Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on statistics compiled pursuant to the Regulation (EC) 2150/2002 on waste statistics and their quality
Date: 2008-06-13
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU statistics, data collection, dissemination of information, report, statistical method, waste, waste management

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 13.6.2008 
COM(2008) 355 final 

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND 
THE COUNCIL 

on statistics compiled pursuant to the Regulation (EC) 2150/2002 on waste statistics and 
their quality 

EN 

1 

   EN 

 
 
  
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

1.1. 

Regulation on Waste Statistics 

Regulation  (EC)  No  2150/2002  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  25 
November  2002  on  waste  statistics1  requires  the  Commission  according  to  Article  8(1)  to 
"submit  a  report  to  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  on  the  statistics  compiled 
pursuant to this Regulation and in particular on their quality and the burden on businesses." 

Section  7(3)  of  Annex  I  and  of  Annex  II  stipulates  that  "the  Commission  will  include  the 
coverage and quality reports in the report provided for in Article 8". The quality reports from 
Member States are available on the following Internet site: 

http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/dsis/pip/library?l=/wastesstatisticssregulat/data_transmission/
quality_statistics 

This  report  summarises  the  first  results,  provides  an  overview  of  data  quality  and  includes 
recommendations  for  possible  amendments  to  the  Regulation.  It  covers  the  25  EU  Member 
States that were legally obliged to submit data in 2006. 

Starting  with  the  reference  year  2004,  the  Regulation  requires  the  EU  Member  States  to 
provide  data  every  second  year.  Annexes  I  and  II  set  out  the  requirements  for  statistics  on 
waste generation, waste treatment and waste treatment capacities. Results have a breakdown 
by waste categories according to the statistical nomenclature on waste (EWC-Stat), which is 
defined  in  Annex  III  of  the  Regulation.  Table  1  provides  further  details  on  the  reporting 
requirements. 

1 

OJ L 332, 9.12.2002, p. 1, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1893/2006 (OJ L 393, 30.12.2006, p. 1). 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
Table 1: 

Data sets according to the Waste Statistics Regulation 

Data set 

Description and breakdown 

1  Generation 

2 

Incineration  

3  Recovery excl. 
energy recovery 

4  Disposal other than 

incineration 

Waste generation by:   
- 20 waste producing activities: 19 industries, households 
- 48 waste categories 

Waste incineration by: 
- 2 treatment types 
- 14 waste categories  

Waste recovery by: 
- 1 treatment type 
- 17 waste categories 

Waste disposal by: 
- 2 treatment types 
- 16 waste categories 

5  Treatment 

Infrastructure  

No./capacity of recovery/disposal facilities by: 
- 5 treatment types 

Coverage of the 
collection scheme 

Percentage of population / dwellings covered by a 
collection scheme for household and similar waste. 

1.2. 

Implementation measures 

Regional 
level 

National 

NUTS 1 

NUTS 1 

NUTS 1 

NUTS 2 

The  Commission  has  underpinned  Regulation  (EC)  No  2150/2002  by  preparing  additional 
legal acts and drawing up a guidance document: 

•  Commission Regulation (EC) No 574/2004 of 23 February 2004 amending Annexes I and 

III to Regulation (EC) No 2150/2002 on waste statistics2 

•  Commission  Regulation  (EC)  No  783/2005  of  24  May  2005  amending  Annex  II  to 

Regulation (EC) No 2150/2002 on waste statistics3 

•  Commission Regulation (EC) No 782/2005 of 24 May 2005 setting out the format for the 

transmission of results on waste statistics4 

•  Commission  Regulation  (EC)  No  1445/2005  of  5  September  2005  defining  the  proper 

quality evaluation criteria and the contents of the quality reports for waste statistics 5 

•  Manual for the Implementation of Regulation (EC) No 2150/2002 on Waste Statistics (July 

2006, Version 1.1)6. 

2 
3 
4 
5 

OJ L 90, 27.3.2004, p.15. 
OJ L 131, 25.5.2005, p. 38. 
OJ L 131, 25.5.2005, p.26. 
OJ L 229, 6.9.2005, p.6. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
1.3. 

Data quality in a multi-method environment 

Regulation (EC) 2150/2002 defines the data to be submitted and the required quality but does 
not prescribe a specific method of drawing up waste statistics, which are thus compiled in a 
multi-method  environment.  This  enables  Member  States  to  keep  their  established  data 
collection systems and to minimise the changes needed to comply with the Regulation. 

