1

TO:

FROM:
SUBJECT:

CHAIR AND MEMBERS
CIVIC WORKS COMMITTEE
MEETING ON JULY 17, 2018
KELLY SCHERR, P.ENG., MBA, FEC
MANAGING DIRECTOR, ENVIRONMENTAL & ENGINEERING
SERVICES & CITY ENGINEER
60% WASTE DIVERSION ACTION PLAN

RECOMMENDATION
That on the recommendation of the Managing Director, Environmental & Engineering
Services and City Engineer, the following actions be taken:
a) The Report BE RECEIVED for information;
b) The action plan containing programs and initiatives to be phased in between 2019
and 2022 to achieve 60% waste diversion BE APPROVED IN PRINCIPLE;
c) The 60% Waste Diversion Action Plan BE RELEASED for review and comment by
the general public and stakeholders from July 25, 2017 to September 10, 2018 noting
that minor changes/revisions to the report may be made prior to release to improve
readability and/or layout of the report;
d) The Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to consider the feedback from the
consultation noted in part c), above, and submit a report to the Civic Works
Committee on September 27, 2018; and,
e) That a public participation meeting on the 60% Waste Diversion Action Plan BE
HELD at the September 27, 2018 meeting of the Civic Works Committee.

PREVIOUS REPORTS PERTINENT TO THIS MATTER
Relevant reports that can be found at www.london.ca under City Hall (Meetings) include:


Update and Next Steps – Resource Recovery Strategy and Residual Waste Disposal
Strategy as part of the Environmental Assessment Process (February 7, 2017
meeting of the Civic Works Committee (CWC), Item #10)

Relevant reports that can be found at www.london.ca under City Hall (Meetings –
Advisory and other Committees) include:


Background Report #3 - Development of 60% Waste Diversion Action Plan (March 8,
2018 meeting of the Waste Management Working Group (WMWG), Item #3.3)



Update Report #8 - Programs, Projects and Provincial Activities that will Inform
and/or Influence Strategies (January 18, 2018 meeting of the WMWG, Item #8)



Update Report #5 - Programs, Projects and Provincial Activities that will Inform
and/or Influence Strategies (September 28, 2017 meeting of the WMWG, Item #7)



Update Report #2 - Programs, Projects and Provincial Activities that will Inform
and/or Influence Strategies (June 14, 2017 meeting of the WMWG, Item #8)



Update Report #1 - Resource Recovery Update (January 19, 2017 meeting of the
WMWG, Item #7)

 2

COUNCIL’S 2015-2019 STRATEGIC PLAN
Municipal Council has recognized the importance of solid waste management in its 20152019 - Strategic Plan for the City of London (2015 – 2019 Strategic Plan) as follows:
Building a Sustainable City
 Strong and healthy environment
 Robust infrastructure
Growing our Economy
 Local, regional, and global innovation
 Strategic, collaborative partnerships

Leading in Public Service
 Proactive financial management
 Innovative & supportive organizational
practices
 Collaborative, engaged leadership
 Excellent service delivery

BACKGROUND
PURPOSE
This report provides the Waste Management Working Group with an overview of the
60% Waste Diversion Action Plan (Action Plan) and seeks support for releasing the
report for review and comment by the general public and other stakeholders.
CONTEXT
In London, more than one tonne of waste is produced annually per person. This includes
waste generated at home as well as waste generated by the industrial, commercial and
institutional (IC&I) sectors. About a third of this waste is diverted through numerous waste
reduction, reuse, recycling and composting programs. The overall waste diversion rate for
London is between 30% and 35%. The residential (household) diversion rate is 45%.
To plan for the future, the City is developing a long term Resource Recovery Strategy.
The Resource Recovery Strategy involves the development of a plan to maximize waste
reduction, reuse, recycling and resource recovery in an economically viable and
environmentally responsible manner. The Resource Recovery Strategy includes a
commitment by City council to increase the residential waste diversion rate to 60% by
2022. This commitment was made at the October 30, 2017 City Council meeting by
passing the following resolution:
“The W12A Landfill expansion be sized assuming the residential waste
diversion rate is 60% by 2022 noting this does not prevent increasing London’s
residential waste diversion rate above 60% between 2022 and 2050.”
This 60% waste diversion goal will be included in the environmental assessment as part
of the commitments made by the City. It will be a key consideration in the Ministry of the
Environment, Conservation and Parks (MOECP formerly called the Ministry of the
Environment and Climate Change - MOECC) approval of the environmental assessment
for expansion of the W12A Landfill.
Other key documents (Appendix A) that highlight waste diversion and resource recovery
and provide further context for the 60% Waste Diversion Action Plan include:





