Waste generation and treatment (env

Waste generation and treatment (env_wasgt)

National Reference Metadata in ESS Standard for Quality Reports Structure (ESQRS)

Compiling agency: Danish Environmental Protection Agency

Eurostat metadata

Reference metadata

1. Contact
2. Statistical presentation
3. Statistical processing
4. Quality management
5. Relevance
6. Accuracy and reliability
7. Timeliness and punctuality
8. Coherence and comparability
9. Accessibility and clarity
10. Cost and Burden
11. Confidentiality
12. Comment
Related Metadata
Annexes (including footnotes)

For any question on data and metadata, please contact: Eurostat user support

Download

1. Contact

Top

1.1. Contact organisation

Danish Environmental Protection Agency

1.2. Contact organisation unit

Circular Economy and Waste

1.5. Contact mail address

Tolderlundsvej 5, 5000 Odense C

2. Statistical presentation

Top

2.1. Data description

Data on generation and treatment of waste is drawn from the Danish Waste Data System. The system was introduced in April 2010 and all waste collectors, treatment facilities, importers and exporters of waste are obliged to submit their data to the system.

Data on number and capacity of treatment disposal and incineration facilities is from a yearly survey done by the Danish Energy Agency. Data on recycling facilities is from the Waste Data System.

2.2. Classification system

	Name of classification(s) used	Description of the classification(s) (in particular compatibility with WStatR requirements)
Economic activities	DB07	The first 4 figures in the Danish code refers to the NACE rev.2 code, so they are directly compatible with WstatR requirements
Waste types	European List of Waste Danish Waste fractions	Converted into EWC-stat codes with conversion key
Recovery and treatment operations	R and D operations Danish Waste Treatment codes	Used as described in Directive 2006/12/EC

Not available.
New concept added with the migration to SIMS 2.0.
Information (content) will be available after the next collection.

2.3. Coverage - sector

Not available.
New concept added with the migration to SIMS 2.0.
Information (content) will be available after the next collection.

2.4. Statistical concepts and definitions

Not available.
New concept added with the migration to SIMS 2.0.
Information (content) will be available after the next collection.

2.5. Statistical unit

Not available.
New concept added with the migration to SIMS 2.0.
Information (content) will be available after the next collection.

2.6. Statistical population

Not available.
New concept added with the migration to SIMS 2.0.
Information (content) will be available after the next collection.

2.7. Reference area

Not available.
New concept added with the migration to SIMS 2.0.
Information (content) will be available after the next collection.

2.8. Coverage - Time

Not available.
New concept added with the migration to SIMS 2.0.
Information (content) will be available after the next collection.

2.9. Base period

Not available.
New concept added with the migration to SIMS 2.0.
Information (content) will be available after the next collection.

3. Statistical processing

Top

3.1. Source data

Relationship of the parties/sources to the areas of the Regulation on Waste Statistics:

Assessment of the continuity of the data source, e.g. legal basis for the data source:

Institutions involved and distribution of tasks
Name of institution	Description of key responsibilities
Danish EPA	Responsible for the collection of data, quality assurance and preparation of data Preparation the Danish Waste Statistics Publish the Danish Waste Statistics on DEPA’s homepage Legal basis: Danish statutory order on waste

General description of Data set 1: Waste generation by waste category (EWC-STAT) and economic activity (NACE)

General description of methodology:

Data on number and capacity of treatment disposal and incineration facilities is from a yearly survey done by the Danish Energy Agency. Data on recycling facilities is from the Waste Data System.

Determination of waste generation in the economy on the basis of information on waste collection

The generation of waste relies on the reports from the waste handlers on collected waste. When collecting waste, the waste handlers are obliged to report:

The source of the waste. If collected at a business, the collecting waste handler must report the ‘Production-number’ of the source business. Each business has a unique production-number which holds information on the address of the company and the NACE code. For household waste, waste collectors must indicate a Danish waste type code that indicates household waste and the source municipality.
The receiver of the waste by production-number for Danish waste handlers or country in case of export.
Amount of waste
Type of waste according to the European List of Waste and the Danish Waste classification. It is the responsibility of the municipalities to classify the waste according to the LoW
Intended waste treatment of the collected waste stated by R- or D codes as well as by an aggregated Danish treatment codes.

The amount of generated waste is calculated by counting all collected amount of primary waste, identified as waste that does not stem from waste collectors or treatment facilities. Secondary waste is then identified by identifying production-numbers of all waste treatment facilities. Waste that is collected from these production-numbers is assumed to be secondary waste and added to the primary amount.

