Response to interpellation 2023/24:544 on the EU's new wastewater directive

Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)

Mr. Speaker! Joakim Järrebring has asked me if I have taken the initiative to conduct an analysis of how the proposal for a new sewage directive aligns with the government's stated cost-effective environmental and climate policy, in light of current environmental research on nitrogen enrichment in colder climates, and if I can, in that case, account for the results of the analysis, what initiatives I and the government intend to take to financially support the municipalities in their work to meet these requirements, and – given the municipalities' already strained finances – how I and the government plan to ensure that the new costs do not impact other activities.

Initially, I want to say that the background to the revision of the sewage directive is that the environmental status in lakes and seas is far from satisfactory. We continue to see how algal blooms and oxygen-depleted bottoms spread in the Baltic Sea with negative effects for both fishing and tourism.

The cod fishing in the Baltic Sea has been completely halted for several years, which is partly judged to be due to eutrophication. Data from environmental monitoring simultaneously show that the normalized emissions of nitrogen and phosphorus have been increasing since 2015 in large parts of the Baltic Sea. Sweden, and other countries around the Baltic Sea, therefore need to make additional efforts to reduce emissions. Strengthened common legislation is an effective approach to limiting the emissions.

In the negotiations, Sweden, together with Finland, has very successfully negotiated two additions to the Commission's original proposal.

The first concerns the possibility of approving increased emissions during the establishment and expansion of treatment plants even if the environmental status of the water areas receiving the emissions deteriorates. As the legislation is designed today, it is difficult to approve such emissions due to the requirements of the Water Framework Directive and the so-called Weserdom. The second concerns the possibility of invoking natural retention of nutrients in the landscape.

None of the additions were included in the original proposal, and Sweden and Finland have ensured that both are now included in the final proposal despite strong opposition from several influential countries. Regarding natural retention, we did not get all the way there in the negotiation, but we have 20 years to meet the new requirements, which is still a significant improvement given where the original proposal started.

In order to be able to address the eutrophication problems, the emissions from all EU coastal states to the Baltic Sea and the North Sea need to be further reduced. The revised urban waste water directive is a very strong tool to jointly succeed in raising the ambition and ensuring that all coastal states reduce their emissions.

The final proposal for the revised urban waste water directive was published on 23 February and is expected to be adopted later this year. The Government has therefore not yet taken a position on what needs may exist during the implementation. We can, however, state that in Sweden, a limited number of smaller treatment plants will be affected over a 20-year period. There is therefore plenty of time to succeed in planning in the best possible way and, for example, take into account the upcoming investment needs resulting from the development. The costs for wastewater treatment are, however, generally regulated through the water and sewage fee.

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

Joakim Järrebring (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Minister, for the answer! I want to begin by emphasizing that we are in complete agreement regarding the needs and that the whole thing is fundamentally something incredibly good. The situation in the Baltic Sea is deeply problematic.

With the interpellation, I want to highlight that the new sewage directive nevertheless means that Sweden faces significant challenges. These challenges are particularly noticeable in our rural municipalities and in the northern part of the country, where we have a lower population density. There are also different climatic conditions in northern Sweden than in southern Sweden and, in that respect, than in the rest of Europe.

Svenskt Vatten produced a report last year in which they point out that the infrastructure for our drinking water and sewage has an investment need of a little over 30 billion kronor annually, but that only 20 billion is being invested today. There is therefore an annual deficit on the investment side of approximately 10 billion kronor.

This results in a growing problem and a growing investment and maintenance debt. In order to be able to manage the costs, the water and sewage taxes in Sweden's municipalities need to double by 2040 compared to what the municipal residents pay for water and sewage today. It is a burden that will be particularly heavy for people who live in municipalities with low population density.

With the new requirements, the investment need will increase further. We must acknowledge that rural municipalities and municipalities in northern Sweden face great challenges. As the listener may perhaps understand, the investment costs can be distributed among more inhabitants in the cities, which have higher population density, but in the countryside and in the north, the costs per capita become significantly higher. The colder climate in the north also means that the technical and economic challenges become greater when it comes to wastewater treatment.

