In mid-August, Poland’s Ministry of Climate and Environment unveiled a draft law introducing Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) — a system that would make companies responsible for the collection, recycling, and recovery of packaging used for their products. During public consultations, the ministry received over 1,700 comments, many of them critical.
The main objection from producers is that the fees they would pay under the new system would be centrally managed by the National Fund for Environmental Protection and Water Management (NFOŚiGW). Industry representatives argue that this structure removes companies’ influence over how — and how efficiently — their money is spent.
“A representative of the Ministry of Climate and Environment confirmed that more than 1,700 comments have been submitted — a massive task now lies ahead to review and analyze them,” said Jakub Tyczkowski, President of Rekopol, in an interview with Newseria.
“One of the key provisions of the proposed law is that producers — those placing packaging on the market — would bear the costs of selective collection, sorting, and preparation for recycling, and, in some cases, the recycling itself, especially when it has a negative market value. In Poland, a small-scale EPR system has existed since January 1, 2002, but under current law producers are not obliged to cover these costs. The ministry’s new proposals have been met with either cautious optimism or outright rejection.”
“Polluter pays” principle — but through a state-managed system
The draft Packaging and Packaging Waste Act (UC100) aims to reduce the amount of packaging waste ending up in the environment by implementing the “polluter pays” principle. Under the new rules, producers would finance the system directly.
According to the ministry, the reform would reduce costs for municipalities and citizens and ensure real producer accountability for the packaging they place on the market. This, in turn, is meant to encourage eco-design and “lightweighting” — producing less and more recyclable packaging.
The ministry also claims that the “packaging fee” will have minimal impact on retail prices, amounting to no more than 0.005 PLN (half a grosz) per package in the first year.
However, critics from the private sector warn that the proposed structure effectively nationalizes the recycling system.
“The Ministry of Climate and Environment wants to eliminate recovery organizations by nationalizing the financial stream, claiming they’re inefficient — but without providing evidence,” argues Tyczkowski.
“Currently, recovery organizations are responsible for achieving recycling targets, and these have been consistently met since 2002, as proven by Poland’s official reports to Eurostat.”
Producers fear “tax-like” system with no accountability
Starting in 2026, municipalities are expected to begin receiving their first payments from producers. Funding will increase in 2027, and by 2028 the system is set to operate at full scale — with NFOŚiGW distributing funds among municipalities and other entities in the packaging waste management chain.
Opponents argue that this structure turns the EPR mechanism into a quasi-tax system.
“Critics say clearly: a system based on a public levy, where money is distributed by a state legal entity — the National Fund for Environmental Protection and Water Management — is unacceptable,” says Tyczkowski.
“Producers are not disputing their obligation to cover waste management costs; they agree it’s necessary. But they want a say in how their money is used.”
Under the current proposal, companies would pay a fixed, centrally determined fee to the NFOŚiGW — losing all influence over collection, sorting, and recycling efficiency.
Producers are instead proposing that private, competitive Extended Producer Responsibility organizations (EPRs) manage these processes, while the state retains oversight to ensure transparency and compliance.
“EPR is meant to ensure that more packaging waste in Poland is properly sorted, collected, and recycled — and, most importantly, that more recycled materials are reused in the economy,” says Tyczkowski.
“But this goal is unlikely to be achieved through a government agency. Experience shows that money distributed through bureaucratic channels is rarely used efficiently.”
Business calls for market-based solutions
Packaging recovery organizations and producers have formally submitted their objections during consultations.
“The industry has been clear: Poland’s EPR system should be built on international best practices — in short, business responsibilities should be implemented by business, not by a centralized public body,” summarizes Tyczkowski.
“As recently as September last year, the ministry proposed a draft that reflected producers’ input. But a few months later, it reversed course and replaced it with a fiscal, redistributive model.”
Background: what’s at stake
If implemented as proposed, the law would mark a major shift from Poland’s decentralized recycling system, where producer responsibility organizations handle compliance, to a state-managed fund that collects and redistributes money.
Industry representatives warn that such a move could:
- Reduce efficiency and innovation in waste management,
- Increase bureaucracy and administrative costs,
- Discourage investment in modern recycling infrastructure, and
- Disconnect producers from real environmental outcomes.
For now, the Ministry of Climate and Environment must process over 1,700 consultation submissions before finalizing the bill — a clear signal that the debate over who controls Poland’s recycling future is far from over.
Source: CEO.com.pl – “Businesses push back against Poland’s EPR bill: ‘It’s a tax, not a recycling reform’”
