Go to content

Annex 2: Expert evaluations of effectiveness and feasibility of policy measures promoting waste prevention and reuse

Combination
Potential to reduce quantity of waste
(average)
Potential to reduce harmful substances/​adverse impacts of waste
Ease of implemen­tation
 (average)
Ease of monitoring
Applicability in the Nordics
Average
(quantity, ease of implemen­tation)
Average (all)
Material efficiency commitments
2.32
1.8
1.7
1.7
2.1
2.00
1.92
Concrete ecological requirements for public procurements
2.29
2.0
1.4
1.6
2.2
1.85
1.90
Too Good To Go app
2.09
1.0
2.2
1.5
2.6
2.13
1.89
Municipal waste prevention plans
2.06
1.4
1.3
1.7
2.1
1.66
1.70
Subsidies for waste prevention and reuse
1.97
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.9
1.74
1.68
‘Best before but not bad after’ stamps
1.91
0.8
2.5
1.4
2.7
2.21
1.86
Reuse stations (Miljøstasjoner)
1.91
0.9
2.1
1.5
2.6
2.01
1.79
Consumer movements against food waste
1.88
1.0
1.4
1.2
2.3
1.63
1.56
Second-hand platforms for private persons and companies
1.85
0.5
2.6
1.6
2.7
2.21
1.85
Voluntary waste reduction commitments
1.76
1.1
1.8
1.9
2.2
1.79
1.75
Weight-based pay-as-you-throw (PAYT) pricing
1.70
0.9
1.0
1.9
2.0
1.35
1.50
Reduced VAT for repairing services
1.56
0.8
1.8
1.5
2.4
1.69
1.61
Carbon metric tool to evaluate climate impacts of waste
1.09
0.9
1.0
1.3
1.7
1.06
1.22
Incineration tax
1.09
0.8
1.6
2.0
1.9
1.37
1.48
Ecolabels such as the Nordic Swan
0.90
1.9
1.8
1.5
2.5
1.35
1.72