The Basel Convention prohibits the export of WEEE from developed to developing countries. However, the effectiveness of the ban is compromised by WEEE exports together with, or declared as, used EEE. Since 2009, the Basel Convention has been working on technical guidelines on transboundary movements of e-waste, in particular regarding the distinction between waste and non-waste.
In December 2012, the Information Technology Industry Council (ITI) – an association of electronics manufacturers including Dell, HP, Sony, Samsung, LG and Apple – requested that used or non-functioning equipment be exempt from the ban if it is ‘sent for refurbishment or repair under a valid contract with the intention of reuse to a) the producer or a third party facility acting on his behalf or b) a third party facility as long as such export does not involve exports from Annex VII countries (i.e. OECD and EU) to non-Annex VII countries.’
The proposal was opposed by among others the Basel Action Network (BAN, intervention) and several, mainly developing, countries fearing that it would ‘further open the floodgates’ of e-waste entering or arising in developing countries as
‘substantial amounts of hazardous waste are generated in repair operations’ (bad batteries, mercury lamps, CRTs, and circuit board) for which adequate treatment facilities are not available in the country; and
the new criteria would be exploited by waste brokers.
BAN also notes that it may not be well understood that e-waste exports would have ‘devastating impacts on legitimate recyclers … in developed countries’ such as e-Stewards and most R2 recyclers that have invested heavily in real recycling operations.
Next steps
Without an agreement to the at times emotionally charged debate, COP11 decided (UNEP/CHW.11/CRP.22) i.a. to
invite parties to serve as the lead country for the development of the guidelines and inform the Secretariat of their willingness to do so by 31 July 2013;
invite submission of examples of when used equipment should normally be considered waste (or not) by 15 September 2013;
request the lead country to prepare draft revised technical guidelines for publication by 30 November 2013; and
invite comments on the draft revised technical guidelines by 28 February 2014.
Eco3e aims to inform senior management, design, marketing and purchasing departments about
Regulations and Directives linked to eco-design (WEEE, RoHS, EuP and REACH as well as eco-labels) ;
Eco design tools (ISO standards, life cycle analysis, indicators …) ;
Plans to improve the recycling of EEE, organised by type of equipment (7 sample products including washing machines, printers and mobile phones) and secondary materials stream.
Unfortunately the site does not mention the ‘eco-design criteria’ that French WEEE systems have had to apply since July 2010 for charging differentiated recycling fees to producers (see news item).
Eco3e is the result of three years’ collaboration between recycling experts, the four compliance schemes and teachers at the ‘Ecole Nationale Supérieure des Arts et Métiers de Chambéry’ which offers a Masters programme in Eco-design and environmental management.
WEEE Directive 2012/19/EU will enter into force on 13 August. Member states will then have 18 months - or until late mid-February 2014 - to transpose the Recast into national law.
While the Commission Communication does not address Rare Earth Metals explicitly, the EU Parliament’s resolution i.a.
supports the setting-up of a ‘Raw Materials and Rare Earths Stability Board’ in the G20
calls on the Commission to establish a ‘risk radar for critical raw materials’ and to analyse current and future needs and prices as well as the negative effects of shortages with regard to the renewable-energy, high-technology, defence and automotive sectors
calls on the Commission to review how the Eco-Design Directive, the Directive on End-of-Life Vehicles, the WEEE Directive and the Battery Waste Directive could be modified so as to increase recycling also for valuable raw materials, including rare earth metals, and by more specific requirements on dismantling
emphasises the need to combat the illegal shipment of recyclable materials, particularly electronic waste
stresses that the Commission should give attention to the different recycling strategies needed for mass metals and for critical raw materials such as Rare Earth Metals
calls on the Commission to couple research funding on raw materials such as Rare Earth Metals with clear goals, such as for example the Japanese target of reducing Rare Earth Metals consumption by one third
The content of the published regulation contains no changes from the version agreed by the Technical Adaptation Committee on 1 July 2010, which we analysed in the news item of 23 July 2010.
acting as an independent forum for discussion on product stewardship developments;
providing a web-based clearing-house for the dissemination of information and research on product stewardship on a free or at-cost basis;
providing international linkages on product stewardship; and
carrying out research on product stewardship as endorsed by the Council’s Executive Committee.
The Australian Government has appointed the GPSC to its new Stakeholder Reference Group to advise the Government on the development of framework legislation on product stewardship.
