| Country | Charge rates at end 97 | Comments / perspectives | |
|---|---|---|---|
| capital city | range in country | ||
| Bosnia & Herzegovina | USD 0.06/m2 realty & month for households (charges for industry are higher) | Municipal waste user charges existed in whole Bosnia and Herzegovina before the war. Today, many municipalities do not charge yet. In Sarajevo, the municipal waste user charges imposed on households are not enforced consequently; enforcement is stricter on the industry / private sectors. Where charges are imposed they are not cost covering. Revenue distribution: 100% municipal budgets or waste service company. | |
| Bulgaria | USD 1.6/year | Total yearly revenue from municipal waste user charges in 1995 was 26.4 mln USD (3.1 USD/capita) and for 1996, 16.2 mln USD (1.9 USD/capita). The revenue goes to municipal budgets and is not often used for waste management. The charges are not cost covering. Revenue distribution: 100% municipal budgets. | |
| Croatia | USD 0.12 + VAT/m2 realty and month | Charges not cost covering. Revenue distribution: 100% concessioned service company. | |
| Estonia | Households: 5.3 USD/t Industry: 3.6 USD/t |
Households: 3.0 -7.1 USD/t Industry: 3.0 -7.1 USD/t |
Charges not cost covering. |
| Hungary | USD 44.2/year and household | USD 10.1-44.2/year and household | In the past few years there were significant price increases. Supposedly, the charges cover operating cost but not total cost of waste treatment. Municipal waste services are provided partly by private firms and partly by firms owned by local governments. If private firms provide the service, charges must cover full costs. |
| Lithuania | charge for waste collection: 0.45-0.48 USD/inh. & month charge on disposal of municipal & industrial waste: 4.93 in USD/m3 |
charge for waste collection: 0.13-0.55 USD/inhabitant & month charge on disposal of municipal and industrial waste: 0.5-4.93 in USD/m3 |
The charges are established by the municipalities based on the proposals by the waste collecting companies and cover operation costs and depreciation of waste collection and transportation equipment. Waste collection charges do not cover landfill costs. Municipal waste landfills are the property of the municipalities and are operated by the waste collection companies free of charge. Landfill construction and maintenance are financed by the municipalities, usually from the municipal environmental funds. As waste collection services are provided on request by the customers, numerous single family houses and small commercial companies refuse to make contracts with waste collection companies and dispose their waste in waste collection containers placed in neighboring residential areas. According to the data collected by some municipalities, losses of waste collection companies caused by unpaid charges can reach as high as 30 % of their income. Planned new legislation should improve: - inefficient collection of charges; - compulsory payment for municipal waste collection/disposal as part of municipal taxes; - improved cost coverage. Revenue distribution: 100% concessioned service companies. |
| FYR Macedonia | charge on municipal waste collection: USD 0.04/ m2 realty & month; charge on waste disposal: USD 18/ton for municipal waste; USD 14/ton for construction waste; USD 11/ton for industrial waste |
||
| Romania | 0.37 USD/person and month | 0.18-0.25 USD/person and month. (In some municipalities, waste collection and disposal is charged based on volume: the current range of rates in the country is 2.5-3.4 USD/m3. | The previous/current solid waste service system has led to high social costs and low service levels. The financial sustainability of solid waste service is threatened by the fact that 30 per cent of the beneficiaries do not pay their bills. In small cities and rural areas the waste collection and transport system have completely broken down. Collection systems appear to be functioning better in some large municipalities. The result of improper solid waste service is that huge quantities of solid waste are deposited in illegal dumps. |
| Slovenia | $ 0.48/m2 realty and month (average charge rate for whole country as of May 1997) | Charges are set quarterly by the Government. Charges not cost covering. A new methodology for mun. waste user charges was introduced in 04/1998:the basis of the new pricing system is cost recovery with prices including cost for waste dumping. New charges are based on mass (ton) or volume (m3) of waste produced. | |
| FR Yugoslavia | Municipal waste user charges (payment for the service of waste collection and disposal) are in force for decades. The charge level per year is determined as a percentage of the square of a dwelling. Therefore, the method of calculating the charge level is not directly related to the volume of waste produced. Level of the charges are determined completely by the municipalities and the collection is done by communal enterprises. The charges do not correspond with the costs of waste disposal and are not stimulating enough to result in change of behavior. However, financial schemes for waste minimization and recycling are planned. The current charges do not cover all treatment costs and municipalities provide subsidies in many cases. Therefore it is expected that the charges will be further increased but likely far less then needed because of social concerns. | ||
Notes: No information has been provided for Czech Republic, Latvia, Poland, Slovakia.
