Commission staff working document - Accompanying the Communication from the Commission on future steps in bio-waste management in the European Union {COM(2010) 235 final}
Date: 2010-05-18
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU environmental policy, environmental law, prevention of pollution, waste management, waste recycling

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 18.5.2010 
SEC(2010) 577 final 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 

Accompanying the Communication from the Commission  
On future steps in bio-waste management in the European Union 

{COM(2010) 235 final} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
  
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 

Accompanying the Communication from the Commission  
On future steps in bio-waste management in the European Union 

Assessment of the management of bio-waste 

Table of contents 

1. 

1.1. 

1.2. 

1.3. 

2. 

3. 

3.1. 

3.2. 

Procedural issues and consultation of interested parties...............................................7 

Background study .........................................................................................................7 

Internal consultation .....................................................................................................7 

External consultation ....................................................................................................7 

Policy context ...............................................................................................................9 

Problem definition ........................................................................................................9 

The nature of the problem.............................................................................................9 

The issue of bio-waste in EU legislation and policy to date.......................................14 

3.3.  What are the underlying drivers of sub optimal bio-waste management?..................15 

3.4. 

The right of the EU to act, subsidiarity.......................................................................17 

3.5.  Who is affected, in what ways, and to what extent?...................................................20 

4. 

5. 

5.1. 

5.2. 

Objectives of an EU initiative.....................................................................................20 

Baseline scenario ........................................................................................................21 

Main assumptions .......................................................................................................21 

Construction of the baseline scenario .........................................................................22 

5.2.1.  Bio-waste generation and composition.......................................................................22 

5.2.2.  Collection coverage, needed and planned treatment capacities..................................22 

5.2.3. 

Industrial waste ...........................................................................................................23 

5.3. 

Analysis of the baseline scenario................................................................................23 

5.3.1.  Bio-waste generation ..................................................................................................23 

5.3.2.  Bio-waste management...............................................................................................24 

5.3.3. 

Implementation of existing legislation .......................................................................25 

5.3.4.  Conclusions.................................................................................................................27 

6. 

Policy Options.............................................................................................................28 

EN 

2 

   EN 

6.1. 

Rejected options..........................................................................................................28 

6.1.1.  Proportionality ............................................................................................................28 

6.1.2.  Other rejected options.................................................................................................28 

6.1.3.  Options analysed but not developed into scenarios ....................................................29 

6.1.4.  Non-regulatory measures ............................................................................................29 

6.2. 

Options shortlisted for scenario analysis ....................................................................30 

6.2.1.  General assumptions for all scenarios ........................................................................30 

6.2.2.  Scenario 1: Set compost standards only .....................................................................32 

6.2.3.  Scenarios 2 and 2A: Compost standards + high biological treatment rates + waste 

prevention ...................................................................................................................32 

6.2.4.  Scenarios 3 and 3A: Compost standards + moderate biological treatment rates........33 

6.3. 

Scenarios comparison and modelling .........................................................................33 

7. 

7.1. 

7.2. 

Analysis of impacts.....................................................................................................34 

General description of impacts ...................................................................................34 

Environmental impacts ...............................................................................................34 

7.2.1.  Direct emissions into the air .......................................................................................34 

7.2.2.  Production and consumption of energy ......................................................................35 

7.2.3.  Use of compost/digestate on soil ................................................................................36 

7.2.4.  Environmental impacts not quantified........................................................................36 

7.2.5.  Environmental impacts from changes in waste collection..........................................37 

7.2.6.  Monetization of environmental impacts .....................................................................37 

7.3. 

Economic impacts.......................................................................................................37 

7.3.1.  Financial cost of waste treatment technologies ..........................................................37 

7.3.2.  Cost of separate collection..........................................................................................39 

7.3.3.  Administrative cost .....................................................................................................40 

7.3.4.  Cost comparison of treatment techniques ...................................................................40 

7.4. 

Social impacts .............................................................................................................40 

7.4.1. 

Involvements of households .......................................................................................40 

7.4.2.  Effects on employment ...............................................................................................40 

7.4.3.  Effects on workers and neighbours health of bio-waste treatment plants ..................41 

7.5. 

Impacts on the specific group of stakeholders............................................................41 

EN 

3 

   EN 

7.6. 

Cost of prevention and possible impacts from waste prevention ...............................42 

8. 

Comparisons of scenarios ...........................................................................................43 

8.1. 

Assessment of impacts of the different scenarios.......................................................43 

8.1.1.  Scenario 1 - only compost standards ..........................................................................43 

8.1.2.  Scenarios 2 and 3 ........................................................................................................45 

8.2. 

8.3. 

8.4. 

Comparison of policy scenarios and recommended scenario.....................................52 

Impacts of the recommended scenario........................................................................53 

Possible EU initiatives to implement the recommended policy scenario ...................53 

8.4.1.  Waste prevention ........................................................................................................54 

8.4.2. 

Increasing the biological treatment of bio-waste ........................................................55 

8.4.3.  Demand-orientated measures to encourage the use of biologically treated bio-waste56 

8.5. 

Recommendation for next steps, proposed timing......................................................56 

9. 

9.1. 

9.2. 

Monitoring and evaluation..........................................................................................57 

Indicators of progress towards meeting the objectives ...............................................57 

Broad outline for possible monitoring and evaluation arrangements .........................58 

Annex 1: Minutes from the last ISG meeting  

List of the Annexes 

Annex 2: Stakeholder consultation on bio-waste management – summary of comments 

Annex 3: Potential contribution of bio-waste to the 2020 bio-fuel target – detailed calculation 

Annex 4: Bio-waste generation assessment – main assumptions, results per Member State 

Annex 5: Collection coverage per Member State  

Annex 6: GHG and air pollutant emissions of bio-waste treatment methods  

Annex 7: Energy consumed/produced for each bio-waste treatment method 

Annex 8: Energy mix per Member State and monetisation of related environmental impacts  

Annex 9: Use of Compost/Digestate: benefits and monetisation 

Annex 10: Financial cost of bio-waste treatment methods 

Annex 11: Comparisons of the costs of switch between treatment techniques, country by country 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
 
Annex 12: Monetisation of environmental impacts: basic data, case study (Czech Republic) 

Annex 13: Summary of the potential impacts of compost standards (scenario 1) 

Annex 14: Mass flow modification per Member State – scenarios 2 and 3  

Annex 15: Cost, Benefit and GHG emission implication of Scenario 2 and 3 per Member State 

Annex 16: Summary of the main uncertainties and their possible impacts on policy options 

Annex 17: Benefits and drawbacks of different measures to introduce selected policy actions  

Contents of figures: 

Figure 1: Baseline scenario – projected bio-waste generation 2008 - 2020 

Figure 2: Baseline scenario – projected evolution of bio-waste treatment 2008-2020 

Figure 3: Scenario definition and level of ambition  

Figure 4: Example of breakdown of financial costs: AD with biogas used as a vehicle fuel  

Figure 5: Mass flow modifications of treatment flows by 2020 

Figure 6: GHG emission relative to the baseline Scenario (year 2020) including biogenic carbon 

Figure 7: GHG emission relative to the baseline Scenario (year 2020) excluding biogenic carbon 

Figure 8: Total Financial and Environmental Costs of scenario over the period 2013-2020 

Figure 9: Total Environmental Benefits of each scenario for the EU-27 (2013-2020) (NPV) 

List of acronyms and abbreviations 

AD: Anaerobic Digestion 

AQ: Air Quality 

CH4: Methane 

CHP: Combined Heat and Power 

CO2: Carbon dioxide 

CO2e: CO2 equivalent 

ETS: Green house gas emission trading scheme  

EU-27: Current Member States  

EU-15: European Union countries prior to 1st May 2004 

EU-12: New Member States after 1st May 2004 

EN 

5 

   EN 

GHG: Greenhouse Gases  

ISG: Inter Service Group 

IVC: In-vessel composting 

IPCC: Intergovernmental panel on climate change  

MBT: Mechanical-biological treatment  

MSW: Municipal solid waste 

Mt: Million tonnes 

NGO's: Non Governmental Organisations 

N2O: Nitrous oxide 

NOx: Nitrogen oxides  

NPV: Net Present Value 

QAS: Quality Assurance Schemes  

WFD: Waste Framework Directive (1998/2008/EC)  

EN 

6 

   EN 

1. 

PROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES 

This assessment aims at assessing the management of bio-waste as requested by Article 22 of the 
Waste Framework Directive1. 

1.1. 

Background study 

Background data and information for this report were developed by a consortium of consultants - 
Arcadis  and  Eunomia  -  from  January  to  November  2009.  Interim  results  and  draft  reports  were 
made available to stakeholders for comments and published online. The study is further referred to 
in  this  Assessment  as  the  "Arcadis/Eunomia  report2".  All  data  mentioned  in  this  Assessment 
originate from this study, unless mentioned otherwise. 

1.2. 

Internal consultation 

An Interservice Steering Group (ISG) was created to follow the preparation of the Assessment. It 
was a continuation of the ISG established for the purposes of the Green Paper on the Management 
of Bio-waste in the EU. The ISG met twice: first to comment on the outline and policy scenarios of 
the  Assessment  and  a  second  time  to  discuss  the  structure  and  the  main  messages  from  the 
Assessment.  The  following  Commission  services  were  engaged  in  the  preparation  of  this 
Assessment: DG ECFIN, TREN, ENTR, RTD, AGRI, SANCO, JRC, SJ, and SG. Minutes from the 
last ISG meeting form the Annex 1 to this Assessment. 

1.3. 

External consultation 

DG ENV carried out a broad stakeholder consultation throughout the process of preparation of this 
IA. On 3 December 2008, the Commission's Green Paper on bio-waste management was adopted 
and published. A first round of consultation on this issue ended mid-March 2009. In this process, 
the  stakeholders  were  asked  questions  concerning  various  policy  and  technology  options  and 
expected future developments in the area of bio-waste management.  

Almost 150 comments were received and made public on a specific CIRCA website3. A summary 
of  the  comments  is  given  in  Annex  2.  This  website  was  also  used  to  host  deliverables  from  the 
Arcadis/Eunomia  study  and  comments  thereto.  From  spring  2009,  interested  stakeholders  were 
regularly informed via a website dedicated to the issue of biodegradable waste management4. 

On  9-10  July  2009,  DG  ENV  together  with  3  Member  States  (Belgium,  the  Czech  Republic  and 
Germany)  co-organised  a  conference  on  bio-waste  which  gave  the  stakeholders  an  opportunity  to 
further comment on the issue.  

1 

2 

3 

4 

Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste, OJ L 
312, 22.11.2008, p.3 
"Assessment  of  the  options  to  improve  the  management  of  bio-waste  in  the  European  Union", 
Arcadis/Eunomia, December 2009 
http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/biowaste_prop/home  All  references  to  CIRCA  in  the  text  refer  to  this 
website 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/compost/index.htm  

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The conference was open to the public and around 200 participants actively attended the meeting5. 
Several Member States, environmental NGO's and a majority of waste related industries expressed 
strong support for a standalone legislation on bio-waste while another group of Member States and 
representatives of regional and local authorities voiced reservations. 

On  25  June  2009,  the  Environment  Council  adopted  its  conclusions  on  the  Commission's  Green 
Paper on bio-waste management6. The Council expressed concerns about the increasing volume of 
biodegradable waste and the linked greenhouse gas emissions and other pollution - especially when 
such waste is landfilled. It was also agreed that improved bio-waste management could contribute 
to fighting climate change and help to improve soil quality via the application of compost. 

The Council urged the Commission to take into account local conditions when weighing up policy 
options to improve the management of bio-waste in the EU and invited the Commission to present 
an EU legislative proposal on biodegradable waste by 2010, "if appropriate". The conclusions have 
been  adopted  unanimously;  however,  negotiations  over  the  text  were  intense  and  demonstrated 
significant differences in the views of Member States with regards to this issue. 

A targeted stakeholder consultation of Member States and key stakeholders was conducted in May-
June 2009 to allow stakeholders to verify and comment on the baseline scenario developed for the 
Assessment.  Another  targeted  consultation  was  conducted  in  October  2009  on  the  results  of  the 
scenario  developed  to  assess  the  possible  impacts  of  various  options  on  improved  bio-waste 
management. Main comments are summarized in Annex1.  

Box 1: What is bio-waste? 

"Bio-waste" is defined in the Waste Framework Directive (WFD) as "biodegradable garden and 
park waste, food and kitchen waste from households, restaurants, caterers and retail premises, and 
comparable waste from food processing plants". It does not include forestry or agricultural residues, 
manure, sewage sludge, or other biodegradable waste (natural textiles, paper or processed wood). 

"Biodegradable waste" is a broader concept defined in the Landfill Directive as any waste that is 
capable  of  undergoing  anaerobic  or  aerobic  decomposition,  such  as  food  and  garden  waste,  and 
paper and paperboard. All biodegradable waste can have negative impacts on the environment when 
improperly  managed,  notably  in  landfills.  Environmentally  preferable  options  can  include 
composting  (notably  food  and  garden  waste),  recycling  or  use  as  renewable  energy  sources  (for 
example paper, paperboard, treated wood). The WFD defined bio-waste more precisely and focused 
on this fraction. 

The total yearly production of bio-waste in the EU amounts to 118 to 138 Mt of which around 88 
Mt originate from municipal waste and between 30 to 50 Mt from industrial sources such as food 
processing7. In the EU, bio-waste usually constitutes between 30% and 40% - but can range from 
18%  up  to  60%  -  of  municipal  solid  waste  (MSW).  The  bio-waste  part  of  MSW  comprises  two 
major streams: green waste from parks, gardens etc. and kitchen waste. The former usually includes 
50-60% water and more wood (lignocellulosis), the latter contains no wood and up to 80% water. 

5 
6 
7 

Proceedings are published on the http://www.biowaste.eu  
2953rd Environment Council meeting, Luxembourg, 25 June 2009 
Data based on data on municipal waste from EUROSTAT, source : Arcadis/Eunomia report 2009 

EN 

8 

   EN 

                                                 
2. 

POLICY CONTEXT  

Since 1999, the issue of specific legislation on biodegradable waste and bio-waste was subject to 
intensive  political  debate.  Many  stakeholders  including  several  Member  States  and  European 
Parliament  directly  formulated  calls  for  such  legislation.  The  idea  was  also  supported  by 
environmental  NGO's  and  the  waste  management  services.  At  that  time,  the  legislation  was 
supposed to supplement other legislations concerning the management of municipal waste, namely 
the Landfill Directive8 and the Waste Incineration Directive9.  

The  issue  of  bio-waste  management  was  further  addressed  in  the  Thematic  Strategy  on  the 
Prevention  and  Recycling  of  Waste10.  The  Strategy  stated  that,  since  there  is  no  single 
environmentally  best  option  for  the  management  of  bio-waste  diverted  from  landfills,  bio-waste 
management options should be determined by Member States using life-cycle thinking. In parallel, 
the  Commission  would  continue  its  work  on  preparing  guidelines  on  the  application  of  life-cycle 
thinking  and  address  standards  for  waste  recycling.  This  work  has  progressed  substantially  and 
guidance documents are being published11.  

Beyond non-binding guidance, the new end-of-waste mechanism of the revised Waste Framework 
Directive  (WFD) now provides  a  legislative tool for binding EU  standards on waste management 
processes  and  the  quality  of  recycled  materials,  including  compost.  Article  22  specifically  calls 
upon the Commission to carry out "an assessment of the management of bio-waste, with a view to 
submitting  a  proposal,  if  appropriate",  and  to  analyze  "the  opportunity  of  setting  minimum 
requirements  for  bio-waste  management  and  quality  criteria  for  compost  and  digestate  from  bio-
waste in order to guarantee a high level of protection for human health and the environment". 

The  European  Parliament  in  its  resolution  on  the  proposal  for  a  Soil  Framework  Directive12  also 
called  for  a  European  initiative  on  bio-waste  management.  Accordingly,  the  Commission  in  2008 
started to re-examine the issue and published a Green Paper on the Management of bio-waste in the 
EU.  The  foregoing  discussions  have  already  given  valuable  indication  for  the  scope  of  possible 
policy options. This Assessment is intended to up-date the debate, using new information and data 
available after enlargement by 12 new Member States.  

3.  PROBLEM DEFINITION  

3.1. 

The nature of the problem  

About 30 to 40% of the mass of the municipal solid waste produced in the European Union is bio-
waste,  equivalent  to  88  million  tonnes  annually  (around  170  kilograms  per  inhabitant  annually, 
respectively 0.5 kilograms per day). Without additional action, this amount is projected to increase 
by 10% by 2020. 

8 
9 
10 
11 

12 

Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the Landfill of waste, OJ L 182, 16.7.1999, p. 1 
Directive 2000/76/EC on the incineration of waste, OJ L 332, 28.12.2000, p. 91  
COM (2005) 666 final 
JRC is finalising the International Reference Life Cycle Data System (ILCD) handbook which contains a series 
of  technical  guidance  documents  that  provide  the  basis  for  consistent  and  quality-assured  life  cycle  data, 
methods and assessments. In parallel, JRC is also developing the "ILCD Data Network" which supports access 
to quality assured life cycle data, worldwide, building on the ILCD Handbook. More information is available 
http://lct.jrc.ec.europa.eu/eplca/deliverables/international-reference-life-cycle-data-system-ilcd-
from: 
handbook  
European  Parliament  legislative  resolution  of  14  November  2007  on  the  proposal  for  a  Directive  of  the 
European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for the protection of soil  

EN 

9 

   EN 

                                                 
EN 

10 

   EN 

Box 2: Bio-waste treatment methods – technologies in use and potential 

Today's most common bio-waste management options include, in addition to prevention at source, 
its  collection  -  separately  or  with  mixed  waste,  anaerobic  digestion  and  composting,  incineration, 
and  landfilling.  The  environmental  and  economic  benefits  of  different  treatment  methods  depend 
partly  on  local  conditions  such  as  population  density, infrastructure and climate as well as on the 
existence  of  markets  for  associated  products  -  energy  and  compost.  The  two  most  important 
methods of biological treatment of bio-waste are composting and anaerobic digestion (AD).  

Composting  is  a  process  which  turns  biomass  into  compost  with  the  use  of  oxygen  and  certain 
microorganisms. There are two forms of composting: windrow composting conducted in open air 
and in-vessel composting (IVC) carried out in closed containers. Windrow composting is the most 
used method of treating green waste today, mostly due to very low investments costs, but it is not 
suited to treat food waste. IVC is more adapted for treating food waste and causes less nuisances to 
the  neighbourhood,  but  is  more  costly.  Home  composting  or  "backyard  composting"  refers  to 
composting by citizen at home using simple methods. During composting around 50% of the mass 
of waste (mostly water) is lost. The rest turns into compost. Separate collection of bio-waste is one 
of the conditions required to guarantee the high quality of the compost produced.  

Anaerobic  digestion  (AD)  is  a  process  in  which  wet  waste  degrades  in  enclosed  tanks  without 
oxygen  using  the  activity  of  other  types  of  microorganisms  than  those  active  in  the  composting 
process. During this process large amounts of methane are generated which can easily be collected 
and used for energy generation purposes: either directly to power gas engines or as a vehicle fuel 
(CNG).  Another  promising  option  for  the  bio-methane  produced  would  be  its  injection  into  the 
natural  gas  distribution  grid.  Moreover,  grid  injection  would  have  the  economic  advantage  of 
relying  on  an  already  existing  distribution  infrastructure.  Solid  residues  from  the  process  -  a 
"digestate"  -  can  be  used  in  agriculture  (mostly  after  composting).  In  this  Assessment  the  term 
“compost”  refers  to  both  compost  and  digestate,  unless  stated  otherwise  and  the  term  "biological 
treatment" covers composting and anaerobic digestion of separately collected bio-waste and home 
composting.  

Bio-waste  can  also  be  used  as  a  source  of  carbon  neutral  energy13  during  incineration  or  via 
production of biogas during anaerobic digestion. In the near future, bio-waste may also be used on a 
wider scale as a resource for the production of second generation of bio-fuels. 

The range of technologies used to treat mixed municipal waste using biological treatment is often 
referred  to  as  Mechanical-Biological  Treatment  (MBT).  This  method  is  usually  used  to  only  pre-
treat  biodegradable  waste  in  order  to  stabilise  it  before  its  final  disposal  and  to  sort  recyclable 
fractions from the mixed waste. Some MBT facilities produce compost from mixed waste but the 
quality of such material is very low. 

Finally,  landfilled  bio-waste  undergoes  a  process  similar  to  AD:  it  decomposes  in  landfills  to 
produce  large  amount  of  greenhouse  gases  (especially  methane)  which  needs  to  be  captured  and 
leachate  which  may  contaminate  the  soil  and  groundwater  if  the  landfill  is  not  operated  in 

13 

As  bio-mass  during  its  growth  removes  CO2  from  atmosphere  via  photosynthesis  –  emission  of  GHG  is 
regarded by Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as part of natural carbon cycle. As a result, 
biogenic CO2 is not taken into account when greenhouse gas emissions are calculated 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
                                                 
conformity with  the provisions of the Landfill Directive.  Also,  landfilling  means  an  irrecoverable 
loss of resources. 

Food waste disposers14 could constitute an alternative method, especially in places where separate 
collection of food waste is not possible or feasible and where an individual sewer system and waste 
water treatment installations allows for their use. However they do not solve the problem of food 
waste  but  transfer  it  to  the  waste  water  treatment  plant.  As  their  feasibility  depends  on  local 
conditions  the  decision  of  promoting/banning  should  not  be  taken  at  the  EU  level  but  left  to 
national/regional or even local authorities. Therefore they are not covered by this analysis. 

In a number of Member States, the management practices for bio-waste are not optimal: EU-wide, 
36 million tonnes (40%) of this waste are still landfilled15; in some Member States this amount still 
exceeds 90%. The massive use of landfilling for bio-waste management violates the “hierarchy” of 
waste  management  options  which  is  a  binding  legal  requirement  for  national  waste  management 
policies16 as it disregards better alternatives such as prevention and recycling. 

It  also  represents  a  risk  of  non  compliance  with  the  Landfill  Directive,  notably  its  provisions  for 
diverting  biodegradable  waste  and  managing  landfill  gas.  EU  legislation  indeed  already  bans 
landfilling of an increasing part of biodegradable waste (Box 3).  

While  the  Landfill  Directive  does  not  impose  specific  treatment  on  bio-waste  diverted  from 
landfills,  Member  States  are  obliged  according  to  the  requirements  of  the  Waste  Framework 
Directive to optimise treatment with a view to sustainable resource use, avoiding negative impacts 
on the environment and human health according to their specific conditions. This includes notably 
the requirement to develop national policies in support of waste prevention and recycling. 

Failure  by  many  Member  States  to  respect  in  practice  the  "waste  hierarchy"  principles  leads  to 
significant losses of material and energy resources, unnecessary greenhouse gas emissions and other 
environmental impacts, e.g. on groundwater quality.  

The  EU  as  a  whole  is  therefore  missing  out  on  the  economic  and  environmental  opportunities 
offered  by  directing  bio-waste  to  the  most  appropriate  management  techniques17.  For  example, 
recycling of bio-waste accounts for only 1/3 of its overall potential18, although seemingly cheaper 
alternatives  have  been  shown  to  be  more  expensive  when  taking  into  account  their  financial, 
environmental and social costs. 

It is estimated that by improving bio-waste management and make it conform to the principle of the 
"waste hierarchy" notably by increasing prevention and recycling efforts:  

•  Significant financial savings could be made by citizens. For example, one third of food bought 
by UK households (approximate value of €19 billions) becomes waste 19. Up to 60% of this waste 

14 

15 
16 

17 
18 
19 

Device, usually electrically-powered, installed under a kitchen sink which shreds food waste into small pieces 
to pass through plumbing. 
Data for the year 2008 - source: Arcadis/Eunomia report  
Article 4 of the WFD includes a precise definition of the waste management hierarchy: the prevention of waste 
is  defined  as  the  best  option,  followed  by  re-use,  recycling  and  energy  recovery.  Disposal  (landfilling, 
incineration with low-energy recovery) is defined as the worst environmental option  
Box 2 outlines the bio-waste management options 
Source: Orbit/ECN  
Source: "The Food We Waste" report for the "Waste Resources Action Programme (WRAP) – UK" – April 
2008 

EN 

12 

   EN 

                                                 
could theoretically be avoided. Other sources20 suggest that 5% of food waste can be saved by 
smarter  consumption  (avoid  food  wasting)  and  a  similar  amount  of  garden  waste  by  improved 
gardening practises;  

•  The market for quality compost could be increased by a factor of 2.6 to reach about 28 million 
tonnes21. This could help to improve the quality of 3% to 7% of depleted agricultural soils in the 
EU22 and to address the problem of degrading soil quality in Europe23;  

•  Maximising  composting  could  also  substitute  10%  of  phosphate  fertilizers,  9%  of  potassium 

fertilizers and 8% of lime fertilizers24; 

•  About one-third of the 2020 EU target to use renewable energy in transport25 could be met by 
using the biogas produced from bio-waste as vehicle fuel. If all the bio-waste produced in the EU 
in 2020 was treated by anaerobic digestion and the gas used by public vehicle fleets, the potential 
gain would be around 13 Mt CO2-equivalent26. In terms of the achievement of the 10% biofuel 
target this would represent an average contribution ranging from 6% in Luxembourg up to 85% 
in Romania; 

•  Emissions  of  between  10  Mt27  to  a  maximum  of  50  Mt28  CO2-equivalent  could  be  avoided  by 
more prevention and biological treatment, representing between 0.4 % and 2.3 % of the EU 2005 
GHG  emissions  (not  covered  by  ETS)29  in  200530.  This  could  represent  between  4%  to  a 
maximum of 23% of the 2020 EU target (10% reduction  compared  to  2005  emissions)  for  the 
non ETS GHG emissions31.  

In summary, the EU is missing out on significant environmental, social and economic opportunities 
as  bio-waste  management  options  are  not  optimal  and  EU  legislation  on  the  prevention  and 
management of bio-waste is insufficiently implemented in many Member States.  

The waste sector has been steadily developing in the EU for over a decade with high growth rates 
driven  by  the  implementation  of  EU  and  national  waste  policies.  It  includes  two  sub-sectors: 
specialised  waste  management  companies  (collection,  incineration,  landfill,  composting,  etc.)  and 

20 
21 

22 

23 
24 
25 
26 
27 

28 
29 

30 

31 

Source: Association for Cities Recycling (ACR+) - presentation at the biowaste conference, June 2009 
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  
Source: ORBIT/ECN, based on the assumption of an application of 10 tons/ha/year of compost repeated every 
year 
Around 45% of EU soils lack humus – prerequisite of soil fertility  
Example of Germany, source Orbit/ECN 
As outlined in Directive 2009/28/EC on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources 
Detailed calculation are given in Annex 3 
Calculation  based  on  Sander,  K.  (2008)  “Climate  protection  potentials  of  EU  recycling  targets”,  Ökopol 
GmbH, Germany - http://www.eeb.org/publication/documents/RecyclingClimateChangePotentials.pdf  
Details of the calculation are given in section 8 
This scheme covers over 11.500 energy-intensive installations across the EU, which represent close to half of 
Europe’s emissions of CO2. These installations include combustion plants, oil refineries, coke ovens, iron and 
steel plants, and factories making cement, glass, lime, brick, ceramics, pulp and paper 
Source:  Decision  N°  406/2009/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  23  April  2009  on  the 
efforts of Member States to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions to meet the Community's greenhouse gas 
emission  reduction  commitments  up  to  2020,  OJ  L  140/136,  5.6.2009,  the  EU  27  target  is  a  reduction  of 
around 10% of the non ETS EU GHG's emissions by 2020 compared to 2005 emissions  
These  data  are  purely  indicative  as  it  will  depend  in  reality  on  the  calculation  methods  under  the  non  ETS 
directive  

EN 

13 

   EN 

                                                 
businesses recovering and recycling materials (composting, paper, glass, metals, etc.). Solid Waste 
Management and Recycling Industries have a turnover of €137 bil lion which is just over 1.1% of 
EU GDP. These areas together represent over 2 million jobs32.  

3.2. 

The issue of bio-waste in EU legislation and policy to date 

The  management  of  bio-waste  is  covered  by  several  pieces  of  EU  legislation.  The  revised  WFD 
requires Member States to develop waste management policies that protect the environmental and 
human  health  and  ensure  a  sustainable  use  of  natural  resources.  Member  States  are  thus  legally 
bound to optimize the treatment of bio-waste according to their specific conditions. 

Article  4  on  the  “waste  management  hierarchy”  defines  this  approach  more  precisely:  the 
prevention of waste is defined as the best option, followed by re-use, recycling and energy recovery. 
Disposal (landfilling, incineration with low-energy recovery) is defined as the worst environmental 
option (emissions, loss of resources).  

The WFD also encourages Member States to separately collect and recycle bio-waste. For example, 
Member  States  can  include  bio-waste  when  calculating  the  legally  binding  recycling  target  for 
municipal waste.  

Furthermore,  it  enables  the  setting  of  EU  minimum  criteria  for  the  quality  of  compost  from  bio-
waste, including requirements on the origin of the waste and the treatment processes. Such criteria 
have  been  called  for  by  many  Member  States  and  other  stakeholders  in  order  to  enhance  user 
confidence  in  compost,  thus  strengthening  the  market  and  supporting  the  EU’s  policy  towards  a 
material efficient economy. The revised WFD also sets binding efficiency levels for the recovery of 
energy from direct incineration of municipal waste. It thus could discourage the incineration of bio-
waste with low calorific value due to high water content.  

Landfilling  of  bio-waste  is  addressed  in  the  Landfill  Directive  (See  Box  3)  which  requires  the 
diversion  of  biodegradable  municipal  waste  from  landfills.  The  directive  also  contains  stringent 
provisions towards the avoidance of GHG emissions from landfilled biodegradable waste. 

Improved  management  of  bio-waste  is  in  line  with  EU  policies  concerning  environment  and 
sustainability. It fits into the EU's Sustainable Development Strategy which sets particular emphasis 
on avoiding the generation of waste and enhancing the efficient use of natural resources by applying 
life-cycle thinking and promoting re-use and recycling.  

It would also contribute positively to Sustainable Consumption and Production policy and to the EU 
policy  on  Climate  Change  and  notably  to  meet  the  EU  targets  of  reducing  by  10%  (by  2020 
compared to 2005) the green house gas emission not covered by ETS33.  

There  are  very  clear  synergies  to  be  exploited  between  the  management  of  bio-waste  and  the 
production of bio-fuels and renewable energy. Renewable Energy Directive34 sets ambitious targets 
for 2020 to which bio-waste management could contribute.  

32 

33 
34 

Source:  Study  on  the  Competitiveness  of  the  EU  eco-industry,  ENTR/06/054  Final  Report.  Directorate-
General Enterprise & Industry and Thematic Strategy on the Prevention and Recycling of Waste COM(2005) 
666  
Refer to note 16 
Directive  2009/28/EC  on  the  promotion  of  the  use  of  energy  from  renewable  sources  and  amending  and 
subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC OJ L 140, 5.6.2009, p. 16–62  

EN 

14 

   EN 

                                                 
Box 3: Bio-waste and the Landfill Directive 

The  Landfill  Directive  requires  Member  States  to  set  up  a  National  strategy  for  the  reduction  of 
biodegradable waste going to landfills. This strategy should ensure that by mid 2006 biodegradable 
municipal  waste  going  to  landfills  is  reduced  to  75  %  of  the  total  amount  of  biodegradable 
municipal waste produced in 1995. By mid 2009 this must be reduced to 50 % of this amount, and 
by mid 2016 to 35%. The main objective of these targets and measures is to reduce the production 
of methane in landfills in order to reduce GHG emissions.  

Member States which relied heavily on landfilling in 1995 - for more than 80% of municipal waste 
- were given a four year extension period. They must achieve a 25% reduction by 2010, then meet 
the 50% target by 2013 and finally meet 65% in 202035.  

The targets set in the Landfill Directive refer to the diversion of biodegradable waste from landfills, 
but  do  not  prescribe  specific  treatment  options.  In  practice,  Member  States  are  often  inclined  to 
choose  the  seemingly  easiest  and  cheapest  option  disregarding  the  actual  environmental  benefits 
and costs.  

3.3. 

What are the underlying drivers of sub optimal bio-waste management?  

As  detailed  in  section  3.1,  optimized  management  of  bio-waste  is  still  not  achieved  by  many 
Member  States.  Notably,  waste  prevention  is  nearly  inexistent  while  biological  treatment  remains 
underused  and  the  potential  market  for  quality compost  remains  underdeveloped.  The  reasons  for 
this sub-optimal management can be summarized as follows:  

1. 

Waste prevention: programs to prevent the generation of bio-waste require a combination 
of policy instruments that need to address a variety of actors and need to complement each 
other over many years to be successful:  

•  a  "chain"  of  actors  should  be  involved  in  reducing  the  generation  of  bio-waste  -  households, 

producers, retailers, and public authorities; 

•  more specifically, waste prevention programs may require politically sensitive messages towards 

a modification of the current consumption habits, which requires time to be absorbed; 

•  a  variety  of  instruments  such  as  economic,  legal  and  information  should  be  combined  in  a 

consistent manner in order to achieve significant results; 

•  these instruments should be defined and applied at various competence levels from European and 

National to regional and up to very local levels. 

In  summary,  successful  prevention  programs  require  the  mobilization  of  several  actors,  various 
instruments and at different levels of competence. The financial, social and environmental potential 
benefits of prevention are largely underestimated by most Member States. This could explain why 
so far no significant efforts have been undertaken at large scale to enhance prevention, even if at the 
local level promising results are progressively emerging.  

35 

Member States concerned are: Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Greece, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, 
Malta, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia and the UK 

EN 

15 

   EN 

                                                 
2. 

Concerning  increased  bio-waste  separate  collection:  there  are  different  obstacles  for  the 
development of large scale separate collection programs and biological treatment for bio-
waste:  

•  Participation  of  citizens:  inhabitants  need  to  be  informed  and  convinced  to  participate  in 

separation collection schemes; 

•  Logistics  issues:  in  many  areas,  especially  densely  populated,  separate  collection  could  be 
difficult  to  set  up  due  to  logistics  constraints  such  as  insufficient  space  for  sorting.  This  could 
affect  the  acceptance  of  introducing  separate  collection.  However,  some  of  the  most  densely 
populated Member States have established very advanced separate collection schemes like in the 
NL , DK or BE; 

•  Uncertainties over expected quantities/quality of the material: this depends largely on the efforts 
of  the  citizens  to  sort  bio-waste  in  an  appropriate  way,  but  also  on  the  capability  of  the 
authorities  in  charge  of  waste  collection  and  treatment  to  motivate  and  inform  correctly  the 
population and implement effective monitoring – or if needed enforcement schemes;  

•  These  uncertainties  could  complicate  planning  and  the  design  of  the  necessary  investments. 
Some experts see this problem as a "vicious circle" as regards composting – the lack of separate 
collection  does  not  justify  the  construction  of  composting  plants,  whilst  the  lack  of  treatment 
capacity affects the setting up of separate collection; 

•  Lack of sufficient incentives for the development of biomethanisation at larger scale: although 
separate collection and composting or home composting could in general be beneficial from the 
financial  point  of  view36,  this  is  not  the  case  for  biomethanisation  which  still  needs  additional 
financial incentives in most of the Member States as demonstrated in section 7.  

