The Ministry is generously handing out discounts and rebates on waste. But this will hurt local governments greatly.

• A draft amendment to the Act on Cleanliness and Order in Municipalities has been drafted. However, local governments have not enthusiastically welcomed it.
• Leszek Świętalski from the Association of Rural Municipalities emphasizes the lack of tightness of the entire system.
• In turn, Piotr Szewczyk, chairman of the Municipal Waste Processing Installations Council, questions the discretionary granting of reliefs to various groups of residents.

The long-awaited draft amendment to the Municipal Cleanliness and Order Act (UCPG) has been met with lukewarm reception by local government officials. Almost all local government officials commenting on the bill on various forums and social media platforms point to the expanded scope for granting various types of relief and discounts on waste collection fees. They also agree that some of the ideas are good, but... municipalities will have to foot the bill.

Leszek Świętalski, expert of the Association of Rural Communes, says:

- We said that constant, minor changes to the laws do not bring anything, that we should only focus on elements such as sealing the system, which was a priority for us, and address waste that is not municipal waste, which we could potentially collect through the system, provided that it is included in the recycling levels.

And, as he emphasizes, we have many changes, but they're not necessarily the ones local governments were waiting for. " And that doesn't change the fact that the UCPG will remain a strange creation, very difficult to read, and only understandable to those who are more deeply involved in the issue, because the average commune head or mayor will have trouble understanding these provisions," adds the ZGW expert.

As Leszek Świętalski says, the disappointment is a small change regarding an important problem for local government units, i.e. tightening the system.

Only "water" (the ability to verify the number of people based on water supply data - ed.) was included, which is a bit insufficient. Especially since our proposal, included in the 2019 draft amendment to the act, later unilaterally deleted during parliamentary proceedings, called for the use of other registers held by the municipality to properly determine the number of people living in a given property.

Piotr Szewczyk, deputy director of the "Orli Staw" facility and chairman of the Municipal Waste Processing Plant Council, also welcomes the inclusion of the water utility's data, but points out that we also have other databases. "Why only water utilities? We have a registry office database, which also applies to the mayor, and he can't use it. There's a social welfare database, for example, for the 800+ program. If someone is receiving money for four children, it would be possible to verify how much they're paying for waste," he argues.

According to Leszek Świętalski, it's unfortunate that the opportunity for further tax relief and discounts has been opened up, which will fall on local governments. " And that's a step backwards. It's good that all this is included in the curriculum ," he adds, and asks:

- What does it mean to help people "in a difficult life situation"? If a millionaire loses half his fortune after the stock market crash, he is in a hellishly difficult life situation - laughs Świętalski.

As he adds, we also have reliefs for sole proprietors, and in the case of entities conducting business activity - in the opinion of the local government official - the regulations should be the provisions of the tax ordinance, not waste matters.

As our interlocutor adds: - There are no "free lunches" - if someone is fired, someone has to pay for it, and why should people who are not elderly or in difficult life situations pay higher fees?

Moreover, he notes that with unclear definitions, and in his opinion there are many of them in the project, the decision of the mayor is absolutely discretionary and raises certain doubts.

Piotr Szewczyk also assesses it similarly.

Regarding the aforementioned tax breaks, the ministry is generously handing them out, yet there's no provision anywhere that the municipal system should balance out over a period of, say, 3-5 years. It's easy to say, "Give me tax breaks," but we must consider the various political systems within municipalities, which sometimes have a majority against the mayor, the mayor, or the president, and can pass these tax breaks without any basis.

We also have reliefs for people with a disability group, but - Piotr Szewczyk points out - is every person, even those with the highest group, poor?

"It has nothing to do with financial status or the amount of waste generated. As the mayor of Kleczew recently said during a panel discussion, you can't mix the two systems. There's a budget for social assistance, and we help the poor and unfortunate, but let's not create a situation where we help them through waste fee reductions, because then we have to add to the waste fee or raise the rate for others," he argues.

Leszek Świętalski notes that history has come full circle with PSZOKs.

"Because at the very beginning of the waste revolution, we introduced so-called nest systems, and we also introduced the concept of the so-called mobile PSZOK. Then it was banned, and now we're back. But speaking of PSZOKs, it's again a matter of coercion, or showing that local governments, through PSZOKs, could help those who pollute the environment by accepting fractions of certain waste that are not municipal, this time for a fee. We've been saying for a long time, and there are even demands on this matter within the ministry, that we can accept certain fractions not previously considered municipal, but only if they are included in the recycling levels," he explains, citing passenger car tires as an example.

