Packaging And Packaging Waste Statistics 1998 - 2006

Packaging and Packaging Waste Statistics 1998 - 2006

This paper has been prepared for The European Organization for Packaging and the Environment (EUROPEN) aisbl by Perchards Ltd., St Albans, UK © EUROPEN 2009 Packaging and Packaging Waste Statistics 1998 - 2006 The European Organization for Packaging and the Environment (EUROPEN) aisbl Avenue de l’Armée 6, 1040 Brussels, Belgium e-mail: [email protected] website: www.europen.be Disclaimer: While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the contents of this paper up to the time of publication, The European Organization for Packaging and the Environment (EUROPEN) aisbl cannot accept any responsibility or liability for any errors or omissions. EUROPEN—The Voice of Industry for Packaging and the Environment—is an industry and trade organization open to any company with an economic interest in packaging and packaged goods. Its presents the opinion of its members on issues related to packaging and the environment.

Packaging and Packaging Waste Statistics 1998 - 2006

INTRODUCTION Directive 94/62/EC on packaging and packaging waste aims to minimize the environmental impact of packaging and packaging waste and to guarantee free access throughout the Community for packaging complying with its provisions. It lays down measures to reduce the generation of packaging waste and sets recovery and recycling targets which have been subsequently updated by Directive 2004/12/EC. As part of its monitoring of European developments in packaging and packaging waste, EUROPEN regularly analyses the data which Member States submit to the European Commission each year. This paper gives an overview of the reported packaging consumption, treatment and disposal figures from the 27 EU Member States for the year 2006 and analyses the trends since 1998. The 15 countries then in membership of the EU (“EU-15”) have been reporting packaging and packaging waste data to the Commission since 1997. As the 1997 returns were in many cases inconsistent with those for the following years, this analysis uses 1998 as the starting-point. The ten countries which joined the EU in May 2004 were required to submit data from that year onwards, but the Czech Republic and Hungary also chose to report on 2002 and the Czech Republic and Slovakia on 2003. For various reasons, the island nation-states Cyprus and Malta are a special case, so we have tracked the trend for 2004-2006 only for the eight central and eastern European Member States (“EU-8”). Bulgaria and Romania have now begun reporting, so 2006 is the first year that data is available for all 27 Member States. Collectively, we have described them as “EU-27”. Norway has also reported for the first time. Norway is not an EU member but is part of the European Economic Area and so is required to comply with the Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive. We have included Norway’s data in all of the tables in this report, but have not aggregated them with the data from the EU Member States. These annual reports should be submitted to the Commission within 18 months of the end of the calendar year, but they are often late and a full set of data for 2006 was not available until November 2008. The Member States’ reports for 1997-2005 can be found on the DG Environment website at http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/packaging/data.htm. Responsibility for collecting the data has now been transferred to EUROSTAT, and the 2006 data can be found by clicking on Environmental Data Centre on Waste at http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page?_pageid=0,1136239,0_45571444&_dad=portal&_schema= PORTAL.

CONTENTS Introduction

…

…

…

…

…

…

…

…

Key conclusions …

…

…

…

…

…

…

…

…

4

…

…

…

…

…

…

5

EU packaging recovery and recycling targets… …

…

…

…

…

6

Decoupling packaging consumption and disposal from economic growth …

…

7

Trends in consumption of the key packaging materials

…

…

…

…

8

Progress towards the EU recycling targets

…

…

…

…

…

9

Impact of energy recovery on recycling rates

…

…

…

…

…

10

Packaging placed on the market …

…

…

…

…

…

…

11

Packaging going to final disposal …

…

…

…

…

…

…

25

Recycling rates and trends

…

…

…

…

…

…

…

28

Recovery rates and trends

…

…

…

…

…

…

…

31

Recycling rates by material

…

…

…

…

…

…

…

35

A note on the accuracy of the data

page 2

KEY CONCLUSIONS As Figure 1 shows, packaging production and packaging waste disposal have clearly been decoupled from economic growth in EU-15. Despite a 40% increase in GDP between 1998 and 2006, an ageing population and a trend throughout Europe toward smaller households, all of which lead to the purchase of a greater number of packaged goods, the amount of non-wood packaging placed on the market rose by only 11% and the amount of non-wood packaging waste disposed of1 actually fell by 33%. Figure 2 examines the consumption trends for the key packaging materials. It shows that the per capita consumption of glass packaging fell by 7% and the demand for metal packaging was very stable, whereas per capita consumption of plastic packaging grew by 23% and that of paper and board packaging by 29%. Figure 3 illustrates progress against the EU recycling target. It shows that by 2006, five Member States had already met their 2008 target, and six others were very close. Only Finland needed a major increase in recycling if it was to reach 55% recycling in 2008. Two of the Member States whose deadlines are 2011 or later have already exceeded the target, and the rest are making steady progress. It is possible that the collapse in secondary material prices in the last quarter of 2008 may lead to a reduction in recycling rates in that year and perhaps beyond, but the official data for 2008 will not become available until 2010. In any case, whatever the effect of these unprecedented market disruptions, there is no doubt that the experience of the last decade shows that the packaging waste management model adopted in Europe works well. It is sometimes suggested that the establishment of energy recovery facilities diverts materials away from recycling. Figure 4 compares the recovery and recycling rates achieved by each of the EU-27 Member States. From this chart it is difficult to draw a conclusion one way or the other, not least because some northern Member States which are heavily committed to recycling have long recovered energy from a large proportion of their municipal waste. This issue is discussed further in the context of Table 20, which shows that there is a weak correlation between a high recycling rate and a high energy recovery rate. Much depends on the waste management history, physical geography and level of economic development of each country, so all that can be said with confidence is that it cannot be demonstrated from the European Commission’s data that energy recovery inhibits recycling.

1

For the purposes of packaging waste, “disposal” generally means that the material was either put in landfill or burned without energy recovery.

4

A NOTE ON THE ACCURACY OF THE DATA European Commission Decision 2005/270/EC sets out the reporting formats for the Member States, starting with the 2003 reports. Before then, Commission Decision 97/138/EC was in force and reporting on wood packaging was optional. As Tables 13 and 29 show, Member States’ reports on wood have been highly inconsistent and this skews the data somewhat. Thus, although it is the total reported, including wood, that is relevant for achievement of the Directive’s overall recycling and recovery targets, the data for packaging excluding wood is more useful for identifying trends. In this paper we provide both. The 2004 amendment to the Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive specified that packaging waste exported out of the Community for reprocessing only counts towards achievement of the targets if there is sound evidence that recovery or recycling took place under conditions “broadly equivalent” to those prescribed by European Community legislation. This change was introduced in time to affect the reports for 2003 onwards, and means that some reprocessing which may have counted towards the targets in earlier years should have been disregarded after 2002. Thus, the real increase in recycling and recovery since 1998 may have been greater than the official statistics indicate.2 Some Member States report in tonnes, others in kilotonnes. For the purposes of this analysis, all calculations have been made in kilotonnes. The degree of precision that is possible when measuring packaging or packaging waste should not be exaggerated.

2

Of course, there will nevertheless still be some “sham recycling”.

5

EU PACKAGING RECOVERY AND RECYCLING TARGETS First stage targets Recovery 50%-65%

EU-12 Greece Ireland Portugal Cyprus Czech Republic Estonia Hungary Latvia Lithuania Malta Poland Slovakia Slovenia Bulgaria Romania

25%-45% Overall

min 15% glass

Recycling min 15% paper/board

end 2001

end 2001

end 2001

end 2001

end 2001

end 2001

end 2005

end 2005

end 2005

end 2005

end 2005

end 2005

end 2005

end 2005

May 2004

end 2005

May 2004

end 2004

end 2005

May 2004

May 2004

May 2004

May 2004

end 2005

May 2004 May 2004 May 2004 May 2004 May 2004 May 2004 May 2004 May 2004 end 2007 end 2007

May 2004 May 2004 May 2004 end 2004 May 2004 end 2005 end 2007 May 2004 end 2007 end 2007

May 2004 end 2005 end 2007 end 2004 end 2009 end 2005 May 2004 end 2007 end 2009 end 2011

min 50% metals

min 22.5% plastics

May 2004 end 2005 end 2007 end 2006 end 2009 end 2007 end 2007 end 2007 end 2011 end 2011

May 2004 May 2004 May 2004 End 2004 May 2004 May 2004 end 2004 May 2004 end 2005 May 2004 May 2004 May 2004 May 2004 May 2004 May 2004 May 2004 before 2007 before 2007 before 2007 before 2007

min 15% metals

min 15% plastics

Second stage targets Recovery 60%

EU-12 Greece Ireland Portugal Cyprus Czech Republic Estonia Hungary Latvia Lithuania Malta Poland Slovakia Slovenia Bulgaria Romania

