Assessment of waste incineration capacities and waste … · 2016. 7. 27. · 1 Assessment of waste...

1

Assessment of waste

incineration capacities and waste shipments in Europe

Draft prepared by:

Henning Wilts, Laura Galinski (WI)

Giovanni Marin (IRCrES), Susanna Paleari (IRCrES), Roberto Zoboli (SEEDS)

European Topic Centre on Waste and Materials in a Green Economy

15 July 2016

EEA project manager:

Jasmina Bogdanovic

3

Content Overview

Content Overview ........................................................................................................................... 3

Executive summary ...................................................................................................................... 5

PART A Assessment of waste incineration capacities .............................................................. 7

1 Policy context and objectives ............................................................................................. 7

1.1 Policy context ............................................................................................................. 7

1.2 Objectives .................................................................................................................. 8

2 Methodology ........................................................................................................................ 9

2.1 Key definitions ............................................................................................................ 9

2.2 Scope ....................................................................................................................... 10

2.3 Data availability ........................................................................................................ 11

2.3.1 Relevant data sources .............................................................................................. 11

2.3.2 Data uncertainties .................................................................................................... 13

3 Capacity assessment ........................................................................................................ 14

3.1 Total capacity and capacity per capita ...................................................................... 14

3.2 Capacity assessment in relation to waste generation ............................................... 17

4 Other relevant waste streams and treatment options ..................................................... 21

4.1 Other thermal treatment options ............................................................................... 21

4.2 Future options for increasing energy recovery of specific waste streams .................. 23

4.3 Additional data sources ............................................................................................ 23

PART B Assessment of waste trade for energy recovery ........................................................ 26

1 Policy context and objectives ........................................................................................... 26

1.1 Policy context ........................................................................................................... 26

1.2 Objectives ................................................................................................................ 26

2 Methodology ...................................................................................................................... 27

2.1 Data availability ........................................................................................................ 27

2.1.1 Relevant waste classification codes ......................................................................... 27

4

2.1.2 Relevant waste data sources .................................................................................... 28

3 Waste shipments assessment .......................................................................................... 31

3.1 Waste shipments ...................................................................................................... 31

3.1.1 Shipments of Y-46 waste for incineration in Europe.................................................. 31

3.1.2 Shipments of Y-46 waste for incineration by country ................................................ 32

3.1.3 Shipments of ‘mixed municipal waste’ and ‘refuse derived fuel’ for incineration ........ 37

3.2 Drivers of waste trade ............................................................................................... 47

4 Conclusions ....................................................................................................................... 50

Annex 1 National sources for waste incineration capacities in Europe .......................................... 52

Annex 2 Figures on incineration capacities in Europe by country, 2014 ........................................ 56

Annex 3 Figures on incineration capacities, MSW recycling rates and MSW landfilling in Europe by country, 2014 ....................................................................................................................... 58

Annex 4 Number of plants in EU-27 .............................................................................................. 59

Annex 5 MSW incineration capacity taking into account sorting residues in Europe by country, 2014 ............................................................................................................................................ 61

Annex 6 Main stages of the notification procedure ........................................................................ 63

Annex 7 Non-hazardous LoW codes corresponding to Y-46, ‘mix’ and ‘not specified’ Y-codes in the 2010-2013 period; only waste destined to R1+D10; EU-28, Norway and Switzerland .......... 65

References .................................................................................................................................. 68

5

Executive summary

Objectives of the assessment

In January 2016, DG Environment initiated the exercise on ‘Exploiting the potential of waste and energy under the Energy Union Framework Strategy and the circular economy’ with the goal to publish a Commission Communication on Waste-to-Energy (WtE). The initiativee is supported by the Joint Research Centre Institute for Prospective Technological Studies (JRC-IPTS) in Seville and the European Environment Agency (EEA) in cooperation with the European Topic Centre on Waste and Materials in a Green Economy (ETC/WMGE).

The assessment is split into two thematic parts: Part A with a focus on waste incineration capacities and Part B with a focus on waste trade for energy recovery.

The objective of the Part A assessment is to provide an overview of the current situation in EU-28, Norway and Switzerland with regard to existing incineration plants for household waste and their capacities. In this assessment, the focus is on waste incineration plants that are technically and legally suitable to treat mixed MSW without any pre-treatments. Due to the data and information limitations, the assessment covers WtE plants as well as the MSW treatment in incinerators without energy recovery, but excludes co-incineration plants.

In this assessment, capacity can be understood as the ‘total permitted capacities of waste throughput expressed in tonnes per year’ used for the purposes of assessing implementation of the Waste Incineration Directive (2000/76/EC). The Directive was repealed by the Industrial Emissions Directive (2010/75/EU). Based on this definition, identification of (over-) or (under)capacities is understood as a ‘miss-match’ of existing incineration capacity and generation of to be incinerated MSW.

The objective of the Part B assessment is to provide a statistical overview of waste trade flows for incineration in EU-28, Norway and Switzerland. In addition, it examines shipments of waste classified as wastes collected from households (Y-46) according to the Basel Convention, as well as ‘mixed municipal waste’ and ‘combustible waste’ pursuant to the European Waste Catalogue (EWC), based on Eurostat data on waste shipments.

Data availability

Data and information on incineration capacities are currently rather scarce. In particular, the differentiation of the capacity divided by type of waste poses a challenge. While the treated waste is subdivided in the statistics by type of waste, the total plant capacity is not usually documented in terms of the different waste throughputs. In other words, identifying the share of MSW and non-MSW for the plants is not always possible. Moreover, it is often unclear whether permitted or technical capacities are stated. Interpretation difficulties related to different data sources, as well as geographical and time coverage of the data, are indicated where applicable.

6

Part A Assessment of waste incineration capacities

The total incineration capacity in EU-28, Norway and Switzerland increased by 6% between 2010 and 2014 to 81 million tonnes. The distribution is uneven, with only three countries (Germany, France and the Netherlands) accounting for more than half of incineration capacities. With Italy, Sweden and the UK included, the share reaches 74%. Particularly in the UK the incineration capacity has been steeply rising. Many of the remaining countries still heavily depend on landfills and do not have any MSW plants or building plans have been halted due to the economic downturn.

The highest waste incineration capacities per capita in 2014 were identified in Sweden and Denmark (close to 600 kilogramme per capita), followed by the Netherlands, Switzerland, Austria and Finland. These findings already indicate that waste incineration could play an important role in district heating systems in observed countries.

Another parameter that was analysed is the ratio between generated amounts of MSW and existing incineration capacities. This roughly indicates the distribution of potential (over-)capacities across Europe. Countries where generated amounts of MSW are below existing incineration capacities (for example Sweden in 2014) may rely on waste imports in order to exploit full incineration capacities. This could affect the implementation of waste hierarchy principles.

An overall environmental assessment would also need to take into account climate change mitigation effects from using less fossil fuels due to often energy efficient district heating systems based on waste incineration. This is beyond the scope of this report.

Part B Assessment of waste trade for energy recovery

Imbalance between waste generation and available recycling/recovery capacity in the domestic markets is a potential driver of international waste trade, assuming that the use of landfill is increasingly discouraged in all European countries. The growing waste incineration capacity, particularly in the UK, may thus influence future waste shipment patterns.

Imports and exports of household waste for incineration were rather stable during most of the last decade, but the flows increased substantially from 2008 onwards. Total imports increased close to five-fold to 1.4 million tonnes in 2013, whereas total waste exports increased six-fold to 2.3 million tonnes. In spite of this growth, traded flows of MSW are still very low compared to a total 242 million tonnes of MSW generated in the EU-28 in 2013.

7

PART A Assessment of waste incineration capacities

1 Policy context and objectives

1.1 Policy context

In January 2016, DG Environment1 initiated the exercise on ‘Exploiting the potential of waste and energy under the Energy Union Framework Strategy and the circular economy’. This initiative finds its political context in the Energy Union Framework Strategy adopted on 25.02.2015 COM(2015) 80 final, which sets out Communication on waste to energy and the 7th Environmental Action Programme Decision 1386/2013/EU of the European Parliament and Council OJ L 354/171, which limits energy recovery to non-recyclable waste. Planned document at the end of the process is the Communication on Waste-to-Energy (WtE) (EC, 2016).

The starting point of the initiative is the circular economy concept (closing the loop) and the waste hierarchy that priorities waste prevention, reuse, recycling and other recovery over landfill and disposal of waste. Therefore, waste that for technical, economical or environmental reasons could not be prevented or recycled might be suitable for energy recovery operations.

Of the five thematic areas covered by the initiative, four are assessed by the Joint Research Centre Institute for Perspective Technological Studies (JRC-IPTS), namely lack of synergies between WtE and EU policies; making existing WtE processes more energy efficient; untapped potential from waste-derived fuels; and lack of clarity about waste hierarchy. The fifth, unevenly spread WtE (over) capacities with focus on municipal solid waste (MSW), is assessed by the European Environment Agency (EEA) and its European Topic Centre on Waste and Materials in a Green Economy (ETC/WMGE).

Specific attention is given to unevenly spread WtE (over)capacities. According to the DG ENV initiative (2016), some Member States (such as Sweden, Denmark, Estonia) show incineration (with energy recovery) overcapacities (especially for MSW), while the south eastern part of the EU shows no capacity at all and high landfill rates. This uneven distribution results in shipment of waste from energy recovery across the EU. The Communication should thus consider to what extent shipments of combustible non-recyclable waste from Member States with a high landfill rate and insufficient WtE capacity towards to Member States with WtE (over)capacities might contribute to better waste management and to a more efficient use of the network of WtE facilities in the EU.

(Over-)capacities for waste incineration2 have been mentioned as a relevant barrier for the transition towards a more circular economy, inter alia by the EEA State of the Environment Report 2015 (EEA, 2015, p. 91) as well as by the European Commission´s Circular Economy Action Plan (EC, 2015).

1 More specifically, unit A2 on waste management and recycling within the DG ENV. 2 Although some countries do not fulfil the R1 criterion and ‘just’ dispose waste.

8

Overcapacities in waste incineration plants pose a low-cost alternative to material recycling and waste prevention, thus counteracting the waste hierarchy.

At the same time many EU Member States still landfill considerable amounts of waste without any prior treatment leading to severe impacts on the environment, e.g. by causing greenhouse gas emissions, etc. (EEA, 2015). These trade-offs need to be taken into account systematically in order to define the role of waste incineration in a circular economy.

1.2 Objectives

The objective of this part is to analyse current MSW management in Europe with regard to thermal treatment and incineration capacities. A complete overview is given of the capacities of existing incineration plants for household waste (expressed as ‘a ‘total permitted capacities of waste throughput expressed in tonnes per year’3) within EU-28, Norway and Switzerland presented for each individual country. The overview builds on previous work by the ETC/WMGE since 2014 and takes into account first discussions with DG Environment, JRC-IPTS, EEA and other stakeholders.

3 The term is used in the Waste Incineration Directive (2000/76/EC) questionnaire; 1.1 (d). The Directive is repealed by the Industrial Emissions Directive (2010/75/EU).

9

2 Methodology

2.1 Key definitions

For a correct interpretation of the analysis, a few terms require explanation. The following definitions are taken from the Industrial Emissions Directive (2010/75/EU), Article 3:

(39) “’mixed municipal waste’ means waste from households as well as commercial, industrial and institutional waste which, because of its nature and composition, is similar to waste from households, but excluding fractions indicated under heading 20 01 of the Annex to Decision 2000/532/EC that are collected separately at source and excluding the other waste indicated under heading 20 02 of that Annex;

(40) “’waste incineration plant’ means any stationary or mobile technical unit and equipment dedicated to the thermal treatment of waste, with or without recovery of the combustion heat generated, through the incineration by oxidation of waste as well as other thermal treatment processes, such as pyrolysis, gasification or plasma process, if the substances resulting from the treatment are subsequently incinerated”;

(41) “’waste co-incineration plant’ means any stationary or mobile technical unit whose main purpose is the generation of energy or production of material products and which uses waste as a regular or additional fuel or in which waste is thermally treated for the purpose of disposal through the incineration by oxidation of waste as well as other thermal treatment processes, such as pyrolysis, gasification or plasma process, if the substances resulting from the treatment are subsequently incinerated”;

(42) “’nominal capacity’ means the sum of the incineration capacities of the furnaces of which a waste incineration plant or a waste co-incineration plant is composed, as specified by the constructor and confirmed by the operator, which due account being taken of the calorific value of the waste, expressed as the quantity of waste incinerated per hour”.

Incineration capacity is in this report broadly understood as ‘a total permitted capacities of waste throughput expressed in tonnes per year as described in the questionnaire designed to assess implementation of the Waste Incineration Directive (2000/76/EC); question 1.1 (d). The Directive is repealed by the Industrial Emissions Directive (2010/75/EU).

In addition, assessment on (over-) or (under-) capacities is carried out at country level by comparing existing incineration capacity(ies) and generation of MSW designated for incineration.

10

2.2 Scope

This report focuses on assessing incineration capacities for MSW in EU-28, Norway and Switzerland.

A key interpretation difficulty of available data is the fact that even though the considered plants are dedicated plants for incineration of mixed MSW, such plants can also use other types of waste. Hence, analysis of MSW and waste management with (R1)4 and without energy recovery (D10) does not give the full picture for waste streams that are fed into incineration.

For that reason, other types of plants such as refuse derived fuel (RDF)5 plants and co-incineration plants would also have to be considered. However, the available data do not provide a complete overview on how much non-MSW is incinerated in plants originally dedicated to MSW, nor is it possible to define how much MSW is incinerated in RDF plants or in co-incineration plants. In both cases the amounts are limited because of quality requirements (especially with regard to the calorific value6) for the input.

For the Netherlands it has been reported that the average ratio between MSW vs. other waste streams is about 70:30, the average calorific value is in a range of 9-10 MJ/kg (Manders, 2013). For comparative purposes dry wood, for example, has the calorific value in the range of 14.4 to 17.4 MJ/kg, while coal ranges from 15 to 27 MJ/kg. Therefore, the partial analysis in this report can only be a starting point in the assessment of the total European waste incineration market.

Incineration is a waste treatment process based on the combustion of organic components of waste. Incineration with energy recovery is one of several WtE technologies. Waste in the incineration plant is subject to elevated temperatures for a predetermined amount of time under controlled conditions (Kranert et al. 2010). Schematic presentation of MSW incineration plant is given in Figure 1, though there is broad range of plants currently operating across Europe.

4 As set in Annex I on disposal operations (in particular D10) and Annex II on recovery operations (in particular R1) of the Waste Framework Directive (2008/98/EC). 5 Refuse derived fuel (RDF) or solid recovered fuel/specified recovered fuel (SRF) is a fuel produced by shredding and dehydrating solid waste with a waste converter technology. RDF consists largely of combustible components of municipal waste such as plastics and biodegradable waste. 6 Calorific value of a fuel is the quantity of heat produced by its combustion – at constant pressure and under ‘standard’ conditions (i.e. at 0ºC and under a pressure of 1.013 mbar).