Determination of waste generation in the economy on the basis of administrative sources

Not applicable

Data sets 2 and 3: Waste treatment

General description of methodology:

Treatment facilities must state in their reporting to the Waste Data System, if the received waste undergoes final treatment. In principle the amounts of waste that waste handlers have indicated as going to ‘Final treatment’ would then give the total amount of finally treated waste. However, in the Waste Data System, many of the waste handlers still have not indicated ‘Final treatment’ correctly. Therefore, at the moment we find the uncertainties too large to base the reporting of treatment on facilities, which have indicated ‘Final treatment’. We are in the process of developing a new method of determining ‘Final treatment’, but this new method is not ready yet. Therefore the waste treatment data are based on the reports of generated waste. The waste collector must report the treatment that the waste is intended to undergo. Although the treatment of waste in this way will be based on the treatment at the first treatment facility and not the final treatment facility, we assess that this methodology will be more accurate for the 2020 reporting.

Identification of relevant treatment facilities:

Registers used for identification of waste treatment operations
Identification of register(s) used (name; responsible institution)	Description of register(s) (coverage; frequency and procedure of updating, ..)
Waste Data System, Danish EPA	All waste treatment facilities must report data on treated amounts and waste types to the Waste Data System. The Danish EPA will check each year if all waste handlers that are obliged to report to the system, have submitted their data.Legal basis: Danish waste statutory order
BEATE, Danish Energy Agency

Data collection on treated quantities:

Determination of treated waste quantities
Description of data sources and methods by treatment category
Item 1 Incineration (R1)	Responsible institution: Danish EPA Legal basis: Danish statutory order on waste Reporting form: Waste Data System Frequency: Yearly Classifications: LoW, R and D codes
Item 2 Incineration (D10)	Responsible institution: Danish EPA Legal basis: Danish statutory order on waste Reporting form: Waste Data System Frequency: Yearly Classifications: LoW, R and D codes
Item 3a Recycling (R2 – R11)	Responsible institution: Danish EPA Legal basis: Danish statutory order on waste Reporting form: Waste Data System Frequency: Yearly Classifications: LoW, R and D codes
Item 3b Backfilling	Not registered in the Waste Data System yet. We are planning to include reports of backfilling in the future
Item 4 Landfilling (D1, D5, D12)	Responsible institution: Danish EPA Legal basis: Danish statutory order on waste Reporting form: Waste Data System Frequency: Yearly Classifications: LoW, R and D codes
Item 5 Other disposal (D2,D3,D4, D6,D7)	Responsible institution: Danish EPA Legal basis: Danish statutory order on waste Reporting form: Waste Data System Frequency: Yearly Classifications: LoW, R and D codes

Data collection on capacity of treatment facilities:

Data on capacity for incineration is extracted from a combination of the licenses of the incineration plants and the treated amounts.
The number of recovery facilities is extracted from The Waste Data System.
The Danish Energy Agency perform a yearly benchmarking, BEATE, of all incineration and disposal facilities in Denmark, which is the source of the number of active disposal facilities in Denmark and their rest capacity
The total number of active disposal facilities (landfills) in Denmark is 38, as reported in the number of facilities per region. The divergence reported for number of facilities sorted by waste fraction (inert, non hazardous and hazardous waste), is due to the fact that several facilities dispose of multiple waste fractions.
Three disposal facilities have only listed their total rest capacity, but have not listed the rest capacity by waste fraction. This means the total rest capacity is higher than the sum of the rest capacity listed by waste fraction. The sum of rest capacity by region is the correct total rest capacity.

3.2. Frequency of data collection

3.3. Data collection

3.4. Data validation

Data has been benchmarked with previous years, regionally and with external data.

Among others following quality checks are conducted:

Check of waste-reporters (Collectors and treatment facilities). Comparison between previous years and other reporters.
Check of waste-producers (check of individually companies) – Which has an impact on NACE, waste type, treatment, hazardous/non-hazardous, regional link, primarily/secondarily waste, reporting type (fx import, export, Danish generated waste and so on) - codes and reported information are checked individually and in combination whit each other. Comparison with other waste-producers in same categories
Check of reported treatment codes and waste category codes individually and in combination wtih each other
Check of household waste on treatment codes, waste codes and regionally breakdown.
Check of hazardous waste
Check of implausible combinations
Check of treated

The quality checks are done as an on-going process all year, this means they are not only done in relation to the WSTATR.