55%-80% Overall

min 60% glass

Recycling min 60% paper/board

end 2008

end 2008

end 2008

end 2008

end 2008

end 2008

end 2011

end 2011

end 2011

end 2011

end 2011

end 2011

end 2012

end 2012

end 2012

end 2012

end 2012

end 2012

end 2012

end 2012

end 2012

end 2012

end 2012

end 2012

end 2012 end 2012 end 2015 end 2012 end 2013 end 2014 end 2012 end 2012 end 2014 end 2013

end 2012 end 2012 end 2015 end 2012 end 2013 end 2014 end 2012 end 2012 end 2014 end 2013

end 2012 end 2012 end 2015 end 2012 end 2013 end 2014 end 2012 end 2012 end 2013 end 2013

end 2012 end 2012 end 2015 end 2012 end 2013 end 2014 end 2012 end 2012 end 2008 end 2008

end 2012 end 2012 end 2015 end 2012 end 2013 end 2014 end 2012 end 2012 end 2008 end 2008

end 2012 end 2012 end 2015 end 2012 end 2013 end 2014 end 2012 end 2012 end 2013 end 2013

6

DECOUPLING PACKAGING CONSUMPTION AND DISPOSAL FROM ECONOMIC GROWTH Figure 1 Trends in GDP, packaging consumption and packaging disposal in EU-15, 1998-2006 160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0 1998

1999

2000

GDP (EUR m, current market prices)

2001

2002

2003

Non-wood packaging consumption ('000 tonnes)

7

2004

2005

Packaging disposal ('000 tonnes)

2006

TRENDS IN CONSUMPTION OF THE KEY PACKAGING MATERIALS Figure 2 Per capita packaging consumption, 1998-2006 (in kg) 60

50

40

30

20

10

0 1998

1999

2000 Glass packaging

2001 Metal packaging

2002

2003

Plastic packaging

8

2004

2005

Paper & board packaging

2006

PROGRESS TOWARDS THE EU RECYCLING TARGETS

Figure 3 2006 recycling rates 90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

Latvia

Bulgaria Poland

Malta Romania

Cyprus Slovakia Lithuania Slovenia Estonia Hungary Czech Republic

Greece Portugal Ireland

Finland Spain France Italy Denmark Sweden UK Netherlands Luxembourg Germany Austria Belgium

9

2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 Target deadline 2008

IMPACT OF ENERGY RECOVERY ON RECYCLING RATES Figure 4 Energy recovery and recycling rates in EU-27, 2006 Belgium Norway Austria Germany Luxembourg Czech Republic Netherlands Sweden UK Denmark Italy France Ireland Spain Portugal Estonia Finland Hungary Greece Latvia Slovenia Poland Lithuania Slovakia Bulgaria Romania Cyprus Malta

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

Energy recovery

50%

Recycling

%

10

60%

70%

80%

90%

PACKAGING PLACED ON THE MARKET Table 1 shows the overall packaging tonnages reported to the European Commission. Malta has not yet reported for 2004 and 2005. Table 1: Packaging placed on the market as reported to the Commission (in ‘000 tonnes) 1998 Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Rep. Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Norway Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden UK EU-27 total 3 EU-15 total EU-NEW total EU-8 total

1 115 1 426

1999 1 130 1 478

2000 1 170 1 496

2001

2002

2003

1 097 1 424

1 059 1 490

1 160 1 624

832 857

720 957 616 12 334 15 466 1 014 820 11 537

2004 1 102 1 632

2005

2006

1 111 1 659 520 123 847 983 137 689 12 361 15 471 1 061 853 925 11 953 264 264 99

1 166 1 666 430 63 899 971 152 677 12 668 16 133 1 056 885 1 028 12 220 304 284 105 44 3 445 489 3 655 1 733 1 309 301 204 8 007 1 420 10 471 81 296 72 766 8 530 6 684

838

846

852

865

424 11 641 14 090 795

443 11 999 14 627 856

443 12 499 15 121 935

457 12 336 15 018 975

683 10 846

704 11 122

795 11 168

820 11 262

451 12 275 15 435 995 790 850 11 367

77

79

80

79

85

88

145 776 949 131 650 12 383 15 517 1 038 815 851 11 989 237 234 93

2 525

2 593

2 903

2 984

3 117

3 394

3 214

3 349

1 025

1 211

1 248

1 285

1 298

1 406

3 413 1 430

3 509 1 498 1 141 347 169 7 798 1 512 10 280

413 6 318 955 10 244

6 240 972 9 200

6 628 977 9 180

5 951 1 010 9 314

6 374 1 029 9 897

7 375 1 423 10 059

370 162 7 444 1 480 10 230

63 003

63 500

65 495

64 877

66 579

69 273

70 002

70 749

6 138

6 390

Reporting on packaging made from wood was optional until the 2003 reports, and even since then, Member States’ reports on wood packaging have shown major inconsistencies from year to year. This skews the comparisons somewhat. Table 2 therefore compares the data for packaging materials other than wood. Packaging made from materials other than wood, glass, metal, paper & board and plastics accounts for less than 1% of the total tonnage.

3

Total tonnage placed on the EU market divided by total EU population.

11

Table 2: Non-wood packaging placed on the market (in ‘000 tonnes) 1998 Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Rep. Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Norway Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden UK EU-27 total EU-15 total EU-NEW total EU-8 total

1 055 1 284

1999 1 070 1 320

2000 1 100 1 284

2001

2002

2003

1 027 1 266

997 1 324

1 099 1 448

767 857

673 849 463 10 094 12 958 969

2004 1 039 1 445

2005

2006

1 042 1 467 452 115 779 862 128 483 10 143 13 063 1 007 675 804 9 165 196 217 90

1 089 1 475 357 56 800 865 140 471 10 362 13 500 996 704 915 9 368 206 237 96 39 2 897 489 3 175 1 646 1 128 283 168 7 061 1 118 9 291 68 443 61 150 7 293 5 713

838

846

852

865

424 9 945 12 122 795

443 10 098 12 472 856

443 10 389 12 765 890

457 10 223 12 650 930

683 8 796

704 8 718

795 8 689

820 8 730

451 10 207 13 053 951 790 850 8 764

77

79

80

79

85

81

124 712 855 124 446 10 088 13 198 986 815 740 9 202 180 205 84

2 525

2 593

2 483

2 586

2 719

2 785

2 774

2 816

1 025

1 143

1 199

1 236

1 298

1 323

2 933 1 339

3 029 1 373 1 004 331 137 6 856 1 072 8 876

720 8 967

403 5 628 955 8 944

5 642 972 8 860

5 992 977 8 510

5 951 1 010 8 644

6 374 1 029 8 499

6 658 1 030 8 655

360 133 6 696 1 057 8 826

55 096

55 816

56 448

56 474

57 458

58 099

58 775

59 119

5 462

5 492

Thus in EU-15, the amount of non-wood packaging placed on the market between 1998 and 2006 grew by just 11.0%, an average of less than 1.4% per annum. This is a very moderate increase, given that continued economic growth, a rise in the number of single-person households and an ageing population all work in the direction of an increased demand for packaged goods. EU-8 showed a growth rate of 4.6% between 2004 and 2006, an average annual growth rate of 2.3%. Tables 3 and 4 show per capita consumption rates, applying EUROSTAT population figures to the tonnages shown in Tables 1 and 2. This is a useful indicator, since the population of EU-15 is growing (by 4.1% between 1998 and 2006) whereas that of the “new” Member States has been in slight decline (by 0.1% in EU-8 between 2004 and 2006). Per capita consumption data needs to be treated with caution, as Member States do not all use the same methodology to calculate packaging placed on the market. Thus, the per capita estimates for different countries are not necessarily comparable. For instance, given the strong trading and cultural links between the respective pairs of countries, one would have expected the consumption rates for Ireland and the UK and for Austria and Germany to be much closer than Tables 3 and 4 below indicate.

