REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the implementation of Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 on shipments of waste Generation, treatment and transboundary shipment of hazardous waste and other waste in the Member States of the European Union, 2013-2015; exercise of the power to adopt delegated acts
Date: 2018-11-22
Institutions: Directorate-General for Environment, European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, delegated legislation, export of waste, hazardous waste, powers of the institutions (EU), unauthorised dumping, waste disposal, waste recycling

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 22.11.2018 COM(2018) 762 final  REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the implementation of Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 on shipments of waste  Generation, treatment and transboundary shipment of hazardous waste and other waste in the Member States of the European Union, 2013-2015; exercise of the power to adopt delegated acts {SWD(2018) 468 final}  
 
 
GENERATION, TREATMENT AND SHIPMENT OF HAZARDOUS WASTE AND 
OTHER WASTE IN THE EU MEMBER STATES, 2013-2015; 
EXERCISE OF THE POWER TO ADOPT DELEGATED ACTS 

1.  INTRODUCTION 

The  European  Union  (“EU”)  is  a  party  to  the  Basel  Convention  on  the  Control  of 
Transboundary  Movements  of  Hazardous  Wastes  and  their  Disposal  of  22  March  1989 
(“the Convention”).  The Convention serves to protect human health and the environment 
against the adverse effects of hazardous wastes. 

Regulation  (EC)  No  1013/2006  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of 
14 June 2006 on Shipments of Waste1 (“the Regulation”) transposes the Convention into 
EU  law  and  is  directly  applicable  to  Member  States.  It  was  amended  in  2014  by 
Regulation (EU) No 660/2014.2  

Each  calendar  year,  each  Member  State  submits  a  report  on  the  implementation  of  the 
Convention over the previous calendar year to the Convention Secretariat. A copy of this 
report  (“the  Basel  report”)  is  also  sent  to  the  Commission,  along  with  additional 
information  in  the  form  of  a  reply  to  an  implementation  questionnaire  (“the  EU 
questionnaire”).3 

Every three years, the Commission draws up an implementation report based on the Basel 
reports  and  the  EU  questionnaires.  This  is  the  fifth  implementation  report  covering  the 
years 2013-2015. Details of the Member State reports can be found in the accompanying 
staff working document.  

The Convention uses the terms ‘import’ and ‘export’ for every shipment into or out of a 
country  that  is  a  party  to  the  Convention.  Under  EU  law,  these  terms  apply  only  to 
shipments into or out of the EU as a whole. In this document the terms appear in inverted 
commas and are defined in accordance with the Convention. 

All figures are approximate and have been rounded up. 

Exercise of the power to adopt delegated acts 

Article  58  of  the  Regulation  empowers  the  Commission  to  adopt  delegated  acts  in 
accordance  with  Article  58a  to  amend  annexes  to  the  Regulation.  The  aim  is  to  reflect 
agreed  changes  to  the  list  of  waste  adopted  in  accordance  with  Article  7  of  Directive 
2008/98/EC,  to  reflect  decisions  taken  under  relevant  international  conventions  and 
agreements  and  to  take  account  of  changes  agreed  under  the  Basel  Convention  and  the 
OECD  Decision4.  Article  58a(2)  states  that  this  power  is  to  be  delegated  to  the 
Commission for five years from 17 July 2014. The Commission is required to draw up a 
report on the delegation of power by nine months before the end of the five-year period. 

The power of delegation under Article 58 was conferred on the Commission through an 
introduced  by  Regulation  (EU)  No  660/2014,  which  applied  from 
amendment 

1 OJ L 190, 12.7.2006, p.1. 
2 OJ L 189, 27.06.2014, p. 135. 
3 Article 51 (1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006. 
4 Decision C(2001)107/Final of the OECD Council. 

1 

 
 
                                                           
1 January 2016. Since this date, the Commission has not exercised the powers delegated 
to  it  under  the  Regulation  because  there  have  not  been  any  changes  to  the  list  of  waste 
adopted in  accordance with Article 7 of Directive 2008/98/EC,  nor have there been any 
important  and  relevant  decisions  or  changes  agreed  under  relevant  international 
conventions and agreements, such as the Basel Convention and the OECD Decision, that 
would justify exercising these powers in a proportionate way. However, the Commission 
anticipates that such changes could be agreed under the Basel Convention in the course of 
the next few years. 

