Response to interpellation 2024/25:520 on exemptions for small plastic bottles in the new EU regulation
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
1 L argues that the government should not change the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency's mandate because the agency is to analyze the consequences for Swedish industry before decisions are made 1 2. L emphasizes that it is irresponsible to introduce exemptions without the agency's analysis and that the regulation has not yet entered into force 2 3. L argues that the mandate already directs the agency to avoid over-implementation and to consider national exemptions 1 2 3. L argues that the requirements of the EU regulation have not yet begun to be applied 4. L argues that the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency has received clear instructions to avoid implementation above the minimum level 4. 5 S considers the current timeline unreasonable as companies can be wiped out during the waiting period 5 6. 6 S argues that the government should prioritize the exemption now to promote Swedish growth 6 7.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)
Madam Speaker! Mattias Ottosson has asked me if I intend to change the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency's mandate so that the possibility of exemptions for small plastic bottles is prioritized in the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency's partial report by December 1, 2025, and that the business community thus does not risk being affected by continued uncertainty and market disadvantages. Mattias Ottosson has also asked me if I intend to take any measures so that Swedish companies do not have to wait for at least two years for a decision on an exemption that is already possible to introduce according to the EU regulation.
Let me begin by saying that we share the view that the business community should not be affected by uncertainty and market disadvantages.
On February 27 this year, the government commissioned the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency to propose how the Swedish regulatory framework should be supplemented and adapted to the European Parliament and Council's regulation on packaging and packaging waste. The assignment shall be partially reported to the Government Offices by December 1 this year regarding the articles that shall begin to be applied no later than three years from the regulation's entry into force. The remaining parts shall be reported by December 1, 2026, at the latest.
Provisions concerning the return system begin to be applied more than three years after entry into force, which means that these shall be included in the latter report. It is however stated in the assignment to Naturvårdsverket that the first partial report may include proposals linked to articles that are to begin to be applied later if the authority makes the assessment that it is necessary.
The Government is clear in the mandate that the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency shall consider how implementation above the minimum level can be avoided, and that the agency shall analyze and, if necessary, submit proposals for national exemptions where possible. It also appears that the agency shall utilize the possibility for national exemptions if it is deemed appropriate for competition reasons, administrative reasons, or cost reasons. This applies particularly when provisions are judged to have disproportionate consequences for Swedish companies and agencies or otherwise for Swedish conditions.
The assignment also includes that the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency shall obtain information from relevant business representatives and interest organizations. The Agency shall also consider how unjustified regulatory burdens can be countered and how administrative costs and other costs for companies and authorities shall not increase more than necessary.
Against this background, there are no reasons for me as Minister to change the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency's mandate.
Mattias Ottosson (S)
Madam Speaker! Thank you to the Minister for the answer to the interpellation!
I begin by saying that we share the view regarding what the Minister says in her response: "Let me begin by saying that we share the view that the business sector should not be affected by uncertainty and market disadvantages." That is wise. At the same time, she concludes her response by saying: "Against this background, there is no reason for me as Minister to change the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency's mandate." This nevertheless means that the problems that companies experience because of this will remain and that the government is not prepared to speed up the process which, in my opinion, actually should already be completed.
The interpellation is about, and what is important, is that Swedish companies and Swedish entrepreneurs shall have good opportunities to develop their products. Why is that important? I believe that the Minister and I also agree on that. It is about companies growing, employing people and contributing to the public good. That is how we build welfare, and that is how we build development in the country.
I have raised the question because there is a company in my constituency that has been affected by this problem. It is not that they want this type of bottles to be thrown on the landfill and lie there, but the bottles are already included in a system where they are recycled.
The problem is that the deposit system we have in Sweden today cannot handle such small bottles. Returpack, better known as Pantamera, are clear that this is an all-too-small product and that they cannot rebuild their systems so that they can handle it. But there is still a way to recycle the plastic. It is important that Sweden has the same rules of the game as those in the rest of Europe and that our companies can compete in a good way.
It is for this reason that I repeat my question: Why is the government delaying the exemption? It still sounds, based on the Minister's reasoning, as if this is important and that we could have such an exemption.
