Canada vs. Japan: Lithium-Ion and BESS Battery Disposal Compared
As BESS systems proliferate and battery use increases across sectors, Canada has an opportunity to lead—not just in technology, but in accountability. Closing the loop on battery materials is not just a question of infrastructure. It’s a question of equity, responsibility, and relationship to land.
As Canada accelerates its investments in battery energy storage systems (BESS) and electric mobility, attention is turning to what happens at the end of the line: disposal, decommissioning, and long-term accountability.
Who manages the risks when clean infrastructure becomes toxic waste? And more importantly, whose lands, waters, and communities are impacted when those systems are dismantled?
This question holds particular weight for Indigenous Nations in Canada, many of whom are both energy partners and land stewards. With large-scale BESS projects like Oneida in Ontario and growing demand for critical minerals from Indigenous territories, the need for culturally grounded, rights-based battery stewardship is clear.
Japan offers a valuable comparison. Its battery disposal system is centrally coordinated, focused on national self-sufficiency, and built around industrial integration. Canada’s approach is earlier-stage, fragmented, and still evolving. Below is a comparative analysis with added consideration of the Indigenous perspective on environmental governance, equity, and consent.
1. Regulatory Framework and Government Role
Canada:
Disposal regulations are managed at the provincial level, with no unified national framework.
Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) requirements vary widely.
A federal Battery Circular Economy Standard is in development but not yet in effect.
Indigenous governance is not currently integrated into any national battery strategy.
Japan:
National coordination is led by the Ministry of the Environment.
Municipalities are required to provide collection points and follow disposal guidelines.
Battery recycling is linked to national supply chain and energy security priorities.
Indigenous Perspective:
Indigenous Nations in Canada are often not consulted in the design of environmental policy, despite being directly impacted by waste infrastructure, mineral extraction, and energy development. Any future federal battery framework must include Indigenous leadership, not as stakeholders, but as co-governors. This includes decision-making on disposal sites, recycling infrastructure, and oversight of hazardous material transport across territories.
2. Industrial Recycling Infrastructure
Canada:
A small number of private firms (e.g., Li-Cycle, Lithion) are scaling domestic capacity.
End-of-life battery volumes remain low but are expected to rise sharply by the 2030s.
Many batteries, especially from vehicles, are still exported for offshore processing.
Japan:
Established infrastructure with closed-loop systems by companies like Sumitomo Metal Mining and Panasonic.
Japan is investing in advanced recovery methods for lithium, cobalt, and nickel.
Domestic capacity is tied to national targets for raw material security.
Indigenous Perspective:
Exporting battery waste to other countries avoids responsibility and transparency. Canada must develop safe, localized recycling systems, ideally with Indigenous ownership or partnership. This supports self-determination and ensures that environmental risks do not disproportionately affect communities who have not consented to host these facilities.
3. BESS-Specific Oversight
Canada:
Ontario is leading BESS deployment with projects like Oneida.
Disposal planning for BESS is largely undefined.
Long-term responsibilities for decommissioning, fire risk, and material recovery are unclear.
Japan:
BESS installations are managed as part of broader circular economy planning.
Decommissioning strategies are being developed alongside deployment.
Risk mitigation (e.g., for thermal runaway events) is governed by national safety protocols.
Indigenous Perspective:
Projects like Oneida, co-developed with Six Nations, set a new precedent for Indigenous-led energy infrastructure. But long-term stewardship must also be Indigenous-led. Decommissioning, toxic materials management, and lifecycle oversight should not be offloaded to the community without sustained resources, technical support, and full decision-making power. This includes consent over where future recycling or disposal infrastructure is sited.
4. Public Engagement and Collection Systems
Canada:
Consumer collection is mostly coordinated by third-party nonprofits like Call2Recycle.
Municipal involvement and public awareness vary.
Recycling rates for lithium-ion batteries are low outside of regulated provinces.
Japan:
Roughly 75% of municipalities offer formal collection services.
Fire safety, damaged battery handling, and resident education are standardized.
National messaging supports public compliance and recycling behaviour.
Indigenous Perspective:
Remote and Indigenous communities often lack access to safe collection or disposal services. A just transition includes ensuring infrastructure equity, both for new energy and end-of-life systems. Federal and provincial governments must work with Indigenous governments to co-design collection logistics, training programs, and public education rooted in local language and knowledge.
5. Strategic Direction and Long-Term Planning
Canada:
Circular economy goals are aspirational but underdeveloped.
Federal strategy focuses on critical minerals and supply chain resilience.
Disposal and recycling receive less attention than production and extraction.
Japan:
Battery recycling is treated as a strategic national industry.
Closed-loop recycling is integrated into domestic battery manufacturing.
National goals align with rare-metal independence and zero-waste targets.
Indigenous Perspective:
Indigenous self-determination in energy and environmental governance must include full lifecycle planning—from mineral extraction through to recycling and disposal. This requires long-term, rights-based frameworks that uphold the principles of Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) and integrate Indigenous law, land ethics, and intergenerational responsibility.
Conclusion
Japan offers a model of centralized, strategic coordination that Canada can learn from, but Canada’s path must reflect its own legal and ethical context. That includes embedding Indigenous governance and environmental stewardship into battery policy from the start.
As BESS systems proliferate and battery use increases across sectors, Canada has an opportunity to lead, not just in technology, but in accountability. Closing the loop on battery materials is not just a question of infrastructure. It’s a question of equity, responsibility, and relationship to land.