In  summary,  even  if  separate  collection  followed  by  biological  treatment  could  represent  a  less 
expensive option for the competent authorities while presenting larger environmental benefits, it is 
not  yet  sufficiently  developed.  It  indeed  requires  additional  efforts  from  the  authorities  and  the 
citizens  notably  in  terms  of  organization  and  participation  in  selective  collection  systems.  The 
uncertainties  linked  with  the  setting  up  of  such  programs  complicate  the  planning  work  of  local 
authorities who have to ensure the permanent affordability of the service.  

There are differences  between  Member States  in terms of development of separate collection and 
biological  treatment  which  will  be  discussed  in  section  5.3.3.  These  differences  are  linked  to 
various  factors  including  differentiated  levels  of  citizen  and  authority's  environmental  awareness 
and differences in availability of space notably for landfills.  

3. 

Concerning the development of a market for compost: in order to ensure that the additional 
compost  produced  will  find  its  market,  new  initiatives  are  required.  The  development  of 
such market is indeed currently limited for the following reasons:  

•  Absence  of  common  European  standards  for  compost  which  limits  intra  EU  trade  and  could 

increase the risk of soil contamination due to the use of compost of low quality; 

36 

See section 7.3 

EN 

16 

   EN 

                                                 
•  Lack of confidence from the potential end-users: this is the case particularly in agriculture as it 

could take time to convince farmers to use compost originating from waste. 

As the place of origin of bio-waste is often in large urban centers while the main use would be in 
agricultural  areas,  facilitating  intra-EU  trade  would  be  important.  It  is  therefore  indispensable  to 
ensure a common approach at EU level in order to harmonize the existing national standards and to 
offer new market perspectives for compost of good quality.  

In summary, for all these reasons the efforts achieved by Member States to implement in practice 
the "waste hierarchy" in the case of bio-waste management are generally insufficient. The absence 
of  clear  guidance  possibly  including  targets  for  the  Member  States  to  implement  this  hierarchy 
could also explain why these efforts have been so far too limited.  

3.4. 

The right of the EU to act, subsidiarity 

The  Union  competence  to  take  action  on  bio-waste  management  derives  from  the  articles  of  the 
Lisbon Treaty related to the protection of the environment.  

Under  Article  191  of  the  Treaty,  Union  policy  on  the  environment  shall  contribute,  among  other 
things,  to  protecting  and  improving  the  quality  of  the  environment,  protecting  human  health, 
ensuring prudent and rational utilisation of natural resources, and combating climate change. Under 
Article 194 of the Treaty, Union policy on energy shall aim to promote the development of new and 
renewable forms of energy. 

In the revised WFD the legislator has re-iterated several of these objectives and explicitly called on 
the  Commission  to  identify  ways  of  improving  bio-waste  management  by  means  of  additional 
initiatives (Article 22).  

More  specifically,  the  WFD  calls  upon  the  Commission  to  "carry  out  an  assessment  on  the 
management  of  bio-waste"  examining  "the  opportunity  of  setting  minimum  requirements  for  bio-
waste management and quality criteria for compost and digestate in order to guarantee a high level 
of protection for human health and the environment". 

In  accordance  with  the  requirement  of  the  WFD,  different  policy  options  are  assessed  in  this 
Assessment,  including  new  initiatives  to  improve  bio-waste  management  in  line  with  the  waste 
hierarchy  principles  (more  prevention  and  more  separate  collection  and  recycling)  and  setting 
common compost standards at European level. The respect of the subsidiarity principle is analyzed 
for each of these options.  

Concerning prevention, the analysis carried out to build the baseline scenario (section 5), indicates 
that in the vast majority of the Member States no clear and measurable steps to increase bio-waste 
prevention have been so far taken, although prevention has been shown to be an extremely effective 
option. This is partly due to the lack of clear guidance including measurable quantitative targets. As 
will be explained in section 7.6, at this moment, due to the uncertainties linked with the cost and 
effectives  of  prevention  actions  the  impacts  of  setting  a  common  quantitative  target  at  European 
level cannot be assessed.  

Therefore, in line with the subsidiarity principle, a first immediate step could be for Member States 
to  further  investigate  the  opportunity  of  setting  indicative  targets  at  national  level  for  bio-waste 
prevention. In addition, the Commission could provide specific guidance on bio-waste prevention to 
be included in the National prevention plans to be drafted according to the WFD. This combination 

EN 

17 

   EN 

of actions at European and Member States levels should provide the necessary incentive to move 
towards increased prevention while ensuring enough flexibility in its application.  

Concerning  the  introduction  of  a  minimum  quantitative  targets  for  biological  treatment,  the 
analysis of the baseline scenario (section 5) indicates that a number of Member States representing 
together around a quarter of the EU population have already or are expected to dramatically reduce 
landfilling of bio-waste and increase its biological treatment. However, the  baseline scenario also 
shows  that  even  for  these  "advanced"  Member  States  the  opportunities  of  improved  bio-waste 
management could be better exploited.  

As  shown  in  section  5.3,  without  EU  level  incentives,  it  is  improbable  that  the  less  advanced 
Member States alone will take steps in the foreseeable future to increase converting bio-waste into 
bio-fuel  and  compost,  the  options  which  are  environmentally  and  economically  most  beneficial. 
Instead,  they  will  continue  choosing  the  seemingly  easiest  option  disregarding  the  actual 
environmental benefits and costs. This also explains why for so many years some Member States 
and stakeholders continued to press the Commission to initiate action in this area. 

In order to better take into account these differences of actual performances between the Member 
States  but  also  to  leave  an  appropriate  level  of  flexibility,  the  feasibility  of  introducing  an  EU 
minimum  target  for  biological  treatment  needs  further  analysis  while  already  at  present  it  can  be 
recommended that Member States pursue their national efforts to increase biological treatment. 

The cost/benefit analysis detailed in section 8 shows that some flexibility should also be introduced 
for  what  concerns  the  type  of  biological  treatment  to  be  promoted.  The  choice  of  the  best  option 
(centralised  or  de-centralised  composting,  energy  production  by  digestion  and  various  ways  of 
using the energy produced - transport, electricity heat production) is depending on local conditions 
(energy mix, possible synergies with other policies) and should be left to the Member States.  

The present knowledge base indicates that a future EU target, if any, for biological treatment should 
remain moderate to allow Member States to choose the zones in which the organization of separate 
collection  is  most  relevant.  For  instance,  it  seems  that  separate  collection  should  be  set  up  as  a 
matter of priority in semi-rural or semi-urban zones in which more space is available in the houses.  

In  summary,  Member  States  should  be  encouraged  to  increase  biological  treatment  for  bio-waste 
and the added value of fixing a minimum target at EU level should be further investigated.  

The compost market of the EU shows a huge variety in terms of quality parameters, assessment 
criteria  and  quality  assurance  systems.  Compost  quality  refers  to  the  overall  state  of  the  compost 
with regard to physical, chemical and biological characteristics. These parameters are indicators of 
the ultimate impact of the compost on the environment. In particular, the most important parameters 
from  the  point  of  view  of  environment  protection  standards,  public  health  and  the  soil  are  those 
related to pathogens, inorganic and organic potentially toxic compounds (heavy metals, phthalates, 
and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons) and stability.  

Within  the  EU,  the  limit  values  adopted  by  the  Member  states  vary  widely,  with  the  north  being 
generally more stringent than the south. A recent study37 has recently evaluated the quality profile 
of compost products in Greece, and examined their compliance with the Greek standards. They also 
examined how the compost complied with more stringent limit values valid in other countries of the 

37 

Lasaridi et al (2006) « Quality assessment of compost in the Greek market: The need for standards and quality 
assurance”, Journal of Environmental Management 80: 58-65.  

EN 

18 

   EN 

                                                 
EU.  A  total  of  28  compost  products  available  on  the  Greek  market  were  identified  and  analysed. 
The scientists  measured the physical and chemical parameters (moisture, organic mater, electrical 
conductivity,  pH  and  heavy  metals),  stability  indicators  (self-heating  potential),  and  biological 
parameters  (microbial  population,  pathogen  indicators  and  selected  pathogens)  to  determine  the 
quality of the compost products.  

The results showed that there were wide variations in the quality of the study products, even within 
the  same  group  of  products.  This  is  an  interesting  finding  as  the  studied  parameters  are  directly 
related  to  environmental  protection  and  public  health.  For  example,  the  content  of  heavy  metals 
ranged from levels exceeding the fairly tolerant limits of the Greek legislation to below the stringent 
Austria  limits  for  compost.  The  authors  noted  that  approximately  25%  of  the  compost  examined 
met  the  heavy  metals  limits  for  the  EU-ecolabel award.  The  study  concludes that  the  diversity  of 
limit values within the EU countries highlights the need to develop homogenous standards within 
Europe in order to harmonise the compost market. 

In  addition,  the  quality  assurance  systems  for  compost  demonstrate  significant  differences  across 
the EU. Depending on intention, philosophy, political or functional approach, the quality assurance 
systems for compost comprise different elements38.  

Efforts to ensure systematic quality assurance varies from Member State to Member State ranging 
from no efforts (eg FI; EL; IE, PT) to advanced quality check systems (eg AT, BE, DE, NL).39 

There are clear advantages of fixing common compost standards, notably from the market point 
of  view  and  to  ensure  that  increase  compost  production  will  be  achieved  without  risks  for  the 
environment. As confirmed by stakeholders, to guarantee the quality and safety of compost across 
the EU and to boost the compost markets (which in turn will encourage more recycling) harmonised 
standards need to be adopted, also to stand the competition on the market with peat-, earth- and bark 
products. Such standards will address the obstacles in trade and secure the same minimum level of 
environmental  and  health  protection.  Several  Member  States  have  already  developed  their  own 
legislation in this area which fragments the EU compost market. Union action will level out these 
differences. 

Concerning  industrial  waste,  this  Assessment  (section  5.2.3)  indicates  that  the  added  value  of  a 
European  initiative  would  be  too  limited.  The  quality  of  this  waste  is  more  stable  than  municipal 
waste  and  most  of  it  is  already  either  re-used  or  recycled.  It  is  also  to  be  assumed  that  direct 
financial  interest  of  the  industries  concerned  are  strong  incentives  for  them  to  reduce  as  far  as 
possible their bio-waste production.  

In summary, a good balance between what is needed at EU level and what could be done at national 
or  local  levels  is  indispensable  to  improve  bio-waste  management  in  a  cost  effective  way,  taking 
into  account  the  local  constraints  and  conditions.  At  national  level,  Member  States  can  already 
revisit  their  national  waste  management  planning  related  to  bio-waste,  for  example  by  setting  up 
separate  collection  systems  and  planning  of  infrastructure  for  the  treatment  of  the  collected  bio-
waste.  They  can  also  develop  ambitious  waste  prevention  programmes  where  already  today  they 

38 

39 

Including  Raw  material,  intake  control,  limits  for  harmful  substances,  quality  criteria  for  the  valuable 
constituents  in  the  compost,  composting  production,  external  control  (product  and/or  production),  in-house 
monitoring,  quality  label  for  the  product,  certificate  for  the  plant  and/or  the  product,  declaration  of  the 
properties  of  compost,  recommendations  for  use  and  application,  training  and  qualification  of  the  operator, 
management and operation of plants (plant assessment), annual certificates 
http://www.compostnetwork.info/index.php?id=10. 

EN 

19 

   EN 

                                                 
can set national benchmarks, targets and indicators. The present knowledge base seems to indicate 
potential  for  additional  benefits  from  setting  EU  level  standards  for  the  quality  of  compost,  for 
applying  compost  to  soil,  and  minimum  levels  of  ambition  for  recycling/prevention.  However, 
investigations  are  needed  to  better  underpin  the  feasibility  of  such  measures.  The  final 
recommendations  of  this  Assessment  (see  section  8.5)  have  been  scrutinized  in  order  to  reach  an 
optimal combination of EU, national and local actions.  

3.5. 

Who is affected, in what ways, and to what extent?  

All  citizens  are  at  least  indirectly  affected  by  threats  related  to  inadequate  management  of  bio-
waste, as those threats are of a general nature – climate change,  public health, possible air, water 
and  soil  pollution  due  e.g.  inadequate  landfilling,  incineration  and  spreading  of  poor  quality 
composted waste on soil.  

Citizens are the main producers of bio-waste and at the same time they could provide a part of the 
solution  through  more  efforts  for  preventing  the  generation  of  bio-waste  and  participation  in 
separate collection schemes. They also bear the financial consequences of bio-waste management. 

Also, waste related industries which deal with composting, anaerobic digestion and production of 
bio-fuels are affected by the opportunities of adequate bio-waste management. 

4. 

OBJECTIVES OF AN EU INITIATIVE  

The main objective of an EU action is to ensure that existing legislation is better implemented in 
practical terms by the Member States. Only improved practical application of legislation will ensure 
that  the  opportunities  of  an  appropriate  management  of  bio-waste  -  in  terms  of  environmental 
protection,  energy  and  resource  savings,  improved  quality  of  EU  soils  and  cost  efficient  waste 
management - will be better exploited in the European Union.  

More specifically and in line with the "waste hierarchy", the objectives should be as follows: 

•  Create  optimal  conditions  for  reducing  the  generation  of  garden  and  especially  food  waste  to 
avoid environmental impacts of unnecessary food production and related waste management; 

•  Optimise conditions for the recycling of bio-waste to marketable products, thus saving primary 

materials (peat moss, mineral fertilizer) and contributing to a material efficient economy; 

•  Optimize  the  recovery  of  renewable  energy  from  bio-waste  in  support  of  EU  energy  policy 

targets; 

•  Optimize  the  use  of  bio-waste  as  soil  improver  (contribution  to  EU  soil  policy)  and  limit 
emissions of GHG from sub-optimal bio-waste management (contribution to EU climate policy).  

The means for achieving these objectives could include actions aiming at increasing prevention of 
bio-waste, encouraging recycling and energy recovery by facilitating the use and trade of products 
made  from  bio-waste,  including  enhancing  customers'  confidence,  regulating  the  use  of  recycled 
bio-waste on soil, setting minimum quantitative targets for prevention and biological treatment. 

Therefore,  the  objective  of  this  Assessment  is  to  analyze  the  main  environmental,  social  and 
economic  impacts  of  different  policy  options  to  move  towards  optimal  bio-waste  management  at 
EU level.  

EN 

20 

   EN 

Various levels of ambition of the application of the waste hierarchy will be assessed and compared 
to a "baseline scenario" (without additional action at EU level) in order to identify EU targets for 
bio-waste  management  minimizing  costs  while  maximizing  benefits.  As  far  as  possible 
environmental  impacts  will  be  monetized  and  compared  to  the  costs  of  the  analyzed  options.  In 
order  to  meet  EU  objectives  for  bio-waste  management,  the  use  of  different  possible  policy 
instruments will be assessed.  

5. 

BASELINE SCENARIO 

A  baseline  scenario  was  constructed  in  order  to  assess  the  expected  consequences  of  already 
decided and planned policies without additional European initiative. The analysis has been limited 
to the "foreseeable future", i.e. until 2020.  

5.1. 

Main assumptions 

Even if the issue of bio-waste management cuts across many policy areas the legislation which will 
have a predominant impact on bio-waste management up to 2020 are the Landfill Directive and the 
revised Waste Framework Directive. The potential impacts of both pieces of legislations should be 
clearly distinguished.  

The Landfill Directive has potential important consequences, especially for Member States which 
have  heavily  relied  upon  landfilling  as  a  method  of  waste  disposal.  Its  implementation  in  these 
Member  States  will  require  significant  diversions  of  waste  flows  combined  with  an  upgrading  of 
alternative waste management systems in line with the WFD within the coming years. 

The  question  whether  the  countries  which  still  rely  heavily  on  landfilling  will  meet  the  landfill 
diversion  targets  within  the  deadlines  set  by  the  Directive  was  raised  during  the  consultation 
processes. It was however seen as a separate issue of non-compliance with the existing acquis that 
may need to be addressed eventually by the appropriate means of enforcement.  

In  the  framework  of  the  present  Assessment,  it  was  assumed  that  all  Member  States  will  comply 
with the Landfill Directive for the following reasons: 

•  The first reduction target for mid-2006 (25% of reduction of biodegradable waste landfilled) has 

been met by the relevant Member States; 

•  During  the  stakeholder  consultation,  no  Member  State  reported  that  it  expected  delays  with 

meeting the targets; 

•  Furthermore,  no  Member  State  has  signalled  to  the  Commission  difficulties  in  achieving  the 

2009/2010 targets in response to a recent enquiry40; 

•  The  enforcement  of  the  existing  legislation  is  already  a  matter  of  priority  for  the  Commission 
and additional new initiatives with the aim to further promote proper implementation are under 
way; 

•  The objective of this Assessment is to assess the added value and the opportunity of a new EU 

initiative in addition to existing policies. 

40 

Response  from  the  Member  States  to  a  Commission  enquire  in  July  2009  regarding  the  Landfill  Directive 
biodegradable waste diversion targets  

EN 

21 

   EN 

                                                 
Concerning the application of the Waste Framework Directive, the efforts of the Member States 
to apply in practice the “waste hierarchy” principles are supposed to be reflected in their National 
waste  management  plans.  These  plans  have  been  used  as  a  source  of  information  for  the 
construction of the baseline scenario (section 5.2.2).  

It was assumed that no major technological breakthrough will occur in the next 10 years and that 
the composition of municipal waste as well as bio-waste will remain stable over the period of the 
exercise which is in line with the results of the stakeholder consultations. 

In  order  to  construct  the  baseline  and  the  alternative  scenarios,  it  was  necessary  to  make 
assumptions  on  several  parameters  not  or  insufficiently  known.  These  uncertainties  and  their 
potential implications in terms of policy development are presented and discussed in section 8.1.2.4. 

5.2. 

Construction of the baseline scenario  

For  the  construction  of  the  baseline  scenario  information  on  the  generation  and  composition  of 
municipal waste as well as on the household waste collection and treatment was gathered.  

5.2.1. 

Bio-waste generation and composition 

For each Member State, an estimate of the future generation of municipal waste was made on the 
basis  of  the  actual  (2006)  generation  and  demographic  and  economic  development  evolutions41. 
Some degree of decoupling between GDP and waste generation was introduced depending on the 
economic welfare. A summary of the assumptions taken is given in Annex 4.  

5.2.2. 

Collection coverage, needed and planned treatment capacities 

For  each  Member  State,  the  projections  of  waste  generation  were  compared  to  the  planned 
treatment capacities and to the Landfill Directive targets.  

The  possible  needs  for  additional  capacities  were  calculated  in  such  a  way  that  the  targets  of  the 
Landfill Directive are met. For Member States for which the collection is not ensured for the entire 
population,  additional  assumptions  were  made  on  the  collection  coverage  rate  and  its  evolution 
(Annex 5, Table A5-1).  

The  planned  bio-waste  treatment  capacities  were  identified  on  the  basis  of  the  available  official 
reports such as the national waste management plans and national strategies for the implementation 
of  the  reduction  of  biodegradable  waste  going  to  landfills  which  have  to  be  submitted  to  the 
Commission in line with the requirements of the WFD and the Landfill Directive. 

However, these strategies date back to 2005 and do not cover the EU-12. In addition, the existing 
harmonised  reporting  requirements  are  not  adapted  to  the  data  needs  of  this  assessment.  It  was 
therefore  necessary  for  some  Member  States  to  make  hypotheses  on  the  evolution  of  bio-waste 
treatment  capacities.  This  was  achieved  taking  into  account  policy  preferences  of  these  Member 
States  on  the  basis  of  additional  sources  of  information42.  In  case  of  conflicting  figures,  choices 
were often made on the basis of judgement from the involved experts.  

41 

42 

In order to ensure consistency with other Commission scenarios, economic and demographic projections used 
are based on the "European Energy and Transport – Trends to 2030 – 2007 Update" as published by DG TREN  
Country  Fact  Sheets  of  the  European  Topic  Centre  on  Sustainable  Consumption  and  Production  ETC/SCP, 
reports from national Environment Ministries, waste management Agencies and statistical Agencies 

EN 

22 

   EN 

                                                 
The  first  draft  baseline  scenario  was  sent  for  consultation  to  the  Member  States  and  the  most 
relevant  stakeholders  (Annex  1).  Fourteen  Member  States  answered  and  their  comments  and 
suggestions were taken into account as far as possible. Some countries contested the assumptions 
concerning shares of treatment methods until 2020, however no evidence or alternative data were 
provided. The main results in terms of projected type of bio-waste treatment for each Member State 
are presented in Table 1, Figures 1 and 2, and discussed in section 5.3.  

5.2.3. 

Industrial waste 

The baseline scenario does not include bio-waste from industrial sources such as food processing as 
it was not possible to gather reliable information on industrial bio-waste at EU level. While there 
are some general estimations on the amounts of industrial bio-waste (between 30 Mt to 50 Mt), the 
data  is  generally  scarce  and  of  low  quality.  The  analysis  of  case  studies43  demonstrated  that  this 
waste is usually reused or recycled within agriculture and related industries e.g. as animal feed. The 
case studies are showing that the quality of this waste is stable which allows its re-use or recycling 
in good economic and safety conditions. The interest of the concerned industries is to reduce and re-
use or recycle as far as possible their bio-waste.  

For these reasons, bio-waste from industrial sources was excluded from all detailed scenarios with 
the exception of setting compost/digestate standards.  

5.3. 

Analysis of the baseline scenario 

5.3.1. 

Bio-waste generation  

Figure 1 show the expected evolution of bio-waste generation within the next 10 years. The amount 
of bio-waste generated is expected to rise rather slowly - from 87.7 Mt to 96.4 Mt, a 10% increase. 
The growth in EU-12 will be more pronounced - from 12.9 to 18 Mt, a 40% growth, but in 2020 the 
EU-12  will  still  be  responsible  for  only  a  small  part  of  bio-waste  generated  in  the  EU  (18.5%). 
Projected bio-waste generation per Member State is given in Annex 4, Table A4-3. Differences are 
expected between Member States which is mainly due to socio-economic parameters.  

43 

Notably in Belgium and Lithuania, source: Arcadis/Eunomia  

EN 

23 

   EN 

                                                 
Bio-waste generation

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

s
e
n
n
o
t
n
o

i
l
l
i

M

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

EU 27 EU 15 EU 12

Figure 1: Baseline scenario – projected bio-waste generation 2008 - 2020 

5.3.2. 

Bio-waste management  

Concerning bio-waste management, as shown in Figure 2, the amounts 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 the following treatment techniques: 

Composting: from 18.7 Mt in 2008 to 27.6 Mt in 2020, expected increase of 48%; 

Incineration: from 17.4 Mt in 2008 to 22.6 Mt in 2020, expected increase of 29.5%; 

Mechanical and biological treatment  (MBT): from 11.2  Mt in 2008 to  22.8 Mt  in 2020, expected 
increase of 103%; 

Anaerobic digestion (AD): from 1.5 Mt in 2008 to 6.9 Mt in 2020, increase of 349%; 

Home composting: from 0.7 Mt in 2008 to 1.6 Mt in 2020, increase of 148%. 

EN 

24 

   EN 

 
 
Bio-waste management

s
e
n
n
o
t
n
o

i
l
l
i

M

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Home composting Anaerobic Digestion Composting MBT

Incineration

Landfill

I

Figure 2: Baseline scenario – projected evolution of bio-waste treatment 2008-2020 (EU-27) 

5.3.3. 

Implementation of existing legislation 

As  detailed  in  section  5.1,  the  baseline  scenario  has  been  constructed  assuming  that  all  Member 
States will comply with the diversion targets of the Landfill Directive. The targets set in the Landfill 
Directive refer to the diversion of biodegradable waste from landfills but do not prescribe specific 
treatment options. In practice, for various reasons, Member States are often inclined to choose the 
seemingly easiest and cheapest option of landfilling disregarding the actual environmental benefits 
and costs.  

Table 1 clearly shows that for some Member States this will require either no effort or limited effort 
although  for  other  Member  States  significant  actions  have  to  be  taken  in  the  coming  years.  For 
example,  Member  States  such  as  AT,  DK,  DE  and  SE  will  landfill  no  bio-waste  waste  by  2020 
whereas other Member States such as PL, BU, CY, CZ; EE and FR will have to make significant 
efforts to divert bio-waste into options other than incineration and landfill.  

EN 

25 

   EN 

 
 
Table 1: Baseline scenario – projected evolution of bio-waste treatment 2008-2020 (Tonnes - EU-27)  

Landfill

Incineration

MBT

Composting

Anaerobic Digestion

Home composting

Not collected

2008

0

818.810

239.055

129.975

2020 

0 

2008

514.419

374.145 

0 

0 

624.020

32.904 

0 

1.086.967

298.450 

120.774

0

263.860

722.931

0 

712.731

22.400 

0 

2020

513.565

427.595

741.061

59.825

373.062

849.407

88.580

2008

210.115

0

26.508

0

0

0

0

0

2020

180.442

267.247

21.940

56.834

2008

2020 

2008

2020

2008

2020

2008

2020

432.432

498.932 

136.136

195.660

232.232

283.707

0

27.976

142.532 

0

0

6.141

61.085

54.442

1.034.898

992.451 

78.603

216.759

95.410

192.586

0

25.070 

572.028

63.565

602.638 

0

554.403

634.021 

130.055

31.277

90.852 

0

0

0

0

0

66.960

0

0

0

0

5.600

26.643

400.466 

30.122

197.244

0

193.284

195.252 

19.116

183.298

6.574.986

3.511.501 

4.542.718

4.389.376

836.816

3.072.563

498.105

2.090.179

0

0

0

0 

5.263.551

5.282.749

3.226.048

3.237.814

7.640.639

6.816.450

848.960

1.704.113

1.733.523

402.417 

8.755

HU 

770.547

557.651 

107.095

429.847

32.107 

0 

10.318

123.087

288.966

8.755

77.485

20.255

1.650.943

0

229.298 

417.009

321.073

493.353

763.986 

84.950

333.916 

0

0

0

0

0

143.399

233.440

0

192.644

34.698

115.586

142.437

3.492.523

1.353.146 

825.505

579.920

2.032.013

1.288.711

1.508.135

3.382.866

79.376

1.449.800

171.885

404.444

30.938

60.852

89.318 

165.987 

32.282 

7.502 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0

105.628

1.699

0

0

0

0

0

165.876

105.628

0

0

88.780

47.689

96.245 

142.275 

0

0

0

0

52.380 

9.768

10.728

67.518

0

0 

0

0

220.527

206.474 

1.019.937

954.944

137.829

129.047

1.258.030

1.214.471

66.212

362.764

2.560.373

852.096 

14.800

1.503.699

384.796

2.656.535

0

954.729 

0

0

1.236.964

260.066 

436.576

715.182

145.525

650.165

1.870.129

915.135 

0 

0

405.908

228.225

156.607 

117.844

202.284

63.793 

37.991

81.655

11.092

0

0

2.353.203

293.638

109.724

46.133

93.000

21.823

30.812

216.722 

10.127

46.440

547.836 

223.724 

137.401 

0

0

0

0

0

0

3.419

0

33.370

38.936

19.924

0

0

0

0

13.124

19.401

0

14.289

0

0

46.440

55.931

0

0

0

0

0

27.981

0

0

0

152.264

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

74.705

2.043.257

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

96.686

3.682

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

AT 

BG 

BE 

CY 

CZ 

DK 

EE 

FI 

FR 

DE 

EL 

IE 

IT 

LV 

LT 

LU 

MT 

NL 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SK 

SI 

ES 

SE 

4.643.828

3.437.250 

928.766

1.580.633

3.715.062

3.345.256

259.077

1.379.918

219.971

418.157

9.776

292.710

38.300

0 

1.212.825

1.177.910

25.533

24.039

465.313

512.832 

62.880

160.260

100.608

128.208

UK 

7.603.448

1.949.870 

884.122

2.304.391

353.649

1.654.435

3.785.305

5.344.087

3.789

1.877.652

0

0

EU 

35.738.844

15.121.568 

17.402.551

22.552.781

11.211.481

22.771.721

18.658.979

27.621.062

1.534.937

6.885.235

654.508

1.626.861

2.517.066

3.682

EN 

26 

EN 

 
  
 
As  follows  from  table  1  such  Member  States  have  very  little  composting  or  anaerobic 
digestion and instead heavily reply on landfill and incineration. This may require significant 
changes in the national waste management systems related to bio-waste, including setting up 
separate  collection  schemes  or  sorting  systems,  developing  infrastructure  for  incineration, 
composting and anaerobic digestion. For example, to implement the diversion targets of the 
Landfill Directive, Poland will have to divert almost 5 million tonnes of bio-waste generated 
in 2020 from landfills. This includes directing 1.5 million tonnes of bio-waste to incineration, 
mechanical-biological treatment of 2.5 million tonnes of bio-waste and composting of around 
1 million tonnes.  

However,  there  is  no  systematic  need  to  build  new  waste  management  facility  at  national 
level:  Member  States  are  allowed  to  cooperate  with  other  Member  States  to  establish  a 
network  of  municipal  (including  bio-  waste  disposal  or  recovery  operations  (Art.  16  of  the 
Waste Framework Directive). 

The preferred options for each Member State assumed in the baseline scenario are supposed 
to represent the plans of the Member States for future bio-waste management. These choices 
which  were  broadly  confirmed  during  the  stakeholder  consultation  (section  5.3.2)  are  not 
necessarily the least cost or the easiest option to follow: for instance the expected increase in 
composting and anaerobic digestion implies the organization of additional separate collection 
and the construction of new infrastructures.  

As  regards  the  application  of  the  waste  hierarchy  by  the  Member  States,  as  there  are  no 
quantitative objectives for the concrete application of the hierarchy, it is not possible to assess 
the impact of the full application of the hierarchy by each Member State. Nevertheless, Table 
1 gives some indications on how the hierarchy can be reasonably expected to be applied by 
2020. 

In summary, a group of more advanced Member States are expected to apply the hierarchy to 
a  large  extent:  landfill  is  already  either  abandoned  (AT,  DE,  DK)  or  will  be  abandoned  by 
2020 (BE, SE), recycling by composting or digestion is expected to increase in a significant 
proportion. On the contrary, some Member States are still heavily relying on landfills for the 
management of bio-waste. For those countries no additional progresses in the application of 
the  hierarchy  are  expected  beyond  what  is  strictly  necessary  to  meet  the  Landfill  Directive 
targets.  

The projections on bio-waste generation are mainly linked with socio-economic parameters. It 
has indeed not been possible to identify national ambitious and effective strategies to prevent 
municipal  bio-waste  production.  This  means  that  the  first  “pillar”  of  the  waste  hierarchy 
(prevention) is not expected to be applied by most of the Member States. Therefore a part of 
the expected gains will be off-set by a rising amount of bio-waste generated. 

5.3.4. 

Conclusions 

In  conclusion,  the  baseline  scenario  shows  that  the  proper  implementation  of  the  Landfill 
Directive is expected to improve significantly bio-waste management at European level. This 
will require different levels of effort from the Member States (from significant to no efforts). 
A  clear  margin  of  progress  towards  the  application  of  the  waste  hierarchy  still  remains 
unexploited  for  all  Member  States  notably  as  more  efforts  on  prevention  and  recycling  of 
good quality (composting and digestion of bio-waste) could be done. These margins will be 
further analysed through the development of alternative scenarios (section 6.2). The projected 

EN 

27 

   EN 

 
increase of compost production also shows the necessity to set up compost standards which 
will increase confidence in the product and the development of the related market. 

6. 

POLICY OPTIONS 

A first comprehensive attempt to analyse and set  up policy options  for biodegradable waste 
management  was  made  in  200444.  The  recommended  policy  option  included  setting  quality 
criteria for compost and allowing Member States to set their own national recycling targets. 
Compared  to  2004,  the  present  analysis  includes  the  assessment  of  the  situation  in  the  new 
Member States and an update of the EU-15 situation. 

6.1. 

Rejected options  

6.1.1. 

Proportionality 

This analysis is limited to options directly linked with bio-waste management. On the basis of 
the  principle  of  proportionality,  possible  changes  in  the  following  policies  were  not 
considered: 

•  climate change policies e.g. by the introduction of waste management into ETS; 

•  taxation policies e.g. by taxation of landfill or other disposal of bio-waste; 

•  renewable energy policies. 

In all the abovementioned options, as the issue of bio-waste management would account for a 
relatively limited part of the changes, it seems disproportionate to modify these instruments in 
order to meet part the objectives detailed in section 4.  

For instance, bio-waste is a limited fraction from the point of view of the ETS. Therefore the 
additional  costs  –  notably  the  administrative  costs  -  of  introducing  bio-waste  into  ETS 
appeared disproportionate compared to the potential benefits.  

As explained in section 3.1, improving bio-waste management could contribute to meeting the 
targets defined in other European policies such as renewable energy and non ETS emissions.  

Landfill  related  taxes  are  used  in  many  European  countries  today,  but  are  very  country-
specific. Experience shows that the harmonisation of these taxes at EU level is very likely to 
result in low level of taxes adjusted to different national contexts and priorities. 

6.1.2.  Other rejected options 

The options below were analysed but were not shortlisted for a detailed Assessment.  

•  Introduction  of  a  total  ban  on  landfilling  of  bio-waste  or  extension  of  the  current 
limitations.  Such  a  ban  is  considered  as  disproportionate  compared  to  the  objectives 
detailed in section 4. The current targets in the Landfill Directive still allow landfilling of 
35% of biodegradable waste after 2016 which would allow the Member States still heavily 

44 

"Preliminary Impact Assessment for an Initiative on the Biological Treatment of Biodegradable Waste" 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/compost/pdf/ia_biowaste_Directive_report.pdf  

EN 

28 

   EN 

 
                                                 
relying  on  landfills  to  meet  the  targets  progressively.  Moreover,  as  shown  by  experience 
and in the analysis of the baseline scenario (section 5) such a ban alone is unlikely to direct 
diverted waste to optimal treatment.  

•  Setting  a  limit  for  the  amount  of  bio-waste  in  municipal  residual  waste.  This  option 
was suggested during the stakeholder consultation45. Even if potentially interesting it was 
rejected as it will require costly monitoring and enforcement systems. Targets on separate 
collection  or  recycling  seem  to  offer  similar  results  but  perform  better  as  they  allow  for 
more flexibility. 

