sou · H9B324 · 2021-04-15 00:00:00 — De privata företagen kommer dock även fortsättningsvis vara beroende av kommunernas förbrännings- kapacitet, eftersom av förbränningskapaciteten ägs av stat och kommun. Förändringen beräknas därmed inte påverka värme- kraftverken. Däremot kommer anläggningarna att behöva rapportera om hur verksamheters avfall hanterats, vilket innebär en mindre men ny kostnad. Kommunerna, avfallsproducenterna, insamlarna och behandlarna, beskriver de ständiga tvisterna om gränsdragningar som ett hinder för långsiktiga investeringar för en cirkulär ekonomi. Genom att öppna för frival ges möjlighet att undvika oenighet vid tolkningen av begreppet kommunalt avfall. Insamling av kommunalt avfall från verksamheter kommer vid ett frival att överföras från kommunernas utförare till ett värde av . Avfallsproducenternas kostnader för in- samling av kommunalt avfall kommer att minska med på grund av konkurrens, serviceanpass- ning och ökad källsortering. Den kommunala tillsynen kommer till- föras 10 till i tillsynsavgifter. En utökad dispens skulle ge begränsad effekt Enligt utredningens beräkningar kommer färre verksamheter vara intresserade av att söka dispens än av att använda frival, eftersom dispenser ställer större krav och innebär mer arbete. Dessutom är en dispensprövning förknippad med osäkerhet om utfallet. Om utökad dispens väljs som alternativ skulle endast cirka 300 verksamheter och avfall att byta till privat avfallsinsamling enligt våra beräkningar, och utifrån de mindre avfallsvolymer som förväntas bli aktuella för en dispens än för frival skulle därmed en mindre mängd avfall sorteras ut till material- återvinning. Om livsmedelsbutiker och restaurangkök räknas in blir enbart kostnaden för dispensansökningar högre jämfört med kostnaderna för frivalsanmälningarna. Ett frival kan bidra till cirkulär ekonomi Det finns många mål och strategier på området cirkulär ekonomi, och nödvändigheten av att hushålla bättre med samhällets resurser och sluta kretsloppen har konstaterats . Övergången till en cirkulär ekonomi beräknas ge stora ekonomiska och miljömässiga fördelar i form av lägre kostnader, ökad sysselsätt- ning, mindre resursförbrukning och lägre klimatutsläpp. Forskning framhåller dock att förutsättningarna för en fungerande cirkulär ekonomi, liksom för en linjär ekonomi, behöver innehålla bestånds- delar i form av äganderätt, tydligt regelverk och konkurrens. Eftersom ett stort ansvar ligger på verksamheterna att hitta lösningar för att förbygga avfall och avfallets hantering är det viktigt att undanröja hinder så att dessa kan jobba långsiktigt med för- bättringar, samt utveckla innovationer och affärsmodeller. Verksam- heterna ser möjligheter i den cirkulära ekonomin och vill kunna äga sitt avfall, och det kommunala avfallet är en del i den helheten. Även om förändringen vid införande av ett frival kommer gå relativt lång- samt och inte vara dramatiskt stor, bedömer utredningen att den är strategisk och principiellt viktig. Vi bedömer att ett frival därmed kommer kunna förstärka verk- samheternas incitament att skapa en cirkulär ekonomi. The inquiry has examined alternative solutions for giving commercial businesses greater opportunity to deal with their municipal waste. At present, the municipalities, with certain exceptions, have a mono- poly in collecting and treating municipal waste from both house- holds and businesses. Our proposed solutions enable new models and methods for a circular economy. Our remit has included studying more closely the proposal for freedom to choose previously presented by the Swedish Govern- ment. Freedom to choose means that businesses can choose to manage their waste in a different way than handing it over to the municipality. Our remit also included studying expanded exemption options in relation to the municipal waste of businesses. We have also assessed the impact of the proposals. Municipal waste – definition, volumes and origin The term municipal waste was introduced into Swedish legislation on 1 2020. Guidance is currently being prepared in the EU and in , but the new term has not yet been tested in Swedish law. The former term household waste, on the other hand, has been the object of a number of disputes and court rulings. Previous assessments of the term household waste have been based on the waste being a result of human consumption, in accordance with the preliminary works to the Environmental Code. The delimitation of the new term municipal waste forming the background to the ’s forthcoming guidance is primarily based on the updated guidance published by the EU in October 2020 and the most recent amendment to the Directive (EU 2018/851). Which fractions and residues are to be classified as municipal waste is determined on the basis of the waste categories stated in 3 to the (2020:614) and the interpretation of what is included in each category in the EU guidance. The municipal waste of businesses consists, among other things, of leftover food, food packaging, napkins, paper towels and hygiene products. The waste often arises in dining rooms and breakout rooms, and it often ends up in the wastepaper bin in various common areas. The inquiry has focused on mixed general waste and separated food waste, as these two fractions account for the largest volumes of waste the municipalities collect today. These fractions are therefore expected to be of most interest for the businesses to take responsi- bility for under freedom to choose. There is a lack of statistics on the municipal waste of businesses There are no combined statistics on what volume of municipal waste may originate from businesses. This is because the municipalities collect the municipal waste from both households and businesses on the same route, and the waste is then taken as a whole for pre- treatment or treatment. In 2019, the municipalities collected around 2.2million of household waste, both in the form of general waste in bags and bins and in the form of food waste. The largest proportion of household waste came from households, but around 490 000 were estimated to come from private and public businesses, with separated food waste accounting for just over 100 000 . Municipal waste from businesses is estimated to have accounted for almost 1.5 percent of all waste in in 2019 unless mining waste is included. At present, the largest volume of municipal waste from businesses comes from restaurants and hotels, but a large proportion also arises in the public sector, for example in schools and pre-schools and in health and social care. A significant portion of municipal waste additionally arises in offices, industry and the retail sector. Municipal waste from food stores and restaurant kitchens today is handled as enterprise waste, but it may need to be reclassified due to the new term municipal waste. 