Strategic Plan for the City of London (2015-2019)
The London Plan (December 28, 2016)
Provincial Government A Strategy for Waste-Free Ontario – Building a Circular
Economy (February 2017)
Provincial Government Food and Organic Waste Framework (April 2018)

Key considerations in the development of the 60% waste diversion goal were:


A 60% diversion rate being a practical limit in Ontario at this time based on the
following: many municipalities with a Green Bin program divert between 50% and

 3

55%; about three municipalities have diversion rates around 60% (Simcoe County,
Dufferin County, City of Kingston); and only the Region of York (including the City of
Markham) have pushed to higher levels;


Feedback received from residents; and



Increasing from the current 45% diversion to 60% diversion represents a 33%
improvement which is a significant undertaking.

The overall Resource Recovery Strategy will look at the longer term steps the City could
take to move beyond 60% waste diversion.

DISCUSSION
60% Waste Diversion Action Plan – Proposed Actions
The 60% Waste Diversion Action Plan proposes a set of actions to achieve 60% diversion
of residential waste in 2022. These actions are summarized in Table 1.
Table 1 - Proposed Actions to Achieve 60% Residential Waste Diversion
Blue Box (Blue Cart) Programs
1. Increase capture of recyclables from 63% to 75% (less placed in garbage)
New (or Expanded) Recycling Programs and Initiatives
2. Bulky Plastics
a) Continue with existing pilot project
b) Consider implementation of an expanded program once long-term, stable
markets have developed
3. Carpets
a) Wait to see if the Province develops a provincial program for carpets under the
Waste-Free Ontario Act as there are limited markets for recycling carpets in
the province
b) If no provincial program exists by 2021, implement a pilot project
4. Ceramics
a) Provide a drop-off location for ceramics at no cost at the City’s EnviroDepots
b) Ban collection of toilets at the curb
5. Clothing and Textiles
a) Develop a textile awareness strategy to promote existing reuse opportunities
for all Londoners
b) Pilot depot collection at select multi-residential buildings
6. Small Metal (Small Appliances/Electrical Tools/Scrap Metal)
a) Implement semi-annual curbside collection of small metal items
b) Pilot depot collection at select multi-residential buildings
7. Furniture
a) Begin semi-annual collection of wooden furniture
b) Provide a drop-off location at W12A EnviroDepot for wooden furniture
c) Ban wooden furniture from curbside garbage collection
8. Mattresses
a) Wait to see if the Province develops a provincial program for mattresses under
the Waste-Free Ontario Act as there are limited markets for recycling
mattresses in the province
b) If no provincial program exists by 2021, implement a pilot project
(table continued)

 4

Table 1 - Proposed Actions to Achieve 60% Residential Waste Diversion
Curbside Organics Management Program
9. Implement a curbside (residential) Green Bin program
10. Implement bi-weekly (same day) garbage collection
Multi-Residential Organics Management Program
11. Implement a mixed waste processing pilot (to recover organics and other
materials) on a portion of the waste from multi-residential homes
Other Organics Management Programs
12. Develop and implement a food waste avoidance strategy
13. Reduce the cost of composters at the EnviroDepots and undertake additional sale
events at select community locations
14. Provide financial support to community groups or environmental organizations
that want to set up a community composting program
Waste Reduction and Reuse Initiatives and Policies
15. Create a Waste Reduction and Reuse Coordinator position within the Solid Waste
Management Division
16. Provide financial support for community waste reduction and reuse initiatives
17. Reduce the container limit to two or three containers per collection when the
Green Bin program with bi-weekly garbage collection is operational
18. Further explore the use of clear bags for garbage collection if London does not
move to a roll-out cart based garbage collection system
19. Further explore a full user pay garbage system if London moves to a roll-out cart
based garbage collection system
20. Further examine other incentive and disincentive initiatives (best practices) from
other municipalities (e.g., mandatory recycling by-law, reward systems, user fees,
etc.)
21. Provide additional feedback approaches to residents (including how waste
reduction and waste diversion are calculated when providing waste management
progress reports)
List of Benefits and Costs of 60% Waste Diversion
By taking the steps outlined in this Action Plan, a number of environmental, social and
financial benefits will be achieved including:








