An investigation into waste charges in Ireland, with ... - CiteSeerX

Waste Management 28 (2008) 2826–2834

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Waste Management journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/wasman

An investigation into waste charges in Ireland, with emphasis on public acceptability Louise Dunne *, Frank J. Convery, Louise Gallagher School of Geography, Planning and Environmental Policy, University College Dublin, UCD Richview, Clonskeagh, Dublin 14, Ireland

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Accepted 17 July 2008 Available online 9 September 2008

a b s t r a c t There are 34 local authorities in Ireland with legal responsibility to deal with waste arising in their jurisdictions. In 2003 the National government introduced legislation that allows local authorities to recover the costs of waste collection and disposal, and to do so by ‘executive function’, i.e., not requiring support or agreement by the relevant local political representatives. The year 2005 was set as the date by which implementation of a pay by weight or volume was to be introduced. The local authorities were given autonomy as to how they addressed this challenge, so we have – in theory – 34 potentially different experiences from which to learn. This paper examines the pay-as-you-throw (PAYT) waste system in Ireland as it develops in line with EU and National demands, with a view to assessing economic and environmental efficiency. All local authorities were surveyed and thirteen responded. While this only represents about 38% of the total number, it includes jurisdictions that contribute in total more than 50% of waste arising. Key figures in the policy and business community were also interviewed in order to identify how the charging schemes were implemented, and to what effect. These insights and parallel investigations are used to review the potential for problems regarding public acceptability of environmental taxes and examine the evidence for economic and environmental efficiency, as well as problem areas, using data from each of the responding local authority jurisdictions. Concentrating on the incentives and drivers across households, municipalities and private waste contractors, the variations in charging system, annual charges and landfill charges are compared where information was available. The various jurisdictions are also examined in terms of relative successes and problems encountered in the transition from fixed charge or free waste collection to PAYT systems. The Irish situation is placed in the context of the international literature on PAYT, the growing waste crisis, environmental attitudes vs. behaviours, and the acceptability of environmental taxes generally. Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction As various policy instruments and environmental taxes and charges grow in frequency and duration of implementation, the body of knowledge grows and ensures that future policy makers can learn from the mistakes of others. Presently, there are a variety of examples of instruments that have ‘worked’, that is: they have been accepted by politicians, policy makers and industry; have been implemented; have had some environmental and/or economic effectiveness; and are still in place. Some good recent European examples are the Irish plastic bag tax, the London congestion charge, the German environmental tax reform and the Swedish NOx charge (see www.economicinstruments.com for a full listing of economic instruments, design and lessons). However, we can also learn from initiatives that had problems or have been unsuccessful. For example, the fuel protests in parts of Europe in 2001 suggested that there is a level above * Corresponding author. Tel.: +353 1 7162673; fax: +353 1 7162776. E-mail address: [email protected] (L. Dunne). 0956-053X/$ - see front matter Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2008.07.007

which it is unacceptable to raise fuel prices. If this turns out to be true, future policy may need to consider other incentives instead of, or in addition to, taxes to reduce emissions from transport. In terms of choice of instruments, large industry tends to find emissions trading more flexible and thus more acceptable than taxes. Since such industry almost always receives generous exemptions from taxes (www.economicinstruments.com), emissions trading in this context may be a more environmentally effective tool. However, the efficiency and acceptability of taxes for industry can be improved by combining this instrument with others, e.g., negotiated agreements, R&D investment and regulations. It is more difficult to apply such an instrument to move the behaviour of the public in a more environmentally benign direction. For this reason, taxes, charges and levies are still the most common instrument for the public. Regarding waste issues specifically, municipal waste charges directed at households are increasingly being introduced over Europe, and the latest European Directive (EC, 2006) in Article 14 has encouraged the use of the ‘polluter pays’ principle in relation to household waste.

L. Dunne et al. / Waste Management 28 (2008) 2826–2834

That proportion of the costs not covered by the proceeds of treating the waste must be defrayed in accordance with the ‘‘polluter pays” principle.

