14.12.2012 Views

International Review of Waste Management Policy - Department of ...

International Review of Waste Management Policy - Department of ...

International Review of Waste Management Policy - Department of ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Figure 8-2: Balance <strong>of</strong> Costs and Benefits <strong>of</strong> DVR scheme, Ghent and Destelbergen<br />

€ per Household<br />

127<br />

€ 5.00<br />

€ 0.00<br />

-€ 5.00<br />

-€ 10.00<br />

-€ 15.00<br />

-€ 20.00<br />

-€ 25.00<br />

-€ 30.00<br />

-€ 35.00<br />

-€ 40.00<br />

25% Effect Attributed to<br />

DVR Scheme<br />

Low Damage<br />

Costs<br />

High Damage<br />

Costs<br />

50% Effect Attributed to<br />

DVR Scheme<br />

Low Damage<br />

Costs<br />

<strong>International</strong> <strong>Review</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Waste</strong> <strong>Policy</strong>: Annexes<br />

High Damage<br />

Costs<br />

100% Effect Attributed to<br />

DVR Scheme<br />

Low Damage<br />

Costs<br />

High Damage<br />

Costs<br />

Private Costs<br />

Net External Cost, Time Excluded<br />

Net External Cost, Time Included<br />

Balance <strong>of</strong> Costs and Benefits, Time Excluded<br />

Balance <strong>of</strong> Costs and Benefits, Time Included<br />

Source: Hogg, D. (2006) Impact <strong>of</strong> Unit-based <strong>Waste</strong> Collection Charges. Referred to within this report<br />

as ‘the OECD charging review’. ENV/EPOC/WGWPR(2005)10/FINAL, Paris: OECD.<br />

Within this study, there are few permutations where the system imposes net social<br />

costs. These are where a) a relatively small effect is attributed to the DVR scheme,<br />

and b) where the damage costs used are low (so benefits <strong>of</strong> avoided disposal and<br />

recycling are smaller). Such a scenario is shown on the left in Figure 8-2. The<br />

situation appears slightly worse where the costs <strong>of</strong> time are taken into account.<br />

However, even in the worst case the net social costs are <strong>of</strong> the order €2.00 per<br />

household.<br />

If, on the other hand, the DVR scheme is attributed with a more significant proportion<br />

<strong>of</strong> the change occurring between 1997 and 1999, then benefits may be as high as<br />

around €10 per household (50% effect attributable) rising to €21-34 if all the change<br />

occurring in the period is attributed to the DVR scheme.<br />

On balance, therefore, and based upon the effects <strong>of</strong> DVR schemes in similar<br />

situations elsewhere, it seems likely that the DVR charging scheme will have<br />

contributed to the generation <strong>of</strong> net social benefits. Indeed, perhaps the more<br />

important observation is that, as part <strong>of</strong> a package, the DVR scheme contributed<br />

(however significantly) to the generation <strong>of</strong> net social benefits <strong>of</strong> the order €20-30 per<br />

household. This is one <strong>of</strong> the key conclusions <strong>of</strong> the OECD charging review. 163<br />

163 D. Hogg (2006) Impact <strong>of</strong> Unit-based <strong>Waste</strong> Collection Charges.<br />

ENV/EPOC/WGWPR(2005)10/FINAL, Paris: OECD.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!