12

There is also a remarkable discrepancy between the reported Latvian and Lithuanian consumption rates. Table 3: Per capita consumption of packaging placed on the market as reported to the Commission (in kg)

Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Rep. Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Norway Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden UK EU-27 average4 EU-15 average EU-NEW average EU-8 average

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

140 140

142 145

146 146

137 139

131 145

143 157

135 157

82 160

71 178 118 199 187 92

135 159 67 164 83 182 102 132 197 188 96 84 225 204 114 77 215 0 205

141 159 56 82 88 179 113 129 201 196 95 88 244 208 132 83 224 109 211 105 96 164 61 56 102 183 157 173 165 187 82 92

158

159

160

162

82 194 172 74

86 199 178 79

86 206 184 86

88 202 183 89

185 191

189 195

210 196

214 198

87 200 187 91 78 218 199

182

185

184

180

191

196

161

165

183

187

194

210

199 76 176 97 125 199 188 94 81 211 207 102 68 204 0 198

101

119

122

125

126

135

89 137

207 201

77

92 142 53 64 85 181 168 171

159 108 175

157 110 157

165 110 156

147 114 158

156 116 167

177 159 169

69 81 176 165 171

168

169

174

171

175

181

182

183

84

88

Whereas, as Table 3 indicates, the apparent per capita consumption of packaging in EU-15 increased by 11.3% between 1998 and 2006, this figure is inflated by the inclusion of wood in the later years. Table 4 below shows that per capita consumption of packaging other than wood in EU-15 increased by 6.8% between 1998 and 2006 – an average annual growth rate of just 0.85%. Consumption rates in the twelve new Member States are bound to increase in the coming years. Data is not yet available to enable a trend to be detected in all the new Member States, but we can see how consumption has evolved in EU-8. The data submitted to the Commission suggests that average per capita consumption of packaging other than wood in EU-8 increased by 9.5% between 2004 and 2006 – an annual growth rate of 4.8%.

4

Total tonnage placed on the market divided by total population.

13

Table 4: Per capita consumption of non-wood packaging (in kg)

Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Rep. Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Norway Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden UK EU-27 average EU-15 average EU-NEW average EU-8 average

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

132 126

134 129

137 125

128 123

124 128

136 140

128 139

75 160

66 158 89 163 157 88

127 140 58 154 76 159 95 92 162 158 91 67 196 157 85 63 195 0 173

132 140 46 73 78 159 104 90 164 164 90 70 217 159 90 70 205 96 177 105 83 156 52 53 84 161 124 154 139 157 71 78

158

159

160

162

82 166 148 74

86 168 152 79

86 172 155 82

88 168 154 85

185 155

189 153

210 153

214 153

87 166 158 87 78 218 154

182

185

184

180

191

181

161

165

157

162

169

172

170 70 158 92 85 162 160 89 81 184 159 78 59 185 0 171

101

113

118

121

126

127

77 128

182 156

75

79 130 46 61 69 159 119 148

142 108 153

142 110 151

150 110 145

147 114 147

156 116 144

160 115 146

67 67 158 118 148

147

148

150

149

151

152

153

153

75

75

14

Table 5: Glass packaging placed on the market (in ‘000 tonnes)

Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Rep. Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Norway Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden UK EU-27 total EU-15 total EU-NEW total EU-8 total

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

230 335

230 334

230 334

220 330

210 323

219 419

218 396

161 156

164 152 62 3 240 3 130 180

230 388 161 28 183 119 27 84 3 151 2 879 207 126 144 2 117 73 65 28

232 385 78 16 184 101 29 67 3 205 2 895 150 139 154 2 133 66 73 32 10 561 58 843 394 285 98 31 1 661 174 2 600 16 596 14 744 1 852 1 463

176

159

168

184

55 3 513 3 712 160

58 3 384 3 768 179

58 3 404 3 721 180

61 3 369 3 344 180

111 2 200

111 2 249

119 1 963

105 1 993

68 3 372 3 266 185 165 122 1 970

21

22

22

21

23

28

23 160 135 29 67 3 135 3 073 183 172 117 2 141 57 61 27

453

495

494

512

516

541

549

545

289

315

352

366

363

372

915 367

950 384 249 100 26 1 677 163 2 400

124 2 107

113 1 523 171 2 200

1 532 174 2 369

1 536 167 2 155

1 557 171 2 200

1 523 170 2 191

1 627 165 2 300

100 26 1 641 159 2 400

15 149

15 379

14 903

14 613

14 458

14 666

14 608

14 516

1 520

1 550

Overall, glass packaging consumption fell by 3% between 1998 and 2006, but ten EU-15 Member States have reported an increase. The highest rates of increase have been in Luxembourg (52%), Ireland (39%) and Portugal (36%), with Denmark (-43%) and Germany (-22%) registering the largest decline.

15

Table 6: Per capita consumption of glass packaging (in kg)

Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Rep. Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Norway Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden UK EU-27 average EU-15 average EU-NEW average EU-8 average

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

29 33

29 33

29 33

27 32

26 31

27 40

27 38

16 29

16 28 12 52 38 16

28 37 21 37 18 22 20 16 50 35 19 12 35 36 32 19 61

28 37 10 21 18 19 22 13 51 35 13 14 37 36 29 21 68 25 34 13 22 37 13 18 15 38 19 43 34 38 18 20

33

30

32

34

11 59 45 15

11 56 46 16

11 56 45 17

12 55 41 16

30 39

30 40

31 34

27 35

13 55 40 17 16 31 35

50

52

51

48

52

63

32 16 25 21 13 50 37 17 17 29 37 25 18 59

29

31

31

32

32

33

34

33

29

31

35

36

35

36

24 35

25 36 11 19 13 39 18 40

31 37

21 38 19 38

38 20 40

38 19 37

38 19 37

37 19 37

39 18 39

19 13 39 18 40

40

41

40

39

38

38

38

37

21

21

16

Table 7: Metal packaging placed on the market (in ‘000 tonnes)

Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Rep. Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Norway Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden UK EU-27 total EU-15 total EU-NEW total EU-8 total

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

85 137

85 125

85 140

70 138

52 138

62 141

61 137

68 41

47 42 42 688 950 119

61 136 26 13 46 40 11 45 685 898 128 63 74 634 14 13 4

64 136 26 5 47 41 11 45 669 887 146 61 67 633 20 12 6 4 217 13 221 110 73 14 18 477 68 825 4 903 4 391 512 404

55

45

52

43

33 681 1 109 72

37 704 1 110 76

39 733 1 129 94

41 739 1 127 106

39 773

50 526

49 659

78 627

41 734 1 091 116 95 74 625

5

5

6

6

7

4

13 52 45 12 42 711 904 122 85 72 674 13 12 2

236

217

220

211

222

219

213

211

76

76

79

80

103

104

168 106

193 106 103 17 13 469 73 828

75 640

22 360 75 844

400 69 892

416 67 860

427 68 870

483 69 818

492 66 813

11 14 460 71 833

4 580

4 417

4 628

4 631

4 614

4 457

4 453

4 392

367

370

Overall, metal packaging consumption in EU-15 fell by 4% between 1998 and 2006. Six EU-15 Member States reported an increase, though, and in some cases this was a very large increase – consumption more than doubled in Greece and rose by 72% in Ireland and 45% in Portugal. The countries showing the greatest fall in metal packaging were those where beverage can legislation affected the market. Germany’s consumption fell by 20% over the period, with a 13% fall between 2002 and 2003, the year when mandatory deposits were introduced. Surprisingly, the Danish metal packaging market fell by 25% between 1998 and 2006, even though beverage cans were banned only until September 2002. Of course, other forms of metal packaging – food and petfood cans and metal drums – are unaffected by changes to beverage containers legislation.

17

Table 8: Per capita consumption of metal packaging (in kg)

Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Rep. Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Norway Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden UK EU-27 average EU-15 average EU-NEW average EU-8 average

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

11 13

11 12

11 14

9 13

6 13

8 14

7 13

7 8

5 8 8 11 12 11

7 13 3 17 5 7 8 9 11 11 12 6 18 11 6 4 9 0 13

8 13 3 7 5 8 8 9 11 11 13 6 16 11 9 4 13 10 13 3 6 10 3 3 9 11 8 14 10 11 5 6

10

8

10

8

6 11 14 7

7 12 14 7

8 12 14 9

8 12 14 10

11 14

13 9

13 12

20 11

8 12 13 11 9 19 11

12

12

14

14

16

9

15

14

14

13

14

14

18 5 8 9 8 11 11 11 8 18 12 6 3 4 0 13

8

7

8

8

10

10

4 10

19 11

4

5 10 5 3 7 11 8 14

9 8 14

10 8 15

10 8 15

11 8 15

12 8 14

12 7 14

2 7 11 8 14

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

11

5

5

18

Table 9: Plastic packaging placed on the market (in ‘000 tonnes)

Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Rep. Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Norway Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden UK EU-27 total EU-15 total EU-NEW total EU-8 total

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

190 218

200 222

210 244

205 240

200 258

217 278

225 281

184 157

173 155 89 1 951 2 071 300

225 290 106 34 207 183 32 100 2 007 2 368 262 188 218 2 099 36 51 22

238 302 104 13 204 191 36 97 2 064 2 591 300 199 264 2 202 40 57 22 7 609 132 690 377 355 60 47 1 615 186 2 080 14 950 13 138 1 812 1 333

172

173

157

150

90 1 628 1 611 223

92 1 699 1 641 245

87 1 780 1 791 260

87 1 788 1 890 270

169 1 800

171 1 838

171 1 900

174 1 950

87 1 867 2 073 285 160 177 1 951

9

9

10

10

10

18

33 177 174 29 90 1 980 2 255 305 165 212 2 054 36 51 22

500

479

458

486

530

539

549

592

259

268

286

303

325

330

663 345

633 356 332 90 34 1 565 176 1 901

224 2 000

67 1 147 140 1 700

1 111 147 1 799

1 193 148 1 600

1 317 159 1 679

1 319 167 1 740

1 407 165 1 792

50 32 1 463 171 1 846

9 856

10 094

10 295

10 708

11 146

11 536

11 972

12 364

1 203

1 271

Overall, plastics packaging consumption in EU-15 rose by 33% between 1998 and 2006. The highest rates of increase were reported by Luxembourg (more than double), Ireland (up 56%), Portugal (up 46%), Spain (up 41%) and Belgium (up 39%). No country reported a fall in consumption.