2.  REPORTING BY MEMBER STATES 

At the time this report was drawn up, all 28 EU Member States had submitted replies on 
both the Basel report and the EU questionnaire for 2013-2015. 

As  regards  data  on  the  total  quantities  of  waste  shipped  between  Member  States, 
discrepancies were observed between the amounts reported by the ‘export’ and ‘import’ 
countries (Tables 2-48 to 2-50). For the category ‘all notified waste’, these discrepancies 
varied between 2% (2013) and 12% (2014).  Similar patterns were observed for hazardous 
waste and all other notified wastes. One possible explanation for this inconsistency is that 
waste shipped out at the end of a calendar year may be counted as having been ‘exported’ 
within that year by the Member State shipping out the waste, while the receiving Member 
State  may  count  it  as  ‘imported’  only  once  it  has  been  processed  in  the  course  of  the 
following  year.   In such cases, amounts  ‘exported’ are likely to  be higher than amounts 
‘imported’  in  any  given  year,  while  the  reverse  phenomenon  may  be  observed  in  the 
following year. Moreover, some Member States do not consistently include in their Basel 
reports shipments of notified waste that do not fall within the scope of the Convention as 
they  are  not  legally  obliged  to  do  so.  Other  discrepancies  may  have  arisen  from  the 
manual processing of data from paper documents as fully electronic systems are not  yet 
operational.   

3.  GENERATION OF HAZARDOUS WASTE 

In the Basel report, Member States provide information on the total amount of hazardous 
wastes and ‘other wastes’ generated. Hazardous wastes are defined according to a list of 
waste streams and/or constituents (entries Y1 - Y45 under the Convention categories) and 
certain hazardous characteristics. In addition, if national law classifies waste as hazardous 
it  is  also  deemed  hazardous  if  notified  to  the  Secretariat  of  the  Convention.  Under  the 
Convention,  ‘other  wastes’  means  wastes  collected  from  households  (entry  Y46)  and 
residues arising from the incineration of household wastes (entry Y47). Such categories of 
wastes  are  subject  to  controls  similar  to  those  applicable  to  hazardous  wastes  under  the 
Convention. Section D of the staff working document gives the full list of Y-codes under 
the Convention. 

At the time this report was being drawn up, data on the total amount of hazardous waste 
generated  in  2015  were  incomplete,  as  11  Member  States  had  not  provided  any 
information (Table 2-1). Additionally, five Member States omitted data for 2014, and five 
failed  to  provide  data  for  2013.  These  data  gaps  were  filled  by  estimating  the  missing 
figures on the basis of data from previous years. 

2 

 
 
In  2015,  70  million  tonnes  of  hazardous  waste  were  generated  in  the  EU28,  while  71 
million were generated in 2014 and 75 million in 2013.5 

In 2013, the amount of hazardous waste generated per capita in the EU28 was 148 kg. The 
figure for 2014 was 141 kg, further declining to 138 kg in 2015 (Table 2-2). The annual 
average for 2013-2015 was 143 kg. 

Germany  generated  the  most  hazardous  waste  in  any  one  year,  with  17  million  tonnes 
produced  in  2013.  At  the  time  of  writing,  Germany  had  not  provided  any  data  on 
hazardous waste generation for 2014 or 2015.   

Of the Member States reporting on waste generation using Y codes, Poland reported the 
highest generation of waste in categories Y46 and Y47, with 11 million tonnes in 2015. 

4.  WASTE SHIPMENTS OUT OF MEMBER STATES 

All 28 Member States submitted information on hazardous waste ‘exports’ in their Basel 
reports for 2013-2015. 

In 2013-2015, 1.2 million tonnes of hazardous waste were shipped from  Member States 
out of the EU6, while over the same period 6.2 million tonnes were shipped into the EU 
from third countries. 

From  2001  to  2015,  trans-boundary  trade  of  hazardous  waste  within  and  out  of  the  EU  
rose  by  53%  (Table  2-6).  Most  of  this  increase  was  from  2001  to  2007,  with  a  drop  of 
24% between 2008 and 2015. 

