1.1. Contact organisation
The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency
1.2. Contact organisation unit
Waste Statistics
1.3. Contact name
Confidential because of GDPR
1.4. Contact person function
Confidential because of GDPR
1.5. Contact mail address
Waste Statistics Unit
The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency
106 48 Stockholm.
1.6. Contact email address
Confidential because of GDPR
1.7. Contact phone number
Confidential because of GDPR
1.8. Contact fax number
Confidential because of GDPR
2.1. Metadata last certified
24 June 2025
2.2. Metadata last posted
24 June 2025
2.3. Metadata last update
24 June 2025
3.1. Data description
We have used the new calculations rules since reference year 2021. We have not reported compliance with the old recycling targets according to the old calculation rules.
The derogation to make use of delegated act on average loss rates is not applicable for 2021 data collection as legal act not yet in force.
For reference year 2023, A 50/50 balancing of the placed on the market (PoM) and waste composition analysis (WCA) methods according to the own resources reporting has been used to report plastic waste generated. This method was also used for reference year 2022, hence no Break in series flag used.
3.1.1. Description of the parties involved in the data collection
Table: Institutions involved in the collection of data and distribution of tasks.
| Name of institution | Description of key responsibilities |
|---|---|
| SMED consortium | SMED is an acronym of "Swedish Environmental Emissions Data", which is a collaborative consortium involving the four organisations IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute, Statistics Sweden, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences and Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute. The waste statistics and documentation have been produced by SMED (only IVL Swedish Environmental Institute and Statistics Sweden have been involved) on commission by the Swedish EPA. |
3.2. Classification system
The R/D codes in Annexes I and II of Directive 2008/98/EC are used. Regarding reference year 2021, treatment operation are divided into three recovery operations: 1) Recycling, 2) Energy recovery and 3) other recovery. Repair of wooden packaging is reported as a separate recovery operation. Producers are in addition obliged to report treatment in the form of disposal according to Ordinance 2022:1274 on packaging and packaging waste.
3.2.1. Classification of treatment operations
The R/D codes in Annexes I and II of Directive 2008/98/EC are used. Regarding reference year 2021, treatment operation are divided into three recovery operations: 1) Recycling, 2) Energy recovery and 3) other recovery. Repair of wooden packaging is reported as a separate recovery operation. Producers are in addition obliged to report treatment in the form of disposal according to Ordinance 2022:1274 on packaging and packaging waste.
3.3. Coverage - sector
All sectors.
3.4. Statistical concepts and definitions
Yes, Sweden have collected data on the amount of wooden packaging that is repaired for reuse in the calculation of targets for reference year 2023.
Sweden do not wish to take into account the amount of metals in incineration bottom ash for the calculation of targets.
3.4.1. Types of reuse system in place for each material type
Reuse systems are in place for wooden packaging, glass bottles and plastic packaging. There are also systems for metal CO2 bottles.
3.4.2. Other recovery of waste
Not available.
3.4.3. Information on temporary storage of packaging waste
Not available for reference year 2023.
3.5. Statistical unit
Producer responsibility organisation fulfilling the producer responsibility obligations for its member producers.
3.6. Statistical population
All Producer responsibility organisation (PROs).
3.7. Reference area
Sweden.
3.8. Coverage - Time
Historical data is available.
3.9. Base period
Not applicable.
Tonnes.
Calendar year
6.1. Institutional Mandate - legal acts and other agreements
Responsible for producing, publishing and reporting national packaging and packaging waste statistics:
Directive 94/62/EC sets out the EU’s rules on managing packaging and packaging waste (Directive 94/62/EC on packaging and packaging waste).
6.2. Institutional Mandate - data sharing
Not applicable.
7.1. Confidentiality - policy
Data is treated according to the Public Access to Information and Secrecy Act (2009:400).
European General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).
7.2. Confidentiality - data treatment
The p% rule is used for risk assessment, and the software TauArgus is used to apply primary and secondary cell suppression.
8.1. Release calendar
Annual release, usually in October or November.
