We could be facing a costly epidemic of illegal disposal of waste, such as burning or burying, writes Duncan J. Martin.
We all know that bin charges are meant to persuade us to throw less away. But we do not know if they will be effective.
There are already many citizens who refuse to pay or simply cannot afford to. Charges might instead cause an uncontrollable epidemic of "black disposal": burning, burying, flushing away, stockpiling, fly-tipping or whatever. Of course, most of us will co-operate, most of the time. However, even the most law-abiding will look for ways to cheat sometimes - and some will not co-operate all. The resulting environmental damage and clean-up costs might well outweigh the gains.
PAYT (pay-as-you-throw) schemes might just make things worse. Whether based on pay-by-weight or pay-by-volume, they will tempt every one of us to cheat, every day. It is simply a delusion that this black disposal can be policed and controlled or that education can even approach 100 per cent effectiveness. Our attempts to control the black economy should teach us that. In contrast, opting out of flat-rate bin charges requires a clear decision. Most of us grumble about the cost but once we have paid there is no temptation to cheat.
Louise Dunne's description of PAYT systems (Irish Times, Jan 26th) presented the conventional view of their benefits. But take a closer look. She said that PAYT has been shown to reduce the weight of waste collected. No surprises there. But then she airily assumes that the reduction is almost wholly accounted for by "virtuous" alternatives, such as recycling or composting. No surprises there either: PAYT fans invariably dismiss black disposal as a trivial or transient problem, if they consider it at all. I just wish I could believe them.
So, what is the rationale behind bin charges? The stated objectives include the promotion of reusing, recycling, composting etc and of waste prevention, partly by changing our shopping habits. However, there is a hidden objective: to offload the cost. No council wants to keep the fast-rising cost of waste management within its budget. Another unstated and perhaps unconscious objective is to offload the blame. If bin charges do not work, it will be our fault, not theirs.
Further pressure for bin charges comes from the EU and green groups, who all subscribe to the stated objectives and seem convinced that these schemes will work perfectly. Many citizens like the idea too, because they think they will be able to keep their own costs low. However, if the means they have in mind are illegal, they might get some unwelcome surprises. The bills might be a surprise too. The Limerick Leader reported on January 27th that PAYT bills for 2004 will range from a minimum charge of €320 per household to over €1,000. The temptation to cheat will be hard to resist.
We have little data on how people will react to PAYT, so let us make some optimistic guesses: 90 per cent pay their bin charges and just 10 per cent opt out. Perhaps half of the opt-outs take up black disposal. Of those who pay, 40 per cent grumble about the cost but carry on as before, 30 per cent use wholly desirable methods to reduce their bills; and just 20 per cent resort to some black disposal to reduce their charges. Clearly, some surveys are needed but these guesses are good enough to illustrate some possible outcomes.
The council has succeeded in offloading the cost. It can ignore the "opt-outs" as long as it can ignore the environmental damage done by the "black disposers" (25 per cent of the population, on my guesses), in the hope that the 90 per cent will soon take bin charges for granted. Then, when the council can no longer ignore the damage, they will start adding the costs of enforcement and of cleaning up after black disposal to the charges paid by the 90 per cent.
The council has also succeeded in reducing recorded waste arisings, another important objective. However, how much of this will be due to desirable changes in behaviour and how much to simply pushing some of the waste off the balance sheet? Perhaps my suspicions are unfounded. However, no council has ever checked why my suburban home has no contract with any local waste collection company. The contrast with TV licences is striking!
One could hardly blame councils for not looking too closely at this "Enron accounting" issue. They are ordered by government to achieve high recycling rates, with no realistic idea how to achieve them. So the chance to claim any fall in waste arisings as an increase in recycling might be too tempting to let pass. They do not have the staff to police waste disposal in every street. The new Office of Environmental Enforcement might help here but how many staff will it have in the field?
Moreover, if any fall in waste arisings is largely due to Enron accounting, the real environmental objectives have not been met. We might lose more on the swings than we gain on the roundabouts. For example, what will be the environmental costs of the dioxin emissions from a million backyard incinerators?
It seems to me that PAYT schemes encourage cheating as much as they do "good" behaviour. Surely, a better way would be to reward the desired behaviour? Should we consider returning to a tax-based system - but with generous discounts for low volumes and for recycling?
Duncan Martin is vice-chair of the Irish Centre of the Chartered Institute of Wastes Management. He writes in a personal capacity.
Tomorrow: the alternative.