Waste Management Concession Review in Hungary: What’s at Stake and What Industry Is Asking For

The waste management concession review has become one of the most important environmental and economic issues in Hungary in recent months. On 8 October, twenty-one industry associations – representing food, beverage, packaging, furniture, cosmetics, electronics and retail companies – issued a joint statement urging the government to examine not just MOHU’s performance but the entire Hungarian waste management system. On the same day, László Gajdos, Minister for the Living Environment, also declared that Hungarian waste management, together with the concession system, needs a complete review. This article explains in plain language what happened, what the debate is about, and what it could mean for households and businesses.

In short: The waste management concession review concerns a 35-year system with an estimated total cost of around HUF 15,000 billion. Producer and retail associations are calling for transparent costs, EPR fees tied to real costs and a system that genuinely rewards recycling, while the government has signalled an overhaul of the whole system.

What happened on 8 October?

The statement, published in the Hungarian news agency MTI’s National Press Release Repository, was issued by the Hungarian Furniture and Wood Industry Association. Its signatories include, among others, the National Association of Packaging and Materials Handling, the Hungarian Brands Association, the National Federation of Traders, the Hungarian National Trade Association, APPLiA Hungary, the Association of Hungarian Brewers, the Hungarian Tyre Association and the Hungarian Chamber of Agriculture. In other words, the companies that actually pay the extended producer responsibility (EPR) fee have spoken up.

The associations welcome the comprehensive review launched by the government and say they have already submitted detailed proposals to decision-makers and are taking part in consultations. The tone is cooperative rather than confrontational – but it is very clear about where they see problems.

The minister: it’s not just one contract that needs fixing

Also on 8 October, László Gajdos told the conference “Landfilling – the final solution?”, organised by the Association of Environmental Service Providers and Manufacturers at Hungexpo in Budapest, that Hungary’s waste management, together with the concession system, needs a complete review. In his view, the problem is not just one contract or institution but everything that does not work well enough – and the country’s environmental debt from the past must also be dealt with.

The minister set out the following directions:

• more waste yards, more efficient waste treatment and more modern technologies;
• products made from materials that can be recovered after use;
• simpler separate collection for households;
• effective solutions for paper, textile, plastic and above all biowaste – while citing the bottle deposit return scheme as a good example.

The numbers speak for themselves. According to the minister, in 2024 only about a third of municipal waste was recovered, while 53 percent went to landfill. The EU target for 2035 is a 65 percent preparation-for-reuse and recycling rate, with at most 10 percent of waste landfilled – which cannot be achieved under the current system. Nearly 900 landfills have been closed in Hungary, but several hundred still await remediation, and many of them lack engineered protection, posing a risk to soil and groundwater.

Gajdos stressed that the state alone is not enough: developers and businesses must play a role, because many environmental problems are engineering tasks that can be solved with knowledge and innovation. He said that Hungary’s catch-up should rely as much as possible on Hungarian-developed technologies that can also be used internationally. The conference took place as part of Environtech 2026, an environmental industry trade fair where 80 exhibitors from 12 countries presented water management, environmental protection and recycling solutions.

What is a concession, and how does the system work today?

A concession means the state hands over the right to perform a public task to a company for a fixed period. In Hungarian waste management, the tender was won by MOL in 2022 (in Hungarian), Parliament adopted the necessary legal amendments (in Hungarian) that same year, and from 1 July 2023 the new system was launched nationwide (in Hungarian) under MOHU MOL Waste Management Plc., for a term of 35 years. After the launch, MOHU stated that the system was running smoothly (in Hungarian) – but many questions have arisen since.

It is worth knowing that MOHU does not empty the bins itself: collection is largely carried out by subcontractors, typically the former public service companies. MOHU organises and finances the system, hands waste over for treatment and delivers investments such as the expansion of the waste yard network (in Hungarian). Budapest has a separate arrangement through MOHU Budapest, a company jointly owned with the capital, whose practical issues – such as cleaning up after bulky waste collection (in Hungarian) – we have covered several times.

The financial engine of the system is the EPR fee. It is paid by producers and importers that first place products on the Hungarian market – packaging, electronics, tyres, furniture, textiles and more – and in return the concession company takes care of the resulting waste. Municipal waste collection and the mandatory deposit return scheme (DRS) for beverage containers are also part of the concession.