11

Figure 1 Example of MSW incineration plant

Source: EIA (2016)

As previously mentioned, in the Waste Framework Directive (2008/98/EC) the incineration of MSW is classified as waste management operation with (R1) or without (D10) energy recovery according to the energy efficiency criteria.

It should be noted that this report focuses on waste incineration plants which are technically and legally suitable to treat mixed MSW without any pre-treatments. Accordingly, this report covers only WtE plants as well as the MSW treatment in incinerators without R1 standard, but excludes co-incineration plants such as cement kiln and RDF plants.

Interpretation difficulties related to different data sources, as well as geographical and time coverage of the data, are indicated where applicable.

2.3 Data availability

Information about the availability and current utilization of incineration capacities is rather limited. In particular, the differentiation of the capacities divided by waste type is challenging. While the treated waste is subdivided in the statistics by type of waste, the total plant capacity is not usually documented by the different waste throughputs (identifying the share of MSW and non-MSW in specific plants is problematic). Moreover, it is often not clear whether permitted or technical capacities are stated.

2.3.1 Relevant data sources

For all the above, this report draws on different studies and data sources that provide information on specific treatment capacities, such as incineration or waste streams. The caution is needed, as presented results do not provide a comprehensive overview across European countries. List of relevant studies and sources is provided in the following lines:

12

Statistical data from Eurostat: Eurostat reports number and capacity of recovery and disposal facilities by a Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics (NUTS)7 2 for regions since 2008. These figures do not relate specifically to MSW incineration plants, but include rather all different types of waste incineration plants (including also specific plants for medical waste or industrial RDF plants). With regard to the capacities as well as waste flows, Eurostat data referring to waste incineration is subdivided by the treatment type D10 (incineration without energy recovery) and R1 (incineration with energy recovery) as set in the Annex I and Annex II of the Waste Framework Directive (2008/98/EC).

CEWEP (Confederation of European Waste-to-Energy Plants) County Reports: The CEWEP County Reports give an overview on waste management plants, in particular incineration plants across Europe. The data is classified by plant type: WtE and RDF plants. While information about the number of the respective plants is available, the capacities of the plants are only partially stated. In addition, each country’s capacity development in comparison to the last report is reported. For the purposes of this assessment, CEWEP provided the latest information extracted from a survey conducted in 2016. The latest survey included incineration capacity figures for 2014.

“Waste-to-Energy State-of-the-Art-Report” provided by ISWA (International Solid Waste Association), 2012: For about half of the EU-27 countries data for 2011 from an ISWA state-of-the-art report on WtE plants is available. The data refers to all WtE plants whose capacity exceeds 15 tonnes per day or 10 000 tonnes per year. The statistical data shows the number of plants in each country and the percentage of plants for which further technical data is needed.

“Screening of Waste Management Performance of EU Member States” provided by BiPRO (Consultancy for integrated solutions), 2012: A report of BiPRO for the European Commission provides further information about data as well as data gaps on incineration capacity. In the report, the waste management performance of all EU Member States is screened. Although, no specific data have been documented, the report is a source of country-specific references, such as information available in the national Waste Management Plans (WMPs).

National Waste Management Plans (NWMPs): In Article 28 of the Waste Framework Directive (Directive 2008/98/EC) it is stated, that the waste management plan shall contain […] sufficient information […] on the capacity of future disposal or major recovery installations”. Thus the EU Member States are obliged to develop waste management plans that contain data on waste treatment capacities. For some countries site-specific data on MSW incineration plants is given (e.g. in Germany or in Sweden).

The report is based on publicly available data as well as inputs from the key stakeholders including national environment protection agencies and associations of waste incineration plant operators. Key data sources for this report have been national inventories of MSW incineration plants. These inventories have been analysed by the ETC/WMGE and cross-checked with recent results of the 2016 CEWEB survey. Plant-specific figures have been described in detail in Wilts/ von Gries 2014 and 2015.

7 NUTS stands for the Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics. It is a geographical nomenclature subdividing the economic territory of the EU into regions at three different levels (NUTS 1, 2 and 3 respectively, moving from larger to smaller territorial units).

13

It should be noted that the 2016 CEWEP overview on European waste incineration plants shows different results for some countries: In the latest survey, some countries, especially Germany, include also information on RDF plants. In this assessment, information on RDF incineration capacities in Europe is covered in Chapter 5, Part A.

Following Annexes in Part A of this report provide more details about data analysed and original data sources by country:

Annex 1 National sources for waste incineration capacities in Europe;

Annex 2 Figures on incineration capacities in Europe by country, 2014;

Annex 3 Figures on incineration capacities, MSW recycling rates and MSW landfilling in Europe by country, 2014;

Annex 4 Number of plants in EU-27.

2.3.2 Data uncertainties

The assessment of a waste incineration capacity plant “is influenced by many factors such as heating values, optimized operations control systems or the mechanical pre-treatment of wastes […] (Richers 2010), and lack of information on these factors could limit the analysis.

Waste incineration plants for MSW are usually planned to have a specific incineration capacity that is determined by the waste volumes requiring incineration and the amount of heat from the incineration process that could be used by surrounding industrial facilities [is it only industrial facilities? What about district heating scheme?]. The combustion chamber and kettle of the incineration plant are adjusted to the resulting heat and flue gas quantity (Richers 2010). If heating temperatures are increased, waste throughput has to be reduced to avoid thermal overload. As such, waste volumes and incineration capacity may fluctuate over time (ibid.)

Possible reasons for varying operating temperatures can be changes of the material composition of generated waste within specific disposal areas; e.g. by introducing additional separate collection schemes for higher calorific value of waste streams (such as packaging) or lower calorific value of waste streams (such as bio-waste). Also pre-sorting of waste streams can significantly influence temperatures during the incineration process, particularly the separation of secondary fuels and the separate incineration of waste wood and bulky waste.

Technical changes may also influence annual incineration capacities. Those include the addition of new or replacement of old kettles, improvement in control engineering or of the operational control system enabled by technical progress and the annual operating time which can be influenced by improved corrosion protection.

These and other factors can lead to differences between permitted and technical capacity, which should be taken into account for an assessment of over- or under-capacities.

14

3 Capacity assessment

3.1 Total capacity and capacity per capita

Based on the analysis of waste incineration capacities for EU-28, Norway and Switzerland, Figure 2 shows the distribution of total waste incineration capacity (expressed in million tonnes). For 2014, a total incineration capacity for MSW was 81.285 million tonnes. Compared to 2010, incineration capacity has increased by close to 6% from 76.875 million tonnes. Apparently the average size of MSW waste incineration plants has increase or additional capacity has been added to existing plants.

15

Figure 2 Total incineration capacities for MSW in Europe by country, 2014

Sources: ETC/WMGE compilation based on CEWEP 2016 and sources stated in Annex 1.

16

Figure 3 illustrates the distribution of waste incineration capacities across European countries (the same information is presented in Figure 2). Germany and France have the largest waste incineration capacities of 19.6 million tonnes and 14.5 million tonnes, respectively. Figure 3 also shows countries that did not have any incineration capacity for MSW, namely Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Greece, Latvia, Malta and Romania. However, in some of the countries plans are under way or plants are already under construction.

Figure 3 Total incineration capacities for MSW in Europe by country, 2014


Figure 4 shows annual waste incineration capacity per capita in 2014. Sweden and Denmark have the highest per capita capacity with 591 kg/cap and 587 kg/cap, respectively followed by the Netherlands, Switzerland, Austria and Finland. In Nordic countries, were waste incineration is important for district heating systems. For example, 98% of the heating in the city of Copenhagen is supplied by waste heat (C40 Cities, 2011).

17

Figure 4 Total incineration capacities per capita in Europe by country, 2014


3.2 Capacity assessment in relation to waste generation

For assessment of over- or under-capacities, the total amount of generated MSW is taken into account. Generation of MSW per capita differs significantly between the EU Member States, Norway and Switzerland, which leads to differences in required/necessary waste treatment capacities.

Figure 5 shows the amounts of MSW generated and MSW incineration capacities, both expressed per capita for EU Member States, Norway and Switzerland. It also shows the share of incinerated MSW as reported to Eurostat.

18

Figure 5 Generated and incinerated amounts of MSW per capita and share of incinerated MSW in Europe by country, 2014

Sources: ETC/WMGE compilation based on CEWEP 2016, sources stated in Annex 1 and Eurostat 2014.

Figure 6 shows the ratio between generated MSW amounts and permitted incineration capacities in EU Member States, Norway and Switzerland in 2014. Potential overcapacity might exist where the incineration capacity exceeds total MSW generated (ratio < 1). This appears only to be the case in Sweden (ratio 0.74). Poland appear to be at the other extreme with the biggest incineration capacity deficit (ratio > 20). In other countries, such as the Netherlands, Denmark and Norway, incineration is a predominant MSW management/treatment method (ratios respectively 1.16, 1.29 and 1.36).

19

Figure 6 Ratio between generated MSW amounts and permitted incineration capacities in Europe by country, 2014

Note: Ratio for each country was calculated by dividing generated amounts of MSW with total permitted incineration capacities for each country using the data for 2014.


Figure 7 points at a potential trade-off between waste incineration and material recycling that is seen as a key element of a circular economy. For this figure it has been assumed that all EU Member States, Norway and Switzerland would already have achieved the target for MSW recycling rate of 65%. The recycling rate target to be achieved by 2030 was proposed by the European Commission’s Circular Economy Package in December 2015.

Data on MSW generation for 2014 and a presumed MSW recycling rate of 65% was applied to the same data set. In this hypothetical case, more countries would show an incineration overcapacity. Increasing recycling rates and corresponding risks for over-capacities should be taken into account in future policy developments.

20

Figure 7 Ratio between generated MSW amounts assuming 65% recycling rates and permitted incineration capacities in Europe by country, 2014


An assumed 65% recycling rate for MSW would reduce the amount of waste to be recovered in terms of energy. At the same time, higher recycling rates could lead to higher sorting residues that will most likely have to be incinerated, as the landfilling is increasingly discouraged. In the case of waste plastics recycling, for example, sorting residues are almost completely sent into incineration plants. Considering the attempts by the European Commission to increase collection and recycling of plastics, this could lead to increased utilization rates of waste incineration capacities.

21

4 Other relevant waste streams and treatment options

As indicated before, for reasons of data availability this assessment focuses primarily on the incineration of MSW and dedicated MSW incineration plants. Comprehensive assessment of (over-) or (under-)capacities would also have to consider other thermal treatment options and waste streams that could or do find their ways into incinerators. This chapter provides an overview on other thermal treatment options, as well as other waste streams that might be subject to incineration assessment. In addition, it indicates available data sources that could be used in the future.

4.1 Other thermal treatment options

Besides MSW incineration plants, other treatment options are:

RDF power plants8 have raised specific interest, in particular during periods of high oil prices

(Thiel, 2013). The capacity of RDF plants in European countries is very difficult to estimate as these plants are often part of private industry, and publicly available comprehensive statistics do not exist.

According to CEWEP (2016) in Germany alone, 31 RDF plants are currently under operation with a total capacity of 5.5 million tonnes. CEWEP has decided to include figures on RDF plants in their annual capacity assessment so that additional information might become available in the future.

Cement kilns at industrial sites sometimes use MSW, in particular MSW with high calorific value, as substitute for oil or other energy carriers in energy-intensive production processes. An assessment of total capacities is, at the moment, not possible due to lack of data, but some estimations indicate that roughly 11 million tonnes (source to be added) of MSW are co-incinerated in cement kilns.

Based on issued permits in EU Member States, the third report on the implementation of the Waste Incineration Directive (2000/76/EC) for 2012-2013 showed a total number of 599 co-incineration plants (de Carlos/Menadue, 2016). In Figure 8, the share of different types of co-incineration plants (including cement kilns and combustion plants) in EU-28 is presented. The 176 cement kilns co-incinerating waste make up 29% of the total number of plants. Cement kilns were present in the majority of the EU Member States, with Germany and France accounting for most (33 and 29, respectively). In Luxembourg, the Czech Republic,

8 The RDF power plan (or station) is used as co-generation or tri-generation plant integrated in a plant. Incineration unit and additional components that are necessary for the plant operation, as well as, utilization of energy, are located in the consumers’ area. This implies that energy is produced and used at the same place. Before the feedstock (such as municipal or commercial wastes) are introduced into the incineration unit, it is subject to mechanical treatment at an external station. Type of treatment determines quality and composition of the feedstock, and can vary from an ordinary crushing and a rough sorting to a milling process that involved a multiple steps with various product streams and a finishing briquetting. The final product of this step is RDF and is used in the RDF power plant (station) as a fuel. The plant (station) might generate heat and/or electricity.

22

Bulgaria, Cyprus, Greece and Estonia all co-incineration plants were reported to be cement kilns. Combustion plants co-incinerating waste accounted for half of co-incineration plants (or 305), but were only reported in 14 Member States. The highest number of 120 plants was recorded in Sweden, while Germany had 110 (de Carlos/Menadue, 2016).

Figure 8 Share of different types of co-incineration plants in EU-28, 2012-2013

Note: Some countries provided data for 2012, while others for 2013. More information on countries for particular years (2012 or 2013) is available in the Assessment and Summary of the Member States’ Implementation Reports for the IED, IPPCD, SED and WID prepared by de Carlos/Menadue (2016). IED stands for Industrial Emissions Directive (2010/75/EU), IPPCD for Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (96/61/EC), SED for Solvent Emissions Directive (1999/13/EC) and WID for Waste Incineration Directive (2000/76/EC).

Source: de Carlos/ Menadue, 2016.

A similar situation exists with regard to lignite and hard coal power plants where specific MSW waste streams are used as energy carriers. For hard coal power plants it is estimated that about 8-15% of the necessary input is currently covered e.g. by wood pellets (DENA, 2012). ‘Undisclosed’ amounts of wood and other biomass is also used in large combustion plants, specific figures for total capacities in this area are not available.

This report by de Carlos/Menadure does not include figures for specific hazardous waste incineration plants. However, JRC has estimated the total incineration capacity for hazardous waste to be about 8.5 million tonnes (JRC, 2016) (to be consulted with JRC).

23

4.2 Future options for increasing energy recovery of specific waste streams

Initiated by the German Federal Environment Agency (UBA), a recent study by Faulstich et al. (2016) identified waste streams that in the future could become economically viable for energy recovery. Several economic assessments included in this study are based on specific German market characteristics, but the list gives a comprehensive overview which waste streams should be taken into account for the a general assessment of over-/ under capacities for waste incineration.

Changing from classic mechanical-biological waste treatment to an increased (biological) drying and downstream fuel production could lead to a volume growth of approx. 0.3 to 0.6 million tonnes/year of RDF and could contribute to decreasing deposition of residual material. Due to the planned prohibition of agricultural use of sewage sludge, an additional amount of 0.8 to 1.3 million tonnes/year of dry matter is expected. It is potentially interesting and technically possible to convert specific lines of waste incineration plants to mono-incineration of sludge. From the business perspectives incineration of sludge could be economically feasible (Faulstich et al. 2016).

