The road from landfilling to recycling: common destination, different routes

The road from landfilling to recycling:
common destination, different routes

---

Cover design: EEA
Left cover photo © Pawel Kazmierczyk
Right cover photo © PhotoAlto
Layout: EEA
Legal notice
The contents of this publication do not necessarily reflect the official opinions of the European Commission
or other institutions of the European Communities. Neither the European Environment Agency nor any
person or company acting on behalf of the Agency is responsible for the use that may be made of the
information contained in this report.
Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 2007
ISBN 978-92-9167-930-0
© EEA, Copenhagen, 2007
For translation or reproduction rights please contact EEA (address information below).
REG.NO. DK-000244
European Environment Agency
Kongens Nytorv 6
1050 Copenhagen K
Denmark
Tel.: +45 33 36 71 00
Fax: +45 33 36 71 99
Web: eea.europa.eu
Enquiries: eea.europa.eu/enquiries

---

Summary
Achieving effective policy outcomes: the
Three country groupings defined by
importance of tailoring waste management
diversion strategy
policies to national conditions
-30°
-20°
-10°
0°
10°
20°
30°
40°
50°
60°
Each country's waste generation profile varies
according to numerous factors including economic
60°
growth, population density and consumer
60°
behaviour. Waste management choices depend
on the existing waste management facilities,
infrastructure and governance structures. EU waste
policy is instrumental for determining the potential
outcomes to be achieved, but country-level
50°
policies determine the actual outcome. To gain
50°
insights into whether a strategic shift in broader
waste management has occurred, the EEA is
analysing the approaches and combinations of
policy instruments that countries are taking in the
management of their municipal waste, particularly
40°
in the context of the Landfill Directive.
40°
Country factsheets on waste policies and
trends across the EU-25: a useful 'one-stop-
0
500
1000
1500 Km
0°
10°
20°
30°
shop' for information
Three country groupings defined by diversion strategy
The EEA and its Topic Centre on Resource and
1: incineration > 25 % and material recovery > 25 %
Waste Management has carried out a survey of
2: incineration < 25 % and material recovery > 25 %
municipal waste policies and trends across the
3: incineration < 25 % and material recovery < 25 %
EU-25, and has consolidated the results into one
Outside data coverage
easily-referenced source: a set of 25 country
factsheets, freely available at http://waste.eionet.
Patterns in approaches to waste management:
europa.eu/etcwmf/publications/factsheet. The
the emergence of three country groupings
factsheets contain information about:
The EEA's country factsheets show that broadly
speaking countries can be categorised under
• national legislative frameworks on waste;
three waste management 'groupings', according
to the strategies for diversion of municipal waste
• national policies, implemented or planned, to
away from landfill and the relative shares of
shift waste management practices in a less
landfilling, material recovery (mainly recycling and
environmentally harmful direction according to
composting) and incineration. The first grouping
the waste hierarchy;
comprises countries which maintain high levels
of both material recovery and incineration, and
• data on waste generation and management;
which have relatively low landfill levels. The second
grouping brings together countries with high
• list of tools and instruments, implemented or
material recovery rates and medium incineration
planned at national or regional level that aim
levels and where there is a medium dependence on
to manage municipal waste and used tyres
landfill. The third grouping contains those countries
according to the waste hierarchy.
whose material recovery and incineration levels
are both low and whose dependence on landfill is
relatively high.
The road from landfilling to recycling: common destination, different routes
3

---

Introduction
There is an important body of EU policy on waste
consumption patterns. It is also important because
which influences policy actions in the Member
there is a growing interest in sharing best practice
States. Increasingly, policy makers — not least
and exchanging national-level experience across
the European Parliament — and the public want to
Europe, with the common goal of achieving more
know the extent of this influence and its effects.
cost-effective solutions to the various problems
For example, do policy actions in Member States
being faced.
deal effectively with the problems for which the
EU policy was designed? If not, is this because the
This brochure is a first step by the EEA. It informs
EU policy is flawed or are Member States' policy
discussions on the effects and effectiveness of
actions inappropriate? Does it stem from a lack of
selected waste policies in Europe by providing
will to make what has been put in place work? Or
a picture of the different approaches taken by
are there other reasons?
countries to tackling growing waste volumes,
focusing in particular on municipal waste, and by
It is increasingly important to provide answers to
comparing these to the trends we observe in waste
these questions because waste volumes in the EU
generation and treatment.
are growing, driven by changing production and
4
The road from landfilling to recycling: common destination, different routes

