The Waste and Recycling Contractors Association of Queensland (WCRA) has released a report that calls into question many of the proposed design features of the Queensland waste strategy. One key finding of the comparison of jurisdictional regimes is that a consistent levy across geographic regions and waste streams “is likely to be the most effective”. It suggests instead a novel “industry-run” levy scheme.

In June, Veolia commissioned Hyder Consulting to do a quick and dirty review for WCRA Queensland to inform its response the draft strategy, particularly the proposed $35 a tonne landfill levy.

“This review is seeking to provide a baseline understanding of the differences between jurisdictional waste levies, reinvestment of levy funds, and associated resource recovery rates. The findings will support the review of potential approaches for the application of user pays models for the Queensland jurisdiction,” says the report.

The draft strategy has copped plenty of flax from the waste industry, particularly over its proposal to limit coverage to 34 out of 73 council areas and only apply to industrial waste.

Rick Ralph from the WCRA Queensland said the plan to exempt municipal waste from the levy “is a fundamental flaw and fatal weakness in the draft policy position”.

The 53-page Hyder report,Waste, Recycling And Resource Recovery: Jurisdictional Review Of Waste Pricing Policies And Application flags “disparities amongst the jurisdictions in terms of application of levies, the value of the levies, expected future increases and the application of the levy funds”.

“There are also inconsistencies in the extent to which jurisdictions use the levy as a price signal or as a source of funds for waste to recycling and resource recovery initiatives. This combination of factors sends very different signals to the market place across jurisdictions and to business operating in those jurisdictions.”

The report points to problems in differential levies, both within Victoria and spill over of waste from NSW into Queensland.

“Information from other jurisdictions, where historically levies have not existed or there is a disparity in the price assigned to different waste streams, indicates that materials may be misclassified or transported between jurisdictions, to lessen the cost impost.”

It also notes that jurisdictions that have hypothecated levies, where the funds are channelled back into strategically planned and prioritised resource recovery programs (as opposed to consolidated revenue), have better levels of recovery and recycling

“Without hypothecation of levy funds the resource recovery benefits are diminished,” it says.

Almost as a footnote, the report proposes an alternative model that would be administered by the waste and recycling industries, much like the National Packaging Covenant model for packaging.

“This is not a model currently in practice in Australia. In this model, levy fees and the system of management would be legislated, however it would allow the waste industry to collect and retain the levy revenue, which would be administered by what is fundamentally an industry association,” says the report.

“A decision making body would be established through legislation that brings together government and industry to set priorities around the administration of levy revenues (like the National Packaging Covenant Council).

“Industry however through a central secretariat, would essentially administer the funds, managing projects, contractual arrangements, and the direct dispersal of funds (like the National Packaging Council Industry Association).”

Click here to read the rest of today's news stories.