8.2. Release calendar access
Not applicable. Publication announced on the website (Release calendar).
8.3. Release policy - user access
No advance briefing to press or users.
Yearly.
10.1. Dissemination format - News release
News release whenever a new report is published.
10.2. Dissemination format - Publications
The national packaging statistics are published on the website of Statistics Sweden: Avfall, förpackningar (scb.se), including a document describing the quality of the statistics.
10.3. Dissemination format - online database
Link and information is included in report as well as on SEPA's website.
10.4. Dissemination format - microdata access
Not available.
10.5. Dissemination format - other
Not available.
10.6. Documentation on methodology
Qualitative declaration published on Statistics website.
10.7. Quality management - documentation
The national packaging statistics are published on the website of Statistics Sweden, including a document describing the quality of the statistics.
11.1. Quality assurance
SMED does not have a detailed description of the different methodologies used by the Extended producer responsibility (EPR) schemes, and cannot validate the data reported other than asking clarifying questions to the EPR schemes, and making comparisons of the data reported previous years to identify major changes.
11.2. Quality management - assessment
SMED collects data through web based questionnaires sent out to EPR schemes. The survey is a total survey without non-response. No adjustments is made for any coverage errors (free-rider etc.) for other packaging types than plastic. For additional information please visit this website (Information to be submitted to the waste registry).
12.1. Relevance - User Needs
There are many different users of waste statistics - citizens, politicians, municipal, regional and national authorities, central government offices, industry, researchers, press reporters, the public, etc. The needs differ depending on type of user.
12.2. Relevance - User Satisfaction
Publications are available for users at this website (Waste packaging).
12.3. Completeness
Apart from underreporting due to free riders, all data is available.
13.1. Accuracy - overall
SMED collects data through web based questionnaires sent out to EPR schemes. The survey is a total survey without non-response. No adjustments is made for any coverage errors (free-rider etc.) for other packaging types than plastic.
The main issues affecting the accuracy of data is related to the lack of full producer coverage, most likely leading to underestimation of the amount of packaging placed on the Swedish market. Comparison with other data sources indicates that Put on market (PoM) may be underestimated for all packaging types except deposit cans and PET bottles, sub-categories of aluminium and plastic packaging. Free-riders, internet sales, and goods imported by private journeys are not adjusted for. This means that the Swedish put on the market data is underestimated to an unknown extent. The underestimation of the amount of packaging placed on the market leads to an overestimation of the recycling rates. The overestimation is thus not quantifiable.
Data on reusable packaging were collected the first time in reference year 2020. In reference year 2021 we had access to previous data and could compare the data on reusable packaging in reference year 2020. The aggregated data showed some differences between reference years 2020 - 2023. Reported amounts of resuable packaging is thus most likely underestimated.
Regarding clarification Request nr 4-6 reference year 2020.
The reporting on reusable packaging is new, both for the systems and for the producers. This will cause uncertainties when it comes to data quality during an start-up period. In terms of reporting (of reusable packaging), systems for reuse are surveyed regarding both rotations and reusable packaging placed on the market for the first time. However, the individual producer is formally (by law) responsible to report the amount of reusable packaging they put on the market. And during 2020 individual producers had the opportunity to report figures directly to SEPA (the systems for reuse reported to SMED). This meant that individual producer’s, regarding 2020, could report reusable packaging placed on market regardless of if they were connected to an (known) system of reuse or not. This data collection apparatus could result in minor data flaws (eg that the reusable packaging reported as placed on the market is in fact not a sales packaging, or that the reusable packaging is rotating within a hybrid system, etc).
