prop · GQ03117d3 · 2003-05-16 00:00:00 — Producers given responsibility to improve accessibility to consumers The Governments assessment: it should be simpler for consumers to participate in the sorting of packaging and waste paper at source. This can be effected through an improvement in services to consumers. Producers collection systems should be adapted to local conditions, preferably by means of collection points close to where appropriate. Producer responsibility means that producers should offer collection systems that enable households to sort out their packaging and waste paper from the rest of household waste. The Government considers it important for consumer participation in the system to be easy. Consumers must also have environmental motives for sorting their waste. Presentday systems of recycling depots make it difficult for many groups in society to participate, since they are a long way from the nearest collection point. Collection of household packaging waste and waste paper needs developing and should, to a larger extent, take place closer to the place where the waste arises. The Government therefore considers that the producers collection systems must be extended in such a way that neighbourhood collection takes place on a larger scale. This extension must be effected in consultation with municipalities and property owners. The Government also considers that there is reason for both the municipalities and producers to jointly adapt their systems for collecting household waste in such a way as to provide simple, easily accessible systems for consumers. According to the commitment made by producers through the materials companies, neighbourhood collection is to be extended in order to cover at least 25 per cent of households by 2003. According to the Government, this commitment is a step in the right direction, but all households are entitled to a full service level. There is therefore reason for further extension of collection close to . stringent requirements concerning accessibility of producers collection systems will therefore be imposed. There is also uncertainty as to who is responsible for waste collection and disposal around the producers recycling depots. The Government considers that this issue is important to clarify. Poor scope for households to hand in their bulky refuse may contribute to the littering that occurs. The Government should review whether there is a need for clearer stipulations that the municipalities should provide good services in this area. Clarification and strengthening of the municipalities role in producer responsibility The Governments assessment: the municipalities should be given responsibility for planning collection systems and issuing information for households. The municipalities are already responsible for collecting and disposing of household waste from their inhabitants. Accordingly, the municipalities also have a key role to play in collection of packaging and waste paper from households. At present, municipal responsibility is confined mainly to supervising the operation of collection. Producers extension of their collection systems should, as far as possible, be adapted to the structure of municipal collection of household waste. The municipalities responsibility for waste planning should, to a greater extent, include planning of the collection systems for packaging and waste paper in consultation with producers or their representatives. To make it easy for consumers to take part in the systems, there is a need for information to be developed and, to a larger extent, drawn up at local level. It is important for the provision of information to be coherent and adjusted to local conditions. Overall responsibility for providing information to households should therefore be borne by the municipalities. The information also needs improving through instructions as to how the sorting should be done, where and why, but also the outcome to which it has actually given rise in the form of genuine recycling. Development of consultations between producers and municipalities The Governments assessment: local consultations should be developed and clarified. Producers are obliged to consult with the municipalities concerning collection systems for removal of packaging waste. However, an unclear division of responsibility has meant that collaboration has not worked properly and often foundered on questions of how many recycling depots should exist and where they should be located. The amendments in existing ordinances sought by the Government will clarify who is responsible for what. This will mean that the unclear points are reduced and there will be better scope for collaboration between the parties involved. It is advisable to review how these consultations could develop, and to clarify which issues they should cover. As mentioned above, the Government considers that the municipalities should be given more influence over planning of producers collection systems for packaging and waste paper. Improved management of hazardous waste from households The Governments assessment: municipalities responsibility for collecting households hazardous waste, and households responsibility for sorting this waste according to the municipalitys instructions, should be strengthened and clarified. One precondition for environmental best practice in waste disposal is that the waste should contain a minimal quantity of hazardous substances. It is therefore essential for hazardous waste to be separated from other waste. It is also important for this collection to take place at a high and even rate, with the ambition of collecting all hazardous waste. This sorting can enhance the scope for reducing the spread of harmful substances while making it possible for them to be disposed of in a better way. At present, there is a major difference in levels of ambition between the municipalities in terms of collection of hazardous waste from households. A high