The President of the GPSC is Russ Martin, of the Australian consultancy MS2. David Perchard of Perchards Ltd is the Vice-President, and the other members of the Executive Committee are Scott Cassel, of the Product Stewardship Institute in the USA; Ed Cordner, of the Australian Packaging Covenant ; Neil Hastie, of Encorp Pacific which runs British Columbia’s beverage and milk containers and electronics recycling programmes in Canada; Garth Hickle, Product Stewardship Team Leader at the State of Minnesota Pollution Control Agency in the US; and Rose Read, of MobileMuster, the recycling programme of the Australian Mobile Telecommunications Association.
The Technical Adaptation Committee on the Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive (the ‘Article 21 Committee’) has held a number of inconclusive discussions about ‘borderline items’ since 2006. In December 2011 it considered but was unable to agree on a proposal for a Commission Directive which would have amended Annex I to the Directive (the definitions) through the comitology (delegated powers) procedure.
The draft was not agreed by the Committee because of disagreement over the status of release paper, and in March 2012 it was submitted to the Council to decide. ‘Release paper of self-adhesive labels’ was omitted from the March 2012 text. The Council did not take a vote because it was clear that there would not be a qualified majority in favour (there was opposition to defining rolls, tubes and cores, coat hangers and matchboxes and gas cylinders as packaging). The Commission therefore resubmitted the proposal as a Commission Directive in July 2012. The European Parliament had no objections, and the Directive was finally published in the Official Journal on 8 February.
The rules do not permit the Commission to change anything in the text without resubmitting it to the European Parliament, so 30 September 2013, the date in the Commission’s 28 March 2012 proposal for a Council Directive, remains the deadline for member states to bring the Directive into force on their national territories.
The following have been added to the illustrative list of items to be regarded as packaging:
mailing pouches for catalogues and magazines (with a magazine inside);
cake doilies sold with a cake;
rolls, tubes and cylinders around which flexible material (e.g. plastic film, aluminium, paper) is wound, except rolls, tubes and cylinders intended as parts of production machinery and not used to present a product as a sales unit;
flower pots intended to be used only for the selling and transporting of plants and not intended to stay with the plant throughout its life time;
glass bottles for injection solutions;
CD spindles (sold with CDs, not intended to be used as storage);
clothes hangers (sold with an item of clothing);
matchboxes;
sterile barrier systems (pouches, trays and materials necessary to preserve the sterility of the product);
beverage system capsules (e.g. coffee, cocoa, milk) which are left empty after use;
refillable steel cylinders used for various kinds of gas, excluding fire extinguishers.
Mechanical querns (integrated into a non-refillable container and filled with a product (e.g. a pepper mill filled with pepper) would be considered part of the packaging.
Also to be considered packaging, if designed and intended to be filled at the point of sale, is plastic film around cleaned clothes in laundries.
Items not to be considered packaging are
clothes hangers (sold separately);
beverage system coffee capsules, coffee foil pouches, and filter paper coffee pods disposed of together with the used coffee product;
printer cartridges;
CD, DVD and video cases (sold together with a CD, DVD or video inside);
CD spindles (sold empty, intended to be used for storage);
soluble bags for detergents;
grave side lights (containers for candles);
mechanical quern integrated into a refillable container (e.g. a refillable pepper mill);
The following tables track recent reported progress in the “EU-27” (the whole of the EU), “EU-15”, the 15 countries in membership of the EU before 2004; and “EU-10”, the 10 mainland countries which joined the EU in 2004 and 2007 (i.e. not Cyprus and Malta, island nation-states which have special challenges meeting the targets).
The targets in the Directive apply to 12 of the EU-15 member states from 2008. The deadline for Greece, Ireland and Portugal applies from 2011. Most of the “new” member states were given until 2012 to meet the targets, but Malta’s deadline is 2013, Poland’s 2014 and Latvia’s 2015.
Overall recovery rate
2007
2008
2009
2010
EU-27 total
73%
73%
75%
76%
EU-15 total
75%
75%
77%
79%
EU-10 total
55%
53%
54%
57%
All but one of the EU-15 member states achieved the 60% recovery target in 2010. Greece was at 59%, but still had a year to go to meet the target. Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Lithuania and Slovenia were already exceeding the target. Cyprus reports a recovery and recycling rate of 50% in 2010, but Malta’s reported recovery rate fell from 37% in 2009 to 29% in 2010, its recycling rate being one percentage point lower.
