REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on statistics compiled pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 2150/2002 on waste statistics and their quality
Date: 2014-02-14
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU statistics, data collection, dissemination of information, environmental statistics, statistical method, waste, waste management













EUR-Lex - 52014DC0079 - EN











|



52014DC0079

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on statistics compiled pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 2150/2002 on waste statistics and their quality /* COM/2014/079 final */









REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL
on statistics compiled pursuant to
Regulation (EC) No 2150/2002 on waste statistics and their quality
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1........... Introduction.................................................................................................................. 2
1.1........ Regulation on waste statistics....................................................................................... 2
1.2........ Data quality in a multi-method
environment................................................................ 2
1.3........ Quality control.............................................................................................................. 2
2........... Punctuality and timeliness............................................................................................ 3
3........... Completeness................................................................................................................ 4
4........... Data accuracy............................................................................................................... 4
4.1........ Data coverage............................................................................................................... 4
4.2........ Breakdown by economic sectors.................................................................................. 5
4.3........ Waste classification...................................................................................................... 6
5........... Comparability............................................................................................................... 6
5.1........ Comparability over time............................................................................................... 6
5.2........ Comparability across countries..................................................................................... 7
6........... Burden on businesses.................................................................................................... 7
7........... Revision of the Waste Statistics
Regulation................................................................. 8
8........... Achievements and outlook......................................................................................... 10
1.           Introduction
1.1.        Regulation
on waste statistics
Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2150/2002
of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2002 on waste
statistics[1]
(hereinafter "the Regulation") requires the Commission to submit a
report on the implementation of the Regulation to the European Parliament and
the Council every three years (following the first report, which was to be
submitted within five years of the entry into force of the Regulation). The
first report was published in 2008[2]
and the second in 2011[3].
Section 7(3) of Annexes I and II to the
Regulation stipulates that quality reports from Member States are to be included
in the report provided for in Article 8. These reports are available on
CIRCABC:
https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/9a7ac3a5-2f59-46b8-b90c-95cd7283ec22
This report considers
the results of the latest data delivery in June 2012 for reference year 2010
and covers 27 EU Member States. It also describes the implementation of the
revised annexes to the Waste Statistics Regulation, applicable for reference
year 2010.
1.2.        Data quality in a multi-method environment
The Regulation defines the data to be
submitted and the quality required, but does not stipulate a specific method of
drawing up waste statistics, which are thus compiled in a multi-method
environment. This enables Member States to keep their data collection systems
and to minimise the changes needed to comply with the Regulation.
To minimise the impact of different
approaches, Eurostat and the Member States are working in close cooperation on
the convergence of methods and the improvement of data quality. A new approach
to agree on standardised data validation checks, which started in September
2013, is an important step in this direction.
In their quality reports, Member States
describe their data by referring to quality elements commonly used in the
European Statistical System[4]
and set out in Regulation (EC) No 1445/2005 on the quality of waste statistics[5].
1.3.        Quality
control
Since the first data delivery in 2006,
Eurostat has set up an efficient two-step quality control system. The first
step is a quick evaluation of data and quality reports. It sends an evaluation
report within two months of the reporting deadline.
In this phase, data validation concerns
mainly the internal coherence of new data and developments over time. The
analysis is made at a highly aggregate level and aims to detect important
breaks in series.
The second step
is a more in-depth validation with no strict deadline. This analyses the data
at a more detailed level (e.g. by economic sector and by waste category) and
compares patterns and developments across countries. The validation checks
include:
–     
intra-country comparisons of waste generation
with values from previous years for each economic activity;
–     
cross-country comparisons of the data for each
economic activity;
–     
intra-country comparison of waste generated and
waste treated for each waste category;
–     
cross-checks with waste data from other
reporting obligations, such as compliance monitoring, pursuant to other
waste-related legislation.
Potential
questions are checked against the countries’ quality reports and the feedback
to the quick evaluation. This may result in a second set of questions being
sent to the countries concerned.
2.           Punctuality
and timeliness
Data and quality reports are to be
submitted within 18 months after the reference year, i.e. the delivery deadline
for reference year 2010 was 30 June 2012. A compliance monitoring routine is in
place at Eurostat and reminders are sent to Member States at short intervals,
according to a defined schedule.