•  Voluntary  agreements  would  need  to  be  concluded  with  counterpart  organisations 
representing  the relevant market  actors and which can enter into long-term commitments 
on their behalf. As currently there is no such agreement or organisation able to guarantee 
self-regulation on that issue, the option has been abandoned.  

6.1.3.  Options analysed but not developed into scenarios 

The  options  listed  below  have  not  been  developed  into  scenarios  due  to  challenges  with 
setting clear and measurable objectives.  

•  Introduction  of  differentiated  recycling  targets.  This  option  proposed  setting  national 
recycling targets which would take into account differences between Member States, e.g. 
their  soil  situation,  demand  on  quality  compost,  geographical  and  climatic  conditions, 
population  density.  However,  it  was  concluded  that  setting  acceptable  and  objective 
criteria for such differentiation would require disproportionate efforts in practice.  

•  Differentiation  according  to  a  time  schedule  (derogation  for  specific  countries)  was  also 
rejected  as  a  standalone  option  as  it  was  not  expected  to  deliver  significantly  different 
results than the options pre-selected for full assessment.  

•  Setting  GHG  targets  instead  of  recycling  targets.  While  this  option  seemed  to  be 
attractive, especially as it enables a more flexible approach, it was rejected since the setting 
of  a  GHG  based  target  could  lead  to  disregarding  other  environmental  benefits  of  the 
treatment of bio-waste. This option should be further reviewed in the future, starting with 
the  definition  of  appropriate  specific  objectives.  Nevertheless,  it  has  been  decided  to 
include  certain  elements  of  this  option  in  a  variant  of  the  scenario  analyzed  in  this 
Assessment with the aim of assessing solutions maximizing GHG savings. 

6.1.4.  Non-regulatory measures 

•  Awareness  raising  instruments  and  public  procurement  policy  were  both  regarded  as 
necessary  but  insufficient  as  standalone  measures  to  meet  the  objectives  as  defined  in 
section  4.  Meeting  these  objectives  will  indeed  require  a  modification  of  the  current  and 
foreseen  bio-waste  management  practices  which  could  not  be  achieved  only  with  these 
instruments.  Nevertheless  these  instruments  should  be  considered  at  local  level  when 
implementing potential legislation.  

45 

By European Environmental Bureau (association of environmental NGOs) 

EN 

29 

   EN 

 
                                                 
•  National  targets  (i.e.  set  nationally  by  Member  States)  could  also  offer  a  positive 
contribution to improved bio-waste management. Such national targets would ensure that a 
certain fraction  of  bio-waste is biologically treated.  Compared to EU mandatory separate 
collection  or  recycling  targets,  the  setting  of  national  targets  would  offer  a  more  flexible 
approach  for  individual  Member  States  in  framing  their  specific  strategies  for  bio-waste 
management.  However,  the  achievement  of  such  targets  would  be  uncertain  and  rely  on 
Member  States  willingness.  Parts  of  this  option  are  already  included  in  the  baseline 
scenario  as  possible  elements  of  national  implementation  strategies  of  the  Landfill  and 
Waste Framework Directives.  

Non-inclusion  of  non-regulatory  measures  in  the  detailed  assessment  does  not  exclude  their 
future  use  as  they  may  effectively  support  other  legislative  instruments.  For  example, 
regulatory measure could be successfully accompanied by awareness raising measures.  

6.2. 

Options shortlisted for scenario analysis 

Any EU initiative on bio-waste should take into account local/regional specific conditions as 
much  as  possible.  The  options  selected  for  further  analysis  therefore  meet  the  following 
criteria: 

•  Allow Member States as much flexibility as possible in the selection of waste management 

systems;  

•  Do not hinder further technological development in bio-waste treatment.  

6.2.1.  General assumptions for all scenarios 

Taking  into  account  that  bio-waste  management  strategies  are  quite  different  from  one 
Member State to another, the following assumptions have been made: 

•  No modifications compared to the baseline scenario will occur before 2013; 

•  Each scenario assumes an interim target corresponding to 40% of the final target by 2017. 

Progress towards the targets will be linear;  

•  10%46  of  the  separately  collected  waste  sent  to  anaerobic  digestion  and  5%  of  the  waste 

sent to composting becomes a residue and is landfilled; 

•  Green  waste  separately  collected  in  addition  to  the  baseline  will  be  treated  by  in-vessel 

composting;  

•  The setting of compost standards is an element of each scenario and implies in practice the 
organisation of separate collection to ensure the quality of the compost/digestate produced;  

•  In cases where for some "advanced" Member States the baseline scenario performs better 
than an alternative scenario, the baseline scenario is maintained for the calculation of the 
impacts.  

46 

Average ratio in the EU composting and AD plants – source: Arcadis/Eunomia  

EN 

30 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The  necessity  of  organizing  separate  collection  of  bio-waste  to  ensure  the  quality  of  the 
compost produced has been confirmed during the stakeholder consultation and by the "return" 
on experiences from projects on composting based on mixed collection. Separate collection is 
therefore considered a pre-requisite before envisaging more ambitious objectives in terms of 
biological  treatment.  Four  scenarios  representing  an  increased  level  of  ambition  in  the 
application  of  the  waste  hierarchy  principles  were  analysed  in  detail,  the  main  assumptions 
used are summarised in Table 2. Figure 3 illustrates the gradation of the different scenarios in 
term  of  environmental  ambition.  In  addition  to  these  four  scenarios,  another  qualitative 
scenario  has  been  analysed  in  order  to  assess  the  added  value  of  EU  common  compost 
standards (scenario 1).  

The  selection  of  the  boundary  conditions  for  scenarios  has  been  done  on  the  basis  of  the 
experiences of Member States with separate collection.  

The levels set in scenarios 2 and 2A reflect the most advanced performance of projects in the 
leading Member States. It corresponds to the separate collection and biological treatment of 
90% of garden waste and 60% of kitchen waste – or an average of 66% of all bio-waste. 

The  levels  set  in  scenarios  3  and  3A  represent  the  midpoint  between  the  current  EU  27 
weighted  average  of  biological  treatment  (19%)  and  the  rate  in  the  most  advanced  Member 
State  (DK  with  54%  of  separate  collection).  This  calculated  midpoint  amounts  to  36.5%, 
meaning in practice that all Member States currently below this target are supposed to meet it 
by 2020. For the other Member States which are expected to exceed this minimum target in 
2020, no modification has been introduced compared to the baseline scenario.  

Baseline scenario 

Scenario 3 : moderate 
biological treatment 

Scenario 2: prevention and 
high biological treatment 

Prevention  -  waste  generation 
2008-2020 

10% increase of waste 
generation between 2008 
and 2020 

No prevention - same 
amount of waste generated 
as in the baseline 

Compared to the baseline, 
reduction of 3% by 2017 
and 7,5% by 2020 

Compost standards  

No EU standards 

New EU standards 

New EU standards 

Biological treatment in 2020  

37.5% (average at EU 27 
level – no minimum 
target per MS) 

36,5% as minimum in all 
Member States  

66% (90% garden waste 
and 60% food waste) 

Interim target in 2017 

40% of 2020 target 

40% of 2020 target 

Variant - scenario 2A and 3A 

Kitchen waste separately 
collected treated in AD 

Kitchen waste separately 
collected treated in AD 

Table 2: Comparison of the main assumptions used for each scenario 

EN 

31 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
Definition of the Scenario's

Baseline Scenario

Scenario 1

Scenario 3 

Scenario 3 A

Scenario 2

Scenario 2 A 

Increased level of ambition 

Baseline Compost Standards Composting 

AD 

Prevention

Figure 347: Scenario definition and level of ambition  

6.2.2.  Scenario 1: Set compost standards only 

This option includes setting quality standards for compost produced from bio-waste in order 
to  facilitate  trade,  eliminate  potential  risks  of  soil  contamination,  improve  compost  markets 
and  enhance  customers'  confidence.  Compost  standards  represent  a  valuable  quality 
framework within which other policy measures can more successfully be enacted.  

6.2.3.  Scenarios  2  and  2A:  Compost  standards  +  high  biological  treatment  rates  +  waste 

prevention 

These  two  scenarios  assume  setting  ambitious  prevention  and  biological  treatment  for  bio-
waste. Successful implementation of these targets necessitates efforts to promote prevention 
and the implementation of comprehensive systems for separate collection of bio-waste from 
both household and commercial sources on the national level.  

Separate  collection  schemes  and  further  composting  or  anaerobic  digestion  of  bio-waste 
would cover a majority of households and be organised either through kerbside door-to-door 
collection,  a  bring-in  system  on  communal  amenity  sites,  or  through  access  to  tools  for 
monitored and structured home composting. 

Only  composting  or  digestion  of  source  separated  bio-waste  as  well  as  “controlled  home 
composting” is considered as "biological treatment" in these scenarios in order to guarantee 
the quality of compost. Practical capture rates would be around 60% of food waste and 90% 
of  garden  waste  (average  of  66%  for  all  bio-waste).  A  target  for  prevention  of  7.5%48  is 
defined for 2020 with an interim objective of 3% in 2017.  

47 

48 

This graphic is illustrative based on a qualitative approach. It aims at summarizing the scenario which 
were assessed in the Assessment  
This  target  has  been  fixed  on  the  basis  of  the  results  of  existing  prevention  programmes  launched  at 
local level – references: WRAP and ACR+  

EN 

32 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
Scenario 2A is based on almost identical assumptions as scenario 2. The sole difference is that 
while  scenario  2  maximizes  the  overall  total  benefit  for  society,  scenario  2A  maximizes 
environmental  gains  by  choosing  the  system  leading  to  the  greatest  reduction  in  GHG 
emissions.  In  practice,  it  means  that  in  scenario  2A  food  waste  is  subject  to  anaerobic 
digestion  even  in  countries  for  which  the  more  economic  solution  would  be  an  in-vessel 
composting. 

6.2.4.  Scenarios 3 and 3A: Compost standards + moderate biological treatment rates 

The main difference between these scenarios and scenarios 2 and 2A is the absence of waste 
prevention  targets  and  a  much  less  ambitious  level  of  obligatory  separate  collection  and 
biological treatment - separate collection and biological treatment at 30% for food waste and 
70% for garden waste (average of 45% on all bio-waste).  

Scenario 3A is based on almost identical assumptions as scenario 3 but while in scenario 3 the 
total  benefits  for  society  are  maximized,  in  scenario  3A  the  GHG  emission  reduction  are 
maximized. This is similar as for scenarios 2 and 2A. 

6.3.  Scenarios comparison and modelling 

Taking  into  account  the  above  assumptions,  a  model  was  developed  in  order  to  assess  the 
impacts of each scenario. The results of this comparison are presented in section 8. 

The model used for assessing the impacts of the scenarios is based on a "optimal" approach at 
society  level:  in  order  to  meet  a  certain  ambition  level  in  terms  of  biological  treatment,  the 
solution  offering  the  best  cost/benefit  ratio  at  society  level  for  the  treatment  of  bio-waste  is 
searched country by country. On this basis, an analysis of how the waste streams will change 
in comparison to the baseline scenario was conducted. It allowed making estimations on how 
much  waste  has  to  be  diverted  from  landfilling,  incineration  and  MBT  in  order  to  meet  the 
pre-defined targets as fixed in the  different  scenarios.  It  is  assumed  that,  for  each  country  a 
switch  will  be  made  into  the  most  effective  biological  treatment  option  which  depends  on 
country specific data. 

The environmental and economic impacts were calculated for each treatment method in each 
Member State. As detailed in section 7, the impacts of the treatment methods were estimated 
in  detail,  including  energy  used  and  produced,  direct  emissions  to  air  and  GHG,  avoided 
emissions  linked  with  energy  and  compost  used.  Knowing  the  amount  of  waste  moved  into 
biological treatment as well as the differences between the costs and benefits per technology, 
the  result  of  the  “technology  switch”  were  calculated  per  country  for  each  scenario  and 
expressed both in costs and benefits (including a monetization of the environmental impacts) 
and in tonnes of GHG emissions avoided.  

As  explained  above,  it  was  not  possible  to  take  into  account  specific  local  conditions,  e.g. 
outlets  for  compost,  available  city  heating  or  gas  grids  etc.  Country  averages  were  used 
instead.  Therefore,  the  modelling  gives  general  answers  which  are  valid  at  the  EU-27  level 
but  could  not  be  used  as  the  main  tool  for  selecting  waste  management  systems  at  a  local 
level. 

EN 

33 

   EN 

 
7. 

ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS  

7.1.  General description of impacts 

The main impacts of the policy options identified in section 6 are linked to the modification of 
the amount of waste generated and the way it is treated. The impacts are summarized below.  

7.2.  Environmental impacts 

The main environmental impacts are linked to the emissions of GHG, other emissions into the 
air affecting air quality and soil improvement.  

Each  treatment  method  and  waste  collection  system  was  assessed  against  environmental 
impacts which, where possible, were quantified. This evaluation considers direct emissions as 
well  as  how  much  emission  could  be  avoided  by  using  the  energy  and  compost/digestate 
produced.  

The  environmental  impacts  were  assessed  assuming  that  all  installations  are  in  compliance 
with the existing relevant Directives and notably the Landfill, the Waste Incineration and the 
Industrial Emissions Directives49. 

7.2.1.  Direct emissions into the air 

The main emissions for the analysed bio-waste treatment methods are summarised below:  

•  Emissions  from  composting  include  GHG  from  the  decomposition  of  organic  matter 
(however a significant part of this gas remains bound in organic matter), nitrous oxide and 
methane; 

•  Emissions from anaerobic digestion include mainly small amounts of fugitive emissions of 
methane from the installation and emissions of GHG and nitrogen oxide in the process of 
combustion of biogas to generate energy; 

•  Emissions  from  landfilling  include  significant  amounts  of  gases  consisting  of  methane, 
carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxide and ammonia. About 1% of landfill gas is made up of trace 
substances which may include up to 150 often harmful substances. Flaring or combusting 
landfill gas results in carbon dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions; 

•  Incineration  generates  significant  emissions  of  biogenic  (i.e.  regarded  as  carbon  neutral) 
50 as well as a variety of harmful air pollutants including dust and particulate matters, 
CO2
dioxins,  nitrogen  oxide,  sulphur  dioxide,  acids,  carbon  monoxide,  organic  volatile 
compounds and heavy metals. These emissions are assumed to be below the limit values of 
the Incineration Directive.  

49 

50 

Directive  on  Industrial  Pollution  Prevention  and  Control  (IPPC)  1996/61/EC.  This  directive  will  be 
replaced  by  directive  of  Industrial  Emissions  (currently  in  co-decision  process)  which  will  set  up 
operational requirements for large biological treatment plant (above 50t/day) 
see box 2 

EN 

34 

   EN 

 
                                                 
As  detailed  in  Annex  6,  in  quantitative  terms,  the  majority  of  air  pollutants  and  GHG 
emissions  are  emitted  by  landfills,  followed  by  incineration  and  composting.  The  least 
emitting technology is anaerobic digestion. 

7.2.2.  Production and consumption of energy 

As  detailed  in  Annex  7,  the  emissions  linked  to  energy  consumed  and/or  produced  by  each 
process, were also included in the calculation of the impacts:  

•  For composting, no energy generation is envisaged and energy used in the process is rather 

low - electricity and Diesel fuel;  

•  Anaerobic digestion requires electricity to run the process; however generation of biogas 
delivers a surplus of energy. Biogas can be used as an energy source in four different ways: 

–  combusted on the site of the facility in a gas engine and used to generate electricity only; 

–  combusted  on  the  site  of  the  facility  in  a  gas  engine  and  used  to  generate  electricity  and 

heat; 

–  upgraded  (cleaned)  and  used  as  a  vehicle  fuel  (e.g.  for  buses  as  is  currently  the  case  in 

some Member States), replacing Diesel fuel; 

–  upgraded biogas injected into the gas grid, where it replaces natural gas; 

•  Incineration uses energy in the process within the air pollution control system and to start 
the  combustion  process.  This  however  is  by  far  offset  by  the  use  of  energy  generated. 
Depending  on  the  type  of  incinerator,  it  can  produce  only  electricity,  only  heat,  or  both 
(CHP process). 

•  Landfilling requires some electricity to run the plant and Diesel fuel to operate the landfill 
equipment. As capturing of landfill gas is compulsory, it was assumed that 50% of the gas 
is captured on site of which 60% is used to generate electricity. 

The energy generated at a waste treatment facility is regarded as renewable according to the 
methodology used by the IPCC and also laid down in numerous community legislation, such 
as the Renewable Energy Directive, which states that the waste with biological origin can be 
used for producing renewable energy. It is assumed that the energy produced from bio-waste 
replaces the energy which would have been produced from other sources in the given country.  

As detailed in Annex 8 (Table A.8-1 and A.8-2), the energy mix for each country was defined 
on  the  basis  of  ESTAT  data  for  heat  and  electricity  generation.  On  the  basis  of  the  country 
specific energy mix and the related emission factors, the air emissions were estimated.  

In practice it means that electricity produced from waste will allow avoiding a larger amount 
of  air  pollutants  in  countries  like  Poland  or  Estonia  where  more  than  90%  of  electricity 
originates  from  solid  fuels  combustion  emitting  significant  amounts  of  air  pollutants.  The 
situation  would  be  different  in  Austria  which  generates  62%  of  electricity  from  renewable 
sources  or  Sweden  where  47%  of  energy  originates  from  nuclear  sources  and  50%  from 
renewable sources. The energy mixes has been prepared based on country's averages. It could 
be argued that in case marginal source of electricity would be used instead of average - fossil 
fired  power  plant  would  be  substituted  first  -  as  these  plants  generally  have  the  highest 

EN 

35 

   EN 

 
variable cost. No Member State would reduce the production of e.g. hydropower because of 
increased incineration, but rather export (if possible) this surplus electricity abroad. However 
if demand for electricity would rise the electricity for bio-waste would rather supplement than 
substituted  existing  plants.  Nevertheless  changing  this  assumption  would  improve  the 
performances of solutions that substitute electricity, such as incineration and electricity from 
biogas, in the countries relying on fossil fuels. 

7.2.3.  Use of compost/digestate on soil 

Environmental advantages of using compost on  soil are quite difficult to quantify. Due to a 
loss of water and gases during composting the mass of compost produced is equal to 50% of 
bio-waste  collected  and  slightly  lower  for  anaerobic  digestion.  Similarly  as  in  the  case  of 
energy,  most  of  these  environmental  impacts  were  re-calculated  into  avoided  air  and  GHG 
emissions (Annex 9).  

This  is  for  instance  the  case  for  benefits  from  the  use  of  compost  on  soil  linked  to  the 
substitution  of  alternative  nutrient  sources  otherwise  applied  through  the  use  of  synthetic 
fertilisers,  including  the  avoided  external  costs  of  fertiliser  manufacture  and  the  avoided 
associated energy use. 

7.2.4.  Environmental impacts not quantified 

In the framework of this assessment, it was not possible to quantify the following impacts: 

•  The  production  of  leachate  and  waste  water  from  all  the  processes  -  composting, 

landfilling, landfilling of incineration residues; 

•  Odour and bio-aerosols from landfilling and composting process as well as other nuisances 

such as insects and vermin; 

•  Estimation  of  the  financial  disamenities  linked  with  living  in  the  vicinity  of  waste 

treatment facilities. 

While  the  data  on  both  the  magnitude  of  disamenities  and  their  possible  valuation  are 
inadequate,  it  is  assumed  that  these  impacts  are  likely  to  be  relatively  small  as  it  has  been 
assumed that all plants are supposed to respect the EU relevant legislation. The risk for soil 
from  the  presence  of  harmful  substances  in compost  was  not  quantified  either,  even  though 
this issue has been recognised by experts e.g. the problem of an accumulation of heavy metals 
in soil51.  

However,  the  application  of  source  segregated  bio-waste  as  well  as  setting  standards  for 
compost and limit values for soils to which it can be applied should adequately address this 
issue.  

51 

EN 

Amlinger,  E.  Favoino,  M.  Pollak,  S.  Peyr,  M.  Centemero  and  V.  Caimi  (2004)  Heavy  metals  and 
organic  compounds  from  wastes  used  as  organic  fertilisers,  Study  on  behalf  of  the  European 
Commission, 
.A.2, 
http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/waste/compost/index.htm  

Directorate-General 

Environment, 

ENV 

36 

   EN 

 
                                                 
7.2.5.  Environmental impacts from changes in waste collection 

The impacts from waste collection are linked to the issues of transport and the related impacts 
like  noise,  congestion,  air  pollution,  climate  change.  A  comparison  of  collection  of  mixed 
waste with separate collection of waste demonstrated that the differences of the environmental 
impacts between various separate collection schemes and a mixed collection system are very 
limited  and  not  relevant  in  the  framework  of  this  analysis52.  Therefore,  the  impacts  from 
waste  collection  have  not  been  taken  into  account  as  they  have  negligible  influence  on  the 
results.  

7.2.6.  Monetization of environmental impacts 

In order to compare environmental impacts between themselves as well to enable comparison 
with economic impacts they were monetized. Basic data used for the monetisation as well as 
an example of monetisation of the environmental impacts for each treatment method for the 
Czech Republic are included in Annex 12.  

Most emissions into air - such as nitrous oxide, sulphur dioxide, particulate matters, ammonia, 
organic  volatile  compounds  -  were  monetised,  using  the  "CAFE"  (Clean  Air  for  Europe) 
benefits database for country specific damage cost (re-calculated into 2009 prices – details are 
give  in  Annex  12).  For  some  pollutants  like  CO2,  dioxins,  mercury,  arsenic  and  lead,  unit 
damage  costs  are  supposed  to  be  constant  across  the  Member  States.  For  instance,  the  unit 
damage cost for CO2 recalculated for 2009 amounts to 23 €/tonne.  

As  a  result  it  was  identified  that  landfilling  is  environmentally  the  least  favourable  option, 
especially due to related GHG emissions (mostly methane). Incineration performs much better 
than  landfilling  but  usually  worse  than  biological  treatment.  Composting  performs  slightly 
better or similar to incineration - also in that case climate change related emissions offset the 
gains from the use of compost. Anaerobic digestion performs best, due to limited emissions 
combined  with  production  of  renewable  energy  and  the  possibility  of  beneficial  use  of  the 
digestate on land. 

It  could  be  noted  that  while  best  available  data  and  assumptions  has  been  used,  all 
monetisation models include unavoidable uncertainties in both the modelling structure and the 
input data, as well as in the issue of the appropriateness of the monetization of the impacts. 
Therefore these conclusions should be treated with care. 

7.3.  Economic impacts  

7.3.1.  Financial cost of waste treatment technologies 

In order to assess the financial impact of the different scenarios, the costs of each treatment 
technology were assessed. Since many factors influencing the financial cost are specific to the 
national  or  even  local  conditions  (cost  of  electricity,  cost  of  labour,  etc.),  unit  costs  were 
evaluated for each Member State and for each technique.  

52 

Source: Arcadis/Eunomia – based on the comparison of the results of several cases studies notably in 
Italy, Slovakia, UK, Germany 

EN 

37 

   EN 

 
                                                 
A summary of the results of  the calculations is given in Annex 1053. The unit cost includes 
annualized  capital  expenditure  (capex),  operational  expenditure  (opex)  and  maintenance 
expenditures  as  well  as  other  specific  costs  or  revenues  (e.g.  revenues  from  sale  of  the 
energy).  The  costs  calculated  do  not  include  taxes  (e.g.  landfill  taxes)  or  subsidies  (e.g. 
subsidies to renewable energies) as the objective is to compare the real cost for the society of 
the various options. 

Figure  4  shows  an  example  of  the  financial  costs  breakdown  for  anaerobic  digestion  where 
biogas is used as vehicle fuel. From the sum of costs - disposal, maintenance, opex and capex 
- the revenues from the sale of energy are subtracted. The financial cost of anaerobic digestion 
with  biogas  used  as  vehicle  fuel  varies  from  47.6  €/tonne  in  Slova kia  to  107  €/tonne  in 
Denmark.  The  financial  costs  for  anaerobic  digestion  with  different  uses  of  biogas  remain 
within the same range.  

As  detailed  in  Annex  10,  financial  costs  of  landfilling  range  from17.2  €/tonne  in  Cyprus  to 
over 38.5 €/tonne in France. France has the highest net cost of landfilling because it has a low 
wholesale  price  of  electricity  and  high  labour  costs,  whereas  in  Cyprus  the  low  net  cost  of 
landfilling is a result of low labour costs and a significantly higher wholesale electricity price.  

The  same  factors  affect  the  costs  of  incineration.  The  financial  cost  of  incineration  ranges 
between  57.9  €/tonne  in  Cyprus   to  104.3  €/tonne  in  France.  For  in-vessel  composting,  the 
differences  between  financial  costs  in  various  Member  States  are  much  lower  than  for  the 
other  waste  treatment  methods  and  vary  between  30  €/tonne  in  Bulgaria  and  41  €/tonne  in 
Denmark. 

53 

Source:  Arcadis/Eunomia.  The  calculations  have  been  achieved  on  the  basis  of  an  in-depth  literature 
review, an analysis of various case studies and when needed, on expert judgment 

EN 

38 

   EN 

 
                                                 
€ 150.0

€ 100.0

€ 50.0

€ 0.0

-€ 50.0

T
A

)
s
r
e
d
n
a

l

F
(

E
B

)
a

i

n
o

l
l

a
W

(

E
B

)
s

l

e
s
s
u
r

B

(

E
B

Disposal Costs

Maintenance

Annulised Capex

Unit Opex (before
revenues etc)

Revenues from
Energy Related
Outputs

G
B

Y
C

Z
C

K
D

I

E F
E

R
F

E
D

L
E

U
H

E

I

T

I

V
L

T
L

U
L

T
M

L
N

L
P

T
P

I

K S
S

S
E

E
S

K
U

O
R

Figure 4: Example of breakdown of financial costs (€/tonne): an aerobic digestion with biogas 
used as a vehicle fuel 

7.3.2.  Cost of separate collection 

The  introduction  of  new  schemes  involves  the  planning  of  new  systems,  their  design,  and 
possibly a tender for a new collection service. This planning phase may incur upfront costs. 
Such costs should not exceed the order of €1 pe r household, and this would be a one-off cost. 
New services generally require additional communication efforts in the preparatory phase for 
the change. 

These  might  be  of  the  order  of  €1-2  per  household  over  and  above  the  ongoing 
communication  efforts.  As  these  costs  are  very  low  compared  to  other  costs  and  cannot  be 
effectively  attributed  to  scenarios  they  were  not  included  in  the  calculations  behind  the 
scenario. 

In  the  context  of  the  preparation  of  the  present  Assessment,  a  review  of  the  available 
information  on  the  running  costs  of  separate  collection  has  been  undertaken54.  Different 
studies  on  the  costs  of  separate  collection  of  several  municipalities  –  including  rural,  semi-
rural and urban areas, spread in representative Member States - have been compared in order 
to try to draw general conclusions for the EU level. The analysis shows that running costs of 
separate collection are mainly influenced by local conditions. According to the analysis, the 
difference  in  financial  costs  between  separate  collection  of  bio-waste  and  the  collection  of 

54 

Arcadis/Eunomia, main report, pages 96 to 113  

EN 

39 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
mixed waste can, if the transition in collection systems is well engineered, be a net reduction 
in  costs  for  separate  collection,  even  taking  into  account  that  separate  collection  is  more 
labour intensive.  

The potential savings are linked with the reduction of the needed collection frequency for the 
remaining  waste  which  requires  expensive  compacting  truck.  Even  in  cases  where  separate 
collection  may  be  more  expensive  than  mixed  waste  collection,  the  savings  on  waste 
treatment should offset this difference. In this Assessment it was assumed that running costs 
of separate collection do not differ from the cost of mixed waste collection. 

7.3.3.  Administrative cost 

In  comparison  to  the  baseline  scenario,  no  additional  significant  administrative  costs  have 
been  identified.  As  detailed  in  section  8.1,  some  additional  administrative  cost  could  be 
expected  if  compost  standards  are  applied  but  these  costs  are  expected  to  be  low  and  not 
directly linked with the implementation of alternative scenarios.  

7.3.4.  Cost comparison of treatment techniques  

An  analysis  of  the  costs  and  benefits  of  switching  from  landfill  and  incineration  into 
biological  treatment  for  the  management  of  bio-waste  shows  significant  potential  savings. 
These  savings  result  either  from  a  reduction  of  the  financial  costs  when  switching  from 
incineration into composting, or an increase of environmental benefits when switching from 
landfills  into  composting  or  incineration  into  anaerobic  digestion.  Tables  showing  the  costs 
and benefits of such switches on country-by-country basis are included in the Annex 11.  

7.4.  Social impacts 

7.4.1.  Involvements of households 

The  implementation  of  the  analyzed  scenarios  will  require  an  increased  involvement  of 
households in prevention and separate collection of bio-waste. The number of inhabitants who 
will be affected will directly depend on the extent of separate collection requirements.  

No  reliable  method  to  monetise  or  even  quantify  this  impact  is  available  due  to  the  large 
number  of  factors  to  be  taken  into  consideration  and  the  lack  of  generally  accepted 
methodologies. Factors like the need of space for additional waste bins for kitchen waste or 
time  spent  on  waste  separation  may  be  valued  very  differently.  Also,  the  willingness  of 
inhabitants to participate in separate collection is difficult to assess even if it is a key issue for 
ensuring the success of separate collection schemes.  

7.4.2.  Effects on employment 

Although data on employment in relation to various waste collection and treatment techniques 
are  rather  scarce,  it  can  be  assumed  that  separate  collection  and  biological  treatment  will 
generally be more labour intensive.  

It was not possible to quantify the differences in terms of job creation between the analyzed 
scenarios due to a lack of detailed data on the labour intensity of each collection and treatment 
method.  Nevertheless,  a  positive  impact  on  job  creation  is  expected  from  the  scenarios 
requiring more separate collection and more biological treatment.  

EN 

40 

   EN 

 
7.4.3.  Effects on workers and neighbours health of bio-waste treatment plants 

Information  about  the  impacts  on  the  health  of  workers  involved  in  waste  collection  and 
treatment  is  limited.  Available  studies  deliver  contradictory  results  on  the  possible 
degradation  of  health  conditions  of  workers  dealing  with  municipal  waste  collection  and 
treatment55. Therefore, no firm conclusion on such impacts can be made based on the current 
state of knowledge. 

The  analysis  performed  for  this  Assessment  is  focused  on  the  issue  whether  separate 
collection and treatment of bio-waste can increase health risks in comparison to collection and 
treatment of mixed waste. The information found suggests that no significant change in terms 
of  health  risks  for  workers  as  a  result  of  the  increased  separate  collection  of  the  bio-waste 
fraction56 could be expected. Larger composting and digestion plants will be covered by the 
new Directive  on  Industrial Emissions57, meaning that they will be operated on the basis of 
the "best available techniques" concept.  

7.5. 

Impacts on the specific group of stakeholders 

It  is  expected  that  the  Member  States  potentially  most  affected  by  a  possible  new  initiative 
favouring  the  biological  treatment  of  bio-waste  will  be  those  heavily  relying  on  landfilling 
(UK,  GR,  ES,  IE,  PT,  EU-12)  or  those  meeting  the  targets  of  the  Landfill  Directive  with 
operations other than recycling and recovery (FR, DK, SE).  

The  groups  most  intensely  affected  by  a  potential  new  initiative  favouring  biological 
treatment would include: 

•  Administration from local to national level especially the authorities responsible for waste 
management  as  increasing  the  biological  treatment  of  bio-waste  would  require  an 
adaptation of the collection and treatment systems;  

•  Citizens who would be required to make additional prevention and waste separation efforts 
and  depending  on  the  results  of  these  efforts,  make  savings  or  pay  more  for  waste 
management; 

•  Compost  users  such  as  farmers  who  would  be  offered  compost  of  good  quality  in  larger 

quantities;  

•  Landfill operators as new obligations on the management of bio-waste may further divert 
this waste from landfilling (i.e. beyond the diversion targets of the Landfill Directive);  

•  Bio-waste  management  companies  in  terms  of  business  opportunities,  new  jobs  and 

increased market share; 

55 

56 

57 

Harrison,  E.  Z., 2007.  Compost Air  Emissions Health  Studies  - A  Summary  of  the  literature,  Cornell 
Waste Management Institute, US, http://cwmi.css.cornell.edu/composthealth.pdf  
See  e.g.  Neumann,  H.-D.,  1999.  Arbeitschutz  bei  Müllwerkern  unter  dem  Aspekt  von  Schimmelpilz- 
und  Gefahrstoffbelastung,  In:  Gallenkemper,  B.  et  al  (Hrsg):  6.  Münsteraner  Abfalltage.  Münsteraner 
Schriften zur Abfallwirtschaft Band 2, Münster 1999. "The biowaste collection personal is exposed to 
the  same  low  level  microorganisms  (1*104  to  5*105  Colony  Forming  Units  CFU/m³)  like  for  mixed 
waste collection (3*104 to 2*105 CFU/m³). No special risk can be concluded" (Neumann 1999).  
Replacing current IPPC directive (1996/61/EC) 

EN 

41 

   EN 

 
                                                 
•  Waste  incinerators:  the  removal  of  bio-waste  which  could  have  been  incinerated  may 
negatively influence the income of the sector. On the other hand, the elimination of the wet 
fraction  with  low  energy  value  should  increase  the  energy  efficiency  of  incineration. 
Therefore, it can be expected that the incinerators designed to treat low calorific waste will 
be  forced  to  reduce  the  amounts  of  waste  treated  while  incinerators  able  to  treat  high 
calorific fuel will be in a favourable position. 

•  In the longer term it should lead to higher energy efficiency on the incineration market. In 
Member States with a high incineration capacity, it is expected that the liberated capacity 
will draw other waste streams towards incineration. In order to counter this trend, it may be 
necessary  to  limit  the  incineration  capacity  e.g.  by  not  replacing  incinerators  which  have 
reached the end of their lifetime;  

•  The  waste  collection  and  treatment  industry  should  generally  benefit  from  new  business 
opportunities related to new or widened collection systems and broadening of the recovery 
market.  The  more  ambitious  separate  collection  targets  are  set  (scenarios  2  and  2A),  the 
wider market possibilities will be for the waste management sector; 

•  Equipment makers will profit from increased demand.  

Due  to  the  comparatively  small  amount  of  compost  produced,  no  major  loss  of  business  is 
expected for producers of materials which may be partly replaced by compost - peat, mineral 
fertilizers,  soil  improver  and  growing  media58  even  if  the  exact  scope  of  influence  on  these 
markets cannot be precisely assessed. 

7.6.  Cost of prevention and possible impacts from waste prevention  

A potential for preventing bio-waste  exists  mainly  in  the  area  of food waste. It is crucial to 
encourage  households  to  see  the  potential  savings.  For  instance,  in  the  UK  households 
typically loose around €500 annually on  avoidable food waste59. This financial loss is coupled 
with  the  costs  to  municipalities  (and  hence  to  households)  of  collecting  and  treating  this 
waste.  

