1. 5.1 Evaluation of municipal waste
Volker Küchen,
ARGUS, Berlin
Good moning ladies and gentlemen
I welcome you to the morning session which starts with my presentation on municipal waste.
I present our topic also on behalf of Dr. Wim Kloek and Dr. Georg Mehlhart
Dr. Kloek has worked in the Unit E3 (Environment statistics) on Waste statistics before he changed his position in 2009
I worked for him as a consultant on in the collection and validation of MW data between 2004 and 2009.
Dr. Georg Mehlhart is the leader of the team of consultants working for the waste unit of Eurostat in the assistance of the data centre on waste since 2007.
Working Group Meeting Waste, 8th/9th March 2011

2. Working Group Meeting Waste, 8th/9th March 2011
Overview
Available data / history of collection
Usage of data
Results from evaluation for recent publications
Waste generation and decoupling
Waste treatment strategies
Analysis by treatment strategies
Conclusions / Outlook
Overview contents:
brief remarks on data source & history of collection
Presentation of core results of a 3 step approach:
1. Waste generation and decoupling:
Analysis of development of municipal waste generation from 1995 to 2008 (trend analysis);
link to economic developments (correlation and regression)
2. Waste treatment strategies ·Identification of groups with similar treatment strategies.
3. Analysis by treatment strategies Analysis of waste generation linked with the different treatment strategies.
Finally short summary of conclusions
Working Group Meeting Waste, 8th/9th March 2011

3. Working Group Meeting Waste, 8th/9th March 2011
Available data / history of collection
Data collected by Eurostat for 1995 to 2009
until 2003: via OECD/Eurostat Joint Questionnaire (JQ)
since 2004: via reduced set of variables from JQ
Coverage
1995 – 2009, EU 27, + IS, NO, CH, TR
Municipal waste reporting since 15 years
Time series well documented, particularly breaks
The data cover the period 1995 to 2008
Data on MW are part of the set of the Structural Indicators compiled annually by the European Commission (to assess the progress of the European Union towards the Lisbon objectives of sustainable economic growth.)
Until reference year 2003 OECD/Eurostat Joint Questionnaire used for data collection. Basis for definitions (technical Annex) (MW = waste collected by or on behalf of municipal authorities. MW mainly produced by households, similar wastes from sources such as commerce, offices and public institutions are included. Excluded: agriculture, construction, waste from sewage trt and industries)
In 2004 JQ replaced by Regulation (No 2150/2002/EC) on waste statistics as the central framework for European waste statistics -> since then, reduced set of variables ->FOLIE (incineration with or without energy recovery, composting (incl. digestion)) MBT regarded as pre-treatment
Also reported: percentage of population served by a municipal waste collection system. (For areas not covered by a municipal waste collection scheme the amount of waste generated is estimated.)
Geographical coverage of the analysis: 27 EU Member States, the candidate country Turkey and the EFTA countries Iceland, Norway and Switzerland (EFTA = European Free Trade Association).
Working Group Meeting Waste, 8th/9th March 2011

4. Working Group Meeting Waste, 8th/9th March 2011
Usage of data
Used as Structural Indicator (SI) and Sustainable Development Indicator (SDI)
Suggested as one option for the monitoring of the household recycling target set by WFD
Recent publications
ISWA World Congress, Hamburg November 2010
EU waste management, Cologne June 2010
ETC/SCP* working paper: “EU as recycling society”
Envisaged Publication: Statistics in Focus (covering time series 1995 to 2009)
The data cover the period 1995 to 2008
Data on MW are part of the set of the Structural Indicators compiled annually by the European Commission (to assess the progress of the European Union towards the Lisbon objectives of sustainable economic growth.)
Until reference year 2003 OECD/Eurostat Joint Questionnaire used for data collection. Basis for definitions (technical Annex) (MW = waste collected by or on behalf of municipal authorities. MW mainly produced by households, similar wastes from sources such as commerce, offices and public institutions are included. Excluded: agriculture, construction, waste from sewage trt and industries)
In 2004 JQ replaced by Regulation (No 2150/2002/EC) on waste statistics as the central framework for European waste statistics -> since then, reduced set of variables ->FOLIE (incineration with or without energy recovery, composting (incl. digestion)) MBT regarded as pre-treatment
Also reported: percentage of population served by a municipal waste collection system. (For areas not covered by a municipal waste collection scheme the amount of waste generated is estimated.)
Geographical coverage of the analysis: 27 EU Member States, the candidate country Turkey and the EFTA countries Iceland, Norway and Switzerland (EFTA = European Free Trade Association).
*European Topic Centre on Sustainable Consumption and Production
Working Group Meeting Waste, 8th/9th March 2011