increased waste diversion (33% more diversion),
creation of jobs (between 125 and 170 direct and indirect; within and outside London),
reduced greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (about 17,000 to 27,000 tonnes per year,
equivalent of removing 4,200 to 6,800 cars from the road),
reduced landfill impacts (less odourous materials being landfilled, less traffic, etc.),
better use of materials and resources,
residents will feel satisfaction/pride living in an environmentally progressive
community, and
short-term landfill cost savings.

It is expected that approval of any expansion of the landfill by the MOECP would be
unlikely unless the City has programs in place to achieve 60% waste diversion. If the
City does not receive approval to expand the landfill, the increase in disposal costs will
be significant as the City would have to export its waste to a private landfill elsewhere in
Ontario. The increase in disposal costs for the City to export its waste is estimated to be
approximately $5 to $7 million per year.
Waste Diversion Rates, Estimated Operating Costs and Schedule
The approximate cost, expected diversion rate and timeline for implementation for the
proposed actions are summarized on Table 2.

 5

Table 2 - Summary of Diversion, Estimated Operating Costs and Schedule
Program
Category

Diversion Rate
Range

Blue Box
Recycling
1% - 3%
Improvements

Likely

Annual Estimated Operating
Cost
Range

Likely

Schedule

$/Hhlda

2%

$0

$0

$0

Likely not
under City
controlb in
the future

$450,000

$2.00 $3.00

2019c –
2021

New
Recycling
Programs and
Initiatives

0.4% 0.8%

0.6%

$350,000 $550,000

Curbside
Organics
Management
Program

8% 12%

10%

$3,900,000
$5,000,000
$5,500,000

$21.75 $30.50

2020 –
2022

MultiResidential
Organics
Management
Pilot Program

0.5% 0.7%

0.6%

$400,000 $700,000

$500,000

$2.25 –
4.00

2020

Other Organic
Management
Programs

0.3%0.6%

0.4%

$250,000 $350,000

$300,000

$1.50 –
$2.00

2019c –
2021

Waste
Reduction,
Reuse
Initiatives and
Policies

1% –
4%

1.4%

$150,000 $350,000

$250,000

$1.00 $2.00

2019c –
2021

Totald

11% 21%

15%

$5,050,000
$6,500,000
($36.00)
$7,450,000

$28.00 $41.50

2019c –
2022

Notes:
a) Based on 180,000 households.
b) The provincial Waste-Free Ontario Strategy calls for a transition from the current
Blue Box program, which is municipally managed and co-funded by industry and
municipalities, toward a full extended producer responsibility (EPR) and/or individual
responsibility (IPR) program by 2023. The EPR program will require producers to
take full financial and operational responsibility for all Ontario municipal Blue Box
programs.
c) 2019 Multi-year budget has $140,000 assigned to new waste diversion initiatives.
d) Totals may not add due to rounding.
Green Bin Collection & Processing versus Mixed Waste Collection & Processing
A comparison of a Green Bin program versus a mixed waste processing program for
managing curbside organics is presented in Table 3.
A curbside Green Bin program is recommended because more evidence is required on
mixed waste processing in Ontario before the uncertainty around the technical and
regulatory risks can be removed. For all the recent progress made in the field of mixed
waste processing, there are as many if not more examples that highlight the challenges of
this approach. For these reasons, City staff is recommending to proceed with a pilot
project in the multi-residential sector and continued monitoring of mixed waste processing
work undertaken in a few Ontario municipalities (e.g., Region of Peel, City of Toronto,
Region of Durham, County of Oxford).

 6

Table 3 – Comparison of Green Bin and Mixed Waste Processing Programs
Factor

Comment


A mixed waste processing program potentially captures 25% to
80% more organics, reduces greenhouse gases (GHG) by a
corresponding amount and opens up the possibility of producing
solid recovered fuel.



