sou · H9B324 · 2021-04-15 00:00:00 — Already in 2011, the share of household waste going to landfills was less than , and has been quite stable since then at a level beyond (Figure 2). What happened with the household waste that was no longer deposited can also clearly be seen from Figure 1. Most ended up being incinerated with energy recovery from 2010 on, and the share of household waste being incinerated has increased from about in 2009 to about in 2011, although the political goal was to increase material recycling. This situation was however not unexpected, as economic incentives were in favour of energy recovery in stead of material recycling (Raadal et all 2003), as well as systems for material recycling in household were not established. ended thus still up as residual waste, to be incinerated in stead of recycled. Although the ban of landfills was announced quite early, capacity of and systems for recycling was not in place 5 years later when the ban was made operative in 2009, as discussed by Raadal et al. (2003). Figure 1 Development in treatment of household waste in 2006-2016 (Source SSB) As shown in Figure 2, share of incineration of household waste has been quite stable up to 2019, although being slightly decreased since 2016, from about to about . Conventional material recycling has also been quite stable in the period from 2015-2019, increasing from to 24,. Biogas production has increased from about to in the period, whereas composting has decreased slightly from 10,to . Total recycling of household waste (material recycling, composting and biogas production based in food waste) has increased from about 37,up to 40,from 2015 to 2019 (Figure 2), still far away from the national goal of and the new EU goals of before 2035. Figure 2 Treatment of household waste in 2015-2019 (Based in data from SSB Statistikkbanken) In Figure 3 we also see an interesting trend that the growth in waste going to incineration, was to a large extent a result of increased export of residual waste, and first of all to . This was a big issue after introduction of the landfill ban in 2009, because there had been established new capacity for waste incineration in , but the Norwegian incineration plants were not always competitive on price compared to Swedish plants. One factor among others was the tax on incineration that had been introduced in in 1999, as a measure to increase amount of waste being material recycled. to the fact that Norwegian municipalities had to choose the best offer, often based mostly on price per ton of waste treated, there was a big increase in amount of waste being exported, from about 30 000 in 2009 to about 200 000 in 2011. Since then, the amount has stabilized around 160 000 up to 2016 (Figure 3). The incineration tax was removed in 2010 to make more fair competitive conditions (2015) but cannot be seen as a very effective way to reduce export of residual waste. Figure 3 Development in treatment of residual household waste 2008-2016 Figure 3 Development in treatment of residual household waste 2008-2016 7.3 from private and public service sector An important question regarding treatment of waste from households and the service industry, is of course if the waste flows are different with regard to composition. As shown in Figure 4, household waste and waste from the service industry is quite similar in composition, with residual waste being the larger fraction in both types (in the waste from service industry and in household waste). Paper and board waste are also among the larger fractions in both sectors (and respectively from households and service industry), wood waste (7 and ) and wet organic waste (in both sectors). Scrapped vehicles were much higher in the service industry, but this is not a waste fraction that is collected at the site the waste is generated. Too a large extent, one can conclude that both the total amount of waste (about 2,3-2,4 mill ) and the composition of waste is quite similar between households and the service sector, making it easy to collect and treat the waste from households and service companies together. Figure 4 Composition of household waste and waste from service industry in 2018 (Data source: SSB data bank When looking into how the waste from service industry in is distributed between subsectors, we can observe that about of the waste is generated from the wholesale and retail sector (including repair of motor vehicles etc), where residual waste, paper and cardboard and wet organic waste are the three most important sectors (Table 2). The second most important sub-sector is human health and social work (of total waste), professional, scientific and technical work (6,) and public administration and defence (4,). In all those sectors, residual waste is the most important waste fraction with about of total waste, quite close to household waste. Table 2 Composition of waste from service industry in 2018 (Based in data from SSB Statistikkbanken) Fractions sorted out for material recycling Sectors (more than trade: repair of motor Human health and social There has been an increase in total waste in all subsectors between 2008 and 2018 as shown in Figure 5, increasing with about in the period. The same trend could be seen for the wholesale and retail sector up to 2017, where the statistics indicate a rapid increase from about 900 000 to more than 1,2 mill in one year, which seems a bit strange. This has been checked out with Statistics , and the data for 2018 is probably overestimated in the statistics and might be corrected in later years statistic, according to information from SSB. Figure 5 of waste from different subsectors of Service industries in 2008-2018 (Based in data from SSB Statstikkbanken) The service industry in total was as shown earlier about on the same level as household waste, regarding share of residual waste, ending up mostly in incineration plants. There are however, big differences between subsectors