Plastic processors warn that packaging prices will rise by 15% if eco-fee rates increase
[ad_1]
Plastics processors are warning about the risks of packaging prices rising by 15% in 2024 if the Ministry of Natural Resources’ proposal to repeatedly increase environmental tax rates is adopted. Rising rates will also lead to losses for enterprises, market participants believe. They ask the government to delay the introduction of standards for a year and refine the methodology. But the Ministry of Natural Resources emphasizes that rates have not been increased since 2016 and companies have had time to create their own recycling capacities, which would free them from paying environmental fees.
As Kommersant has learned, the Union of Plastic Processors sent a letter to Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin criticizing the draft government resolution on the basic rates of environmental fees for goods and packaging. The document was developed by the Ministry of Natural Resources as part of the updated extended producer responsibility (EPR) mechanism, which is planned to be launched on January 1, 2024. From this moment on, the mandatory packaging recycling standard for manufacturers and importers will begin to increase. In 2025 it will be 55%, in 2026 – 75% and by 2027 it will reach 100%. According to the draft resolution, all polymer packaging may be subject to an environmental tax of 12.39 thousand rubles. per ton.
Processors propose maintaining the current eco-fee rates for 2024 and finalizing the document.
Otherwise, an increase in rates will lead either to an increase in the price of polymer packaging by an average of 15%, or to the shutdown of packaging enterprises, since the amount of environmental fees calculated using the new method exceeds their annual profit. For example, the letter says, for a company that produces 1.3 thousand tons of packaging materials per month, the fee could amount to 435 million rubles. in year.
The SPP indicates that it is still unclear who is subject to regulation. They can be both manufacturers of polymer products and their clients – manufacturers of combined packaging materials and then manufacturers of packaging itself (usually food enterprises). Plastics processors also raise questions about how the base rates for cardboard and paper are determined if the text of the project does not include the costs of recycling these products. Companies also doubt the accuracy of the calculation of operating and capital costs for waste treatment and disposal, which are the same for almost all products and materials. The SPP emphasizes that an eco-fee will be collected on all waste, although only part of it goes for recycling, and the rest goes to landfill.
General Director of the Desnogorsk Polymer Plant Alexander Preferansov agrees that the logic for calculating the environmental fee is unclear. Thus, newsprint, which is virtually impossible to recover from landfills, is recognized as more environmentally friendly than technologically advanced flexible packaging, which preserves the consumer qualities of the product longer, thus extending its shelf life and reducing waste volumes. According to his calculations, for an enterprise producing about 2 thousand tons of flexible packaging per year, the environmental fee will be 1.5 billion rubles, that is, about 20-25% of turnover. He doubts the bill will be approved anytime soon given how raw it is. In his opinion, it is necessary to start applying the updated methodology in relation to imported packaging.
The Soyuz-Polymer company, in a letter dated November 24 to the concerned departments, indicated that the basic rate of environmental collection is expected to be increased by 3.2 times compared to the value established in 2016, and taking into account the coefficient of extraction complexity, it actually increases by 10–12 times .
“This will inevitably cause a significant increase in the cost of goods that use packaging—these are mainly consumer goods that are essential,” the letter notes.
The largest manufacturer of flexible polymer packaging materials, Danaflex, indicated in a similar letter that the proposed coefficients do not imply a significant difference between packaging made from monomaterials (recyclable) and combined (non-recyclable), which does not create economic incentives for the transition to more environmentally friendly solutions. There they propose to exempt the corresponding groups of goods from increasing coefficients or make them zero.
Deputy Chairman of the Board of the Rusprodsoyuz Association Dmitry Leonov says that, as a rule, packaging accounts for up to 10% of the cost of food products, but there are categories in which the share of packaging reaches 30–50%.
He agrees that the rise in packaging prices will directly affect the cost of products. “We share the concerns of manufacturers in connection with the proposed eco-fee rates,” Igor Karavaev, chairman of the presidium of the Association of Retail Trade Companies (unites X5 Group, Magnit, Lenta, Auchan, etc.), told Kommersant. According to him, there are comments on the methodology for calculating the base rate, the mechanism for applying and selecting initial data, and a number of other issues that need to be taken into account.
The Ministry of Natural Resources, in response to complaints from processors, noted that it is profitable for companies to pay reduced environmental tax rates, which have not increased since 2016. “Responsibility for the disposal of goods arose not now, but back in 2015. It is only the manufacturer’s choice: to pay the environmental fee, to fulfill his responsibility independently, or to hire a recycler for this work,” the ministry told Kommersant. They recalled that eco-fee rates are formed, among other things, on the basis of the average costs of separate collection, accumulation, transportation, processing and disposal of a unit mass of a product. “The Ministry of Natural Resources urges not to frighten residents with the disappearance of goods or rising prices. Statements about alleged risks are similar to manipulations associated with the implementation of real control over compliance with current legislation,” the ministry concluded.
[ad_2]
Source link
