The Chamber does not support introducing packaging requirements in Estonia that are stricter than EU rules

The Chamber submitted an opinion to the Ministry of Climate on the draft Act amending the Packaging Act and other related Acts. The Chamber emphasised that, when implementing European Union regulations and directives, Estonia should not introduce national requirements that are stricter, enter into force earlier or have a broader scope than directly required by European Union law. Moving ahead of EU rules undermines the competitiveness of Estonian entrepreneurs and creates unjustified administrative and financial burdens.

Reuse requirements must comply with the EU framework

The absolute obligation set out in the draft Act to use only reusable containers for on-site consumption and at public events from 2028 onwards goes significantly further than the EU framework. The EU Regulation imposes restrictions only on plastic packaging and only from 2030 onwards. The Chamber proposed bringing the requirement into line with the EU Packaging Regulation by limiting its scope to plastic packaging, postponing the deadline until 2030 and providing the necessary exemptions for places without access to drinking water and for tastings.

EU requirements and additional national requirements must be clearly distinguished

According to the Chamber, the explanatory memorandum to the draft Act does not clearly and transparently distinguish between planned obligations that arise directly from the minimum requirements of EU law and voluntary or stricter national measures added by Estonia. As the requirements are presented together without distinction, the obligation arising from good legislative practice to justify the necessity of national choices and present alternatives has not been fulfilled.

The Chamber therefore proposed removing from the draft Act provisions that go beyond the minimum level required by EU law and supplementing the explanatory memorandum so that the specific legal origin of each amendment is clearly identified.

The impact assessment of additional national restrictions is inadequate

The Chamber pointed out that, in the case of restrictions going beyond the minimum requirements of EU law, the impact assessment presented in the explanatory memorandum is inadequate or has not been carried out at all. The actual environmental benefits and proportionality of the measures have not been demonstrated, and the additional financial and administrative burden on entrepreneurs has not been assessed.

The draft Act provides for an obligation to use only reusable containers and cutlery for food and drink served for on-site consumption at points of sale and at public events. EU law, for example, clearly exempts companies that do not have access to drinking water from reuse requirements. The Estonian draft Act contains no such exemption, which would put small businesses, temporary seasonal points of sale, pop-up cafés, trade fairs and tastings where there are no facilities for washing the required items in a difficult position.

The impact assessment completely fails to assess infrastructure costs – including dishwashing equipment, water and sewerage infrastructure and additional space in small shops – as well as the ongoing costs associated with managing reusable tableware. The Chamber proposed carrying out a comprehensive additional impact assessment of all additional national requirements if they are not removed from the draft Act.

The ban on providing disposable takeaway packaging free of charge must be removed

The proposed ban on providing takeaway packaging free of charge and the obligation to display the price of packaging as a separate line item on the receipt are unjustified requirements. As the draft Act does not set a minimum price for packaging, the actual environmental impact of the provision is questionable. For example, charging one cent would legally satisfy the requirement but would neither change consumer behaviour nor reduce packaging waste.

At the same time, the requirement would create a significant administrative burden for retailers and result in IT and point-of-sale system reconfiguration costs amounting to thousands of euros. The situation would become particularly complicated and unreasonable in self-service areas and in the case of multi-part packaging. The Chamber proposed removing this provision from the draft Act.

Raising the audit threshold will reduce the administrative burden on small businesses

As a positive change, the Chamber fully supported the proposal contained in the draft Act to raise the threshold for the mandatory audit of packaging records to 100 tonnes per year and to apply it already to reporting for 2026. Raising this threshold is an important step towards reducing bureaucracy and costs for entrepreneurs, something the Chamber has also repeatedly proposed in the past.

At the same time, the Chamber asked for clarification in the explanatory memorandum as to whether and under what conditions an audit obligation arises for digital platforms or e-commerce intermediaries that handle packaging reporting on behalf of their clients and whose clients’ combined volume exceeds 100 tonnes per year, even though the volumes of individual clients remain below the specified threshold.

The model for covering the costs of cleaning public spaces creates competition risks

The draft Act plans to establish a central producer association – in other words, a monopoly organisation – through which producers will cover the costs incurred by local authorities in cleaning public spaces and collecting waste. In its opinion, the Chamber pointed out that this model requires a thorough analysis of alternatives and clear measures to mitigate competition risks. According to the Chamber, the explanatory memorandum does not make clear why preference is being given to a single mandatory association, as alternatives have not been analysed, such as municipalities recovering costs directly from recovery organisations (TVOs) or TVOs retaining a choice.

Since concentrating the obligations in a single association rules out parallel models, there are clear risks to fair competition. The Chamber therefore proposed supplementing the explanatory memorandum with a comparative impact assessment and establishing clear rules in the Act to mitigate these risks.