Reforming waste legislation for increased material recycling

Chris Dahlqvist (SD)

Madam Speaker! We are now going to debate the reform of the waste legislation for increased material recycling, an important issue that affects very many.

The purpose is to prevent the generation of waste and increase material recycling in order to contribute to Sweden being able to reach the goals in this area that have been decided within the EU. This means that new liability provisions are introduced where it is specified what a liability for waste entails and when the liability ceases. At the same time, certain changes are made to the supervisory responsibility in the waste area. The proposals also involve a more purposeful and sustainable management of excavated materials which shall contribute to a more circular economy. Additionally, the government proposes that the state, municipalities, regions and municipal associations shall be exempted from requirements to provide financial security for the landfilling of waste and for extraction waste activities.

Madam Speaker! Creating reasonable conditions for increased material recycling is the key to success. Without reasonable conditions, a material that could be reused may potentially not be reused.

Fundamental to recycling is that it should be easy for the individual to do the right thing. Therefore, it is important to set requirements for a producer responsibility for the producers of different goods, regulating that different products are already adapted for recycling in a simple way at the time of manufacture, and that the material in, for example, a package is such that the item can be reused.

Regarding packaging material and return paper, it is reasonable with a strengthened producer responsibility, and that the collection responsibility for packaging and return paper remains with the producers.

Madam Speaker! We have in our elongated country many companies that are experts in production and material recycling – companies that master everything from the manufacturing of various products to how one then in an exemplary manner handles the remains of the various products that we Swedes use in our everyday lives. We are good at what we do, but we shall always strive to become better and do more. But this must absolutely not occur at the expense of the Swedish households, which risk being hit by increased costs that affect the everyday economy negatively if packaging and recycling become more expensive.

The Riksdag should strive to reduce Sweden's dependence on other countries by having us ourselves manage our own waste to a greater extent. But waste management can be a complex issue. It is also not fortunate that textiles are sent abroad for sorting on such a large scale. We in Sverigedemokraterna want instead to promote new recycling technology and create economic incentives to increase recycling. This also gives Sweden, with moderate problems in comparison to other countries, a better opportunity for the export of Swedish technology within waste management, which is positive from a global environmental perspective.

One step in the right direction is that excavated materials can now be reused on-site to a greater extent, which is a smart way for companies to both save money and reduce the number of heavy transports. Instead of transporting the excavated materials to a landfill, they can be used again for new construction projects on-site. This reduces the need to excavate new materials from nature, which is also an excellent way to improve the environment. Furthermore, it becomes cheaper for companies to recycle the materials on-site instead of hauling in new material and paying various types of landfill fees. By recycling excavated materials, we can reduce our impact on the environment and save money at the same time. This is an excellent example of how we in Sweden can think more sustainably and take care of our resources in a better way.

Madam Speaker! In conclusion, I would like to move for the approval of the committee's proposal for a decision in its entirety, as well as the rejection of the motions from S, V, C, and MP.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Johan Löfstrand (S)

Madam Speaker! Chris Dahlqvist highlights several parts of the bill in his speech that are good. We need a more efficient system and a developed producer responsibility. But the absolute biggest question in the bill that we are going to debate today concerns the distribution of responsibility between municipalities and the private sector that is described. I would like to hear how the member reasons regarding the distribution of responsibility between municipalities and the private sector.

Chris Dahlqvist was clear that it is important not to shift costs onto the municipalities and, in the long run, onto the individual households. But when the private actors are now going to take greater responsibility for parts of the waste from private activities, it is at least my assessment that there is a risk that the raisins will be picked out of the cake – that is to say, that in those locations and in those companies where it is profitable to collect business waste, they will do so, while the remaining business waste will again have to be collected by the municipalities. This means that the municipalities will, in the long run, have to bear the responsibility in all those parts of our country where it may not be profitable to collect waste. And in the long run, these costs will be passed on to the individuals – to the fee and, in the long run, to the households.

