EN    EN EN 
 
EN    EN  EUROPEAN COMMISSION 
Brussels, le 19.1.2011 
SEC(2011) 70 final 
  
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 
Accompanying 
 
the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the 
European Economic and Social Commi ttee and the Committee of the Regions 
 
on the Thematic Strategy on the P revention and Recycling of Waste 
  
 
COM(2011) 13 final  
 
EN 2   EN COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 
Accompanying 
 
the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the 
European Economic and Social Commi ttee and the Committee of the Regions 
 
 on the Thematic Strategy on the Prevention and Recycling of Waste 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
1. Introduction................................................................................................................ .. 5 
2. Progress on key actions................................................................................................ 5 2.1 Better Implementation.................................................................................................. 5 2.2 Simplification and Modernisation................................................................................ 7 2.3 Diffusion and integration of key concepts ................................................................... 9 2.4 Waste Prevention (table on wast e prevention in EU policies)................................... 10 
2.5 Better knowledge and information............................................................................. 12 2.6 Development of common reference standards........................................................... 12 2.7 Further elaboration of EU r ecycling policies and targets........................................... 13 
2.8 Actions implementing the Thematic Strategy............................................................ 16 3. Progress on key objectives......................................................................................... 20 3.1 Prevention ................................................................................................................. . 20 
3.2 Re-use..................................................................................................................... .... 29 
3.3 Recycling.................................................................................................................. .. 30 
3.4 Energy Recovery........................................................................................................ 39 3.5 Landfilling................................................................................................................ .. 40 
3.6 Member States Performances..................................................................................... 42 3.7 Recycling society ....................................................................................................... 46 4. International Aspects.................................................................................................. 54 4.1 Increasing globalisation ............................................................................................. 54 4.2 Waste exports............................................................................................................. 5 4 
4.3 European actions ........................................................................................................ 58 
 
EN 3   EN 4.3 Worldwide actions ..................................................................................................... 59 
5. Future trends............................................................................................................... 60 
5.1 Increasing demand and impacts from resource use.................................................... 60 5.2 Waste generation and management............................................................................ 64 5.3 Green House Gas Emission........................................................................................ 65 6. Stakeholder Consultation ........................................................................................... 67 6.1 Key Overarching Messages........................................................................................ 67 6.2 Implementation of the Thematic Strategy.................................................................. 68 6.3 Delivering Waste Prevention ..................................................................................... 69 6.4 International Influence ............................................................................................... 70 6.5 Delivering a Recycling society and recycling markets.............................................. 70 
Glossary 
6EAP  – Sixth Environment Action Programme  of the European Community 2002-2012 
(Decision No 1600/2002/EC). The 6EAP set out  the framework for environmental policy-
making in the EU for 2002-2012, and outlines actions th at need to be taken to achieve them. It 
also called for the development of seven ‘Thematic Strategies’,  including those on the 
Prevention and Recycling of Wast e, and on Natural Resources. 
C&D waste – Construction and demolition waste, which includes concrete, bricks, gypsum, 
wood, glass, metals, plastic, solvents, asbestos and excavated soil arising from activities such 
as the construction of buildings and civil infras tructure, total or partial demolition of buildings 
and civil infrastructure, road planning and maintenance.  
EEA – European Environment Agency.  
ELV  – End of life vehicles, as defined in Directive 2000/53/EC. 
Energy recovery – The use of waste as fuel or othe r means to generate energy. Directive 
2008/98/EC introduced specific new criteria to determine the efficiency level at which 
incineration in municipal waste incinerators ca n be deemed an energy recovery rather than 
disposal activity. 
ETC/SCP - European Topic Centre on Sustai nable Consumption and Production  
Industrial waste – Industrial waste is waste generate d in industrial and manufacturing 
processes such as basic metals, food, beve rage and tobacco products, wood and wood 
products and paper and paper products.  
LCA – Life cycle assessment (or analysis) – the investigation and evaluation of the 
environmental impacts of a given product or service caused or necessi tated by its existence.  
 
EN 4   EN MS – Member State i.e. a country that is a member of the EU. 
Municipal waste  – Article 2 of Directive 1999/31/EC de fines municipal waste as waste from 
households, as well as other waste which, because of its nature or com position, is similar to 
waste from households.  
Preparing for re-use  – Article 3 of Directive 2008/98/EC defines preparing for re-use as 
‘checking, cleaning or repairing recovery ope rations, by which products or components of 
products that have become waste are prepared so  that they can be re -used without any other 
pre-processing’. 
Recovery  – Article 3 of Directive 2008/98/EC de fines recovery as ‘any operation the 
principal result of which is waste serving a us eful purpose by replacing other materials which 
would otherwise have been used  to fulfil a particular functi on, or waste being prepared to 
fulfil that function, in the plan t or in the wider economy’. 
Recycling – Article 3 of Directive 2008/98/EC define s recycling as ‘any recovery operation 
by which waste materials are reprocessed into products, materials or substances whether for 
the original or other purposes. It includes the reprocessing of organic material but does not 
include energy recovery and the re processing into materials that ar e to be used as fuels or for 
backfilling operations’. 
Re-use  – Article 3 of Directive 2008/98/EC defi nes re-use as ‘any operation by which 
products or components that are not waste are us ed again for the same purpose for which they 
were conceived’. 
Waste Hierarchy – Article 4 of Directive 2008/98/EC ma kes the waste hierarchy a ‘priority 
order’ in waste prevention and management legi slation and policy, and de fines it as, in order 
of preference: (a) prevention; (b) preparing for re-use; (c) recycling; (d ) other recovery, e.g. 
energy recovery; and (e) disposal.  
Waste prevention – Article 4 of Directive 2008/98/EC defines prevention as ‘measures taken 
before a substance, material or product has be come waste, that reduce: (a) the quantity of 
waste, including through the re-u se of products or the extensi on of the life span of products; 
(b) the adverse impacts of the generated waste on the environment and human health; or (c) 
the content of harmful substan ces in material s and products’. 
Waste TS or TS  – Thematic Strategy on the Prev ention and Recycling of Waste 
(COM(2005)666) adopted in December 2005. 
WEEE – Waste electrical and electronic equipm ent, as defined in Directive 2002/96/EC.  
WFD  – Waste Framework Directive originally  adopted in 1975 and revised in 2008 as 
Directive 2008/98/EC. The Directive must be tr ansposed into National legislation by 12 of 
December 2010.  
 
EN 5   EN 1. INTRODUCTION  
The Thematic Strategy on the Prevention and R ecycling of Waste was adopted in 2005. This 
formed part of a number of Thematic Strategies that were proposed under the 6th 
Environmental Action Plan. The Strategy states  that the Commission will make a review in 
2010 of the progress made towards achieving  the Strategy's objectives. If necessary, 
additional measures should be identified to meet the objectives of the Strategy.  
This document accompanies the report review ing progress on the implementation of the 
strategy. It provides additional information and ju stification for the points which arose in the 
main report. It was established with  the support of external expertise1, EEA2, Eurostat and on 
the basis of the data extracted from the Environment Policy Review3. A Stakeholder 
consultation was organised in May-June 2010, key messages are summarised in section 5 of the present document. The structure of the pres ent working document follows the same as the 
main report.  
2. P
ROGRESS ON KEY ACTIONS  
2.1 Better Implementation 
The Thematic Strategy on Waste Prevention and r ecycling recognized the n eed to ensure that 
legislation on waste is prope rly implemented. Several repor ts on the implementation of 
legislation were adopt ed by the Commission:  
• report on the implementation of general waste legislation (COM(2009) 633);  
• report on the implementation of waste sh ipment legislation (COM(2009) 282);  
• and, a report on the implementation of End of  Life Vehicles legi slation (COM(2009) 635). 
These reports highlight signi ficant disparities between Me mber States. Insufficient 
importance is attached to the enforcement of waste laws part icularly regarding the Waste 
Framework Directive, the Landfill Directiv e and the Waste Shipment Regulation.  
The Commission has taken steps to aid the be tter implementation of waste legislation in 
Member States: 
• Awareness-raising events have been held on the Waste Framework Directive and a web-
based forum is being set up4. 15 information exchange and aw areness-raising events have 
been held on Waste Shipment Regulations. Awa reness-raising events on the application of 
community legislation on shipments of waste,  on landfills, on waste management plans and 
on waste prevention programmes were  also organised by the Commission5.  
                                                 
1 Report supporting the Thematic Strategy on waste prevention and recycling, IEEP with Arcadis, 
Ecologic, Umweltbundesamt, BIO intelligence and VITO, 2010  
2 EEA 2010, The European Environment, State and Outlook 2010 : Thematic Assessment – Material 
Resources and Waste  
3 See: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/policyreview.htm   
4 http://www.wasteconsult.de/Euwm/index.htm   
5 http://ec.europa.eu/envi ronment/waste/shipments/pdf/report_131209.pdf   
 
EN 6   EN • Numerous guideline documents have been pr oduced on waste stream specific legislation 
including Batteries6, End-of-Life Vehicles7, Electrical and Electronic Waste8 legislation 
and on the Waste Shipment Regulation9. These guidance documents are continually 
evolving. Notably the WEEE guidance document has been incorporated into the proposed 
recast of the Directive10. Additional guidelines on interp retation of the Waste Framework 
Directive, including the definition of waste, energy efficiency and the waste hierarchy, are 
under development.  
• Joint enforcement and inspection actions have been carried out in cooperation with the 
IMPEL Network. The study 'Implementation and Enforcement of Environmental Law"11 
built on earlier work conducted by this organi zation finding that 20% of waste shipments 
were illegal. A study is curre ntly being undertaken  on the case for developing European 
level legislation on the cr iteria and standards of shipment inspections.  
• The revised Waste Framework Directive12 includes revised obliga tions on Member States 
to produce Waste Management Plans; includi ng for example, simplified reporting formats 
and the requirement for waste prevention pla nning. A study has been launched to analyse 
national plans and to help provide guidelin es for MS for further improved reporting.  
• Financial support has been made available for Member States through Cohesion Policy13 to 
improve waste management systems. The tota l support for waste mana gement policies for 
the period 2000-2006 amounted to around 4.1 b illion € of which 1.5 billion € from 
European Fund for Regional Development (ERD F) and 2.6 billion € from the Cohesion 
Fund14. Projects funded under ERDF have led to the closure or reha bilitation of 964 
unauthorised landfills (mainly in Spain and Greece) and the creation of new treatment capacity of 231,649 m³ per day in Spain a nd Hungary). Beyond pub lic support, waste 
management has become more and more attract ive for private enterprises as demonstrated 
in an ex post study achieved by DG REGIO on the use of the Cohesions funds.  
• According to another DG REGIO study
15, the global investment need for municipal solid 
waste management and for the period 2007-2013 for the EU 12 plus Greece, Portugal and 
Spain is estimated at 8,398 M € (in 2004 prices).  
The Commission made an assessment on the feasibility of the creation of a waste 
implementation agency16.  
                                                 
6 See : http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/batteries/index.htm   
7 Directive 2000/53/EC on End-of-Life Vehicles Guidance Document, January 2005, European 
Commission., see: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/pdf/guidance_doc.pdf   
8 http://ec.europa.eu/enviro nment/waste/weee_index.htm  
9 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/shipments/guidance.htm  
10 (COM(2008) 810) 
11 Seaport project II: 'International cooperation in enforcement hitting illegal waste shipments', June 2006, 
European Union Network for the Implementation and Enforcement of Environmental Law (IMPEL), 
no110643/CE6/0M9/000398. See: http://impel.eu/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/2005-8-Seaport-II-
Final-Report.pdf )  
12 Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on wa ste and repealing certain 
Directives 
13 Council Regulation (EC) No 1084/2006 of 11 July 2006 establishing a Cohesion Fund  
14 Source: DG REGIO estimations and DG REGIO study on the "ex-post evaluation of Cohesion Policy 
Programmes 2000-2006", See: 
http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/evaluation/expost2006/wp5b_en.htm  
15 http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/evaluation/pdf/strategic_environ.pdf   
 
EN 7   EN The study identified key problems in the impl ementation and enforcement of EU waste 
legislation such as the lack of sufficient cap acity, coordination and organisation to ensure an 
appropriate enforcement of the waste legislatio n. In some Member States, implementation of 
EU waste legislation is not considered as a ke y priority, resulting in insufficient allocation of 
resources for enforcement.  
2.2 Simplification and Modernisation  
In order to further simplify and modernise the EU waste legislation, th e following initiatives 
were taken:  
Waste Framework Directive 
The Waste Framework Directive (2008/98/EC) repealed directives on waste disposal 
(75/439/EEC), hazardous waste (91/689/EEC) a nd waste oils (2006/12/EC). The Directive 
also added clarity by incorpor ating basic definitions relating to waste management. It also 
opened the possibility to establis h "end-of-waste" criteria for certa in waste streams in order to 
simplify the procedures. Criteria for ferrous, aluminium and copper scrap metals as well as for 
paper, glass and Biowaste are under development.  
Waste Shipment Regulations 
Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 on shipments of wast e came into force in July 2007. It aims to 
reinforce, simplify and specify the existing pro cedures for controlling waste shipments. This 
has been done through stream lining the existing control pro cedures, incorporating recent 
changes of international law (including incorporating into EU legislation the amendments to the lists of waste annexed to the Basel Conve ntion as well as the revision adopted by the 
Organization for Economic Cooperation and De velopment in 2001) and strengthening the 
provisions on enforcement and cooperation betw een Member States in case of illegal 
shipments.  
Since 2007 several amendments have been made to the regulations to  take into account 
technical progress and the changes agreed under the Basel convention
17. In addition 
instructions for completing notif ications and movement documents have been developed and 
answers from non-OECD countri es concerning their rules on import of green-listed non-
hazardous wastes have been incorporated18.  
End-of-Life Vehicle Directive 
The End of Life Vehicles Directive (2000/53 /EC) came into force in 2006. Work is being 
done with the industry to make the requirements for design more specific, further reducing the 
                                                                                                                                                         
16 'Study on the feasibility of the establishment of  a Waste Implementation Agency', Dec 2009, Milieu 
Ltd, AmbienDura and FFact for the European Commission, 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/pdf/report_waste_dec09.pdf ).  
17 Commission Regulation (EC) No 308/2009, Commission Regulation (EC) No 1379/2007, Commission 
Regulation (EC) No 669/2008 
18 Commission Regulation (EC) No 1418/2007, Commission Regulation (EC) No 740/2008, Commission 
Regulation (EC) No 967/2009 
 
EN 8   EN numbers of hazardous materials us ed. To date four amendments have been made to annex II 
of the directive and the Fifth Ame ndment is currently being discussed19.  
Guidance documents to assist Member States in their efforts to produce high-quality and 
harmonised data on end-of-life vehicles (ELVs) in accordance with the reporting requirements 
of Commission Decision 2005/293/ EC are in preparation.  
Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Directive and Directive Restricting 
the use of Hazardous Substances (RoHS)  
EU legislation restricting the use of hazard ous substances in electrical and electronic 
equipment (RoHS Directive 2002/95 /EC) and promoting the collection and recycling of such 
equipment (WEEE Directive 2002/96/EC) has b een in force since February 2003. In 
December 2008, the Commission proposed that these Directives should be recast 
(COM(2008) 810). The proposed recast targets ar e significantly higher but more flexible, 
taking into account the diverg ent consumption rates of elect ronic equipment for different 
Member States.  
Registration and reporting may also be harm onised, in accordance wi th a communication on 
Distance sellers issued in October 2009 (COM (2009)557). This will work to reduce market 
barriers between Member States and reduce administrative burden when cross boarder market 
transactions occur.  
Streamlined reporting under the Landfill Directive 
The Waste Statistics Regulation (Regulati on (EC) No 2150/2002, WStatR) will cover data 
collections from 2010 onwards on the number of  existing landfills, their remaining capacity 
and the number of landfills closed; data which is currently collected by the questionnaire in 
Commission Decision 2000/738/EC. The data frequency will in crease from every three years 
to every second year. Hence, the redundant information request will be deleted from the implementation questionnaire immedi ately without creating a data gap. 
Stoiber Group recommendations  
The Stoiber high level group was established with the aim to reduce administrative burden by 
25% by 2012. The group produced recommen dations on waste and the environment
20. Many 
of the recommendations have been taken onbo ard. In particular, recommendations on the 
relabeling of batteries and harmonisation of th e European waste list have been taken into 
consideration. In addition, aspects such as harmonisation for information exchange using 
electronic systems for waste shipments are be ing taken up by some Member States. For ELV 
the suggestion to register and de register the vehicles electroni cally has been addressed to the 
Member States. In the proposed re-cast of the Electric and Electronic Waste Equipment 
(WEEE) Directive, methods of registration and re porting are also planned to be standardised, 
thus reducing market barriers and administra tive burdens. The registration procedure for 
battery producers was standardised in 2009.  
                                                 