| Country | Type | Goal / function | Subject: who pays | Basis | Factors determining charge rates | Level / rate at end 97' (USD/t) | Indexed for inflation? | Revenue leaders | Yearly revenue (mln USD) | Yearly revenue / capita (USD) | Collection efficiency (%) | Revenue distribution | Effectiveness / comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bulgaria1 | NCF | Compl, RR | Enterprises | 13 soil pollutants | Area, MinS, Tox, Regio | n.a. | No but to national minimum salary | illegal deposit of fuel oil and solid HH waste | 1994: 0.38 1995: 0.22 1996: 0.06 1997: n.a. |
1994: 0.05 1995: 0.03 1996: 0.01 1997: n.a. |
1994: 26.2 1995: 17.7 1996: 10.2 1997: n.a |
70% NEF 30% SEF |
Legislative gaps. Lack of moni-toring equipm. Fines too low for incentive. 80% waiver if fined industry carries out environm. investment accepted by MoE. |
| Czech Republic | EC | Incent. | Waste producer (incl. HH?) | Communal and hazardous waste | Quan, Tox | a: 0.62 b: 5.72 c: 8.62 |
No | n.a. | 1994: 14.8 1995: 22.5 1996: 9.7 1997: 17.6 |
1994: 1.4 1995: 2.2 1996: 0.9 1997: 1.7 |
1994: n.a. 1995: n.a. 1996: n.a. 1997: n.a. |
Basic rates to SB; Hazardous rate to NEF | |
| Estonia | EC | Incent RR | Enterprises | Any kind of waste deposited | Quan, Tox, Regio | I3: 66.3 II: 6.6 III: 0.7 IV: 0.2 V: 0.1 |
No, but revised each year. | Oil shale burning and processing waste | 1994: 0.5 1995: 1.3 1996: 1.3 1997: 2.0 |
1994: 0.4 1995: 0.8 1996: 0.9 1997: 1.3 |
1994: n.a. 1995: n.a. 1996: n.a. 1997: n.a. |
100% NEF | Revenue increased after strengthening the permit and information systems. Significant increase was realized when charge rate for oil-shale waste was increased (it used to be 10% of the rate of other waste in the same hazard category). |
| NCF | Compl | I: 33'145 II3: 663 III: 32.6 IV: 1.2 V: 0.4 |
|||||||||||
| Hungary | NCF13 | Compl RR | Owner or transporter of hazardous or industrial waste | Illegal management or handling of hazardous waste | Quan, Tox, ExceedS | complex formula | No | n.a. | 1994: 0.4 1995: 0.3 1996: 0.5 1997: 0.4 |
1994: 0.04 1995: 0.03 1996: 0.05 1997: 0.04 |
n.a. | 70% NEF 30% SB |
The NCF is based on how severely respective legislation was broken. New hazardous waste law is complex and strict, which leads to problems to enforce the NCF. |
| Latvia | EC | Incent RR | legal/natural persons producing waste for disposal | waste type according to 3 toxicity classes | Quan, Tox | see note 14 | No | n.a. | n.a. | n.a. | n.a. | 40% NEF 60% SEF |
|
| Lithuania | NCF | Compl RR | legal or natural persons illegally depositing waste | waste type according to 5 toxicity classes | Quan, Tox | I: 18450 II: 9225 III: 2768 IV: 923 V: 185 |
Quarterly indexation. | n.a. | n.a.4 | n.a.4 | n.a. | 100% NEF | This NCF cannot be considered efficient as it is applied on very rare occasions due to inefficient inspection. New methodologies for assessing the NCF are currently under preparation |
| Poland | EC | Any waste producer as a result of commercial activities. | 19 groups of waste types | Quan, Tox, Source | 2-24 $/t depending on type of waste | Yes | n.a. | 1994: 63.55 1995: 70.15 1996: 72.05 1997: n.a. |
1994: 1.65 1995: 1.85 1996: 1.95 1997: n.a. |
1994: 78%5 1995: 60%5 1996: 69%5 1997: n.a. |
20% NEF 80% SEF6 |
There are several proposals to improve the current EC.8 | |
| NCF | see note 7 | ||||||||||||