In 2013-2015, the United Kingdom (UK) was the largest ‘exporter’ of all notified waste 
(with 12 million tonnes). It overtook the Netherlands (with 8 million tonnes), which was 
the largest ‘exporter’ in 2010-2012 (Table 2-9). In 2010, the UK began ‘exporting’ waste 
for energy recovery7, and this seems to have contributed to the rise of its total ‘exports’ in 
these  years.  As  in  2010-2012,  France  and  Italy  were  the  two  largest  ‘exporters’  of 
hazardous waste in 2013-2015, shipping out a total of 4 million tonnes each. 

Hazardous waste accounted for 35% of the total amount of waste reported as ‘exported’ 
from  Member  States  in  2013-2015  (i.e.  hazardous  waste  and  other  notified  waste) 
(Table 2-11,  Table  2-12  and  Table  2-13).  Cyprus,  the  Czech  Republic,  Estonia,  Latvia, 
Malta and Romania stand out as ‘exporting’ the highest percentage of hazardous waste as 
a share of their total reported waste ‘exports’, with hazardous waste comprising 90% or 
more of the total amount of waste ‘exported’ for each. 

The  2010-2012  Implementation  Report  noted  that  the  amount  of  waste  classified  using 
EU or national codes instead of Convention Y codes had been increasing. This trend has 
continued;  in  2013-2015  ‘EU  or  National  Non-Hazardous  Waste’  (i.e.  non-hazardous 
waste  classified  using  national  or  EWC  codes)  became  the  largest  waste  category 
(Tables 2-14 to 2-16) for the first time (in 2013 and 2014).  

Less  than  1%  of  waste  was  shipped  out  without  classification  in  both  2013  and  2014 
(Tables  2-15  and  2-16).  In  2015,  2%  was  shipped  without  classification,  all  of  which 

5 Historical data have not been discussed or included in the working document, as Eurostat identified 

inconsistencies in the data on waste generation reported via the Basel reports prior to 2013. 

6 only to OECD countries. 
7 Recovery operation R1 

3 

 
 
                                                           
came  from  Ireland  (Table  2-14).  With  the  exception  of  2015,  the  trend  seen  since  2009 
continued, with less than 1% of waste being shipped unclassified (Table 2-17). 

Based on the most up-to-date data available, roughly 92% of the EU’s hazardous waste is 
treated in the country of origin (Table 2-8).  In 2015, four Member States ‘exported’ over 
40% of their hazardous waste8: 

 
Ireland – 78% 
  Luxembourg - 84% 
  Malta – 42% 
  Slovenia - 44% 

In the period 2013-2015, about 75% of the hazardous waste shipped out of Member States 
was  treated  in  a  recovery  operation.  This  figure  has  remained  fairly  constant  in  recent 
years  (Table  2-18).  During  the  reporting  period,  about  22%  of  the  hazardous  waste 
shipped  out  of  Member  States  was  treated  in  a  disposal  operation  while  1.5%  of 
hazardous  waste  was  subjected  to  ‘mixed’  treatment  (i.e.  a  combination  of  disposal  and 
recovery). In some cases, the method of treatment for a small fraction of hazardous waste 
shipped out of Member States was unspecified (under 0.1%). 

In  2013,  94%  of  all  notified  waste  was  ‘exported’  from  one  Member  State  to  another 
Member  State  within  the  EU,  while  the  figure  stood  at  92%  in  both  2014  and  2015 
(Table 2-22).  In  2013,  less  than  1%  of  notified  waste  was  shipped  to  non-OECD 
countries9, while in both 2014 and 2015 the figure was 2.5%. As regards hazardous waste, 
97% was ‘exported’ from one Member States to another Member State within the EU in 
2013, falling slightly to 92% in 2014 and 2015 (Table 2-23).  

Seven Member States (Austria, France, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands, Slovenia and 
Sweden) provided information on the amounts of wastes collected from households (entry 
Y46) that were ‘exported’ for disposal in 2013-2015 (Table 2-39). Sweden was the only 
one of these to report having ‘exported’ wastes collected from households for deposit to 
land (e.g.. landfilling)10, with a total of 3,000 tonnes shipped within the EU in 2013-2015.  