A Green Bin program costs approximately $30 to $45 per year to
service a curbside household (about 125,000 households; not all
180,000 households as in Table 2) compared to $70 to $115 per
year to undertake mixed waste processing for the same
households.



Mixed waste processing program offers more convenience to
residents (no change to how they manage waste).



The rules and regulations around mixed waste processing are
evolving as current regulations do not explicitly address mixed
waste processing.
There is limited experience with mixed waste processing in
Canada. Past experience has not been positive in Canada and
parts of North America. Facilities have either been closed (e.g.,
Three County (Total Recycling) System, Aylmer, Ontario; Plasco
Energy Group, Ottawa, Ontario; SUBBOR, Guelph, Ontario;
Dongara Pellet Plant, Vaughan, Ontario; Conporec Integrated
Waste Management & Composting, Sorel-Tracy, Quebec; and
several facilities in the United States) or retooled away from
partially mixed waste processing or similar systems to source
separated systems (e.g., City of Guelph wet/dry recycling; City of
Moncton wet/dry recycling). This includes a recent decision in the
City of Edmonton (March 2018) not to re-open its mixed waste
processing facility in favour of progressing with a source
separated organics collection program.
Modern mixed waste processing systems in Europe appear to
have addressed many of the earlier challenges; however, the
track record in North America is very limited at this time. This is
expected to change in the next two to five years.
Green Bin is the preferred method in the provincial Food and
Organic Waste Framework and Policy Statement.

Environmental

Financial

Social



Technical





The current estimated capital cost of a Green Bin program is $12 million with an
estimated annual operating cost range from $3.5 to $5.0 million depending on type of
Green Bin program implemented (e.g., how will pet waste, diapers, be handled, etc.)
and processing costs. Previous cost estimates for a Green Bin program include: initial
capital of $12,000,000 and on-going annual operating costs of $3,900,000. These
estimates were based on a weekly collection of organics comprised of food waste and
tissues/paper toweling (diapers/sanitary products would not be included) and a biweekly collection of garbage.
It is expected that the cost of mixed waste processing may decrease in the future
because of improved technology and potential revenues from producing renewable
natural gas from the organics.
In the future, a mixed waste processing program may be preferred if the technical and
regulatory risks are addressed. For this reason, it is recommended that the City’s
Green Bin program be designed to offer the flexibility to transition to a mixed waste
processing program in the future. Flexibility can be achieved by the City:


Not building its own processing facility for the organics from the Green Bin Program
or entering into a long term contract (e.g., eight or more years) for processing
capacity; and,

 7



Having the processing contract(s) match the expected service life of the trucks
(about seven years).

Financial Considerations – Funding 60% Waste Diversion
Partially Offsetting Operating Costs
As shown in Table 2, annual operating costs for the 60% Waste Diversion Action Plan will
range from $5.05 million to $7.45 million and will depend on final program design, market
competition, etc. The most likely annual operating cost is estimated to be $6.5 million.
City staff continue to examine a number of financing approaches. The change in
government in Ontario has created additional uncertainty as a number of potential
revenue sources for waste diversion are on hold. Besides taxes, potential sources of
revenue currently include:


Additional recycling program costs paid by industry - potential cost savings from
expected transition from the current Blue Box program, which is municipally
managed and co-funded by industry and municipalities, toward a full EPR program
paid 100% by industry by 2023. This is expected to reduce the City’s current waste
diversion program costs by $1.5 to $1.8 million. In addition there is the potential of
one time capital funding for recycling infrastructure. It is not clear when full funding
would be paid to the City.



Other extended producer responsibility revenues - for items such as branded
organics (e.g., diapers, soiled paper, tissues/toweling) carpets, textiles, furniture and
other consumer goods. These sources could range between $50,000 and $150,000
per year.



W12A Landfill levy to support diversion - a specific amount charged per tonne of
garbage disposed of at the landfill that is placed in a dedicated fund for waste
reduction and diversion. The amount that could be collected is based on many
factors (e.g., which garbage is it applied to, what fee, etc.). Levies between $2 and
$20 per tonne are in place in some jurisdictions. Revenue from this source could
range between $250,000 and $1 million per year.