How does the government view this, and what has been the reasoning?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Chris Dahlqvist (SD)

Madam Speaker! All municipalities naturally have different circumstances. In some municipalities, for example, it has been chosen to place the management of all residual products with municipal companies, while in other municipalities, it has been chosen to manage it at another level, such as in committees or similar.

It is true that, in the long run, it could result in an individual citizen in a municipality incurring an increased cost, but we from Sverigedemokraterna will, together with the government, ensure that it does not become so. The idea with a market economy is, namely, that one as a private entrepreneur must be able to act based on reasonable conditions, even when handling, for example, such complex material as waste management.

Something that would not be good is if we get a monopoly on waste management, where it is only, for example, the municipalities that have responsibility for waste management and no private businesses can enter that market because they perhaps do not have the economic muscles that, for example, a municipality has. I believe this is important, because what we also have to remember in this context is that all the money that all the hardworking citizens out in our elongated country pay in via their tax bill is money that ultimately goes to, for example, waste management. We must not risk it becoming a hidden fee for our Swedes.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Johan Löfstrand (S)

Madam Speaker! The question was not about whether a municipality organizes itself in a committee or in a municipal company. The question was about whether all profitable commercial waste will be handled by private companies while all unprofitable commercial waste far out in the rural areas will be handled by the municipality and become part of the municipal fee. In the long run, this will mean that households will have to bear a larger share of the commercial waste that is not profitable in the collective system. It will affect the individual households.

I, and we Social Democrats, fundamentally believe that many parts of the bill are good. However, it has not been analyzed how the changed distribution of responsibility will affect households and the collective taxation. I find that to be extremely problematic.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Chris Dahlqvist (SD)

Madam Speaker! It is precisely here that the Sweden Democrats differ from the Social Democrats. When it comes to private entrepreneurship, we in the Sweden Democrats are strong advocates for the ability to conduct operations in a profitable manner. It can, of course, be the case that some private business operators choose not to handle all fractions of waste from households, but that actually doesn't matter. It must be an open and free market where everyone is allowed to compete with one another for the waste on equal terms.

Something that is important in this context and that is important to highlight in this debate is that we already have problems with different types of fractions that are difficult to manage. One of these fractions is textiles, where we have major problems. In the current situation, we ship our textiles abroad for sorting before they are sent back to Sweden. It is actually a completely absurd situation.

As long as one can provide entrepreneurs with economic incentives to handle these products, they will use their entire toolbox to develop the technology required to be able to handle a wider range of waste. This proposal provides the conditions to do this.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Madam Speaker! We are here to debate the reform of the waste legislation for increased material recycling.

This is welcome. We have serious problems when it comes to our waste, and we must move towards a circular economy. I believe that the average person thinks that we in Sweden are very good at waste. We sort our waste and so on. The actual figures, however, do not look so good.

In the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency's in-depth evaluation from 2023, it was judged that we did not reach a single one of the national milestone goals for increased circularity and reduced waste. When the EU Commission conducted an evaluation of Sweden in 2022, the development was considered to be going in the wrong direction. As recently as 2023, the EU Commission issued a warning that we risked not reaching the goal for material recycling of municipal waste. These are serious matters that shake our self-image. We really should do more.

I have said this before in this speaker's chair: When I started in the Riksdag, we had a report every year called Waste. Now it is called Circular economy, and that is how we must think. We must have more tools to put this into practice.

It is serious when we receive warnings that we are heading in the wrong direction and that the EU Commission thinks Sweden is doing too little. The reforms on the table are good and welcome, but they are not enough.

When one talks about waste, one often touches upon the waste hierarchy. That is what governs in Sweden. It is actually quite simple: the best waste is that which never arises. After that, we should reuse as much as possible and then material-recycle. At the bottom of the hierarchy, we have incineration or destruction.

Unfortunately, most waste ends up too low in the hierarchy. We do too little to actually move up in the hierarchy. We must ensure that the best waste is that which does not arise and that we reuse what we can.