Eight Member States (Austria, the Czech Republic, Finland, Germany, Ireland, Italy, the 
Netherlands  and  the  UK)  reported  ‘exporting’  wastes  collected  from  households  for 
energy recovery11 in 2013-2015 (Table 2-40). With the exception of Austria, France and 
Germany  which  shipped  both  within  the  EU  and  to  non-EU  OECD  countries,  all  other 
Member  States  ‘exporting’  for  the  purpose  of  energy  recovery  did  so  solely  within  the 
EU.  The  UK  was  by  far  the  largest  ‘exporter’  of  wastes  collected  from  households  for 
energy recovery, shipping 7 million tonnes over the three-year period. 

16  Member  States  (Austria,  Belgium,  Bulgaria,  Croatia,  Cyprus,  Denmark,  Finland, 
France,  Germany,  Ireland,  Luxembourg,  Malta,  the  Netherlands,  Portugal,  Slovakia  and 
the  UK)  reported  ‘exporting’  wastes  collected  from  households  for  ‘other’  recovery 

8   Smaller countries may lack sufficient facilities for treating hazardous waste domestically. 
9  In this report, reference to OECD countries is a reference to countries to which the OECD Decision (i.e.  

Decision C(2001)107/Final) applies. Likewise, reference to non-OECD countries is a reference to 
countries to which that Decision does not apply. 

10 Disposal operation D1: Deposit into or onto land (e.g. landfill, etc.) 
11 Recovery operation R1: Use principally as a fuel to generate energy 

4 

 
 
                                                           
operations  (i.e.  not  R1  recovery),  all  solely  within  the  EU  (Table  2-40).  Again,  the  UK 
was the largest ‘exporter’, with 352,000 tonnes in 2013-2015. 

5.  WASTE SHIPMENTS INTO MEMBER STATES 

All Member States submitted information on waste ‘imports’ in their annual Basel reports 
for the 2013-2015 reporting period.12 

In 2013, 19 million tonnes of notified waste were shipped into Member States from other 
Member  States  and  third  countries,  of  which  9  million  tonnes  were  hazardous 
(Table 2-30).  This  figure  rose  to  25  million  tonnes  in  2014,  of  which  7  million  tonnes 
were  hazardous,  and  24  million  tonnes  in  2015,  of  which  10  million  tonnes  were 
hazardous (Table 2-29 and Table 2-28).  

This  rise  in  ‘imports’  continues  a  trend:  since  2001,  the  amount  of  all  notified  waste 
shipped  into  Member  States  has  increased  by  222%,  with  a  41%  increase  between 
2010-2012  and  2013-2015  (Table  2-35).  The  amount  of  hazardous  waste  shipped  into 
Member States (Table 2-36) rose by almost the same percentage between 2001 and 2015, 
at 225%, which is in line with the increase in ‘imports’ of all notified waste. 

Over  2013-2015,  Germany  was  once  again  the  biggest  ‘importer’  of  all  notified  waste, 
shipping  in  19  million  tonnes  (Tables  2-28  to  2-30).  The  Netherlands  was  the  second 
biggest  ‘importer’  over  the  three-year  period  with  13  million  tonnes,  overtaking  France 
(the second biggest  ‘importer’ in  2010-2012), which came  third with  11  million  tonnes. 
These countries all have significant demand for incinerator feedstock, which contributes 
to their overall ‘import’ figures. Germany also ‘imported’ the most hazardous waste over 
2013-2015 (8 million tonnes), while France (with 7 million tonnes) ‘imported’ more than 
the Netherlands in this case (3 million tonnes).  

In  2015,  81%  of  the  hazardous  waste  shipped  into  Member  States  was  treated  in  a 
recovery  operation,  and  19%  in  a  disposal  operation  (Table  2-31).  For  the  reporting 
period,  the  average  values  for  the  amount  of  ‘imported’  hazardous  waste  treated  in  a 
recovery  and  a  disposal  operation  are  78%  and  22%,  respectively.  Less  than  0.1%  was 
submitted to ‘mixed’ treatment (i.e. a combination of disposal and recovery) or reported 
as  being  ‘imported’  for  an  unspecified  treatment.  The  proportion  of  hazardous  waste 
‘imported’  for  disposal  is  higher  than  in  2001  -  when  it  was  11%.  However,  the 
proportion of waste ‘imported’ for disposal has been falling slightly over recent reporting 
periods, from 25% in 2007-2009 to 24% in 2010-2012 and 22% in 2013-2015. 