In conclusion: Swedish companies are being punished even though the exemption is permitted according to the EU regulation. It is about plastic bottles up to 100 milliliters that, purely technically, cannot be in the system being able to be exempted. Despite this, Naturvårdsverket has not been commissioned by the government to prioritize the issue in its first partial report. At the same time, the government says in other contexts that we should avoid this type of over-implementation. It is something we should not utilize, and it is not good for Sweden and Swedish companies.
I therefore repeat my question: How does it align with the government's line of adhering to the minimum level that one actively chooses to exclude an exception that is precisely part of this minimum level?
Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)
Madam Speaker! Thank you to the member for the opportunity to discuss this issue!
The members of the committee have also submitted written questions on this which have received answers at previous occasions. I must therefore begin by thanking you for the great commitment to this work. The Government is very pleased with the development of the PPWR legislation and how the negotiation proceeded. At the end of the negotiation, we succeeded, after hard work with high political involvement, in achieving several substantial advancements that Swedish industry benefits from.
It concerns many different parts. That which receives the most attention is possibly the paper packaging, which is very developed in our country. Also in several other Nordic countries, it is a tradition that is adhered to, while in other countries there are more glass bottles. It is important that the legislation does not target different parts.
What we are discussing today is that Naturvårdsverket has been given a mandate to propose how PPWR should be implemented in Sweden. Without going into too much technical detail: When an EU law is implemented, regardless of which one it is, the implementation from the government's side is often preceded by an analysis from the appropriate relevant authority.
It means that it would be irresponsible to introduce exceptions without the authority having analyzed the question itself. This applies even if I stand here in the chamber and clearly state the government's line, which is that the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency shall consider how over-implementation or implementation above a minimum level can be avoided. This also applies even if I, for example, point out that the authorities shall utilize the opportunity for national exceptions if it is deemed appropriate for competition reasons and other reasons that we have set out in the assignment.
The government is clear towards the authority regarding the direction we point out in this work. But we also mean that the authority should be allowed to do its work in the way that one so often succeeds in doing, namely to investigate and analyze what the consequences will be for Swedish industry and for Sweden's goal fulfillment regarding PPWR.
To precede that assessment already now, without a basis regarding what consequences it would entail, the government simply considers it irresponsible, and that is why we avoid it. We let the authority continue working on its basis. We are clear in the basis that one must carefully review how implementation above the minimum level can be avoided and how one can utilize the opportunity for national exemptions so that we avoid administrative, cost-related, or competitive disadvantages, especially regarding provisions that are judged to have disproportionate consequences for Swedish companies.
If we look at our deposit system and our conditions for handling packaging in Sweden, we can state that precisely these small bottles are in a special category and cannot be deposited in our regular system. We look forward to the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency's analysis of the issue before we proceed from the government's side.
Mattias Ottosson (S)
Madam Speaker! Thank you to the Minister for the continued discussion and dialogue on this!
I still get the feeling that the government has an ambition and thinks that this is important and should be implemented because it is good for Swedish companies. I do, however, think that the timeline that has been set is completely unreasonable. It could take several years before a decision or an announcement comes. During that time, companies can be wiped out. It can be difficult to get investors to enter a company when one doesn't really know where the issue is headed. It could be small, family-owned companies that are having a very tough time. They might not have a large capital behind them but only their own investment. That is when this problem is created.
The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency's first partial report will arrive on December 1, 2025, which is at the end of this year. But that which concerns the regulatory framework in the recycling part will not be reported until December 2026, and that is two years away. That is when a position must be taken on these small bottles that do not work in our recycling system, so it is only then that the decision will come.
I think the government is hiding a bit behind the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency. The government has the power to direct this assignment so that the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency could issue such a notice as early as December 2025, even though I might think that is also late. I believe it is necessary. Then companies can foresee what will happen and adapt their production and the work they do based on the decision that is to be made.
Why should we keep hiding behind the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency? Politics is about will, and it is the government that makes the decisions. Here, it also feels like the government and the opposition have the same view on the issue, namely that this should be implemented as soon as possible so that Swedish companies can develop, hire more people, and contribute to the growth we want.