However, the multi-method approach raises serious problems. It may result in methodological 
differences from one country to another, between different data sets from the same country, 
and  even  within  individual  data  sets.  This  makes  it  somewhat  difficult  to  safeguard  data 
comparability and to ensure high data quality. 

The way in which data quality can be measured depends on the methods used. For different 
methods,  there  are  different  quality  parameters  (e.g.  coefficient  of  variation  for  sample 
surveys;  sensitivity  analysis  for  modelling;  etc.).  In  particular  the  combination  of  methods 
within  data  sets  makes  it  difficult  to  define  indicators  for  overall  data  quality.  As  a 
consequence  the  Regulation’s  multi-method  approach  considerably  hampers  the  assessment 
and communication of data quality. 

The  variety  of  approaches  also  affects  the  comparability  of  data.  Limitations  on  data 
comparability  may  arise  in  particular  with  regard  to  coverage  and  to  the  way  waste  is 
allocated to the various generating activities, as will be described later in this report. 

In their quality reports, the Member States described the data by reference to quality elements 
commonly used in the European Statistical System to assess the quality of statistics7 and set 
out in Regulation (EC) 1445/2005 on the quality of waste statistics.  

2. 

PUNCTUALITY AND TIMELINESS 

Punctuality  and  timeliness  refer  to  the  compliance  of  data  delivery  with  official  deadlines 
and to the time lag between reference period and data availability. 

Regulation (EC) 2150/2002 required data for the reference year 2004 and the quality reports 
to  be  submitted  by  30  June  2006.  Eurostat  evaluated  the  resultant  information  within  two 
months after the deadline with regard to the following criteria: 

–  completeness of data sets; 

–  completeness of quality report; 

–  timeliness; 

–  proper application of definitions and classifications; 

–  application of sound statistical methods. 

6 
7 

http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/dsis/pip/library?l=/wastesstatisticssregulat/manual_statistics 
Eurostat website on Quality: 
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page?_pageid=2273,1,2273_47140765&_dad=portal&_schema=
PORTAL 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                                                                                                                         
Member  States  were  told  of  the  results  on  23  August  2006  and  were  asked,  in  the  event  of 
incomplete  data  or  missing  quality  reports,  to  provide  the  missing  information  as  soon  as 
possible.  Where  necessary,  data  were  re-evaluated  in  September  2006,  incorporating  the 
information  received  after  the  first  evaluation;  the  re-evaluation  sheets  were  sent  out  on  13 
September 2006. 

Considering  that  2006  was  the  first  reporting  year,  punctuality  was  satisfactory.  Most 
countries either met the deadline or overran it by only a few days: 

–  12 Member States met the deadline of 30 June 2006 (Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, 
Czech  Republic,  Germany,  Estonia,  Finland,  Hungary,  Latvia,  Poland,  Sweden, 
Slovenia). 

–  6 Member States submitted data and/or quality reports late, but early enough to be 
considered  in  the  first  evaluation  round  in  August  2006  (Denmark,  Spain,  Italy, 
Lithuania, Slovakia, United Kingdom). 

–  4  Member  States  had  submitted  data  but  no  quality  report  by  August  2006 
(France,  Luxembourg,  Malta,  Netherlands);  all  of  them  did  supply  the  report 
shortly after. 

–  3  Member  States  failed  to  deliver  substantial  parts  of  the  data  by  22  September 
2006 (Greece, Ireland, Portugal) and thereupon received an official letter. Greece 
delivered  in  November  2006,  Ireland  in  June  2007  and  Portugal  in  September 
2007. 

Publication 

The  data  on  waste  generation  were  published  in  the  Eurostat  Dissemination  database  in 
December 2006; the data on the treatment of waste in January 2007. The database has been 
updated several times since then to upload revised data or estimates for missing values. The 
data set on waste treatment capacity has not been published yet as the structure of this data set 
is complicated by the number of dimensions.  

3. 

COMPLETENESS OF DATA 

The delivery of complete data sets is crucial for the production of EU aggregates. Imputation 
of missing data is difficult and time-consuming, affecting the timeliness of waste statistics as 
well  as  the  quality  of  the  data.  Countries  are  therefore  asked  to  minimise  the  amount  of 
missing data, if necessary by sending in estimates. 

Figure  1  shows  that  the  Member  States  submitted  88 %  of  the  required  data;  12 %  were 
declared  as  missing.  Focusing  on  how  the  missing  data  break  down  among  Member  States, 
economic sectors and waste categories, it is evident that three areas account for the major part 
of the missing values. 