Greenhouse gas offset credits associated with organics diversion – the Government
of Ontario was working on introducing an emissions offset protocol for aerobic
composting into Ontario’s Cap & Trade program, based on an existing protocol used
in Alberta (e.g., five composting projects currently listed on the Alberta Emissions
Offset Registry). The value of these offsets would have been between $100,000 and
$500,000 per year based on an assumed value of around $20 per tonne of GHG
emissions offset (and increasing over time). It is unclear at this time how/if this
funding opportunity will be replaced by the current provincial government.

A summary of estimated operating costs and potential annual funding is identified on
Table 4.
Table 4 – Summary of Estimated Costs and Potential Funding
Low

High

Likely (Anticipated)

Costs (Table 2)

$5,050,000

$7,450,000

$6,500,000

Revenues

$1,800,000

$2,950,000

$2,000,000

Total Estimated Costs

$4,500,000

Capital
Capital costs for the 60% Waste Diversion Action Plan will depend on program design,
technology considerations, etc. The largest capital expenditure will be for the Green Bin
Program. A capital cost of $12 million for the Green Bin program had previously been
estimated (January 2016, Multi-year Budget deliberations). Other waste diversion
initiatives listed in the Action Plan may require new investment in the order of $500,000
to $3 million for a total of $12.5 to $15 million in capital expenditures.

 8

It is expected that capital costs for the 60% Waste Diversion Action Plan will be funded
from the existing capital budget. The current ten-year capital program includes $35
million in 2020 for new solid waste diversion technologies to increase diversion. The
funding sources for the $35 million include Federal Gas Tax ($16.8 million), Sanitary
Landfill Reserve Fund ($12.2 million) and debenture, if required ($6 million). City staff
will seek additional funding opportunities for capital items at the provincial and federal
government level (e.g., Federation of Canadian Municipalities Green Municipal Fund).
After allocating up to $15 million for the Action Plan, there would be $20 million left for
advanced waste diversion and/or resource recovery technologies.
Community Feedback – To the end of June 2018
The approaches used to engage the public and other stakeholders in the development
of the 60% Waste Diversion Action Plan included open houses, booths at community
events, interactions with City of London Advisory Committees, the WhyWaste Resource
Recovery Strategy website, creation of the Waste Management Community Liaison
Committee and newspaper and social media advertisements. The engagement started
in April 2017.
One of the most recent engagement items was a waste diversion survey undertaken by
Ipsos Public Affairs. In total, 301 London residents participated in this survey between
May 31 and June 4, 2018. The precision of Ipsos online surveys is calculated via a
credibility interval. In this case, the sample is considered accurate within +/- 6.4
percentage points, 19 times out of 20, had all London residents been surveyed.
Under Key Findings, Ipsos notes that “Overall, residents are supportive of the City of
London’s efforts to increase its waste diversion from 45 percent to 60 percent, and are
willing to pay for it and change their behaviour to assist in these efforts.” Other key
findings are found in Appendix B with the complete report included in the separate 60%
Waste Diversion Action Plan.
Community Engagement – An Approach for Final Feedback
The following community engagement activities are proposed for the 60% Waste
Diversion Action Plan (Table 5).
Table 5 – Community Engagement for Draft 60% Waste Diversion Action Plan
Date

Event

July 17

CWC Meeting

July 24

Council

July 25 to
September
10

Comments
 Approve in Principle Draft Action Plan to
achieve 60% waste diversion by 2022
 Approve to circulate and receive feedback
on the 60% Waste Diversion Action Plan

Provide feedback
opportunities on
WhyWaste Resource
Recovery Strategy
website

 Advertise in the London Free Press, The
Londoner and on social media

Circulate to
Community
Stakeholder Groups

 Circulate and ask for feedback from Waste
Management Community Liaison,
Committee (WMCLC), W12A Landfill Public
Liaison Committee, Urban League and
Advisory Committee on the Environment
(ACE)

Circulate to Waste
Management/
Recycling Companies

 Circulate and ask for feedback from local
companies including Emterra, Green Valley
Recycling, Miller Waste, Orgaworld,
StormFisher, Try Recycling, Waste
Connections and Waste Management
(table continued)

