It’s fair to say that Italy hasn’t been painting the most positive picture of its ability to deal with waste lately. The country has repeatedly been threatened with fines from the EU; the Italian mafia is using dodgy waste trafficking to its advantage; and the ‘Naples waste crisis’ escalated to such heights at the end of last year that police had to be called in to deal with violent riots.

However, tucked away from the media hubbub exists the north- eastern district of Treviso, which is making strides in waste management thanks to the adoption of PAYT (pay-as-you-throw) schemes. In fact, since the National Framework Law on Waste (Decree 22/97) was passed in 1997, and municipalities were given responsibilities for waste at a local level, the area’s recycling ratio has rocketed from 30 per cent in 1998 to 68.5 per cent in 2008. Researchers have found that the economic incentives presented by PAYT are directly responsible for a 12 per cent increase in waste being sorted.

Natalia Montinari is a PhD student at the University of Padua, and co-authored the report, ‘Do Not Trash the Incentive!: Monetary Incentives and Waste Sorting’, which detailed the achievements of the scheme, as well as addressing the common concerns raised by PAYT. Of the three most common types of PAYT scheme – a bag system, weight-based and volume-based – the paper focuses on the latter, and finds that it’s most effective when paired with ‘DtD’ (door-to-door) collections (Italy’s kerbside collection equivalent), increasing the recycling ratio by up to 35 per cent. Though the 95 municipalities in Treviso do, for the most part, operate volume-based PAYT, a number of variations on this formula exist. “In 2009, for example, municipalities served by waste company Consortium Priula took into account the number of people in each property, and the size of each house”, says Montinari. “There are also situations where discounts are given to users adopting composting, and so on.”

In essence, PAYT schemes in Treviso operate like this: an electromagnetic chip is installed into residents’ residual waste bins; waste operatives are able to digitally record the amount of unsorted waste produced by each household; and at the end of the year a statement is issued, informing the resident how much is owed. Obviously, the smaller the amount of waste, the smaller the bill, which, according to Montinari, has decreased each year on average, from €160.25 in 2001, to €140.11 in 2008.

“Admittedly, there was some initial suspicion from householders, but that was overcome by education and support”, she says. Certainly, comprehensive communications are critical in implementing a scheme like this. “We got lots of feedback and found that some people did not understand the programme, which was down to language or cultural barriers, so we acted on that.” Indeed, the group behind the report found that with continued communications and ongoing learning, recycling ratios increase by around 1.9 per cent for every additional year the PAYT scheme is active.

However, despite successes in Treviso, not all areas of Italy are prepared to adopt PAYT. As Montinari says: “PAYT schemes require consistent investment in communication campaigns, specialist equipment and management and monitoring costs, which can put some policymakers off.” Furthermore, many of Italy’s areas only operate drop-off waste collection points (bring banks), which could prove problematic in implementing PAYT (as well as arguably contributing to the country’s wider waste problem). “It would be highly difficult to effectively measure the amount and quality of waste being thrown”, says Montinari. “The same theory applies to houses of multiple-occupancy [flats or high- rise buildings], where the variable of the PAYT is taken from a common bin, rather than an individual bin. A whole host of factors come into play here, including things like social norms and peer pressure.”

Another common issue with PAYT – not solely exclusive to Italy – is flytipping. Indeed, the report indicates that total waste production increases by around one per cent in areas neighbouring towns operating PAYT, which Montinari suggests means: “Residents in PAYT municipalities may be trying to ‘hide’ their waste so as not to incur more charges.” However, as the report forms the foundations of a more long-term study, there are plans to research the effects of flytipping, along with issues surrounding multi-occupancy houses, more comprehensively in future. Similarly, Montinari is aware that income and wealth is likely to have an ongoing effect, with “those in a lower income bracket being more sensitive to PAYT as they are likely to either want to reduce their fee, and so will behave accordingly, or will perceive it as unfair and will be more reluctant to adhere to the rules. This will be examined further.”

Interestingly, though, despite the successes proffered by Treviso’s PAYT schemes, there has been little impact on waste generation overall. Councils in the UK have found that by switching to alternate weekly collection, waste generation decreases, but collection frequencies in Treviso are already fortnightly. “This is the next step, then”, says Montinari. “We’ll be looking at the feasibility of a scheme designed to foster both the sorting ratio and reduce the total amount of waste produced. But just improving the sorting ratio is a good place to start.”