sou · H9B324 · 2021-04-15 00:00:00 — EU has provided an early warning to . The summary of the report states: “… despite the introduction of economic instruments such as a landfill tax, extended producer responsibility (EPR) and a high level of awareness among the public, has been stagnating at a fairly high level but below the objective. This is considered to be linked to fairly generous flexibilities in the obligation to ensure separate collection of dry recyclables and bio-waste, and to frequent regulatory changes in recent years that have created uncertainty and led to a lack of investment. A degree of inefficiency in the organisation of the EPR schemes also slows down progress”. The assessment proposed the following policy instruments, that have linkage to municipal monopoly of MSW: •Introduction of mandatory recycling targets for municipalities in line with the national target, and shift of some responsibility back to the municipalities by: a.setting recycling or residual waste targets at the municipal level, with fines for failure to meet the targets; b.updating the waste information system, as required; c.revising the to redefine the responsibilities of the producer responsibility organisations (PROs) and municipalities, to ensure that their services are combined, or coordinated, and that municipalities have the powers to make the necessary system improvements. •Introduction of mandatory tri-party contractual arrangements between PROs, municipalities and collection companies to drive cooperation and efficiency savings across all levels of waste services, in order to reduce fragmentation. •Introduction of obligations for businesses to sort their food wastes, plastic, metals, and paper/cardboard. •Development of national minimum service standards for waste collection … •Reduction of fragmentation of responsibilities for managing waste streams to make the sector as a whole – not just partitions of the sector – more efficient. •Analysis of the cost and performance implications of taking a ‘free-market’ approach and considering moving away from this approach if it is found to be costly. •Consideration of a longer-term strategy and vision for the waste sector, and implementation of a single package of changes to cover a 10- to 15-year period, rather than following a more piecemeal approach to improving legislation and practice in the sector. This feed-back from EU could be considered as critique towards the fragmentation of the overall responsibility for MSW management. This illustrates the problems of balancing the demands for free choice and the environmental goals. Separation of administrative power and operational tasks As the regional, municipally owned waste management companies gained more and more power in controlling the transport and treatment of MSW it became necessary to clarify the division of roles of the municipality as a waste management authority and a waste management operator. De myndighetsuppgifter inom avfallshanteringen som kommunen svarar för enligt denna lag ska skötas av ett organ som avses i kommunallagen (365/1995) och som kommunen utser (avfallshanteringsmyndighet). Om kommunen har överfört en serviceuppgift med anknytning till ordnandet av den kommunala avfallshanteringen till ett kommunägt bolag i enlighet med 43 §, är den kommunala avfallshanteringsmyndigheten i enlighet med kommunallagen ett gemensamt organ för kommunerna i samarbetsområdet eller en av dessa kommuner bildad samkommun. Den kommunala avfallshanteringsmyndigheten får delegera behörighet som avses i denna lag till en tjänsteinnehavare så som anges i kommunallagen. då det som föreskrivs om den myndighet som annars sköter dessa uppgifter och om överklagande av dess beslut. KommunalL 365/1995 har upphävts genom KommunalL 410/2015 The Government proposal HE 199/2010 vp gives examples of significant tasks of this municipal authority that could not be delegated to a municipally owned company: •approval of municipal by-laws on waste management •decisions on the operational tasks that are delegated to the municipal company •decisions regarding the choice of the waste transport system applied to wastes covered by the municipal monopoly •approval of the municipal waste fees. This clarification in the law ended disputes of decisions made by the municipal waste companies that sometimes appeared as conflicts of interest from the point of view of private sector service providers. It also reduced duplication of administrative work in cases were several municipalities had to make harmonized decisions regarding regional municipal cooperation. Municipal waste regulations and information dissemination Regulations on the mandate of the municipality to provide waste management by-laws are enacted in 91- 92 §. The by-laws