13.1.1. Statistical surveys used regarding packaging waste generation and treatment
The information in this section is to provide an overarching understanding of the accuracy of any statistical surveys used relating to packaging waste. Some of the information may be available in previous questions.
| Component of packaging waste | Year | Statistical units | Percentage of population surveyed | Data (tonnes) | Confidence level | Error margin | Details of adjustments from the survey year to the current year | Other details |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total | 2023 | Not available | Not available | Not available | Not available | Not available | Not available | SMED collects data through web based questionnaires sent out to EPR schemes. The survey is a total survey without non-response. No adjustments is made for any coverage errors (free-rider etc.) for other packaging types than plastic. The main issues affecting the accuracy of data is related to the lack of full producer coverage, most likely leading to underestimation of the amount of packaging placed on the Swedish market. Comparison with other data sources indicates that Put on market (PoM) |
13.1.2. Statistical surveys used regarding reusable packaging
The information in this section is to provide an overarching understanding of the accuracy of any statistical surveys used relating to packaging waste. Some of the information may be available in other concepts.
| Packaging material | Year | Statistical units | Percentage of population surveyed | Data (tonnes) | Confidence level | Error margin | Details of adjustments from the survey year to the current year | Other details |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| All | 2023 | System for reuse | Not available | Not available | Not available | Not available | Not available | It is an ongoing inventory process to identify reuse systems in Sweden. It is important to emphasize that the statistics are not jet 100% comprehensive. Because it is difficult to map all the reuse systems that exist. The statistic includes EUR-pallets and other kinds of pallets, pallet collars, cable drums, beverage bottles and crates, CO2-cylinder, plastic craters used in wholesale & retail, IBC-containers, etc. |
13.2. Sampling error
Not applicable.
13.3. Non-sampling error
Data on reusable packaging were collected the first time in reference year 2020. In reference year 2021 we had access to previous data and could compare the data on reusable packaging in reference year 2020. The aggregated data showed some differences between reference years 2020 - 2023. Reported amounts of resuable packaging is thus most likely underestimated.
Regarding clarification Request nr 4-6 reference year 2020
The reporting on reusable packaging is new, both for the systems and for the producers. This will cause uncertainties when it comes to data quality during an start-up period. In terms of reporting (of reusable packaging), systems for reuse are surveyed regarding both rotations and reusable packaging placed on the market for the first time. However, the individual producer is formally (by law) responsible to report the amount of reusable packaging they put on the market. And during 2020 individual producers had the opportunity to report figures directly to SEPA (the systems for reuse reported to SMED). This meant that individual producer’s, regarding 2020, could report reusable packaging placed on market regardless of if they were connected to an (known) system of reuse or not. This data collection apparatus could result in minor data flaws (eg that the reusable packaging reported as placed on the market is in fact not a sales packaging, or that the reusable packaging is rotating within a hybrid system, etc).
14.1. Timeliness
| Activity |
Start |
Completed |
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|
| Planning, preparations and supplementary method developments |
January 2024 |
February 2024 |
| Data collection and processing |
March 2024 |
March 2024 |
| Compilation of statistics |
April 2024 |
June 2024 |
| Data processing (checks of accuracy, completeness etc.) |
June 2024 | August 2024 |
| Drafting of national statistical report |
August 2024 |
October 2024 |
| National publication of statistical reports and available statistics in public database |
October 2024 | November 2024 |
| Delivery of statistics and quality report to Eurostat |
30 June 2025 or earlier |
30 June 2025 or earlier |
14.2. Punctuality
Data reported to Eurostat 18 months after the end of each reference year.
15.1. Comparability - geographical
Not applicable.
15.2. Comparability - over time
A 50/50 balancing of the POM and WCA methods according to the own resources reporting has been used to report plastic waste generated.
15.3. Coherence - cross domain
Not applicable.
15.4. Coherence - internal
See below.
15.4.1. Explanation for any component with a greater than 10 % variation
Explanation detailing the causes of the tonnage difference (in relation to which waste streams, sectors or estimates have caused the difference, and what the underlying cause is) for any component of packaging waste generated and recycled which shows greater than a 10 % variation from the data submitted for the previous data year.
Table 1
For wood packaging and wooden packaging repairs, a low response rate results in data of lower quality with large variations depending on which actors respond a given year. This occurs in all wood columns, in both table 1 and table 3.
