COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying  the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions  on the Thematic Strategy on the Prevention and Recycling of Waste    COM(2011) 13 final
Date: 2011-01-19
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU environmental policy, dangerous substance, environmental protection, prevention of pollution, storage of waste, waste disposal, waste management, waste recycling

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, le 19.1.2011 
SEC(2011) 70 final 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 

Accompanying 

the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the 
European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions 

on the Thematic Strategy on the Prevention and Recycling of Waste 

COM(2011) 13 final 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 

Accompanying 

the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the 
European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions 

 on the Thematic Strategy on the Prevention and Recycling of Waste 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Introduction .................................................................................................................. 5 

Progress on key actions................................................................................................ 5 

Better Implementation.................................................................................................. 5 

Simplification and Modernisation................................................................................ 7 

Diffusion and integration of key concepts ................................................................... 9 

Waste Prevention (table on waste prevention in EU policies)................................... 10 

Better knowledge and information............................................................................. 12 

Development of common reference standards........................................................... 12 

Further elaboration of EU recycling policies and targets........................................... 13 

Actions implementing the Thematic Strategy............................................................ 16 

Progress on key objectives ......................................................................................... 20 

Prevention .................................................................................................................. 20 

Re-use......................................................................................................................... 29 

Recycling.................................................................................................................... 30 

Energy Recovery........................................................................................................ 39 

Landfilling.................................................................................................................. 40 

Member States Performances..................................................................................... 42 

Recycling society ....................................................................................................... 46 

International Aspects.................................................................................................. 54 

Increasing globalisation ............................................................................................. 54 

Waste exports ............................................................................................................. 54 

European actions ........................................................................................................ 58 

1. 

2. 

2.1 

2.2 

2.3 

2.4 

2.5 

2.6 

2.7 

2.8 

3. 

3.1 

3.2 

3.3 

3.4 

3.5 

3.6 

3.7 

4. 

4.1 

4.2 

4.3 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
 
 
4.3 

5. 

5.1 

5.2 

5.3 

6. 

6.1 

6.2 

6.3 

6.4 

6.5 

Worldwide actions ..................................................................................................... 59 

Future trends............................................................................................................... 60 

Increasing demand and impacts from resource use.................................................... 60 

Waste generation and management............................................................................ 64 

Green House Gas Emission........................................................................................ 65 

Stakeholder Consultation ........................................................................................... 67 

Key Overarching Messages........................................................................................ 67 

Implementation of the Thematic Strategy.................................................................. 68 

Delivering Waste Prevention ..................................................................................... 69 

International Influence ............................................................................................... 70 

Delivering a Recycling society and recycling markets .............................................. 70 

Glossary 

6EAP  –  Sixth  Environment  Action  Programme  of  the  European  Community  2002-2012 
(Decision  No  1600/2002/EC).  The  6EAP  set  out  the  framework  for  environmental  policy-
making in the EU for 2002-2012, and outlines actions that need to be taken to achieve them. It 
also  called  for  the  development  of  seven  ‘Thematic  Strategies’,  including  those  on  the 
Prevention and Recycling of Waste, and on Natural Resources. 

C&D waste – Construction and demolition waste, which includes concrete, bricks, gypsum, 
wood, glass, metals, plastic, solvents, asbestos and excavated soil arising from activities such 
as the construction of buildings and civil infrastructure, total or partial demolition of buildings 
and civil infrastructure, road planning and maintenance.  

EEA – European Environment Agency. 

ELV – End of life vehicles, as defined in Directive 2000/53/EC. 

Energy  recovery  –  The  use  of  waste  as  fuel  or  other  means  to  generate  energy.  Directive 
2008/98/EC  introduced  specific  new  criteria  to  determine  the  efficiency  level  at  which 
incineration  in  municipal  waste  incinerators  can  be  deemed  an  energy  recovery  rather  than 
disposal activity. 

ETC/SCP - European Topic Centre on Sustainable Consumption and Production  

Industrial  waste  –  Industrial  waste  is  waste  generated  in  industrial  and  manufacturing 
processes  such  as  basic  metals,  food,  beverage  and  tobacco  products,  wood  and  wood 
products and paper and paper products. 

LCA  –  Life  cycle  assessment  (or  analysis)  –  the  investigation  and  evaluation  of  the 
environmental impacts of a given product or service caused or necessitated by its existence. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
MS – Member State i.e. a country that is a member of the EU. 

Municipal waste – Article 2 of Directive 1999/31/EC defines municipal waste as waste from 
households, as well as other waste which, because of its nature or composition, is similar to 
waste from households.  

Preparing  for  re-use  –  Article  3  of  Directive  2008/98/EC  defines  preparing  for  re-use  as 
‘checking,  cleaning  or  repairing  recovery  operations,  by  which  products  or  components  of 
products that have become waste are prepared so that they can be re-used without any other 
pre-processing’. 

Recovery  –  Article  3  of  Directive  2008/98/EC  defines  recovery  as  ‘any  operation  the 
principal result of which is waste serving a useful purpose by replacing other materials which 
would  otherwise  have  been  used  to  fulfil  a  particular  function,  or  waste  being  prepared  to 
fulfil that function, in the plant or in the wider economy’. 

Recycling – Article 3 of Directive 2008/98/EC defines recycling as ‘any recovery operation 
by which waste materials are reprocessed into products, materials or substances whether for 
the  original  or  other  purposes.  It  includes  the  reprocessing  of  organic  material  but  does  not 
include energy recovery and the reprocessing into materials that are to be used as fuels or for 
backfilling operations’. 

Re-use  –  Article  3  of  Directive  2008/98/EC  defines  re-use  as  ‘any  operation  by  which 
products or components that are not waste are used again for the same purpose for which they 
were conceived’. 

Waste Hierarchy – Article 4 of Directive 2008/98/EC makes the waste hierarchy a ‘priority 
order’ in waste prevention and management legislation and policy, and defines it as, in order 
of preference: (a) prevention; (b) preparing for re-use; (c) recycling; (d) other recovery, e.g. 
energy recovery; and (e) disposal.  

Waste prevention – Article 4 of Directive 2008/98/EC defines prevention as ‘measures taken 
before  a  substance,  material  or  product  has  become  waste,  that  reduce:  (a)  the  quantity  of 
waste, including through the re-use of products or the extension of the life span of products; 
(b) the adverse impacts of the generated waste on the environment and human health; or (c) 
the content of harmful substances in materials and products’. 

Waste  TS  or  TS  –  Thematic  Strategy  on  the  Prevention  and  Recycling  of  Waste 
(COM(2005)666) adopted in December 2005. 

WEEE – Waste electrical and electronic equipment, as defined in Directive 2002/96/EC. 

WFD  –  Waste  Framework  Directive  originally  adopted  in  1975  and  revised  in  2008  as 
Directive  2008/98/EC.  The  Directive  must  be  transposed  into  National  legislation  by  12  of 
December 2010.  

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

The Thematic Strategy on the Prevention and Recycling of Waste was adopted in 2005. This 
formed  part  of  a  number  of  Thematic  Strategies  that  were  proposed  under  the  6th 
Environmental  Action Plan. The Strategy states that the Commission will make a review in 
2010  of  the  progress  made  towards  achieving  the  Strategy's  objectives.  If  necessary, 
additional measures should be identified to meet the objectives of the Strategy.  

This  document  accompanies  the  report  reviewing  progress  on  the  implementation  of  the 
strategy. It provides additional information and justification for the points which arose in the 
main report. It was established with the support of external expertise1, EEA2, Eurostat and on 
the  basis  of  the  data  extracted  from  the  Environment  Policy  Review3.  A  Stakeholder 
consultation was organised in May-June 2010, key messages are summarised in section 5 of 
the present document. The structure of the present working document follows the same as the 
main report.  

2. 

PROGRESS ON KEY ACTIONS 

2.1 

Better Implementation 

The Thematic Strategy on Waste Prevention and recycling recognized the need to ensure that 
legislation  on  waste  is  properly  implemented.  Several  reports  on  the  implementation  of 
legislation were adopted by the Commission:  

•  report on the implementation of general waste legislation (COM(2009) 633);  

•  report on the implementation of waste shipment legislation (COM(2009) 282);  

•  and, a report on the implementation of End of Life Vehicles legislation (COM(2009) 635). 

These  reports  highlight  significant  disparities  between  Member  States.  Insufficient 
importance  is  attached  to  the  enforcement  of  waste  laws  particularly  regarding  the  Waste 
Framework Directive, the Landfill Directive and the Waste Shipment Regulation.  

The  Commission  has  taken  steps  to  aid  the  better  implementation  of  waste  legislation  in 
Member States: 

•  Awareness-raising events have been held on  the  Waste  Framework  Directive and a web-
based forum is being set up4. 15 information exchange and awareness-raising events have 
been held on Waste Shipment Regulations. Awareness-raising events on the application of 
community legislation on shipments of waste, on landfills, on waste management plans and 
on waste prevention programmes were also organised by the Commission5.  

1 

2 

3 
4 
5 

Report  supporting  the  Thematic  Strategy  on  waste  prevention  and  recycling,  IEEP  with  Arcadis, 
Ecologic, Umweltbundesamt, BIO intelligence and VITO, 2010  
EEA  2010,  The  European  Environment,  State  and  Outlook  2010 :  Thematic  Assessment  –  Material 
Resources and Waste  
See: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/policyreview.htm  
http://www.wasteconsult.de/Euwm/index.htm  
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/shipments/pdf/report_131209.pdf  

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
•  Numerous  guideline  documents  have  been  produced  on  waste  stream  specific  legislation 
including  Batteries6,  End-of-Life  Vehicles7,  Electrical  and  Electronic  Waste8  legislation 
and  on  the  Waste  Shipment  Regulation9.  These  guidance  documents  are  continually 
evolving. Notably the WEEE guidance document has been incorporated into the proposed 
recast of the Directive10. Additional guidelines on interpretation of the Waste Framework 
Directive, including the definition of waste, energy efficiency and the waste hierarchy, are 
under development.  

•  Joint  enforcement  and  inspection  actions  have  been  carried  out  in  cooperation  with  the 
IMPEL  Network.  The  study  'Implementation  and  Enforcement  of  Environmental  Law"11 
built on earlier work conducted by this organization finding that 20% of waste shipments 
were  illegal.  A  study  is  currently  being  undertaken  on  the  case  for  developing  European 
level legislation on the criteria and standards of shipment inspections.  

•  The revised Waste Framework Directive12 includes revised obligations on Member States 
to produce Waste Management Plans; including for example, simplified reporting formats 
and the requirement for waste prevention planning. A study has been launched to analyse 
national plans and to help provide guidelines for MS for further improved reporting.  

•  Financial support has been made available for Member States through Cohesion Policy13 to 
improve waste management systems. The total support for waste management policies for 
the  period  2000-2006  amounted  to  around  4.1  billion  €  of  which  1.5  billion  €  from 
European  Fund  for  Regional  Development  (ERDF)  and  2.6  billion  €  from  the  Cohesion 
Fund14.  Projects  funded  under  ERDF  have  led  to  the  closure  or  rehabilitation  of  964 
unauthorised  landfills  (mainly  in  Spain  and  Greece)  and  the  creation  of  new  treatment 
capacity  of  231,649  m³  per  day  in  Spain  and  Hungary).  Beyond  public  support,  waste 
management has become more and more attractive for private enterprises as demonstrated 
in an ex post study achieved by DG REGIO on the use of the Cohesions funds.  

•  According to another DG REGIO study15, the global investment need for municipal solid 
waste management and for the period 2007-2013 for the EU 12 plus Greece, Portugal and 
Spain is estimated at 8,398 M € (in 2004 prices).  

The  Commission  made  an  assessment  on  the  feasibility  of  the  creation  of  a  waste 
implementation agency16.  

6 
7 

8 
9 
10 
11 

12 

13 
14 

15 

See : http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/batteries/index.htm  
Directive  2000/53/EC  on  End-of-Life  Vehicles  Guidance  Document,  January  2005,  European 
Commission., see: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/pdf/guidance_doc.pdf  
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/weee_index.htm 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/shipments/guidance.htm  
(COM(2008) 810) 
Seaport project II: 'International cooperation in enforcement hitting illegal waste shipments', June 2006, 
European  Union  Network  for  the  Implementation  and  Enforcement  of  Environmental  Law  (IMPEL), 
no110643/CE6/0M9/000398. 
http://impel.eu/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/2005-8-Seaport-II-
Final-Report.pdf)  
Directive  2008/98/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  on  waste  and  repealing  certain 
Directives 
Council Regulation (EC) No 1084/2006 of 11 July 2006 establishing a Cohesion Fund  
Source: DG REGIO estimations and DG REGIO study on the "ex-post evaluation of Cohesion Policy 
See: 
Programmes 
http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/evaluation/expost2006/wp5b_en.htm 
http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/evaluation/pdf/strategic_environ.pdf  

2000-2006", 

See: 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The  study  identified  key  problems  in  the  implementation  and  enforcement  of  EU  waste 
legislation such as the lack of sufficient capacity, coordination and organisation to ensure an 
appropriate enforcement of the waste legislation. In some Member States, implementation of 
EU waste legislation is not considered as a key priority, resulting in insufficient allocation of 
resources for enforcement.  

2.2 

Simplification and Modernisation  

In order to further simplify and modernise the EU waste legislation, the following initiatives 
were taken:  

Waste Framework Directive 

The  Waste  Framework  Directive  (2008/98/EC)  repealed  directives  on  waste  disposal 
(75/439/EEC),  hazardous  waste  (91/689/EEC)  and  waste  oils  (2006/12/EC).  The  Directive 
also  added  clarity  by  incorporating  basic  definitions  relating  to  waste  management.  It  also 
opened the possibility to establish "end-of-waste" criteria for certain waste streams in order to 
simplify the procedures. Criteria for ferrous, aluminium and copper scrap metals as well as for 
paper, glass and Biowaste are under development.  

Waste Shipment Regulations 

Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 on shipments of waste came into force in July 2007. It aims to 
reinforce, simplify and specify the existing procedures for controlling waste shipments. This 
has  been  done  through  streamlining  the  existing  control  procedures,  incorporating  recent 
changes of international law (including incorporating into EU legislation the amendments to 
the  lists  of  waste  annexed  to  the  Basel  Convention  as  well  as  the  revision  adopted  by  the 
Organization  for  Economic  Cooperation  and  Development  in  2001)  and  strengthening  the 
provisions  on  enforcement  and  cooperation  between  Member  States  in  case  of  illegal 
shipments.  

Since  2007  several  amendments  have  been  made  to  the  regulations  to  take  into  account 
technical  progress  and  the  changes  agreed  under  the  Basel  convention17.  In  addition 
instructions for completing notifications and movement documents have been developed and 
answers  from  non-OECD  countries  concerning  their  rules  on  import  of  green-listed  non-
hazardous wastes have been incorporated18.  

End-of-Life Vehicle Directive 

The  End  of  Life  Vehicles  Directive  (2000/53/EC)  came  into  force  in  2006.  Work  is  being 
done with the industry to make the requirements for design more specific, further reducing the 

16 

17 

18 

EN 

and 

AmbienDura 

'Study  on  the  feasibility  of  the  establishment  of  a  Waste  Implementation  Agency',  Dec  2009,  Milieu 
Ltd, 
Commission, 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/pdf/report_waste_dec09.pdf).  
Commission Regulation (EC) No 308/2009, Commission Regulation (EC) No 1379/2007, Commission 
Regulation (EC) No 669/2008 
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1418/2007, Commission Regulation (EC) No 740/2008, Commission 
Regulation (EC) No 967/2009 

European 

FFact 

the 

for 

7 

   EN 

 
                                                                                                                                                         
numbers of hazardous materials used. To date four amendments have been made to annex II 
of the directive and the Fifth Amendment is currently being discussed19.  

Guidance  documents  to  assist  Member  States  in  their  efforts  to  produce  high-quality  and 
harmonised data on end-of-life vehicles (ELVs) in accordance with the reporting requirements 
of Commission Decision 2005/293/EC are in preparation.  

Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Directive and Directive Restricting 
the use of Hazardous Substances (RoHS)  

EU  legislation  restricting  the  use  of  hazardous  substances  in  electrical  and  electronic 
equipment (RoHS Directive 2002/95/EC) and promoting the collection and recycling of such 
equipment  (WEEE  Directive  2002/96/EC)  has  been  in  force  since  February  2003.  In 
December  2008,  the  Commission  proposed  that  these  Directives  should  be  recast 
(COM(2008)  810).  The  proposed  recast  targets  are  significantly  higher  but  more  flexible, 
taking  into  account  the  divergent  consumption  rates  of  electronic  equipment  for  different 
Member States.  

Registration and reporting may also be harmonised, in accordance with a communication on 
Distance  sellers  issued  in  October  2009  (COM(2009)557).  This  will  work  to  reduce  market 
barriers between Member States and reduce administrative burden when cross boarder market 
transactions occur.  

Streamlined reporting under the Landfill Directive 

The  Waste  Statistics  Regulation  (Regulation  (EC)  No  2150/2002,  WStatR)  will  cover  data 
collections from 2010 onwards on the number of existing landfills, their remaining capacity 
and the number of landfills closed; data which is currently collected by the questionnaire in 
Commission Decision 2000/738/EC. The data frequency will increase from every three years 
to  every  second  year.  Hence,  the  redundant  information  request  will  be  deleted  from  the 
implementation questionnaire immediately without creating a data gap. 

Stoiber Group recommendations  

The Stoiber high level group was established with the aim to reduce administrative burden by 
25% by 2012. The group produced recommendations on waste and the environment20. Many 
of  the  recommendations  have  been  taken  onboard.  In  particular,  recommendations  on  the 
relabeling  of  batteries  and  harmonisation  of  the  European  waste  list  have  been  taken  into 
consideration.  In  addition,  aspects  such  as  harmonisation  for  information  exchange  using 
electronic systems for waste shipments are being taken up by some Member States. For ELV 
the suggestion to register and deregister the vehicles electronically has been addressed to the 
Member  States.  In  the  proposed  re-cast  of  the  Electric  and  Electronic  Waste  Equipment 
(WEEE) Directive, methods of registration and reporting are also planned to be standardised, 
thus  reducing  market  barriers  and  administrative  burdens.  The  registration  procedure  for 
battery producers was standardised in 2009.  

