COVID-19 Waste Generation Report May 12, 2020

COVID 19 Waste Generation Report

May 12, 2020

Paul van der Werf, Rob Cook & Peter Hargreave

Background

Work continues on developing a better understanding on possible impacts as a result of COVID-19 of residential and industrial, commercial and institutional (ICI) waste generation and management. To date there are thirteen Ontario municipalities and nine municipalities in Alberta, British Columbia, the Northwest Territories and Saskatchewan that are providing data. We also have a number of private sector waste companies, with operations across the country, providing data. As more data is captured it will allow us to develop a better understanding of trends across the country. To date, we have been able to summarize and analyze Ontario based data. In the next iteration of this report we will add our data analysis of Western Canada data.

It is important to understand that waste management flows are impacted by a number of factors from year to year (e.g., economic and population change, weather related events, changes to waste management programming, waste composition, etc.,). COVID-19 is not the only influence that might be influencing waste generation and flows. There is likely some impact in the residential numbers below as municipal governments often collect wastes from some small businesses on their residential routes.

Residential Waste Collection

Ontario

Compared to the same relevant week in 2019, the thirteen Ontario municipalities (with a population of approximately representing close to 8.5 million residents) surveyed to date are generally experiencing an increase in total residential waste generated with more pronounced increases in green bin and garbage (see Table 1).

Table 1 – Ontario Municipal Waste Flows (Weeks Starting 9 March 2020 to 27 April 2020)

Yard waste was excluded from the totals given many municipalities have suspended services and that yearly totals vary significantly based on weather conditions. With the exception of one municipality surveyed none of these programs allow leaf and yard materials in green bin collection.

Surveyed Ontario municipalities were further broken into three main groups – large urban / urban regional, and rural based on the Resource Productivity and Recovery Authority’s (RPRA) Datacall. Figure 1 provides a summary of average percentage changes per week changes as compared to the same weeks 2019 for large urban/urban regional municipalities. Initially there was considerable variability although this appears to have levelled off. The spike in green bin materials for the week of March 30, 2020 is related to the five municipalities that saw an increase of 15%+ compared to 2019. One of those municipalities accepts leaf and yard waste in their green bin.

Figure 1 – Ontario Large Urban / Urban Regional - Average 2020 vs 2019 % Change per Week

(Weeks Starting 9 March 2020 to 27 April 2020)

Figure 2 provides an overview of the differences in percentage change by waste stream for the eight large urban / urban regional municipalities. There is considerable variation between the municipalities. For some waste generation has remained relatively static, potentially the result of people migrating out of these communities given the closure of universities, colleges and certain businesses. For others there have been much greater waste generation rates (e.g., upwards of 15% increases in garbage and green bin materials).

Figure 2 – Average Percent Change 2020 vs 2019 by Ontario Large Urban / Urban Regional Municipality

(Weeks Starting 9 March 2020 to 27 April 2020)

To date, data has been received from four rural Ontario municipalities (See Figure 3).  They are experiencing similar trends to the larger municipalities with overall increases in waste generation of almost 12% for garbage, but no real change in blue box materials. While waste generation increases, compared to 2019, were trending down it started to increase again at the end of April.

Figure 3 – Ontario Rural Municipalities - Average 2020 vs 2019 % Change per Week

(Weeks Starting 9 March 2020 to 27 April 2020)

Figure 4 provides an overview of the differences in percentage change by waste stream for the four rural municipalities illustrating the difference experiences. 

Figure 4 – Average Percent Change 2020 vs 2019 by Ontario Rural Municipality

(Weeks Starting 9 March 2020 to 27 April 2020)

Western Canada and the Northwest Territories

While some data has been received from Western Canada, more data is necessary to gain a more complete picture of the current impact of COVID-19.  To date the data received show reductions or a status quo in residential waste generation rates from 2019.  Additional outreach will be undertaken to provide a more complete picture in the following weeks.  

