Charging for Rubbish?

September 25, 2007

Anthony Brand, Senior Researcher
Westminster and Whitehall

In the last few months the waste agenda has been pushed to the forefront of the national media. Increasing environmental awareness and the drive to cut carbon emissions have forced us to look more closely at the amount of waste we produce and the way in which it is managed.

In 2005 the UK buried over 2/3 of the 30million tonnes of rubbish it created – more than most European nations. The Government wants a 45% reduction in landfill by 2020. But national progress has been slow. Since 1996 recycling in the UK has quadrupled to 27% of household waste but some areas still recycle as little as 9% – far short of 2010’s 40% target.

Existing national policy tools have seen some success. Landfill Tax and the Landfill Allowance Trading Scheme (LATS) have already incentivised local authorities to invest in recycling facilities and to raise awareness in their local areas. Supported by the Waste & Resources Action Programme (WRAP) and the Waste Infrastructure Delivery Programme (WIDP), these measures have led to overall quantities of waste at landfill sites falling by 25% between 1997 and 2006 – still short of target.

But a top-down approach has other consequences. At a local level, councils are feeling the pinch from an increasingly punitive Landfill Tax. The Landfill Tax escalator is now demanding increases of £8 per tonne per year from 2008-09. EU fines could add £180million to this from 2010.

Spiralling costs have had an impact on other services and Council Tax levels in a climate in which local authorities are also expected to deliver year on year Gerhson efficiency savings. With CSR07 likely to offer only minimal grant increases the financial pressures on waste management will mount.

This situation has yet to feed through to the general public who remain, on large, unaware of the true costs of waste disposal. Many feel that our large and growing Council Tax bill should cover the few services they receive, of which waste disposal is the most visible.

In reality, we pay relatively little towards waste disposal in this country, less than half of some European neighbours (£120 per household against £200 across the EU). The majority of our Council Tax is sucked into filling the funding gaps left by the Government’s rigid and centralised grant regime. There is little financial or political slack in the Council Tax system to cover the rising costs of waste disposal. Moreover, only a small proportion of existing Landfill Tax is returned to councils to promote innovative solutions to the waste problem.

Local attempts to halt the rising costs have proved unpopular with the public. Policies such as Alternate Weekly Collection (AWC) and incineration remain controversial and politically difficult to implement. A few major PFI deals have started to appear but the money and political will is not sufficient to drive major investment.

In this context, DEFRA’s recent consultation paper saw a potential way forward: charging householders according to the amount of non-recyclable waste they throw away which might incentivise them to reduce waste and recycle more. Several such systems have been used in Europe, based upon purchasing official waste sacks, weighing household bins and charging for different sized bins. They have been credited with significantly increasing recycling rates.

NLGN’s paper, How can we refuse? Tackling the waste challenge, argued that despite the additional freedom this power might provide local authorities, it would be ineffective in the UK. Because the system is expected to be revenue neutral, because we pay so little for our waste collection anyway, and because the costs of administering and policing any such system would be so high, what is left from the pot is unlikely to be sufficient to provide any real incentive to individuals. Neither are the costs likely to deter many. Already stories have emerged about households paying private contractors to collect their rubbish on those weeks missed by councils operating AWC.

Furthermore, the context in which these schemes have been successful elsewhere is very different to that of the UK. Much more would need to be done around these schemes to raise public awareness, to provide and promote recycling alternatives.

Finally, any resulting increases in recycling are unlikely to have a major financial or environmental impact. Household waste contributes a relatively small proportion of the nation’s carbon emissions and in order to avoid EU landfill fines, the Audit Commission suggests recycling would need to increase to over 40%.

This is not to say that recycling should not be encouraged, or that charging might not play a role in a wider waste strategy, but is this really the best we can do? The debate, carried out in the glare of the media, has only served to reinforce old stereotypes of councils as inefficient, money-grabbing institutions who’s primary function is to collect our bins. So much for place-shaping.

NLGN’s paper suggests that the time, resource and political capital expended in implementing a charging scheme would be better used in other ways. Local authorities need to remain at the forefront of this debate, not only in deciding the best way of collecting and disposing of household rubbish, but in engaging with communities and developing long-term local strategies for meeting the waste challenge.

We suggest that any incentive scheme should work at a community or ward level. This system would be less resource intensive and simpler to monitor with fewer unwanted side effects. It also helps build a sense of community purpose and would result in more significant, publicly recognisable reward – both factors that research shows are strong drivers in changing behaviour.

More progressive councils will make the most of charging controversy. This is a rare occasion when a local issue makes the national news; when councils are given the time and media space to develop an argument. Local authorities should take the opportunity to start a real debate with their communities about where local waste policy is going, outlining clearly the consequences of doing nothing and the pros and cons of alternatives. Better we take the time to devise effective long-term solutions than to start charging for rubbish.


Explore More