We see that with this bill, one still ends up very far down in the hierarchy. We in Miljöpartiet believe that more than just adjustments are needed. We want a broad review of the entire waste legislation.

In the morning, I and my colleagues in the committee heard the State Secretary from the Ministry of Rural Affairs talk about the fertilizer issue and what it is that prevents us from getting the bio-fertilizer management started. This is due, for example, to parts of the waste legislation.

If we are to become self-sufficient in everything from fertilizer to other things, or take a step forward, we must ensure that we do this. We therefore want to see a broad review of the waste legislation. It is about instruments, about product design, and about making it harder to release non-circular products onto the market.

Madam Speaker! Another central issue concerns the supervision. As we heard in the previous exchange, there is money to be made from waste. There is more money to be made if one cheats or if things go wrong. Here we must close all loopholes. I believe everyone has had a stomach ache from, for example, the Think Pink problem. We are now left with large piles of garbage in pink trash bags that no one wants to take responsibility for.

Many referral bodies warn that parts of the bill may increase the risk of illegal waste management. Therefore, it is difficult to understand why the government does not more clearly prioritize strengthened supervision.

We from the Miljöparti side want to see a mobilization of forces. Better supervisory guidance is needed so that it becomes uniform across the entire country. Cooperation between authorities is needed so that people actually do the right thing and the right person does the right thing. Resources that match the scale of the problem are also needed. Having a leaking landfill is no small matter. Fires can occur, and dangerous substances can be released into the environment. There are insanely high levels of environmental toxins in the areas around Think Pink and other such places. There are also other examples of batteries and other things being buried. So, we cannot have that.

Madam Speaker! A third question concerns responsibility and traceability. The Government proposes that the concept of original waste producer be removed. It may sound like a detail, but we do not understand why it is thought to be better to do so. It must be possible to trace the waste through the entire chain, in order to be able to hold someone accountable when something goes wrong. Otherwise, someone may be left to take the fall – often it is the municipalities. There must be a demand for accountability. We believe it is wrong to remove the concept of original waste producer. We believe this is needed, and several referral bodies have also highlighted this.

Madam Speaker! Finally, I want to say something about the municipalities. I see a great risk that with this proposal, it will once again be the municipalities that are left holding the bag, and that the costs will fall on us citizens, when it is done in the way the government proposes in the bill.

When responsibility is moved from municipalities to producers, the costs must follow. Otherwise, the great risk is that someone picks the raisins out of the cake and that the municipal tax collective – that is, we taxpayers – ends up paying for what no one else wants to do, or what is too expensive because the distances are too great. Municipalities look incredibly different. We do not think this is reasonable or fair. At the same time, one must safeguard the municipalities' opportunity to do this in a way that works according to the local conditions.

Madam Speaker! Overall, this is a proposition that is heading in the right direction, but we do not think it solves all the challenges that we actually face. This is an important issue. We believe that we need a policy that reduces waste from the beginning – it should not arise. Once it has arisen, we must ensure that we accelerate circularity, that responsibility and control throughout the entire chain actually work in practice, and that no one is left holding the bag.

Therefore, I move for approval of reservation 3, but I naturally stand behind all our reservations.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Lars Johnsson (M)

Madam Speaker! In Sweden, we are relatively good at sorting our waste. We are on our way to becoming even better.

It has already been decided that all the country's municipalities shall, by January 1st next year at the latest, introduce property-proximate collection for all households. The point of us sorting our waste is that the material should be able to be recycled and used as raw material in new products. It is a good way to conserve the earth's finite resources. The idea is, for example, that single-use glass can become new glass, metal packaging can become new metal, and plastic packaging can become new plastic.

But when it comes to material recycling, we in Sweden have not succeeded fully. We are good at recycling paper, glass and metal but significantly worse at recycling plastic and textiles. One reason for this is that we in Sweden have a tradition of incinerating our plastic waste. An extensive district heating system means that combustible waste has been a sought-after energy source.

