Extended Producer Responsibility: Examining Global Policy Options A thesis submitted to the Division of Research and Advanced Studies of the University of Cincinnati Partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Community Planning In the School of Planning of the College of Design, Architecture, Art, and Planning 2011 By Shannon Quinn Bachelor of Science, The Ohio State University, 2008 Committee Chair: Carla Chifos, Ph.D. Member: Margaret Kupferle, Ph.D. ABSTRACT Humans have been producing waste since the beginning of our existence. Since that time we’ve needed to find ways to dispose of the waste that we produce. Our waste management schemes have only increased in sophistication over the years and today we find ourselves posed for another step towards municipal solid waste management modernization. Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) has been presented as one of the potential policy strategies that would usher in this modernization. EPR policy currently exists in varying forms around the world. This thesis investigates EPR policies and programs as they exist or have existed in five countries: Brazil, Canada, Germany, Japan, and South Africa. It delves into the key differences and similarities in these culturally and economically unique nations in order to produce the beginning of a typology that can be used to identify and define the different forms of EPR policy implementation that exist in our world today. i ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS There were many people integral to the completion of this thesis. I would like to especially thank Dr. Carla Chifos for her guidance and wisdom. I would also like to express my gratitude towards Dr. Margaret Kupferle for her willingness to cross academic boundaries and offer her knowledge throughout this process. It is also important that I thank P&G employees Annie Weisbrod, Forbes McDougall and Kai Menzler for introducing me to importance of solid waste management and the existence of Extended Producer Responsibility policy. In addition, I would like to thank Dr. Marc Mills and Eric Kleiner at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for their constant willingness to point me in the right direction. Apart from my professional and academic mentors, I cannot forget to thank my wonderful family for supporting me through my academic career. Without their love, encouragement and honest opinions I would not be where I am today. My wonderful mother and father have been my stronghold and my biggest supporters throughout my entire education. Thank you Mom and Dad for always believing in me and teaching me that I can do anything I put my mind to. Finally, I extend a special “gracias” to Alfonso for his patience and unwavering support throughout the past two years as I worked towards the completion of this thesis. I am truly grateful to all of those who have helped me along the way. Thank you. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1: Introduction, Problem Statement, Research Questions and Objectives…………. 1 Chapter 2: Literature Review…………………………………………………………………11 Chapter 3: Methodology……………………………………………………………………... 22 Chapter 4: Brazil……………………………………………………………………………... 32 Chapter 5: Canada……………………………………………………………………………. 43 Chapter 6: Germany………………………………………………………………………….. 53 Chapter 7: Japan……………………………………………………………………………… 64 Chapter 8: South Africa………………………………………………………………………. 73 Chapter 9: Case Study Conclusions and Key Points………………………….……………… 84 Chapter 10: Findings and Analysis…………………………………………………………… 89 Chapter 11: Conclusions and Future Research………………………………………………. 102 Bibliography………………………………………………………………………………...... 111 iv LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.1 MSW management for England (2007/2008)……………………………………… 3 Figure 1.2 Generation of MSW in the EU in 1995 and 2007………………………………….. 6 Figure 1.3 Management of MSW in Germany……………………………………………….... 7 Figure 3.1 Thesis methodology diagram………………………………………………………. 22 Figure 5.1 Breakdown of the amount of waste diverted, incinerated, and landfilled …………. 45 Figure 6.1 German MSW composition………………………………………………………… 55 Figure 6.2 Management of MSW in Germany……………………………………………….... 56 Figure 6.3 Waste recovery improvements since 1990…………………………………………. 57 Figure 7.1 MSW generation and disposal methods in Japan (2005)…………………………... 66 Figure 8.1 South African waste hierarchy……………………………………………………... 76 Figure 8.2 Recovery rates over time for plastic bags, cans, glass, and PET…………………… 82 v LIST OF TABLES Table 3.1 Table format outlining the findings for each country………………………………. 29 Table 4.1 Waste disposal method by percent in Brazil………………………………………... 34 Table 4.2 Targets defined for tire take-back program as defined by resolution in Brazil…………………………………………….... 38 Table 7.1 Additional waste-related legislation in Japan……………………………………….. 