 9

Table 5 – Community Engagement for Draft 60% Waste Diversion Action Plan
Date

Event

Comments

Festival

 Attend Gathering on the Green II, Sunday
August 19, 2018

Presentations

 Present to WMCLC in early August (TBD)
 Present to ACE on September 5, 2018

September
27

Public Participation
Meeting

 CWC receives comments from the public
and other stakeholders

January/
February
2019

CWC Meeting
Council

 Approval of 60% Waste Diversion Action
Plan
 Implementation details and final cost
estimates to be provided at this time

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This report was prepared with assistance from Anne Boyd, Manager, Waste Diversion
Programs; Jane Kittmer, Solid Waste Planning Coordinator; and Jessica Favalaro, Water
Demand Technologist.
PREPARED BY:

PREPARED BY:

WESLEY ABBOTT, P. ENG.
PROJECT MANAGER
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT

MICHAEL LOSEE, B.SC.
DIVISION MANAGER
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT

PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY:

RECOMMENDED BY:

JAY STANFORD, M.A., M.P.A.
DIRECTOR, ENVIRONMENT, FLEET &
SOLID WASTE

KELLY SCHERR, P.ENG., MBA, FEC
MANAGING DIRECTOR,
ENVIRONMENTAL & ENGINEERING
SERVICES & CITY ENGINEER

\\clfile1\esps$\shared\administration\committee reports\cwc 2018 07 60% waste diversion action plan.docx

Appendix A

Key Documents that Provide Context for the 60% Waste Diversion Action Plan

Appendix B

Ipsos Public Affairs - Summary - City of London Waste Diversion survey

Attachment (full report under separate cover) 60% Waste Diversion Action Plan

 10

APPENDIX A
Key Documents that Provide Context for the
60% Waste Diversion Action Plan
Key
Documents
Strategic Plan
for the City of
London
(2015-2019)

Extract from Document
(all details in italics are verbatim – word-for-word)
Building a Sustainable City
1. Robust Infrastructure
What are we doing?
Increase efforts on more resource recovery, long-term disposal
capacity, and reducing community impacts of waste management.
How are we doing it?
Long-Term Waste Management Plan
Growing our Economy
3. Local, regional, and global innovation
What are we doing?
Lead the development of new ways to resource recovery, energy
recovery, and utility and resource optimization with our local and
regional partners to keep our operating costs low and assist
businesses with commercialization to help grow London’s economy.
How are we doing it?
London Waste to Resources Innovation Centre

The London
Plan
(December
28, 2016)

London 2035: Exciting Exceptional, Connected
Key Directions
Direction #4 Become one of the greenest cities in Canada
#12 Minimize waste generation, maximize resource recovery, and
responsibly dispose of residual waste.
Solid Waste Management
479_ The following policies are separated into two primary areas:
Diversion and Disposal.
>>DIVERSION - REDUCING, REUSING, RECYCLING,
COMPOSTING AND RECOVERY
480_ The City will promote the reduction, re-use, recycling,
composting, and recovery of materials from solid waste, wherever
possible, through the use of innovative means, new technology,
conservation measures, and public education and community
engagement programs.
481_ The City will support the reduction, re-use, recycling,
composting and recovery of materials by:
1. Initiating, participating and collaborating in public education,
awareness, and community engagement programs with residents,
Londoners, businesses and other agencies and organizations.
2. Collaborating with other municipalities to develop long-term
strategies to reduce, reuse, recycle, and recover materials from
the waste stream.
3. Encouraging development proposals to provide adequate
recycling and composting facilities, and support innovative waste
collection and diversion programs.
4. Increasing waste diversion through existing technologies and new,
emerging and next-generation technologies as they become
available, practical, and financially feasible for London.
5. Exploring energy from waste opportunities.

 11

Key
Documents

Extract from Document
(all details in italics are verbatim – word-for-word)
482_ In addition to municipal waste management facilities within the
Waste Management Resource Recovery Area Place Type, City
Council will support the adequate provision of lands for solid waste
diversion and resource recovery within the Heavy Industrial Place
Type or on lands with specific policies.

