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

a government body, the revenue is ‘ring-fenced’ and only spent on the scheme. It is,
however, unlikely that there would only be government involvement in to the scheme.
In some cases, industry has requested more involvement in the management of the
schemes. Consequently some schemes have evolved into ‘enhanced producer
responsibility schemes’ or ‘extended producer responsibility schemes’. These
schemes differ in their operation in that, as inferred by their name, a group of
producers take responsibility for the scheme. Collection of the revenue is operated
through a not-for-profit organisation owned and operated by industry. Typically in
these schemes, the charge levied on the consumer becomes an ‘advanced disposal
fee’.
29.2 Where Has the Policy Been Applied and Why?
Implementing a product levy for new tyres has been common practice throughout
Europe and North America over the last couple of decades. Most uses of charging
have occurred where car use is highest, and thus, waste tyre arisings are also high.
In both Europe and North America, revenue raised by levies has been used to prevent
the mass storage and/or landfilling of tyres. In some instances, schemes have been
benchmarked against a target, most often a recycling target, in order to assess
performance. In Denmark, for example, at least 80% of waste tyres are required to be
captured for recycling.
In Europe, a range of policy options have been used to tackle problems with waste
tyres. The most notable Member States using a product levy are Denmark 607 and
Hungary. 608 In some other member states, producer responsibility schemes are used
without the addition of a product levy per se, but where the scheme probably implies
an increase in the price of tyres as a consequence of fees paid to schemes.
In North America, the use of product levies is common place across states and
provinces on the continent. Some notable localities that have introduced product
levies include Texas and Rhode Island in the USA, and the provinces of British
Columbia and Ontario in Canada. In the case of Rhode Island, the product levy is used
in conjunction with a deposit-refund scheme.
In both Texas (1997) and Ontario (1993) the product levy schemes have ceased
operation. In Ontario, however, a new replacement scheme is due to be launched as
there is still a significant problem with the storage and disposal of waste tyres. The
preceding product levy scheme was originally managed by the government and
received much adverse attention as the revenue generated was not re-allocated in to
607
http://www2.mst.dk/common/Udgivramme/Frame.asp?http://www2.mst.dk/Udgiv/publications/200
1/87-7944-519-5/html/kap11_eng.htm
608
http://www.magyarorszag.hu/english/keyevents/a_vallalk/a_adopenz/a_vallalkadok/a_kvtermekdij2
0080425.html#paragr1
509
International Review of Waste Policy: Annexes