68 Table 10.1 Summary of key findings based on 13 identified variables………………………... 91 Table 11.1 Actors, incentives and constraints present in EPR policy implementation……….. 105 Table 11.2 EPR typology applied to Brazil, Canada, Germany, Japan and South Africa…….. 107 vi Chapter 1: Introduction, Problem Statement, Research Questions and Objectives Introduction Humans have been producing waste in one form or another since the dawn of our existence. In the beginning, the waste we created came in organic forms, whether it was the remnants of the food we ate or the excrement we left behind as we moved across the land hunting and gathering. Over time, the waste that we produced became increasingly incompatible with the systems of our natural surroundings and we were forced to find a systematic way to dispose of it. Today, human societies (especially developed nations) produce waste composed of very different characteristics than those of our Homo sapien ancestors. Synthetic materials like paper, plastics, textiles, metals and glass are now present in the municipal solid waste1 streams of countries around the world. The United States, for example, produces 250 million tonnes of solid waste each year and of this waste 31 percent is composed of paper and 33 percent is plastics, textiles, metals and glass (U.S. EPA 2009). Germany and France tell similar stories in their waste composition (although overall they produce much less waste than the U.S.) (OECD 2008). With the production of so much waste, humans are now forced to make conscious decisions about how to dispose of it. 1 Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) – Household (domestic) waste, commercial waste, and institutional waste (McDougall et al. 2002, 2). 1 Waste Disposal Techniques Each country has its own way of managing the waste that it produces. Several common practices currently exist from which to create a solid waste management (SWM) system. Commonly used techniques include (OECD 2008): • Landfill o Sanitary o Other – including open dumping • Incineration o With energy recovery o Without energy recovery • Recycle/Reuse/Recovery • Compost • Biogas Recovery The waste management scheme of a country may rely heavily on one of these disposal methods (as Japan does on incineration) or it may choose to use multiple techniques in order to deal with the type and amount of waste produced (OECD 2008). England is a typical example of using multiple disposal techniques to manage the municipal solid waste (MSW) generated by its inhabitants (Figure 1.1). 2 Figure 1.1 MSW management for England (2007/2008). Source: DEFRA 2010 Each country sets its own priorities and decides on a waste management scheme based on their needs, available technology and monetary capacity. With any combination of disposal, however, come difficulties as current systems are becoming overwhelmed by the amount of MSW being put into the waste stream. At Our Waste’s End The issue of management has now become an issue that knows no jurisdictional boundaries. As the world moves deeper into globalization each country’s actions grow more connected to actions and outcomes in other countries. Solid waste is no exception to this rule and waste is being produced at an increasing rate in many countries around the globe (U.S. EPA 2009; OECD 2008). There is growing concern about landfill capacity and waste’s environmental impact. Governments and citizens alike are worried about where the excess waste will go once 3 the landfills begin to overflow. They want to ensure that vast garbage dumps and solid waste processing centers do not consume their land. In fact, this growing concern prompted the European Union (EU) to issue the Landfill Directive in 1999 marking a decisive shift from a waste management system reliant on landfilling towards a new waste management hierarchy2 prioritizing waste prevention, followed by re-use, recycling and recovery, seeking to avoid landfilling wherever feasible (EEA 2009). Alongside of the arguments of where the waste should go is the argument of who should be the one to pay for it. The majority of current systems put the responsibility of financing solid waste management (SWM) programs on states or municipalities. Providing collection services, waste transportation, street cleaning and recycling is an expensive service for a state, city or town to provide regularly to its inhabitants. In fact, in many countries, like Brazil, MSW management can use 5-15 percent of the municipality’s total budget (Bizzo 2005). This strain on local budgets is an incentive for municipalities to pressure their country’s governments to find another way to manage and fund MSW collection and disposal. Due to the growing amount of waste production, the shrinking availability of land and the increasing financial pressures of SWM there is now