300000 of waste from food stores and a smaller volume from restaurant kitchens. The lack of comprehensive statistics has required us to make a number of assumptions. We have been able to do so on a solid basis using statistics from the , which applies weight- based waste tariffs. A Nordic overview of the management of municipal waste The inquiry has reviewed how , and have legislated and organised the collection and management of municipal waste from businesses. Most of the changes in these countries took place 10–15 years ago, and the changes have primarily been made to increase competition. Businesses have wanted commercial conditions to govern the choice of , which has led to these countries completely or partially abandoning the municipal monopoly for the municipal waste of businesses. The changes have thus not primarily been environmentally motivated or intended to promote the circular economy, although these are effects that the countries hope to be able to observe in the longer term. Although the different countries have different starting points, their experience has been valuable to the work on our inquiry. Our considerations and proposals The inquiry proposes that the Environmental Code, the and the Environmental Sanctions Ordinance be amended so that those businesses that have a waste subscription with the municipality from 1 January 2022 will have freedom to choose transport and management of their municipal waste. The inquiry also presents a proposal for an expanded exemption option. subscribers would be able to choose transport and management of waste The municipalities would continue to have core responsibility for municipal waste that has been produced during or in connection with commercial activity. Businesses would, however, be given the option of discontinuing municipal waste management and deciding for themselves on the transportation and management of their waste. This is set out in the inquiry’s proposals for amendments to the . It is therefore the waste subscribers who would have the option of choosing freedom to choose. On the other hand, a scheme in which other waste producers can opt for freedom to choose might pose a risk of an unclear distribution of responsibility within properties, particularly if space for waste is shared. In the worst case, this might lead to undesirable littering if no one acknowledges owner- ship of the waste. An application for freedom to choose in principle covers both transport and management of waste, and a freedom to choose should not be subject to requirements for more closely specified conditions or criteria to be met by the businesses; the operator wishing to make use of the option of freedom to choose would be able to opt for this without burdening the municipal administration with a lengthy and costly prior examination, as such a scheme would weigh the system down. The application for freedom to choose would be made to the municipality six weeks before freedom to choose starts to be applied. The enterprise would have to be able to present a contract stating that a professional waste contractor has been engaged and that those who transport and treat the waste have to submit figures on their waste management to their municipality annually. The subscriber should have obtained confirmation from the municipality in good time before application of freedom to choose begins. As we estimate that freedom to choose will not to any major extent affect the volumes of waste that are currently transported under municipal auspices, we consider the specified timeframe to be sufficient. It should be possible for the supervisory authority to revoke a registration of freedom to choose. The scheme we propose means that some of the municipality’s obligations to submit figures needed for statistical purposes, etc. would pass to those who manage the waste, necessitating an addition to Chapter 7 of the (2020:614). Those who collect municipal waste covered by freedom to choose would therefore have to submit figures for the previous calendar year to the municipality by 31 regarding who has delivered the waste and the composition, origin and weight in kilograms of the waste. In addition, those who commercially treat waste covered by freedom to choose under Chapter 7 Section 2(c) of the (2020:614) would have to submit combined figures to the municipality by 31 , with figures on treated waste in terms of –the weight of the waste in kilograms; –the place where the waste has been treated; –the treatment methods that have been used; –the number of kilograms of products and materials that have ceased to be waste after having been prepared for re-use or material recovery or been recycled in some other way. Failure to submit specified figures on time would be subject to payment of a sanction charge under the addenda we propose in Chapter 11 of the Environmental Sanctions Ordinance. An alternative is the possibility of an expanded exemption for certain types of waste As an alternative to freedom to choose, the inquiry presents a proposal for new rules on exemption. We have chosen to propose a basis for