8. Conclusion

The following table ranks the unintended consequences in order of importance:

Unintended consequence/perverse outcome
Impact on product stewardship schemes
Funding inequities
Increases in the cost of recycling
Illegal dumping of waste
Diversion to cleanfills
Increased costs associated with disposal make industry less competitive
Increased use of farm dumps
Materials recovered for energy from waste facilities being subject to a levy
Waste flight
Cross subsidy issues / fairness
Materials destined for final disposal weighted the same, regardless of potential hazard or harm
Increased use of insinkerators
Disposal of waste to other media
Stockpiles of source separated material awaiting recycling options - aesthetic and contamination concerns

It is difficult to ascribe undesirable effects or behaviours specifically to waste levies, based on the Australian experience. While the effects on individual businesses are worth noting, generally levy systems operate in the way they were intended. There is likely to be pressure for rebates/exemptions, but Australian advice is to keep the options for rebates to a minimum.

A well designed levy will require considerable development before implementation to avoid unintended consequences. Legislation for levies in Australia just introduced levy making powers, to allow for design time. The two jurisdictions represented each had different reasons for the levy. The Victorian levy is more designed to raise revenue to fund waste minimisation activities. The NSW levy is designed more to be a disincentive to waste generation.

[ Previous ]