Germany accounted for the greatest proportion of hazardous waste ‘imported’ for disposal 
in  2013-2015,  with  46%.  This  is  probably  because  the  country  has  more  treatment 
facilities  for  disposing  safely  of  hazardous  waste  than  other  EU  Member  States.  France 
accounted  for  the  greatest  proportion  of  hazardous  waste  ‘imported’  for  recovery  in 
2013-2015,  with  32%.  Germany  was  a  close  second  with  29%.  Again,  this  is  probably 
because these countries have suitable treatment facilities. 

As in 2010-2012, almost all the hazardous and other notified waste shipped into Member 
States in 2013-2015 came from other EU or EFTA countries (Table 2-35). Together, these 
two sources accounted for 98% in 2013, 99% in 2014, and 98% in 2015. This percentage 

12 Malta did not report having ‘imported’ any hazardous or other waste in 2015. 

5 

 
 
                                                           
has remained very stable since 2001, only ever varying by a percentage point. Meanwhile, 
EU  and  EFTA  countries  together  accounted  for  almost  all  the  hazardous  waste  shipped 
into Member States in 2013-2015. In both 2013 and 2014, they accounted for 97% and in 
2015 for 96% of the total.  

The  amount  of  hazardous  waste  shipped  in  from  non-OECD  countries  has  increased  by 
almost  a  factor  of  nine  since  200113;  however,  as  a  percentage  of  the  total  amount  of 
hazardous waste shipped into the EU, it remains low and has only risen from 1% to 2% 
since 2001 (Table 2-36). 

6.  ILLEGAL SHIPMENTS, INSPECTIONS AND ENFORCEMENT MEASURES 

Information on illegal shipments is reported by Member States in the EU questionnaire. 
25 Member States reported illegal shipments as occurring, except for Latvia, Luxembourg 
and Malta.  

While all 28 Member States provided information on the number of spot checks carried 
out  on  shipments  of  waste  or  related  recovery  and  disposal,  only  11  Member  States 
framed  their  responses  in  each  year  in  accordance  with  the  format  of  the  EU 
questionnaire,  which  asks  for  the  number  of  checks  made  and  the  number  of  illegal 
shipments  identified.  Furthermore,  not  all  EU  Member  States  detailed  the  enforcement 
measures in place to prevent illegal shipments of waste. This inconsistent reporting results 
in  poor-quality  data,  meaning  that  it  is  impossible  to  draw  more  than  cautious 
conclusions.  

Member States provided different levels of detail in response to this question because they 
interpreted  the  term  ‘spot  check’  differently.  For  example,  some  provided  details  of 
isolated  cases  of  physical  checking,  while  others  also  provided  information  on 
administrative checks. Importantly, it is not always possible to know which definition has 
been used – even in the case of Member States that reported in the requested format – as 
this is not made explicit. 

The  Commission  has  already  taken  steps  to  improve  the  consistency  of  Member  State 
reporting on this matter. According to the amendment introduced by Regulation (EU) No 
660/2014, the undefined term ‘spot check’ was replaced by the term ‘inspection’, which is 
now defined in the Regulation. As this change took effect from 1 January 2016, Member 
State  reporting  on  inspections  is  expected  to  be  more  consistent  in  the  next  reporting 
period. 

In total, there were 2,800 illegal shipments of waste reported in 2013-2015, an increase on 
the  2,500  cases  reported  in  2010-2012.14    The  total  number  of  reported  checks  has  also 
increased,  from  ~450,000  in  2010-2012  to  ~600,000  in  2013-2015,  which  may  account 
for the larger number of illegal shipments detected. 

In  2013-2015,  Belgium  reported  most  illegal  shipments  with  a  total  of  644  cases, 
accounting for 23% of all cases reported in the EU28 from 2013 to 2015. The Netherlands 
reported the second largest number, with 493 cases (18%), followed by the UK, with 385 

13 Shipment data for Member States that joined the European Union after 2004 were collected from the 

reports submitted to the Basel Convention.  