Waste material contaminated with persistent organic pollutants (e.g. shredder fluff, contaminated plastics from the construction sector, contaminated plastics from recycling of waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE)) leads to an accumulation of pollutants during recycling. Therefore, they represent another alternative material flow for thermal treatment, which is also economically attractive. Due to technical difficulties and possible restrictions of ash characteristics for recycling inter alia, due to contaminations with hazardous substances, acceptance is still limited. Overall, there is a potential of approx. 0.6 million tonnes/year on the German market (Faulstich et al. 2016).

It could be interesting to thermally treat fine fractions from construction waste recycling, e.g. in order to save landfill space. This material does not contain high calorific value because of few carbonic components. By mixing it with high calorific waste, the overall throughput of waste incineration plants can be increased. As the material flow is heterogeneous and there are data insecurities, nationwide estimations of amounts and quality of this waste stream is considered to be uncertain. Based on different assumptions, a potential of approx. 1.0 million tonnes/year was identified (Faulstich et al. 2016).

It is important to take into account that coal-fired power plants are expected to be closed within the next decades of energy transition. Therefore, the current amount of 0.7 million tonnes/year of RDF will urge into other plant types in the medium term (Faulstich et al. 2016).

4.3 Additional data sources

Another potential data source for incineration capacities in the EU-28 is the third implementation report of the Waste Incineration Directive (WID) (2000/76/EC) for the years 2012-2013. The aim of the Directive was to prevent control pollution from incineration and co-incineration plants. The Directive was repealed by the Industrial Emissions Directive (2010/75/EC) in 2014. New cycle of reporting will start as of 1 October 2017.

One of the key elements of the Directive was the requirement to issue permits under defined permit conditions, including emission limit values (ELVs) for the main pollutants and related monitoring obligations. Article 15 of the Directive set an obligation for EU Member States to submit reports on the status of implementation on installations failing within its scope following specific questions.

24

Question 1 referred to the number and capacities of permitted facilities failing under the scope of the Directive9.

During the reporting period 2009-2011, EU Member States reported 1,714 plants within the scope of the WID, out of which 58% were identified as waste incinerators, 40% as co-incinerators and the rest as uncategorised. Germany, France, Italy, the United Kingdom, Sweden and Poland accounted for 70% of the total amount of plants (Lawton et al., 2014).

In 2016, the European Commission published the third and the last report that analysed reports submitted by the Member States. Between 2012 and 2013 Member States reported a total of 1,673 plants under the WID (Figure 9), of which 56% (or 939 plants) were identified as incineration plants and 41% (or 688 plants) as co-incineration plants. The remaining 3% (or 46 plants) were not categorised.

Most plants were located in Germany (22%), France (15%), the United Kingdom (10%), Sweden (8%), Italy (7%) and Poland (7%). Together, these countries accounted for almost 70% of the total number of plants10.

Figure 9 Number and type of plants and permits in EU-27

9 Questions No. 1: “Please give information on number of (a) plants, (b) permits issued in accordance with Article 4(1), (c)

plants that recover heat generated by the incineration process heat recovery, and (d) the total permitted capacities of waste throughput (tonnes/year) (broken down between incineration and co-incineration plants). Responding to 1(d) was optional for Member States.” 10 Belgium (Flanders) submitted data for the total number of plants but did not distinguish between incineration and co-incineration plants due to confusion on datasets when merging responses from the three regions in Belgium. It remarked that this issue will be addressed for future reporting. For the UK and Finland it was unclear how many plants were falling within the scope of the Directive. Finland only reported plants that incinerated more than 2 tonnes of waste per hour during the reporting period, and the UK reported figures which are significantly lower than the previous period and not consistent with the remarks provided. In view of this, the analysis of this question refers to the response given for the previous reporting period 2009-2011 for the UK.

25

Source: de Carlos/ Menadue 2016, p. 18.

Out of 27 Member States, 12 responded to the optional question under 1.1d) on total permitted capacities of waste throughputs. Capacities reported amounted to a total of around 46 million tonnes of waste treated per year with respect to 964 plants. Information and data are presented in Table 1. More specific data and information were not available for MSW, therefore data source was not included at this stage in the analysis.

Table 1 Data and information available on total permitted capacities of waste throughputs, reported under the WID

Country Total permitted capacities of waste throughputs

Comments

Belgium 450,000 tonnes/year

Relevant only for Brussels. No response was provided for Wallonia, and the question is not relevant to Flanders.

Czech Republic 1,205,463 tonnes/year 35% is allocated to co- incineration plants.

Denmark

1 co-incineration plant (25,250 tonnes per year); 35,950 tonnes of dry matter for three sludge incineration plants; 3,591,500 tonnes of waste in 2012 and 3,676,500 tonnes in 2013 for 30 of the 34 incineration plants.

Estonia 402,000 tonnes/year

Italy 5,189,184 tonnes in incinerators and 3,561,335 tonnes in co-incinerators

Latvia 322,106 tonnes/year Lithuania 180,000 tonnes/year Luxembourg 208,548 tonnes/year Malta 12,910 tonnes/year

Slovenia

61,337 tonnes/year for incineration plants and 114,010 tonnes/year for co-incineration plants

Sweden 11,200,00 tonnes/year

United Kingdom 895,000 tonnes/year

Information with regards to total permitted capacities of waste throughput is only available for Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Source: de Carlos / Menadue, 2016.

26

PART B Assessment of waste trade for energy recovery

1 Policy context and objectives

1.1 Policy context

Available data underpin the growing relevance of international waste trade, between European countries and beyond, as a result of different drivers. One of them has been the establishment of the European Single Market, another the imbalance between available waste and recycling/recovery capacities in the domestic markets (in combination with increasing discouragement of landfill in all European countries).

Shipment of hazardous waste was regulated by the EU in 1978 with the introduction of the Dangerous Waste Directive (78/319). The Directive was replaced by the Transfrontier Shipment of Hazardous Waste Directive (84/631) that covered notification of authorities, but did not consider necessary disposal facilities at the final location or the consent of the receiving countries. The Directive was replaced by the Regulation on the supervision and control of shipments, which was further replaced by the Regulation 1013/2006 on shipments of waste, which details conditions on the movement of waste from one country to another (Haigh, 2016).

The trade (shipment) of waste in Europe has been addressed earlier by the ETC/SCP of the EEA (ETC/SCP 2008, 2009, 2012a; 2012b, 2014). These studies proposed a methodology to measure the net environmental and economic effects of waste trade (see ETC/SCP 2012b) and contributed to the statistical classification of waste shipments used by Eurostat (see ETC/SCP 2014), but they also flagged the limited availability of good official data, hampering the assessment of waste trade in Europe11.

1.2 Objectives

The analysis aims to provide a statistical overview of waste trade flows for incineration (with and without energy recovery) in Europe (EU-28 plus Norway and Switzerland), with a focus on MSW. In particular, we examine shipments of waste classified as waste collected from households (Y-46) according to the Basel Convention, as well as of ‘mixed municipal waste’ and ‘combustible waste’ pursuant to the European Waste Catalogue, based on Eurostat data on waste shipments12.

The analysis only covers notified shipments of waste, as reported every year by Member States to the European Commission, i.e. shipments of: 1) waste destined to disposal; 2) hazardous waste destined to recovery; 3) mixed municipal waste (independently from the destination); 4) unlisted

11 The methodology proposed in ETC/SCP (2012a) has not been applied because of insufficient data availability. Limited information on waste trade is a persistent problem. For example, the European Reference Model for Waste (produced by Eunomia for DG Environment and now managed by the EEA and the ETC/WMGE), which has been used by the European Commission to perform the impact assessment of the circular economy strategy, does not include the international trade of waste (municipal solid waste). 12 Eurostat data are available at: http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do

27

waste (independently from the destination)13. Therefore, the shipment of non-hazardous and non-mixed municipal waste destined to energy recovery is outside the scope of the paper.

The analysis is followed by a discussion on the possible drivers of increasing waste trade flows.

2 Methodology

2.1 Data availability

This analysis is based on the formally notified waste shipments, as captured in the Eurostat data on transboundary shipments of waste (updated 3 February 2016). For shipments, which are subject to prior written notification-consent requirements, the notifier14 shall submit a prior written notification to the competent authority of dispatch15.

A notification shall cover the shipment of waste from its initial place of dispatch and including its interim and non-interim recovery or disposal. Only one waste identification code (see below) shall be covered for each notification, apart from a few exceptions16. The main stages of the notification procedure are illustrated in the Annex 6.

2.1.1 Relevant waste classification codes

The notification document for transboundary shipments of waste, as well as the related movement document, provides for different waste classification codes17 that have to be filled in, when relevant,

13 See Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 on shipments of waste (‘WSR’), Art. 3.1. 14 According to Art. 2 par. 15(a) of the WSR, in case of a shipment originating from a Member State, the notifier can be:

the original producer, a licensed new producer, a licensed collector, a registered dealer, a registered broker or the holder of the waste. 15 According to Art. 53 of the WSR, Member States shall designate the competent authority/authorities responsible for the

implementation of the Regulation. Each Member State shall designate only one single competent authority of transit. Moreover, according to Art. 54, each Member State shall designate at least one or more correspondents responsible for cooperation with the EU Commission and for informing/advising persons or undertaking making enquires. Notification shall be effected by means of the following documents: The notification document set out in Annex IA of the Waste Shipment Regulation15 (‘WSR’). Document information

and documentation listed in Annex II Part 1 shall also be supplied on or annexed to the notification document. In particular, within the notification document and annexed documentation, the notifier shall provide: a) evidence of the contract that the notifier and the consignee for recovery or disposal of waste shall conclude according to Article 5 (or a declaration certifying its existence); b) a declaration concerning the existence of a financial guarantee or equivalent insurance according to Article 6.

The movement document set out in Annex IB of the WSR. Document information and documentation listed in Annex II Part 2 shall also be supplied on, or annexed to, the movement document, to the extent possible at the time of notification.

16 Art. 5 par. 6 of the WSR: (a) wastes not classified under one single entry in either Annex III, IIIB, IV or IVA, unless listed

in Annex IIIA. In this case, only one type of waste shall be specified; (b) mixtures of wastes not classified under one single entry in either Annex III, IIIB, IV or IVA unless listed in Annex IIIA. In this case, the code for each fraction of the waste shall be specified in order of importance. 17 (i) Basel Annex VIII (or Annex IX) when applicable; (ii) OECD code (if different from (i)); (iii) EC list of wastes; (iv) national code in the country of export; (v) national code in the country of import; (vi) other (specify); (vii) Y-code; (viii) H-code; (ix)

28

including the Basel Convention codes (Y-codes) and the codes, pursuant to the European Waste Catalogue18 (LoW codes).

Annexes II and III to the Basel Convention list 47 Y-codes, 45 of which cover hazardous waste. Non-hazardous waste is addressed only by two codes: Y-46 ‘Waste collected from households’ and Y-47 ‘Residues arising from the incineration of household wastes’. Based on the available data (1999-2013), the Y-code field of the notification/movement documents is filled out by the notifying countries, with an Y-1-47 code or, otherwise, with one of the following classifications: ‘mix’, ‘unknown’, and ‘not specified’.

Most notifying countries currently include a LoW code in their notifications, although it is not a binding requirement (i.e. the LoW code field of the notification/movement documents can be ‘unfilled’ or ‘unknown’). For example, according to Eurostat19, 22 out of 28 Member States reported their 2012 waste shipment data, both with regard to export and import, using a LoW code. Considering the 2010-2013 period, 82% of the overall notified waste shipments between the EU-28 plus Switzerland and Norway, destined to incineration (with or without energy recovery), including hazardous waste, are provided with a LoW code (i.e. the LoW field is not ‘unfilled’ or ‘unknown’).

Moreover, both the notification and the movement documents provide for the identification of the treatment operation to which the shipped waste is destined, including R1- used principally to generate fuel or other means to generate energy (i.e. energy recovery) and D10- incineration on land (i.e. incineration without energy recovery). However, based on the available data, in certain cases the R/D field of the notification/movement documents has been filled with the following classifications: ‘mix’, ‘not specified’, ‘unknown’. In the following, we analyze only shipments of waste destined to R1 and D10.

2.1.2 Relevant waste data sources

The notification and movement documents also address the total quantity of waste for shipment. It should be noted that the intended amount for shipment provided by the notification document is not necessarily the same amount as the actual quantity shipped and received at the disposal or recovery facility, which is reported to the authorities concerned through the movement document.

According to ETC/SCP (2014), the notified trade flows of municipal waste for incineration (with or without energy recovery) cannot be immediately identified by looking at both Y-codes and LoW codes. After considering the features of the different notified shipments related to incineration in household waste incineration plants, the flows classified under code Y-46 of the Basel Convention have been selected as significantly representative.

Indeed, in the 2008-2013 period, non-hazardous LoW codes under Chapter 20 of the European Waste Catalogue (‘Municipal wastes –household waste and similar commercial, industrial and

UN class; (x) UN number; (xi) UN shipping name; (xii) customs code(s) (HS). The details of Basel Convention classification and the ELW classification are discussed in ETC/SCP (2009, 2012b, 2014). 18 Commission Decision 2000/532/EC of 3 May 2000 replacing Decision 94/3/EC establishing a list of wastes pursuant to

Article 1(a) of Council Directive 75/442/EEC on waste and Council Decision 94/904/EC establishing a list of hazardous waste pursuant to Article 1(4) of Council Directive 91/689/EEC on hazardous waste. 19 http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Waste_shipment_statistics_based_on_the_European_list_of_waste_codes#Context

29

institutional waste, including separately collected fractions’), shipped for incineration (R1+D10) in EU-28 plus Norway and Switzerland, have been mainly correlated to Y-46 or have been, otherwise, classified under ‘mix’ or ‘not listed’ Y-codes, apart from a few exceptions20. The same applies to other types of municipal waste (e.g. ‘15 01: packaging, including separately collected municipal packaging waste; ‘19 05 01 non-composted fraction of municipal and similar wastes’; ‘19 06 03: liquor from anaerobic treatment of municipal waste’; and ‘19 06 04: digestate from anaerobic treatment of municipal waste’). The picture is, instead, partially different with regard to ‘combustible waste’ (19 12 10; Refuse Derived Fuel or RDF) destined to incineration (R1+D10) in the EU-28 plus Norway and Switzerland, which, in the 2008-2013 period, has been identified both with Y-46, ‘mix’ and ‘not specified’ Y-codes, as well as with other Y1-45 codes (especially Y-18 ‘Residues arising from industrial waste disposal operations’21). These Y-codes, related to hazardous waste, have been used to classify respectively, 11% and 28%, by weight, of all exported and imported RDF (i.e. waste with a 191210 LoW code) destined to incineration (R1 + D10) in the EU-28 plus Norway and Switzerland, based on data reported by notifying countries.

