Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
thank you for joining!the webinar will begin shortly.
2
This material is based upon work supported under a grant by the Rural Utilities Service, United States Department of Agriculture. Any opinions, finding, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in
this material are solely the responsibility of authors and do not necessarily represent the
official views of the Utilities Programs. PSI is an equal opportunity employer and provider.
free webinar
Roadmap to Pesticide
Stewardship: Best
Practices and Solutions
September 20, 2019 | 1:00 pm - 2:30 pm EST
who is the
product stewardship institute?
3
pesticides
packaging
paint
electronics
solar panels
pharmaceuticals
hhw
thermostats
textiles
mattresses
phone books
batteries
productcategories
4
gas cylindersradioactive devices
framework
medical sharps
tires
carpet
auto switches
appliances with refrigerants
fluorescent lamps
productcategories
used motor oil
5
please welcome today’s
panelists
Stan KaminskiAg Chemical Consultant
Minnesota Department of Agriculture
Kristi MacMillanSenior Policy Analyst
British Columbia Ministry of Environment and Climate
Change Strategy
Suna BayrakalDirector, Policy and Programs
Product Stewardship Institute
Barry FriesenGeneral Manager
CleanFarms
6
today’s
moderator:
Scott CasselChief Executive Officer and Founder
Product Stewardship InstituteUnited States
7
webinar
logistics!
8
how to ask
technical questions
(e.g., “how do I…?”)
9
how to ask
content-related questions
(e.g., “what does the speaker mean by…?”)
10
please welcome our 1st
speaker:
Suna BayrakalDirector, Policy and Programs
Product Stewardship Institute
11
Challenges and Potential Solutions in
Advancing Pesticide Stewardship: An Overview
12
Suna Bayrakal, Ph.D.Product Stewardship InstituteSeptember 20, 2019
current usda-funded project
➢ roadmap to pesticide stewardship: best practices and solutions webinar
➢ how-to guide for advancing pesticide stewardship (coming soon)
psi’s prior pesticide stewardship initiatives
➢ 2017 usda-funded project
• pesticide stewardship briefing document
• pesticide stewardship discussion webinar
➢ 2000 draft pesticide stewardship action plan
13
background
14
key challenges:
collection
1. demand for collection > services that governments can provide with current financial resources
2. lack of permanent collection locations for pesticides
3. lack of collection programs for empty containers
15
key challenges:
awareness1. collection options for unwanted pesticides + containers
2. toxicity + risks (central nervous system damage, inc’d risk of cancer)
related issues
➢ lack of awareness of collection locations
= long-term storage + health/environmental risks
➢ household pesticide users
➢ misconceptions: home use = safe = trash disposal?
➢ appropriate type + quantity for the job?
➢ lower unit price for larger quantities → overpurchase
16
key challenges:
fundingpesticide disposal program funding is inadequate + unsustainable
1. all states require pesticide manufacturers to pay a pesticide registration fee, but
• only 24 states use these industry fees to fund disposal
• only 14 states use these industry fees to fund household pesticide disposal
• other states use government funds or cost sharing (e.g., with farms and businesses) to fund disposal
→ this funding can be intermittent or allocated year-to-year and not guaranteed
2. state disposal programs that ARE funded by pesticide registration fee:
➢ are government-managed + incur costs not covered (e.g. oversight + education)
➢ are only partially industry funded
➢ funding is often static, while quantities/costs are increasing
➢ often only cover subset of pesticides (e.g., farmers only)
17
key challenges:
funding
3. voluntary industry-funded initiatives have
“free riders” -- manufacturers that benefit
from the end-of-life product management
program but don’t contribute funding to
pay for collection and processing costs.
18
key challenges:
data
comprehensive + continuous data is needed to:
➢ gauge program performance
➢ show trends in generation rate and costs
➢ identify where improvements should be made
➢ identify underserved populations
19
key challenges:
a product comparisonpesticide stewardship in the U.S. lags in comparison with how other products are managed –
many that are less toxic/hazardous!
➢ fluorescent lamps: > 150 collection sites in VT; >295 collection sites in WA
➢ mattresses: >90% CA residents live < 15 miles from a collection site; >63% recycled in CT (2016)
➢ paint: 146 CT collection sites; 827 CA collection sites; 51% leftover CT paint collected (2016)
20
improving pesticide stewardship:
goals + features
goals
➢ convenient collection
➢ sustainable funding
➢ consumer awareness
➢ data collection and use
product stewardship programs have either of these features:
➢ industry-funded + government-managed (e.g., pesticide registration fee funded disposal programs); or
➢ industry-funded/industry-managed or consumer funded/industry-managed (e.g., extended producer
responsibility, or EPR).
