Chapter 1: Comparison of Data Collection and Delimitation of Municipal Waste

→ Glossary of terms and abbreviations

In this chapter, statistics on generated municipal waste for the participating countries is presented, followed by an analysis highlighting the central difference in the countries’ reporting practices. The project group has identified this to be relevant for understanding each of the country’s MW statistics. This analysis is based on a comprehensive mapping of each country’s waste management, reporting system, data collection and method for calculating generated and treated MW. This mapping is compiled for each country in the report’s Appendices A–D. Finally, this chapter includes an examination of selected material fractions of MW in order to explore differences in the delimitation of MW across countries affecting the MW statistics.

Table 1.1 below presents the total amount of MW generated by the participating countries in 2021, as reported to Eurostat. For comparison across countries, despite population size differences, the table also displays the generated amount of MW per capita. This reveals that the average Swedish resident generates the lowest amount of MW per capita at 420 kg, while the average Danish resident generates the highest amount, nearly twice as much at 800 kg per capita. Norwegian and Icelandic residents generate almost as much MW per capita as the Danes, 740 kg and 690 kg respectively.

Additionally, Table 1.1 delineates the proportion of MW originating from households, with the remainder deriving from other sources. The percentage of waste originating from households varies across countries. In Norway and Iceland, approximately 50% of their MW originates from households, indicating that the other half originates from other sources. In contrast, 69% of Denmark's and 84% of Sweden's MW originates from households, leaving respectively 31% and 16% originating from other sources.

The project's underlying assumption is that the lifestyle, consumption patterns, and thereby waste generation of the countries' populations, are comparable. However, the data suggests two primary observations: the countries report divergent amounts, and there is a substantial difference in the MW produced from other sources. The forthcoming analysis highlights that these disparities are due to variations in reporting systems and MW reporting methods, resulting in inconsistent data across countries. Therefore, what might initially appear as different waste patterns (and thereby generated amounts of MW) could be reflections of methodological differences. The data emphasizes a notable discrepancy in the application of EU’s methodology for MW by the countries, specifically in defining what waste should be included from other sources such as MW and coverage by existing data sources.

Table 1.1: Information on the participating countries’ MW Note: Information is from the respective countries’ Eurostat reporting, data on the year 2021. It is optional for countries to report an estimate of the percentage share of Municipal waste coming from households.

	Denmark	Iceland	Norway	Sweden
Total generated MW in ton	4,696,000 ton	246,000 ton	3,982,000 ton	4,352,000 ton
Generated MW per capita in kg	800 kg	690 kg	740 kg	420 kg
Share of MW originating from households	69%	47%	52%	84%

The project group concludes that it is complex to investigate the divergences and parallels in the countries' implementation and practical execution of the EU's methodology for MW. In order to determine differences leading to the inclusion of more or less waste as MW compared to other countries, various factors have to be considered. For example, it is described in Appendix B how tourism significantly affects the amount of generated MW in Iceland. Despite this, as displayed in the preceding table, the Icelandic amount of generated MW per capita is lower than in Denmark and Norway. The subsequent analysis will illustrate how Iceland's reporting system and MW delimitation significantly deviate from those of the other participating countries. These differences can explain why the influence of tourism does not result in a higher total amount of generated MW per capita. The example illustrates the complexity of factors influencing the estimation of MW, pulling in different directions towards either an “over”- or “underestimation” of MW, thereby complicating the determination of an accurate approach to MW. Before heading to presenting the findings of the in-depth analysis of the selected MW-fractions, the following highlights the central similarities and differences in the countries’ administration and practical operation of the common EU methodology for MW, identified by the project group, based on Appendices A–D.

1.1 Administration and Practical Operation of the Common EU Methodology for Municipal Waste

The project group outlines key distinctions in the reporting practices of the participating countries, which significantly affect MW statistics. An overview of each country's data collection and reporting system is provided in Table 1.2.

1.1.1 Actors Involved in Data Collection

One of the differences lies in the entity responsible for waste data collection and how it is organized. In some countries, the national EPA performs the task, whereas in others, it is outsourced to statistical bureaus or consultants. Although this does not influence the methodology's output, it affects the practical administration of the method.