19 
20 

See: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/elv_index.htm  
Administrative  burden  reduction;  priority  area  Environment,  April  2009,  European  Commission.  See: 
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/better-regulation/files/hlg_opinion_environment_160409_en.pdf  

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
                                                 
In  addition  to  the  initiatives  described  above,  the  Commission  has  launched  a  study  on 
coherence of waste legislation focusing on the consistency of the recycling directives with the 
WFD  and  with  resource  efficiency  objectives  and  consistently  addressing  the  question  of 
extended  producer  responsibility.  Additional  initiatives  to  further  simplify  and  clarify  the 
legislation might be proposed as a result.  

2.3 

Diffusion and integration of key concepts  

The Strategy brought together a number of key concepts such as Life-Cycle thinking, waste 
hierarchy and Producer responsibility. 

Life  cycle  thinking  –  Life-cycle  thinking  is  the  consideration  of  the  supply  chains,  use,  as 
well  as  the  end  of  life  management  associated  the  provision  of  goods  and  services 
(collectively termed products) - sometimes called "from cradle to grave". The environmental 
impacts and the resources consumed associated with a product’s life cycle are assessed. Life 
Cycle  Assessment  (LCA)  is  one  tool  -  standardised  in  ISO14040/44  -  that  quantitatively 
supports life-cycle thinking.  

Life Cycle thinking as a concept has been actively developed and promoted by the European 
Union21  detailed  guidance  on  life  cycle  assessments  has  been  produced22.  For  example,  the 
International Reference Life Cycle Data System Handbook was launched in 2010, providing 
detailed  guidance  on  how  to  conduct  assessments  in  line  with  international  standards.  New 
guidance documents are currently finalised on Life Cycle Thinking for Biowaste, construction 
waste and general waste management.  

The Waste Framework Directive requires Member use life-cycle thinking. The only deviation 
from  the  waste  hierarchy  can  solely  be  justified  through  life  cycle  analysis  (Article  4 
Directive 2008/98/EC). The life cycle thinking perspective is incorporated into the Eco-design 
Directive  (Directive  2005/32/EC)  as  well  as  highlighted  as  a  desirable  approach  in  the 
Sustainable  Consumption  and  Production  and  Sustainable  Industries  Policy  Action  Plan 
(COM(2008) 397). This Action Plan highlights the ways in which the Commission will work 
to ensure the life cycle approach is extended across product streams and ways in which further 
information on life cycle impacts of products will be made available to consumers.  

The  objective  of  the  Ecodesign  Directive  (2009/125/EC)  is  to  improve  the  overall 
environmental performance of products. In principle it applies to any product, but the priority 
was  given  to  energy-using  (e.g.  appliances)  and  other  energy-related  (e.g.  windows, 
insulation)  products  (apart  from  vehicles).  The  Directive  includes  a  process,  conditions  and 
criteria for setting requirements regarding environmentally-relevant product characteristics to 
be met for products to be placed on the market. The Directive defines ecodesign parameters 
relating  to  different  phases  in  the  product  life  cycle:  raw  material  selection  and  use; 
manufacturing; packaging, transport, and distribution; installation and maintenance; use; and 
end-of-life. 

For each phase, the following aspects of the product must be assessed: predicted consumption 
of  materials,  of  energy  and  of  other  resources;  anticipated  emissions  to  air,  water  or  soil; 

21 
22 

See: http://lct.jrc.ec.europa.eu/index_jrc 
ILCD  Handbook,  2010,  European  Commission  &  Institute  for  Environment  and  Sustainability.  See: 
http://lct.jrc.ec.europa.eu/pdf-directory/ILCD-Handbook-General-guide-for-LCA-DETAIL-online-
12March2010.pdf  

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
                                                 
anticipated  pollution;  expected  generation  of  waste  material;  and  possibilities  for  reuse, 
recycling and recovery of materials or of energy.  

Waste  Hierarchy  –  The  Waste  Framework  Directive  lays  down  the  waste  hierarchy  and 
requires Member States to apply the hierarchy when developing their national waste policies 
and  legislation  (Article  4  Directive  2008/98/EC).  Guidance  tools  on  how  to  apply  the  life-
cycle approach in waste policies are about to be finalised and will be published soon. 

Extended Producer Responsibility – The definition of Extended Producer Responsibility is 
set  out  in  the  Waste  Framework  Directive  and  gives  power  to  Member  States  to  take 
legislative  measures  to  apply  this  concept  (Article  8  Directive  2008/98/EC).  Extended 
responsibility  is  also  being  considered  as  part  of  the  recast  of  the  WEEE  Directive 
(COM(2008) 810). 

2.4 

Waste Prevention (table on waste prevention in EU policies)  

The definition of waste prevention is set out in the Waste Framework Directive (Article 3.12 
Directive  2008/98/EC).  In  addition,  the  Directive  contains  the  following  requirements  on 
waste prevention: 

•  Member States have to establish waste prevention programmes no later than 12 December 
2013 (Article 29). Guidelines for these waste prevention programmes are currently under 
review and will be made available shortly.  

•  The  Commission  will  report  on  waste  prevention  and  the  associated  measures  deemed 

appropriate. (Article 9).  

To ensure that Waste Prevention remains a priority it has been incorporated into legislation on 
different waste streams: 

•  The  Batteries  Directive23  bans  or  restricts  the  use  of  2  heavy  metals  (mercury  in  all 

batteries and cadmium in portable batteries with certain exemptions).  

•  WEEE and its sister Directive on RoHs24: restricts the use of a number of heavy metals and 
other  substances  such  as  flame  retardants.  Both  Directives  are  under  recast  with  the 
particular aim to improve the degree to which hazardous substances are restricted. 

•  The Packaging Directive25 bans the use of 4 heavy metals, with some exemptions (crystal 
glass  or  plastic  crates  and  pallets).  Also  the  Directive  includes  provisions  aiming  at 
decoupling economic growth and packaging generation. 

•  Four amendments have been made to the End-of-life Vehicles Directive26, Annex II. These 
amendments  show  a  reduction  in  the  use  of  hazardous  substances  in  the  new  vehicles 

23 

24 

25 
26 

EN 

Directive 2006/66/EC on batteries and accumulators and waste batteries and accumulators and repealing 
Directive 91/157/EEC  
Directive  2002/95/EC  on  the  restriction  of  the  use  of  certain  hazardous  substances  in  electrical  and 
electronic equipment  
Directive 94/62/EC on packaging and packaging waste 
Directive 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/elv_index.htm  

2000/53/EC 

vehicles, 

end-of 

See: 

life 

on 

10 

   EN 

 
                                                 
where their use is no longer necessary and consequently an improvement in the quality of 
the waste produced.  

•  The  Directive  2005/64  “on  the  type-approval  of  motor  vehicles  with  regard  to  their 
reusability, recyclability and recoverability and amending Council Directive 70/156/EEC” 
established  that  vehicle  manufacturers  and  their  suppliers  should  include  reusability, 
recyclability  and  recoverability  of  component  parts  “at  the  earliest  stages  of  the 
development  of  new  vehicles,  in  order  to  facilitate  the  treatment  of  vehicles  at  the  time 
when  they  reach  the  end  of  their  life.  The  focus  shifted  to  the  recyclability  and 
recoverability of the vehicles before being produced and commercialised. Vehicles have to 
be constructed as to be: reusable and/or recyclable to a minimum of 85 % by weight, and 
reusable and/or recoverable to a minimum of 95 % by weight. In addition the Commission 
is  currently  working  to  encourage  the  development  of  clean  and  energy  efficient  cars, 
which includes aims facilitating the recycling of car batteries (COM (2010) 186).  

•  The Directive on the Management of Extractive Waste27 requires Member States to ensure 
that operators draw up a waste management plan, including the objective of preventing or 
reducing  the  production  and  harmfulness  of  waste.  In  addition,  the  Batteries  Directive 
introduces  a  requirement  for  a  safe  removal  of  waste  batteries  that  are  incorporated  in 
appliances.  

Other legislation has the potential to become key instruments to favour waste prevention: 

•  The REACH Regulation (1907/2006) aims at ensuring a high level of protection of human 
health and the environment, including the promotion of alternative methods for assessment 
of hazards of substances, as well as the free circulation of substances on the internal market 
while  enhancing  competitiveness  and  innovation;  ensuring  that  by  2020  chemicals  are 
produced and used in ways that lead to the minimisation of significant adverse effects on 
human  health  and  the  environment  among  other  issues.  Substitution  of  substances  that 
cause an unacceptable risk to human health or to the environment should be required where 
technically and socio-economically feasible as well as restrictions or prohibitions may also 
be placed on substances. 

•  A revision of the Ecodesign Directive (2009/125/EC) is foreseen in 2012, its extension to 

all products could contribute to improved prevention. 

•  On  16  July  2008  the  European  Commission  presented  the  Sustainable  Consumption  and 
Production and Sustainable Industrial Policy (SCP/SIP) Action Plan28. It includes a series 
of proposals on sustainable consumption and production that will contribute to improving 
the environmental performance of products and increase the demand for more sustainable 
goods  and  production  technologies.  It  also  seeks  to  encourage  EU  industry  to  take 
advantage  of  opportunities  to  innovate.  Several  policies  at  EU  and  national  level  already 
foster  resource  efficient  and  eco-friendly  products  and  raise  consumer  awareness.  The 
proposals complement these policy instruments and provide measures where gaps exist.  

27 
28 

Directive 2006/21/EC on the management of extractive waste 
See: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eussd/escp_en.htm  

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
                                                 
•  To  raise  awareness  and  promote  best  practice,  the  European  Week  for  Waste  Reduction 
was  launched  in  200929  and,  a  collection  of  example  of  good  practice  has  been  made 
available by the Commission30.  

2.5 

Better knowledge and information 

The  following  resources  have  been  established  and/or  further  developed  to  try  and  improve 
the spread of knowledge and the quality of information available: 

•  The Waste Data Centre has been established and hosted by Eurostat31.  

•  The European Topic Centre on Sustainable Consumption and Production (ETC/SCP) 32 is a 
consortium of environmental authorities and research centres across Europe. Overseen by 
the EEA, it regularly publishes on developments in waste and recycling. 

•  Regular  information  is  also  provided  through  publications  such  as  the  State  of  the 
Environment  Report  (SOER)  33  by  the  EEA  as  well  and  the  Environmental  Policy 
Review34, published by the Commission, both of which increasingly include reporting on 
waste and resource related issues.  

•  The  Commission  launched  the  European  Platform  on  Life  Cycle  Assessment  (LCA)  in 
2005 providing a range of information and on-line support tools. Additional guidance on 
how to conduct in practice LCA's particularly in the waste sector were developed.  

•  REACH  can  also  contribute  to  a  better  knowledge  of  the  composition  of  waste  by 
providing useful information about chemicals and their management. For example, it may 
provide  information  on  waste  streams  that  contain  substances  of  very  high  concern  (e.g. 
helping  in  the  classification  of  waste).  It  will  contribute  to  establishing  more  robust 
scientific  judgement  on  the  hazardousness  of  specific  waste  streams  and  improve  the 
application of the precautionary principle. 

These initiatives have improved the quality of information and availability of statistics on the 
generation  and  treatment  of  waste  has  improved  with  the  implementation  of  the  Waste 
Statistics  Regulation.  However,  there  are  still  knowledge  gaps  which  need  to  be  filled,  in 
particular statistics on the flows (import and export) of waste within the EU and at the global 
scale are to be further developed, as are indicators to monitor progress. 

2.6 

Development of common reference standards 

The following initiatives were taken develop common standard references: 

•  According  to  Article  6  (1)  and  (2)  of  the  new  Waste  Framework  Directive  2008/98/EC 
certain specified waste shall cease to be waste when it has undergone a recovery operation 
and complies with specific criteria to be developed in line with certain legal conditions, in 

29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 

See: http://www.ewwr.eu/  
See: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/prevention/practices.htm 
See: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/waste/introduction 
See: http://scp.eionet.europa.eu/  
See: http://soer2010.ew.eea.europa.eu/  
See: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/policyreview.htm  

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
                                                 
particular: there is an existing market or demand for the material, the use is lawful, the use 
will not lead to overall environmental or human health impacts.  

•  Such criteria should be set for specific materials by the Commission in Comitology. This 
mechanism  was  introduced  to  further  encourage  recycling  in  the  EU  by  creating  legal 
certainty and a level playing field as well as removing unnecessary administrative burden. 
A methodology to develop criteria has been elaborated by the Joint Research Centre35  

•  The  Commission  is  developing  end-of-waste  criteria  for  ferrous  scrap  metal,  aluminium 
scrap  metal,  copper  scrap  metal,  paper,  glass  and  Biowaste.  The  Commission  has 
submitted  a  first  set  of  criteria  for  ferrous  and  aluminium  scrap  for  adoption  in  the 
Comitology procedure.  

•  Minimum recycling efficiency levels have been set up for battery recycling processes. The 
Commission is preparing rules on the calculation of the recycling efficiency across Europe. 
In  addition,  for  waste  batteries  exported  outside  the  EU,  criteria  for  the  assessment  of 
treatment and recycling conditions equivalent to the requirements of the Batteries Directive 
are to be set up under Comitology.  

•  The  LIFE  programme  is  financing  a  project  from  2009  to  develop  a  common  and 
harmonized set of standards for processing e-waste in an environmentally safe manner and 
in  compliance  with  EU  legislation.  The  aim  is  to  create  a  “WEEE  label  of  excellence”, 
showing  environmental  standards  of  a  superior  level  throughout  the  whole  recycling 
process.  

•  Under  the  Integrated  Pollution  Prevention  and  Control  Directive,  a  reference  document 
(BREF) for the Waste Treatments Industries was published in August 2006, describing the 
best available techniques for waste treatment. The Proposed recast of the IPPC Directive 
2008/1/EC  includes  detail  on  permitting  of  installations,  including  combustion  plants, 
waste incineration plants and waste co-incineration plants36.  

2.7 

Further elaboration of EU recycling policies and targets 

Table  1  below  summarizes  the  main  targets  and  objectives  as  included  in  the  existing 
European legislation. The following recycling targets have been revised over the last 5 years 

•  New  recycling  targets  for  municipal  waste  and  construction  and  demolition  waste  were 

added to the revised Waste Framework Directive (Directive 2008/98/EC). 

•  In 2006 the targets in the End of Life Vehicles Directive (2000/53/EC) were considered as 

sufficiently challenging and no new targets were put in place.  

•  The Batteries Directive was adopted in 2006. This Directive includes targets for collection 
(25%  in  2012,  45%  in  2016)  and  recycling  of  batteries,  limitations  on  the  use  of  some 
hazardous substances in batteries. 65% of the average weight of lead-acid batteries should 
be recycled, 75% of the average weight of nickel-cadmium batteries and 50% recycling of 
the average weight of other waste batteries.  

35 
36 

JRC reports are to be found under http://susproc.jrc.ec.europa.eu/activities/waste/index.html  
See: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/air/pollutants/stationary/ippc/index.htm  

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
                                                 
•  The Commission's proposal for the recast of the WEEE Directive includes new mandatory 

collection targets (COM(2008) 810). 

•  The  Landfill  Directive  (Directive  99/31/EC)  puts  limitations  on  the  amount  of 

biodegradable waste to be disposed of in landfills. 

•  Following  a  green  paper  on  Biowaste  (COM(2008)  811)  the  Commission  has  adopted  a 
Communication on Biowaste (COM (2010) 235) 37 accompanied with an assessment of the 
Biowaste management in the EU38.  

37 
38 

See: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/compost/pdf/com_biowaste.pdf  
See: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/compost/pdf/sec_biowaste.pdf  

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Table 1: main targets and objectives as included in the existing European legislation  

Year 

Collection targets 

Recovery targets 

Recycling targets 

End-of-Life 
Vehicles 

WEEE 

2006 

2015 

2005 

2006 

2016 

(proposed) 

100% 

100% 

85%  

95%  

80% including reuse 

85% including reuse 

Vehicles to be 
recoverable to a 
minimum of 95 %  

Vehicles be reusable 
and/or recyclable to a 
minimum of 85 %  

Min. 4kg per inhabitant 
per year 

70-80% depending 
on category of 
WEEE 

50-80% including reuse, 
depending on category of 
WEEE 

65% of what is set on the 
market or 85% of waste 
arising  

Packaging waste 

60% 

2008 

2009 

Batteries 
accumulators 

and 

2011 

2012 

2016 

2015 

2020 

2020 

2006 or 
2010 (*) 

2009 or 
2013(*) 

2016 or 
2020 (*) 

2006 

metal, 
Paper, 
plastic  and  glass 
from 
waste 
other 
households, 
household 
waste 
and similar waste 

Construction 
Demolition  

and 

Biodegradable 
municipal waste  

Tyres  

55% of which 50% metal, 
60% glass, 
paper/cardboard, 22,5% 
plastics, 15% wood  

100% of collected 
batteries 

65% for lead-acid 
batteries; 75% nickel-
cadmium and 50% for 
others 

25% 

45% 

Separate collection for at 
least paper, metal, plastics 
and glass 

50% 

70% by weight of non-hazardous waste to be 
prepared for re-use, recycled or recovered 

Reduction to 75% of 1995 landfill levels 

Reduction to 50% of 1995 landfill levels 

Reduction to 35% of 1995 landfill levels 

Zero landfill 

(*) for Member States having a derogation (EE,UK, PL, CZ, LT, GR, IE, RO, BU, LV, SK) 

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.8 

Actions implementing the Thematic Strategy  

Table 2 below summarises the actions and achievements resulting from the Waste Thematic 
Strategy. In summary, most of the proposed actions as defined in the Thematic Strategy have 
been achieved in the predicted timescale.  