19

Table 10: Per capita consumption of plastic packaging (in kg)

Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Rep. Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Norway Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden UK EU-27 average EU-15 average EU-NEW average EU-8 average

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

24 21

25 22

26 24

26 23

25 25

27 27

28 27

18 29

17 29 17 32 25 27

27 28 14 45 20 34 24 19 32 29 24 19 53 36 16 15 48 0 36

29 29 13 17 20 35 27 18 33 31 27 20 63 37 17 17 47 17 37 28 18 36 16 11 23 37 21 34 30 34 18 18

32

33

29

28

17 27 20 21

18 28 20 23

17 29 22 24

17 29 23 25

46 32

46 32

45 33

45 34

17 30 25 26 16 45 34

21

21

23

23

23

40

32

30

29

30

33

32

45 17 32 21 17 32 27 28 16 53 35 16 15 48 0 34

26

26

28

30

31

32

17 33

57 35

12

17 34 15 17 17 36 20 32

29 16 29

28 17 31

30 17 27

33 18 28

32 19 29

34 18 30

9 16 35 19 31

26

27

27

28

29

30

31

32

16

17

20

Table 11: Paper & board packaging placed on the market (in ‘000 tonnes)

Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Rep. Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Norway Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden UK EU-27 total EU-15 total EU-NEW total EU-8 total

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

510 540

520 592

535 516

494 521

500 569

539 593

490 614

339 502

287 495 269 4 210 6 789 370

495 637 149 39 306 516 59 248 4 295 6 896 400 296 326 4 315 67 73 32

523 635 145 20 335 528 64 262 4 419 7 104 400 304 399 4 400 82 86 32 16 1 507 282 1 421 762 412 110 70 3 296 676 3 763 31 771 28 706 3 065 2 472

435

470

475

488

246 4 123 5 677 340

256 4 311 5 939 356

257 4 472 6 110 356

267 4 327 6 275 374

300 4 023

297 4 105

374 4 167

366 4 160

255 4 234 6 607 365 370 375 4 218

28

29

29

30

29

28

53 311 497 54 245 4 257 6 947 376 393 311 4 333 64 70 29

1 336

1 402

1 311

1 377

1 451

1 483

1 460

1 465

477

485

482

487

507

515

1 182 520

1 253 525 270 124 56 3 133 645 3 726

269 4 208

199 2 598 570 4 000

2 599 582 3 786

2 847 594 3 855

2 649 612 3 855

3 049 623 3 726

3 119 632 3 726

200 52 3 126 641 3 726

25 203

25 729

26 380

26 282

27 010

27 245

27 572

27 654

2 326

2 234

Overall, the tonnage of paper and board packaging consumed in EU-15 rose by 14% between 1998 and 2006. The highest rates of increase were reported by Portugal (60%), Ireland (33%) and Spain (27%) and Germany (25%). Only the UK (down 6%) registered a decrease.

21

Table 12: Per capita consumption of paper & board packaging (in kg)

Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Rep. Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Norway Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden UK EU-27 average EU-15 average EU-NEW average EU-8 average

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

64 53

65 58

67 50

62 51

62 55

67 57

60 59

33 94

28 92 52 68 82 34

60 61 19 52 30 95 44 47 69 84 36 29 79 74 29 21 69 0 90

63 60 19 26 33 97 48 50 70 86 36 30 95 75 36 25 68 40 92 61 37 72 19 20 35 75 75 62 64 74 30 34

82

88

89

91

48 69 69 31

50 72 72 33

50 74 74 33

52 71 76 34

81 71

80 72

99 73

95 73

49 69 80 33 36 96 74

66

68

67

68

65

63

85

89

83

86

90

92

73 30 92 40 47 68 84 34 39 77 75 28 20 64 0 90

47

48

47

47

49

49

31 50

68 73

37

33 50 12 23 28 73 72 62

66 64 68

65 66 65

71 67 66

65 69 65

74 70 63

75 71 63

37 26 74 71 62

67

68

70

69

71

71

72

71

32

31

22

Table 13: Wood packaging placed on the market (in ‘000 tonnes)

Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Rep. Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Norway Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden UK EU-27 total EU-15 total EU-NEW total EU-8 total

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

60 142

60 158

70 212

70 158

62 166

61 176

63 187

65

47 108

7

21 64 94 7 204 2 295 2 319 52 0 111 2 787 57 29 9

69 192 68 8 68 121 9 206 2 218 2 408 54 178 121 2 788 68 47 9

442

440

533

83

480 91

717 393 1 404

10 29 748 423 1 404

480 125 137 16 32 942 440 1 404

11 007

11 227

11 630

676

898

77 191 73 7 99 106 12 206 2 306 2 633 60 181 113 2 852 98 47 9 5 548 0 480 87 181 18 36 946 302 1 180 12 853 11 616 1 237 971

1 696 1 968

1 901 2 155

2 110 2 356 45

2 113 2 368 45

2 068 2 382 44

153 2 240 2 508 45

2 050

2 404

2 479

2 532

2 603

100 2 570

68

420

398

49

49

398

10 690

598

636

1 300

340

670

670

1 398

The data on wood packaging are not sufficiently robust for conclusions to be drawn.

23

Table 14: Per capita consumption of wood packaging (in kg)

Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Rep. Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Norway Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden UK EU-27 average EU-15 average EU-NEW average EU-8 average

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

8 14

8 15

9 21

9 15

8 16

8 17

8 18

6

5 20

16

28 48 25 8 20

8 18 9 11 7 22 7 39 35 29 5 18 29 48 29 14 20

27

27

33

8

13 9 2 15 18 47 24

13 12 6 3 16 22 49 23

29

30

9

12

9 18 9 9 10 20 9 39 37 32 5 18 27 49 43 14 19 12 34 0 13 8 8 3 18 22 33 20 26 30 12 13

28 24

32 26

35 29 4

35 29 4

34 29 4

29 36 30 4

36

42

44

44

46

25 45

7

26

25

5

5

25

2 17

15

16

22

6

11

11

24

17 44 24

21

20

24

22

24

29

24

29 6 17 5 39 37 28 5

PACKAGING GOING TO FINAL DISPOSAL One of the principal aims of the Directive is to reduce the amount of packaging going to final disposal, in other words to reduce the amount of packaging waste. The official data should be treated with caution, as the Member States have refined their estimation methodologies in the light of experience and so the returns are not necessarily comparable from year to year. Nevertheless, the official record shows the following trends: Table 15: Non-wood packaging sent for final disposal (in ‘000 tonnes)

Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Rep. Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Norway Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden UK EU-27 total EU-15 total EU-NEW total EU-8 total

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

300 323

280 345

233 313

253 161

235 141

226 25

163 119

527 55

255 43 178 2 993 1 537 643

129 120 293 103 237 23 76 172 2 829 1 582 593 266 377 3 070 97 132 11

110 92 228 42 207 7 73 114 2 780 1 402 579 292 436 3 124 116 141 8 35 331 54 1 861 748 683 167 87 2 726 271 3 650 20 310 16 378 3 932 2 944

96

70

75

85

189 3 985 2 088 520

177 3 859 2 214 568

177 3 940 2 273 589

173 3 644 2 230 615

582 6 017

581 5 549

645 4 806

599 4 375

174 3 243 2 522 636 492 554 3 925

37

45

33

24

33

12

93 238 30 79 164 3 012 1 657 623 440 368 3 403 111 129 8

399

382

341

931

950

269

220

239

652

1 936 717

2 027 694 740 191 67 2 917 273 3 404

668

740

642

612

648

398 3 774

219 3 296 174 5 775

3 164 262 5 211

3 224 336 4 639

2 992 347 4 756

3 197 335 4 307

3 395 153 4 108

203 76 3 083 271 3 939

24 449

23 447

22 266

21 797

20 955

18 406

17 777

16 433

3 212

3 093

Most Member States are showing a downward trend in non-wood packaging tonnages going to final disposal. Nine reported an increase in 2006 over 2005, but in some cases this may have been a statistical quirk. Overall, the amount of non-wood packaging placed on the market in EU-15 and subsequently sent to final disposal fell by 33% between 1998 and 2006, an average of 4.1% per year. The biggest reductions were reported by Denmark (-93%), Luxembourg (-78%), Belgium (-72%), Austria (-63%) and Italy (-48%).