Apart from Y-46, ‘mix’ and ‘not specified’, the other non-hazardous Y-codes do not play a relevant role in the identification of municipal waste trade flows destined to incineration (R1+D10). Hence, only one shipment of waste, in the 2008-2013 period, in the EU-28 plus Norway and Switzerland, is covered by an Y-47 code and all waste with an ‘unknown’ Y-code has been provided, when specified, with a hazardous LoW code.

Since, however, Y-46 waste and, to a greater extent, waste with a ‘mix’ or a ‘not specified’ Y-code, may not necessarily be municipal waste for incineration in all cases, Table 2 reports the non-hazardous LoW codes that have been used by notifying countries, in the 2010-2013 period, in the EU-28 plus Norway and Switzerland, in conjunction with the code Y-46 and ‘mix’ or ‘not specified’ Y-codes to identify waste shipped for incineration (R1+D10). In particular, 12 different LoW codes (as well as non-hazardous mixtures) have been associated with the Y-46 code. The most important LoW codes (by weight of waste shipped in the 2010-2013 period over the overall shipments of Y-46 waste) are ‘combustible waste’ (RDF; 191210; representing respectively 44% and 31% of all exported and imported Y-46 waste, based on data notified by exporting and importing countries) and ‘mixed municipal waste’ (200301; representing respectively 30% and 42% of all exported and imported Y-46 waste, based on data notified by exporting and importing countries).

Most of the LoW codes corresponding to ‘mix’ Y-codes shipped for incineration (R1+D10) in the EU-28 plus Norway and Switzerland, in the 2010-2013 period, are hazardous or they are characterized by an inconsistent classification (they show both a non-hazardous LoW code and a hazardous Y-code specified under other fields of the notification/movement documents). The most relevant exceptions are ‘combustible waste’ (RDF; 191210) and the mix of non-hazardous LoW codes. The

20 These exceptions mainly consist of non-hazardous waste, based on the related LoW code, which has, however, to be controlled and, therefore, to be classified as hazardous according to the Basel Convention (e.g. an Y-3 code ‘Waste pharmaceuticals, drugs and medicines’ is frequently applied to ‘200132: medicines other than cytotoxic and cytostatic medicines’). In a few cases of waste exported from the Netherlands to Germany, ‘200128: paint, inks, adhesives and resins other than those containing hazardous substances’ and ‘200301: mixed municipal waste’, although considered as ‘non-hazardous’ within the column ‘category of waste’, have been classified under an Y1-45 code (pertaining to hazardous waste). The weight of the shipped waste characterized by these inconsistent classifications is the following, 868 tonnes and 47.641 tonnes, respectively, destined to incineration on land, over the 2008-2013 period. 21 in a few cases, RDF is also shipped under Y-42 (‘Organic solvents excluding halogenated solvents’) and Y-45 (Organohalogen compounds other than substances referred under Y1-44) codes.

30

former represents, respectively, 3% and 61% by weight of the overall waste with a ‘mix’ Y-code (including hazardous waste) exported and imported, based on data notified by exporting and importing countries. The latter represents 30% by weight of the overall waste with a ‘mix’ Y-code (including hazardous waste) imported, based on data notified by exporting and importing countries.

Finally, there are more than 90 different LoW codes associated to ‘not specified’ Y-codes, only considering non-hazardous waste shipped for incineration (R1+D10) in the EU-28 plus Norway and Switzerland, in the 2010-2013 period,. This also confirms that Basel codes (Y-codes) are inadequate to classify non-hazardous waste. Annex 7, therefore, reports only the three most relevant LoW codes (based on the percentage, by weight, of the waste shipped in the 2010-2013 period over the overall shipments of waste with a ‘not specified’ Y-code, including hazardous waste), namely: ‘wood not containing hazardous substances‘ originating from mechanical treatment of waste (191207; 23% of exported waste and 26% of imported waste, based on data notified by exporting and importing countries), ‘combustible waste’ (RDF; 191210; 62% of exported waste and 19% of imported waste, based on data notified by exporting and importing countries), ‘other wastes (including mixtures of materials) not containing hazardous substances from mechanical treatment of wastes’ (191212; 17% of exported waste and 14% of imported waste, based on data notified by exporting and importing countries).

31

3 Waste shipments assessment

3.1 Waste shipments

3.1.1 Shipments of Y-46 waste for incineration in Europe

As noted above, a significant part of MSW destined to incineration (with or without energy recovery) is traded under code Y-46 of the Basel Convention. The analysis of the related import and export data can take advantage of long time-series, compared to the more recent use of LoW codes.

Figure 10 presents the trends of Y-46 waste for incineration (R1+D10) shipped in Europe (EU-28 plus Norway and Switzerland) in 2001-2013, according to Eurostat data on transboundary shipments of waste (updated 3 February 2016). Data refer to each single flow and are recorded separately for export and import (export represents flows as reported by the exporting countries and import represent flows as reported by the importing countries).

There is a systematic mismatch between total import flows and export flows for different reasons. In the first place, as previously underlined, the intended amount for shipment, provided by the notification document, is not necessarily the same amount as the actual quantity shipped and received at the disposal or recovery facility, which is reported by the movement document. Secondly, the same shipment of waste can be identified with different Y-codes by the importing and the exporting countries. The existence of only two Y-codes covering non-hazardous waste amplifies the problem of inconsistent classifications with regard to municipal waste. Finally, it must also be taken into account that Switzerland and Norway are among the destination and origin of flows but are not notifying countries.

The trend for both import and export was rather stable during most of the last decade but flows increased substantially starting from 2009-2010 (in particularly notified export) and particularly from 2011 onwards. Total import increased 4,6 times from 2008 to 2013 (from around 300.000 tons to around 1,4 million tons), while total export increased 6 times in the same period (from around 380.000 to 2,3 million tons). In spite of this growth, traded flows of MSW are still very low compared to a total 242 million tons of MSW generated in the EU-28 in 2013.

Figure 10: Total import and export of MSW for energy recovery operations in the EU-27 (intra-EU + Norway and Switzerland)

Source: ETC/WMGE elaborations on Eurostat data, 2016.

0

500000

1000000

1500000

2000000

2500000

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Total import Total export

32

3.1.2 Shipments of Y-46 waste for incineration by country

The number of European countries giving rise to trade in MSW for energy is limited, and the geographical pattern of import/export flows is well defined, with some relevant change in recent years.

Table 2 presents the flows of import and export of Y-46 waste destined to incineration (with or without energy recovery) in 2010, in EU-28 plus Norway and Switzerland.

Overall there were 9 importers in 2010, with Germany and Sweden together accounting for 96% of the total import flow of Y-46 waste, based on data provided by importing countries. Germany and Switzerland together accounted for 94% of the total import flow of Y-46 waste, based on data reported by exporting countries.

Overall there were 12 exporting countries in 2010, including Austria, Germany and the Netherlands (that were also importers), accounting for 93% of the total export flow of Y-46 waste, based on data provided by exporting countries. The Netherlands and Norway, instead, represented 87% of the total export flow of Y-46 waste, based on data provided by importing countries. This pattern with a few countries dominating as importers (Germany, Sweden, Switzerland) and exporters (Germany, the Netherlands, and Norway) suggests a link between trade and the huge incineration capacity of some European countries. It can be noted that Germany imported and exported flows mainly for D10 operations, Switzerland and Sweden mainly imported respectively for D10 and R1 operations. Table 2 Import and export of Y-46 waste for incineration (R1 + D10), 2010, EU-28 plus Norway and Switzerland (tonnes)

Exporting country

R1+D10 R1 D10 Importing country

R1+D10 R1 D10

Austria 86.532,00 3.063,00 83.469,00 Austria 7.574,00 7.574,00

15.798,00 15.798,00 4.122,00 4.122,00

Belgium Belgium

23,00 23,00

Czech Rep. Czech Rep.

54,00 54,00

Cyprus Cyprus 14.725,00 14.725,00

Estonia Estonia

3.757,00 3.757,00

Finland 7.397,00 7.340,00 57,00 Finland

11.039,00 10.982,00 57,00

France 1.502,00 1.502,00 France

Germany 116.335,00 103,00 116.232,0

0 Germany 275.278,00 2.032,00

273.246,00

467,00 467,00 246.697,00 246.697,0

0

Greece Greece

14.725,00 14.725,00

Hungary Hungary

3.009,00 3.009,00

Ireland 2.000,00 2.000,00 Ireland

33

Exporting country


R1+D10 R1 D10

15.121,00 15.121,00

Italy 5.187,00 5.187,00 Italy

7.574,00 7.574,00

Luxembourg 2.861,00 2.861,00 Luxembourg

Netherlands 222.433,00 222.433,0

0 Netherlands 467 467

259.457,00 2.009,00 257.448,0

0 7.744,00 7.744,00

Norway 191.960,00 191.960,0

0 Norway

Sweden Sweden 218.120,00 218.063,0

0 57,00

9.397,00 9.340,00 57,00

Switzerland Switzerland 180.865,00 1.065,00 179.800,0

0

UK 11.398,00 11.398,00 UK

Total export 455.645,00 29.091,00 426.554,0

0 Total export 516.164,00

242.861,00

273.303,00

Total import 516.164,00 242.861,0

0 273.303,0

0 Total import 455.645,00 29.091,00

426.554,00

Note: Yellow rows report data notified by exporting and importing countries, while white rows report export and import data based on shipments notified by, respectively, importing and exporting countries

Source: ETC/WMGE elaboration on Eurostat data, 2016.

Table 3 presents the flows of import and export of Y-46 waste destined to incineration (with or without energy recovery) in 2013 in EU-28 plus Norway and Switzerland, sharing the same structure as previous Table. A more detailed information on trade flows under Y-46 code for R1 and D10 operations is reported in Table 4 in the form of a trade matrix for 2013. The matrix collects all bilateral flows between countries as notified by Member States: for each country, the first row presents the notified export flows to the countries in column as reported from the country itself as exporter; the second row presents the import flows from the same country, as notified by the country in column as the importer.

When comparing data for 2010 and 2013 (Table 2 and Table 3), both total import and total export grew, while the overall number of trading countries remained the same, although a higher share of trading countries was involved both in export and import operations. Tables 2 and 3 highlight the pivotal role of some countries and the strong ties between them.

In 2013, there were 14 importing countries, with significant flows to Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, and Switzerland. In particular, according to data notified by importing countries, Germany and Sweden together represented 57% of total import flows, mainly for D10 operations in Germany (with flows coming from a wide range of countries) and only for R1 operations in Sweden (with flows coming especially from Norway and the UK). However, based on data notified by exporting countries, the Netherlands imported an amount of Y-46 waste more than double that shipped to Sweden, only for R1 operations and Germany and Switzerland were also relevant importers, mainly for D10 operations.

34

13 countries exported notified flows in 2013. Based on data notified by exporting countries, a dominant role was played by Germany, the Netherlands (both countries mainly for D10 operations), and especially the UK (only for R1 operations), which alone accounted for more than 71% of total export in 2013 (around 1,6 million tons out of 2,3 million total). Already in 2012, the UK exported 1,8 million tons (all for R1 operations) thus making a large part of the total increase of export flows in Europe during the last few years. When examining the data notified by importing countries, the UK, the Netherlands and Norway accounted together for 86% of the total export flow of Y-46 waste; the UK and Norway only exported Y-46 waste destined to R1, while exports from the Netherlands were mainly directed to D10.

The geographical structure of flows then suggests that a large part of municipal waste trade in Europe can be understood by looking at the specific conditions of domestic waste production with respect to management capacity in some European countries, possibly coupled with economic or other factors that can justify trade for low-value and high-transportation costs materials as MSW.

Table 3 Import and export Y-46 waste for incineration (R1 + D10), 2013, EU-28 plus Norway and Switzerland (tonnes)

Exporting country


R1+D10 R1 D10

Austria 62.722,68 38.045,67 24.677,01 Austria 10.024,11 10.024,11

8.045,40 3.809,00 4.236,40 2.588,52 2.588,52

Belgium Belgium

6.064,29 6.064,29

Bulgaria Bulgaria

5.107,87 5.107,87

Czech Rep. 143,64 143,64 Czech Rep.

143,64 143,64

Denmark Denmark 90.491,33 90.491,33

152.968,62 152.968,62

Estonia Estonia 28.944,51 28.944,51

27.971,84 27.971,84

Finland 27.553,65 27.553,65 Finland

23.842,26 23.842,26

France 1.552,55 1.552,55 France

33.122,16 1.710,00 31.412,16 5.998,16 5.998,16

Germany 156.274,30 102,24 156.172,06 Germany 335.778,38 18.308,79 317.469,5

9

469,41 469,41 485.326,57 211.941,34 273.385,2

3

Ireland 80.316,12 79.935,12 381,00 Ireland 123,26 123,26

112.378,93 112.378,93 122,36 122,36

Italy 7.319,58 2.548,48 Italy

10.024,11 10.024,11

Latvia Latvia 115.422,70 115.422,70

87.383,96 87.383,96

Luxembourg

Luxembou

rg 1.710,00 1.710,00

1.023,38 1.023,38

35

Exporting country


R1+D10 R1 D10

Netherlands

324.156,14 54.998,75 269.157,39 Netherlan

ds 294.175,91 294.175,91

291.240,56 9.563,16 281.677,39

1.145.945,75

1.145.945,75

Norway 295.957,47 295.957,47 Norway 50.265,30 50.265,30

Sweden 596,00 596,00 Sweden 470.769,05 470.769,05

3.132,51 3.132,51 188.976,79 188.976,79

Switzerland Switzerlan

d 216.179,41 38.005,63

178.173,78

UK 1.645.849,8

1 1.645.849,8

1 UK

629.497,91 629.497,91 381,00 381,00

Total export

2.301.713,37

1.849.773,36

451.940,01

Total import

1.414.942,03

1.097.472,44

317.469,59

Total import

1.414.942,03

1.097.472,44

317469,59

Total export

2.301.713,37

1.849.773,36

451.940,01



36

Table 4 Trade matrix for Y-46 waste for incineration (R1 +D10) in 2013; EU-28 +Norway and Switzerland (tonnes)

AT BE BG CH CZ DE DK EE FI FR IE IT LU LV NL NO SE UK Total to/from

AT to 40,04 58.454,80 4.227,84 62.722,68

from AT 8.045,40 8.045,40

BE to 0,00

from BE 5.998,16 66,13 6.064,29

BG to 0,00

from BG 0,00

CH to 0,00

from CH 0,00

CZ to 143,64 143,64

from CZ 143,64 143,64

DE to 156.172,06 102,24 156.274,30

from DE 469,41 469,41

DK to 0,00

from DK 0,00

EE to 0,00

from EE 0,00

FI to 20.841,61 6.712,04 27.553,65

from FI 17.127,76 6.714,50 23.842,26

FR to 1.552,55 1.552,55

from FR 31.412,16 1.710,00 33.122,16

IE to 10.561,64 8.073,50 47.408,47 13.891,51 381,00 80.316,12

from IE 4.771,10 10.117,00 8.067,56 78.076,80 11.346,47 112.378,93

IT to 2.548,48 2.548,48

from IT 10.024,11 10.024,11

LU to 0,00

from LU 1.023,38 1.023,38

LV to 0,00

fom LV 0,00

NL to 324.131,14 25,00 324.156,14

from NL 287.250,19 3.990,36 291.240,56

NO to 0,00

from NO 25.193,04 270.764,43 295.957,47

SE to 596,00 596,00

from SE 3.132,51 3.132,51

UK to 5.107,87 146.262,31 90.466,33 29,40 122,36 87.383,96 1.098.435,04 49.669,30 168.373,24 1.645.849,81

from UK 113.668,21 2.776,52 123,26 115.422,70 215.563,57 181.943,65 629.497,91

Total to 2.588,52 0,00 5.107,87 216.179,41 0,00 485.326,57 90.491,33 28.944,51 0,00 0,00 122,36 0,00 0,00 87.383,96 1.145.945,75 50.265,30 188.976,79 381,00 2.301.713,37

Total from 10.024,11 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 335.778,38 152.968,62 27.971,84 0,00 5.998,16 123,26 0,00 1.710,00 115.422,70 294.175,91 0,00 470.769,05 0,00 1.414.942,03

Note: Keys: “country X to” = export flow to countries in column as notified by country X as exporter; “from country X” = import from the country X as notified by the importing country in column. Source: ETC/WMGE elaboration on Eurostat data, 2016.