exemption that is reserved for businesses. The type of waste or waste fraction for which an enterprise applies for an exemption should be aimed overall at increased sustainability, locally, regionally or nationally. We propose that an exemption should be aimed at reducing the volume of waste or promoting conservation of raw materials and energy, and an application for exemption should present a well thought-through idea of how this can be achieved. Taken together, a granted exemption should lead to waste being managed better than would be the case based on the procedure the municipality can offer. The exemption is to be viewed as a tool with which to accomplish greater sustainability. Consequences of introducing freedom to choose The inquiry estimates that around 130 000 of businesses’ municipal waste (around 27 percent) will be managed by the businesses’ chosen providers instead of the municipalities’ providers if freedom to choose is introduced. The inquiry estimates that just over 7 000 businesses will switch to private waste collection within 5 years, while around 160 000 of present-day waste subscribers will continue to manage their waste under municipal auspices. Freedom to choose will probably be used mainly in metropolitan municipalities, in urban municipalities and in municipalities close to large cities, as almost 80 percent of municipal waste is generated in such municipalities. As most companies in are small (96 percent have fewer than 10 employees), often have a smaller volume of municipal waste and therefore pay a relatively low waste rate, we anticipate that the vast majority of small businesses will continue to use the municipality’s service. In our view there are no other obstacles to prevent any enterprise applying to register for freedom to choose, apart from a certain administrative charge that the municipalities will levy to administer applications for freedom to choose as well as costs associated with supervision. Of the slightly larger private-sector businesses, with 50 or more employees, we estimate that just over half will switch to a private waste collector. Freedom to choose would enable private waste collectors to specialise and offer new collecting solutions. producers, for example, are looking for better ways of obtaining statistics on their waste from collectors, which necessitates the waste being weighed. Impact on municipalities’ waste collection Based on the inquiry’s calculations, introducing freedom to choose would reduce turnover for the municipalities’ collection of general waste and food waste from households and businesses by around 7 percent. The inquiry’s estimates indicate that the municipalities’ revenue from businesses’ subscriptions for general waste and food waste collection will decrease by an average of 25 percent. Impact on supervision, control and information It will be possible to strengthen the municipalities’ environmental and health supervision by levying supervisory charges on businesses applying for freedom to choose. As the supervision is largely funded by charges, the new supervisory charges will be able to contribute to greater supervision in an area that is neglected and difficult to supervise because many players are in several municipalities. Supervision is also an important principle in enabling a market economy to work. Supervision by the municipalities in the area of waste is at present often limited to complaints and hazardous waste. When the inquiry calculates the consequences of freedom to choose including food stores and restaurant kitchens, the number of registrations with the municipality doubles, from around 7 000 to around 14 000. This is due to our assumption that most grocery stores that at present manage their own municipal waste will continue to do so. In addition, we believe that a proportion of restaurants will apply for freedom to choose for used cooking oils, for example, as these have market value. We propose that freedom to choose be accompanied by options for society to check that the freedom-to-choose players comply with the rules, such as working preventively and in accordance with the waste hierarchy in the Environmental Code. A crucial condition is a requirement for those who collect and treat the waste to report to the municipality annually. Competition is also favoured by good access to information about the nature and volume of the waste. As well as available data on waste management providing a basis for supervision, it provides opportunities for and mem- bers of the public to compare the waste management of different businesses. The reporting also provides a basis for the statistics that are needed for the ’s reporting to the EU. It would be advantageous for the to prepare national guidelines concerning how applications for freedom to choose, reporting and supervision should be organised, so that national coordination is achieved and duplication of work is avoided in the municipalities. The inquiry assumes that nationally uniform digital solutions for application and reporting can save both municipalities and businesses a large amount of time, and we consider digital solutions and expanded information to be crucial if freedom to choose is to work effectively for businesses and municipalities. Impact on the regions The inquiry estimates the impact on the regions to be small, but as public-sector businesses can also apply for freedom to choose, municipal waste from hospitals, for example, could become the object of freedom to choose. Providers of general communications in a county could also engage a collection company to deal with the waste in several municipalities. Impact on private individuals The municipalities raise concerns that freedom to choose may lead to higher charges for smaller companies and for households. No such effect has been visible in , or since these countries reduced the municipalities’ responsibility for municipal waste. The inquiry considers that some adjustment