At time of writing, compliance with the
reporting deadline for the reference year 2010 can be summarised as follows:
·      13 countries delivered their data sets on time;
·      6 Member States submitted data within three weeks of the deadline (Denmark, France, Lithuania, Ireland, Cyprus, Hungary);
·      4 Member States delivered data by mid-August so that they could
still be considered in the first evaluation round (Belgium, Netherlands, Austria, Romania);
·      4 Member States submitted data more than 3 months after the deadline
(Greece, Italy, Latvia, UK). Data were delivered between 25 October (Italy) and 17 November 2012 (UK). Greece and Italy had already incurred serious delays in reporting
in previous reporting years.
In summary, compliance with the reporting
deadline for 2010 data was below the level of 2008. In addition, some countries
reported provisional data and carried out major revisions several months after
the deadline, which necessitated renewed validation and delayed the publication
process. According to the statements Member States made in their quality
reports, the implementation of the latest amendments of the Regulation in 2010 did
not cause serious problems and does not explain delays in reporting. Eurostat
is taking actions at the adequate level to urge countries to review their
production processes and to deliver good quality data within the established
delays.
–     
Publication
The data on waste generation and waste
treatment were published in the Eurostat dissemination database on 1 October
2012. Comprehensive updates due to late deliveries or the correction of data
were carried out in November 2012, March 2013 and July 2013.
3.           Completeness
The delivery of
complete data sets is crucial for the production of EU aggregates. Missing data
limit the interpretation and the informative value of waste statistics.
Completeness is measured as the number of empty cells that are marked as
missing by means of an M-flag.
In the first reporting round for the
reference year 2004, six of the 27 EU Member States were able to provide
complete data sets on waste generation covering all waste categories and
all sectors. In all, 21 Member States delivered data sets with some gaps.
Overall, the share of missing values on waste generation amounted to about 9 %
of the required data.
Over the years, the completeness of data
has improved considerably. From 2006 to 2010, the share of missing values
ranged between 2 % to 3 % of the required data. With regard to the
data on waste treatment, the share of missing values at national level
amounted to 2.5 % in reference year 2004 and decreased steadily until 2008,
when all countries reported complete treatment data.
As a consequence of the revision of the
Regulation, the data requirements for 2010 on waste treatment became more
comprehensive because of the detailed breakdown into waste categories and the
additional treatment category ‘backfilling’. As a result, five of the 27 Member
States reported missing data for 2010 and 3.4 % of the treatment data were
flagged as missing. More than half of the missing values (1.9 %) referred
to the new treatment category ‘backfilling’.
Reporting of statistics to Eurostat has
been simplified for Member States by introducing webforms in eDAMIS, Eurostat’s
single entry point for data. This has also made data collection fully compliant
with the SDMX standard.
4.           Data accuracy
4.1.        Data
coverage
The aim of the Regulation is to produce
statistics on waste in accordance with the scope of Directive 2008/98/EC on
waste (the Waste Framework Directive)[6].
Statistics on waste generation must be compiled for all economic sectors and
for households, and must include waste arising from recovery and disposal
operations — what is known as secondary waste. The statistics should also cover
waste from small businesses (< 10 employees), though such firms should be
exempt from surveys wherever possible.
Statistics on waste treatment cover all
waste that is recovered or disposed of within a country, irrespective of the
origin of the waste. The underlying concept of the Regulation is to collect
data on the final destination of waste. Preparatory treatment operations are
not covered.
–     
Coverage errors and differences in data
coverage
The observed coverage errors are mostly due
to:
–     
the distinction between waste and non-waste, and
differences in the application of such definitions;
–     
different methodological approaches and
different priorities of national waste management and waste statistics; 
–     
sector-specific coverage problems (e.g. assumed
undercoverage of construction and demolition waste in some countries)
Differences in data coverage are assumed to
be biggest in the following areas:
·                        
The coverage of extractive wastes (waste from
mining and quarrying activities) is seen to have a very high impact on waste
statistics. The most serious differences across countries are due to the
coverage of overburden, i.e. natural materials that are removed to get access
to the ore without being processed, and with regard to extractive wastes that
are managed at the mine site.
·                        
The distinction between waste and by-products
has a significant impact on the waste amounts in NACE A (Agriculture, forestry
and fishing) and NACE C (Manufacturing), especially for the waste categories
wood waste, animal and vegetal waste, and presumably on slags from metal production.
