Response: The Efficiency of Municipalities Determines the Cost of Collection

No one wants households to bear the cost of inefficient packaging collection. But the truth is that costs are determined by how municipalities choose to organise their collection – not by a lack of willingness to pay on the part of producers.

Fastighetsägarna Stockholm and Stockholm Vatten och Avfall highlight an important issue in a debate article: it is often difficult to implement kerb-side collection for multi-dwelling buildings. However, the solution is not always more money – it is also about how the money is used.

The financing of packaging collection is the responsibility of producers, and they currently contribute nearly 4 billion SEK annually. For consumers, this is reflected in a fee on each packaging sold, which flows from the consumer to the producer, the producer responsibility organisation, the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, and onwards to the municipalities.

The financing is regulated by a model jointly developed by producers and municipalities through Avfall Sverige. It can be reviewed, but changes must be based on a broad discussion about efficiency, costs, and environmental benefits – not on individual municipalities’ calculations. The standard compensation is a planning framework, not a guarantee of full cost coverage.

Implementation, and thus cost distribution, lies in the hands of the municipalities. If property owners are caught in the middle, it is a matter between them and the municipality.

We at the producer responsibility organisation Näringslivets Producentansvar (NPA) hope that municipalities take note of the government’s clarification of the rules regarding kerb-side collection in this summer’s amendment to the waste ordinance. For multi-dwelling buildings, the municipality and the property owner may agree that different types of waste are to be collected at different locations. Exceptions may be made if there are special circumstances. How municipalities apply this flexibility is important.

Our comparisons show that the cost per collected kilo and the volume of collected packaging vary greatly between municipalities. This points to significant differences in efficiency. Just as producers must work to reduce the amount of packaging, municipalities need to ensure that collection is carried out cost-effectively. A unified responsibility for household waste – with food waste and residual waste collected together with packaging – should also create coordination benefits.

If households are burdened with additional costs, it is linked to the municipality’s efficiency. If deficits arise, it is reasonable that these are managed locally via the waste fee – not through higher prices on packaged goods nationwide.

We wish to continue the dialogue with municipalities, property owners, and other stakeholders. Therefore, we urge the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency to initiate the dialogue forum mentioned in the packaging ordinance. We are convinced that we will move forward more quickly when we jointly gain an understanding of the shared and industry-specific challenges posed by the ongoing waste reform.

Henrik Nilsson
Head of Market and Business Development

---

Response, October 1 oktober: Response: ”The Efficiency of Municipalities Determines the Cost of Collection”

Debate article, September 25: ”Don’t let local residents foot the bill for the industry’s costs”