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

56.0 Proposed Policy Changes
This study (see Annexes 52.0 to 55.0) has reviewed evidence in respect of:
824
� Landfill taxes;
� Landfill bans;
� Incineration taxes;
� Incineration bans;
� Tradable allowances for landfilling;
� Non-tradable allowances for landfilling;
� Restrictions on landfilling through pre-treatment requirements.
There are a number of studies which make comments about ‘what works’ and ‘what
doesn’t’. There are differences in the views presented therein, but generally, the view
is taken that the above instruments work in combination with others to steer waste
into different management routes. There are differences in perspective depending
upon whether the analysis is of household or municipal waste, or whether the
emphasis is on landfill diversion alone or other management routes.
Many commentators appear to lose sight of some basic principles of public policy. For
example, bans on landfill may appear attractive, but they are economically inefficient.
They are likely to impose high social costs unless they are targeted so as to eliminate
relatively significant environmental problems at an acceptable cost.
Although many argue in favour of landfill bans to promote movement of waste up the
hierarchy, it is interesting to note that two countries which have applied widespread
bans – Denmark and Netherlands – have done so with the objective of seeking to
ensure incineration capacity is well utilised. In other words, the principle aim has
been to shift material from landfill to incineration. In several other cases, landfill bans
have been applied alongside high taxes for landfilling of untreated waste. Again, in
these cases, to the extent that prices for landfill and alternatives are made ‘more or
less equal’ by the tax, it can be appreciated why, when recycling and waste prevention
find their motivation in the avoided costs of residual waste management / disposal,
the introduction of bans on top of taxes has little effect on recycling and waste
prevention. In many cases, therefore, the principle effect of bans and restrictions on
landfilling appears to have been to give the market additional certainty regarding the
financial case for developing alternative treatments to landfill.
Regarding landfill taxes and incineration taxes, few countries have deployed these
with a view to internalising externalities. Rather, these taxes have been used to
achieve broader objectives of waste management policy, in particular, improving the
financial viability of recycling and waste prevention, and providing incentives to
engage in such activity.
It is interesting to note that both Sweden and Denmark, which make considerable use
of incineration, have high incineration taxes in place. This latter point highlights the
29/09/09