Industrial, Commercial & Institutional (ICI) Waste Collection 

The majority of data collected to date on Industrial, Commercial & Institutional (ICI) waste collection is from Ontario but the small sample of data received from Western Canada does initially appear comparable. Generally, the waste flow data reflects economic activity variations and this is evident during the period. There is week over week variation, variability relative to specific sub-sectors, and potential tonnage burden shifts between the ICI and residential sectors. While ICI data is sparse to date, limited data submissions and anecdotal information indicate that ICI waste collection tonnage has generally deceased between 12 – 22%.  

ICI tonnage continues to be depressed but after two weeks of no change, is showing some signs of resurgence as the economy is starting to open. Toronto remains the hardest hit area in terms of ICI tonnage reductions.

The week of April 27th, 2020 appears to be the bottom in terms of reduced tonnage and collection activity. Over the past week, front end and roll-off tonnage has increased between 1-5% and a small increase in service and service frequency has been observed.

Suspension of collection services appears to have peaked at 12 – 17% – a reflection of businesses being closed. For the week of May 4th, customers have started to request collection services again and the weekly increase in ‘lifts’ has increased 4% on average.

Restaurant waste remains hardest hit at a 65% reduction (slight improvement of 5% over last report), manufacturing remains down 15%. Food processing waste increases on average at 20% remain constant as do increases in health care waste generally. Seniors home waste collection services and tonnage has increased substantially with the renewed focus on health care protection and alleviating COVID-19 outbreaks. 

OCC volume from the ICI sector remains depressed in the range of 40 – 50%. 

ICI collection companies are beginning to plan for increased waste tonnage and collection frequencies as the province moves gradually towards opening the economy.

COVID 19 Waste Generation Report - Week of April 27 2020

Paul van der Werf, Rob Cook & Peter Hargreave 

Background

Work continues on developing a better understanding of residential and industrial, commercial and institutional (ICI) waste disposal during and possible impacts as a result of COVID-19. To date there are twelve Ontario municipalities and nine municipalities in Alberta, British Columbia, the Northwest Territories and Saskatchewan. We also have a number of private sector waste companies with operations across the country participating. As more data is captured it allows for a better understanding of trends across the country.

It is important to understand that waste management flows are impacted by a number of factors from year to year (e.g., economic and population growth, weather related events, changes to waste management programming, waste composition, etc.,). COVID-19 is not the only influence that might be influencing waste generation and flows. There is likely some impact in the residential numbers below as municipal governments often collect wastes from some of small businesses on their residential routes. 

Residential Waste Collection 

Ontario 

Compared to the same relevant week in 2019, the twelve Ontario municipalities surveyed to date are generally experiencing an increase in total residential waste generated with more pronounced increases in green bin and garbage (see Table 1).

Table 1 – Ontario Municipal Waste Flows (Weeks Starting 9 March 2020 to 13 April 2020)

Yard waste was excluded from the totals given many municipalities have suspended services and that yearly totals vary significantly based on weather conditions. With the exception of one municipality surveyed none of these programs allow leaf and yard materials in green bin collection.

Surveyed Ontario municipalities were further broken into three main groups – large urban / urban regional, medium urban, and rural based on the Resource Productivity and Recovery Authority’s (RPRA) Datacall. Figure 1 provides a summary of average percentage changes per week changes as compared to the same weeks 2019. The average percentage increases appear to be levelling off. The spike in green bin materials for the week of March 30, 2020 is related to the three municipalities that saw an increase of 15%+ week over week. One of those municipalities accepts leaf and yard waste in their green bin.

Figure 1 – Ontario Large Urban / Urban Regional - Average 2020 vs 2019 % Change per Week

(Weeks Starting 9 March 2020 to 13 April 2020)

Figure 2 provides an overview of the differences in percentage change by waste stream for the eight

 large urban / urban regional municipalities illustrating the difference experiences. 