---

Diversion of municipal waste from landfill:
a new EEA study
The EEA has undertaken a number of studies
well and to discourage what's unsustainable, is
on the effects and effectiveness of selected
essential. Drafting national policies in response
environmental polices in the EU. The approach
to the 1999 EU Landfill Directive provided an
of these studies — detailed examination of policy
important opportunity to put such thinking into
actions in place at country level, investigation of
practice. But has a strategic shift occurred?
the institutional and policy context, elucidation
Have countries and regions succeeded in putting
of features that work well — has proved to be a
in place systems tailored to reduce waste and
useful one. The Agency's work in this area has
increase recycling? With its new study, the EEA
underlined an important lesson: for environment
seeks insights into these and other questions.
policy to deliver effective results, governance
is as important as policy design (EEA Reports
The aim of the evaluation is to assess national
2/2005, 3/2005, 1/2006). Building on this work,
waste management policies across the EU in the
the EEA is currently evaluating national policies
context of the Landfill Directive and other relevant
implemented in the context of the existing EU
EU waste policies, and to evaluate the results of
waste policy framework.
these policies in diverting municipal waste from
landfill. The study's first step has been to develop
The objective of the study is to reach conclusions
the country factsheets, which provide the basis
on whether, and how, this EU policy framework
for in-depth evaluation of waste management
acts as a driver for strategic change in waste
policy measures in selected countries and regions.
management at the national level, with a
The EEA aims to update these factsheets to
particular focus on municipal waste.
ensure that they continue to provide a valuable
up-to-date source of information; updating will
The vision to bring about strategic change to
include the addition of Romania and Bulgaria to
improve waste management, by choosing policy
cover the full EU-27.
instruments to encourage more of what works
Photo: © stock_xchng
The road from landfilling to recycling: common destination, different routes


---

Europe's waste policies: powerful and
far-reaching?
As confirmed in the Sixth Environment Action
Directive which is currently under revision, as well
Programme, waste management is one of the
as by the Thematic Strategy on the Prevention
key priorities of EU environmental policy and the
and Recycling of Waste (CEC, 2005). The waste
framework in this area has been progressively
hierarchy is an environmental concept. Taking
put in place since the 1970s. However, as the
into account cost-effectiveness criteria may lead
Commission has made clear, this framework 'is
to different implementations of this concept in
only the backbone of waste management practice.
different countries, when working towards optimal
It necessarily needs complementary action by
waste management strategies.
Member States and local authorities' (CEC, 2003).
The amended Waste Framework Directive, final
In municipal waste management, landfilling of
adoption of which is expected by the end of
untreated waste is generally the worst option
2009, will be an important step towards further
for the environment because of its emissions of
coordinating efforts in this area. Nevertheless,
methane, its long-term emissions to soils and
most of the decisions on how to realise agreed
groundwater as well as the loss of resources it
objectives will continue to be taken at national,
entails. The position of waste incineration with
regional or local level within each Member
energy recovery in the hierarchy is a subject of
State. This allows each Member State to tailor
intense debate under the process for the review of
policies to its own particular circumstances: its
the Waste Framework Directive. However, it is clear
geography, governance, geology, public opinion
that its position in the hierarchy is more favourable
and the existing waste management facilities and
if high energy recovery rates are in place. With
infrastructure.
regard to emissions, according to legislation strict
emissions controls must be met by all countries in
Current EU waste policy is based on a concept
any case.
known as the waste hierarchy. This means that,
ideally, waste generation should be prevented
One of the most ambitious and important waste
or reduced, and that which is generated should
policies in the EU is the Landfill Directive (Directive
be recovered by means of re-use, recycling
1999/31/EC on Landfill of Waste), which aims
and other recovery operations, thus reducing
to prevent or reduce as far as possible negative
disposal operations. This hierarchy is likely to be
effects on the environment from the landfilling of
strengthened by the amended Waste Framework
waste (Box 1).
6
The road from landfilling to recycling: common destination, different routes