For aluminium recycling, one major actor reported that they had put a substantiable amount of aluminium on hold during 2022 to be recycled in 2023, due to a change of sorting facilities, thereby increasing this year's recovery. They also recycle some of their material in a neighbouring non-EU country.
Ferrous metal recycling – a decrease due to on major actor. The change is assumed to be correct.
Paper – increase inrecycling in other member states, mainly due to one actor. The change is assumed to be correct.
The energy recoveryfor plastic and glass has decreased for some actors, but the actors have not given a reason for this, although some of them were contacted to confirm their changes.
The energy recoveryfor paper has increased due to rain negatively affecting the paper so that much of it could not be used for anything other than energy recovery.
Table 3
For reusable packaging placed on the market for the first time, plastics, wood and aluminium has changed more than 10 % compared to data from 2022.
For plastics and aluminium, the changes are due to a few actors. Some of them have been contacted and the change is assumed to be correct. For wood, the reasoning is giving under “table 1”.
For rotations per year there is an increase in ferrous metal due to one actor reporting a new packaging type. The change is assumed to be correct. Additionally, aluminium has increased. This change is checked with the actor and is correct. For paper, one actor reported paper packaging this year but did not report it the previous year.
Not applicable.
17.1. Data revision - policy
If needed, data is revised and republished.
17.2. Data revision - practice
No revisions has been made for previous years.
18.1. Source data
A web based questionnaries are sent out to producer responsibility organisations fulfilling the producer responsibility obligations for their member producers.
18.1.1. Waste samples from waste analysis
The waste samples for waste analysis are taken from:
| Approach | Details about the flows of waste covered |
| Directly from the bin | Not applicable |
|---|---|
| From the waste trucks | Small area-based sampling is the standard in Sweden. More informaion at this website |
| Other approaches | Not applicable |
18.1.2. Source of waste flow data for estimation
| Sources | Materials covered | |
| Waste collectors | Not applicable | Not applicable |
|---|---|---|
| Waste treatment operators | Not applicable | Not applicable |
| Municipalities | Yes | All WCAs are carried out by municipalities. |
| Others | Not applicable | Not applicable |
18.2. Frequency of data collection
Annual.
18.3. Data collection
See below.
18.3.1. Description of the methodology and verification of data on packaging waste generated in case waste analysis is used
PoM data is not verified ("balanced") using waste analysis for other packaging types than plastic.
However, from different studies focusing on packaging waste streams it can be concluded, based on waste analysis, that PoM data is likely to be underestimated.
18.3.2. Description of the methodology to report on composite packaging
Since reference year 2021, producers of composite packaging have been asked to report the packaging material put on the market based on separate material shares in the composite packaging. Packaging consisting of two easily separable parts, with different material, e.g. a bottle and a lid, has been reported as separate materials to the EPR schemes. Enterprises in the EPR scheme handling paper packaging material could separate composite packaging material and reported them as paper and plastic material. Several of the EPR schemes have made remarks that they have reported composite packaging material in their separate material shares. The requirement (for producers) to report composite packaging based on material type is transposed in Swedish legislation but the producers have sometimes problems with the implementation (the process is ongoing). The requirement (for producers) to report composite packaging based on material type is transposed in Swedish legislation but the producers have sometimes problems with the implementation (the process is ongoing).
18.3.3. Description of methods for determining packaging waste treatment
| Packaging waste material | Total | Plastic | Wood | Ferrous metals | Aluminium | Glass | Paper and Cardboard | Other |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Data collection methods | ||||||||
| Administrative reporting | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No |
| Surveys | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No |
| Electronic registry | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No |
| Waste analysis | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No |
| Data from waste operators | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No |
| Data from municipalities | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No |
| Data from extended producer responsibility schemes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No |
| Other | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No |
Additional information about the methodology, including the combination of methods used: SMED collects data from web-based questionnaries sent out to EPR schemes.
SMED does not have a detailed description of the different methodologies used by the EPR schemes, and cannot validate the data reported other than asking clarifying questions to the EPR schemes, and making comparisons of the data reported previous years to identify major changes. The questionnaire included free text questions regarding how the respondents have collected and verified the reported data, uncertainties in the data reported data, measurement points used for obtaining data on reycled amounts of packaging waste etc.
