REPUBLISHED

The waste bill: limited transparency and the risk of serving private interests

Erblin Vukaj · Originally published: 5 November 2025

The bill on “Extended Producer Responsibility” aims to bring Albania into line with European waste-management standards, but an analysis by civil society organisations has raised doubts about its transparency and content.

The law, which is expected to determine how much businesses will pay for the pollution they cause and how they will pay it, is said to contain legal gaps and contradictions that could favour private interests.

Experts are calling on Parliament to comprehensively review the draft to avoid corruption risks and economic consequences for citizens.

A necessary but unclear law

The bill on “Extended Responsibility of Entities Producing Products that Generate Waste” was presented at the beginning of this year as a step towards a circular economy and alignment with European directives.

But an analysis prepared by the Albanian Center for Economic Research (ACER) and the Albanian Institute of Science (AIS) has exposed significant gaps in transparency, unclear wording and shortcomings in financial calculations that could directly affect citizens.

The analysis, prepared with support from the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, warns that the bill in its current form could legitimise private structures without providing public guarantees over costs and the oversight of funds.

The bill is based on the EU Waste Framework Directive (2008/98/EC), aiming to make producers responsible for the waste generated by their products after use. It provides for the establishment of Extended Producer Responsibility Companies (SHPZPs), entities that will manage funding and organise waste collection, recycling and treatment.

But while in EU states these structures are regulated as non-profit entities, the Albanian draft treats them as commercial companies, opening the way for economic gains from a mechanism that was supposed to operate according to the “polluter pays” principle.

During the presentation of the alternative opinion, held in Tirana on 29 October with MPs from the parliamentary committees on the environment and the economy present, legal expert Viktor Gumi identified several critical points.

According to the analysis carried out by ACER, AIS and groups of other organisations convened by them, there was limited transparency in the bill’s drafting and consultation process.

It was published for consultation for only 40 days and received just four comments, although it directly affects businesses, consumers and municipalities. The latter appear not to have been consulted, thus violating the law on local self-government.

The preliminary draft contains unclear terminology and legal references. The text is found to refer to laws that have already been repealed and uses undefined terms such as “treatment”, “processing” or “waste streams”, increasing the risk of broad administrative interpretation.

The group of experts from the non-governmental organisations involved in the ACER and AIS analysis identified a contradiction between public and private interests.

Specifically, the problem is seen in the SHPZPs, which are envisaged as for-profit companies, although the accompanying Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) defines them as organisations that should not generate profits.

This discrepancy creates a risk of potential misuse of funds that will be collected in the name of environmental protection.

Beyond these problems, the bill appears to leave room for risks in inspection procedures. Article 23 provides for enforcement of the law to be monitored by several different inspection bodies, thus increasing the possibility of corruption.

The recycling bill falls on the consumer

The law provides for producers to pay financial contributions to SHPZPs for waste collection, costs expected to be reflected in higher prices for consumers.

Meanwhile, businesses that already pay taxes on plastic and glass packaging will be exempt from the new contribution, without any compensation mechanism or transparency over the existing sums paid into the budget.

In the RIA, the government itself acknowledges that consumers “may face higher prices for products”, while low-income households may struggle to meet the new costs of waste management.

The bill nevertheless contains no calculation of its financial impact, a gap that experts in the ACER and AIS group consider a violation of the principle of legal certainty.

At the roundtable discussion, MPs present, including Zamira Sinaj, Klodiana Çapja, Gjin Gjoni and Redi Muçi, acknowledged that the bill had moved forward without broad consultation and invited experts and non-governmental organisations to present their findings to Parliament as well.

Meanwhile, Gjergj Buxhuku of Konfindustria expressed reservations about the work to date, criticising the tendency to draft laws without the secondary legislation.

The draft requires the government to “issue the secondary legislation within 2 years”, while its closing provisions state that it “enters into force 15 days after publication in the Official Gazette” and “takes effect after 1 June”.

Buxhuku said this produces unenforceable laws and therefore asked MPs to put citizens first in their approach to this law, setting aside lobbying and political divisions.

The assessment opinion prepared by ACER and AIS proposes hearings with municipalities and affected businesses, improvements to the draft’s legal language, and clear calculations of the financial effects on consumers and the state budget.

The law on extended producer responsibility is seen as a necessary step towards implementing EU environmental standards, but according to ACER and AIS, in its current form it carries serious risks of abuse.