The business sector continues to face a lack of predictability concerning the legal and institutional framework on environmental issues despite continued efforts to engage with public officials on environmental legislation and institutional topics. This has been felt most strongly in the waste management sector, where the disproportionate regulation and enforcement of the waste management rules for private companies, as opposed to entities responsible for municipal waste collection, as well as the prolonged delay in adopting essential legal enactments, have led to significant instability and uncertainty in the market.
Despite calls by the business sector and other relevant actors to reform the entire legal framework, the authorities continue to take only limited and delayed actions to solve critical, systemic problems. In this context, problems arising from deficiencies in the legal framework continue to disproportionately affect the business sector, including how liability is allocated in the field and the costs incurred to meet legal obligations, including under extended producer responsibility.
FIC members are committed to continuing to build stakeholder trust and simultaneously improving their business performance in a sustainable way and call on public authorities to initiate the consultation process from the earliest stages of the decision-making procedure.
The FIC believes that the legal and institutional framework for environmental protection presents ongoing challenges for businesses. Key concerns include the lack of impact assessments for draft laws, which are crucial for effective legislation, and the delayed response of the authorities to regulatory needs. Due to discrepancies between permitting procedures and primary legislation, businesses face difficulties with the environmental permitting framework. For instance, although Law No. 278/2013 on industrial emissions was enacted, no integrated permitting procedure has been established.
The interpretation of legal requirements by various agencies, such as local environmental bodies and the National Environmental Guard, further complicates compliance. A recent development, Government Emergency Ordinance No. 103/2024, reorganizes environmental protection institutions by creating the National Agency for the Environment and Protected Areas. This agency will assume responsibilities from the National Agency for Protected Natural Areas and the National Agency for Environmental Protection, including permitting procedures, with the aim of improving consistency across institutions and territories.
Despite the FIC's involvement in public consultations and proposals for regulatory clarity, legislation remains unpredictable. The absence of long enough transitional periods for new requirements and delays in adopting secondary legislation, like the necessary update of the Environmental Fund contributions methodology, negatively affect businesses. The FIC emphasises the need for consistent interpretation of laws and early engagement with stakeholders to ensure regulatory stability, clarity, and sustainability.
Legislative predictability should be ensured, and a uniform and consistent legislative framework should be created based on EU principles.
Effective consultation should occur with industry representatives in sufficient time before the adoption of new environmental regulations or before the amendment of existing ones.
Impact assessment studies should be prepared before the finalisation of draft legislation, according to the rules of legislative technique, to ensure the correct and complete analysis of the available options and to allow the choice of the most suitable and fair means to achieve the desired results for all actors involved.
New environmental permitting procedures should be adopted after thorough and timely consultations with all stakeholders. These procedures should not involve an additional financial burden for commercial operators and should ensure correlation with existing legislation in order to avoid future difficulties in interpretation.
Uniform and consistent environmental practices at the level of all relevant authorities should be developed to avoid different approaches to the same issue, including the issuance of written guidelines by central authorities.
Cooperation should increase between the relevant environmental protection and water management authorities to avoid bottlenecks or contradictions in the regulation of various projects and ensure smooth implementation of projects with a double dimension (e.g., soil and groundwater remediation on contaminated sites).
Reasonable time should be given to businesses for compliance with new legislation, especially when these legal requirements will impose additional organisational/ planning efforts and costs (bearing in mind that companies usually work with budgets approved in advance and, in certain cases, are required to follow public procurement procedures when acquiring work projects and services).
The institutional capacity of the Ministry of the Environment, Water and Forests should be enhanced so that it is better placed to prevent issues such as poor, inconsistent, unclear, and delayed regulation.