| Slovakia | EC10 | Incent RR | every waste producer disposing at a landfill | all types of waste incl. municipal & hazardous | Quan, Tox, Landfill12 | see note 12 | No | Municipal Waste | 1994: 1.79 1995: 5.09 1996: 7.29 1997: 5.29 |
1994: 0.39 1995: 0.99 1996: 1.49 1997: 1.09 |
ca. 70% | Rate A12: 100% SB Rate B: see 12 |
EC: Delayed payments are allowed if a generator undertakes measures to reduce or to decrease the harmfulness (risk) of the waste through changes in technology, recycling or reusing the waste.11 |
| NCF | Compl | who violated waste management legislation | level of violation | level of violation | fixed rates? | 1994: 0.6 1995: 0.6 1996: 0.5 1997: 0.3 |
1994: 0.1 1995: 0.1 1996: 0.9 1997: 0.1 |
ca. 80% | 100% NEF |
Abbreviations:
Notes:
Type: NCF = non-compliance fee; EC = emission charge.
Goal/function: Compl = Compliance; RR = revenue raising; Incent = incentive function.
Factors determining charge rates: Area = polluted area in m2; Quan = quantity of emissions; ExceedS = exceedance of standard; MinS = minimal salary of the country; Tox = toxicity of pollutants; Regio = regional factors; Source = source of disposed waste (e.g., charge differentiation according to economic sectors producing the waste); landfill = charge differentiation according to type of landfill in which charged waste is disposed.
Revenue distribution: NEF = national environmental fund; SEF = sub-national environmental fund; NB = national budget; SB = sub-national budget.
No information has been provided for Latvia.
Bulgaria: 1) The official name of the Bulgarian charge is "fine for soil pollution and soil damages".
Czech Republic: 2) a refers to the basic rate on communal waste; b refers to the basic rate on hazardous waste (regular disposal) and c refers to rate on hazardous waste needing special disposal. These rates will be gradually increased in the coming years.
Estonia: 3) Class I = extremely hazardous waste, class II = hazardous waste, class III = moderately hazardous waste, class IV = slightly hazardous waste, class V = inert waste. Non compliance fees are 5-500 times higher than the regular charge, depending on class of hazardousness.
Lithuania: 4) Revenue data are only available for all ECs and NCFs in force in Lithuania (i.e., EC and NCF on air poll., EC and NCF on water pollution, NCF on waste disposal): total revenue from pollution charges was USD 4.9 mln in 1994 and USD 17.8 mln in 1997 (i.e., yearly revenue/capita was USD 1.3 in 1994 and USD 4.8 in 1997); total revenue from pollution fines was USD 0.3 mln in 1994 and USD 1.3 mln in 1997 (i.e., yearly revenue/capita was USD 0.1 in 1994 and USD 0.4 in 1997). The revenues from the waste NCF are substantially lower than those from the air and water NCF.
Poland: 5) Data are for EC ???and??? NCF (needs clarification - probably only EC). 6) 50% of total revenue goes to local (gmina) funds and 30% to regional (voivod) funds. 7) The NCF is imposed as 1/20 of the annual EC per every day of depositing the waste without a valid permit. 8) Proposed changes in the current EC include: - tighten rates levels in relation to actual amounts of waste and the time of its disposal; - disposal under ground should be exempted from the charge; - setting charge rates based on negotiation; - updating the inventory of waste producers obliged to pay the charges; - focusing on compliance with legal provisions; - increase subsidies for main waste producers with problems in waste utilization and disposal.