Action / activity 

Proposal for a directive 
amending the Waste 
Framework Directive and 
repealing the Waste Oils 
Directive 

Report on the 
implementation of 
Directive 94/62/EC on 
packaging and packaging 
waste 

Review of the targets set 
under Directive 
2000/53/EC on end-of-life 
vehicles 

Proposal for a Directive 
bringing together in one 
Directive the three 
Directives on waste from 
the titanium dioxide 
industry 

Publication of guidelines, 
on the issue of when by-
products should or should 
not be considered waste 

Publication of guidelines 
for Member States on 
applying life-cycle 
thinking to management 
of biodegradable waste 
that is diverted from 
landfill 

Improving the knowledge 
base on impact of 
resource use, waste 
generation and waste 
management and more 
systematic forecasting and 
modelling 

Timetable / 
deadline 

Proposed 
together with 
Waste TS 

Achievements to date 

Status 

Adoption of the Directive on Waste 
2008/98/EC (merging the Waste Framework 
Directive with the Hazardous Waste Directive 
and repealing the Waste Oils Directive) 

Completed 
2008 

2006 

Publication of COM(2006)406 and 
COM(2006)767 

Completed 
2006 

2006 

Publication of COM(2007)5 

2006 

Proposed recast of the IPPC Directive 
2008/1/EC to include the provisions of the 
titanium dioxide Directives 

2006 

Publication of COM(2007)59 

Completed 
2007 

Completed 
2007 

Completed 
2007 

2006 

JRC project initiated in 2007: 
http://viso.jrc.ec.europa.eu/lca-
biowaste/index.htm 

To be finalised 
by end 2010 

Ongoing 

Starting 
2006 

–  Establishment  of  the  International  Panel  for 
Sustainable Resource Management, under the 
auspices  of  the  Sustainable  Consumption  & 
Production  Branch  of  UNEP’s  Division  of 
Technology, Industry, and Economics 

–  Various  follow-up  studies  to  the  Natural 
Resources  TS,  and  studies  on  the  sustainable 
management of resources (see http://www.eu-
smr.eu/) 

–  Creation  and  continuing  work  of 
Environmental Data Centre on Waste 

the 

EN 

16 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
Action / activity 

Proposal to clarify and 
extend the scope of the 
IPPC Directive to 
additional waste 
management activities, 
including biological 
treatment for recovery of 
waste and preparation of 
hazardous waste for 
incineration and of 
incineration slags for 
recovery 

Proposal for revision of 
Council Directive 
86/278/EEC on the 
protection of the 
environment, and in 
particular of the soil, 
when sewage sludge is 
used in agriculture 

Publication of basic 
guidelines to make life-
cycle tools easily usable 
in waste policymaking, 
with an agreed approach 
and methodology 

Achievements to date 

Status 

Proposed recast of the IPPC Directive 

Completed 
2007 

Timetable / 
deadline 

2007 (as part 
of general 
review of 
IPPC 
Directive) 

2007 

Impact assessment launched in 2009, expected 
proposal in 2011 

Ongoing 

2007 

Short (4 page) guidelines available at 
http://lct.jrc.ec.europa.eu/pdf-
directory/Making-Sust-Consumption.pdf 

Completed 

International Reference Life Cycle Data 
System (ILCD) Handbook launched March 
2010: see 
http://lct.jrc.ec.europa.eu/assessment/publicati
ons 

Making sustainable consumption and 
production a reality: A guide for business and 
policy makers to Life Cycle Thinking and 
Assessment published 2010: see 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/pubs/pdf/susta
inable.pdf 

Detailed guidance documents on applying 
LCA thinking for Biowaste, Construction and 
Demolition Waste and on Waste Management 
in general  

To be finalised 
by end 2010 

EN 

17 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Action / activity 

Timetable / 
deadline 

Publication of documents 
related to waste shipments 

2009 

Achievements to date 

Status 

Completed 

Ongoing 

Completed  

Commission report of 24 June 2009 on the 
implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) 
No 259/93 on the supervision and control of 
shipments of waste within, into and out of the 
European Community - Generation, treatment 
and transboundary shipment of hazardous 
waste and other waste in the Member States of 
the European Union (2001-2006): see 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/shipme
nts/reports.htm 

DG Environment document of September 
2010, on a FAQuestions on waste shipments to 
assist competent authorities and economic 
operators with the application of the Waste 
Shipment Regulation and to help national 
competent authorities to ensure a harmonised 
application of the Waste Shipment Regulation 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment//waste/shipme
nts/pdf/faq.pdf  

Correspondents' Guidelines have been 
published on a number of topics: shipments of 
WEEE; imports of waste generated by armed 
forces or relief organisations; certificates for 
non-interim recovery or disposal; classification 
of WEEE and fly ash from coal-fired power 
plants, wood waste, slags from processing of 
copper alloys, glass waste from cathode ray 
tubes (CRT) and waste cartridges containing 
toner or ink. 

A guideline on waste vehicles is in the 
pipeline, while the drafting of additional 
guidelines is currently under consideration 

Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control 
BREF for the Waste Treatments Industries 
published in August 2006, containing some 
BAT on the mixing of waste, Proposed recast 
of the IPPC Directive 2008/1/EC includes 
detail on permitting of installations, including 
combustion plants, waste incineration plants 
and waste co-incineration plants 

2010 

2007 

2007 

2007 

Final report of major study ‘Optimising 
Markets For Recycling’ published in 
November 2008 

Completed 

Publication of non-legally 
binding guidelines 
reflecting the common 
understanding of the 
waste shipment 
correspondents of the EU 
Member States of how 
certain aspects pertaining 
to the Waste Shipment 
Regulation should be 
interpreted 

Publication of guidelines 
on minimum 
environmental standards 
for permits of installations 
that are not covered by the 
IPPC Directive and on 
best available techniques 
for the mixing of 
hazardous waste 

Assessment of the state of 
play and of the need for 
additional measures to 
stimulate the move to a 
European recycling 
society 

EN 

18 

   EN 

 
Timetable / 
deadline 

2008 

Action / activity 

Review of the targets 
under Directive 
2002/96/EC on waste 
electrical and electronic 
equipment 

Adoption of a first set of 
quality standards for 
defining when certain 
waste flows cease to be 
waste, starting with 
compost and recycled 
aggregates 

2008 – 
subject to 
entry into 
force of the 
revised 
Waste 
Framework 
Directive 

Clarification of the 
obligation for Member 
States to develop publicly 
available waste prevention 
programmes 

Revision of 
the Waste 
Framework 
Directive 

Identifying an efficiency 
threshold for incinerators 
to define whether they are 
to be classified as 
recovery or disposal 

Develop quality criteria for 
compost 

Revision of 
the Waste 
Framework 
Directive 

Following 
revision of the 
Waste 
Framework 
Directive 

Achievements to date 

Status 

Proposal for recast WEEE Directive published 
December 2008 (proposes: collection target of 
65% of EEE put on the market in the two 
previous years by 2016; integrating re-use 
target into recovery and recycling targets; and 
introducing 5% overall increase in reuse and 
recycling targets) 

Ongoing, the 
proposal is in 
first reading in 
the Parliament 
and Council  

End-of-waste criteria under preparation for 
ferrous scrap, aluminium scrap, copper scrap, 
waste paper; waste glass; textile waste and 
plastic waste 

JRC project produced two reports: 

First proposal 
of Commission 
Decision for 
scrap metals in 
Comitology  

"Study on the selection of waste streams for End 
of Waste assessment": identifies suitable waste 
streams for a detailed End of Waste assessment, 
using quantitative and qualitative selection 
criteria; and 

"End-of-waste criteria, methodology and case 
studies": presents a general methodology or 
guidelines analysing principles for setting 
criteria; provides related analytical and impact 
assessment frameworks required to determine 
end of waste criteria; includes case studies on 
aluminium and steel scrap, aggregates and 
compost 

Details available at 
http://susproc.jrc.ec.europa.eu/activities/waste/
index.html 

Obligation clarified in Article 29 of Directive 
2008/98/EC. 

Efficiency threshold included in Annex II 
(Recovery Operations) of Directive 
2008/98/EC 

Guidelines to 
be finalised to 
assist Member 
States in 
development of 
waste 
prevention 
programmes 

Completed 

Provision made for this in Article 22 of Directive 
2008/98/EC 

Ongoing 

Final report on ‘Assessment of the options to 
improve the management of bio-waste in the EU’ 
published in February 2010  

Two set of quality standards under development: 
one in the framework of the end-of-waste criteria 
and another under the revision of the Sewage 
Sludge Directive (86/278/EEC) 

EN 

19 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
3. 

PROGRESS ON KEY OBJECTIVES 

This section will provide a brief overview of progress on reaching the Key objectives of the 
strategy in the context of reducing overall negative environmental impacts of resource use.  

3.1 

Prevention  

Quantitative Prevention  

In 2004, total waste generation in the EU-15 was estimated at 1.93 billion tonnes. By 2006 it 
had reached an estimated 2.01 billion tonnes (increase of 4%) but it fell in 2008 beyond the 
2004 level. In the EU-12, total waste generation actually fell from 0.98 billion tonnes in 2004 
to 0.94 billion tonnes in 2006, a decrease of almost 4%.39  

For the EU-27, total waste generation was estimated to be 2.91 billion tonnes in 2004, roughly 
6 tonnes per capita. By 2006 the estimate had risen to 2.95 billion tonnes, an increase of just 
over  1%  in  two  years39  but  fell  again  in  2008  to  around  2.6  billion  tonnes  (Figure  1). 
Nevertheless,  in  most  Member  States  total  waste  generation  seems  to  stabilize  or  increase 
except in 4 Member States (FR, SE, RO and PL) where a strong decrease has been observed.  

As the 2008 data are very recent additional in-depth analysis is needed to verify whether these 
decreases  are  linked  with  the  impacts  of  the  economic  crisis,  or  with  modified  reporting 
methods  or  with  progress  in  term  of  prevention.  As  shown  in  Figure  2,  there  is  a  high 
variability  between  Member  States:  in  2008  this  ranged  from  more  than  350  million  tonnes 
(Germany) to less than 2 million tonnes (Latvia) reflecting the economic, demographic, social 
and environmental conditions across the different Member States.  

Figure 1: Overall generation of waste (in 1000 tonnes)39 

39 

Derived from Eurostat, 2010, Environmental Data Centre on Waste, Overall Waste Generation 

EN 

20 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
Figure 2: Overall generation of waste per Member State (in 1000 tonnes)39 

As  shown  in  Figure  3  about  two  thirds  (62  %)  of  the  waste  generated  in  EU-27  is  mineral 
waste, stemming from construction and demolition activities (25-30 %) and from mining and 
quarrying 25 %. The rest is from manufacturing (12%), households (7%) and other activities.  

Figure 3: Composition of waste EU-27, 200640 

Recyclable waste
10%

Discarded equipment 
waste
1%

Animal and vegetal 
waste
8%

Household and similar 
wastes
7%

Combustion waste
5%

Common sludges
2%

Others (Chemical and 
medical wastes and 
mixed and 
indifferentiated 
materials)
5%

Mineral and solidified 
wastes (excluding 
combustion waste)
62%

To better assess performance of individual economic activities, the non-mineral waste should 
be analysed with more attention. The high amounts of mineral wastes, soil and dredging spoil 
representing 62% of total, overlay waste generation in rest of economy.  

40 

Source : Eurostat waste data centre 2010 

EN 

21 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
Furthermore the data quality for mineral waste from mining and construction sectors is lower 
than for other better monitored waste categories. Presenting the non mineral waste separately, 
better  allows  analysing  trends  in  waste  generation  by  economic  activities,  with  higher 
accuracy and interpretability. Overall non mineral waste generation was remarkably stable at 
EU 27 level between 2004 and 2006.  

Figure 4: Generation of non-mineral waste per inhabitant in EU 27 – 2004, 200640  

2004

2006

]
a
,
p
a
c
/
g
k
[

12,000

10,000

8,000

6,000

4,000

2,000

0

EE

LU SE FI PL BE PT

AT GR UK NL LT SI

BG CY SK ES IE

RO DK HU FR IT DE CZ MT

LV

EU27

In 2008, industrial waste accounted for around 55% of waste generated in the EU-27. Other 
economic activities that also contributed significantly to levels of waste generation included 
the  construction  and  services  sectors,  accounting  respectively  for  more  than  30  and  8%  of 
total waste. More than a half of industrial waste produced in the EU-27 came from mining and 
quarrying.  In  the  Member  States  with  a  significant  mining  industry,  mining  accounted  for 
40%  or  more  of  industrial  waste.  Similarly,  in  over  half  of  the  Member  States  the  energy 
sector was responsible for less than 10% of industrial waste, whereas in Hungary, Greece and 
Estonia this sector accounted for around 40% of industrial waste.  

As  shown  in  Figure  5  below,  there  is  a  large  amount  of  variation  between  Member  States; 
these differences can be partly accounted for by the dominance of different activities within 
the  economy  of  each  country.  Data  from  Eurostat  suggest  that  the  generation  of 
manufacturing waste in the EU-27 fell by 5.4% between 2004 and 2006 (from 384.6 million 
to 363.7 million tonnes). Waste from mining and quarrying fell by 14% over the same period 
(from  862.1  million  to  740.7  million  tonnes).Waste  from  other  economic  sectors  (services) 
increased by 6.2% (from 146.8 million to 155.8 million tonnes).41  

These  trends  may  be  a  consequence  of  efficiency  measures  in  industry  or  as  a  result  of 
changing  economics  within  the  EU  favouring  service  industries  rather  than  primary  or 
secondary industrial activities such as manufacturing and mining.   

41 

Eurostat, 2009, Europe in figures – Eurostat Yearbook 2009  

EN 

22 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
Figure  5:  Waste  generated  by  economic  activity,  2008  (%  of  total  waste  generated)42 

The EU27 Member States, Croatia, Norway and Switzerland together reported the generation 
of  70.6  million  tonnes  of  hazardous  waste  in  2006,  an  increase  of  15%  since  1997  (see 
Figure  6  below).  Between  1997  and  2006  generation  increased  by  54%  in  the  EU15  but 
decreased by 42% in the EU 12. According to the EEA, taking into account the limited data 
available,  the  overall  trend  shows  growing  or  stabilising  amounts  of  hazardous  and 
nonhazardous waste in the EU.43 

The decrease in hazardous waste generation in the EU12 can be explained by introduction of 
cleaner  technology  and  mine  closures.  In  addition,  some  waste  types  historically  deemed 
hazardous were re-classified as non hazardous compared as a consequence of the introduction 
of  the  European  Waste  List  upon  accession  to  the  EU.  The  increase  in  hazardous  waste 
generation  in  the  EU15  is  more  difficult  to  explain,  although  changes  in  the  EU  hazardous 
waste list in 2001 increased the number of waste codes to cover hazardous wastes that were 
previously  only  classed  as  hazardous  in  some  countries.  Other  contributing  factors  may 
include increased municipal waste incineration (which is estimated to have contributed to an 
increase in hazardous flue gas cleaning residues of at least 600,000 tonnes between 1997 and 
2006) and remediation of contaminated sites.43 

42 
43 

Eurostat, 2009, Statistics in Focus 30/2009, Generation and treatment of waste 
EEA  2010,  The  European  Environment,  State  and  Outlook  2010 :  Thematic  Assessment  –  Material 
Resources and Waste  

EN 

23 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
Figure  6:  Hazardous  waste  generation  in  the  EU-27  plus  Norway,  Switzerland  and 
Croatia, 1997 to 200643 

Across the EU27, hazardous waste accounts for an average of 3% of total waste generated but 
with high impact on the environment. The proportion varies greatly between Member States, 
however,  as  a  result  of  the  dominance  of  different  economic  sectors:  from  0.3%  in  Greece, 
Bulgaria and Romania to 35% in Estonia (due to shale oil production) (see Figure7 below).  

Figure 7: Hazardous waste generated, 2008, EU-27 (in % of total waste generated) 44 

44 

Source: Eurostat Waste Data Centre 2010 

EN 

24 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
Generation  of  construction  and  demolition  waste(C&D)  (figure  8)  is  estimated  to  account 
for  approximately  25%-30%  of  wastes  in  the  EU.  Given  the  lack  of  recycling  and  recovery 
targets for C&D wastes at EU level in the past, no standardised reporting systems had been 
developed, thus resulting in diverging methodologies and different wastes being considered as 
C&D wastes.  

The  estimates  of  construction  and  demolition  waste  generation  range  from  510  million 
tonnes45 to 970 million tonnes46. Some Member States have not reported any figures, whilst 
others  seem  to  include  excavation  material  in  their  figures.  A  recent  study47  has  introduced 
some correction factors in order to take into account the diverging reporting practices and has 
estimated the C&D waste generation at 535 million tonnes.  

Figure 8: Generation of construction and demolition waste in the EU in 2006 (in millions 
of tonnes) 47 

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

stria

aria
ark
s
blic
m
pru
elgiu
m
u
ulg
y
p
n
C
e
e
B
h R
D

B

u
A

y
n
a

nia
Finla
sto
E

ce
d
n
n
erm
Fra
G

ce
e
Gre

ary
Irela
g
n
u
H

d
n

Italy

c
e
z
C

s
d
n

L

atvia
Lith

nia
urg
alta
a
o
erla
M
u
b
m
eth
xe
u
N
L

nia
blic
n
d
nia
al
ain
e
n
g
ola
d
ve
p
ortu
ma
u
e
S
p
w
Slo
P
e
o
S
P
k R
R
va
Slo

K
U

The range of reported generated construction and demolition waste per capita and year varies 
between  less  than  0.1  tonnes  in  Romania  and  15.2  tonnes  in  Luxembourg.  This  variation 
cannot  be  explained  by  differences  in  construction  activity  only,  and  seems  partly  due  to 
diverging reporting methodologies.  

As Figures 9 and 10 show, construction and demolition waste generation seems to be lower in 
EU-12, where per capita generation is in most cases below 2 tonnes per year.  

45 

46 
47 

WBCSD  (Word  Business  Council  for  Sustainable  Development  ),  2009,  The  Cement  Sustainability 
Initiative, Recycling concrete 
Eurostat, 2010 
BioIS: Management of construction and demolition waste in the EU - requirements resulting from the 
Waste  Framework  Directive  and  assessment  of  the  situation  in  the  medium  term  (draft  final  report, 
2010). Note: for some Member States, only data for 2004 were available 

EN 

25 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
Figures 9 and 10 have to be seen only as indicative of the trend as regards the evolution of 
production of construction and demolition wastes within a given Member State. The amounts 
indicated  are  based  on  diverging  definitions  of  C&DW  (and  may  include  e.g.  excavation 
material)  and  do  not  allow  for  cross-country  precise  comparisons.  Given  the  lack  of 
comparable  data  and  of  complete  time  series,  it  is  difficult  to  assess  the  evolution  of  the 
amounts of construction and demolition waste.  