5. Working Group Meeting Waste, 8th/9th March 2011
Waste generation and decoupling
MW generated, population & economic parameters in the EU to 2009
Figure shows development of MW generation, GDP + population in the EU 27, 1995 to 2008, presented as percentage of 1995
GDP and population are shown in red and green colour, MWG in blue (consumption not shown as it moves together with GDP)
dotted blue lines refer to the indicators MW per capita and per EUR (GDP)
Main observations:
MW generated 1995 to 2002 steady increase of MW generation (at an average annual rate of 1,7%) ( [13%] to 259 Mio. t)
2003/2004 slight decrease, followed by re-increase until 2007/2008 (+ 8 Mio t)
Population growth moderate at less than 0,5% per year ( Mio)
GDP sharp increase at 2,3% per year, clearly exceeding growth of MWG
As a consequence, the population related indicator shows a moderate decrease similar to the development of MW generation
For the GDP related indicator we see an overall decline until 2002 (by 0,8% per year) followed by a sharp decline of 1,8% per year 2002 to 2008
Next step: Time series of individual countries
Working Group Meeting Waste, 8th/9th March 2011

6. Waste generation and decoupling
MW generated by countries 1995 and 2009 (kg per capita)
Analysis of time series of individual countries
Figure is an illustration of the first and last data point
In most of the countries, increase 1995 to 2008
Large differences ranging from 300 to > 800 kg/cap (different shares of commercial waste)
Exclusion of ten countries from the analysis (serious breaks in the series) : Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Portugal, Slovenia, Slovakia, Norway and Turkey (three of which with significant decrease 95-08).
Typical breaks:
1. retrospective change of time series (e.g. NO)
2. Methodological changes: data source (e.g. PT), classifications, coverage (collected vs. generated)(commercial vs. household)
3. Weighbridge effect :
in several countries installation of weigh bridges at the treatment sites (improved data quality).
Before the installation of weight bridges: estimation based on the number of trucks / volume
estimates proved to be biased (too high). (e.g. negative trend for BG, HU, LT, SI and TR mainly the result of this effect)
Next slide: Results of various statistical tests
Working Group Meeting Waste, 8th/9th March 2011

7. Working Group Meeting Waste, 8th/9th March 2011
Waste generation and decoupling
Analysis of individual countries
Linear trend (N = 21)
increasing for most (17) of the countries, 3 undetermined
only 1 country has a clear decreasing trend (DE)
Correlation with GDP and consumption (N = 21)
whole period: significant positive coefficient for 4 countries, remainder (17) insignificant (of which 3 negative coefficients)
average: 5% consumption growth results in 1% waste growth
two periods: significantly higher growth in first period for 9 countries, vice versa: 2 countries, no difference: 10 countries
Regression analysis 2007 (N = 30)
average: 1000 Euro of consumption leads to 10 kg of waste
large variations
Linear trend: FOLIE
Correlation performed in several ways:
1. for the whole period 1995 to 2002
2. for two periods 1995 to 2002, 2002 to 2008
Results: FOLIE
Regression analysis was done for 2007 (2008 many estimates, one country excluded)
Working Group Meeting Waste, 8th/9th March 2011