·                        
The variance of waste generation in the sector
NACE F (Construction) indicates differences in data coverage.
·                        
Several countries were not able to report on the
new treatment category ‘backfilling’. However, most said they were working on
solutions for the next data delivery.
The overall impact of coverage errors is
hard to assess. Coverage errors may lead to underestimations as well as to
overestimations. The impact is assumed to be highest for mineral wastes from
NACE B (Mining and quarrying) and from NACE F (Construction), which is one of
the reasons why these waste categories are excluded from the indicators on
waste generation and landfilling based on the Regulation.
4.2.        Breakdown
by economic sectors
The Regulation calls on Member States to
break down their data by 19 waste generating activities (18 economic sectors
and households). The breakdown of economic activities is defined by reference
to the Classification of Economic Activities in the European Community (NACE).
Correct allocation to generating activities is a prerequisite for:
–     
the comparability of sector-specific waste
amounts;
–     
the coherence of waste statistics with business
statistics.
The way waste is allocated to the
generating sector depends on the methods applied for data collection and on the
statistical units for which waste statistics are compiled. Comparability and
coherence of data is assumed to be best ensured by using business registers for
data collection. As the Regulation allows use of either local units or
statistical units as the basis for data compilation, there will be differences
in the allocation of wastes across countries even where the provisions of the Regulation
are properly applied. This problem is not unique for waste statistics, and is
also found in other statistical domains that relate to economic activities.
The overall impact of allocation errors on
the quality of waste statistics is assumed to be limited. The risk of
misallocation is higher for countries where data on waste generation are
derived indirectly from waste treatment data. This is because information on
the generating company or sector is known only from secondary sources (e.g.
waste collector, waste treatment operator) or has to be derived by other means
(e.g. by models or by using the European List of Waste (LoW)[7], which contains
information on the origin of waste). The use of administrative data may also
lead to misallocations where the reporting units in the administrative data
system are not in line with the definition of statistical units in the Regulation.
4.3.        Waste
classification
The Regulation defines the breakdown by
waste category according to the statistical nomenclature EWC-Stat, but does not
stipulate a specific classification to be used for data collection. Countries
are free to use any waste classification, as long as they can produce the
defined formats to the required quality.
Most countries
collect their data according to the LoW, which comprises 839 waste types.
Despite some problems in applying the list, the widespread use of this classification
ensures a high level of comparability. The overall impact of classification
errors on data accuracy is assumed to be small.
5.           Comparability
5.1.        Comparability
over time
Now that the fourth round of reporting has
been completed, it is possible to proceed with a better assessment of the
comparability of data over time.
Eurostat’s data validation system ensures
that breaks in time series are identified and either corrected or explained. In
addition, the countries’ quality reports have proved to be a useful tool to
monitor methodological changes and their impacts in Member States.
Evaluation of national quality reports
shows that nearly all Member States have made considerable adjustments to
national waste statistics approaches since 2004. Most countries are further
improving their data collection with regard to data quality (e.g. closing of
data gaps; improvement of coverage) and with regard to the efficiency of their
methods.
In 2010, total waste generation in the
EU-27 amounted to 2.50 billion tonnes, a very small increase of 0.3 % or 8
million tonnes compared to the previous reference year. Significant changes in
some economic sectors cancelled each other out when looking at the total waste
generation over all sectors.
At national level, the time series of most
countries are consistent. Major breaks in total waste generated in some
countries may reflect real developments (e.g. Finland, Sweden) or may result from changes in the data collection system (e.g. Denmark, Austria, Belgium) or from combinations of both (United Kingdom).
In Sweden and Finland, waste generation
rose enormously from 2008 to 2010, by 31 million tonnes (37 %) and by 23
million tonnes (28 %) respectively, due to a rise in extraction of ores in
the mining sector.
In Denmark and Austria, major breaks in
time series between 2008 and 2010 are caused by fundamental changes in the data
collection systems. In Denmark, the ISAG system was replaced in 2010 by a new
waste data system that is fully compatible with relevant EU classifications. As
a result, the total waste reported was 38 % higher than in previous years.
In Austria, where an electronic data management system for waste has been introduced,
the trend was reversed. Reported waste generation fell by 38 % compared to
the previous year, partly because of the exclusion of by-products from
reporting and partly because of coverage gaps that will have to be tackled in
future. Belgium reports a considerable increase in waste generation from 2008
to 2010, by 29 %, attributed mainly to methodological changes in data
collection (e.g. improved coverage of secondary wastes).