19 See: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/elv_index.htm   
20 Administrative burden reduction; priority area Environment, April 2009, European Commission. See: 
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/better-regula tion/files/hlg_opinion_environment_160409_en.pdf  
 
EN 9   EN In addition to the initiatives describe d above, the Commission has launched a study on 
coherence of waste legislation fo cusing on the consistency of the recycling directives with the 
WFD and with resource efficiency objectives and consistently addressing the question of 
extended producer responsibility. Additional initiatives to further simplify and clarify the 
legislation might be proposed as a result.  
2.3 Diffusion and integration of key concepts  
The Strategy brought together a number of key concepts such as Life-Cycle thinking, waste 
hierarchy and Producer responsibility.  
Life cycle thinking  – Life-cycle thinking is the consider ation of the supply chains, use, as 
well as the end of life management associat ed the provision of goods and services 
(collectively termed products) - sometimes calle d "from cradle to grave". The environmental 
impacts and the resources consumed associated with a product’s life cycle are assessed. Life 
Cycle Assessment (LCA) is one tool - standa rdised in ISO14040/44 - that quantitatively 
supports life-cycle thinking.  
Life Cycle thinking as a concept has been ac tively developed and promoted by the European 
Union21 detailed guidance on life cycle assessments has been produced22. For example, the 
International Reference Life Cycle Data System Handbook was launc hed in 2010, providing 
detailed guidance on how to conduct assessments in line with interna tional standards. New 
guidance documents are currently finalised on Li fe Cycle Thinking for Biowaste, construction 
waste and general waste management.  
The Waste Framework Directive requires Member use life-cycl e thinking. The only deviation 
from the waste hierarchy can solely be jus tified through life cycle analysis (Article 4 
Directive 2008/98/EC). The life cy cle thinking perspective is incorporated into the Eco-design 
Directive (Directive 2005/32/EC) as well as hi ghlighted as a desirable approach in the 
Sustainable Consumption and Production and Sustainable Industries Policy Action Plan 
(COM(2008) 397). This Action Plan highlights the ways in which the Commission will work 
to ensure the life cycle approach is extended across product streams and ways in which further 
information on life cycle impacts of products will be made available to consumers.  
The objective of the Ecodesign Directive (2009/125/EC) is to improve the overall 
environmental performance of products. In principl e it applies to any pro duct, but the priority 
was given to energy-using (e.g. applian ces) and other energy- related (e.g. windows, 
insulation) products (apart from vehicles). Th e Directive includes a process, conditions and 
criteria for setting requirements regarding environmentally-relevant product characteristics to be met for products to be placed on the market . The Directive defines ecodesign parameters 
relating to different phases in the product life cycle: raw material selection and use; 
manufacturing; packaging, transport, and distri bution; installation and maintenance; use; and 
end-of-life. 
For each phase, the following aspects of the pro duct must be assessed: predicted consumption 
of materials, of energy and of other resources; anti cipated emissions to air, water or soil; 
                                                
 
21 See: http://lct.jrc.ec.europa.eu/index_jrc  
22 ILCD Handbook, 2010, European Commission & Institute for Environment and Sustainability. See: 
http://lct.jrc.ec.europa.eu/pdf-d irectory/ILCD-Handbook-General -guide-for-LCA-DETAIL-online-
12March2010.pdf  
 
EN 10   EN anticipated pollution; expected generation of waste material; and possibilities for reuse, 
recycling and recovery of materials or of energy.  
Waste Hierarchy  – The Waste Framework Directive lays down the waste hierarchy and 
requires Member States to apply the hierarch y when developing their national waste policies 
and legislation (Article 4 Di rective 2008/98/EC). Guidance t ools on how to apply the life-
cycle approach in waste policies are about to be finalised and will be published soon. 
Extended Producer Responsibility  – The definition of Extended Producer Responsibility is 
set out in the Waste Framework Directive a nd gives power to Memb er States to take 
legislative measures to apply this concep t (Article 8 Directiv e 2008/98/EC). Extended 
responsibility is also being considered as  part of the recast of the WEEE Directive 
(COM(2008) 810). 
2.4 Waste Prevention (table on wast e prevention in EU policies)  
The definition of waste prevention is set out in  the Waste Framework Directive (Article 3.12 
Directive 2008/98/EC). In addi tion, the Directive contains the following requirements on 
waste prevention: 
• Member States have to establish waste prev ention programmes no later than 12 December 
2013 (Article 29). Guidelines for these wast e prevention programmes are currently under 
review and will be made available shortly.  
• The Commission will report on waste preventi on and the associated measures deemed 
appropriate. (Article 9).  
To ensure that Waste Prevention remains a priority  it has been incorporated into legislation on 
different waste streams: 
• The Batteries Directive23 bans or restricts the use of 2 heavy metals (mercury in all 
batteries and cadmium in portable batt eries with certain exemptions).  
• WEEE and its sister Directive on RoHs24: restricts the use of a nu mber of heavy metals and 
other substances such as flame retardants. Both Directives are under recast with the 
particular aim to improve the degree to wh ich hazardous substances are restricted. 
• The Packaging Directive25 bans the use of 4 heavy metals, with some exemptions (crystal 
glass or plastic crates and pallets). Also the Directive includes provisions aiming at 
decoupling economic growth and packaging generation. 
• Four amendments have been made to  the End-of-life Vehicles Directive26, Annex II. These 
amendments show a reduction in the use of hazardous substances in the new vehicles 
                                                 
23 Directive 2006/66/EC on batteries and accumulators and waste batteries and accumulators and repealing 
Directive 91/157/EEC  
24 Directive 2002/95/EC on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous subs tances in electrical and 
electronic equipment  
25 Directive 94/62/EC on packaging and packaging waste 
26 Directive 2000/53/EC on end-of life vehicles, See: 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/elv_index.htm   
 
EN 11   EN where their use is no longer necessary and cons equently an improvement in the quality of 
the waste produced.  
• The Directive 2005/64 “on the ty pe-approval of motor vehicl es with regard to their 
reusability, recyclability and recoverabil ity and amending Council Directive 70/156/EEC” 
established that vehicle manufacturers and their suppliers should include reusability, 
recyclability and recoverability of compone nt parts “at the earliest stages of the 
development of new vehicles, in order to faci litate the treatment of vehicles at the time 
when they reach the end of their life. The focus shifted to the recyclability and recoverability of the vehicles before being produced and commercialised. Vehicles have to 
be constructed as to be: reusable and/or re cyclable to a minimum of 85 % by weight, and 
reusable and/or recoverable to a minimum of  95 % by weight. In addition the Commission 
is currently working to encourage the deve lopment of clean and energy efficient cars, 
which includes aims facilitating the recy cling of car batteries  (COM (2010) 186).  
• The Directive on the Management of Extractive Waste
27 requires Member States to ensure 
that operators draw up a waste management pl an, including the objecti ve of preventing or 
reducing the production and harmfulness of wa ste. In addition, the Batteries Directive 
introduces a requirement for a safe removal of  waste batteries that are incorporated in 
appliances.  
Other legislation has the potenti al to become key instrument s to favour waste prevention: 
• The REACH Regulation (1907/2006) aims at en suring a high level of protection of human 
health and the environment, including the pr omotion of alternative methods for assessment 
of hazards of substances, as well as the free ci rculation of substances on the internal market 
while enhancing competitiveness and innovati on; ensuring that by 2020 chemicals are 
produced and used in ways that lead to the minimisation of significant adverse effects on 
human health and the environment among other issues. Substitution of substances that cause an unacceptable risk to human health or  to the environment should be required where 
technically and socio-economically feasible as well as restrictions or  prohibitions may also 
be placed on substances. 
• A revision of the Ecodesign Directive (2009/125/E C) is foreseen in 2012, its extension to 
all products could contribut e to improved prevention. 
• On 16 July 2008 the European Commission pr esented the Sustainable Consumption and 
Production and Sustainable Industr ial Policy (SCP/SIP) Action Plan
28. It includes a series 
of proposals on sustainable consumption and production that will contribute to improving 
the environmental performance of products an d increase the demand for more sustainable 
goods and production technologies.  It also seeks to encour age EU industry to take 
advantage of opportunities to innovate. Severa l policies at EU and national level already 
foster resource efficient and eco-friendly products and raise consumer awareness. The proposals complement these policy instruments and provide measures where gaps exist.  
                                                
 
27 Directive 2006/21/EC on the management of extractive waste 
28 See: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eussd/escp_en.htm   
 
EN 12   EN • To raise awareness and promote best practi ce, the European Week for Waste Reduction 
was launched in 200929 and, a collection of example of  good practice has been made 
available by the Commission30.  
2.5 Better knowledge and information 
The following resources have been established and/or further developed to try and improve 
the spread of knowledge and the quality of information available: 
• The Waste Data Centre has been established and hosted by Eurostat31.  
• The European Topic Centre on Sustaina ble Consumption and Production (ETC/SCP) 32 is a 
consortium of environmental authorities and research centres across Europe. Overseen by 
the EEA, it regularly publishes on developments in waste and recycling. 
• Regular information is also provided thr ough publications such as the State of the 
Environment Report (SOER) 33 by the EEA as well and the Environmental Policy 
Review34, published by the Commission, both of wh ich increasingly in clude reporting on 
waste and resource related issues.  
• The Commission launched the European Platfo rm on Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) in 
2005 providing a range of information and on-li ne support tools. Additional guidance on 
how to conduct in practice LCA's particularly  in the waste sector were developed.  
• REACH can also contribute to a better kno wledge of the composition of waste by 
providing useful information about chemicals and their management. For example, it may 
provide information on waste streams that c ontain substances of very high concern (e.g. 
helping in the classification of waste). It will contribute to es tablishing more robust 
scientific judgement on the hazardousness of specific waste streams and improve the 
application of the preca utionary principle. 
These initiatives have improved the quality of in formation and availability of statistics on the 
generation and treatment of waste has improv ed with the implementation of the Waste 
Statistics Regulation. However, there are sti ll knowledge gaps which n eed to be filled, in 
particular statistics on the flows (import and export) of waste w ithin the EU and at the global 
scale are to be further developed, as are indicators to monitor progress. 
2.6 Development of common reference standards 
The following initiatives were taken develop common standard references:  
• According to Article 6 (1) and (2) of the new Waste Fr amework Directive 2008/98/EC 
certain specified waste shall cease to be waste when it has undergone a recovery operation 
and complies with specific criteria to be deve loped in line with cert ain legal conditions, in 
                                                 
29 See: http://www.ewwr.eu/  
30 See: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/prevention/practices.htm  
31 See: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/port al/page/portal/waste/introduction  
32 See: http://scp.eionet.europa.eu/   
33 See: http://soer2010.ew.eea.europa.eu/  
34 See: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/policyreview.htm  
 
EN 13   EN particular: there is an existing market or demand for the material, the use is lawful, the use 
will not lead to overall environmental or human health impacts.  
• Such criteria should be set for specific ma terials by the Commission in Comitology. This 
mechanism was introduced to further encourag e recycling in the EU by creating legal 
certainty and a level playing field as well as  removing unnecessary administrative burden. 
A methodology to develop criteria has been elaborated by the Jo int Research Centre35  
• The Commission is developing en d-of-waste criteria for ferrous scrap metal, aluminium 
scrap metal, copper scrap metal, paper,  glass and Biowaste . The Commission has 
submitted a first set of criteria for ferrous and aluminium scrap for adoption in the Comitology procedure.  
• Minimum recycling efficiency levels have been  set up for battery recycling processes. The 
Commission is preparing rules on the calculation of the recycling efficiency across Europe. 
In addition, for waste batteri es exported outside the EU, criteria for the assessment of 
treatment and recycling conditions equivalent to  the requirements of the Batteries Directive 
are to be set up under Comitology.  
• The LIFE programme is financing a proj ect from 2009 to develop a common and 
harmonized set of standards for processing e-wa ste in an environmentally safe manner and 
in compliance with EU legislation. The aim is to create a “WEEE label of excellence”, 
showing environmental standards of a supe rior level throughout the whole recycling 
process.  
• Under the Integrated Pollution Prevention an d Control Directive, a reference document 
(BREF) for the Waste Treatments Industries was published in August 2006, describing the 
best available techniques for waste treatment.  The Proposed recast of the IPPC Directive 
2008/1/EC includes detail on pe rmitting of installations, in cluding combustion plants, 
waste incineration plants and waste co-incineration plants
36.  
2.7 Further elaboration of EU recycling policies and targets 
Table 1 below summarizes the main targets and objectives as included in the existing 
European legislation. The followi ng recycling targets have been revised over the last 5 years  
• New recycling targets for municipal waste and construction and demolition waste were 
added to the revised Waste Framew ork Directive (Dir ective 2008/98/EC). 
• In 2006 the targets in the End of  Life Vehicles Directive (2 000/53/EC) were considered as 
sufficiently challenging and no new targets were put in place.  
• The Batteries Directive was adopted in 2006. Th is Directive includes targets for collection 
(25% in 2012, 45% in 2016) and recycling of batteries, limitations on the use of some 
hazardous substances in batteries. 65% of the average weight of lead-acid batteries should 
be recycled, 75% of the average weight of ni ckel-cadmium batteries and 50% recycling of 
the average weight of other waste batteries.  
                                                 
35 JRC reports are to be found under http://susproc.jrc.ec.europa.eu/activities/waste/index.html   
36 See: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/air/pollutants/stationary/ippc/index.htm   
 
EN 14   EN • The Commission's proposal for the recast of the WEEE Directive includes new mandatory 
collection targets (COM(2008) 810). 
• The Landfill Directive (Directive 99/31/EC) puts limitations on the amount of 
biodegradable waste to be disposed of in landfills. 
• Following a green paper on Biowaste (COM(2 008) 811) the Commission has adopted a 
Communication on Biowaste  (COM (2010) 235) 37 accompanied with an assessment of the 
Biowaste management in the EU38.  
                                                 
37 See: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/compost/pdf/com_biowaste.pdf   
38 See: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/compost/pdf/sec_biowaste.pdf   
 
EN 15   EN Table 1: main targets and objectives as included in the existing European legislation  
 Year Collection targets Recovery targets Recycling targets 
2006 100% 85%  80% including reuse 
2015 100% 95%  85% including reuse End-of-Life 
Vehicles 
2005  Vehicles to be 
recoverable to a 
minimum of 95 %  Vehicles be reusable 
and/or recyclable to a 
minimum of 85 %  
2006 Min. 4kg per inhabitant 
per year 70-80% depending 
on category of 
WEEE 50-80% including reuse, 
depending on category of 
WEEE 
WEEE 
2016 
(proposed)  65% of what is set on the 
market or 85% of waste 
arising    
Packaging waste 
2008  60% 55% of which 50% metal, 
60% glass, 
paper/cardboard, 22,5% 
plastics, 15% wood  
2009   100% of collected 
batteries 
2011   65% for lead-acid 
batteries; 75% nickel-
cadmium and 50% for 
others 
2012 25%   Batteries and 
accumulators 
2016 45%   
2015 Separate collection for at 
least paper, metal, plastics 
and glass   Paper, metal, 
plastic and glass waste from 
households, other 
household waste 
and similar waste 2020   50% 
Construction and 
Demolition  2020  70% by weight of non-hazardous waste to be 
prepared for re-use, recycled or recovered 
2006 or 
2010 (*) Reduction to 75% of 1995 landfill levels 
2009 or 
2013(*) Reduction to 50% of 1995 landfill levels Biodegradable 
municipal waste  
2016 or 
2020 (*) Reduction to 35% of 1995 landfill levels 
Tyres  2006  Zero landfill 
(*) for Member States having a derogation (E E,UK, PL, CZ, LT, GR, IE, RO, BU, LV, SK) 
 