in the service industry, as shown in Figure 6. The wholesale and retail sectors have reduced share of residual waste from about in 2008 to about in 2018, being far ahead to most other subsectors in sorting out waste for material recycling. The other subsectors are all more or less on the same levels in 2018 as they were in 2008, where the public and defence sector (public administration) and administrative and support service (private sector) have about of the waste being residual waste, whereas accommodation and food service and health and social work subsectors are among those with highest share of residual waste, with about (Figure 6). It is thus quite clear that the wholesale and retail sector is the one subsector that have taken a more approach to treatment of own waste than the other subsectors, with a high share of waste being recycled. Figure 6 Share of residual waste of total mass of waste from subsectors of the service industry in 2008-2018 (Based in data from SSB Statstikkbanken) 8 Discussion and conclusion In the hearing in front of changing the definition of and separation of household waste from business waste in 2002, the most important concern from stakeholders (especially the organisations representing municipal waste handling) were: -The potential for increased amount of waste ending up as and pollution in Nature, with less control of the waste flows. -for more control with waste handling and treatment in the society, which would increase costs and work load with control at the county level. -Reduced amount of waste to be handled through municipal systems, which could increase costs for the inhabitants through increased waste fee. There were however a number of stakeholders that were positive to the proposal, especially the fact that the business sector would be more responsible for their own waste, and that they could find solutions that were most effective for each company, within national regulations. There have been no systematic studies on how efficient the system with separate treatment of waste from households and private and public business sectors have been in since 2004, as far as I know. The studies for Miljødirektoratet in 2016 and 2018 on potentials for increased share of plastic and organic waste being recycled instead of going to residual waste are covered some relevant issues (Raadal et al , et al. There has also been studies of the efficiency of the producer responsibility schemes in (Hovde 2008), and the has recently ordered an evaluation of and proposal for further development of the Producer Responsibilities Schemes in from Miljødirektoratet in . This will be seen in connection with development of a new action plan for circular economy in , which will be finished in spring (originally planned to be finished at the end of 2020). In average, there is not big difference between share of residual waste from the service industry than from households, as residual waste has a share of about in both households and service industry. In fact, the service industry is slightly better than households in 2018, with about residual waste versus in households (see Figure 4). There are however big differences between the subsectors among service industries, and especially the wholesale and retail sector has a much lower share of residual waste than both households and the other subsectors, with a reduction from about in 2008 to about in 2018 (Figure 6). This is in line with the expectations from the Government when the definition and responsibility of waste was changed in 2004 and indicate that at least some sectors have taken the opportunity to find better solutions for waste handling and treatment. There are no indications that the annual waste fee for households has been increased extra as a consequence of the change in definition of waste in 2004. As can be seen from Figure 7, the annual waste fee has been increased steadily from year to year, with a slightly higher level between 2008 and 2011, which evt could be a response to the landfill ban. The average percentage increase in this fee was 3,per year from 2002 to 2016, and only 2009, 2010 and 2013 deviated to some extent from that average value. 5https:///globalassets/arrangementer/webinarer/innspillsmote- produsentansvar/oppdrag-om-a-gjennomga-og-foresla-forbedringer-av-utvidet-produsentansvar-i-norge.pdf Figure 7 Development in annual waste fees households in 2002-2016 (Data from SSB data bank). In an investigation made by Avfall in 2016 (2016), the problem regarding municipalities rights and responsibilities to give private companies or organisations (also voluntary, non-profit organisations) permission to organize collection of certain types of waste, and to control their business operations in the next hand. This work was initiated based in experiences from an earlier report from Avfall (et al. 2012) regarding problems with organisations that offer their services to households and private/public sector without permission, mostly driven by commercial interests to generate profit, and which in some cases also can be criminal activities. A survey among members of Avfall from 2012 which showed that: -of the members had experienced that organisations had asked for permission to organize some type of waste collection and handling in their municipality. -knew that some organisations operated in waste collection and handling in their municipality without permission -of the members had experiences criminal theft from municipal waste handling facilities and about reported that this had happened more than 50 times over the last 4 years. -of the municipalities had established preventive measures against theft at their facilities. -The three most important waste fractions where this is a problem for municipalities are WEEE waste, textiles and metals in general. Although municipalities have both rights and responsibilities to handle waste from households, there are specific situations with unclear