2. Waste – analysis of key contributions to the empirical PAYT literature The issue of reducing waste is fast becoming one of the more pressing environmental problems in many countries, because landfill capacity is becoming increasingly scarce as existing landfills come to the end of their life and there is strong public resistance to the siting of new ones. There is also, in some jurisdictions and at times, unease and virulent opposition to the siting of new incinerators. The EU has called for application of the polluter pays principle to all waste, and in 2003 published Towards a Thematic Strategy on Waste Prevention and Recycling, which emphasised the need to employ a combination of policy measures, including voluntary and economic instruments as well as regulatory command and control measures (European Commission, 2003). The theory behind a quantity-based fee for waste disposal is that the household is forced to internalise the costs of their waste production and disposal. Households can also minimise waste by changing purchasing behaviour – by buying goods with less packaging or more recycling packaging (Ebreo et al., 1999). However, the way in which many public authorities set more or less arbitrary and uniform charges for municipal waste is unsatisfactory. According to the OECD (2004): The charges are generally not high enough to cover local authorities’ waste management costs and do not include the external costs. The charges do not create any incentive for citizens to reduce their own waste generation or to recycle. Pay by weight (as opposed to fixed charge or pay by volume) is more effective for the following reasons (OECD, 2004): In environmental terms it usually results in a 15–30% increase in recycling and a 30–40% reduction in waste to landfill. In economic terms, collection and treatment costs are adjusted according to the weight treated. It is the fairest system as people are billed according to what they produce. The technology for weight-based charging utilizes the Identweighing system, whereby the weight of the collected waste is measured with the help of a weighing device integrated into the mechanism which lifts the bin into the collection truck. Volume-based charging usually relies on a number of fixed sizes for waste bins, or buying tags per bag of waste. Most of the studies on effectiveness of pay-as-you-throw (PAYT) programmes have been done in the US, where by the year 2000 there were 4032 communities in 43 states with such programmes (USEPA, 2000). Collectively, these communities comprise about 10% of the US population. In the US, PAYT resulted in an average reduction in landfilled waste of 28% (Miranda et al., 1994) and encouraged recycling. However, there is a lack of consensus on PAYT policy work. Bauer and Miranda (1996) conclude that ‘experts disagree about the effect of variable collection fees on household waste disposal behaviour, as well as the seriousness of possible side-effects. There is still scepticism regarding whether variable rates can be successful everywhere, or if they are suitable only for certain types of communities. Fullerton and Kinnaman (1996) found that the economic costs of introducing a PAYT system in Virginia did not justify the social

2827

costs. However, their case study was a small, educated, middleclass community, which may have been reducing their waste as much as possible before the PAYT system came in. They found waste weight reduced and recycling weight rose only slightly ( 10% and +16%, respectively). Reschovsky and Stone (1994) surveyed households in New York County to examine whether PAYT waste disposal encouraged recycling. They found the tag system (whereby an individual paid tag is attached to each bag or bin) did not affect reported recycling in isolation of either mandatory recycling or kerbside pick-up. However, they found it increased participation in the composting programme. Miranda et al. (1994) found, in their study of 21 smaller cities with unit pricing, that waste generation went down by 30%, tons landfilled went down by 40%, and tons recycled increased by 12% after adoption of the system. A National Survey of US PAYT policies was conducted by Skumatz (1996). She found that variable rates helped to increase recycling by 8–11%, and that diversion rates were higher in cities with smaller populations, higher median incomes, and among those that offered kerbside recycling. They concluded that variable rates were the single most important factor in contributing to higher levels of recycling. In a follow-on study, she estimated that 5–7% of municipal waste reduction was attributable to having a variable rate policy after accounting for the impacts of recycling and garden waste programmes (Skumatz, 2000). Kinnaman and Fullerton (2000) examined the impact of user fees on waste generation and recycling for 114 US cities with PAYT systems. They then collected data from 845 cities that offered kerbside recycling but had no PAYT policies. They attempted to find out if PAYT policies tended to be adopted by cities whose citizens were more receptive to ‘green’ policies, in which case the policy impact would be overstated, or whether the likelihood of adopting these policies was a positive function of the volume of waste generated in the community, which could understate the effects of PAYT policies. They found some support for the latter and estimated that implementation of a PAYT policy reduced waste generation by 187 kg (412 lb) per person per year and increased the quantity of materials recycled by 14 kg (30 lb) per person per year. Folz and Giles (2002) surveyed waste managers and recycling coordinators in 2096 US cities, of which 79% offered kerbside recycling and 25% had some type of PAYT policy. They found modest evidence that a PAYT policy is an incentive for modifying waste disposal and recycling behaviours. They found that (in PAYT cities) households dispose of less solid waste and set out larger quantities of recyclables irregardless of other policies or demographic features. PAYT has the highest incentive effect in areas with kerbside recycling. In Varberg (SW Sweden) a weight-based billing system was introduced in 1994, charging 1 SEK (approx. €0.11) per kg. Recycling centres were set up at the same time and the combined programme resulted in a 35% reduction in waste within a few years (Sterner and Bartelings, 1999). Another Swedish evaluation estimates that a tax-induced price increase of 90 SEK (approx. €9.81) would lead to a reduction in waste disposal among households of 20–30 kg per person annually (Swedish EPA, 2001 in Speck et al., 2006). Folz and Giles (2002) point out that if officials can show residents that it is possible to reduce or control their waste with a PAYT policy, they can demonstrate how much local property tax can be reduced or what residents might save over a flat fee – thus reducing political opposition. They believe there should be some explicit quid pro quo communicated to citizens so that they do not just see it as a new tax. When Athens-Clarke County in Georgia (US) implemented PAYT policies, their residents were promised that the revenue would finance popular local projects (Dickerson, 1999).