Provincial
Government
A Strategy for
Waste-Free
Ontario –
Building a
Circular
Economy
(February
2017)

Our strategy to achieve a circular economy
For Ontario to thrive, it must take advantage of resource recovery and
waste reduction as economic drivers and factors in environmental
protection. Building on our new foundation, the following outlines
Ontario’s strategy to achieve its transformation to a circular economy.
Vision
The vision for Ontario is one where waste is seen as a resource that
can be recovered, reused and reintegrated to achieve a circular
economy.
Goals
The goals are to achieve a zero waste Ontario and zero greenhouse
gas emissions from the waste sector.
Zero waste Ontario is a visionary goal that provides the guiding
principles needed to work toward the elimination of waste. It is a new
approach that focuses on preventing waste in the first place rather
than relying on traditional end-of-life waste management solutions.
The visionary goal of eliminating greenhouse gases from the waste
sector will guide our priorities for resource recovery and waste
reduction. It will help the province meet its climate change
commitments and build a low-carbon economy while protecting
Ontario’s natural environment.
Interim Diversion Goals [for combined residential, business and
institutional waste streams]
 sets a vision and goals including interim waste diversion goals for
2020 (30%), 2030 (50%) and 2050 (80%);
Municipalities will need to deliver at least 60% waste diversion.

Provincial
Government
Food and
Organic
Waste
Framework
(April 2018)

Targets - Sector-specific waste reduction and resource recovery
targets are included in the table below. The persons or entities set out
in column 1 must meet the targets in column 2 by the dates set out in
column 2.
Person or entity
b) Municipalities in
Southern Ontario subject to
policy 4.2i

Target
70% waste reduction and resource
recovery of food and organic waste
generated by single-family dwellings by
2025

e) Multi-unit residential
buildings subject to policy
4.10

50% waste reduction and resource
recovery of food and organic waste
generated at the building by 2025

f) Industrial and commercial
facilities subject to policy
4.14

70% waste reduction and resource
recovery of food and organic waste
generated in the facility by 2025

h) Educational institutions
and hospitals subject to
policy 4.18

70% waste reduction and resource
recovery of food and organic waste
generated in the facility by 2025

Province to ban food and organic waste from ending up in
disposal sites (starting in 2022) - The province will develop, consult
on, and implement a food and organic waste disposal ban regulation
under the Environmental Protection Act.

 12

APPENDIX B
Ipsos Public Affairs - Summary - City of London Waste Diversion
Survey
Methodology


This report presents the findings from a survey of City of London residents about their
attitudes and behaviours towards waste diversion.



In total, n=301 London residents participated in this survey between May 31 and June
4, 2018. The precision of Ipsos online surveys is calculated via a credibility interval. In
this case, the sample is considered accurate within +/- 6.4 percentage points, 19 times
out of 20, had all London residents been surveyed.

Key Findings
Overall, residents are supportive of the City of London’s efforts to increase its
waste diversion from 45 percent to 60 percent, and are willing to pay for it and
change their behaviour to assist in these efforts.


There is an almost universal view (93%) among City of London residents that waste
diversion is important to them, including more than half (53%) who say this is very
important.



When residents were informed that increasing the proportion of waste diversion will
require additional financial investments, three-quarters (76%) say that they would be
willing to pay more for increased waste diversion, with the highest proportion (47%)
being prepared to pay between $1 to $25 per household per year.



Residents were presented with different initiatives to help in waste diversion efforts:


About six in ten (57%) prefer investing significant resources on food waste
avoidance initiatives, while three in ten (31%) choose a moderate program, and
one in ten (12%) prefer no change.



When presented with options for a City-wide Organics Curbside Program, more
than four in ten (43%) prefer a Curbside Green Bin Program, while one-third (32%)
choose a Mixed Waste Program, and one-quarter (24%) prefer no change.



When presented with options for a City-wide Organics Multi-residential Program,
opinion is divided with four in ten (40%) who prefer a Multi-residential Green Bin
Program and a similar number (41%) choose a Mixed Waste Program. Two in ten
(19%) do not want change to the current program.



When residents were informed that items such as electronics, scrap metal,
Christmas trees and tires are no longer picked up curbside and have to be dropped
off at a depot, two-thirds (65%) indicate that they are prepared to deliver more
materials to drop-off depots.



Six in ten (60%) residents support banning additional materials from garbage
pickup, such as old furniture, carpet, small appliances, mattresses, etc., if they
could drop them off at a depot for recycling.