Barry Cowen (Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

175. To ask the Minister for Environment, Community and Local Government to provide statistics and evidence to back the claim made on page three in the Minister's briefing on the introduction of pay-by-weight for household waste that: in areas where pay-by-weight is already operating, householders have become more efficient in preventing and segregating their waste, leading to a reduction in the amount of waste collected and a reduction in costs. [18064/16]

Barry Cowen (Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

177. To ask the Minister for Environment, Community and Local Government to provide a list of references and studies to corroborate the claim in the briefing on introduction of pay-by-weight for household waste that pay-by-weight drives higher household recycling levels of between 27% and 32% and higher diversion rates from landfill of between 28% and 35%, including the margin of error on these estimates. [18094/16]

Barry Cowen (Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

178. To ask the Minister for Environment, Community and Local Government the number of households that have regular waste collection services operating on a pay-by-weight, a flat rate, a pay per lift, or a tag basis, or on a combination of two or more of these, by local authority area, in tabular form. [18095/16]

Barry Cowen (Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

183. To ask the Minister for Environment, Community and Local Government if his Department still stands over the credibility and reliability of its claim that 87% of households would receive a reduction in household waste bills under the proposed pay-by-weight system or whether it now questions this claim; how this figure was estimated; and if he believes this claim should have been put into the public domain. [18109/16]

Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I propose to take Questions Nos. 175, 177, 178 and 183 together.

A Study of Pay-by-use Systems for Maximising Waste Reduction Behaviour in Ireland, published in 2011, estimated that:

- 46% of households used differential bin-based charges (a flat fee),

- 34% used tag-based charges (either pay-by-lift or tags), and

- 20% used weight - based charges .

While the Study does not break down the number of households by local authority area, it does conclude that weight-based charges are the single most effective pay-by-use (PBU) system in terms of waste prevention, waste recycling and diversion of waste from landfill. These charges prompted the highest per household recycling levels (between 27% and 32%), highest diversion rates from landfill (between 28% and 35%) and the lowest total kerbside waste figures (between 800kg and 947kg per annum). The study projected that, if the estimated 80% of those households across Ireland currently on pay per lift/tags and differential bin systems switched to ‘per kg’ based PBU systems, it could lead to an annual diversion from landfill of approximately 446,000 tonnes of domestic waste per annum.

The Study examined three separate forms of Pay-by-Weight system:

- A charge per kg of waste presented, in addition to an annual flat service charge;

- A “banded” weight-based system, using several weight ranges within which the annual weight of waste presented will fall within, with a different price applicable to each weight band;

and

An “average” weight-based system with 800 kg per annum being an average weight - if less than 800 kg is presented during the year, a credit is given for the following year’s bill; if more than 800 kg is presented during the year, the customer is billed for the additional weight.

The data from the Study clearly indicates that a ‘pay per weight (per kg)’ form of weight based-charging is the most effective pricing system in terms of influencing household behaviour under all indicators, as illustrated in Table 4.1.4 of the study, reproduced below.

The Study highlights the desirability of “providing a continuous pricing signal to householders” through the charging system. For example, when using a smaller bin (even at a lesser charge), the householder will not reduce waste costs if they do not fill their bin and thus have no on-going incentive to change their waste management behaviour to divert waste from landfill any further than is necessary to avoid exceeding the capacity of the smaller bin size.

The practice of charging a simple flat rate fee (annual or otherwise periodic) for waste collection services does not appear from the Study to incentivise the management of waste in line with the national waste policy, the waste hierarchy, the polluter pays principle and incentivising waste reduction and segregation by householders. The argument which has been made is that , by offering the choice of a large and a small residual bin and applying a smaller annual charge for smaller sized bin, due regard is being had for waste prevention. However, the Study identified that the practice of waste compaction undermined the rationale for the use of the smaller size bin. Indeed, the EPA Study’s overall finding on Differential Bin-sized Pay-by-use Charges was that “ this PBU system was found to be the least effective system in terms of impact upon the environment, resulting in a high waste to landfill rate (79%) and highest total waste of the three PBU systems (i.e. Pay-by-weight, Tag-a-bag and Differential-Bin-Sizes) studied (1,294kg per household per annum).”

The pay-per- lift approach results imply that it is more effective than a flat fee charging system in terms of encouraging waste reduction and recycling. However, in the case of organic bins, the pay per lift approach encourages consumers to wait until their bin is full and the waste within it is well compacted before having the material removed, which can mean that unnecessary odour nuisance has been created and much of the resource value of the material has diminished by the time it is collected. Applying a per kilogramme pay-by- weight charging system for organic bins encourages a more frequent collection of such material and thus ensures a reduction in potential odour nuisance and a better quality product to the end processor.

Pay-by-weight per kilogramme is not a new charge, but a new way of charging to incentivise waste prevention and segregation. However, it appears that some companies may have taken the opportunity to increase charges to customers under the guise of the introduction of pay-by-weight, especially to recover costs in instances where the service was being provided below cost.

The 87% figure of people doing better under pay-by-weight was based on a study of a pay-by-weight model which was in actual operation in the South West of the country, when compared to other pricing structures in that particular area. The figures were collated in response to a request to get an indication of how pay-by-weight compared in terms of price. The area chosen had a mix of urban and rural customers and pay-by-weight was long established, so that the customers in that particular area had had the time and opportunity to adapt their behaviour to preventing and segregating waste.  The figures showed that households of 4 people or less in that area were better off under pay by weight and those figures were extrapolated, using CSO data on household size, to give an indication of the savings which were achievable.