EPR Approach • Offers dedicated systems to handle specific products through reverse distribution • Assumption of cradle-to-cradle approach by producers offers opportunities for redesign • Encouraged to eliminate waste from cycle • Design for durability and recyclability • Elimination of toxic materials • Product price includes complete life–cycle costs • Sends more accurate price signal to consumer

  12. EPR Philosophy in Design • Important to always keep fundamental philosophy in mind when designing EPR programs • Danger in being too pragmatic when making design decisions • Design choices focused on efficiency or simplicity can undermine program support

  13. Design Criteria Checklist • Financially sustainable • Level playing field • No cross-subsidization • Separation of products / materials • Environmentally sound • DfE, 3Rs hierarchy • Socially responsible • Performance driven • Transparent, inclusive

  14. EPR Program Design Criteria • Encourages Design for Environment • Products / materials must carry individual costs • Reward environmental performance • Avoid “basket of goods” approach • PROs practical and effective management organizations, but remove competition • Encourage individual system design • EPR more than funding mechanism

  15. EPR Program Design Criteria • 3Rs hierarchy • Encourage environmentally-preferable management options • Financial incentive for environmental performance • In absence of definitive research, hierarchy assumed valid • Life-cycle avoidance technique • Environmental conscience on PRO

  16. EPR Program Design Criteria • Visible fees vs cost internalization • Flow-through fees download cost onto consumer • No price signal to producer to DfE • “Only one taxpayer” • Consumer vs taxpayer • Visible fees symbolize producers’ unwillingness to accept responsibility • Visible fees symptom of design failure

  17. Contact • sonnevera international corp.Christina Seidel Executive Director, Recycling Council of Alberta Box 23Bluffton, AB T0C 0M0phone: 403.843.6563fax: 403.843.4156info@recycle.ab.cawww.recycle.ab.ca

More Related