In the answer, the Minister stated that there is a 20-year respite for Sweden regarding natural retention, but the question of the economic conditions for the water and sewage authorities to manage the necessary investments remains unanswered. Even before the stricter requirements resulting from the new sewage directive are introduced, the water and sewage authorities are struggling with a regulatory framework that is not adapted for the large new investments and reinvestments that the operations face.

I mean that the government must act promptly and present concrete measures to ensure that the new costs do not further increase the differences between city and country and between north and south, and also ensure that the investments that are needed and are absolutely necessary do not have negative effects on welfare activities, which would primarily affect our elderly and our children.

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

Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to begin by thanking the member for choosing this occasion to highlight this important issue, as it is of great importance that one takes into account things that also lie a bit further ahead in time, which this now does.

What I must primarily highlight here is that there was an original proposal from the EU Commission where there was no room to take into account natural retention. Here, Sweden and Finland have succeeded in negotiating back the possibility of invoking natural retention and in this way have achieved great success in itself regarding the implementation of the directive.

We did not, however, go all the way, but the municipalities have 20 years to meet the new requirements instead of a few years, which otherwise could have been the case. How the respective municipality is affected by the new revised sewage directive is something for all municipalities to start looking into quickly.

Regarding the question of whether the government considers that the municipalities should bear the entire cost themselves, this is something that we have not taken a position on yet. We need to see what needs exist before we can make such a statement. What needs exist during the implementation of the revised directive we will know only when the directive is adopted and decided, which it is not yet. As soon as it is, the government will of course begin to look at what the consequences will be on the Swedish side.

What can be stated at this point is that in Sweden, it is a limited number of smaller treatment plants that will be affected over a 20-year period. Then, regarding wastewater treatment in general, it is the water and sewage fee that one should utilize. If one sees that there is an investment need of 10 billion, which is missing annually, one can - if the member does not object - start by dividing this need among all existing municipalities to see which municipalities have a greater need and which perhaps do not.

But the municipalities that have these needs must, of course, take that into account in their planning horizon, so to speak, and I expect that our responsible municipal politicians have a good awareness of this. I thank the member for that this occasion also becomes a way to highlight the importance of taking this into account and being aware of the revision that is now taking place of the sewage directive.

I also take the opportunity to highlight the successes that have been made from the Swedish and Finnish sides to make this a directive that is easier to implement on Swedish soil, even though, as the member points out, there is something that is unique to the colder climates. It is simply a different situation.

And with this, the government means that we now have a good basis for our municipalities to act upon, but it requires that we first adopt the directive and then review what needs exist. All municipalities have a responsibility to plan for the basic needs that a sewage system constitutes. It is something that one certainly should take responsibility for as a municipal politician, even if it does not always appear as clearly as other policies.

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

Joakim Järrebring (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Minister, for the answer! I must begin by saying that I believe there are very many, including myself and my party, who are satisfied that we have now handled the effects of Weserdomen and the non-deterioration requirement. It has created major problems out in Municipal Sweden and hindered the transition.

With that said: In my interpellation, I try to point out that we already today see how great the challenges are for the main actors when it comes to meeting new investments and reinvestments in the system that the state financed when it was expanded and then handed over to the municipalities to manage. One has no value from depreciation that allows one to finance reinvestments, and we have a regulatory system that, purely technically, complicates matters when it comes to building up the capital needed to meet interest and amortizations.

It is therefore not out of unwillingness, I would say, that the municipalities are not investing at the pace that is actually needed. There is a need to review the regulatory system, and I am only sorry that during the last parliamentary term we did not include this even though an investigation was carried out regarding sustainable water services. We should have included the economic perspective.

There is no reason for the government to wait for the new wastewater directive to be ratified and implemented in Swedish legislation, as the fundamental problem with the financing of wastewater needs to be addressed by the government here and now. Even though we have 20 years, the investments will not wait. The investments will need to be made in the future as well, and they will increase in level given the new requirements that come with the new wastewater directive.