EN 16   EN 2.8 Actions implementing the Thematic Strategy  
Table 2 below summarises the actions and achie vements resulting from the Waste Thematic 
Strategy. In summary, most of the proposed actions  as defined in the Thematic Strategy have 
been achieved in the predicted timescale.  
Action / activity Timetable / 
deadline Achievements to date Status 
Proposal for a directive 
amending the Waste 
Framework Directive and 
repealing the Waste Oils 
Directive Proposed 
together with 
Waste TS Adoption of the Directive on Waste 
2008/98/EC (merging the Waste Framework 
Directive with the Haza rdous Waste Directive 
and repealing the Waste Oils Directive) Completed 
2008 
Report on the 
implementation of 
Directive 94/62/EC on 
packaging and packaging 
waste 2006 Publication of COM(2006)406 and 
COM(2006)767 Completed 
2006 
Review of the targets set 
under Directive 
2000/53/EC on end-of-life 
vehicles 2006 Publication of COM(2007)5 Completed 
2007 
Proposal for a Directive 
bringing together in one 
Directive the three 
Directives on waste from 
the titanium dioxide 
industry 2006 Proposed recast of  the IPPC Directive 
2008/1/EC to include the provisions of the 
titanium dioxide Directives Completed 
2007 
Publication of guidelines, 
on the issue of when by-
products should or should 
not be considered waste 
 2006 
 Publication of COM(2007)59 Completed 
2007 
Publication of guidelines 
for Member States on 
applying life-cycle 
thinking to management 
of biodegradable waste 
that is diverted from 
landfill 2006 JRC project initiated in 2007: 
http://viso.jrc.ec.europa.eu/lca-
biowaste/index.htm  To be finalised 
by end 2010 
Improving the knowledge 
base on impact of 
resource use, waste 
generation and waste 
management and more 
systematic forecasting and 
modelling 
 Starting 
2006 – Establishment of the International Panel fo r 
Sustainable Resource Management, under the 
auspices of the Sustainable Consumption & 
Production Branch of UNEP’s Division o f 
Technology, Industry, and Economics 
– Various follow-up studies to the Natural 
Resources TS, and studies on the sustainable management of resources (see http://www.eu-
smr.eu/ ) 
– Creation and continuing work  of the  
Environmental Data Centre on Waste  Ongoing 
 
EN 17   EN Action / activity Timetable / 
deadline Achievements to date Status 
Proposal to clarify and 
extend the scope of the 
IPPC Directive to 
additional waste 
management activities, 
including biological 
treatment for recovery of 
waste and preparation of 
hazardous waste for 
incineration and of 
incineration slags for 
recovery 2007 (as part 
of general 
review of 
IPPC 
Directive) Proposed recast of the I PPC Directive Completed 
2007 
Proposal for revision of 
Council Directive 
86/278/EEC on the 
protection of the 
environment, and in 
particular of the soil, 
when sewage sludge is 
used in agriculture 2007 Impact assessment launched in 2009, expected 
proposal in 2011 Ongoing 
Publication of basic 
guidelines to make life-
cycle tools easily usable 
in waste policymaking, 
with an agreed approach 
and methodology 2007 Short (4 page) guidelines available at 
http://lct.jrc.ec.europa.eu/pdf-
directory/Making-Sust-Consumption.pdf  
International Reference Life Cycle Data 
System (ILCD) Handbook launched March 
2010: see 
http://lct.jrc.ec.europa. eu/assessment/publicati
ons 
Making sustainable consumption and 
production a reality: A guide for business and 
policy makers to Life Cycle Thinking and 
Assessment published 2010: see 
http://ec.europa.eu/envi ronment/pubs/pdf/susta
inable.pdf  
Detailed guidance documents on applying 
LCA thinking for Biowaste, Construction and 
Demolition Waste and on Waste Management 
in general  
 
 Completed 
  
 
  
 
 
To be finalised 
by end 2010 
 
 
EN 18   EN Action / activity Timetable / 
deadline Achievements to date Status 
Publication of documents 
related to waste shipments 2009 
2010 Commission report of 24 June 2009 on the 
implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) 
No 259/93 on the supervision and control of 
shipments of waste within, into and out of the 
European Community - Generation, treatment 
and transboundary shipment of hazardous 
waste and other waste in the Member States of 
the European Union (2001-2006): see 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/shipme
nts/reports.htm  
DG Environment document of September 
2010, on a FAQuestions on waste shipments to 
assist competent authorities and economic 
operators with the application of the Waste 
Shipment Regulation and to help national 
competent authorities to ensure a harmonised 
application of the Waste Shipment Regulation 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment//waste/shipme
nts/pdf/faq.pdf   Completed 
Publication of non-legally 
binding guidelines 
reflecting the common 
understanding of the 
waste shipment 
correspondents  of the EU 
Member States of how 
certain aspects pertaining 
to the Waste Shipment 
Regulation should be 
interpreted 2007 Correspondents' Guidelines have been 
published on a number of topics: shipments of 
WEEE; imports of waste generated by armed 
forces or relief organisations; certificates for 
non-interim recovery or disposal; classification 
of WEEE and fly ash from coal-fired power 
plants, wood waste, slag s from processing of 
copper alloys, glass waste from cathode ray 
tubes (CRT) and waste cartridges containing 
toner or ink. 
A guideline on waste vehicles is in the 
pipeline, while the drafting of additional 
guidelines is currently under consideration Ongoing 
Publication of guidelines 
on minimum 
environmental standards 
for permits of installations 
that are not covered by the 
IPPC Directive and on 
best available techniques 
for the mixing of 
hazardous waste 2007 Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control 
BREF for the Waste Treatments Industries 
published in August 2006, containing some 
BAT on the mixing of waste, Proposed recast 
of the IPPC Directiv e 2008/1/EC includes 
detail on permitting of installations, including 
combustion plants, waste incineration plants 
and waste co-incineration plants Completed  
Assessment of the state of 
play and of the need for 
additional measures to 
stimulate the move to a 
European recycling 
society 2007 Final report of major study ‘Optimising 
Markets For Recycling’ published in 
November 2008 Completed 
 
EN 19   EN Action / activity Timetable / 
deadline Achievements to date Status 
Review of the targets 
under Directive 
2002/96/EC on waste 
electrical and electronic 
equipment 2008 Proposal for recast WEEE Directive published 
December 2008 (proposes: collection target of 
65% of EEE put on the market in the two 
previous years by 2016; integrating re-use 
target into recovery an d recycling targets; and 
introducing 5% overall increase in reuse and 
recycling targets) Ongoing, the 
proposal is in 
first reading in 
the Parliament 
and Council  
 
Adoption of a first set of 
quality standards for 
defining when certain 
waste flows cease to be 
waste, starting with 
compost and recycled 
aggregates 2008 – 
subject to entry into 
force of the 
revised 
Waste 
Framework 
Directive End-of-waste criteria under preparation for 
ferrous scrap, aluminium scrap, copper scrap, 
waste paper; waste glass; textile waste and 
plastic waste 
JRC project produced two reports: 
"Study on the selection of waste streams for End 
of Waste assessment": identifies suitable waste 
streams for a detailed End of Waste assessment, 
using quantitative and qualitative selection 
criteria; and 
"End-of-waste criteria, methodology and case 
studies": presents a general methodology or 
guidelines analysing principles for setting 
criteria; provides relate d analytical and impact 
assessment frameworks required to determine 
end of waste criteria; includes case studies on 
aluminium and steel scrap, aggregates and 
compost 
Details available at 
http://susproc.jrc.ec.europa.eu/activities/waste/
index.html  
 First proposal 
of Commission 
Decision for 
scrap metals in 
Comitology  
Clarification of the 
obligation for Member 
States to develop publicly 
available waste prevention 
programmes Revision of 
the Waste 
Framework 
Directive Obligation clarified in Article 29 of Directive 
2008/98/EC. Guidelines to 
be finalised to 
assist Member 
States in 
development o f 
waste 
prevention 
programmes 
Identifying an efficiency 
threshold for incinerators 
to define whether they are 
to be classified as 
recovery or disposal Revision of 
the Waste 
Framework 
Directive Efficiency threshold included in Annex II 
(Recovery Operations) of Directive 
2008/98/EC Completed 
Develop quality criteria for 
compost Following 
revision of the 
Waste 
Framework 
Directive Provision made for this in Article 22 of Directive 
2008/98/EC 
Final report on ‘Assessment of the options to 
improve the management of bio-waste in the EU’ 
published in February 2010  
Two set of quality standa rds under development: 
one in the framework of the end-of-waste criteria 
and another under the revision of the Sewage 
Sludge Directive (86/278/EEC) Ongoing 
 
 
EN 20   EN 3. PROGRESS ON KEY OBJECTIVES  
This section will provide a brief overview of progress on reaching the Key objectives of the 
strategy in the context of reduci ng overall negative environmenta l impacts of resource use.  
3.1 Prevention  
Quantitative Prevention  
In 2004, total waste generation in the EU-15 wa s estimated at 1.93 billion tonnes. By 2006 it 
had reached an estimated 2.01 billion tonnes (i ncrease of 4%) but it fell in 2008 beyond the 
2004 level. In the EU-12, total waste generatio n actually fell from 0.98 billion tonnes in 2004 
to 0.94 billion tonnes in 2006, a decrease of almost 4%.39  
For the EU-27, total waste generation was estimated to be 2.91 billion tonnes in 2004, roughly 
6 tonnes per capita. By 2006 the estimate had rise n to 2.95 billion tonnes, an increase of just 
over 1% in two years39 but fell again in 2008 to around 2.6 billion tonnes (Figure 1). 
Nevertheless, in most Member States total waste generation seems to stabilize or increase except in 4 Member States (FR, SE, RO and PL ) where a strong decrease  has been observed.  
As the 2008 data are very recent additional in-depth  analysis is needed to verify whether these 
decreases are linked with  the impacts of the economic cris is, or with modified reporting 
methods or with progress in term of preven tion. As shown in Figure 2, there is a high 
variability between Member States: in 2008 th is ranged from more than 350 million tonnes 
(Germany) to less than 2 million tonnes (Latvia)  reflecting the economic, demographic, social 
and environmental conditions acros s the different Member States.  
Figure 1: Overall generation of waste (in 1000 tonnes)
39 
 
                                                 
39 Derived from Eurostat, 2010, Environmental Data Centre on Waste, Overall Waste Generation 
 
EN 21   EN Figure 2: Overall generation of waste per Member State (in 1000 tonnes)39 
 
As shown in Figure 3 about two thirds (62 %) of the waste generated in EU-27 is mineral 
waste, stemming from construction and demo lition activities (25-30 %) and from mining and 
quarrying 25 %. The rest is from manufacturing (12%), households (7%) a nd other activities.  
Figure 3: Composition of waste EU-27, 200640 
Mineral and solidified 
wastes (excluding 
combustion waste)
62%Recyclable waste
10%Discarded equipment 
waste
1%
Animal and vegetal 
waste
8%
Household and similar 
wastes
7%
Combustion waste
5%
Common sludges
2%
Others (Chemical and 
medical wastes and 
mixed and 
indifferentiated 
materials)
5%  
To better assess performance of individual economic activities, the non-mineral waste should 
be analysed with more attention. The high amounts  of mineral wastes, soil and dredging spoil 
representing 62% of total, overlay waste generation in rest of economy.  
                                                 
40 Source : Eurostat waste data centre 2010 

 
EN 22   EN Furthermore the data quality for mineral wast e from mining and construc tion sectors is lower 
than for other better monitored waste categorie s. Presenting the non mineral waste separately, 
better allows analysing trends in waste generation by economic activities, with higher 
accuracy and interpretability. Ov erall non mineral waste generati on was remarkably stable at 
EU 27 level between 2004 and 2006.  
Figure 4: Generation of non-mineral waste per inhabitant in EU 27 – 2004, 200640  
 
In 2008, industrial waste  accounted for around 55% of waste generated in the EU-27. Other 
economic activities that also contributed signifi cantly to levels of waste generation included 
the construction and services se ctors, accounting respectively fo r more than 30 and 8% of 
total waste. More than a half  of industrial waste produced in  the EU-27 came from mining and 
quarrying. In the Member States with a si gnificant mining industry, mining accounted for 
40% or more of industrial waste. Similarly, in  over half of the Member States the energy 
sector was responsible for less than 10% of industrial waste, whereas in Hungary, Greece and 
Estonia this sector accounted for around 40% of industrial waste.  
As shown in Figure 5 below, there is a larg e amount of variation between Member States; 
these differences can be partly accounted for by the dominance of different activities within 
the economy of each country. Data from Eu rostat suggest that the generation of 
manufacturing waste in the EU-27 fell by 5.4% between 2004 and 2006 (from 384.6 million 
to 363.7 million tonnes). Waste from mining a nd quarrying fell by 14% over the same period 
(from 862.1 million to 740.7 million tonnes).Waste from other economic sectors (services) 
increased by 6.2% (from 146.8 m illion to 155.8 million tonnes).41  
These trends may be a consequence of efficiency measures in industry or as a result of 
changing economics within the EU favouring se rvice industries rather than primary or 
secondary industrial activities su ch as manufacturing and mining.  
                                                 
41 Eurostat, 2009, Europe in figures – Eurostat Yearbook 2009  02,0004,0006,0008,00010,00012,000
EELUSE FI PLBE PTAT GRUKNL LT SI
BGCYSK ESIERO DK HUFR ITDECZMT LVEU27[kg/cap,a]2004 2006
 
EN 23   EN Figure 5: Waste generated by economic activity, 2008 (% of total waste generated)42 
 
The EU27 Member States, Croatia, Norway and Switzerland together reported the generation 
of 70.6 million tonnes of hazardous waste  in 2006, an increase of 15% since 1997 (see 
Figure 6 below). Between 1997 and 2006 genera tion increased by 54% in the EU15 but 
decreased by 42% in the EU 12. According to the EEA, taking into account the limited data 
available, the overall trend shows growing or stabilising amounts of hazardous and nonhazardous waste in the EU.
43 
The decrease in hazardous waste generation in the EU12 can be explained by introduction of 
cleaner technology and mine clos ures. In addition, some waste types historically deemed 
hazardous were re-classified as non hazardous comp ared as a consequence of the introduction 
of the European Waste List upon accession to the EU. The increase in hazardous waste 
generation in the EU15 is more  difficult to explain, although changes in the EU hazardous 
waste list in 2001 increased the number of waste codes to cover hazardou s wastes that were 
previously only classed as hazardous in so me countries. Other contributing factors may 
include increased municipal waste incineration (which is estimated to have contributed to an 
increase in hazardous flue gas cleaning resi dues of at least 600,000 tonnes between 1997 and 
2006) and remediation of contaminated sites.43 
                                                 
42 Eurostat, 2009, Statistics in Focus 30/2009, Generation and treatment of waste 
43 EEA 2010, The European Environment, State and Outlook 2010 : Thematic Assessment – Material 
Resources and Waste  
 
EN 24   EN Figure 6: Hazardous waste generation in  the EU-27 plus Norway, Switzerland and 
Croatia, 1997 to 200643 
 
Across the EU27, hazardous waste accounts for an av erage of 3% of total waste generated but 
with high impact on the environment. The propor tion varies greatly between Member States, 
however, as a result of the dominance of diff erent economic sectors: from 0.3% in Greece, 
Bulgaria and Romania to 35% in  Estonia (due to shale oil pr oduction) (see Figure7 below).  
Figure 7: Hazardous waste generated, 2008, EU-27 (in % of tota l waste generated) 44 
 
                                                 
44 Source: Eurostat Waste Data Centre 2010 
 
EN 25   EN Generation of construction and demolition  waste(C&D) (figure 8) is estimated to account 
for approximately 25%-30% of wa stes in the EU. Given the lack  of recycling and recovery 
targets for C&D wastes at EU level in the pa st, no standardised reporting systems had been 
developed, thus resulting in di verging methodologies and different  wastes being considered as 
C&D wastes.  
The estimates of construction and demolition waste generation range from 510 million 
tonnes45 to 970 million tonnes46. Some Member States have not reported any figures, whilst 
others seem to include excavation mate rial in their figures. A recent study47 has introduced 
some correction factors in order to take into  account the diverging re porting practices and has 
estimated the C&D waste generation at 535 million tonnes.  
Figure 8: Generation of construction and de molition waste in the EU  in 2006 (in millions 
of tonnes) 47 
020406080100120
Austria
Belgium
Bulgaria
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Ireland
Italy
Latvia
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Malta
Netherlands
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
UK
 
The range of reported generated construction and demolition waste per capita and year varies 
between less than 0.1 tonnes in Romania a nd 15.2 tonnes in Luxembourg. This variation 
cannot be explained by differences in constr uction activity only, and seems partly due to 
diverging reporting methodologies.  
As Figures 9 and 10 show, cons truction and demolition waste generation seems to be lower in 
EU-12, where per capita generation is in most cases below 2 tonnes per year.  
                                                 
