History of Flemish litter policy: in the hands of Coca-Cola, AB InBev and Colruyt

About six years ago, attention towards litter in Flanders increased significantly. In the Flemish coalition agreement of 2014, the Bourgeois government agreed to investigate the potential impact of introducing a deposit return scheme for plastic bottles and cans. At the start of the governing period, the impetus was also given for a new waste management plan, as the previous plan ran until 2015.

Looking back at the past six years, very little seems to have come of an effective litter policy. The policy is heavily determined by the supermarket federation Comeos (whose members include Colruyt, Delhaize and Carrefour), the food federation Fevia (whose members include AB InBev, Nestlé and Coca-Cola) and Fost Plus, the organisation tasked on behalf of Comeos and Fevia with implementing proper packaging collection and recycling, but which in practice also operates as a lobby group for the powerful business federations. In six years' time, the Flemish government has barely formulated any policy addressing litter at its source, the product itself.

In this longread, we explain the developments of the past six years and show how Flanders, once a pioneer in sustainable waste management, is falling behind developments in other countries.

Litter Policy

During the development of the "Household Waste and Similar Industrial Waste Implementation Plan" in 2016, the debate on litter was in full swing. Sounding board groups were set up for the Implementation Plan and also for the deposit study Impact Analysis of Introducing Deposit Schemes on Single-Use Beverage Packaging. Director Rob Buurman of Recycling Netwerk Benelux, then Policy Officer for Circular Economy at Bond Beter Leefmilieu, participated in both sounding board groups.

There was no chapter in the Implementation Plan that was debated as much as the chapter on litter. The impact study on deposit schemes, which among other things stated that bottles and cans made up about 40% of the volume and that a deposit scheme could greatly reduce this, had already been completed earlier in 2015. Various drafts of the Implementation Plan referred to deposit schemes. There were versions in which the introduction was announced and there were also variations in which the introduction of a deposit scheme was announced if litter did not drop significantly.

It is therefore striking that in the final version of the Implementation Plan, the word 'deposit scheme' does not appear once. The civil servants of OVAM were overruled by politicians, who listened to the instructions of the packaging industry.

Instead of a deposit scheme, one very important objective was formulated against which Flanders' policy must be judged. Page 96 of the original Implementation Plan states that by 2022, the amount of litter must have decreased significantly:

“the total amount of litter on the ground decreases by 20% by weight compared to 2013. Specifically, this means that the total amount of litter on the ground in 2022 may not exceed 14,000 tonnes (compared to 17,500 tonnes in 2013).”

This 20% weight reduction target did not come out of nowhere. Earlier research had shown that litter consists of about 20-33% weight and 40% volume of plastic bottles and cans. The 20% reduction target was therefore included as an alternative to the presumed minimum effect of a deposit scheme on plastic bottles and cans in the environment.

To be clear: the Flemish government is obliged to implement this policy. Every two years, the progress is assessed. According to the reporting for 2015, there were 20,426 tonnes of litter in Flanders. The reporting for 2017 speaks of 19,916 tonnes of litter.

This year (2020), the reporting for 2019 is expected. At this moment, it seems unlikely that the target will be met. Instead of a clear decline, the latest measurement for 2017 actually shows a 13.8% increase compared to 2013 (17,500 tonnes). In 2017, there were nearly 6,000 tonnes more litter on the streets than is allowed in 2022.

Change of Baseline Year

Via a written question on 2 January 2020, Flemish Member of Parliament Steve Vandenberghe (sp.a) asked Minister Zuhal Demir (N-VA) whether "the minister has an idea of when the new figures/study from OVAM will be available?" Vandenberghe also asked, "What choice will the minister make if the new figures show that we cannot possibly meet the litter target? Will the minister choose to evaluate and/or introduce a deposit scheme prematurely, or to adjust the litter target?"

To the first question, Minister Demir replied as follows: "The figures for 2019 for litter will be available at the end of 2020. I consider the year 2015 as the baseline year for the amount of litter. It is estimated that there were 20,426 tonnes of litter in Flanders that year."

About six years ago, attention towards litter in Flanders increased significantly. In the Flemish coalition agreement of 2014, the Bourgeois government agreed to investigate the potential impact of introducing a deposit return scheme on plastic bottles and cans. At the start of the governing period, the impetus was also given for a new waste management plan, as the previous plan ran until 2015.

Looking back at the past six years, very little seems to have come of an effective litter policy. The policy is heavily determined by the supermarket federation Comeos (whose members include Colruyt, Delhaize and Carrefour), the food federation Fevia (whose members include AB InBev, Nestlé and Coca-Cola) and Fost Plus, the organisation tasked on behalf of Comeos and Fevia with implementing proper packaging collection and recycling, but which in practice also operates as a lobby group for the powerful business federations. In six years' time, the Flemish government has barely formulated any policy addressing litter at its source, the product itself.

