An unsustainable eco-tax

In his article "Investing in sustainable waste management" (The Sunday Times, July 25) George Pullicino did not elaborate on how the local eco-tax will promote sustainability. Instead, he lists a number of environmentally unsustainable projects, including the temporary waste storage facility at Ta' Zwejra and the proposed permanent landfill which will be located over an area of good quality rock at Ghallis.

Eco-taxes are not a novelty. Denmark and the Netherlands were the first European countries to introduce eco-taxes within a strategy for sustainable development. Other countries followed suit, including Malta which had introduced an eco-tax on leaded petrol to encourage the use of unleaded petrol. The real novelty is that the PN administration is now legislating for a second tax on consumption (the first is VAT), while calling it an "eco-tax"!

The purpose of eco-taxes is to encourage a preference among consumers for environment-friendly products. Belgium introduced an eco-tax on disposable cameras and disposable razors to influence consumer behaviour in favour of non-disposable products. A number of German local authorities also taxed single-use packaging as that used by McDonald's. These fiscal measures encourage a prudent use of natural resources and reduction of waste.

The eco-tax that the government wants to introduce undermines sustainable development because it does not discriminate between eco-friendly products and those which are less environment friendly. It places blanket taxes of Lm10 on fridges, 2c5 on all batteries and Lm2 on all tyres, etc., discouraging the consumer from opting for the more environment-friendly fridge, battery or tyre. The Minister for the Environment and Rural Affairs argues that these products need to be taxed because they will eventually become waste and may require costly treatment before disposal. This is a doubly deceptive argument.

Firstly, because fiscal measures on waste should apply to actual and not to the newly bought product. It should be kept in mind that the government will be bound in future to introduce taxes or charges on waste generated, as implied in the EU Landfill Directive. When this happens, the consumer will be forced to pay charges on waste generation for the same fridge or cooker twice, currently under the so-called eco-tax and in the future for the actual waste disposal of the defunct fridge or cooker!

Secondly, the government is taxing citizens for waste treatment and waste disposal according to EU standards when these treatment and disposal services practically do not exist in this country! It is a fact that the government has also failed to accomplish the targets set in the 2001 solid waste management strategy, such as recycling 50 per cent of paper, glass and plastic, and failed to establish a hazardous waste landfill.

This poor record makes taxpayers sceptical about the promised practical benefits of this eco-tax. Why should taxpayers pay on eco-tax on their new fridge or cooker when this is destined to end up rusting or in flames at an extension of Maghtab? Why should your eco-tax end up funding another costly, but worthless report?

Rather than address the basic environmental issues - namely, waste separation and hazardous waste disposal - the Environment and Rural Affairs Ministry, in collaboration with the University of Malta, will set up the Centre for Environmental Education and Research (CEER). The proliferation of such entities has not helped the environment, but merely increased costs to taxpayers.

This superfluous Centre is being untimely hatched in particular facilities, as confirmed by Mr Pullicino in his article. Recently, I was informed that someone was refused a part-time lecturing post at the Faculty of Education because he is deemed to be "over-qualified". Shame on the University!

Deceiving citizens may be the modus operandi of the PN government but not of the European Commission. The Commission is known to scrutinise eco-taxes and environment tax incentives introduced by member states so as to confirm that these will really have the desired environmental impact and not serve some obscure purpose.

Significantly, Mr Pullicino only mentioned notification of the bill to Brussels at a very late stage during the parliamentary debate. We do not have the details of the Commission's reply. It is unlikely that the EU will categorise the fiscal measure being introduced by the government as an eco-tax. In the absence of a fully positive reply, the local "eco-tax" bill cannot be enforced.

Mr Mizzi is the main Opposition spokesman on infrastructural services.