45 WBCSD (Word Business Council for Sustainable De velopment ), 2009, The Cement Sustainability 
Initiative, Recycling concrete 
46 Eurostat, 2010 
47 BioIS: Management of construction and demolition waste in the EU - requirements resulting from the 
Waste Framework Directive and assessment of the situation in the medium term (draft final report, 
2010). Note: for some Member States, only data for 2004 were available 
 
EN 26   EN Figures 9 and 10 have to be seen only as indi cative of the trend as re gards the evolution of 
production of construction and demolition wastes  within a given Memb er State. The amounts 
indicated are based on diverging definitions  of C&DW (and may include e.g. excavation 
material) and do not allow for cross-countr y precise comparisons. Given the lack of 
comparable data and of complete time series, it is difficult to assess the evolution of the amounts of construction and demolition waste.  
As illustrated by Figure 9 below, all EU 15 countries where data are available for more than 
one year have seen an increase in genera tion per capita during the period 1995 to 2006
48, with 
the exception of Germany.  
Figure 9: Generation of construction a nd demolition waste per capita in EU 15 48 
 
                                                 
48 EEA, 2009, Working paper ‘EU as a Recycling Societ y: Present recycling levels of Municipal Waste 
and Construction & Demolition Waste in the EU’ 

 
EN 27   EN Figure 10: Generation of cons truction and demolition waste per capita in the EU 12 48 
 
As shown in Figure 11, the generation of Municipal solid Waste  per capita in the EU-27 had 
been increasing until recently (from 499kg in 1997 to 524kg in 2006), bu t since 2000 appears 
to be stabilising. This compar es to figures reported by th e OECD of 750kg for the USA, 
400kg in Japan in 2005 and around 444kg for urban China whilst the genera tion rate in rural 
areas was not known.49 50  
Total municipal waste genera tion has increased of around 5% in the EU -27 (from 239.5 
million tonnes to 260.7 million tonnes) in ten ye ars. The total amount of MSW generated by 
the EU continues to increase associated with a slight increase in EU-27 population.  
According to EEA51, the annual generation of municipal waste in the EU-27 has reached 
524 kg per person (see Figure 11).  In the past, growing consum ption and the trend towards 
smaller and more households (see SOER Thematic Assessment: Consumption and 
Environment ) have been strong drivers of municipal waste genera tion but it now seems that 
these factors are decoupling from municipal wa ste generation: municipal waste generation per 
person in the EU-27 stabilized between 1999 and 2007 while consumption expenditure in 
constant prices increased by 16.3% per person  and the number of people per household 
decreased by 5.6% (Odyssee database). However, mainly as a result of the small growth in 
population, the total amount of municipal waste generated in the EU-27 over the same period 
increased slightly to 258 million tons  (Eurostat data centre on waste).  
Figures 11 and 12 below show the trend in waste generation for each Member State.  
                                                 
49 OECD, 2007, Municipal waste generation outlook 
50 OECD Environmental Data Compendium, 2008, Waste 
51 EEA 2010, The European Environment, State and Outlook 2010 : Thematic Assessment – Material 
Resources and Waste 
 
EN 28   EN Figure 11: Municipal waste generation  and treatment in kg per capita 52 
0100200300400500600700800900
EU-27
EU-15AT
BEBGCYCZ
DEDKEEEL
ESFI
FRHUIEITLTLULVMTNLPLPT
ROSESI
SKUKlandfilled
incinerated
recycled and
composted2000 - 2007 - 2008
 
Figure 12: Percentage change in per capi ta municipal waste generation 1997-200853 
 
                                                 
52 Environmental Policy Review 2010, derived from Eurostat, see: 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/policyreview.htm   
53 Eurostat, 2010, Environmental Data Centre on Waste, Municipal Waste 

 
EN 29   EN EU-12 Member States generate less municipal wa ste per capita than the EU-15, and less than 
the EU-27 average54. For the EU-12, municipal waste gene ration is increasi ng slightly more 
quickly than in the EU- 15, with an increase of around 7% between 1997 and 200862 Figures 
11 and 12 also demonstrate the variation in tre nds across the Member States in terms of 
municipal waste generation per capita.  
According to EEA55, packaging waste  from households and comm ercial sources accounts for 
around 3% of total waste. Generation of this wa ste stream is increasi ng, although it appears to 
be relatively decoupled from GDP growth. Generation per capita varies between Member 
States, from 41kg in Bulgaria to 245kg in Ireland.  
Qualitative Prevention  
Steps have been made to achieve qualitati ve waste prevention. WEEE through the RoHS 
Directive, batteries, packaging a nd vehicles are expected to b ecome less hazardous over time. 
The impact of the RoHS Directive has been recently estimated56: the application of the 
Directive has resulted in reduc ing the quantities of the banned substances being disposed of 
and potentially released into the environm ent by 89 800 tonnes of lead, 4 300 tonnes of 
cadmium, 537 tonnes of hexavalent chromium , 22 tonnes of mercury, and 12 600 tonnes of 
octa-BDE per year. 
The progressive application of the REACH regula tion will also encourag e a reduction in the 
production of hazardous waste although no precise estimation has been made so far on the 
exact possible impact of the regulation on waste generation.  
3.2 Re-use 
Under the new Waste Framework Directive the c oncept of "preparing for reuse" is defined. 
This is where products and materials have become waste but can be reused without 
reprocessing (which would be considered recycling). This c oncept was introduced to clarify 
the waste hierarchy. In practice reuse covers widespread activity for many waste streams 
across the EU 27; reuse ‘markets’ exist notably for textiles, furniture, car components and electrical household appliances . As under these markets materi als are consider ed second-hand 
and never become waste it is difficult to monitor the scale of activities or understand the scale 
of waste avoided/impact upon waste generation activities.  
However, in some Member States re-use is well developed and even subsidized and 
promoted. Already not only has this avoided wa ste generation but also has given another life 
to some still valuable products and theref ore avoided a kind of over consumption. Other 
benefits are linked with the social impacts of th ese activities as they are generating new kind 
of jobs while providing second hand s products at accessible prices.  
                                                
 
54 Eurostat, 2010, Environmental Data Centre on Waste, Municipal Waste 
55 EEA 2010, The European Environment, State and Outlook 2010 : Thematic Assessment – Material 
Resources and Waste  
56 Commission Staff working paper accompanying the Proposal for a Directiv e of the European 
Parliament and of the Council on waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) (recast) – Impact 
Assessment, COM(2008) 810 final, 3 D ecember 2008 , p. 30, available at: http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=SEC:2008:2933:FIN:EN:PDF   
 
EN 30   EN Given that it is a new concept,  data on preparing for reuse is not currently available at EU 27 
level. This lack of data repres ents a significant gap in data c overage when trying to identify 
performance in the EU waste management sector. 
3.3 Recycling  
Overall waste  
Figure 13 summarises the volume of waste treated by the three main treatment types: disposal, 
incineration and recovery (excluding energy recovery). In the EU , 5.5 % of waste was 
incinerated, 46 % recovered and 48.5 % disposed in 2008. 
Figure 13: Types of waste treatment, 200857  
 
Municipal Solid Waste  
The most extensive data set available, that enables the comparative analysis of EU and 
Member State performance in terms of recyc ling effort, is for municipal solid waste. 
Recycling and composting of MSW has incr eased from 19% to 38% between 1998 and 
200758 with significant disparities between Me mber States in terms of recycling.  
Figure 11 compares Member St ate performance in 2000, 2007 and 2008. It demonstrates that 
large differences persist between Member St ate performances. In 2006, Germany, Belgium 
and the Netherlands had the highest levels of recycling, also demonstr ating significant growth 
levels in municipal waste recycling.  
                                                 
57 in percent of total waste treated, Source: Eurostat Waste Data Centre 2010 
58 EEA 2010, The European Environment, State and Outlook 2010 : Thematic Assessment – Material 
Resources and Waste  
 
EN 31   EN Meanwhile rapid increases in th e level of recycling, starting fr om a low base in 2000, can be 
seen for Ireland, the UK, the Czech Republic, Slovenia, Latvia and Poland. The more detailed trend data, however, also shows a levelling off of recycling efforts for municipal waste in 
certain higher achieving Member States. 
A working paper by the ETC/SCP
59 concluded, based on analysis  of national performance, 
that in 2005-2006 the EU 15 recycled between  60kg and 370kg of municipal waste per capita; 
meanwhile the level of municipal waste recy cling in the EU 12 varied from 20kg to 100kg per 
capita. When interpreting these fi gures, one must take into account  the variations in levels of 
waste generation in the Member States i.e. a country with high overall levels of generation 
may show high levels of recycli ng in terms of weight, but as a proportion of total generation 
the achievement may be low.  
Bio Waste  
Figures from Eurostat suggest that in 2008,  17% of waste treated in the EU-27 was 
composted60 meaning transformed into an organic fertiliser. The EU-27 has shown steady 
year-on-year increases between  1995 and 2008 in the quantity of  municipal waste composted, 
as demonstrated by Figure 14 below.61 
With the implementation of the biodegradable wa ste diversion target of the Landfill Directive, 
increasing emphasis on composting and anaerobic digestion is expected. 
Figure 15 shows a Baseline scenario whic h was developed in the context of the 
Communication on bio-waste management. The am ounts of landfilled bio- waste are expected 
to drop considerably - from 35.7 Mt in 2008 to 15.1 Mt in 2020 – a reduction of 38%. By 
2020 bio-waste is expected to be diverted from  landfills to composting (expected increase of 
48%), incineration (expected incr ease of 29.5%), Mechanical a nd biological treatment (MBT) 
(expected increase of 103%), Anaerobic diges tion (AD) expected increase of 349%) and 
home composting (expected increase of 148%). 
Expected benefits are linked w ith production of quality compost and improvement of organic 
depleted soils, reduction of green house gas emission linked with reduced landfilling and 
production of energy and compost. On top of the baseline scenario, more prevention and more 
composting have the potential to multiply the potential benefits. 
                                                 
59 ETC, 2009, Working paper ‘EU as a Recycling Societ y: Present recycling levels of Municipal Waste 
and Construction & Demolition Waste in the EU’ 
60 Eurostat, 2010, 2010, Presentation on ‘Municipal waste’ prepared for the Meeting of the Working 
Group "Statistics of the Environment", Sub-Gr oup "Waste" of the Joint Eurostat/EFTA group 
61 Eurostat, 2010, Municipal waste co mposted in the EU (1000 tonnes) 
 
EN 32   EN Figure 14: Total municipal waste composted 1996-200762  
 
Figure 15: Biowaste management – Baseline scenario63 
Bio-waste management
0510152025303540
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020Million tonnes
Home composting Anaerobic Digestion Composting MBT Incineration Landfill
 
                                                 
62 Derived from Eurostat, 2010, Municipal waste composted in the EU (1000 tonnes) 
63 Staff Working Document accompanying the Co mmunication on Biowaste (COM 2010 (235))  
 
EN 33   EN Packaging  
Figure 16 below provides a picture of the performa nce of the EU-27 with regards to recycling 
of packaging waste. In 2007, 16 Member States  had met the 2008 target to recycle 55% of 
packaging put on the market (not including energy recovery)64. By 2007, 59% of packaging 
waste in the EU27 was recycled an d 14% went for energy recovery.65 The figures, however, 
appear to indicate that some Member States th at have already achieve d a high recycling rate 
are experiencing problems to further increase or maintain this high level.66 
Figure 16: Recycling and recovery  rates for packaging waste 200767  
Paper and cardboard 
Data from the European Recovered Paper Counc il (Figure 17) suggest th at year on year from 
2002-2008, paper and board consumption has been increasing. Levels of recycling of paper 
and board have also been increasing each y ear, however, and have risen from 55.8% in 2002 
to 66% in 2008.68 In 2009, a 72.2% recycling rate was achie ved for all paper and board in the 
EU-27 plus Norway  and Switzerland.69 Higher recycling rates observed in 2008 and 2009 
might be partly due to the low paper consumption due to the impact of the economic downturn. When the economy will recover its usual growth rates, it will be interesting to 
verify whether the increasing trend of  the recycling rates will continue.  
                                                
 
64 Eurostat, 2008, Energy, transport and environment indicators 
65 EEA 2010, The European Environment, State and Outlook 2010 : Thematic Assessment – Material 
Resources and Waste  
66 Eurostat, 2008, Energy, transport and environment indicators 
67 Source: Eurostat Waste Data Centre 2010 
68 European Recovered Paper Council, 2010 
69 European Recovered Paper Council, 2009, European Declaration on Paper Recycling 2006 – 2010, 
Monitoring Report 2009 
 
EN 34   EN Figure 17: Paper recycling, EU-27 plus  Norway and Switzerland, 1995-200970 
 
Plastics waste 
The Commission (DG ENV) is fi nalising a study on "plastic wa ste in the environment". The 
final report is expected by end 2010. The study is  aiming to gather and analyze avai lable data 
on plastics and plastic waste, its  current management options and the related environmental 
and health risks. It also aims to review exis ting policies and initiatives  to reduce plastic waste 
and consider and recommend additional potential  policy measures to reduce plastic waste and 
its associated effects. 
Global production of plastics in 2009 is estimated at aroun d 245 Mt of which 25% in the 
EU71. China produces more plastic than any ot her country, at 15% of  global production. 
Germany produces the greatest amount in EU, accounting for 8% of global production. The 
main sources for European plastic waste are identified in the study: 38% is linked with 
packaging, building and construction accounts fo r 21% followed by automotive 7%, electrical 
and electronic equipment 6%, ag ricultural sector 5% and othe r sectors for the remaining.  
End of Life Vehicles  
Figure 18 shows the performances of the Member  States in terms of ELV management. By 
2008, six Member States of 25 (data are missing for Estonia and Malta) had already met the 
2015 reuse/recycling target; three Member States  had failed to meet the 2006 target and all 
other Member States had met the 2006 target.72 
Also by 2008, 17 Member States (of 25) had me t the 2006 reuse/recove ry target although 9 
Member States failed to meet the 2006 target.  
                                                 
70 European Recovered Paper Council, 2009, European Declaration on Paper Recycling 2006 – 2010, 
Monitoring Report 2009 
71 PlasticsEurope (2009), The Compelling Facts about Plastics – An analysis of European plastics 
production, demand and recovery for 2008  
72 Eurostat, 2009, Environmental Data Centre on Waste 
 
EN 35   EN Figure 18: ELV Reuse, Recyclin g and Recovery rates, 200873  
 
Electric and Electronic Waste (WEEE)  
Figure 19 below shows that by 2006, only 10 Member States (plus Norway) had reported 
meeting the 4kg per capita collection target. In percentage terms, in 2006 the average 
collection rate (of the 18 countries for which data were available) was 23% by weight of 
amounts placed on the market. It is likely that part  of what is collected is not reported. Where 
WEEE is collected separately, however, it is widely recycled: for 17 countries where 
recycling rates can be calculated, the average recycling rate was 79%.74 The proposed recast 
for the WEEE Directive includes a minimum co llection target of 65%  of WEEE arising 
(corresponding to 85% of what is put on the market) to be met by 2016.  
                                                 
73 Eurostat, 2010, Environmental Data Centre on Waste  
74 EEA 2010, The European Environment, State and Outlook 2010 : Thematic Assessment – Material 
Resources and Waste  65707580859095100
Belgium
Bulgaria
Czech Republic
Denmark
Germany
Estonia
Ireland 
Greece
Spain
FranceItaly
Cyprus
Latvia
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Hungary
Malta
Netherlands
Austria 
Poland 
Portugal
Romania
Slovenia
Slovakia
Finland
Sweden
United Kingdom
Iceland
Norway
Liechten-stein(%)Reuse and recycling rate Reuse and recovery rate
 
EN 36   EN Figure 19: WEEE placed on the market, co llected and recycled/recovered/reused in 21 
European countries (kg/capita), 200675  
Batteries 
Figure 20 indicates the waste batt eries generated per capita in 2006. It s hows the significant 
difference between Member States: from 8,1 kg per year and per inhabitant  in Finland to less 
than 0.1 kg in Bulgaria.  
Figures collated by the Europ ean Battery Recycling Associat ion (EBRA) indicate that in 
2008, 27,600 tonnes of used portable batteries in  the EU-27 were recycled by EBRA 
members, equating to an average of 1 4.5% of batteries put on the market.  
Factoring in collection and processing by non-E BRA members, the figure s increase to around 
35,000 tonnes or 18.4% which is lower that the collection rate of 25% (equating to around 
50,000 tonnes) which must be met by 2012 under Directive 2006/66/EC on batteries.  
According to EBRA, seven Member States (Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, 
Luxembourg, Sweden and the Netherlands) had,  however, reached the 25%, and six others 
(Denmark, Portugal, Greece, Ireland, Spain and Latv ia) seem to be able to meet the target by 
2012. Considerable efforts will be needed in the remaining MS to meet the EU targets.76  
                                                 