About a third of the missing data is for waste generated in agriculture, forestry and hunting 
(NACE  A),  fishery  (NACE  B)  and  the  services  sector  (NACE  G-Q).  Eleven  countries  had 
derogations  from  reporting  on  these  sectors  according  to  Article 4  of  the  Regulation.  This 
explains  about  70 %  of  the  missing  data  in  these  three  sectors; the remaining 30 % concern 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
countries that had no derogations. Some countries with a derogation actually delivered (part 
of) the data. 

About 20 % of the missing data concerns sludges. Sludge amounts have to be reported in wet 
and  in  dry  weight.  Most  countries  were  able  to  deliver  data  either  in  dry  or  in  wet  weight. 
Eurostat has established a wet/dry conversion factor and used it to impute missing values. 

By the time this report was drafted Portugal had delivered only data on waste generated by 
households; data on waste generation in the economy were completely missing. To be able to 
calculate EU totals Eurostat had to impute the values, although the empirical basis for this is 
weak in the first year. 

Belgium

Estonia

Spain

Finland

Lithuania

Netherlands

France

Germany

Dennmark

Luxembourg

Italy

Austria

Slovenia

Czech Republic

Hungary

Slovak Republic

United Kingdom

Sweden

Latvia

Malta

Poland

Cyprus

Ireland

Greece

Portugal

EU 25

Delivered data

Missings in derogated sectors

Other missing values

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Figure 1: 

Completeness of data on waste generation by Member States 

The completeness of delivered data for waste treatment is even more important than for waste 
generation, as it is not feasible to impute the quantities treated by type of treatment. Quantities 
treated  have  to  be  reported  at  national  level  and  at  NUTS  1  level.  The  description  in  this 
section  refers  to  the  national  level  only.  Several  countries  did  not  deliver  the  complete 
regional breakdown; at this first data delivery stage, Eurostat has given priority to coherence 
and completeness at the national level. 

The  share  of  missing  data  on  waste  treatment  amounts  to  no  more  than  2.6 %.  Two  areas 
account for the major part of this. 

Several countries were not able to provide data on sludges in wet weight and dry weight but 
could  provide  only  one  of  the  figures.  More  than  half  of  the  missing  values  are  related  to 
incomplete  reporting  on  sludges.  Most  of  the  remaining  missing  values  refer  to  disposal 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
 
methods used less frequently: land treatment (e.g. biodegradation of liquid or sludgy discards 
in soils etc.) and release into water bodies.  

4. 

ACCURACY 

Accuracy deals with the closeness between the estimated or computed value and the exact or 
true  value,  including  aspects  like  sampling  errors,  data  coverage,  applied  thresholds,  non-
response, adjustments, controls and corrections, confidentiality, etc. 

4.1 

Data coverage and coverage errors 

The objective of the Regulation is to produce statistics on waste according to the definition in 
Article 1(a) of Directive 2006/12/EC, with the exception of radioactive waste. 

Statistics on waste generation must be compiled for all economic sectors and for households. 
The statistics should also cover waste from small businesses (< 10 employees) although such 
firms should be exempt from surveys wherever possible.  

Statistics on waste treatment cover all waste that is recovered or disposed of within a country, 
irrespective of the origin of the waste. The underlying concept of the Regulation is to collect 
data on the final destination of waste; preparatory treatment operations are not covered. 

Excluded  from  the  scope  of  the  Regulation  is  all  waste  that  is  recycled  directly  at  the  site 
where the waste was generated. 

Unclear definitions  

Waste statistics is part of European waste legislation. As a consequence, waste statistics have 
to find some way of coping with the deficits of the legal definitions, in particular the problem 
of  distinguishing  between  waste  and  non-waste. Differing  interpretations  of  definitions  may 
have a considerable effect on data coverage and comparability where huge waste streams are 
concerned. Common problems mentioned in the quality reports are on how to include wood 
waste, metal waste and organic waste from the food industry.  

On  the  matter,  the  Commission  Interpretative  Communication  on  waste  and  by-products 
(COM(2007)  59  final)  provides  useful  guidance.  The  Commission  is  also  working  on 
elaborating  end-of-waste  criteria  that  would  further  help  clarifying  the  distinction  between 
waste and non-waste.  

Clear  classifications  and  definitions  are  in  particular  needed  for  the  usability  of  data  when 
considering the setting of targets, such as on recycling. 

