Estonian food producers and other packaging producers have fulfilled packaging‑related producer‑responsibility obligations for more than twenty years. Packaging companies finance the collection and recycling system for packaging waste and meet notification and reporting requirements.

The planned amendment to the Waste Act expands this responsibility further, and producers would also have to cover costs related to single‑use plastic packaging that arise from servicing public trash bins and cleaning public spaces. This principle comes from the so‑called SUP Directive, the directive on single‑use plastic products.

More precisely, the change concerns two types of costs. First, it covers the servicing of public trash bins, such as removing a yogurt cup, sandwich wrapper or drink container thrown into a city or municipal bin. Second, it includes costs that arise when plastic packaging is thrown into a park, onto a street or into the forest and must be collected from there.

While the first type of cost is understandable, the second raises a fundamental question: should responsibility lie with the producer who placed the packaged product on the market, or with the person who decided to throw the packaging on the ground? In the case of food, plastic packaging is often not a voluntary choice by the producer but an unavoidable part of ensuring food safety and shelf life.

The principle "the polluter pays" is cited, but who is the actual polluter? When a person throws a drink cup or salad container onto the street, it is deliberate misconduct, and societal responsibility should not shift from the person who committed the act to the producer. The "producer pays" approach sends exactly that signal, reinforcing rather than reducing the real problem: littering.

Who controls the costs?

If the state creates a new financing system, it must be clear how costs are determined, who verifies their justification, and how unjustified cost increases are prevented. In the current draft, these questions remain largely unanswered.

Regarding projected costs, the Ministry of Climate has said that "there is no precise overview, because local governments have not been required to separate such costs, and practices differ across Estonia." The ministry has estimated the cost of the new system at 2–10 million euros per year, illustrating how unclear the picture is. Many local governments currently lack an overview of how much is spent on cleaning public spaces or servicing trash bins, because these costs are part of broader maintenance services.

Although the draft requires local governments to establish such cost accounting by 2028, it lacks a substantive oversight mechanism that would allow producers to verify the justification of costs. Essentially, producers would receive an invoice and be required to pay it, with no regulatory possibility for control. Such a system does not motivate finding cost‑effective ways to maintain public spaces or reduce littering; instead, it lacks incentives to manage costs or address the root causes of the problem.

In several EU countries, this extension of producer responsibility has already been implemented. Their experience shows that additional costs are significant; for example, in Germany, producer‑responsibility costs related to plastic packaging roughly doubled after the changes. These costs inevitably affect product prices and ultimately reach consumers.

It is also important to consider that implementing the SUP Directive is far from the only packaging‑related change that Estonia's food industry must adapt to. Alongside it, the waste reform will take effect and a new EU packaging regulation will be enforced. Both bring major investments and ongoing costs for companies, amounting to tens of millions of euros annually. This makes it even more important that every new requirement is well‑considered, purposeful and provides real environmental benefit.

What should be done differently?

The Estonian Food Industry Association does not oppose the goal of reducing the environmental impact of single‑use plastic products. The EU SUP Directive also aims for this. The question is how to achieve this goal most effectively and how to avoid unintended side effects of regulation.

If producers are required to cover public‑space litter‑cleaning costs related to certain products, the system must be transparent and verifiable. Cost formation must be clearly understandable, and producers must have the ability to ensure that only actual and justified costs are compensated. This requires a clear oversight and control mechanism in the law.

Even more important is focusing on solving the underlying problem. Local governments and other public‑sector institutions should carry out consistent awareness‑raising and more effective supervision to reduce littering.

One example is Singapore, where littering is treated much more strictly than in Estonia. Violations are followed by swift and severe penalties, including large fines and the possibility of requiring offenders to clean public areas. Such strict consequences may not fit our legal or cultural environment, but reducing littering certainly requires a comprehensive set of measures.

The authors of any new regulation should constantly ask themselves one simple question: does this help solve the problem for which the regulation is being created? Changing who pays the cleaning bill will not solve the problem of littering in public spaces; the environment becomes cleaner when less litter ends up there.

--

Follow ERR News on Facebook and X and never miss an update!