Members of the business community have long been up in arms against the eco tax, since they rightly perceive it as a double whammy if the government were to enforce the EU’s Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment regulations at the same time.

However, the core question that any environment ministry should address is whether the eco tax served its environmental purpose.

The fact that, 10 years after our accession to the EU, it hindered the full implementation and adherence to the WEEE directives already confirms that it did not.

While taxes are traditionally under the Ministry of Finance’s domain, be they green taxes or not, I can confirm that from day one in office, in my consultations with the leading constituted bodies, it was made very clear to me that the eco contribution had gone way beyond its remit by actually defeating the purpose for which it was originally set up.

Its original brief was to encourage producers to take responsibility for the environmental impact of their waste, provide incentives for the recovery of waste, incentivise the use of deposit-refund schemes and discourage the consumption of goods with a non-acceptable environmental impact.

Another undeclared objective of this regime was the revenue-generating potential of the eco contribution, which was to be used to implement waste management-related projects.

In one of the technical position papers that I had requested upon assuming office, my suspicions as former shadow minister for the environment were confirmed – this time officially.

The obligation to pay the eco contribution and also collect waste created a stand-off with the government, with many businesses simply refusing

While the eco contribution regime resulted in a substantial income for the government in terms of revenue targeted for waste management projects and infrastructure, in reality this regime overlapped with a number of other legal notices that implement the EU waste management acquis in Malta.

In particular, the regime clashed with the obligations that arose under the producer responsibility directives, namely the WEEE regulations, the packaging and packaging waste regulations and also the batteries regulations.

Effectively this Act created a double obligation on producers of EEE, packaging and batteries, who were obliged to pay the eco contribution and at the same time to recover waste individually or as part of a collective compliance scheme under other legal notices.

This double obligation created a stand-off between the government and industry, with many businesses simply refusing to fulfil their obligations.

This situation worried me as e Environment Minister, since it led to the poor implementation of the packaging, WEEE and batteries regulations. Malta has for years not been compliant with the respective EU directives.

From a brief given to me during the transition process after the change in government, it was evident that everything still hung in a long-festering state of limbo.

Malta has long been in a position where it risked being faced with European Commission infringement procedures due to this easily avoidable inertia.

In fact the Commission had already submitted a letter to Malta dated April 26, 2012, asking it for clarifications on the implementation of Directive 94/62/EC. This letter concerned the achievement or otherwise of the packaging waste targets for 2009.

In view of the eco contribution that had already been paid, even where Mepa had permitted two compliance schemes, none of the regulations were operating as they should have.

Were it not for Wasteserv’s initiative, Malta would have fallen even further behind its expected battery collection rate targets.

The problem is that although the estimated collection rate was fairly good, these batteries were not contributing towards achieving the targets because they were not collected in line with the producer responsibility provisions as outlined in the directive.

In the case of the WEEE, Mepa had reportedly been working towards the goal of removing it from the eco contribution regime since 2010 but to no avail.

A draft national WEEE plan had been found gathering dust in spite of a presentation having been made to Cabinet in December 2012, when the general election was looming.

One major concern that has never been denied is that the government was collecting more funds from the eco contribution payments than it was spending on the recycling and recovery of the waste streams resulting from the taxed products.

The fact that our ministry has worked hand in hand with the Ministry of Finance – quietly, behind the scenes and without much fanfare – confirms that at the end of the day it is results that count, rather than hype or greenwash.

I am as confident as the majority of stakeholders that the budgetary measures contemplated should go a long way towards plugging what has in actual fact exacerbated an environmental deficit.

Meanwhile, one looks forward to environmentalists’ views on this issue together with those of other key stakeholders.

Leo Brincat is Minister for the Environment.