In the EU's waste directive, there are clear limits on what proportion of waste must be recycled. Sweden unfortunately does not meet those limits, and the EU Commission has therefore initiated an infringement case against Sweden for failure to meet the targets. This is the background to some of the legislative changes contained in the bill we have to debate today.

So, measures are needed that promote the circular economy. One such proposal is that the retail trade, instead of the municipalities, should have responsibility for the management of waste produced in their operations. With this solution, the large nationwide trading companies can coordinate their waste management. They can sign joint agreements on material recycling and transport. Collectively, this provides better conditions for creating circular viable business models.

The government has also announced that it is preparing further proposals for increased material recycling. What we are dealing with here today is therefore only one part of the work to reform the waste legislation.

Madam Speaker! In the bill, the government proposes that non-contaminated excavated masses may, under certain conditions, be exempted from the waste legislation. The amendment means, for example, that excavated masses can be used for noise barriers and landscape construction at the site where they originated without there actually being a need for these constructions. It is a good way to avoid unnecessary transport and something that serves both the environment and the economy.

The Government has also tasked the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency to return with further proposals on how to manage waste more resource-efficiently, with a particular focus on reducing transport. The assignment is to be reported at the end of next month, and after that, we look forward to further improvements in the area.

Madam Speaker! Some of the motions raised in the report concern supervision and illegal waste management and how the proposed legislative changes affect illegal management. Unfortunately, in recent years, as was mentioned here earlier, we have had a number of publicized cases of illegal waste management. Well-functioning supervision is obviously important and absolutely crucial to counter unserious and illegal actors in the waste sector.

To strengthen supervision, Naturvårdsverket has therefore received 25 million in increased funding in this year's budget for work regarding supervision and compliance with the producer responsibility for increased recycling. Regarding the issue of supervision, an investigation has also recently been conducted on tightened environmental criminal law and strengthened environmental crime enforcement. That investigation has been out for consultation, and the proposals are currently being prepared in the Government Offices. We can therefore expect the government to return to the issue in the near future.

With those words, Madam Speaker, I move to approve the committee's proposal for a decision and to reject all motions.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Johan Löfstrand (S)

Madam Speaker! Lars Johnsson mentions in his speech waste crime and that it is a growing problem in society today. Just as has been mentioned here in the speaker's chair earlier, there are several referral bodies that are critical and concerned that the new legislation could entail increased risks for criminal acts.

Lars Johnsson mentioned some of the initiatives that the government is taking and which are described in the bill. But I do not think that from the government's side and in the bill, the challenges are addressed to a sufficient extent. Today we see several cases of environmental crime, but also that some of this crime is linked to organized crime.

What more does Lars Johnsson want to do to remedy this? We have been waiting for these tougher penalties for a very long time. In some areas, we see that the government is in a great hurry. That is the case when it concerns some crimes linked to drugs and violence. We Social Democrats, of course, stand behind that. But when it comes to different types of economic crime and environmental crime, the government has not been as quick-footed.

When will we see increased penalties linked to environmental crime and economic crime?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Lars Johnsson (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Johan Löfstrand, for the question! Let me first address this regarding responsibility. Today, it is different provisions that govern who has the responsibility for the waste. The regulatory framework is unclear. It is even to the extent that it sometimes only indirectly appears who has the responsibility. The proposed changes mean that we will get a much clearer regulatory framework, and that I welcome.

Furthermore, I do not see that the proposals we are now discussing increase the risk of waste crime compared to today's legislation. That other actors become responsible does not in itself mean that the possibility for supervision becomes worse. The Government has also allocated 25 million to strengthen supervision for 2026.

As I mentioned in my speech, an investigation into tightened environmental criminal law and strengthened environmental crime enforcement has very recently been conducted. That investigation was released in 2025 and has been out for consultation. Right now, it is being prepared within the Government Offices. I do not dare say exactly when the proposals will come from the Government Offices, but we can expect a reform of the provisions, and it is urgent.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Johan Löfstrand (S)

Madam Speaker! We Social Democrats welcome this review. We hope that a number of sharper criminal classifications in the environmental area will be introduced, as we see it as very necessary.

