Producers/importers have already accepted their share of responsibility through the adoption of new regulations on packaging waste, vehicles, tyres, batteries, etc., and sooner or later they must gear up for this reality. In the meantime, Government has imposed an eco-contribution on a number of products to help realise that the sooner we start, the better equipped we will be when the regulations are enforced.

An eco-contribution does not exempt a producer/importer from responsibility for managing waste when the product/material s/he puts on the market reaches the end of its life. It simply pays for waste-management activities that result once a product finds its way into the general waste stream. Once in the general waste stream, there is a cost attached to this product/material that Government must recover. The eco-contribution will help finance part of the expense incurred in reducing the amount of waste going to the landfill. The costs associated with waste-management include the direct costs of operation from collection to final disposal, the capital and indirect costs related to the operation from collection to final disposal, the direct costs related to contracted services and the direct and indirect costs related to planning, information, public campaigns, supervision and administration. This cost must either be recovered or reduced by taking products and materials out of the general waste stream.

Despite its efforts and expense, WasteServ is only recovering a very tiny percentage of what we as a country should be aiming for to reduce our dependence on disposal. There is much scope for private involvement and once this is understood and realised then penalties incurred on products through an eco-contribution will be removed. Consider, for example, plastic packaging – of which it is estimated that around 16,250 tonnes are placed on the market annually. During 2004, only 102 tonnes are known to have been directed for recycling (mainly through the use of bring-in sites). The same applies to paper, metal, cardboard, wood, etc. Unless private involvement kicks in, there is no way the recovered fractions will increase much.

The eco-contribution is a charge imposed on products to take account for when they become waste at the end of their use. The aim of this contribution is to encourage the producer or the importer to assume responsibility for when the product, which s/he puts on the market, becomes waste. There are different ways of extending this responsibility. One way is to have the producer/importer pay for the cost of when the product finds its way into the general waste stream. Alternatively, the producer/importer may arrange for a “take back” or “bring back” scheme, in other words a recovery system for that product. In this case, the product becomes exempt from the contribution.

“Take back” or “bring back” schemes are systems where specific products that have become waste because their useful life has expired, are taken out of the general waste stream by the producer/importer or a representative. The easiest way to take a product out of the general waste stream is to put an incentive on it.

The consumer will be motivated to return the used product to a collection point to recover the incentive. Not all take-back schemes rely on an incentive but producers/importers are free to organise whichever returnable scheme they deem appropriate. Once returned, the material may easily be dismantled and treated for recycling. These schemes have been introduced in various countries by producers who take a lifecycle approach towards their products. Once this responsibility is assumed, the producer/importer may be exempt (in part or in full) from paying an eco-contribution, depending on the success of the scheme.

These schemes recognise producers as being better placed to facilitate resource recovery and the safe disposal of products. Producers/importers may actually influence the supply chain by opting to produce/import products that are easier to recycle. It is at that point in the product’s lifecycle that decisions are best made to minimise environmental impact.

If schemes are well-designed, Maltese industry can benefit through the market advantage that comes from environmental leadership and from the capacity to avoid eco-contribution. If a producer/importer fails to recognise the benefit of shouldering part of his/her responsibility, then the product marketed will be penalised through the eco-contribution. Once take-back schemes are introduced, consumers will have the option to select products which are eco-contribution exempt, thereby influencing consumer patterns towards a greener custom.

Experience in other countries suggests that the concept is workable in practice. Take-back schemes depend largely on industrial initiative. However, these schemes also require controls by the competent authorities which will regulate them to ensure that they deliver benefits without undesirable side-effects.

If take-back schemes fail to materialise, then government will continue to manage the product at the end of its life and use the funds generated for this purpose to manage the waste. Dues will be paid by the producers/importers for the items that find their way in to the general waste stream. On the other hand, if schemes take affect, government will monitor the legal conditions to which these schemes will be subjected through the competent authority. In this way, no product is discriminated against and a level playing-field is ensured.

Dr Christopher Ciantar is Head of Strategy and Development, WasteServ