When mistakes or missing has been identified by the EPA the reporter or the waste producer(s) are contacted and the mistake is corrected in cooperation. Corrections are directly incorporated into database for the Danish waste data system.

Since the start of the Danish waste data system the reported data to the system has improved significantly. In spite of the improvements and the on-going data quality checks data can still contain mistakes and omissions. Data in the Danish waste data system consists of approx. 100.000 waste producers, 800 reporters and several million records (2020) – each year reporters improve their reporting quality, which makes it possible for the EPA to deal with even further and more complicated reporting mistakes each year.

Changes compared with previous years

All waste data reported for 2010 is based on an estimation and cannot be directly compared to later years. This is due to the implementation of the current Waste Data System in 2010.

Data quality regarding generation and treatment has been updated significant in 2016. This update can result in major changes compared to previous years. Data for 2014 and before will be updated also.

There has been a methodological change regarding the reporting of treatment. There are unfortunately major uncertainties related to the reporting of final treatment to Danish waste data system at the moment, which also have been the case previous years. Due to these uncertainties the waste treatment data was based on the reports of generated waste. In the 2014 reporting for treatment there has been made a methodological change, which means treatment of imported waste amounts has been added to treatment of the generated waste amounts in Denmark. Afterwards exported waste amounts are excluded from treated amounts. 2012 has been updated with the same methodology.

The amount of soil has increased in 2016, which is related to construction of infrastructure in Denmark.

In 2020, the data source regarding the number of incineration and disposal facilities in Denmark and their capacity has been changed to use the yearly BEATE survey done by the Danish Energy Agency.

In 2018 we changed the way organic waste was reported to Danish Waste Data System, by splitting the previous Danish waste data code regarding organic waste into two codes. This change was aimed at improving the quality of data regarding food waste, but also affected data regarding manure. During the quality assurence proces for 2018 data organic waste was selected as a focus area for that data year. The low values of manure waste in the time period 2010 - 2016 is partly due to implementation of the new Waste Data System in 2010 and partly due to difficulties getting the correct data from the farming industry.

If mineral waste is considered to be too contaminated by different materials to be recycled, but does not contain hazardous material requiring disposal, it is usually used for energy recovery. In 2022 the EPA has discovered issues regarding the reporting of construction and demolition waste, including mineral waste and is looking further into this issues. At this point it is unknown if the issues affect 2020 data and earlier.

Glass waste reported as energy reocvery is mainly due to incorrect reporting from the waste collectors. This is a known issue and it is a focus area of our quality assurance process.

The data quality has improved significantly since 2012. The variation in waste from G4677 and textile waste from households can't be found in our own data. There is an increase in textile waste 2018, where we introduced a new code in our national waste codes, but before and after it is fairly stable.

The improvement in data quality also means, the variation in waste the C19 industry has decreased. The waste generation from this industry was higher in 2016 compared to other years, but has stabilised in recent years.

3.5. Data compilation

Wet matter for sludges
	03.2 Industrial effluent sludges	03.2 Industrial effluent sludges	11 Common sludges	12.7 Dredging spoils
	non-hazardous	hazardous	non-hazardous	non-hazardous
amounts	34,692	16,807	187,765	-

3.6. Adjustment

[not requested]

4. Quality management

Top

4.1. Quality assurance

Not available.
New concept added with the migration to SIMS 2.0.
Information (content) will be available after the next collection.

4.2. Quality management - assessment

[not requested]

5. Relevance

Top

5.1. Relevance - User Needs

[not requested]

5.2. Relevance - User Satisfaction

[not requested]

5.3. Completeness

Description of missing data in data set 1 on waste generation
Description of missing data (waste category, economic activity, ..)	Explanation	How to overcome the deficit
Dredging spoils	The companies that handle this waste type have not submitted data in 2010.	The EPA will inform and guide these companies to submit their data in the future.
Residues from biomass-fired power plants.	The companies that handle this waste type have not submitted data in 2010. We have not flagged ‘Combustion waste’ with M as we have data from coal-fired power plants.	The EPA will inform and guide these companies to submit their data in the future.

Description of missing data in data sets 2 and 3 on treated waste quantities and capacities
Description of missing data (waste category, treatment category, region, ..)	Explanation	How to overcome the deficit
Dredging spoils	The companies that handle this waste type have not submitted data in 2010.	The EPA will inform and guide these companies to submit their data in the future.
Residues from biomass-fired power plants.	The companies that handle this waste type have not submitted data in 2010. We have not flagged ‘Combustion waste’ with M as we have data from coal-fired power plants.	The EPA will inform and guide these companies to submit their data in the future.

