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

consequences of an incineration tax depend upon: (a) the level of the tax, (b) whether
the tax is based on an assumed average Swedish fossil carbon content or on the
measured carbon content in each incineration plant, (c) institutional factors such as
the cooperation between waste incinerators, and (d) technological factors such as the
availability of central sorting of waste or techniques for measurement of fossil carbon
in exhaust gases, etc. Information turns out to be a key factor in transferring the
governing force of the tax to the households as well improving the households’
attitudes towards material recycling.
Others
Table 52-6 below shows the reported effectiveness of the landfill tax in some more of
the Member States according to a Dutch study.
As one can see from the tax effectiveness evaluation summaries presented in the
Dutch report there is no strong evidence to show that the landfill tax or ban on its own
has a great impact on the change in municipal waste landfilled over time, and thus in
associated environmental benefit. What is clear is that a tax can be used effectively in
combination with a range of other regulatory measures, to divert waste from landfill.
Where this waste will be diverted to will be related to prices for the alternative
management routes and other institutional factors, historical trends in waste
management (Denmark – incineration, Belgium - recycling), technical change
following pollution scandals (The Netherlands, Austria), or a means to assist in
securing supply of waste for incinerators mainly in countries where district heat
networks were existing (Denmark, The Netherlands, Germany, Finland, Sweden).
Summary
To summarise, waste taxes or bans can be used by governments, as part of a
package of measures, to help divert municipal waste from landfill and direct it to
alternative residual treatments as required (the rate of tax levied on each type of
treatment will determine how waste disposal authorities will act – based on cost
effectiveness only – and hence what treatment is favoured). Or, if a greater level of
household waste recycling is the favoured alternative to disposal in landfill (or via
other residual management processes), because it is the householders making the
decision as to whether the waste will be recycled, they must feel the price signal from
a tax though some differentiated unit-based pricing scheme. Such systems are in
accordance with the ‘polluter pays principle’ and can contribute to an efficient
allocation of resources, because they imply a non-zero marginal cost of waste and
thus stimulate recycling and waste prevention. 977 However, unit-based pricing
systems also have some disadvantages. They sometimes involve high transaction
costs, and tend to stimulate the illegal disposal of waste. Relevant to both taxes and
bans (as the success in Belgium has shown), is that widespread and easy to access
recycling collections must be in place to help behavioural change.
977 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.
779
International Review of Waste Policy: Annexes