service level in the form of numerous collection points has proved to be connected with a larger volume of hazardous waste collected. Like other aspects of managing waste from households, highquality services to households and scope for households to participate easily in the system are important. Improving access to collection systems is therefore vital. The Government wishes to amend the to clarify municipalities responsibility for collecting households hazardous waste. Households responsibility for sorting this waste, according to municipal instructions, should simultaneously be elucidated. The Government also deems it necessary to issue improved information for households on what hazardous waste is and how to dispose of it. Review of municipalities sole right to manage hazardous waste The Governments assessment: the scope for the municipalities to secure the sole right to waste management, through increased responsibility for transport, recycling and elimination of hazardous waste, should be ended in accordance with previous Government decisions. However, one precondition is the existence of a system that assures good control over the flows of hazardous waste. The Swedish EPA should therefore be commissioned to explore whether additional or other types of measures are needed to ensure good control over hazardous-waste flows. At present, the municipalities can assume responsibility for disposing of hazardous waste. The Government has already abolished the municipalities monopoly in the disposal of non-hazardous waste. The purpose was to give the business sector increased responsibility for ecological production of goods. Another step in this direction would be to expose to competition the parts of waste management that do not relate to households. The Government has previously reached the assessment that the monopoly for hazardous waste, too, should be abolished. However, reduced municipal influence presupposes that the regulatory system takes such a form as to afford good control over, and knowledge of, the flows of hazardous waste. Today, there are regulations for management of hazardous waste in several phases, such as transport, recycling and elimination, and also for crossborder shipments of hazardous waste. In the Governments view, municipal monopolies are not the only way of obtaining good control of hazardous-waste flows. On the other hand, the Government considers that whether the existing regulations are sufficient has not been investigated. An overview of existing regulations and control systems should therefore be implemented before a final decision is reached. The Government is instructing the EPA to investigate whether the existing regulations are sufficient or whether new measures are needed, and if so which. The objective is for an overview of the regulations to be implemented to permit deregulation to be reconsidered. Legislation on waste and definition of waste The Governments assessment: to promote waste recycling, the Government intends to continue working for an improvement in the regulations governing waste management, while a high level of protection for human health and the environment is retained. A simplification should therefore involve clarifying the definition of waste. The extensive regulations relating to waste include unclear points regarding the definition of waste, in particular. These mainly concern the question of when something becomes waste and that of when something ceases to be waste. Today, the provisions are perceived as obscure and various applications are made. The current obscure and complicated regulations may be an obstacle to the attainment of a society adapted for maximum recycling and recovery. Anything regarded as waste is subject to a completely different set of regulations than what is not waste. Depending on how the definition of waste is interpreted, various requirements may thus come to apply. The question of when waste should be classified as hazardous is also perceived as unclear. The waste definition is used throughout the EU, and therefore has only limited scope to clarify this through legislative amendments and guidance. Court of has adjudged a large number of cases relating to the interpretation of the waste definition, and this shows that interpretation problems are ubiquitous in the EU. Intensified supervision and guidance The Governments assessment: guidance and supervision are crucial both in directing waste to the right treatment installation and in ensuring a high level of environmental protection in landfilling, incineration and material recovery alike. Guidance on application of the regulations is important to ensure their application at a high and even level throughout , but also to increase the impact of generally worded provisions, such as the general rules of consideration contained in the Swedish Environmental Code. Legislation on waste has changed substantially in the past few years. A large volume of new or amended legislation has, for example, been introduced. The Environmental Code is the example. One innovation it contains is a general obligation for everyone in society to conserve raw materials and energy, and to make use of opportunities for reuse and recycling. To investigate how the Code is being applied, the Government is implementing an evaluation of the new legislation. This work shows that the new portions of legislation, regarding conservation of raw materials and energy, have still not brought about any major change. This is because of uncertainty as to how this should be translated into specific requirements in individual cases. The Government considers that guidance is needed to ensure that the principles of the environmental life-cycle approach in the Code have an impact. A change in this area is extremely important to attain effective use of energy and raw materials, thereby reducing both climatic impact and the volume of waste. The EPA should be able to use its role as the leading supervisory