may nevertheless be appropriate in the municipalities’ waste charges, but we regard the change with freedom to choose as minor compared with other decisions and planned changes such as future kerbside collection. There are no signs that crime would increase due to a freedom to choose. The inquiry bases this assessment partly on the experiences of , and . Impact on the environment Pick analysis, in which an analysis is made of what a refuse bag contains, shows that up to 80 percent of general waste consists of fractions that can be separated and recycled, for example food, paper and plastic. The inquiry considers that more fractions must be separated than at present, ideally with requirements for separation at national level. These fractions must additionally be kept apart, so that larger and cleaner waste streams for material recovery become available. In comparison with the municipal waste of households, however, enterprise waste is expected to be easier to separate and to consist of larger streams. It may therefore be advantageous to keep this waste apart from household general waste. Freedom to choose will make it easier for waste producers to adapt their collection and management of waste based on the needs and requirements of businesses. At the same time it will create incentives to increase material recovery, as some fractions, for example paper and plastic waste, have a positive value compared with incinerating the waste, which involves a cost to the waste producer. Freedom to choose can reduce the waste producers’ costs by around million annually if waste separation and material recovery increase by ten percent over a period of 5 years. Greenhouse gas emissions would decrease at the same time by around 5 300 of carbon dioxide equivalents. The greatest environmental effects of all obviously arise if waste can be avoided and prevented, and the option of freedom to choose also facilitates circular business models where businesses wish to hand over municipal waste in the form of used goods, such as certain types of furniture, to other companies. There is no research showing that the number of transport journeys will increase if waste producers are enabled by freedom to choose to coordinate general waste and food waste with producer responsi- bility fractions and other enterprise waste. Calculations made by Transport Analysis show that municipal waste transport accounts for a small proportion (1.2 percent) of all transport in . Municipal waste transport journeys estimated to be switched to free- dom to choose will therefore account for 0.09 percent of transport journeys in . An increased degree of material recovery will increase the need for transport but results in substantial climate savings compared with energy recovery. Impact on incineration plants The volume of waste estimated to be transferred from the munici- palities to private waste companies is around 0.5 percent of the fuel mix in Swedish incineration plants. The private companies will also, however, continue to be dependent on the municipalities’ incineration capacity, as 72 percent of incineration capacity is owned by central and local government. It is therefore not anticipated that the change will have an impact on combined heat and power generation. On the other hand, the plants will need to report annually on how the waste of businesses has been managed, which entails a small but new cost. Impact on regulatory interpretation The municipalities, waste producers, collectors and processors describe the disputes over where the lines are drawn as an obstacle to long-term investment in a circular economy. Paving the way for freedom to choose makes it possible to avoid disagreement in interpreting the concept of municipal waste. In a system of freedom to choose, collection of municipal waste from businesses will be transferred from the municipality’s providers at a value of million per year. The costs to the waste producers of municipal waste collection will decrease by around million annually as a result of competition, service adaptation and increased separation at source. to 20 million annually will be added in charges for municipal supervision. Expanded exemption would have limited effect According to the inquiry’s calculations, fewer businesses would be interested in applying for an exemption than in using freedom to choose, as exemptions make greater demands and involve more work. In addition, review of an exemption is associated with more uncertainty regarding the outcome. If expanded exemption is chosen as an option, only around 300 businesses and around 30 000 of waste would switch to private waste collection, according to our calculations as, based on the lower volumes of waste expected to be relevant for exemption than for freedom to choose, a smaller volume of waste would therefore be separated for material recovery. If food stores and restaurant kitchens are included, the cost of applications for exemption alone would be around million higher than the costs of applications for freedom to choose. Freedom to choose can contribute to a circular economy There are many goals and strategies in the area of a circular economy, and the need to be more economical with society’s resources and close the loop has been noted for decades. The transition to a circular economy is estimated to bring great economic and environmental benefits, in the shape of lower costs, increased employment, lower consumption of resources and lower greenhouse gas emissions. Research highlights, however, that the conditions for a functioning circular economy, as for a linear economy, need to include elements of right of ownership, a clear regulatory framework and competition. As great responsibility rests on businesses to find solutions to prevent waste and for waste management, it is important to eliminate obstacles so that these businesses can work in the long term on improvements, as well as developing innovations and business models.