As illustrated by Figure 9 below, all EU 15 countries where data are available for more than 
one year have seen an increase in generation per capita during the period 1995 to 200648, with 
the exception of Germany. 

Figure 9: Generation of construction and demolition waste per capita in EU 15 48 

48 

EEA, 2009, Working paper ‘EU as a Recycling Society: Present recycling levels of Municipal Waste 
and Construction & Demolition Waste in the EU’ 

EN 

26 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
Figure 10: Generation of construction and demolition waste per capita in the EU 12 48 

As shown in Figure 11, the generation of Municipal solid Waste per capita in the EU-27 had 
been increasing until recently (from 499kg in 1997 to 524kg in 2006), but since 2000 appears 
to  be  stabilising.  This  compares  to  figures  reported  by  the  OECD  of  750kg  for  the  USA, 
400kg in Japan in 2005 and around 444kg for urban China whilst the generation rate in rural 
areas was not known.49 50  

Total  municipal  waste  generation  has  increased  of  around  5%  in  the  EU-27  (from  239.5 
million tonnes to 260.7 million tonnes) in ten years. The total amount of MSW generated by 
the EU continues to increase associated with a slight increase in EU-27 population.  

According  to  EEA51,  the  annual  generation  of  municipal  waste  in  the  EU-27  has  reached 
524 kg  per  person  (see  Figure  11).  In  the  past,  growing  consumption  and  the  trend  towards 
smaller  and  more  households  (see  SOER  Thematic  Assessment:  Consumption  and 
Environment) have been strong drivers of municipal waste generation but it now seems that 
these factors are decoupling from municipal waste generation: municipal waste generation per 
person  in  the  EU-27  stabilized  between  1999  and  2007  while  consumption  expenditure  in 
constant  prices  increased  by  16.3%  per  person  and  the  number  of  people  per  household 
decreased  by  5.6%  (Odyssee  database).  However,  mainly  as  a  result  of  the  small  growth  in 
population, the total amount of municipal waste generated in the EU-27 over the same period 
increased slightly to 258 million tons (Eurostat data centre on waste).  

Figures 11 and 12 below show the trend in waste generation for each Member State.  

49 
50 
51 

OECD, 2007, Municipal waste generation outlook 
OECD Environmental Data Compendium, 2008, Waste 
EEA  2010,  The  European  Environment,  State  and  Outlook  2010 :  Thematic  Assessment  –  Material 
Resources and Waste 

EN 

27 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
Figure 11: Municipal waste generation and treatment in kg per capita 52 

2000 - 2007 - 2008

900

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

landfilled

incinerated

recycled and
composted

7
2
-
U
E

5
1
-
U
E

T
A

E
B

G
B

Y
C

Z
C

E
D

K
D

E
E

L
E

I

S F
E

R
F

U
H

E

I

T

I

T
L

U
L

V
L

T
M

L
N

L
P

T
P

O
R

I

E S
S

K
S

K
U

Figure  12:  Percentage  change  in  per  capita  municipal  waste  generation  1997-200853 

52 

53 

EN 

Policy 
Environmental 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/policyreview.htm  
Eurostat, 2010, Environmental Data Centre on Waste, Municipal Waste 

Review 

derived 

2010, 

from 

Eurostat, 

see: 

28 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
EU-12 Member States generate less municipal waste per capita than the EU-15, and less than 
the EU-27 average54. For the EU-12, municipal waste generation is increasing slightly more 
quickly than in the EU-15, with an increase of around 7% between 1997 and 200862 Figures 
11  and  12  also  demonstrate  the  variation  in  trends  across  the  Member  States  in  terms  of 
municipal waste generation per capita.  

According to EEA55, packaging waste from households and commercial sources accounts for 
around 3% of total waste. Generation of this waste stream is increasing, although it appears to 
be  relatively  decoupled  from  GDP  growth.  Generation  per  capita  varies  between  Member 
States, from 41kg in Bulgaria to 245kg in Ireland.  

Qualitative Prevention  

Steps  have  been  made  to  achieve  qualitative  waste  prevention.  WEEE  through  the  RoHS 
Directive, batteries, packaging and vehicles are expected to become less hazardous over time. 
The  impact  of  the  RoHS  Directive  has  been  recently  estimated56:  the  application  of  the 
Directive has resulted in reducing the quantities of the banned substances being disposed of 
and  potentially  released  into  the  environment  by  89 800  tonnes  of  lead,  4 300  tonnes  of 
cadmium, 537  tonnes of hexavalent  chromium,  22  tonnes  of  mercury,  and  12 600  tonnes  of 
octa-BDE per year. 

The progressive application of the REACH regulation will also encourage a reduction in the 
production  of  hazardous  waste  although  no  precise  estimation  has  been  made  so  far  on  the 
exact possible impact of the regulation on waste generation.  

3.2 

Re-use 

Under  the  new  Waste  Framework  Directive  the  concept  of  "preparing  for  reuse"  is  defined. 
This  is  where  products  and  materials  have  become  waste  but  can  be  reused  without 
reprocessing (which would be considered recycling). This concept was introduced to clarify 
the  waste  hierarchy.  In  practice  reuse  covers  widespread  activity  for  many  waste  streams 
across  the  EU  27;  reuse  ‘markets’  exist  notably  for  textiles,  furniture,  car  components  and 
electrical household appliances. As under these markets materials are considered second-hand 
and never become waste it is difficult to monitor the scale of activities or understand the scale 
of waste avoided/impact upon waste generation activities.  

However,  in  some  Member  States  re-use  is  well  developed  and  even  subsidized  and 
promoted. Already not only has this avoided waste generation but also has given another life 
to  some  still  valuable  products  and  therefore  avoided  a  kind  of  over  consumption.  Other 
benefits are linked with the social impacts of these activities as they are generating new kind 
of jobs while providing second hands products at accessible prices.  

54 
55 

56 

Eurostat, 2010, Environmental Data Centre on Waste, Municipal Waste 
EEA  2010,  The  European  Environment,  State  and  Outlook  2010 :  Thematic  Assessment  –  Material 
Resources and Waste  
Commission  Staff  working  paper  accompanying  the  Proposal  for  a  Directive  of  the  European 
Parliament and of the Council on waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) (recast) – Impact 
Assessment,  COM(2008)  810  final,  3  December  2008 
,  p.  30,  available  at:  http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=SEC:2008:2933:FIN:EN:PDF  

EN 

29 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Given that it is a new concept, data on preparing for reuse is not currently available at EU 27 
level. This lack of data represents a significant gap in data coverage when trying to identify 
performance in the EU waste management sector. 

3.3 

Recycling  

Overall waste  

Figure 13 summarises the volume of waste treated by the three main treatment types: disposal, 
incineration  and  recovery  (excluding  energy  recovery).  In  the  EU,  5.5  %  of  waste  was 
incinerated, 46 % recovered and 48.5 % disposed in 2008. 

Figure 13: Types of waste treatment, 200857  

Municipal Solid Waste  

The  most  extensive  data  set  available,  that  enables  the  comparative  analysis  of  EU  and 
Member  State  performance  in  terms  of  recycling  effort,  is  for  municipal  solid  waste. 
Recycling  and  composting  of  MSW  has  increased  from  19%  to  38%  between  1998  and 
200758 with significant disparities between Member States in terms of recycling.  

Figure 11 compares Member State performance in 2000, 2007 and 2008. It demonstrates that 
large  differences  persist  between  Member  State  performances.  In  2006,  Germany,  Belgium 
and the Netherlands had the highest levels of recycling, also demonstrating significant growth 
levels in municipal waste recycling.  

57 
58 

in percent of total waste treated, Source: Eurostat Waste Data Centre 2010 
EEA  2010,  The  European  Environment,  State  and  Outlook  2010 :  Thematic  Assessment  –  Material 
Resources and Waste  

EN 

30 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
Meanwhile rapid increases in the level of recycling, starting from a low base in 2000, can be 
seen for Ireland, the UK, the Czech Republic, Slovenia, Latvia and Poland. The more detailed 
trend  data,  however,  also  shows  a  levelling  off  of  recycling  efforts  for  municipal  waste  in 
certain higher achieving Member States. 

A  working  paper  by  the  ETC/SCP59  concluded,  based  on  analysis  of  national  performance, 
that in 2005-2006 the EU 15 recycled between 60kg and 370kg of municipal waste per capita; 
meanwhile the level of municipal waste recycling in the EU 12 varied from 20kg to 100kg per 
capita. When interpreting these figures, one must take into account the variations in levels of 
waste  generation  in  the  Member  States  i.e.  a  country  with  high  overall  levels  of  generation 
may show high levels of recycling in terms of weight, but as a proportion of total generation 
the achievement may be low.  

Bio Waste  

Figures  from  Eurostat  suggest  that  in  2008,  17%  of  waste  treated  in  the  EU-27  was 
composted60  meaning  transformed  into  an  organic  fertiliser.  The  EU-27  has  shown  steady 
year-on-year increases between 1995 and 2008 in the quantity of municipal waste composted, 
as demonstrated by Figure 14 below.61 

With the implementation of the biodegradable waste diversion target of the Landfill Directive, 
increasing emphasis on composting and anaerobic digestion is expected. 

Figure  15  shows  a  Baseline  scenario  which  was  developed  in  the  context  of  the 
Communication on bio-waste management. 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 composting (expected increase of 
48%), incineration (expected increase of 29.5%), Mechanical and biological treatment (MBT) 
(expected  increase  of  103%),  Anaerobic  digestion  (AD)  expected  increase  of  349%)  and 
home composting (expected increase of 148%). 

Expected benefits are linked with production of quality compost and improvement of organic 
depleted  soils,  reduction  of  green  house  gas  emission  linked  with  reduced  landfilling  and 
production of energy and compost. On top of the baseline scenario, more prevention and more 
composting have the potential to multiply the potential benefits. 

59 

60 

61 

ETC, 2009, Working paper ‘EU as a Recycling Society:  Present recycling levels of Municipal Waste 
and Construction & Demolition Waste in the EU’ 
Eurostat,  2010,  2010,  Presentation  on  ‘Municipal  waste’  prepared  for  the  Meeting  of  the  Working 
Group "Statistics of the Environment", Sub-Group "Waste" of the Joint Eurostat/EFTA group 
Eurostat, 2010, Municipal waste composted in the EU (1000 tonnes) 

EN 

31 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Figure 14: Total municipal waste composted 1996-200762  

Figure 15: Biowaste management – Baseline scenario63 

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

62 
63 

Derived from Eurostat, 2010, Municipal waste composted in the EU (1000 tonnes) 
Staff Working Document accompanying the Communication on Biowaste (COM 2010 (235))  

EN 

32 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Packaging  

Figure 16 below provides a picture of the performance of the EU-27 with regards to recycling 
of  packaging  waste.  In  2007,  16  Member  States  had  met  the  2008  target  to  recycle  55%  of 
packaging put on the market (not including energy recovery)64. By 2007, 59% of packaging 
waste in the EU27 was recycled and 14% went for energy recovery.65 The figures, however, 
appear to indicate that some Member States that have already achieved a high recycling rate 
are experiencing problems to further increase or maintain this high level.66 

Figure 16: Recycling and recovery rates for packaging waste 200767  

Paper and cardboard 

Data from the European Recovered Paper Council (Figure 17) suggest that year on year from 
2002-2008,  paper  and  board  consumption  has  been  increasing.  Levels  of  recycling  of  paper 
and board have also been increasing each year, however, and have risen from 55.8% in 2002 
to 66% in 2008.68 In 2009, a 72.2% recycling rate was achieved for all paper and board in the 
EU-27  plus  Norway  and  Switzerland.69  Higher  recycling  rates  observed  in  2008  and  2009 
might  be  partly  due  to  the  low  paper  consumption  due  to  the  impact  of  the  economic 
downturn.  When  the  economy  will  recover  its  usual  growth  rates,  it  will  be  interesting  to 
verify whether the increasing trend of the recycling rates will continue.  

64 
65 

66 
67 
68 
69 

Eurostat, 2008, Energy, transport and environment indicators 
EEA  2010,  The  European  Environment,  State  and  Outlook  2010 :  Thematic  Assessment  –  Material 
Resources and Waste  
Eurostat, 2008, Energy, transport and environment indicators 
Source: Eurostat Waste Data Centre 2010 
European Recovered Paper Council, 2010 
European  Recovered  Paper  Council,  2009,  European  Declaration  on  Paper  Recycling  2006  –  2010, 
Monitoring Report 2009 

EN 

33 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Figure 17: Paper recycling, EU-27 plus Norway and Switzerland, 1995-200970 

Plastics waste 

The Commission (DG ENV) is finalising a study on "plastic waste in the environment". The 
final report is expected by end 2010. The study is aiming to gather and analyze available data 
on  plastics  and  plastic  waste,  its  current  management  options  and the related  environmental 
and health risks. It also aims to review existing policies and initiatives to reduce plastic waste 
and consider and recommend additional potential policy measures to reduce plastic waste and 
its associated effects. 

Global  production  of  plastics  in  2009  is  estimated  at  around  245  Mt  of  which  25%  in  the 
EU71.  China  produces  more  plastic  than  any  other  country,  at  15%  of  global  production. 
Germany produces the greatest amount in EU, accounting for 8% of global production. The 
main  sources  for  European  plastic  waste  are  identified  in  the  study:  38%  is  linked  with 
packaging, building and construction accounts for 21% followed by automotive 7%, electrical 
and electronic equipment 6%, agricultural sector 5% and other sectors for the remaining.  

End of Life Vehicles  

Figure 18  shows  the performances  of the Member  States  in  terms  of  ELV  management.  By 
2008, six Member States of 25 (data are missing for Estonia and Malta) had already met the 
2015  reuse/recycling  target;  three  Member  States  had  failed  to  meet  the  2006  target  and  all 
other Member States had met the 2006 target.72 

Also by 2008, 17 Member States (of 25) had met the 2006 reuse/recovery target although 9 
Member States failed to meet the 2006 target.  

70 

71 

72 

European  Recovered  Paper  Council,  2009,  European  Declaration  on  Paper  Recycling  2006  –  2010, 
Monitoring Report 2009 
PlasticsEurope  (2009),  The  Compelling  Facts  about  Plastics  –  An  analysis  of  European  plastics 
production, demand and recovery for 2008 
Eurostat, 2009, Environmental Data Centre on Waste 

EN 

34 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
Figure 18: ELV Reuse, Recycling and Recovery rates, 200873  

Reuse and recycling rate Reuse and recovery rate

)

%

(

100

95

90

85

80

75

70

65

Bulgaria
Belgium
Denmark
Czech Republic

Germany

Estonia

Ireland 

Greece

Spain

France

Italy
Cyprus

Latvia
Hungary
Lithuania
Luxembourg

Austria 
Malta
Netherlands

Poland 
Portugal

Romania

Slovenia

Slovakia

Norway
Finland
Iceland
Sweden
Liechten-stein
United Kingdom

Electric and Electronic Waste (WEEE)  

Figure  19  below  shows  that  by  2006,  only  10  Member  States  (plus  Norway)  had  reported 
meeting  the  4kg  per  capita  collection  target.  In  percentage  terms,  in  2006  the  average 
collection  rate  (of  the  18  countries  for  which  data  were  available)  was  23%  by  weight  of 
amounts placed on the market. It is likely that part of what is collected is not reported. Where 
WEEE  is  collected  separately,  however,  it  is  widely  recycled:  for  17  countries  where 
recycling rates can be calculated, the average recycling rate was 79%.74 The proposed recast 
for  the  WEEE  Directive  includes  a  minimum  collection  target  of  65%  of  WEEE  arising 
(corresponding to 85% of what is put on the market) to be met by 2016.  

73 
74 

Eurostat, 2010, Environmental Data Centre on Waste  
EEA  2010,  The  European  Environment,  State  and  Outlook  2010 :  Thematic  Assessment  –  Material 
Resources and Waste  

EN 

35 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
Figure 19: WEEE placed on the market, collected and recycled/recovered/reused in 21 
European countries (kg/capita), 200675  

Batteries 

Figure 20 indicates the waste batteries generated per capita in 2006. It shows the significant 
difference between Member States: from 8,1 kg per year and per inhabitant in Finland to less 
than 0.1 kg in Bulgaria.  

Figures  collated  by  the  European  Battery  Recycling  Association  (EBRA)  indicate  that  in 
2008,  27,600  tonnes  of  used  portable  batteries  in  the  EU-27  were  recycled  by  EBRA 
members, equating to an average of 14.5% of batteries put on the market.  

Factoring in collection and processing by non-EBRA members, the figures increase to around 
35,000  tonnes  or  18.4%  which  is  lower  that  the  collection  rate  of  25%  (equating  to  around 
50,000 tonnes) which must be met by 2012 under Directive 2006/66/EC on batteries.  

to  EBRA,  seven  Member  States  (Austria,  Belgium,  France,  Germany, 
According 
Luxembourg,  Sweden  and  the  Netherlands)  had,  however,  reached  the  25%,  and  six  others 
(Denmark, Portugal, Greece, Ireland, Spain and Latvia) seem to be able to meet the target by 
2012. Considerable efforts will be needed in the remaining MS to meet the EU targets.76  

75 

76 

EEA  2010,  The  European  Environment,  State  and  Outlook  2010 :  Thematic  Assessment  –  Material 
Resources and Waste  
European Battery Recycling Association (EBRA), 2009, Press release ‘Stagnation of the quantities of 
used portable batteries recycled in 2008’ 

EN 

36 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Figure 20: Batteries waste arising, 200677  

a
t
i
p
a
c
r
e
p
g
k

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

8.6 5.9 5.0 4.1 3.9 3.7 3.4 3.3 3.2 3.0 2.9 2.8 2.6 2.3 2.2 2.1 1.9 1.8 1.2 1.1 1.1 0.8 0.7 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.1

3.2 3.2 1.0 0.0

I

F

E
B

E
S

R
F

R
G

E
D

T
U I
L

7
2
U
E

L
N

S
E

K
U

E
E

T
A

U
H

T
M

V
L

Y
C

Z
C

T SI
L

K
D

K
S

E

I

L
P

O
R

G
B

O
N

*
S

I

*
R
H

*
R
T

Compared  to  2008,  EBRA  report  that  the  quantities  of  used  batteries,  excluding  lead-acid 
batteries, recycled by EBRA members in 2009 increased to 37,000 tonnes in the EU-27. This 
significant  increase  is  due  to  more  efficient  collections  schemes  set  up  for  used  batteries  in 
Europe in response to the requirements of the Batteries Directive.78 

Construction and Demolition waste 

Data on the generation, composition and recycling of construction and demolition waste are 
more  limited.  Figure  2  below  indicates  that  in  percentage  terms  the  rate  of  generated 
construction  and  demolition  waste  recycled  is  over  60%  in  most  of  the  EU15  and  Norway. 
For some Member States it is over 80% but in others it is only 15%-30%.  