Overall recycling rate
2007
2008
2009
2010
EU-27 total
59%
61%
62%
63%
EU-15 total
61%
62%
65%
65%
EU-10 total
47%
46%
46%
47%
In 2010, all EU-15 member states exceeded the 55% overall recycling target, the 60% paper & board recycling target and the 22.5% plastics recycling target. Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Lithuania, Poland and Slovenia were already exceeding the target.
Glass recycling rate
2007
2008
2009
2010
EU-27 total
64%
66%
68%
70%
EU-15 total
66%
69%
70%
72%
EU-10 total
42%
48%
49%
52%
In 2010 Portugal (57%) and Greece (21%) had not yet met the 60% glass recycling target, but they had until 2011 to do so. The Czech Republic, Lithuania and Slovenia were already exceeding the target.
Metals recycling rate
2007
2008
2009
2010
EU-27 total
67%
68%
69%
71%
EU-15 total
69%
70%
72%
74%
EU-10 total
45%
46%
51%
55%
In 2010, all EU-15 member states except Greece (42%) exceeded the 50% metals recycling target. The only “new” member states not already meeting the target were Malta (33%), Poland (46%), Slovakia (41%) and Slovenia (33%).
Paper & board recycling rate
2007
2008
2009
2010
EU-27 total
78%
81%
83%
83%
EU-15 total
79%
82%
85%
85%
EU-10 total
75%
73%
68%
68%
In 2010, all EU-15 member states exceeded the 60% paper & board recycling target. The only “new” member states not already meeting the target were Malta (51%), Poland (57%), Slovakia (51%) and Slovenia (33%).
Plastics recycling rate
2007
2008
2009
2010
EU-27 total
28%
30%
32%
33%
EU-15 total
28%
31%
33%
33%
EU-10 total
27%
27%
29%
32%
In 2010, all EU-15 member states exceeded the 22.5% plastics recycling target. The only “new” member states not already meeting the target were Malta (22%) and Poland (20%).
Per capita packaging consumption (kg)
2007
2008
2009
2010
EU-27 total
164
163
153
157
EU-15 total
187
183
172
176
EU-10 total
79
88
80
84
Per capita packaging consumption in EU-15 in 2009 and 2010 was at its lowest rates since 2002, when consumption was 175 kg. There has been a 4.8% increase since 1998, when packaging consumption was at 168 kg per capita.
There has been a 6.3% increase in per capita packaging consumption in “EU-10” since 2005, when packaging consumption was at 79 kg per capita.
For more details see Perchards’ full EU Packaging Data report which will be available shortly.
These follow end-of-waste (EoW) criteria for metals, adopted as a Regulation last year, and for paper, for which the JRC has already published technical proposals. Materials meeting the minimum quality criteria established no longer have to comply with requirements applicable to waste, so they can circulate freely which makes it more likely that they will be recycled.
The criteria proposed for glass would apply only to glass recycled through re-melt applications. This is because over 90% of the recycling market for glass cullet is for re-melting applications and because re-melting results in higher energy savings than non-remelting uses. Thus, concludes JRC, “it makes sense to prioritise the support of EoW status for the recycling that provides the largest environmental gains.” It says that glass used for “one-use recovery” such as aggregates “imply a downgrading of the material that render it unfit for further recycling”.
The report makes clear that excluding cullet recovered in processes other than re-melt was controversial, with some experts arguing that its exclusion could result in the cullet being landfilled rather than recycled.
JRC looked at existing quality specifications for recyclable cullet around Europe and at the health and environmental impact of potential contaminants. The criteria set maximum levels of contaminants at levels designed to ensure that the materials that meet them will get recycled.
If these criteria are adopted as an EU regulation as now proposed by JRC, the EU might consider revising its definition of glass recycling or, when the Packaging Directive is reviewed, to restructure the glass recycling targets to promote re-melt.
The proposed criteria would affect countries like the UK, where a significant tonnage of cullet is recycled into aggregates and similar. The UK environment ministry, Defra, is already proposing to restructure the recycling target for glass to limit the tonnage recycled into non-remelt applications that can count towards the recycling target (see 22 December 2011 news item) .
When the UK transposed the EoW criteria for metals last year, it interpreted the requirements to mean that meeting the EoW criteria is the same as recycling, so PRNs could be issued at an earlier stage. If the UK interpreted the proposed new EoW criteria for glass in the same way, then only material recycled into remelt applications would count towards the targets. That could make it difficult for the the UK to meet the recycling target in the Packaging Directive, in which case the UK might re-think its interpretation.
JRC’s report and proposed criteria are available here.
