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

Where household waste is concerned, recycling rates have tended to be driven more
by recycling targets and, more recently, by the LASs. The situation is almost certainly
very different where commercial and industrial wastes are concerned, though the
data is not of sufficient quality to confirm this. Particularly as the tax has increased
more recently, growing emphasis has been placed upon recycling of commercial and
industrial waste, and the diversity of collection schemes reflects this.
In Denmark it was reported that the overall recycling rate of 61% of all waste in 1996
was the result of a comprehensive waste reduction policy with several elements,
including the waste tax. 970 Furthermore, the establishment of new recycling facilities,
especially for construction and demolition waste (see Section 52.12), and garden
waste was considered to have played a prominent role.
It is also interesting to note that the year in which the ban was introduced, 1997, was
the same year in which the waste tax was significantly increased. Studies by CESAM
suggest the tax, not the ban, has influenced changes in waste quantities, but that
these effects have been at best limited outside the sphere of construction and
demolition waste. 971 One commentator notes: 972
772
29/09/09
As a conclusion it could be said, that while taxes are very effective in changing
the way waste is managed, it seems as if they have no or very little effect on
the total amount of waste generated. Denmark has not succeeded in delinking
the growth in waste from the growth in GDP.
In relation to non-landfill technologies, a Dutch report concludes that little technical
change has been seen in the Netherlands in terms of new incinerators, but the use of
SRF abroad has increased. 973 Additionally, any link between the landfill ban and the
tax, and recycling infrastructure was described as ‘ambiguous’.
In Germany, where no tax is in place, and where (as discussed above) the differential
between the costs of landfilling and of, for example, incineration or MBT, is large,
there may have been more of an incentive effect. This might be partly an explanation
for the continuing increase in German recycling rates even some time after the
general frameworks for waste management were well established, and even in the
969 ECOTEC and Cambridge Econometrics (1997), Employment and Sustainability: The UK Landfill Tax,
Final Report for the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions,
Dublin: EFILWC.
970 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
971 Miljøstyrelsen, Working report no. 18 (1999) and Miljøstyrelsen, Working report no. 23 (1999).
972 Suzanne Arup Veltzé (2003) Taxes on Waste, a Steering Instrument – Experience from Denmark,
Presentation at ISWA Beacon Conference Seminar, 23-24 October 2003, Malmo, Sweden.
973 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.