FPÖ criticizes expensive and non -transparent deposit system in Austria

FPÖ criticizes expensive and non -transparent deposit system in Austria

In a current debate, the FPÖ environmental spokesman Thomas Spalt sharply criticized the deposit system in Austria. He questions the meaningfulness of the system and provocates the question of whether there is someone who finds the pledge system well, except the "green deposit bottle fraction" and the ÖVP. According to the Gap, the system was introduced against the will of the population in order to compensate for an unattended collection rate in Vienna without responding to the actual needs of the citizens. Spalt described the deposit system as centralist and bureaucratic and shaped the term "Pfandmonster", which was affected with high costs and numerous problems.

Some alarming statistics underpin Spalt's argument. According to Altstoff Recycling Austria, the deposit system has led to a loss of sales of 45 million euros in just a few months. In addition, disposal fees for plastic rose by 15 percent and for metal by 50 percent. Spalt not only criticized the high costs, but also the lack of control and transparency of the system. He found answers to the responsible bodies as evasive. He emphasized that there is no control by the Court of Auditors or external exams; Only the ministry takes on an examination of the system.

Criticism of measures and transparency

Another point of Spalt's criticism concerns the role of private companies that carry out sovereign tasks without public supervision with taxpayers' money. A report by the "Profile" magazine describes the system as chaotic and group -friendly, highlights the overloaded sorting systems and the inefficient handling of the packaging goods. For example, it is reported that bottles from Vorarlberg are transported to Lower Austria, which leads to an increase in traffic and thus also of CO2 emissions.

The Pfandgesellschaft EWP, which is controlled by large corporations, determines the fees, which raises questions about dealing with non -redeemed deposit amounts - the so -called deposit slip. In the first quarter of 2025, 255 million containers were brought into circulation, of which only 36 million were returned. Spalt therefore called for a abolition of the system, which he describes as expensive, inefficient and incorrect.

comparison to European deposit systems

The critical point of view of Spalts finds an interesting context in the framework of other European countries. In Europe, the return and deposit system implementation is divided into three categories: countries with DRS that have already been introduced, countries that have passed legal regulations and countries that discuss them. Germany is considered the first large European country with a functioning DRS since 2003 that reaches high collective quotas.
In countries such as Norway, which has had a DRS since 1996, over 93 percent of beverage packaging is collected via return machines. In contrast, Belgium has not introduced DRS because the recycled rates are considered high, which shows that the approaches and successes vary in Europe.

In summary, the debate about the Austrian deposit system apparently reveals deeper problems in terms of costs, efficiency and transparency. With a look at the best practices in other countries, a realignment of the system in Austria could be worth considering to achieve both economic and ecological goals.