The call for proposals is open to all legal persons, but priority will be given to small and medium-sized enterprises. European businesses have until 5 September to submit proposals for bringing novel environmental solutions to the market in the following 5 areas:
material recycling
water
sustainable building products
green business
the food and drink sector.
About 45 projects could be supported with this year’s funding. Nearly fifty projects from last year’s call are set to launch and over 185 projects are already underway, including optimising technology to re-use old bricks in the construction industry; producing leather shoes that are free from harmful chemicals; using CO2 to harness a natural source of Omega-3; and a new technique for carpet manufacturing.
A European Eco-Innovation Info Day with detailed information about priorities and tips on how to apply for funding will take place on 27 May in the Charlemagne Building, in Brussels, Belgium.
The Commission has therefore launched an initiative which establishes a Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) and an Organisation Environmental Footprint (OEF) to measure environmental performance throughout the lifecycle. It has announced a three-year testing period to develop product- and sector-specific rules through a multi-stakeholder process – a call for volunteers will be published on the Commission’s Single Market for Green Productsweb pages during April, with a view to starting the first wave of pilots in September.
A new Commission Recommendation urges member states, companies, private organisations and the financial community to use the methods laid down in a lengthy Annex to the Recommendation. The methodology was developed by the Commission’s Joint Research Centre, based on existing methods which have been extensively tested and used. The Annex to the Recommendation provides guidance on how to calculate a PEF, and how to develop product category-specific methodological requirements for use in Product Environmental Footprint Category Rules.
The amendment of Regulation 340/2008 defining fees and charges with respect to REACH follows the recent identification of REACH as the most burdensome piece of EU legislation for SME’s (see news item).
Eco3e aims to inform senior management, design, marketing and purchasing departments about
Regulations and Directives linked to eco-design (WEEE, RoHS, EuP and REACH as well as eco-labels) ;
Eco design tools (ISO standards, life cycle analysis, indicators …) ;
Plans to improve the recycling of EEE, organised by type of equipment (7 sample products including washing machines, printers and mobile phones) and secondary materials stream.
Unfortunately the site does not mention the ‘eco-design criteria’ that French WEEE systems have had to apply since July 2010 for charging differentiated recycling fees to producers (see news item).
Eco3e is the result of three years’ collaboration between recycling experts, the four compliance schemes and teachers at the ‘Ecole Nationale Supérieure des Arts et Métiers de Chambéry’ which offers a Masters programme in Eco-design and environmental management.
“Even assuming an unrealistic energy efficiency increase between two generations of notebooks of 70 per cent, the replacement of an old model with a new and more energy-efficient one is only justified after 13 years under the consideration of environmental concerns,” according to project leader Siddharth Prakash.
As a long battery life for the mobile use of notebooks is important for users, energy efficiency requirements for notebooks “make limited sense since they are already designed to be highly energy-efficient” says Prakash.
Up to now, EU eco-design policy has concentrated on increasing the energy efficiency in the use phase. But the study argues that eco-design measures that extend the lifetime of ITC electronics overall and enable a more efficient recovery of raw materials (for example by making equipment more repair- and recycling-friendly and more capable of being upgraded) are more important. And it also recommends that consumers use their laptops for as long as possible and then pass them on for further use.
The September 2012 version of Orgalime’s guide takes into account the Commission’s consultation on the RoHS2 FAQ Document (see news item) of 15 June 2012 and its possible revision before 3 January 2013. The Orgalime RoHS Guide is available to download free of charge at http://publications.orgalime.org.
Orgalime’s RoHS 2 guidance was first released in July 2011 with the aim of explaining the main changes and obligations arising from the recast Directive, especially in the following areas:
Scope
Substance restrictions
Exemptions
Alignment of the Directive with the New Legislative Framework
It urges the Commission and the Member States to agree, by 2013, on “clear, robust and measurable” indicators for economic activity that take account of climate change, biodiversity and resource-efficiency from a life-cycle perspective. The Resolution suggests that this could take the form of a basket of four resource use indicators (land footprint, water footprint, material footprint and carbon footprint) which could be used as a basis for legislative initiatives and concrete reduction targets.
It calls on the Commission to propose an extension of the scope of the eco-design directive to non-energy related products, and to come forward with additional eco-design requirements for the overall resource efficiency and performance of products, including recycled content, durability, recyclability, repairability and reusability.
It calls on the Commission to propose, by the end of 2012, a new Sustainable Consumption and Production (SCP) policy framework, establishing a process for identifying the priority products or services which contribute the most to the key global consumption areas (water, land, materials and carbon). This should be accompanied by legislative proposals addressing priority products and services, with tools including mechanisms that can improve supply chain resource efficiency and the possibility of setting minimum requirements or best performance benchmarks through implementing measures.