mostly deal with wastes that are covered by the municipal monopoly, so when the coverage of the monopoly is revised then also by-laws must be revised. gave the following instructions in its circular 29.11.2016: The by-laws will be prepared and approved by the municipal waste management board. Stakeholders must be heard during the preparation. Regulations may also apply to waste that is outside the municipal monopoly, but only in technical issues related to prevention of health or environmental negative impacts. Regulations may be given e.g. about the technology used in transports, but the regulations are not allowed to rule where and how the waste is utilized. The municipality has the obligation to provide waste management advice. This obligation is restricted to waste covered by the municipal monopoly. This task can be outsourced from the municipal waste management company and this is commonly the current practice. Public procurement regulation related to MSW The latest revision to the in 2018 was initiated by the Sipilä government that stated in its strategic program that the municipal monopoly to MSW would be restricted to household waste only, with regional exceptions where necessary. At the same time, the national procurement act was being revised to take into consideration the EU regulations on public procurement. The EU directive 2014/24/EU on public procurement sets a limit of of turnover for a legal entity controlled by the municipality, if the municipality wishes to use the exemption of the directive by procuring services directly from “the controlled legal person” without competitive public tendering. In the revision 445/2018 to the waste act chose to restrict the services sold to the free market by the municipal waste companies more than was required by the Directive: the share of the total turnover may be only until end of 2029 and after that only . The impacts of the changes in the waste legislation and the public procurement legislation strengthen each other because services that are based on the legal obligation to provide a public service are excluded from the calculation of that (later ) rule. If MSW from other than households is excluded from the mandate of municipalities, such services are calculated in the competitive market share. Municipal consortiums (such as HSY in the capital region) are not allowed to sell services outside their owners at all. These restrictions also caused the necessity to require separate book-keeping of the share of free market turnover of municipal waste companies. This was enacted in 45 § of the . The municipality can offer secondary services without facing the restriction for free market services only if it can verify that private services are not locally available. The digital marketplace must be used to announce the demand of such services. Currently a Government Proposal is in the pipeline for accepting also the general public procurement platform for this purpose. It is worth noting that some municipal waste companies have established municipally owned daughter companies for providing services to the market (for example biowaste plants receiving biowaste from companies). These companies are not considered as in-house entities and not tied with the restrictions mentioned above. They should be in a position of fair competition with the private sector companies, but it is easy to predict that the private sector stakeholders will claim that they benefit from the linkages to the municipal monopoly. 145 a § (/445) Särskilda bestämmelser om anknutna enheter och upphandlande enheter Med avvikelse från vad som i 15 § 1 mom. och 16 § 1 mom. i lagen om offentlig upphandling och koncession (1397/2016) föreskrivs om procentandelar och begränsningar i euro som tillämpas på anknutna enheter och upphandlande enheter, ska till och med den procentandel som tillämpas på sådana anknutna enheter och upphandlande enheter som är verksamma inom avfallshantering uppgå till tio, och gränsen på tillämpas inte på dessa enheter. Den procentandel enligt 1 mom. som tillämpas på sådana anknutna enheter och upphandlande enheter som är verksamma inom avfallshantering ska uppgå till fem, och gränsen på tillämpas inte på dessa enheter. I övrigt iakttas lagen om offentlig upphandling och koncession. 