Slovak Republic: 9) The amount represents only the total revenue to the NEF and does not include revenue to municipalities. 10) In Slovakia, also charges and fines on nuclear waste are in force. These charges and fines have to be paid operators of nuclear facilities and the revenue is earmarked for investment in this sector. These charges and fines are not described in more detail here. 11) It is possible to delay the share of rate B ( for class 1,2,4 and 5) by 50% until 1998, 30% until August 1999 and 10% until August 2000. For class 3 the share is 70%, 50% and 30 % respectively. 12) Rate A is for landfills which fulfill the technical conditions of landfill operation required by law. Rate B is for waste disposed in landfills which are operated under special conditions. The revenue from rate A and part of rate B goes to the respective municipality and is earmarked for environmental protection; the other part of the revenue from rate B goes to the State Environmental Fund (67-93% of total revenue depending on the type of waste). The charge rates are as follows (all rates in USD/ton): class 1 - earth and organic matter: 0.03 rate A and 0.09 rate B; class 2 - other waste: 0.29 rate A and 2.86 rate B; class 3 - municipal waste: 0.57 rate A and 8.57 rate B; class 4 - special waste such as detergents and waste from WWTPs: 1.14 rate A and 13.71 rate B; class 5 - hazardous waste: 7.14 rate A and 100 rate B. An additional differentiation exists for disposal of waste on sludge fields: the rate is USD 0.29/ton for special waste; 0.43 USD/ton for hazardous waste; and, 0.17 USD/ton for other waste.
Hungary: 13) In addition to the described NCF on hazardous and industrial waste, there is a NCF on illegal waste import in force which can be levied on the importer of illegal waste. There are very few enforceable cases (practically no revenue is generated).
Latvia: 14) For non-toxic waste the rate is 0.4 USD/m3; for toxic waste the rate is 2.5 USD/m3; for highly toxic waste the rate is 83.3 USD/m3.
| Country | Product charged | Goal / function | Subject: who pays | Basis of charge, factors determining charge rates and level of charge as of end of 1997 | Yearly revenue (mln USD) | Yearly revenue / capita (USD) | Revenue distribution | Effectiveness / comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Estonia | Packaging excise | Incentive for recovery of waste | Importer or domestic user | Basis: alcohol package (# and type of pack.). The rate for alcohol and soft drink packages is (all units in US Cents) 4/package or 14/liter (glass and ceramics), 7/pack. or 14/liter (plastic), 5/pack. or 14/liter (metal) and 2/pack. or 7/liter (other package material). | 1997: 0.52 | 1997: 0.3 | In force since 3/97' for alcohol packaging. Excise on soft drink packaging is planned for 12/98. Tax waiver available if min. 40% is reused (60% from 1999 on). Revenue in 1997 lower than expected because reuse developed rapidly. | |
| Hungary | Gasoline fuel | RR to solve pro-duct related pro-blems & Incent to decrease poll. | Producer or importer of gasoline fuels | Basis: leaded and unleaded gasoline, diesel oil. Level: 1 US Cent per litre in 1997; 3% of consumption tax from 1998. | 1994: 23.8 1995: 34.5 1996: 43.9 1997: 35.4 |
1994: 2.33 1995: 3.38 1996: 4.30 1997: 3.47 |
100% NEF | Due to the low charge level, a direct incentive impact should not be expected. Collection efficiency of the fuel charge is the highest among the Hungarian product charges. |
| Packaging materials | as above | Producer or importer of packaging materials | Basis and rates (in US Cents/kg): packaging material made of plastic (5.5), aluminum (2.7), other metals (2.2), paper/ wood/textile (1.7), glass (1.1), other mate-rials (2.7). A tax holiday is available if a certain % of packaging is treated/reused. | 1994: - 1995: - 1996: 12.6 1997: 10.7 |