2828


Aberg (2000) questions the common belief that economic incentives are a simple way of achieving change towards sustainable waste behaviours, showing that in addition to purchasing and waste behaviours, habits, knowledge and physical opportunity have an explanatory value. The drawbacks of PAYT initiatives include ‘undesirable diversion, waste compaction (where PAYT is by volume), the negative impact of variable fees on low income residents, service to multi-unit housing, and unstable hauler revenues’ (Miranda et al., 1994), whilst waste managers need to consider ‘illegal disposal and the impact of fees on low income residents, the degree of popular and political support for unit pricing, and the need for education and enforcement mechanism’ (Miranda et al., 1994). In Ireland in 2003, a county (Monaghan) bin charge was changed from a fixed rate to a weight-based charge in conjunction with the introduction of kerbside recycling. The reduction in waste going to landfill was 25% in the first year and 40% (average 740 kg per household) in 2005, the third year of the charges (McElvaney, 2006). About half of this can be accounted for by recycling (which has risen steadily per household from 0 kg to 210 kg in year 1 and to 240 kg in year 3). The other half of the reduction is probably as a result of home composting of organic waste and people putting less garden waste and miscellaneous items in the bin to take up space as they may have done when there was a fixed charge. However, some of the reduction is also accounted for by illegal dumping and individual visits to landfill. Some households may also have minimised their waste by changing their purchasing behaviour – by buying goods with less packaging or with more recyclable packaging. Households are billed at exactly the cost of landfilling the waste. Another benefit to this billing system is that it produces accurate data on household waste that can aid planning and track results of new initiatives that may be introduced. However, the infrastructure is costly; approximately €2 per chip on the bin and €25,000– €30,000 to equip trucks with the weighing technology. 2.1. Conclusions from the literature Experience from many jurisdictions shows that weight-based waste collection charges can, in certain circumstances, result in significant reductions in consumer waste; charging on this basis gives the customer the sense of direct control over how much they are charged and thus makes the public more amenable to waste charges generally. Existing volume-based waste collection charges work by either charging more for use of a larger bin or by selling tags to the customer that must be attached to each bin or bag to be collected. This does provide a degree of incentive for waste reduction; however, some studies indicate that customers tend to react by compressing their waste, which is of no benefit environmentally as all waste is compressed before landfilling in any case. According to Medley (2006), the average weight of a 240-l bin can range from 40 kg to 80 kg depending on the degree of compression. There is asymmetry in incentives where the waste collector has to pay by weight to dispose of the waste. However, in certain rural areas with collection spread out over large geographical areas, it may not be financially viable to invest in weight-based technology for a large number of collection vehicles, so volume-based may be more suitable.

3. Environmental attitudes Dunlap et al. (1993) reported results of a survey of 22 countries with about 1000 subjects; in 20 of the countries, a majority of respondents gave environmental protection first priority when asked to rank the importance of environmental protection relative to economic growth. In 16 countries, a majority indicated a will-

ingness to pay higher prices for goods and services if necessary to achieve environmental protection. However, values and beliefs are not necessarily reflected in answers to questionnaires and behaviour is not necessarily consistent with values. Bazerman et al. (1996) have argued that an ‘attitude/behaviour gap’ exists in regard to environmental issues; most people have pro-environmental attitudes and yet engage in environmentally destructive behaviours. In Ireland, Drury Research (2000) found that people have a public and private morality, thinking one way and behaving another when it comes to the environment. The Irish public want to see the Irish Government doing more, yet few are willing to make individual sacrifices. When it comes to protecting the environment, only 20% are willing to pay higher taxes, 18% are willing to pay higher prices and 12% are willing to make cuts in their standard of living. Davies et al. (2005) described the attitude-action landscape of household waste management in Ireland and found that although 90% of respondents agreed there were waste problems, only 9% of 18–29 year olds and 24% of 70+ year olds classed themselves as ‘excellent’ managers of waste. A mix of factors was found to explain why people might not be motivated to undertake appropriate waste management behaviours, including logistics (time, space, access to facilities, transport), pessimistic or optimistic personality traits (believing individual actions can make a difference), a weak or well-defined sense of civic responsibilities and socio-cultural norms. There is a growing field addressed to the psychology of environmental behaviour. The importance of community, community leaders and residents groups has been stressed, with the effectiveness of community leaders based on increasing the strength of norms. Social norms are the behaviours people expect of each other while internalised personal norms are the actions people feel an obligation to do. Minton and Rose (1997) found the personal norm has the most influence on actual behaviour as opposed to intentions. Hopper and Nielsen (1991) carried out an experiment to test methods for encouraging participation in an ongoing recycling scheme. One group received information in the form of a flyer listing how the programme worked and giving the pick-up dates. Another group received the flyer, but also a bright prompting flyer a few days before the pick-up date. The third group received the flyer plus the prompt, but were also contacted by a block leader who talked to every household about the programme and the importance of recycling. Over the 7 months of the study, the recycling rates rose to 10% for the flyer group, 21% for the flyer plus prompt group and 28% for the group that received additional information from the block leader. Information given in the right social context at the community level may be able to change behaviour more effectively than information without social interaction. In general, behaviour-relevant knowledge is crucial to guiding recycling behaviour. Vining and Ebreo (1990) pointed out that recyclers had a larger number of sources of information than non-recyclers, and Barr (2002) shows that ‘local waste knowledge’ has a large influence on willingness to recycle. Schartz (1977) discusses how personal norms for pro-social behaviour are activated under two conditions: People must believe that an existing condition poses a threat of harm to others (awareness of consequences). People must believe that their personal action or inaction has the power to prevent that harm (ascription of responsibility to self). When a person holds both beliefs, he or she experiences a sense of obligation to act to prevent the harm. According to Stern et al. (1986), people are more likely to support government policies for environmental protection if they

2829


believe that the conditions are harmful to people and the policies are directed to changing the behaviour of the responsible parties.