---

Box 1
The Landfill Directive: a challenge for future European waste policy
The Landfill Directive pursues two
BMW quantities continue to grow, increasing
approaches: firstly to introduce stringent
quantities will need to be diverted from
technical requirements for landfills; and
landfill. The amount of municipal waste in
secondly, to divert biodegradable municipal
the EU-25 is projected to grow by 25 percent
waste (BMW) from landfills by setting
between 2005 and 2020 (Figure 1). If the
targets for the landfill of BMW in 2006, 2009
share of biodegradable waste in municipal
and 2016 (see also Figure 6). Even more
waste remains constant, the amount of BMW
ambitious targets for the post-2016 period
will also grow by 25 percent. It will therefore
have recently been proposed by the European
be a big challenge for EU Member States
Parliament.
to meet the targets, and based on current
The targets are based on the quantity
policies it is estimated that the EU-25 will not
generated in 1995, and the main implication
achieve them. Thus, more efforts are required
of this approach is that there is an absolute
if targets are to be met. One option is policies
limit placed on the quantity of biodegradable
to promote waste prevention, but the effects
municipal waste (in tonnes) that can be
of current waste prevention policies are not
landfilled by the specific target dates. Thus, if
yet evident in the available data.
Figure 1
Projected generation and landfilling of municipal waste in the EU-25
MSW generation/landfilling (million tonnes)
350
Historical
Projected
300
250
200
Municipal waste
generation
150
100
50
Municipal waste
Estimated landfill of BMW
landfilling
0
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
Note:
Figures from 1980–2004 are data from Eurostat. Figures from 2005–2020 are projections.
Source:
ETC/RWM (2007).
The road from landfilling to recycling: common destination, different routes
7

---

Patterns in national approaches to municipal
waste management: insights from the factsheets
Overall, landfilling is still the predominant
except Luxembourg, Cyprus, Lithuania, Malta and
treatment option for the EU's municipal waste.
Finland for composting).
In 2004, about 45 percent of the total municipal
waste was landfilled while 18 percent was
Increases in recycling were widely observed
incinerated. However, there are significant
between 1998/1999 and 2002/2003: most countries
differences in how dependent countries are on
increased recycling rates by at least 5 percentage
landfilling. Figure 2 clearly shows that several
points, and some — Latvia and Germany —
countries — the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden
exceeded this increase (Figure 3). Ireland has
and Belgium — have already arrived at very
increased recycling from 8 percent to 17 percent
low landfilling rates. Those countries not only
since 1998. In the same period of time composting
have a substantial level of incineration; they
only increased slightly and in many countries it was
also have a high level of material recovery.
stable (Figure 4). The increased recycling may have
In general, there seem to be two strategies
been driven by the implementation of the Packaging
for diverting municipal waste from landfill: to
Waste Directive, whereas targets on landfilling of
aim for high material recovery combined with
BMW in the Landfill Directive and national policies
incineration, or to aim for material recovery which
to meet those targets had not yet had an effect in
includes recycling, composting and mechanical
2002/2003.
biological treatment (MBT). In 2002/2003 (the
most recent years for which Eurostat data on
Incineration is widely used in Denmark, Sweden,
recycling and composting are available), recycling
Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Belgium and
and composting accounted for 18 percent and
France. In addition, some countries are extending
10 percent respectively across Europe (EU-25
incineration in order to comply with landfill bans
Figure 2
Use of landfilling, incineration and material recovery as treatment options in 2004
%
100
90
80
70
60
50
Landfill
40
30
Calculated material recovery
20
Incineration with enery recovery
10
Other recovery operations
0
s
g
5
d
al
3
y
m
a
a
a
Italy
200
Malta
AustriaFrance EU-2
FinlanIreland
LatviCyprus
GreecePoland
DenmarkSweden
Belgium
Germany
Portug
Hungar
Sloveni
k Republic
Lithuani
Netherland
Luxembour
Spain, 2003
Estonia, United KingdoCzech Republic
Slova
Note:
To provide an estimate of material recovery, the above figure uses the residual of municipal waste generated minus
municipal waste landfilled and incinerated (with minor adjustments). Thus defined, material recovery covers recycling,
composting and other types of recovery operations (except incineration with energy recovery). The category 'other'
covers sorting operations for the Netherlands, and differences between Eurostat data and national statistics for
Germany, Spain and Estonia.
Source:
Eurostat Structural Indicators on municipal waste generated, incinerated and landfilled, supplemented with national
statistics: Statistisches Bundesamt (2006), Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek (2007), Ministerio de Medio Ambiente
(2005), EEIC (2005).
8
The road from landfilling to recycling: common destination, different routes