Figure 2 – Average Percent Change 2020 vs 2019 by Ontario Large Urban / Urban Regional Municipality

(Weeks Starting 9 March 2020 to 13 April 2020)

To date, surveys have been received from one medium urban and three rural Ontario municipalities (See Figure 3).  Both are experiencing similar trends to the larger municipalities with overall increases in waste generation of between 6 – 10%. There has been some week to week increases since the beginning of April however they are tailing off in early April.

Figure 3 – Ontario Rural Municipalities - Average 2020 vs 2019 % Change per Week

(Weeks Starting 9 March 2020 to 13 April 2020)

Figure 4 provides an overview of the differences in percentage change by waste stream for the three

rural municipalities illustrating the difference experiences. 

Figure 4 – Average Percent Change 2020 vs 2019 by Ontario Rural Municipality

(Weeks Starting 9 March 2020 to 13 April 2020)

Western Canada and the Northwest Territories

While some data has been received from Western Canada, more data is necessary to gain a more complete picture of the current impact of COVID-19.  To date the data received show reductions or a status quo in residential waste generation rates from 2019.  Additional outreach will be undertaken to provide a more complete picture in the following weeks.   

IC&I Waste Collection

The majority of data collected to date on Industrial, Commercial & Institutional (ICI) waste collection is from Ontario but the small sample of data received from Western Canada does initially appear comparable.  Generally, the waste flow data reflects economic activity variations and this is evident during the period from March 9th to April 17th. There is week over week variation, variability relative to specific sub-sectors and potential tonnage burden shifts between the ICI and residential sectors. While ICI data is sparse to date, limited data submissions and anecdotal information indicate that ICI waste collection tonnage has generally deceased between 12 – 22%.  

Tonnage decreases were experienced across all collection modes however, tonnage decreases were most pronounced in Roll Off services in the range of 28% - 45%. This reflects the impact of the provincial ‘lockdown’ and greatly diminished construction, demolition and renovation (CRD) activity.

OCC collected tonnage has declined in the same period over 50% due to reduced commercial activity and a potential shift of some OCC into the residential sector with increased OCC and packaging associated with home delivery of food and consumer products. 

Overall, ICI tonnage deceases and some increases are sector-specific – general commercial waste appears down, food processing/grocery stores appears up in excess of 20%, restaurants appear down in excess of 70%, and manufacturing appear down by roughly 15%.

As noted previously, reduced ICI tonnage may also be impacting residential tonnage numbers, where ICI materials from individual businesses and business improvement areas (BIA) are collected as part of residential collection routes.

Anecdotal information also suggests that bio medical and healthcare waste tonnage has increased considerably as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. As more information is received for the ICI sectors a more detailed picture should evolve.

CIRCULAR REFERENCE ERROR: DO WE UNDERSTAND THE CIRCULAR ECONOMY. PT. 2 - Will a voluntary approach Work FOr Food & Organic Resources?

By Peter Hargreave and Paul van der Werf (2cg. Inc.)

This is the second of a three-piece series on the Circular Economy. We pushed our ideas back and forth to each other until this short essay took form. Laden or leaden with our thoughts and opinions we hope that it sparks debate and helps us understand the Circular Economy, its implications, and how to get there, if in fact that is what we want.

How do we find ways to promote an economy that circulates materials and nutrients as productive inputs?  That is the question Ontario is currently grappling with as our current economy instead incents both high consumption and disposal, a combination that has far reaching consequences from climate change to resource security. 

Ontarians currently send more than 2 million tonnes of food and organic resources to landfill every year. Landfill gas collection systems, where in-place, assuage some of the impacts of decomposing food and organic wastes, but they are imperfect systems and still do release methane, a powerful greenhouse gas contributor.  In addition, the nutrient value, resources, and energy associated with creating the food and organic resources that were disposed are generally all lost.  The consequences have a negative rippling effect across our environment, economy and social fabric.

