Planned waste law would shift costs without reducing litter

Planned amendments to Estonia’s Waste Act would require companies placing single-use plastic packaging on the market to reimburse local governments for litter collection costs, but the proposed system would neither control costs nor reduce littering, Sirje Potisepp writes in an opinion article published by ERR.

Estonian food producers and other companies placing packaging on the market have fulfilled their producer responsibility obligations for more than 20 years. Packaging companies fund the collection and recycling of packaging waste and meet information and reporting requirements.

The proposed amendment would expand that responsibility. Producers would also have to cover costs related to servicing public waste bins and cleaning litter from public spaces when the waste involves single-use plastic packaging. The principle comes from the Single-Use Plastics Directive, also known as the SUP Directive.

The change would cover two types of costs. The first involves servicing public waste bins, including removing yoghurt cups, sandwich wrappers and beverage packaging thrown into bins in towns and municipalities. The second covers the cost of collecting plastic packaging discarded in parks, on streets or in forests.

While the first category of costs is understandable, the second raises a fundamental question: should responsibility lie with the company that placed the packaged product on the market or with the person who discarded the packaging? In the food sector, plastic packaging is often not a voluntary choice by the producer but an unavoidable part of ensuring food safety and shelf life.

The principle being cited is that the polluter pays. But who is the actual polluter? When someone throws a beverage cup or salad container into the street, it is deliberate misconduct, and responsibility should not be shifted from the person who committed the act to the producer. The producer-pays approach sends precisely that signal, Potisepp argues, potentially deepening rather than reducing the problem of littering.

Who will control the costs?

If the state creates a new funding system, it must be clear how costs are calculated, who checks whether they are justified and how unjustified increases will be prevented. Potisepp writes that the current draft largely leaves these questions unanswered.

The Ministry of Climate has said there is no precise overview of the expected costs because municipalities have not previously had to separate them in this way and practices differ across Estonia. The ministry estimates that the new system would cost between 2 million and 10 million euros a year, which illustrates the uncertainty surrounding the figures.

Many municipalities currently lack an overview of how much they spend on cleaning public spaces or servicing waste bins because these costs form part of broader maintenance services.

Although the draft would require municipalities to establish the relevant cost accounting by 2028, it contains no substantive oversight mechanism allowing producers to verify whether the costs are justified. In practice, producers would be presented with an invoice and required to pay it, while the regulation provides no means of control.

According to Potisepp, such a solution would not encourage municipalities to seek the most cost-effective ways of maintaining public spaces or to reduce littering. Instead, it would create little incentive to control costs and address the causes of the problem.

Several European Union countries have already introduced this expanded producer responsibility. Their experience shows that the additional costs can be significant.