1994: - 1995: - 1996: 1.24 1997: 1.05 |
100% NEF | The product charges are too low to decrease production/consumption of charged products. The main goal of the charges, to raise revenue for financing product related waste management investments, could only partly be realized. Problems here include: lack of information, monopoly problems, and very slow contracting procedure due to the complexity of the issues. Because of low charge rates and small revenues for some products (e.g. aluminum cans, refrigerators), the financing sources are not enough. Revenue collection effectiveness is best in case of refrigerators and worst in case of packaging materials (several thousand small producers pay the charge, therefore control and administration is not effective). A number of modifications are being prepared: the charges have to be harmonized with EU legislation; charges should be better enforced; the possibility of combined deposit-refund systems has to be examined; level of charge should be increased. | |
| Tires | as above | Producer or importer of tires | Basis and rates: 16 US Cents/kg tires. For the import of used tires above a certain quota, the rate is 65 US Cents/kg. | 1994: - 1995: 1.9 1996: 8.3 1997: 3.8 |
1994: - 1995: 0.19 1996: 0.81 1997: 0.37 |
100% NEF | ||
| Refrigerators and refrigerants | as above | Producer or importer of refrigerators | Rates depend on the volume (l) of a refri-gerator and the quantity (kg) or type (hard /soft freon or CFC) of refrigerant. 50% reduction for products with eco-labels. | 1994: - 1995: 0.6 1996: 3.2 1997: 2.7 |
1994: - 1995: 0.06 1996: 0.31 1997: 0.26 |
100% NEF | ||
| Batteries | as above | Producer or importer of batteries | The rate is 21 US Cents/kg batteries. | 1994: - 1995: - 1996: 3.5 1997: 3.8 |
1994: - 1995: - 1996: 0.35 1997: 0.37 |
100% NEF | ||
| Lubricants | as above | Producer or importer of lubricants | The rate is 31 US Cents/liter lubricant. | n.a. (in force since 1/1/98) |
100% NEF | |||
| Latvia | Lubricants, batteries and accus, mercury lamps, tires, packaging (glass, plastic, metal, paper, etc.), mineral oils | Decrease consump-tion of charged products; increase reuse, recycling or proper disposal. | All legal and natural persons selling or importing chargeable products. | Charges have to be paid on sales price before excise tax and VAT. Some of the current charge rates are as follows: - mineral oils: 0.03 USD/liter - accumulators: 2.5-10 USD/unit - tires: 0.08 USD/kg - glass packaging: 3% of monetary value - plastic/metal pack.: 5% of monet. value - cardboard pack.: 4% of monetary value - mercury luminescent bulb: 1.8 USD/unit |
n.a. | n.a. | 100% NEF |
Some fixed percentage is earmarked for subsidies for collection, reuse, recycling and appropriate disposal of charged products. In this sense, these product charges can be partly seen as a deposit refund system. |
| Poland | Plastic containers | Producer and importer | Type of plastic package and type of plastic, # of units. Level: 10% of regular excise tax for packaging made of poly-ethylene and polypropylene. 20% of regular excise tax for packaging made of polycarbons, polystyrenes and PET (e.g., rate for plastic bottles with a capacity < 1.5 litres: 1.4 US Cents per unit (1998). | n.a. | n.a. | 100% NB | Exempted from this excise tax are plastic packaging used for pharmaceuticals and medical materials and plastic packaging produced by companies in the status of "state protected producers". | |
| Slovakia | Products and substances damaging the ozone layer | Assist in phasing out CFCs | Producers and importers of CFCs | Substances containing CFCs and cooling equipment. Level: 1.1 USD/kg for CFC substances; 1.1-5.7 $/l or 2.9-28.6 USD/kW (cooling equipment) | n.a. (charge in force since April 98) |
100% NEF | ||
Abbreviations:
Goal/function: Compl = compliance; RR = revenue raising; Incent = incentive function.