14 Some of these cases may possibly have been reported twice, i.e. by both the country of destination and the 

country of dispatch. 

6 

 
 
                                                           
(14%).  These  were  also  the  three  Member  States  that  reported  most  spot  checks  on 
shipments  of  waste,  which  would  account  for  why  more  illegal  shipments  were 
discovered. The reason for the large number of cases reported by the Netherlands and the 
UK may also, as suggested by the IMPEL report on enforcement actions for 2014-2015, 
be  the  fact  that  these  countries  are  not  land-locked  and  can  screen  shipments  against 
shipping line and customs data.15 

The IMPEL report found that, among 31 participating countries (the EU28 plus Norway, 
Serbia and Switzerland), 4,787 administrative and 12,396 physical transport checks were 
conducted. Of these, 28.7% (approximately 4,930) were waste shipment inspections, with 
815 shipments found to be illegal. In contrast, Member State reporting to the Commission 
gives a figure of around 2,000 illegal shipments for 2014 and 2015. It is thought that the 
IMPEL figures provide a ‘snapshot’ of targeted activity within the participating countries, 
rather than giving an accurate picture of enforcement activity within the EU. 

It should also be noted that the lack of reporting by Latvia, Luxembourg and Malta does 
not necessarily mean that no illegal shipments took place in these Member States. Rather, 
it may be indicative of low-frequency or non-targeted inspections. 

13  Member  States  (Austria,  Belgium,  Croatia,  the  Czech  Republic,  Estonia,  France, 
Germany,  Italy,  Latvia,  Malta,  Poland,  Slovakia  and  Slovenia)  provided  details  of 
penalties that can be imposed under national law on persons undertaking illegal shipments 
of  waste.  12  of  them  reported  details  of  financial  penalties  (the  exception  being 
Germany).  The  highest  possible  financial  penalty  was  reported  by  the  Czech  Republic, 
where both natural persons and legal entities can be fined up to EUR 2 million. Estonia, 
Latvia and Slovenia all have higher levels of fines for legal entities compared with natural 
persons,  and  Malta  has  a  higher  minimum  fine  for  repeat  offenders  –  although  the 
maximum fine remains the same. 

Seven  Member  States  (Belgium,  Finland,  France,  Germany,  Italy,  Malta,  and  Poland) 
provided information on prison sentences that can be imposed as penalties under national 
law. The longest sentence mentioned – 10 years, for serious damage to the environment – 
was  in  Germany.  A  two-year  sentence  appears  to  be  a  common  penalty,  with  Finland, 
France, Italy and Malta all mentioning terms of this length. 

The data are not  robust enough to  draw conclusions on whether higher fines  and longer 
prison  sentences  deter the illegal  shipment  of waste.  Interestingly,  Belgium  reported the 
highest total number of illegal shipments, even though it has the second and third highest 
fines (up to €500,000 in Flanders and up to €1,000,000 in Wallonia), and prison sentences 
can be handed down. 

7.  GENERAL CONCLUSIONS 

Reporting and data quality 

For  the  reporting  period,  2013-2015,  all  28  Member  States  submitted  responses  to  both 
the Basel report and the EU questionnaire. 

15 IMPEL – TFD Enforcement Actions (2016), Project Report (2014-2015), Enforcement of the European 
Waste Shipment Regulation, https://www.impel.eu/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/IMPEL-Enforcement-
Actions-2014-15-FINAL-report.pdf 

7 

 
 
                                                           
Most discrepancies in the data on the total quantities of waste shipped between Member 
States  were  observed  in  the  amounts  reported  as  ‘exported’  and  ‘imported’.  For  all 
notified waste, the least  accurate reporting  year was 2014, where the amount ‘imported’ 
was 12% higher than the amount ‘exported’, while for hazardous waste the least accurate 
year was 2015, where the amount ‘imported’ was 19% higher than the amount ‘exported’. 

