Government must have civil servants monitor litter independently
That is what Rob Buurman of Recycling Netwerk said on Wednesday in response to the revelation in De Standaard that the polluting packaging industry finances the salaries of the OVAM officials who supervise litter policy and monitoring of litter. Rob Buurman: “The OVAM officials must be able to work completely independently. Therefore, the Flemish government and environment minister Joke Schauvliege must […]
That is what Rob Buurman of Recycling Netwerk said on Wednesday in response to the revelation in De Standaard that the polluting packaging industry finances the salaries of the OVAM civil servants who supervise the litter policy and the monitoring of litter.
Rob Buurman: “The OVAM civil servants must be able to work completely independently. That is why the Flemish Government and Environment Minister Joke Schauvliege (CD&V) must immediately banish this influence of the polluting beverage and packaging industry from OVAM. Both financially and operationally.”
To make the environment cleaner, policy must be based on figures that reflect reality. The beverage and packaging industry obviously has every interest in minimising the increase in litter. That is why it is not healthy for the industry to be the funder of the OVAM department that records the figures on litter. The civil servants who monitor litter must be able to do their work in complete independence. The Flemish government must therefore be the sole party responsible for their wages.
A study by OVAM already leaked in April. But OVAM has still not published it today. That study was completed on 20 March 2017, but was never made public. The study clearly has a strong policy component: it is the benchmark on which the target of Minister Joke Schauvliege (CD&V) and the OVAM of 20% less litter in 2022 is based. That target applies in relation to the figures from the 2015 study.
However, the study showed that litter in Flanders is on the rise. The amount of litter has increased by 40%, according to the evaluation of 2015 compared to 2013. This is while the government wants the amount of litter to decrease by 20% by 2022. The costs of litter also rose, from 61 million to 103 million euros between 2013 and 2015.
“Those figures could prompt the government to intervene with a more effective approach, through a deposit system, for example. Therefore, the industry has every interest in preventing this study from becoming official”, Rob Buurman notes.
Debate in the Flemish Parliament
Watch the debate that the Flemish Parliament held on 4 October 2017 about the financing of Mooimakers here.
Background information
Who does the monitoring of litter?
The monitoring of the evolution of litter is done by Vlaanderen Mooi, also known as Mooimakers. Mooimakers is the Flemish initiative against litter and fly-tipping. It is a partnership between the Public Waste Agency of Flanders (OVAM), the companies that place packaged products on the Belgian market united in Fost Plus, and the VVSG. (source: http://mooimakers.be/over-mooimakers). In this way, Mooimakers is the partnership of businesses (in Fost Plus) and government (OVAM).
Who pays for Vlaanderen Mooi/Mooimakers?
The total budget over two years is 19.2 million euros over two years (screenshot of budget).
That therefore corresponds perfectly with the contribution from the industry of 9.6 million per year, as agreed: The packaging industry, represented by Fost Plus, makes 9.6 million euros available annually.
Mooimakers is therefore fully paid for by Fost Plus (and therefore in fact by the contribution of the business community, i.e. Coca-Cola, Spa, Colruyt, etc). The financing is therefore not partly industry and partly government. That means that the staff, the civil servants who work at Mooimakers, are also paid with money that comes from the industry! After all, item 7 lists the staff costs. At Mooimakers, 2 people from Fost Plus work, 1 from VVSG and 7 civil servants. The indicated budget is for all 10 people.
More info:
Rob Buurman
Director Recycling Netwerk
rob@fairresourcefoundation.org
Read also the articles of De Standaard “De vervuiler betaalt … acht ‘mooimakers’” (paywall) and Metro “Industrie kan monitoring zwerfvuil door OVAM niet mee financieren”
Read also the report of the debate in the Flemish Parliament on the file.
That is what Rob Buurman of Recycling Netwerk said on Wednesday in response to the revelation in De Standaard that the polluting packaging industry finances the salaries of the OVAM civil servants who supervise the litter policy and the monitoring of litter.
Rob Buurman: “The OVAM civil servants must be able to work completely independently. That is why the Flemish Government and Environment Minister Joke Schauvliege (CD&V) must immediately banish this influence of the polluting beverage and packaging industry from OVAM. Both financially and operationally.”
To make the environment cleaner, policy must be based on figures that reflect reality. The beverage and packaging industry obviously has every interest in minimising the increase in litter. That is why it is not healthy for the industry to be the funder of the OVAM department that records the figures on litter. The civil servants who monitor litter must be able to do their work in complete independence. The Flemish government must therefore be the sole party responsible for their wages.
A study by OVAM already leaked in April. But OVAM has still not published it today. That study was completed on 20 March 2017, but was never made public. The study clearly has a strong policy component: it is the benchmark on which the target of Minister Joke Schauvliege (CD&V) and the OVAM of 20% less litter in 2022 is based. That target applies in relation to the figures from the 2015 study.
However, the study showed that litter in Flanders is on the rise. The amount of litter has increased by 40%, according to the evaluation of 2015 compared to 2013. This is while the government wants the amount of litter to decrease by 20% by 2022. The costs of litter also rose, from 61 million to 103 million euros between 2013 and 2015.
“Those figures could prompt the government to intervene with a more effective approach, through a deposit system, for example. Therefore, the industry has every interest in preventing this study from becoming official”, Rob Buurman notes.
Debat in het Vlaams parlement
Watch the debate that the Flemish Parliament held on 4 October 2017 about the financing of Mooimakers here.
Background info
Who does the monitoring of litter?
The monitoring of the evolution of litter is done by Vlaanderen Mooi, also known as Mooimakers.Mooimakers is the Flemish initiative against litter and fly-tipping. It is a partnership between the Public Waste Agency of Flanders (OVAM), the companies that place packaged products on the Belgian market united in Fost Plus, and the VVSG. (source: http://mooimakers.be/over-mooimakers). In this way, Mooimakers is the partnership of businesses (in Fost Plus) and government (OVAM).
Who pays for Vlaanderen Mooi/Mooimakers?
The total budget over two years is 19.2 million euros over two years (screenshot of budget).
That therefore corresponds perfectly with the contribution from the industry of 9.6 million per year, as agreed: The packaging industry, represented by Fost Plus, makes9.6 million euros available annually.
Mooimakers is therefore completely paid for by Fost Plus (and therefore in fact by the contribution of the business community, i.e. Coca-Cola, Spa, Colruyt, etc). The financing is therefore not partly industry and partly government. That means that the staff, the civil servants who work at Mooimakers, are also paid with money that comes from the industry! After all, item 7 lists the staff costs. At Mooimakers, 2 people from Fost Plus work, 1 from VVSG and 7 civil servants. The indicated budget is for all 10 people.
More info:
Rob Buurman
Director Recycling Netwerk
rob@fairresourcefoundation.org
Read also the articles of De Standaard “De vervuiler betaalt … acht ‘mooimakers’” (paywall) and Metro “Industrie kan monitoring zwerfvuil door OVAM niet mee financieren”
Read also the report of the debate in the Flemish Parliament on the file.
This page is automatically translated. A human review will follow soon.
