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

899
• The total ‘better than target’ performance amounts to 12,000 tonnes of which
Authority C is responsible for (4,500/12,000) = 37.5%, and Authority D is
responsible for (7,500/12,000) = 62.5%;
• Consequently:
o Authority C receives 37.5% x €315,000 = €118,125; and
o Authority D receives 62.5% x €315,000 = €196,875
In the round, the approach is revenue neutral. It implies transfers from authorities
which do well to authorities which do less well.
In the case where the average is used as the target, then from the same figure:
• Authority A produces 400kg/inh;
• Authority B produces 360kg/inh;
• Authority C produces 225kg/inh; and
• Authority D produces 200kg/inh.
Then the weighted average is 285.96 kg/inh. It can be seen that the same calculation
in terms of levies and rebates would generate similar results, but in this case, the
quantum of revenue would be greater (the excesses are larger), so the rebates would
be greater also.
What would clearly be different in the two examples is how the impact of the levy
would change over time. Where the target is pre-determined, then care would be
needed to ensure that the targets were achievable. If they are too challenging, then
the consequence might be that authorities simply pay the levy and there is no
recipient of the rebate. This could also be the outcome if the levy is set too low (so
that the cost of taking action exceeds that of doing nothing).
59.10 Summary
There appears to be plenty of scope for revising key targets upwards in Ireland. In
respect of waste prevention, we would caution against setting these in Ireland at
present, not least because there remain problems with past data sets. In particular:
• it appears that the boundary between household and non-household waste is
not so sharply distinguished. This means that the underlying trends in the one
and the other are not so straightforward to discern;
• the quantities of household waste generated are distorted by factors such as
the number of households not currently having their waste collected and the
likely prevalence of backyard burning; and
• the fact that in respect of construction and demolition waste, the data are
generally of poor quality.
That does not mean that such targets should not be set in future.
A possible way of integrating a recycling target alongside a driver for waste prevention
is a target on ‘residual’ quantities. We have noted above that this type of target is
well-suited to the household waste area because it gives equal status to waste
International Review of Waste Policy: Annexes