Response to interpellation 2024/25:541 on textile recycling and producer responsibility
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerns the introduction of producer responsibility for textiles and the challenges of separate collection of textile waste. L argues that the measures are positive for the climate and the circular economy 1. L emphasizes that it is important that the polluter pays and that the government is working to implement the EU's rules as soon as possible 1 2. L argues that a national producer responsibility was previously judged to be counterproductive and expensive 2. S considers that municipalities and taxpayers are now forced to bear costs that the producers should cover 3. S argues that Sweden should have introduced a national producer responsibility at the same time as the legislation was introduced 3 4. S emphasizes the need for a circular economy where products are designed to last and be recycled 4 5.
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! Joakim Järrebring has asked me if I intend to act to quickly introduce a producer responsibility for textiles and in this way ensure that both municipalities and non-profit organizations are given reasonable conditions to manage the new collection – and if not, how I intend to ensure that this does not lead to major economic burdens for these actors.
As the member points out, since the turn of the year, there has been a requirement for municipalities to collect textile waste separately. The requirement originates from the EU's waste directive, and this requirement applies in all EU countries. The municipalities have also previously had responsibility for collecting textiles from households, but now the requirement is that textile waste must be collected separately from other waste. Separate collection is part of creating a more circular management of textiles, which, together with the proposed producer responsibility and eco-design requirements, aims to reduce the climate and environmental impact of textiles. The introduction of these measures is therefore positive for the climate and the environment and strengthens the circular economy. These measures are based on the polluter pays principle. Regarding the situation for the municipalities and the secondhand industry, I and the government are well aware of this issue, and we are following the situation closely.
It is true that a producer responsibility for textiles clarifies who should pay for the extended handling of textile waste. One can, of course, have views that the EU or Sweden should have introduced producer responsibility at the same time as the requirement for separate collection. That, as a solution to the problem, moving forward with national proposals before the EU proposal had been negotiated would have been difficult, as the rules and the scope of the producer responsibility have changed in significant parts during the course of the negotiations. Some of the countries that have already introduced a producer responsibility will now be forced to make substantial changes so that the national producer responsibilities are adapted to the EU's producer responsibility.
Pleasantly enough, great steps have been taken at the EU level in the right direction towards producer responsibility for textiles. All countries in the Council of Ministers have preliminarily backed the compromise proposal negotiated with the European Parliament. The Council of Ministers is expected to give its formal approval during the summer. The European Parliament has also preliminarily backed the compromise proposal.
It means that we in the government have a task ahead of us to ensure that these rules are put in place. It is extremely important that we get a system that works in practice and that ensures that the textiles collected can be used in the best possible way.
Joakim Järrebring (S)
Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister for the answer, and I am pleased that there seems to be movement in a positive direction at the EU level.
I will nevertheless dwell a little on what the Minister highlighted. It certainly would have been laborious and a double effort to introduce a separate producer responsibility if it had been done at the same time as the legislation was introduced in Sweden, but we would still have achieved something with it. As it stands now, we agree on the principle that the polluter pays, but in practice, it is the municipalities and the taxpayers who have to bear the costs of the producers' environmental impact. My view is therefore that it would have been better if one had done as France and the Netherlands and introduced a national producer responsibility at the same time as the legislation on textile recycling was implemented.
I have full respect for the fact that one should be economical with taxpayers' funds and not double-work when it is not needed. But I think the polluter pays principle is important, and I think we should be careful to defend this principle in all different contexts, both at the EU level, in relation to the rest of the world, and here at home.
The Minister is welcome to answer how the government reasoned when it chose not to look at national producer responsibility. Does the Minister think it is reasonable that the municipalities and the taxpayers now have to bear the cost?
Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)
Madam Speaker! Yes, this is very interesting considering that in 2020 the investigation into a national producer responsibility was delivered to the then red-green government. It was therefore the Social Democrats and the Green Party who, together with their government base, came to the conclusion not to proceed with this investigation. This was met with criticism from some representatives within, for example, academia and the secondhand industry who were eager to have a producer responsibility in place.
When the proposals on national producer responsibility were taken out in 2020, the government at that time made the assessment we still hold to, namely that if a national producer responsibility had been introduced in accordance with the investigation, the content of this regulation would have differed in such substantial parts and to such an extent that it would have become counterproductive and very expensive, not least for the sorting industry we are trying to build up.
This assessment has therefore been shared over the parliamentary terms, even though the member mentions that he would have preferred a national producer responsibility. There are good reasons why this assessment has been made in two cases, and what we can do now is to focus on the fact that progress has been made in the work on the EU's producer responsibility and that we are not waiting for the decision. As soon as we saw the progress that clarified the important components, Sweden began working nationally to develop its producer responsibility. As soon as we took part of the content, we did not need to wait any longer.
