Pakendiringlus vs TVO: Estonia packaging EPR fees compared.
Two-column comparison of Pakendiringlus and TVO published packaging EPR rates in Estonia, each figure linked to its source.
Pakendiringlus and TVO both run packaging EPR compliance in Estonia. Of 4 directly comparable material categories, Pakendiringlus is lower in 1 and TVO in 3. The biggest single gap is Wood (all packaging in the published scope), where TVO is 20% cheaper than Pakendiringlus (0.02 vs 0.025 EUR/kg). Gramta keeps both tariffs sourced and dated; the dataset was updated 24 Aug 2026.
Each row is one material family in one published scope – scopes are never mixed. Where a scheme prices several tiers of the same family (colour, recyclability, format), the cell shows its range; expand the row to see every underlying sourced line. An empty cell means that scheme publishes no comparable rate there.
Add the materials you place on the market and a yearly weight for each. Gramta multiplies every scheme's current published rate, so you see the yearly difference in real money – not per-kilogram abstractions.
Add a material and a yearly weight to see each scheme's total.
Minimum and base fees
Minimum, membership and base fees apply on top of (or instead of) per-kilogram rates, and they are comparable across every scheme regardless of tariff structure. Terms differ – some are annual, some one-off – so check each source.
The comparison above is one country, one year, per-kilogram rates only. Filing for real means classifying every product's packaging, applying minimums and modulation, and repeating it for every country you sell into – every year.
You owe fees in every EU country you ship to, not just one.
Every product's packaging has to be weighed and sorted by material.
There are extra fixed fees, minimums, and higher rates for hard-to-recycle packaging.
And it has to be filed accurately, on time, every single year.
You don't have to do this by hand
Send us your sales and your packaging details once. Gramta works out the fees for every country you sell in and keeps each report up to date and ready to file.
It depends on the material. Pakendiringlus charges less for 1 of 4 directly comparable categories – for Glass (all packaging in the published scope) it is 5% cheaper (0.086 vs TVO's 0.091 EUR/kg). TVO charges less for 3, led by Wood (all packaging in the published scope) where it is 20% cheaper (0.02 vs Pakendiringlus's 0.025 EUR/kg). In 2 categories the schemes' tiered ranges overlap, so neither side can honestly be called lower there. Weigh your own material mix in the table – every figure links to its source.
Can I just register with the cheapest PRO in Estonia?
Usually you can choose, but not on the per-kilogram rate alone. Schemes differ in packaging scopes, minimum and membership fees, eco-modulation tiers and contract terms, and some only accept certain packaging streams. Use the comparison to shortlist, then confirm scope and total cost against the scheme's own tariff – every rate here links to it.
Where do these comparison figures come from?
Every rate is a published tariff line from the scheme itself, held in Gramta's sourced fee dataset with its effective period and checked date (dataset updated 24 Aug 2026). Nothing is averaged or estimated: identical material families in identical published scopes are placed side by side, and anything not like-for-like is excluded and explained above.