5.3.1. Data completeness - rate

[not requested]

6. Accuracy and reliability

Top

6.1. Accuracy - overall

[not requested]

6.2. Sampling error

6.2.1. Sampling error - indicators

Totals and coefficients of variation for the key aggregates
Key aggregate	Amount of hazardous waste [1000 tonnes]	Amount of Non-hazardous waste [1000 tonnes]	Coefficient of variation hazardous waste [%]	Coefficient of variation non-hazardous waste [%]
Waste generation
Waste generated by households
Waste generated by economic activities
Waste treatment
Waste used as fuel (item 1) (incineration in the form of recovery R1)
Waste incinerated (item 2) (incineration as disposal D10)
Waste recovered (R2 – R11), incl. backfilling (item 3a and 3b)
Waste disposed of by landfilling (D1, D5, D12) and other disposal operations (D2, D3, D4, D6, D7) (item 4 and 5)

6.3. Non-sampling error

6.3.1. Coverage error

Coverage of waste statistics with regard to extractive waste¹⁾
Coverage	Topsoil	Overburden	Waste-rock	Tailings (non-haz.)
Completely covered
Partially covered
Generally excluded	x	x	x	x

¹⁾Please mark with an X whether the listed materials are completely covered, partially covered or generally excluded from waste statistics.

Denmarkdoes not contain any mining facilities and only a few very small quarries. We do, however, not collect data from these facilities at current.

Description of issues related to the allocation of mining waste to NACE section B or C:

Annex I on waste generation:

Annex II on waste treatment:

Coverage of waste treatment facilities and criteria for exclusion
	No. of facilities included	No. of facilities excluded	Reasons for exclusion of facilities and other comments
Item 1Incineration (R1)	23	5	It has not been possible to obtain data from the excluded incineration plants. They will most likely submit data for 2011 and this data will be used to update the 2010 data later this year.
Item 2Incineration (D10)	5	0
Item 3a Recycling (R2-R11)	221	About 70	It has not been possible to obtain data from the excluded recycling facilities. They will most likely submit data for 2011 and this data will be used to update the 2010 data later this year.
Item 3b Backfilling	0	?	We do not have the means to gather this data yet and have not yet indications on how many facilities that are backfilling material.
Item 4 Landfilling (D1, D5, D12)	37	7	It has not been possible to obtain data from the excluded landfills. They will most likely submit data for 2011 and this data will be used to update the 2010 data later this year.
Item 5 Other disposal (D2, D3, D4, D6, D7)	0	0

Commercial waste inclusion:	Main problems description:

6.3.1.1. Over-coverage - rate

[not requested]

6.3.1.2. Common units - proportion

[not requested]

6.3.2. Measurement error

The waste handlers must report their data in tonnes to the Waste Data System. However, many reported in kilos instead of tonnes in 2010. We have checked all waste handlers that reported more than 100.000 tonnes in 2010 and corrected any kilo/tonnes mistakes. In total data from 67 waste handlers was checked for correct reporting of amounts. Starting with 2011-data, correct reporting of waste types, treatment, final treatment and source will be a part of our quality assurance. A check on waste handlers that have not reported to the system will also be done for the purpose of getting them to submit their data.

The waste system was operational from April 2010. The waste handlers were therefore instructed to only deliver data from April 2010 and onwards (9 months). Many waste handlers have submitted data for the whole year. From the data of the 67 waste handlers we checked, about half submitted data for 12 months and the other half for 9 months. We have therefore assumed that all waste handlers that reported to Waste Data System in average covered 10½ months of 2010. We have therefore multiplied all data with a factor 12/10.5 = 1.14. This is a problem for 2010-data only as waste handlers must report for the whole year from 2011 and onwards.

6.3.3. Non response error

We know that not all waste handlers that are obliged to submit data has done so. We will use data from 2011 as a supplement to 2010-data and revise our 2010-data later this year. We estimate that around 200-300 collectors and treatment facilities did not submit data for 2010. This has a significant impact on the 2010-amounts reported and actual waste generation and treatment is estimated to be considerably higher. As we finish the quality assurance of 2011 we will have a better idea of the impact of the missing waste handlers on waste amounts.