75 EEA 2010, The European Environment, State and Outlook 2010 : Thematic Assessment – Material 
Resources and Waste  
76 European Battery Recycling Association (EBRA), 2009, Press release ‘Stagnation of the quantities of 
used portable batteries recycled in 2008’ 

 
EN 37   EN Figure 20: Batteries waste arising, 200677  
Compared to 2008, EBRA report that the quantitie s of used batteries,  excluding lead-acid 
batteries, recycled by EBRA members in 2009 increased to 37,000 tonnes in the EU-27. This 
significant increase is due to more efficient co llections schemes set up for used batteries in 
Europe in response to the require ments of the Batteries Directive.78 
Construction and Demolition waste 
Data on the generation, composition and recycl ing of construction and demolition waste are 
more limited. Figure 2 below indicates that in percentage terms the rate of generated construction and demolition waste recycled is over 60% in most of the EU15 and Norway. 
For some Member States it is over 80% but in others it is only 15%-30%.  
                                                
 
77 Source: Eurostat Waste Data Centre 2010 
78 European Battery Recycling Asso ciation (EBRA), 2010, Press rel ease ‘Significant increase of the 
quantities of recycled used batteries and accumulators in 2009: 37 kT’ 8 . 65 . 95 . 04 . 13 . 93 . 73 . 43 . 33 . 23 . 02 . 92 . 82 . 62 . 32 . 22 . 11 . 91 . 81 . 21 . 11 . 10 . 80 . 70 . 30 . 30 . 20 . 1 3 . 23 . 21 . 00 . 0
0123456789
FI
BE
SE
FR
GR
DE
LU
IT
EU27
NL
ES
UK
EE
AT
HUMT
LV
CY
CZ
LT
SI
DK
SK
IE
PL
RO
BG
NO
IS *
HR*
TR*kg per capita
 
EN 38   EN Figure 21: recycling of construction and demo lition waste in percentage of generated 
amount in the EU and Norway79  
 
Figure 22 shows that commonly recycled materi als are concrete, bricks, tiles and asphalt; 
dredging soil, soil and track ba llast contribute significantly in  Member States with a high 
percentage of recycling. It is worth noting th at soil recycling does not  count towards the 70% 
EU target for construction and demolition waste.  
Figure 22: Percentage composition and development of recycled construction and 
demolition waste in the EU and Norway 79 
 
                                                 
79 EEA, 2009, Working paper ‘EU as a Recycling Societ y: Present recycling levels of Municipal Waste 
and Construction & Demolition Waste in the EU’ 
 
EN 39   EN 3.4 Energy Recovery  
In the EU, municipal waste inci neration per capita has increase d since the intr oduction of the 
strategy from 96 tonnes per capita in 2005 to 1 02 tonnes per capita in 2008 (Figure 23). This 
indicates a relative stab ilization of incineration in the long term as in 1997 incineration 
represented around 70kg per capita.  
Three Member States are exceptions to this trend, and have experienced a decrease in 
incineration rates between 1995 and 2008: Belgiu m, France and Luxembourg (where a large 
drop of nearly 20% has occurred). 
The Member States with the largest number of  waste-to-energy facili ties are France (130), 
Germany (67), Italy (51), Sweden (30), Denm ark (29), UK (20), Belgium (16), Netherlands 
(11) and Spain (10).80  
Figure 23: Municipal waste incinerated kg per capita in the EU-27, 2002 to 200881 
050100150200250300350400450500
EU 27
Estonia
Ireland
Poland
Slovenia
Latvia
Hungary
Slovakia
Czech Republic
Spain
United Kingdom
Finland Italy
PortugalAustriaGermany
BelgiumFrance
Netherlands
Sweden
Luxembourg
Denmark
2002 2008 
All statistics presented in relation to incinerati on and energy recovery originate from before 
the adoption of the new Directive on waste, wh en specific new criteria were adopted to 
determine the efficiency level at which incinera tion can be deemed an energy recovery rather 
than disposal activity. It is anticipated that th is will help to increase the consistency and 
reliability of reporting on this issue, with additional information becoming available on the 
level of energy recovery from wast e and the efficiency of plant.  
During the next data collection process Eurostat  will ask countries to specify from which 
reference year the energy effici ency criterion will be applied.82 
                                                 
80 Capel, C., 2009, Innovations in waste, Waste Management World, Volume 11, Issue 2 
81 Derived from Eurostat 2010 
82 Document on the ‘Structural indicator on municipal waste’ (Doc. WASTE WG 6.1 (2010)) prepared for 
the Meeting of the Working Group "Statistics of the Environment", Sub-Group "Waste" of the Joint 
Eurostat/EFTA group 
 
EN 40   EN According to estimations about 50 to 60% of muni cipal waste incinerators in the EU might be 
able to achieve the energy effi ciency criteria for municipal wa ste incinerators set by Directive 
2008/98/EC.83  
3.5 Landfilling  
There have been some significant successes in this  regard over recent ye ars. Figure 5 and 24 
shows a clear decrease over time of municipa l waste landfilling. Sending municipal solid 
waste (MSW) to landfill has long been the domin ant waste management option in the EU-27, 
but in recent years th is has begun to change,84 and in contrast to rising quantities of MSW 
generated, since 1997 the quantity of MSW landf illed in the EU has decreased: from 293kg 
per capita in 1997 to 207kg per capita in 2008.85 
Figure 24: Municipal waste treatment86 
 
Nevertheless, many countries still sent the majo rity of their waste to  landfill: all ‘EU-10’ 
countries (the EU-12 prior to the entry of Romania and Bulgar ia into the EU) had landfill 
rates of at least 60%, as Irel and, Finland, Portugal and the UK. Conversely, most of the EU-15 
had low rates of landfill and high rates of calculated material recovery and incineration with energy recovery. 
                                                
 
83 CEWEP, 2009, Energy Report II (Status 2004-2007) 
84 EEA, 2008, Briefing No 1/2008, Better management  of municipal waste will reduce greenhouse gas 
emissions 
85 Eurostat, 2010, Environmental Data Centre on Waste, Landfill and incineration (For stats on 
incineration, choose from drop down menu) 
86 Source: Eurostat Waste data centre 2010 
 
EN 41   EN Figure 25 shows that the majority of EU-27 co untries have reduced the amount of municipal 
waste disposed of in landfills between 1995 and 2007. Over that time, six countries (Bulgaria, 
Malta, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia)  increased their dispos al of municipal waste 
in landfills. It is appreciated that there are marked differences between Member States, especially between th e EU-12 and the EU-15 Member St ates. For example, in 1995, an 
average of 62% of MSW was landfilled in the EU -15 in contrast with the 87% average in the 
EU-12. By 2007, the above figures had fa llen to 42% and 79%, respectively.
87 
Figure 25: Percentage of municipal waste th at is landfilled in the EU-27, 1995 and 200788 
 
Figure 26 below shows that nine Member States  had already met the 2016 target for diversion 
of the biodegradable municipal waste from Landfill by 2006, whereas eight Member States 
(all with derogation periods) st ill needed to substantially re duce landfill of biodegradable 
municipal waste to meet even the 2006 target . Data was missing for three Member States. 
                                                 
87 Derived from EEA, 2009, Diverting waste from landfill – Effectiveness of waste-management policies 
in the European Union (Report 7) 
88 EEA, 2009, Diverting waste from landfill – Effec tiveness of waste-management policies in the 
European Union (Report 7) 
 
EN 42   EN Figure 26: Biodegradable municipal waste landfilled in 2006 (% of biodegradable 
municipal waste generated in 1995), comp ared to targets of Directive 93/1999/EC89 
In addition to the reduction of waste landfilled, c onsiderable efforts have been achieved by the 
Member states to close sub-standards Landfills . On the basis of th e data reported by the 
Member States, more than 3,300 landfills in EU countries were closed between 2004 and 2006. However, countries also reported a large nu mber of landfills which did not comply with 
the technical requirements of the Landfill Directiv e and thus still have to be closed or re-
equipped. Many landfills were constructed withou t proper measures to reduce their potentially 
negative environmental impacts and have had to be closed or upgraded in order to comply 
with the minimum requirements of the Landfill Directive . 
The Commission has identified th irteen non-conformity cases and eleven bad application 
cases in 2009 as well as a vast number of complaints related to illegal landfills and failure of many Member States to improve  the situation. In addition, th e Commission has taken action 
against those Member States which have failed to meet the deadline of  16 July 2009 regarding 
closure of sub-standard landfills. 
3.6 Member States Performances  
Meeting the minimum European binding collecti on and recycling targets will represent a real 
challenge for some Member States while others  are already well ahead of these targets. For 
instance: 
• In 2008, 8 MS failed to meet the 2006 reuse and recycling target for ELV's although 7 MS 
have already met the 2015 target (85%); 
                                                
 
89 EEA 2010, The European Environment, State and Outlook 2010 : Thematic Assessment – Material 
Resources and Waste  

 
EN 43   EN • In 2006, 12 MS had met the 2008 target for packaging waste (55%) with 4 MS below 30% 
and 5 MS above 60%;  
• In 2008, the collection rate for batteries was estimated at 18% compared to the 25% EU 
target for 2012. 7 MS have alr eady met this target in 2008;  
• By 2006, only 10 MS had met the collection ta rget for WEEE (4kg per capita per year), 
some MS collecting up to 8kg. This repres ented 23% of the amount put on the market. 
Once collected, WEEE was recycled at 79%. 
• In 2007, seven Member States have already reached the 2016 landfill diversion target, 
however, a number of countries with derogati on periods still have substantial work to 
accomplish in order to meet this target. 
Recycling rates vary from one waste stream to  another: 72,5% for pape r and cardboard (2009 
– a progress of around 10 % sin ce the adoption of the Strate gy), 60% for construction and 
demolition waste (EU15 – 2006), 59 % for pack aging (2007), 82% for ELV's (2007) and 
respectively 18 % and 23% for WEEE due to the low collection rate.  
The analysis of the performances of the Member  States in terms of moving towards the waste 
hierarchy is clearly showing significant differe nces between MS. It is important to better 
understand what policies and inst ruments have been set in pl ace in the better performing 
Member States have led to these differences.  
In a first analysis, it seems that – apart from a good implementatio n of the basic legal 
principles of environmentall y sound waste management - an  appropriate use of economic 
instruments on top of the legal instruments c ould lead to improved performances. Different 
schemes have been put in place  in the most performing Member  States which are summarised 
below:  
'Pay as you throw' schemes  (or ‘variable charging’) are used in several Member States – 
including Austria, the Netherlands, Belgium, Italy, Denmark, Germany - as a fiscal incentive 
to encourage consumers to improve waste sepa ration and/or reduce waste. Households are 
required to pay in proportion to  volume or weight and frequency of collection. Electronic 
systems are used for the identification of bags and weighting of waste. It seems that these 
schemes where they have been introduced have  reduced the total amount of residual waste 
collected and increased the participation to se parate collection scheme s. For instance, in 
Belgium, pay-per-bag schemes are set in place at local level with  an impact of the collection 
of residual waste (decrease estimated up to 70 %) and an increase of the participation to 
separate collection. Similar effects have been  observed in Denmark and Italy where similar 
systems have led to a reduction of 18% of the residual waste collection and an increase of 8% 
of separated collected waste90 . More information and evalua tion at EU level is needed.  
Producer responsibility and voluntary agreement schemes is another method to promote 
better waste management. In most of the performing countries producer responsibility 
schemes have been put in place whether on a vol untary basis or by law ( notably in Belgium, 
Germany, Austria).  
                                                 
90 Eunomia Research & Consulting (on behalf of Ecotech Research & Consulting), ‘Financing and 
Incentive Schemes for Municipal Waste Management: Case Studies – Final Report to Directorate 
General Environment, European Commission’ 
 
EN 44   EN The waste streams covered by such systems ar e amongst others packaging, ELV's, batteries, 
WEEE, oils, paper, cardboards, tyres, expire d medication, etc. The financial and operational 
responsibility of the producers varies from one Member State to another and could cover 
either the entire waste management process (c ollection, sorting, recyc ling, treatment of the 
residues, information to the public) or a part of it.  
In general producer responsibil ity schemes are leading to imp roved recycling performances 
by creating new durable financial means for the organisation of separate  collection schemes. 
It also moves the financial charge of wast e management from the citizen (through general 
taxes) to the consumers through the consum er (through inclusion in the product price). 
Deposit refund schemes  was set in place for instance in Germany in 2003 for one-way drink 
packages as a results of the German Packaging Ordinance. A flat rate deposit of 0.25€ is 
charged on all one way drinks packagi ng containing between 0.1 and 3 litres.  
Grants schemes are also used for instance to prom ote the separate coll ection and re-use of 
WEEE, textile, furniture, but no reliable statistics  at European level are available so far on 
these type of activities.  
One particular tool that is used by a large majority of Member States to encourage the 
diversion of waste from landfill is various forms of landfill tax . Table 3 illustrates that in 
general those countries having successfully reducing the amount of waste landfilled have a 
higher landfill tax in place. Some countries have also introduced a landfill ban for most of the 
waste streams (Germany and Austria).  
Table 3: Landfill taxes and bans in  place in the EU Member States91  
Country Landfill tax 
implemented in €/t Landfill tax 
planned in €/t Landfill ban 
implemented 
(beyond Landfill 
Directive) Landfill 
ban 
planned 
Austria 87 (from Jan 2006) 
– depending on composition of 
waste and standard 
of landfill Prices adjusted in 
line with inflation Total organic 
carbon (TOC) >5% from 2008. 
Exceptions for 
landfilling MBT-treated outputs 
(separate standards)  
Belgium 
(Flanders) 29.71-42.44 (from 
2010, non-combustible waste). 
55.70-79.56 (from 
2010, combustible 
waste). Ranges 
exist due to private/public 
landfill sites. Prices adjusted in 
line with inflation TOC >6% ban on 
unsorted wastes, sorted and non-
sorted wastes for 
recovery, 
combustible 
residual fraction from sorting  
                                                 
91 Confederation of European Waste to Energy Plants (CEWEP), 2010, ‘Landfill taxes & bans’ 
 
EN 45   EN Country Landfill tax 
implemented in €/t Landfill tax 
planned in €/t Landfill ban 
implemented 
(beyond Landfill 
Directive) Landfill 
ban 
planned 
Belgium 
(Wallonia) 65 (2010, 
hazardous waste). 
60 (2010, non-hazardous waste). Prices adjusted in 
line with inflation Ban enacted since 
2004  
Denmark 63 (from 2010)  From 1997 ban on 
waste suitable for 
incineration  
Netherlands 107.49 (from 2010)  For 35 categories of 
waste No 
Sweden 40  Sorted combustible 
waste from 2002. All organic waste 
from 2005.  
Germany NONE (total 
landfill ban instead)  For all untreated 
waste from 2005  
Czech Republic 17 (from 2009)    
Finland 30 (exceptions for 
private landfills, fly 
ash, waste used in 
construction of 
landfills)   Aim for 
transitional 
ban on 
BMW from 
2011 
Ireland 30 (from 2010) Under review – 
higher landfill tax 
expected Some landfills ban 
certain waste 
streams but no 
national legislation No 
Italy 1-25 (depending on 
type of waste, e.g. 
inert, MSW)  Yes – to be 
determined Some 
combustible 
waste from 2011 
France 10-50 (from 2010, 
depending on type 
of landfill and 
amount of energy recovered. 
Exemptions for 
certain waste types.) Annual increases 
between 10-100 
(until 2015) Introduced in 2002 
on non-residual 
wastes (definition 
of ‘residual’ under discussion) No 
 