The European Union has taken significant steps to address climate change through the Green Deal, which focuses on resource efficiency, a clean circular economy, biodiversity restoration, and pollution reduction. This initiative is supported by the Climate Law, which legally binds the EU to achieve climate neutrality by 2050, with a target of reducing net greenhouse gas emissions by 55% by 2030 compared to 1990 levels. Recent developments include the adoption of the “Fit for 55” directives and regulations, notably the revision of the EU-ETS Directive, the Energy Efficiency Directive, the Renewable Energy Directive, as well as the introduction of the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism and the Net Zero Industrial Act. Efforts are underway to set intermediate 2040 targets and finalise secondary legislation to ensure harmonised implementation across the EU while maintaining economic competitiveness.
Romania has aligned with these EU goals by developing its Long-Term Decarbonisation Strategy 2050, updating the National Energy and Climate Plan (NECP) 2030, and working on national legislation to transpose EU directives and regulations. FIC acknowledges the Ministry of the Environment’s efforts in implementing the revised EU-ETS legislation and the “Fit for 55” package, especially in relation to the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) and EU-ETS revisions. Special attention is needed in 2025-2026 to meet biomass sustainability and greenhouse gas savings requirements. FIC calls for continued collaboration between authorities and businesses for successful implementation adapted to national conditions.
The Romanian authorities should actively engage in European-level discussions, ensuring that the business sector’s input is properly considered in decisions related to the EU Green Deal. This includes participating in technical groups and public consultations with impacted stakeholders on key topics such as the EU-ETS, the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism, the Zero-Emission Industry Act (NZIA), state aid, and financing. It is essential to foster a fair international playing field while embracing digitalisation to reduce paper-based reporting.
In 2025, Romania should create a system for recognising biomass neutrality, focusing on sustainability and greenhouse gas savings criteria to be met. This system should be aligned with European guidelines while considering local conditions. Establishing a working group involving the Ministry of the Environment, the National Agency for the Environment and Protected Areas, the Ministry of Energy, and other stakeholders is crucial to ensure smooth implementation of the European requirements by 2026.
Additionally, the Interministerial Committee for Climate Change, formed by representatives from various ministries, should continue its work. The involvement of business representatives and affected sectors is necessary to enhance the revised National Energy and Climate Plan (NECP) 2030 implementation. For the 2025-2026 period, the emphasis should be on aligning national and European legislative frameworks and ensuring the inclusion of diverse decarbonisation technologies like biomass; carbon capture, commercial-scale transport, utilization and storage; hydrogen; etc.
The authorities must support the economy's decarbonisation through national co-financing and European funding, as well as offering tax incentives based on companies' tax structures. Transparent and effective planning is needed to meet EU objectives, prepare for emerging technologies, and promote innovation. This approach should ensure the development of cost-effective solutions across all sectors and encourage the adoption of new technologies, such as carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS); hydrogen; and other advanced alternative technologies.
Improving waste management remains a key priority. FIC initiated consultations with key stakeholders in the waste management sector, which resulted in the document “Difficulties in applying waste legislation and proposed solutions.” It outlines recommendations to improve the regulatory framework's clarity, coherence, and fairness. FIC then engaged with authorities, such as the Ministry of the Environment, to address critical issues and advocate for solutions. Despite these efforts, the volume of separately collected recyclable waste remains low due to the poor implementation of economic tools like the circular economy contribution and the “pay as you throw” system. These tools face challenges, including a lack of clear timelines and difficulties in door-to-door collection.
Other barriers include delays in adopting secondary legislation for GEO no. 133/2022 and technical rules for composting and anaerobic digestion under Law no. 181/2020. These delays create uncertainty for the private sector and hinder waste reduction goals intended to be achieved by 2030, such as food waste prevention. Moreover, while GEO no. 92/2021 mandates separate textile waste collection by 1 January 2025, rules on extended producer responsibility (EPR) and authorised collectors have still not been introduced, complicating municipal-level implementation.
Additionally, issues related to the disposal of portable batteries and waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE), along with the lack of sufficient collection points and classification problems, hinder progress. Lastly, changes introduced by GEO no. 125/2022 are seen as unpredictable and disproportionate, risking market instability and complicating efforts to achieve sustainable waste management solutions.