roles, especially when private companies offer their services to households to handle their waste. Amlund et al. 2017 have reported that private collectors had a market share of about of household waste in by offering container services, although the results are quite uncertain. Most of this is done by a few large and qualified companies, but there are also a number of smaller and potentially less serious companies involved. In some cases, this might also end up as theft or criminal operation, as the offering company are not authorized and controlled, and in some cases dump the waste without sending it to authorized treatment. al 2017 comment that recycling rates are also lower for those fractions than for municipal waste in general. NORSUS has together with (), in Innovation, Research and Education (NIFU), Avfall and some Norwegian municipalities initiated a national research project on “innovative waste logistics”6, to develop models, methods and tools to assist municipalities in decisions regarding outsourcing waste services or not, on the process of negotiating contracts with private waste entrepreneurs and to optimize own waste handling if still made in-house. The project will develop models to optimize environmental benefits, costs and degree of service towards the public, and will probably give new insight in how handling of household waste under different local conditions can be optimized in the future. Summarizing the main findings in the report, it can be concluded that: -There are distinct roles and responsibilities for waste generated in households and waste generated in private service industry in , based in national regulations. -Municipalities have both the ownership to and the rights and responsibilities for collecting and handling waste from private households, and the same is the situation for private service companies and public organisations regarding their waste. -originating from households and from private and public business sector is quite similar in composition, and there is more or less similar amounts of waste being generated per year from the two sectors. -Recycling rates are about the same for both sectors, but there are big differences both between municipalities and between sectors in private and public service sectors. Retail and wholesale companies has increased their recycling rate significantly compared to most other sectors. -It has been proposed to introduce mandatory recycling schemes for both food waste and plastic waste in households and private businesses, but this is still waiting for final approvement by the Government. -There are no indications that the changes in definition in the EU directive towards municipal waste will have any influence on responsibilities of or organisation of collection of waste from households nor from the service industry. -There has not been seen a big change in annual average waste fees for Norwegian households due to separation of responsibilities of handling of municipal and private waste since 2004. 6https://norsus.no/prosjekt/forskningsprosjektet-innovativ- avfallslogistikk/#:~:text=Innovativ%20Avfallslogistikk%20er%20et%20tre%C3%A5rig%20forskningsprosjekt%20 som%20er,gjennom%20Forskningsr%C3%A5dets%20Transport%202025- program%2C%20Innovasjon%20i%20offentlig%20sektor. Amlund, E. N. et al . Private næringsaktørers innsamling av husholdningsavfall. Mepex- rapport, . Bratteng, E. Håndtering og behandling av Avfall. Universitetsforlaget, , 562 pp. , , , , 2012. Avfall Rapport 04/12, . 40 pp + vedlegg. , T., Askeland, E.T. & Saxegaard, J. Rapport fra Hjellnes Consult. , 48 pp. Norsk avfallspolitikk – veien fra deponi til ressurs. Avfall 08/2015. , 27 pp. Hovde, L.R. Kartlegging av produsentansvarsordningene. Hjellnes Consult, . 55 pp + vedlegg. Raadal, H.L., , O.J. & , C.A. Virkemiddelbruk i avfallssektoren – en vurdering ut fra tre materialfraksjoner. Raadal, H.L., Stensgård, A.E., , K-A., , O.J. Vurdering av virkemidler for økt utsortering av våtorganisk avfall og plastemballasje. Husholdningsavfall – presisering av kommunens ansvar. Avfall 01/16. , 40 pp + vedlegg. , F. et al . Utsortering og materialgjenvinning av biologisk avfall og plastavfall. , 212 pp. The Finnish approach to municipal solid waste from other Table of contents............................................................................................................................................... Terms of reference of the assignment .......................................................................................................... Methodology and information sources......................................................................................................... Definitions and abbreviations ....................................................................................................................... Brief overview of the responsibility of the municipality to take care of MSW ................................................. Current MSW legislation regarding municipal monopoly ................................................................................. Duties of the municipalities in MSW management....................................................................................... Regulations related to transport of MSW ..................................................................................................... Regulations with linkages to municipal monopoly............................................................................................ MSW management as essential service ........................................................................................................ The responsibility of the municipality to be balanced with rights ................................................................ Exemptions from municipal monopoly ......................................................................................................... Exemptions based on case-by-case applications....................................................................................... Exemptions related to transport of EPR-waste ......................................................................................... Secondary responsibilities of municipalities ................................................................................................. Quality criteria for municipal services......................................................................................................... Regulations regarding recycling and waste hierarchy for MSW ............................................................. Separation of administrative power and operational tasks........................................................................ Municipal waste regulations and information dissemination..................................................................... Public procurement regulation related to MSW......................................................................................... Compliance monitoring of MSW management........................................................................................... Revisions in the pipeline.................................................................................................................................. Extending the municipal monopoly to transport of waste ......................................................................... Regulations on source separation of MSW ................................................................................................. Overview of WM statistics and practice related to MSW ............................................................................... Infrastructure of MSW treatment ............................................................................................................... Organization of MSW management in ........................................................................................... Findings from selected court cases ................................................................................................................. Findings from Regulatory Impact Assessments of the legal revisions ............................................................ Impacts on municipalities............................................................................................................................ Impacts on waste producers ....................................................................................................................... Impacts on waste management business and innovations......................................................................... Impact on competitive neutrality................................................................................................................ Impact on administrative burden................................................................................................................ Environmental and health impacts ............................................................................................................. Response to questions from .............................................................................................. Conclusions on pros and cons of companies handling their own waste......................................................... Terms of reference of the assignment Ecolabel Partnership was assigned by , to conduct a study and analysis of the Finnish model for regulating the waste management of municipal waste that arises from companies. The terms of reference for the assignment stated that the Consultant should report at least the following information from : •how the Finnish system works in detail, both from a legislative matter and in practice, including for instance how the division of responsibilities looks like, •how the free-market approach of household waste from companies has affected the waste handling and recycling grade in during time, and possibly what is expected to be the consequences in a long term (i.e. •consequences on health and environment, as far as information is available •how specific actors, sectors and waste fractions that have been affected and in what way •what delimitations (i.e. waste from shared ) does the system offer, •how the control/supervision of the system is constructed and if there are experiences from such activities •what can learn from ? During the assignment, the answers to the following additional questions were requested to be covered by the report: 1.Vem har ansvar för att samla in och behandla verksamheters kommunala avfall i ? Vilka skyldigheter följer med denna frihet att välja transportör och behandlare? 2.När fick verksamheterna själva ansvar för sitt kommunala avfall och hur har ansvaret förändrats . Är det någon ytterligare förändring på gång att införas som berör verksamheternas kommunala avfall? 3.Hur stor andel av det kommunala avfallet kommer från verksamheter? Går det att specificera t ex matavfall och brännbart blandat avfall. 4.Vilka avfallsslag omfattas av producentansvar i . 5.Vilka är miljökonsekvenserna av att verksamheterna själva har ansvar för sitt kommunala avfall (hur har behandlingsmetoder förändrats och varför. T.ex. mer materialåtervinning?) 6.Vilka ekonomiska konsekvenser finns beskrivna? För olika typer av företag? 7.Vilka har konsekvenserna varit för samhället (tex andra taxor för hushållen? Effekter på kriminalitet?) 8.Hur följer man upp att företagen lever upp till miljö och hälsoskyddskrav? Vad visar tillsynen? 9.Andra juridiska konsekvenser. 10.Sammanfattning fördelar och nackdelar med att företagen själva hanterar sitt kommunala hushållsavfall. Inklusive författarens egna slutsatser och rekommendationer Methodology and information sources The study was conducted by Mr. in ) from Ecolabel Partnerhip (Ekoleima Ay) a Finnish environmental consulting company. The assignment was performed during October-November 2020.