authority to step up its guidance concerning the Code. The Government considers that there is also a need for guidance and supervision for several ordinances relating to waste, to make interpretation correct and equivalent throughout the country. These ordinances include the Landfill Ordinance and the . Responsibility for supervising producer responsibility for electrical and electronic products should also be clarified. At present, only submission of information to the EPA is required. The Government is to impose requirements concerning supervision of producer responsibility for electrical and electronic products. Specific product categories and types of waste Tighter controls on producers goods The Governments proposal: if it is necessary to promote a decrease in the amount of waste that arises, or waste management that is acceptable from the health and environmental points of view, the Government or the agency appointed by the Government may issue certain regulations. These regulations would concern producers obligations to ensure that their products have a certain composition, and are reusable and recyclable in some degree. Regarding products other than packaging, these regulations may be issued only if they are necessitated by membership of Union. The composition and content of goods have a major bearing on the scope for their environmentally sound disposal as waste. Here, producers have a key role; this is shown in, for example, the statutory provisions on producer responsibility for various types of packaging. With these statutes, the Government can impose requirements concerning the materials used for making the packaging and how well these can be recycled. To affect the total volumes of waste in society, imposing controls on packaging is obviously not the only requisite measure. The same connections between the composition of a product and its potential management as waste are, of course, generally applicable. Thus, scope for extending the requirements to all producers is important. This allows enhancement of their awareness that the design of their products, in terms of the materials used and how they can be recycled, has a crucial bearing on the work of bringing about sustainable environmental life-cycle management. The scope for issuing regulations at national level is limited, partly given the fact that national requirements concerning the composition of goods may be trade barriers that are unacceptable in the EU. However, producer responsibility is beginning to assume more importance in the Unions waste legislation, partly owing to two new directives relating to electronics. These regulate waste in the form of electrical or electronic products and the use of certain hazardous substances in the same. These two directives enable members to encourage producers to design their electrical and electronic products in such a way as to facilitate dismantling and recycling. The Governments assessment is that work to make goods more ecoefficient at European level has a high priority, since joint efforts of this kind yield the largest environmental effect. From the Swedish point of view, however, it is important to proceed further with work to develop environmentally sound goods and products at national level as well. Financial guarantees for producer responsibility When products are discarded and need to be disposed of as waste, recycling companies want remuneration for the costs of their waste management. If the product is regulated by any of the provisions on producer responsibility that have been introduced, it is usually the producer who has to defray the costs. This is a system that works as long as the producer is still in business. There is a risk of problems when it comes to long-life products, such as cars, white goods and various types of home electronics. This problem can be solved with voluntary or compulsory insurance for producer responsibility. A minor cost increment added at the time when the product is purchased is placed in a fund that guarantees that the waste management can be paid for even if the producer has gone out of business. Payment of interest on the insurance premium permits a low cost to the consumer. The Government regards it as advisable for industrial sectors with long-life products to consider various types of financial guarantees for disposal of discarded products. This is an issue that the EPA, in collaboration with the sectors concerned, can develop further in conjunction with its continued work on an environmentally oriented product policy. Extended system for return packaging The Governments proposal: the Act (1991:336) on Certain Beverage Containers and the Act (1982:349) on Recycling of Aluminium Beverage Containers should be repealed. Instead, the Government or the agency it appoints is authorised to issue regulations obliging producers to ensure that plastic and metal containers for ready-to-drink beverages are covered by return systems, and that these systems are designed in a way that, through payment of a deposit or premium, encourages people to return the containers. In addition, the Government is authorised to issue the kinds of regulations concerning transfer, labelling, permission and charges that are currently contained in the above-mentioned statutes. For several years, there have been laws on return and deposit systems for beverage containers made of aluminium, as well as PET. Paying a deposit prompts consumers to take back the packaging for recycling. The system is well established and enjoys high credibility with consumers. The Government considers that it is urgent to retain and develop present-day return and deposit systems. Collection rates are high, and there is reason to review scope for expanding the systems to include other plastic or metal containers for ready-to-drink beverages. The Government proposes that the requisite amendments to the Environmental Code be carried out to permit provisions on expanded return