The Province understands the impact of this issue and is seeking to consult on what is the right approach to affect fundamental changes.  Governments have a plethora of tools by which to address issues such as this. Typically, these tools fall into two major categories: voluntary and mandatory. The voluntary approach uses public education and/or incentives to request or stimulate the desired behaviour change. The mandatory approach involves prescribing regulations that require certain actions / behaviours. This can also be accompanied by financial disincentives.

In the case of food and organic wastes, are voluntary measures enough?

To date the diversion of food and organic waste in Ontario has largely been voluntary with the exception of the requirement for certain municipalities to have leaf and yard recycling programs. Municipalities have led the way by promoting backyard composting and implementing green bin programs. 

Minimal funds have been offered by the federal and provincial governments to incent these activities.  Instead, municipalities have made the decision for a variety of reasons, not least, to address waning landfill capacity.

To date more than 2 million Ontarians, mostly living in single-family households, have access to curbside green bin programs. The vast majority of these programs operate in southern Ontario spanning from Ottawa in the east to Waterloo in the west. These municipalities have made the decision to pay a premium to encourage reduction and to manage food and organic resources in a manner that is more expensive than disposal based on today’s economics.  Around 1 million tonnes of food and organic resources are processed annually through these municipal programs and converted into productive outputs, including energy generation and nutrients that support local crops. 

The provincial approach on organics diversion has been largely a success story with a more voluntary approach.  Yet still half of municipally generated food and organic waste still ends up in landfill and a few larger municipalities are still without green bin programs, likely sheltered by access to relatively plentiful and inexpensive landfill capacity. 

Business has different drivers and their story is much different.  They are governed more by bottom line considerations than political and environmental ones. As one grocery chain articulated:

“Diverting food waste must save us ~30% or we simply will not do it. Going from one container to two containers is added work for our stores. Anything we do needs to be easy for our employees and cost effective for our business.”

Business also has the ability to take a more out of sight, out of mind approach. Unlike municipalities, they do not have to be transparent about how their waste is managed and continue to have access to cheap foreign disposal.

While there are a growing number of businesses with corporate social responsibility (CSR) programs, it is difficult to voluntarily encourage them to pay more. This is likely why despite the growth of CSR, an estimated 75% of all food and organic waste generated by business ends up in landfill, either in Ontario or the US.

This is absolutely not an attempt to paint the entire business sector with one brush.  For some businesses, economically it makes sense for them to utilize food banks, farms for animal feed, rendering facilities or to send materials to compost or anaerobic digestion facilities.  And some have other rationales to do so. There are thriving niches that have evolved but they are generally the exception rather than the rule. They really are early adopters of the circular economy and serve as an example of how it can be done (and still generate profits).

It does, however, appear a voluntary approach has hit its upward limit on the results that can be achieved.  All the easier waste organic streams have been captured.  Food processors in Ontario have built synergies with other business that can utilize their wastes.  The rendering sector remains a great example of a niche circular economy model.  Major grocery chains are also becoming more effective at diverting surplus good quality food to food banks and food waste to animal feed or organic processing facilities. 

A voluntary approach will simply not continue to adequately motivate other participants as the cost / reward differentiate is simply too large. Too many economic signals are pushing the majority of materials in the wrong direction.

Whether it be:

• restaurants that lack the economies of scale to ensure food donation;
• apartment dwellers who live in buildings that do not have the appropriate infrastructure to divert materials; or
• retailers or caterers that may be processing back end materials but find it too labour extensive and expensive to deal with more contaminated front of shop organic wastes.

If we are serious about the circular economy, not to mention reducing greenhouse gas emissions, we will need to shift from voluntary to regulatory approaches (just as was done for the blue box and leaf and yard waste). Mandatory action is necessary but it is important to underline that mandatory does not means prescriptive. This is about providing the right economic signals to ultimately spur investment and stimulate creativity in how to more fully deal with food and organic waste.  Mechanisms such as organic restrictions or bans, disposal levies and source separation requirements can all achieve this signal. Part 3 of our series will explore these tools and how they could be implemented to help us move towards a circular economy.