The obligations, methodologies and data sources used for reporting also vary among the countries, affecting the nature and detail of the data collected. For instance, Norway and Sweden utilize data reported from EPR schemes, while Iceland only uses data from EPR schemes to make corrections, this practice is absent Denmark. In Denmark, all entities involved in waste handling, from collection to treatment, are required to report. In Sweden and Norway, calculations are made primarily based on collected amounts. Contrastingly, in Iceland, only the final waste handler, such as a national treatment facility or waste exporter, is currently reporting, leading to a singular focus on treated waste. The reported data used for MW statistics thus encompasses different levels of information across the countries.

1.1.2 Collected Data

Denmark and Iceland share more similarities in their administration of the EU methodology compared to Norway and Sweden on some parameters. Denmark and Iceland primarily use reported data from waste actors to estimate generated and treated MW. Conversely, Norway and Sweden use a combination of reported waste data, investigations on treatment facilities, waste compositional analysis and ALR for the same purpose.

Furthermore, all the countries have established their own national waste codes for receiving waste data. This is partly due to the reporting systems serving other purposes besides MW reporting to Eurostat, and partly because the LoW codes and R/D-codes are insufficient on their own to obtain accurate waste data. As a result, all the participating countries must translate the collected data before reporting to Eurostat, complicating the understanding of the types of waste included in MW measurements due to the complexity in comprehending the differences in the countries’ received data.

Table 1.2: Data collection and reporting to national authorities

		Denmark	Iceland	Norway	Sweden
Who collects data?	National EPA	X	X	X	X
Who collects data?	External organizations			X	X
Who reports the data to the national authorities or national statistical bureau?	Producer with EPR and/or PROs		X	X	X
	Actors who handle waste for instance collectors, receivers or treatment facilities of waste	X all actors who handle waste	X the final actor responsible for the waste (treatment facilities or the exporter of waste)	X similar waste from other sources	X Survey on sorting and treatment facilities
	Municipalities	X when municipalities treat or export waste	X when municipalities treat or export waste	X Waste originating from households	X
What code-systems are reported regarding generated/collected MW?		National codes and LoW codes	National codes based on EWC codes	National codes	No national standard^(*), but denominations of waste categories can be converted to waste categories required for MW reporting.
What code-systems are reported regarding treated MW?		R/D-codes and national treatment codes	National treatment codes	National codes	No national standard^(*), but denominations can be converted to waste treatment categories required for MW reporting.

Note: In the table, “data” refers to data on collected waste and treated waste. X indicates that this applies to the respective country. ^(*): In Sweden, both LoW codes and R/D-codes are used for general statistics on generated and treated waste (Regulation (EC) No 2150/2002), but not for the reporting of MW or within EPR schemes to the Swedish EPA.

The combination of differences in waste management, reporting system and available data for MW statistics results in a certain level of complexity related to comparing the countries approaches and MW statistics. During the project, the project group identifies differences in the countries’ delimitation of MW. Some of which are results of variations in interpretation of the Eurostat Guidance on the delineation of MW. Other variations are due to differences in waste management and reporting systems that result in different practical possibilities to delineate MW. In order to explore this more thoroughly, it is crucial to identify differences in delimitation of MW challenging the comparability of MW statistics. In order to do this, the project group has explored the material breakdown and specific waste flows more closely, which is presented in the following analysis.

The following analysis also illustrates that understanding the differences in each country’s delimitation of MW necessitates an examination of the countries’ waste management, reporting systems, interpretation of MW and the behaviors of their residents. The project group concludes that the interplay between a countries’ organizational structure, practical reporting and interpretation of MW significantly influences the statistical data on generated and treated amounts of MW.

1.2 Various Systems have Different Possibilities, Strengths and Weakness

As detailed above and further elaborated in Appendices A–D, it is evident that the participating countries have varying reporting systems, national legislation, and waste management systems. These variations create diverse opportunities and limitations for the delimitation and measurement of MW. The data points and the level of detail provided in the reported data to the national authority set different parameters for what each country can accomplish.

