Waste prevention is widely seen as a good thing. It seems pretty clear to most people that while it is good to recycle, it is better not to create waste in the first place. But recent legislation actually makes it impossible for local authorities in England to take the steps that have been shown to be the most effective in preventing waste.
The revised Waste Framework Directive (2008/98/EC) (rWFD) shows absolutely clearly the importance that the European Commission attaches to waste prevention, as it:
- Makes prevention one of its primary objectives (Article 1);
- Gives it a specific definition (Article 2 (2));
- Places it at the top of the waste hierarchy (Article 4); and
- Makes the implementation of prevention programmes an essential requirement (Article 29).
This is a significant change from the previous Directive (2006/12/EC), in which prevention was addressed only in Article 3, in an outline waste hierarchy.
What prevents waste?
Accordingly, there is considerable interest in measures that have demonstrable waste prevention effects. In a recent study, Eunomia reviewed a range of different economic instruments, and found the most compelling evidence of waste prevention effects came from Direct and Variable Rate (DVR) charging schemes – or ‘Pay as you Throw’ (PAYT). Schemes vary, both in how much is charged, and the basis of calculation – some charge by weight, volume, sack, and/or frequency. But in the most effective schemes in the case studies that we reviewed, the quantity of household waste collected fell by 10% or more.
Chris presents at the IBGE Waste Prevention Conference
Importantly, a comprehensive PAYT scheme can provide a strong financial rationale for households to engage in further waste prevention activities, e.g by home composting, or using reusable nappies. Moreover, it is an instrument that can be implemented at the local level, without the need for central government action – or at least it can in most parts of Europe.
Unfortunately, in England, local authorities are now explicitly forbidden to introduce a measure that so demonstrably respects the waste hierarchy.
It wasn’t always that way. Under the Climate Change Act 2008, waste collection authorities were permitted to set up pilot waste reduction schemes, including PAYT – although they did not exactly seize this opportunity with both hands. However, these provisions were repealed by Section 47 of the Localism Act 2011, and so PAYT is now off the agenda, in England at least.
The rWFD requirement to implement waste prevention programmes (Article 29) includes an obligation on member states to:
- Set out waste prevention objectives;
- Describe the existing prevention measures; and
- Evaluate the usefulness of measures, such as those described in Annex IV of the Directive.
In the face of the clear evidence that PAYT is an effective waste prevention measure, the question arises in my mind – can the government in Westminster preventing its use be compatible with the rWFD requirement to respect the waste hierarchy?
Eunomia’s report can be downloaded here.
Leave A Comment