25

The only EU-15 Member States where packaging waste has grown are Greece (11%) and Portugal (12%), where there has been considerable economic growth, and Sweden (56%), where the 1998 result seems to have been an aberration (it was little more than half the 1997 disposal level, which was 322 kilotonnes, and much less than 1999 – the growth rate between 1999 and 2006 was just 3%). Disposal of non-wood packaging in EU-8 fell by 8.3% between 2004 and 2006. This reduction of 4.1% per annum is identical to the annual reduction reported by the EU-15 countries since 1998 – and EU-15 reduced non-wood packaging waste by an average 4.0% per annum between 2004 and 2006. The Czech Republic reported that the tonnage of non-wood packaging waste halved between 2002 and 2003. This is because the data for 2002 showed no energy recovery. Table 16: Non-wood packaging sent for final disposal (in kg per capita)

Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Rep. Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Norway Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden UK EU-27 average EU-15 average EU-NEW average EU-8 average

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

38 32

35 34

29 31

32 16

29 14

28 2

20 11

25 8

16 11 38 138 23 4 56 33 45 19 54 26 92 53 42 39 24

13 9 30 55 20 1 54 22 44 17 52 29 104 53 51 41 17 86 20 12 49 71 32 31 43 62 30 60 41 42 38 40

18

13

14

16

75 10

37 66 25 48

34 64 27 52

34 65 28 54

33 60 27 56

33 53 31 58

34 48 19 58

158 106

156 98

171 84

156 77

142 69

100 66

88

105

76

55

74

27

127 23 6 59 31 48 20 56 43 91 59 48 37 18

25

24

21

58

59

17

14

15

66

73

63

60

63

63

51 68

53 66 34 35 34 68 30 57

41 83 20 99

79 30 89

80 38 79

74 39 81

78 38 73

81 17 69

38 38 73 30 66

65

62

59

58

55

48

46

42

44

42

Between 1998 and 2006, the population of EU-15 grew by 3.9%, from 375.1 million to 389.6 million. The amount of non-wood packaging consumed per capita grew by 6.8%, from 147 kg to 157 kg. However, the amount of non-wood packaging disposed of fell by 35%, from 65 kg to 42 kg. The 42 kg per capita disposal rate is close to the EU-27 average. In the new Member States, lower consumption of packaging is countered by lower recovery rates. In EU-8, despite rising prosperity, the

26

combined effect of higher recovery rates and a 0.2% fall in total population has resulted in a 9% fall in the amount of non-wood packaging waste between 2004 and 2006. This average reduction of 4.5% per annum between 2004 and 2006 is almost exactly the same as the average annual reduction in EU15 in the eight years to 2006, and indeed to the EU-15 reduction between 2004 and 2006.

27

RECYCLING RATES AND TRENDS Table 17: Overall recycling rates as reported to the Commission

Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Rep. Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Norway Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden UK EU-27 average EU-15 average EU-NEW average EU-8 average

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

65% 64%

66% 59%

69% 63%

64% 71%

66% 70%

64% 74%

66% 76%

29% 57%

51% 54% 41% 48% 71% 33%

67% 77% 31% 11% 59% 52% 40% 43% 53% 68% 42% 46% 56% 54% 47% 33% 63%

68% 79% 30% 25% 63% 56% 45% 49% 55% 66% 43% 49% 55% 55% 43% 37% 59% 11% 60% 70% 37% 51% 29% 36% 40% 54% 58% 58% 56% 58% 40% 43%

50%

53%

56%

57%

45% 42% 80% 35%

49% 42% 79% 34%

50% 42% 78% 33%

47% 44% 76% 33%

15% 32%

17% 34%

19% 38%

27% 46%

49% 45% 74% 33% 35% 35% 51%

42%

39%

45%

57%

56%

60%

22% 56% 53% 34% 40% 51% 70% 37% 43% 56% 53% 46% 33% 61%

62%

64%

59%

56%

57%

56%

58%

59%

35%

35%

31%

38%

36%

38%

28% 41%

29% 44% 23% 30% 45% 50% 48% 54%

51% 51%

36% 34% 75% 28%

38% 65% 35%

40% 58% 40%

44% 63% 42%

44% 65% 44%

43% 60% 47%

38% 34% 47% 50% 50%

47%

50%

51%

53%

54%

54%

56%

57%

35%

37%

As the amount of packaging placed on the market increases, the amount of packaging recycled has to increase if the same recycling rate is to be achieved. The twelve Member States due to achieve a 25% recycling rate by 2001 had all already done so by 1998, and Greece, Ireland and Portugal all met their 2005 target by 2001. The EU-8 countries all succeeded in meeting this target by the end of 2004, but the island nation-states Cyprus and Malta, which are heavily dependent on imported packaged goods and on reprocessing abroad, were not able to meet their 2005 deadline. Cyprus and Malta also appear to be having difficulty in gathering reliable data, which is a particular problem when a large proportion of the goods on the market are produced in other EU Member States. The second-stage target of 55% recycling applies to twelve Member States from 2008. Only Spain (54%) and Finland (49%) had not achieved this rate by 2006. Of the Member States with later deadlines, the Czech Republic and Ireland have already exceeded 55%.

28

There has been a considerable convergence in recycling rates. The five leading recyclers in 1998 – Germany, Sweden, Austria, Belgium and the Netherlands – reported an average recycling rate of 69%;5 in 2006, the same five countries reported an average of 66%. Over the same period, the average recycling rate reported by the six weakest performers in 1998 – Ireland, the UK, Italy, Spain, Greece and Portugal – rose from 30% to 53%. The strongest growth has been shown by Ireland, which more than trebled its recycling rate from 15% to 55%, and the UK, which more than doubled it from 28% to 58%. On the other hand, Sweden reported a decline from 75% to 58%, and Germany from 80% to 67%. The new Member States have benefited from experience in Western Europe and have already produced strong results. The Czech Republic, whose recycling system was set up as early as 1997, has reported the fifth highest overall recycling rate in EU-27. Table 18: Recycling rates for non-wood packaging 1998 Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Rep. Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Norway Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden UK EU-27 total EU-15 total EU-NEW total EU-8 total

66% 64%

1999 67% 61%

2000 71% 66%

2001

2002

2003

66% 68%

69% 72%

67% 76%

31% 57%

54% 57% 52% 54% 77% 34%

2004 69% 78%

2005 70% 78% 35% 10% 63% 56% 41% 59% 60% 74% 41% 57% 52% 55% 43% 39% 63%

50%

53%

56%

57%

45% 43% 81% 35%

49% 49% 81% 34%

50% 49% 79% 34%

47% 53% 78% 34%

15% 29%

17% 33%

19% 39%

27% 43%

49% 51% 81% 33% 35% 35% 49%

42%

39%

45%

57%

56%

62%

25% 60% 56% 35% 55% 58% 76% 37% 43% 50% 52% 37% 37% 64%

62%

64%

65%

60%

61%

62%

62%

63%

35%

35%

32%

36%

36%

37%

30% 39%

31% 43% 25% 30% 51% 51% 67% 54%

45% 49%

36% 37% 75% 30%

39% 65% 36%

41% 58% 40%

44% 63% 39%

44% 65% 42%

44% 77% 46%

38% 41% 48% 67% 49%

48%

51%

53%

54%

56%

57%

59%

61%

37%

40%

5

2006 72% 81% 36% 25% 69% 59% 48% 67% 62% 73% 42% 56% 52% 55% 42% 41% 61% 10% 64% 70% 40% 50% 33% 39% 48% 55% 69% 56% 60% 62% 44% 47%

In this case, and elsewhere in this chapter where the comment relates to “the average reported”, the percentage is the arithmetical average reported by the Member States concerned, and is not weighted according to each country’s population or tonnage.