77 
78 

Source: Eurostat Waste Data Centre 2010 
European  Battery  Recycling  Association  (EBRA),  2010,  Press  release  ‘Significant  increase  of  the 
quantities of recycled used batteries and accumulators in 2009: 37 kT’ 

EN 

37 

   EN 

 
                                                 
 
 
Figure  21:  recycling  of  construction  and  demolition  waste  in  percentage  of  generated 
amount in the EU and Norway79  

Figure  22  shows  that  commonly  recycled  materials  are  concrete,  bricks,  tiles  and  asphalt; 
dredging  soil,  soil  and  track  ballast  contribute  significantly  in  Member  States  with  a  high 
percentage of recycling. It is worth noting that soil recycling does not count towards the 70% 
EU target for construction and demolition waste.  

Figure  22:  Percentage  composition  and  development  of  recycled  construction  and 
demolition waste in the EU and Norway 79 

79 

EEA, 2009, Working paper ‘EU as a Recycling Society: Present recycling levels of Municipal Waste 
and Construction & Demolition Waste in the EU’ 

EN 

38 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
3.4 

Energy Recovery  

In the EU, municipal waste incineration per capita has increased since the introduction of the 
strategy from 96 tonnes per capita in 2005 to 102 tonnes per capita in 2008 (Figure 23). This 
indicates  a  relative  stabilization  of  incineration  in  the  long  term  as  in  1997  incineration 
represented around 70kg per capita.  

Three  Member  States  are  exceptions  to  this  trend,  and  have  experienced  a  decrease  in 
incineration rates between 1995 and 2008: Belgium, France and Luxembourg (where a large 
drop of nearly 20% has occurred). 

The  Member  States  with  the  largest  number  of  waste-to-energy  facilities  are  France  (130), 
Germany (67), Italy (51), Sweden (30), Denmark (29), UK (20), Belgium (16), Netherlands 
(11) and Spain (10).80  

Figure 23: Municipal waste incinerated kg per capita in the EU-27, 2002 to 200881 

500

450

400

350

300
250

200

150
100

50
0

EU 27

Estonia

Ireland

Poland

Slovenia

Czech Republic
Latvia
Slovakia
Hungary

Spain

United Kingdom
Finland

Portugal
Italy

Germany
Austria

Belgium

Netherlands
Luxembourg
France
Denmark
Sweden

2002 

2008 

All statistics presented in relation to incineration and energy recovery originate from before 
the  adoption  of  the  new  Directive  on  waste,  when  specific  new  criteria  were  adopted  to 
determine the efficiency level at which incineration can be deemed an energy recovery rather 
than  disposal  activity.  It  is  anticipated  that  this  will  help  to  increase  the  consistency  and 
reliability  of  reporting  on  this  issue,  with  additional  information  becoming  available  on  the 
level of energy recovery from waste and the efficiency of plant.  

During  the  next  data  collection  process  Eurostat  will  ask  countries  to  specify  from  which 
reference year the energy efficiency criterion will be applied.82 

80 
81 
82 

Capel, C., 2009, Innovations in waste, Waste Management World, Volume 11, Issue 2 
Derived from Eurostat 2010 
Document on the ‘Structural indicator on municipal waste’ (Doc. WASTE WG 6.1 (2010)) prepared for 
the  Meeting  of  the  Working  Group  "Statistics  of  the  Environment",  Sub-Group  "Waste"  of  the  Joint 
Eurostat/EFTA group 

EN 

39 

   EN 

 
                                                 
According to estimations about 50 to 60% of municipal waste incinerators in the EU might be 
able to achieve the energy efficiency criteria for municipal waste incinerators set by Directive 
2008/98/EC.83  

3.5 

Landfilling  

There have been some significant successes in this regard over recent years. Figure 5 and 24 
shows  a  clear  decrease  over  time  of  municipal  waste  landfilling.  Sending  municipal  solid 
waste (MSW) to landfill has long been the dominant waste management option in the EU-27, 
but  in  recent  years  this  has  begun  to  change,84  and  in  contrast  to  rising  quantities  of  MSW 
generated, since 1997 the quantity of MSW landfilled in the EU has decreased: from 293kg 
per capita in 1997 to 207kg per capita in 2008.85 

Figure 24: Municipal waste treatment86 

Nevertheless,  many  countries  still  sent  the  majority  of  their  waste  to  landfill:  all  ‘EU-10’ 
countries  (the  EU-12  prior  to  the  entry  of  Romania  and  Bulgaria  into  the  EU)  had  landfill 
rates of at least 60%, as Ireland, Finland, Portugal and the UK. Conversely, most of the EU-15 
had low rates of landfill and high rates of calculated material recovery and incineration with 
energy recovery. 

83 
84 

85 

86 

CEWEP, 2009, Energy Report II (Status 2004-2007) 
EEA,  2008,  Briefing  No  1/2008,  Better  management  of  municipal  waste  will  reduce  greenhouse  gas 
emissions 
Eurostat,  2010,  Environmental  Data  Centre  on  Waste,  Landfill  and  incineration  (For  stats  on 
incineration, choose from drop down menu) 
Source: Eurostat Waste data centre 2010 

EN 

40 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
Figure 25 shows that the majority of EU-27 countries have reduced the amount of municipal 
waste disposed of in landfills between 1995 and 2007. Over that time, six countries (Bulgaria, 
Malta, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia) increased their disposal of municipal waste 
in  landfills.  It  is  appreciated  that  there  are  marked  differences  between  Member  States, 
especially  between  the  EU-12  and  the  EU-15  Member  States.  For  example,  in  1995,  an 
average of 62% of MSW was landfilled in the EU-15 in contrast with the 87% average in the 
EU-12. By 2007, the above figures had fallen to 42% and 79%, respectively.87 

Figure 25: Percentage of municipal waste that is landfilled in the EU-27, 1995 and 200788 

Figure 26 below shows that nine Member States had already met the 2016 target for diversion 
of  the  biodegradable  municipal  waste  from Landfill  by  2006,  whereas  eight  Member  States 
(all  with  derogation  periods)  still  needed  to  substantially  reduce  landfill  of  biodegradable 
municipal waste to meet even the 2006 target. Data was missing for three Member States. 

87 

88 

Derived from EEA, 2009, Diverting waste from landfill – Effectiveness of waste-management policies 
in the European Union (Report 7) 
EEA,  2009,  Diverting  waste  from  landfill  –  Effectiveness  of  waste-management  policies  in  the 
European Union (Report 7) 

EN 

41 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
Figure  26:  Biodegradable  municipal  waste  landfilled  in  2006  (%  of  biodegradable 
municipal waste generated in 1995), compared to targets of Directive 93/1999/EC89 

In addition to the reduction of waste landfilled, considerable efforts have been achieved by the 
Member  states  to  close  sub-standards  Landfills.  On  the  basis  of  the  data  reported  by  the 
Member  States,  more  than  3,300  landfills  in  EU  countries  were  closed  between  2004  and 
2006. However, countries also reported a large number of landfills which did not comply with 
the  technical  requirements  of  the  Landfill  Directive  and  thus  still  have  to  be  closed  or  re-
equipped. Many landfills were constructed without proper measures to reduce their potentially 
negative  environmental  impacts  and  have  had  to  be  closed  or  upgraded  in  order  to  comply 
with the minimum requirements of the Landfill Directive. 

The  Commission  has  identified  thirteen  non-conformity  cases  and  eleven  bad  application 
cases in 2009 as well as a vast number of complaints related to illegal landfills and failure of 
many Member States to improve the situation. In addition, the Commission has taken action 
against those Member States which have failed to meet the deadline of 16 July 2009 regarding 
closure of sub-standard landfills. 

3.6 

Member States Performances  

Meeting the minimum European binding collection and recycling targets will represent a real 
challenge for some Member States while others are already well ahead of these targets. For 
instance: 

•  In 2008, 8 MS failed to meet the 2006 reuse and recycling target for ELV's although 7 MS 

have already met the 2015 target (85%); 

89 

EEA  2010,  The  European  Environment,  State  and  Outlook  2010 :  Thematic  Assessment  –  Material 
Resources and Waste  

EN 

42 

   EN 

 
                                                 
•  In 2006, 12 MS had met the 2008 target for packaging waste (55%) with 4 MS below 30% 

and 5 MS above 60%;  

•  In 2008,  the  collection rate for batteries was estimated at 18% compared to the  25%  EU 

target for 2012. 7 MS have already met this target in 2008;  

•  By 2006, only 10 MS had met the collection target for WEEE (4kg per capita per year), 
some  MS  collecting  up  to  8kg.  This  represented  23%  of  the  amount  put  on  the  market. 
Once collected, WEEE was recycled at 79%. 

•  In  2007,  seven  Member  States  have  already  reached  the  2016  landfill  diversion  target, 
however,  a  number  of  countries  with  derogation  periods  still  have  substantial  work  to 
accomplish in order to meet this target. 

Recycling rates vary from one waste stream to another: 72,5% for paper and cardboard (2009 
–  a  progress  of  around  10  %  since  the  adoption  of  the  Strategy),  60%  for  construction  and 
demolition  waste  (EU15  –  2006),  59  %  for  packaging  (2007),  82%  for  ELV's  (2007)  and 
respectively 18 % and 23% for WEEE due to the low collection rate.  

The analysis of the performances of the Member States in terms of moving towards the waste 
hierarchy  is  clearly  showing  significant  differences  between  MS.  It  is  important  to  better 
understand  what  policies  and  instruments  have  been  set  in  place  in  the  better  performing 
Member States have led to these differences.  

In  a  first  analysis,  it  seems  that  –  apart  from  a  good  implementation  of  the  basic  legal 
principles  of  environmentally  sound  waste  management  -  an  appropriate  use  of  economic 
instruments  on  top  of  the  legal  instruments  could  lead  to  improved  performances.  Different 
schemes have been put in place in the most performing Member States which are summarised 
below:  

'Pay as you throw' schemes (or ‘variable charging’) are used in several Member States – 
including Austria, the Netherlands, Belgium, Italy, Denmark, Germany - as a fiscal incentive 
to  encourage  consumers  to  improve  waste  separation  and/or  reduce  waste.  Households  are 
required  to  pay  in  proportion  to  volume  or  weight  and  frequency  of  collection.  Electronic 
systems  are  used  for  the  identification  of  bags  and  weighting  of  waste.  It  seems  that  these 
schemes  where  they  have  been  introduced  have  reduced  the  total  amount  of  residual  waste 
collected  and  increased  the  participation  to  separate  collection  schemes.  For  instance,  in 
Belgium, pay-per-bag schemes are set in place at local level with an impact of the collection 
of  residual  waste  (decrease  estimated  up  to  70%)  and  an  increase  of  the  participation  to 
separate  collection.  Similar  effects  have  been  observed  in  Denmark  and  Italy  where  similar 
systems have led to a reduction of 18% of the residual waste collection and an increase of 8% 
of separated collected waste90 . More information and evaluation at EU level is needed.  

Producer responsibility and voluntary  agreement schemes is another method to promote 
better  waste  management.  In  most  of  the  performing  countries  producer  responsibility 
schemes have been put in place whether on a voluntary basis or by law (notably in Belgium, 
Germany, Austria).  

90 

Eunomia  Research  &  Consulting  (on  behalf  of  Ecotech  Research  &  Consulting),  ‘Financing  and 
Incentive  Schemes  for  Municipal  Waste  Management:  Case  Studies  –  Final  Report  to  Directorate 
General Environment, European Commission’ 

EN 

43 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The waste streams covered by such systems are amongst others packaging, ELV's, batteries, 
WEEE, oils, paper, cardboards, tyres, expired medication, etc. The financial and operational 
responsibility  of  the  producers  varies  from  one  Member  State  to  another  and  could  cover 
either  the  entire  waste  management  process  (collection,  sorting,  recycling,  treatment  of  the 
residues, information to the public) or a part of it.  

In  general  producer  responsibility  schemes  are  leading  to  improved  recycling  performances 
by creating new durable financial means for the organisation of separate collection schemes. 
It  also  moves  the  financial  charge  of  waste  management  from  the  citizen  (through  general 
taxes) to the consumers through the consumer (through inclusion in the product price). 

Deposit refund schemes was set in place for instance in Germany in 2003 for one-way drink 
packages  as  a  results  of  the  German  Packaging  Ordinance.  A  flat  rate  deposit  of  0.25€  is 
charged on all one way drinks packaging containing between 0.1 and 3 litres.  

Grants  schemes  are  also  used  for  instance  to  promote  the  separate  collection  and  re-use  of 
WEEE,  textile,  furniture,  but  no  reliable  statistics  at  European  level  are  available  so  far  on 
these type of activities.  

One  particular  tool  that  is  used  by  a  large  majority  of  Member  States  to  encourage  the 
diversion  of  waste  from  landfill  is  various  forms  of  landfill  tax.  Table  3  illustrates  that  in 
general  those  countries  having  successfully  reducing  the  amount  of  waste  landfilled  have  a 
higher landfill tax in place. Some countries have also introduced a landfill ban for most of the 
waste streams (Germany and Austria).  

Table 3: Landfill taxes and bans in place in the EU Member States91  

Country 

Landfill tax 
implemented in €/t 

Landfill tax 
planned in €/t 

Landfill ban 
implemented 
(beyond Landfill 
Directive) 

Landfill 
ban 
planned 

Austria 

Belgium 
(Flanders) 

Prices adjusted in 
line with inflation 

Prices adjusted in 
line with inflation 

87 (from Jan 2006) 
– depending on 
composition of 
waste and standard 
of landfill 

29.71-42.44 (from 
2010, non-
combustible waste). 
55.70-79.56 (from 
2010, combustible 
waste). Ranges 
exist due to 
private/public 
landfill sites. 

Total organic 
carbon (TOC) >5% 
from 2008. 
Exceptions for 
landfilling MBT-
treated outputs 
(separate standards) 

TOC >6% ban on 
unsorted wastes, 
sorted and non-
sorted wastes for 
recovery, 
combustible 
residual fraction 
from sorting 

91 

Confederation of European Waste to Energy Plants (CEWEP), 2010, ‘Landfill taxes & bans’ 

EN 

44 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
Country 

Landfill tax 
implemented in €/t 

Landfill tax 
planned in €/t 

Landfill ban 
implemented 
(beyond Landfill 
Directive) 

Landfill 
ban 
planned 

Belgium 
(Wallonia) 

65 (2010, 
hazardous waste). 
60 (2010, non-
hazardous waste). 

Denmark 

63 (from 2010) 

Netherlands 

107.49 (from 2010) 

Sweden 

40 

Germany 

NONE (total 
landfill ban instead) 

Czech Republic  17 (from 2009) 

Finland 

30 (exceptions for 
private landfills, fly 
ash, waste used in 
construction of 
landfills) 

Ireland 

30 (from 2010) 

Italy 

France 

1-25 (depending on 
type of waste, e.g. 
inert, MSW) 

10-50 (from 2010, 
depending on type 
of landfill and 
amount of energy 
recovered. 
Exemptions for 
certain waste 
types.) 

Prices adjusted in 
line with inflation 

Ban enacted since 
2004 

From 1997 ban on 
waste suitable for 
incineration 

For 35 categories of 
waste 

No 

Sorted combustible 
waste from 2002. 
All organic waste 
from 2005. 

For all untreated 
waste from 2005 

Aim for 
transitional 
ban on 
BMW from 
2011 

Under review – 
higher landfill tax 
expected 

No 

Some landfills ban 
certain waste 
streams but no 
national legislation 

Yes – to be 
determined 

Annual increases 
between 10-100 
(until 2015) 

Introduced in 2002 
on non-residual 
wastes (definition 
of ‘residual’ under 
discussion) 

Some 
combustible 
waste from 
2011 

No 

EN 

45 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country 

Landfill tax 
implemented in €/t 

Landfill tax 
planned in €/t 

Landfill ban 
implemented 
(beyond Landfill 
Directive) 

Landfill 
ban 
planned 

United 
Kingdom 

35.19 (from 2007) 
3.67 (inert waste) 

No 

Rising by 11.72 
per annum then top 
rate of 82.60 from 
2013/2014 

Under 
consultation 

Hungary 

7-15 (from 2010, 
exceptions for 
certain types of 
waste) 

Tyres from 2004, 
rubber scrap from 
2006 

From 2015 
for untreated 
wastes 

Portugal 

3.50 

Updated each year  No 

No 

Top  performers  in  the  EU  with  regards  to  minimising  the  amount  of  waste  landfilled  are 
Germany  (1%),  the  Netherlands  (2%),  Sweden  (3%)  and  Belgium  (also  3%).  This  may 
indicate  a  correlation  between  rates  of  landfill  tax/bans  and  the  proportion  of  waste  sent  to 
landfill.92  

Germany has implemented a landfill ban for all untreated waste with greater than 3% organic 
content. Since its implementation in 2005, the amount of municipal waste landfilled has fallen 
to  1%.  Separate  collection  schemes  have  also  resulted  in  notably  higher  recycling  rates 
demonstrating the importance of developing alternative treatment methods together with the 
progressive rising of landfill taxes. 93 

In the Netherlands, the landfill tax has contributed to a 60% decrease in the amount of waste 
landfilled  between  1996  and  2004  (over  the  same  period  the  amount  of  waste  incinerated 
increased  by  50%  and  the  recycling  rate  increased  by  approximately  20%).  Complementary 
measures  in  the  Netherlands  include  a  ban  on  35  types  of  waste  from  landfill,  pay-as-you-
throw schemes,94 and deposit-refund schemes for bottles. The landfill tax has also paved the 
way for improved separation of waste.93 

3.7 

Recycling society  

One of the long term goals of the Thematic Strategy was the establishment of a "Recycling 
Society"  in  the  European  Union  that  "seeks  to  avoid  waste  and  use  waste  as  resource"  and 
therefore  reduce  the  impacts  of  resource  use  on  the  environment  while  providing  new 
opportunities  in  terms  on  job  creation.  No  clear  and  accepted  definition  of  a  "recycling 
society" was provided in the Thematic Strategy. Clear progress have been made in terms of 
recycling  since  the  adoption  of  the  Thematic  Strategy  but  at  the  same  time  the  need  for 
resources and raw materials has increased at European level.  