Czech Republic (2002) Austria (1999) Sweden (2004) Flanders (2002)

4. Ireland case study

Scotland (2003) Massachusetts (2003)

Ireland is currently struggling with two separate, but linked, issues related to waste. The first is the environmental problem of the sheer quantity of waste to be disposed of. The second is the attitude to payment from some sections of the population.

Netherlands (2002) Denmark (2003) Singapore (2004) Ireland (2004)

4.1. Waste quantity

0

Overall municipal waste generation in 2005 was just over 3 million tonnes, while annual landfill capacity was only about 1.8 million tonnes (EPA, 2006). This situation is changing somewhat as the waste charges and increased recovery and recycling reduce the waste going to landfill – according to Medley (2006), capacity of landfill (licensing and volume) now outstrips demand. Irish householders’ municipal waste accounted for 1.75 million tonnes of waste in 2005 (EPA, 2006), with household waste diversion in 2005 standing at 22.7% (compared to 19% in 2004 and 13% in 2003), and with the goal being 50% (EPA, 2006) (see Fig. 1). This means that 1.19 million tonnes of household waste went to landfill in 2004 (EPA, 2005) (down slightly from the 1.21 million tonnes in 2004 and 1.23 million tonnes in 2003). The European Environment Agency reports Ireland as being the highest per capita generator of municipal waste (EPA, 2004a), but concedes that there may be some differences in reporting between countries. A Forfás report (2006) also showed Ireland to have the highest municipal waste generation per capita of the benchmark countries in the report. Some of the reason for this may be that Irish data includes commercial and other waste similar to household waste in its municipal waste figures, whereas other countries often only include household waste (see Fig. 2). The average household waste in Ireland in 2004 amounted to 430 kg/person (EPA, 2005). The diversion of biodegradable waste from landfill has shown little progress, even though 74% is considered to be biodegradable, but things are beginning to change and the Landfill Directive (EC, 1999) has strict targets to be met (only 35% of the 1995 levels of biodegradable waste can be landfilled by 2016). In April 2006, A Draft National Strategy for Biodegradable Waste was published by the Department of Environment and Local Government, 2006. Some local authorities and commercial operators have kerbside organic waste separation and collection. In terms of cost, Ireland has relatively high waste management costs

0.5

Tonnes of waste

0.45

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

Source: Forfas, 2006 Fig. 2. Municipal waste generation per capita (kg/capita) Source: Forfás, 2006.

for non-hazardous landfill, biological waste treatment and recycling (Forfás, 2006). Ireland is also unusual in having private services directly involved in the collection of waste without any municipal involvement in establishing the contract and determining what happens to the waste (Forfás, 2006). The Competition Authority (2005) reported that the market for household waste collection in Ireland is not working well for consumers and that one solution would be price regulation or competitive tendering: In the countries reviewed the predominant form of service provision in household waste collection is via competitive tendering. This international experience demonstrates that competitive tendering is the best method of ensuring that household waste collection providers deliver consumers good service at competitive prices. This system of competition for the market should replace the existing model of competition within the market, i.e., where waste providers compete sideby-side with each other. There have also been reports of waste collection companies operating as cartels and these are currently under investigation (Heffernan, 2006). According to Medley (2006), landfill charges have fallen from an average of €180 per tonne in 2005 to €130 per tonne in 2006 for bulk disposal (both costs include the landfill levy of €15 per tonne, which is recycled into the Environmental Fund together with the Irish Plastic Bag Levy) (see Table 1). National waste management targets for 2013 are (DoELG, 1998):

50% household waste diverted from landfill. 65% reduction in biodegradable wastes going to landfill. 35% of municipal waste recycled. 50–85% of construction and demolition waste recycled. 80% reduction in methane emissions. Integrated infrastructure network.

0.4 0.35 Household waste collected per person Household waste arising per person

0.3 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05

04 20

03 20

02 20

20

01

0

Fig. 1. Household waste arisings and collected 2001–2004 (EPA, 2004a).

4.2. Attitudes to charging The second issue is the outbreak of public revolt in some areas against the waste collection charges. These charges are essentially a service charge imposed on households by the local councils and corporations to finance the costs of waste collection and landfill charges (see Fig. 3). In 2003, the Department of Environment and Local Government introduced explicit new powers for local authorities to make charges for waste services, as an executive function (Protection of the Environment Act 2003 (52)):

2830


Table 1 2006 Landfill Prices in Ireland Landfill operator

€ Per tonne municipal waste

€ Per tonne municipal waste (bulk)

Wicklow county council Fingal county council Wexford county council Kerry county council SR Tipperary county council Kilkenny county council Clare county council Cork county council Mayo county council Carlow county council Offaly county council Westmeath county council Laois county council Donegal county council Roscommon county council NR Tipperary county council Louth county council Cavan county council Monaghan county council Kildare Limerick

201 185 180 170 165 165 160 150 150 145 145 140 140 137 125 125 120 115 140

201 180 180 118 115 165 135 150 150 145 140 125 115 137 125 110 120 115 115 90 115

Sources: County councils; White et al., 2006; Medley, 2006.

