The Waste Tax: Paying to Recycle or Paying to Collect Revenue?

Municipalities have implemented the mandatory levy without justifying costs or improving services, deviating from the circular economy goals.

Detail of a hand depositing waste into a recycling container in an urban setting.
IA

Detail of a hand depositing waste into a recycling container in an urban setting.

The new waste tax, mandated by the European Directive 2008 and Law 7/2022, requires municipalities to cover the real cost of service, but its implementation in Cabó raises questions about its true objective.

The European Union, through Directive 2008, marked a radical shift in waste management, aiming to transform the linear economy model based on producing, consuming, and discarding. This model depletes natural resources and degrades the environment. The alternative is the circular economy, founded on three key principles: reduce, reuse, and recycle.
The ultimate goal of this transformation is to drastically minimize waste generation, setting binding five-year targets for EU countries, such as reaching 65% recycling by 2035. In Spain, the directive is materialized through Law 7/2022 on Waste and Contaminated Soils for a Circular Economy, which mandates municipalities over 5,000 inhabitants to establish a fee covering the real cost of the service.
The guiding principle of the tax is that 'the more waste you generate and the less you recycle, the more you pay'. However, many local councils have merely created the fee without meeting the requirements involved: adequately justifying costs, improving collection and treatment services, and effectively incentivizing recycling among citizens.
This situation has exposed the poor role played by the Federació de Municipis de Catalunya and the Generalitat, which have been unable to establish coherent guidelines. The disparity in criteria and the different ways the fee is charged —often included in bills like the IBI (property tax) or water— presents a chaotic and incomprehensible scenario for citizens.
It is pertinent to raise key questions that demand answers: Has the fee been justified with public reports demonstrating improved environmental management? Has the Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) income been deducted to avoid double payment? And finally, has the cost been personalized by applying the 'polluter pays' principle with real bonuses and incentives?