18.3.4. Explanation of the scope and validity of surveys to collect data on the generation and treatment of packaging waste
The official documentation of the statistics “Kvalitetsdeklaration” is available at the SCB website.
(Swedish).
SMED collects data through web based questionnaires sent out to EPR schemes. The survey is a total survey without non-response. No adjustments is made for any coverage errors (free-rider etc.) for other packaging types than plastic.
The main issues affecting the accuracy of data is related to the lack of full producer coverage, most likely leading to underestimation of the amount of packaging placed on the Swedish market. Comparison with other data sources indicates that Put on market (PoM).
18.3.5. Explanation of the scope and validity of surveys to collect data on reusable packaging
It is an ongoing inventory process to identify reuse systems in Sweden. It is important to emphasize that the statistics are not jet 100% comprehensive. Because it is difficult to map all the reuse systems that exist.
The statistic includes EUR-pallets and other kinds of pallets, pallet collars, cable drums, beverage bottles and crates, CO2-cylinder, plastic craters used in wholesale & retail, IBC-containers, etc.
18.3.6. Detailed description of the method to collect data in order to calculate the amount of metals separated from incineration bottom ash
Calculation of recycling of metals from incinerator bottom ash : Detailed description of the method to collect data in order to calculate the amount of metals separated from incineration bottom ash in accordance with the Commission Implementing Act adopted in accordance with Article 37(7) of Directive 2008/98/EC.
| Data | Description of the measurement method to obtain the data |
| Total amount of metal concentrate extracted from incinerator bottom ash | Metal from incineration bottom ash is not included in the Swedish data. |
|---|---|
| Average level of metallic content in the total amount of metal concentrate, including the reliability of any surveys undertaken | Metal from incineration bottom ash is not included in the Swedish data. |
| Proportion of waste entering incineration plants that is packaging waste, including the reliability of any surveys undertaken | Metal from incineration bottom ash is not included in the Swedish data. |
18.4. Data validation
See below
18.4.1. Detailed description of the system for quality control and traceability for packaging waste pursuant to Article 6a(3) and (8) of Directive 94/62/EC
EPR schemes are in place for packaging, the producers already has a legal responsibility to trace the waste and make sure it is taken care of properly. The Swedish EPA has the mandate to perform supervision on how the producers fulfil their responsabilities (in this case make sure that the waste is properly taken care of) if there is any reason to believe that it is not handled properly.
18.4.2. Traceability of waste treated outside the member State and ensuring its treatment in conditions broadly equivalent to the requirements of EU environmental law
| Packaging waste material | Subject to final treatment in the Member State (yes/no) | Shipped to another EU Member State (yes/no) | Exported outside the EU (yes/no) | Description of specific measures for quality control and traceability of packaging waste, in particularly as regards monitoring and validation of data |
| Plastic | Yes | Yes | Yes | SMED collects data through web based questionnaries sent out to EPR schemes. Neither the Swedish EPA nor SMED have detailed description of the measures performed by the the EPR organisations. The questionnare for reference year 2023 made it possible to distinguish between export of packaging waste to final treatment in EU Member states and export outside the EU. Even though the questionnaire include categories to distinguish export of packaging waste SMED does not have the possiblity to validate the data reported other than asking clarifying questions to the EPR schemes. |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wood | Yes | Yes | No | SMED collects data through web based questionnaries sent out to EPR schemes. Neither the Swedish EPA nor SMED have detailed description of the measures performed by the the EPR organisations. The questionnare for reference year 2023 made it possible to distinguish between export of packaging waste to final treatment in EU Member states and export outside the EU. Even though the questionnaire include categories to distinguish export of packaging waste SMED does not have the possiblity to validate the data reported other than asking clarifying questions to the EPR schemes. |
| Ferrous metals | Yes | Yes | Yes | SMED collects data through web based questionnaries sent out to EPR schemes. Neither the Swedish EPA nor SMED have detailed description of the measures performed by the the EPR organisations. The questionnare for reference year 2023 made it possible to distinguish between export of packaging waste to final treatment in EU Member states and export outside the EU. Even though the questionnaire include categories to distinguish export of packaging waste SMED does not have the possiblity to validate the data reported other than asking clarifying questions to the EPR schemes. |