92 
93 
94 

Dutch Waste Management Association, 2009, ‘Uneven playing field for landfill in Europe  
EEA, 2006, ‘Country fact sheet: Germany’ 
Earth911.com, 2009, ‘Trash Planet: The Netherlands’  

EN 

46 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
An ongoing study95 has provided first estimates of the current level of recycling compared to 
the demand of virgin raw materials. Table 4 presents an estimation of the recycled totals per 
material  and  waste  stream  in  2006.  It  shows  that  in  tonnage  the  contribution  of  the 
construction  and  demolition  waste  is  by  far  the  largest  contributor  followed  by  packaging 
waste. ELV's and WEEE contribute to large amounts of steel.  

Table 4: Estimates of the material recycled per material and waste stream, 2006  

Material recycled under current policy (tonnes) 

Material 

C&D 

ELV 

Packaging 

WEEE 

Total 

Metal 

9 989 944  

4 294 855 

3 600 212 

1 169 576 

19 054 587 

Ferrous metals 

9 989 944  

3 842 765 

2 788 713 

1 063 251 

17 684 673  

Non ferrous 

Aluminium 

Glass 

-  

- 

Aggregates 

209 788 824  

Plastic 

Paper 

Wood 

Total 

4 994 972  

- 

9 989 944  

452 090 

811 499 

106 325 

1 369 914  

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

604 453 

11 233 183 

- 

- 

- 

604 453  

11 233 183  

209 788 824  

4 838 694 

531 626 

10 365 292  

30 509 027 

5 323 356 

- 

- 

30 509 027  

15 313 300  

234 763 684  

4 294 855 

55 504 472 

1 701 202 

296 264 213  

Table 5 provides the first estimates for potential recycled amounts if all existing waste targets 
as  described  under  section  2(7)  were  achieved.  The  potential  is  mainly  linked  with 
construction and demolition waste and WEEE as the current amounts of packaging waste and 
ELV are not far from the EU targets. Beyond the quantitative analysis, it is important to note 
that  further  investigations  would  be  needed  to  better  identify  specific  material  flows  which 
have a significant impact on the environment.  

The  same  study  made  comparisons  between  the  actual  and  potential  recycled  materials  and 
the  global  demand  for  raw  materials.  In  summary,  reuse,  recycling  and  recovery  of 
construction and demolition waste – estimated at 47% in 2006 - represents between 4 to 14% 
of the mineral material set on the market; this rate could increase to 7 to 21% if the EU target 
of 70% recycling is respected. Recycled, reused and recovered ELV's, WEEE and packaging 
waste  represent  respectively  around  1,7%,  0.5%  and  1.3%  of  total  metal  inputs  in  the  EU 
economy.  

95 

"Analysis  of  the  key  contributions  to  Resource  Efficiency",  BIO  Intelligence  Service  with  Social 
Ecology Vienna, for DG ENV ongoing study  

EN 

47 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Table  5:  Estimates  of  the  potential  material  recycled  if  existing  legislation  is  fully 
implemented 

Material recycled implementation of existing legislation (tonnes) 

Material 

C&D 

ELV 

Packaging 

WEEE 

Total 

Metal 

15 684 560 

4 294 855 

3 626 182 

1 571 160 

25 176 757 

Ferrous metals 

15 684 560 

3 842 765 

2 822 122 

1 428 327 

23 777 774 

Non ferrous 

Aluminium 

Glass 

- 

- 

- 

Aggregates  

329 375 760 

- 

452 090 

804 059 

142 833 

1 398 982 

- 

633 057 

169 534 

11 941 037 

- 

- 

- 

633 057 

12 110 571 

329 375 760 

Plastic 

Paper 

Wood 

Total 

7 842 280 

565 113 

5 367 396 

714 164 

14 488 952 

- 

15 684 560 

- 

- 

30 548 745 

4 924 692 

- 

- 

30 548 745 

20 609 252 

368 587 160 

5 029 501 

56 408 052 

2 285 323 

432 310 037 

Another study analyses recycling rates, recycling contents and share of old scrap in then total 
scrap flow for 60 metals at global level96. 

It shows that end-of-life recycling rates are still globally low due to the relative abundance of 
primary  material  and  due  to  the  absence  of  performing  collection  and  processing  of  old 
metals. Recycling rates is above 50% only for 18 metals of 60 (see figure 27) and the share of 
old  scrap  in  the  total  flow  is  above  50%  only  for  thirteen  metals.  Metal  recycling  could  be 
improved in the future and contribute to meet a significant part of the future demand. To that 
end,  collection  of  old  metals  and  processing  should  be  improved  as  well  as  design  of  the 
products to increase the “recyclability” of some metals.  

96 

« Recycling  Rates  of  Metals :  A  Status  Report »,  second  report  of  the  Global  Metal  Flows  working 
group of the International Panel on Sustainable Resource Management of UNEP  

EN 

48 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
Figure 27: Average end-of-life functional recycling97 

1
1
H
H

3
3
Li
Li

11
11
Na
Na

19
19
K
K

37
37
Rb
Rb

55
55
Cs
Cs

87
87
Fr
Fr

4
4
Be
Be

12
12
Mg
Mg

20
20
Ca
Ca

38
38
Sr
Sr

56
56
Ba
Ba

88
88
Ra
Ra

21
21
Sc
Sc

39
39
Y
Y

*
*

**
**

5
5
B
B

13
13
Al
Al

31
31
Ga
Ga

49
49
In
In

81
81
Tl
Tl

6
6
C
C

14
14
Si
Si

32
32
Ge
Ge

50
50
Sn
Sn

82
82
Pb
Pb

7
7
N
N

15
15
P
P

33
33
As
As

51
51
Sb
Sb

83
83
Bi
Bi

8
8
O
O

16
16
S
S

34
34
Se
Se

52
52
Te
Te

84
84
Po
Po

9
9
F
F

17
17
Cl
Cl

35
35
Br
Br

53
53
I
I

85
85
At
At

2
2
He
He

10
10
Ne
Ne

18
18
Ar
Ar

36
36
Kr
Kr

54
54
Xe
Xe

86
86
Rn
Rn

22
22
Ti
Ti

40
40
Zr
Zr

72
72
Hf
Hf

23
23
V
V

41
41
Nb
Nb

73
73
Ta
Ta

24
24
Cr
Cr

42
42
Mo
Mo

74
74
W
W

25
25
Mn
Mn

43
43
Tc
Tc

75
75
Re
Re

26
26
Fe
Fe

44
44
Ru
Ru

76
76
Os
Os

27
27
Co
Co

45
45
Rh
Rh

77
77
Ir
Ir

28
28
Ni
Ni

46
46
Pd
Pd

78
78
Pt
Pt

29
29
Cu
Cu

47
47
Ag
Ag

79
79
Au
Au

30
30
Zn
Zn

48
48
Cd
Cd

80
80
Hg
Hg

104
104
Rf
Rf

105
105
Db
Db

106
106
Sg
Sg

107
107
Bh
Bh

108
108
Hs
Hs

109
109
Mt
Mt

110
110
Ds
Ds

111
111
Rg
Rg

112
112
Uub
Uub

113
113
Uut
Uut

114
114
Uuq
Uuq

115
115
Uup
Uup

116
116
Uuh
Uuh

(117)
(117)
(Uus)
(Uus)

118
118
Uuo
Uuo

* Lanthanides
* Lanthanides

** Actinides
** Actinides

57
57
La
La

89
89
Ac
Ac

58
58
Ce
Ce

90
90
Th
Th

59
59
Pr
Pr

91
91
Pa
Pa

60
60
Nd
Nd

92
92
U
U

61
61
Pm
Pm

93
93
Np
Np

62
62
Sm
Sm

94
94
Pu
Pu

63
63
Eu
Eu

95
95
Am
Am

64
64
Gd
Gd

96
96
Cm
Cm

65
65
Tb
Tb

97
97
Bk
Bk

66
66
Dy
Dy

98
98
Cf
Cf

67
67
Ho
Ho

99
99
Es
Es

68
68
Er
Er

100
100
Fm
Fm

69
69
Tm
Tm

101
101
Md
Md

70
70
Yb
Yb

102
102
No
No

71
71
Lu
Lu

103
103
Lr
Lr

<1% 

1-10% 

>10-25% 

>25-50% 

>50% 

As  demand  grows  for  a  range  of  materials,  the  supply  of  raw  materials  has  been  receiving 
increased attention. Recycling plays  an important role in this context as it acts as a form of 
supply. In 2008 the Commission launched the Raw Materials initiative, on the issue of critical 
raw materials (COM(2008)699). This Communication includes three "pillars" with the aim of 
"ensuring access to raw materials, foster sustainable supply of raw material from EU sources 
and boost resource efficiency and promote recycling to reduce EU's consumption of primary 
raw material". It will be reviewed in 2010.  

In  the  2010  report  of  the  working  group  on  defining  critical  raw  materials,  it  is  highlighted 
that EU's recycling of specific metals - inputs which are essential for the maintenance of our 
standard of living as well as for future green or enabling technologies - remains low98.  

97 
98 

EN 

Source : UNEP 2010 – see previous note 
More  information  is  available  from  the  following  link:  http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/raw-
materials/critical/index_en.htm  and 
link: 
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/raw-materials/files/docs/report-b_en.pdf 

is  available  from 

the  whole  report 

the  following 

49 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
Recycling markets  

The importance of recycling markets following the downturn was highlighted and discussed 
in  the  Environment  Council,  March  200999.  Promoting  and  maintaining  waste  management 
and  recycling  markets  is  of  strategic  importance  for  the  environment  and  for  European 
competitiveness. It enhances material efficiency and offers significant energy savings. It also 
helps  to  make  valuable  and  strategic  materials  available  to  EU  industry.  The  importance  of 
recycling markets was evidenced in 2009, following the economic downturn due to a drop in 
demand  for  materials.  This  mainly  pointed  to  the  importance  of  recycling  quality  and 
effective sorted materials, as well as the degree of exports of EU waste.  

Since  the  publication  of  the  strategy,  increasing  attention  has  been  paid  to  market  forces, 
working alongside and interacting with a legislative framework:  

•  The Lead Market initiative on Recycling (SEC (2009) 1198),100  

•  End-of-waste  Criteria.  A  methodology  for  establishing  end-of-waste  criteria  has  been 

agreed (see above); 

•  Waste Shipment Regulation Illegal shipments of waste contribute to unfair competition. 

•  The environmental guidelines for state aid published in 2008, have specific provisions that 
are relevant to waste, recycling and eco-innovation. (“Community Guidelines on State aid 
for Environmental Protection” Official Journal No C 82, 1.4.2008, p.1) 

•  A  number  of  initiatives  have  been  put  into  place  to  promote  new  technologies  and 

innovation:  

•  LIFE has helped facilitate a number of projects developing and testing solutions to 
specific  technological  challenges,  particularly  with  regard  to  waste  treatment  in 
the manufacturing sector 101; 

•  Eco-innovation, ETAP and R&D funding. 

Environmental impacts 

One of the expected impacts of the Thematic Strategy is to reduce the environmental impacts 
associated with the generation and treatment of waste. The most reliable and extensive data 
sets  relate  to  the  greenhouse  gas  (GHG)  emissions  associated  with  waste  management  in 
Europe,  more  limited  information  is  available  regarding  the  broader  pollution  implications 
associated with waste management. 

99 
100 
101 

See: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/envir/106430.pdf  
See: http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/innovation/policy/lead-market-initiative/  
See: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/themes/waste/index.htm 

EN 

50 

   EN 

 
                                                 
•  Green House Gas Emissions 

Figure 28 provides an overview of GHG emissions directly contributed by the waste sector in 
the  EU-27  from  1995  to  2007.  The  waste  sector's  emissions  are  defined  by  the  IPCC  –  the 
Intergovernmental  Panel  on  Climate  Change  -  as  GHG  directly  emitted  by  landfills, 
incineration  without  energy  recovery,  waste  water  treatment  and  biological  treatment.  In 
1995,  GHG  emissions  from  the  waste  sector  in  the  EU-27  were  207.2  million  tonnes  CO2 
equivalent,  accounting  for  3.97%  of  total  EU-27  GHG  emissions.  By  2007,  this  figure  had 
dropped  to  141.2  million  tonnes  CO2  equivalent,  accounting  for  only  2.8%  of  total  EU-27 
GHG emissions.  

In the EU-15,  GHG emissions  from the  waste sector fell by 39% from 1990-2006; they are 
projected to fall a further 6% below 1990 levels by 2010, based on existing policies.102 

Figure 28: Total greenhouse gas emissions from the waste sector, EU-27, EU-15 and EU-
12, in 1000 tonnes CO2 equivalent103 

A  different  approach,  which  demonstrates  the  real  effect  of  waste  management  activities  in 
the technosphere, is to include the life cycle impacts of solid waste management. If emissions 
avoided  by  replacing  virgin  materials  and  energy  with  materials  and  energy  derived  from 
recycling  and  recovery  of  waste  are  taken  into  account,  the  GHG  reduction  are  higher. 
Considering municipal solid waste only – which accounts for around 9 % of total waste – the 
net emissions from the management of this waste, that is the sum of emissions from landfills, 
incineration,  recycling  (including  bio-waste)  and  waste  transport  and  the  emissions  avoided 
through material and energy recovery, are estimated to have been cut by 57 % between 1995 
and 2008 (Figure 29).  

Negative emissions indicate that waste management leads to avoiding of emissions outside of 
the  waste  sector  by  reducing  the  demand  for  virgin  materials  and  energy  from  fossil  fuels. 

102 

103 

Eurostat, 2009, Total greenhouse gas emissions & Eurostat, 2009, Total greenhouse gas emissions from 
the waste sector 
Derived from Eurostat, 2009, Total greenhouse gas emissions & Eurostat, 2009, Total greenhouse gas 
emissions from the waste sector 

EN 

51 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
This  compensates  direct  emissions  from  landfills,  incineration,  transport  and  recycling 
installations.  

Figure  29:  Emissions  of  municipal  waste  management  in  the  EU-27  plus  Norway  and 
Switzerland (excluding Cyprus due to lack of data), 1995 and 2008104 

•  Air Pollutants  

Most  of  the  air  pollution  associated  with  waste  management  was  linked  with  waste 
incineration  which  is  regulated  by  the  revised  incineration  Directive  2000/76/EC.  The 
Directive  includes  strict  limit  values  covering  heavy  metals,  dioxins  and  furans,  carbon 
monoxide  (CO),  dust,  total  organic  carbon  (TOC),  hydrogen  chloride  (HCl),  hydrogen 
fluoride  (HF),  sulphur  dioxide (SO2),  nitrogen  monoxide  (No)  and  nitrogen  dioxide  (NO2). 
Since the entry in force of the Directive, the emissions have dropped considerably due to the 
closure or upgrading of existing installations.  

•  Water  

The  closure  of  sub-standards  Landfills  combined  with  the  implementation  of  the  Landfill 
Directive and the reduction of the amount of waste landfilled has certainly led to a decrease of 
the water pollution due to leachates produced by Landfills. No data is available at EU 27 level 
on this reduction which might be considerable at local levels.  

•  Soil  

In addition to the benefits expected from the full implementation of the Landfill Directive, the 
increased of composting has led to the production of organic fertiliser.  

104 

EEA  2010,  The  European  Environment,  State  and  Outlook  2010 :  Thematic  Assessment  –  Material 
Resources and Waste  

EN 

52 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
It has been estimated that the market for quality compost could be increased by a factor of 2.6 
to reach about 28 million tonnes105.  This  could help to improve the quality  of  3%  to 7% of 
depleted agricultural soils in the EU106 and to address the problem of degrading soil quality in 
Europe107.  

Economic impacts  

Waste management and recycling Industry is already well established in Europe. According to 
Eurostat  figures,  in  2006,  the  EU27  had:  5,170  facilities  for  incineration  with  energy 
recovery;  3,897  facilities  for  other  incineration;  50,682  facilities  for  recycling;  10,286 
facilities for landfilling108.  

Most  of  the  companies  involved  in  the  recycling  sector  (over  95%)  are  SMEs.  In  total  the 
waste management and recycling industries were considered to provide between 1.2 and 1.5 
million jobs in the EU109.  

Other estimates of low carbon jobs in Europe, for example by WWF110, place recycling as one 
of the core sources of employment. Given the EU’s level of export of waste for reprocessing it 
is also important to acknowledge the generation of jobs and growth globally as a consequence 
of  waste  management  and  recycling.  Global  market  estimates  for  sustainable  resource 
management, presented in the WWF report, estimated that in 2005 solid waste management 
and recycling accounted for €30billion world wide and that by 2020 this was anticipated to 
represent €46 billion. 

Growth in jobs globally within this sector was estimated to be 9% in the 2004 to 2006 period 
and 7% between 2007 and 2009. In this global context the EU is considered to be a market 
leader in making the most of opportunities in the recycling industry and, according to a study 
on the competiveness of the EU eco-industry,111 holds 50% of market share in the recycling 
industry globally. 

A  recent  study112  achieved  by  the  Friends  of  the  Earth  indicates  that  achieving  70%  of 
recycling of key materials at European level could lead to the creation of around 563.000 new 
indirect  and  direct  jobs,  showing  the  relatively  highest  potential  in  terms  of  job  creation  of 
recycling compared to other waste treatment methods such as incineration and landfilling.  

