Follow
Follow
LinkedIn Facebook X Youtube e-mail
LinkedIn Facebook X Youtube e-mail

Concern about double burden on citizens

The industry associations criticise the Single-Use Plastics Fund Act and warn of a double burden on citizens.

The industry associations concerned have criticised the Disposable Plastics Fund Act and warned of a double cost burden for citizens. Shortly before the public hearing in the Bundestag on 8 February, the associations say that the special levy is too high and demand a say in the implementation of the law. 

The German government had proposed that the costs for the Passing on the collection and cleaning of certain single-use plastic products in public spaces to around 55,000 companies through a special state levythat place disposable plastic packaging for to-go food and drinks, carrier bags, balloons, wet wipes or tobacco products with filters on the market. The local authorities, which are to receive a total of 434 million euros per year, will not be obliged to reduce waste charges in return.

"Waste collection and cleaning of public spaces are tasks of local authorities that are financed by citizens and businesses through waste charges. We accept that it is politically desirable for businesses to contribute to these costs. However, this leads to citizens being burdened twice: On the one hand through the waste charges and on the other through the surcharge of the additional costs on the product prices. In future, citizens will therefore be asked to pay twice for the same services. The proposal also does not lead to greater cleanliness in public spaces. After all, why should anyone who simply throws away such a product change their behaviour simply because the local authority is reimbursed for the cleaning costs by the economy?"

Dr Andreas Gayk, Markenverband e.V.

Display

The criticism focuses on the Amount of the proposed special levy and its calculationwhich the association alliance of BdS, BVE, BVTE, HDE, IK, IPV and Markenverband considers to be wrong and unbalanced.

"The current proposal leads to an imbalance in the reimbursement of costs. The products concerned account for 5.6 per cent of all waste in public spaces. However, according to the proposal, their producers should bear 17 per cent of the total collection and cleaning costs of the municipalities, i.e. 434 million euros per year. That is far too high, also in comparison to other countries."

Dr Martin Engelmann, IK Industrievereinigung Kunststoffverpackungen e.V. (Industrial Association for Plastic Packaging) 

The background to this is that the Federal Environment Agency had proposed that the Costs for litter collection are not, as usual, based on weight, but also on the number of items and volume of waste. "This calculation trick is driving up the costs for the economy. There is no reason to deviate from the calculation based solely on weight. After all, the higher costs incurred by local authorities for manual collection are already fully taken into account in the total costs of litter collection," explains Engelmann. If only the weight were taken into account, the special levy would total 164 million euros per year.

"In addition, there is no methodological basis for the most cost-intensive factor in the calculation, namely the number of items. Unit numbers are not a common unit of measurement in the field of waste management. There is no recognised and standardised method for counting quantities."

Karsten Hunger, Industrieverband Papier- und Folienverpackungen e.V. 

For the planned single-use plastics commission The associations are calling for more participation rights and a composition in line with EU requirements. "The EU directive requires that the costs be determined "between the parties concerned", i.e. between paying manufacturers and local authorities. The fact that, according to the draft law, environmental and consumer associations should also have a say is not in line with the directive," criticises Antje Gerstein from the German Retail Association HDE e.V. "This proposal has nothing to do with producer responsibility." There is also criticism of the Inclusion of beverage bottles with deposit.

"The return systems for drinks bottles financed by retailers and industry prevent these bottles from remaining as waste in public spaces. The bureaucratic costs for companies are often higher than the amount of the levy. This is pure harassment."

Peter FellerBundesvereinigung der Deutschen Ernährungsindustrie e.V. 

Source: HDE

More news on plastics and composites