29

The percentages summarised in Table 17 are those relevant to assessing achievement of the overall recycling targets in the Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive, but the data in Table 18, which excludes wood, is a more reliable guide to recycling achievement. In 1998, Germany, Sweden, Austria, Belgium and the Netherlands were still the highest recyclers, with an average reported rate of 70%, and by 2006 this had risen slightly to 72%. Over the same period, the average non-wood recycling rate reported by the six weakest performers in 1998 – Ireland, the UK, Italy, Spain, Greece and Portugal – rose from 29% to 52%. Again, the strongest growth has been shown by Ireland, which more than trebled its non-wood recycling rate from 15% to 52%, with Italy (29% to 55%) and the UK (30% to 56%) in second place. If wood is excluded, the decline in Sweden’s and Germany’s overall reported recycling rates are much smaller, from 75% to 69% and from 81% to 73% respectively. Sweden’s recycling rate has fluctuated, but Germany’s has been in steady decline apart from a shortlived recovery in 2002. There have been two important changes in the German system, the opening up of household packaging waste management to competition in 1998, and the introduction of mandatory deposits in 2003. All of the EU-8 Member States have reported a non-wood recycling rate of at least 30% for 2006, and the Czech Republic was in fourth place in the EU as a whole. The overall recycling rate reported by the EU-8 countries rose from 37% in 2004 to 47% in 2006.

30

RECOVERY RATES AND TRENDS Table 19: Overall recovery rates as reported to the Commission

Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Rep. Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Norway Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden UK EU-27 average EU-15 average EU-NEW average EU-8 average

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

70% 73%

72% 71%

76% 71%

73% 88%

75% 91%

77% 91%

82% 93%

29% 94%

59% 89% 67% 64% 86% 33%

85% 93% 31% 11% 66% 90% 41% 68% 63% 87% 42% 52% 59% 65% 59% 33% 88%

87% 94% 30% 25% 69% 94% 50% 77% 64% 88% 43% 51% 57% 65% 46% 38% 92% 11% 88% 89% 48% 56% 36% 39% 47% 61% 81% 62% 69% 72% 47% 50%

89%

92%

91%

90%

55% 56% 81% 35%

60% 57% 80% 34%

60% 57% 81% 33%

62% 59% 79% 33%

15% 34%

17% 37%

19% 43%

27% 51%

61% 62% 78% 33% 38% 35% 56%

52%

43%

59%

70%

61%

86%

22% 63% 92% 34% 68% 61% 86% 37% 46% 56% 62% 47% 33% 91%

84%

85%

77%

59%

61%

90%

93%

92%

35%

35%

45%

52%

50%

52%

42% 48%

41% 51% 25% 44% 47% 56% 56% 61%

51% 58%

47% 37% 82% 33%

42% 73% 41%

44% 66% 45%

50% 66% 48%

50% 67% 50%

48% 89% 53%

44% 43% 53% 58% 56%

54%

56%

58%

60%

62%

67%

68%

70%

45%

46%

The twelve Member States due to achieve a 45% recovery rate by 2001 all did so, but Greece, at 43%, narrowly failed to meet its 2005 deadline. The ten countries which joined the EU in May 2004 were given various deadlines to meet this target: •

Estonia missed its May 2004 deadline, but reached the target in 2006;

•

Of those set a 2005 deadline, the Czech Republic and Hungary were successful but Cyprus was still falling well short in 2006;

•

Lithuania missed its 2006 deadline;

•

Latvia, Poland and Slovenia have already met their 2007 deadline, but although Slovakia reported 47% recovery in 2003, its subsequent recovery rates have been lower;

•

Malta has until 2009 to meet the target.

31

Sweden’s reported energy recovery tonnage for 2003 appears to be a statistical aberration – it is entirely out of line with the tonnages reported for all other years. Table 20: Overall rates for recovery other than material recycling, as reported to the Commission

Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Rep. Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Norway Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden UK EU-27 average EU-15 average EU-NEW average EU-8 average

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

5% 9%

6% 12%

7% 8%

9% 17%

9% 20%

13% 18%

16% 16%

0% 36%

8% 35% 26% 16% 16% 0%

18% 16% 0% 0% 7% 38% 1% 25% 10% 19% 0% 6% 3% 11% 12% 0% 25%

19% 15% 0% 0% 5% 38% 5% 28% 9% 23% 0% 2% 3% 10% 4% 1% 33% 0% 29% 19% 11% 5% 7% 3% 6% 7% 23% 5% 13% 13% 7% 8%

39%

39%

36%

33%

11% 14% 2% 0%

11% 15% 1% 0%

10% 15% 3% 0%

15% 15% 3% 0%

0% 2%

0% 3%

0% 4%

0% 5%

12% 17% 4% 0% 3% 0% 5%

10%

4%

14%

13%

5%

26%

0% 7% 39% 1% 28% 11% 17% 0% 3% 0% 9% 1% 0% 30%

22%

22%

19%

3%

3%

34%

34%

33%

0%

0%

14%

14%

14%

14%

14% 7%

11% 7% 2% 14% 2% 6% 8% 6%

0% 7%

11% 4% 7% 4%

4% 8% 5%

4% 8% 5%

6% 2% 6%

6% 3% 6%

5% 29% 6%

6% 9% 6% 8% 6%

6%

7%

7%

7%

8%

13%

12%

13%

10%

9%

Since 2003 it has not been possible to isolate data relating to energy recovery from municipal waste incineration plants from data relating to other forms of energy recovery, but municipal waste incinerators are certainly the main form of recovery. It is sometimes suggested that the establishment of energy recovery facilities diverts materials away from recycling. Possibly the best way to resolve this question is to examine recycling trends in the countries with the highest reliance on energy recovery: •

Denmark (38% energy recovery in 2006) – the recycling of plastic packaging is growing (20% in 2006), but still below the EU-15 average of 26%; paper and board packaging recycling is stable at around 62%, below the EU-15 average of 76%.

•

Luxembourg (33% energy recovery in 2006) – the recycling of plastic packaging is growing slowly, 32% in 2006, above the EU-15 average of 26%; paper and board packaging recycling is growing and is now 72%, close to the EU-15 average of 76%. 32

•

The Netherlands (29% energy recovery in 2006) – the recycling of plastic packaging is growing, 24% in 2006, slightly below the EU-15 average of 26%; paper and board packaging recycling is stable at around 72%, close to the EU-15 average of 76%.

•

Finland (28% energy recovery in 2006) – the recycling of plastic packaging is stable at 15%, well below the EU-15 average of 26%; paper and board packaging has been growing rapidly and in 2006 was 86%, well above the EU-15 average of 76%.

•

Germany (23% energy recovery in 2006) – the recycling of plastic packaging has been rising since a big drop in 2003, and was 38% in 2006, well above the EU-15 average of 26%; paper and board packaging recycling also fell in 2003,and has since been stable at around 80%, slightly above the EU-15 average of 76%.

•

Sweden (23% energy recovery in 2006) – the recycling of plastic packaging has been growing rapidly, 44% in 2006, well above the EU-15 average of 26%; paper and board packaging recycling is stable at around 72%, below the EU-15 average of 76%.

Taking 2006 data for EU-27 plus Norway, here is another approach: Energy recovery rate 31-40% 21-30% 11-20% 1-10% 0%

Paper & board recycling 91-100% 81-90% 71-80% 61-70% 51-60% 41-50% 31-40% 11-30%

Plastics recycling 41-50% 31-40% 21-30% 11-20% 1-10% 0%

No. of countries

Average paper & board recycling

2 4 4 14 4

No. of countries

67% 78% 78% 70% 41%

26% 30% 33% 27% 11%

Average energy recovery

2 5 7 6 5 1 1 1

No. of countries

Average Plastics recycling

4% 18% 18% 10% 6% 0% 0% 0%

Average energy recovery

2 6 9 9 1 1

14% 16% 10% 10% 0% 0%

It is clear that the countries with no energy recovery facilities (Bulgaria, Cyprus, Greece and Malta) also achieve relatively low recycling rates because their waste management infrastructure in general is at an early stage of development.

33

In those countries with the highest levels of energy recovery (Denmark and Luxembourg), some marginal recycling may be inhibited, but this may not necessarily be environmentally disadvantageous if this avoids poor-quality recyclate being shipped to third countries (outside the EU). Beyond the top level, the countries with high recycling rates are also those with a relatively high level of energy recovery.

