Waste not want not - States Assembly

6.53 Lessons from the introduction of high
rates of landfill tax in other countries include:
●
it forces all firms to comply regardless of the
costs.
●
●
the importance of signalling the increase 2 to
3 years in advance to allow time for the
transition and the development of
alternatives; and
there may be advantages in banning specific
waste products from landfill sites in parallel
with the tax increase.
6.54 Based on SU analysis of the relative prices
of waste management options, a landfill tax rate
of £35/t would provide a sufficient incentive to
change behaviour and reduce reliance on
landfill as the major waste management option.
This is broadly in line with previous estimates. 109
Recommendation 11:
HM Treasury should consider an increase in
the landfill tax to £35/t for active waste in
the medium term.
6.55 The proceeds from an increased landfill
tax are considered in Chapter 8.
6.57 There is less of a case for applying a ban
now, however it could be retained as an option
for the future. A suitable time for review would
be 3-4 years before the first Article 5 target on
municipal biodegradable waste to landfill in
2010.
6.58 A specific ban on biodegradable material
could be considered if the other instruments
designed to meet Article 5 of the Landfill Directive
were failing to make progress. Another alternative
is to impose a ban on recyclable materials at some
future point. Consideration could also be given to
extending a similar ban to incineration.
Recommendation 12:
DEFRA and DTI should review the case for a
ban on the landfilling of recyclable products
in 2006/7 and at the same time consider the
case for a similar ban on incinerating
recyclable products.
WASTE NOT, WANT NOT
Option (b): banning waste
from landfill
6.56 The combination of instruments
recommended in this chapter should provide a
strong incentive to reduce volumes of waste
sent to landfill. Consideration of a ban would be
necessary if these instruments were less effective
than anticipated. 110 However, an outright ban
has several disadvantages:
●
●
it allows less flexibility within the waste
management system compared to economic
incentives;
it can be counterproductive if, for some
wastes, landfilling is the most cost-effective
option; and
Should there be a
complementary increase in
fines?
6.59 As the landfill tax increases and waste costs
go up, there is a strong argument for increasing
the penalties for illegal dumping of waste.
6.60 The evidence on fines and prosecutions
shows that current penalties are low. Although
the fines imposed for waste offences by
Magistrates Courts under Section 33 of The
Environmental Protection Act 1990 have been
gradually increasing, 111 the average levels of
fines still fall far short of the maximum that can
be awarded for waste offences i.e. up to
£20,000 as shown by Figure 13 below.
109
See for example Biffa Future Perfect (2002) and the House of Commons Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee Fifth
Report
110
Sweden has banned combustible municipal waste from landfill from January 2002. This was first proposed in 1997. Sweden already
landfills just under one quarter of household waste, the figure is estimated to fall as low as 5-10% within three years (Swedish
Environmental Protection Agency)
111
Data supplied by the Environment Agency. Maximum penalties for waste offences under Section 33 (8) of The Environmental
Protection Act 1990: on summary conviction, imprisonment for up to six months or a fine up to £20,000 or both; on conviction on
indictment, imprisonment for up to two years or a fine or both
76