systems to be drawn up. It is also important, when consumers return their containers, for easily accessible systems to exist for this purpose. The Government therefore sees a need for food retailers and the industry to increase the number of reception sites with automatic for return of beverage containers. Aluminium is not the only metal used as a material in cans. In 2000, some 20 million steelplate beverage cans were imported into . Granted, these cans are covered by producer responsibility for the containers, but they are not included in any deposit system. For the consumer, it is not easy to decide whether a can is made of aluminium or steel plate. Consumers may therefore perceive it as frustrating to obtain a deposit only for some of the cans they return. The risk is that this may cause a problem of credibility for the deposit system. Studies also show that containers for which no deposit is payable cause an increased risk of littering, compared with containers included in the deposit system. Consumers continued confidence in return systems for metal cans is important. The result will be a continued high recycling rate and reduced littering. In the Governments estimation, it is vital from the environmental point of view that all metal beverage containers commercially imported into or sold in should be included in returndeposit systems. These systems should therefore be demanded from producers. Provisions concerning return systems for plastic beverage containers apply only to those made of PET. The background is that when the law was introduced there were no alternative plastic materials on the market. Today, there are several other reasons for considering an extended deposit system. Development has taken place since then and there are now several varieties of plastic bottle in which PET is combined with layers of other plastics. Entirely new materials and combinations will probably be developed in the future. One consequence of the deposit requirement currently applying to PET bottles is, moreover, that containers made of other polymeric materials (various types of plastic material) is relatively inexpensive. This may be disadvantageous to the types of containers included in the present-day return system. All in all, this means that containers made of other polymeric materials should be covered by the same regulations as PET bottles. The Governments assessment is that it should be made clear that all plastic bottles for beverages that are commercially imported into or sold here should be included in return systems with deposits to encourage the consumers to take the bottles back. Private import of beverage containers With EU membership, private imports of beer and wine have increased. The cans and bottles that enter the country are not included in the Swedish deposit system and no funds have been allocated for their disposal. The containers end up either in Swedish systems of container collection or in household waste, where they result in resource wastage. The Government will therefore instruct to monitor trends of private imports and, in consultation with the Swedish EPA, present proposals for measures if necessary. Glass bottles should also be included. Refined producer responsibility for vehicles Since 1998, producer responsibility for vehicles has been in force. Anyone who has manufactured or imported vehicles into must ensure that their materials and components are reused, recycled or otherwise disposed of in an environmentally acceptable . The foremost obligation for a producer is to take back, without remuneration, all scrapped vehicles registered before 1998. The producer must ensure that an end-of-life vehicle is destroyed according to the rules in the Motor Vehicle Disposal Act. Under this Act, only authorised vehicle-disposal operators are permitted to carry out this destruction. As an incentive for vehicle disposal by authorised operators, a vehicle-disposal premium has been introduced. This premium is disbursed to the owner of the vehicle when it is scrapped, and is intended to cover the charge for vehicle disposal. The size of the premium depends on the age of the vehicle, in order to reflect the operators charge for its disposal. The vehicle-disposal premium from 1 2001 is as follows: for end-of-life vehicles covered by the Ordinance on producer responsibility for vehicles if, when scrapped, the vehicle is more than seven but less than . if the vehicle is more than . Supplementary regulations on the vehicle-disposal charge The Governments proposal: the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Disposal Act (1975:343) relating to the vehicle-disposal charge with new provisions concerning payment of the charge into a special account; when the charge should be deemed to have been paid; and interest calculation and payment. With effect from 1 January 2003, the has taken over primary responsibility for the charge from . In conjunction with the review of the Motor Vehicle Disposal Act, the Government wishes to make minor amendments regarding the vehicle-disposal charge. These amendments relate to interest on the charge, grant of respite and collection of the charge. Change in supervision of compliance with Motor Vehicle Disposal Act The Governments proposal: the municipal committee or committees that perform functions relating to protection of the environment and health in a municipality should exercise the requisite local supervision of compliance with the Motor Vehicle Disposal Act (1975:343) and regulations issued pursuant to this Act. The Swedish EPA should retain its role as the central supervisory authority. The local supervisory authority should be given the power to decide on the injunctions or prohibitions required to ensure compliance with the Act or regulations issued pursuant to it. An injunction or prohibition decision may be issued under penalty of fine. At present, the EPA is the sole supervisory authority for the Motor Vehicle Disposal Act.