37

3.1.3 Shipments of ‘mixed municipal waste’ and ‘refuse derived fuel’ for incineration

This section illustrates the trends of selected types of waste, identified by specific LoW codes, shipped in EU-28 plus Norway and Switzerland, for incineration (R1 + D10), namely ‘mixed municipal waste’ (200301) and ‘refuse derived fuel’ (RDF; 191210).

The following figures and tables show the imports and exports of ‘mixed municipal waste’ and RDF (independently from their Y-codes), destined to incineration (R1+D10), as notified, respectively, by the importing and exporting countries, in EU-28 plus Norway and Switzerland, over the 2008-2013 period. It should be pointed out that Member States have started to significantly use LoW in their reporting to Eurostat since 2011 and that, as already noted above, waste shipments to be notified are: 1) waste destined to disposal; 2) hazardous waste destined to recovery; 3) mixed municipal waste (independently from the destination); 4) unlisted waste (independently from the destination).

Over the considered period, overall shipments for incineration (R1+D10) of ‘combustible waste’ (5.516.366 tons of export and 5.303.941 tons of import) outweigh those of ‘mixed municipal waste’ (1.917.590 tons of export and 1.829.156 tons of import). In 2011-2013, there was an increasing trend in the amount of ‘mixed municipal waste’ exported and imported to be incinerated, both with regard to R1 and D10 (Figure 11). The same applies to ‘combustible waste’ destined to R1 (Figure 12), while ‘combustible waste’ destined to incineration on land is highly fluctuating (Figure 13). No shipped ‘combustible waste’ has been destined to incineration without energy recovery in 2012 and 2013.

Most of the shipped ‘mixed municipal waste’ is destined to incineration on land (D10). In 2013, exported ‘mix municipal waste’ destined to incineration on land reached 456.884 tons. Based on notification data, exporting countries were the Netherlands (264.005 tons), Germany (156.172 tons), France (33.263 tons), and Austria (3.444 tons). The only country that notified imports of ‘mixed municipal waste’ was Germany (316.224 tons), but, based on data reported by exporting countries, exported waste was also shipped to Switzerland (157.109 tons).

In 2013, 2.154.603 tons of ‘mixed municipal waste’ were exported to be incinerated with energy recovery and 1.602.993 tons were imported for the same purpose. According to data reported for 2013 (by respectively exporting and importing countries), there were eight exporting countries, the most important being Ireland (112.379 tons), Finland (6.712 tons), and the Netherlands (5.886 tons), while there were four importing countries: the Netherlands (78.546 tons), Sweden (35.705 tons), Estonia (25.195) and Germany (14.152 tons). Again, ‘mix municipal waste’ was also exported from Norway (17.644 tons), based on data reported by importing countries, and imported by Denmark (25 tons), Norway (596 tons), and Switzerland (75 tons), based on data reported by exporting countries.

Concluding, in 2013, the Netherlands notified 58%, by weight, of the overall exports of ‘mixed municipal waste’ destined to D10 and 51% of the overall imports of ‘mixed municipal waste’ destined to R1. All exported ‘mixed municipal waste’ for incineration on land was shipped to Germany and Switzerland. The most important exporter of ‘mixed municipal waste’ for incineration with energy recovery was Ireland (89%, by weight, of the overall shipments notified by exporting countries; see also Table 5 and Table 6).

38

Figure 11 Import and export of ‘mixed municipal waste’ (200301) for incineration (R1 and D10) in the EU-28 plus Norway and Switzerland, 2008-2013


Table 5 Import and export of ‘mixed municipal waste‘ (200301) for incineration (R1 + D10), 2013, EU-28 plus Norway and Switzerland (tonnes)

Exporting country


R1+D10 R1 D10

Austria 3.444,35 3.444,35 Austria

7.258,70 3809 3.449,70

Czech Rep. 143,64 143,64 Czech Rep.

143,64 143,64

Denmark Denmark

25 25

Estonia Estonia 25.195,32 25.195,32

8.073,5 8.073,5

Finland 6.712,04 6.712,04 Finland

23.842,26 23.842,26

France 33.339,02 75,78 33.263,24 France

31.412,16 31.412,16

Germany 156.274,30 102,24 156.172,0

6 Germany 330377,73 14.152,90

316.224,83

469,41 469,41 310.190,38 10.814,74 299.375,6

4

Ireland 112.379,13 112.379,1

3 Ireland

102.261,93 102.261,9

3

Netherlands 269.891,39 5.886,10 264.005,2

9 Netherlands 78546,21 78546,21

286.792,13 5.572,80 281.219,3

3 85.706,36 85.706,36

Norway 17.644,50 Norway 596 596

Sweden 596,00 596,00 Sweden 35705,47 35.705,47

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

400,000

450,000

500,000

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

To

ns

Export R1

Import R1

Export D10

Import D10

39

Exporting country


R1+D10 R1 D10

17.644,50 20603,55 20.603,55

Switzerland 75,78 157.509,30

Total export 582.779,87 125.894,9

3 456.884,9

4 Total import 469.824,73

316.224,83

153.599,90

Total import 469.824,73 153.599,9

0 316.224,8

3 Total export 582.779,87

456.884,94

125.894,93



40

Table 6 Trade matrix for ‘mixed municipal waste’ for incineration (R1 +D10) in 2013; EU-28 + Norway and Switzerland (tonnes)

AT CH CZ EE DE DK FI FR IE NL NO SE Total to/from

AT to 3.444,35 3.444,35

From AT 7.258,70 7.258,70

CZ to 143,64 143,64

From CZ 143,64 143,64

FI to 6.712,04 6.712,04

From FI 17.127,76 6.714,50 23.842,26

FR to 1.413,02 31.926,00 33.339,02

From FR 31.412,16 31.412,16

DE to 156.172,06

102,24 156.274,30

From DE 469,41 469,41

IE to 8.073,50 4.810,00 85.604,12 13.891,51 112.379,13

From IE 8.067,56 4.771,10 78.076,80 11.346,47 102.261,93

From NO 17.644,50 17.644,50

NL to 269.866,39 25,00 269.891,39

From NL 286.792,13

286.792,13

SE to 596,00 596,00

From SE

Total to 157.585,08

8.073,50 310.190,38 25,00 85.706,36 596,00 20.603,55 582.779,87

Total from

25.195,32 330.377,73 78.546,21 35.705,47 469.824,73

Note: Keys: “country X to” = export flow to countries in column as notified by country X as exporter; “from country X” = import from the country X as notified by the importing country in column. Source: ETC/WMGE elaboration on Eurostat data, 2016.

41

Most of shipped ‘refuse derived fuel’ is incinerated with energy recovery (R1; see Figure 12 and Figure 13). In 2013, there was no export of RDF for incineration on land. Exported and imported RDF destined to R1 reached, respectively, 2.154.603 tons and 1.602.993 tons. Eleven countries notified exports of RDF, the most prominent being the UK (1.637.743 tons), the Netherlands (220.627 tons) and Belgium (145.794 tons). The existence of other five exporting countries (among which Norway exported 167.804 tons of RDF) can be drawn from data reported by the importing countries. The notifying importing countries were 17 (and other five imported RDF destined to R1, based on data reported by exporting countries), the most important being the Netherlands (1.057.875), Germany (510.386 tons), and Sweden (416.989 tons).

Concluding, in 2013, based on data notified by, respectively, exporting and importing countries, the export of RDF to R1 was dominated by the UK, representing alone 69% of the total export flow, while the imports pattern was less concentrated with the Netherlands, Germany, and Sweden accounting together for 80% of the total import flow (see also Table 7 and Table 8).

The above analysis mainly confirms the conclusions reached in the previous paragraph on shipments of Y-46 waste. When using LoW codes, the mismatch between import and export data significantly decreases, meaning that part of the gap is due to the application of inconsistent classifications to the same shipment of waste by the importing and the exporting countries.

Figure 12 Import and export of ‘refuse derived fuel’ (191210) for incineration with energy recovery (R1) in the EU-28 plus Norway and Switzerland, 2008-2013


0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

3,000,000

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

To

ns

Export R1

Import R1

42

Figure 13 Total import and export of ‘refuse derived fuel’ (191210) for incineration (D10) in the EU-28 plus Norway and Switzerland), 2008-2013


Table 7 Import and export of RDF (191210) for incineration (only R1*), 2013, EU-28 plus Norway and Switzerland (tonnes)

Exporting country R1* Importing country R1*

Austria 36.280,43 Austria 17.023,00

47.153,21 18.074,34

Belgium 145.794,37 Belgium 3.392,20

143.714,20 3.785,18

Bulgaria Bulgaria 21.290,32

25.776,87

Czech Rep. Czech Rep. 53.609,70

53.425,23

Denmark Denmark 154.659,59

151.463,26

Estonia Estonia 2.776,52

29,40

Finland 1.521,64 Finland 1.698,27

1.551,96 1.698,24

France 1.906,00 France 20.792,02

18.096,12

Germany 108.052,24 Germany 510.386,50

58.735,74 465.273,57

Greece Greece

3.484,71

Hungary Hungary 38.478,05

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

To

ns

Export D10

Import D10

43

Exporting country R1* Importing country R1*

311,32 24.212,30

Ireland 117.508,57 Ireland 14.625,12

126.788,08 15.009,36

Italy 101.277,58 Italy

96.380,20

Latvia Latvia 115.422,70

115.500,47

Luxembourg Luxembourg

2.136,00 11.425,82

Netherlands 220.627,73 Netherlands 1.057.875,16

222.494,70 1.053.924,09

Norway 167.804,81 Norway 59.548,78

Poland Poland

22.816,91 22.794,75

Portugal Portugal 11.518,28

133,26

Romania Romania

4.000,00

Slovakia Slovakia 41.070,56

37.607,88

Slovenia 8.177,92 Slovenia 2.465,12

7.673,50 12.399,08

Spain 133,26 Spain

11.518,28 213,38

Sweden Sweden 420.960,04

268.041,41

Switzerland Switzerland 16.590,80

United Kingdom 1.637.743,85 United Kingdom

1.575.479,54

Total export 2.379.023,59 Total import 2.488.043,15

Total import 2.488.043,15 Total export 2.379.023,59

Note: Yellow rows report data notified by exporting and importing countries, while white rows report export and import data based on shipments notified by, respectively, importing and exporting countries.

* No RDF was shipped in 2013 for incineration on land.


44

Table 8 Trade matrix for RDF for incineration (only R1*) in 2013; EU-28 + Norway and Switzerland (tonnes)

AT BE BG CH CZ DE DK EE ES FI FR HU IE LU LV NL NO PL PT RO SI SK SE Total to/from

AT to 27.323,88

2.573,11

6.383,44

36.280,43

From AT

27.380,22

10.945,94

2.465,12

6.361,93

47.153,21

BE to

112.426,61

7.529,50

25.838,27

145.794,37

From BE

109.996,07

8.065,02

25.653,11

143.714,20

DE to

66,92 16.590,80

24.562,46

13.497,82

1.157,04

9.519,82

4.356,86

22.794,75

89,44 15.416,33

108.052,24

From DE

66,90

24.805,12

14.339,97

1.157,00

4.401,67

66,22

13.898,86

58.735,74

EL to

From EL

3.484,71

3.484,71

ES to

133,26

133,26

From ES

11.518,28

11.518,28

FI to 1.521,64

1.521,64

from FI

1.551,96

1.551,96

FR to

1.906,00

1.906,00

from FR

HU to

From HU

311,32

311,32

IE to 69.064,65

23.248,00

96,42

22.680,71

2.418,78

117.508,57

45

AT BE BG CH CZ DE DK EE ES FI FR HU IE LU LV NL NO PL PT RO SI SK SE Total to/from

From IE

76.091,59

4.120,00

46.576,49

126.788,08

IT to 18.074,34

20.669,00

1.538,89

16.034,38

4.000,00

9.825,97

31.135,00

101.277,58

From IT

17.023,00

12.697,74

1.424,36

99,46

30.804,55

34.331,09

96.380,20

LU to

From LU

638,00

1.498,00

2.136,00

NL to

3.683,06

118.179,67

3.897,36

46,32

9.409,58

22,48

85.389,26

220.627,73

From NL

2.687,30

109.186,21

3.990,36

46,32

10.072,00

96.512,50

222.494,70

NO to

From NO

25.193,04

142.611,77

167.804,81

From PL

22.816,91

22.816,91

SI to 8.177,92

8.177,92

From SI

7.673,50

7.673,50

UK to

35,20

5.107,87

165.602,64

110.820,08

29,40

116,96

1.651,92

15.009,36

115.500,47

1.001.048,2

5

59.526,30

163.295,40

1.637.743,85

from UK

5.107,87

181.250,32

107.016,21

2.776,52

1.651,95

14.625,12

115.422,70

981.243,89

166.384,95

1.575.479,54

Total to

18.074,34

3.785,18

25.776,87

16.590,80

53.425,23

465.273,57

151.463,26

29,40

213,38

1.698,24

18.096,12

24.212,30

15.009,36

11.425,82

115.500,47

1.053.924,0

9

59.548,78

22.794,75

133,26

4.000,00

12.399,08

37.607,88

268.041,41

2.379.023,59

Total from

17.023,00

3.392,20

21.290,32

53.609,70

510.386,50

154.659,59

2.776,52

1.698,27

20.792,02

38.478,05

14.625,12

115.422,70

1.057.875,1

6

11.518,28

2.465,12

41.070,56

420.960,04

2.488.043,15

46

Note: Keys: “country X to” = export flow to countries in column as notified by country X as exporter; “from country X” = import from the country X as notified by the importing country in column.