EN 46   EN Country Landfill tax 
implemented in €/t Landfill tax 
planned in €/t Landfill ban 
implemented 
(beyond Landfill 
Directive) Landfill 
ban 
planned 
United 
Kingdom 35.19 (from 2007) 
3.67 (inert waste) Rising by 11.72 
per annum then top 
rate of 82.60 from 2013/2014 No Under 
consultation 
Hungary 7-15 (from 2010, 
exceptions for 
certain types of 
waste)  Tyres from 2004, 
rubber scrap from 
2006 From 2015 
for untreated 
wastes 
Portugal 3.50 Updated each year No No 
Top performers in the EU with regards to  minimising the amount of waste landfilled are 
Germany (1%), the Netherlands (2%), Sweden  (3%) and Belgium (also 3%). This may 
indicate a correlation between rates of landfill tax/bans and the proportion of waste sent to 
landfill.92  
Germany has implemented a landfill ban for all unt reated waste with greater than 3% organic 
content. Since its implementation in 2005, the amount of municipal wa ste landfilled has fallen 
to 1%. Separate collection schemes have also  resulted in notably higher recycling rates 
demonstrating the importance of developing alte rnative treatment methods  together with the 
progressive rising of landfill taxes. 93 
In the Netherlands, the landfill tax has contribute d to a 60% decrease in the amount of waste 
landfilled between 1996 and 2004 (over the same  period the amount of waste incinerated 
increased by 50% and the recy cling rate increased by approximately 20%). Complementary 
measures in the Netherlands include a ban on 35 types of waste from landfill, pay-as-you-
throw schemes,94 and deposit-refund schemes for bottles. The landfill tax ha s also paved the 
way for improved separation of waste.93 
3.7 Recycling society  
One of the long term goals of the Thematic Strategy was the establishment of a "Recycling 
Society" in the European Union that "seeks to  avoid waste and use wa ste as resource" and 
therefore reduce the impacts of resource us e on the environment while providing new 
opportunities in terms on job creation. No clear  and accepted definition of a "recycling 
society" was provided in the Thematic Strategy . Clear progress have been made in terms of 
recycling since the adoption of the Thematic Strategy but at the same time the need for 
resources and raw materials has in creased at European level.  
                                                 
92 Dutch Waste Management Association, 2009, ‘Uneven playing field for landfill in Europe   
93 EEA, 2006, ‘Country fact sheet: Germany’ 
94 Earth911.com, 2009, ‘Trash Planet: The Netherlands’  
 
EN 47   EN An ongoing study95 has provided first estimates of the cu rrent level of recycling compared to 
the demand of virgin raw material s. Table 4 presents an estimation of the recycled totals per 
material and waste stream in 2006. It show s that in tonnage the contribution of the 
construction and demolition waste is by far the largest contributor followed by packaging waste. ELV's and WEEE contribute to large amounts of steel.  
Table 4: Estimates of the material recycl ed per material and waste stream, 2006  
 Material recycled under current policy (tonnes) 
Material C&D ELV Packaging WEEE Total 
Metal 9 989 944  4 294 855 3 600 212 1 169 576 19 054 587 
Ferrous metals 9 989 944  3 842 765 2 788 713 1 063 251 17 684 673  
Non ferrous  452 090 811 499 106 325 1 369 914  
Aluminium -  - 604 453 - 604 453  
Glass - - 11 233 183 - 11 233 183  
Aggregates 209 788 824  -  - 209 788 824  
Plastic 4 994 972  - 4 838 694 531 626 10 365 292  
Paper - - 30 509 027 - 30 509 027  
Wood 9 989 944  - 5 323 356 - 15 313 300  
Total 234 763 684  4 294 855 55 504 472 1 701 202 296 264 213  
 
Table 5 provides the first estimates for potentia l recycled amounts if all existing waste targets 
as described under section 2( 7) were achieved. The potent ial is mainly linked with 
construction and demolition waste and WEEE as the current amounts of packaging waste and 
ELV are not far from the EU targets. Beyond the quantitative analysis, it is important to note 
that further investigations w ould be needed to better identif y specific material flows which 
have a significant impact  on the environment.  
The same study made comparisons between the actual and potential recycled materials and 
the global demand for raw materials. In su mmary, reuse, recycling and recovery of 
construction and demolition waste – estimated at  47% in 2006 - represen ts between 4 to 14% 
of the mineral material set on the market; this rate could increase to 7 to 21% if the EU target of 70% recycling is respected. Recycled, re used and recovered ELV 's, WEEE and packaging 
waste represent respectively around 1,7%, 0.5% and 1.3% of total metal inputs in the EU economy.  
                                                
 
95 "Analysis of the key contributions to Resource Efficiency", BIO Intelligence Service with Social 
Ecology Vienna, for DG ENV ongoing study  
 
EN 48   EN Table 5: Estimates of the potential material  recycled if existing legislation is fully 
implemented 
 Material recycled implementation of  existing legislation (tonnes) 
Material C&D ELV Packaging WEEE Total 
Metal 15 684 560 4 294 855 3 626 182 1 571 160 25 176 757 
Ferrous metals 15 684 560 3 842 765 2 822 122 1 428 327 23 777 774 
Non ferrous - 452 090 804 059 142 833 1 398 982 
Aluminium - - 633 057 - 633 057 
Glass - 169 534 11 941 037 - 12 110 571 
Aggregates  329 375 760 -  - 329 375 760 
Plastic 7 842 280 565 113 5 367 396 714 164 14 488 952 
Paper - - 30 548 745 - 30 548 745 
Wood 15 684 560 - 4 924 692 - 20 609 252 
Total 368 587 160 5 029 501 56 408 052 2 285 323 432 310 037 
Another study analyses recycling rates, recycling contents and share of old scrap in then total 
scrap flow for 60 metals at global level96. 
It shows that end-of-life recyc ling rates are still globally low due  to the relative abundance of 
primary material and due to the absence of performing collection and processing of old 
metals. Recycling rates is above 50% only for 18 metals of 60 (see figure 27) and the share of 
old scrap in the total flow is above 50% only for thirteen metals. Metal recycling could be 
improved in the future and contribute to meet a significant part of the future demand. To that 
end, collection of old metals and processing should be improved as well as design of the 
products to increase the “recycl ability” of some metals.  
                                                 
96 « Recycling Rates of Metals : A Status Report », second report of the Global Metal Flows working 
group of the International Panel on Sustainable Resource Management of UNEP  
 
EN 49   EN Figure 27: Average end-of-life functional recycling97 
 
As demand grows for a range of materials, th e supply of raw material s has been receiving 
increased attention. Recycling plays an important role in this cont ext as it acts as a form of 
supply. In 2008 the Commission launched the Raw Mate rials initiative, on th e issue of critical 
raw materials (COM(2008)699). This Communication includes three "pilla rs" with the aim of 
"ensuring access to raw materials,  foster sustainable supply of raw material from EU sources 
and boost resource efficiency and promote recyc ling to reduce EU's consumption of primary 
raw material". It will be reviewed in 2010.  
In the 2010 report of the working group on defining critical raw materials,  it is highlighted 
that EU's recycling of specific metals - inputs which are essential for the maintenance of our 
standard of living as well as for future green or enabling technologies - remains low98.  
                                                 
97 Source : UNEP 2010 – see previous note 
98 More information is available from the following link: http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/raw-
materials/critical/index_en.htm  and the whole report is available from the following link: 
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/ra w-materials/files/docs/report-b_en.pdf 103
Lr102
No101
Md100
Fm99
Es98
Cf97
Bk96
Cm95
Am94
Pu93
Np92
U91
Pa90
Th89
Ac** Actinides71
Lu70
Yb69
Tm68
Er67
Ho66
Dy65
Tb64
Gd63
Eu62
Sm61
Pm60
Nd59
Pr58
Ce57La * Lanthanides
103
Lr102
No101
Md100
Fm99
Es98
Cf97
Bk96
Cm95
Am94
Pu93
Np92
U91
Pa90
Th89
Ac** Actinides71
Lu70
Yb69
Tm68
Er67
Ho66
Dy65
Tb64
Gd63
Eu62
Sm61
Pm60
Nd59
Pr58
Ce57La * Lanthanides
<1% 1-10% >10-25% >25-50% >50% 118
Uuo(117)
(Uus)116
Uuh115
Uup114
Uuq113
Uut112
Uub111
Rg110
Ds109
Mt108
Hs107
Bh106
Sg105
Db104
Rf** 88
Ra87
Fr86
Rn85
At84
Po83
Bi82
Pb81
Tl80
Hg79
Au78
Pt77
Ir76
Os75
Re74
W73
Ta72
Hf* 56
Ba55
Cs54
Xe53
I52
Te51
Sb50
Sn49
In48
Cd47
Ag46
Pd45
Rh44
Ru43
Tc42
Mo41
Nb40
Zr39
Y38
Sr37
Rb36
Kr35
Br34
Se33
As32
Ge31
Ga30
Zn29
Cu28
Ni27
Co26
Fe25
Mn24
Cr23
V22
Ti21
Sc20
Ca19
K18
Ar17
Cl16
S15
P14
Si13
Al12
Mg11
Na10
Ne9
F8
O7
N6
C5
B4
Be3
Li2
He1
H
118
Uuo(117)
(Uus)116
Uuh115
Uup114
Uuq113
Uut112
Uub111
Rg110
Ds109
Mt108
Hs107
Bh106
Sg105
Db104
Rf** 88
Ra87
Fr86
Rn85
At84
Po83
Bi82
Pb81
Tl80
Hg79
Au78
Pt77
Ir76
Os75
Re74
W73
Ta72
Hf* 56
Ba55
Cs54
Xe53
I52
Te51
Sb50
Sn49
In48
Cd47
Ag46
Pd45
Rh44
Ru43
Tc42
Mo41
Nb40
Zr39
Y38
Sr37
Rb36
Kr35
Br34
Se33
As32
Ge31
Ga30
Zn29
Cu28
Ni27
Co26
Fe25
Mn24
Cr23
V22
Ti21
Sc20
Ca19
K18
Ar17
Cl16
S15
P14
Si13
Al12
Mg11
Na10
Ne9
F8
O7
N6
C5
B4
Be3
Li2
He1
H
 
EN 50   EN Recycling markets  
The importance of recycling markets following the downturn was highlighted and discussed 
in the Environment Council, March 200999. Promoting and maintaining waste management 
and recycling markets is of strategic impor tance for the environment and for European 
competitiveness. It enhances material efficiency and offers significant energy savings. It also helps to make valuable and strategic material s available to EU indus try. The importance of 
recycling markets was evidenced in 2009, followi ng the economic downturn due to a drop in 
demand for materials. This mainly pointed to the importance of recycling quality and 
effective sorted materials, as well as the degree of exports of EU waste.  
Since the publication of the strategy, increasing attention has been paid to market forces, 
working alongside and interacting with a legislative framework:  
• The Lead Market initiative on Recycling (SEC (2009) 1198),
100  
• End-of-waste Criteria. A methodology for esta blishing end-of-waste criteria has been 
agreed (see above); 
• Waste Shipment Regulation Illegal shipments of waste contribute to unfair competition. 
• The environmental guidelines for state aid pub lished in 2008, have specific provisions that 
are relevant to waste, recycling and eco-i nnovation. (“Community Guidelines on State aid 
for Environmental Protection” O fficial Journal No C 82, 1.4.2008, p.1) 
• A number of initiatives have been put in to place to promote new technologies and 
innovation:  
• LIFE has helped facilitate a number of projects developi ng and testing solutions to 
specific technological challenges, particular ly with regard to waste treatment in 
the manufacturing sector 101; 
• Eco-innovation, ETAP and R&D funding. 
Environmental impacts 
One of the expected impacts of  the Thematic Strategy is to reduce the environmental impacts 
associated with the generation and treatment of  waste. The most reliable and extensive data 
sets relate to the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with waste management in Europe, more limited information is available regarding the broader pollution implications 
associated with waste management. 
                                                
 
99 See: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/envir/106430.pdf   
100 See: http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/innovation/policy/lead-market-initiative/   
101 See: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/themes/waste/index.htm  
 
EN 51   EN • Green House Gas Emissions 
Figure 28 provides an overview of GHG emissions directly contributed by  the waste sector in 
the EU-27 from 1995 to 2007. The waste sector's  emissions are defined by the IPCC – the 
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - as GHG directly emitted by landfills, incineration without energy r ecovery, waste water treatment and biological treatment. In 
1995, GHG emissions from the waste sector in the EU-27 were 207.2 million tonnes CO
2 
equivalent, accounting for 3.97% of total EU -27 GHG emissions. By 2007, this figure had 
dropped to 141.2 million tonnes CO 2 equivalent, accounting fo r only 2.8% of total EU-27 
GHG emissions.  
In the EU-15, GHG emissions from the waste se ctor fell by 39% from  1990-2006; they are 
projected to fall a further 6% below 1990 levels by 2010, based on existing policies.102 
Figure 28: Total greenhouse gas emissions fr om the waste sector, EU-27, EU-15 and EU-
12, in 1000 tonnes CO 2 equivalent103 
 
A different approach, which demonstrates the r eal effect of waste management activities in 
the technosphere, is to include the life cycle impacts of solid waste management. If emissions 
avoided by replacing virgin materials and en ergy with materials and energy derived from 
recycling and recovery  of waste are taken into accoun t, the GHG reduction are higher. 
Considering municipal solid waste only – wh ich accounts for around 9 % of total waste – the 
net emissions from the management of this waste,  that is the sum of emissions from landfills, 
incineration, recycling (includi ng bio-waste) and waste trans port and the emissions avoided 
through material and energy recovery, are estimat ed to have been cu t by 57 % between 1995 
and 2008 (Figure 29).  
Negative emissions indicate that waste manageme nt leads to avoiding of emissions outside of 
the waste sector by reducing the demand for virg in materials and energy from fossil fuels. 
                                                 
102 Eurostat, 2009, Total greenhouse gas emissions & Eurostat, 2009, Total greenhouse gas emissions from 
the waste sector 
103 Derived from Eurostat, 2009, Total greenhouse gas emissions & Eurostat, 2009, Total greenhouse gas 
emissions from the waste sector 
 
EN 52   EN This compensates direct emissions from la ndfills, incineration, transport and recycling 
installations.  
Figure 29: Emissions of municipal waste ma nagement in the EU-27 plus Norway and 
Switzerland (excluding Cyprus due  to lack of data), 1995 and 2008104 
 
• Air Pollutants  
Most of the air pollution associated with  waste management was linked with waste 
incineration which is regulated by the revised incineration Di rective 2000/76/EC. The 
Directive includes strict lim it values covering heavy meta ls, dioxins and furans, carbon 
monoxide (CO), dust, total organic carbon (TOC), hydrogen chloride (HCl), hydrogen 
fluoride (HF), sulphur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen monoxide (No) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2). 
Since the entry in force of the Directive, the emissions have dropped considerably due to the 
closure or upgrading of existing installations.  
• Water  
The closure of sub-standards Landfills combin ed with the implementation of the Landfill 
Directive and the reducti on of the amount of waste landfilled has certainly led to a decrease of 
the water pollution due to leachates produced by Landfills. No data is available at EU 27 level on this reduction which might be considerable at local levels.  
• Soil  
In addition to the benefits expected from the full implementation of the Landfill Directive, the 
increased of composting has led to th e production of organic fertiliser.  
                                                
 
104 EEA 2010, The European Environment, State and Outlook 2010 : Thematic Assessment – Material 
Resources and Waste  
 
EN 53   EN It has been estimated that the market for quality  compost could be increased by a factor of 2.6 
to reach about 28 million tonnes105. This could help to improve the quality of 3% to 7% of 
depleted agricultural soils in the EU106 and to address the problem of  degrading soil quality in 
Europe107.  
Economic impacts  
Waste management and recycling Industry is alr eady well established in Europe. According to 
Eurostat figures, in 2006, the EU27 had: 5, 170 facilities for incineration with energy 
recovery; 3,897 facilities fo r other incineration; 50,682 f acilities for recycling; 10,286 
facilities for landfilling108.  
Most of the companies involved in the recycl ing sector (over 95%) are SMEs. In total the 
waste management and recycling industries were  considered to provide between 1.2 and 1.5 
million jobs in the EU109.  
Other estimates of low carbon jobs in Europe, for example by WWF110, place recycling as one 
of the core sources of employment. Given the EU ’s level of export of waste for reprocessing it 
is also important to acknowledge the generation of jobs and growth globally as a consequence 
of waste management and recy cling. Global market estimate s for sustainable resource 
management, presented in the WWF report, estimated that in 2005 solid waste management 
and recycling accounted for €30billion world wide and that by 2020 this was anticipated to 
represent €46 billion. 
Growth in jobs globally within this sector wa s estimated to be 9% in the 2004 to 2006 period 
and 7% between 2007 and 2009. In this global cont ext the EU is considered to be a market 
leader in making the most of opportunities in the recycling industry and, according to a study 
on the competiveness of the EU eco-industry,111 holds 50% of market share in the recycling 
industry globally. 
A recent study112 achieved by the Friends of the Eart h indicates that achieving 70% of 
recycling of key materials at European leve l could lead to the creation of around 563.000 new 
indirect and direct jobs, showi ng the relatively highest  potential in terms of job creation of 
recycling compared to other waste treatment methods such as incineration and landfilling.  
                                                 