How did we get to the waste management concession review?

The concession has been criticised from the start. The European Commission launched infringement proceedings, arguing that the tender’s eligibility criteria were discriminatory and that the 35-year term closes off the market for a long time. After the 2026 change of government, the issue quickly moved up the agenda:

• June: the government requested a detailed report on the concession’s operation, use of public funds, investments and fulfilment of commitments, with a 1 September deadline. We covered this in detail (in Hungarian).
• 23 August: László Gajdos, Minister for the Living Environment, announced that serious negotiations with MOHU would soon begin and that the government would firmly represent the public interest.
• 3 September: Prime Minister Péter Magyar said the first review found that MOHU was not, or not adequately, meeting its contractual obligations and targets. According to the government, missed EU targets cost the country around HUF 90 billion a year, so it decided on a more detailed review of the entire waste management system. MOHU said the same day that it, too, considered a rethink of the concession necessary.
• 8 October: the industry associations published their joint statement, and László Gajdos called for a complete review of waste management in his speech at Hungexpo.

HUF 15,000 billion: where does the figure come from?

According to the statement, the total cost of the system over the 35-year concession could be around HUF 15,000 billion, of which EPR fees could account for roughly HUF 8,000 billion at current rates. Simple division gives an average of about HUF 430 billion in total costs and around HUF 230 billion in EPR fees per year.

MOHU’s latest results show that this is a realistic order of magnitude: in 2025 the company’s business lines generated combined net revenue of HUF 431.7 billion, while it closed the year with an after-tax loss of HUF 47.8 billion. Municipal waste services alone lost HUF 69.5 billion.

Why does this matter? Because in a system this large, even small differences add up to huge sums. A 1 percent gain or loss in efficiency equals around HUF 150 billion over 35 years. That is why the associations stress that a deviation of just a few percent in cost efficiency could have an impact of hundreds or even a thousand billion forints.

And who pays? EPR fees are paid directly by producers and importers, but they are built into product prices. Ultimately every shopper – every household – helps finance the system, whether through the price of a yoghurt, a fridge or a sofa.

There is also a paradox: fees are high, yet MOHU is loss-making. One reason is the legacy of the pre-concession era: around 3,000–3,200 different municipal waste tariffs exist across the country, and household fees have been frozen at 2012 levels for years. This is exactly why the associations want to see clearly where each forint goes.

The four key demands in plain language

1. Transparency: show what costs what

The associations want costs and revenues to be transparent, with the costs of each material stream – paper, plastic, glass or e-waste, for instance – clearly separated. The key phrase is avoiding cross-subsidisation: fees paid for packaging, for example, should not be used to finance an entirely different, loss-making activity. EPR fees should be linked to real, professionally justified costs.

2. Household waste is not the same as industrial waste

Emptying the bin of a family home costs something very different from collecting large volumes of mostly uniform waste generated at a single factory or warehouse. The associations argue the system must reflect these differences. Because of their concentrated nature, some industrial waste streams could be collected and treated more efficiently on a commercial basis; they have submitted a separate proposal on this. In practice, this could mean partially reopening the market.

3. Make the waste hierarchy measurable

The waste hierarchy is a cornerstone of EU waste policy: the best waste is waste that is never created, followed by reuse, recycling, energy recovery and, only as a last resort, landfill. The associations want the system to primarily encourage prevention, reuse and recycling, with results measurable per material stream. This matters because EU targets – such as recycling 65 percent of municipal waste and cutting landfill below 10 percent by 2035 – can only be met this way.

4. Professional partnership

Finally, the associations ask that producer and industry organisations be meaningfully involved in preparing decisions, and that environmental and economic considerations be weighed together. The reason is simple: they pay most of the EPR fees and know best how their products and packaging become waste.

What MOHU says and what the numbers show

MOHU is not opposing the review: in September it said that the concession system needs rethinking so that the agreed targets can be met. The company had earlier prepared its own package of proposals, including simplifying its subcontractor network and introducing nationally uniform waste collection fees – the latter, being an official price, can only be introduced jointly with the state.