* No RDF was shipped in 2013 for incineration on land.


Waste incineration capacities 47

3.2 Drivers of waste trade

To better understand what drives the observed increase in international waste trade for incineration (with and without energy recovery) the ETC/SCP has performed an extensive literature study of the political and economic factors involved ETC/SCP (2012a) and consulted practitioners on the outcomes. In general, cost-saving emerges as a major motive for waste trading. In this regard, the limitation of treatment capacity in the country of waste origin can be seen as a prohibitive cost (see Mazzanti and Zoboli 2013).

Most of the available empirical studies focus on waste trade in general and not on waste trade for incineration (with and without energy recovery), and the geographical scope is global (not European) for most of these studies. For example, Kellenberg (2010), by using international COMTRADE data for 92 countries and bilateral trade flows in hazardous and non hazardous waste, highlights the importance of market price (gate fees), and technology/capacity factors, as well as regulatory stringency and enforcement to explain waste trade. In general, lower management/disposal prices and higher capital intensity (i.e. incineration and recycling capacity) - reflecting economies of scale and comparative advantages in recycling and disposal – should attract waste flows. A study by Baggs (2009) analyses international trade in hazardous waste using a gravity model that includes country characteristics. It concludes that a significant ‘pollution haven’ effect can be observed: rising per capita income reduces the amount of hazardous waste countries' import. This effect is outweighed by high-income countries' relative capital abundance, and by the fact that higher GDP creates larger disposal capacity than waste production. In short, national technology/capacity intensity can attract imports of hazardous waste.

Several studies have investigated the huge transboundary movements of certain types of waste among Asian countries and highlight the importance of drivers such as costs and treatment capacity (Fuse and Kashima 2008). Hints for understanding international flows emerge from analyses at the within-country (region) level. De Jaeger (2010) studying Flanders municipalities, finds that for some waste – bulky household waste, demolition waste, and garden waste– the quantities collected at the local recycling centre depend on the prices charged at the recycling centers in neighboring municipalities.

In short, the main conclusion from literature is that the more that waste systems features (production, management) differ across countries, the more likely it is that waste trade will occur because heterogeneity drives trade to get a potentially win-win exchange.

From literature and interviews the emerging list of waste trade drivers (stimulating/justifying export) is the following (see ETC/SCP 2012a for details):

Differences in gate fees (e.g. gate fees in the waste exporting country higher than gate fees in the importing country);

Transportation costs (e.g. international transport is less expensive than long-distance treatment at home);

Administrative costs (e.g. cost of export/import practices; existence of bans on non-OECD countries);

Difference in environmental taxes and policy stringency (e.g. incineration tax in the exporting country and not in the importing country);

Tariffs and non-tariff barriers at the borders;

Difference in treatment capacity (e.g. capacity in the exporting country lower than that of the importing country);

Different incentives for recycling/recovery (e.g. incentive on energy from waste in the exporting country lower than that in importing country);

48 Waste incineration capacities

Differences in legislation/classification (e.g. stringency of legislation in the exporting country higher than that in the importing country);

Need for specific technologies (e.g. availability of a specific technology in the importing country only);

Geographical characteristics of country’s regions (e.g. islands, small counties, long borders, distance to a facility in the exporting country smaller than in the import country);

Introduction of recycling and recovery requirements in EU directives;

Other drivers for specific categories of waste (e.g. high dismantling costs pushing end-of-life vehicles (ELVs) and WEEE to be traded as ‘products’ instead of waste).

Both evidence from literature on waste trade and available data offer a limited scope for testing in a systematic way the relative importance of these drivers in practice for the specific case of MSW traded for energy recovery. However, it can be expected that at least three drivers can have an important role: (i) differences in gate fees and incineration taxes, in combination with transportation costs; (ii) differences in the level of support to energy production from ‘renewable waste’ in the framework of RES policies; (iii) imbalances (excess/lack) in the treatment capacity in different countries. On all these drivers, in particular their differences across Member States, the information is not systematic, or not regularly updated, or the comparability of data is limited.

In the case of gate fees and taxes, Bio Intelligence Service (2012) provides a collection of information on ‘typical’ incineration gate fees and incineration taxes in Member States for MSW. Figure 14 reports a summary of results. It cannot be seen any apparent advantage in relative gate fees and taxes of MSW importing countries, in particular Germany, which has the highest incineration gate fees of all countries for which information is available - including countries that export to Germany for R1 and D10 operations, like the UK which has relatively low gate fees but emerged as a major exporter in the years covered by the Bio Intelligence Service survey)22. However, the data on ‘typical’ gate fees, as provided mainly from professionals, can have a limited information scope given that specific contracts may provide for plant-specific and flow-specific fees and conditions. In addition, for waste trade it can be relevant to consider also gate fees for different treatment across countries (e.g. landfill gate fees in a country and incineration fees in another country)23.

22 Information is lacking on Sweden, the other major importer of MSW for energy recovery in the last few years. 23 According to Bio Intelligence Service (2012) the limited availability of data prevents from finding a reliable correlation between incineration fees and incineration rates even within a single country.


Figure 14 Incineration gate fees and taxes in some EU countries

Source: Bio Intelligence Service, 2012.

It can be even more difficult to detect in a direct and reliable way the role of relative support/incentives to RES across countries as a driver of waste trade flows. Even though different Member States introduced specific support to energy from waste, the E-RES and H-RES incentive schemes in each Member State are very articulated for the different types of waste, and the same definition of ‘renewable waste’ eligible for support may differ from country to country thus preventing from having a clear picture of relative support across countries (see IEA Bioenergy 2012). However, from the picture produced by Bio Intelligence Service (2012), many Member States apply support, like feed-in tariffs, mainly on E-RES from wood waste and biogas, and for example Germany excludes from feed-in tariff support the incineration of mixed municipal waste.

Even though it is still rather unclear, this emerging picture of a limited role of more ‘economic’ drivers suggests the importance of domestic capacity constraints/excess - in general imbalances (including geographical imbalances in capacity inside the country) - as a possible driver of waste trade flows in Europe.


4 Conclusions

The analysis of incineration capacities and shipments of waste for incineration underlines the importance of energy recovery of waste in Europe, and the role of the international network of waste treatment facilities in increasing waste flows between European countries. At the same time it highlights the challenges related to availability of data (both for capacities as well as for imports/ exports), capacity assessments and especially to an integrated approach that takes into account the waste hierarchy as well as the Energy Union.

Data availability

Despite the key role of waste infrastructures for a circular economy transition, the availability of data for an assessment of MSW incineration capacities is limited and subject to high uncertainty. The annual survey by CEWEP is a useful starting point for such an assessment. However, it is mainly based on information provided by CEWEP members and does not provide a full overview of dedicated MSW incineration capacities, which for the objective of this report should be differentiated from other incineration options for pre-treated waste. The Waste Incineration Directive Implementation Reports are another source of information, but on the one hand the provision of capacity related information is voluntary for the member states, and on the other hands is limited to facilities beyond certain capacity thresholds. Also, the classification of incineration and co-incineration seems to vary between member states.

National inventories can also provide useful information but again they vary significantly in terms of structure and level of detail; most of them don´t explicitly state if they refer to technical capacities or permitted capacities. Compared to MSW incineration, data availability is even more challenging for co-incineration or RDF capacities (that have not been in the focus of this report). The on-going revision of reporting obligations due to the new Directive 2010/75/EU on Industrial Emissions might be an opportunity to further harmonize definitions and concepts.

Capacity assessments

The capacity assessment points at the increasing prominence of waste incineration in Europe: For 2014, a total of 464 dedicated MSW solid waste incineration plants have been identified with a total incineration capacity of 81 310 thousand tonnes. Compared to 2010 the estimated incineration capacity has increased by close to 6% from 76 875 thousand tonnes in 2010.

The analysis shows an uneven distribution of capacities across Europe. The three countries with the biggest total capacities combined (Germany, France and Netherlands) already account for more than half of the total capacity (51%). The Top 6 countries (including Italy, UK and Sweden) even account for 74% of the total capacity. Meanwhile, many countries still depend heavily on landfills and don´t have any MSW incineration facilities, or stopped their development due to the economic crisis in Europe.

The assessments of per capita incineration capacities and especially the relation between per capita capacity and MSW generation indicate the existence of at least regional overcapacities in Europe: Countries in which the incineration capacity clearly exceeds or equals the total national generation of MSW may depend on waste imports and most probably incinerate waste streams that could otherwise be recycled – in contrast to the waste hierarchy.

An overall environmental assessment would need to take into account climate change mitigation effects from using less fossil fuels due to often very energy-efficient district heating systems based on waste incineration. A total assessment of European MSW incineration capacities is also challenging due to the extremely dynamic market development in the UK


where the capacity steeply increased over the last years and still many additional plants are under construction or at least planned.

Waste shipments

This development in the UK will also strongly influence the future development of waste shipments for incineration: Available data point at increasing waste trade among European countries and beyond, as a result of different drivers. The imbalance between available waste and recycling/recovery capacity in the domestic markets may be of particular importance, given that the use of landfill is increasingly discouraged in all European countries.

Looking at household waste shipped for incineration on land, the trend for both import and export was rather stable during a large part of the last decade but flows increased substantially starting from 2009-2010 (in particularly notified export) up to achieve a step increase in 2012-2013. Total import increased 4,6 times from 2008 to 2013 (from around 300.000 tons to around 1,4 million tons), while total export increased 6 times in the same period (from around 380.000 to 2,3 million tons). Although this sharp upswing corresponds to worst years of the crisis in Europe, the main specific reason seems to be the surge of the UK as big exporter in other European countries (see below). In spite of this growth, traded flows of MSW are still very low compared to a total 242 million tons of MSW generated in the EU-28 in 2013.

Need for further research

A better understanding is needed of the role of waste incineration in a circular economy, and particularly of existing over- or under-capacities, to steer investments into the most efficient waste infrastructures, both from an environmental and economic point of view:

The uneven spatial distribution of incineration capacities raises the question what environmental benefits would be gained from additional waste shipments, e.g. from countries in South-East-Europe without any incineration capacities, to other countries that might have a need for waste imports. This would require integral assessment of associated emissions, including environmental impacts from landfilling, that might differ significantly depending on the technical standards.

From a planning and policy perspective the increasing perception of waste as a resource also brings the need for a better understanding of incentives for waste to energy as contribution to reduced import dependency for fossil fuels. It would also be interesting to analyse if increased waste shipments have led to less ambitious waste treatment or even waste prevention policies in exporting countries.

There is in any case a clear need for innovative and transparent assessment tools for an improved coordination of incineration capacities.


Annex 1 National sources for waste incineration capacities in Europe

Country Sources

Austria Bundesabfallwirtschafsplan 2011 Linz AG 24

Belgium OVAM Cewep25

Switzerland VBSA ACR Tridel 26

Czech Republic

Termizo Cewep Wtert27 AEA Technology plc28 Pražské služby29

Germany Umweltbundesamt30 Denmark Dansk Affaldsforening, DI og Dansk Energi31

Spain

Tersa Cewep32 CTRASA33 EJ Atlas34 Zabalgarbi35 URBASER36 Greenpeace37

Finland Ecoprog

24 http://www.bundesabfallwirtschaftsplan.at/dms/bawp/BAWP_2011_Teil_1_13.pdf https://www.linzag.at/portal/portal/linzag/linzag /linzstrom/kraftwerke/linzmitterhkw/centerWind ow;jsessionid=757BE0AE98569084691B9059 86707C13.node1?plaginit=1&action=1 25 http://www.ovam.be/sites/default/files/atoms/files/T%20%26%20C%202014.pdf http://www.cewep.eu/media/www.cewep.eu/org/med_734/1090_belgium_2012.pdf 26 http://vbsa.ch/anlagegruppen/kva/ http://www.aziendarifiuti.ch/Desktopdefault.aspx?tabId=82&languageId=1 http://www.tridel.ch/exploitation/fonctionnement/eclate-usine.html# 27 http://tmz.mvv.cz/de/ http://www.cewep.eu/media/www.cewep.eu/org/med_734/1076_czech_republic_2012.pdf http://www.cewep.eu/media/www.cewep.eu/org/med_709/1397_czech_republic.pdf http://www.wtert.eu/Default.asp?Menue=18&NewsPPV=8613 28 http://www-1.sysnet.cz/projects/env.web/zamest.nsf/5eafc5e970f63e14c1256c5500784c48/4d44a8a4a28f03a6c1256afc0045b098/$FILE/PWaste%20-%20final%20report%20volume%202%20eng.doc 29 http://www.psas.cz/index.cfm/sluzby-firmam/zarizeni-pro-energeticke-vyuzivani-odpadu/energeticke-vyuzivani-odpadc5af/ 30 https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/themen/abfall-ressourcen/entsorgung/thermische-behandlung 31 http://www.ens.dk/sites/ens.dk/files/undergrund-forsyning/affald/benchmarking_forbraending_2013.pdf 32 http://www.tersa.cat/es/planta-integral-de-valorización-de-residuos_2115 http://www.cewep.eu/media/www.cewep.eu/org/med_734/1080_spain_2012.pdf 33 http://www.ctra.ad/la-planta-incineradora/ 34 https://ejatlas.org/conflict/incinerator-in-son-reus-mallorca-spain 35 http://www.zabalgarbi.com/en/Ficha-tecnica_Balance-de-2011 36 http://www.urbaser.es/seccion-17/Energy-Evaluation-Plants 37 http://www.greenpeace.org/espana/Global/espana/report/costas/091124-02.pdf

http://www.ovam.be/sites/default/files/atoms/files/T%20%26%20C%202014.pdf

http://tmz.mvv.cz/de/

http://www.cewep.eu/media/www.cewep.eu/org/med_734/1076_czech_republic_2012.pdf

http://www.wtert.eu/Default.asp?Menue=18&NewsPPV=8613

http://www.tersa.cat/es/planta-integral-de-valorización-de-residuos_2115

http://www.ctra.ad/la-planta-incineradora/

https://ejatlas.org/conflict/incinerator-in-son-reus-mallorca-spain

http://www.urbaser.es/seccion-17/Energy-Evaluation-Plants

http://www.greenpeace.org/espana/Global/espana/report/costas/091124-02.pdf


Country Sources

Cewep Yle38 Turku Energia39 JLY40 Finnish Environment Institute41

France

Sinoe ISWA WtE State of the Art Report 2135 Usine d’incinération des déchets ménagers du Grand Dijon Evere Inoteq Vals Aunis 42

Hungary Cewep43 REC44

Island ExpertPC45 Icelandic Association of Local Authorities46

Italy

AER S.p.A. Cewep 47 FISE Assoambiente48 ENEA / Federambiente49 Martino associati50