21
improving pesticide stewardship:
policy options
Improve existing gov’t-managed system to provide:
-adequate funding
- collection convenience
-other program benefits
Amend existing law/regulations/policy or pass new EPR law to:
- replace existing disposal funding mechanism with EPR
- establish industry-managed program
- provide adequate funding, collection convenience, + other program benefits
Add EPR to existing law or pass new EPR law to:
- establish industry funded + managed program
- provide adequate funding, collection convenience, + other program benefits
Improve existing gov’t-managed system to provide:
-adequate funding
- collection convenience
-other program benefits
States with existing pesticide laws that partially fund pesticide/container disposal through industry fees
States with no existing industry funding for pesticide/container disposal
Approach 1 – Enhance Current Law Approach 2*– Establish EPR System
*EPR requirements can apply to unwanted household pesticides only or all unwanted pesticides.
22
improving pesticide stewardship:amend existing law (gov’t-managed system)1. pesticide registration fees
• adequate funding for…
…all generators + education/outreach + data +
collection/handling/disposal + oversight
• ensure fee is flexible to accommodate fluctuations
2. collection convenience
• accept all unwanted pesticides from all generators
• minimum convenience standard
• permanent sites + events
• collaborate with local HHW programs
23
3. retailers/dealers provide educational materials
4. performance measures + annual reports
5. intra-state + state-local govt collaboration
6. industry, gov’t, multi-stakeholder, + regional groups (including TPSA)
partnerships
7. disposal bans
improving pesticide stewardship:amend existing law (gov’t-managed system)
24
improving pesticide stewardship: epr (industry-managed system)
pesticides➢ CA EPR law for containers (ag + professional application only)➢ HHW EPR bills that include pesticides introduced, most recently in OR in 2019
other products➢ 118 EPR laws in 33 states + DC for 14 products → batteries, carpet, electronics, and more…
➢ in 8 states + washington DC, paint EPR has:➢ created >1700 collection sites➢ saved taxpayers $150 million
in canada, EPR for HHW, which includes pesticides, has achieved the following: ➢ 59% of pesticides available for collection collected in Ontario (2015)➢ hhw collection volumes inc’d by 419% in first 5 yrs in Manitoba➢ collection rates > 35% higher than without EPR in BC
25
key elements of product stewardship systems
1. legislation levels the playing field
2. producers responsible for financing + managing programs
3. stewardship organization(s) manage program
4. retailers provide outreach + education funded by producers
5. performance goals/convenience standards
6. government oversight of industry’s plan
7. administrative fees paid by producers to state for oversight
1. develop the capacity to implement change
2. build coalitions
3. begin to shift the context
4. enhance policy design
26
laying the
groundwork
Suna BayrakalDirector of Policy & Programs
www.productstewardship.us
thank
you!
27
thank you!
Suna BayrakalDirector, Policy and Programs
Product Stewardship Institute
28
please welcome our 2nd
speaker:
Stan KaminskiAg Chemical Consultant
Minnesota Department of Agriculture
29
Stan Kaminski | Agricultural Chemical Consultant
September 20, 2019
Waste Pesticide Stewardship Webinar
Waste pesticides from farms and businesses
Waste pesticides from households
What Will Be Discussed?
• Minnesota Department of Agriculture (MDA) Waste Pesticide Collection Program Overview
• MN County Partnerships Explained
• Program Framework
• Program Challenges
• Program Successes
Waste Pesticide Collection Volumes from 1990 to 2018
Cooperative Agreement OPTIONS
1.Collect both Ag and Household pesticides (green)
2.Collect only Household pesticides (orange) MARTIN FARIBAULT FREEBORN MOWER FILLMORE
WINONAOLMSTED
JACKSONNOBLESROCK
MURRAY WATON-WANWOOD
COTTON-PIPE-STONE
WA
SE
CA
ST
EE
LE
DODGE
WABASHA
GOODHUERICE
LE
SU
EU
R
NICOLLET
BROWN
REDWOODLYON
LIN
CO
LN
YELLOW MEDICINERENVILLE
MEEKER
KA
ND
IYO
HI
CHIPPEWALAC QUIPARLE
BIGSTONE
SWIFT
SIBLEY
POPE
DOUGLAS
GRANT
TR
AV
ER
SE
STEARNS
BENTON
STEVENS
TODD
MORRISON
MILLELACS
CROWWING
OTTER TAIL
WILKIN
BECKER
WA
DE
NA
CLAY
HUB-BARD
MAH-NOMEN
ISANTISHER-BURNE
WRIGHTANOKA
HENNEPIN
SCOTT
MCLEOD
RAM-SEY
WA
SH
ING
TO
N
CHI-SAGO
KA
NA
BE
C
PINE
CARLTONAITKIN
CASS
ITASCA ST. LOUIS
KOOCHICHING
LAKE
COOK
BELTRAMI
CL
EA
RW
AT
ER
NORMAN
POLK
RED LAKE
PENNINGTON
MARSHALL
LA
KE
OF
TH
E W
OO
DS
ROSEAUKITTSON
Waste Pesticide Collection Cooperative Agreements
Collect Both Farm and Household Pesticides (73)
Collect Only Household Pesticides (13)
CARVER
DAKOTA
December 31, 2018
Joint powers with other counties (1) (Household)
• 1989 to 2008 – budget short falls. No dedicated funding. Program costs exceeded expenditures. Very limited MDA funding was available
• MN Counties liked program and were concerned about having the burden of program costs shift to them.