105 

106 

107 
108 
109 
110 
111 
112 

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  
Eurostat, 2006, Waste treatment facilities at country level in 2004 
Presidency Paper to the Environment Council, 2009, The fall in demand for recycled materials  
WWF EPO, 2009, Low carbon Jobs for Europe, Current Opportunities and Future Prospects 
Ecorys, 2009, Study on the Competitiveness of the EU eco-industry (DG Enterprise and Industry) 
"More jobs, less waste" Potential for job creation through higher rates of recycling in the UK and the 
EU,  Friends  of  the  Earth  2010,  More  information  can  be  found  from  the  following  link: 
http://www.foeeurope.org/publications/2010/More_Jobs_Less_Waste_Sep2010.pdf 

EN 

53 

   EN 

 
                                                 
4. 

INTERNATIONAL ASPECTS  

4.1 

Increasing globalisation 

The  international  context  has  become  increasingly  important  since  the  publication  of  the 
Strategy. 

Increased  globalization  and  changes  of  the  EU  economy  –  less  extraction  and  heavy 
industries,  more  services  -  had  led  to  increased  imports  of  raw  materials  and  semi 
manufactured  materials.  As  shown  in  Figure  30,  in  2008,  the  EU  imported  six  times  more 
resources than it exported.  

This  figure  is  showing  the  large  dependency  of  the  EU  on  imports  of  raw  materials  and 
products.  It  reflects  the  globalization  of  the  environmental  impacts  of  EU  consumption  and 
production demonstrating the growing importance of developing instruments and tools able to 
capture this international dimension.  

Figure 30: EU-27 physical trade balance with the rest of the World, 2008113 

4.2 

Waste exports  

As shown in Figure 31 below, international trade in waste and secondary materials has been 
increasing,  in  particular  for  non-hazardous  waste.  Between  1997  and  2005  notified  waste 
exports from Member States increased four-fold114.  

113 

114 

Eurostat Comext Statistics, EEA 2010, The European Environment, State and Outlook 2010 : Thematic 
Assessment – Material Resources and Waste  
EEA 2009, transboundary shipment of waste 

EN 

54 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
The EU’s key market for export has been Asia. This export route accounts for the majority of 
non-EU trade in waste metal, paper and plastics; a trade which expanded five-fold for metals, 
10-fold for paper and 11-fold for plastics between 1995 and 2007. In 2007 more plastic waste 
was  shipped  to  the  Asian  market  by  the  EU  than  was  shipped  within  the  EU.115 In addition 
half of all waste plastics were exported to China and Hong Kong.116  

It  has  been  estimated  that  in  2006,  around  3%  of  waste  paper  (2.1  million  tonnes),  10%  of 
scrap metals (around 9 million tonnes) and a huge 71% of waste plastics (10 million tonnes) 
were exported from the EU-25 to non-EU countries; there is therefore a clear pattern of the 
majority of paper and metals waste being treated within the EU, whereas the vast majority of 
plastic waste is shipped to third countries.  

According to other sources (PRODCOM data) in 2007, 9.8 million tonnes of recovered paper 
were exported. In 2009, 13.2 million tones were exported with 70% going to China. In 2010 it 
seems that several EU mills run out of recovered paper. 

Figure 31: Shipments of notified waste from EU Member States to other EU and non-
EU countries, 1997-2005 113 

Figure 32 demonstrates the trend in terms of the increase in exports of both plastic and paper 
for treatment. It should be noted that it is not only the EU that is expanding exports of waste 
materials;  Japan,  for  example,  has  shown  a  general  upward  trend  in  exports  of  iron,  steel, 
copper and plastic waste since 1995.117  

115 
116 

117 

EEA, 2009, Waste without borders in the EU? Transboundary shipments of waste (Mar 2009) 
EEA,  2008,  ETC/RWM  Technical  Report  2008/1.  Transboundary  shipments  of  waste  in  the  EU. 
Developments 1995-2005 and possible drivers 
Japanese Ministry of Finance, 2010, Trade statistics 

EN 

55 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
Figure 32: Developments in shipments of waste paper, waste plastics and waste metals 
out of and within the EU from 1995 to 2007118  

118 

EEA, 2009, ‘Waste without borders in the EU? Transboundary shipments of waste’ (Mar 2009) 

EN 

56 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
The  shipment  of  waste  raises  many  questions.  There  is  a  trend  towards  increasing  levels  of 
export, however, there are concerns regarding the reliability of the data on trade in waste. For 
example  according  to  findings  by  the  European  Topic  Centre  on  resource  and  waste 
management  (ETC/RWM),  exports  of  WEEE  (estimated  at  250,000  tonnes)  are  considered 
low compared to total generated levels of WEEE (estimated at 7 million tonnes).119  

The collection of statistical data for the shipment of 'green' listed waste that is not subject to 
the  procedure  of  "prior  written  notification  and  consent"  pursuant  to  Article  4  of  the  Waste 
Shipment Regulation, is particularly difficult, since copies of shipment documentation are not 
always  required  by  the  competent  authorities  concerned.  In  addition,  there  are  also  known 
gaps  in  the  figures  available  for  the  shipment  of  'green'-listed  waste,  with  data  not  being 
thoroughly available for all waste types in every year, particularly for plastics.  

Moreover, the rate of reported illegal shipments of waste increased between 2001 and 2005. 
For this period the EEA reported that on average the annual illegal shipments corresponded to 
0.2%  of  notified  waste120,  however  the  actual  amount  of  illegal  shipments  is  difficult  to 
estimate. On the basis of data collected through coordinated actions of IMPEL-TFS between 
2008 and 2009, it was estimated that 19% of waste shipments were related with some type of 
violation  of  the  provisions  of  the  Waste  Shipment  Regulation.  More  data  and  information 
would be needed in the future notably to better target inspection strategies.  

A  specific  type  of  waste  that  can  cause  environmental  problems  is  end-of-life  ships. 
Worldwide,  between  200  and  600  large  end-of-life  ships  are  broken  up  and  recycled  every 
year  to  recover  valuable  steel,  other  scrap  metal  and  equipment.  Older  ships  often  contain 
many  hazardous  materials,  including  asbestos,  polychlorinated  biphenyls  (PCBs),  tributyltin 
and large quantities of oils and oil sludge. 

Although the number of dismantling sites in the EU has fallen over the past two decades, the 
available capacity for environmentally sustainable dismantling in the EU and in other OECD 
countries  is  sufficient  to  cover  all  warships  and  other  state-owned  vessels  that  will  be 
decommissioned over the next ten years but will be insufficient to ensure the dismantling of 
all merchant ships121. However, the majority of ship dismantling taking place in South Asia 
(predominantly  India,  Bangladesh  and  Pakistan),  often  under  conditions 
that  are 
environmentally  unsound  and  threaten  the  health  and  safety  of  the  workers  involved.  Ship 
dismantling  remains  largely  manual,  lacking  in  hazardous  waste  management  and  pollution 
prevention systems, and lacking in safe and fair conditions for the workforce. On the contrary, 
countries including China and Turkey had made advances in terms of environmentally sound 
practices and worker safety122.  

Available data suggests that around between 1994 and 2006, approximately 5,600 ships were 
dismantled worldwide.123 Worldwide between 2010 and 2030, an average of around 500 large 
and  very  large  ships  will  be  dismantled  annually,  amounting  to  some  34.7  million  gross 
tonnes of ships, 2% of the gross tonnage or 0.5% of the total number of the world fleet.  

119 

120 
121 

122 

123 

EEA,  2008,  ETC/RWM  Technical  Report  2008/1.  Transboundary  shipments  of  waste  in  the  EU. 
Developments 1995-2005 and possible drivers 
EEA, 2009, Waste without borders in the EU? Transboundary shipments of waste (March 2009) 
Europea,  2007,  Ship  dismantling  and  pre-cleaning  of 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/ships//index.htm.  
Europa,  2009,  Support  to  the  impact  assessment  of  a  new  legislative  proposal  on  ship  dismantling  – 
Final Report published at http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/ships/pdf/final_report080310.pdf  
Europa, 2007, Ship Dismantling and Pre-cleaning of Ships – Final Report  

ships.  Report  published  at: 

, 

EN 

57 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Under  the  International  MARPOL  Convention  for  the  Prevention  of  Pollution  from  Ships, 
approximately 784 tankers will be phased out in 2010, 43 between 2011 and 2014, and 109 in 
2015.  Around  13% of ships dismantled  globally  will  be  EU  flagged  ships.124 Another study 
estimated that EU-flagged vessels will account for around 20% of future scrapped tonnage.125  

4.3 

European actions  

In  addition  to  the  progress  achieved  improve  the  implementation  of  existing  legislation  and 
particularly  the  Waste  Shipment  Regulation  (see  section  2  above),  the  following  specific 
actions were taken by the Commission:  

•  In  the  EU  external  action,  the  promotion  of  sustainable  production  and  consumption 
patterns and sound waste management are addressed both as specific environmental issues 
and as regional or country specific needs. Sound waste management (including chemicals 
and  hazardous  waste)  is  a  priority  of  the  Environment  and  Natural  Resources  Thematic 
Programme  (ENRTP)126,  in  particular  helping  countries  to  meet  their  international 
commitments in this field. For instance, a project to build local capacity to address the flow 
of  e-wastes  and  electrical  and  electronic  products  destined  for  reuse  in  selected  African 
countries  has  been  approved  in  2008.  A  call  for  proposals  targeting  actions  to  improve 
resource  efficiency  in  waste  streams  of  production  and  consumption,  in  particular  with 
respect  to  solid  waste  from  urban  areas,  was  launched  in  2009.  The  call  emphasised  in 
particular recycling and energy production opportunities and multiplier effects; and end of 
life  electronic  equipment,  with  emphasis  on  recycling  opportunities  or  safe  disposal. 

Several actions to support approximation to the EU acquis related to waste have also been 
financed  in  the  European  Neighbours  (e.g.  the  ENPI  East  Waste  Governance  and 
Management  of  Environmental  Data,  approved  in  2008  and  with  an  EU  contribution  of 
€9m) 127,  while  in  Asia  several  activities  in  support  of  hazardous  waste  management, 
including  e-waste  management,  are  supported.  Financial  support  is  also  foreseen  for  the 
Basel  Convention's  Secretariat  on  compliance, synergies  and  ship  dismantling  also  under 
ENRTP.  

•  Following the publication of a Green Paper on ship dismantling in 2007, the Commission 
adopted  in  2008  a  strategy  for  better  ship  dismantling128.  The  EU  strategy  includes: 
measures  to  anticipate  the  entry  into  force  of  the  IMO  Hong  Kong  Convention  on  ship 
dismantling - notably for certification and inventories of hazardous materials on board, the 
encouragement  of  voluntary  industry  action,  measures  to  promote  technical  assistance  to 
developing  countries  for  safety  training  programmes  and  basic  infrastructure  for 
environmental  and  health  protection  and  better  enforcement  of  current  waste  shipment 

124 

125 

126 

127 

128 

information 

Europa,2010, Feasibility of a list of ‘Green and Safe’ Ship Dismantling Facilities and a List of Ships 
Likely to go for Dismantling-Final report 
Europa,  2009,  Support  to  the  impact  assessment  of  a  new  legislative  proposal  on  ship  dismantling  – 
Final Report  
More 
from 
http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/how/finance/dci/environment_en.htm 
http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/what/environment/index_en.htm 
More 
http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/where/neighbourhood/regional-cooperation/enpi-east/sustainable_en.htm 
http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/where/neighbourhood/regional-cooperation/enpi-
and 
south/sustainable/index_en.htm 
COM 2008 (767) See: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/ships//pdf/com_2008_767.pdf  

following  web 

neighbourhood 

links: 
and 

information 

following 

found 

found 

sites: 

can 

can 

the 

the 

on 

be 

be 

EN 

58 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
rules.  The  strategy  also  proposed  that  the  Commission  should  look  at  the  feasibility  of: 
developing  a  certification  and  audit  scheme  for  ship  recycling  facilities  worldwide  and 
evaluating how EU ships can be encouraged to use such a scheme; making warships and 
other  government  vessels  not  covered  by  the  Convention  subject  to  EU  rules  for  clean 
dismantling;  and  establishing  a  mandatory  international  funding  system  for  clean  ship 
dismantling. 

•  The Commission also participated actively in the negotiation which led to the adoption of 
the Hong Kong Convention. This Convention was adopted in May 2009 under the auspices 
of the International Maritime Organisation and needs to be ratified by both major recycling 
and  flag  States.  Individual  Member  States  have  therefore  been  strongly  encouraged  to 
ratify it as a matter of priority, so as to facilitate its entry into force as early as possible and 
to generate a real and effective change on the ground. Technical guidelines supporting the 
Hong  Kong  Convention  are  being  developed129.  Parties  to  Basel  Convention  are  also 
carrying out an assessment of the level of control and enforcement established by the Basel 
Convention in comparison with the level of control and enforcement provided by the Hong 
Kong Convention. . Following this assessment it is expected that a decision will be made 
by the Parties to the Basel Convention on whether any amendments shall be introduced to 
this Convention. 

•  The  EU  has  supported  the  so  called  "Ban  amendment"  to  the  Basel  Convention  since  its 
adoption  in  1995.  This  amendment  prohibits  the  exports  of  hazardous  waste  from  some 
OECD countries to other countries and, in particular, developing countries where they do 
not have the capacity to treat these wastes. This amendment has been fully transposed in 
the  EU  Waste  Shipment  Regulation,  but  is  still  not  in  force  at  international  level  for 
various  reasons  including  an  insufficient  number  of  ratification,  in  particular  from 
developing countries, but also because of difficult discussions to agree on a common legal 
interpretation on the entry into force requirement of this amendment.  

•  In  order  to  break  the  current  deadlock,  Indonesia  and  Switzerland  jointly  launched  an 
initiative130 to explore alternative means by which objectives of the Ban Amendment might 
be  achieved.  Key  Parties  were  invited  to  identify  why  these  objectives  are  currently  not 
met and to propose solutions which will be the presented and discussed with all Parties at 
the next Conference of the Parties. This initiative helped in particular the identification of 
the  growing  importance  of  the  transboundary  movements  between  non-OECD  countries 
and  of  the  need  to  develop  and  implement  requirements  for  environmentally  sound 
management of waste.  

4.3 

Worldwide actions  

There  are  indications  that  waste  generation  in  developing  countries  is  likely  to  increase 
significantly.  Waste  and  recycling  policies  are  being  actively  developed  in  countries 
worldwide.  Japan  already  has  highly  developed  polices  and  legal  framework  for  resource 
management.  China  has  adopted  a  Circular  Economy  Law  in  August  2008  which  contains 
measures  for  reducing,  reusing  and  recycling  activities  conducted  in  the  process  of 

129 

130 

Guidelines  on  the  development  of  the  Inventory  of  Hazardous  Materials  adopted  on  17  July  2009  : 
http://www.imo.org/includes/blastDataOnly.asp/data_id%3D26464/179%2859%29.pdf  
For more information about this "country-led initiative" (CLI) see: http://www.basel.int/  

EN 

59 

   EN 

 
                                                 
production,  circulation  and  consumption.131  These  policy  developments  are  also  being 
matched by increasing waste management performance.  

At the same time a number of countries looking to the EU as a reference on how to develop 
their own policies. This includes adoptions of variants of the RoHS or WEEE Directives for 
instance in China, Thailand and Brazil. Russia plans to use the EU Packaging Waste Directive 
as the basis for their new legislation in this area.  

It has been observed that a great amount of e-waste is exported from the EU under the label of 
“used  products  (non-waste)”.  Distinguishing  between  genuine  second-hand  equipment  and 
non  functioning  electronic  scrap  is  difficult  which  offers  opportunities  to  some  exporters  to 
circumvent  applying  the  EU  legislation.  Guidelines  regarding  the  distinction  between  waste 
and  non  waste  have  been  adopted  at  European  level  and  are  under  development  at 
international level. The need to clarify132 this notion at international level was also identified 
by  some  Parties  in  the  context  of  the  Country  Led  Initiative  jointly  organized  by  Indonesia 
and Switzerland. Guidelines regarding the distinction between waste and non waste have been 
adopted at European level133 and are under development at international level.  

5. 

FUTURE TRENDS  

5.1 

Increasing demand and impacts from resource use 

Without  additional  policies,  global extraction  of  resources  is  expected  to  rise  in  the  coming 
decades.  This  is  due  to  a  combination  of  increase  of  population  with  the  growth  of  the 
worldwide  middle  class.  Figure  33  shows  projections  of  future  demand  of  worldwide 
resources. Global extraction of resources is expected to increase from 58 billion tons in 2005 
to more than 100 billion tons in 2030 representing an increase of 75% in 25 years. Biomass, 
metals and minerals are representing more than 80% of the future demand in tonnage.  

131 

132 
133 

EN 

http://www.chinaenvironmentallaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/circular-economy-law-cn-

See: 
en-final.pdf 
For more information see: http://www.basel.int/convention/cli/index.html  
European Commission “Revised Correspondents' Guidelines No 1 on shipments of waste electrical and 
electronic 
2007 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/shipments/pdf/correspondents_guidelines_en.pdf  

equipment” 

60 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Figure 33: Global Resource extraction 1980-2030134  

This increased demand for raw primary and secondary materials will have an influence on the 
evolution of the price of the resources offering new opportunities and incentives to promote 
recycling. This trend is illustrated in Figure 34 below.  

Figure 34: Change in prices of metals and cement 1970-2007 135 

134 

135 

Source:  EEA  2010  derived  from  SERI  GLOBAL  2000,  Friends  of  the  Earth  Europe  (2009),  see: 
www.seri.at/resource -report  
Source:  EEA  2010,  The  European  Environment,  State  and  Outlook  2010 :  Thematic  Assessment  – 
Material Resources and Waste derived from USGS, data for the USA 

EN 

61 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
As shown in figure 35, data from the environmentally weighted impacts of materials and Life 
Cycle assessments tend to show the large impacts associated with certain classes of materials. 
These can as act as guide to the importance of waste prevention and recycling in particular in 
areas, for example such as bio-waste, metals and plastics.  