Luxembourg EEW51

Netherlands Afvalwerking in nederland, gegevens 2014 Cewep 52

Norway BIR Avfalssbehandling

38 http://www.ecoprog.com/en/show/article/finland-andritz-equips-new-wte-plant-in-leppaevirta.htm http://www.cewep.eu/media/www.cewep.eu/org/med_709/1398_finland.pdf http://yle.fi/uutiset/finlands_biggest_waste-to-energy_plant_opens_in_vantaa/7476864 39 http://www.turkuenergia.fi/tietoa-meista/ymparisto/energiantuotanto-ja-alkupera/tuotantolaitokset/orikedon-jatteenpolttolaitos/ 40 http://www.jly.fi/energia5.php?order=kunta.nimi 41 Nikander H and Säynätkari T (2014) Waste incineration capacities in Finland. E-mail message from the Finnish Environment Institute, 5th March. European Environment Agency, Copenhagen, Denmark. 42 http://www.sinoe.org/filtres/index/thematique http://evere.fr/evere/chiffres-cles.html http://www.inoteq.fr/Projets-334 http://www.vals-aunis.com/page.php?P=56 43 http://www.cewep.eu/media/www.cewep.eu/org/med_709/1399_hungary.pdf 44 http://www.rec.org.tr/dyn_files/32/650-4-HungarianWasteManagementPolicy.pdf 45 http://expertpc.org/gasifier/icelandicenergyfromwaste.pdf 46 http://www.samband.is/media/urgangsmal/Tolfraedi_urgangs_ISLAND_1995_2008_heimasida.pdf 47 http://www.aerspa.it/i-servizi http://www.cewep.eu/media/www.cewep.eu/org/med_709/1401_italy.pdf 48 http://www.fondazionesvilupposostenibile.org/f/Documenti/Rapporto_Assoambiente_08_09.pdf 49 http://www.assoelettrica.it/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/ENEA-Rapporto-sul-recupero-di-energia-dai-rifiuti-2012.pdf 50 http://martinoassociati.it/node/19 51 https://www.eew-energyfromwaste.com/en/our-sites/leudelange.html 52 http://www.verenigingafvalbedrijven.nl/fileadmin/user_upload/Documenten/PDF2015/Afvalverwerking_in_Nederland_gegevens_2014_1.0.pdf http://www.cewep.eu/media/www.cewep.eu/org/med_734/1079_netherlands_2012.pdf

http://www.aerspa.it/i-servizi

http://www.verenigingafvalbedrijven.nl/fileadmin/user_upload/Documenten/PDF2015/Afvalverwerking_in_Nederland_gegevens_2014_1.0.pdf

http://www.verenigingafvalbedrijven.nl/fileadmin/user_upload/Documenten/PDF2015/Afvalverwerking_in_Nederland_gegevens_2014_1.0.pdf


Country Sources

Frevar KF Hafslund Eidsiva Senja Avfallselskap ARS- OG MILJØRAPPORT 2014 Forus Energigjenvinning Cewep 53

Poland

Ecoprog Cewep54 Clifford Chance Monitor Polski55

Portugal

Lipor Valorsul Cewep 56 European Commission57

Sweden Kapacitetsutredning 2014 Cewep 58

Slovakia Olo Kosit59

United Kingdom

Incineration of Municipal Solid Waste Report 2013 Ecoprog BBC Resource Yorkshire Evening Post Sita Cornwall Plymouth Herald Let’s recycle Amey60

53 http://www.bir.no/biravfallsbehandling/Sider/Startside.aspx http://www.frevar.no/vare-anlegg/energigjenvinningsanlegg/ https://www.hafslund.no/omhafslund/varme/3081 https://www.eidsivaenergi.no/p/Fjernvarme/Hamar/Aktuelt/ http://www.senja-avfall.no/om_oss https://www.oslo.kommune.no/getfile.php/Innhold/Politikk%20og%20administrasjon/Etater%20og%20foretak/Energigjenvinningsetaten/Dokumenter%20Energigjenvinningsetaten/Års-%20og%20miljørapport%202014%20Energigjenvinningsetaten.pdf http://forusenergi.no/energi http://www.cewep.eu/media/www.cewep.eu/org/med_734/1083_norway_2012.pdf http://www.cewep.eu/media/www.cewep.eu/org/med_709/1403_norway.pdf 54 http://www.ecoprog.com/en/show/article/poland-consortium-chosen-to-build-wte-plant-in-bialystok.htm http://www.cewep.eu/media/www.cewep.eu/org/med_734/1082_poland_2012.pdf http://www.cliffordchance.com/briefings/2013/03/municipal_waste_incinerationplants.html 55 http://monitorpolski.gov.pl/MP/2010/s/101/1183 56 http://www.lipor.pt/en/municipal-solid-waste/energy-recovery/unit-description/ http://www.valorsul.pt/pt/valorizacao-energetica/ctrsu.aspx http://www.cewep.eu/media/www.cewep.eu/org/med_709/1404_portugal.pdf 57 http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/presenta/rup2012/brochure_rup_en.pdf 58 http://www.avfallsverige.se/fileadmin/uploads/Rapporter/E2014-03.pdf http://www.cewep.eu/media/www.cewep.eu/org/med_709/1405_sweden.pdf 59 https://www.olo.sk/aktualny-stav-v-energetickom-zhodnocovani-odpadov/ http://kosit.sk/profil-spolocnosti/modernizacia/ 60 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/221036/pb13889-incineration-municipal-waste.pdf

http://forusenergi.no/energi

http://www.cewep.eu/media/www.cewep.eu/org/med_734/1083_norway_2012.pdf

http://www.ecoprog.com/en/show/article/poland-consortium-chosen-to-build-wte-plant-in-bialystok.htm

http://www.cewep.eu/media/www.cewep.eu/org/med_734/1082_poland_2012.pdf

http://monitorpolski.gov.pl/MP/2010/s/101/1183

http://www.valorsul.pt/pt/valorizacao-energetica/ctrsu.aspx

http://www.avfallsverige.se/fileadmin/uploads/Rapporter/E2014-03.pdf

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/221036/pb13889-incineration-municipal-waste.pdf

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/221036/pb13889-incineration-municipal-waste.pdf


Country Sources

Romania, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Greece, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Slovenia and Malta

Jofra Sora, M. (2013). Incineration overcapacity and waste shipping in Europe: the end of the proximity principle? Fortum61

Estonia, Croatia, Ireland

EEA (2013). Managing municipal solid waste – a review of achievements in 32 European countries. Wtert Eco-Innovation Baltic Course Cewep Irish Times62

http://www.ecoprog.com/en/show/article/uk-voelund-might-construct-gloucestershire-wte-plant.htm http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-29349904 http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-23973922 http://resource.co/government/article/construction-begins-polmadie-recycling-centre http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/news/latest-news/top-stories/is-the-cross-green-incinerator-the-final-piece-in-leeds-s-recycling-jigsaw-1-6685010 http://www.sitacornwall.co.uk/managing-your-waste/energy-from-waste http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/MVV-responds-questions-Devonport-waste/story-18522284-detail/story.html http://www.letsrecycle.com/news/latest-news/work-begins-on-peterborough-efw-plant/ http://wasteservices.amey.co.uk/where-we-work/milton-keynes/about-us/ 61 http://www.no-burn.org/downloads/Incineration%20overcapacity%20and%20waste%20shipping%20in%20Europe%20the%20end%20of%20the%20proximity%20principle%20-January%202013-1.pdf http://www.fortum.com/en/mediaroom/pages/fortum-inaugurates-the-first-waste-to-energy-combined-heat-and-power-plant-in-the-baltics.aspx 62 http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/managing-municipal-solid-waste http://www.wtert.eu/Default.asp?Menue=18&NewsPPV=8613 http://www.eco-innovation.eu/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=149%3Awaste-incineration-plants-to-produce-electricity-and-heat&catid=56%3Aestonia&Itemid=56 http://www.baltic-course.com/eng/good_for_business/?doc=35444 http://www.cewep.eu/media/www.cewep.eu/org/med_734/1089_ireland_2012.pdf http://www.cewep.eu/media/www.cewep.eu/org/med_709/1400_ireland.pdf http://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/work-begins-on-construction-of-poolbeg-incinerator-1.1970738

http://www.ecoprog.com/en/show/article/uk-voelund-might-construct-gloucestershire-wte-plant.htm

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-29349904

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-23973922

http://resource.co/government/article/construction-begins-polmadie-recycling-centre

http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/news/latest-news/top-stories/is-the-cross-green-incinerator-the-final-piece-in-leeds-s-recycling-jigsaw-1-6685010

http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/news/latest-news/top-stories/is-the-cross-green-incinerator-the-final-piece-in-leeds-s-recycling-jigsaw-1-6685010

http://www.sitacornwall.co.uk/managing-your-waste/energy-from-waste

http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/MVV-responds-questions-Devonport-waste/story-18522284-detail/story.html

http://www.letsrecycle.com/news/latest-news/work-begins-on-peterborough-efw-plant/

http://www.no-burn.org/downloads/Incineration%20overcapacity%20and%20waste%20shipping%20in%20Europe%20the%20end%20of%20the%20proximity%20principle%20-January%202013-1.pdf



http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/managing-municipal-solid-waste

http://www.wtert.eu/Default.asp?Menue=18&NewsPPV=8613

http://www.eco-innovation.eu/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=149%3Awaste-incineration-plants-to-produce-electricity-and-heat&catid=56%3Aestonia&Itemid=56

http://www.eco-innovation.eu/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=149%3Awaste-incineration-plants-to-produce-electricity-and-heat&catid=56%3Aestonia&Itemid=56

http://www.baltic-course.com/eng/good_for_business/?doc=35444

http://www.cewep.eu/media/www.cewep.eu/org/med_734/1089_ireland_2012.pdf

http://www.cewep.eu/media/www.cewep.eu/org/med_709/1400_ireland.pdf


Annex 2 Figures on incineration capacities in Europe by country, 2014

Country Total

capacity

kg per capita

capacity [(total

capacity/inhabitants)*1

000]

Capacity in relation to

waste generation

[MSW generation/tot

al capacity]

Capacity in relation to

waste generation

assuming 65% recycling rates

[(MSW generation –

MSW generation*0,65)/total capacity]

Capacity taking into

account sorting

residues [(MSW

generation+so

rting

residues)/total

capacity]

Austria

2,900,000 341 1.66 0.58 2.22

Belgium

2,700,000 241 1.80 0.63 2.43

Switzerland

3,683,000 452 1.63 0.57

Czech Republic

646,000 61 5.04 1.76 5.59

Germany

19,600,000 243 2.55 0.89 3.39

Denmark

3,300,000 587 1.29 0.45 1.45

Spain

2,600,000 56 7.77 2.72 10.66

Finland

1,200,000 220 2.19 0.76 2.43

France

14,500,000 220 2.32 0.81 2.72

Hungary

381,000 39 9.96 3.48 10.55

Italy

6,300,000 104 4.70 1.64 6.85


Source: Eurostat, 2016.

Luxembourg

131,000 238 2.61 0.91 2.87

Netherlands

7,600,000 452 1.16 0.40 1.35

Norway

1,594,000 312 1.36 0.47 1.36

Poland

485,000 13 21.29 7.45 32.95

Portugal

974,000 93 4.83 1.69 5.20

Sweden

5,698,000 591 0.74 0.26 1.03

Slovakia

170,000 31 10.24 3.58 10.70

UK

6,180,000 96 5.03 1.76 5.99

Estonia

184,000 140 2.55 0.89 3.33

Ireland

225,000 49 11.96 4.18 14.14

Lithuania

230,000 78 5.52 1.93 6.47

Slovenia

4,000 2 223 78.05 243.20

Croatia, Romania, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Greece, Latvia, Liechtenstein, and Malta do not have any incineration plants.


Annex 3 Figures on incineration capacities, MSW recycling rates and MSW landfilling in Europe by country, 2014

Country Incineration Capacity Recycling rate Landfilled

Austria 2,900,000 59 % 194,000

Belgium 2,700,000 57 % 47,000

Switzerland 3,683,000 50 % 0

Czech Republic 646,000 23 % 1,827,000

Germany 19,600,000 64 % 691,000

Denmark 3,300,000 45 % 57,000

Spain 2,600,000 27 % 11,138,000

Finland 1,200,000 33 % 458,000

France 14,500,000 39 % 8,691,000

Hungary 381,000 25 % 2,181,000

Italy 6,300,000 38 % 9,332,000

Luxembourg 131,000 47 % 61,000

Netherlands 7,600,000 49 % 128,000

Norway 1,594,000 40 % 60,000

Poland 485,000 20 % 5,437,000

Portugal 974,000 26 % 2,307,000

Sweden 5,698,000 48 % 27,000

Slovakia 170,000 13 % 1,158,000

UK 6,180,000 46 % 8,656,000

Estonia 184,000 32 % 30,000

Ireland 225,000 44 % 1,028,000

Lithuania 230,000 20 % 748,000

Slovenia 4,000 40 % 208,000

Source: Eurostat, 2016.


Annex 4 Number of plants in EU-27

Country Number of plants

Total Incineration Co-Incineration Non-categorised

Austria 67 17 50 0

Belgium 72 10 16 46

Bulgaria 10 3 7 0

Cyprus 1 0 1 0

Czech Republic

42 37 5 0

Germany 365 176 186 0

Denmark 37 34 3 0

Estonia 4 3 1 0

Greece 5 2 3 0

Spain 78 27 51 0

Finland 24 10 14 0

France 249 210 39 0

Hungary 28 22 6 0

Ireland 20 15 5 0

Italy 123 68 55 0

Lithuania 3 2 1 0

Luxembourg 3 2 1 0

Latvia 11 6 5 0

Malta 1 1 0 0

Netherlands 41 36 5 0

Poland 113 51 68 0

Portugal 14 6 8 0

Romania 29 20 9 0


Sweden 138 2 136 0

Slovenia 6 3 3 0

Slovakia 23 17 6 0

United Kingdom

159 116 43 0

EU 1,673 939 688 46

Source: de Carlos/Menadue, 2016.


Annex 5 MSW incineration capacity taking into account sorting residues in Europe by country, 2014

Country Total capacity (tonnes)

MSW generation (tonnes)

Sorting residues (tonnes)

Incineration capacity taking into account sorting residues [= (MSW generated+sorting residues)/total capacity]

Austria

2,900,000 4,833,000 1,610,578 2.22

Belgium

2,700,000 4,886,000 1,700,481 2.43

Switzerland

3,683,000 6,006,000 N/A

Czech Republic

646,000 3,261,000 351,990 5.59

Germany

19,600,000 50,064,000 16,395,642 3.39

Denmark

3,300,000 4,279,000 510,461 1.45

Spain

2,600,000 20,217,000 7,505,074 10.66

Finland

1,200,000 2,630,000 293,057 2.43

France

14,500,000 33,703,000 5,856,813 2.72

Hungary

381,000 3,795,000 227,835 10.55

Italy

6,300,000 29,655,000 13,535,829 6.85

Luxembourg


Country Total capacity (tonnes)

MSW generation (tonnes)

Sorting residues (tonnes)

Incineration capacity taking into account sorting residues [= (MSW generated+sorting residues)/total capacity]

131,000 343,000 33,773 2.87

Netherlands

7,600,000 8,890,000 1,411,898 1.35

Norway

1,594,000 2,175,000 0 1.36

Poland

485,000 10,330,000 5,651,185 32.95

Portugal

974,000 4,710,000 357,392 5.20

Sweden

5,698,000 42,460,00 1,655,999 1.03

Slovakia

170,000 1,742,000 77,653 10.70

UK

6,180,000 31,131,000 5,944,146 5.99

Estonia

184,000 470,000 143,997 3.33

Ireland

225,000 2,693,000 490,654 14.14

Lithuania

230,000 1,270,000 219,238 6.47

Slovenia

4,000 892,000 80,810 243.20

Source: ETC/WMGE calculation based on Eurostat data for 2014.