Imports and exports 

Coverage errors with regard to waste generation occur mainly because in some countries data 
are  not  collected  from  the  waste  generators  but  derived  indirectly  from  waste  collection  or 
waste  treatment.  This  approach  keeps  the  burden  on  respondents  low  but  has  some 
shortcomings. One is that direct exports of waste, i.e. exports without a treatment stage within 
the  country,  will  not  be  covered  (e.g.  in  Austria,  Denmark,  Lithuania)  unless  other  data 
sources are used to adjust for these exports. This will mainly affect the coverage of recyclable 
waste. The possibilities of collecting statistics on import and export of waste are addressed by 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
a separate pilot study programme, which ended in 2007. A report from the Commission to the 
European Parliament and the Council summarising the results is currently under preparation. 

Some countries traditionally compile national statistics only on the treatment of waste that is 
generated  within  the  country  (e.g.  Denmark,  France,  the  Netherlands,  Belgium).  Not  all  of 
these  countries  have  adapted  their  approach  to  the  Regulation’s  requirements.  Deviations 
from the required coverage may apply to all waste categories (e.g. Denmark, Belgium) or to 
specific waste streams only (e.g. France). 

Secondary waste  

Annex  I  of  the  Regulation  on  waste  statistics  explicitly  asks  for  information  on  waste 
resulting from recovery and disposal operations, known as secondary waste. Secondary waste 
is  expected  to  arise  mainly  in  the  economic  activities  which  deal  with  waste  management 
(NACE  sectors  37,  51.57  and  90).  However,  the  data  and  the  quality  reports  indicate  that 
several countries did not consider this provision, most likely because data are prepared in a 
different way for national purposes.  

Because  of  the  incomplete  coverage  of  secondary  waste,  waste  generation  tends  to  be 
underestimated in the various sectors; this in turn complicates the interpretation of the data for 
these sectors and for the waste totals. 

Coverage of small enterprises 

Most  Member  States  exempted  small  companies  from  collecting  data  on  waste  generation. 
Whereas  some  countries  produced  estimates  on  the  waste  generated  by  small  companies, 
others did not (e.g. the Czech Republic, France, Hungary, Latvia, Poland, Slovenia) either on 
account of methodological problems or because the amounts of waste were considered to be 
small. 

The resulting undercoverage of amounts generated varies depending on the thresholds for data 
collection  and  on  the  economic  structure  of  the  countries,  i.e.  the  number  and  activities  of 
firms not covered. Information from different countries indicates that the proportion of waste 
generated by small companies may vary considerably. Several countries that did not produce 
estimates  pointed  out  in  their  quality  reports  that  they  were  working  on  estimation  methods 
and would be able to provide estimates in the next reporting round. 

4.2. 

Classification and allocation problems 

Breakdown by economic sectors 

The Regulation calls on the Member States to break down their data by 20 waste generating 
activities. The correct allocation is a prerequisite for: 

–  the comparability of sector-specific waste amounts; 

–  the coherence of waste statistics with business statistics. 

The  breakdown  of  economic  activities  is  by  reference  to  the  Classification  of  Economic 
Activities in the European  Community (NACE Rev. 1.1). A new classification of  economic 
activities (NACE Rev. 2) has been adopted and the required breakdowns in the Regulation on 
waste  statistics  have  been  adapted  accordingly.  NACE  Rev.  2  will  be  used  from  reference 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
year 2008 onwards; a conversion of the 2004 and 2006 data to NACE Rev. 2 is foreseen. The 
revision of the NACE does not interfere with the classification problems discussed below. 

The way waste is allocated to the generating sector depends on the methods applied for data 
collection.  About  two  thirds  of  the  Member  States  collect  most  of  their  data  on  waste 
generation  directly  from  the  waste  generators,  either  by  surveys  or  from  administrative 
documents. This approach provides direct information on the source of waste. Most of these 
countries use their statistical Business Register to determine the generator's NACE code; this 
ensures the coherence with Business Statistics. 

There  is  a  significant  risk  of  misallocation  in  countries  where  data  on  waste  generation  are 
derived  indirectly  from  waste  treatment  data.  This  is  the  approach  taken  by  Denmark, 
Germany, Lithuania, Austria and Malta. In this case information on the generating activity is 
known only from secondary sources (e.g. waste collector, waste treatment operator) or has to 
be derived by some other means (e.g. by models or by using the European waste list8, which 
contains information on the origin of waste). All these approaches have clear limitations. 