Key points to consider related to the participating countries’ reporting systems:

Iceland estimates the generated amounts of MW based on reported data on treated amounts. This approach influences the data and presents a traceability issue, making it challenging to verify whether the waste source categorizes the waste as MW or not
The Danish reporting system covers a broad range of actors and waste flow, and the systems efficiency and data quality depend on waste actors to report detailed information regarding the waste they manage. This poses a risk as the data's accuracy relies on their precise reporting and understanding of the waste codes
The Norwegian and Swedish reporting systems heavily rely on the ability to conduct representative surveys and analyses
Data gaps are expected in the Swedish reporting system, that will only be gradually mitigated, due to legislative changes regarding the responsibility for waste collection or treatment (in force or expected to be implemented).

1.3 Analysis of the Countries’ Delimitation of Municipal Waste

The previous section has presented an overview of the country’s MW reporting emphasizing their varying methods and systems. For a more detailed description of each country's MW reporting approach and waste system see Appendices A–D. In this section, the project group delves deeper into how the participating countries define what is included as MW, aiming to better understand differences in their delineations. This involves comparing material breakdown of separate collected amounts of MW compiled in kg per capita.

Firstly, in Section 1.3.1 the project group has identified fractions where the countries have reported quantities per capita that deviate significantly from each other. Subsequently, in Section 1.3.2 the project group offers an in-depth analysis of selected fractions examining whether these differences can be explained by a real difference in generated waste quantities or whether it is a consequence of a different method causing an “over”- or “under”-estimation of MW. Finally, the project group has examined whether the methodological differences are due to 1) different interpretation of Eurostat Guidance on what constitutes MW or 2) the result of different waste management and/or data systems in the countries.

To sum up, the following analysis’ results, the project group finds and concludes that there are significant differences in the countries’ method to delimit MW from the following fractions: wood, bio-waste, metals, paper and cardboard and plastic, which can explain the significant variants in the countries’ separately collected amounts of MW. Especially connected to what is included as MW from other sources. The findings of this analysis will be reflected in the recommendations the project group presents in Chapter 3.

1.3.1 Identification of Dissimilarities in the Amount of Waste

Based on data the countries have provided to Eurostat, the project group has calculated MW in the material breakdown compiled in kilogram per capita, in order to compare across countries despite differences in population size. In each cell the data is a result of the separately collected amounts of waste

Since only Sweden has reported the material breakdown of residual waste and thereby data on generated amounts. The comparison across the participating countries can therefore only be done on separately collected amounts of MW.

divided with the population size converted from tons to kilogram. For instance, the data provided in Table 1.3, should be read as every Swedish resident produced 420 kg MW in 2021, while every Danish resident produced 800 kg in 2021.

Table 1.3: Comparison on total generated amounts of MW and separately collected amounts of MW in material fractions com-piled in kg per capita.

	Denmark	Iceland	Norway	Sweden
Generated amounts of MW
Total MW	800	690	740	420
Separately collected amounts of MW
Metals	20	6	42	15
Glass	25	20	24	22
Plastic	19	15	27	10
Paper and cardboard	98	111	110	34
Bio-waste	216	53	90	109
Wood	33	122	11	14
Textiles	17	-	5	<1
Electrical and electronic equipment and batteries*	17	11	18	13
Bulky waste	64	-	-	37
Mixed waste	237	348	356	157
Other	34	-	53	3

Note: The equation for the calculation is:

\text{waste kg per capita = }\frac{\text{total separate collected amount \lparen tones\rparen \times 1000}}{\text{total population}}

*Due to confidentiality concerns the categories EEE and batteries are summed together as one category.

Based on Table 1.3, the project group has decided to focus on the following fractions, as the amounts of separately collected waste across countries differ considerably:

The project group has not conducted an analysis of the following fractions: glass, textiles, electronic and electric equipment and batteries. This decision was based on the assessment that reported data on these fractions do not exhibit significant variation, and therefore, do not indicate a difference in methodology. While it cannot be ruled out that there may be methodological differences in the countries’ approaches to calculating these fractions, these differences do not appear to significantly impact the calculation of MW. Additionally, it is anticipated that data on textile waste will improve in the coming years due to requirements for separate collection and potential introduction of an EPR scheme on textile in EU member states.

1.3.2 In-depth Analysis of the Selected Fractions

Before presenting the analysis of the individual fractions, it is relevant to firstly highlight a general factor relevant across waste fractions for understanding Sweden’s lower amount of MW.