A local authority may make a charge in respect of the provision of any waste service by, or on behalf of, that authority. January 2005 was set as the date for the completion nationally of the switch to weight/volume-based charging (EPA, 2004b). Prior to this, some local authorities had been charging for waste services but costs in most areas had been covered by the general income tax. Ireland has had no separate rates or charges for domestic household services since a 1977 government ran for election on this platform, and promised that ‘stealth’ taxes would be avoided and the income tax would cover everything. As a result of this, Ireland is left with a legacy of suspicion that new charges and taxes are ‘double taxation’ and have already been paid for in income and other labour taxes. In most of the country, waste charges of various designs were introduced without incident. However, there was an organised rebellion in parts of Dublin in late 2003 and 2004 against the charges, causing a disruption in services, involving protests and a huge media debate and throwing the success of the new charge into doubt. An earlier paper (Dunne, 2004) attempts to outline why this happened in Dublin and discover if there are any lessons

to learn for the application of new environmental taxes and charges generally. The Dublin city municipal waste charge was a flat fee – somewhat pejoratively called a ‘bin tax’ – but was actually much lower than the charges introduced in the rest of Ireland, where the municipalities had often outsourced their waste collection and the private companies charge the full cost of collecting and disposing of the waste. In Dublin, the city employees remain as the primary waste collection service (with the recycling company outsourced) and the waste charge covers only approximately 50% of the municipality’s costs. Waivers and exemptions were given to those below certain income and socio-economic levels to avoid regressivity. One of the Dublin local authorities noticed that most of the applications for waivers from the bin tax came from predominantly well-off neighbourhoods. A further investigation showed that the local politicians in the lower socio-economic localities were not publicising the waivers, preferring to encourage the residents to revolt. The local authority then invested in advertising to alert people to the waiver scheme, and had 1000 applications a week later, and waivers are now given to 13% of the residents of certain areas (Sheridan, 2003). The city council subsequently introduced a pay-by-volume modification to the scheme in January 2005. The previous flat fee of €195 annually for a 240-l bin was changed to a flat annual fee of €80 plus a €5 charge each time the bin of this size is left out for collection. This has resulted quickly in only 53% of households putting their bins out for collection once a week (Kelly, 2005). These problems are ongoing in pockets of Dublin. Protesters have been in court and some even in jail, and the city council nearly collapsed under the issue. The council has temporarily backed down and at time of going to press is collecting the bins of those who have not been paying their waste charges, but are about to end service to these people again, so this situation has yet to be resolved. Questionnaires were sent out to local authorities to investigate various aspects of the schemes. Many had waste charges in place for some years, but only modified these in 2003 or 2004 to reflect pay-as-you-throw. A few areas do not yet have pay-asyou-throw. 5. Results This section outlines issues related to waste charges, public attitudes and quantity responses by householders within the various local authority governments.

250000 2003 2004 200000

150000

100000

50000

0

Fig. 3. Municipal household waste generation (including recycling) as reported by local authorities, 2003 and 2004 (2005 figures not yet completely compiled).

2831


5.1. Charges

there has been a substantial contraction in the supply going to land fill.

Nationwide, annual charges for collection and disposal of 120 l of waste a week (smaller bin) range from €195 per annum (Fingal) to €440 (Carlow). About a third of local authorities also charge for recycling and/or composting bins. Most of the variation in cost is due to some local authorities or contractors imposing a flat fee, with PAYT charges on top of this (see Fig. 4). There is a balancing act to ensure the correct incentives are in place to encourage waste reduction, while at the same time ensuring that contractors are not put out of business. Some have addressed this with a flat fee, or service charge, while others charge for the recycling and/or compost bins as well, which is not ideal, as there is less incentive for householders to ensure separation of waste, etc. 5.2. Quantity response by householders The overall trend over the 2001–2004 period indicates that the total share going to final disposal and to recovery is falling and rising respectively, indicating some positive response. As regards time trends by county, we only have data for 2003 and 2004, and there is no discernible trend over this period (see Fig. 5). However, there appears to have been a major quantity effect over the 2005–2006 period; prices charged at landfills per tonne have fallen from €180 in 2005 to €130 in 2006, implying that

5.3. Recycling Recycling generally is growing slowly; the increase not being as dramatic as would be expected when PAYT was introduced. However, in spite of the short time period since implementation, some local authorities, notably waterford city council, report very high recycling rates – 46% in 2005 (up 20% since 2004). South Tipperary reports a 40% increase in recycling in 2005. Infrastructure is also improving (see Table 2). In terms of recycling infrastructure, the literature supports the notion that the closer and easier it is to recycle, the higher the rates, with kerbside being the most effective. Medley (2006) notes that even between 4-weekly and 2-weekly collections, there is a 60% increase in the weight of recyclables collected when the bin is collected every 2 weeks. Some areas are starting pilot brown bin collection of organic waste. Waterford city has such a scheme, and reports that only 54% of household waste was being sent to landfill in 2005. 5.4. Waivers

450

Most private collectors do not have waiver schemes; most local authorities do. In some areas served by private waste collectors, the local authority will pay them directly if there is a waiver scheme in place. Waivers can cover the entire cost of a household’s waste, or just the flat service charge, with householders paying per bag or bin themselves. Waivers to those less well-off can be problematic as it encourages ‘waste tourism’ – the transfer of waste to those bins benefiting from the waiver. On the other hand, it does increase public acceptability.