Waste  prevention  could  imply  a  modification  in  consumer  behaviour.  Important  changes 
could  include  a  better  “management”  of  food  in  households,  better  targeted  purchasing 
decisions ("buy what is needed"), more attention and better information about to the periods 
of product validity. Such measures would clearly not aim at reducing the Consumer's freedom 
of choice.  

It is difficult to precisely estimate the costs of activities which could lead to waste prevention. 
While the examples of possible actions are available (e.g. information campaigns, food banks, 
etc60),  it  is  problematic  to  attribute  the  cost  to  the  results.  In  any  case,  it  seems  prudent  to 
assume that education campaigns aiming at food waste reduction or improving the gardening 
will  cost  only  a  small  percentage  (10%  according  to  expert  judgement61)  of  the  potential 
savings resulting from prevented waste.  

58 
59 

60 
61 

"Growing media" is material used to culture plants as a replacement of soil (especially in horticulture) 
Source: "The Food We Waste" report for the "Waste Resources Action Programme (WRAP) – UK" – 
April 2008 
More information is available at: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/prevention/practices.htm  
Source: Arcadis/Eunomia – page 85, main report  

EN 

42 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Therefore,  in  the  context  of  the  present  Assessment,  knowing  that  there  are  uncertainties 
around the precise costs and benefits of prevention actions, it has been assumed that no direct 
financial  benefits  could  be  attributed  to  prevention  actions  except  those  strictly  due  to  the 
reduction of the quantities of waste to be treated.  

Given  the  significant  potential  savings  for  households  that  have  been  established  by  some 
national  investigations,  the  present  approach  of  considering  neither  costs  nor  direct  benefits 
for prevention actions is assumed to be very prudent in the context of this global analysis. It 
therefore appears reasonable to assume on the basis of available data that prevention actions 
should be favoured.  

8. 

COMPARISONS OF SCENARIOS 

8.1.  Assessment of impacts of the different scenarios 

8.1.1.  Scenario 1 - only compost standards 

On  the  basis  of  the  results  of  the  stakeholder  consultation,  it  has  been  concluded  that  the 
optimal approach would aim at setting two standards: one to define the minimum quality for 
compost that has completed the recovery process and can be traded as a product, and another 
one setting minimum requirements for the spreading of not completely recovered material on 
soil. The advantages of setting standards include:  

•  Strengthening the market by setting a level playing field for compost and related products - 
soil improvers, growing media - in the EU: cross boarder trade of compost is limited in the 
EU  (e.g.  export  from  Belgium  and  the  Netherlands  accounted  for  around  4.5%  of  the 
annual  production  of  compost  in  these  countries62).  However  this  trade  faces  obstacles 
resulting  from  different  compost  standards.  Most  Member  States  have  set  their  own 
standards for high quality compost to distinguish it from waste. To the contrary, in some 
Member States like Germany, quality compost is legally considered as "waste" until it is 
actually used on soil.  

This leads to additional administrative burdens related to the waste status e.g. notifications63. 
Based  on  the  experiences  from  Belgium  and  Netherlands,  the  potential  of  intra-EU  trade  of 
compost  resulting  from  harmonising  national  approaches  could  be  about  1.8  Mt  per  year64 
equivalent to around € 12.6 M  65; 

•  Improving consumers' confidence and enhancing the recycling markets: experience of 
several countries suggests that the development of markets for products resulting from bio-
waste  treatment  will  be  made  easier  through  a  combination  of  standards,  supported  by 
voluntary  quality  assurance  schemes  (QAS),  now  operated  in  many  Member  States.  The 
expected  growth  of  the  market  from  the  introduction  of  standards  cannot  be  effectively 
quantified. However, it is expected to be most visible in the countries which have low or 
no compost standards66.  

62 
63 

64 
65 
66 

For 2005 and 2006, source Orbit/ECN 
Another  example  of  problems  related  to  differing  compost  perception  is  the  lack  of  ability  to  export 
specialized seaweed compost from Greece to Denmark. Source Orbit/ECN 
Source: Orbit/ECN  
Assuming an averaged revenue of 7€ per tonne of compost sold – source: Arcadis/Eunomia  
BG, CY, GR, EE, LV, SK, PT, MT 

EN 

43 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Based on the experiences of countries which have successfully implemented quality compost 
policies, it seems that standards and QAS increase the level of demand for compost through a 
better appreciation of  the potential benefits of their use among key end-users. This effect is 
particularly relevant in agriculture, which constitutes the major end-use market for compost. 

•  More  clarity  between  "waste"  and  "product":  most  Member  States  allow  compost 
production  and  use  only  if  it  originated  from  separately  collected  bio-waste.  Other 
countries  allow  the  production  of  compost  from  mixed  waste.  The  definition  of  compost 
standards  will  allow  a  clear  distinction  between  compost  of  high  quality  considered  as  a 
"product" and material of lower quality which could still be used as soil improver, albeit 
for  well  specified  purposes  and  under  clearly  defined  waste  management  rules.  As 
supported  by  most  stakeholders,  the  use  of  compost  material  derived  from  mixed  waste 
should remain under control of the waste regime.  

Conclusion of scenario 1 

Setting standards and using QAS has already proved effective in creating confidence on the 
part of consumers. Standards, therefore, play a dual role: 

•  Help protecting health and the environment through regulating the physical and chemical 

properties of compost and its application on soil; and 

•  Contribute to developing a better market for compost/digestate producers by improving the 

public perception of compost and trust of end-users in this material. 

Table  A.13-1  in  Annex  13  compares  the  impacts  of  a  scenario  with  and  without  compost 
standards.  No  specific  standards  have  been  proposed  in  this  Assessment  as  they  need  to  be 
developed  via  appropriate  scientific  studies  and  additional  stakeholder  consultations. 
According to previous studies67 and on the basis of the existing national legislations and the 
information  gathered  during  the  stakeholder  consultation,  compost  standards  should  at  least 
include  the  following  parameters:  heavy  metals,  pathogens,  organic  contents  and  unwanted 
residues.  

Minimum  requirements  for  compost  that  can  circulate  freely  on  the  internal  market  as  a 
product (i.e. having completed a recovery operation according to EU waste law) would be set 
by the Waste Framework Directive (end-of-waste criteria). The additional administrative cost 
of  EU  standards  for  Member  States  is  expected  to  be  low.  Investments  in  collection  and 
treatment  infrastructure  will  have  to  be  made  swiftly  in  many  Member  States  to  meet  the 
Landfill Directive targets.  

Accordingly,  the  baseline  scenario  assumes  that  Member  States  will  fairly  rapidly  develop 
source  separation  and  composting  even  without  new  EU  legislation.  However,  standards 
would  allow  making  informed  decisions  regarding  the  appropriate  balance  of  separate 

67 

EU Commission, DG Environment 2001. Working Document (WD), 2nd draft: “Biological treatment of 
bio-waste”; J. Barth, F. Amlinger, E. Favoino, S. Siebert, B. Kehres, R. Gottschall, M. Bieker, A, Löbig 
and  W.  Bidlingmaier  (2008).  Compost  Production  and  Use  in  the  EU.  Report  for  the  European 
Commission DG/JRC; Amlinger, E. Favoino, M. Pollak, S. Peyr, M. Centemero and V. Caimi (2004) 
Heavy metals and organic compounds from wastes used as organic fertilisers, Study on behalf of the 
European 
.A.2, 
http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/waste/compost/index.htm;  

Directorate-General 

Environment, 

Commission, 

ENV 

EN 

44 

   EN 

 
                                                 
collection and dedicated bio-waste treatment infrastructure or mixed waste treatment through 
MBT.  Member  States  may  therefore  need  to  apply  a  (national)  system  of  standards  to  help 
marketing  the  end  product  in  any  case.  Operational  costs  for  biological  treatment  plants 
include  the  cost  of  monitoring  and  quality  assurance  of  waste  at  the  plant  level.  For  waste 
from  food  production  and  catering  waste  subject  to  animal  by  product  regulation  (ABPR)68 
standards relating to compost should be in line with relevant safety and hygiene requirements 
to prevent potential risks for human health which may be caused by improper management of 
such bio-waste. 

8.1.2. 

Scenarios 2 and 3  

8.1.2.1.  Mass-flow changes resulting from each scenario 

The main changes of mass-flows between treatment methods are summarised in Figure 5 and 
in Annex 14. The management of bio-waste anticipated to take place under scenario 2 leads to 
significant changes relative to the baseline scenario. Between 2013 and 2020, a total of 117 
Mt  of  waste  is  estimated  to  be  removed  from  residual  waste  treatment  facilities. 
Approximately 80% of the source-separated waste removed from these facilities is assumed to 
be  treated  biologically.  The  remainder  is  entirely  removed  from  the  treatment  system  as  a 
result of enhanced waste prevention.  

For scenario 2A, the mass flows are effectively the same as under scenario 2, but it is assumed 
that  progressively  more  bio-waste  is  treated  in  anaerobic  digestion  and  less  through 
composting – 17 Mt per year as from 2020. Unlike scenarios 2 and 2A, there is no enhanced 
waste  prevention  under  scenario  3  and  3A.  As  a  result,  between  2013  and  2020  only 
approximately  31  Mt  of  waste  is  removed  from  residual  waste  treatment  and  directed  to 
organic treatment facilities. The mass flows under scenario 3A are the same as under scenario 
3 but it is expected that progressively more bio-waste will be treated by anaerobic digestion 
and less by composting (2 Mt each year as from 2020). In scenarios 3 and 3A the global rate 
of  biological  treatment  at  EU  27  level  increases  from  37.5%  (baseline  scenario  –  2020)  to 
45% on average.  

68 

Regulation  1774/2002/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  3  October  2002  laying 
down health rules concerning animal by-products not intended for human consumption 

EN 

45 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Bio-waste management modification

Landfill

Incineration

MBT

Composting

Anaerobic digestion 

Home composting

Prevention

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

Situation 2008

Baseline - 2020

Scenario 3

Scenario 3A

Scenario 2

Recommended 
Scenario 2A

Figure  5:  Mass  flow  modifications  of  treatment  flows  by  2008  and  2020  for  each  analysed 
scenario  

8.1.2.2.  Trade offs  

Figure 5 shows that there are trade-offs between various options for bio-waste management. 
More  prevention  for  instance  will  imply  a  reduction  of  the  quantities  of  waste  to  be  treated 
and therefore a reduction of the possibilities to produce biogas and/or compost.  

The  alternative  scenarios  have  been  constructed  in  order  to  take  into  account  these  possible 
trade-offs.  For  instance,  in  scenario  2  quantitative  prevention  targets  have  been  introduced 
and therefore the total amount of bio-waste to be treated has been decreased (by 7,5% in 2020 
compared to the baseline).  

Consequently,  the  total  amount  of  compost  and/or  biogas  produced  has  been  decreased 
compared  to  a  solution  without  prevention.  Similarly,  in  scenario  2B  and  3B,  anaerobic 
digestion has been promoted and therefore, as indicated in Figure 5, the quantities composted 
have  been  decreased  accordingly.  The  costs  and  benefits  as  well  as  the  main  impacts  have 
been assessed taking these trade-offs into account.  

8.1.2.3.  Changes in Greenhouse Gas Emissions 

The main modifications between the scenarios in terms of GHG emissions are summarised in 
Figures 5 and 6. Detailed calculations for Member States are given in Annex 15 (Table A.15-
1).  

EN 

46 

   EN 

 
 
Compared  to  the  baseline  scenario,  a  significant  reduction  in  overall  GHG  emissions  is 
expected  under  scenario  2.  The  main  expected  effects  come  from  waste  prevention  and 
avoided  landfilling.  The  expected  total  GHG  emission  reduction  is  of  48.8  Mt  CO2-
equivalent. Scenario 2A results in additional savings of 2.7 Mt CO2-equivalent over scenario 
2  (total  reduction  of  51.5  Mt  CO2-equivalent).  The  larger  reduction  is  associated  with  the 
choice of bio-waste treatment options. The difference between scenario 2 and 2A is not large 
in relative terms – 2.7 Mt CO2-equivalent.  

Scenario 3 and 3A shows a far less significant expected reduction in overall GHG emissions 
than scenario 2 and 2A. A smaller amount of waste is expected to be diverted from landfills, 
no waste prevention effects are included and for many Member States composting instead of 
anaerobic digestion is expected to bring better results in terms of net cost for the society. 

In  many  Member  States,  there  is  a  small  difference  of  costs  between  composting  and  AD, 
with  composting  being  slightly  cheaper,  but  having  less  environmental  benefits.  The  total 
benefit in Scenario 3 is a reduction of 4.3 Mt CO2e which is comparable with the reduction of 
4.8 Mt CO2e under Scenario 3A.  

Figure 6 and 7 show the results using different methodologies of counting CO2 of biological 
origin. Figure 6 shows the results using the approach followed in the Assessment - which is 
better suited to compare the impacts in terms of GHG emissions between the different waste 
treatment techniques (but not in line with IPCC methodology). Due to accounting delaying of 
emissions of from compost and digestate used on soil, it gives slightly more favourable results 
for biological treatment in comparison to waste incineration.  

Figure 7 is given for comparison and shows the result using the methodology used for IPCC 
inventories (which normally neglects the effects of slower release of carbon from compost) – 
so this figure should be used when discussing performance against policy targets. The IPCC 
methodology  is  widely  used  in  both  the  Commission  and  in  inventories  of  global  warming 
emissions.  The  differences  between  the  two  methods  are  nevertheless  not  significant  in  the 
context of the present Assessment and its possible policy implications.  

EN 

47 

   EN 

 
e
2
O
C

f
o

s
n
o
t

n

l

m

,
)
0
2
0
2
(

s
t
c
a
p
m

i

G
H
G

20.0

10.0

0.0

-10.0 

-20.0 

-30.0 

-40.0 

-50.0 

-60.0 

Scenario 2

Scenario 2a

Scenario 3

Scenario 3a

-4.3 

-4.8 

Waste Prevention
Landfill
Incineration
MBT
Composting
Home composting
AD
Total

-48.8 

-51.5 

Figure 6: GHG emission relative to the baseline Scenario (year 2020) including biogenic 
carbon 

.  

e
2
O
C

s
n
o
t

n

l

m

,
)
0
2
0
2
(

s
t
c
a
p
m

i

G
H
G

10.0

0.0

-10.0 

-20.0 

-30.0 

-40.0 

-50.0 

Scenario 2

Scenario 2a

Scenario 3

Scenario 3a

-1.9 

-2.6 

Waste Prevention

Landfill

Incineration

MBT

Composting

Home composting

AD

Total

-40.1 

-44.2 

Figure 7: GHG emission relative to the baseline Scenario (year 2020) excluding biogenic 
carbon 

EN 

48 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
8.1.2.4.  Financial and environmental costs 

Figure  8  shows  the  financial  and  environmental  costs  and  benefits  associated  with  each 
scenario in comparison to the baseline scenario. Detailed calculations for Member States are 
given  in  Annex  15  (Table  A.15-2).  Compared  to  the  baseline  scenario,  scenario  2 
demonstrates  a  significant  net  benefit  to  the  society,  calculated  from  cost  savings  and  from 
additional  environmental  benefits.  This  is  due  to  a  significant  reduction  in  overall  GHG 
emissions mainly from enhanced waste prevention and avoided landfilling. The net benefit to 
the  society  from  the  introduction  of  scenario  2  amounts  to  €  7.088  million  over  the  period 
2013-2020 (in net present value – NPV – discount rate at 4%).  

Scenario 2A also results in a significant net benefit to the society, but this benefit is lower by 
11%  than  scenario  2  (€  6.395  NPV  for  the  2013-2020  period).  The  expected  benefits  of 
scenario  2A  (linked  with  larger  avoided  environmental  damages)  are  higher  compared  to 
scenario  2.  However,  the  expected  costs  are  much  higher  for  scenario  2A  compared  to 
scenario  2  and  these  higher  costs  do  not  compensate  the  higher  benefits.  This  is  due  to  the 
choice  of  a  more  costly  treatment  method  for  food  wastes  (biomethanisation  for  all  kitchen 
waste and all Member States, section 6.2.3).  

Compared to the baseline scenario, scenario 3 results in a significant net benefit to the society 
but  this  benefit  is  much  lower  than  in  scenario  2  (€  1.448  million  under  scenario  3  as 
compared to € 7.088 million under scenario 2). Unde r this scenario, the quantity of bio-waste 
diverted from landfills is less than a quarter of the amount considered under scenario 2, and 
there  is  no  waste  prevention  impact.  As  a  result,  the  substantial  reduction  in  environmental 
damage costs seen under scenario 2 does not occur to the same degree under scenario 3. 

Scenario 2

Scenario 2a

Scenario 3

Scenario 3a

)

V
P
N

(

l

,

R
U
E
n
m
0
2
0
2
-
3
1
0
2
t
s
o
c

l

a
t
o
T

€ 0

-€ 1 000

-€ 2 000

-€ 3 000

-€ 4 000

-€ 5 000

-€ 6 000

-€ 7 000

-€ 8 000

-€ 1 448

-€ 1 335

Financial (Social)

Environmental Damages

-€ 6 395

-€ 7 088

NET SOCIAL (Financial (social)
+ Env.)

EN 

49 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 8:  Total Financial and Environmental Costs of each scenario for the EU-27 over  the 
period 2013-2020 (NPV)69 

There  are,  however,  some  reductions  in  the  quantities  of  waste  treated  by  both  incineration 
and  MBT  facilities.  These  types  of  treatment  typically  result  in  higher  financial  costs  per 
tonne  of  waste  treated  in  comparison  to  the  cost  of  sending  the  material  to  landfill  or 
composting organic wastes. Thus there is still a reduction in the financial cost associated with 
scenario 3 - albeit less than half of what could be achieved under scenario 2 owing to smaller 
changes in tonnage directed to residual waste treatment facilities.  

The differences between scenario 3 and scenario 3A are similar to those between scenario 2 
and scenario 2A. Under scenario 3A, there is a significant increase in environmental benefits; 
however, this is more than offset by a worse financial performance.  

Tables  in  Annex  14  and  15  demonstrate  that  for  some  Member  States  the  expected 
modifications  implied  by  scenario  3  are  either  limited  or  even  zero70  as  the  objectives  of 
scenario  3  are  expected  to  be  met  in  the  baseline  scenario.  Therefore,  compared  to  the 
baseline  scenario,  no  additional  benefits  at  society  level  are  expected  for  these  countries  by 
applying  scenario  3.  Scenario  2  implies  modifications  for  all  Member  States  demonstrating 
that increased prevention is beneficial at society level for the whole EU 27.  

The net effect is that the net societal costs are higher than under scenario 3 (there is a reduced 
benefit  to  society)  and  the  net  benefit  to  society  is  the  lowest  of  all  the  analysed  scenarios 
compared to the baseline scenario. 

The  contribution  to  the  environmental  benefits  of  each  impact  is  shown  in  Figure  9.  The 
dominating impacts are linked to the reduction of GHG emissions and air pollutant emissions 
(AQ). This is partly due to the fact that it was not possible to monetize all impacts but also 
simply  because  the  expected  reduction  of  air  pollutants  and  GHG  emissions  are  the 
dominating environmental impacts.  

69 

70 

Scenario 1 was not added into the graph as it was unable to monetize the expected costs and benefits. 
Negative figures imply a net saving 
This is the case for 11 Member States including AT, DE, DK, FI, HU, IE, IT, LU, NL, SE and UK  

EN 

50 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Scenario 2

Scenario 2a

Scenario 3

Scenario 3a

Other

AQ

GHG

)

V
P
N

(

R
U
E

n

l

m
0
2
0
2
-
3
1
0
2

t
s
o
c

l
a
t
o
T

€ 0

-€ 1 000

-€ 2 000

-€ 3 000

-€ 4 000

-€ 5 000

-€ 6 000

Figure 9: Total Environmental Benefits of each scenario for the EU-27 (2013-2020) (NPV) 

8.1.2.5.  Uncertainties and policy implications  

An  assessment  of  the  main  uncertainties  as  well  as  their  potential  implications  in  terms  of 
policy development is given in Annex 16. In summary, main uncertainties are: 

•  Bio-waste generation: estimations were made on bio-waste generation on the basis of the 
assumptions  on  GDP  and  demographic  growth  and  specific  patterns  of  relation  between 
GDP and waste generation;  

•  Compliance with the Landfill Directive: it was assumed existing law will be implemented - 
this  might  not  be  the  case  in  a  limited  number  of  Member  States  heavily  depending  on 
landfilling;  

•  The expected treatment methods in the baseline and the alternative scenarios: the choice of 
the  treatment  methods  is  based  on  maximised  benefit  for  the  society.  In  practice,  other 
practical parameters could influence the choices of the treatment methods such as planning 
capacity at local level, citizen participation in separate collection schemes, etc.; 

•  Prevention: costs and benefits of the prevention actions are very difficult to assess as the 
"return  on  experience"  is  rather  limited;  available  information  comes  from  a  restricted 
number of experiences at local level which makes difficult an extrapolation to an EU level. 
The same applies for home composting for which available information is also limited;  

•  Cost  and  benefit  assessments:  numerous  hypotheses  were  made  as  the  costs  depend  on 
local  factors  (salaries,  energy  mix);  numerous  assumptions  were  also  made  on  the 
"physical"  environmental  impacts  of  each  treatment  method  and  related  emissions  (GHG 
and air pollutants) which are all based on average emission factors;  

EN 

51 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
•  Monetization of the impacts: the most accurate information was used in order to monetize 
the environmental impacts but the information was often incomplete, missing or collected 
in  other  contexts  and  for  other  purposes  (for  instance  Clean  Air  for  Europe  data  were 
collected in the framework of the air quality policies);  

•  Local/EU level: Overall, the main messages coming from the comparison of the scenarios 
are  valid  at  EU-27  level.  However,  as  regional  or  local  conditions  -  including  local  or 
regional demand for compost or energy - may differ from the average values assumed in 
this Assessment, more caution is needed when applying the results at national, regional or 
local levels. 

Based on expert judgement, a tentative estimation of the range of each of these uncertainties 
is  given  in  Annex  16.  Efforts  were  made  to  limit  as  far  as  possible  these  uncertainties, 
including  an  in-depth  analysis  of  the  existing  reports,  the  analysis  of  historic  data,  a 
comparison of the performances of Member States, etc. An in-depth stakeholder consultation 
also contributed to limiting uncertainties and more confidence in the data used in the context 
of this Assessment.  

These uncertainties  were taken into  account for the  definition of the proposals linked to the 
present Assessment, notably by recommending flexibility in the way of encouraging Member 
States to move towards more prevention and biological treatment of bio-waste. 

8.2. 

Comparison of policy scenarios and recommended scenario 

The  comparison  of  all  scenarios  with  the  baseline  scenario  demonstrates  an  unexploited 
potential  for  improved  bio-waste  management  in  the  EU.  The  most  visible  and  significant 
benefits include avoided emissions to air, including large amounts of GHG. At the same time, 
good quality compost can be produced which can contribute to the improvement of EU soils 
and the protection of primary resources.  

Scenarios  2  and  2A  perform  better  than  scenarios  3  and  3A  in  terms  of  financial  costs  and 
environmental benefits. A major part of this performance is due to the large effect of waste 
prevention  under  scenarios  2  and  2A,  the  cost  of  which  was  impossible  to  estimate  and 
assumed to be zero. Compared to scenarios 2 and 3, scenarios 2A and 3A are more promising 
in terms of environmental benefits but are more costly.  

However,  scenarios  2A  and  3A  can  contribute  better  to  achieving  other  EU  policy  targets, 
most notably the renewable energy targets and renewable energy in transport target. This may 
render them attractive to some Member States despite their higher costs. 

The  comparison  of  the  results  of  the  cost  and  benefit  analysis  of  the  different  analysed 
scenarios  indicates  that  a  combination  of  scenarios  would  deliver  the  most  eco-efficient 
solution to meet the objectives as defined in section 4. This “optimal” combination consists in 
promoting a moderate targets for prevention (similar to the scenario 2) and another target for 
biological treatment (minimum of 36.5% as proposed in scenario 3). 

More advanced Member States should be encouraged to further pursue their efforts in terms 
of  increased  biological  treatment.  In  addition,  work  should  commence  towards  a  possible 
proposal for compost standards at European level as analyzed in scenario 1.  

EN 

52 

   EN 

 
8.3. 

Impacts of the recommended scenario  

An estimation of the impacts of the recommended scenario has been prepared on the basis of 
the results of the alternative scenarios.  

The mass flows of the recommended scenario are presented in Figure 5 and detailed in Annex 
14 – Table A.14.3. They are similar to scenario 3 but include the impact of prevention (global 
reduction of waste to be treated by 7.5% compared to the baseline scenario). Generally as in 
scenario  3,  landfilling,  incineration  and  MBT  are  decreasing  compared  to  the  baseline 
scenario whereas composting and to a lesser extent anaerobic digestion are increasing.  

The  recommended  scenario  is  expected  to  lead  to  a  reduction  between  34,3  (excluding 
biogenic  emissions)  and  36.6  Mt  CO2e  (including  biogenic  emissions)  compared  to  the 
baseline scenario. Similarly to scenario 2 and 3, 80 to 90% of this potential reduction would 
be achieved by prevention.  

The  net  benefit  for  society  of  the  recommended  scenario  is  estimated  to  amount  to  €  5.449 
million over the period 2013-202071. This represents the net benefit of scenario 3 adjusted to 
take  into  account  the  impact  of  prevention  (€  1.339  million),  to  which  the  net  benefit  of 
prevention  of  scenario  2  is  added  (€  4.110  millio n).  The  net  benefit  to  the  society  of  the 
recommended  scenario  is  higher  compared  to  scenario  3  but  lower  than  expected  with 
scenario 2 as biological treatment is less developed. Nevertheless, as explained in section 8.2, 
this scenario appears as the most cost effective while ensuring a certain level of feasibility.  

8.4. 

Possible EU initiatives to implement the recommended policy scenario 

In  order  to  move  towards  the  recommended  scenario  and  to  fully  benefit  from  the 
opportunities offered by better bio-waste management, new initiatives should be taken at EU 
level in order to:  

•  Enhance  prevention  by  encouraging  and  supporting  additional  actions  of  the  Member 

States;  

•  Progressively  increase  the  biological  treatment  of  high  quality  bio-waste  by  encouraging 
Member  States  to  ensure  that  a  minimum  proportion  of  bio-waste  is  separately  collected 
and treated or treated by adequate home composting;  

•  Ensure the quality of composted bio-waste and improve markets by defining standards for 
its application notably in agriculture, and criteria for compost that is allowed to circulate 
freely on the market as a product.  

The  three  above  mentioned  actions  in  bio-waste  policy  -  enhanced  prevention,  increased 
biological treatment,  and setting  EU standards for compost - can be implemented through a 
combination  of  policy  measures,  ranging  from  voluntary  to  legislative  actions.  The  table  in 
Annex 17 summarizes the benefits and drawbacks of using different measures to introduce the 
selected policy actions. 

The  Assessment  demonstrates  that  a  better  management  of  bio-waste  would  result  in 
environmental and economic advantages for the EU. Waste policy at EU and Member State 

71 

Extrapolation of the results of scenario 2 and 3 

EN 

53 

   EN 

 
                                                 
levels should therefore make full use of these opportunities as a matter of priority. As a first 
step,  Member  States  should  be  encouraged  to  better  use  the  existing  instruments  at  their 
disposal to improve the bio-waste management at national level, and the Commission should 
support  the  widest  possible  up-take  of  best  practices.  This  could  be  done  in  the  form  of  a 
Communication from the Commission. 

Existing legislation such as the Landfill Directive provides supporting means. Together with 
the waste hierarchy, the new legal provisions of the Waste Framework Directive  72on waste 
Prevention Programmes are powerful instruments if used well by the Member States. In fact, 
zero  landfilling  of  untreated  waste  and  high-quality  biological  treatment  has  been  achieved 
nowadays by Member States who already took the appropriate national initiatives. 

In view of this evidence and in line with the "better regulation principle" priority should be 
given to making best use of the already existing instruments. It is therefore proposed to use as 
far  as  possible  existing  instruments  to  "translate"  the  three  main  orientations  detailed  above 
into actions at EU level.  

8.4.1.  Waste prevention  

Waste prevention offers the largest single means of improvement: full use should therefore be 
made urgently of the revised WFD which includes clear provisions for Member States to draw 
up and implement waste prevention plans.  

The  present  investigations  seem  to  indicate  that  promoting  prevention  would  likely  require 
coordinated  actions  at  all  competence  levels  from  the  European,  through  national  and 
regional,  to  local  levels.  It  appears  that  it  would  also  require  the  involvement  of  the  whole 
chain of actors  from producers, through retailers,  to citizens.  As detailed  in section 3.4, EU 
level  initiatives  might  be  appropriate  for  encouraging  and  supporting  action  by  Member 
States.  However,  it  is  considered  that  the  evidence  base  for  these  assumptions  needs  to  be 
further developed before any policy proposals can be presented.  

Setting a binding bio-waste prevention target at EU level does not seem realistic at this stage. 
Clearly, there is still insufficient experience for proposing any binding prevention targets as 
policies  and  indicators  have  just  begun  to  be  developed.  The  level  of  ambition  for  such  a 
target  would  be  very  difficult  to  fix  at  EU  level  given  the  strong  link  between  waste 
generation  and  economic  growth  and  vastly  different  national  economic  circumstances  and 
due to the fact that it is difficult to link precise policy actions to potential results in terms of 
reduction of the amount of waste generated.  

However,  rough  estimates  of  the  potential  effects  of  prevention  policies  on  the  overall 
amounts of bio-waste generated are as follows: according to the baseline scenario (section 5), 
an increase in waste generation is expected at EU level (10%). Scenario 2 assumes a reduction 
of this growth of 7.5%, meaning that compared to 2008 additional waste generation would be 
limited at EU level to around 2% by 2020, which seems reasonable at EU 27 level. Depending 
on  the  specific  Member  States,  this  global  objective  could  imply  an  absolute  decrease  of 
waste generation in some countries while in other cases it would only mean a reduction of the 
expected increase73.  

72 
73 

Directive 2008/98/EC of 19 November 2008 
Waste generation per country is summarized in Annex 4 – Table A4-3 

EN 

54 

   EN 

 
                                                 
As an alternative, it is suggested to further analyze the possibility of requiring Member States 
to set a national prevention target similar to those pertaining to the recommended scenario.  

Guidance under development by the Commission through Comitology should be extended to 
include  specific  provisions  for  bio-waste  including  the  definition  of  the  contents  of  the 
prevention  plans  for  bio-waste.  In  addition,  the  possibility  of  introducing  indicative 
quantitative reduction targets at national level should be further assessed. 

In  addition,  the  Commission  should  make  best  use  of  its  possibilities  to  encourage  and 
support, at EU level, the exchange of good practice and assess any possibilities for EU-wide 
awareness rising initiatives.  

8.4.2. 

Increasing the biological treatment of bio-waste  

Increasing the biological treatment of bio-waste coupled with avoidance of landfilling, offers 
the  second  largest  potential  for  improvement.  The  present  investigations  point  to  increased 
biological  treatment  of  bio-waste  as  an  important  factor  which  might  contribute  to  overall 
societal gains. Member States should be strongly encouraged to fully comply with the "waste 
hierarchy"  in  national  waste  management  policies.  Legal  action  in  case  of  failure  should  be 
considered at an early stage.  

It  is  however  not  possible  at  this  stage  to  decide  in  general  terms  whether  composting, 
anaerobic digestion or adequate home composting should be preferred at EU level, since the 
choice  will  depend  on  local  conditions  linked  with  the  energy  mix  and  the  efforts  already 
achieved to reduce GHG emissions from other sources.  

Indications  from  the  present  Assessment  are  that  any  Member  States  aiming  at  moderate 
collection/recycling  rates  similar  to  the  scenario  3  target  (minimum  of  36.5%)  would  most 
likely retain sufficient flexibility to decide in which geographical areas it is more relevant to 
organize separate collection and biological treatment of bio-waste in response to national and 
local circumstances.. 

Present  data  suggest  that  higher  rates  could  lead  to  greater  environmental  and  financial 
savings. From the data available it could be interpreted that even in already advanced Member 
States  an  increase  of  biological  treatment  by  5  to  10%  by  2020  seems  feasible  up  to  a 
maximum  around  60%-  70%  (corresponding  to  the  ambitious  scenario  2  target  of  66%). 
However,  a  stepwise  approach  may  be  recommendable  to  allow  Member  States  to  gain  the 
necessary experience and build markets for compost and digestate. 

As  a  preliminary  working  hypothesis  it  could  thus  be  assumed  that  a  minimum  aspiration 
similar  to  scenario  3,  accompanied  by  a  strive  to  higher  levels  for  more  advanced  Member 
States would seem to be to most eco-efficient solution. However, further assessments would 
be  needed  to  investigate  if  EU  level  initiatives  would  be  opportune,  also  in  light  of  the 
subsidiarity principle. 

The  more  advanced  countries  having  met  this  target  should  be  encouraged  to  pursue  their 
efforts.  This  could  be  done  via  the  introduction  of  a  recommendation  in  the  Commission 
Communication. 

Such  targets  should  be  met  in  principle  by  separate  collection  of  waste  followed  by 
composting  or  anaerobic  digestion  or  by  properly  managed  home  composting  programs. 

EN 

55 

   EN 

 
Mixed collection of bio-waste could be possibly considered as long as high compost quality is 
ensured and adequately monitored with quality assurance systems in place.  

If the added value from defining a common target at EU level would be demonstrated notably 
from the subsidiarity point of view the introduction of such target could be achieved through 
the review of the new WFD recycling targets for Municipal Solid Waste as these targets can 
include bio-waste.  

A review of the recycling targets is foreseen by 31 December 2014 at the latest, but a limited 
amendment of the WFD could also introduce this recycling target at an earlier date. New self-
standing  legislation  to  set  targets  is  another  option  but  it  is  uncertain  if  it  would  become 
effective sooner than reviewing the WFD targets. Full coherence between two parallel pieces 
of  legislation  would  have  to  be  ensured  also  with  a  view  to  future  developments  under  the 
WFD.  

8.4.3.  Demand-orientated measures to encourage the use of biologically treated bio-waste  

The  present  Assessment  indicates  that  standards  for  compost  and  digestate  according  to 
different possible uses could facilitate Member States’ progress towards better management of 
bio-waste. Demand-orientated measures to encourage the use of biologically treated bio-waste 
should  be  introduced  to  complement  the  measures  discussed  above.  Notably  the  existing 
possibilities under the revised WFD (setting end-of-waste criteria by Comitology) should be 
used as a matter of urgency to define legally binding criteria for the production and quality of 
compost that can circulate freely as a product.  