8. Waste treatment strategies
Treatment of municipal waste 1995 to 2009 in the EU 27 (Mio. tons)
Figure represents amounts of MW generated at the EU 27 level
Amounts subject to the four treatment categories are added (COLOURS!)
Area above composting = ‘other treatment’: difference between MW generated and total treated (which decreased from 8 % in 1995 to 2 % in 2008: caused mainly by those countries that had to estimate the waste generation in areas not covered by the municipal waste collection scheme and thus reported more waste generated than treated. Consequently, an increased coverage of the population on EU 27 level (89 % in 1995, 96 % in 2008) has led to decreasing ‘other treatment’. Other effects: of import/export, losses, double-counting, temporary storage and increasingly the allocation of pre-treatment such as mechanical biological treatment. On EU 27 level, marginal shares and largely counterbalanced. (at country level, the effects are considerable ->the percentages presented in the following are always related to the total amounts treated and not to the amounts generated)
MW landfilled: declined by about one third (140  to 100  Mio t, 2.5 % per year)
after 2002: decline by 4% per year, LF rates % (1995: 68%)
MW recycled: increased by factor 2,7 (22 to 58 Mio t, 7,9% per year)
MW composted: largest relative increase by factor 3,2 (13 to 43 Mio t, 9,5% per year)
MWR + MWC 2008: share of together 40% equal to LF rate
MW incineration: steady increase, lower growth than MWC and MWR, but larger absolute amounts than composting (31 to 50 Mio tonnes)
Similar to MWG: Development in the countries quite variable -> next slide
Working Group Meeting Waste, 8th/9th March 2011

9. Waste treatment strategies
Treatment of municipal waste 2009 by countries (percent)
Figure presents the amounts of municipal waste treated 2008 by countries in % of total treated, sorted by % LF
12 of all countries show landfill rates below 50 %, mostly belonging to North-Western Europe (lowest rates < 5%: 7 countries CH, DE, NL, SE, AT, DK ad BE)
majority of the countries: LF predominant option (highest rates in TR (99 %), RO (99 %) and in BG (100 %))
Strategies for diverting waste from LF by INC and REC/COMP
DE, NL, AT and BE: materials recovery (REC/COMP)
SE, DK, CH: largest shares of incineration
The highest rates for recycling were reported by Germany (48 %, 268 kg per capita), Sweden (35 %, 181 kg per capita) and Denmark (35 %, 160 kg per capita)
Austria (40 %, 242 kg per capita) and the Netherlands (27 %, 142 kg per capita) reported the largest shares of composting
Belgium was among the countries with the largest shares for both recycling (35 %) and composting (25 %).
Working Group Meeting Waste, 8th/9th March 2011

10. Working Group Meeting Waste, 8th/9th March 2011
Waste treatment strategies
Treatment of municipal waste 2009 by countries (kg per capita)
Figure same order (by % LF) as previous figure, but in kg per capita
The sorting by percentage of landfilling shows:
Total amounts treated are lower in countries with high landfill rates (at the right half of the figure) than in countries with lower landfill rates mostly larger than 500 kg per capita).
However: The amounts treated per capita vary to a large extent.
The high figures for DK, CY and MT are mainly attributed to large shares of commercial waste (and in case of CY and MT also to the impact of tourism)
Currently: Questionnaire conducted on the coverage of MW and other issues (pre-treatment, import/export) -> better interpretation
Working Group Meeting Waste, 8th/9th March 2011

11. Working Group Meeting Waste, 8th/9th March 2011
Waste treatment strategies
Country groups by treatment strategies based on EEA* approach
Approach of the European Environment Agency: combined rates of incineration and material recovery (represented as the sum of recycling and composting)
The map shows the results of this approach for the latest data of reference year 2008.
1. group: 10 countries with most advanced strategy for waste treatment -> high rates of more than 25 % for materials recovery (composting and recycling) as well as incineration.
2. group: 7 countries with systems for recycling and composting established and materials recovery of more than 25 % achieved, but incineration rates still lower than 25 %.
3. group: largest group of 13 countries: relies mostly on landfilling as treatment option with less than 25 % for incineration and materials recovery.
Groups largely reflect the LF rates, but: Group 2 and 3 deviate from the strict order by landfill rates: Portugal, Iceland and Hungary, despite landfill rates lower than 75 %, belong to group 3 on account of their low shares for material recovery (all below 18 %), while Estonia reported a materials recovery of just over 25 % with a higher landfill rate of 75 %.
The population evenly distributed, each group representing roughly 200 million inhabitants (ranging from 179 million (group 2) to 209 million (group 1))
Geographical distribution: group 1 with the “most advanced” treatment strategy concentrates in North-Western Europe. The remaining two groups are located stepwise around the group 1 in all directions except for the east.
* = European Environment Agency
Working Group Meeting Waste, 8th/9th March 2011

