Reply: producers should finance efficient collection, not household missorting

The government has decided that household packaging should be collected curb side, in popular locations and at special locations for bulky packaging. The collection is financed by the producers.

We welcome the government’s announcement of stricter requirements for sorting. Curb side collection will increase the amount of packaging sorted out and is the basis for a functioning system that leads to increased circularity and lower climate impact from packaging. As quota obligations with requirements for recycled content are introduced and design requirements for packaging are tightened, the financial incentives for both sorting and collection increase, which also benefits the circular plastic economy. In connection with this, municipalities need to invest in post-sorting of packaging to avoid the cost of emission rights. Requiring that producers also pay for households’ missorted waste is to burden an actor without control with the responsibility.

The EU Waste Directive states that producers must finance efficient collection – not address deficiencies that arise when residents do not comply with sorting requirements. Producer responsibility only covers packaging that households have sorted correctly and submitted to the intended collection system, not that which has been sorted incorrectly and therefore requires further sorting. The same arrangement is proposed by the Ministry of Climate and Enterprise in its memorandum on new waste legislation.

This is a reasonable position. Producers already pay approximately three billion kronor annually to municipalities for the collection of packaging. With a fully developed collection close to the property, the costs will increase further.

If households do not fulfill their responsibility by sorting at source, it is reasonable that the costs of incorrect sorting are charged via the waste tariff where the error occurs – not through increased prices for packaged goods for all consumers.

Residual waste is, and should continue to be, a municipal responsibility according to the Swedish waste monopoly. The statutory waste hierarchy clearly prioritizes recycling over incineration. Näringslivets Producentansvar is therefore happy to accept re-sorted packaging and ensures that it is recycled to the greatest extent possible, even if the quality of these is worse than that of those that have been sorted correctly at source. The volumes therefore need to be kept as low as possible.

Changing the sorting behavior of municipal residents is a long-term task that falls to the municipalities – producers have no say in this. And it should be pointed out that according to the Waste Ordinance, it is just as forbidden to throw away packaging in the residual waste as used textiles.

Municipalities have several tools to make changes. The Packaging Ordinance entails an information responsibility that is financed by producers with approximately SEK 50 million annually. Is it time for a national information campaign aimed at households? Municipalities can also carry out random checks to ensure that packaging is sorted correctly.

When packaging is thrown away in the residual waste, it leaves the producer responsibility and becomes municipal waste. Through their trade organization Avfall Sverige, the municipalities have pushed the issue of taking the collective responsibility – now they must also shoulder it.

We are happy to participate in a constructive dialogue on how we can together increase recycling. But all actors must bear their responsibility fully, not just when it is convenient or profitable.

Henrik Nilsson, head of business development and community relations at Näringslivets Producentansvar
Henrik Oxfall, responsible for plastic issues at IKEM
Mattias Philipsson, CEO of Svensk Plaståtervinning

---

Reply, May 5: Replik: ”Restavfall är ett kommunalt ansvar” – Aktuell Hållbarhet

Debate article, April 28 : ”Inför en ersättning för eftersorterat avfall” – Aktuell Hållbarhet