Our view – and it is several referral bodies that share that view – is nevertheless that the new and rather complex system, where the distribution of responsibility between different actors is changed and where, above all, there will be very many more actors, makes the supervision and responsibility issues immensely more complex. What both we and a number of referral bodies emphasize is that in the bill, one should have tried to address the challenges and risks that the changed way of working actually entails.

Just there, I think one cannot wait for legislation that will come later, but it should have been addressed in the bill. If several referral bodies have been critical, why has the government not addressed the risks that still exist with having multiple actors involved? It will fundamentally become much more difficult to exercise supervision over this complex operational picture.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Lars Johnsson (M)

Madam Speaker! I do not see the supervision becoming more complex than with the current regulatory framework.

As I mentioned in my speech, it is also important to move forward with the proposals, because we need to increase material recycling and circularity. We have a supervisory case on this in the EU. Therefore, it is important to move forward with this.

Possible sentencing increases are also being prepared. These are being prepared further at the Government Offices. It may be a bit more complex to prepare those matters, so it is taking a little longer. But we can probably expect that it will arrive in the near future.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Johan Löfstrand (S)

Madam Speaker! Today we will consider the Committee on Environment and Agriculture's report 19, Reforming the waste legislation for increased material recycling. I would like to begin by moving for approval of reservation 2.

This is, just as many previous speakers have said, an important debate, because it is fundamentally about how we shall use our resources and whether we mean business with transitioning society to become more circular.

We Social Democrats share the goal of increased material recycling. We need to reduce waste. We need to use our resources more smartly, and we must ensure that the material stays longer in our cycle. But, Madam Speaker, it is not enough to just want it. The policy must also be designed so that it actually delivers results, and here the government's proposals fall short.

I want to start by saying that it is absolutely crucial that we have a functioning producer responsibility. The basic principle should be obvious: The one who puts a product or packaging on the market should also take responsibility for what happens when it becomes waste. But that is not how it looks today. The system must therefore be developed and become more comprehensive regarding both financing and responsibility.

Right now, we see rather a tendency toward the opposite. Costs are being pushed down in the system, and in practice, this means that costs are shifted onto others, such as households or other actors who are actually trying to take their responsibility in this established system. This is not reasonable. It is not fair, and it does not create the right incentives to increase recycling.

What actually surprises me most is that the government, despite saying they want to increase the recycling rate, does not address those specific issues. In this bill, there is an ambition to reform the waste legislation and increase material recycling, but the bill practically contains no sharp proposals that ensure we reach the recycling goals. Therefore, we Social Democrats believe that the government must return with proposals that clarify and sharpen the producer responsibility and develop the system. We must have a functioning regulatory framework regarding producer responsibility that clarifies the responsibility and creates economic incentives to reduce waste, improve the design of products and packaging, and increase recycling.

Madam Speaker! Let me now move on to the part of the bill concerning deregulation and the changed distribution of responsibility. We view many of the proposals in the bill positively. They will, we believe, streamline waste flows in the long run. But there are also significant risks that the government has not analyzed sufficiently.

Firstly, there is an obvious risk that the market will not function equitably. Private actors will naturally seek out the most profitable customers – large companies in urban areas. Smaller companies in rural areas, where transport distances are longer and costs will consequently be higher, risk being left behind. This means in practice that the municipalities may have to take a greater responsibility for the least profitable parts of the system. It is a development that risks making waste management more expensive – not cheaper – for large groups in our society.

Secondly, a significant uncertainty is created regarding how the municipalities should manage their organization. If an actor, with the new legislation, leaves the market, the municipalities must be able to quickly take over the responsibility. They need to have readiness, resources, and capacity for this. It is not cost-free, and in the long term, it is not sustainable that one should switch between different levels and constantly have a readiness.

Thirdly, the changed responsibility situation can lead to increased waste crime. When more actors are involved and the distribution of responsibility becomes more complex, the risk increases that control is weakened. This creates space for unscrupulous actors to enter the market.

