DAR ES SALAAM: EVERY day, households and businesses use roads, water, energy and other natural resources that support economic activity.
At the same time, some of these activities generate waste, air pollution, contaminated water, plastic waste and other forms of environmental damage.
The costs of that damage, however, are often not paid directly by those who cause it. Instead, they can be transferred to the wider public through polluted neighbourhoods, damaged ecosystems, increased healthcare needs and public funds required to clean up environmental problems.
This raises a simple question: who should pay for the environmental costs created by economic activity? One answer is captured in the principle known as “the polluter pays.”
The idea is that individuals, companies or activities that cause pollution should bear an appropriate share of the costs of preventing, controlling or managing that pollution.
Environmental taxes, fees and charges are among the economic instruments that can be used to put this principle into practice. For Tanzania, this is not an entirely new concept.
The Environmental Management Act, 2004 provides for economic instruments that can be used to internalise environmental costs.
These include charges on discharges into air and water, user charges for environmental services, product charges on plastics and packaging, and tax measures that can give environmentally friendly products a price advantage over more polluting alternatives.
Tanzania also has regulations covering environmental fees and charges, while restrictions on plastic bags form part of the country’s broader environmental management framework.
The principle matters because pollution can create costs that are not reflected in the price of a product or service.
A factory may benefit from producing goods, but if its activities contaminate a river, the surrounding community may bear the cost through polluted water, reduced fishing opportunities or increased treatment expenses.
A business may generate large quantities of waste, while local authorities and taxpayers pay for collection and disposal.
A vehicle contributes to air pollution, while society may bear part of the consequences through health problems, congestion and environmental damage.
The polluter-pays approach attempts to bring some of these environmental costs into economic decision-making. Consider plastic waste.
A plastic product may be inexpensive to manufacture and purchase, but its environmental cost can continue long after it has been used.
Municipal authorities may need to collect it, drainage systems may need to be cleared when waste blocks them, and communities may face flooding and other problems when waste-management systems are inadequate.
A well-designed charge on certain products can therefore serve two purposes: raising resources to help manage environmental consequences and encouraging producers and consumers to consider alternatives.
The same principle can apply to pollution from industrial facilities. Charges linked to the quantity or harmfulness of emissions or wastewater discharges can create an economic incentive for businesses to invest in cleaner production technologies.
A company that reduces its pollution could face lower environmental charges than one that continues to release large amounts of pollutants. This is where environmental taxes and charges can differ from ordinary revenue collection.
A conventional tax is generally designed primarily to raise government revenue. An environmental tax or charge can raise revenue while also influencing behaviour.
The objective is not simply to collect money, but to make environmentally harmful activities more costly and cleaner alternatives more attractive.
The revenue generated can then become particularly valuable when it is directed towards services that communities can see and benefit from.
In Tanzania, public budgets already finance essential services such as health, education, water and infrastructure.
The 2026/27 national budget totals approximately TSh 62.33 trillion, with domestic revenue expected to provide a substantial share of financing.
This creates an opportunity for revenue from environmental taxes and charges to complement broader public financing, particularly for services directly connected to environmental quality.
Imagine, for example, that revenue from environmental charges is transparently used to strengthen municipal waste collection.
Residents could see a clearer connection between the environmental payment and a cleaner neighbour hood. Part of the revenue could support recycling facilities, waste-transfer stations, drainage maintenance or improved collection systems.
Similarly, environmental revenue could support air-quality monitoring, public transport improvements, clean-energy programmes and water-quality surveillance.
ALSO READ: Digital push targets fast public services
In rural areas, resources could contribute to protecting water sources, improving waste management and supporting environmentally sustainable agricultural practices.
However, environmental taxes and charges must be designed carefully. A poorly designed environmental tax can place a disproportionate burden on low-income households.
If a charge increases the price of cooking energy, transportation or essential goods without affordable alternatives, households may feel the impact more strongly than wealthier consumers.
This is particularly important in a country where many families depend on informal employment and have limited capacity to absorb higher costs.
The solution is not necessarily to avoid environmental taxes and charges, but to design them alongside measures that protect vulnerable households. Revenue can help expand access to cleaner cooking energy, improve public transport, support recycling and provide other affordable alternatives.
In this way, environmental policy can be combined with investments that make it easier for people to change their behaviour and ensure that the transition towards cleaner practices is more equitable. Transparency is equally important.
People are more likely to accept environmental taxes and charges when they understand why they are being collected and how the revenue is being used.
If communities pay environmental taxes or charges but continue to experience uncollected waste, polluted water or blocked drainage, confidence in the system can weaken. Clear reporting could help.
Governments could publish how much environmental revenue is collected, which environmental problems it is intended to address and what projects have been financed. Local communities could then see whether the money is producing measurable improvements.
There is also a need to distinguish between those who can afford to reduce their pollution and those who have limited alternatives. Large industrial facilities may have greater capacity to install pollution-control technologies than small businesses.
Environmental policies should therefore consider the scale, nature and capacity of different polluters while maintaining clear environmental standards. Tanzania’s environmental policy framework already recognises the role of economic instruments.
The Environmental Management Act, 2004 provides a basis for using charges, taxes, subsidies and other financial measures to internalise environmental costs and encourage environmental protection.
The country has also been developing systems for monitoring environmental pollution, including systems intended to track pollution levels and support action against environmental violations.
The challenge now is to make these instruments work effectively and transparently. The “polluter pays” principle should not mean that anyone who pays a tax is simply buying permission to pollute.
Environmental taxes and charges work best when they are combined with standards, monitoring and enforcement.
A company should not be allowed to exceed legally permitted pollution limits simply because it can afford the charge. Economic instruments should complement environmental regulation, not replace it.
When designed properly, environmental taxation and related charges can turn an environmental problem into an opportunity for better public services.
Revenue from pollution-related payments can help finance cleaner communities, stronger waste-management systems, better environmental monitoring, improved transport and other services that benefit the public.
The broader message is simple: environmental damage has an economic cost, even when that cost does not appear on a receipt. Someone eventually pays for polluted water, unmanaged waste, dirty air and degraded natural resources.
The question is whether that cost should continue to fall mainly on taxpayers and communities, or whether those who contribute to the damage should bear a greater share of it.
For Tanzania, the “polluter pays” principle offers a way to connect environmental responsibility with public investment. If environmental taxes and charges are carefully designed, fairly administered and transparently used, they can do more than raise revenue.
They can help change behaviour, encourage cleaner production and provide resources for the public services needed to build healthier and more sustainable communities.
The goal should not simply be to collect more taxes. It should be to create a system in which pollution becomes less attractive, cleaner choices become more affordable and the money collected from environmentally harmful activities helps repair and protect the public environment. In that sense, making the polluter pay is not only about who pays the bill.
It is about ensuring that the bill for environmental damage does not continue to be quietly transferred to everyone else.
The post The polluter pays: How environmental taxes can fund public services appeared first on Daily News.