| Aluminium | Yes | Yes | Yes | SMED collects data through web based questionnaries sent out to EPR schemes. Neither the Swedish EPA nor SMED have detailed description of the measures performed by the the EPR organisations. The questionnare for reference year 2023 made it possible to distinguish between export of packaging waste to final treatment in EU Member states and export outside the EU. Even though the questionnaire include categories to distinguish export of packaging waste SMED does not have the possiblity to validate the data reported other than asking clarifying questions to the EPR schemes. |
| Glass | Yes | No | No | SMED collects data through web based questionnaries sent out to EPR schemes. Neither the Swedish EPA nor SMED have detailed description of the measures performed by the the EPR organisations. The questionnare for reference year 2023 made it possible to distinguish between export of packaging waste to final treatment in EU Member states and export outside the EU. Even though the questionnaire include categories to distinguish export of packaging waste SMED does not have the possiblity to validate the data reported other than asking clarifying questions to the EPR schemes. |
| Paper and cardboard | Yes | Yes | No | SMED collects data through web based questionnaries sent out to EPR schemes. Neither the Swedish EPA nor SMED have detailed description of the measures performed by the the EPR organisations. The questionnare for reference year 2023 made it possible to distinguish between export of packaging waste to final treatment in EU Member states and export outside the EU. Even though the questionnaire include categories to distinguish export of packaging waste SMED does not have the possiblity to validate the data reported other than asking clarifying questions to the EPR schemes. |
| Others | No | No | No | SMED collects data through web based questionnaries sent out to EPR schemes. Neither the Swedish EPA nor SMED have detailed description of the measures performed by the the EPR organisations. The questionnare for reference year 2023 made it possible to distinguish between export of packaging waste to final treatment in EU Member states and export outside the EU. Even though the questionnaire include categories to distinguish export of packaging waste SMED does not have the possiblity to validate the data reported other than asking clarifying questions to the EPR schemes. |
18.4.3. Description of measures to ensure broadly equivalent waste treatment
SMED collects data through web based questionnaries sent out to EPR schemes. Neither the Swedish EPA nor SMED have detailed description of the measures performed by the the EPR organisations. The questionnare for reference year 2023 made it possible to distinguish between export of packaging waste to final treatment in EU Member states and export outside the EU. Even though the questionnaire include categories to distinguish export of packaging waste SMED does not have the possiblity to validate the data reported other than asking clarifying questions to the EPR schemes.
18.4.4. Verification of data on packaging waste generated
The columns in the table relate to information on verification procedures used within the national statistical reporting system to validate the accuracy of the data.
| Packaging waste material | Cross-check (yes/no) | Time-series check (yes/no) | Audit (yes/no) | Verification process | |
| Plastic | Yes | Yes | No | The requirement (for producers) to report composite packaging based on material type is transposed in Swedish legislation but the producers have sometimes problems with the implementation (the process is ongoing). | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wood | No | Yes | No | The requirement (for producers) to report composite packaging based on material type is transposed in Swedish legislation but the producers have sometimes problems with the implementation (the process is ongoing). | |
| Ferrous metals | No | Yes | No | The requirement (for producers) to report composite packaging based on material type is transposed in Swedish legislation but the producers have sometimes problems with the implementation (the process is ongoing). | |
| Aluminium | No | Yes | No | The requirement (for producers) to report composite packaging based on material type is transposed in Swedish legislation but the producers have sometimes problems with the implementation (the process is ongoing). | |
| Glass | No | Yes | No | The requirement (for producers) to report composite packaging based on material type is transposed in Swedish legislation but the producers have sometimes problems with the implementation (the process is ongoing). | |
| Paper and cardboard | No | Yes | No | The requirement (for producers) to report composite packaging based on material type is transposed in Swedish legislation but the producers have sometimes problems with the implementation (the process is ongoing). | |
| Others | No | No | No | No | |
18.4.5. Verification of data on packaging waste recycling
The columns in the table relate to information on verification procedures used within the national statistical reporting system to validate the accuracy of the data.