400 350

5.5. Illegal disposal

500

300 250 200 150 100 50

Fi

So

D

ub

lin

C

ity ng ut al h D ub l C or in k C ity Le itr im M ay o C ar Ki low lk en n S. y Ti p W at p er fo rd Lo ut h M W ea es t tm h ea th

0

Fig. 4. Per annum cost of 120L black bin waste, 2006 (Source, Local Authorities).

100% 90% 80% 70% Disposal rate for household waste Recovery rate for household waste

60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10%

04

Table 2 Number of bring banks for recycling in Ireland

20

03 20

02 20

20

01

0%

It is difficult to find accurate data on illegal disposal of waste (i.e., ‘dumping’ or ‘flytipping’). Most authorities report an increase in dumping, but reporting, fines and awareness have increased, so it may appear that flytipping has increased more than it actually has. Dumping of electrical waste has decreased since the EU Directive in August 2005. Some areas note increased dumping at certain times of year, e.g., Halloween and Christmas. There is a government hotline set up to report such activity. Offaly County Council noted an increase in public reporting of illegal dumping and in volunteer groups helping to clean up the environment. Illegal backyard burning of household waste does seem to have increased, but again it is difficult for local authorities to have accurate data. It is less of an issue in urban than in rural areas. Some backyard burning may be due to people avoiding paying waste charges, but most is probably in areas not served by waste collection. As public awareness about the health and legal implications of burning increases, it is hoped that this will reduce. Other issues include people dumping in other people’s bins; certain areas have included bins with locks to avoid this problem. There are also some illegal operators operating and collecting bags

Fig. 5. Disposal and Recycling rates for Household waste in Ireland, 2001–2004 (EPA, 2004).

Indicator

1995

1998

2001

2004

2005

Number of bring banks

426

837

1436

1824

1937

2832


of waste at €1 or €2, and presumably dumping them illegally. Enforcement is increasing in this area. 5.6. Contractor issues Some local authorities found it difficult to force contractors to introduce pay by weight. It is also difficult for the public to compare charges across the different charging structures of different contractors. In terms of infrastructure, it costs approximately €30,000 per truck to upgrade the equipment to read the weight of bins as it empties them. Over the lifetime of the truck, this leads to an increase in cost of collection for contractors of approximately €3 per tonne of waste (Medley, 2006). 5.7. Public acceptance Some counties other than Dublin met with various levels of resistance to the charges, but noticed greater acceptance once the pay-as-you-throw came in (rather than fixed charges). South Tipperary did a survey; preliminary analysis showed 28% of people considering charges an incentive to better waste management, with 48% finding them hard to accept but recognising the necessity. In general there seemed to be less resistance in areas where the charge was privatised, perhaps because it was more palatable to be paying for a private service and a simple consequence of not paying was not getting the service. When the local authority is involved, it has the tendency to be perceived as a more political issue. Where campaigns were run, there tended to be better acceptance of the new charges, as would be expected. There was an extensive campaign in South Tipperary, whereby each household was visited and given information, workshops were run, a 7-week campaign was run prior to first collection and regular reminders were sent. This coincided with an increase of 23% in bring banks and 40% in waste collection recycling in 2005. Where a local authority has a good waste department, there have been excellent marketing and advertising schemes.

6. Discussion Acceptability of household charge-based waste policies by the general public in Ireland can be improved by considering the following: Alternatives – good recycling infrastructure and pay by weight or volume instead of flat fee. Justify on an environmental basis and use careful terminology. Trust in Government and two-way channels of communication with willingness to adapt the programme. Administrative simplicity and gradual introduction/plenty of notice Support of community groups. Professional marketing/information schemes and imagination (56% of people feel they are given too little information on waste issues (Davies et al., 2005)). Review of the contractor/local authority relationships and responsibility. Davies et al. (2005) found people tended to benchmark their personal waste management performance against the requirements of the door-to-door collection services and inferred that upgrading the sophistication of these collections has the potential to raise socially accepted norms of waste management behaviour

and increase participation in more pro-active forms of waste management. Thus, if more separation at source is desirable, then it is advisable to have the kerbside service at as high a level as possible. Waste charges and good recycling infrastructure do reduce the amount of household waste going to a landfill or incinerator; international experience indicates that 40% ‘below a baseline is achievable. It is possible in the future that as waste processing technology improves, it may make separating at source increasingly pointless. This tendency towards recycling and separation has been associated with charging by weight. More work needs to be done further up in the packaging chain to design policies that encourage manufacturers and thus consumers to bring less waste into the household in the first place. Research also shows the frustration of the general public with the limited options for purchasing unpackaged goods (Davies et al., 2005). This would be the next potential place on the waste chain to examine the potential for fiscal instruments. Privatisation of the waste services in Ireland has been largely positive as regards to enabling charging schemes to prevail. Under private collection, people perceive the service as simply that, rather than a right. However, per the findings of the Competition Authority that were discussed above, the way in which contractors operate should be examined. Local authorities or government need to be somewhat involved in: Mandating contractors who win tenders to serve less profitable routes so more people can avail of kerbside services (in some rural counties up to 40% of the population are not on a collection route). Insisting on PAYT charging systems, preferably weight-based (some contractors are still charging a fixed rate). Organising waiver programmes. Becoming less reliant on landfill revenue as this distorts the market and incentives for recovery and recycling. Local authorities in charge of waste generally have lower charges and tend to have more waivers and better real incentives to reduce waste. However, they are generally not covering their costs with waste charges; the various Dublin municipalities only cover an average of 50% annually. The incentives keep varying for private contractors: fluctuating landfill prices as local authorities and landfill owners seek to keep this revenue stream; recycling markets fluctuating; the small market for compost; costs of infrastructure, insurance, compliance and so on. The future of waste reduction needs examination of all sectors involved – charging systems and infrastructure for householders, incentives and profit areas for contractors, local government revenue and crucially moving upstream towards encouraging less waste in the first place by targeting packaging. Real facts are key to good policy making, so the following must be stressed: 1. Good monitoring and measuring techniques. EPA’s (Irish Environmental Protection Agency) Waste Database. Measuring household and municipal waste separately. Updated information on charges at landfills. 2. Academic research which focuses on setting Irish performance in an international context, provides an independent analytical view, and focuses on valuation of external costs and benefits. Access to information for researchers. 3. Co-operation between policy makers, local government and the research community.