The collection system in Sweden is still adapting to the changed waste legislation from 2020, when municipalities became responsible for the collection and reporting of all MW in Sweden, except for waste covered by an EPR scheme. Therefore, there is still a known under-coverage of collected amounts of similar MW from other sources, which is neither collected nor reported by the municipalities to the Swedish EPA. The under-coverage is assessed to be especially relevant for residual waste (mixed waste) and food waste (share of bio-waste) from other sources. Also, a stricter delimitation for municipal packaging waste seems to be applied in Sweden compared to the other countries, which is likely to affect the quantities especially according to paper packaging. This is further elaborated in Appendix D.

Bio-waste

Municipal bio-waste includes separately collected biodegradable kitchen and canteen waste (LoW code 20 01 08), edible oil and fat (LoW code 20 01 25) and biodegradable waste (LoW code 20 02 01) from gardens, parks, cemeteries, or from other area accessible to the public.

Regarding the manufacture of food products or beverages, it is specified in Eurostat’s list of “special cases and their treatment” (October 2021) that “Waste from the main production activities is to be excluded, even if equal in kind and composition to household waste. Waste from canteens, breakrooms etc. To be included.” It is also specified that “Branches, leaves etc. collected along railways, motorways, airports, from forestry etc. is not municipal waste.”.

Bio-waste treated at the source (“home composting”) may be included as MW as a separated component of the reporting. It is subject to specific reporting rules stated in Article 4 of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2019/1004.

The participating countries differ significantly in separately collected amount of municipal bio-waste. Denmark has a remarkable higher amount of bio-waste than the other participating countries with 216 kg per capita, which is more than twice as much as in the other participating countries. Bio-waste consists of food waste and garden & park waste. In order to examine the differences across countries it is valuable to look at each of these two subcategories separately. Furthermore, the countries differ in time of enforcing separate collection of food waste. In order to take this reasonable difference in the residents’ ability to sort food waste, the project group has included data estimating food-waste including the share in residual waste. In Table 1.4 below data is provided for each country on respectively bio-waste, food-waste, food-waste, including share in residual waste and garden & park waste in kilogram per capita. The data is based on separately collected amounts of waste and waste compositional analyses.

margareta_bloom_sandebäck-recycling_at_home-6886.jpg

Table 1.4: Comparison of bio-waste compiled in kg per capita (separately collected amounts)

	Denmark	Iceland	Norway	Sweden
Separately collected amounts
Bio-waste	216	53	90	109*
Food-waste	57	27	52	43*¹
Garden & park waste	162	26	38	50
Generated amounts (Separately collected amounts and share in residual waste)
Generated amounts of food-waste	143	104	135	87*¹

Note: Data is from Eurostat reporting 2021 and calculated in separately collected amounts of waste. Except for data provided on generated food-waste including share in residual waste. *In Sweden also waste from grease separators in restaurant is in included as bio-waste 17 kg per person. *¹Including home composting of food waste.

Overall, Denmark has the highest amount of bio-waste per capita compared to the other participating countries, significantly standing at 216 kg per Danish resident. However, when bio-waste is broken into subcategories (food waste and garden & park waste), it becomes evident that Denmark’s relatively larger amount of bio-waste primarily originates from garden & park waste. Therefore, the project group separates its conclusion for bio-waste into two parts: 1) garden & park waste and 2) food waste.

The project group concludes that in terms of garden & park waste the disparities across the countries are not identified as being caused by differences in methodology but are attributed to:

A real difference in the amount of waste produced, as it seems Danes tend to generate a higher amount of garden waste than other participating countries. The project group concludes that differences in climate, urban planning and local habits affect variation in generation of garden and park waste. Iceland is a clear example of a country with remarkable lower amount of garden and park waste, which can be explained by the country’s landscape and nature, which do not provide optimal conditions for having a garden

A difference in the ways how residents and organizations dispose of their garden & park waste, and thereby whether the waste is included in the MW statistics or not. In Denmark, garden waste is mainly disposed at recycling centers and thereby reported and included in the MW statistics. In contrast, it is more common in Norway and Sweden to take care of garden waste on one’s own land for instance by composting. Therefore, this waste will neither be measured nor reported in the MW statistics in Norway and Sweden. Likewise, differences in private and public organizations' handling methods for park waste, such as collecting waste from parks as MW or leaving it for natural biodegradation, thus not treating it as waste, affect the amount calculated.