44 § (29.3.2019/438) Bokföring över avfallshanteringstjänster samt transportörens skyldighet att lämna uppgifter Om kommunen eller ett bolag som avses i 43 § sköter annan avfallshantering utöver den som kommunen enligt detta kapitel är skyldig att ordna, ska uppgifter om omsättningen och det ekonomiska resultatet av de tillhandahållna tjänsterna specificeras i bokföringen, och för varje räkenskapsperiod ska en separat kalkyl utarbetas över tjänsterna. Närmare bestämmelser om de uppgifter som ska ingå i kalkylerna får utfärdas genom förordning av statsrådet. När de kalkyler som avses i 1 mom. utarbetas ska det som i bokföringslagen (1336/1997) föreskrivs om bokslut iakttas i tillämpliga delar. Revisorerna ska granska kalkylerna som ett led i kommunens eller bolagets lagstadgade revision. Kalkylerna ska fogas till kommunens eller bolagets bokslut. De ska offentliggöras och vara tillgängliga i ett datanät. När avfall som innehåller både sådant avfall som avses i 32 eller 33 § och annat avfall transporteras till behandling som kommunen eller ett kommunägt bolag svarar för ska avfallstransportören ge mottagaren tillräckligt specificerade uppgifter om avfallets ursprung för upprättande av den bokföring och den separata kalkyl som avses i 1 mom. Compliance monitoring of MSW management This municipal waste management authority is not responsible for the compliance monitoring of waste management actors. That authority remains with the municipal environmental board and inspectors. The need for monitoring and the administrative burden for collecting data of MSW management for national planning and EU reporting increases dramatically if the transport and treatment of MSW is based on free choice compared to WM organized by the municipality. There are several regulations in the act related to the obligation of the private sector operators to register and to report data on their clients, the collected waste and waste fees. Also, the compliance monitoring of the waste tax law requires the authorities to have access to confidential business data of the private sector waste companies. Ansökan om godkännande av verksamhet för anteckning i avfallshanteringsregistret Den som har för avsikt att bedriva yrkesmässig avfallstransport eller verksamhet som avfallsmäklare ska göra en ansökan om godkännande av verksamheten för anteckning i det avfallshanteringsregister som avses i 142 § 1 mom. 2 punkten. Ansökan ska göras hos den närings-, trafik- och miljöcentral inom vars verksamhetsområde största delen av verksamheten bedrivs. Om ingen behörig myndighet kan anvisas på den grunden, görs ansökan hos den närings-, trafik- och miljöcentral inom vars verksamhetsområde verksamhetsutövarens hemort finns. Ansökan ska uppta de uppgifter om verksamhetsutövaren, verksamheten och verksamhetsområdet som behövs för behandling av ansökan. Dessutom ska ansökan innefatta en redogörelse för verksamhetsutövarens yrkesskicklighet. Närmare bestämmelser om innehållet i och behandlingen av ansökan får utfärdas genom förordning av statsrådet Uppgifter om fastighetsvis avfallstransport Avfallstransportören ska på begäran ge fastighetsinnehavaren eller kommunen ett i 98 § avsett gällande utdrag ur avfallshanteringsregistret för påseende eller annars visa att verksamheten har godkänts för anteckning i avfallshanteringsregistret i enlighet med 96 §. Avfallstransportören ska lämna uppgifter till den kommunala avfallshanteringsmyndigheten om vilka fastigheter avfall har avhämtats på och om antalet sopkärlstömningar per fastighet och avfallstyp. avfallshanteringsmyndigheten kan begära in uppgifterna kvartalsvis, om det är nödvändigt för uppföljning av verksamheten. Transportören ska dessutom ge in ett enligt avfallstyp specificerat sammandrag över mängden avfall som samlats in på fastigheterna och över leveransplatserna. Närmare bestämmelser om de uppgifter som ska lämnas får utfärdas genom förordning av statsrådet. Den kommunala avfallshanteringsmyndigheten ska utan dröjsmål anteckna de i 2 mom. avsedda uppgifterna i det register som anges i 143 §. 146 § (10.8.2018/686) Utlämnande av sekretessbelagda uppgifter Den som vid utförandet av uppdrag enligt denna lag har tagit del av uppgifter om en enskilds eller en sammanslutnings ekonomiska ställning, om en företagshemlighet eller om en enskilds personliga förhållanden får trots sekretessbestämmelserna i lagen om offentlighet i myndigheternas verksamhet lämna ut uppgifterna till tillsynsmyndigheten och miljöministeriet för fullgörande av uppgifter enligt denna lag och till åklagar-, polis- och tullmyndigheterna för utredning av brott. Uppgifter som annars är sekretessbelagda får dessutom lämnas ut till tullmyndigheterna för tillsyn över verkställigheten av avfallsskattelagen (1126/2010) och lagen om accis på vissa dryckesförpackningar Consultant’s comments: In principle, there are many requirements for companies to report their waste flows to authorities, but the practices, human resources and digital systems and quality control for collecting such data is not available. treatment facilities have the obligation to report their waste flows, but the reporting systems are not detailed enough to keep track of MSW from companies. Revisions in the pipeline revisions to the 2011 are