Appendix A. Sample responses from local authorities re. household waste issues Kilkenny borough council

+10%

Composting?

No brown bin

Resistance

Yes, better since PAYT

Waivers Illegal dumping

Yes pre-2004, not now Yes, significant

Burning

Indoors in city

Other

In other bins, illegal collectors LA are keeping price down

Contractor issues Marketing/ Education Introduced Type system

Landfilled waste Recycled waste

5%

Wexford 24,448 tonnes

7,149 tonnes

Composting? Resistance

Waivers Illegal dumping Burning Other Contractor issues Marketing/ education Introduced Type system

Complaints from Dublin immigrants No

Cavan

10% +25% (35% in 2005)

South tipp

9.7%

Waterford city 12%

(18%)

16%

+40% (24% in 2005)

Provide composters

2,350 tonnes

No, collection rate of 88%

Some upset at raise in prices

None noted

3,700 bins sold/rural areas extra Charges in place for number of years

Yes, generous

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes, following PAYT

Not much, more enforcement

No

Some, but also more awareness and reporting

Some

Yes, area of concern

No

Slight

No

+21% (46% in 2005)

Prefer LA to collect

Campaign 1983 Local authority

1996 Privatised

Limerick Co. Co. 2004: 31,873 tonnes. 2005: 24,397 tonnes ( 23%) 5,944 tonnes 2004 (13%). Estimated 20% 2005 (+50%) 1,200 tonnes 2004

Dublin city council 2003: 201 k tonnes. 2004: 202 k tonnes 2005:154 k tonnes* 25% recycling in 2005

No

No Significant problem Problem

Rolling out pilot brown bin scheme Demand for more infrastructure

Not major issue Not major issue

Tight competition

Private

Education officer LA pre paid bag system, plus private Greenstart

Difficult to force PAYT; pricing structures hard for public; complaints that LA is regulating Pilot scheme/7 week advertising campaign Number of years ago LA and private

9% in 2005 to 18% in 2006

McElvaney waste (Monaghan) 2202:1260 kg 2003:940 kg 2004:860 kg 2005:740 kg (per household) 2002:0 2003:210 kg 2004:224 kg 2005:240 kg (per household)

Under consideration No

Brown bin to be introduced if council mandate No

No

Council give some partial Some Some, getting less as people more aware

South Dublin

Mayo

3.3%

No

LA accounts for 97% Awareness campaign

North tipp

Meath

+9%

+5% (26% in 2005)

20% 1,200 tonnes

Illegal collectors

6 months prior to introduction Local authority plus private

Offaly

Some – 7–8% of households still owe Yes, 15%

No PAYT yet

2,800 bins sold No

Yes

No

No

Some – esp. Xmas and Halloween Some, minor problem Illegal collectors No private

More detection

Yes

No

More detection

No

Yes

Indoor burning

Yes, sites

Yes

Information leaflet

Lot of competition

No

Frequency

No

No

Private

Private

2004


Landfilled waste Recycled Waste

Cork Co. Co.

Lots of competition, some contractors still fixed charge

2005 Local authority

2003 Private – service charge plus weight 2833

*During 2005 Dublin city disaggregated household from municipal waste, thus the figures appear to have dropped dramatically.