Table 1.4 also shows significant differences in the amount of separately collected municipal food waste per capita: In Iceland is separately collected the lowest amount, with 27 kg per capita, while in Denmark and Norway is separately collected 57 and 52 kg per capita, respectively. The Swedish separately collected amount is in between these with 43 kg of food waste per capita. As mentioned, it is plausible to expect a difference in the ability to sort food waste since these numbers are based on separately collected amounts. Therefore, Table 1.4 also provides data on food waste including both the separately collected amount and the estimated share in residual waste. This data alters the perspective a bit, especially for Iceland, which now compares more closely with the amounts produced in Denmark and Norway. Iceland did not implement separate sorting of food waste until 2023, and the data used is from 2021 (before food sorting). This can explain why including food waste in the residual waste has such a significant effect on the numbers for Iceland. When comparing the participating countries on food waste including the share in residual waste, Sweden is an outlier. This leads us to the following conclusion:

The differences across the countries regarding municipal food waste are identified to be primarily a result of differences in the method for including food waste from other sources than households.

Sweden’s relatively low amount of generated municipal food waste may be partially explained by the assumed general underreporting on MW from other sources than households. Furthermore, it is also plausible that Denmark, Iceland, and Norway’s relatively higher amounts of generated municipal food waste is caused by an overestimation of the amounts of separately collected food waste and residual waste from other sources. Since the delimitation of MW from other sources is complex, as is securing accurate reporting and calculation of this in the measurement of MW

The participating countries have different approaches to delimit food-waste from other sources, which should be included in the measurement of MW. The solutions are (often) a result of the practical possibilities in the country’s waste management and data collection system. It is the project group’s assessment that differences in the countries’ solutions can explain the larger differences in the measured amounts.

Summing up, the project group concludes that differences in bio-waste can be explained by 1) non-methodological differences in measuring garden & park waste and 2) methodological differences in measuring food-waste caused by differences in delimitation of municipal food waste from other sources. This is reflected in the project group’s recommendations presented in Chapter 3.

Wood

Municipal wood waste includes separately collected wood containing hazardous substances (LoW code 20 01 37*), non-hazardous wood (LoW code 20 01 38), such as wood furniture, and wooden packaging (LoW code 15 01 03).

Regarding “old office furniture discarded from office buildings, hospitals, retail shelves from retail stores”, it is specified in Eurostat’s list of “Special cases and their treatment” (October 2021) that “These are production factors and, consequently, waste from production. In cases only a single piece of office furniture is discarded via the bulky waste, this is equal to household waste and may be classified as municipal waste”.

Table 1.3 shows that the countries differ significantly in amounts of wood. Additionally, according to the project group’s examination of this fraction, the share of municipal wood waste originating from households and other sources respectively are variating across the countries. This could indicate a methodological difference across the participating countries in the delimitation of municipal wood waste from other sources, which potentially affects the MW statistics.

The participating countries’ share of separately collected municipal wood waste originating from households are as follows: 86% (DK), 68% (IS), 60% (NO) and 90% (SE) leaving the rest originating from other sources.

The project group has examined the countries’ delimitation of wood waste more detailed and has identified these three differences in the countries’ method regarding municipal wood waste:

Difference in the countries’ method to exclude wood waste originating from C&D
Norway and Sweden utilize waste composition analysis to roughly estimate the amount of wood originating from C&D, also when it originates from households, which should be excluded from the MW. In Norway and Sweden, the share originating from C&D of the non-hazardous municipal wood waste from recycling centers is considered to be 13% and 30% respectively
Iceland and Denmark use reported data to identify the amount of wood waste originating from C&D and exclude this amount. Denmark uses reported data combined with industry codes to identify the wood waste from C&D and exclude it from the MW. As a result, wood from C&D-waste generated by private people may be included in the reporting and causing a slight overestimation of municipal wood waste. Iceland uses reported data to identify the wood from C&D and exclude it from the MW. Iceland has separate wood waste categories for wood waste from C&D (both hazardous and non-hazardous)

Summing up, all the participating countries exclude wood waste originating from C&D from other sources, as it should accordingly to the WFD; however, the countries have different methods to do this. It seems reasonable, that these variations in methodology of exclusion of C&D-waste results in differences in what is actually included in the measuring of MW.