It calls on the Commission and the Member States to develop incentives that encourage companies and public bodies to measure, benchmark and continuously improve their water, land, material and carbon footprints, as well as measures to extend the producer responsibility principle and to remove barriers that hold back resource efficiency.
It urges the Commission to investigate opportunities for setting up EU-wide extended producer responsibility schemes to drive performance in all Member States, including those where reuse and recycling rates are much lower than the EU average.
It calls for environmental information requirements to be extended to cover conventional mass consumer goods (a pilot project is already underway in France). The Resolution also urges the Commission to work on developing a harmonised European method for calculating a product's environmental footprint, with a view to providing consumers with more information on products not covered by existing schemes such as the eco-labelling, energy labelling and organic farming labelling schemes.
It asks the Commission and the Member States to take the necessary steps to improve current labelling regulation through integration of labels, allowing consumers to make, in one overview, well-informed and sustainable choices through an “all-encompassing” label including, but not limited to, information on resource use in products.
It calls on the Commission to consider the need to improve and harmonise calculation methods and statistics relating to waste, in order to provide a reliable basis to promote recycling.
It points out that more than 20% of food is disposed of as refuse, and calls on the Commission and Member States for concrete actions to significantly reduce food waste. The Resolution points out that it is not only food which is wasted, but also the resources used for food processing and packaging.
It calls on the Commission to make proposals by 2014 with a view to gradually introducing a general European ban on landfilling waste and for the phasing-out of incineration of recyclable and compostable waste by the end of the decade. The Resolution also calls on the Commission to revise the 2020 recycling targets of the Waste Framework Directive. The Parliament believes that a landfill tax (already in place in some Member States) could also help achieve these ends.
Inputs to the report came from an online questionnaire which targeted government representatives, business organisations and NGOs, to find out how policies and initiatives have brought about change, and what impact they have had. “More than 280” users registered, and “more than 100” questionnaires were returned.
The survey is remaining online so that UNEP can build a database as a “living document” that could support a ten-year Framework of Programmes and contribute to the preparations for Rio+20.
The Commission has previously admitted that companies are way ahead of governments in implementing sustainability measures, so when policymakers consult this database it would be good if they could find market-driven initiatives by responsible companies.
The updated guidance follows the conclusion of the consultation process following European Court of Justice Judgement C-558/07 which clarified the concept of monomer substances in a way that potentially impacts the registration obligations of the previous Guidance.
ECHA has also recently published Updated Guidance on Information Requirements and Chemical Safety Assessment for nanomaterials and Updated Guidance on applying CLP (Classification, Labelling and packaging) Criteria.
The call for proposals is open to all legal persons, but priority will be given to small and medium-sized enterprises. European businesses have until 5 September to submit proposals for bringing novel environmental solutions to the market in the following 5 areas:
material recycling
water
sustainable building products
green business
the food and drink sector.
About 45 projects could be supported with this year’s funding. Nearly fifty projects from last year’s call are set to launch and over 185 projects are already underway, including optimising technology to re-use old bricks in the construction industry; producing leather shoes that are free from harmful chemicals; using CO2 to harness a natural source of Omega-3; and a new technique for carpet manufacturing.
A European Eco-Innovation Info Day with detailed information about priorities and tips on how to apply for funding will take place on 27 May in the Charlemagne Building, in Brussels, Belgium.
The Basel Convention prohibits the export of WEEE from developed to developing countries. However, the effectiveness of the ban is compromised by WEEE exports together with, or declared as, used EEE. Since 2009, the Basel Convention has been working on technical guidelines on transboundary movements of e-waste, in particular regarding the distinction between waste and non-waste.
In December 2012, the Information Technology Industry Council (ITI) – an association of electronics manufacturers including Dell, HP, Sony, Samsung, LG and Apple – requested that used or non-functioning equipment be exempt from the ban if it is ‘sent for refurbishment or repair under a valid contract with the intention of reuse to a) the producer or a third party facility acting on his behalf or b) a third party facility as long as such export does not involve exports from Annex VII countries (i.e. OECD and EU) to non-Annex VII countries.’
The proposal was opposed by among others the Basel Action Network (BAN, intervention) and several, mainly developing, countries fearing that it would ‘further open the floodgates’ of e-waste entering or arising in developing countries as
‘substantial amounts of hazardous waste are generated in repair operations’ (bad batteries, mercury lamps, CRTs, and circuit board) for which adequate treatment facilities are not available in the country; and
the new criteria would be exploited by waste brokers.
