In early March, the European Union announced its goal of establishing deposit refund schemes for plastic bottles and aluminium cans across the bloc by 2029. Malta was among the first to adopt this objective.
The Beverage Container Refund Scheme (BCRS) was introduced in Malta in 2022. Despite success in cutting on waste disposal, the scheme is far from reaching the EU’s aim of achieving 100 per cent recycling rates by 2035.
Consumers and retailers argue that the scheme is still not functioning as it should. Some environmental groups denounce it as a “false solution” that does not tackle the real problem.
Ta’ Ganza, a local cash and carry establishment adopting the BCRS, recently described the recycling scheme as a ‘total rip-off’. For example, they quote an incident in which 200 items out of a batch of 4,000 containers returned to BCRS had been rejected. The financial consequences of such a high rejection rate have convinced this establishment to withdraw from the scheme.
Consumers are also less than satisfied with the logistics linked to deposit machines, ranging from their scarce availability to the high breakdown rate, as machines are sometimes out of order.
Some fear that behind the recycling deposit scheme is a battle of financial interests which benefits the producers rather than environmental concerns.
Still, a 2020 report by the European Court of Auditors said countries with a deposit and return scheme collect on average over 80 per cent of plastic bottles compared to 58 per cent across the EU.
It is a fact that BCRS has substantially reduced littering, as customers have an economic incentive to return the containers.
However, the plastic recycling strategies need to be re-engineered at local and EU levels to be accepted as a long-term solution to reducing plastic waste. Failing this, the BCRS could become just another greenwashing and wasteful scheme.
The consortium of Malta’s largest beverage producers and importers must rope in retailers and consumers to review the processes linked to the BCRS to make it more customer friendly.
While the scheme is non-profit, it has sizeable infrastructure and operating costs that must be recovered. Even if the financial management of the scheme is efficient, it will not survive if retailers and most consumers find it too cumbersome to operate.
Some also argue that collecting and recycling more bottles would only increase the quantity of recycled plastic available, thus lowering its price. This is not precisely what encourages manufacturers to reduce production.
Mario Grasso, a waste management professor at Milan’s Politecnico University, argues that the deposit and return schemes fail to prevent production.
He says: “There is a risk of conveying the message that plastic is a good thing if it is reduced. It is nothing more than life insurance for plastics.”
The EU must rethink these plastic recycling strategies to give more importance to the principle of a circular economy.
European environmentalists, like Manon Richert of the NGO Zero Waste France, are actively campaigning for deposit for reuse schemes, primarily for glass, which could be a good way forward. The idea would be to collect, wash, and reuse the containers.
By prioritising these materials, we not only mitigate environmental harm but also alleviate the strain on recycling systems, ensuring more efficient resource utilisation.
The political discourse of cutting plastic waste must change. It requires a paradigm shift and a genuine effort on the part of the government and operators. Ultimately, it is in our interest to move away from disposable packaging and our addiction to plastic.