Minerals contribute to consumption by mass although crude oil, coal, natural gas, plastics but 
also animal products and crops are of the most importance regarding global warming, animal 
products  and  crops  dominate  land  use  competition  and  plastics,  metals,  crude  oil  and  coal 
have  the  largest  impact  on  human  toxicology.  When  aggregating  these  findings  animal 
products,  crops,  coal,  plastic,  crude  oil  appear  to  be  the  main  contributors  to  environmental 
impacts. 

Figure 35: Environmental impact of materials136  

Crop and animal production seems to represent a significant proportion of the environmental 
impacts linked with material production and consumption. A recent study137 has revealed the 
significance of the food wastage. The total amount of food waste the EU 27 is estimated at 89 
Mt, or 179 kg/capita/year of which 76 kg (43%) from households, 70kg from manufacturing 
sector  (39%),  8kg  from  retail/wholesale  sector  (4%)  and  25kg  from  food  service/catering 
(14%). These data have to be taken with precaution particularly for the manufacturing sector 
as part of the waste food is transformed into by-products which are not properly identified in 
the statistics.  

136 
137 

Source: UNEP Panel on resource, see: http://www.uneptie.org/scp/rpanel/  
Preparatory study on food waste across EU 27,BIO Intelligence December 2009– September 2010 

EN 

62 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
Figures 36  141 shows the total food waste arising per capita and per Member State although 
figure 37 shows the relative importance of the manufacturing sector for each Member State. 
These  figures  are  mainly  demonstrating  the  significant  potential  for  additional  prevention 
initiatives in some Member States.  

Figure 36: Total food waste arising by MS based on best available data (kg per capita 
per year) 

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

Figure 37: Percentage of food wasted in the Manufacturing sector by MS (Food waste in 
Manufacturing sector/Food production, %) 

25

20

15

10

5

0

EN 

63 

   EN 

 
 
 
The data for households (76 kg/capita/year) seem to be confirmed notably by a detailed study 
led in UK. This study138 found that 25% of the food purchased by households is discarded, of 
which 60% would be avoidable, representing about 565 € per household/per year. 

In terms of GHG emissions, the study estimates the overall impact of food waste at 170 Mt 
CO2  eq./year,  i.e.  3%  of  total  EU27  emissions  in  2008.  Various  recommendations  are 
included in the study including setting up a reporting system, improved product labelling to 
avoid  confusion  on  the  exact  meaning  of  the  date  labels  targeted  awareness  campaigns  and 
EU targets for food waste prevention.  

5.2 

Waste generation and management  

EEA projections for municipal waste are based on historical trends and correlations between 
municipal waste generation and influencing factors such as household consumption, number 
of people per household and population development.  

According to a model developed by the EEA and its European Topic Centre on Sustainable 
Consumption and Production, municipal waste generation can be expected to grow to around 
280 million tons in 2020 in the EU-27 (excluding Cyprus), plus Norway and Switzerland, 7% 
above 2008 levels (ETC/SCP, 2010a).  

This scenario uses projections of economic development, taking into account the economic 
downturn of 2008/2009, as used by the European Commission for the modeling of GHG 
emissions scenarios (EC, DG ENER 2010b), and the uncertainty in the economic projections 
also introduces uncertainties in the projection of municipal waste generation. This scenario 
does not take into account any specific policies on waste prevention. If the historic trends in 
the development of the shares of recycling and composting, incineration and landfill are used 
to project waste management until 2020, recycling of municipal waste would increase from 
40% in 2008 to 49%, while landfill would stabilize at around 28% (see Figure 38).  

However, full implementation of current EU waste policies, especially the EU Landfill 
Directive, across the EU could reduce landfilled quantities further, but requires additional 
implementation activities in a number of Member States. 

138 

"The  Food  We  Waste"  report  for  the  "Waste  Resources  Action  Programme  (WRAP)  –  UK"  –  April 
2008 

EN 

64 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Figure 38: Trends and outlook for management of municipal waste in the EU-27 
(without Cyprus due to lack of data), baseline scenario139  

5.3 

Green House Gas Emission  

According  to  EEA  projections  –  see  Figure  39  below,  emission  of  GHG  have  in  2008 
decreased  by  48  millions  tons  compared  to  1995  emissions.  Improved  management  of 
municipal  waste  (business  as  usual  scenario)  would  result  in  92  million  tons  of  GHG 
emissions avoided in 2020 compared with 1995, if the benefits of recycling and recovery are 
taken into account (see also chapter 3.7). This amount rises to 110 million tons if all countries 
fully  comply  with  the  Landfill  Directive’s  diversion  targets  for  biodegradable  waste  and  to 
126 million tons in case of a hypothetical total landfill ban.140 

EEA  mentioned  that  including  other  waste  streams  in  the  model  would  further  increase  the 
potential but due to methodological reasons (export of waste) it has not been calculated.  

The potential for waste to play a key role in reducing GHG emissions is supported by a recent 
study  on  GHG  emission  reduction  potential141.  This  study  included  non-MSW  waste  and 
found  that  improved  waste  management  and  implementation  of  EU  waste  legislation  could 
achieve an additional reduction in CO2 emissions of between 146 and 244 Mt which would be 

139 

140 

141 

EEA  2010,  The  European  Environment,  State  and  Outlook  2010 :  Thematic  Assessment  –  Material 
Resources and Waste  
More information on estimated GHG savings from the landfill directive and waste incineration directive 
by DG CLIMA can be found here: 
http://ec.europa.eu/clima/documentation/brief/eu/docs/ghgpams_report_180110.pdf  
"Resource  saving  and  CO2  reduction  potentials  in  waste  management  in  Europe  and  the  possible 
contribution to the CO2 reduction target in 2020" IFEU, Prognos, See: http://www.prognos.com/CO2-
study.609.0.html  

EN 

65 

   EN 

 
                                                 
equivalent  to  contributing  19-31%  of  the  European  climate  reduction  targets  (780Mt  CO2 
equivalent) until 2020.  

The  study  analyzed  18  waste  streams  representing  in  2004  a  total  of  2.4  billions  of  tons  of 
waste  from  several  sources.  This  estimate  may  be  seen  as  optimistic,  however,  as  the 
comparison  with  the  reference  year  does  not  account  for  progress  in  material  and  waste 
management unrelated to policy development.  

Recent  estimates  from  DG  CLIMA142  forecast  that,  without  further  control  measures  in 
addition to those that are already adopted in current legislation – including full application of 
the Landfill and the revised Waste Framework Directive, total non-CO2 GHG emissions are 
expected to fall by 13 percent until 2020. Specifically, MSW baseline non CO2 emissions are 
predicted  to  decline  from  72.6Mt  CO2eq  in  2005  to  22.3Mt  CO2eq  in  2030:  an  emission 
change from -50.4 % to -69%. 

Figure 39: GHG Emissions avoided due to better management of municipal waste in the 
EU 27 (excluding Cyprus), Norway and Switzerland compared to 1995; 2008 and three 
different scenario for 2020143  

Avoided emissions compared to 1995

q
e
-
2
O
C

s
e
n
n
o
t

n
o

i
l
l
i

m

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

2008

Scenario 2020: Business-as-
usual

Scenario 2020: Full
implementation of the EU
Landfill Directive

Scenario 2020: Hyphothetical
landfill ban

These conclusions have also been confirmed by an international review of 55 studies on life-
cycle  assessments  (LCA)  suggesting  that  recycling  delivers  significant  carbon  savings 
compared with incineration and landfill. Table 6 below indicates that this is the case in 83% 
of  the  LCA  scenarios  reviewed.  No  cases  were identified  where  the incineration of glass or 
the landfill of plastics, aluminium, steel, wood and aggregates provided GHG benefits when 
compared  with  recycling.  Very  limited  cases  were  found  where  landfill  of  paper  and 
cardboard  and  glass,  and  incineration  of  aluminium  and  steel  provided  GHG  benefits  when 
compared with recycling.  

142 

143 

Potentials  and  costs  for  mitifation  of  non-CO2  greenhouse  gas  emissions  in  the  EU  until  2030: 
http://ec.europa.eu/clima/documentation/docs/non_co2emissions_may2010_en.pdf 
EEA  2010,  The  European  Environment,  State  and  Outlook  2010 :  Thematic  Assessment  –  Material 
Resources and Waste  

EN 

66 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Table  6:  Overall  environmental  preference  of  waste  management  options  across  LCA 
scenarios144  

6. 

STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION  

On the 22 June 2010 a stakeholder event was held to help inform the review of the Thematic 
Strategy (TS) on Waste Prevention and Recycling. The Commission provided an introduction 
to the day by explaining the general policy context and the focus on resource efficiency, the 
approach  to  the  review  and  technical  presentations  on  key  waste  trends  in  the  EU  and  their 
anticipated evolution up to 2030. A specific web site was created145 in order to ensure open 
access to the information. 

Four  working  groups  took  up  the  main  part  of  the  day.  The  groups  were  formed  of  invited 
stakeholders  active  in  the  field  of  waste  policy  and  included  representatives  from  industry 
(both  production  and  waste  management),  NGOs,  Member  States,  local  and  regional 
authorities and the research community. The four working groups were: 

(1) 

Practicalities of implementing the Waste TS and its objectives 

(2) 

Prevention of waste 

(3) 

International influence and impact of EU waste management policy 

(4) 

The EU recycling market 

The  outcome  of  each  working  group  was  presented  and  discussed  in  a  plenary  session.  A 
summary of the key areas of discussion amongst the working group is presented below. The 
outcomes from discussions, and subsequent additional feedback from stakeholders, has been 
used to inform the study being completed by IEEP, and partners, to help support the review of 
the waste TS. 

6.1 

Key Overarching Messages 

Throughout  the  day  several  themes  continually  emerged  during  discussions,  these  included 
the following: 

144 

145 

WRAP  (Waste  and  Resource  Action  Programme),  Environmental  benefits  of  recycling;  An 
international review of life cycle comparisons for materials in the UK recycling sector 
http://www.eu-smr.eu/tswpr/meetings.php 

EN 

67 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
•  That  the  TS  was  considered  to  have  been  useful  for  fixing  a  clear  frame  for  waste 
management in the EU. The TS had some impact on the diffusion of key concepts such as 
the waste hierarchy or the LCA approach. The main action of consequence notes was the 
adoption of the Waste Framework Directive (WFD); 

•  That  further  efforts  should  be  made  to  ensure  that  waste  policies  are  based  on  sound 
knowledge by improving the reliability of statistics and developing new indicators that that 
better reflect the progress made in applying the waste hierarchy and achieving a "recycling 
society";  

•  That  further  efforts  are  needed  in  order  to  effectively  address  the  question  of  waste 
prevention and that new policy solutions are needed to deliver this; that some progress has 
been  achieved  in  terms  of  recycling  and  landfill  reduction,  but  that  large  differences 
persists between Member States which should be addressed;  

•  That EU policies are leading to higher levels of exports to third countries of materials for 
recycling  and  reuse;  better  mechanisms  should  be  put  in  place  to  address  the  potential 
environmental and economic (missed opportunities, possible risks in terms of raw material 
supply)  consequences  of  this  trend.  It  was  considered  that  the  transformation  of  waste 
management  solutions  represents  an  opportunity  for  the  EU  as  a  whole,  but  we  need 
additional instruments to help bring about sustainable improvements 

•  That promoting markets for secondary raw materials is important in helping deliver more 
environmentally  sustainable  waste  management,  however,  delivering  such  a  market  is 
dependent upon product design, collection, processing, and economic factors; 

•  That  a  clear  link  should  be  established  between  waste,  design  and  resources/climate 

policies.  

6.2 

Implementation of the Thematic Strategy 

Reflecting on the main achievement/limitations of the Thematic Strategy:  

•  The TS was felt to have increased debate and led to the diffusion of key concepts (waste 

hierarchy, LCA approaches) and increased awareness; 

•  Stakeholders  noted  that  there  has  been  progress  in  terms  of  reductions  in  landfill  and 
increases in recycling, however, extent of progress and speed varies significantly between 
Member States 

•  The new WFD was noted to have made a significant difference in policy terms, and need 

to now await its full implementation 

•  Limited results in terms of prevention, with quantitative waste prevention not happening to 

any significant degree 

•  Even if the collection and reliability of data has improved, significant limitations remain in 

terms of data quality and availability. 

EN 

68 

   EN 

 
Main stakeholder recommendations to improve TS implementation 

•  Improve the knowledge base, this should include: the better collection and verification of 
data particularly on the prevention and export of waste; and the development of a new set 
of indicators related to resource efficiency. 

•  Improved integration ie better linkage between waste policy and product policies (ecolabel, 
ecodesign,  GPP,  REACH)  and  a  need  to  better  link  future  EU  waste  objectives  with 
resource objectives (including the delivery of Greenhouse gas emission reduction). 

•  Optimal  use  of  instruments,  there  was  a  need  identified  to  better  combine  economic 
instruments  (mainly  in  the  hands  of  the  MS  and  local/regional  authorities)  with  legal 
instruments 

6.3 

Delivering Waste Prevention 

Considering the state of action on prevention  

•  Stakeholders  noted  that  this  is  not  an  isolated  goal  and  should  be  linked  to  efforts  on 

resource use, consumption etc 

•  Some reduction in the generation of harmful waste was considered to have taken place but 
major breakthroughs have yet to be achieved in terms of both quantitative and qualitative 
prevention of waste. 

•  Role  of  the  new  WFD  –  this  was  noted  to  have  made  a  direct  link  between  waste 
management and waste prevention activities (specifically Article 29 of the Directive) and 
considered  as  definite  progress,  providing  a  framework  for  ongoing  action.  However, 
stakeholders felt that dedicated enabling mechanism is needed to deliver change. 

Barriers to/enabling prevention progress  

•  Barriers  were  noted  both  in  terms  of  preventing  waste  (from  high  consumption  trends 
offsetting  efficiency  gains  to  consumer  reluctance  to  change  their  preferences)  and 
measuring  prevention  progress  (including  a  lack  of  comparability  of  measurement 
approaches across Europe and difficulties in measuring the environment impact of change). 

•  Stakeholders considered that there is no one overarching policy solution and that there is a 
need for different options to address different needs across society from the consumption 
patterns of consumers to the resource intensity of different industries 

•  There  was  division  on  the  question  of  prevention  targets,  some  felt  that  these  are  useful 
tools for focusing attention (even if they are largely aspirational). It was commented that 
there  is  a  need  not  for  one  overarching  target  but  some  degree  of  specificity  in  order  to 
drive action in different sectors. 

EN 

69 

   EN 

 
6.4 

International Influence  

Patterns of export 

•  The level of trade in materials for recycling and reuse with third countries was noted to be 
rising, driven by: targets promoting increased rates of recycling; demand for raw materials 
in international market places; and pricing factors including the lower cost of labour and 
lower environmental standards in some regions outside the EU. 

•  Stakeholders noted that increasing levels of international flows in goods for recycling and 
reuse is not necessarily a bad thing, but this depends on the quality of processing delivered 
and  quality  of  materials  shipped  ie  reducing  the  levels  of  disposal  of  poorly  sorted  or 
inappropriate materials in the receiving country. 

Options for addressing this question 

•  It was noted that the EU has a limited ability to impact on economic cycles ie to prevent 
export  if  materials  are  needed  elsewhere,  there  is  a  need  to  find  other  mechanisms  by 
which Europe can influence trade in recycling and secondary raw materials. 

•  Usefulness should be added as a condition applied to products exported for reuse to avoid 
products with short remaining life times or with no obvious use being exported under the 
guise of reuse. This is intended to close loopholes surrounding export of goods for reuse. 

•  Key  tools  noted  for  improving  the  situation  were:  the  tightening  of  export  standards  for 
materials  for  recycling  to  ensure  clarity  of  origin  and  processing;  developing  BAT 
mechanisms for processing and integrating these into shipment requirements; and to ensure 
more  effective  producer  responsibility  throughout  all  product  lifecycles  leading  to  an 
overall reduction in environmental impact 

6.5 

Delivering a Recycling society and recycling markets  

Defining a recycling society 

•  It was considered that this should be more than simply reducing the level of waste disposed 
of, and should lead to a situation where management of resources is better considered. 

•  That Member States are likely to be at different stages along the road to achieving this. 

•  That  such  a  society  should:  reuse/recycle  products  unless  there  is  a  good  reason  not  to; 
have  in  place  effective  mechanisms  to  implement  and  enforce  relevant  legislation;  and 
should promote high quality recycling and good sorting of recyclables. 

•  The  key  to  delivering  recycling  markets  Key  is  ensuring  quality  throughout  the  chain  in 

order to make the market for secondary raw materials more robust and reliable 

•  Exports are needed in order to support a circular economy ie one where we import most of 
our goods from abroad, but we need to have mechanisms in Europe to support the quality 
of this market. 

EN 

70 

   EN 

 
Tools for promoting improved recycling markets 

•  Addressing market distortions – this might include addressing perversities in the market for 
green  certificates,  that  apply  to  energy  from  waste  but  not  recycling;  using  VAT 
adjustment/other  fiscal  tools  to  take  account  of  the  environmental  impact  of  recycled 
goods;  focus  more  effort  on  preventing  illegal  exports,  harmonising  standards  of 
implementation across MS. 

•  Dealing  with  the  question  of  exports  –  developing  a  new  system  for  ensuring  the 
traceability of materials to provide a basis for quality processing; requiring preparation for 
recycling  and  reuse  to  occur  in  the  EU  to  increase  quality  of  material  flows;  and 
developing a system to ensure that the quality of recyclables is raised. 

•  Building  on  existing  policies  –  analysis  should  be  conducted  to  identify  which  policy 
mechanisms  are  currently  working  most  effectively,  in  addition  stakeholders  highlighted 
the  need:  to  centralise  guidance  to  ensure  each  waste  stream  is  dealt  with  in  the  most 
environmentally efficient way; apply extended producer responsibility to additional waste 
streams; increase targets to further drive the markets; set up voluntary schemes to approve 
the most environmentally responsible recycling chains. 

•  Improve  demand  for  recycled  goods  –  improved  schemes  for  labelling  recycled  content, 
demonstrating/certifying  the  environmental  responsibility  of  the  recycling  products  and 
further supporting green public procurement. 

EN 

71 

   EN