This should lead to a clear distinction between compost that is marketable as a product versus 
other  treated  bio-waste  which  would  remain  subject  to  waste  legislation.  Legally  binding 
criteria for the use of the latter, e.g. in agriculture, should also be established as a matter of 
urgency.  Most  likely,  as  a  minimum  the  following  criteria  should  be  considered  when 
compost  standards  will  be  defined:  heavy  metals,  pathogens,  organic  contents,  unwanted 
residues. 

This could be done through the extension of the scope of the Sewage Sludge Directive fixing 
criteria for the use of sludge in agriculture and which is currently under review. 

The feasibility and potential impacts of any EU initiatives would have to be further assessed 
notably concerning the type of parameters to be considered, the level of the possible standards 
and their potential impacts.  

8.5. 

Recommendation for next steps, proposed timing  

In summary and in practice, the following package of initiatives to be launched in parallel is 
recommended: 

1. 

A (chapeau) Communication from the Commission explaining the strategy of the 
Commission  for  an  optimal  management  of  bio-waste  in  the  EU,  for  the  coming 
years.  It  will  explain  the  main  lines  of  action  as  indicated  in  8.4  above.  The 
Communication  will  also  reiterate  the  possibilities  lying  in  existing  legislation 
particularly  by  applying  the  principles  included  in  the  waste  hierarchy,  giving 
guidance  on  how  to  use  them  best.  The  Communication  should  be  based  on  the 
results of the present report and include a work program along the lines described in 

EN 

56 

   EN 

 
section 2 below. This Communication from the Commission should be prepared and 
adopted still in 2010. 

2. 

In line with the "better regulation principle" and to avoid unnecessary duplication, it 
is proposed to also announce in the Communication the preferential use, for as far as 
possible, of existing instruments to translate the main courses of action proposed in 
the Communication, into new initiatives at EU level, namely: 

•  First, in line with the conclusions of scenario 2, the Comitology procedure under the Waste 
Framework  Directive  would  be  used  to  require  the  MS  that  when  drawing  their  waste 
prevention  programmes  (required  under  article  29,  by  December  2013)  that  those 
programmes include specific measures for bio-waste prevention. The preparatory work has 
already been launched and the objective is an adoption by end 2010.  

•  Second, in the light of the conclusions of the recommended scenario, the various ways of 
encouraging  Member  States  to  move  towards  more  prevention  and  more  biological 
treatment for instance by a better implementation of existing legislation and/or through the 
introduction of quantitative targets should be further assessed before any policy initiatives 
are can be suggested. The analysis will be launched in 2010.  

•  Third,  quality  criteria  for  the  production  of  compost  (as  analysed  in  scenario  1)  that  can 
circulate  freely  as  a  product  can  also  be  set  under  the  Comitology  procedure  under  the 
WFD (end-of-waste criteria – Article 6) according to an established process. The objective 
is an adoption of the criteria in 2011.  

•  It is also proposed to take advantage of the ongoing review of the sewage-sludge Directive 
to define minimum quality standards for compost used in agriculture (that is bio-waste that 
would  not  have  obtained  an  "end-of  waste"  status  and  would  need  to  remain  subject  to 
waste  legislation,  e.g.  when  being  applied  to  agricultural  soil).  The  impact  assessment 
should be finalised in 2010 and should be followed by a proposal in 2011. 

3. 

On the basis of the results of the analysis achieved in this report demonstrating the 
potential  benefits  of  ensuring  the  full  implementation  of  existing  legislation,  the 
Commission  should  make  renewed  and  enhanced  efforts  to  monitor  and  assess  the 
proper  implementation  of  EU  waste  policy.  This  concern  notably,  but  not 
exclusively,  the  proper  implementation  of  the  Landfill  Directive,  application  of  the 
"waste  hierarchy"  in  national  waste  management  policies,  including  in  national 
Waste Management Plans, and the development of waste management infrastructure.  

9. 

MONITORING AND EVALUATION 

9.1. 

Indicators of progress towards meeting the objectives  

The core indicators of progress would be the amounts of bio-waste prevented and directed to 
high quality treatment, the amount of quality compost/digestate produced from bio-waste, and 
the amount of renewable energy produced from bio-waste. A good indicator could be related 
to  GHG  emissions  and  savings  from  waste  management.  However,  it  would  have  to  be 
constructed in a way which prevents focusing on the GHG objectives at the expense of other 
environmental gains. 

EN 

57 

   EN 

 
9.2. 

Broad outline for possible monitoring and evaluation arrangements  

Monitoring of the bio-waste stream directed to a specific treatment option can be ensured by 
using  the  data  from  the  Waste  Statistic  Regulation  (which  may  require  adaptations  to  this 
role)  or  by  the  general  monitoring  of  the  implementation  of  the  waste  acquis  by  Member 
States. 

The  Commission  has  most  recently  stepped-up  its  detailed  assessment  of  national  Waste 
Management Plans and is seriously assessing possibilities for further intensifying its controls 
on  proper  enforcement  of  EU  waste  legislation  in  the  Member  States.  The  assessment  and 
monitoring of future Waste Prevention Plans should be given high priority in this context. 

In  EU  waste  legislation,  3-years  implementation  reports  and  annual  reporting  on  specific 
targets are typically required, coupled with ad hoc checks of compliance by the Commission. 
Regular  progress  reports  to  the  Council,  the  European  Parliament,  the  Committee  of  the 
Regions  and  the  European  social  and  Economic  Committee  are  prepared  on  the  basis  of 
national reports on implementation. These reports are made available online and are used by 
the Commission to identify possible needs for policy initiatives, including legal action where 
appropriate. 

EN 

58 

   EN 

 
ANNEX  

Annex 1: Minutes of last ISG meeting 

The ISG meeting had place on 21 October 2009 in DG ENV premises in Brussels. 

List of participants: 

Alexandre MARGHELIS (SJ) 

Stefan MOSER (SG) 

Rene L'HER (AGRI) 

Emese KOTTASZ (TREN) 

Andrea TILCHE (RTD) 

Bartosz ZAMBRZYCKI (ENV) 

Klaus KOEGLER (ENV) 

Michel SPONAR (ENV) 

Malgorzata KICIA (ENV) 

Luca MARMO (ENV) 

Thomas STRASSBURGER (ENV) 

ENV  presented  the  issue,  providing  additional  explanations  questions  about  the  settings  of 
baseline, methodology and assumptions taken. 

TREN raised questions to what extend policies on renewable energy (biofuel directive, RES 
directive) has been included in the baseline. It has also stressed that potential proposal should 
be technology neutral, bearing in mind the need to reach renewable energy targets, and where 
energy recovery by incineration is justified as an environmentally beneficial option. 

ENV explanation was landfill directive targets has been identified as major driver and it could 
be assumed it already "include" input from other EU policies. 

RTD discussed objections raised few days before the meeting. There were as follows 

–  the  methodology  which  includes  emissions  of  biogenic  carbon  is  not  in  line  with  IPCC 
methodology for GHG inventories and is favourable for composting while underestimates 
potential  of  savings  from  anaerobic  digestion  and  especially  incineration.  Therefore 
additional analysis (calculations) is necessary for comparison 

–  the RTD data shows much higher GHG savings potential, that presented by ENV 

EN 

59 

   EN 

 
 
–  in the opinion of RTD one of policy option should be based on performance criteria as to 

avoid preferring any specific technologies. 

As the result of the discussions it was agreed that those issue will be dealt with on technical 
level (verification of calculation and explain differences of methodologies) by cooperation of 
RTD and ENV.  

The  policy  option  based  on  performance  criteria  could  be  acceptable,  however  no  adequate 
criteria  has  been  yet  developed.  While  this  option  has  not  been  analysed  as  the  scenario  it 
should  be  reviewed  when  performance  criteria  would  be  identified.  The  environmental, 
economic  and  social  effects  should  be  very  similar  to  options  discussed  in  the  IA,  while 
setting  performance  target  would  give  more  Member  States  and  enterprises  more  flexibility 
and  avoid  promotion  of  any  specific  technology.  It  was  agreed  to  flag  this  issue  in  IA  but 
discuss in details when concrete proposals would be available (also possible at later stage of 
possible legislative process).  

However ENV stressed that proposed approach of promotion of separate collection is already 
to large extent "technology neutral" as it gives freedom as for further use of collected waste. 

Final item discussed was the timeline for possible future police developments based on this 
IA, taking into account the start-up of new Commission.  

In parallel to ISG meeting ENV has received a written input from JRC and TREN. 

These contributions pointed out that the CO2 calculation methodology counts biomass carbon 
as "fossil" carbon and by including a discount factor skews the result in favour of composting. 
JRC  and  TREN  also  reflected  on  the  methodology  of  calculation  of  environmental  impact 
from the energy replaced by energy from bio-waste.  

The  final  text  has  been  modified  to  more  clearly  show  the  differences  concerning 
methodology of carbon calculations (figures in chapter 8.1.2). The comment on calculation of 
marginal energy has not been included due to data problems. 

Further actions: 

As the comments received during and after IASG meeting implied considerable further work 
on the IA draft before submission to the IAB, additional written round of comments was held 
in December - resulting with set of remarks regarding structure of IA in general and proposal 
of improvement and clarifications in the text (ECFIN). Additional comments concerned need 
of  better  visibility  in  the  text  the  issue  that  methodology  could  favour  composting  over 
incineration (TREN) and provided IA with additional data on potential of bio-fuels from bio-
waste (RTD).  

EN 

60 

   EN 

 
Annex 2: Stakeholder consultation on bio-waste management – Summary 
of comments 

1. Green paper on management of bio-waste in the EU (COM (2008) 811 Final) 

Main  problem  of  the  Green  Paper:  Are  we  losing  an  opportunity  created  by  the  Landfill 
Directive?  Diverting  the  waste  from  landfill  into  other  disposal  operations  (low  grade 
incineration  or  low  grade  MBT)  may  result  in  lost  of  potential  for  soil  improvement  and 
renewable energy generation. 

–  The  Commission  received  149  comments,  including  22  Member  States,  24  regional  and 
local  authorities  (and  their  associations),  24  EU  level  NGOs  (of  various  character),  38 
national  level  NGOs,  8  academic  institutions  and  think  tanks,  26  companies,  and  5 
individual  persons  and  3  EU  institutions  (Council,  CoR,  EESC).  All  comments  are 
available  at:  http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/biowaste_prop/home  (enter  CIRCA  and 
look for: Bio-waste – Impact Assessment).  

Content of the Green Paper: 

–  Description of existing legislation; 
–  Description  of  existing  bio-waste  management  practises  and  their  impacts  environmental 

economic and social impacts; 

–  Presentation of several alternatives for additional measures supporting recycling; 
–  Presentation of possible approach to the issue of compost; 
–  Need for standards. 

–  The  Green  Paper  was  presented  as  a  set  of  8  main  questions,  the  answers  to  which  are 
summarised  below.  The  spectrum  of  comments  was  very  broad  and  often  contradicting 
points of view were expressed.  

–  Increased  bio-waste  prevention:  All  stakeholders  generally  supported  measures 
increasing  prevention  of  bio-waste  generation.  The  most  popular  prevention  methods 
included  home  composting,  information  and  awareness  rising  campaigns,  improved 
industrial processes and logistics, programmes for the distribution of products for the poor, 
smart gardening, and about 8 other proposals.  

–  Further  limiting  of  landfilling:  most  stakeholder  against,  Member  States  and  regional 
administrations split, European NGOs in favour. Most common argument against – it is too 
early  for  such  a  decision  since  a  lot  of  implementation  efforts  are  needed  to  meet  the 
current requirements. 

–  Bio-waste  management  options  to  be  strengthened:  stakeholders  opted  for  the 
incineration, 
in  descending  order  of  popularity:  anaerobic  digestion, 
following, 
composting,  separate  collection  of  bio-waste,  combination  of  methods,  production  of 
biofuels, Mechanical Biological Treatment (MBT). 

–  Increased  use  of  LCA.  Stakeholders  were  divided  on  the  idea  of  a  wider  and  more 
consistent use of life cycle assessments in choosing the best options for treatment of bio-
waste  diverted  from  landfills,  with  Member  States  and  regional  administrations  split, 
European NGOs in favour, companies and academic institutions mostly against. 

–  They have however pointed to several shortcomings of LCAs: lack of evaluation of social 
and economic impacts, dependence of LCA results on the parameters considered, difficulty 
to quantify many positive impacts such as carbon sinks, soil impacts. 

EN 

61 

   EN 

 
–  Acceptance for incineration: National and EU NGOs were generally against incineration 
of bio-waste, most Member States were in favour. Many stakeholders preferred anaerobic 
digestion to incineration. The main arguments in favour of incinerations included no need 
for compost in northern Europe or in big cities, basic requirements for high efficiency of 
energy recovered. The arguments against included negative impacts of the wet fraction of 
bio-waste on the calorific value of mixed waste and the loss of nutrients and organic matter 
contained in bio-waste. 

–  Further  promotion  of  bio-waste  recycling:  All  stakeholders  strongly  supported  further 
promotion of bio-waste recycling. For many, such promotion would mean an obligation of 
selective  collection  of  bio-waste,  some  proposed  introducing  a  cap  on  the  maximum 
amount  of  bio-waste  in  residual  waste.  The  main  arguments  in  favour  included  the 
application  of  the  waste  hierarchy,  providing  investment  security  for  the  recycling 
industry.  The  main  arguments  against  included  Subsidiarity  in  deciding  on  bio-waste 
management and doubts that a single best treatment option for bio-waste exists. 

–  Levels  of  quality  standards:  Stakeholders  generally  agreed  that  standards  were  needed 
and proposed from one to three groups of such standards for different types of compost. 
–  Rules on compost application and soil quality: A number of countries and organisations 
do support EU minimum requirements for compost and its use in the EU such as limits on 
load  applied  and  the  quality  of  soil  to  which  compost  is  applied.  There  is  no  clear  view 
which applications should be covered but most stakeholders mentioned agriculture and/or 
food  production.  Some  preferred  to  leave  the  detailed  rules  on  the  use  of  compost  to  the 
Member States due to the differences in soil, climate and customer needs across Europe.  
–  Use  of  compost  from  mixed  waste:  Most  stakeholders  were  against  such  practice.  The 
main  arguments  against  were  related  to  the  potential  for  contamination  and  limited 
applications.  Some  arguments  in  favour  included  carbon  capture  opportunities.  All 
stakeholders  (including  those  in  favour)  stressed  that  such  use  requires  more  stringent 
quality  and  application  control  measures,  the  use  of  appropriate  Quality  Management 
Systems and better equipment. 

–  Additional operational standards for small bio-waste treatment plants were favoured 
by  companies  and  NGOs,  while  generally  considered  unnecessary  by  the  Member  States 
and  regional  authorities.  Some  stakeholders  proposed  s  simplified  version  of  IPPC 
requirements  for  plants  treating  less  than  50  tons  per  day.  Other  argued  that  the  current 
legislative  provisions  are  sufficient  and  that  environmental  effects  of  small  treatment 
installations are local and need to be addressed locally.  

–  Emerging  technologies:  A  repeated  message  from  all  stakeholders  was  that  further 
research  was  necessary.  The  most  frequently  mentioned  technologies  included  biochar, 
gasification,  pyrolisis.  The  main  obstacles  to  their  development  as  perceived  by  the 
stakeholders  include  lack  of  legal  clarity  and  certainty  at  European  level,  lack  of  EU 
promotion activities (e.g. targets), extensive regulatory demands on smaller plants (e.g. by 
Animal By-Products Regulation or IPPC). 

2. Targeted stakeholders consultation during preparation of Arcadis/Eunomia report 

Background  data  and  information  for  this  assessment  were  developed  by  a  consortium  of 
consultants - Arcadis and Eunomia. During preparation of the report two targeted stakeholder 
consultations  have  been  conducted  in  order  to  verify  background  data  and  content  of  the 
report. 

First phase of targeted consultations took place in May/June 2009. The baseline scenario has 
been  sent  to  all  Member  States  and  major  stakeholders  to  verify  the  data  sets  used.  The 

EN 

62 

   EN 

 
baseline scenario has also been presented at conference "Biowaste – need for EU legislation?" 
on 10 June 2009. 

10 Member States have responded providing update or corrections of data (BE, DE, DK, ES, 
LT, MT, PL, P, SI, SE). 

In October/November 2009 the draft final report of Arcadis/Eunomia (which included basic 
calculation and assumptions to be used in this assessment) has been sent for consultation to 
Member States, major stakeholders as well as to all stakeholders who requested to be notified 
(in a call publish on relevant ENV website). 

18 comments have been received to this report. In general, most of the comments were related 
to  general  approach,  rather 
to  specific  assumptions  and  calculations  behind 
environmental impacts. Several stakeholders pointed out that the given time was insufficient 
taking into account the size and the level of details of the report. Also clarity and transparency 
of draft final report has been criticised. 

than 

The most contested part was the assumption taken in the baseline scenario that Member States 
will  meet  the  targets  of  Landfill  directive.  Some  stakeholders  called  such  assumption  very 
optimistic  or  even  unrealistic  and  criticised  that  the  Commission  has  not  considered  the 
biowaste  directive  as  a  measure  to  meet  the  Landfill  directive  targets  (Germany,  Belgium, 
EEB, BGK, ECN) 

Other more frequent comments included: 

•  call  to  include  sewage  sludge  and  other  biodegradable  waste  streams  in  potential  future 

legislation (e.g. EUREAU, EBA, SUEZ);  

•  problems with calculations concerning home composting (EEB, BDE);  

•  criticism of assumption that quality compost can be produced only from source separated 

bio-waste (FNADE, SUEZ); 

•  criticism  of  assumption  behind  some  scenarios  chosen  –  i.e.  that  scenarios  included 

assumption of total switch into one of biological treatment method in the country. 

Several countries (including DE, FIN, CZ, NL, RO, BE) provided further modification of data 
to be used in the baseline scenario. 

The raised issues has been better addressed in the final report and better explained in the text 
of Assessment itself. 

Annex 3: Potential contribution of bio-waste to the 2020 bio-fuel target – 
assumptions, calculation method and results per Member State 

The RES Directive provisions on waste-derive biofuels 

The  anaerobic  conversion  of  bio-waste  into  biogas  and  its  further  purification  into  bio-
methane  is  considered  as  production  of  second  generation  biofuels  according  to  the 
Renewable  Energy  Sources  Directive.  Once  purified  this  bio-methane  could  be  used  as 

EN 

63 

   EN 

 
biofuel  for  private  cars,  buses,  trucks,  or  directly  injected  into  the  natural  gas  distribution 
grids. Focusing the discussion  on biofuels, the RES Directive set up a 10% target, meaning 
that by 2020 a mandatory 10 % minimum target has to be achieved by all Member States for 
the share of biofuels in transport petrol and diesel consumption74. 

The Directive identifies three important provisions concerning biofuels produced from waste: 

–  Wastes […] shall be considered to have zero life cycle greenhouse gas emissions up to the 

process of collection; 

–  Emissions from the fuel in use shall be taken to be zero for biofuels and other bioliquids. 

–  the  contribution  made  by  biofuels  produced  from  wastes  […]  shall  be  considered  to  be 

twice that made by other biofuels. 

Methodological assumptions 

In order to calculate the potential contribution of bio-waste generated in each Member State to 
the achievement of their respective 2020 biofuel target, a life cycle approach has been used75. 

The basic assumptions used for the calculation are the following: 

–  All the bio-waste available in 2020 is processed via anaerobic digestion for the production 

of bio-methane76. 

–  The  quantity  of  bio-waste  produced  in  2008  and  2020  are  taken  from  the  Arcadis  and 

Eunomia supporting study. 

–  Energy consumption data for 2020 are taken from the DG TREN report on future energy 

trends77. 

–  The biogas purification energy penalty (i.e. the amount of energy necessary to upgrade the 
biogas to bio-methane) is generally reported in the range 3-6% of the bio-methane energy 
content.  The  Arcadis  and  Eunomia  supporting  study  used  the  3%  value  whilst  in  our 
evaluation the more conservative 6% values have been used. 

–  Bus  fuel  consumptions  are  taken  from  VTT  study  (same  source  as  in  the  Arcadis  and 

Eunomia supporting study). 

74 

75 

76 

77 

The RES Directive specifies that the mandatory 10 % minimum target for transport to be achieved by 
all Member States should be defined as that share of final energy consumed in transport which is to be 
achieved  from  renewable  sources  as  a  whole,  and  not  from  biofuels  alone.  Moreover,  only  petrol, 
diesel,  biofuels  consumed  in  land  road  and  rail  transport,  and  electricity  shall  be  taken  into  account. 
However,  in  this  calculation,  the  contribution  of  electric  cars  in  2020  has  not  been  taken  into 
consideration. 
Even if the bio-methane could be used both for private cars and public transportation fleets (like buses 
and trucks for waste collection), the data mentioned in the Assessment only refers to the use for buses. 
The potential contribution to the biofuel target (but also to other relevant targets like the Kyoto or the 
renewable  energy  production  one)  could  be  higher  if  also  other  potential  sources  of  bio-methane  are 
considered (e.g. manure, wastewater sludges and existing landfills). 
2008 - European energy and transport: Trends to 2030 : update 2007 

EN 

64 

   EN 

 
                                                 
–  Life  cycle  data  for  diesel  production  are  taken  from  the  EU  Life  Cycle  Data  Network 

(ELCD)78. 

–  CO2  emissions  in  2007  are  those  reported  by  each  Member  State  and  presented  in  the 

Annex I reporting to the Kyoto protocol79. 

In  Table  A.3-1  are  reported  some  other  technical  parameters  used  for  the  calculation.  The 
values are taken from the sources already mentioned above. 

Parameter 

Unit of measure 

Value 

Methane content in biogas 

Biogas density 

Energy content in biogas 

Bio-methane energy content 

Efficiency of CHP (electricity and heat) 

% 

kg / m3 

MJ/kg 

MJ / kg 

[%] 

60 

1.2 

27 

45 

85 

Life cycle emissions for the production of 1 kg of diesel

kg CO2-eq 

3,02E-01 

Consumption of a bus using diesel as fuel 

Consumption of a bus using bio-methane as fuel 

kg CO 

kg CH4 

kg N2O 

kg / km 

kg / km 

4,16E-04 

3,36E-03 

8,78E-04 

3,57E-01 

7,80E-01 

CO2 emissions from a diesel bus 

kg / km 

1,22E+00 

Table A.3-1: main assumptions used to calculate energy potential from bio-waste  

Calculation procedure 

The  first  step  consists  in  the  calculation  of  the  quantity  of  bio-methane  that  could  be 
potentially produced in each Member State based on the bio-waste available. When doing this 
calculation the plant internal energy use (about 25% according to average existing techniques) 
and  the  energy  required  for  the  bio-methane  upgrade  (6%  energy  penalty)  have  been 
deducted. What remains is the bio-methane available for use as biofuel (expressed in MJ). 

78 
79 

http://lca.jrc.ec.europa.eu/lcainfohub/datasetArea.vm  
http://unfccc.int/national_reports/annex_i_ghg_inventories/national_inventories_submissions/items/ 
4303.php 

EN 

65 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
The next step consists in the calculation of the equivalent amount of diesel fuel that the bio-
methane could displace. This is done by computing the average consumption of a diesel bus 
with  that  of  a  bio-methane  fuelled  one.  In  this  way  it  is  also  possible  to  know  how  many 
kilometres could be covered by the bio-methane fuelled bus per year. Knowing the quantity of 
diesel  that  could  be  substituted  is  necessary  to  calculate  the  amount  of  GHG  emissions 
"saved" due to the diesel non-production. 

The  last  step  consists  in  the  calculation  of  the  potential  contribution  towards  the  specific 
biofuel target. In order to obtain this information, it is necessary first to identify the expected 
final energy consumption for land (road and rail) transports in 2020. These values have been 
calculated from those reported in the previously mentioned DG TREN report.  

The  share  of  bio-methane  contribution  to  the  10%  2020  biofuel  target  is  then  calculated  by 
dividing  the  total  energy  content  of  the  bio-methane  available  in  2020  by  the  total  energy 
demand for transport in the same year80.  

The maximum available bio-waste in the EU in 2020 is 8800 million ton, which is equivalent 
to around 5.7 MToe  of  biogas.  On  average this is enough to supply almost one third  of the 
renewable  energy  target  of  the  Renewable  Energy  Directive  (taking  into  account  double-
counting as prescribed by article 21(2) of the Renewable Energy Directive. The same gas used 
in CHPs (Combined Heat and Power) for electricity and heat would supply around 2% of the 
overall renewable target.  

The main results country by country are presented in Tables A.3-2 and A.3-3.  

CO2-eq avoided emissions 

CO2-eq potentially avoided by 

(electricity from biogas) 

using bio-methane in buses 

min (kg) 

max (kg) 

average (Mt) 

min (kg) 

max (kg) 

average (Mt) 

AT 

BE 

BG 

CY 

CZ 

DK 

EE 

FI 

FR 

DE 

EL 

HU 

IE 

1,85E+08 

2,62E+08 

3,61E+08 

5,12E+08 

6,02E+08 

8,53E+08 

7,21E+07 

1,02E+08 

7,10E+08 

1,01E+09 

3,75E+08 

5,32E+08 

2,68E+08 

3,80E+08 

1,96E+08 

2,78E+08 

8,14E+08 

1,15E+09 

2,24E-01

4,36E-01 

7,27E-01 

8,72E-02 

8,58E-01 

4,53E-01 

3,24E-01 

2,37E-01 

9,83E-01 

1,90E+08

2,69E+08

2,46E+08 

3,48E+08 

1,44E+08 

2,04E+08 

2,02E+07 

2,86E+07 

2,17E+08 

3,07E+08 

1,44E+08 

2,04E+08 

4,21E+07 

5,96E+07 

1,13E+08 

1,60E+08 

1,48E+09 

2,10E+09 

4,04E+09 

5,72E+09 

4,88E+00 

1,93E+09 

2,74E+09 

1,11E+09 

1,57E+09 

1,34E+00 

2,60E+08 

3,68E+08 

5,83E+08 

8,26E+08 

4,57E+08 

6,48E+08 

7,05E-01 

5,53E-01 

2,34E+08 

3,32E+08 

1,46E+08 

2,06E+08 

2,29E-01 

2,97E-01 

1,74E-01 

2,44E-02 

2,62E-01 

1,74E-01 

5,08E-02 

1,37E-01 

1,79E+00 

2,34E+00 

3,14E-01 

2,83E-01 

1,76E-01 

IT 

2,29E+09 

3,24E+09 

2,76E+00 

9,14E+08 

1,29E+09 

1,10E+00 

80 

It is important to remember, when doing this calculation, that the contribution of bio-methane coming 
from waste can be counted twice according to the RES Directive provisions. 

EN 

66 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
LV 

LT 

LU 

9,79E+07 

1,39E+08 

4,61E+07 

6,52E+07 

1,92E+07 

2,72E+07 

MT 

3,99E+07 

5,66E+07 

7,20E+08 

1,02E+09 

1,18E-01 

5,57E-02 

2,32E-02 

4,83E-02 

8,70E-01 

4,18E+07 

5,92E+07 

6,11E+07 

8,66E+07 

1,10E+07 

1,56E+07 

1,01E+07 

1,44E+07 

3,25E+08 

4,61E+08 

3,31E+09 

4,69E+09 

4,00E+00 

6,77E+08 

9,59E+08 

7,51E+08 

1,06E+09 

9,07E-01 

2,19E+08 

3,11E+08 

2,01E+09 

2,84E+09 

2,42E+00 

4,41E+08 

6,25E+08 

1,44E+08 

2,05E+08 

1,05E+08 

1,48E+08 

1,75E-01 

1,26E-01 

1,06E+08 

1,50E+08 

4,45E+07 

6,31E+07 

5,05E-02 

7,39E-02 

1,33E-02 

1,22E-02 

3,93E-01 

8,18E-01 

2,65E-01 

5,33E-01 

1,28E-01 

5,38E-02 

3,11E+09 

4,41E+09 

3,76E+00 

1,19E+09 

1,68E+09 

1,43E+00 

8,04E+07 

1,14E+08 

9,72E-02 

2,27E+08 

3,22E+08 

2,75E-01 

NL 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SK 

SL 

ES 

SE 

UK 

3,67E+09 

5,20E+09 

4,43E+00 

1,49E+09 

2,11E+09 

1,80E+00 

Table  A3.2:  CO2  equivalent  avoided  in  2020  when  electricity  is  produced  from  biogas  and 
using bio-methane in buses  

Potential contribution to 

Potential contribution to 

2020 RES target (%) - electricity 

2020 bio-fuel target (%) 

min 

max 

average 

AT 

BE 

BG 

CY 

CZ 

DK 

EE 

FI 

FR 

DE 

EL 

HU 

IE 

IT 

LV 

LT 

LU 

MT 

0,4% 

1,0% 

1,4% 

1,5% 

1,1% 

0,6% 

0,9% 

0,2% 

0,7% 

0,9% 

1,1% 

1,7% 

1,2% 

0,7% 

0,3% 

0,9% 

0,4% 

2,8% 

0,5% 

1,4% 

2,0% 

2,1% 

1,5% 

0,8% 

1,3% 

0,3% 

1,1% 

1,3% 

1,6% 

2,3% 

1,7% 

0,9% 

0,5% 

1,2% 

0,5% 

4,0% 

0,4%

1,2%

1,7%

1,8%

1,3%

0,7%

1,1%

0,3%

0,9%

1,1%

1,4%

2,0%

1,5%

0,8%

0,4%

1,0%

0,5%

3,4%

min 

26,4%

30,2%

44,2%

29,8%

29,9%

36,3%

48,4%

29,7%

35,3%

40,5%

37,2%

51,7%

33,2%

22,7%

29,0%

36,5%

4,7%

37,7%

max 

37,4%

42,8%

62,6%

42,2%

42,4%

51,5%

68,5%

42,1%

50,0%

57,3%

52,7%

73,3%

47,1%

32,2%

41,1%

51,7%

6,6%

53,4%

average 

31,9% 

36,5% 

53,4% 

36,0% 

36,1% 

43,9% 

58,4% 

35,9% 

42,7% 

48,9% 

44,9% 

62,5% 

40,2% 

27,4% 

35,0% 

44,1% 

5,6% 

45,6% 

NL 

0,8% 

1,2% 

1,0%

29,5%

41,9%

35,7% 

EN 

67 

   EN 

 
 
  
  
  
PL 

PT 

RO 

SK 

SL 

ES 

SE 

UK 

1,2% 

0,6% 

1,0% 

1,1% 

0,5% 

1,0% 

0,2% 

1,3% 

1,7% 

0,9% 

1,5% 

1,6% 

0,8% 

1,4% 

0,3% 

1,8% 

1,4%

0,7%

1,2%

1,4%

0,6%

1,2%

0,3%

1,5%

41,1%

34,7%

70,1%

50,5%

21,2%

33,0%

30,6%

39,5%

58,2%

49,2%

99,3%

71,6%

30,1%

46,8%

43,3%

55,9%

49,6% 

42,0% 

84,7% 

61,0% 

25,7% 

39,9% 

37,0% 

47,7% 

TableA3.3: Potential contribution to RES and Bio-fuel targets in 2020 

EN 

68 

   EN 

 
 
Annex 4: Bio-waste generation assessment and collection coverage – main 
assumptions results per Member State 

Three patterns of relation between economic growth and waste generation were defined and 
applied to each Member State in order to calculate the future waste generation: 

Pattern 1: In a first phase, due to quick economic growth and a catch up operation in a 
context with less environmental awareness or pressure, a negative decoupling takes place and 
waste generation grows more quickly than the economy. This first phase is followed by 
stabilisation: 

First fifth of period 

Second fifth of period 

Third fifth of period 

Fourth fifth of period 

Growth  of  waste  production  = 
GDP growth * 2 

Growth  of  waste  production  = 
GDP growth * 3/2 

Growth  of  waste  production  = 
GDP growth 

Growth  of  waste  production  = 
GDP growth * 1/2 

Fifth fifth of period 

Growth of waste production = 0 

Table A4-1: Growth of waste production under pattern 1 

Pattern  2:  No  decoupling  takes  place  and  the  environmental  impact  evolves  at  the  same 
speed as economic activity;  

First fifth of period 

Second fifth of period 

Third fifth of period 

Fourth fifth of period 

Fifth fifth of period 

Growth  of  waste  production  = 
GDP growth * 1,3 

Growth  of  waste  production  = 
GDP growth * 1,3 

Growth  of  waste  production  = 
GDP growth * 1,3 

Growth  of  waste  production  = 
GDP growth * 0,85 

Growth  of  waste  production  = 
GDP growth * 0,3 

Table A4-2: Growth of waste production under pattern 2 

Pattern 3: Waste generation is decoupled from the economic growth (relative decoupling) 
and tends to stabilise around a maximum value. The only factor influencing the waste quantity 
is the demographic growth. 

EN 

69 

   EN 

 
 
The assumptions taken to calculate bio-waste future generation are summarised in Table A4-
3. Results country by country are shown in the last columns.  

Municipal 
waste 
generated in 
2006 
(kg/inhab) 

449 

470 -555 

285 

345 

390 

533 

439 

505 

560 

563 

418 

464 

460 

546 

311 

396 

555 

345 

557 

235 

480 

410 

301 

431 

521 

495 

591 

454 

AT 

BE 

BG 

CY 

CZ 

DK 

EE 

FI 

FR 

DE 

EL 

HU 

IE 

IT 

LV 

LT 

LU 

MT 

NL 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SK 

SI 

ES 

SE 

UK 

EU-27 

Pattern
81  

Population
Million 
inhabitant) 

Population 
growth 

(% per year) 

GDP growth 
(% 2000 - 
2020) 

% Bio-
waste in 
municipal 
waste 

Biowaste 
generated in 
2008 (M 
Tonnes) 

Biowaste 
generated in 
2020 (M 
Tonnes) 

2 

3 

1 

1 

1 

2 

1 

3 

3 

3 

1 

2 

2 

3 

1 

1 

3 

2 

3 

1 

3 

1 

2 

2 

3 

3 

3 

8,2 

10,52 

7,719 

0,75 

10,2 

5,4 

1,35 

5,3 

59 

82,3 

11 

10 

4 

57 

2,3 

3,4 

0,45 

0,4 

16,4 

38,2 

10,3 

21,61 

5,4 

2 

45,2 

9,1 

60 

487,499 

0,35 

0,22-0,38 

0,76 

1,66 

-0,16 

0,26 

0,83 

0,27 

0,41 

0,03 

0,43 

0,22 

1,24 

0,12 

0,74 

0,45 

0,83 

0,83 

0,51 

0,21 

0,27 

0,42 

0 

0 

0,58 

0,43 

0,33 

0,45 

1,94 

1,96 

5,49 

3,53 

2,65 

2,1 

5,97 

2,22 

2,11 

1,59 

3,04 

3,66 

5,23 

1,56 

6,69 

5,9 

4,54 

3,29 

2,4 

4,02 

2,47 

5,78 

3,67 

2,73 

3,05 

2,38 

2,42 

3,32 

41,3 

33,7 -37,7 

33,5 

46 

26 

34 

54,6 

35,9 

36,9 

36,6 

36,75 

27,6 

25,3 

36,4 

31,9 

23,5 

37,3 

38,7 

29,3 

26,2 

37,5 

43,7 

29,7 

32,5 

44,8 

41,8 

35,4 

1,525 

2,099 

0,907 

0,13 

1,271 

1,034 

0,35 

0,965 

12,453 

16,979 

1,903 

1,591 

0,712 

7,938 

0,2969 

0,493 

0,088 

0,061 

2,703 

2,96 

1,875 

4,006 

0,546 

0,308 

9,776 

1,905 

12,63 

1,672 

2,166 

1,273 

0,178 

1,913 

1,271 

0,371 

0,996 

13,064 

17,041 

2,293 

2,095 

1,284 

8,054 

0,368 

0,539 

0,097 

0,089 

2,868 

5,967 

1,935 

3,9 

0,932 

0,393 

10,454 

2,003 

13,13 

35,53 

87,5049 

96,346 

81 

The  pattern  for  each  country  has  been  choosen  on  the  basis  of  existing  data  and  expert  judgement  – 
source: Arcadis/Eunomia 

EN 

70 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
  
 
Table A4-3: Biowaste Generation – Main assumptions and results country per country 

EN 

71 

   EN 

 
Annex 5: Collection coverage per Member State 

On the basis of the information gathered during the stakeholder consultation and on the basis 
of studies and reports achieved at national level, a collection coverage rate of 100% has been 
assumed  for  all  the  countries  except  for  the  following  countries:  GR,  ES,  BG,  RO,  IE,  LV. 
For those countries additional assumptions have been made as summarised in Table A.5-1.  

