Several Unreasonable Obligations among the Planned Amendments of the Packaging Act
The Ministry of the Environment has prepared the draft of the Waste Act, Packaging Act and Tobacco Act Amendment Act with the main aim to decrease the use of single-use food packaging and cups as well as to promote reusable packaging. The Chamber of Commerce supports the aim of the draft, but at the same time we see several problems in the planned amendments.
50-cent sales price for food packaging
One of the most important amendments foreseen by the draft act is that from 3 July 2022, packaging operators must add at the sales point a sales price that is not less than 50 cents to the single-use food packaging used for food that is meant for immediate consumption and requires no processing.
The Chamber sees several problems in the planned amendment. For one, it is unclear for which food packaging will the minimum price apply. For example, if the amendment concerns all single-use food packaging or just single-use plastic food packaging.
Secondly, the 50-cent packaging sales price is a disproportionately high fee for many of the foods. For example, if a yoghurt costs 55 cents and 50 cents of sales packaging price is added to it, the final price of yoghurt will be twice higher. Even if food packaging means single-use plastic food packaging, the planned amendment will have an impact on the price of many everyday food items.
In case of many of the foods, consumers currently have no option to use their own reusable packaging or purchase the same product at the sales point from the reusable packaging. Thus, in case of entry into force of the amendment, the price increase of many foods will be unavoidable. At the same time, the Ministry has not assessed the impact of the planned amendment on food prices and the impact of the amendment on people of lower income.
The Chamber proposed in the letter sent to the Ministry of the Environment to leave out from the draft act the requirement that operators must ask at least 50 cents for the food packaging. Additionally, we made an alternative proposal according to which the definition of food packaging should be narrowed down and the minimum price of food packaging should be decreased at least ten times.
Reusable packaging might become obligatory
According to the draft act, packaging operators are required to offer end users or consumers the opportunity to purchase at sales points food meant for immediate consumption and does not require processing in reusable packaging offered by the seller from 1 January 2024. From 1 January 2026, packaging operators will be required to sell the above-described food in reusable packaging.
The Chamber approves the approach that the amount of single use packaging must be decreased and reusable packaging should be used more. At the same time, we are against the solution proposed in the draft act.
Yet again, the wording of the draft act does not state very clearly, which foods should be offered only in reusable packaging. According to a broader interpretation, this requirement is applicable for very many foods: e.g. bread, white bread, confectionery products, sweets, many dairy products (e.g. cheese, yoghurts, curds), many meat and fish products (e.g. preserves, sausages, hams), some fruits and vegetables and various ready meals (e.g. salads, desserts). However, this list should be as clear as possible for businesses, consumers as well as supervisory authorities.
Additionally, we drew the attention of the Ministry to the fact that the amendment may have a significant impact on companies. For example, the costs of food industry may increase, if the packaging lines of many foods have to be rearranged. Transportation costs may also increase if the weight or surface area of the packaging increases. Increase of costs will most probably happen also in retail where the shelves have to be rearranged. Furthermore, there are costs related to developing and implementing the system of reusable packaging. Today, there are certain solutions available, but they are definitely not sufficient to be able to offer curd, tinned tuna or sausages only in reusable packaging at the sales point in 2026.
The requirement for reusable packaging may be in contradiction with the principle of free movement of goods. For example, if Estonia establishes the requirement for reusable packaging for many foods, it will significantly hinder sale of foods manufactured in other EU countries in Estonia if these products are packaged into single-use packaging in other countries.
Establishing such extensive requirement is further not supported by the fact that this requirement does not arise from the EU directive and as far as is known to us, no other member state is planning to establish such requirement for reusable packaging in their country.
As there are several risks involved in establishing the requirement for reusable packaging, we requested that this requirement be left out of the draft act. At the same time, we proposed that the Ministry of the Environment could, in cooperation with various parties, find opportunities for introducing more reusable packaging. The requirement for reusable packaging could initially be applicable for a small number of food items, so it would be possible to test various alternatives and find the most efficient solution. The state could also foresee support measures that would facilitate developing of the reusable packaging service. As far as we know, there are several support measures aimed at manufacturers of reusable packaging, but not at the service providers.
There should not be a packaging container at each shop
The draft act imposes on the packaging operators an obligation to provide to the end user or consumer of packaged goods the possibility to collect by class packaging waste on the territory of the sales point. The Chamber is against this amendment for several reasons.
First, the amendment will not bring along a significant positive impact. Already now, packaging is accepted and waste is collected by class on the territory of many sales points of packaging operators, including public packaging waste collection points of recovery organisations on the territories of sales points.
Secondly, the new obligation may increase the costs of packaging operators. First and foremost, the costs will increase in the situation where one or several bigger public packaging containers are placed on the territory of a sales point. The current experience has shown that people take other waste to the public containers and next to the containers, including for example furniture, construction and demolition waste, but the sales point, recovery organisation or packaging operators do not wish to cover the costs related to handling of non-packaging waste.
Furthermore, the Chamber is not convinced that supervisory organisations would have sufficient resources to carry out supervision over the requirement.
We made a proposal to the ministry that the obligation to ensure collection of packaging waste by class at the territory of the sales point must be an opportunity and not an obligation arising from the law. In some sales points it is essential that there would be a separate container for the collection of packaging waste. Primarily it is reasonable in places where packaging waste is generated directly at the sales point. At the same time, there are many sales points in Estonia where packaging waste is not directly and they may be generated in very small quantities.
You can read about the planned amendments HERE.