I am well aware of the strained situation in some municipalities and for the non-profit sector, a sector we are truly keen on and proud of here in Sweden. For me, it is important that the trust for the collection of textiles is not damaged and that we can clearly point out to the industry that producer responsibility is coming and that it will contribute to building up a sorting industry that can constitute the second part of this activity.
I have also worked politically on other aspects of this issue. For example, the amount of collected textiles shows a totally unsustainable consumption of textiles in our society. We must ensure that fewer textiles are worn out and discarded, that what is produced is of such quality that it lasts over time, and that one cannot build this type of linear business model that exploits consumers. We are working hard on this, and we are also working to influence the private import that occurs of clothes from e-commerce platforms where one neither takes responsibility for the garments' sustainability nor follows the chemical legislations that prevail in Sweden and the EU. We are actively working to address this.
It does not work that the cost of handling this waste should fall on Swedish municipalities and Swedish citizens. This is a producer responsibility that needs to be put in place, and in that regard, it is positive that we are moving quickly towards this goal.
Joakim Järrebring (S)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, Minister, for the soft clarification and the clarification!
The criticism remains, however. First and foremost, I think that the EU absolutely should have had a dual mandate here and ensured that a producer responsibility is put in place at the same time as decisions are made regarding that type of collection. The fault, I think, is therefore primarily at the EU level.
It is clear that when one looks at France and the Netherlands, one sees that they have succeeded in doing something that we have not succeeded with in Sweden to such an extent that they have ensured that the producers pay. Then I do not doubt the Minister's assessment that they face large costs to rework their systems. So that is certain. But if we had had a similar system in place, at least Sweden's municipalities and Sweden's taxpayers would not have had to pay what the producers reasonably should pay.
Then I fully agree with the Minister when it comes to the circular economy. We must move from an economy based on a linear way of thinking to an economy based on a circular way of thinking. There is much more we need to do when it comes to recycling, but above all when it comes to how we produce things. We need to produce things that last. Things should not only last for consumption but also be produced or designed in a way that makes them easily recyclable so that we can recycle materials in a better way. There is a great deal to be done there.
I think that we as EU citizens can be proud that we have a high pace in these issues, and I hope that we together within the EU can contribute to a transition in the whole world.
I feel that we agree that this could have been done in a better way at the EU level from the very beginning. When it comes to the basic principle that this is something we need to address, I am satisfied with the answer that the government is already underway with preparing an implementation of producer responsibility. That is good.
Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)
Madam Speaker and members of the House! It is very positive when one can have a discussion about the actual implementation of laws. It is something that we politicians work a lot with and where we ensure that things work. Right here, there are several different things that counteract the purpose, but what one must keep in mind is that the Textile Agreement Act has made visible a problem that existed just as much earlier but which was not visible. It is fundamentally a positive thing.
Something that the member is certainly aware of, Madam Speaker, is the problem that in Swedish industry there is such a great need for second-hand textiles that do not exist that we import second-hand textiles from countries as far away as China in order to produce recycled clothes. It is completely absurd, because we know that we have extreme amounts of textiles in Sweden. But because these textiles are of low quality and are not collected but end up in household waste, they do not reach our producers.
This can, of course, make one gloomy, but it can also send a signal that there is hope here that we can achieve a more circular management of textiles where we use them in a much more sustainable way and where we also ensure that we do not only recycle textiles but also reuse them to a greater extent, so that we also reduce the water consumption that occurs in the production of textiles.
I am hopeful anyway, and it is positive that the member is also hopeful, at least when it comes to the way forward in this issue.
Joakim Järrebring (S)
Madam Speaker! Thank you also for that answer, Minister!
Even though one can feel reassured that things are actually moving at the EU level and that the government is taking action, there are many municipalities and non-profit organizations that are struggling right now. Could the Minister venture to provide a picture of what a timeline might look like? When can we, at best, have a producer responsibility in place? When can the municipalities and the non-profit organizations breathe a sigh of relief?
Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)
Madam Speaker! I would like to thank the members for a good discussion and debate on this issue.
Regarding the timeline, we are currently looking at how we can achieve a faster implementation than that which follows the timeline that the EU will allow. The plan there is that the European Parliament should look at a ratification of the decision at some point during the summer.
We are working intensively on this right now. We cannot give any exact timetable, but what I can communicate to those who are concerned about the issue is that the government will convene a meeting – a round-table discussion – together with the industry to listen, so that we ensure it is done correctly as we move forward now, and also to take in the criticism that exists.
I truly understand that one becomes upset about the situation we have, but I hope that one can see the light at the end of the tunnel and that we work as quickly as possible from the government's side to tackle the problem and hopefully reach a place where we have a better circular use of our textiles.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.