I suppose I must repeat the question: Why should Swedish companies have to wait at least two years for a decision on this exemption – which is already possible to introduce, according to the EU regulation we have, by the government giving the assignment to Naturvårdsverket and putting pressure to speed up the process? It sounds a bit over-bureaucratic to my ears and not so good for Swedish business.
Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)
Madam Speaker! "Over-bureaucratic" truly sounded like a word that I want to distance myself from immediately. The fact remains, Madam Speaker: If the member were a minister and had sat with this order, the member would also have had to accept that the authorities shall analyze how we apply regulations before we begin to announce what is to happen. That is the order that prevails, quite simply.
When it comes to current legislation, there are clear conditions for applying for exemptions and other matters with Naturvårdsverket. And the requirements in the EU regulation that the interpellator wants the government to decide on exemptions from have, therefore, not yet entered into force. Of course, one wants to announce as early as possible to create security for the industry, but it is important to keep in mind in the timeline that the regulation actually has not yet entered into force. We need to have a basis for the decisions we make in the government, and those bases often come from analyses from our agencies.
I do not want to avoid transparency in any way or hide behind my agency. On the contrary, I argue that the government is very clearly stating here how we reason in the matter. We mean that the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency should consider how implementation above the minimum level can be avoided. The different parts of our assignment to the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency should also be interpreted as the government's direction and priorities in the implementation of this EU legislation. We include these formulations in the assignment because they are governing for the proposals that the agency will later submit.
I understand the frustration over not yet being able to see in the crystal ball what the result will be. But the work should be preceded by analyses. That is how we work, and that is how I mean we should continue to work.
And as I said: The requirements in the EU regulation that the interpellor wants the government to decide on exemptions from have, therefore, not yet entered into force.
Mattias Ottosson (S)
Madam Speaker! Thank you to the Minister for the continued debate!
I get a bit of the feeling that the government says one thing but does something else. The government has gone to the election and also drives the line that we should try to stick to the EU's minimum level as much as possible, but apparently that does not apply in this case. I still experience that it somehow disadvantages Swedish companies, and I do not think that either the Minister or I are particularly pleased with that.
Obviously, other EU countries have introduced this exception. In that case, it is of course difficult for Swedish companies to compete well with them. It creates this uncertainty, which I spoke about earlier: Is one prepared to invest in the future? It can break a company and naturally creates anxiety among the employees.
I still feel quite concerned. My view is that decisions could be made now and that we do not need to wait. Then, it is clear that I am freer in my role as a Member of Parliament than the Minister is, but I still mean that she could task Naturvårdsverket with expediting this so that it could be presented earlier. I maintain that it is possible with the regulatory framework and the system we have today.
Good luck, I say to the government. I really hope that this can be pushed through faster. I believe it is good for Swedish growth and Swedish jobs that we can come forward with this exception and continue to work with it.
Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)
Madam Speaker! It was very unfortunate that this was the interpellant's final contribution. The information I have received is that the requirements of the EU regulation have not yet begun to be applied. No country has, therefore, designed its legislation based on the EU regulation. Then there are several countries whose return legislation is designed in such a way that small bottles are not covered, but that is not the same as implementing exemptions from a legislation that has not yet been implemented in any of the EU countries. It is therefore unclear whether legislation has been produced that does not cover small bottles to deliberately exempt these bottles, or if it is simply based on the fact that the legislation was produced during a time when small bottles did not exist on the market – it is, so to speak, a fairly new phenomenon.
Since this was the member's final statement, the question of which countries have exemptions from a law that has not yet been implemented anywhere remains hanging in the air.
If one worries about how eager this government is to show care and consideration for Swedish growth and every day work to strengthen the conditions for Swedish companies, one has probably not noticed much of what the government is working on. We have, since the first day on the job, worked hard for such things as better electricity supply to Swedish industry and simplified permit processes.
We are also as clear as we can be in the specific mandate to Naturvårdsverket, namely that one should simply avoid implementation above the minimum level as well as analyze and, if necessary, submit proposals to implement national exemptions. That, I would say, is as clear as one can be given the conditions we have. I am convinced that the member actually shares that view. But it is good that we get a debate on how we can continue to act together for improved conditions for Swedish companies and for Swedish growth. It is always appreciated, at least by a liberal.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.