We must note that the implementation of the Deposit-Return System is a big success in the field of waste management. While 2024 was a transitional year, marked by the system setup and adjusting the plan to the realities of the Romanian market, significant achievements were reached. We can highlight the system's 98% consumer awareness, with a return frequency of once every 2-3 weeks. This resulted in over 3.36 billion packages being returned by consumers and an average collection rate of 70% in the second half of 2024, with a peak of over 80% collection for three consecutive months. Over 231k tons of packaging were entrusted by Returo to recyclers. Today, the system has seven counting & sorting centers fully operational, with the capacity to process over 7 billion packages, with two more centers to be opened in 2025.
All the stakeholders involved in Returo must continue working until the system achieves full maturity and an over 90% return rate. The next step should be to establish an access to feedstock mechanism, based on the share of packaging placed on the market by producers to close the recycling loop with respect to the “bottle to bottle” principle.
The number of waste collection containers and collection points should be supplemented, and people who do not enter into contracts with waste management operators should be charged.
There should be stricter control of the implementation of obligations to include performance indicators for waste management services in the mandate contracts concluded by municipalities.
A coordination mechanism (clearing house) should be introduced at national level, after effective consultation and in a reasonable time frame with all stakeholders involved (ministries, EPR implementing organisations, producers), for the system for the collective fulfillment of extended producer responsibility obligations by producers of packaged goods.
Voluntary collection centres should also accept WEEE.
The technical rules on composting and anaerobic digestion activity set out in Law No. 181/2020 should be adopted rapidly.
There should be statutory regulation of implementation deadlines and implementation tracking of the "pay-as-you-throw" tool.
The implementation mechanisms should be ensured by including in the tender specifications and the waste management mandate contracts substantiated distinct tariffs for the activities that involve the management of separately collected waste or other interdependent tools, such as eco-modulation.
The collection of textile waste, for example, within the sales points of companies that trade textiles, and by waste management companies that are not also salubrity operators, should be regulated, as well as the related obligations of the producers and holders of such waste which are required to collect it separately.
Investments should be made in the recycling/recovery of textile waste.
Distributors and traders of portable batteries and accumulators should be required to collect waste portable batteries and accumulators, for example, by following and adapting the existing legal framework concerning waste electrical and electronic equipment in this context.
Appropriate training of the environmental authorities' staff should take place on the issues specific to portable batteries and accumulator waste.
The legislation on WEEE should be amended so that a 4 lei/kg penalty is applied for failing to reach a collection target of 50%, not 65%, of the average quantities introduced on to the market in the last 3 years.
Registration, reporting, and compliance management obligations should be introduced for all actors collecting WEEE.
The relevant authorities should adopt and implement methodologies for applying existing legislation, simultaneously establishing a coordination mechanism (clearing house) at national level to ensure the coordination and control of WEEE management.
The individual responsibility of each private and public actor should be maintained during the entire life cycle of a product, and there should be a return to the regulation existing prior to the adoption of GEO no. 125/2022, under which companies carrying out waste collection/ recovery activities also paid contributions to the Environmental Fund.
The responsibility and role of each actor in the flow should be clearly defined, complementing the legal framework where appropriate.
All actors in the Deposit-Return System should work together to fully optimize the system to reach full maturity and an over 90% return rate. A mechanism for producers to access feedstock should be implemented.
Appropriate transparency measures should be established for waste management activities to ensure accurate information is accessible in relation to waste management operators, traceability is enhanced, and proper waste management is achieved. This involves publishing updated lists of waste management operators, their (integrated) environmental authorisations, and the decisions on annual endorsements for these authorisations on the websites of the relevant regulatory authorities.
Retail companies collecting non-hazardous waste from consumers and transporting it to authorised waste management operators should not require environmental authorisation. However, without explicit legal provisions confirming this exemption, interpretations may vary. Similarly, legislation on sanitation lacks clarity on whether retail companies can collect non-hazardous waste from consumers and deliver it to authorised waste management operators which are not sanitation service providers.