Against this background, we argue that the government must return with a proper analysis and evaluation of the risks associated with this deregulation. One cannot carry out such large-scale changes without taking into account the criticism received from referral bodies. The consequences must also be fully analyzed.

Madam Speaker! Supervision and the fight against waste crime is something that must be prioritized, for what role does the regulatory framework actually play if it is not followed? Today we see how waste crime is growing. It concerns illegal dumping, incorrect handling of hazardous waste and in some cases pure environmental crimes that have major consequences: contaminated soil and emissions into our waters. It also creates a breeding ground for organized crime.

We know that the supervision is not functioning well enough today. It is unequal across the country. It is often insufficient, and in many cases it is not proactive enough. This means that unscrupulous actors can continue their activities without being detected in time.

Against that background, it is remarkable that the government does not do more to strengthen supervision, especially when proposing major changes that create new complex systems that are difficult to control. More actors and a more fragmented responsibility also imply greater risks – greater risks that something falls between the cracks and greater risks that unserious actors exploit the system.

Madam Speaker! We Social Democrats therefore believe that the supervision must be tightened. More resources, clearer responsibilities, and not least an increased prioritization of proactive supervision are needed. We must find the problems before they grow large, not afterwards. And we need to review the penalties for the most serious environmental crimes. When the crimes cause great damage to the environment or to health, it is important that there are clear consequences. Therefore, we believe there are grounds to consider stricter legislation, including a new classification – particularly serious environmental crime.

Madam Speaker! In summary: We share the goal of increased material recycling, but we see clear deficiencies in the proposals that are now on the Riksdag's table. Without a sharp and fair producer responsibility, the system risks failing to deliver. Without a well-considered distribution of responsibility, costs and responsibilities risk falling on the wrong parties. And without strong supervision, the regulatory framework risks becoming just words on a paper.

We seriously want to ensure that we can transition to a more circular economy. Therefore, we must dare to make decisions that make a difference in practice.

Madam Speaker! Finally: This is likely my last debate in the chamber. After nearly 20 years in the Riksdag, I would therefore like to conclude by thanking you for the trust to serve. It has been a great responsibility and a great honor. I have been here for a long time. I have made many decisions that have affected people's everyday lives, shaped legislation, and contributed to the development of Sweden and for Swedish society.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Stina Larsson (C)

Madam Speaker! I was going to engage in a tough debate about free choice – no, I wasn't going to do that.

I want to thank the member for all the years in the Riksdag. I do not know if Johan Löfstrand remembers the first time we met. It was 2005. At that time, I served as a member for a short period, and I believe you were here, Johan. Since then, 20 years have passed – approximately. We have had somewhat different paths and different actions in politics. But your commitment to issues and the political actions cannot be overlooked.

I see here that we share the commitment in many of the important issues regarding packaging, producer responsibility, product design, and material recycling. If I am allowed to remain here, it will be a great void when we cannot, like, grapple with this. My question to the member is actually: How will Löfstrand in the future accommodate the interest in waste and circular economy?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Johan Löfstrand (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you very much, Stina Larsson, for the warm and kind words!

Engagement in interesting issues has followed me for many years in the Riksdag, and few issues are as exciting as waste issues. Not many people believe it, but that is how it is.

I hope that in one way or another this autumn I will be able to make use of the knowledge I have gained here and that I may also be able to continue to drive some of the committed issues that still remain to be checked off in the waste policy area. I therefore hope that I can contribute in one way or another in the future as well.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Stina Larsson (C)

Madam Speaker! I just want to confirm that waste, water, and sewage are central issues within our area. I wish you all the best!

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Madam Speaker! We have no other committee that is going to debate after us, so we might as well take the opportunity!

I also want to point out that this is probably Johan Löfstrand's last debate in the chamber. I got a little help from ChatGPT – I think that is okay nowadays – and it says that Johan is known as an organizer and a workhorse in policy work who since 2002 has worked hard in many of the Riksdag's various committees. Those of us who were there before remember that it was primarily the Housing and Civil Affairs Committee. Now it has been the Environment and Agriculture Committee in many different terms as well, and many of those issues are indeed connected.

