Use of economic instruments in the EU 27 and waste management performances Shailendra Mudgal

Transcription

1 Waste in a new economic scenario: Low Cost strategies, efficiency and valorization Use of economic instruments in the EU 27 and waste management performances Shailendra Mudgal ORGANIZADO POR: CON LA COLABORACIÓN DE:

2 2 Established in 1989, BIO is a leading research and consulting company in the field of environmental and health evaluation of products and services and in improving the science-policy interface. BIO supports its clients through: Knowledge management Methods & tools Analytical assessment Communication support BIO in a nutshell

3 A pioneer in Europe Methodologies and policies towards SCP 1 st LCA in France 1 er sustainable public procurement program Involved in the development of the green building (HQE) programme in France Participates in ISO working groups on LCA Evaluated the environmental impact of an EU citizen Conceived the 1 st environmental labelling initiative in the retail sector in France (Casino) 1 st analysis estimating the potential of ICT in improving energy efficiency in the EU First assessments of fiscal instruments to encourage the uptake of greener products Created the database on environmental impacts of biofuels Assistance to the creation of several green dot organisations for several EPR streams 1 st multi-sector pilot project on environmental communication (300 products) Revision of the EU strategy on Mercury Development of the Resource strategy of the EU Impact assessment of the revision of the EIA Directive More than 500 life-cycle assessments (LCA), critical review of LCAs, and carbon footprint More than 100 projects for the EU institutions

4 4 Activities in the waste sector BIO IS supports private and public organisations in the management, monitoring, and improvement of waste management systems. Optimisation of the use of natural resources and waste prevention Implementation of sustainable waste management approaches Improvement of existing waste channels or help in establishing new channels, particularly in Producer Responsibility schemes Assessment of waste volumes generated and monitoring of companies declarations for regulated wastes Environmental, techno-economic and multi-criteria analyses Global and European benchmarking Development of decision-making tools

5 5 This study was launched as a follow-up to the Report on the Thematic Strategy on the Prevention and Recycling of Waste which was published in January 2011 This study was conducted under the framework contract on Sustainable Management of Resources, led by BIO Intelligence Service The project team for this specific study was led by the Institute for European Environmental Policy Relevant links Project website: European Commission webpage: Background

6 6 The objective of the study was to analyse the performances of the waste management systems in different MS and the use of Economic Instruments. Key elements: Identification of the various economic instruments used by the MS in relation to waste management focus on recycling and waste prevention Analysis of the potential impacts of the use of economic instruments at EU and MS levels through a modelling exercise and definition of the main policy options Instruments studied included Landfill and incineration fees and taxes, PAYT schemes and producer responsibility schemes (for specific waste streams) Evaluation of the potential of moving towards an EU approach on the application of economic instruments Objectives This study demonstrates practices in different Member States in the implementation of EU legally binding minimum targets and links between the performance of Member States and the use of economic instruments

7 7 The EU Roadmap to a Resource Efficient Europe calls for: a transition to a resource efficient economy a much greater focus on re-use and recycling to achieve resource efficiency The Roadmap sets 2020 as a milestone by when: Overview of the EU situation (1/4) Waste is managed as a resource and absolute decoupling of waste per capita. Recycling and re-use of waste are economically attractive options and more materials are recycled. Waste legislation is fully implemented and Illegal shipments of waste have been eradicated. Energy recovery is limited to non recyclable materials, landfilling is virtually eliminated and high quality recycling is ensured. The increased use of EIs in the waste management sector is anticipated by the Commission as a means to helping to attain this vision.

8 8 The Waste Framework Directive (2008/98/EC) sets the following targets: the separate collection of paper, metal, plastic and glass by 2015 at least 50% of paper, plastics, metal and glass from households and similar origins prepared for reuse or recycled by 2020 at least 70% of non-hazardous construction and demolition (C&D) waste reused, recycled or undergoing material recovery by 2020 The Landfill Directive (1999/31/EC) sets the following targets for the reduction of biodegradable municipal waste going to landfill: a reduction to 75% of 1995 levels by 2006 a reduction to 50% of 1995 levels by 2009 a reduction to 35% of 1995 levels by 2016 Overview of the EU situation (2/4) Those MS sending more than 80% of their municipal waste to landfill in 1995 are permitted to postpone attainment of the above targets by up to four years

9 9 Overview of the EU situation (3/4) PRODUCT (NON-WASTE) PREVENTION WASTE PREPARING FOR RE-USE RECYCLING RECOVERY SAFE DISPOSAL

10 100% Overview of the EU situation (4/4) 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% DE NL AT SE BE DK LU FR FI UK IT SI ES PT IE CZ HU PL Landfill Incineration Recycling Composting EE SK GR MT CY LV LT RO BG EU 27 Source: Eurostat

11 11 Landfill taxes and fees (1/2) A distinction is made between: landfill taxes - a levy charged by a public authority for the disposal of waste gate fees - a charge set by the landfill operator for the provision of the service The sum of the tax and the gate fee represents the total charge for the disposal of waste in a landfill Key findings 19 MS have landfill taxes in place for the disposal of non-hazardous municipal waste sent to legal landfills. Gate fees are charged in all MS. Landfill restrictions for unsorted or untreated municipal waste exist in 14 MS. The total charge to landfill one tonne of municipal waste in the EU ranges widely from in Lithuania to up to in SE, same is true for landfill taxes, from 3 in Bulgaria to in The Netherlands. The Netherland has decided to eliminate the tax on landfill as part of a simplification of the taxes (2012). Revenues from the tax on landfill have dramatically reduced in line with the reduction of waste landfilled. However, the tax creates much administrative burden.