The United Kingdom reports an enormous
decrease in waste from the mining sector, by 63 million tonnes (73%), mainly
due to methodological reasons (adaptation of out-dated factors for the
model-based estimation approach), but this is also assumed to reflect the
economic downturn in the mining sector.
5.2.        Comparability
across countries
Thanks to common definitions and
classifications, the comparability of data across countries is fairly high for
most sectors and waste types. It has become easier to explain differences
between countries with regard to totals generated and treated. 
However, there are still serious problems
for data comparability with regard to the differences in data coverage
described under section 4.1. These problems are being tackled, for instance, by
means of workshops where possibilities for harmonisation of data coverage are
discussed with the countries. Workshops were held on mining waste in October
2011 and on construction and demolition waste in October 2012. A further
workshop on data validation was held in September 2013 as a first step towards defining
common standards for validation. In addition, thorough data analysis, by means
of sector-specific indicators, ensures steady improvement in comparability
across countries.
6.           Burden
on businesses
The Regulation requires Member States to
reduce the burden on respondents by providing access to administrative data and
to exclude small firms with fewer than 10 employees from surveys unless they
contribute significantly to waste generation.
Member States’ statements in their quality
reports show a high level of awareness about the aim of keeping the burden as
low as possible. This is reflected by the increasing number of Member States
which collect information on the reporting burden in physical terms and which
are able to quantify the average time respondents need to complete
questionnaires or reporting forms. Compared with the reference year 2008, the
number of countries that provided such quantitative information has risen from
seven to 10 Member States. The information was gathered from respondents via
questionnaires or determined by specific studies.
Seven of the 10 countries estimated that the
average time needed to complete the questionnaire or reporting form ranged
between 20 minutes and three hours. Time expenditure of more than three hours
was reported by Ireland, Poland and Sweden. The highest time was reported by Poland (one to 40 hours per respondent) where, during a transition period, waste holders
are burdened with double reporting (administrative and statistical reporting)
until the statistical survey is phased out.
The best way to help companies is to avoid
double reporting by using administrative data and/or by coordinating waste
surveys among the institutions concerned (statistical offices, ministries of
the environment, environmental agencies). For 15 Member States, administrative
data are the main source for waste statistics. Other countries use administrative
data as one of many data sources.
The number of countries that have
implemented or plan to implement electronic reporting systems is growing. Electronic
reporting tools for some or all waste data are now available in Belgium
(Flanders), Denmark, Ireland, Lithuania, Hungary, Austria, Poland, Slovenia and
the United Kingdom.
The exemption of small companies from
surveys is handled in different ways. Some countries cover small companies by
sample surveys and extrapolate the results. Most, though, exclude them
completely. The figures are either ignored or extrapolated by factor-based
estimation models. Countries have established different exclusion thresholds,
defined mostly by the number of employees or by the amount of waste generated
per year. Some countries combine the two criteria to make sure that even small
companies are covered by data collection when they exceed the defined waste
generation threshold.
7.           Revision
of the Waste Statistics Regulation
After the first two reporting periods, some
deficiencies had become obvious and areas for improvement were identified in
the first report to the European Parliament and Council (COM (2008) 355). In
addition, the revision of the Waste Framework Directive (2008/98/EC)
established new information needs and amended definitions. For these reasons, also
the Regulation had to be amended (by Commission Regulation (EU) No 849/2010/EU[8]). The amended version
was applicable for the reference year 2010. The main changes are summarised as follows:
–     
The most important change is the harmonisation
of the breakdown by waste category in section 2 of Annexes I and II to the
Regulation. Since reference year 2010, waste generation and waste treatment
have to be reported according to the same 51 waste categories.
–     
Some waste categories have been reorganised or
new ones introduced to improve the usability of data, e.g. for the monitoring
of waste policies. They include:
–     
separate waste categories for mineral waste from
construction and demolition, for soils and for dredging spoil;
–     
separate waste categories for liquid and mineral
wastes from waste treatment (secondary wastes);
–     
reorganisation of the categories animal and
vegetal waste and metal wastes;
–     
aggregation of different chemical wastes in one
category.
