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

766
29/09/09
Probably, there is some interaction also with the implementation of DifTar
schemes. If DifTar schemes had been introduced against the backdrop of
lower costs for residual waste treatment, the structure of charges might have
been more difficult for Councils to justify, and the additional costs of
introducing the system would have been higher (making them more
problematic to justify in the political sphere).
This actually highlights two points:
� The (probably) weak effect in terms of waste prevention, associated with the
ban; and
� The difficulties in providing sufficient capacity for treatment of specific waste
streams in the context of an outright ban, especially in cases such as the
Netherlands, where restrictions on exports for incineration, even where
classified as recovery, are tight.
In respect of the first point, this in itself is not evidence of a lack of any effect of waste
prevention. Yet further consideration suggests that the ban probably cannot claim to
have effects which are stronger than the tax for the simple reason that one of the key
objectives of the ban was to shift waste from landfill to incineration, and the design of
the tax was, from 2000, used to make incineration less expensive from landfill. One
could argue that the tax itself might have had an effect, in conjunction with the ban.
Yet a report for the Dutch Ministry of the Environment on the effectiveness of landfill
taxation concluded that ‘The implementation of the tax does not seem to have a
direct effect on the level of household waste’. 956 Evidence is less clear in respect of
non-household waste.
A report by Mazzanti and Zoboli on the effectiveness of polices on waste prevention,
waste disposal and landfill analysed waste arisings and economic data, produced by
the EU 25 from 1995 to 2004, used multi-variant analysis to attempt to find any
decoupling of waste and GDP growth at the European level. 957 Importantly one of its
conclusions is that ‘no landfill or other policy effects seem to provide backward
incentives to waste prevention’. The conclusions also indicate that ‘at all levels other
socio-economic factors were impacting on waste trends; highlighting the importance
of societies’ attitudes in waste management.’
The Swedish waste management report from 2008 indicates that in Sweden, despite
the introduction of landfill taxation and a ban in 2000 and 2002, respectively, from
2003 to 2007, the quantity of municipal waste has increased from 466.4 kg/person
to 513.7 kg/person. 958 Furthermore, as Figure 52-4 shows, there has been no
956 H. Bartelings, P. van Beukering, O. Kuik, V. Linderhof, F. Oosterhuis, L. Brander and A. Wagtendonk
(2005) Effectiveness of Landfill Taxation, R-05/05, Report Commissioned by Ministerie von VROM,
November 24, 2005
957 M. Mazzanti and R. Zoboli (2007) Waste prevention, waste disposal and landfill policies
effectiveness: A quantitative analysis on delinking at European level, Report for Societa Italiana di
economia pubblica, http://www-1.unipv.it/websiep/wp/200720.pdf
958 Avfall Sverige (2008) Swedish Waste Mangement, Accessed on 23 rd October 2008
http://www.avfallsverige.se/se/netset/files3/web/P01.m4n?download=true&id=2371_94867351