34

RECYCLING RATES BY MATERIAL Table 21: Glass packaging recycling rates

Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Rep. Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Norway Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden UK EU-27 average EU-15 average EU-NEW average EU-8 average

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

80% 66%

77% 75%

97% 80%

82% 85%

86% 93%

83% 96%

86% 97%

42% 90%

63% 95% 61% 57% 85% 25%

80% 100% 19% 4% 75% 99% 48% 63% 60% 83% 24% 21% 64% 57% 37% 40% 79%

84% 100% 56% 6% 71% 115% 48% 75% 60% 82% 25% 21% 62% 59% 32% 30% 78% 10% 77% 105% 34% 46% 8% 14% 39% 51% 91% 51% 60% 64% 32% 36%

75%

85%

80%

76%

64% 45% 85% 21%

79% 50% 85% 19%

66% 50% 85% 24%

49% 51% 85% 24%

32% 37%

32% 40%

29% 47%

39% 48%

49% 52% 86% 24% 12% 48% 53%

81%

73%

82%

90%

83%

71%

4% 69% 102% 66% 55% 59% 81% 35% 15% 55% 56% 25% 34% 78%

85%

80%

80%

78%

79%

76%

76%

78%

42%

44%

38%

34%

35%

38%

27% 39%

27% 41% 10% 50% 38% 44% 95% 52%

56% 53%

27% 37% 84% 23%

38% 84% 30%

31% 86% 39%

32% 84% 35%

36% 88% 34%

38% 92% 36%

27% 19% 41% 104% 44%

52%

55%

57%

56%

58%

59%

61%

63%

31%

35%

Of the 25 Member States that joined the EU in or before May 2004, only the island nation-states Cyprus and Malta have had any difficulty in meeting the first-stage recycling target of 15% set by Directive 94/62/EC. Glass recycling in Romania is still at an early stage, but Bulgaria reported a rapid increase from 19% in 2005 to 56% in 2006. The second-stage target of 60% recycling applies to twelve Member States from 2008. Only Italy (59%), Spain (51%) and UK (51%) had not achieved this rate by 2006. Of the Member States with later deadlines, the Czech Republic and Ireland have already exceeded 60%. Three Member States have reported recycling rates of 100% or more in 2006. This may be partly attributable to free-riding – more glass being placed on the market than has found its way into the official statistics – but it is also may be due to a high level of personal imports, as alcoholic drinks in some countries are taxed more heavily than in neighbouring countries.

35

Table 22: Glass packaging recycling per capita (in kg)

Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Rep. Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Norway Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden UK EU-27 average EU-15 average EU-NEW average EU-8 average

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

23 22

22 24

28 26

23 27

22 29

22 39

23 37

7 26

10 27 7 30 32 4

22 37 4 1 14 22 10 10 30 29 5 3 22 21 12 8 48 0 26

24 37 6 1 13 21 10 10 30 29 3 3 23 21 9 6 53 2 26 13 8 17 1 3 6 19 18 22 20 24 6 7

25

25

25

26

7 26 39 3

9 28 39 3

7 28 38 4

6 28 35 4

10 14

10 16

9 16

11 17

6 29 34 4 2 15 18

40

37

41

43

43

45

25

25

25

25

25

25

1 11 26 14 7 30 30 6 3 16 21 6 6 46 0 26

12

14

13

12

12

13

7 14

18 20

6

7 15 1 9 5 17 17 21

14 16 9

14 16 12

12 16 14

13 16 13

13 17 13

15 17 14

5 3 16 18 18

21

22

23

22

22

23

23

24

6

8

36

Table 23: Metal packaging recycling rates

Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Rep. Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Norway Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden UK EU-27 average EU-15 average EU-NEW average EU-8 average

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

38% 66%

38% 72%

49% 70%

61% 81%

67% 86%

55% 93%

59% 91%

18% 44%

38% 40% 50% 57% 81% 10%

59% 88% 0% 23% 35% 60% 36% 53% 68% 85% 38% 68% 58% 61% 36% 31% 50%

59% 93% 4% 80% 47% 63% 55% 58% 65% 89% 47% 64% 45% 64% 35% 58% 83% 8% 83% 69% 44% 61% 78% 21% 17% 62% 71% 53% 66% 68% 48% 46%

40%

36%

48%

40%

15% 45% 83% 11%

19% 45% 82% 11%

28% 49% 78% 11%

41% 52% 79% 9%

5% 5%

26% 11%

24% 45%

37% 44%

49% 53% 79% 9% 37% 35% 54%

20%

40%

67%

67%

71%

75%

38% 35% 40% 25% 55% 53% 83% 15% 48% 57% 53% 38% 17% 50%

80%

78%

78%

78%

80%

85%

86%

84%

0%

1%

15%

24%

53%

54%

23% 56%

31% 60% 53% 41% 38% 60% 64% 47%

55% 55%

36% 22% 76% 23%

24% 51% 38%

34% 43% 42%

38% 69% 35%

39% 68% 39%

45% 70% 41%

18% 21% 56% 65% 42%

42%

47%

53%

54%

57%

59%

59%

65%

31%

39%

All EU-15 countries met the first-stage recycling target of 15% on time, in 2001 for twelve of them and in 2005 for Greece, Ireland and Portugal. Eight of the ten countries that joined the EU in May 2004 also met their deadlines, the exceptions being Cyprus, which started too late to reach 15% by the date of accession, and Malta. Cyprus has however reported a remarkable rate of progress in subsequent years. Bulgaria did not start recycling metal packaging until 2006, but Romania is such a strong performer that the aggregated metal packaging recycling rate of the twelve new Member States exceeds that of the EU-8 countries whose recycling systems are generally the most advanced of the new entrants. All twelve Member States required to reach the second-stage target of 50% recycling by 2008 had already done so in 2006. Of those with later deadlines, Cyprus, Estonia, Hungary, Lithuania, Portugal and Romania have already exceeded 50%. The Member States reporting the highest recycling rates for metal packaging in 2006 were Belgium (93%), Germany (89%) and the Netherlands (83%). Of the Member States where deposits are imposed on beverage cans, Germany (89%) and Sweden (71%) exceeded the EU-15 average recycling rate of 68%, but Denmark (64%) and Finland (59%) did not, and nor did Norway (67%). Estonia (53%) did however achieve a recycling rate higher than the 48% average in the new Member States.

37

Table 24: Metal packaging recycling per capita (in kg)

Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Rep. Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Norway Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden UK EU-27 average EU-15 average EU-NEW average EU-8 average

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

4 9

4 9

5 10

5 11

4 12

4 13

4 12

1 3

2 3 4 6 9 1 10 6

4 11 0 4 2 4 3 5 7 9 4 4 10 7 2 1 4 0 11

5 12 0 5 2 5 4 5 7 10 6 4 7 7 3 2 11 1 11 2 3 6 3 1 1 7 5 7 7 8 2 3

4

3

5

3

1 5 11 1

1 5 11 1

2 6 11 1

3 6 11 1

1 1

3 1

3 5

8 5

4 6 11 1 3 7 6

2

5

9

9

11

7

12

11

11

10

11

11

7 2 3 2 4 6 9 2 4 10 6 2 1 2 0 11

0

0

1

2

5

5

1 6

1

2 6 3 1 3 7 5 7

2 6 3

2 4 6

4 3 6

4 5 5

5 5 5

5 5 6

0 2 6 5 6

5

6

6

7

7

7

7

7

2

2

38

Table 25: Plastic packaging recycling rates

Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Rep. Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Norway Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden UK EU-27 average EU-15 average EU-NEW average EU-8 average

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

27% 26%

25% 24%

26% 25%

29% 28%

30% 29%

30% 32%

33% 37%

21% 15%

38% 17% 15% 16% 38% 3%

33% 38% 8% 9% 35% 19% 25% 14% 19% 35% 10% 19% 24% 26% 33% 22% 32%

36% 39% 17% 15% 44% 20% 33% 15% 19% 38% 10% 20% 20% 27% 28% 26% 32% 0% 24% 30% 25% 15% 17% 40% 38% 22% 44% 22% 26% 26% 25% 29%

6%

11%

13%

14%

10% 8% 59% 4%

13% 9% 59% 3%

14% 11% 53% 3%

15% 14% 52% 3%

2% 11%

4% 16%

9% 16%

11% 19%

15% 15% 49% 3% 9% 16% 23%

11%

22%

30%

30%

30%

22%

9% 44% 16% 10% 14% 17% 34% 6% 14% 22% 26% 22% 22% 36%

14%

18%

23%

21%

16%

20%

19%

22%

3%

4%

5%

10%

9%

9%

16% 10%

17% 16% 11% 18% 35% 21% 30% 22%

16% 24%

12% 9% 24% 7%

14% 20% 13%

17% 14% 15%

18% 17% 16%

20% 20% 19%

20% 22% 18%

16% 13% 20% 25% 19%

18%

21%

22%

23%

24%

23%

23%

25%

20%

22%

The twelve EU-15 countries required to meet the first-stage recycling target of 15% did so by 2002, a year late in two cases, and Ireland and Portugal met their 2005 target on time (though Greece fell short and Finland had slipped back to 14% by that year). The twelve new Member States were given various deadlines to meet this target: •

Slovakia met its May 2004 deadline; Estonia did not, but reached the target in 2005;

•

Lithuania met its end-2004 target on time, and Cyprus met that target in 2006;

•

the Czech Republic and Hungary met their 2005 deadline;

•

Latvia, Slovenia, Bulgaria and Romania have all met their 2007 deadline ahead of time;

•

Malta has until 2009 to meet the target, but had not started recycling plastic packaging in 2006.