The results are mixed. The mandatory deposit return scheme has been a striking success: in 2025 around 3.4 billion PET bottles were placed on the market, of which 3.0 billion came back into the system. Yet the DRS is also loss-making, and – as the minister’s figures show – more than half of municipal waste still ends up in landfill. The full picture is hard to assess because official national data are currently available only up to 2024, as previous rules allowed an unusually long period to validate annual data.

What does this mean for households and businesses?

Households: nothing changes in the short term. Waste collection, fee payments and bottle returns continue as usual, and separate collection is just as worthwhile as before. In the longer term, however, the review could affect fees, service quality, bulky waste collection and waste yards, and – through EPR fees – product prices.

Businesses: EPR obligations (record-keeping, quarterly reporting, fee payment) remain in force. It is worth watching whether fee rates change and whether the market opens up for certain industrial and commercial waste streams. The latter could create new opportunities for waste management companies and more flexible solutions for large waste generators.

Municipalities and service providers: the current subcontracting structure may change, which could affect how local services are organised. The top priority is that the transition does not endanger continuous service – the government recently criticised MOHU precisely over waste collection disruptions in the city of Szolnok.

What to watch in the coming months

Many questions remain open. It is not yet known whether the government will seek to amend the contract, partially restructure the model or even terminate the concession – the latter would raise serious legal and financial issues. It also remains to be seen how the EU infringement procedure develops, whether certain industrial waste streams will be removed from the concession, whether EPR fees will change and whether a nationally uniform household waste fee will be introduced. It is also worth watching what new regulation and development funding appear in the areas the minister flagged as lacking – above all biowaste, textiles and paper – and how much of a role Hungarian technologies will play.

On one point, however, every party agrees: the current system cannot continue as it is. Decisions in the coming months could determine for decades how much waste management costs, how much waste returns to the circular economy and whether Hungary meets its EU commitments. dontwasteit.hu will continue to follow developments.

FAQ: waste management concession review

Why is Hungary’s waste management concession being reviewed?

Because the government says MOHU is not, or not adequately, meeting the obligations and targets set out in its concession contract. In June the government requested a detailed report on its operations, and in September it decided on a more thorough review of the entire waste management system, arguing that missed EU targets cost the country around HUF 90 billion a year.

How much money is at stake in the waste management concession review?

According to the industry associations, the total cost of the 35-year concession could be around HUF 15,000 billion, including roughly HUF 8,000 billion in EPR fees at current rates. With sums this large, even a difference of a few percent in efficiency could mean hundreds of billions of forints for the Hungarian economy.

What are the industry associations asking for?

They highlight four main areas. They want transparent costs separated by material stream without cross-subsidisation, and recognition of the different costs of household and industrial waste. They also want a system that measurably encourages prevention, reuse and recycling, and meaningful involvement of producer organisations in preparing the government’s decisions.

Who ultimately pays the EPR fee?

The fee is paid directly to the concession company by the producers and importers that first place products on the Hungarian market. However, it is built into product prices, so consumers ultimately bear the cost. That is why the efficiency of the waste management system affects not only companies but every household and the competitiveness of the economy.

Is anything changing in household waste collection right now?

Not yet. The review is still under way, and waste collection, fee payments and bottle returns continue as usual, so separate collection remains just as worthwhile. In the longer term, fees, service quality and collection arrangements may change, but no concrete government decisions have been made so far.

How much municipal waste goes to landfill in Hungary today?

According to Minister László Gajdos, 53 percent of municipal waste was landfilled in 2024, and only about a third was recovered. The EU target for 2035 is a 65 percent preparation-for-reuse and recycling rate, with no more than 10 percent going to landfill. The minister says these values cannot be met under the current system, which is why a full overhaul is needed.

Sources:

• Comprehensive waste management review: thousands of billions of forints at stake… – MTI National Press Release Repository, 8 October 2026 (in Hungarian)
• Industry associations say a transparent and verifiable waste management system is needed – MTI, 8 October 2026 (in Hungarian)
• László Gajdos calls for a complete review of waste management – MTI, 8 October 2026 (in Hungarian)
• Telex, hvg.hu, Világgazdaság, Forbes.hu, Economx – reporting from June to October 2026 on the concession review and MOHU’s 2025 results (in Hungarian)