---

(Figure 5). Between 2000 and 2005, Austria
respectively. In comparison, Luxembourg,
and Sweden both increased their incineration by
Slovakia, Hungary and Finland reduced their
12 percentage points to 23 percent and 50 percent
incineration by 1–7 percentage points.
Figure 3
Trends in recycling of municipal
Figure 4
Trends in composting of municipal
waste, latest available five years
waste, latest available five years
-30°
-20°
-10°
0°
10°
20°
30°
40°
50°
60°
-30°
-20°
-10°
0°
10°
20°
30°
40°
50°
60°
60°
60°
60°
60°
50°
50°
50°
50°
40°
40°
40°
40°
0
500
1000
1500 Km
0
500
1000
1500 Km
0°
10°
20°
30°
0°
10°
20°
30°
Trends in recycling of municipal waste, latest available
Trends in composting of municipal waste, latest
five years
available five years
% change
0–2
3–5
7–9
Reduction
% change
Reduction
0–1
2–3
Insufficient data
Outside data coverage
Insufficient data
Outside data coverage
Note:
The trends in recycling of municipal waste are
Note:
The trends in composting of municipal waste are
calculated as changes in the percent municipal
calculated as the changes in the percent municipal
waste recycled, preferably over five years, and
waste composted, preferably over five years,
represented in percentage points. The map
and represented in percentage points, based on
is based on the most recent available data
the most recent available data, e.g. in Latvia the
e.g. in Latvia the recycling rate has increased by
composting rate has increased by 3 percentage
7 percentage points from 2 % in 2001 to 9 % in
points from 2 % in 2001 to 5 % in 2003.
2003.

1998 to 2002: DE, FR, IE, SE, and SI

1998 to 2002: DE, ES, FR, IE, IT, SE, SI, and UK
1999 to 2003: AT; BE, DK, EE, GR, IT, NL, PL, and PT

1999 to 2003: AT, BE, CZ, DK, GR, NL, PL, and PT
2001 to 2003: LV; 2000 to 2002: UK and ES.

2000 to 2003: EE

2001 to 2003: LV.
Source:
Eurostat: Municipal waste composted, except Italy
where national data have been used (APAT, 2007).
Source:
Eurostat: Municipal waste recycled.
Supplemented with national Austrian data
(Umweltbundesamt).
The road from landfilling to recycling: common destination, different routes
9

---

Figure 5
Recent trends in municipal
Austria, the Netherlands, Belgium, Sweden,
waste incineration with energy
Denmark and Germany have already met the
recovery, 2000–2005
Landfill Directive's BMW reduction target for 2016
(Figure 6). France has reached its target for 2009,
-30°
-20°
-10°
0°
10°
20°
30°
40°
50°
60°
and Italy and Finland have reached the target for
2006. Greece, the United Kingdom and the EU-
10 have until 2010 to meet the first reduction
60°
target, because countries which landfilled more
60°
than 80 percent of the BMW generated in 1995
can obtain a 4-year derogation. Hungary has
already met its first 2010 target. It is clear that
rising waste generation is likely to make it even
more difficult for some Member States to meet the
50°
targets.
50°
40°
40°
Note:
The trends in municipal waste incinerated
0
500
1000
1500 Km
are calculated as the changes in the percent
0°
10°
20°
30°
municipal waste incinerated from 2000 to 2005,
and represented in percentage points e.g. in
Recent trends in municipal waste incineration with
Sweden the incineration rate has increased by
energy recovery, 2000–2005
12 percentage points from 38 % in 2000 to
50 % in 2005.
% change
No incineration
Reduction
0–3
> 3
Outside data coverage
Source:
Eurostat Structural Indicators, Municipal waste
incinerated.
Figure 6
Biodegradable Municipal Waste landfilled in 2003 compared to generation in 1995
% landfilled
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
Note:
* Marks countries with different target years
0
(2010, 2013, 2020). The figure shows BMW
a
n
y
e
landfilled in 2003 as a percentage of BMW
Ital
Spai
nland
generation in 1995, which is the reference
Ireland
Fi Franc
Austria
Greece*
Portugal
Sweden
Sloveni
* (2002)
year for the reduction targets set in the
Germany
EU-15**
Hungary*
Belgium-FL
Landfill Directive. Most EU-10 countries are not
Netherlands
represented in the graph due to lack of recent
United Kingdom*
Denmark (2002)
data.

** Excluding Luxembourg and the Belgium
regions Wallonia and Brussels.
Czech Republic

Target 2006
Target 2009
Target 2016
Source:
CEC, 2006.
10
The road from landfilling to recycling: common destination, different routes

---