105 Source: ORBIT/ECN, 2008, Compost production and use in the EU, Final report. The production of 
compost from bio-waste in 2005 was estimated at 10,5 million tonnes  
106 Source: ORBIT/ECN, based on the assumption of an application of 10 tons/ha/year of compost repeated 
every year 
107 Around 45% of EU soils lack humu s – prerequisite of soil fertility  
108 Eurostat, 2006, Waste treatment facilities at country level in 2004 
109 Presidency Paper to the Environment Council, 2009 , The fall in demand for recycled materials  
110 WWF EPO, 2009, Low carbon Jobs for Europe , Current Opportunities and Future Prospects 
111 Ecorys, 2009, Study on the Competitiveness of the EU eco-industry (DG Enterprise and Industry) 
112 "More jobs, less waste" Potential for job creation th rough higher rates of recycling in the UK and the 
EU, Friends of the Earth 2010, More information can be found from the following link: 
http://www.foeeurope.org/publications/2 010/More_Jobs_Less_Waste_Sep2010.pdf 
 
EN 54   EN 4. INTERNATIONAL ASPECTS  
4.1 Increasing globalisation 
The international context has become increas ingly important since the publication of the 
Strategy. 
Increased globalization and changes of th e EU economy – less extraction and heavy 
industries, more services - had led to in creased imports of raw materials and semi 
manufactured materials. As shown in Figure 30, in 2008, the EU imported six times more 
resources than it exported.  
This figure is showing the large dependency of  the EU on imports of raw materials and 
products. It reflects the globali zation of the environmental imp acts of EU consumption and 
production demonstrating the growing importance of  developing instruments and tools able to 
capture this international dimension.  
Figure 30: EU-27 physical trade bala nce with the rest of the World, 2008113 
 
4.2 Waste exports  
As shown in Figure 31 below, international trad e in waste and secondary materials has been 
increasing, in particular for non-hazardous  waste. Between 1997 and 2005 notified waste 
exports from Member Stat es increased four-fold114.  
                                                 
113 Eurostat Comext Statistics, EEA 2010, The European Environment, St ate and Outlook 2010 : Thematic 
Assessment – Material Resources and Waste  
114 EEA 2009, transboundary shipment of waste 
 
EN 55   EN The EU’s key market for export has been Asia. Th is export route accounts  for the majority of 
non-EU trade in waste metal, paper and plastics ; a trade which expanded five-fold for metals, 
10-fold for paper and 11-fold for plastics between 1995 and 2007. In 2007 more plastic waste was shipped to the Asian market by the EU than was shipped within the EU.
115 In addition 
half of all waste plastics were  exported to China and Hong Kong.116  
It has been estimated that in 2006, around 3% of waste paper (2.1 million tonnes), 10% of 
scrap metals (around 9 million tonnes) and a hu ge 71% of waste plastics (10 million tonnes) 
were exported from the EU-25 to non-EU countri es; there is therefore a clear pattern of the 
majority of paper and metals waste being treate d within the EU, whereas the vast majority of 
plastic waste is shipped to third countries.  
According to other sources (PRODCOM data) in 2007, 9.8 million tonnes of recovered paper 
were exported. In 2009, 13.2 million tones were expor ted with 70% going to China. In 2010 it 
seems that several EU mills run out of recovered paper. 
Figure 31: Shipments of notified waste from  EU Member States to other EU and non-
EU countries, 1997-2005 113 
 
Figure 32 demonstrates the trend in terms of the increase in exports of both plastic and paper 
for treatment. It should be noted that it is no t only the EU that is ex panding exports of waste 
materials; Japan, for example, has shown a ge neral upward trend in e xports of iron, steel, 
copper and plastic waste since 1995.117  
                                                 
115 EEA, 2009, Waste without borders in the EU? Transboundary shipments of waste (Mar 2009) 
116 EEA, 2008, ETC/RWM Technical Report 2008/1. Transboundary shipments of waste in the EU. 
Developments 1995-2005 and possible drivers 
117 Japanese Ministry of Finance, 2010, Trade statistics 
 
EN 56   EN Figure 32: Developments in shipments of wast e paper, waste plastics and waste metals 
out of and within the EU from 1995 to 2007118  
 
                                                 
118 EEA, 2009, ‘Waste without borders in the EU? Transboundary shipments of waste’ (Mar 2009) 
 
EN 57   EN The shipment of waste raises many questions. Th ere is a trend towards increasing levels of 
export, however, there are concerns  regarding the reliabil ity of the data on trade in waste. For 
example according to findings by the Europ ean Topic Centre on resource and waste 
management (ETC/RWM), exports of WEEE (e stimated at 250,000 tonne s) are considered 
low compared to total generated levels of WEEE (estimated at 7 million tonnes).119  
The collection of statistical data for the shipment of 'green' listed waste that is not subject to 
the procedure of "prior written notification and consent" pursuant to Article 4 of the Waste 
Shipment Regulation, is particularly difficult, since copies of shipment documentation are not 
always required by the competent authoritie s concerned. In addition, there are also known 
gaps in the figures available for the shipment of 'green'-listed waste, with data not being 
thoroughly available for all waste types in every year, particularly for plastics.  
Moreover, the rate of  reported illegal shipments of waste increased between 2001 and 2005. 
For this period the EEA reported that on averag e the annual illegal shipments corresponded to 
0.2% of notified waste120, however the actual amount of il legal shipments is difficult to 
estimate. On the basis of data  collected through coordinated actions of IMPEL-TFS between 
2008 and 2009, it was estimated that 19% of waste sh ipments were related with some type of 
violation of the provisions of the Waste Ship ment Regulation. More data and information 
would be needed in the future notably to  better target insp ection strategies.  
A specific type of waste that ca n cause environmental problems is end-of-life ships . 
Worldwide, between 200 and 600 large end-of-life ships are broken up and recycled every year to recover valuable steel, other scrap me tal and equipment. Older ships often contain 
many hazardous materials, including asbestos, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), tributyltin 
and large quantities of oils and oil sludge. 
Although the number of dismantling sites in the EU  has fallen over the past two decades, the 
available capacity for environmentally sustaina ble dismantling in the EU and in other OECD 
countries is sufficient to cover all warships  and other state-owned vessels that will be 
decommissioned over the next ten years but will be insufficient to ensure the dismantling of 
all merchant ships
121. However, the majority of ship dismantling taking place in South Asia 
(predominantly India, Bangladesh and Paki stan), often under c onditions that are 
environmentally unsound and threaten the hea lth and safety of the workers involved. Ship 
dismantling remains largely manual, lacking in hazardous waste management and pollution 
prevention systems, and lacking in safe and fair  conditions for the workfo rce. On the contrary, 
countries including China and Turkey had made advances in terms of environmentally sound 
practices and worker safety122.  
Available data suggests that around between  1994 and 2006, approximately 5,600 ships were 
dismantled worldwide.123 Worldwide between 2010 and 2030, an  average of around 500 large 
and very large ships will be dismantled annually, amounting to some 34.7 million gross 
tonnes of ships, 2% of the gross tonnage or 0.5% of the total number  of the world fleet.  
                                                 
119 EEA, 2008, ETC/RWM Technical Report 2008/1. Transboundary shipments of waste in the EU. 
Developments 1995-2005 and possible drivers 
120 EEA, 2009, Waste without borders in the EU? Transboundary shipments of waste (March 2009) 
121 Europea, 2007, Ship dismantling and pre-cleaning of ships. Report published at: , 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/ships//index.htm.  
122 Europa, 2009, Support to the impact assessment of a new legislative proposal on ship dismantling – 
Final Report published at http://ec.europa.eu/envi ronment/waste/ships/pdf/final_report080310.pdf  
123 Europa, 2007, Ship Dismantling and Pre-cleaning of Ships – Final Report  
 
EN 58   EN Under the International MARPOL  Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 
approximately 784 tankers will be phased  out in 2010, 43 between 2011 and 2014, and 109 in 
2015. Around 13% of ships dismantled globally will be EU flagged ships.124 Another study 
estimated that EU-flagged vessels will account  for around 20% of future scrapped tonnage.125  
4.3 European actions  
In addition to the progress ach ieved improve the implementati on of existing legislation and 
particularly the Waste Shipment Regulation (see section 2 above), the following specific 
actions were taken by the Commission:  
• In the EU external action, the promotion of sustainable production and consumption 
patterns and sound waste management are addre ssed both as specific environmental issues 
and as regional or country sp ecific needs. Sound waste ma nagement (including chemicals 
and hazardous waste) is a priority of the Environment and Natural Resources Thematic 
Programme (ENRTP)126, in particular helping countries  to meet their international 
commitments in this field. For instance, a projec t to build local capacity to address the flow 
of e-wastes and electrical a nd electronic products destined fo r reuse in selected African 
countries has been approved in 2008. A call for proposals targeting actions to improve 
resource efficiency in waste streams of pr oduction and consumption, in particular with 
respect to solid waste from urban areas, was launched in 2009. The call emphasised in 
particular recycling and energy production oppo rtunities and multiplier effects; and end of 
life electronic equipment, with emphasis on recycling oppor tunities or safe disposal. 
 Several actions to support approximation to th e EU acquis related to waste have also been 
financed in the European Neighbours (e.g. the ENPI East Waste Governance and Management of Environmental Data, approved  in 2008 and with an  EU contribution of 
€9m)
127, while in Asia several activities in support of hazardous waste management, 
including e-waste management, are supported. Fi nancial support is also foreseen for the 
Basel Convention's Secretariat on compliance, synergies and ship dismantling also under 
ENRTP.  
• Following the publication of a Green Paper on  ship dismantling in 2007, the Commission 
adopted in 2008 a strategy for better ship dismantling128. The EU strategy includes: 
measures to anticipate the entry into force of the IMO Hong Kong Convention on ship 
dismantling - notably for certification and inve ntories of hazardous materials on board, the 
encouragement of voluntary industry action, meas ures to promote technical assistance to 
developing countries for safety training programmes and basic infrastructure for 
environmental and health protection and be tter enforcement of current waste shipment 
                                                 
124 Europa,2010, Feasibility of a list of ‘Green and Sa fe’ Ship Dismantling Facilities and a List of Ships 
Likely to go for Dismantling-Final report 
125 Europa, 2009, Support to the impact assessment of a new legislative proposal on ship dismantling – 
Final Report  
126 More information can be found from the following links: 
http://ec.europa.eu/eur opeaid/how/finance/dci/environment_en.htm and 
http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/what/environment/index_en.htm 
127 More information can be found on the following web sites: neighbourhood 
http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/where/neighbourhood/regional-cooperation/enpi-east/sustainable_en.htm  
and http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/where/neighbourhood/regional-cooperation/enpi-
south/sustainable/index_en.htm  
128 COM 2008 (767) See: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/ships//pdf/com_2008_767.pdf   
 
EN 59   EN rules. The strategy also proposed that the Commission should look at the feasibility of: 
developing a certification and audit scheme fo r ship recycling facilities worldwide and 
evaluating how EU ships can be encouraged to use such a scheme; making warships and 
other government vessels not covered by the Convention subject to EU rules for clean 
dismantling; and establishing a mandatory in ternational funding syst em for clean ship 
dismantling. 
• The Commission also participated actively in the negotiation which led to the adoption of 
the Hong Kong Convention. This Convention wa s adopted in May 2009 under the auspices 
of the International Maritime Organisation and needs to be ratified by  both major recycling 
and flag States. Individual Member States ha ve therefore been strongly encouraged to 
ratify it as a matter of priority, so as to facil itate its entry into force as early as possible and 
to generate a real and eff ective change on the ground. Tec hnical guidelines  supporting the 
Hong Kong Convention are being developed129. Parties to Basel Convention are also 
carrying out an assessment of the level of c ontrol and enforcement established by the Basel 
Convention in comparison with the level of control and enforcement provided by the Hong Kong Convention. . Following this  assessment it is expected that a decision will be made 
by the Parties to the Basel Convention on whet her any amendments shall be introduced to 
this Convention. 
• The EU has supported the so called "Ban amendment" to the Basel Convention since its 
adoption in 1995. This amendment prohibits th e exports of hazardous waste from some 
OECD countries to other countries and, in pa rticular, developing count ries where they do 
not have the capacity to treat these wastes. Th is amendment has been fully transposed in 
the EU Waste Shipment Regulation, but is stil l not in force at international level for 
various reasons including an insufficient nu mber of ratification, in particular from 
developing countries, but also because of di fficult discussions to agree on a common legal 
interpretation on the entry into for ce requirement of this amendment.  
• In order to break the curre nt deadlock, Indonesia and Sw itzerland jointly launched an 
initiative
130 to explore alternative means by which objectives of the Ban Amendment might 
be achieved. Key Parties were invited to id entify why these objectives are currently not 
met and to propose solutions which will be the presented and discussed with all Parties at 
the next Conference of the Parties. This initiati ve helped in particular the identification of 
the growing importance of the transboundary  movements between non-OECD countries 
and of the need to develop and implemen t requirements for environmentally sound 
management of waste.  
4.3 Worldwide actions  
There are indications that wast e generation in developing count ries is likely to increase 
significantly. Waste and recycl ing policies are being actively developed in countries 
worldwide. Japan already has highly developed polices and legal framework for resource 
management. China has adopted a Circular Economy Law in August 2008 which contains 
measures for reducing, reusing and recyc ling activities conducted in the process of 
                                                 
129 Guidelines on the development of the Inventory of Hazardous Materials adopted on 17 July 2009 : 
http://www.imo.org/includes/blastDataOnly .asp/data_id%3D26464/179%2859%29.pdf   
130 For more information about this "country-led initiative" (CLI) see: http://www.basel.int/   
 
EN 60   EN production, circulation and consumption.131 These policy developments are also being 
matched by increasing waste management performance.  
At the same time a number of countries lookin g to the EU as a reference on how to develop 
their own policies. This includes adoptions of variants of the RoHS or WEEE Directives for 
instance in China, Thailand and Brazil. Russia pl ans to use the EU Packaging Waste Directive 
as the basis for their new legislation in this area.  
It has been observed that a great  amount of e-waste is exported  from the EU under the label of 
“used products (non-waste)”. Distinguishing between genuine  second-hand equipment and 
non functioning electronic scrap is difficult which offers opportunities to some exporters to 
circumvent applying the EU legislation. Guidel ines regarding the dis tinction between waste 
and non waste have been adopted at Europ ean level and are under development at 
international level. The need to clarify132 this notion at international level was also identified 
by some Parties in the context of the Country  Led Initiative jointly organized by Indonesia 
and Switzerland. Guidelines rega rding the distincti on between waste and non waste have been 
adopted at European level133 and are under development at international level.  
5. FUTURE TRENDS  
5.1 Increasing demand and impacts from resource use 
Without additional policies, global extraction of resources is exp ected to rise in the coming 
decades. This is due to a combination of in crease of population with the growth of the 
worldwide middle class. Figure 33 shows proj ections of future demand of worldwide 
resources. Global extraction of resources is expe cted to increase from 58 billion tons in 2005 
to more than 100 billion tons in 2030 representi ng an increase of 75% in 25 years. Biomass, 
metals and minerals are representing more than 80% of the future demand in tonnage.  
                                                 
131 See: http://www.chinaenvironmentallaw.com/wp-conte nt/uploads/2008/09/circular-economy-law-cn-
en-final.pdf  
132 For more information see: http://www.basel.int/convention/cli/index.html   
133 European Commission “Revised Corr espondents' Guidelines No 1 on shipments of waste electrical and 
electronic equipment” 2007 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/shipments/pdf/correspondents_guidelines_en.pdf   
 
EN 61   EN Figure 33: Global Resource extraction 1980-2030134  
 
This increased demand for raw primary and seco ndary materials will have an influence on the 
evolution of the price of the resources offe ring new opportunities and incentives to promote 
recycling. This trend is illu strated in Figure 34 below.  
Figure 34: Change in prices of metals and cement 1970-2007 135 
 
                                                 
134 Source: EEA 2010 derived from SERI GLOBAL 2000, Friends of the Earth Europe (2009), see: 
www.seri.at/resource -report  
135 Source: EEA 2010, The European Environment, State and Outlook 2010 : Thematic Assessment – 
Material Resources and Waste derived from USGS, data for the USA 

