By Konstantinos Giorkatzis

• President of the Nicosia District Local Government Organization.

The debate in Parliament regarding the imposition of a landfill tax and the assignment of additional responsibilities to the District Local Government Organizations (EOA), such as waste treatment and management facilities.

The government’s goal, through this green taxation, is to bring Cyprus’s performance in line with the European Union’s binding targets as well as the commitments the state itself has undertaken regarding green tax reform, as part of Cyprus’s Recovery and Resilience Plan (RRP), while simultaneously securing European funding of 23 million euros. The loss of this funding could end up costing less than the tax in question.

However, we share the concerns and reservations expressed by the Union of Municipalities regarding the timing of the measure’s implementation, as the government must first demonstrate its effectiveness and only then shift the financial burden onto citizens who do not have all the means at their disposal to reduce their waste volumes (e.g., separate organic waste sorting, “Pay-As-You-Throw,” etc.). The green transition cannot focus solely on imposing tax measures. It requires comprehensive planning, functional infrastructure, and research to evaluate the results achieved so far.

No one disputes that the environment must be protected, and most of us would accept higher fees or new taxes if the government had created the conditions that would ensure these measures would have the expected effect. In other words, the increased taxation would serve the purpose for which it was imposed.

The latter is not self-evident. In the past, there have been cases where the government imposed higher fees for a specific purpose, but the purpose was not achieved or the revenue did not end up where it should have. For example, municipal waste management in Cyprus remains one of the most serious issues, with significant deviations from European Union targets.

For instance, in 2012, the Municipality of Nicosia was required to increase the entry fee to the Koshi Municipal Waste Management Facility (as well as in all municipalities and communities) from €7 to €40 per metric ton of municipal waste, increasing the annual cost from approximately €230,000 to €1,320,000. Today, we all know that the government has failed to achieve the goals for which citizens were asked to shoulder a greater burden, such as the implementation of the “Pay-As-You-Throw” program, the harmonized and environmentally and economically efficient operation of the OEDAs, the promotion of recycling, etc. 

At the same time, according to the new regulation—if passed by Parliament—beginning December 31, 2027, in addition to the landfill access fee, a landfill tax of €10 per metric ton will be imposed; and starting August 1, 2028, and thereafter, this tax will increase by €5 per metric ton annually, with a cap of €70 per metric ton. And all this at a time when the landfill rate varies in each district depending on the treatment facilities, with Paphos at 100% landfill due to the absence of an OEDA.

Despite efforts at harmonization, our country ranks among the three European Union countries with the highest per-capita waste generation, with two-thirds of the waste ending up in landfills. This remains far from the 10% target by 2035, for which most European Union member states have already adopted mechanisms involving financial incentives and disincentives. However, in addition to the waste of many millions in recent years, this failure to comply also exposes Cyprus to severe additional financial sanctions from the EU.

We have ended up in this tragic situation due to delays in decision-making and in the implementation of necessary projects, and mainly due to erroneous decisions made regarding solid waste management, while other countries have managed to turn waste into an economic resource—for example, for energy production, soil amendments, or other products, etc. It remains the responsibility of the Ministry of Agriculture, Rural Development, and the Environment to establish the infrastructure and framework needed to increase material reuse, which would reduce the flow of waste to municipal solid waste landfills and provide citizens with additional options for reducing their waste.

The waste management facility in Pentakomo is an example of problematic design, with procedures that appear to ignore basic principles of sustainability, while the objections raised by the EU and experts at the time the flawed decisions regarding the project were made raise legitimate concerns about how the government will rectify these mistakes.

Furthermore, the Kosia OEDA has reached the end of its life cycle because it is necessarily managing volumes that exceed its capacity.

To this day, critical questions remain unanswered regarding the choice of technology, the compatibility of the facilities with the European regulatory framework, and their long-term operational sustainability. Any study on a new strategy should be open to new technologies and approaches.

The Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) have repeatedly expressed their concerns regarding the specific infrastructure they are expected to manage in 2027, but they are still not being adequately and timely informed about the progress and findings of the relevant research conducted by the OEDA or/nor to participate meaningfully in decision-making aimed at achieving greater efficiency in the waste management sector.

Consequently, the government’s intention to impose additional financial burdens on citizens raises legitimate questions:

• Since previous financial burdens have not led to significant progress, who can guarantee that a further increase in fees will yield tangible results?
• On what grounds should citizens agree to pay additional fees or taxes when there is no proven effectiveness or success in achieving previous objectives?
• Why should citizens pay this additional tax before the Ministry of Agriculture, Rural Development, and Environment assures us that it understands what went wrong in the past and convinces us that it is taking all necessary measures to ensure that the same mistakes are not repeated?
• Shouldn’t the Ministry first put all the necessary conditions in place and demonstrate that it is ensuring significant improvement toward achieving the goals that should have been met long ago, and only then ask us to pay?

The government must address these problems and their causes with transparency and accountability. We must avoid the mistakes of the past, such as the decisions made in 2012, which negatively impacted the development of waste management in Cyprus. Policies that disregarded the scientific and technical recommendations of the European Union led to delays, additional costs, and potential fines. Citizens are not to blame for this failure; on the contrary, they have borne the costs.

This should be of particular concern to us, not only because of the landfill tax, but also because of the water and carbon taxes that are forthcoming. In all cases, the government must first demonstrate effectiveness through clear planning, environmentally responsible and techno-economically viable solutions, and modern infrastructure that will ensure a cleaner and more sustainable future for everyone—and especially for future generations.

The green transition cannot be based on constant failures, piecemeal interventions, and the continuous passing of costs on to citizens.

Social acceptance of any reform and the imposition of new financial burdens require one thing and one thing only: a proven ability to deliver, with measurable results.

Only then can citizens justifiably be asked to invest more in the collective effort toward a green, sustainable future.