Difference in whether impregnated wood waste, LoW code 20 01 37*, is included or excluded in the measurement of MW
LoW code 20 01 37* is mentioned in the Joint Questionnaire and should be included in MW. However, according to Sweden and Denmark’s assessment it is only a smaller amount of the impregnated wood that fulfils the criteria for being MW like outdoor furniture. Thus, Sweden and Denmark, after bilateral guidance from Eurostat, exclude all waste reported as LoW code 20 01 37* from their measurement of MW since the countries’ data does not enable the necessary level of details. Iceland also excludes waste reported as LoW code 20 01 37*, since Iceland excludes all hazardous waste from their measurement of MW.
In contrast to Denmark, Iceland and Sweden, waste reported as LoW code 20 01 37* is included in Norway’s measurement of MW. However, it should be noted, that it is not included in the “Wood” fraction, but in the fraction “Other”, since Norway include all hazardous waste in this fraction. This difference is therefore not explanatory for the differences across Norway and the other countries on the fraction “Wood” but relevant when comparing the fraction “Other” and the total amount of MW.

Summing up, waste from impregnated wood (LoW-code 20 01 37*) is excluded from Sweden’s, Iceland’s and Denmark’s measurement of MW. In contrast, it is included in Norway’s measurement of MW as “Other” waste.

Difference in whether wood packaging waste from other sources is included or excluded in the measurement of MW
Iceland and Denmark include wood packaging from other sources such as wood pallets and cable drums into their calculation of MW. This results in a slightly overestimation of MW in Denmark and Iceland, since wood pallets and cable drums are explicitly categorized as transport packaging. According to Eurostat Guidance, transport packaging waste should not be considered as similar waste from households and thus, transport packaging waste should be excluded from MW. Norway and Sweden exclude wood packaging from other sources in their measurements of MW.
Throughout the project, Denmark has acknowledged this discrepancy to the Eurostat Guidance and intends to correct it in their future delineation of MW. However, Denmark does not anticipate a significant change in the generated MW as packaging wood only comprises 4% of the total municipal wood waste. Conversely, Iceland includes wood pallets and cable drums in their measurement of MW due to the organization of their data-system and making error correction a complex process. Iceland expects that the inclusion of wood pallets explains the high amount of wood waste due to the fishing industries’ use of single-use wood pallets. However, the impact of this on the calculation of MW remains uncertain.

Summing up, Iceland and Denmark’s higher amount of wood waste can partly be explained by the fact, that the countries, in contrast to Sweden and Norway, includes wood packaging from other sources. It should be noted that wasted transport wood packaging like wood pallets or cable drums should not be considered MW as it is stated in the Eurostat Guidance.

Bulky Waste

Bulky waste, LoW code 20 03 07, includes large dimension waste items, which require specific collection and treatment such as furniture and mattresses. Bulky waste generated and treated encompasses waste components that are not decomposed into their material specific components, thus remaining unrecorded.

Definition of bulky waste is from “Guidance document on municipal waste data collection – methodology” A 2.2.9 and the footnote in the “Annual reporting of Municipal Waste Joint Questionnaire Eurostat/OECD”.

The interpretation of the project group is that it is the bulky mixed fraction collected at recycling center.

Norway and Iceland do not report any amounts in the category bulky waste, since they do not use this category in their data reporting systems. The waste that could be categorized as bulky waste is instead sorted according to material at the recycling centers. The waste that cannot be sorted by material will be categorized as mixed waste (reported under the component mixed waste LoW code 20 03 01). Sweden has a similar system for larger dimension waste items not collected within the residual waste collection system. However, the waste that cannot be sorted according to material, and instead sorted as a mixed fraction will be categorized as a bulky-waste component (and not mixed waste component as in Norway and Iceland). In Denmark, the amount reported as bulky waste is the amount waste actors report with the LoW code 20 03 07. Denmark does not allocate the amount to other LoW codes.