2834


References Aberg, H., 2000. Sustainable Waste Management – from International Policy to Everyday Practice. Experiences from Two Swedish Field Studies. Göteborg Studies in Educational Sciences, Göteborg, Sweden. Barr, S., 2002. Household Waste in Social Perspective: Values, Attitudes, Situation and Behaviour. Ashgate, Hampshire. Bauer, S.D., Miranda, M.L., 1996. The urban performance of unit pricing: an analysis of variable rates for residential garbage collection in urban areas. Report prepared for the Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation, US Environmental Protection Agency. Bazerman, M.H., Wade-Benzoni, K.A., Benzoni, F., 1996. A behavioural decision theory perspective to environmental decision making. In: Messick, D.M., Tenbrunsel, A. (Eds.), Ethical Issues in Managerial Decision Making, 1996. Russell Sage Foundation, New York. Davies, A., Fahy, F., Taylor, D., 2005. Mind the gap: householders attitude and actions towards waste in Ireland. Irish Geography 38 (2), 151–168. Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government, 1998. Waste Management: changing our Ways. (accessed July 2006.). Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government, 2006. A Draft National Strategy for Biodegradable Waste. . Dickerson, S., 1999. Collecting garbage fees and pay-as-you-throw. Paper Prepared for the 1999 Solid Waste Association of North America (SWANA) Conference. Drury Research, 2000. Attitudes and Actions: a National Survey on the Environment. Dept of Environment and Local Government, Dublin. Dunlap, R., Gallup Jr., G., Gallup, A., 1993. Global environmental concern: results from an international public opinion survey. Environment 35 (9), 7–15ff. Dunne, L., 2004. An investigation into waste taxes and charges. Journal of Irish Urban Studies 3 (2). Ebreo, A., Hershey, J., Vining, J., 1999. Reducing solid waste: linking recycling to environmental responsible consumerism. Environment and Behaviour 31 (1), 107–135. EC, 1999. Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste. Official Journal L 182 , 6/07/1999 P. 0001–0019. EC, 2006. Directive 2006/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2006 on waste. Official Journal L 114 , 27/04/2006 P. 0009–0021. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2004a. National Waste Report. (accessed April 2006.). Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 2004b. Waste Management – Taking Stock and Moving Forward. (accessed August 2006.). Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2005. National Waste Database 2004. (accessed July 2006.). Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2006. National Waste Database 2005. (accessed October 2007.). European Commission, 2003. Towards a Thematic Strategy on Waste Prevention and Recycling (COM(2003)301, 27 May 2003 . Folz, D.H., Giles, J.N., 2002. Municipal experience with ‘pay-as-you-throw’ policies: findings from a National Survey. State and Local Government Review 34 (2), 105–115.

Forfás, 2006. Waste Management Benchmarking Study – A Baseline Assessment. Forfas, Dublin. . Fullerton, D., Kinnaman, T.C., 1996. Household responses to pricing garbage by the bag. The American Economic Review 86 (4), 971–984. Heffernan, B., 2006. Five Waste Disposal Firms Raided. Irish Independent, April 26, 2006. Hopper, J.R., Nielsen, J.M., 1991. Recycling as altruistic behavior: normative and behavioural strategies to expand participation in a community recycling program. Environment and Behavior 23, 195–220. Kelly, O., 2005. Charges lead to fewer bin collections in Dublin. Irish Times, 21.3.05. Kinnaman, T.C., Fullerton, D., 2000. Garbage and recycling with endogenous local policy. Journal or Urban Economics 48 (3), 419–442. McElvaney, H., 2006. Personal Communication with Hugh McElvaney, McElvaney Waste, Monaghan, 12 September 2006. Medley, E., 2006. Personal Communication with Emanon Medley, Business Manager Greenstar, 6 September 2006. Minton, A.P., Rose, R.L., 1997. The effects of environmental concern on environmentally friendly consumer behaviour: an exploratory study. Journal of Business Research 40 (1), 37–48. Miranda, M.L., Everett, J., Blume, D., Roy, B., 1994. Market based incentives and residential municipal solid waste. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 13 (4), 681–698. OECD, 2004. Addressing the Economics of Waste. OECD, Paris. Protection of the Environment Act, 2003. The Office of the Attorney General. . Reschovsky, J.D., Stone, S.E., 1994. Market Incentives to encourage household waste recycling: paying for what you throw away. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 13 (1), 120–139. Schartz, S.H., 1977. Normative influences on altruism. In: Berkowitz, L. (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, vol. 10. Academic Press, New York. Sheridan, K., 2003. What’s driving the bin protests? Is it just political jockeying ahead of next year’s local elections, or are people fed up with ‘double taxes’. Irish Times, October 18th. Skumatz, L.A., 1996. Nationwide diversion rate study: Quantitative effects of programme choices on recycling and gree waste diversion – beyond case studies. Report Prepared by Skumatz Economic Research Associates Inc. Skumatz, L.A., 2000. Measuring source reduction: pay as you throw/variable rates as an example. Report Prepared by Skumatz Economic Researh Associates Inc. Speck, S., Skou Andersen, M., Nielsen, H.O., Ryelund, A., Smith, C., 2006. The Use of Economic Instruments in Nordic and Baltic Environmental Policy 2001–2005. Nordic Council of Ministers. . Stern, P.C., Dietz, T., Black, J.S., 1986. Support for environmental protection: the role of moral norms. Population and Environment 8, 204–222. Sterner, T., Bartelings, H., 1999. Household waste management in a swedish municipality: determinants of waste disposal, recycling and composting. Environmental and Resource Economics 13 (4), 473–491. The Competition Authority, 2005. Alleged excessive pricing by Greenstar Recycling Holdlings Limited in the Provision of household waste collection services in northeast Wicklow, Enforcement Decision Series No. E/05/002. August 2005. . US Environmental Protection Agency, 2000. Unit based pricing in the United States: A tally of communities. . Vining, J., Ebreo, A., 1990. What makes a recycler? A comparison of recyclers and nonrecyclers. Environment and Behavior 22 (1), 55–73. White, Young, Green, 2006. Wastelines Issue No. 16 – June 2006. (accessed September 2006.).