–     
Furthermore, waste treatment categories were
reorganised:
–     
The definition of the treatment category
‘deposit into or onto land’ was harmonised with the definition of landfilling
in Council Directive 1999/31/EC on the landfill of waste[9] to integrate the
collection of data on the number and capacity of landfills that are so far
collected under that directive[10]..
–     
The treatment category ‘backfilling’ was
introduced to bring the Regulation in line with the definitions of the revised
Waste Framework Directive.
The Manual for the Implementation of the
Waste Statistics Regulation was adapted in 2010 and again in 2013.
Taking into account statements from the Member States, the implementation of the revised waste categories and the regrouping of the
treatment operation ‘deposit into or onto land’ went smoothly and did not cause
any problems. Some countries explicitly welcomed the changes from the technical
point of view.
Problems with the introduction of the new
treatment category ‘backfilling’ were reported by numerous countries, mainly
because the list of recovery operations in Annex II of the Waste Framework
Directive does not provide a specific entry (R-code) for ‘backfilling’.
Furthermore, the definition of the term ‘backfilling’ was criticised as not
being sufficiently clear, and this was seen as a problem for data collection.
Altogether, the amended Regulation was
successfully implemented and one of the aims of the revision, to align waste
statistics with definitions and reporting requirements of other waste
legislation, has been achieved. 
However, the presentation and analysis of
the time series has become more difficult, due to the breaks caused by the
redefinition of waste categories and treatment operations. Eurostat is
currently working on improving data presentation to users so that the second
important aim of the revision of the Regulation, to improve the usability of
waste statistics, will also be achieved.
8.           Achievements
and outlook
Significant progress has been achieved with
regard to the compilation of waste statistics since reporting started in 2006.
The completeness of data delivery by Member States has steadily improved. Waste
statistics have reached a fairly high degree of comparability across countries
for most waste categories and sectors and considerable progress is being made
towards full data coverage. Overall, the data are of appropriate quality for
most countries. However, in order to help achieving EU environment, industrial
and raw materials policy objectives, further improvement is needed. 
The harmonisation of data is furthered by a
set of methodological guidance documents that are available from the website of
the Environmental
Data Centre on Waste and by workshops addressing areas in which there are serious
differences in data coverage. Errors and methodological deficits are identified
by the quality control system.
As a new approach to improving data
quality, Eurostat is setting up a programme that aims to support countries in which
there are serious shortcomings by means of bilateral meetings to enable discussion
of such issues, and options for improvement.
With the data delivery for 2010, data on
waste generation and treatment are now available for four reference years, i.e.
for the period from 2004 to 2010. With the extension of the time series, the
data is becoming increasingly useful, e.g. for building indicators and for use
in the field of Environmental Accounts.
At the same time, methodological changes in
individual countries may still have a significant impact on the time series, at
national level and at the level of the EU-27 aggregate. Developments over time
should thus still be interpreted with caution and after careful analysis of the
underlying data. Also, the effect of new concepts introduced by the revised
Waste Framework Directive, i.e. end-of-waste criteria, on waste statistics will
have to be monitored.
Indicators on ‘generation of waste
excluding major mineral wastes’ (tsdpc210) and on ‘generation of hazardous waste,
by economic activity’ (tsdpc250) are established and are both part of the set
of Sustainable Development Indicators. A new indicator on ‘landfilling of waste
excluding major mineral wastes’ has been developed and the plan is to include
it in the set of Resource Efficiency Indicators. The development of indicators
on other treatment categories, including recycling, is ongoing.
[1]               OJ L 332, 9.12.2002, p. 1.
[2]               COM(2008) 355 final, 13.6.2008.
[3]               COM(2011) 131 final, 17.3.2011.
[4]               Eurostat
website on Quality: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page?_pageid=2273.1 2273_47140765&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL.
[5]               OJ L 229, 6.9.2005, p. 6.
[6]               OJ L 312, 22.11.2008, p. 3.
[7]               Decision 2000/532/EC as regards the list of wastes,
OJ L 226, 6.9.2000, p. 3.
[8]               OJ L 253, 28.9.2010, p. 2.
[9]               OJ L 182, 16.7.1999, p. 1.
[10]             Commission Decision 2000/738/EC of 17 November 2000
concerning a questionnaire for Member States' reports on the implementation of
Directive 1999/31/EC on the landfill of waste (OJ L 298, 25.11.2000, p. 24).