Circular Reference Error: Do we understand the circular economy. Pt. 1 - What is the circular economy?

By Peter Hargreave and Paul van der Werf (2cg Inc.)

This is the start of a three-piece series on the Circular Economy. We pushed our ideas back and forth to each other until this short essay took form. Laden or leaden with our thoughts and opinions we hope that it sparks debate and helps us understand the Circular Economy, its implications, and how to get there, if in fact that is what we want.

The ‘circular economy’ has become a new buzz word for governments and companies looking to explain important environmental achievements around waste reduction and management. Terms like this often have a tipping point – a point when they cross a certain invisible threshold and become part of the common vernacular. However, when this happens there is a tendency for the actual meaning of the words to be lost as its use is expanded to meet various needs and interests. Conferences, articles, and consultations become echo chambers. For many, the concept at a macro level, is simply an expression of the better management of the environmental impacts of waste generation. Few really understand its meaning, or more importantly its implications.

It is often easiest to describe concepts by explaining what they are not: The circular economy is not:

• A number that can be measured through only a tonnage metric.
• Simply diversion from landfill. It is about re-integrating materials and their value before they are allowed to become waste. For instance, using glass as a fill in a road bed results in a loss of its value and removal from the economy.
• Creating biodegradable products or products that use less materials unless the value of those materials and nutrients can be retained.
• Recapturing just any type of value. Instead it is about continuously recirculating and recapturing the value of materials and nutrients as productive inputs into our economy. Anyone that makes the argument that landfill gas capture or energy from waste are a part of the circular economy does not understand the nutrient or material value loss associated with these activities.

At its heart, the circular economy is about efficiency. It is an efficient system that by its nature proactively anticipates and plans for problems and challenges. The waste industry is largely about dealing with a ‘death and taxes’ level truism. It reflects our economy’s inefficiency and the waste it creates. In other words, it is a manifestation of inefficiency. If you ever wonder why people look down on the waste sector, beyond the physical and biological decay of the materials that are managed, it is because waste implicitly represents failure. People have consumed a resource’s utility without having consumed the resource and are left only with reactive options.

‘Addressing Food Waste in Ontario’, an Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change’s discussion paper, envisions that food production moves away from its current linear economy to a circular economy. It is a good place to start laying out the circular economy and its implications.

It is our constant battle with bacteria and fungi that brings this sharply into focus. Food is always, and often quickly, reaching the line where its utility is lost. Based on the amount of food that currently goes to waste, it seems we are not only willing to accept this loss but to blithely contribute to it.

This is not to point a finger at any given entity but illustrate the disconnect throughout the entire demand and supply structure. While we all make personal decisions, the situation is heartily aided and abetted by wonky definitions of when food is acceptable to sell or permissive incentives that reward individual to purchase more than they can possibly use. In addition to losing the nutrients and the dollars it cost to purchase it, we immediately lose the embedded environmental impacts from its production and squander its opportunity to at least potentially effect some social good when it becomes waste.

In this context creating compost or biogas is not part of the circular economy at all but is just a sop that soaks up some minimal value from what is now a waste. It is a relic of the linear economy. All that is being accomplished, by wasting food, is the creation of unnecessary agricultural re-production. In the circular economy, organic waste processing facilities are the last resort.

A shift from a reactive linear to a proactive circular economy would be transformative. It would and should shift most of the waste industry’s existing businesses and jobs upstream. In the case of food, these jobs would become agri-food jobs concerned with improving food supply and demand first and extending food shelf life second. This would also be manifest as businesses and jobs that re-distribute surplus food rather than the laudable but inefficient retail/charitable organization model that exists now. Businesses would pay for this service like they pay for waste disposal and diversion now (perhaps a company called Food Management).

Up next- Part 2- Will a voluntary approach for the management of food get us there?