Summing up, this difference in use of “bulky waste” as a category can explain the difference in amount of waste counted as bulky and partly mixed waste. Therefore, the difference in the countries’ approaches to the methodology is relevant when comparing the countries to the amount of bulky and mixed waste. However, the difference does not influence the total amount of measured MW since the waste is included in the total amount of MW in all the countries – just under different MW-fractions.

Mixed Waste

EU legislation defines Mixed Waste (LoW code 20 03 01) as waste not separately collected, including unsorted waste and misplaced sorted waste. Despite its clear definition, it overlaps with categories like bulky waste and other waste, leading to variations in reporting methodology across countries. The inclusion of similar waste from other sources also adds complexity to the conceptualization. The project group interprets it as residual waste, which is the mixed waste remaining after a household or organization has separated waste into distinct fractions to the best of their ability.

Table 1.3 reveals Sweden’s amount of mixed waste (157 kg per capita) to be significantly lower than Denmark’s (237 kg per capita), Norway’s (356 kg per capita) and Iceland’s (348 kg per capita). Additionally, in order to take the differences in the countries’ use of the category bulky waste into account, these amounts can be added to Sweden and Denmark’s figures. The sum of Denmark’s municipal bulky and mixed waste is 301 kg per capita and for Sweden the sum is 194 kg per capita.

When taking into account the difference in methodology regarding bulky waste Iceland, Norway and Denmark’s figures are more comparable. However, Iceland and Norway still report higher amounts. For Iceland, an explanation can be the large share of food waste in mixed waste, as described in the section on bio-waste. Additionally, the methodological differences like Iceland using treated amounts for reporting on generated and Norway’s scaling on NACE for other sources, might explain the relatively higher amounts. However, this is merely conjectures than qualified connections, so it is hard to identify whether the differences are caused by methodological differences or actual amount of waste.

The amounts of mixed waste for Sweden are still significantly lower than the other participating countries even when taking bulky waste into account. The project group’s best possible explanation for this is the general underreporting of MW from other sources as described in the introduction of Section 1.3.2.

Other Waste

Municipal other, referred to as "other waste," includes 20 diverse LoW codes. These encompass waste from markets (LoW code 20 03 02), street cleaning (LoW code 20 03 03), medicines (LoW code 20 01 31* and 20 01 32), composite packaging (LoW code 15 01 05), and hazardous packaging waste (LoW code 15 01 10*). It also includes various hazardous wastes (LoW codes 20 01 13* to 20 01 29*) such as solvents, pesticides, oils, fats, paints, or detergents, along with non-hazardous paints (LoW code 20 01 28) and detergents (LoW code 20 01 30). The project group interprets that this fraction should include municipal hazardous waste (discrepancies related to impregnated wood), and other waste.

Firstly, Iceland excludes all hazardous waste from their measurement of MW and does not use the “other” category in their reporting, thus nothing is reported in this fraction from Iceland. Secondly, Norway, on the other hand, reports a higher amount of municipal “other” waste than the other participating countries, attributable to the inclusion of impregnated wood (LoW code 20 01 37*) in this fraction, as previously detailed in the wood waste section. There may be further differences in Denmark, Norway and Sweden’s approach to this fraction, but the project group has not conducted a further detailed exploration.

Metals

Municipal metals waste encompasses separately collected metallic packaging (LoW code 15 01 04) and may include aluminum from composite packaging such as beverage cartons (if not reported under LoW code 15 01 05). It also includes other separately collected metallic items that are not packaging (LoW code 20 01 40 "Metals"), sometimes referred to as "metal scrap," and LoW code 15 01 11*.

“Metallic packaging containing a hazardous solid porous matrix (for example asbestos), including empty pressure containers”

Metals sorted out of residual waste before incineration are also part of this component. Metals sorted from bottom ashes and recycled post-incineration are reported separately, governed by specific rules (Article 5 and Annex III of (EU) 2019/1004), and are not discussed in this report.