12. Analysis by treatment strategies
Treatment of MW by country groups 1995 to 2009
Group 1 Group 2 Group 3
kg per capita percent
Figure: developments of waste treatment 1995 to 2008 by groups of countries in % and kg per capita (calculated as weighted average over the population of all countries within each group)(graphs scaled identically)
The figures in kg per capita confirm the above finding, i.e. that in countries with high landfill rates the total amounts treated are lower than in countries with low landfill rates (2008: 340 kg in group 3 compared to 560 kg in group 1 and 570 kg in group 2)
overall increase was lower in group 3 (12 %) than in groups 1 (15 %) and 2 (37 %).
Group 3 shows the lowest amounts at the lowest growth, (in case of group 2 the opposite is the case)
2008: Group 3 and 2 have similar indicators for municipal waste landfilled 2008 (group 2: 316 kg/capita, group 3: 306 kg/capita)
Thus: reduction of waste landfilled in group 2 throughout the whole period was not sufficient to fall below the amounts in group 3)
In contrast to this, group 1 could reduce the already low amounts landfilled in 1995 further until 2008, mainly by incineration and recycling
In the paragraph on municipal waste generation we found that 1 % of consumption growth would result in 0.2 % growth in waste. Redoing this analysis on the relative changes for the three treatment profiles separately leads to no significant result for the groups 1 and 3, but the intermediate group 2 shows a significant and more pronounced effect: 1 % growth in consumption results in 0.9 % growth of waste. This shows that the treatment profiles not only reflect different waste management strategies, but also distinguishes between different attitudes towards waste generation by the general public.
Working Group Meeting Waste, 8th/9th March 2011

13. Working Group Meeting Waste, 8th/9th March 2011
Conclusions
Growth of municipal waste generation
slowed down after 2002
is correlated with generation of income & consumption
MW treatment moving from landfilling to recycling & composting
Countries have very different treatment strategies
Waste generation is higher in countries with an advanced waste treatment
The growth of municipal waste generation has slowed down after 2002 and is correlated with generation of income and consumption
The treatment of municipal waste is gradually moving from landfilling to recycling and composting
Countries have very different treatment profiles; some countries have abandoned landfilling almost completely, whereas in other countries landfilling is still the predominant treatment type
Countries with an advanced waste treatment system produce more waste
However: The data do not allow a conclusion whether this is caused by the effects of pressure or attitude
1. Higher level of waste generation will constitute a higher pressure towards a more advanced treatment strategy.
2. An environment friendly attitude would combine a sophisticated waste treatment strategy with a low level of waste generation.
3. A sophisticated waste treatment strategy can also be justification or excuse for a high level of waste generation.
Working Group Meeting Waste, 8th/9th March 2011

14. Working Group Meeting Waste, 8th/9th March 2011
Outlook
Time series well established, breaks well documented & explained
Comparability across countries still limited
Generation: Inclusion of commercial waste varies, different coverage
Treatment: different approaches first / final treatment, import/export, storage
MW questionnaire: explain differences across countries, provide further guidance, increase comparability
The growth of municipal waste generation has slowed down after 2002 and is correlated with generation of income and consumption
The treatment of municipal waste is gradually moving from landfilling to recycling and composting
Countries have very different treatment profiles; some countries have abandoned landfilling almost completely, whereas in other countries landfilling is still the predominant treatment type
Countries with an advanced waste treatment system produce more waste
However: The data do not allow a conclusion whether this is caused by the effects of pressure or attitude
1. Higher level of waste generation will constitute a higher pressure towards a more advanced treatment strategy.
2. An environment friendly attitude would combine a sophisticated waste treatment strategy with a low level of waste generation.
3. A sophisticated waste treatment strategy can also be justification or excuse for a high level of waste generation.
Working Group Meeting Waste, 8th/9th March 2011