Waste generated by households 

The  distinction  between  waste  generated  by  economic  activities  and  waste  generated  by 
households in the Regulation replaces the traditional concept of ‘municipal waste’. 

The  methodological  challenge  is  to  produce  accurate  statistics  for  waste  generated  by 
households  as  waste  from  households  is  usually  collected  together  with  waste  from  shops, 
small businesses and institutions. Many countries do not have direct information on the share 
of  waste  produced  by  households;  these  countries  were  therefore  required  to  determine  the 
share of waste from households by some other method. 

Twelve  Member  States  established  the  new  concept  and  reported  figures  for  waste  from 
households  only.  Their  methods  range  from  targeted  surveys  (waste  analyses)  to  rough 
estimates  received  from  waste  management  companies  or  landfill  operators.  Nine  countries 
did not implement the new concept. Four countries' quality reports contained no information 
on  this  issue.  As  a  result,  the  comparability  of  data  on  waste  from  households  is  currently 
limited to the compliant countries. The situation is expected to improve with the delivery of 
data for 2006 as several countries are working on appropriate methods. 

4.3.  Measurement errors 

Measurement errors might result from the use of imprecise conversion factors. Landfills not 
yet equipped with weighbridges are still quite a common problem. In such cases the reported 
figures are usually based on the volume of the collection vehicles and converted by means of 
average waste densities. Experience in Poland and Lithuania suggests that this approach tends 
to  overestimate  waste  quantities  rather  than  underestimate  them.  The  measurement  error  is 
probably  biggest  for  municipal  waste  and  other  landfilled  non-hazardous  waste.  Hazardous 
waste and recyclables are more likely to be weighed for financial reasons. Data quality in this 
regard  will  improve  steadily  as  old  landfills  are  closed  down  and  new  ones  built  in 
compliance with EU Regulations. 

8 

Decision 2000/532/EC as regards the list of wastes, OJ L 226, 6.9.2000, p.3.  

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
                                                 
5. 

BURDEN ON BUSINESSES 

Burden on respondents refers to the burden that data delivery imposes on businesses and is 
measured  as  the  actual  number  of  respondents  and  their  burden  in  physical  terms  (time 
required for response). 

The Regulation on waste statistics asks the Member States to reduce the burden by providing 
access to administrative data and to exclude small firms with fewer than 10 employees from 
surveys unless they contribute significantly to waste generation. 

Most Member States, however, do not measure the burden in physical terms and are therefore 
unable to report on this. Five Member States report a burden of between 30 minutes and five 
hours  per  respondent.  Nevertheless,  most  Member  States  are  aware  of  the  workload  for 
companies and follow different approaches with a view to reducing the burden and collecting 
data in an efficient way. 

The  most  important  help  to  companies  is  to  avoid  double  reporting  for  administrative  and 
statistical purposes by using administrative data and/or by co-ordinating waste surveys among 
the institutions concerned (Statistical Offices, Ministries of the Environment, Environmental 
Agencies).  For  14  Member  States,  administrative  data  are  the  main  raw  material  for  waste 
statistics. Other countries use administrative data as one of many data sources. 

The request in the Regulation to exempt small companies from surveys is handled in different 
ways.  Some  countries  cover  small  companies  by  sample  surveys  and  extrapolate  the  results 
(Belgium;  Estonia  for  some  sectors;  Greece).  Most,  though,  exclude  them  completely,  the 
figures  being  either  ignored  (see  section  4.3.)  or  extrapolated  by  factor-based  estimation 
models.  Countries  have  established  different  exclusion  thresholds,  defined  mostly  by  the 
number of employees or by the amount of waste generated per year. Some countries combine 
the two criteria to make sure that even small companies are covered by data collection when 
they exceed the defined waste generation threshold. 

6. 

CONCLUSIONS 

Analysis of the data from the first reporting round has not yet been finalised, but the progress 
we  have  made  towards  more  complete  and  harmonised  European  waste  statistics  is  already 
obvious. 

We  should  stress  the  positive  impact  of  the  obligation  to  document  methodologies  and  to 
assess data quality in the quality reports. Problems and deficiencies are more visible and show 
where improvement is needed. In addition, the Regulation gives a boost to coherence between 
waste  statistics  and  other  statistical  domains  by  requiring  strict  adherence  to  the  NACE 
classification  of  economic  activities  and  the  use  of  statistical  units  as  applied  in  business 
statistics.  It  thus  enhances  the  possibility  of  integrating  waste  statistics  into  Environmental-
Economic Accounting. 