Due to the absence of official guidelines, companies inconsistently interpret the legislation aimed at reducing the environmental impact of certain plastic products. For instance, some retail companies do not apply a sales price when required for single-use plastic products. Moreover, for certain products containing plastic, full compliance with extended producer responsibility (EPR) cannot be achieved without amendments to secondary legislation.
Additionally, there is no regulated method for calculating the 2% contribution from revenues generated through waste sales, leading to challenges in waste sales flows among companies. Furthermore, the procedure for revising the form used for approving hazardous waste transport remains unregulated, creating procedural uncertainty.
The authority issuing environmental regulatory documents should adopt and publish updated lists of waste management operators on its website, their (integrated) environmental authorisations, and the decisions on applying the annual endorsement for their (integrated) environmental authorisations. If this is not technically possible, e.g., due to technical problems affecting the authority’s website, the Ministry of the Environment, Water and Forestry should publish the consolidated list on its website.
Waste management operators should be legally required to publish information on their own website on the waste management activities for which they hold an (integrated) environmental authorisation, the number and date of the authorisation held, and information concerning the decisions on the annual endorsement obtained.
The legislation should be amended to include an express legal provision that an environmental authorisation is not required for collection and transport of non-hazardous waste by retail companies from final users/ consumers. It should also be clarified that retail companies can collect non-hazardous waste from final users/ consumers and, subsequently, hand over the waste thus collected to companies authorised from an environmental standpoint for waste management but which are not also salubrity operators.
Methodological rules and official guidelines should be adopted for the application of legislation concerning the reduction of the impact of certain plastic products on the environment and/or the amendment of secondary legislation in the field so that extended producer responsibility can be implemented according to the legal deadline.
In the short term, the Methodology for the calculation of contributions and fees due to the Environment Fund should be amended to regulate the calculation method for the 2% contribution from the revenues obtained from the sale of waste.
In the long term, the need to impose the 2% contribution from the revenues obtained from the sale of waste should be re-analysed in the context of the implementation and operation of the Waste Traceability Information System ("SIATD"), which will make it possible to track which operators are involved in the waste management chain.
GD no. 1061/2008 should be amended to regulate the possibility of revising the form to approve the transport of hazardous waste and the procedure to be followed for its revision.
For all categories of waste, a mechanism should be introduced to ensure traceability, from the waste generator to collector and transporter, to operators that provide temporary storage or pre-treatment, and to operators recovering or disposing of the waste.
Co-processing energy-containing waste in cement plants is categorised as an energy recovery operation (R1). In reality, it includes two simultaneous recovery operations: (i) recycling – recovery of the mineral content (recycling – R4 or R5, as appropriate) and (ii) energy recovery – energy content recovery (R1). The recognition of these two distinct operations would lead to an increase in the amounts of waste reported as being recycled at national level by including the amounts of the mineral content recycled as part of co-processing in cement plants. A recycling index should be established in the co-processing process, according to ISO 4349:2024 - Solid recovered fuels — Determination of the recycling index for co-processing.
Except for the general provisions of GEO no. 92/2021 on the end-of-waste status, no other national provisions regulate the conditions and criteria that must be met for the acceptance of particular waste for recycling and for end-of-waste status.
Currently, the possibility and the corresponding procedure for taking over for recovery of waste already subject to elimination (e.g., landfilled ashes and slags), by extracting it from landfills for which the closure procedure has been followed, is not regulated. However, such a possibility would align with the circular economy and avoid use of other resources.
ISO 4349:2024 - Solid recovered fuels — Determination of the recycling index for co-processing.
SIM/SIATD should be modified to allow recognition of the two waste treatment operations carried out simultaneously within the same technological process.
A national guide should be developed on recognising the dual recovery character of the co-processing process and its documentation in the (integrated) environmental authorisations for cement plants.
The conditions under which waste status ceases should be clarified, and mandatory national criteria should be adopted on end of waste status.
Legislation on the management of construction and demolition waste (currently, a legislative proposal is registered under no. L528/2024) should provide for a deadline, calculated from the entry into force of the legislation, within which the appropriate authority for the environment should establish criteria for end of waste status, at least for the categories of components for which the legislative proposal establishes the need for sorting. Methodological guidelines or guidance should be issued specifying under which conditions (including geotechnical or quality assurance conditions) authorities consider that certain products/materials resulting from construction/demolition works have not become waste but materials/raw materials/aggregates.
