The eco tax was introduced in Malta in 2004 - it was Lm10.67 per kg on all plastic bags. This resulted in a packet of garbage bags costing close to Lm80 (40c per bag). After realising what a mess had been done, eco tax law was amended to 6c on conventional bags, 1c on degradable bags and no tax on a biodegradable bag.

Being the most feasible option since biodegradable materials are very steep, one opted to use degradable material (which is still an environment-friendly bag) and pay the eco tax imposed. So from January 2005 till the end of February we were using and selling degradable bags as instructed by the government and obviously in full conformity with the law.

In the last budget, the government decided that any bag used for convenience should carry a hefty eco tax of 15 cents plus VAT and be passed on to the consumer.

This was necessary because it could not control all illegal importation of carrier bags, particularly the supermarket type, because of the usual lack of enforcement by the government. This was also maybe due to some lobbying from the owners of a few outlets, who did not wish to carry on dispensing free bags, because of their exceptionally high consumption. Hasn't the poor consumer been taxed enough?

With the implementation of this measure, the government is basically telling retailers to throw away their current stock, possibly worth thousands of euros, although they would have conformed with the law.

To add insult to injury, they are being urged, alternatively, to carry their whole load of plastic carrier bags to Wasteserv to be refunded with the eco tax alone, which is less than a fifth of the cost.

Does the government think we get our hard-earned money from taxation? Are retailers doing so well that they can simply throw away thousands of euros? Besides, I doubt how feasible this is since degradable material cannot be recycled. So what benefit can Wasteserv be getting out of all this?

After reading the February 28 press release in your newspaper I expected to hear something more sensible and less prejudiced from Rural Affairs Minister George Pullicino, the same minister who sanctioned the degradable bag just over three years ago. Certainly, his comment that "the visual impact (of bio and degradable bags) is the same" holds no logic and may be interpreted as a case of sour grapes.

Since he failed so miserably to control illegal plastic carrier bags from finding their way into our market, he is just shifting the blame on to the environment-friendly degradable plastic bag and, just like other short-sighted government decisions, the consumer is made to shoulder the burden.

One has to point out here that the abuse and failure of the system was due to the fact that the original 2004 eco tax legislation was enforced overnight on January 1, 2005, without any proper planning and consultation at professional level. The same mistake is being repeated today.

The minister knows perfectly well that these bio and degradable bags are traceable, so what is his ultimate aim actually? We want answers.