6.3.3.1. Unit non-response - rate

[not requested]

6.3.3.2. Item non-response - rate

[not requested]

6.3.4. Processing error

Waste handlers must submit their data from the previous year. They can either enter the data manually, by a csv-file import or a system-to-system solution, which continuously submits data to the Waste Data System through the year. A check is carried out automatically by the Waste Data System to detect any errors in data structure in csv and system-to-system reports.

The list of reporters to the Waste Data System is cross checked with lists of waste handlers that should have reported and reminders are sent out to the waste handlers missing. For 2010 not all waste handlers have submitted their data, which results in underestimation of the amounts of waste.

The received data is validated by the EPA. For 2010, waste handlers that submitted data of more than 100,000 tonnes were checked to discover any kilo/tonnes mistakes. Waste types and treatment type were not subject to quality assurance in 2010, but will be for 2011 and onwards. Therefore waste types and treatment of waste have a high degree of uncertainty. The NACE category is given by the production-number of the producer of the waste, which the waste handlers must report. However in 2010 quite a few waste handlers reported themselves to be producers of the waste either by mistake or because they did not record the production-number of the waste producers. The waste without production-number/NACE-code has been distributed on the NACE-codes via the LoW-codes of the reported waste.

Waste handlers must mark household waste with a Danish set of codes. For 2010 we have not assessed how much household waste actually originates from businesses. However, the quality assurance of 2011 will include assessment of the correct use of the Danish household codes.

6.3.4.1. Imputation - rate

[not requested]

6.3.5. Model assumption error

When calculating the primary amounts of waste, primary waste produced by waste handlers is not included. However, we estimate that this is a small amount with less significance for the datasets.

6.4. Seasonal adjustment

[not requested]

6.5. Data revision - policy

[not requested]

6.6. Data revision - practice

[not requested]

6.6.1. Data revision - average size

[not requested]

7. Timeliness and punctuality

Top

7.1. Timeliness

Data is reported yearly to the Danish Waste Data System.

7.1.1. Time lag - first result

[not requested]

7.1.2. Time lag - final result

[not requested]

7.2. Punctuality

Explanation for any delay in data transmission and measures taken to avoid delays in future:

7.2.1. Punctuality - delivery and publication

[not requested]

8. Coherence and comparability

Top

8.1. Comparability - geographical

Description of classifications used
	Name of classification(s) used	Description of the classification(s) (in particular compatibility with WStatR requirements)
Economic activities	Dansk branchekode 07	The first 4 figures in the Danish code refers to the NACE rev.2 code, so they are directly compatible with WstatR requirements
Waste types	European List of Waste	Converted into EWC-stat codes with conversion key
Recovery and treatment operations	R and D operations	Used as described in Directive 2006/12/EC

8.1.1. Asymmetry for mirror flow statistics - coefficient

[not requested]

8.2. Comparability - over time

Changes compared with previous years:

Generated waste:

It has come to our attention that for reference years 2004, 2006 and 2008 only the primary waste amounts have been reported, while the secondary amounts have been excluded, resulting in an underestimation of the total waste amounts according to the WstatR definition. At the moment we do not know the exact amounts of secondary waste to be added to the 2004-08 reference years, but it is estimated to be around 1.5 million tonnes. For reference year 2010 both primary and secondary waste is included. The generated 2010-amount is therefore significantly lower than the 2008-amount.

Some of the difference can be explained by the financial crisis, as we recorded a decrease of 1.8 million tonnes from 2008 to2009 inthe ISAG data system. However, the main reason for the decrease is probably due to the fact that 2010 was the year of introduction of the Waste Data System. The new system differs quite much from its predecessor ISAG, and we are aware that not all waste handling companies which were obliged to report to the Waste Data System have submitted their 2010-data. Many companies failed to record data in a format that could be submitted electronically in 2010 and others were not aware or ignored the fact that they should report to Waste Data System. The EPA have now identified a large part of the ‘missing’ companies and informed them on that they should report data and how to report data for 2011. About 430 companies had submitted 2010-data to the Waste Data System. For comparison about 515 companies have submitted 2011-data by June 2012 with still more to come.

We have flagged the 2010-data as provisional, and we plan to update the 2010 later this year. We are right now in the process of quality assuring the 2011-data from the Waste Data System. It is our intention to supplement the 2010-data with 2011-data from the waste handlers that submitted 2011-data, but failed to submit their 2010-data.