Seven of the twelve Member States required to reach the second-stage target of 22.5% recycling by 2008 had already done so in 2006, and two more were only fractionally short. Of the countries with

39

later deadlines, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia have already exceeded 22.5%. Remarkably, the EU-8 countries achieved a higher plastic packaging recycling rate than EU-15. The Member States reporting the highest recycling rates for plastic packaging in 2006 were the Czech Republic (44%), Germany (41%), Slovakia (40%), Belgium (39%) and Slovenia (39%). Of the Member States where deposits are imposed on beverage containers, Sweden (44%), Germany (41%) and Estonia (34%) exceeded the EU-15 average recycling rate of 26%, as did Norway (30%), but Denmark (20%) and Finland (16%) did not. From January 2006, large non-refillable PET bottles were allowed onto the Dutch market for the first time, provided they were deposit-bearing, and the plastics recycling rate in the Netherlands rose from 22% in 2005 to 24% in 2006. This was however less than the rate of increase between 2004 and 2005. Table 26: Plastic packaging recycling per capita (in kg)

Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Rep. Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Norway Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden UK EU-27 average EU-15 average EU-NEW average EU-8 average

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

6 6

6 5

7 6

7 7

7 7

8 9

9 10

4 4

6 5 2 5 10 1

9 11 1 4 7 6 6 3 6 10 2 4 13 9 5 3 15 0 8

10 11 2 3 9 7 9 3 6 12 3 4 13 10 5 4 15 0 9 8 4 5 3 4 9 8 9 8 8 9 4 5

2

4

4

4

2 2 12 1

2 3 12 1

2 3 12 1

3 4 12 1

1 4

2 5

4 5

5 7

3 5 12 1 1 7 8

2

5

7

7

7

9

5

5

7

6

5

7

4 8 5 2 2 6 9 2 2 12 9 3 3 18 0 7

1

1

1

3

3

3

3 3

9 8

1

3 5 2 3 6 8 6 7

2 4 2

4 3 4

5 2 4

6 3 5

6 4 6

7 4 5

1 2 7 5 6

5

6

6

6

7

7

7

8

3

4

40

Table 27: Paper and board packaging recycling rates

Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Rep. Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Norway Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden UK EU-27 average EU-15 average EU-NEW average EU-8 average

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

84% 83%

88% 70%

87% 82%

81% 86%

80% 78%

81% 79%

83% 83%

36% 61%

62% 60% 63% 69% 80% 70%

86% 83% 82% 13% 84% 60% 46% 79% 81% 81% 73% 86% 71% 67% 58% 59% 69%

87% 89% 46% 35% 91% 62% 55% 86% 84% 80% 70% 94% 74% 67% 59% 59% 72% 13% 72% 83% 51% 68% 56% 61% 67% 71% 72% 80% 75% 76% 61% 63%

58%

59%

62%

65%

57% 61% 88% 66%

61% 59% 87% 67%

62% 59% 90% 67%

58% 61% 91% 68%

15% 37%

14% 39%

17% 46%

24% 52%

61% 64% 88% 68% 55% 35% 59%

50%

34%

38%

60%

62%

64%

42% 71% 59% 33% 70% 76% 82% 70% 67% 70% 62% 59% 60% 66%

70%

71%

71%

65%

69%

69%

70%

72%

48%

52%

47%

57%

50%

50%

40% 56%

41% 60% 51% 20% 77% 69% 72% 74%

65% 58%

49% 52% 84% 47%

54% 73% 49%

58% 63% 50%

64% 69% 53%

60% 70% 59%

57% 88% 65%

50% 65% 63% 71% 68%

61%

62%

64%

67%

68%

68%

72%

75%

51%

54%

None of the 27 EU Member States had any difficulty in meeting the first-stage recycling target of 15% paper and board recycling. All EU-15 Member States and five of the newer Member States have already met the second-stage target of 60% recycling applicable from 2008 for twelve countries and from various dates between 2011 and 2015 for the remainder. Only Malta (11%) was behind schedule in 2006.

41

Table 28: Paper & board packaging recycling per capita (in kg)

Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Rep. Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Norway Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden UK EU-27 average EU-15 average EU-NEW average EU-8 average

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

54 44

57 40

58 41

50 44

50 43

54 45

50 49

12 57

18 55 32 47 66 24

52 51 16 7 25 57 20 37 55 68 26 25 57 49 17 13 48 0 64

55 54 9 9 30 61 26 43 59 69 25 28 70 50 21 15 49 5 66 50 19 49 11 12 23 54 54 50 48 56 18 21

48

52

55

59

27 42 61 21

30 42 63 22

31 44 67 22

30 44 69 23

12 26

11 28

16 33

23 38

30 44 70 23 20 34 43

33

23

25

41

41

40

59

63

59

56

62

63

30 22 54 13 33 52 69 24 26 54 47 16 12 42 0 63

22

25

22

27

25

25

12 28

44 42

18

13 30 6 5 22 50 52 46

34 54 32

35 48 32

41 42 33

42 47 34

45 49 37

43 62 41

19 17 47 51 43

41

42

45

46

48

49

51

53

16

16

42

Table 29: Wood packaging recycling rates

Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Rep. Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Norway Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden UK EU-27 average EU-15 average EU-NEW average EU-8 average

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

17% 53%

17% 39%

14% 34%

13% 59%

16% 55%

20% 60%

19% 64%

2%

11% 26%

43%

97% 57% 74% 2% 33%

19% 65% 0% 25% 16% 24% 33% 5% 21% 34% 56% 2% 77% 50% 57% 1% 56%

58%

33%

39%

66%

20% 66%

37% 16% 54%

30% 3% 43% 7% 57%

17% 58% 5% 31% 19% 44% 2% 55%

41%

40%

38%

22%

17%

16% 64% 0% 29% 21% 34% 17% 8% 20% 29% 58% 20% 77% 53% 44% 19% 33% 20% 39% 0% 16% 66% 3% 0% 6% 50% 17% 73% 38% 40% 16% 19%

18% 60%

18% 61%

18% 55% 22%

25%

29%

19% 41% 22%

27%

19% 41% 23%

7% 20% 35% 22%

60%

98% 60%

29%

71%

60% 3%

23%

24%

13%

28%

44%

86%

55%

5% 11% 30% 6% 7% 20% 34% 35%

As noted above, reporting on wood packaging was optional before 2003. Directive 94/62/EC did not set a recycling target for wood until it was revised in 2004, so no targets apply until 2008 (for eight Member States) or even later. The average wood recycling rate reported by the EU-15 Member States for 2006 was 40%, with a range from 8% to 77%. By 2006, only Finland had not already met the 15% target set for 2008. Although Greece, Ireland and Portugal have a derogation until 2011 to reach the target, they were some of the strongest performers in 2006, with wood recycling rates of 58%, 77% and 66% respectively. The average wood recycling rate reported by the twelve “new” Member States was 16%, with a range from 0% to 44%. Seven of them had already met the 15% target set for 2012 or later. One of these was Malta, where separate collection of household packaging waste was only just beginning in 2006. This is further evidence that wood recycling rates are entirely atypical of a country’s general recycling performance. Member States’ data on wood tends to be particularly inconsistent because of the fine distinction between recycling and reuse, especially for wooden pallets. At what point does pallet repair cease to

43

be reconditioning (reuse) and become recycling? It is interesting that in 2005, Latvia reported a recycling rate of 57%, while Lithuania reported 1%, though for all other materials the two Baltic neighbours’ reported recycling rates are very close. As the Swedish authorities have pointed out, in northern Europe, broken pallets are often incinerated rather than repaired, because they are drier than forestry waste and so are preferable as incinerator feedstock. Also, if forestry waste is left on the ground, it enriches the soil for the next growth. Another factor is that in countries where wood-burning stoves are common, used wooden packaging is a source of domestic fuel. This means that it will bypass the official accounting system, but in any case should not be counted because burning in domestic wood fires does not meet the definition of “recovery” in the revised Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive. Table 30: Wood packaging recycling per capita (in kg)

Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Rep. Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Norway Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden UK EU-27 average EU-15 average EU-NEW average EU-8 average

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

1 7

1 6

1 7

1 9

1 9

1 10

1 12 1 1 5 0 3 7 10 2

2 12 0 3 1 5 2 2 7 10 3

7

27 28 18 0 7

23 24 17 0 11

16

9

13

5

3 6

2 7

1 12 0 3 2 7 1 3 7 9 3 4 21 26 19 3 6 2 13 0 2 5

1 1 8 3 13

1 3 10 1 13

12

12

2

2

5

5 15

15

2

6 16

16

13

6 16 1

7 12 1

15

24

7

7

15

3

7 12 1

2 7 11 1

27

25 27

7

1 1

3

4

3

2

5

10

13

6 7 13

7

8

8

9

10

12

44

0 1 11 6 14 10 12 2 3