6.1. 

Development in Member States 

On  the  national  level,  the  binding  character  of  the  Regulation  has  clearly  strengthened  the 
status of waste statistics within statistical systems. The obligations imposed by the Regulation 
have led to methodological developments and to changes in national data collection systems. 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
In  the  light  of  experience  in  the  first  reporting  round,  several  countries  announced  their 
intention  of  improving  data  quality  and  compliance  with  the  Regulation’s  requirements. 
Where such changes require legal action, the measures might not become effective until the 
reference year 2008. 

It  would  seem  that  the  Regulation  has  advanced  the  general  trend  in  Member  States  of 
avoiding  redundant  reporting  through  co-operation  between  the  data  collecting  institutions 
and  streamlining  of  reporting  obligations.  The  dual  use  of  data  for  administrative  and  for 
statistical purposes is becoming more commonplace, the bottom line being more consistency 
between data and a reduced burden on respondents. 

6.2. 

Need for revision 

Although  the  outcome  of  the  first  reporting  round  confirmed  the  general  approach,  some 
conceptual shortcomings clearly need to be reviewed. 

Breakdown by waste types 

In  Annex  I  and  Annex  II  (Section  2)  the  Regulation  requires  generated  and  treated  waste 
amounts to be broken down by waste categories in a different way for each data set (see Table 
1).  This  was  to  minimise  the  required  level  of  detail  and  hence  minimise  the  burden  for 
Member States. 

The experience of the first reporting round clearly shows that the drawbacks of this concept 
are  numerous  whereas  any  advantages  are  insignificant,  with  no  observable  relief  for  the 
Member  States.  Most  Member  States  collect  the  information  at  a  much  more  detailed  level 
and reduce the breakdowns when preparing the data for transmission to Eurostat. 

The main negative aspects are: 

–  It is not possible to draw up balances for individual waste categories; this greatly 

hampers data validation and interpretation. 

–  The  level  of  detail  for  waste  treatment  data  is  too  low;  important  waste  streams 

are subsumed in non-specific waste categories (‘other wastes’). 

–  The presentation and communication of results is very complicated. 

–  The different formats make it difficult to handle and process the data. 

The current approach should be abandoned in favour of a common breakdown for both waste 
generation and waste treatment. The more detailed breakdown of waste categories in Section 
2 of Annex I should be used as basis for discussion. 

Regional breakdown of data on waste treatment infrastructure 

The  Regulation  requires  the  Member  States  to  provide  data  on  the  number  and  capacity  of 
recovery and disposal facilities at NUTS 2 level (Annex II, section 3). This detailed regional 
breakdown  causes  a  significant  workload  for  Eurostat  and  for  Member  States  alike.  The 
proportion  of  confidential  data  rises  considerably  with  the  regional  level  of  detail,  thus 
limiting the usefulness. The relevance of this detailed information has to be reviewed.  

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
Breakdown by waste treatment types 

Under  Section  8(2),  reporting  on  the  treatment  of  waste  aggregates  all  (10)  recovery 
operations, except energy recovery, into a single reporting category. Furthermore, the required 
data on waste recovery capacity embraces such treatment operations as composting, recycling 
of  metals  and  oil  refining.  In  these  cases  the  level  of  detail  seems  to  be  insufficient: 
information on certain recycling operations would be desirable for the purposes of monitoring 
waste  policy.  In  particular,  there  is  a  growing  need  to  provide  data  suitable  for  use  as 
benchmarking  against  set  targets.  In  some  cases  such  targets  may  be  mandatory.  This 
highlights the need for consistent data across Member States, for which further refinement of 
definitions and classifications would probably be required. 

Finally,  disposal  operations  (8  treatment  types)  are  broken  down  into  two  reporting 
categories, one of which is virtually unused in Member States. 

7. 

OUTLOOK 

On the strength of the first experience and in order to boost the usability and quality of data, 
while taking into account any additional costs for enterprises and public administrations, the 
Commission  will  propose  amending  the  Regulation  in  due  time  for  data  collection  for  the 
reference year 2008: 

•  to have the same breakdown of waste categories for waste generation and waste treatment 

by aligning Sections 2 of Annex I and Annex II, 

•  to review the regional breakdowns in Annex II, 

•  to  review  the  breakdown  of  waste  treatment  categories  in  Annex  II,  in  particular  waste 

recovery and waste disposal. 

EN 

12 

   EN