Löfstrand himself did not know how many speeches he has given here in the chamber, and even ChatGPT could not answer that. On the other hand, it could calculate that he has had over 7,000 minutes of speaking time in this chamber since 2002. I believe few can beat that.

Madam Speaker! Not all debates here in the chamber are very fun to listen to. But personally, I very much appreciate when Johan Löfstrand is part of the debates, because then it usually becomes lively. Often, even the boring debates, if I may say so, can then become very fun.

I therefore just want to thank you on behalf of myself and the committee for this time; I believe there will be a larger vote of thanks later.

Thank you, Johan!

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Johan Löfstrand (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you very much, Emma Nohrén, for those very kind words!

As I have said, there have been many debates in the chamber. I will certainly miss that, even though there is much other exciting to do in the future.

Thank you very much for the kind words!

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Elin Nilsson (L)

Madam Speaker! How does one move this debate forward in an appropriate way? That is the question. However, I will not speak for 7,000 minutes but briefly and concisely.

Just as many before me here have argued, increased material recycling and increased circularity are things that we all think are important, and today we are debating a bill on the reforming of the waste legislation.

The extraction of natural resources causes a large climate and environmental impact. I read somewhere that it accounts for approximately half of the human impact on the climate globally in total. At the same time, there is great potential for increased reuse and more circularity.

We need new circular business models, and we need to promote innovative technological development. It is not only important for the environment and the climate, but it is also, like so much else that concerns the environment and climate, linked to competitiveness and growth.

The purpose of the proposals that we now have to take a position on is to prevent the generation of waste and increase material recycling and thereby contribute to Sweden being able to reach the goals that have been decided within the EU.

Increased resource efficiency and long-term perspective and better planning conditions for companies, municipalities and state operations are important. We really need to promote investments in innovative technical solutions.

These legislative changes are proposed to enter into force this summer, and I move for approval of the committee's proposal in the report.

Before I entered the Riksdag, I worked for many years within state supervision in a completely different area. I therefore particularly welcome the initiatives made in this year's budget for a more uniform and efficient supervision. State agencies are often blamed for a huge amount of things that do not work well, but when state supervision works well, it is a very important tool for us to be able to reach where we want to in society. That requires resources, and those we are allocating.

Finally: Waste crime, both internationally and nationally, is a major problem that we need to address. In that regard, we have also previously heard that there is an investigation being prepared. Proposals will come, but I cannot say exactly when.

Just as it concerns other parts of organized crime, the government is determined to combat this, partly because it has direct negative effects on both people and the environment, and partly because waste is a source of income that feeds crime and elements that we do not want to see in our society.

There is much to do here, and we want to do a lot. If it is anything one can say when summarizing this mandate period, it is that the reform agenda is important and the will to change the criminal justice system is high. Environmental legislation is an important part of this. It is urgent to tighten the penalties for the most serious environmental crimes. I live quite close to a couple of places where Think Pink has been and caused havoc. There, one still has to deal with the consequences of gigantic mountains of waste and buried batteries and so on, a completely unacceptable conduct that needs to be condemned. Here we have more to do.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Stina Larsson (C)

Madam Speaker! Just a couple of weeks ago, we in my home municipality of Kävlinge received new bins – two large bins with four compartments each, that is, eight compartments for sorting of food waste, plastic packaging, paper packaging, newspapers, metal, colored glass, clear glass, and residual waste.

Finally, I would like to say. The neighboring municipality Lund has had it for several years, and now the property-proximate collection has also reached my household. It is a high threshold for some, but for most, it facilitates the sorting.

I see this as a necessary transition in how we should handle our waste. Today, unfortunately, large amounts of plastic from packaging end up in the residual waste and go to incineration, even though the materials in many cases can be reused. These are resources that we are literally burning up, and the core of the government's proposal is therefore clear: We shall move from a linear to a circular society where we should see waste as a resource.