| Packaging waste material | Cross-check (yes/no) | Time-series check (yes/no) | Audit (yes/no) | Verification process |
| Plastic | No | Yes | No | The EPR organisations are asked to explain major changes. |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wood | No | Yes | No | The EPR organisations are asked to explain major changes. |
| Ferrous metals | No | Yes | No | The EPR organisations are asked to explain major changes. |
| Aluminium | No | Yes | No | The EPR organisations are asked to explain major changes. |
| Mixed waste | No | Yes | No | The EPR organisations are asked to explain major changes. |
| Others | No | No | No | No |
18.5. Data compilation
See below
18.5.1. Methods for determining packaging waste generation
| Approach | % of waste generated based on this approach |
| Approach 1 Put on the Market (POM) based on EPR data, complemented with estimates to ensure full coverage of the EPR data |
100% for all packaging except plastic. |
|---|---|
| Approach 2 POM based on sources other than EPR (e.g. based on production and import statistics and factors to estimate the amount of packaging associated to these product flows) |
Not applicable |
| Approach 3 Waste analysis |
Not applicable |
| Other approaches | A 50/50 balancing of the POM and WCA methods according to the own resources reporting has been used to estimate plastic packaging waste generation |
18.5.1.1. Approach 1 - Put on the Market (POM) based on EPR
Primary sources and their shares in the total
| Sources for calculation of PoM | % of packaging total covered | Threshold of this source(*) | |||||||
| Total | Plastic | Wood | Ferrous metals | Aluminium | Glass | Paper and Cardboard | Other | ||
| EPR scheme data | Not applicable | 0 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | No minimum threshold |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Administrative reporting different from EPR | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable |
| Surveys | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable |
| Electronic registry | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable |
| Other | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable |
(*) Necessity of a certain minimum amount of waste, turnover etc. to be registered.
18.5.1.2. Approach 2 - Put on the market (POM) calculated from production and reign trade statistics and using coefficients of packaging for the sold goods in question
Primary sources and their shares in the total
| Sources for calculation of PoM | % of packaging total covered | Threshold of this source(*) | |||||||
| Total | Plastic | Wood | Ferrous metals | Aluminium | Glass | Paper and Cardboard | Other | ||
| Production statistics | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Foreign trade statistics | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable |
| Specific surveys | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable |
| Electronic registry | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable |
| Other | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable |
(*) Necessity of a certain minimum amount of waste, turnover etc. to be registered.
18.5.1.3. Approach 3 - Waste analysis
Packaging waste generated estimated by waste analysis
| Type of waste | Number of samples taken | Total volume or weight of samples taken | What proportion does the sample represent of the total waste generated (in %) |
Frequency of sample | |
| Volume in cubic metres | Weight in tonnes | ||||
| Mixed household and similar waste | >50 | No data | No data | No data | No data |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Separately collected municipal waste | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable |
| Separately collected business waste | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable |
| Others | Municipal bulky waste: >5 | No data | No data | No data | No data |
18.5.2. Information on estimates for packaging placed on the market
Data on packaging (glass, paper and cardboard and metal) placed on the market is obtained from two PRO/EPR schemes and one DRS that register packaging placed on the market for compliance purposes.
Data regarding systems for reusable packaging is collected separately via a web based questionnaire sent out by SMED on commission by the Swedish EPA.
PoM data for wood packaging is an estimate with known under reporting. This data has previously been obtained from a trade organisation representing the Swedish sawmill industry, the Swedish glulam and the Swedish wood packaging industries.