currently in the pipeline7. The draft Government Proposal was in the public hearing process until . The following proposals are relevant concerning the MSW and municipal monopoly: Extending the municipal monopoly to transport of waste As described above the implementation of the municipal monopoly in has been partly watered down by the option of leaving free choice of the waste transport service to the property owner. After years of legal struggles related to the alternative transport systems, the MoE now proposes that all municipalities would switch to municipal procurement of the transport of MSW under the municipal monopoly. The transition phase for biowaste and packaging waste would be 2 years and 5 years for mixed MSW. regulation is proposed to promote the possibilities of small waste transport companies to win shares of the public tendering opportunities. Regulations on source separation of MSW The general principles of the waste hierarchy and source separation are enacted in the articles 8, 13 and 15. Detailed regulations can be provided in a Governmental Decree. 7Jätesäädöspaketin pääsisältö Jätelainsäädännön uudistusehdotus lausunnoilla esittely ja keskustelutilaisuus for MSW have not been decreed until now. They have been left under the municipal self-rule. The regulation of source separation of MSW that falls out of municipal monopoly has practically been missing. Now the Government proposal plans to include in the specific source separation rules regarding the MSW collected by municipalities. Municipalities would be left an option to deviate from the Decree through municipal by-laws. For source separation of MSW outside the municipal monopoly, a separate article in the Decree is considered. The main challenge with the MSW is the competition between recycling and energy recovery from waste. The new decrees intend to restrict the flow of MSW to incineration by dictating source separation and the ban for incinerating source separated waste. Packaging waste collection from households is proposed to be arranged by municipalities to the collection point arranged by the EPR system. The EPR will be responsible for the cost. MoE will participate in the arbitration process if needed. A backstop of full EPR responsibility for household packaging waste without a municipal role is mentioned. The private sector service industry is arguing that the proposed arrangement could be interpreted as forbidden government support to the municipal waste companies. MoE disagrees and is proceeding with this model. Another revision to the is in the pipeline regarding single-use plastics (SUP). This legislation has a linkage with the municipal responsibilities in MSW management. The SUP-directive requires that the SUP EPR system should be responsible for the costs caused from preventing and clean-up of littering from SUP. This requirement has led to juridical discussion of the scope the “essential municipal services” in prevention and clean-up. Also, this raises questions of municipal monopoly in the waste management of “public areas” referred to in the SUP-legislation8. The legal preparations are on-going. Overview of WM statistics and practice related to MSW This chapter is a brief overview of the practical status of MSW in . The data is mostly collected from official waste statistics and the material accumulated for the latest revision of the in 2017. organization for municipal waste companies (KIVO) and () have also published some of the data used. The total quantity of MSW in tons and the share of tons recycled as material, recovered as energy and landfilled are shown in the following figure9. 8SUP-tuotteiden tuottajavastuun toimeenpano LOPPURAPORTTI. Municipal waste treatment 2002-2018 by type of treatment red: recycling as material; yellow: energy recovery; blue: landfill disposal. The recycling rate of MSW was in 2016 and the same in 2018. This is below the target set by EU and stated in the national waste decree. It is essential to note that no significant increase in the recycling rate of MSW can be seen after the company MSW was exempted from the municipal monopoly. The latest available assessment of the shares of different sources of MSW is shown in the following: Sources of MSW (2 650 000 tons in 2015) 10 Blue: household MSW ; : MSW from public services ; Dark green: MSW covered by EPR responsibility ; Light green: MSW from private businesses . Another study conducted by Ramboll and commissioned by the private sector waste management industry confirmed about the same results: municipalities managed in 2014 about 1,6 Mt of MSW and the private sector 1 Mt11. This is consistent with the previous calculation. Vaikutusten arviointi kuntien ja yksityisten toimijoiden vastuunjaon muuttamisesta