Wasted Diversion Opportunities

by Jay Arthur

It's beginning to look a lot like CIPSI….   Or is it?
How does the Ontario Waste Diversion Organiz-ation stack up to its much-maligned and ultimately mortal predecessor, the Canadian Industry Product Stewardship Initiative?
This summer, the WDO presented the minister with the Big Progress Report.
So let's look at what has been accomplished.
A lot of high-priced volunteer help has been meeting on a regular basis to respond to ideas developed, for the most part, by subcommittees. These subcommittees, peopled by much lower-priced volunteer help, albeit more experienced in the way of waste reduction, responded, for the most part, to ideas developed by WDO staff and consultants. Time constraints meant no substantial discussion or consultation could take place.
The high-priced help were there because it was felt they could be decision- makers, given the lofty perches on which they sit in their day jobs, whether it be in industry or in a municipality. Very few of them had too much experience in the way of waste diversion, but their seniority was seen as the key to getting things done. What it was they would be required to decide on is not quite clear. Some of the key recommendations in the report which went to the minister did not have the benefit of the review or the approval of the Board of Directors, which may be a reflection of both the tyranny of the schedule and the value of their input. Once it is published, the report, de facto, becomes a WDO document, whatever claims may be made for its non-executive approval.
Had those who are more experienced in the way of waste reduction been able to play a more significant role, other than give it token authenticity, this process could have worked quite well. Unfortunately, after years of inaction, then months of delay, there has been such an urgency placed on the WDO

agenda that the time needed for the bringing in and development of new ideas just hasn't been there. This break-neck speed has eliminated any real chance of innovation or original thought, which is a shame.
Perhaps if the much lower-priced help had been given a few months to sit down and throw some of their own ideas around first, we may have seen something fresh. Alas, no.
The big thing to come out of the interim report is that we need a backdrop regulation if industry-supported stewardship is going to work. Depending on who you talk to, the lack of a backdrop regulation was one of the major reasons CIPSI died.
The other big thing is the concept of 50% industry support for recycling. If we accept the current figure for the net cost of recycling - $100 per tonne, that would be $50 per tonne from industry. Of course that figure would increase once fibre markets settle down and revenues are reduced. No doubt we'll argue about efficiency later.
CIPSI was based on the one-third industry, one-third municipality, one-third revenue principle. In those days that meant $65.00 a tonne from the producers. That was turned down by the Association of Municipalities of Ontario in the mid-1990s.
There was no guarantee CIPSI would have actually happened, even if AMO had agreed, given the backdrop issue and the opposition from other industry sectors. Nevertheless, 2 million tonnes of recyclables over five years amounts to $130 million!
CIPSI was designed by industry and municipalities responded to an existing concept. The WDO hasn't really been much different. The chief architect of CIPSI was a Toronto-based consulting company. The consultant working with the WDO, and no doubt doing much of the legwork, is the same company, albeit with some input from others, this time.
Given the current climate, AMO will probably take the money and run, this time. Can you blame them?

More editorials