 
EN 62   EN As shown in figure 35, data from the environmen tally weighted impacts of materials and Life 
Cycle assessments tend to show the large impacts associated with certain classes of materials. 
These can as act as guide to th e importance of waste prevention and recycling in particular in 
areas, for example such as bio-waste, metals and plastics.  
Minerals contribute  to consumption by mass a lthough crude oil, coal, na tural gas, plastics but 
also animal products and crops are of the mo st importance regarding global warming, animal 
products and crops dominate land use competiti on and plastics, metals, crude oil and coal 
have the largest impact on human toxicology.  When aggregating these findings animal 
products, crops, coal, plastic, crude  oil appear to be the main contributors to environmental 
impacts.  
Figure 35: Environmental impact of materials136  
 
Crop and animal production seems to represent a significant proportion of the environmental 
impacts linked with material production and consumption. A recent study137 has revealed the 
significance of the food wastage. The total amount of food waste the EU 27 is estimated at 89 
Mt, or 179 kg/capita/year of which 76 kg (43%) from households, 70kg from manufacturing 
sector (39%), 8kg from retail /wholesale sector (4%) and 25kg from food service/catering 
(14%). These data have to be taken with precaution particularly  for the manufacturing sector 
as part of the waste food is transformed into  by-products which are no t properly identified in 
the statistics.  
                                                 
136 Source: UNEP Panel on resource, see: http://www.uneptie.org/scp/rpanel/   
137 Preparatory study on food waste across EU 27 ,BIO Intelligence December 2009– September 2010 
 
EN 63   EN Figures 36 141 shows the total food waste arising per capita and per Member State although 
figure 37 shows the relative impor tance of the manufacturing s ector for each Member State. 
These figures are mainly demonstrating the significant potential for additional prevention initiatives in some Member States.  
Figure 36: Total food waste arising by MS ba sed on best available data (kg per capita 
per year)  
0100200300400500600700
 
Figure 37: Percentage of food wa sted in the Manufacturing se ctor by MS (Food waste in 
Manufacturing sector/Food production, %) 
0510152025
 
 
EN 64   EN The data for households (76 kg/capita/year) seem to be confirmed notably by a detailed study 
led in UK. This study138 found that 25% of the food purchas ed by households is discarded, of 
which 60% would be avoidable, repres enting about 565 € per household/per year. 
In terms of GHG emissions, the study estimates  the overall impact of food waste at 170 Mt 
CO2 eq./year, i.e. 3% of total EU27 emissions in 2008. Various recommendations are included in the study including setting up a repor ting system, improved product labelling to 
avoid confusion on the exact meaning of the da te labels targeted awareness campaigns and 
EU targets for food waste prevention.  
5.2 Waste generation and management  
EEA projections for municipal waste are based on historical trends an d correlations between 
municipal waste generation and influencing fact ors such as household consumption, number 
of people per household and population development.  
According to a model developed by the EEA a nd its European Topic Centre on Sustainable 
Consumption and Production, municipal waste gene ration can be expected to grow to around 
280 million tons in 2020 in the EU-27 (excluding  Cyprus), plus Norway and Switzerland, 7% 
above 2008 levels (ETC/SCP, 2010a).  
This scenario uses projections of economic de velopment, taking into account the economic 
downturn of 2008/2009, as used by the European Commission for the modeling of GHG 
emissions scenarios (EC, DG ENER 2010b), and th e uncertainty in the economic projections 
also introduces uncertainties in the projection of municipal wa ste generation. This scenario 
does not take into account any specific policies on waste prevention. If th e historic trends in 
the development of the shares of recycling a nd composting, incineration and landfill are used 
to project waste management until 2020, recycli ng of municipal waste would increase from 
40% in 2008 to 49%, while landfill would stabilize at around 28% (see Figure 38).  
However, full implementation of current EU waste policies, especially the EU Landfill 
Directive, across the EU could reduce landfilled quantities fu rther, but requires additional 
implementation activities in a number of Member States. 
                                                
 
138 "The Food We Waste" report for the "Waste Resources Action Programme (WRAP) – UK" – April 
2008 
 
EN 65   EN Figure 38: Trends and outlook for manage ment of municipal waste in the EU-27 
(without Cyprus due to lack of data), baseline scenario139  
5.3 Green House Gas Emission  
According to EEA projections – see Figur e 39 below, emission of GHG have in 2008 
decreased by 48 millions tons compared to  1995 emissions. Improved management of 
municipal waste (business as usual scenar io) would result in 92 million tons of GHG 
emissions avoided in 2020 compared with 1995, if the benefits of recycling and recovery are 
taken into account (see also chapter 3.7). This amount rises to 110 million tons if all countries 
fully comply with the Landfill Directive’s dive rsion targets for biodegradable waste and to 
126 million tons in case of a hypothetical total landfill ban.140 
EEA mentioned that including ot her waste streams in the model would further increase the 
potential but due to methodological reasons (exp ort of waste) it has not been calculated.  
The potential for waste to play a key role in  reducing GHG emissions is  supported by a recent 
study on GHG emission reduction potential141. This study included non-MSW waste and 
found that improved waste management and impl ementation of EU waste legislation could 
achieve an additional reduction in CO2 emissi ons of between 146 and 244 Mt which would be 
                                                 
139 EEA 2010, The European Environment, State and Outlook 2010 : Thematic Assessment – Material 
Resources and Waste  
140 More information on estimated GHG savings from the landfill directive and waste incineration directive 
by DG CLIMA can be found here: 
http://ec.europa.eu/clima/documentation/brief/eu/docs/ghgpams_report_180110.pdf  
141 "Resource saving and CO2 reduction potentials in waste management in Europe and the possible 
contribution to the CO2 reduction target in 2020" IFEU, Prognos, See: http://www.prognos.com/CO2-
study.609.0.html   

 
EN 66   EN equivalent to contributing 19-31% of the Eu ropean climate reduction targets (780Mt CO2 
equivalent) until 2020.  
The study analyzed 18 waste streams representing in 2004 a total of 2.4 billions of tons of 
waste from several sources. This estimate may be seen as optimistic, however, as the 
comparison with the reference year does not account for progress in  material and waste 
management unrelated to policy development.  
Recent estimates from DG CLIMA142 forecast that, without further control measures in 
addition to those that are already adopted in cu rrent legislation – including full application of 
the Landfill and the revised Waste Framewor k Directive, total non-CO2 GHG emissions are 
expected to fall by 13 percent until 2020. Speci fically, MSW baseline non CO2 emissions are 
predicted to decline from 72.6Mt CO2eq in 2005 to 22.3Mt CO2eq in 2030: an emission 
change from -50.4 % to -69%. 
Figure 39: GHG Emissions avoided due to better management of municipal waste in the 
EU 27 (excluding Cyprus), Norway and Switzerland compared to 1995; 2008 and three different scenario for 2020
143  
020406080100120140
2008 Scenario 2020: Business-as-
usualScenario 2020: Full
implementation of the EU
Landfill DirectiveScenario 2020: Hyphothetical
landfill banmillion tonnes CO2-eqAvoided emissions compared to 1995
 
These conclusions have also been confirmed by an international review  of 55 studies on life-
cycle assessments (LCA) suggesting that recy cling delivers signif icant carbon savings 
compared with incineration and landfill. Table  6 below indicates that this is the case in 83% 
of the LCA scenarios reviewed. No cases were identified where the inci neration of glass or 
the landfill of plastics,  aluminium, steel, wood and aggreg ates provided GHG benefits when 
compared with recycling. Very limited cas es were found where landfill of paper and 
cardboard and glass, and incineration of alum inium and steel provided GHG benefits when 
compared with recycling.  
                                                 
142 Potentials and costs for mitifation of non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions in the EU until 2030: 
http://ec.europa.eu/clima/documentation/docs/non_co2emissions_may2010_en.pdf 
143 EEA 2010, The European Environment, State and Outlook 2010 : Thematic Assessment – Material 
Resources and Waste  
 
EN 67   EN Table 6: Overall environmental preference of waste management options across LCA 
scenarios144  
 
6. STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION  
On the 22 June 2010 a stakeholder event was held to help inform the review of the Thematic 
Strategy (TS) on Waste Prevention and Recycl ing. The Commission provided an introduction 
to the day by explaining the general policy context and the fo cus on resource efficiency, the 
approach to the review and technical presenta tions on key waste trends  in the EU and their 
anticipated evolution up to 2030.  A specific web site was created145 in order to ensure open 
access to the information. 
Four working groups took up the main part of the day. The groups were formed of invited 
stakeholders active in the field of waste polic y and included representatives from industry 
(both production and waste management), NGOs, Member States, local and regional 
authorities and the research commun ity. The four working groups were: 
(1) Practicalities of impl ementing the Waste TS and its objectives 
(2) Prevention of waste 
(3) International influence and impact of EU waste management policy 
(4) The EU recycling market 
The outcome of each working group was presen ted and discussed in a plenary session. A 
summary of the key areas of discussion amongs t the working group is presented below. The 
outcomes from discussions, and subsequent additional feedback from stakeholders, has been used to inform the study being completed by IEEP , and partners, to help  support the review of 
the waste TS. 
6.1 Key Overarching Messages 
Throughout the day several themes continually  emerged during discussions, these included 
the following: 
                                                
 
144 WRAP (Waste and Resource Action Programme), Environmental benefits of recycling; An 
international review of life cy cle comparisons for materials in the UK recycling sector 
145 http://www.eu-smr.eu/tswpr/meetings.php  
 
EN 68   EN • That the TS was considered to have been useful for fixing a clear frame for waste 
management in the EU. The TS had some imp act on the diffusion of key concepts such as 
the waste hierarchy or the LCA approach. Th e main action of consequence notes was the 
adoption of the Waste Framework Directive (WFD); 
• That further efforts should be made to en sure that waste policies are based on sound 
knowledge by improving the reliability of statis tics and developing new indicators that that 
better reflect the progress made in applying the waste hierarchy and achieving a "recycling 
society";  
• That further efforts are needed in order to  effectively address the question of waste 
prevention and that new policy solutions are need ed to deliver this; that some progress has 
been achieved in terms of recycling and landfill reduction, but that large differences persists between Member States  which should be addressed;  
• That EU policies are leading to higher levels of exports to third countries of materials for 
recycling and reuse; better mechanisms s hould be put in place to address the potential 
environmental and economic (missed opportunities , possible risks in terms of raw material 
supply) consequences of this trend. It was considered that the transformation of waste 
management solutions represents an opportuni ty for the EU as a whole, but we need 
additional instruments to help br ing about sustainable improvements 
• That promoting markets for secondary raw mate rials is important in helping deliver more 
environmentally sustainable waste manageme nt, however, delivering such a market is 
dependent upon product design, collecti on, processing, and economic factors; 
• That a clear link should be established be tween waste, design and resources/climate 
policies.  
6.2 Implementation of the Thematic Strategy 
Reflecting on the main achievement/limitations of the Thematic Strategy:  
• The TS was felt to have increased debate and led to the diffusion of key concepts (waste 
hierarchy, LCA approaches) and increased awareness; 
• Stakeholders noted that there has been prog ress in terms of reductions in landfill and 
increases in recycling, however, extent of pr ogress and speed varies significantly between 
Member States 
• The new WFD was noted to have made a signi ficant difference in policy terms, and need 
to now await its full implementation 
• Limited results in terms of prevention, with quantitative waste preven tion not happening to 
any significant degree 
• Even if the collection and reliability of data has improved, significant limitations remain in 
terms of data quality and availability. 
 
EN 69   EN Main stakeholder recommendations to improve TS implementation 
• Improve the knowledge base, this should include : the better collection and verification of 
data particularly on the prevention and export of waste; and the development of a new set 
of indicators related to  resource efficiency. 
• Improved integration ie better linkage between waste policy a nd product policie s (ecolabel, 
ecodesign, GPP, REACH) and a need to better link future EU waste objectives with 
resource objectives (including the deliv ery of Greenhouse gas emission reduction). 
• Optimal use of instruments, there was a need identified to better combine economic 
instruments (mainly in the hands of the MS and local/regional authorities) with legal 
instruments 
6.3 Delivering Waste Prevention 
Considering the state of action on prevention  
• Stakeholders noted that this is not an is olated goal and should be linked to efforts on 
resource use, consumption etc 
• Some reduction in the generation of harmful waste was consider ed to have taken place but 
major breakthroughs have yet to be achieved in  terms of both quantitative and qualitative 
prevention of waste. 
• Role of the new WFD – this was noted to have made a direct link between waste 
management and waste prevention activities (sp ecifically Article 29 of the Directive) and 
considered as definite progress, provi ding a framework for ongoing action. However, 
stakeholders felt that dedicated enabling mechanism is needed to deliver change. 
Barriers to/enabling prevention progress  
• Barriers were noted both in terms of prev enting waste (from high consumption trends 
offsetting efficiency gains to consumer re luctance to change their preferences) and 
measuring prevention progress (including a lack of comp arability of measurement 
approaches across Europe and difficulties in m easuring the environment impact of change). 
• Stakeholders considered that there is no one overarching polic y solution and that there is a 
need for different options to address differe nt needs across society from the consumption 
patterns of consumers to the resource intensity of different industries 
• There was division on the questio n of prevention targets, some  felt that these are useful 
tools for focusing attention (even if they are largely aspirational). It was commented that 
there is a need not for one ove rarching target but some degree of specificity in order to 
drive action in different sectors. 
 
EN 70   EN 6.4 International Influence  
Patterns of export 
• The level of trade in materials for recycling a nd reuse with third countries was noted to be 
rising, driven by: targets promoting increased rates of recycling; de mand for raw materials 
in international market places; and pricing fact ors including the lower cost of labour and 
lower environmental standards in  some regions outside the EU. 
• Stakeholders noted that increa sing levels of international flows in goods for recycling and 
reuse is not necessarily  a bad thing, but this depends on th e quality of processing delivered 
and quality of materials shipped ie reducing th e levels of disposal of poorly sorted or 
inappropriate materials in the receiving country. 
Options for addressing this question 
• It was noted that the EU has a limited ability to impact on economic cycles ie to prevent 
export if materials are needed elsewhere, th ere is a need to find other mechanisms by 
which Europe can influence trade in recycling and secondary raw materials. 
• Usefulness should be added as a condition appl ied to products exported for reuse to avoid 
products with short remaining life times or with no obvious use bei ng exported under the 
guise of reuse. This is intended to close loopholes surrounding export of goods for reuse. 
• Key tools noted for improving the situation we re: the tightening of export standards for 
materials for recycling to ensure clarity of origin and proces sing; developing BAT 
mechanisms for processing and integrating these into shipment requirements; and to ensure 
more effective producer responsibility through out all product lifecycles leading to an 
overall reduction in environmental impact 
6.5 Delivering a Recycling soci ety and recycling markets  
Defining a recycling society 
• It was considered that this s hould be more than simply reduc ing the level of waste disposed 
of, and should lead to a situation where mana gement of resources is  better considered. 
• That Member States are likely to be at different stages al ong the road to achieving this. 
• That such a society should: reuse/recycle products unless there is a good reason not to; 
have in place effective mechanisms to impl ement and enforce relevant legislation; and 
should promote high quality recycling and good sorting of recyclables. 
• The key to delivering recycling markets Key is  ensuring quality throughout the chain in 
order to make the market for secondary raw materials more robust and reliable 
• Exports are needed in order to support a circ ular economy ie one where we import most of 
our goods from abroad, but we need to have mechanisms in Europe to support the quality 
of this market. 
 
EN 71   EN Tools for promoting impr oved recycling markets 
• Addressing market distortions – this might include  addressing perversities in the market for 
green certificates, that a pply to energy from waste but  not recycling; using VAT 
adjustment/other fiscal tools to take account  of the environmental impact of recycled 
goods; focus more effort on preventing ille gal exports, harmoni sing standards of 
implementation across MS. 
• Dealing with the question of exports – de veloping a new system for ensuring the 
traceability of materials to pr ovide a basis for quality proces sing; requiring preparation for 
recycling and reuse to occur in the EU to increase quality of material flows; and developing a system to ensure that th e quality of recyclables is raised. 
• Building on existing policies – analysis shou ld be conducted to identify which policy 
mechanisms are currently working most effec tively, in addition stak eholders highlighted 
the need: to centralise guidance to ensure each  waste stream is dealt with in the most 
environmentally efficient way; apply extende d producer responsibility  to additional waste 
streams; increase targets to further drive the markets; set up voluntar y schemes to approve 
the most environmentally re sponsible recycling chains. 
• Improve demand for recycled goods – improved schemes for labelling recycled content, 
demonstrating/certifying the environmental re sponsibility of the recycling products and 
further supporting green public procurement.