Waste shipments 

Most  hazardous  waste  is  treated  within  the  country  of  origin,  with  23  Member  States 
‘exporting’ less than 25% of their hazardous waste. In 2015, Ireland, Luxembourg, Malta 
and Slovenia were the biggest ‘exporters’ of hazardous waste, exporting over 40% of their 
hazardous waste. 

In 2013-2015, 1.2 million tonnes of hazardous waste were shipped from  Member States 
out  of the EU, while over the same period 6.2 million tonnes were shipped into the EU 
from  third  countries  (Table  2-41).16  The  EU  therefore,  remains  a  net  ‘importer’  of 
hazardous waste, having shipped in 5 million more tonnes than it shipped out. As the EU 
generated 216 million tonnes of hazardous waste during the three-year reporting period, 
this also means that less than 1% of hazardous waste generated was ‘exported’ out of the 
EU. 

Sweden  was  the  only  Member  State  to  report  ‘exporting’  Y46  waste  within  the  EU  for 
disposal  operation  D1  (e.g.  landfilling),  shipping  a  total  of  3,000  tonnes  in  2013-2015. 
Austria,  the  Czech  Republic,  Finland,  Germany,  Ireland,  Italy,  the  Netherlands  and  the 
UK all reported ‘exporting’ wastes collected from households for energy recovery (use as 
a fuel), with the UK being by far the biggest exporter for this purpose, having shipped 7 
million tonnes within the EU in 2013-2015. 

The  proportion  of  hazardous  waste  shipped  out  of  Member  States  for  recovery  has 
remained  fairly  constant  since  2001  and  stood  around  75%  in  the  period  2013-2015. 
Meanwhile,  the  proportion  of  hazardous  waste  shipped  for  disposal  has  increased  from 
16%  in  2001  to  24%  in  2015.  This  however,  corresponds  to  only  2%  of  all  hazardous 
waste  generated (as stated above, most hazardous waste is  treated within the country of 
origin). 

The EU as  a whole does not  appear to  be closer  to  self-sufficiency in  treating either all 
notified waste or specifically hazardous waste than it was in 2001. While the percentages 
of  both  waste  types  shipped  within  the  EU  have  varied  over  the  past  15  years,  in  2015 
both  remained  slightly  lower  than  they  were  in  2001  (92%  compared  with  93%  for  all 
notified waste and 91% compared with 95% for hazardous waste). 

Illegal shipments of waste  

2,800 illegal shipments of waste were reported in 2013-2015, a 12% increase on the 2,500 
cases  reported  in  2010-2012.  However,  the  year-on-year  increase  seen  over  2010-2012 
did not continue, with illegal shipments falling to 800 in 2013 before stabilising at 1,000 
in  2014  and  2015.  By  comparison,  the  IMPEL  report  found  that  there  were  815  illegal 
waste shipments between 2014 and 2015.  

16 Hazardous wastes were not exported to non-OECD countries. 

8 

 
 
 
                                                           
The  data  provided  by  Member  States  on  the  number  of  spot  checks  was  very  variable. 
Responses contained varying levels of detail and different interpretations of the term spot 
check.  Overall,  it  is  interesting  to  note  that  the  total  number  of  reported  checks  has 
increased,  from  ~450,000  in  2010-2012  to  ~600,000  in  2013-2015,  which  may  account 
for the greater number of illegal shipments detected.  

12 Member States provided details of financial penalties that can be imposed on persons 
shipping waste illegally. Seven provided details of prison sentences. Other Member State 
responses suggest that they also use these deterrents, but they did not provide any details 
in  their  response.  The  data  are  therefore  not  robust  enough  to  conclude  whether  higher 
fines and longer prison sentences act as a deterrent to the illegal shipments of waste. 

8.  NEXT STEPS  

Article 60(2a) of the Regulation stipulates that a review of the Regulation must be carried 
out by 31 December 2020. At the time of drafting this report, the Commission had already 
started to prepare for an evaluation of the Regulation, which is the first step in the process 
towards its review. The purpose of the evaluation will be to assess whether the Regulation 
has  met  its  objectives  on  the  basis  of  five  criteria,  namely  effectiveness,  efficiency, 
coherence,  relevance  and  EU  added  value  as  well  as  to  identify  lessons  learnt  during 
implementation. 

9