Annex 6 Main stages of the notification procedure

Contract between the notifier and

the consignee for disposal/recovery

+ financial guarantee to be approved

by the authority of dispatch.

Notification (notification document +

movement document) provided by the

notifier to the authority of

The authority of dispatch can stop the

notification due to objections*.

Withi

n 3

w.d.

The authority of dispatch

transmits the notification to the

authority of destination with

copies to the authorities of transit

+ retains a copy itself.

The authority of destination requires additional

information (which can also be required by other

authorities concerned) to the notifier.

Withi

n 3

w.d.

The authority of destination sends an

acknowledgement to the notifier with copies to

the other authorities.

Within 30 days or 7 w.d.

for pre-consented

recovery facilities

One or more authorities concerned object*

to the shipment. The decision shall be

transmitted in writing to the notifier with

copies to the other authorities concerned.

All the authorities concerned consent the

shipment (with or without conditions). The

decision shall be transmitted in writing to the

notifier with copies to the other authorities

concerned. Tacit consent may be assumed only

by the competent authority of transit if no

objection is lodged within the 30 day time limit.

Written and tacit consents have a maximum

validity of one year (up to 3 years for general

The notifier completes the movement

document to the extent possible, sends

signed copies to the authorities

concerned and retains a copy itself. The

original movement document shall

accompany each transport.

Each carrier shall complete the movement

document

Written confirmation of receipt of waste: to

be enclosed to the movement document within

three days of receipt of the waste by the facility

concerned. The facility shall send signed copies

of the movement document containing this

confirmation to the notifier and to the competent

authorities.

Certificate for non interim

recovery/disposal: to be enclosed to the

movement document within 30 days after

the completion of the recovery/disposal

operations and no later than one year

following the receipt of waste by the

concerned facility. The facility shall send

signed copies of the movement document

containing this certificate to the notifier

and to the competent authorities.


Note: * If, within the 30 day time limit, the competent authorities consider that the problems which gave rise to their objections have been resolved, they shall immediately inform the notifier in writing, with copies to the consignee and other competent authorities concerned. If the problems in question have not been resolved, the notification shall cease to be valid.

Source: EU, 2006.


Annex 7 Non-hazardous LoW codes corresponding to Y-46, ‘mix’ and ‘not specified’ Y-codes in the 2010-2013 period; only waste destined to R1+D10; EU-28, Norway and Switzerland

Y-code Correlated LoW code European Waste Catalogue Sub-chapter

European Waste Catalogue Chapter

Y-46 150102: plastic packaging

15 01: packaging (including separately collected municipal packaging waste)

15: Waste packaging; absorbents, wiping cloths, filter materials and protective clothing not otherwise specified.

150106: mixed packaging See above See above

190501: non-composted fraction of municipal and similar wastes

19 05: wastes from aerobic treatment of solid wastes

19: Wastes from waste management Facilities, off-site wastewater treatment plants and the preparation of water intended for human consumption and water for industrial use.

190805: sludges from treatment of urban waste water

19 08: wastes from waste water treatment plants not otherwise specified

See above

191204: plastic and rubber 19 12: wastes from the mechanical treatment of waste (for example sorting, crushing, compacting, pelletising) not otherwise specified.

See above

191207: wood not containing hazardous substances

See above See above

191210: combustible waste (refuse derived fuel)

See above See above

191212: other wastes (including mixtures of materials) from mechanical treatment of wastes not containing hazardous substances

See above See above


20 01: separately collected fractions (except 15 01)

20: Municipal wastes (Household waste and similar commercial, industrial

and institutional wastes) Including separately collected fractions.

200199: other fractions not otherwise specified

See above See above


200301: mixed municipal waste 20 03: other municipal wastes See above

200307: bulky waste See above See above

Mix (non hazardous)

Unfilled (N. 27/273)

Mix 020704: materials unsuitable for consumption or processing

02 07: wastes from the production of alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverages

(except coffee, tea and cocoa)

02: Wastes from agriculture, horticulture, aquaculture, forestry, hunting and fishing, food preparation and processing

150101: paper and cardboard packaging

15 01: packaging (including separately collected municipal packaging waste)

15: Waste packaging; absorbents, wiping cloths, filter materials and protective clothing not other wise

specified

180109: medicines other than those mentioned in 18 01 0863

18 01: wastes from natal care, diagnosis, treatment or prevention of disease in humans

18: Wastes from human or animal health care and/or related research (except kitchen and restaurant

wastes not arising from immediate health care )

180204: ? (previously ‘discarded chemicals’; currently not existing64)

18 02: wastes from research, diagnosis, treatment or prevention of disease involving animals

See above


19 12: wastes from the mechanical treatment of waste (for example sorting, crushing, compacting, pelletising) not otherwise specified

19: Wastes from waste management facilities, off-site waste water treatment plants and the preparation of water intended for human consumption and water for industrial use

191212: other wastes (including mixtures of materials) from mechanical treatment of wastes not containing hazardous substances

See above See above

63 Cytotoxic and cytostatic medicines 64 Decision 94/904/EC establishing a list of hazardous waste pursuant to Article 1(4) of Directive 91/689/EEC on hazardous waste, replaced by Commission Decision 2000/532/EC.


200132: medicines other than those mentioned in 20 01 3165

20 01: separately collected fractions (except 15 01)

20: Municipal wastes (Household waste and similar commercial, industrial

and institutional wastes) Including separately collected fractions.

Mix (non-hazardous)66

Unfilled/Total Mix including hazardous waste (N 84/802)

Not specified67


19 12: wastes from the mechanical treatment of waste (for example sorting, crushing, compacting, pelletising) not otherwise specified

19: Wastes from waste management facilities, off-site waste water treatment plants and the preparation of water intended for human consumption and water for industrial use


See above See above

191212: other wastes (including mixtures of materials) not containing hazardous substances from mechanical treatment of wastes

See above See above

Unfilled (N 226/2.408)

Source: ETC/WMGE elaborations of Eurostat, 2016.

65 Cytotoxic and cytostatic medicines 66 Apart for a few cases (6) all shipments of mix waste report as category of waste an Y1-Y45 code. 67 Since ‘not specified’ shipments have been provided with more than 90 non-hazardous LoW codes (as well as several hazardous ones), only the three most important non-hazardous LoW codes (by weight of the overall shipments of waste with a ‘not specified’ Y-code, including hazardous waste) are reported by the Table (2010-2013 period).


References

Aplin, S.; Read, A., n.d., Overview of the UK Waste Market. URL: http://www.rwmexhibition.com/Content/Overview-of-the-UK-Waste-Market (29.04.2016).

Baggs, J., 2009, ‘International Trade in Hazardous Waste’, Review of International Economics, 1(17), 1–16.

Bio Intelligence Service, 2012, USE OF ECONOMIC INSTRUMENTS AND WASTE MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCES Final Report for DG Environment, 10 April 2012, Contract ENV.G.4/FRA/2008/0112.

CEWEP, 2016, MW statistics with Circular Economy Targets 2030 based on EUROSTAT 2014. Personal information, April 22 2016.

De Carlos, A.; Menadue, H., 2016, Assessment and Summary of the Member States’ Implementation Reports for the IED, IPPCD, SED and WID. WID Final Report. Prepared by Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Ltd. URL: https://circabc.europa.eu/sd/a/4bb6a793-e3d3-4d0d-a660-04c5ee8283bb/WID%20implementation%20final%20report.pdf (24.06.2016).

De Jaeger, 2010, Do Households Export their Recyclable Waste?’ Paper prepared for the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists (AERE) World Conference, Montreal 28 June-2 July, Special session on Waste management in decentralized settings: spatial issues and policy.

Deutsche Energie-Agentur GmbH (dena), 2012, Biomasse in Kohle- und Graskraftwerken. Ein wichtiger Baustein zur bedarfsgerechten und klimafreundlichen Energieerzeugung. URL: http://www.dena.de/fileadmin/user_upload/Publikationen/Erneuerbare/Dokumente/Biomasse_in_Kohle-_und_Gaskraftwerken.pdf (29.04.2016).

EEA, 2012, Movements of waste across the EU's internal and external borders. EEA Report No 7/2012. Copenhagen, Denmark.

EEA, 2015, The European environment — state and outlook 2015: synthesis report, European Environment Agency, Copenhagen.

ETC/SCP, 2008, Transboundary shipments of waste in the EU- Developments 1995-2005 and possible drivers. Technical report 2008/1, European Topic Centre on Sustainable Consumption and Production.

ETC/SCP, 2009, Data availability on transboundary shipments of waste based on the European Waste List, prepared by Fischer, C. and Davidsen, C., ETC/SCP Working Paper, 3/2009, European Topic Centre on Sustainable Consumption and Production.

ETC/SCP, 2012a, Drivers and impacts of transboundary shipments of waste — a methodology for analysis, prepared by Fischer, C., Junker, H., Mazzanti, M., Paleari, S., Volpi, M., Wuttke, J. and Zoboli, R., European Topic Centre on Sustainable Consumption and Production Working Paper.

http://www.rwmexhibition.com/Content/Overview-of-the-UK-Waste-Market

http://www.dena.de/fileadmin/user_upload/Publikationen/Erneuerbare/Dokumente/Biomasse_in_Kohle-_und_Gaskraftwerken.pdf

http://www.dena.de/fileadmin/user_upload/Publikationen/Erneuerbare/Dokumente/Biomasse_in_Kohle-_und_Gaskraftwerken.pdf


ETC/SCP, 2012b, Transboundary shipments of waste in the European Union. Reflections on data, environmental impacts and drivers, Prepared by: Christian Fischer, Harald Junker, Massimiliano Mazzanti, Susanna Paleari, Joachim Wuttke and Roberto Zoboli, European Topic Centre on Sustainable Consumption and Production, ETC/SCP Working Paper 2/2012, November 2012.

ETC/SCP, 2014, Municipal Solid Waste Management Capacities in Europe. Desktop Study, European Topic Centre on Sustainable Consumption and Production, ETC/SCP Working Paper No 8/2014, June 2014.

Eunomia, 2014, Residual Waste Infrastructure Review, 7th Issue. URL: http://www.eunomia.co.uk/reports-tools/residual-waste-infrastructure-review-7th-issue/ (29.04.2016).

European Commission, 2010, Guidance on Interpretation of Annex I of the EU ETS Directive. URL: http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/ets/docs/guidance_interpretation_en.pdf (24.06.2016)

Faulstich, M.; Vodegel, S.; Fedianina, E.; Franke, M.; Degener, P.; Aginer, J.; Reh, K., 2016, Umweltschutzgerechte Verwertung nicht etablierter Stoffströme in Abfallverbrennungsanlagen. Umweltbundesamt, Dessau-Roßlau.

Fuse, M. and Kashima, S., 2008, Evaluation Method of Automobile Recycling Systems for Asia Considering International Material Cycles: Application to Japan and Thailand, Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management, 10: 153-64.

IEA Bioenergy, 2012, Energy recovery from renewable content of waste: incentives and methodology for analysing biogenic content of mixed waste, Topic 1 – Policy Support, Final Report, Task 36, Integrating energy recovery into solid waste management, RSE Report N.12003964, November 2012.

Kellenberg, D., 2010, ‘Trading wastes’, Paper presented at the AERE world conference, Montreal, 29 June 2010, Special session: ‘Waste management in decentralized settings: spatial issues and policy’.

Lawton, K., Corden, C., de Carlos, A., Zglobidz, N., 2014, Assessment and Summary of Member States' Implementation Reports for the Waste Incineration Directive (2000/76/EC) covering the period 2009-11. Prepared by Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Ltd.

Manders, J., 2013, Integrated waste management of MSW across Europe. Waste to Energy as a professional route to treat residual waste. CEWEP, Houthalen Helchteren.

Mazzanti M., Zoboli R., 2013, International Waste Trade: Impacts and drivers, in D'Amato A., Mazzanti M., Montini A., Waste Management in Spatial Environments, Routledge, London, pp. 99-136.

Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 on shipments of waste.

Rhodes, J.; Thair, M., 2015, The Reality Gap: UK residual waste treatment capacity – making sense of the arguments. URL: https://www.biffa.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/TheRealityGap_Biffa-Report_web.pdf (29.04.2016).

http://www.eunomia.co.uk/reports-tools/residual-waste-infrastructure-review-7th-issue/

http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/ets/docs/guidance_interpretation_en.pdf

https://www.biffa.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/TheRealityGap_Biffa-Report_web.pdf

https://www.biffa.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/TheRealityGap_Biffa-Report_web.pdf


Richers, U., 2010, Abfallverbrennung in Deutschland – Entwicklungen und Kapazitäten. KIT Scientifc Reports 7560. KIT Scientific Publishing, Karlsruhe.

Spohn, C., 2015, Capacity and legal steering of Waste-to-Energy in Germany. 9thBeacon Conference Waste-to-Energy, November 18–19 2015 in Malmö.

Thiel, S., Ersatzbrennstoff-Kraftwerke in Deutschland und Österreich. URL: http://www.vivis.de/phocadownload/2013_eaa/2013_EaA_835_852_Thiel.pdf (29.04.2016).

Thomé-Kozmiensky, K. J.; Thiel, S., 2016, Keine Trendwende. Für die Kapazitätsengpässe auf dem Verbrennungsmarkt in Deutschland ist keine schnelle Entspannung in Sicht. Resource 1/2016, pp. 48-50.

Wilts, H.; von Gries, N., 2014, Municipal Solid Waste Management Capacities in Europe. Desktop Study. ETC/SCP Working Paper No 8/2014. URL: http://scp.eionet.europa.eu/publications/wp2014_8/wp/wp2014_8 (29.04.2016).

Wilts, H.; von Gries, N., 2015, Europe’s waste incineration capacities in a circular economy, in: Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers – Waste and Resource Management, Volume 168, Issue 54, pp.166-176.

http://www.vivis.de/phocadownload/2013_eaa/2013_EaA_835_852_Thiel.pdf

http://scp.eionet.europa.eu/publications/wp2014_8/wp/wp2014_8

Assessment of waste incineration capacities and waste … · 2016. 7. 27. · 1 Assessment of waste...

Documents

Transcript of Assessment of waste incineration capacities and waste … · 2016. 7. 27. · 1 Assessment of waste...