Anyone who shops – especially groceries – and throws away garbage will have to deal with ROP, i.e. extended producer responsibility. ROP is a bit of a deposit systembut for producers and local governments, the implementation of which is forced on us by an EU directive. Thanks to it, there will be less garbage and residents will have lower waste fees. This should happen thanks to a new product (packaging) fee, the amount of which will depend on the type and “ecological” nature of the packaging. Part of the fee is to go to municipalities, and part to companies. The National Fund for Environmental Protection and Water Management is to have control over the finances.
The new fee is provided for in the draft Act on packaging and packaging waste (UC100), which has been officially consulted since August 2025, but still cannot be submitted to the Sejm. He is accused of centralization of the system, no guarantee of lower waste collection fees, and high implementation costs for companies. On Thursday, its next version will be discussed by the Joint Commission of the Government and Local Government. And this is mainly what we are talking about with Anita Sowińska, Deputy Minister of Climate and Environment. Although we also ask about circular economy.
Read also in BUSINESS INSIDER
Anita Sowińska, deputy minister of climate and environment: : We will do everything to ensure that the Extended Producer Responsibility Act is passed. We are in the final stages before sending this project to the Standing Committee of the Council of Ministers.
The project is difficult – it's a big reform. It arouses emotions, which is due to the fact that individual parties have different interests, which makes it very difficult to reconcile them.
Our proposal enjoys strong support from local governments, but encounters resistance from those who introduce packaged products to the market.
This is due to the fact that the latter group – as a result of new regulations – is to be charged fees, in accordance with the “polluter pays” principle.
Currently, however, we have a dysfunctional system in Poland and – although it is very difficult – it needs to be changed. Today we are the closest to success in this matter for many, many years. However, whether I manage to achieve it does not depend only on me.
However, a compromise has still not been reached on the draft Act on packaging and packaging waste, which implements the ROP. Do you have anything to complain about in this matter?
I think this project is balanced. Where possible and consistent with the objectives of the Act, we have taken into account comments submitted during the consultation stage. We have prepared this project very carefully and now we are handing it over to the government.
Read also: The food sector is protesting against the packaging act. “We are neglected by the government”
This design is a compromise
The first assumptions of the project – from autumn 2024 – were consistent with the vision of the introducers. The final proposal is completely different – they strongly oppose it. The question is whether, in such a sensitive matter, it is not necessary to balance the interests of key stakeholders and seek a compromise?
In 2024, in the conceptual phase, as part of the waste management advisory team, we consulted two models. However, the consultations indicated that the model with a central role of the National Fund for Environmental Protection and Water Management better responds to the needs of this reform.
This is due to the fact that in Poland the waste management model is based on municipal management – local governments are responsible for the collection and processing of packaging waste, and it is the residents and local governments that bear the costs of these activities. Currently, those who introduce packaged products to the market do not cover most of the costs of waste management, but someone bears them – those who are not responsible for the pollution pay. This is not fair and this situation must be changed. Especially since the directive is clear: those who introduce packaged products must be responsible for their product from start to finish.
We do not argue with the need to regulate ROP. However, shouldn't the project be a compromise with those introducing it, including food producers? Especially given the reality that these are such uncertain times and that we must prioritize food security.
She is a compromise. And that's the thing with every compromise, not everyone will be happy. We had to decide on the solution that best meets the assumed goals. Among these goals, the key is to ensure stable financing of waste management in Poland, as well as to motivate entrepreneurs to design ecological packaging.
Are you not afraid that the National Fund for Environmental Protection and Water Management will act as the manager of funds from ROP burdening this project? The National Fund for Environmental Protection and Water Management has recently had a lot of problems – for example, the controversy surrounding Clean Air or staff changes at the Environmental Protection Bank.
I'm not afraid. The National Fund for Environmental Protection and Water Management has extensive experience in money management and achieving environmental effects. Of course, something can always be done better, but it was our government that reformed the Clean Air program, which was difficult but necessary.
So why has the UC100 project still not been approved by the government? Is it because of the opposition of the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development?
He missed it, but he will soon. Of course, we are aware of the position of the Ministry of Agriculture. The comments of the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development are identical to those submitted by some entrepreneurs.
On the other hand, I receive parliamentary interpellations and interventions from parliamentarians (of various political options, including PSL) who support the draft act on the ROP and demand its implementation as soon as possible. Meeting the comments of the Ministry of Agriculture would cause us to go back two years.
I will add that this project – like the deposit system – is subject to disinformation. We are dealing with attempts to put the stick in the spokes and attempts to delay the introduction of extended producer responsibility in Poland.
It's hardly surprising. ROP, like the deposit system, causes disputes.
I realize that it will raise disputes, this is normal in a democracy. What will the final effect be? As the Ministry of Climate and Environment, we have done everything to prepare a good-quality project so that the Council of Ministers can make a good decision.
What groups – apart from local governments – support this proposal?
We have received votes of support from some entrepreneurs involved in waste processing, e.g. recycling, as well as social organizations. Extended producer responsibility is intended to systemically support the circular economy (circular economy), in particular effective recycling and waste prevention.
Read also: Paulina Hennig-Kloska before the recall vote. How is the Ministry of Climate doing?
One direction, two resorts
So let's move on to the topic of the circular economy. Is there a chance that this area will be transferred from the supervision of the Ministry of Development and Technology to the Ministry of Climate and Environment?
I had such an idea at the beginning of the term, but there are no talks on this subject at the moment and there are no such plans. Our cooperation with MRiT is going well. We cooperate closely, for example, on the recycling of batteries and end-of-life vehicles.
However, in fact, circular economy should be an area of extensive changes – the Polish economy is only about 10 percent it is circular. We are talking here not only about waste management, but also about waste prevention, construction, waste electronic equipment, textiles, batteries, etc.
At MKiŚ, we focus on what we can do in this matter, but there is a lot of work to do and one deputy minister will not be enough.
A way to improve Poland's position in terms of the circularity of the economy is to popularize returnable packaging. Is there a chance for this?
Reusable packaging has great development potential. Currently, there are production systems for beverage bottles in Poland, but we would like to strengthen this form of packaging by encouraging the use of a common, nationwide returnable packaging system. This would also give small and medium-sized companies the opportunity to benefit from the economies of scale of returnable packaging. Reusable packaging – when used on a large scale – has the lowest ecological footprint. We are wondering how to popularize them.
Any ideas already?
The idea is to make it more profitable for entrepreneurs. Perhaps these proposals will be included in the announced amendment to the Bail Deposit Act. Circular economy covers virtually all sectors of the economy. We work to disseminate it in many areas, both in Poland and at the EU level.
We will ask for a specific example of a product other than glass bottles.
As for the EU, I will give the example of replaceable batteries in e-cigarettes, but also electronic rings, bracelets, glasses and toys. According to EU law, such small items will have to be able to be disassembled and the batteries removed – otherwise they pose a threat to the environment, but also pose a risk of fires in sorting plants or landfills. We want such small electronic devices not to be disposable items that end up in the trash after a short use. The customer should have the right to replace batteries and have them repaired, and raw materials from such small devices should be recovered.
Meanwhile, we hear voices calling for the abolition of the battery replaceability requirement contained in the PPWR regulation through deregulation implemented in the EU, i.e. the so-called omnibuses. We strongly oppose this.