Norway and Iceland differ significantly in their amounts of metals. This can be explained by methodological differences in their approach to delimiting municipal metal waste due to practical possibilities in their systems:

Norway includes more metal waste in their measurement of MW than the other participating countries, since Norway includes all scrap metal from households collected at the recycling centers and the similar waste originating from other sources without withdrawal of the share of C&D-waste. Norway does not (at the moment) have the sufficient information to exclude C&D-waste from mixed metals from recycling centers. Metals from the C&D-sector is kept out of the Norwegian MW-reporting according to EU legislation. In contrast, neither Iceland, Sweden nor Denmark includes metal waste from C&D in their measurement of MW

Iceland includes less metal waste in their measurement of MW compared to the other participating countries, since Iceland only includes metal packaging from households in the metal fraction. The Icelandic data collection system does not have the capacity or proper know-how to distinguish the origin of non-packaging metal waste. The Icelandic EPA assess that the main amount of non-packaging metal waste in Iceland is not MW, so therefore it has been decided to exclude non-packaging waste entirely from MW reporting

In contrast to the Icelandic approach, Denmark, Norway and Sweden includes packaging and non-packaging waste of metal from both households and other sources. However, the amounts of metals included in the measurement of MW does vary across Denmark, Norway and Sweden, as shown in Table 1.3.

Plastic and Paper & Cardboard

Municipal plastic waste includes separately collected plastic packaging (LoW code 15 01 02) and can include plastic-material from composite packaging such as beverage cartons. Plastic also includes other discarded articles made of plastic that are not packaging (LoW code 20 01 39 “Plastics”).

Municipal paper and cardboard include separately collected paper and cardboard packaging (LoW code 15 01 01) and can include paper-material from composite packaging such as beverage cartons. Paper and cardboard also include other paper-waste such as office paper, newspaper or advertising (LoW code 20 01 01 “paper and cardboard”).

The analysis of plastic and paper & cardboard from the participating countries reveals significant variations in the countries approach to delimitating MW related to packaging waste from other sources. These discrepancies largely stem from two major issues. Firstly, the way countries incorporate municipal packaging waste from other sources into their calculations of MW. Secondly, the difficulty in obtaining sufficient data on packaging from other sources would allow a clear distinction between municipal and non-municipal packaging waste. This differentiation might not have any practical significance for those handling packaging waste, as the nature of the waste, such as cardboard, is often similar regardless of whether it is classified as MW or waste from production, which is not considered MW.

In this context, Sweden's reported quantities of plastic, and paper & cardboard waste are remarkably lower than those of the other countries. This is due to the countries' approaches to classify packaging waste as either MW or non-MW. While some countries pragmatically include all packaging waste as MW, Sweden only incorporates a small proportion of all packaging waste from other sources in its municipal packaging waste reporting. This accounts for Sweden's significantly lower reported amounts of packaging waste from other sources.

Looking more closely at paper & cardboard waste, the largest discrepancy can be seen between Sweden and both Norway and Iceland. Sweden does not include any office wastepaper, and not all cardboard packaging waste from other sources in their MW calculations (only a share of it), potentially leading to an underestimation of MW. On the contrary, Norway includes all packaging from other sources, potentially overestimating MW. Similarly, Iceland includes all packaging and non-packaging paper and cardboard from other sources, potentially leading to an overestimation of MW. Denmark's approach falls between these two polarities; the Danish method includes packaging from business but excludes packaging paper from the paper industry and packaging metal from the metal industry since this is considered as waste from production and therefore not MW.

Regarding plastic waste, Sweden does not include all plastic packaging waste from other sources in their measurement of MW (only a share of it), potentially leading to an underestimation of MW. Norway, by contrast, includes all packaging from businesses except for agricultural plastic, possibly resulting in an overestimation of MW. Denmark has implemented a method for excluding plastic packaging from the plastic and rubber industry, but includes other plastic packaging from other sources, just like Denmark does with paper and cardboard packaging waste. Iceland includes all plastic packaging from other sources, including from agriculture, potentially overestimating MW.

The project group has come to realize that there is an overall challenge in obtaining reliable statistics on MW packaging waste, as existing Packaging Statistics do not differentiate between non-MW and MW. This issue also extends to the LoW Chapter 15, which does not distinguish between, whether the packaging is MW or not, or whether it originates from households or other sources. In the absence of a common view on the delineation of MW and the method for reporting, it can sometimes be difficult to state whether or not countries are over- or underreporting MW, in which case only relative differences can be pointed out.