In this longread, we explain the developments of the past six years and show how Flanders, once a pioneer in sustainable waste management, is falling behind developments in other countries.

Litter Policy

During the development of the "Household Waste and Similar Industrial Waste Implementation Plan" in 2016, the debate on litter was in full swing. Sounding board groups were set up for the Implementation Plan and also for the deposit study Impact Analysis of Introducing Deposit Schemes on Single-Use Beverage Packaging. Director Rob Buurman of Recycling Netwerk Benelux, then Policy Officer for Circular Economy at Bond Beter Leefmilieu, participated in both sounding board groups.

There was no chapter in the Implementation Plan that was debated as much as the chapter on litter. The impact study on deposit schemes, which among other things stated that bottles and cans made up about 40% of the volume and that a deposit scheme could greatly reduce this, had already been completed earlier in 2015. Various drafts of the Implementation Plan referred to deposit schemes. There were versions in which the introduction was announced and there were also variations in which the introduction of a deposit scheme was announced if litter did not drop significantly.

It is therefore striking that in the final version of the Implementation Plan, the word 'deposit scheme' does not appear once. The civil servants of OVAM were overruled by politicians, who listened to the instructions of the packaging industry.

Instead of a deposit scheme, one very important objective was formulated against which Flanders' policy must be judged. Page 96 of the original Implementation Plan states that by 2022, the amount of litter must have decreased significantly:

“the total amount of litter on the ground decreases by 20% by weight compared to 2013. Specifically, this means that the total amount of litter on the ground in 2022 may not exceed 14,000 tonnes (compared to 17,500 tonnes in 2013).”

This 20% weight reduction target did not come out of nowhere. Earlier research had shown that litter consists of about 20-33% weight and 40% volume of plastic bottles and cans. The 20% reduction target was therefore included as an alternative to the presumed minimum effect of a deposit scheme on plastic bottles and cans in the environment.

To be clear: the Flemish government is obliged to implement this policy. Every two years, the progress is assessed. According to the reporting for 2015, there were 20,426 tonnes of litter in Flanders. The reporting for 2017 speaks of 19,916 tonnes of litter.

This year (2020), the reporting for 2019 is expected. At this moment, it seems unlikely that the target will be met. Instead of a clear decline, the latest measurement for 2017 actually shows a 13.8% increase compared to 2013 (17,500 tonnes). In 2017, there were nearly 6,000 tonnes more litter on the streets than is allowed in 2022.

Change of Baseline Year

Via a written question on 2 January 2020, Flemish Member of Parliament Steve Vandenberghe (sp.a) asked Minister Zuhal Demir (N-VA) whether "the minister has an idea of when the new figures/study from OVAM will be available?" Vandenberghe also asked, "What choice will the minister make if the new figures show that we cannot possibly meet the litter target? Will the minister choose to evaluate and/or introduce a deposit scheme prematurely, or to adjust the litter target?"

To the first question, Minister Demir replied as follows: "The figures for 2019 for litter will be available at the end of 2020. I consider the year 2015 as the baseline year for the amount of litter. It is estimated that there were 20,426 tonnes of litter in Flanders that year."

Minister Demir thus indicates that she considers the year 2015 as the baseline year, whereas the established policy specifies 2013 as the baseline year. This is important because according to OVAM’s own research, the amount of litter in 2015 was nearly three thousand tonnes higher than in 2013. This makes it easier for them to meet the target of 20% less litter. By adjusting the baseline year, you change the policy and the figures regarding the necessary reduction.

On 12 June 2020, the Flemish government decided to actually/officially adjust the policy. The target of -20% litter remains, but the baseline year is moved to 2015. As a result, 16,340 tonnes of litter is still allowed in 2022 instead of the previously determined 14,500 tonnes. By choosing a baseline year in which litter was high, the ambition was significantly weakened.

OVAM argues that the 2013 zero year is insufficiently reliable as a baseline year. However, when the waste plan was being drafted, the sounding board group already debated whether 2013 was a good baseline year. Despite questions raised by Bond Beter Leefmilieu during the plan's creation, it was OVAM itself that decided at the time that 2013 was indeed sufficiently reliable as a baseline year. The fact that OVAM is now advocating for an alternative baseline year contradicts its previous position and strongly suggests that the policy is being altered because efforts around litter are insufficient to meet the targets—something that, incidentally, was always to be expected.

Zuhal Demir's decision means that the Flemish government is not respecting agreements made and is putting its own litter policy at risk.

The 2015 Deposit Study

The deposit study of 2015, carried out in accordance with the coalition agreement of the Bourgeois government, showed that a deposit scheme would have a major impact on litter and could also be introduced in a cost-efficient manner.

