GreenPak refutes GRTU claim that businesses got raw deal for compliance

Malta’s two waste recovery companies are at loggerheads after GreenPak accused the Chamber of SMEs’ company GreenMT of giving “wrong advice” that risks Malta being fined by the European Commission.

GreenPak’s chief executive Mario Schembri yesterday said that GRTU director Vince Farrugia had told importers back in 2006 not to join any waste recovery scheme – which collects packaging waste generated by their imports – because this would “put them in a difficult situation”.

Schembri claimed that those firms which did not comply with waste packaging regulations in the past years are now being fined by MEPA “some thousands of euros”.

Schembri claimed GRTU’s advice in the past meant Malta has consistently failed to reach the minimum recycling quotas set by the EU. “The harsh reality is that the EU is not allergic to dispensing large fines to persistent underachieving countries. At the end of the day it is the Maltese traders who will be paying for such infringements.”

But the GRTU is claiming that firms that joined GreenPak’s compliance scheme in 2006 were paying double for their environmental obligation, by paying both GreenPak for their services and also the eco-contribution.

The GRTU says the 2004 eco-contribution law – which levies a consumption tax on all waste packaging – is “the most haphazard and illogical tax ever placed on the business community.”

 “These same enterprises are now only being refunded for the period 2005-2008, a percentage of what they contributed to Greenpak and not even a full eco-contribution refund.”

The GRTU pointed out that packaging waste producers, or importers, who joined their compliance scheme Green MT after 1 July 2011 are today exempt from paying eco-tax since the issuance of legal notice 158 of 2011 in May.

“If you were a producer and did not join a scheme sometime between 2006 and  2009, MEPA has issued an administrative €50 fine for each year. Enterprises that joined GreenPak in those years paid much more in fees to Greenpak, and now can only expect to take back a percentage of the fees paid to Greenpak and nothing in respect to eco-contribution payments in the same period.

“This percentage refund only if you were an Eco Contribution payer. If not the enterprise surely paid more in GreenPak fees than the administrative penalty of €50 imposed by MEPA today.”

GreenPak said that its members are eligible to refunds on eco-contribution after the Ombudsman decided that traders participating in GreenPak’s scheme were entitled not to pay eco-contributions as from the time they first joined the scheme.

“Following the Ombudsman’s statement, Legal Notice 158 of 2011 was issued. This made it possible for GreenPak’s members to receive eco-contribution refunds as from 2006,” Schembri said,

Schembri also said that a statement by GRTU that defaulting producers would pay a fine of €100 per tonne was incorrect, and that the fee was actually €120 for the 2009 year. “This means that defaulting entities will actually be paying more fines than GRTU are leading them to believe,” Schembri said.