Our interlocutor emphasizes that the Ministry of Culture and Environmental Protection has once again avoided the issue of defining standards for selective collection, leaving the task to local governments. "Which is strange, because you can handle your waste according to local regulations, but you go somewhere else and may be subject to penalties for violating local law," he adds.

The possibility of refraining from initiating proceedings in the event of failure to selectively collect a given fraction is, according to Leszek Świętalski, good, but in the absence of clear rules it may cause problems: - I will initiate proceedings against you because I can initiate them, and I don't like you, but not against my neighbor because he's my cousin - the mayor can say - Świętalski comments.

Piotr Szewczyk also points out that the first question that arises is who was consulted on the project's provisions, who was the author of these proposals?

Honestly, I don't know such people, but maybe they exist. There's a reference to the local government, but it's unclear who they're referring to. And when I look at some of the proposals—for example, the fee reductions—it's something that would really hurt the local government.

- says Piotr Szewczyk.

In his opinion, the project would transfer a large part of the issues to local governments, and here he refers to the criteria for selective collection, which, he says, should be established centrally and not – as assumed in the project – by municipalities.

"The Ministry, you could say, 'mixed' this up and passed it on to local governments, meaning we'll have 2,474 separate collection criteria, because that's how many municipalities we have. I can't imagine a small municipality being able to create something like this, where one woman or man handles waste and a few other things."

In our interlocutor's opinion, the possibility of setting fees based on waste volume is a bad solution. "That's also interesting. Yes, it could be implemented, but we'd go back to dumping waste in forests or ditches – after all, we were already dealing with that back in 2013."

Regarding bio-waste collected in multi-unit properties, it's a good idea, but who will take care of the compost bin? We know that when it comes to a common good, it's difficult to maintain selective waste collection at any civilized level in multi-unit properties. If we have a shared compost bin, everyone can bring and throw away whatever they want. However, this is a small-scale idea, because how many apartment buildings—where can we set up a compost bin—do we have? Probably not many.

- says.

In his opinion, it is a pity that bad solutions are not being eliminated, such as limits on uninhabited properties when they are covered by the municipal system.

- This stupidity of introducing a limit in the household water method is not being eliminated either - says Szewczyk, who argues that the project also ignores other important issues:

"There's nothing about changing recycling levels, which the minister officially announced were 50, not 55. There's nothing about changing landfill levels. There's a provision, which could be stated in its own sentence, perhaps in Article 3, that logically incoherently states that for the purposes of calculating landfill levels, recovery is included in landfill. Recovery and landfilling are completely different; they're two different processes. Landfilling is a disposal process, and recovery is a recovery process. This essentially adds additional obligations, additional costs, and additional problems to municipalities ," Szewczyk explains.

Marzena Berezowska, an expert in environmental protection and waste management and former director of the Waste Department at the Ministry of Culture and Environment, admits that she has not yet analyzed all the elements of the project, but she says she likes the possibility of individual settlement in multi-unit buildings.

Yes, I see that the opinions of local government officials are quite critical. I took a more lenient view of this because, while working at the Wrocław City Hall, I was responsible for collecting waste management fees from both residential and uninhabited properties, and I often had a difficult time proving, even before the Local Government Appeal Board, that waste was being improperly sorted in multi-unit housing estates or apartment blocks.

- says Marzena Berezowska.

- And now, observing the technological solutions that are already in place in some municipalities, and how these solutions have affected the level of segregation, I see that this proposed system or this proposed solution is certainly affecting the awareness of residents - he adds.

As she notes, PSZOKs also raise doubts, but in her opinion, changes are needed here.

"We work with companies that run PSZOKs on behalf of the municipality, and we know what problems they face—opening hours, queues, when things are busier or quieter, and discrepancies, for example, in the collection of waste classified as hazardous waste and which should be transferred to PSZOKs. So there are many nuances that need to be resolved," he argues.

So what's next for the changes to the bill? The bill assumes that if passed, it will come into effect at the beginning of 2027, with consultations expected first. Leszek Świętalski has announced in advance that the local government will want to introduce a number of changes to the bill.

"Because aside from a few recurring elements, this isn't anything new. We should rather rein in our legislative antics, focus on implementing the ROP (Regulation on Packaging and Packaging Waste), and mitigate the problems of the deposit-refund system, which will become increasingly burdensome. And only then, taking into account the PPWR (European Union Regulation on Packaging and Packaging Waste - ed.), should we rewrite the ucpg completely to clearly and distinctly define what constitutes the implementation of the general principles set out in the act, what we cede to local governments, and how local governments should organize this and be responsible for it. Therefore, we will strive for numerous changes to the project during consultations."