The most likely scenario from the impact study (scenario 5), which only concerns deposits on plastic bottles and cans, estimated the total cost for the business sector at 36 million euros and the income for that same sector at 78 million euros. In other words: it was projected that businesses would make money from the introduction of a deposit scheme.

In addition, in scenario 5 daily estimated savings of 9.3 million euros would be made on the Fost Plus system, and they would miss out on 12.8 million euros in material revenues through that system because plastic bottles and cans would henceforth be collected through a deposit scheme rather than through the blue bag.

However, this material revenue does not disappear, but is instead wrapped up in the 78 million euros in income from the deposit system. All in all, it was estimated that the business sector would gain an extra 38.5 million euros every year from the introduction of a deposit scheme compared to the current situation where they collect bottles and cans via the blue bag.

Addendum

Although the business sector (Comeos, Fevia and Fost Plus) was involved in the research and provided input, they nevertheless decided to commission their own study into the costs and effects of a deposit scheme. This study was submitted to OVAM and the researchers working on behalf of OVAM, resulting in a decision to add an Addendum to the original impact study.

In the Addendum, the extra arguments and calculations from the business sector were reviewed, and the researchers arrived at new conclusions. The scenario was also modified slightly compared to the original deposit study, but once again, the deposit scheme turned out to be beneficial for businesses. The study estimated the total cost for the business sector at 77 million euros against an income flow of 82 million euros. The savings on the Fost Plus collection system and the lost material revenue via the blue bag were not recalculated, meaning that all in all, the business sector would expect to save a net 1.5 million euros each year from the introduction of a deposit scheme.

The new calculations also contained a new cost estimate for litter. The original deposit study calculated that approximately 20.1 million euros in annual cleanup costs and costs for emptying public bins could be saved if a deposit scheme were introduced. This saving was calculated based on the 2013 litter study, which estimated a total cost of 61.5 million euros. Of this, 59.2 million euros was for cleaning up litter and emptying bins. In the Addendum to the Impact Study, these savings were adjusted to between 9.4 and 18.8 million euros.

However, the latest litter study concerning the year 2017 (publication date: 21 December 2018) estimates the costs at 134.6 million euros, of which 125 million euros are concrete costs incurred by governments. This means that the potential savings for authorities are much higher, estimated to be between 19.8 and 39.7 million euros (extrapolated based on the estimates in the Addendum).

Influence of the Industry

The deposit study and the Addendum that followed were therefore positive about the costs to the business sector and very positive about the effect on litter and the cost savings for local authorities.

But in early 2016, former Minister Joke Schauvliege announced that a deal had been reached with the business sector. The agreement was signed on 18 January 2016 by Comeos, Fevia, Fost Plus and Schauvliege. For environmental organisations and also for VVSG, whose municipal members bear the brunt of litter costs, the agreement came as a surprise. The 20% reduction in litter was to be achieved with a contribution of 9.6 million euros from the packaging industry. Of this, 6.6 million euros was 'new money', because the packaging industry was already paying about 3 million euros per year via a so-called half-euro contribution for every Flamand.

According to the agreement, the 9.6 million euros is used "to achieve an integrated litter policy." What that means is detailed in the Implementation Plan, where an "integrated five-pillar approach" covers "infrastructure, participation, enforcement, communication and environment." The agreement emphasizes participation and enforcement, in other words: attempting to activate more people and monitoring offences more closely.

The 'integrated five-pillar approach' focuses exclusively on the role of the citizen and how that citizen can be encouraged not to create litter. Steps to prevent litter at the producer level, for example by setting up better collection systems such as deposits, or by creating fewer single-use products and more reusable products, are completely ignored in this so-called 'integrated' approach.

Industry Prefers to Place Responsibility on the Citizen

The policy thus aligns perfectly with the narrative of the packaging industry: the story is that litter is the consumer's fault and therefore litter must be resolved by 'educating' consumers through communication campaigns and fines.

This strategy, incidentally, was conceived decades ago in the United States and is seen across Europe. With the rise of the packaging industry in the 1950s, more and more litter was generated. Various US states tried to introduce legislation to restrict single-use packaging.

To combat this, Keep America Beautiful was founded in 1953 by the American Can Company, Owens-Illinois Glass Company, Coca-Cola and the Dixie Cup Company—large companies that produced single-use packaging. Keep America Beautiful kept the corporations out of the firing line by blaming consumers for pollution and promising to reduce litter by educating consumers through awareness campaigns. The Flemish equivalent, Mooimakers, follows exact same philosophy.

Control Over Waste Policy

The agreement that the Flemish packaging industry made with the Flemish government also stipulated that a Public Cleanliness Decision-making Body would be established, in which Comeos, Fevia and Fost Plus would each have a seat. Furthermore, seats were reserved for a representative of Schauvliege's office, a representative of OVAM, and a representative of VVSG was also invited to join.