The Role of the Ecological Fiscal Transfers for Water …
65
Table 2 Solid waste criteria in EFTs schemes
States
Waste-related indicators
Goiás
Collection, transportation and final destination for solid waste; landfill;
incineration of waste; recycling; and composting plant. All of these
criteria include also treatment for hospital and civil construction waste
Mato Grosso do Sul Selective collection; municipal plan for solid waste management;
treatment and disposal of solid waste
Pernambuco
Landfill; composting plants
Piauí
Collection and transportation of solid waste; public cleaning services;
special waste; hazardous waste; and social and economic inclusion of
collectors of recyclable
Ceará
Collection and transportation of solid waste; Landfill
Rio de Janeiro
Landfill
Tocantins
Collection, transportation, and final destination for solid waste
Minas Gerais
Landfill; composting plants; and recycling
Mato Grosso
Collection, transportation and final destination for solid waste
Source Compiled by authors from The Nature Conservancy TNC (2017)
most of the local government disposes their waste far away from areas with a higher
populational density or, at times, in other municipalities. Collective action among
mayors may minimize costs to implement landfill and composting plants due to
economies of scale. Also, EFTs are a remedy to minimize the costs for such actions
and they function as a financial incentive for politicians if the money they receive
exceeds the costs in implementing and operating a landfill, a composting plant, or
another waste management system.
Empirical works on EFTs present the potential of the policy instrument across
Brazilian states. Concerning protected areas, Droste et al. (2017) find in all Brazilian
states that “there are clear indications for local responses to the implementation of
EFT: after an ICMS-E introduction additional municipal PA are designated”. The
conclusion of Grieg-Gran (2001) in Minas Gerais was that “the ICMS ecológico
has the potential to create incentives for conservation but the effect appears to be
highly variable”. Sauquet et al. (2014) studied the interaction effect among local
governments in terms of EFT´s incentive to create new protected areas. They found
that the creation of local PA “reveals strategic substitutability in municipalities´
conservation decisions”; that is, “the creation of [PA] by a municipality decreases
the incentive of neighboring municipalities to create [PA].”
Empirical works on EFTs concerning solid waste management are relatively
scarce. In the state of Pernambuco, Silva Jr et al. (2012) conclude that the “ICMS
Socioambiental” did not contribute to the improvement of the solid waste management across local governments. de Paulo (2013) notes a similar pattern in Pernambuco. The author concludes that only twelve out of one hundred eighty-four
municipalities have tried to increase landfills.
65
Table 2 Solid waste criteria in EFTs schemes
States
Waste-related indicators
Goiás
Collection, transportation and final destination for solid waste; landfill;
incineration of waste; recycling; and composting plant. All of these
criteria include also treatment for hospital and civil construction waste
Mato Grosso do Sul Selective collection; municipal plan for solid waste management;
treatment and disposal of solid waste
Pernambuco
Landfill; composting plants
Piauí
Collection and transportation of solid waste; public cleaning services;
special waste; hazardous waste; and social and economic inclusion of
collectors of recyclable
Ceará
Collection and transportation of solid waste; Landfill
Rio de Janeiro
Landfill
Tocantins
Collection, transportation, and final destination for solid waste
Minas Gerais
Landfill; composting plants; and recycling
Mato Grosso
Collection, transportation and final destination for solid waste
Source Compiled by authors from The Nature Conservancy TNC (2017)
most of the local government disposes their waste far away from areas with a higher
populational density or, at times, in other municipalities. Collective action among
mayors may minimize costs to implement landfill and composting plants due to
economies of scale. Also, EFTs are a remedy to minimize the costs for such actions
and they function as a financial incentive for politicians if the money they receive
exceeds the costs in implementing and operating a landfill, a composting plant, or
another waste management system.
Empirical works on EFTs present the potential of the policy instrument across
Brazilian states. Concerning protected areas, Droste et al. (2017) find in all Brazilian
states that “there are clear indications for local responses to the implementation of
EFT: after an ICMS-E introduction additional municipal PA are designated”. The
conclusion of Grieg-Gran (2001) in Minas Gerais was that “the ICMS ecológico
has the potential to create incentives for conservation but the effect appears to be
highly variable”. Sauquet et al. (2014) studied the interaction effect among local
governments in terms of EFT´s incentive to create new protected areas. They found
that the creation of local PA “reveals strategic substitutability in municipalities´
conservation decisions”; that is, “the creation of [PA] by a municipality decreases
the incentive of neighboring municipalities to create [PA].”
Empirical works on EFTs concerning solid waste management are relatively
scarce. In the state of Pernambuco, Silva Jr et al. (2012) conclude that the “ICMS
Socioambiental” did not contribute to the improvement of the solid waste management across local governments. de Paulo (2013) notes a similar pattern in Pernambuco. The author concludes that only twelve out of one hundred eighty-four
municipalities have tried to increase landfills.