Waste recovery scheme operators trade charges

The operators of the two major waste recovery companies stood their ground yesterday in a war of words that caught the wider business community by surprise on Monday and Tuesday.

GreenPak, the member scheme of the international Green Dot organisation, maintained that the wrong advice given by the Malta Chamber of Small and Medium Enterprises – which operates its own Green MT scheme established in 2007 – had contributed to put Malta in an awkward position as the country had consistently failed to reach the minimum recycling quotas.

On Monday, GreenPak chief executive officer Mario Schembri said that through various circulars between 2006 and 2008, the GRTU had been advising traders “not to do anything, as joining a compliance scheme would have put them in a difficult situation later”.

At the time, traders could either join GreenPak, the scheme which had already been set up, or self-comply with rules.

GreenPak said the exact opposite of the GRTU’s forecast had taken place and companies who joined GreenPak were in the clear. Traders who followed GRTU’s advice were now facing hefty fines issues by the Malta Environment and Planning Authority for failing to comply.

Waste packaging regulations stipulate Maltese traders are responsible for establishing systems to collect and recycle packaging waste they generated.

They could either join a scheme or establish their own take-back system.

But as legislation was not yet in place to regulate the eco-contribution refunds until this year, the GRTU said it had worked so that businesses were not made to pay double for their environmental obligations: the scheme fees and the eco-contributions.

The GRTU insisted enterprises which joined GreenPak in 2006 had effectively paid double and were now only being refunded “for the period 2005 to 2008, a percentage of what they had contributed to GreenPak and not a full eco-contribution”.

GreenMT Joe Attard said a working example showed that, in line with LN 158 of 2011, a claim for refunds in terms of regulations was the smaller amount of either the eco-contribution or expenses incurred by the producer in the recovery of waste or a scheme annual membership fee.

But GreenPak insisted that following the Ombudsman’s statement who found in favour of traders who complied in 2006, Legal Notice 158 of 2011 made it possible for GreenPak’s members to receive eco-contribution refunds from that year.

It said that GRTU’s statement saying that defaulting producers “were liable to pay €100 per tonne for 2010 compliance” were wrong because they were actually €120 (not €100) per tonne for 2009 (not 2010).

“This means that defaulting entities will actually be paying more fines than GRTU are leading them to believe. These fines are higher than GreenPak’s fees paid by law-abiding entities,” GreenPak said.

Yesterday, GRTU director general told The Times Business that at the end of the day it was the GreenMT members who had received 100 per cent exemptions on eco-tax.

The bottom line of businesses who had heeded the GRTU’s advice had not been as severely impacted as those who did not.

He said that ultimately the “summer madness” this week could be put down to a matter of two strategies. There was space for both operators, he said.