I would very much like to hear if the Minister, or you at the Ministry, have reflected on the underinvestment and the problems that the municipalities actually face. Because if we are to be honest, this is not just about maintaining our water and sewage systems and adapting to new, stricter requirements regarding sewage treatment, but it is also about climate adaptation. There is a very strong pressure on the municipalities to manage this in purely financial terms. They must manage to secure the drinking water supply, manage to secure the sewage treatment, and manage to secure the climate adaptation.

Has the government reflected on this? Do they see the problem? Do they imagine that they will be able to do something about the problem? Neither I nor the municipalities are primarily calling for the government to provide more money; rather, it is primarily about creating a better regulatory system that enables the municipalities to take their responsibility.

The question remains: Does the government see that there is a need for specific support measures when it comes to the municipalities in northern Sweden, where we have the problem of both a colder climate, large distances, and sparsely populated areas?

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

Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the member again for the interpellation, for this is a relevant interpellation debate to hold on a very relevant issue that the member raises.

There are several parts to this, but specifically, we see that it is not working as it is now. We have identified a problem that we need to address. When it comes to how we intend to handle this moving forward, there are no announcements to give today. But I really thank you for this opportunity to bring the issue up on the agenda, and I look forward to further discussing with Member Järrebring what could be done to address the problem. We know, as said, that it is there, and it is truly present.

It is not that I, as Minister, and the government have the view that the municipalities are allowed to invest and that everything is then settled, but it is obviously more complex than that. Just last night, I stood in the square in Norrtälje and spoke with residents who wanted to raise the water and sewage issue. They felt that it was precisely water and sewage that was complicating things in the municipality. The problem is therefore constantly present, and we are aware of that. We obviously need to handle this.

The interpellations debate just today concerns the EU's new wastewater directive, or the revision of the wastewater directive, and what consequences it will have. Here I can only point out that Sweden, together with Finland, has managed to achieve progress and successes in a section where we did not have particularly many countries with us, and above all, quite a few large and vocal countries against us. It has therefore been with great difficulty that we have tried to create understanding for the unique climate we have here in Sweden and what conditions that gives us.

It is also about ensuring that we have the possibility to expand treatment plants in the future. It is also a need that increases as certain cities grow. The proposal that exists now regarding the water framework directive and the Weser estuary becomes almost identical to the proposal that Sweden and Finland have worked on to include in the directive. This means that a member state may expand a treatment plant and increase emissions in a certain water area if certain conditions are met. We believe that this will be something that facilitates things for the municipalities, for example, in the work they do on this front.

Then there are other parts that one could also discuss in connection with reviewing the regulatory framework, namely, for example, PFAS contamination and how we ensure that we address the issues that exist with contamination on that front. There are further things to do regarding this, but what has now emerged regarding PFAS is that the member states shall monitor the concentration of this in wastewater and the methodology is to be established in a delegated act.

Even there, some progress has been made, but it can be stated that the problem we have with pollution, especially PFAS pollution, is a very difficult issue that we will need to work on even in the future.

To tie it all together: There is still much work to be done both at the EU level and at the national level from the state's side regarding regulatory systems and funding issues, but also regarding the municipalities' capacity to manage the funding, which is indeed a highly municipal issue.

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

Joakim Järrebring (S)

Mr. Speaker! Just when it comes to pollution, the polluter pays principle is extremely important and completely central, I would even say. That aspect of the financing is also important to look at.

My entire point with the interpellation is to point out what the government should do when it stands behind the directive and at the same time knows that it entails a greater challenge for our water and wastewater authorities, seen in light of the fact that even today there are great difficulties for the water and wastewater authorities to fulfill their mission for financing reasons. In that case, I think it is important that the government, as early as possible, and preferably already now, has thoughts, ideas and plans regarding how to give the municipalities the right conditions to fulfill both the existing mission and the expanded mission in view of the responsibility that the new wastewater directive entails.

With this, I would like to thank you for the debate. Even though it is almost three months delayed, it is good that it took place.

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

Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the member again. It is good that we have the debate, and I look forward to the upcoming discussions.

The government works every day with many parts of how we apply the sewage and water issues. As the member is certainly aware, no one is sitting idle working on these issues. Of course, there is always room for potential improvement, and I look forward to a continued dialogue on this.

The interpellation debate was hereby concluded.

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