Study: tackling litter mainly helps manufacturers of disposables

A different litter policy is pursued in each region of the country. Flanders has a -20% target for 2022 compared to 2015, which has not been met. In Wallonia and Brussels, agreements on litter are less firmly formulated and proper monitoring is lacking. Litter is not tackled at the source in any region.

The business community also pays very little for the litter they cause. For Flanders, this amounts to 9.6 million euros, while the clean-up costs amount to no less than 161 million. Most of the costs are borne by cities and municipalities.

Rob Buurman, director of Fair Resource Foundation: ‘There is much talk about litter, but the approach is limited to clean-up actions and communication campaigns. Clean-up actions are valuable initiatives when volunteers commit to them, but we also expect effective policy from the government.’

The study on litter is the third in a series of papers on producer responsibility in Belgium and was conducted by consultant Maxine Von Eye. Below we focus on four crucial lessons from the report.

Lesson 1: focus on the litter, not the citizen

Policy is mainly aimed at raising awareness among citizens, while producers can continue to sell more and more single-use packaging. 75 percent of our litter consists of single-use packaging, but its manufacturers remain out of the firing line. The current approach to litter is particularly beneficial for the industry.

Proposal: the approach to litter must follow the waste hierarchy, meaning that prevention and reuse of packaging are given priority. Single-use packaging is replaced by reusable packaging, especially for take-away. If single-use packaging is used nonetheless, it should be collected better, such as with deposit-return systems.

Lesson 2: improve litter monitoring

There are indicators suggesting that litter is a bigger problem in Wallonia and especially Brussels than in Flanders, but there is a lack of proper monitoring and follow-up.

Proposal: Wallonia and Brussels can learn from the detailed Flemish methodology for mapping litter, both in terms of clean-up costs and quantities. Harmonisation and accuracy of monitoring is also important because packaging producers pay a share of the litter costs.

Lesson 3: make industry pay for litter, but reduce their influence

Organisations such as Mooimakers (officially government) in Flanders and Be WaPP in Wallonia are largely funded and determined by the packaging industry. For example, the steering committee of Mooimakers consists of representatives from Comeos, Fevia and Fost Plus. No wonder, then, that only business-friendly campaigns are set up.

Proposal: reduce the influence of the packaging industry on litter policy. Have manufacturers pay the full costs when their packaging ends up as litter. However, if litter decreases, the costs must also decrease. According to the (not yet final) Litter & EPR Cooperation Agreement between Flanders, Brussels and Wallonia, those costs can drop very sharply when a deposit-return system is introduced and litter is reduced. The reduction in costs for producers must depend on the results, not on the simple introduction of a deposit.

Lesson 4: stop useless pilot projects and commit to proven solutions

The study also evaluated the pilot project De Click. This reward system of the packaging industry has been rolled out across 12 cities and municipalities. In Antwerp, they have already stopped using it because it had no effect on litter. The study shows that De Click has no significant impact on litter in other places either.

Proposal: implement proven solutions against litter, such as a classic deposit-return system that can already reduce litter by tens of percent.