Precise standards should be established for the technologies used for recycling and the express criteria that must be met for the waste to be accepted for recycling and the recycling to be considered appropriate. These criteria must be taken into account both in the procedure for issuing an environmental permit and for the annual verification of environmental permits, as well as in the control activity carried out by the appropriate authorities.
The legislation on landfills should be updated to regulate the possibility and the corresponding procedure for taking over and recovering waste already subject to elimination (e.g., landfilled ashes and slags) by extracting it from landfills for which the closure procedure has been followed.
There are currently no treatment facilities for used batteries other than alkaline and carbon zinc, which causes possible risks in terms of the external transport of used batteries and prevents the extraction of valuable material in Romania (e.g., lithium).
Measures are needed to stimulate the development of the infrastructure for the processing/production of recycled aggregates to ensure better management of waste from construction and demolition activities.
Difficulties have been identified resulting from the existence of several IT systems for reporting relevant information in the field of waste management.
Used battery treatment units should be created and financed.
A legal obligation should be introduced to use a significant percentage (e.g., 3%-5%, depending on the type of construction) of waste from construction and demolition activities in public works as part of the public procurement procedures for design and construction works.
Financial incentives should be granted to companies that process waste from construction and demolition activities so that the costs of recycled aggregates are below the cost of natural aggregates.
The issuance of a construction/demolition permit should be made conditional on submitting a construction and demolition waste management plan.
The IT reporting systems of the relevant authorities for waste management (ANPM – and subsequently the National Agency for the Environment and Protected Areas, AFM, GNM, MMAP) should be unified.
The Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) 2021-2027 and the NextGenerationEU (NGEU) economic recovery package provide EUR 1.8 trillion to support recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic and promote the EU’s long-term priorities. The Recovery and Resilience Facility, a key component of NextGenerationEU, became effective on 19 February 2021 and was designed to mitigate the economic and social impacts of the pandemic while facilitating green and digital transitions. At least 30% of the EU budget and NGEU expenditures are allocated to climate objectives in alignment with the Paris Agreement and the European Green Deal’s “no harm” principle.
The European Green Deal, introduced on 11 December 2019, outlines policies to achieve climate neutrality, fostering economic growth, job creation, and innovation. Member States have submitted national recovery plans detailing reforms and investments to be completed by 2026. Romania’s National Recovery and Resilience Plan (PNRR), adopted on 29 October 2021, secures EUR 29.2 billion, comprising EUR 14.24 billion in grants and EUR 14.94 billion in loans. The PNRR covers six pillars and 15 components, including environmental investments in water management, forest protection, and waste management.
Key environmental projects in Romania’s PNRR include:
Water management: EUR 221 million for wastewater collection in small population centres.
Forest investments: EUR 500 million for new forested areas.
Waste management: EUR 956.8 million for integrated municipal systems, eco-islands, and collection centres.
Additional EU environmental funds include:
The LIFE Program, which has a budget of EUR 5.43 billion for environmental and climate action.
The Just Transition Fund, which provides EUR 19.7 billion to support socio-economic adaptation in affected regions.
The Innovation Fund, which aims to deploy net-zero technologies with projected revenues of EUR 40 billion by 2030.
The Modernisation Fund, which focuses on improving energy systems in lower-income Member States.
The Danube Region Program 2021-2027, which has a total budget of EUR 2.06 million.
Allocation of the funds should be prioritised based on a risk evaluation, considering the EU targets that Romania must reach.
The business environment should be consulted on the financing frameworks for EU funding and included in the list of beneficiaries for dedicated projects.
The Romanian state’s ETS revenues should be redirected back to the industries that are under EU-ETS and used for co-financing their decarbonisation.
Romania should allocate approximately 30% of the total amount of EU funds towards the objective of a greener Europe.