yhdyskuntajätehuollossa. (Impact assessment comissioned by YTP). The share of treatment capacity of MSW between the municipal and private sectors can be seen in figure 3: Treatment of MSW in 2015 by source of MSW Dark blue: of MSW was received by municipalities based on its legal obligation to manage household waste and MSW from public services; Light blue: of MSW was received by municipalities based on the secondary responsibility or based on services offered in the free market. This included about 80 000 tons of EPR waste and 420 000 t of MSW from companies; : of MSW was received by private sector. The activity of municipal waste companies in receiving MSW based on secondary responsibility or sales in the free market varied a lot. Usually this share was of the turnover. This MSW is not under the municipal monopoly but the waste producers or the private waste transporters prefer to bring it to the municipal reception based on lack of private treatment capacity in the region, lower prices or reluctance of the waste transporter to take the waste to the treatment plant of a private competitor. Of the 2 Mt received in 2015 by the municipalities was recycled, sent for energy recovery, landfilled and was treated by other methods. The official waste statistics from 2015 showed a total flow of 2.74 Mt of MSW with recycled, energy recovery and landfill disposal. The following figure is a calculation of the share of household MSW vs. non-housing MSW, including the division of each MSW fraction between household and non-housing MSW12. 12from Salmenperä H. et. Comparison of recycling of household MSW and non-housing MSW dark red: source separated RDF gray: recyclable waste in mixed MSW light red: source separated by not recycled (probably incinerated) green: source separated and recycled Each pair of columns shows the tons in household MSW and non-housing MSW. The pairs are: biowaste, cardboard, glass, metal, paper, plastic, other types. Almost of MSW transport in is performed by private sector companies. About 1/3 of the waste volume is transported based on public tendering by municipalities. Of MSW that is covered by the municipal monopoly, about is transported based on public tendering and is left to free choice of selecting the transport company by the waste producer. Infrastructure of MSW treatment There were about 30 biological treatment plants in 2014. They treated 250 000 t of MSW. From source separated municipal biowaste (EWC code 20 01 08) was from households and from enterprises. Treatment capacity is rapidly switching from composting to biogas plants. The share of biogas plants was in 2015. Refuse derived fuel for co-incineration was prepared from MSW including packaging waste in total 400 000 t in 2014. The share of municipally procured treatment was 180 000 t and 220 000 t was treated by the private sector. The private waste companies received mainly packaging waste to be processed as fuel, while the municipal companies provided mainly mixed municipal waste. Also, some paper and cardboard waste, biowaste and plastic was processed into RDF. Several dozen thermal plants in have an environmental permit to incinerate RDF. About ten of these are significant users of RDF processed from MSW. These plants mostly use renewable fuels from other sources and peat. The capacity of designated waste incinerators has grown dramatically since 2007. The development can be seen in the following figure13: Development of MSW incineration capacity (tons per year) The municipal companies have committed to long-term agreements to deliver a certain amount of waste. The rapid increase of the capacity of waste incineration has obviously led to a situation where MSW that could have been recycled has been utilized as fuel. Currently there is no need for additional capacity for MSW. Some municipal waste companies have been selling part of their quota to private waste companies. Lately the companies offering MSW incineration capacity have started to amend their reception service with centralized sorting facilities to take out recyclable waste from the incoming refuse derived fuel. Organization of MSW management in The municipal waste management is organized into 31 municipal waste management companies that represent 5,3 million Finnish inhabitants. The association of these companies is Suomen Kiertovoima KIVO ry. The private sector waste management companies have organized themselves mainly in two associations. YTP ry () represents about 50 waste management companies, recycling industry, demolition industry, some consulting and technology companies. Companies mainly specialized in waste transport are mainly members of Suomen yrittäjät ry, a general entrepreneur association with more than 100 000 members. Findings from selected court cases