Bulgaria 

Estonia 

Greece 

Ireland 

Latvia 

Romania 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

2014 

2015 

2016 

2017 

2018 

2019 

2020 

94 

96 

98 

100 

100 

100 

100 

100 

100 

100 

100 

100 

100 

92 

94 

96 

98 

100 

100 

100 

100 

100 

100 

100 

100 

100 

92 

92 

94 

96 

98 

100 

100 

100 

100 

100 

100 

100 

100 

80 

80 

82 

86 

90 

94 

98 

99 

100 

100 

100 

100 

100 

64 

67 

70 

73 

76 

80 

84 

87 

90 

93 

96 

98 

99 

49 

49 

55 

65 

75 

85 

95 

100 

100 

100 

100 

100 

100 

Table A.5-1: Collection coverage82 (%)  

82 

Source: Arcadis/Eunomia 

EN 

72 

   EN 

 
  
 
                                                 
Annex 6: GHG and air pollutant emissions of bio-waste treatment 
methods83 

1. Composting:  

Two  composting  techniques  have  been  assessed  in  calculations:  Open  Air  Windrow 
composting facilities and In vessel (Enclosed) composting facilities. 

Direct Climate Change Emissions to Air 

CO2 Emissions  

It is assumed that the quantity of emissions of CO2 is not dependent upon the nature of the 
facility.  However,  it  is  assumed  that  the  mineralization  of  CO2  may  occur  more  quickly  or 
more slowly depending upon the  process type and the operating parameters. Generally over 
an extended period of time, the CO2 emissions for the combined process ‘compost plus land 
application’ are very similar. The emissions from land applied materials are modelled in time 
so as to facilitate the use of appropriate discounting methods in the economic evaluation.  

CO2 Emissions after Application of Compost to Soil 

The  pace  for  conversion  of  the  carbon  contained  in  compost  into  carbon  dioxide  has  been 
assessed as follows: 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

The  carbon  can  be  converted  from  the  readily  available  organic  matter  into  stable 
organic matter (at rate x); 

The  carbon  in  the  readily  available  organic  matter  can  be  mineralised  into  carbon 
dioxide (at rate y); and 

The carbon in the stable organic matter can also be mineralised into carbon dioxide (a 
rate z). 

Following  figures  has  been  assumed  for  the  analysis:  x  =  25%,  y  =  20%,  z  =  1%. 
(Arcadis/Eunomia  estimates).  These  figures  generate  profiles  for  carbon  dioxide  emissions. 
The external costs from these emissions, discounted over time, are then assessed and included 
in the modelling. 

Methane Emissions 

For  enclosed  facilities  emissions  of  700  g  of  CH4  per  tonne  of  waste  to  facility  has  been 
assumed, whilst the figure for open (windrow) processes is taken to be 50 g of CH4 per tonne.  

83 

Unless mentioned otherwise, all the data are extracted from the Arcadis/Eunomia report. . Data used are 
based on combination of literature review, cases studies and expert judgement  

EN 

73 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
Nitrous Oxide Emissions 

The ammonia emissions are based on assumption that 9% of the input nitrogen is converted to 
ammonia, 1% is converted  to N2O, resulting in emissions of 116  g N2O per  tonne of  waste 
treated at a windrow facility. For enclosed facilities, the operation of the biofilter is assumed 
to result in emissions of 360 g N2O per tonne of garden waste (the figure for a mixed food / 
garden waste feedstock is slightly higher at 478 g per tonne). 

Air Quality Impacts 

Emissions of VOCs84 

Compounds Detected 

 Grams  per 

tonne  of 

MSW 

m,p Xylene [108-38-3; 106-42-3] 

Nonane [111-84-2] 

o Xylene [95-47-6] 

Beta.-Pinene [127-91-3] 

Ocimene [13877-91-3] 

D-Limonene [5989-27-5] 

Undecane [1120-21-4] 

Dodecane [112-40-3] 

Methyl-(methylethyl)-Cyclohexane [99-82-1] 

0.81 

0.44 

0.54 

3.7 

3.0 

10.5 

2.4 

1.2 

1.5 

Table A6-1: Emissions of VOCs from Monitoring of Compost Facilities85 

TOTAL  24.0 

It has been further assumed that the use of biofilters reduces the emissions by 80% in the case 
of  in-vessel  facilities.  The  use  of  biofilters  is assumed  to  result  in  zero  damage  cost  for  the 
remaining 20% of VOC emission (i.e. the biofilter is assumed to remove those pollutants that 
result in the health effects).No emission of carbon monoxide has been assumed. 

2. Anaerobic Digestion 

Direct Climate Change Emissions to Air 

CO2  emissions  resulting  from  the  AD  of  source-separated  organic  waste  are  based  on  the 
carbon content of the input waste, assumed to 100% food waste for the purposes of this study. 
The carbon content is calculated on the basis of the total organic content of the waste and its 
volatile solids (VS) content. A proportion of the total carbon content will be converted to CO2 
as a result of biogas combustion for energy generation (in whatever form this takes).  

84 

85 

Assessment  of  emissions  of  VOCs  has  been  based  on  the  results  of  the  measurements  by  UK 
Environment Agency 
Source:  Environment  Agency  (2000)  Life  Cycle  Inventory  Development  for  Waste  Management 
Operations: Composting and Anaerobic Digestion, R&D Project Record P1/392/4 

EN 

74 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Parameter 

Assumption 

Dry matter content of food waste 

Organic matter content of VS 

Carbon content of VS 

VS content of organic matter 

VS loss during digestion 

Methane content of biogas 

Fugitive CH4 emissions from digester (% carbon converted to CH4)86 

CO2 emissions from the process (kg CO2 per tonne of waste input) 

Table A6-2: Assumptions Relating to AD Process and Generation of Biogas 

Air Quality Impacts 

Pollutant 

Example emissions data 

30% 

93% 

45% 

45% 

70% 

60% 

1.5% 

276 

CO 
NOx 
NH3 
SOx 
H2S 
TOC (VOC) 
Odour 
Dioxins/furans 
Total chlorine 
HCl 
HF 
Cd 
Cr 
Hg 
Pb 
Zn 

Value 

72.3 
10-72.3 
Fugitive 
2.5-30 
284-289 
0.0023 
626 
10-8 
1.5 
0.011 
0.0021 
9.4E-07 
1.1E-07 
6.9E-07 
8.5E-07 
1.3E-07 

Table A6-3: Emissions Data from Anaerobic Plants87 

Unit 

g / tonne 
g / tonne 

g / tonne 
mg/Nm3 
g / tonne 
GE/Nm3 
g / tonne 
µg/Nm3 
g / tonne 
g / tonne 
g / tonne 
g / tonne 
g / tonne 
g / tonne 
g / tonne 

86 
87 

Equivalent to 900 g of CH4 per tonne of waste to process 
Source:  European  Commission  (2006)  Integrated  Pollution  Prevention  and  Control:  Reference 
Document on Best Available Techniques for the Waste Treatment Industries, August 2006 

EN 

75 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
Although  fugitive  emissions  of  H2S  may  occur  in  digestion  plants,  no  damage  cost  is 
associated  with  this  pollutant.  The  model  therefore  attributes  no  external  cost  to  air  quality 
impacts occurring during the digestion phase.  

It is further assumed that the VOC emissions associated with this part of the process will be 
negligible  in  a  well  managed  facility,  due  to  the  enclosed  nature  of  the  process.  Therefore, 
direct air quality emissions from the process principally relate to NOx emissions as the biogas 
is  burnt.  These  are  lower  for  the  gas  to  grid  option  as  biogas  goes  through  an  additional 
cleaning process prior to grid injection.  

The cleaning process removes the NH3 and H2S which are a principal cause of NOx and SOx 
emissions when the biogas is combusted onsite in a gas engine. 

3. Landfilling 

Direct Climate Change Emissions to Air 

Climate Change Impacts – landfill gas generation 

The  generation  of  landfill  gas  has  been  made  using  IPCC  default  model88  -  time-dependent 
‘first  order  decay’  functions.  Emissions  of  methane  from  landfill  are  allocated  to  specific 
years over a 150 year period.  

Therefore  all  the  emissions  and  damage  cost  related  are  discounted  using  a  declining  long-
term discount rate as recommended in the UK Treasury’s Green Book. Table shows the rates 
at which damage costs are discounted for the relevant time periods. 

Period of years 

0-30 

31-75 

76-125 

126-200 

201-300 

301+ 

Discount rate 

3.5% 

3.0% 

2.5% 

2.0% 

1.5% 

1.0% 

Table  A6-4:  Declining  Long-Term  Discount  Rate  as  Applied  to  Landfill  Emission  Damage 
Costs89 

For waste that has not been pre-treated, it is assumed that 50% of the landfill gas is captured 
by the landfill gas management system, and that a further 10% is oxidised through the cover 
of the landfill.  

Air Quality Impacts 

Whilst landfill gas is principally comprised of methane and carbon dioxide, approximately 1% 
of the volume of the gas is made up of trace elements. This can include up to 150 substances 
including  halogenated  organics,  organo-sulphur  compounds  and  aromatic  hydrocarbons 
depending on the nature of the waste.90  

88 

89 
90 

Land Quality Management (2003) Methane Emissions from Landfill Sites in the UK, Report for Defra, 
January  2003;  IPCC  (2006)  Guidelines  for  National  Greenhouse  Gas  Inventories:  Chapter  3  –  Solid 
Waste Disposal 
Source: The UK Treasury Green Book 
Komex (2002) Investigation of the Composition and Emissions of Trace Components in Landfill Gas, 
R&D Technical Report P1-438/TR for the Environment Agency, Bristol 

EN 

76 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The  gases  which  are  emitted  in  any  one  year  are  assumed  to  be  related  to  the  quantity  of 
methane or CO2 produced, depending upon whether one is considering raw gas or gas once 
combusted (table A6-5). 

Methane  emissions  to  the  atmosphere  and  methane  emissions  captured  are  both  used  to 
estimate, on a proportional basis, emissions of different trace gases in a given year using the 
relative  composition  of  gas  outlined  in  below.  The  way  this  is  done  is  to  normalise  the 
concentrations (by weight) so that: 

•  Where  gas  is  flared,  the  emissions  of  other  gases  are  calculated  with  reference  to  the 
studies by Enviros et al and White et al.  The way  this is done is by calculating the CO2 
content  of  flared  gas  and  calculating  the  emissions  of  other  gases  through  the  quantities 
relative to CO2 as specified in the two studies mentioned; 

•  A  similar  approach  is  used  to  calculate  fugitive  emissions,  but  in  this  case,  the  other 

emissions are calculated relative to the calculated quantity of methane emissions; and 

•  For gas which is emitted from the gas engine, the emissions of other gases are calculated 

using the quantities estimated in other studies relative to calculated CO2 emissions.  

EN 

77 

   EN 

 
3

Fugitive 

Flaring 

Ratio to CH4 

Ratio to CO2 

Energy 
Generation 

Ratio to CO2 

Source 

0.001818 

0.005714 

•   

Methane 

Carbon dioxide 

Carbon monoxide 

Hydrogen sulphide 

Hydrogen chloride 

Hydrogen fluoride 

Chlorinated HC 

Dioxins and furans 

Total Particulates 

Nitrogen oxides 

Sulphur dioxide 

Cadmium 

Chromium 

Lead 

Mercury 

Zinc 

Nickel 

Arsenic 

1 

1.733333 

3.03E-05 

4.66E-04 

2.67E-06 

5.33E-07 

8.10E-05 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

7.12E-08 

2.00E-08 

1.41E-08 

1.68E-07 

0 

0 

Total VOCs 

0.000333 

Non-methane VOCs 

0 

1,1-dichloroethane 

Chloroethane 

Chloroethene 

Chlorobenzene 

Tetrachloroethene 

PCBs 

Benzene 

0.000036 

1.33E-05 

1.47E-05 

0.000032 

0.000044 

0 

3.2E-06 

1 

4.09E-04 

1.69E-08 

8.64E-05 

1.82E-05 

5.10E-06 

3.36E-13 

3.64E-05 

0.000455 

0.000545 

0 

1.25E-08 

2.49E-09 

2.49E-09 

6.64E-11 

0 

0 

7.73E-06 

8.64E-06 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

Enviros 

Enviros 

4.09E-04 

White et al 

1.69E-08 

White et al 

1.14E-05 

1.14E-05 

5.10E-06 

5.43E-13 

0.00002 

0.002571 

0.0002 

2.86E-07 

1.25E-08 

Enviros 

Enviros 

Enviros 

Enviros 

Enviros 

Enviros 

Enviros 

Enviros 

White et al 

2.49E-09 

White et al 

4.57E-09 

Enviros 

6.64E-11 

White et al 

3.71E-08 

4.57E-09 

0 

8.57E-05 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Enviros 

Enviros 

Enviros 

Enviros 

Enviros 

Enviros 

Enviros 

Enviros 

Enviros 

3.64E-08 

5.71E-07 

0 

0 

0 

0 

White et al 

Enviros 

EN 

78 

   EN 

 
 
Table A6-5: Non Greenhouse Gas Emissions to Air from Landfilling91 

4. Incineration 

Direct Climate Change Emissions to Air 

Carbon Content of Waste Materials 

Greenhouse gas emissions occurring as a result of the incineration of waste will be dependent 
upon  the  carbon  content  of  the  dry  material,  along  with  the  overall  efficiency  of  energy 
generation that results from the combustion of that material.  

Error!  Reference  source  not  found.Table  A6-6  details  the  carbon  content  of  waste 
components together with their energy and moisture content. 

Total C  
(% fm) 

Proportion of C 
that is non fossil 

Energy content 
(lower heating 
value as received) 
MJ per kg 

Typical 
moisture 
content 

Paper 

Card 

Dense plastic 

Plastic film 

Textiles 

Glass 

Ferrous metal 

Non ferrous metal 

Wood 

Garden waste 

Food waste 

Misc. combustibles 

Misc. non combustibles 

Fines 

41% 

32% 

77% 

72% 

49% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

32% 

26% 

14% 

40% 

7% 

30% 

100% 

100% 

50% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

50% 

100% 

13 

12 

35 

33 

15 

0 

0 

0 

12 

8 

4 

15 

0 

5 

10% 

24% 

10% 

15% 

19% 

2% 

3% 

5% 

30% 

45% 

70% 

41% 

6% 

41% 

91 

Source: Adapted from White P R, Franke M and Hindle P (1995) Integrated Solid Waste Management: 
A  Lifecycle  Inventory,  Blackie  Academic  &  Professional,  Chapman  and  Hall;  Enviros,  University  of 
Birmingham, RPA Ltd., Open University and Thurgood M (2004) Review of Environmental and Health 
Effects  of  Waste  Management:  Municipal  Solid  Waste  and  Similar  Wastes,  Final  Report  to  Defra, 
March 2004 

EN 

79 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Table A6-6: Carbon Contents and Energy Content for Materials in the Waste Stream 

The  EU  BREF  note  provided  a  range  of  5.5  –  66  g  N2O  per  tonne  of  waste  treated  by  the 
facility.  The  mid  point  of  these  values  has  been  used  within  the  current  analysis.  CH4 
emissions are negligible from incineration facilities. 

Air Quality Impacts 

In the analysis two types of incinerator are considered: 

•  A  facility  that  meets  the  Waste  Incineration  Directive  (WID),  typical  of  those  that  have 

installed SNCR to reduce NOx emissions; 

•  A  facility  that  significantly  out-performs  the  requirements  of  the  WID  through  the 

installation of SCR and wet scrubbing techniques.  

Emissions are based on data obtained from plant operating in the Belgium with this type of 
equipment  installed.  Such  installation  has  been  assumed  for  Germany,  the  Netherlands, 
Belgium and Austria. Emissions data for the facilities are detailed in Table A6-7. 

WID compliant facility 

Significantly out-performs WID92 

mg/Nm 

g / t waste93 

mg/Nm 

g / t waste 

PM10 / dust94 
Dioxin (ng ITEQ/Nm3) 

NOx 

SO2 
HF 

HCl 

CO 

NMVOC 

Total heavy metal 

10.0 

0.1 

200.0 

50.0 

10.0 

1.0 

50.0 

10.0 

0.5 

61.0 

0.0 

1,220.0 

305.0 

6.1 

61.0 

305.0 

61.0 

3.0 

0.5 

0.0 

45.0 

1.0 

0.0 

0.5 

10.0 

0.5 

0.0 

Table A6-7: Emissions from Incineration Facilities95 

3.0 

0.0 

274.5 

4.8 

0.0 

1.2 

55.2 

3.0 

0.2 

92 
93 

94 
95 

Assumes the use of SCR and wet scrubbing techniques to reduce emissions 
Assumes  an  exhaust  gas  exit  volume  of  140  Nm3/s,  based  on  data  provided  by  a  650,000  tonne  per 
annum incinerator located in Paris (Source: ExternE) 
70% of PM10 is assumed to be PM2.5 (Source: Chang et al) 
Sources:  Information  Centre  for  Environmental  Licensing  (2002)  Dutch  Notes  on  BAT  for  the 
Incineration of Waste, Report for the Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment, The 
Netherlands,  February  2002;  European  Commission  (2006)  Integrated  Pollution  Prevention  and 
Control:  Reference  Document  on  Best  Available  Techniques  for  the  Waste  Treatment  Industries, 
August  2006;  ExternE  (1999)  Externalities  of  Energy,  Vol  10:  National  Implementation,  prepared  by 
CIEMAT for the European Commission, Belgium; Chang M B, Huang C K, Wu J J, and Chang S H 
(2000)  Characteristics  of  heavy  metals  on  particles  with  different  sizes  from  municipal  solid  waste 
incineration, Journal of Hazardous Materials 79(3): pp229-239 

EN 

80 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
The principal determinant of air quality impacts associated with incineration facilities relates 
to the NOx emissions – both with respect to direct emissions from the treatment process and 
emissions generated through the use of diesel in the facility.  

EN 

81 

   EN 

 
Annex 7:  Energy consumed/produced for each bio-waste treatment 
method96 

1. Compost  

Energy Used at Facilities 

Following energy use has been assumed at composting facilities 

•  For windrow facilities: 1 litre of diesel and 0 kWh of electricity; 

•  For enclosed facilities: 0.3 litres of diesel and 40 kWh of electricity. 

Energy Used to Spread Compost 

The following  figures has been taken into account for diesel  use: 0.54 litres per tonne for a 
mixed food / garden compost, or 0.41 litres per tonne assuming the feedstock is garden waste.  

2. Anaerobic digestion 

Energy Used at Facilities 

Unlike  composting  plant,  AD  facilities  can  potentially  utilise  some  of  the  energy  generated 
within the process to meet their requirements. AD facilities typically use both electricity and 
heat, discussed in the two sections that follow. 

It  is  assumed  that  the  AD  process  utilises  30  kWh  of  electricity  and  118  kWh  of  heat  per 
tonne of input to the process, equivalent to 10% of electricity generated, and 33% of the heat 
generation. The additional electricity requirement for upgrading is assumed to be 28 kWh of 
electricity (equivalent to 0.2 kWh per Nm3 of biogas). 

These  energy  requirements  are  assumed  to  be  supplied  by  the  AD  process  itself  –  i.e.  a 
smaller CHP unit is assumed to fuel the vehicle fuel and gas to grid applications. The energy 
content  of  the  biogas  that  is  assumed  to  be  available  for  the  upgrading  process  is  therefore 
reduced accordingly.  

No emissions are directly attributed to these energy requirements, as they are included within 
the total emissions attributed to the AD process. 

Energy Generation 

The  present  Assessment  considers  the  following  uses  for  the  biogas  produced  from  the  AD 
process: 

96 

Unless mentioned otherwise, all the data are extracted from the Arcadis/Eunomia report. Data used are 
based on combination of literature review, cases studies and expert judgement  

EN 

82 

   EN 

 
                                                 
•  to generate electricity or heat on site using a gas engine; 

•  upgraded biogas used to power vehicles; 

•  upgraded biogas injected into the natural gas grid.  

Each will result in emissions from the utilisation process itself, as well as offsetting emissions 
associated  with  the  energy  generation  that  would  have  otherwise  taken  place.  The  ultimate 
emissions to atmosphere, and indeed, the emissions associated with the compensatory system, 
will be different depending upon the utilisation route. Avoided emissions are also dependent 
upon the energy mix of the country. 

On-site Combustion of Biogas 

It  has  been  assumed  that  biogenic  CO2  emissions  of  276  kg  CO2  per  tonne  of  waste  result 
from the combustion of the biogas in the gas engine. Further, it is assumes that emissions are 
of 30 g CO2 equivalent per kWh of electricity from the non-combusted biogas resulting in 8 
kg CO2 equivalent emissions from one tonne of waste to the process. 

Other assumptions are outlined in Table A.7-1. 

Emissions from biogas combustion (g / tonne of waste) 

CO 

Dust 

NOx 

Hydrocarbons 

SO2 

200 

20 

250 

40 

20 

Table A.7-1: Emissions from the Combustion of Biogas  

Use of Upgraded Biogas as a Vehicle Fuel 

The assessment assumes that the upgraded biogas is used to fuel heavy goods vehicles such as 
a bus or a waste collection vehicle, as is the case in Sweden, France and the UK. Comparisons 
are  made  on  the  basis  of  emissions  reductions  per  km  of  travel,  assuming  the  same  type  of 
engine is used for both the diesel and gas fuelled vehicles. It is assumed that the use of biogas 
results in emissions reductions of: 

•  15% for the greenhouse gases (in terms of CO2 equivalent emissions);  

•  75% for the NMHC; 

•  46% for NOx; and 

•  90% for particulates. 

It is also assumed that 2% of the CH4 in the biogas is emitted during the upgrading process. 

EN 

83 

   EN 

 
 
Injection of Upgraded Biogas into the Gas Grid 

Cleaned and upgraded biogas (biomethane) can also be injected into the gas distribution grid 
as  a  substitute  for  natural  gas.  Biogas  injected  into  the  gas  network  is  assumed  to  offset 
emissions associated with a similar quantity of natural gas on a calorie for calorie basis.  

The  plant  is  assumed  to  produce  2,114  MJ  or  587  kWh  of  compressed  biogas  per  tonne  of 
food waste to the facility (excluding the biogas required by the process for energy generation 
purposes).  

Offset emissions for climate change  impacts  are based on the calorific value of natural gas, 
assumed  to  be  0.238  kg  CO2  per  kWh  (including  emissions  associated  with  extraction  and 
transport).  Biogas  injected  into  the  grid  is  also  assumed  to  offset  the  air  quality  impacts 
associated  with  the  pre-combustion  emissions  for  natural  gas  such  as  those  relating  to 
transport and extraction. These are shown in Table A.7-2. 

Pre-combustion emissions, g / MJ 

NMVOC 

NOx 

SOx 

PM2.5 

0.025 

0.022 

0.027 

0.001 

Table A.7-2: Pre-combustion Emissions Associated With the Use of Natural Gas97 

3. Landfilling 

Energy Used at Facilities 

Landfills typically use both electricity and diesel. Diesel use is assumed to be 1.65 litres per 
tonne of material sent to landfill, whilst the electricity requirement is taken to be 1% of that 
generated.  These  assumptions  are  taken  from  a  recent  report  produced  in  the  UK  by  ERM 
which investigated the greenhouse gas emissions associated with a range of waste treatment 
facilities.98  

Energy Generation 

It  is  assumed  that  60%  of  the  captured  methane  is  used  for  energy  generation,  with  the 
remainder being flared. The gross efficiency of the gas engine at the landfill is assumed to be 
the same as that used to generate energy from biogas, i.e., 37%. The emissions assumed to be 
offset by this generation are dependent upon the energy mix of the country. 

4. Incineration 

97 

98 

Source: ecoinvent (2004) ecoinvent Data v1.1, Final Reports ecoinvent 2000, No. 1-15, Swiss Centre 
for Life Cycle Inventories, Dubendorf, 2004 
ERM (2006) Carbon Balances and Energy Impacts of the Management of UK Wastes, Final Report to 
Defra, December 2006 

EN 

84 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
Energy Used at Facilities 

Following energy consumption has been assumed: 

78 kWh per tonne of waste input in SNCR facilities (CEWEP) 

85 kWh per tonne of waste input in SCR facilities (VITO)  

Oil: 4 kg per tonne (or 4.7 litres per tonne) 

Energy generated at the facilities 

The assumptions on energy efficiency of incinerators re based on the survey data provided by 
CEWEP and summarized in the table A.7-3 below.  

EN 

85 

   EN 

 
Parameter 

Assumption99 

Electricity 

Gross electrical generation efficiency 

CHP 

Gross electrical generation efficiency 

Gross heat generation efficiency 

Heat 

Gross heat generation efficiency 

27% 

10% 

56% 

85% 

Table A.7-3: Summary of Energy Generation Efficiencies – Incineration Facilities 

The emissions offsets associated with this generation are, in turn, dependent upon the energy 
mix of the country for both electricity and heat. Green waste is assumed to generate 864 kWh 
of useful heat in a facility generating only heat. Offset greenhouse gas emissions associated 
with this electricity generation range from 180 – 279 kg CO2 equivalent, depending upon the 
energy mix of the country. Facilities generating only electricity are assumed to generate 474 
kWh of electricity, which results in avoided emissions of 9 – 474 kg CO2 equivalent. 

99 

60% of the heat generated by incineration facilities is assumed to be utilised. 

EN 

86 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
Annex 8:  Energy mix per Member State and monetisation of related 
environmental impacts 

1. Energy Use by Member States 

Electricity  Mix1:  Table  AA.8-1100  presents  the  2006  electricity  mix  in  the  27  Member 
States. 

Oil 

Gas 

Nuclear 

Renewables 

Solid fuel 

Other 

Austria 
Belgium 
Bulgaria 
Cyprus 
Czech Rep. 
Denmark 
Estonia 
Finland 
France 
Germany 
Greece 
Hungary 
Ireland 
Italy 
Latvia 
Lithuania 
Luxembourg 
Malta 
Netherlands 
Poland 
Portugal 
Romania 
Slovenia 
Spain 
Sweden 
UK 

3% 
2% 
1% 
100% 
0% 
4% 
0% 
1% 
1% 
2% 
16% 
2% 
10% 
15% 
0% 
3% 
0% 
100% 
2% 
2% 
11% 
3% 
0% 
8% 
1% 
1% 

19% 
30% 
5% 
0% 
5% 
21% 
8% 
16% 
4% 
12% 
17% 
37% 
51% 
52% 
43% 
20% 
75% 
0% 
60% 
3% 
25% 
19% 
3% 
30% 
1% 
36% 

0% 
54% 
42% 
0% 
31% 
0% 
0% 
28% 
79% 
26% 
0% 
38% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
69% 
0% 
0% 
4% 
0% 
0% 
9% 
37% 
20% 
47% 
19% 

62% 
4% 
9% 
0% 
4% 
22% 
1% 
27% 
11% 
12% 
13% 
4% 
9% 
17% 
57% 
3% 
25% 
0% 
10% 
3% 
32% 
29% 
25% 
17% 
50% 
5% 

11% 
8% 
42% 
0% 
59% 
53% 
90% 
27% 
4% 
42% 
53% 
20% 
29% 
14% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
24% 
91% 
31% 
40% 
36% 
22% 
1% 
38% 

5% 
2% 
1% 
0% 
1% 
0% 
0% 
1% 
1% 
6% 
1% 
0% 
1% 
2% 
0% 
5% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
1% 
1% 
0% 
0% 
3% 
0% 
1% 

Table A.8-1: Electricity Generation Mix – EU Member States  

Heat Mix 

Table A8-2 presents the heat mix for each of the 27 Member States in 2006 developed from 
data provided by Eurostat. 

100 

Source: Commission of the European Communities (2008) Second Strategic Energy Review: Europe’s 
Current and Future Energy Position, Part B - Statistical Annex, Report to the European Parliament 

EN 

87 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
Austria 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Cyprus 

Czech Rep. 

Denmark 

Estonia 

Finland 

France 

Germany 

Greece 

Hungary 

Ireland 

Italy 

Latvia 

Lithuania 

Luxembourg 

Oil 

35% 

47% 

26% 

89% 

16% 

31% 

10% 

35% 

42% 

36% 

66% 

20% 

51% 

36% 

12% 

28% 

33% 

Malta 

100% 

Netherlands 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Slovak Rep. 

Slovenia 

Spain 

Sweden 

UK 

37% 

19% 

53% 

24% 

17% 

38% 

51% 

33% 

28% 

Gas 

29% 

35% 

28% 

0% 

29% 

32% 

23% 

8% 

36% 

37% 

6% 

60% 

27% 

44% 

39% 

48% 

53% 

0% 

51% 

21% 

13% 

47% 

47% 

28% 

28% 

4% 

56% 

Renewables 

Solid fuel 

21% 

5% 

9% 

6% 

7% 

28% 

18% 

39% 

12% 

9% 

9% 

8% 

4% 

10% 

46% 

18% 

5% 

0% 

5% 

8% 

29% 

12% 

4% 

16% 

10% 

49% 

3% 

15% 

13% 

38% 

5% 

48% 

9% 

48% 

18% 

9% 

18% 

19% 

12% 

18% 

10% 

3% 

6% 

10% 

0% 

7% 

52% 

5% 

18% 

32% 

18% 

11% 

14% 

13% 

Table A8-2: Heat Generation Mix – EU Member States101 

101 

Source: Commission of the European Communities (2008) Second Strategic Energy Review: Europe’s 
Current and Future Energy Position, Part B - Statistical Annex, Report to the European Parliament 

EN 

88 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
2. Environmental Impacts of Energy Use 

There can be considerable variation in the environmental impacts of energy generation. Much 
of the variation is associated with the choice of fuel – for example, the impacts (in terms of 
emissions  to  air  per  kWh  of  electricity  generated)  associated  with  the  use  of  renewable 
sources of electricity and nuclear are typically far less than those associated with oil and coal.  

However  there  is  also  variation  between  emissions  resulting  from  use  of  the  same  fuel  to 
generate  the  same  type  of  energy  in  different  circumstances  e.g.  coal  quality  or  sulphur 
content). 

Given such a diverse sources of variation, it is difficult to develop country specific emissions 
factors.  Nevertheless  the  approach  has  been  to  develop  “typical”  emissions  factors  and  use 
these factors across all Member States.  

Electricity 

Table  AA8-3  confirms  the  emissions  factors  used  to  estimate  the  impacts  of  electricity 
generation for the different generation sources considered within the current analysis.  

Emissions factors, kg / kWh electricity102 

Gas 

Oil 

Coal 

Nuclear 

Renewables 

CO2e 

NMVOC 

PM2.5 

SOx 

NOx 

0.4 

0.8 

0.9 

0.0 

0.0 

2.70E-04 

1.40E-05 

2.20E-04 

7.20E-04 

4.05E-04 

2.44E-04 

6.86E-03 

2.35E-03 

1.21E-04 

2.81E-04 

4.52E-03 

2.82E-03 

2.58E-03 

1.58E-05 

3.67E-05 

3.98E-05 

5.65E-06 

1.30E-05 

1.58E-05 

3.26E-05 

Table A8-3: Emissions Factors for Electricity Generation103 

Heat 

Table A.8-4 confirms the emissions factors used to estimate the impacts of heat generation for 
the different generation sources considered within the current analysis.  

102 

103 

Includes pre-combustion emissions for the fossil fuels and nuclear (e.g. emissions associated with fuel 
extraction), electricity from renewables is assumed to be 80% hydro-electricity and 20% wind  
Sources: Eurostat (2009) Panorama of Energy: Energy Statistics to Support EU Policies and Solutions; 
ecoinvent (2004) ecoinvent Data v1.1, Final Reports ecoinvent 2000, No. 1-15, Swiss Centre for Life 
Cycle  Inventories,  Dubendorf,  2004;  D.  Weisser  (2007)  A  Guide  to  Life-cycle  Greenhouse  Gas 
Emissions from Electric Supply Technologies, Energy, 32, pp1543-1559 

EN 

89 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
Emissions factors, kg / MJ heat104 

CO2e 

NMVOC 

PM2.5 

SOx 

NOx 

Gas 

Oil 

Coal 

Renewables 

0.2 

0.3 

0.4 

0.1 

3.63E-05 

1.61E-06 

3.16E-05 

4.51E-05 

1.00E-05 

1.00E-05 

3.29E-04 

1.50E-04 

6.10E-05 

3.48E-05 

6.59E-04 

2.14E-04 

3.47E-05 

5.40E-05 

1.03E-05 

2.15E-04 

Table A8-4: Emissions Factors for Heat Generation105 

Heat  generation  from  waste  management  facilities  is  generated  continuously  and  would  not 
always be capable of being utilised. A heat load factor of 60% has been used in this report. 

Diesel 

It has been assumed a figure of 3.26 kg CO2 equivalent per litre of diesel (including 0.46 kg 
CO2 equivalent pre-combustion emissions). Data regarding the air quality impacts associated 
with  the  use  of  diesel  within  waste  management  facilities  is  taken  from  the  BUWAL  life-
cycle  inventory  database  produced  by  the  Federal  Office  for  the  Environment  in 
Switzerland.106 The major air quality impacts are emissions of NOx (estimated to be 105 g per 
litre of diesel combusted), SOx (5 g per litre) and PM10 (2 g per litre).  