BAN also notes that it may not be well understood that e-waste exports would have ‘devastating impacts on legitimate recyclers … in developed countries’ such as e-Stewards and most R2 recyclers that have invested heavily in real recycling operations.
Next steps
Without an agreement to the at times emotionally charged debate, COP11 decided (UNEP/CHW.11/CRP.22) i.a. to
invite parties to serve as the lead country for the development of the guidelines and inform the Secretariat of their willingness to do so by 31 July 2013;
invite submission of examples of when used equipment should normally be considered waste (or not) by 15 September 2013;
request the lead country to prepare draft revised technical guidelines for publication by 30 November 2013; and
invite comments on the draft revised technical guidelines by 28 February 2014.
Commission Communication Smart regulation - Responding to the needs of small and medium - sized enterprises says that there will be no changes to the enacting terms of REACH, but there are specific recommendations to reduce the impact of the REACH Regulation on SMEs. It adds that a proposal to relate the levels of fees to be paid to the European Chemicals Agency to the size of the company is being considered.
As regards waste, the Communication says only that the Commission is starting a comprehensive review of EU waste policy and legislation this year. It will cover
key targets in the Waste Framework Directive, the Landfill Directive and the Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive;
an ex-post evaluation ("fitness check") of the waste stream Directives (including packaging, WEEE, batteries and end-of-life vehicles); and
an assessment of how the problem of plastic waste can be better tackled.
The Platform is chaired by John Bruton, a former Prime Minister of Ireland and members also include five European Commissioners, four MEPs, nine business leaders and four environment ministers.
Over the coming months, the Platform will feature a series of consultations and discussions. The first, which will close shortly, is a Flash Survey to canvass opinions on working priorities for European Resource Efficiency policy development concerning greening the economy / the circular economy. This builds on the recent public consultation on Sustainable Consumption and Production.
Key questions include:
How can sustainable sourcing be managed?
Is product design the most efficient way to promote resource efficiency?
Would the extension of producer responsibility be an efficient way of incentivizing resource efficiency?
What are the barriers to and drivers for new resource efficient business models?
What is the role of the consumer? How can barriers to change in behaviour be overcome?
Which instruments are most appropriate to help SMEs?
The report scores performance against 18 criteria, allocating a green (2 points), yellow (1 point) or red (0 points) flag for each. Double points were awarded in the recycling rate, recovery rate and disposal rate categories.
The criteria are a mixture of outcomes (decoupling from economic growth, amount of municipal waste not recovered or recycled, etc.), mechanisms (existence of landfill bans or restrictions, existence of pay-as-you-throw systems, etc.), systems (collection coverage, treatment capacity, etc.), and compliance (fulfilment of targets, infringement proceedings, etc.).
The Commission is preparing national roadmaps to help Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Greece, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania and Slovakia improve their performance. The roadmaps will contain recommendations on how these countries could improve their management of waste using economic, legal and administrative tools, and EU structural funds. Cyprus, Malta and possibly also Hungary and Ireland will be assisted by other measures outside this project.
Rank
Country
Points
Green Flags
Yellow Flags
Red Flags
1
Austria
39
16
1
1
2
Netherlands
39
16
1
1
3
Denmark
37
15
2
1
4
Germany
36
14
3
1
5
Sweden
35
13
3
2
6
Belgium
34
12
4
2
7
Luxembourg
33
13
1
4
8
UK
32
10
7
1
9
Finland
31
10
7
1
10
France
31
8
10
0
11
Slovenia
25
8
5
5
12
Spain
21
4
10
4
13
Portugal
21
7
4
7
14
Hungary
19
5
6
7
15
Ireland
19
5
6
7
16
Czech Republic
18
5
6
7
17
Poland
18
4
8
6
18
Estonia
17
4
8
6
19
Slovakia
17
4
8
6
20
Italy
15
3
6
9
21
Latvia
14
5
4
9
22
Cyprus
11
4
2
12
23
Romania
11
4
3
11
24
Lithuania
9
3
3
12
25
Malta
9
4
1
13
26
Bulgaria
8
3
2
13
27
Greece
3
1
1
16
The Commission’s report says that the member states with the lowest scores are highly dependent on landfilling, and in some of them (Bulgaria, Estonia, Hungary, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania and Slovenia), not all households have a municipal waste collection service.