0 100
Bulgaria*
Czech Republic
kg/capita Hungary*
Latvia*
Poland Romania Slovakia**
CEEC Average
200 300 400 500 600
1995 1999
* Figures for Bulgaria, Hungary and Latvia based upon 1998 data
**Waste data based upon RISO Slovakian figures
Estonian results not included in this figure, but Kg/Capita for 1999 is 4,008
6.5 SELECTED TYPES OF WASTE
Records on selected types of waste show large differences, as the national questionnaires clearly reflect. The diversity was observed in all types of information — waste streams, years of recording, and quantities generated and disposed in different ways. All this shows that such data was not systematically collected over the past decade.
Values for 1990 are generally missing. Since 1995 the statistics of these waste streams have been improved, but the problem of a lack of some data still persists. The most prehensive information was collected for waste generation and disposal, while the less com-prehensive data refers to waste recycling, even though many related activities were described in the national questionnaires. One can conclude that insufficient attention is still being paid to separated collection and recycling in the current waste management strategies of the CEECs. Considering the information collected, it should be mentioned that:
• The highest volume of data was reported on waste batteries and accumulators (nine countries); and
• The lowest number of questionnaires (four) includes information on biodegradable waste and electric and electronic waste.
The reports on the Czech Republic, Estonia, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia refer to between six and eight different waste streams. The common waste streams monitored in all these countries are:
• Batteries/accumulators;
• End-of-life vehicles;
• Metal and metal scrap;
• Waste oils; and
• Waste tyres.
The information mainly referred to waste quantities generated, landfilled and disposed of in other ways, usually recycled. Incinerated quantities were reported especially for waste oils, waste tyres and packaging waste.
6.6 CONCLUSIONS
In spite of the far from ideal situation in waste statistics, it is evident that the amount and character of the waste generated in the CEECs differs on average from the situation in OECD countries. Analysing the data and information collected in the Project, we came to following conclusions:
• About five tonnes of total waste per capita are generated in CEECs, which is markedly more than the OECD average of 2.2 tonnes.
• Production waste constitutes the major share of total waste as the production/consump-tion waste ratio, which is approximated using the ratio of non-hazardous plus hazardous waste divided by municipal waste. This rate 11 for CEECs while the OECD average is 3.1, due to the character and structure of the industries and technology used.
• Waste from mining, metallurgy, quarrying, coal fired power and heat generation, fertilis-ers, and glass and cement manufacture make up the major share of production waste.
• The generation of production waste (about 90 percent of the total waste generated, see Table 8) decreased significantly during the 1990s. This was caused by economic trans-formation, the phasing out of the most obsolete installations, modernisation and the sub-stitution of technologies. Due to the economic convergence and the pre-accession process, production waste volume is supposed to decrease to a level comparable with OECD countries (about two tonnes per inhabitant). This positive development will depend upon the pace of economic transition.
• On average, hazardous waste represents about four percent of total production waste.
Because of variations in definition and industrial production (including raw materials), the share of hazardous waste in total varies from the 0.02 percent reported by Bulgaria to 53 percent in Estonia, which is a special case.
• Special waste streams like waste oils, batteries and accumulators, end-of-life vehicles, tyres etc. are often not monitored separately and the data on them is the most fragmen-tal or even non-existent (e.g. Romania).
• The generation of solid municipal waste amounts to 370 kilograms per inhabitant per year on average, which is less than the OECD average of about 500 kilograms per inhabitant.
Annual amounts as well as relative shares (expressed as percentages of the total) vary sig-nificantly across the CEECs. Latvia generated 244 kilograms per inhabitant in 1998, while Slovenia with 600 kilograms per inhabitant has the highest figure among CEECs.
• As family income began to increase in the CEECs and the life style approached that of EU members, the amount of solid municipal waste was already growing moderately by the end of the 1990s. The regression line between GDP and generated solid municipal waste per capita is identical in CEECs and OECD countries.
• The correlation between GDP and solid municipal waste generated per inhabitant reveals substantial differences between individual countries; the volume of waste gen-erated by economies reaching the same GDP may vary plus/minus 40 kilograms per inhabitant. These differences may be caused by, among other factors, variability in sep-arate collection and/or share of services and small business waste (which is not sepa-rately collected).
In this Chapter, waste management practices reported in CEECs were reviewed on the basis of national questionnaires. Special focus was paid to landfilling and incineration and also to separate collection and recycling. First, we identified the substantial requirements in EU waste management legislation45so that we could analyse how they were reflected in strategic planning in CEECs. National data and information collected by national correspon-dents, which are available at <www.eurowaste.org>, were used in a concise manner. For more details, please visit the database.
7.1 LANDFILLING
In a few EU countries landfilling is still the preferred disposal route for waste. On the other hand in some EU countries substantial increases in recycling and a reduction in land-filling were apparent in 1985-1995. As far as municipal waste in the EU is concerned, there was no general improvement in the 1990s. Between 1985 and 1990, 64 percent was land-filled, while 19 percent was incinerated. By 1995, 67 percent was landland-filled, with only 17 percent incinerated.46
Similarly, within the CEECs landfill treatment is the most common disposal method for municipal waste. The overview of landfills used in individual CEECs is given in Table 12. The share of landfilling is larger than in the EU. In CEECs in 1995, approximately 86 percent was landfilled, while only 2.3 percent was incinerated (see Figures 5 and 6). The data for 1999 shows an improvement in reducing landfill treatment to 83.7 percent, while the share of incineration of municipal waste increased to six percent. This means incineration increased by 160 percent from 1995 to 1999.
7. Waste Management
FIGURE 5