Through this, the government intends for us to tighten the requirements for sorting, which means that households will not only sort out food waste but also plastic, paper, glass and, hopefully, also textiles to an increased extent. A concrete example is that multi-family dwellings will now also receive property-proximate collection, so that one can sort in direct connection to the home instead of traveling to a recycling station.

It is good that we are to strengthen producer responsibility. There are several examples where packaging is sorted even at the corporate level. Plastic packaging should not only go to production but also contribute to paying for the collection of recycling. It creates incentives to, for example, reduce unnecessary plastics and use recyclable materials or design packaging that is easier to sort.

New targets are also being introduced for recycling, particularly for plastic and electronics. When it comes to electronics, it is about more products, such as mobile phones and computers, being handled so that valuable metals can be recycled instead of being lost.

Let me be clear. The Centre Party welcomes the ambition in the government's proposition. Reforming the waste legislation is necessary. The proposals to shift responsibility from municipalities to operations and to tighten supervision are steps in the right direction. But, Madam Speaker, the steps are too short and too hesitant. We will not reach our recycling goals with these proposals. The proposals are therefore not sufficient for Sweden to take the leadership position we should have in the green transition.

We in the Center Party are not content with being just "lagom". We want Sweden to be a leading country. Therefore, we have submitted our own motion with proposals that can seriously accelerate the transition.

Firstly: Trust in the power of enterprise and introduce a full free choice. The business sector is the engine of the circular economy, not a brake. It is among our entrepreneurs that innovations occur. They find new ways to recycle, reuse, and reduce their waste. The government's proposal to partially loosen the municipal monopoly is good, but why stop there?

The government's proposal risks becoming too detail-oriented. Take, for example, the requirements on how waste should be collected. If the state decides exactly how many fractions should be sorted and how the collection should be organized, there is a risk of disregarding local conditions. In a rural municipality, it can, for example, be more efficient with flexible collection solutions or coordinated transports, while in a large city there may be other needs with property-proximate collection. One and the same system simply does not fit everywhere.

We in the Center Party want to go all the way and introduce a full free-choice model. Give all operations that want to and can the chance to take responsibility for their own waste themselves! It would release an enormous force, increase competition, and drive the development of new, smarter solutions.

Madam Speaker! Stop treating excavated materials as waste! It is almost absurd that we today have legislation that causes tons of fully usable excavated materials – soil, stone, and gravel – to be classified as waste. It leads to unnecessary transport, high costs for companies, and an enormous waste of resources. The bill makes a small exception, but we must think bigger. Let us modernize the legislation so that clean excavated materials are fundamentally regarded as a valuable resource that can be used locally instead of being transported to a landfill. It is common sense.

For the third: Build a Swedish industry for textile recycling and introduce a textile step. Today, we lack large-scale industry to handle the material. It is burned or exported. What a missed opportunity! The Center Party proposes a national textile step with targeted investment support similar to Klimatklivet, where we can build a completely new Swedish industry for sorting and fiber recycling. It can also create new green jobs across the country and strengthen Swedish competitiveness.

For the fourth: Ensure an effective and legally sound supervision. A well-functioning market requires effective supervision that stops cheating and crime. We are doubtful whether the government's proposal to move all supervisory responsibility to the county administrative boards is truly the best solution. I think that the resources and local knowledge that the country's 290 municipalities have are valuable to keep. We believe that the government needs to investigate a smarter model that balances national uniformity with local competence.

Madam Speaker! There is a common thread in our proposals. They are about trust in entrepreneurs and individuals. They are about using the power of the market to solve societal problems. They are about removing obstacles and simplifying regulations so that those who want to invest in the green transition can actually do so. In summary: We see a government bill with good intentions but lacking ambition. For Sweden to become a world leader in circular economy, a bolder policy is required—one that trusts the business sector, sees resources where others see waste, and invests in the green industries of the future.

Sweden can do more. With that said, I move for approval of the Centerpartiets reservation number 4.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 29 April.)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)