• Legislature ordered a task force look into best way to deal with waste pesticide collection.
• Task force determined that all waste pesticide (household and agricultural) should be MDA’s responsibility along with other cost aspects.
• Legislature provided funding mechanism in 2008 via pesticide registration fees for DEDICATED fund.
Program Overview
Task Force Conclusions
• Determined that MDA would collect Ag/business pesticides through out Minnesota….Or enter into agreements with counties or groups of counties to collect Ag/business waste pesticides.
• Determined that MDA would collect household pesticides throughout Minnesota….Or enter into agreements with counties or groups of counties to collect household waste pesticides.
• MDA would pay counties under agreement for advertising, supplies, transportation, disposal and provide a reasonable overhead cost reimbursement for every pound collected.
• MDA would charge a fee called the waste pesticide program surcharge on each agricultural and household product registered in Minnesota. The fee would go into the Waste Pesticide Cooperative Agreement Account.
• Current annual waste pesticide surcharge fee per product registration is $50.00 for agriculatural pesticides and $125.00 for nonagricultural
fdf
• Initial surcharge became insufficient in less than 10 years. Successfully increased in 2016
• Counties had to see reduced amounts of farm waste pesticides before signing agreement.
• Some counties or regions of counties still believe large amounts remain uncollected.
• Some counties, such as metro counties, have policies in place that prohibit businesses from using HHW facilities.
• Current need to increase counties reimbursement for overhead costs to assure continued cooperation in the program without jeopardizing entire program funding.
Program Challenges/Successes
Pesticide Manufacturer Association of Counties
Commissioner’s Office
Minnesota Dept.
Agriculture
Chemical Retailer HHW Representative Farmers Union
Ag Executive Director
MN Crop Production
Retailers State Senator Farm Bureau
Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency State Representative Corn Grower Association
Task Force Participants
Calendar Year 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
MDA Event Pounds
316 71,884 0 20,261 0 19,869
Cooperative Agreement
Pounds
360,738 452,025 477,804 505,894 500,770 523,992
Total Pounds 361,054 523,909 477,804 526,155 500,770 543,861
Annual Waste Pesticide Volumes Totals: 2013 to 2018
Information on the Minnesota Department of Agriculture’s Waste Pesticide Collection
Program
• https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/18B.065
• https://www.mda.state.mn.us/wastepesticidecollection
thank you!
Stan KaminskiAg Chemical Consultant
Minnesota Department of Agriculture
40
please welcome our 3rd
speaker:
Kristi MacMillanSenior Policy Analyst
British Columbia Ministry of Environment and Climate
Change Strategy
41
Extended Producer Responsibility for Domestic
PesticidesKristi MacMillan
Extended Producer Responsibility Section
Environmental Protection Division
Recycling Regulation 2004
• Performance based regulation– Focus on outcomes, not operations
• Producer pays for and manages the program
• Producers operate programs under an approved plan– Cascading definition of producer capturing the manufacturer,
brand owner, importer (internet sales), and retailer
• Captures domestic pesticides with poison symbol (skull and crossbones) and Pest Control Product number (PCP)
Product Care Association
• Stewardship agency operates on behalf of producers
• Producers generally recover program costs from consumers by charging a separate “eco-fee”
– Ranges from $0.10 to $3.50 item– Total amount collected in 2018 was
$376,000
• Audited financials submitted to the ministry and on website
“Free and Reasonable Access”
• Contracts with municipal and private depots for free drop-off
• Convenience target: – 95% of population within a 45 minute drive in rural communities
and 30 minute drive in urban (>30,000 population)
• 108 year round collection facilities
• One day collection events
Consumer Awareness
• New plan target – 70% of population using HHW
aware of the program to properly dispose of materials
– Currently at 49%
• Funded by the program– Phone 1-800 hotline
– Apps and website displaying locations of all recycling locations
– Marketing and education campaigns and retailer information
Results(Litres)
2004 2016 2018 To Date Total
Pesticides Sold 221,000 117,000 138,500 2,309,500
Pesticides Collected 8,80027,700 - Peak
collection year15,400 258,200
Container Capacity Volume Collected
28,500 100,600 57,000950,000L
250,000Gal
Challenges and Opportunities
• Regulating HHW together has lead to its success – Economies of scale with paint, gasoline, solvents and flammable liquids
• Defining products to be easily understood by consumers, collection sites and retailers
– Consumer expectation that the program should take everything
– Product reformulation resulting in products that are no longer designated causes confusion
• Hazardous waste regulations and municipal zoning can limit the number of qualified collection sites
Kristi MacMillan
Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
Website: Extended Producer Responsibility
Email: [email protected]
EPR Plan: Paint and Household Hazardous Waste
Stewardship agency website: Product Care Association
Thank you
thank you!