Summary of Impacts for the Different Member States 

Table  A8-5  shows  the  external  costs  for  the  utilisation  of  energy  for  each  Member  State, 
taking  into  account  both  the  generation  mix  for  electricity  and  heat  (previously  shown  in 
Table AA8-1 and A8-2) and the external costs associated with the pollutants for each country 
(Annex 12 – Table A12-1). 

104 

105 

106 

Includes  pre-combustion  emissions  for  the  fossil  fuels  (e.g.  emissions  associated  with  fuel 
extraction)The factor for renewables is based on the emissions factor for wood fuel and assumes two 
thirds of the fuel was sustainably produced (with regard to the CO2 emissions) 
Sources: Eurostat (2009) Panorama of Energy: Energy Statistics to Support EU Policies and Solutions; 
ecoinvent (2004) ecoinvent Data v1.1, Final Reports ecoinvent 2000, No. 1-15, Swiss Centre for Life 
Cycle Inventories, Dubendorf, 2004 
Available from http://www.bafu.admin.ch  

EN 

90 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
External costs for electricity, € / MW  

External costs for heat, € / GJ  

Climate change 

Air Quality 

Climate change 

Air Quality 

€ 4.99  
€ 4.70  
€ 9.49  
€ 18.63  
€ 12.89  
€ 13.71  
€ 19.79  
€ 7.45  
€ 1.41  
€ 10.35  
€ 15.79  
€ 8.07  
€ 12.81  
€ 11.18  
€ 4.31  
€ 2.56  
€ 8.38  
€ 18.63  
€ 10.71  
€ 19.75  
€ 11.05 
€ 10.62 
€ 4.64 
€ 7.85 
€ 9.04 
€ 0.44 
€ 11.25 

€ 33.67  
€ 31.15  
€ 77.93  
€ 224.34  
€ 28.04  
€ 31.06  
€ 149.02  
€ 37.15  
€ 5.10  
€ 25.57  
€ 124.27  
€ 62.81  
€ 31.04  
€ 53.56  
€ 15.11  
€ 13.77  
€ 20.77  
€ 71.74  
€ 75.16  
€ 50.40  

€ 106.35 
€ 55.05 
€ 16.95 
€ 17.63 
€ 46.16 
€ 5.08 
€ 46.52 

€ 1.78  
€ 1.72  
€ 1.97  
€ 1.83  
€ 2.06  
€ 1.48  
€ 1.96  
€ 1.57  
€ 1.68  
€ 1.80  
€ 1.88  
€ 1.75  
€ 1.85  
€ 1.80  
€ 1.34  
€ 1.63  
€ 1.95  
€ 1.86  
€ 1.61  
€ 2.09  

€ 1.57 
€ 1.62 
€ 1.95 
€ 1.77 
€ 1.76 
€ 1.45 
€ 1.60 

€ 9.03  
€ 9.04  
€ 1.58  
€ 1.47  
€ 10.30  
€ 3.80  
€ 2.20  
€ 1.67  
€ 6.46  
€ 9.72  
€ 1.60  
€ 3.23  
€ 4.83  
€ 4.59  
€ 1.12  
€ 1.56  
€ 6.52  
€ 2.08  
€ 7.63  
€ 7.25  

€ 2.46 
€ 1.05 
€ 4.99 
€ 6.20 
€ 3.55 
€ 2.71 
€ 4.05 

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 

Table 8-5: External Costs for Energy Utilisation (Average Energy Mix) 

EN 

91 

   EN 

 
 
 
Annex 9: Use of Compost/Digestate: benefits and monetisation107 

The current analysis assumes the following: 

•  65% of the compost produced from IVC and windrow facilities is used in agriculture, with 

the remainder used in horticultural / amateur gardening applications; 

•  90%  of  the  compost/digestate  produced  from  AD  facilities  is  used  in  agricultural 

applications with the remainder used in horticulture and amateur gardening. 

Where compost is used in agriculture it is assumed to displace the use of synthetic fertilisers 
whilst that used in horticulture and amateur gardening is assumed to displace the use of peat.  

The  modelling  assumes  the  production  of  relatively  mature  compost  that  would  not  be 
required for most agricultural applications, though it would be essential in higher quality and 
value uses such as in potting mixes. 

1. 

The use of compost/digestate in agriculture 

Principal benefits associated with the use of compost in agriculture are: 

•  A reduction in the use of fertilisers. The following environmental impacts are assumed to 

be offset:  

•  The manufacture of fertiliser (an energy intensive process); 

•  The  use  of  fertiliser  itself  (principally  nitrous  oxide  emissions  to  air,  and  the 

leaching of nitrate to water from soil); 

•  A reduction in pesticide use; 

•  A reduction in water use. 

For  further  explanation  compost  cover  both  compost  from  aerobic  processes  as  well  as 
digestate from anaerobic digestion, regardless if it has been composted afterwards. 

Replacement for Mineral Fertiliser 

Unlike mineral fertilisers, the use of compost does not provide a specific amount of N, P or K 
that  will  be  immediately  available  to  the  growing  plant.  Compared  to  mineral  fertilisers, 
composts  provide  low  levels  of  N,  P  and  K.  However, the addition  of compost can provide 
essential trace minerals to the soil (calcium, sulphur, iron, boron, molybdenum and zinc) that 
are not supplied when mineral fertilisers are added. 

Modelling the Amount of Nutrient Displaced and the Rate of Application 

The nutrient values we have used for composts are shown in Table A9-1.  

107 

Unless mentioned otherwise, all the data are extracted from the Arcadis/Eunomia report  

EN 

92 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Mix 

Garden Only 

Mainly Garden 

Kitchen and Garden 

N 

1.07% 

1.31% 

1.79% 

P 

0.47% 

0.77% 

1.38% 

K 

0.42% 

0.70% 

1.26% 

Table A9-1: Nutrient Content of Composts with Different Biowaste Components 

In  the  assessment  an  application  rate  of  10  tonnes  per  hectare  of  dry  matter  is  taken.  The 
mineralisation rate of the nutrients is assumed to be 30%. This determines the time profile of 
the  displacement  effect  (which  in  turn  affects  the  external  benefits  associated  with 
displacement via the discounting mechanism). 

For  synthetic  fertilisers,  a  loss  rate  of  23%  is  assumed  for  nitrogenous  fertilisers108.  The 
nitrogen  in  compost  is  assumed  to  be  100%  available  to  plants  over  time,  with  the 
mineralisation rate determining the rate at which the nutrient is made available. This means 
that  more  nutrients  have  to  be  applied  in  a  given  year  in  the  synthetic  form  than  would  be 
available in mineralised form from the composted materials. 

For an application of 10 tonnes dry matter per hectare in one year, the N displacement would 
follow the evolution set out in Table A9-2 and Figure 9-3 below. Equivalent projections for P 
and K displacement have been calculated using mineralization rates of 70% for both. 

Year 

Displacement of N (kg) 

Cumulative Displacement 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

50.9 

35.7 

25.0 

17.5 

12.2 

8.6 

6.0 

4.2 

2.9 

2.1 

50.9 

86.6 

111.6 

129.0 

141.3 

149.8 

155.8 

160.0 

163.0 

165.0 

Table A9-2:  Evolution  in  N  Displacement  Associated  with  10  tonnes  Dry  Matter  of 
Composting Applied to Farmland, Southern Member State Case 

108 

This  is  the  loss  rate  from  Hydro  Agri  Europe  (1995)  Important  Questions  on  Fertilizer  and  the 
Environment, Brussels: Hydro Agri Europe. 

EN 

93 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Figure  A9-3:  Evolution  of  Nitrogen  Displacement  over  Time  from  Single  Compost 
Application 

Impacts Resulting from the Manufacture of Fertiliser 

There are a number of different routes to NPK fertiliser production. The most widespread are 
the mixed acid and nitrophosphate routes. This assessment is based  on  two sources  of data, 
the  first  on  Best  Available  Technologies  from  EFMA  (European  Fertilisers  Manufacturing 
Association),  the  second  from  Davies  and  Haglund.109  The  first  of  these  sources  refers  to 
production  via  the  mixed  acid  route.  There  are  three  further  distinctions  within  this  route 
(granulation with a pipe reactor system, drum granulation with ammoniation and digestion). 
The data concerning emissions have been taken from those for the 'digestion' process because 
it  is  the  only  process  for  which  this  Assessmenthas  obtained  data  associated  with  all  the 
required  raw  materials.  The  EFMA  booklets  suggest  that  these  three  processes  cover  the 
majority  of  NPK  fertiliser  production  in  Europe.  The  data  from  Davies  and  Haglund  are 
calculated from, separately, production of ammonium nitrate, Triple Superphosphate and (for 
potassium), PK fertiliser (22% P2O5, 22% K2O). 

Avoided Phosphate Rock Extraction 

Mining  phosphate  rock  is  an  energy  intensive  activity  and  approximately  3.3  tonnes  of 
phosphate rock are required to produce one tonne of phosphorous pentoxide (P2O5) (100%)110.  

Avoided Process Wastewater Disposal Phosphate Fertiliser 

109 

110 

J.  Davies  and  C.  Haglund  (1999)  Life  Cycle  Inventory  (LCI)  of  Fertiliser  Production  –  Fertiliser 
Products Used in Sweden and Western Europe, SIKreport, No 654 1999, SIK The Swedish Institute for 
food and biotechnology, Gothernburg, Sweden. 
B. Bocoum and W. C. Labys (1993) Modelling the Economic Impacts of Further Mineral Processing: 
the Case of Zambia and Morocco. Resources Policy, 19, (4), pp.247-63. 

EN 

94 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
Estimate  of  the  externalities  associated  with  P2O5  production  (which  may  be  avoided  when 
compost is applied) has been assumed at €58.24 per tonne of, P 2O5 .The estimated damages 
associated with phosphate rock extraction from Nolan-ITU have been used111.  

Modelling Approach Taken in this Assessment 

The  EFMA112  booklets  provide  gaseous  emissions  and  energy  consumption  data  associated 
with sulphuric acid, nitric acid, phosphoric acid and ammonia production, the base acids used 
in  mixed  acid  production  of  NPK  (15:15:15).  The  data  also  quotes  the  raw  material 
requirement for the mixed acid route, in terms of sulphuric acid, nitric acid, phosphoric acid, 
ammonia  and  phosphate  rock.  Having  derived  the  emissions  and  energy  requirement 
associated  with  the  production  of  each  of  these  materials  (e.g.  extraction  in  terms  of 
phosphate  rock),  these  were  factored  according  to  the  relative  proportions  used  in  the  NPK 
(15:15:15) fertiliser. It was then assumed that for each of the nutrient components, that one-
third of the processing requirement was attributable to the manufacture of 150 kg N, one-third 
to  the  manufacture  of  150kg  K2O  portion  and  150kg  P2O5.  Hence,  through  this  attribution 
process, the levels from the mixed acid route itself are apportioned to the different nutrients 
(for the purpose of displacement calculations).  

Using the two data sources described, the calculations has been done for emissions associated 
with N, P and K production. These figures are multiplied by unit damage costs to estimate the 
external costs of production. These are, in turn, multiplied by avoided N, P and K quantities to 
arrive at a benefit per tonne of compost.  

Impacts Resulting from the Use of Fertiliser 

Two environmental impacts have been calculated when considering the use of fertilisers: 

(1) 

Leaching of nitrate to water from soil; 

(2) 

N2O emissions to air. 

Nitrate Contamination from Fertiliser Use 

Based on application rate of 10 tonnes per hectare of dry matter applied in year one displace a 
quantity  of  N  from  commercial  fertiliser  in  line  with  the  schedule  set  out  in  Table  A9-2. 
Assuming  that  the  23%  of  nitrate  lost  is  leached  to  groundwater,  this  would  imply  that  the 
quantity of N being leached into groundwater follows the schedule outlined in Figure A9-1.  

A figure of €3.20 per kg N, based on the average sh adow price of nitrogen quoted by Pretty et 
al 113 has been used.  

Impact of Nitrogenous Fertilisers on Soil N2O Emissions 

111 

112 
113 

Nolan-ITU (2004) TBL Assessment of Garden Organics Management, Final Report to the NSW Dept of 
Environment and Conservation, Sustainability Programs Division, May 2004. 
European Fertilizer Manufacturers Association 
Znaor D, Pretty J, Morrison, J and Todorovic S K (2005) Environmental and Macroeconomic Impact 
Assessment of Different Development Scenarios to Organic and Low-input Farming in Croatia, Report 
for the Republic Government of Croatia published by University of Essex 

EN 

95 

   EN 

 
                                                 
In  the  analysis,  it  has  been  assumed  that  relative  to  compost,  0.5%  of  nitrogen  applied  as 
fertiliser  is  lost  as  N2O.  This  is  combined  with  the  time  profile  of  N  replacement  for  the 
compost. Hence, the externality also depends upon the mineralisation rate. 

Reduced Pesticide Use 

It  has  been  shown  that  compost  can  help  to  control  plant  diseases  and  subsequently  reduce 
crop losses in both agriculture and horticulture.  

In this study, it is assumed that where compost is applied at 10 tonnes dry matter per hectare, 
the use of pesticides falls by 20%. The external costs of pesticide use have been assumed at 
€13 per kg of active ingredient used, while aver age use was assumed at 6 kg active ingredient 
per hectare. It should be stressed that those estimates are subject to considerable uncertainty.  

Avoided Water Use 

Studies have indicated that the application of composted products can enhance the water use 
efficiency by improving infiltration and storage in the root zone and reducing deep drainage, 
run-off,  and  evaporation,  and  water  use  by  weeds.  The  beneficial  effects  of  compost 
application arise from improvements in soil physical and chemical properties.114 

In this study, it has been assumed reduced water requirement of 5% (i.e. 61 m3 of water per 
hectare is saved as a result of the application of compost). The total economic value of water 
was assumed at €1.07 per m 3. 

2. 

The Use of Compost in Horticulture and Amateur Gardening 

The use of compost in horticulture and amateur gardening is assumed to avoid pesticide use, 
as was previously discussed with reference to the use of compost in agriculture. Benefits are 
also attributed to the avoidance of peat extraction.  

Avoided Pesticide Use: 

The savings due to avoided pesticide use in horticulture have been assumed as the same as in 
agricultural sector.  

Avoided Peat Extraction 

Emissions associated with the extraction and utilisation of peat are estimated on the basis of 
the annual 5% decay rate of peat when used on soils. The behaviour of peatland prior or after 

114 

A. Shiralipour, D. B. McConnel and W. H. Smith (1992) Physical and Chemical Properties of Soils as 
Affected  by  Municipal  Solid  Waste  Compost  Application,  Biomass  and  Bioenergy  3(3-4):  261-266; 
S.A.R.  Movahedi  Naeini  and  H.  F.  Cook  (2000)  Influence  of  Municipal  Compost  on  Temperature, 
Water, Nutrient Status and the Yield of Maize in a Temperate Soil. Soil Use and Management 16:215-
221;  L.  M  Bresson,  C.  Koch,  Y.  Le  Bissonnais,  E.  Barriuso  and  V.  Lecomte  (2001)  Soil  Surface 
Structure Stabilization by Municipal Waste Compost Application. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 65:1804-1811; 
J. Albaladejo, V. Castillo and E. Diaz (2000) Soil Loss and Runoff on Semiarid Land as Amended with 
Urban  Solid  Refuse,  Land  Degradation  &  Development  11:  363-373;  M.  Agassi,  A.  Hadas,  Y. 
Benyamini,  G.  J.  Levy,  L.  Kautsky,  L.  Avrahamov  and  H.  Zhevelev  (1998)  Mulching  Effect  of 
Composted MSW on Water Percolation and Compost Degradation Rate. Comp. Sci. Util. 6(3): 34-41 

EN 

96 

   EN 

 
                                                 
removal has not been assessed. The gaseous emissions associated with peat decompostion are 
used as the basis for the external cost savings from compost use where it displaces peat. Peat 
is replaced by  compost  more  on the  basis of volume than on weight. The density of  peat is 
low,  estimated  here  at  200  kg/m3.  The  density  of  compost,  is  of  the  order  500  kg/m3  for  a 
compost with dry matter content 60%. This implies that to replace one tonne of peat would 
require compost resulting from 7.14 tonnes of waste material.  

EN 

97 

   EN 

 
Annex 10: Financial cost of bio-waste treatment methods (€ per ton treated)  

IVC 

AD - electricity 

AD - CHP 

AD - vehicle 

AD - grid 

Incineration 
(electricity) 

Incineration 
(CHP) 

Incineration 
(heat only) 

Landfilling 

€38.30

€40.60 

€30.00 

€32.40 

€31.80 

€41.00 

€31.10 

€39.00 

€40.00 

€39.00 

€32.40 

€31.60 

€38.30 

€38.30 

€30.40 

€30.70 

€40.70 

€32.40 

€39.30 

€31.40 

€33.30 

€30.30 

€31.20 

€33.30 

€34.90 

€39.00 

€38.30 

€80.00

€89.70

€65.10

€86.90

€93.00

€93.40

€75.80

€33.40

€87.50

€61.20

€50.40

€60.00

€85.80

€65.80

€85.20

€89.30

€81.60

€64.60

€58.90

€75.50

€76.20

€58.60

€58.70

€86.40

€53.80

€81.60

€61.70

€69.50

€60.40

€56.50

€65.80

€71.20

€83.80

€76.10

€99.50

€70.60

€63.50

€68.70

€95.70

€75.80

€97.80

€101.00

€92.00

€77.70

€67.80

€88.50

€85.20

€67.20

€67.30

€97.60

€66.90

€93.10

€71.20

€82.90

€70.10

€65.50

€75.60

€85.40

€94.30

€89.10

€91.40

€56.20

€78.00

€55.70

€98.70

€66.30

€88.60

€65.90

€107.00

€100.40

€74.10

€72.70

€83.30

€76.80

€78.40

€75.70

€97.80

€75.00

€71.10

€72.60

€97.10

€78.10

€86.80

€75.00

€67.10

€71.20

€47.60

€81.30

€72.60

€61.50

€73.70

€68.30

€93.10

€94.50

€89.20

€89.00

€64.80

€89.20

€86.80

€59.90

€60.60

€94.90

€88.70

€93.30

€68.10

€76.50

€68.30

€59.40

€69.00

€79.50

€88.60

€91.50

98 

€99.80

€83.10

€57.90

€76.00

€95.70

€88.00

€100.00

€104.30

€93.90

€82.30

€74.70

€85.30

€86.40

€77.40

€76.90

€97.50

€63.70

€92.80

€80.10

€88.60

€80.90

€71.90

€82.00

€87.00

€97.70

€86.40

€106.10

€93.30

€93.20

€84.60

€93.80

€97.50

€110.20

€107.40

€96.70

€106.90

€84.80

€104.00

€86.60

€86.10

€85.20

€100.90

€96.50

€100.70

€90.60

€111.40

€92.90

€83.90

€91.70

€112.60

€99.30

€104.60

€92.70

€86.40

€111.20

€76.90

€73.60

€89.30

€100.20

€90.60

€81.00

€112.50

€78.60

€103.40

€69.50

€78.30

€77.10

€85.10

€111.50

€89.60

€84.10

€114.70

€87.70

€79.70

€84.00

€118.30

€82.00

€103.50

€37.40

€23.60

€17.20

€22.70

€36.40

€26.10

€36.20

€38.50

€34.20

€25.30

€22.10

€30.80

€31.20

€22.00

€22.10

€36.80

€19.10

€34.20

€23.70

€28.00

€23.10

€20.80

€25.80

€28.70

€35.50

€31.20

AT

BE  

BG 

CY 

CZ 

DK 

EE 

FI 

FR 

DE 

EL 

HU 

IE 

IT 

LV 

LT 

LU 

MT 

NL 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SK 

SI 

ES 

SE 

UK 

EN 

EN 

 
  
 
Annex 11: Comparison of the costs of switch between treatment techniques, country by country (€ per ton)  

Incineration to AD: on-site 
biogas use (electricity) 

Incineration to AD: on-site 
biogas use + CHP 

Incineration to AD: 
compressed biogas used in 
hi l

From 

To 

Net 
Cost of 
Switch 

From 

To 

Net 
Cost of 
Switch 

From 

To 

Net 
Cost of 
Switch 

Incineration to AD: biogas injected 
to gas grid 

Incineration to IVC + biofilter 

From 

To 

Net Cost 
of Switch 

From 

To 

Net Cost of 
Switch 

AT 

BE  

BG 

CY 

CZ 

DK 

EE 

FI 

FR 

DE 

EL 

HU 

IE 

IT 

LV  

LT 

LU 

€95.00 

€71.80 

-€23.14 

€94.97 

€74.30 

-€20.60 

€94.97 

€48.70 

-€46.30 

€94.97 

€56.50 

-€38.50 

€94.97 

€53.20 

€90.90 

€74.50 

-€16.49 

€90.94 

€78.50 

-€12.50 

€90.94 

€71.80 

-€19.10 

€90.94 

€63.60 

-€27.40 

€90.94 

€56.20 

€80.30 

€53.40 

-€26.89 

€80.32 

€58.70 

-€21.70 

€80.32 

€48.20 

-€32.10 

€80.32 

€53.90 

-€26.40 

€80.32 

€44.00 

€53.20 

€39.50 

-€13.75 

€53.22 

€47.40 

-€5.80 

€53.22 

€65.60 

€12.40 

€53.22 

€71.90 

€18.70 

€53.22 

€46.90 

€77.80 

€37.60 

-€40.17 

€77.77 

€38.50 

-€39.20 

€77.77 

€41.10 

-€36.60 

€77.77 

€32.70 

-€45.10 

€77.77 

€45.70 

€92.00 

€66.20 

-€25.81 

€91.98 

€70.50 

-€21.50 

€91.98 

€85.90 

-€6.10 

€91.98 

€76.80 

-€15.10 

€91.98 

€56.70 

€75.60 

€51.20 

-€24.33 

€75.56 

€56.60 

-€19.00 

€75.56 

€62.00 

-€13.60 

€75.56 

€54.30 

-€21.20 

€75.56 

€45.20 

€96.80 

€75.40 

-€21.41 

€96.81 

€82.80 

-€14.00 

€96 

€62.80 

-€34.00 

€96.81 

€76.20 

-€20.60 

€96.81 

€54.70 

€134.90 

€83.00 

-€51.86 

€134.91 

€87.50 

-€47.40 

€134.91 

€63.90 

-€71.00 

€134.91 

€65.00 

-€69.90 

€134.91 

€55.30 

€69.20 

€56.90 

-€12.32 

€69.23 

€59.10 

-€10.10 

€69.23 

€56.30 

-€12.90 

€69.23 

€53.40 

-€15.90 

€69.23 

€53.80 

€75.50 

€53.30 

-€22.25 

€75.53 

€61.10 

-€14.40 

€75.53 

€65.70 

-€9.80 

€75.53 

€71.50 

-€4.00 

€75.53 

€46.90 

€90.10 

€50.40 

-€39.74 

€90.14 

€54.40 

-€35.70 

€90.14 

€58.70 

-€31.40 

€90.14 

€48.90 

-€41.30 

€90.14 

€45.70 

€87.10 

€60.30 

-€26.78 

€87.07 

€66.70 

-€20.40 

€87.07 

€78.70 

-€8.40 

€87.07 

€66.00 

-€21.10 

€87.07 

€53.40 

€94.70 

€60.30 

-€34.46 

€94.74 

€63.50 

-€31.30 

€94.74 

€58.90 

-€35.80 

€94.74 

€63.70 

-€31.10 

€94.74 

€53.50 

€84.60 

€54.90 

-€29.67 

€84.57 

€59.70 

-€24.80 

€84.57 

€59.00 

-€25.60 

€84.57 

€49.50 

-€35.10 

€84.57 

€44.50 

€86.90 

€55.60 

-€31.38 

€86.95 

€60.10 

-€26.80 

€86.95 

€59.70 

-€27.20 

€86.95 

€49.60 

-€37.40 

€86.95 

€44.80 

€128.00 

€76.20 

-€51.86 

€128.03 

€80.20 

-€47.80 

€128.03 

€73.60 

-€54.50 

€128.03 

€66.40 

-€61.70 

€128.03 

€56.20 

-€41.80 

-€34.70 

-€36.30 

-€6.40 

-€32.10 

-€35.20 

-€30.30 

-€42.10 

-€79.60 

-€15.40 

-€28.60 

-€44.40 

-€33.70 

-€41.30 

-€40.10 

-€42.20 

-€71.90 

EN 

99 

EN 

 
  
 
 
Incineration to AD: on-site 
biogas use (electricity) 

Incineration to AD: on-site 
biogas use + CHP 

Incineration to AD: 
compressed biogas used in 
hi l

From 

To 

Net 
Cost of 
Switch 

From 

To 

Net 
Cost of 
Switch 

From 

To 

Net 
Cost of 
Switch 

Incineration to AD: biogas injected 
to gas grid 

Incineration to IVC + biofilter 

From 

To 

Net Cost 
of Switch 

From 

To 

Net Cost of 
Switch 

MT 

NL 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SK 

SI 

ES 

SE 

UK  

€52.70 

€38.70 

-€14.05 

€52.71 

€46.40 

-€6.30 

€52.71 

€65.40 

€12.70 

€52.71 

€70.40 

€17.70 

€52.71 

€46.90 

€67.80 

€58.00 

-€9.81 

€67.84 

€62.00 

-€5.80 

€67.84 

€66.30 

€61.20 

€34.90 

-€26.26 

€61.20 

€37.60 

-€23.60 

€61.20 

€59.30 

-€1.50 

-€1.90 

€67.84 

€60.80 

-€7.00 

€67.84 

€54.30 

€61.20 

€40.40 

-€20.80 

€61.20 

€45.30 

€82.50 

€56.70 

-€25.83 

€82.50 

€64.30 

-€18.20 

€82.50 

€56.30 

-€26.20 

€82.50 

€58.40 

-€24.10 

€82.50 

€47.70 

€78.20 

€52.50 

-€25.74 

€78.24 

€58.20 

-€20.00 

€78.24 

€59.80 

-€18.40 

€78.24 

€56.70 

-€21.60 

€78.24 

€44.30 

€92.00 

€51.30 

-€40.73 

€92.02 

€54.70 

-€37.40 

€92.02 

€37.20 

-€54.80 

€92.02 

€40.70 

-€51.30 

€92.02 

€45.20 

€97.20 

€53.50 

-€43.75 

€97.24 

€57.00 

-€40.30 

€97.24 

€62.00 

-€35.30 

€97.24 

€45.70 

-€51.50 

€97.24 

€47.50 

€89.30 

€59.80 

-€29.51 

€89.33 

€67.70 

-€21.60 

€89.33 

€59.60 

-€29.80 

€89.33 

€60.00 

-€29.40 

€89.33 

€49.60 

€107.30 

€78.60 

-€28.66 

€107.28 

€83.90 

-€23.40 

€107.28 

€52.80 

-€54.50 

€107.28 

€69.60 

-€37.70 

€107.28 

€54.90 

€85.90 

€58.70 

-€27.19 

€85.87 

€65.30 

-€20.60 

€85.87 

€59.80 

-€26.10 

€85.87 

€68.20 

-€17.70 

€85.87 

€53.60 

-€5.80 

-€13.60 

-€15.90 

-€34.80 

-€33.90 

-€46.80 

-€49.70 

-€39.70 

-€52.40 

-€32.30 

Table A.11-1:  Average cost of switch from incineration into biological treatment 

EN 

100 

EN 

 
  
 
 
Technology 

Landfill  to  AD:  on-site  biogas 
use (electricity) 

Landfill  to  AD:  on-site  biogas 
use (CHP) 

Landfill  to  AD:  compressed 
biogas used in vehicles 

Landfill to AD: biogas injected to 
gas grid 

Landfill to IVC 

 Cost 

From 

To 

Net Cost 
of 

From 

To 

Net Cost 
of 

From 

To 

Net Cost 
of 

From 

To 

Net Cost 
of 

From 

To 

Net  Cost 
of Switch 

AT 

BE  

BG 

CY 

CZ 

DK 

EE 

FI 

FR 

DE 

EL 

HU 

IE 

IT 

LV  

LT 

€97.20 

€71.80 

-€25.36 

€97.19 

€74.30 

-€22.90 

€97.19 

€48.70 

-€48.50 

€97.19 

€56.50 

-€40.70 

€97.19 

€53.20 

-€44.00 

€109.10 

€74.50 

-€34.69 

€109.15 

€78.50 

-€30.70 

€109.15 

€71.80 

-€37.30 

€109.15 

€63.60 

-€45.60 

€109.15 

€56.20 

-€52.90 

€74.70 

€53.40 

-€21.25 

€74.68 

€58.70 

-€16.00 

€74.68 

€48.20 

-€26.50 

€74.68 

€53.90 

-€20.80 

€74.68 

€44.00 

-€30.70 

€68.00 

€39.50 

-€28.52 

€67.98 

€47.40 

-€20.50 

€67.98 

€65.60 

-€2.40 

€67.98 

€71.90 

€4.00 

€67.98 

€46.90 

-€21.10 

€92.80 

€37.60 

-€55.20 

€92.79 

€38.50 

-€54.20 

€92.79 

€41.10 

-€51.60 

€92.79 

€32.70 

-€60.10 

€92.79 

€45.70 

-€47.10 

€90.70 

€66.20 

-€24.50 

€90.68 

€70.50 

-€20.20 

€90.68 

€85.90 

-€4.80 

€90.68 

€76.80 

-€13.80 

€90.68 

€56.70 

-€33.90 

€76.30 

€51.20 

-€25.09 

€76.32 

€56.60 

-€19.70 

€76.32 

€62.00 

-€14.30 

€76.32 

€54.30 

-€22.00 

€76.32 

€45.20 

-€31.10 

€83.60 

€75.40 

-€8.21 

€83.61 

€82.80 

-€0.80 

€83.61 

€62.80 

-€20.80 

€83.61 

€76.20 

-€7.40 

€83.61 

€54.70 

-€28.90 

€100.00 

€83.00 

-€16.96 

€100.00 

€87.50 

-€12.50 

€100.00 

€63.90 

-€36.10 

€100.00 

€65.00 

-€35.00 

€100.00 

€55.30 

-€44.70 

€102.40 

€56.90 

-€45.51 

€102.41 

€59.10 

-€43.30 

€102.41 

€56.30 

-€46.10 

€102.41 

€53.40 

-€49.10 

€102.41 

€53.80 

-€48.60 

€76.00 

€53.30 

-€22.68 

€75.96 

€61.10 

-€14.80 

€75.96 

€65.70 

-€10.20 

€75.96 

€71.50 

-€4.40 

€75.96 

€46.90 

-€29.10 

€84.80 

€50.40 

-€34.41 

€84.81 

€54.40 

-€30.40 

€84.81 

€58.70 

-€26.10 

€84.81 

€48.90 

-€35.90 

€84.81 

€45.70 

-€39.10 

€82.80 

€60.30 

-€22.47 

€82.75 

€66.70 

-€16.00 

€82.75 

€78.70 

-€4.10 

€82.75 

€66.00 

-€16.70 

€82.75 

€53.40 

-€29.30 

€91.20 

€60.30 

-€30.93 

€91.22 

€63.50 

-€27.70 

€91.22 

€58.90 

-€32.30 

€91.22 

€63.70 

-€27.60 

€91.22 

€53.50 

-€37.80 

€75.60 

€54.90 

-€20.71 

€75.62 

€59.70 

-€15.90 

€75.62 

€59.00 

-€16.60 

€75.62 

€49.50 

-€26.10 

€75.62 

€44.50 

-€31.10 

€75.50 

€55.60 

-€19.90 

€75.47 

€60.10 

-€15.40 

€75.47 

€59.70 

-€15.70 

€75.47 

€49.60 

-€25.90 

€75.47 

€44.80 

-€30.70 

EN 

101 

EN 

 
  
 
Technology 

Landfill  to  AD:  on-site  biogas 
use (electricity) 

Landfill  to  AD:  on-site  biogas 
use (CHP) 

Landfill  to  AD:  compressed 
biogas used in vehicles 

Landfill to AD: biogas injected to 
gas grid 

Landfill to IVC 

 Cost 

From 

To 

Net Cost 
of 

From 

To 

Net Cost 
of 

From 

To 

Net Cost 
of 

From 

To 

Net Cost 
of 

From 

To 

Net  Cost 
of Switch 

LU 

MT 

NL 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SK 

SI 

ES 

SE 

UK  

€108.10 

€76.20 

-€31.92 

€108.08 

€80.20 

-€27.90 

€108.08 

€73.60 

-€34.50 

€108.08 

€66.40 

-€41.70 

€108.08 

€56.20 

-€51.90 

€74.00 

€38.70 

-€35.31 

€73.98 

€46.40 

-€27.60 

€73.98 

€65.40 

-€8.50 

€73.98 

€70.40 

-€3.60 

€73.98 

€46.90 

-€27.00 

€102.50 

€58.00 

-€44.47 

€102.49 

€62.00 

-€40.50 

€102.49 

€66.30 

-€36.20 

€102.49 

€60.80 

-€41.70 

€102.49 

€54.30 

-€48.20 

€82.90 

€34.90 

-€47.97 

€82.91 

€37.60 

-€45.30 

€82.91 

€59.30 

-€23.60 

€82.91 

€40.40 

-€42.50 

€82.91 

€45.30 

-€37.60 

€79.70 

€56.70 

-€23.07 

€79.73 

€64.30 

-€15.50 

€79.73 

€56.30 

-€23.40 

€79.73 

€58.40 

-€21.40 

€79.73 

€47.70 

-€32.00 

€74.10 

€52.50 

-€21.59 

€74.09 

€58.20 

-€15.90 

€74.09 

€59.80 

-€14.30 

€74.09 

€56.70 

-€17.40 

€74.09 

€44.30 

-€29.80 

€85.90 

€51.30 

-€34.62 

€85.91 

€54.70 

-€31.20 

€85.91 

€37.20 

-€48.70 

€85.91 

€40.70 

-€45.20 

€85.91 

€45.20 

-€40.70 

€90.20 

€53.50 

-€36.75 

€90.24 

€57.00 

-€33.30 

€90.24 

€62.00 

-€28.30 

€90.24 

€45.70 

-€44.50 

€90.24 

€47.50 

-€42.70 

€82.10 

€59.80 

-€22.31 

€82.13 

€67.70 

-€14.40 

€82.13 

€59.60 

-€22.60 

€82.13 

€60.00 

-€22.20 

€82.13 

€49.60 

-€32.50 

€87.90 

€78.60 

-€9.24 

€87.86 

€83.90 

-€4.00 

€87.86 

€52.80 

-€35.10 

€87.86 

€69.60 

-€18.30 

€87.86 

€54.90 

-€33.00 

€93.00 

€58.70 

-€34.36 

€93.04 

€65.30 

-€27.70 

€93.04 

€59.80 

-€33.30 

€93.04 

€68.20 

-€24.80 

€93.04 

€53.60 

-€39.40 

Table A.11-2. Average cost of switch from landfilling into biological treatment 

EN 

102 

EN 

 
  
 
Annex 12: Monetisation of environmental impacts: basic data, case study  

1. 