12 12 Waste management performances Landfill taxes and fees (2/2) There is a relationship between (higher) landfill taxes (and total charges) and (lower) quantity of municipal waste being sent to landfill Landfill restrictions also have an influence on forcing landfill rates to low levels Higher landfill charges tend to push waste towards recycling and composting. However, the correlation between increasing landfill tax and decreasing rates of MSW landfill is not apparent for all MS The two MS with the highest landfill taxes for inert/c&d waste (Denmark and The Netherlands) demonstrate the highest levels of recycling of such waste There is a trend for landfill tax rates increasing over time Taxes alone cannot enable zero landfilling but they rather shift the priority to material recovery

13 13 As for landfills, the same distinction can be made between incineration fees and taxes Key findings Only 6 MS were found to have incineration taxes in place for the disposal of municipal waste, and incineration gate fees were identified in 12 MS The level of taxation ranges very widely, from as little as 2.40 per tonne in France to 54 in Denmark while total charges from 46 in Czech Republic to 174 in Germany Waste management performances Incineration taxes and fees There is a general trend that higher incineration charges are generally associated with higher percentages of municipal waste being recycled and composted All MS that have incineration taxes also have landfill taxes, and in every case the landfill tax is higher than the incineration tax helps to push waste treatment up the waste hierarchy

14 14 Key findings PAYT (1/2) 17 MS employ PAYT systems for municipal waste only three MS (Austria, Finland, and Ireland) have PAYT schemes in place in all municipalities 16 MS use volume-based schemes, 15 use frequency-based schemes, 9 use weight-based schemes, and 6 use sack-based schemes There is a broad range of both the basis for charging and the amounts charged fees per kg range from 0.17 (Slovakia) to 0.36 (Sweden) The coverage varies widely, from a very small proportion in ES (Catalonia only) and the United Kingdom, to over 20% of municipalities in the Netherlands, 40% of the population in Luxembourg, and up to nationwide coverage in Austria, Finland and Ireland

15 15 Waste management performances PAYT schemes appear to be most effective when the fees payable by households are high enough to encourage reflection by householders on their waste generation behaviour There are arguments for not making charges so high that they give a strong incentive for illegal dumping Performance in specific countries: PAYT (2/2) In Austria, increased PAYT fees may have had a limited dampening effect on waste generation In Finland, residents who compost waste at home realise large savings over those who separate their compostable waste for separate collection and those who do not separate compostable waste. In Germany and Ireland, weight-based PAYT schemes observed a significant reduction in household waste generation in the first year of its introduction

16 Packaging WEEE ELVs Batteries Tyres C&D Farm plastics Total AT? 6 BE - 6 BG? CY CZ DK EE? FI FR - 6 DE - 6 EL HU?? IT LV LT Producer responsibility - Panorama Rationale Main reasons Variety of approaches LU MT NL - 6 PL PT RO?? SK SI? ES? 6 SE - -? 4 UK Total

17 Waste oils, oil filters Paper, card Medicines, medical waste Plastic bags Photochemicals, chemicals Producer responsibility - Panorama Newspapers Refrigerants Pesticides, herbicides Lamps, lightbulbs, fittings Other (covered by only one Member State) AT Bulky waste (metals, glass, plastics and wood); Expanded polystyrene; Plastic foils BE Disposable plastic kitchenware BG CY CZ DK EE FI FR Agricultural twine and netting; Clothes, household linen, shoes; Gas cylinders for domestic use; Household and professional furniture; Ink and ink cartridges; Mobile homes DE Commercial waste 1 EL HU - - -? IT Total

18 18 Modelling Scenarios Scenario A - All MS reach a level of landfill tax of at least 40 per tonne Scenario B In addition to landfill tax and other EIs are used as well Results of modelling Scenario A - the amount of MSW diverted from landfill in 2025 in EU-27 is 43 Mt compared to the baseline scenario or 19 Mt compared to the 2008 quantities Scenario B - the amount of MSW diverted from landfill same as in scenario A - the difference is found in the way in which the diverted waste will be treated lower incineration and higher recycling rates

19 Modelling Baseline Scenario Scenario A: min 40 /ton landfill tax

20 20 Policy options A selection of potential policy options have been suggested for consideration by the Commission, to promote an optimal use of EIs by the MS: Option 1 - Setting a minimum level of landfill tax to be applied in all MS developing a common method for calculating a minimum tax level could be developed, and taxes could be more strongly encouraged in the worst performing MS. Option 2 - setting criteria/producing guidance for the design of producer responsibility schemes the most successful producer responsibility schemes appear to share some common features and design features may influence the success of EPR schemes. Option 3 Encouraging the use of charging that ensures waste generators face incentives in line with the waste hierarchy provide incentives to producers to reduce waste generation and to make use of cost-effective recycling services

21