Kristi MacMillanSenior Policy Analyst
British Columbia Ministry of Environment and Climate
Change Strategy
50
please welcome our 4th
speaker:
Barry FriesenGeneral Manager
CleanFarms
51
Cleanfarms Overview
September 2019
About Cleanfarms
Our Vision:
Cleanfarms contributes to a healthier environment and a sustainable future by recovering and recycling agricultural and related industry plastics, packaging and products.
Approach:
Our Members – Funding All Programs
Five Permanent Collection Programs
1. Up to 23L pesticide & fertilizer containers • Canada-wide, 1,000 collection locations
• 65% recovery rate
2. Above 23L pesticide & fertilizer* containers • Canada-wide, 1,200 retail collection locations
• 80% recovery rate
3. Seed & pesticide bags• Eastern Canada, 300 retail locations• Western Canada expansion
4. Grain bags• Saskatchewan, 34 municipalities & businesses
• 1,580 tonnes YTD in 2019
Operated in 9
provinces,
regulated EPR
in 2
Operated &
regulated EPR
in 1 province
Five Permanent Collection Programs
5. Unwanted pesticides & livestock
medication• Delivered in each province/ region every three years
• Blitz-style program, in the fall (post harvest)
• Farmer drops off product at a disposal site (ag retail)
• No cost to farmers… key to participation!
• Products are transported by a licensed hazardous waste
contractor
• Disposed of via high temperature incineration
• What’s included:
• Unwanted (or “obsolete”) agricultural pesticides (no
domestic)
• Livestock medications that are used in the rearing of
animals in an agricultural context
Operated in 10
provinces but
unregulated for
EPR
Obsolete Pesticide Collections
Obsolete Livestock Meds Collection
Historic Collections
Livestock Meds (kg) Pesticide (kg)
2018 2,483 181,362
2017 5,049 269,748
2016 19,930 278,831
TOTAL 27,462 729, 941
2015 4,435 213,048
2014 5,051 223,831
2013 4,401 151,248
TOTAL 13,887 588,127
Total (all time) - 3,215,979 kg
Lessons Learned About Canadian Waste Stewardship Programs• RECOGNIZING THE PROBLEM – When done by industry, partnering with industry supply chain
(always necessary) and government (where necessary).
• SUSTAINABLE FUNDING – Identify the cost to manage the program. We cannot rely on government for sustainable funding – it needs to be part of the product offering for it to be sustainable.
• PESTICIDE REGISTRATIONS – Some programs rely on pesticide registrations to pay for a program. This is doable, but not recommended if EPR is the goal. Canada’s program is paid by industry, paid for as a levy on every container. This is cheaper, more efficient and gives industry the credit for running the program.
• LEADERSHIP – It needs to come from the top. CF Board is made up of CEOs and VPs of Canadian companies who manufacture these products. Having the program driven from the top down helps make it work.
Trends in Cost and Quantities
• Since program inception in 1998, volumes of legacy materials have decreased.
• A significant amount of the product comes from a change in property ownership.
• Less than 1/10th of our costs are for obsolete, but most inbound calls to Cleanfarms are from individuals wanting to dispose of obsolete chemicals.
• Growers will bring in more than pesticide & livestock meds. A lot of material is rejected on-site. We are implementing new pay-for-disposal program to accommodate those willing to pay for other material disposal.
• Disposal costs are predictable, quantities are less predictable.
• Factors that can decrease quantity collected are late harvest and bad weather.
For more information:
Barry Friesen
www.cleanfarms.ca
thank you!
Barry FriesenGeneral Manager
CleanFarms
63
questions or
comments?
64
thank you!
Stan KaminskiAg Chemical Consultant
Minnesota Department of Agriculture
Kristi MacMillanSenior Policy Analyst
British Columbia Ministry of Environment and Climate
Change Strategy
Suna BayrakalDirector, Policy and Programs
Product Stewardship Institute
Barry FriesenGeneral Manager
CleanFarms
65
next stepscontinuing the conversation
66
to access recordings:
67
your opinion
matters.
68
Scott CasselCEO + Founder617.236.4822
www.productstewardship.us
thank
you!
This material is based upon work supported under a grant by the Rural Utilities Service, United States Department of Agriculture. Any opinions, finding, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are solely the responsibility of authors and do not necessarily represent the official views
of the Utilities Programs. PSI is an equal opportunity employer and provider.
69