Treated waste:

There is a significant data break from reference year 2008 to 2010, as the total amount decreased almost 6 million tonnes. The main reasons for this is that not all waste handlers that were obliged to report to the Waste data System has done so, and a large share of primary waste has mistakenly been reported as secondary waste. We have flagged the data as provisional and plan to update our 2010 data later this year along with data on the generated amounts.

Foreseen changes:
The methodology on the treated waste will most probably have changed by reference year 2012, as quality assessment of the correct use of ‘Final treatment’ by the waste handlers will be in focus in the coming years. The scope of our quality assurance will also expand, which can have an impact on the amounts and waste types reported.

Specific issues concerning the data collection on the current reference year:

Revision of the Annexes to the WStatR

As Denmarkhas introduced a whole new system in 2010, the revision of the WstatR annexes has not caused any problems with regards to changes in waste categories. However, it has not been possible to adjust the Waste Data System to obtain data on backfilling yet. However, we do have plans to include reporting of backfilling in the Waste Data System in the future.

Detailed description and consequences:

The EPA assess that the data delivered for generation and treatment of waste represent a break in data due to a new reporting format and scheme and due to the fact that not all data from the relevant respondents has been included in the datasets. Therefore comparability is deemed quite low with regards to both previous reference years and data from other countries.

The regional data on incineration facilities with/without energy recovery was validated by a survey done in 2008. As the EPA must give an assessment of the waste amount and incineration capacity before an expansion of an incineration facility can be permitted, the EPA has updated the data on capacity continuously since 2008. Comparability of these data is high. Statistical unit is tonnes/year.

A survey on landfill capacity has been done by the EPA in 2010. The statistical unit is m³.

The number of recovery (recycling) facilities has been drawn from the Waste Data System. As the number of treatment facilities included in the Waste Data System is incomplete, the comparability is quite low.

The comparability has changed considerably as the previous reference years have been based on the data from the ISAG system, while 2010 data is based on the Waste Data System. The ISAG system was not based on LoW codes, but a set of Danish codes which was only partly compatible to the EWC-STAT codes and the NACE-codes. An arbitrary distribution of a part of the data was therefore made in the reference years 2004-08. The 2010-data is based on the LoW and a code system compatible with the NACE codes. This fundamental change in the reporting regime, affects both the way the waste handlers report their data, but also the way the data is aggregated, which again affects the comparability. The coverage of the 2010 dataset is significantly lower than the previous years, which also decreases the comparability.

The amount of treated waste is anticipated to be calculated by the final treatment step for the next reference year and not by the first treatment step which is the case with the 2010-dataset.

8.2.1. Length of comparable time series

[not requested]

8.3. Coherence - cross domain

Environment statistics:

Socio-economic statistics:

Apart from assigning waste according to the LoW, the waste handlers must also assign the waste according to a Danish set of waste type codes, divided into waste fractions from businesses or households. The Danish waste type codes will form the basis for our national statistics.

[not requested]

8.4. Coherence - sub annual and annual statistics

[not requested]

8.5. Coherence - National Accounts

[not requested]

8.6. Coherence - internal

[not requested]

9. Accessibility and clarity

Top

9.1. Dissemination format - News release

[not requested]

9.2. Dissemination format - Publications

[not requested]

9.3. Dissemination format - online database

[not requested]

9.3.1. Data tables - consultations

[not requested]

9.4. Dissemination format - microdata access

[not requested]

9.5. Dissemination format - other

[not requested]

9.6. Documentation on methodology

[not requested]

9.7. Quality management - documentation

[not requested]

9.7.1. Metadata completeness - rate

[not requested]

9.7.2. Metadata - consultations

[not requested]

10. Cost and Burden

Top

Burden on respondents
Survey / Source	Type and total number of respondents	Actual no. of respondents	Time required for response	Measures taken to minimise the burden
Waste Data System	Collectors of waste, treatment facilities, importers and exporters of waste	430	3 hours	Possibility of automated system-to-system reporting

11. Confidentiality

Top

11.1. Confidentiality - policy

Description of the relevant confidentiality policy:

Traditionally a detailed national report describing the Danish waste statistics is published for every year. However, for 2010 we are planning only to publish a short note describing only the main figures and the validity of the statistics.

Confidentiality of data applies only if the waste production and/or waste treatment of a single company can be identified. This is, however, not the case in the Danish WstatR data and we have no markings of confidential data.

11.2. Confidentiality - data treatment

[not requested]

12. Comment

Top

Related metadata

Top

Annexes

Top