Revenue distribution: NEF = national environmental fund; SEF = sub-national environmental fund; NB = national budget; SB = sub-national budget.
| Bosnia & Herzegovina | A few local beer factories use a deposit refund system for part of their production (glass bottles). Estimated percentage of bottles returned is 70%, however, the market share of these products is < 10%. |
| Croatia | A voluntary deposit refund system on glass bottles exists. |
| Estonia | Currently a deposit refund system is introduced on alcohol and soft drink packages on the basis of voluntary agreements with industry and importers. At the end of the 1980s there was an operational and efficient deposit-refund system in Estonia which collapsed with the introduction of not sufficiently regulated free market principles. The establishment of package excise in 1997 had a powerful impulse to re-introduction of the deposit refund system in conformity with market rules. More than 50 per cent of alcohol and soft drink packages were collected in 1997. The deposit refund is used for glass, ceramic, metal and plastic packages of the alcohol and soft drinks. Uniform deposits have not been established by the Government yet. The prices have been determined by the market and they vary between 25 per cent and 50 per cent of the excise rates. The deposit refund system of bottles and bottle-like packages operates rather efficiently in spite of its incompleteness. There are a lot of collection mediators. Many of manufacturers and importers have been exempted from the excise tax. Consumers, being aware of environmental protection requirements, are eager to re-sell their used packages despite of their low prices. (see also table on "product charges" on the Estonian packaging material excise). |
| Hungary | A deposit refund system on glass/plastic bottles has been in force for decades. 1988-90, a system of fixed rates was in force. Since 1990, the rates depend on voluntary negotiations between industry and retailers. According to new regulation, traders (both retail and wholesale) are obliged to refund packaging which is subject to the deposit refund system, but the enforcement is missing. The most common types of bottles (wine, beer, soft drinks) always had about a 70-80% return rate. Since 1991, the return rates decreased (except for beer bottles) to about 50% (estimates). The trend is that the system works only for such types of bottles for which the refilling is economical. Current deposit rates (with % of deposit in products market price) are as follows: 0.75 l wine bottles made of glass: 5 US Cents/bottle (<3%); 0.5 l beer bottles made of glass: 5 US Cents/bottle (6-8%); 1.5-2 l soft drink bottle made of plastic: 15-35 US Cents/bottle (30-40%). |
| Lithuania | A deposit refund system on beer bottles and some other types of glass bottles is in force based on a voluntary agreement with industry. The system was introduced in Soviet times. No specific studies of the systems' efficiency has been performed but according to the Association of Lithuanian Breweries, the total amount of beer bottles in circulation in the Lithuanian market is 15 million, from which 8 million are discarded to waste annually. Therefore, despite of the fact that both, producers' and consumers' views on the system is positive, the system needs improvement. New legislation on deposit refunds is being drafted by the Ministry of Environmental Protection. |
| Poland | There is a deposit refund system in place on beverage containers. It includes 0.5 l beer bottles made of glass (deposit rate as of 05/96: 0.15US$/bottle which represents 14-20% of the products market price); 0.25 l soft drink bottles made of glass (US$ 0.07/bottle = 21-27% of market price); 0.33 l soft drink bottles made of glass (US$ 0.07/bottle = 20-24% of market price); 1 l soft drinbk bottles made of plastic (US$ 0.19/bottle = 21% of market price); 1.5 l soft drink bottles made of plastic (US$ 0.22/bottle = 19% of market price); 2 l soft drink bottles made of plastic (US$ 0.37/bottle = 23-34% of market price). Current deposit rates do not attract consumers for effective collection and the system covers only a small range of glass and plastic containers available in Poland. |
| Romania | A deposit refund system for beverage containers is in place operated by the private sector. |
| Slovak Republic | A deposit refund scheme exists for glass and plastic bottles. The deposit is approximately 0.14 USD per bottle (1 l wine or 0.5 l beer) and 0.29 USD per plastic bottle (2 l soft drink). The return rate is very high because of the long history and use of this program. |
| FR Yugoslavia | A deposit refund system on glass bottles exists for decades. The system has been introduced on voluntary agreement with industry. There was no analysis so far on the effectiveness of the system or on the market share of products under the system. |