Unit damage costs for air pollutants and GHG emissions:  

(Czech Republic) 

In order to enable comparison between scenarios as well as enable to include environmental 
effect into analysis it was necessary to monetize to them to the extent possible. The set of data 
used has been extracted from the Clean Air for Europe (CAFÉ) programme and the Benefits 
Table  (BeTa)  database115.  This  dataset  coves  a  wide  range  of  pollutants  (see  Table  2),  and 
uses country specific damage costs for non-GHG.  

Unit damage costs have been determined from the CAFE data, which is from 2000. In order 
to  model  in  2009  prices  have  been  converted  into  real  2009  figures  using  the  Harmonised 
Index  of  Consumer  Prices  (HICP)116.  A  number  of  Member  States  have  been  omitted  from 
this  report  and  for  these  countries  we  have  assigned  the  lowest  unit  cost  for  each  pollutant. 
Table  A  12-1  shows  the  costs  that  have  been  attributed  to  each  member  state  for  each 
pollutant.  For  the  remaining  pollutants  that  have  been  modelled  the  unit  damage  cost  is 
constant across all member states. The pollutants and the modelled cost are shown in Table 
A.12-2. 

NH3 

VOCs 

PM2.5 

SO2 

NOx 

Cd 

Cr 

Ni 

AT 

BE 

BG 

CY 

CZ 

DK 

EE 

115 

116 

29 € 

74 € 

4 € 

4 € 

48 € 

20 € 

7 € 

5 € 

6 € 

0 € 

0 € 

3 € 

2 € 

0 € 

88 € 

147 € 

10 € 

10 € 

76 € 

40 € 

10 € 

20 € 

26 € 

3 € 

3 € 

20 € 

12 € 

4 € 

20 € 

11 € 

2 € 

2 € 

17 € 

10 € 

2 € 

404 € 

674 € 

47 € 

47 € 

343 € 

184 € 

47 € 

53 € 

88 € 

6 € 

6 € 

45 € 

25 € 

6 € 

6 € 

11 € 

1 € 

1 € 

6 € 

3 € 

1 € 

M. Holland and P. Watkiss (2002) Benefits Table Database: Estimates of the Marginal External Costs 
of  Air  Pollution  in  Europe,  Database  Prepared  for  European  Commission  DG  Environment;  AEAT 
Environment  (2005)  Damages  per  tonne  Emission  of  PM2.5,  NH3,  SO2,  NOx  and  VOCs  from  Each 
EU25  Member  State  (excluding  Cyprus)  and  Surrounding  Seas,  Report  to  DG  Environment  of  the 
European Commission, March 2005. The figures used reflect the Mean Values of Life Years approach 
to  valuation,  including  health  sensitivity.  For  CO2e,  the  central  figure  €19/tonne  in  2000  prices, 
in  2009  prices  was  used,  source:  Be  Ta  databases:  www.methodex.org/BeTa-
€23/tonne 
Methodex%20v2.xls 
Eurostat  (2009)  HICP  -  all  items  -  annual  average  inflation  rate  –  (tsieb060).  Available  at 
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/tgm/table.do?tab=table&init=1&plugin=1&language=en&pcode=tsieb0
60.  An  index  was  created  using  the  values  from  2000  to  2008,  for  the  row  entitled  European  Union. 
This  gives  an  overall  rate  of  inflation  from  2000  to  2009  of  22.57%.  Therefore  damage  costs  were 
uplifted by 22.57% to give 2009 prices  

EN 

103 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
NH3 

VOCs 

PM2.5 

SO2 

NOx 

Cd 

Cr 

Ni 

FI 

FR 

DE 

EL 

HU 

IE 

IT 

LV 

LT 

LU 

MT 

NL 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SK 

SI 

ES 

SE 

UK 

5 € 

28 € 

43 € 

8 € 

27 € 

6 € 

27 € 

7 € 

4 € 

61 € 

20 € 

54 € 

25 € 

9 € 

4 € 

34 € 

31 € 

11 € 

15 € 

42 € 

0 € 

4 € 

5 € 

1 € 

2 € 

2 € 

3 € 

1 € 

1 € 

7 € 

1 € 

5 € 

2 € 

1 € 

0 € 

2 € 

4 € 

1 € 

1 € 

3 € 

13 € 

107 € 

116 € 

21 € 

61 € 

36 € 

81 € 

21 € 

21 € 

99 € 

22 € 

147 € 

70 € 

54 € 

10 € 

49 € 

54 € 

45 € 

28 € 

89 € 

4 € 

20 € 

27 € 

3 € 

12 € 

12 € 

15 € 

5 € 

6 € 

23 € 

5 € 

32 € 

13 € 

8 € 

3 € 

12 € 

15 € 

10 € 

7 € 

16 € 

2 € 

17 € 

22 € 

2 € 

12 € 

9 € 

13 € 

3 € 

5 € 

20 € 

2 € 

15 € 

9 € 

3 € 

2 € 

12 € 

16 € 

6 € 

5 € 

8 € 

60 € 

490 € 

539 € 

94 € 

282 € 

159 € 

368 € 

98 € 

93 € 

454 € 

47 € 

699 € 

319 € 

245 € 

47 € 

221 € 

245 € 

208 € 

135 € 

417 € 

8 € 

64 € 

70 € 

12 € 

37 € 

21 € 

49 € 

12 € 

12 € 

60 € 

6 € 

91 € 

42 € 

32 € 

6 € 

29 € 

32 € 

27 € 

17 € 

54 € 

1 € 

8 € 

8 € 

1 € 

4 € 

3 € 

6 € 

2 € 

1 € 

7 € 

1 € 

11 € 

5 € 

4 € 

1 € 

4 € 

4 € 

3 € 

2 € 

6 € 

Table A.12-1: Variable CAFE Unit Damage Costs (€ 000’s/tonne) in 2009 Prices 

Cost per 
Tonne 

Dioxin 

Pb 

Hg  

CO2e 

€/tonne 

€ 45,350,900,000 

€ 735,420 

€ 7,354,200 

€ 23 

Table A.12-2: Unit Damage Cost, Constant in 2009 Prices 

EN 

104 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
2. 

Example of monetisation of the environmental impacts: 

An example of monetisation of the environmental impacts for all treatment techniques in the 
case of Czech Republic is given below. For all bio-waste management techniques and for all 
Member  States,  similar  tables  have  been  constructed  on  the  basis  of  the  data  as  detailed  in 
Annexes 6, 7, 8, 9 and 12.1. 

Landfill 

Climate 
change 

Air quality 

Other 
impacts 

Totals 

Process 

Direct emissions (non energy) 

Energy use (electricity & diesel) 

Avoided emissions, energy generation 

Electricity 

FINAL TOTALS 

€48.45 

€0.15 

- €0.90 

€47.70 

€18.06 

€3.63 

- €7.30 

€14.39 

€66.51 

€3.78 

- €8.20 

€62.09 

Table A.12-3:  Indicative External Damage Costs for the Landfill – Czech Republic 

EN 

105 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Incineration  

Climate 
change 

Air quality 

Other 
impact 

Totals 

Process 

Direct emissions  

€11.28 

Energy use (electricity & diesel) 

€1.95 

Avoided emissions, energy generation 

Electricity 

FINAL TOTALS 

Process 

- €5.75 

€7.48 

Direct emissions  

€11.28 

Energy use (electricity & diesel) 

€1.95 

Avoided emissions, energy generation 

Electricity 

Heat 

FINAL TOTALS 

Process 

- €3.08 

- €3.17 

€6.98 

Direct emissions  

€11.28 

Energy use (electricity & diesel) 

€1.95 

Avoided emissions, energy generation 

Heat 

FINAL TOTALS 

- €6.03 

€7.20 

Y
L
N
O
Y
T
I
C
I
R
T
C
E
L
E

P
H
C

Y
N
O
T
A
E
H

€30.02 

€17.58 

- €43.88 

€3.72 

€30.02 

€17.58 

- €23.50 

- €18.45 

€5.65 

€30.02 

€17.58 

- €34.85 

€12.75 

€41.30 

€19.53 

- €49.63 

€11.20 

€41.30 

€19.53 

- €26.58 

- €21.62 

€12.63 

€41.30 

€19.53 

- €40.88 

€19.95 

Table A.12-4:  Indicative External Damage Costs for Incineration Facilities– Czech Republic 

EN 

106 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Anaerobic Digestion 

Climate 
change 

Air quality 

Other 
impacts 

Totals117 

Process 

Direct emissions  

Energy  use  (electricity  & 
diesel) 

€10.25 

€0.00 

€6.50 

€0.00 

Avoided emissions, energy generation 

Electricity 

- €3.24 

- €26.19 

Use of compost 

FINAL TOTALS 

Process 

€5.60 

- €18.17 

- €10.01 

- €10.01 

Direct emissions  

Energy  use  (electricity  & 
diesel) 

€10.25 

€0.00 

€6.50 

€0.00 

Avoided emissions, energy generation 

Electricity 

Heat 

Use of compost 

FINAL TOTALS 

Process 

- €3.24 

- €0.43 

- €26.19 

- €5.28 

€5.17 

- €20.69 

- €10.01 

- €10.01 

Direct emissions  

Energy  use  (electricity  & 
diesel) 

€10.40 

€0.00 

€7.06 

€0.00 

Avoided emissions, energy generation 

Diesel 

Use of compost 

FINAL TOTALS 

Process 

- €3.03 

- €13.62 

€2.28 

- €5.14 

- €10.01 

- €10.01 

Direct emissions  

Energy  use  (electricity  & 
diesel) 

€10.61 

€0.00 

€2.66 

€0.00 

Avoided emissions, energy generation 

Heat 

- €3.03 

- €32.04 

Y
L
N
O
Y
T
I
C
I
R
T
C
E
L
E

P
H
C

L
E
U
F
E
L
C
I
H
E
V
S
A

O
T

N
O
I
T
C
E
J
N
I

D
I
R
G

S
A
G

Use of compost 

FINAL TOTALS 

€6.40 

- €20.81 

- €10.01 

- €10.01 

€16.75

€0.00 

- €29.43

- €10.01

- €22.58

€16.75

€0.00 

- €29.43

- €5.71

- €10.01

- €22.24

€17.46

€0.00 

- €16.65

- €10.01

- €12.87

€13.27

€0.00 

- €35.07

- €10.01

- €24.42

Table A.12-5: Indicative External Damage Costs for Anaerobic Digestion – Czech Republic 

117 

Direct  emissions  include  those  associated  with  the  combustion  of  the  biogas  to  generate  energy,  and 
those associated with the burning of the gas in a bus (where it is used as a vehicle fuel) 

EN 

107 

   EN 

 
                                                 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Composting 

Climate 
change 

Air quality 

Other 
impacts 

Totals 

PROCESS 

Direct emissions (non energy) 

Energy use (electricity & diesel) 

USE OF COMPOST 

CO2 emissions from soil 
Diesel used to spread compost 

Reduction in pesticide use 

Nutrient displacement impacts 

€9.94 

€0.44 

€1.87 

€0.02 

€0.49 

€4.57 

€0.58 

Avoided energy, fertiliser production 

- €0.09 

- €0.25 

Avoided phosphate rock extraction 

Avoided water use 

Avoided nitrogen leaching 

Avoided N2O emissions 
Avoided peat extraction 

€10.57 

€5.11 

€1.87 

€0.60 

- €3.29 

- €1.96 

- €0.34 

- €0.69 

- €0.82 

- €1.61 

- €0.13 

- €0.65 

- €3.29 

- €1.96 

- €0.69 

- €0.82 

- €1.61 

- €0.13 

- €0.65 

FINAL TOTALS 

€12.18 

€5.39 

- €9.15 

€8.66 

Table A.12-6: Indicative External Damage Costs for In-Vessel Composting– Czech Republic 

EN 

108 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex 13: Summary of the potential impacts of compost standards 
(Scenario 1) 

No EU standards scenario 

EU standards including quality assurance 
systems 

"No  need  for  a  standard  without  its 
control"  

None of the countries with low or no compost 
large 
standards  can  show  a  sustainable 
compost market until now. 

Avoiding a period of "trial and error" in the 
countries  which  have  not  yet  introduced 
standards, including candidate countries. 

Lack  of  standards  poses  problems  and 
uncertainty  with  investments  and  planning  of 
infrastructure  for  further  management  of  bio-
waste. 

All  investments  in  mixed  waste  composting 
failed in the past because of a lack of markets 
and  were  limited  to  building  facilities  pre-
treating waste before its final disposal. 

A  high  quality  and  controlled  compost 
standard  creates  customers'  and  controlling 
authorities'  confidence 
in  compost  and 
composting  and  stimulates  the  organics' 
recycling. 

Compost  customers  act  on  the  European 
level  (certified  food  production  chains, 
producers  of  growing  media  and  soil 
improvers)  and  need  a  uniform  and 
ambitious European compost standard in the 
long  run  as  this  allows  exploring  the  full 
market  potential  for  recycled  organics, 
nationally and internationally. 

No standards or low ambition standards affect 
high  quality  composting  approaches  because 
of enhancing the already suspicious image of a 
waste derived product.  

impacts  do  not  stop  at 
Environmental 
borders.  European  compost  standard  can 
reflect  the  Commission's  soil  protection 
strategy. 

and 

Summary:  The  No  Standards  Scenario" 
delays  the  developments  for  organic  waste 
of 
hampers 
treatment 
biodegradable  waste  from  landfills,  promotes 
incineration,  increases  MSW  treatment  costs 
and  leads  to  more  environmental  damages  in 
the Member States. 

diversion 

facilitates 

composting 

Summary:  A  controlled  high  quality 
standard 
and 
introduces  compost  as  an  element  of  the 
intended EU Recycling Society. A European 
definition  of  harmonised  ambitious  quality 
standard  will  help  the  whole  bio-waste 
sector  and  establish  compost  markets 
sustainably. 

EN 

109 

   EN 

 
 
Annex 14: Mass flow modification per Member State- Scenarios 2, 3 and 
recommended scenario 

Scenario 2  

Scenario 2A118 

Prevention  

Landfill 

Incineration 

MBT 

Home 
Composti
ng  

Compos- 

ting 

Anaerobic 
Digestion 

Compos- 

ting 

Anaerobic 
Digestion 

-125.423 

0 

-189.617 

-66.622 

-21.278 

-37.420 

189.514 

-37.420 

189.514 

-95.445 

-253.840 

-290.103 

-181.314 

-4.581 

634.393 

0 

201.199 

433.194 

-162.360 

0 

-232.935 

-1.646 

-14.444 

102.922 

-16.257 

-33.482 

120.147 

-13.354 

-17.515 

-40.589 

-43.368 

-256 

-143.485 

-106.442 

-235.914 

-352.591 

0 

26.579 

60.981 

61.794 

490.481 

-113.760 

0 

-509.170 

0 

-2.503 

397.913 

-27.812 

-9.720 

-49.503 

-75.479 

-2.920 

109.810 

0 

0 

26.579 

61.794 

60.981 

490.481 

-47.552 

445.464 

13.767 

96.043 

-74.714 

-225.746 

-111.188 

0 

-1.494 

277.462 

-13.747 

39.262 

224.452 

-979.771 

-2.143.609 

-3.021.484 

-2.388.617 

-1.278.084 

0 

-2.692.881 

-1.650.476 

-171.973 

-246.099 

-7.476 

-1.241.674 

0 

0 

0 

-157.138 

-269.942 

-58.982 

-197.103 

-17.508 

386.396 

6.573.939 

0 

2.435.222 

4.138.717 

3.193.081 

-127.808 

198.103 

2.867.169 

1.323.276 

0 

0 

636.072 

687.205 

-57.299 

443.695 

-96.322 

-15.298 

-137.678 

-152.975 

-8.669 

232.746 

-14.448 

21.287 

197.010 

-604.083 

-430.047 

-184.306 

-409.568 

0 

528.573 

-108.735 

267.810 

152.028 

-27.342 

-39.140 

0 

-111.516 

-984 

124.298 

-40.419 

-101.940 

-64.871 

-64.871 

-1.455 

192.718 

0 

0 

-7.282 

-6.698 

-11.593 

-5.090 

-610 

0 

0 

0 

5.726 

-805 

-45.807 

-1.072 

13.680 

31.590 

-7.218 

131.516 

16.248 

176.469 

-3.929 

13.680 

8.850 

31.590 

-215.078 

-94.003 

-434.765 

-58.752 

-447.529 

0 

-1.181.358 

-2.219.269 

0 

0 

399.650 

-27.207 

-91.085 

463.528 

921.911 

2.031.187 

921.911 

2.031.187 

-145.126 

-176.442 

-485.217 

-441.106 

-3.483 

964.605 

-3.483 

293.039 

668.084 

-291.816 

-463.236 

0 

-1.754.175 

-5.603 

1.931.198 

0 

580.830 

1.350.368 

-69.914 

-83.590 

-124.231 

-192.925 

-4.195 

45.304 

289.723 

45.304 

289.723 

-29.443 

-37.285 

-47.724 

-64.130 

0 

119.696 

0 

15.840 

103.855 

-784.044 

-2.276.749 

-1.046.972 

-2.215.814 

-21.953 

4.808.805 

-31.362 

1.985.200 

2.792.243 

-150.244 

0 

-663.998 

-13.551 

-9.616 

142.206 

394.715 

142.206 

394.715 

-984.783 

-815.587 

-963.876 

-692.013 

0 

1.627.517 

-140.824 

72.874 

1.413.820 

AT 

BG 

BE 

CY 

CZ 

DK 

EE 

FI 

FR 

DE 

EL 

HU 

IE 

IT 

LV 

LT 

LU 

MT 

NL 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SK 

SI 

ES 

SE 

UK 

EU 

27 

-7.243.442 

-7.822.911 

-12.775.447 

-14.635.363 

-122.015 

25.107.966 

3.004.328 

7.709.430 

20.402.863 

118 

The  mass  flow  modifications  of  Scenarios  2  and  2A  relative  to  the  baseline  Scenario  are  the  same 
except  for  what  concerns  anaerobic  digestion  and  composting  (less  composting  and  more  anaerobic 
digestion)  

EN 

110 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
  
 
                                                 
Table A.14-1: Mass modifications of Scenario 2 and 2A relative to the baseline Scenario 

EN 

111 

   EN 

 
Scenario 3 

Scenario 3A119 

Compos- 

Compos- 

Landfill 

Incineration 

MBT 

Ting 

0 

0 

0 

0 

-91.309 

-104.353 

-65.221 

260.884 

0 

-8.030 

-6.887 

0 

0 

0 

-40.678 

-14.600 

-8.609 

0 

0 

-13.870 

-13.201 

0 

-2.044 

-3.518 

0 

0 

40.678 

17.948 

0 

0 

5.562 

0 

-525.157 

-1.071.217 

-1.081.668 

2.678.042 

0 

0 

0 

-3.038 

-602.594 

607.639 

0 

-2.006 

0 

0 

0 

503 

0 

-1.831 

0 

0 

-63.469 

147.270 

15.055 

-1.472 

-15.413 

-9.808 

0 

0 

0 

-24.200 

-9.808 

0 

0 

0 

0 

23.697 

35.030 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

-16.478 

8.359 

0 

0 

9.949 

0 

-745.882 

-477.365 

644.442 

578.805 

-174.538 

-158.671 

396.678 

0 

-944.900 

797.630 

-18.784 

-1.884 

-56.863 

-2.532 

0 

5.889 

Anaerobic 
Digestion 

0 

0 

0 

18.553 

28.697 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

60.592 

0 

0 

0 

0 

ting 

0 

Anaerobic 
Digestion 

0 

137.441 

123.442 

29.515 

17.948 

0 

0 

0 

0 

11.163 

18.553 

28.697 

0 

5.562 

0 

1.783.184 

894.858 

0 

0 

504.455 

103.184 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

8.359 

0 

644.442 

195.050 

392.201 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

23.697 

35.030 

0 

9.949 

0 

578.805 

201.629 

405.429 

60.592 

5.889 

1.505.365 

219.532 

0 

0 

0 

0 

-708.933 

-326.006 

-689.959 

1.724.897 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

-1.261.680 

-2.521.442 

-4.160.847 

7.247.374 

696.596 

5.217.959 

2.726.011 

Table A.14-2: Mass modifications of Scenario 3 and 3A relative to the baseline Scenario 

AT 

BG 

BE 

CY 

CZ 

DK 

EE 

FI 

FR 

DE 

EL 

HU 

IE 

IT 

LV 

LT 

LU 

MT 

NL 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SK 

SI 

ES 

SE 

UK 

EU 

27

119 

The  mass  flow  modifications  of  Scenarios  3  and  3A  relative  to  the  baseline  Scenario  are  the  same 
except  for  what  concerns  anaerobic  digestion  and  composting  (less  composting  and  more  anaerobic 
digestion). Home composting and prevention are the same as in the baseline scenario  

EN 

112 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
 
                                                 
Recommended Scenario120  

Prevention  

Landfill 

Incineration 

MBT 

Home 
Composti
ng  

Compos- 

ting 

Anaerobic 
Digestion 

-125.423 

0 

-38.517 

-13.533 

-37.420 

-37.420 

-14.674 

-95.445 

-112.522 

-128.597 

-80.373 

230.627 

230.627 

0 

-162.360 

0 

-93.206 

-1.646 

-36.807 

-36.807 

-16.257 

-13.354 

-9.896 

-17.992 

-17.092 

14.721 

14.721 

-143.485 

-28.754 

-35.943 

-55.113 

-45.198 

-45.198 

-113.760 

0 

-63.705 

0 

-47.552 

-47.552 

-27.812 

-1.680 

-8.534 

-13.008 

-1.669 

-1.669 

17.161 

21.523 

0 

0 

-74.714 

-30.035 

-14.793 

0 

-14.644 

-14.644 

-13.747 

-979.771 

-749.133 

-1.320.079 

-1.230.985 

2.320.425 

2.320.425 

0 

-1.278.084 

0 

-396.206 

-242.836 

-511.234 

-511.234 

-127.808 

-171.973 

-32.037 

-157.138 

-41.824 

-3.584 

-9.231 

-681.220 

544.868 

544.868 

-31.276 

-57.299 

-57.299 

0 

0 

-96.322 

-2.408 

-21.672 

-24.080 

-25.044 

-25.044 

-14.448 

-604.083 

-101.486 

-43.494 

-96.653 

-253.715 

-253.715 

-108.735 

-27.342 

-6.233 

0 

-34.825 

14.701 

14.701 

-40.419 

-26.706 

-16.995 

-16.995 

21.732 

21.732 

-7.282 

-6.698 

-2.421 

-2.256 

-127 

0 

0 

-3.929 

-3.929 

-20.306 

7.732 

7.732 

0 

0 

-805 

9.203 

-215.078 

-15.486 

-71.621 

-9.678 

-91.085 

-91.085 

-27.207 

-447.529 

-63.907 

-802.719 

-640.802 

524.504 

524.504 

535.394 

-145.126 

-78.213 

-215.087 

-195.533 

350.673 

350.673 

-3.483 

-291.816 

67.589 

0 

-1.050.522 

696.720 

696.720 

0 

-69.914 

-29.443 

2.180 

-6.146 

-32.546 

-74.621 

-16.779 

-16.779 

56.048 

-7.867 

-10.572 

-4.858 

-4.858 

0 

-784.044 

-913.557 

-420.103 

-889.106 

1.493.604 

1.493.604 

-31.362 

-150.244 

0 

-88.343 

-1.803 

-38.462 

-38.462 

-12.019 

-984.783 

-146.240 

-172.829 

-124.083 

-400.807 

-400.807 

-140.824 

AT 

BG 

BE 

CY 

CZ 

DK 

EE 

FI 

FR 

DE 

EL 

HU 

IE 

IT 

LV 

LT 

LU 

MT 

NL 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SK 

SI 

ES 

SE 

UK 

EU 

27 

-7.243.442 

-2.301.172 

-4.023.793 

-5.556.663 

4.633.809 

4.633.809 

127.958 

Table  A.14-3:  Mass  modifications  of  the  recommended  scenario  relative  to  the  baseline 
Scenario 

120 

It is assumed that the reduction of waste generation compared to the baseline scenario will not change 
the repartition between the various bio-waste management options 

EN 

113 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
  
  
 
                                                 
Annex 15: GHG emission and cost/benefits implications - Scenarios 2 and 3  

Including   biogenic CO2 

Excluding  biogenic CO2 

Including 

biogenic CO2 

Excluding 

biogenic CO2 

Scenario 2 

Scenario 2A 

Scenario 2 

Scenario 2A 

Scenario 3 

Scenario 3A 

Scenario 3 

Scenario 3A 

AT 

BG 

BE 

CY 

CZ 

DK 

EE 

FI 

FR 

DE 

EL 

HU 

IE 

IT 

LV 

LT 

LU 

MT 

NL 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SK 

SI 

ES 

SE 

UK 

EU 

27 

-637 

-787 

-817 

-104 

-839 

-501 

-152 

-587 

-8.609 

-6.490 

-1.610 

-1.039 

-512 

-3.672 

-182 

-305 

-48 

-47 

-1.100 

-2.602 

-997 

-2.418 

-495 

-190 

-7.445 

-758 

-5.885 

-109 

-636 

-849 

-833 

-866 

-571 

-176 

-618 

-9.227 

-6.879 

-1.764 

-1.094 

-545 

-3.719 

-199 

-328 

-49 

-47 

-1.160 

-2.666 

-1.096 

-2.611 

-495 

-204 

-7.877 

-758 

-6.097 

-555 

-633 

-695 

-85 

-763 

-379 

-121 

-537 

-6.761 

-5.056 

-1.184 

-954 

-414 

-3.254 

-161 

-271 

-45 

-44 

-934 

-2.154 

-729 

-1.930 

-441 

-160 

-6.168 

-567 

-5.105 

-555 

-731 

-721 

-91 

-790 

-481 

-152 

-586 

-7.735 

-5.685 

-1.410 

-1.038 

-465 

-3.333 

-186 

-306 

-46 

-45 

-1.028 

-2.217 

-889 

-2.245 

-441 

-181 

-6.854 

-567 

-5.442 

0 

-156 

-10 

-20 

-5 

0 

0 

0 

0 

-177 

-12 

-20 

-6 

0 

-1 

0 

-1.616 

-1.796 

0 

-335 

0 

0 

0 

-2 

-12 

0 

-7 

0 

-194 

-152 

-153 

1 

-1 

0 

-373 

0 

0 

0 

-5 

-16 

0 

-7 

0 

-212 

-186 

-219 

1 

-2 

0 

-91 

8 

-12 

-7 

0 

1 

0 

-728 

0 

-83 

0 

0 

0 

1 

-11 

0 

-5 

0 

100 

-40 

113 

6 

-1 

0 

-125 

4 

-12 

-9 

0 

-1 

0 

-1.025 

0 

-145 

0 

0 

0 

-4 

-18 

0 

-5 

0 

82 

-96 

4 

6 

-2 

-1.671 

-1.755 

-1.113 

-1.259 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

-48.825 

-51.472 

-40.102 

-44.222 

-4.331 

-4.786 

-1.864 

-2.605 

Table A.15-1: GHG emission modification per country relative to the baseline Scenario – 
Scenarios 2, 2A, 3 and 3A, including and excluding biogenic emissions 

(Thousand Tons CO2e, year 2020) 

EN 

114 

   EN 

 
 
 
Scenario 2 

Scenario 2A

Scenario 3

Scenario 3A 

AT 

BG 

BE 

CY 

CZ 

DE 

DK 

EE 

EL 

ES 

FI 

FR 

HU 

IE 

IT 

LT 

LU 

LV 

MT 

NL 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SE 

SI 

SK 

UK 

EU 

-86  

-116  

-101  

-16  

-150  

-1.058  

-93  

-21  

-180  

-890  

-67  

-86 

-107 

-94 

-14 

-142 

-975 

-70 

-17 

-143 

-787 

-61 

-1.721  

-1.585 

-99  

-70  

-388  

-35  

-5  

-16  

-7  

-145  

-525  

-162  

-252  

-135  

-28  

-64  

-78 

-60 

-384 

-25 

-4 

-9 

-6 

-129 

-496 

-120 

-181 

-135 

-22 

-64 

-657  

-7.088  

-602 

-6.395 

0 

-41 

-8 

-6 

-6 

0 

0 

-1 

-78 

-318 

0 

-661 

0 

0 

0 

-3 

0 

-1 

-2 

0 

-185 

-56 

-76 

-0 

-1 

-6

0 

0  

-39  

-7  

-5  

-5  

0  

0  

-0  

-72  

-307  

0  

-627  

0  

-0  

0  

-1  

0  

1  

-2  

0  

-175  

-41  

-51  

-0  

-0  

-6  

0  

-1.449 

-1.336  

Table  A.15-2:  Cost/benefit  analysis  –  Modification  relative  to  the  baseline  Scenario  – 
Scenarios 2, 2A, 3 and 3A (Net social - Million €, NPV for the period 2013-2020)  

EN 

115 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
Annex 16:  Summary of the main uncertainties and their possible impacts on policy options 

Nature of the uncertainty 

Range 

Efforts made to reduce the uncertainty 

Possible influence on Scenario 
results interpretation 

Possible implication in 
terms of policy 
development 

Waste 
generation 

Not verified hypothesis on demography, 
GDP growth and relation between GDP 
and waste generation 

1 to 10% per MS/ or for 
specific years 

Comparison to historical data, consultation 
of the stakeholder including MS 

limited at EU 27 level, possibly 
more important at specific country 
level and/or for a specific year 

No implication at EU 27 
level for a multi annual 
approach 

Respect  of  the 
landfill 
Directive 
target 

Projected 
treatment 
methods in the 
baseline 

Costs 
benefits 
Prevention 

and 
- 

Not sure that all Member States will meet 
the targets meaning more waste landfilled 
in 2020 than foreseen 

Mainly relevant in MS 
heavily dependant on 
landfilling 

Comparison with existing implementation 
of the Directive, consultation of the 
stakeholder 

More important diversion from 
landfill in the alternative Scenario, 
increased cost but not linked with a 
new initiative on bio-waste 

Need to ensure an 
appropriate enforcement of 
the Landfill Directive, no 
implication for additional 
initiative on bio-waste 

Deviation from the expected treatment 
methods 

Between 5 to 20% of 
different treatment 
method per Member 
State 

Information based on Member States plans 
and intentions, consultation of the Member 
States on the baseline Scenario 

Different mass movement between 
treatment methods, should be 
compensated between them at EU 27 
level 

Limited at EU 27 level 

No reliable estimation of the cost of 
prevention actions 

Compilation of existing information on 
prevention even if limited 

Advantageous presentation of the 
cost-benefit ratio of prevention 

Difficult to fix a binding 
target for prevention 

Costs 
collection 

- 

No differences of costs between separate 
and mixed collection systems have been 
assumed 

0 to 20% of additional 
cost 

Compilation and comparison of several 
studies 

Additional or less cost of separate 
collection of biowaste leading to 
different costs and benefit analysis 

Emissions 
GHG's 

of 

Biogenic emissions taken into account or 
not in the calculation of the GHG's 
emissions 

around 10% 

Sensitivity analysis comparing the results 
for both calculations 

Monetization 
of  the  impacts 
- soil 

Impossible to monetize the impacts 
linked with improvement of soil organic 
contents 

Not available 

Estimation made on mineral fertiliser 
avoided in terms of GHG's emissions but 
not on soil organic content improvements 

About 10% more or less GHG's 
emission, no modification of best 
treatment option for the society 

Limited - benefits of all 
Scenarios including or not 
Biogenic emission are 
greater than the costs 

Possibly more benefits for all 
alternative Scenarios particularly 
when more compost is produced and 
in MS facing a deficit of organic 

Could justify a diffenciated 
approach between MS 

EN 

116 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
Nature of the uncertainty 

Range 

Efforts made to reduce the uncertainty 

Possible influence on Scenario 
results interpretation 

contents in their soil 

Possible implication in 
terms of policy 
development 

Method 
of 
choice  of  the 
preferred 
treatment 
method 

Preferred treatment method to meet the 
targets of the alternative scenarios is 
based on a comparison of costs and 
benefits for society - real decisions could 
be based on other parameters 

Potentially significant 
on a country basis 

Consultation of the interested stakeholder 
on the results of the alternative Scenarios 

Possible different repartition of the 
treatment methods mainly between 
anaerobic digestion and composting 

Limited as the intention is to 
fix a global target for the 
biological treatment not 
distinguishing AD from 
composting 

Quality 
compost  only 
possible  with 
separate 
collection 

No compost of quality is admitted in the 
Scenarios without being coupled with 
separate collection 

Maximum 15 to 20% of 
the compost 

Neutral - possible reduction of 
collection cost compensated by 
increased treatment cost 

EN 

117 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
Annex 17: Benefits/drawbacks of different measures to introduce selected policy actions 

Instrument 

Expected costs 

Practicability and 
enforceability 

Impact on subsidiarity 

Expected environmental effects 

Prevention measures 

EU Information campaign 

Not known 

Easy 

Synergies with national 
campaign to be checked 

Low – difficult to measure 

Binding prevention target 

Not known 

Complicate to control 

Moderate impact 

If controllable, potentially high 

Non-binding or indicative targets 

Not known 

Easy to moderate 

Tackling food and garden waste 
in waste prevention plans 

Not known 

Easy 

Leaves more flexibility to 
Member States 

Flexibility left to the Member 
States 

Low to high depending on Member States 

Low to high depending on Member States 

Improve compost market and soil protection measures 

Product standards only ("End of 
waste") 

Low 

2-tier system (product standards 
and minimum standards for use 
notably in agriculture) 

Low to moderate, costs could 
be higher in countries not 
having standards 

Support for recycling 

Easy 

Easy 

Moderate. Could imply the 
revision of existing standards 

Low if the market remains limited 

Moderate. Could imply the 
revision of existing standards 

Low to moderate, improvements expected in 
countries without standards 

High separate collection or 
biological treatment obligation 

Higher start-up costs but high 
savings in the future 

Moderate – this implies 
setting up reliable 
reporting obligations 

High – this implies a 
modification of the waste 
collection and treatment systems 

Moderate to high depending on country 
situation 

Low separate collection or 
biological treatment obligation 

Low start-up cost, moderate 
savings in the future 

Moderate (see above) 

Moderate – to high where 
separate collections are not yet 
introduced 

Moderate to high impacts, depending on 
country situation 

EN 

118 

EN 

 
  
EN 

119 

EN