A 50/50 balancing of the POM and WCA methods according to the own resources reporting has been used for plastic packaging waste
18.5.3. Presence and calculation of estimates and indication of added volume in % of the total
| Packaging waste material | Total | Plastic | Wood | Ferrous metals | Aluminium | Glass | Paper and Cardboard | Other |
| Validation | ||||||||
| Corrections for underreporting of units covered by the above sources | No | NA (WCA approach used) | No | No | No | No | No | No |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Estimates for units below the threshold (de minimis) | No | NA (WCA approach used) | No | No | No | No | No | No |
| Estimates for other units legally exempt from reporting | No | NA (WCA approach used) | No | No | No | No | No | No |
| Estimates for freeriders | No | NA (WCA approach used) | No | No | No | No | No | No |
| Private imports /exports by private parcels | No | NA (WCA approach used) | No | No | No | No | No | No |
| Private imports /exports (from journeys) | No | NA (WCA approach used) | No | No | No | No | No | No |
| Internet imports and exports i.e. on-line sales | No | NA (WCA approach used) | No | No | No | No | No | No |
| Other corrections | No | NA (WCA approach used) | No | No | No | No | No | No |
18.5.4. Measurement points for recycling applied
| Packaging waste material |
Description of measurement points used (at calculation point or at the output of sorting operation with subtraction of non-target materials as appropriate, end-of-waste criteria, etc.), including variation at regional and local level |
| Plastic | Measurement points according to the guidance for the compilation and reporting of data on packaging and packaging waste according to Decision 2005/270/EC. |
|---|---|
| Wood | Measurement points according to the guidance for the compilation and reporting of data on packaging and packaging waste according to Decision 2005/270/EC. |
| Ferrous metals | Measurement points according to the guidance for the compilation and reporting of data on packaging and packaging waste according to Decision 2005/270/EC. |
| Aluminium | Measurement points according to the guidance for the compilation and reporting of data on packaging and packaging waste according to Decision 2005/270/EC. |
| Glass | Measurement points according to the guidance for the compilation and reporting of data on packaging and packaging waste according to Decision 2005/270/EC. |
| Paper and cardboard | Measurement points according to the guidance for the compilation and reporting of data on packaging and packaging waste according to Decision 2005/270/EC. |
| Others | Not applicable. |
18.5.4.1. Detailed description of the methodology to calculate the amount of non-target materials removed between the measurement and the calculation points, where applicable
SMED collects data from web-based questionnaires sent out to EPR schemes. Calculations to deduct the amounts of non-target materials are carried out by the EPR schemes. SMED is not able to verify the reported data and have limited insight in the methodology used by the EPR organisations. In some cases where the reported data deviate a lot from data from previous years we have been in contact with the EDR organisations to verify that they have used the correct calculation points.
18.5.4.2. Detailed description of how compostable packaging recovered at biowaste treatment plants has been identified and recorded in the data
Compostable packaging recovered at biowaste treatment plants is not included in the Swedish data for reference year 2021. Composting of biowaste is declining in Sweden.
18.5.5. Methodology to determine recycled amounts from composite packaging or packaging composed of multiple materials
Sweden does not have a methodology to determine recycled amount from composite packaging. PRO's and recyclers report recyling per material, not based on packaging type (e.g. composite packaging). Material from recycled composite packaging is reported per material, if possible. Generally, the non-target materials in a beverage container is considered a loss (rejct) and is treated using energy recovery. Non-target materials from composite packaging is not reported under the main material but rather reported as reject. If the treatment process is able to separate materials and send them to recycling, then the materials are reported per material. I.e. if it is possible to recycle plastic from a composite packaging, the plastic must be reported as recycled plastic, not paper.
18.5.6. Use of Average Loss rates (ALRS)
Description of the sorted packaging waste to which ALRs are applied, types of sorting plants to which different ALRs apply, the methodological approach to calculating ALRs at such point(s), including the statistical accuracy of any surveys used, or the nature of any technical specifications.
| Sorted waste material and sorting plant type | ALR applied (in %) | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Not applicable | Not applicable | ALR is not applied |
18.6. Adjustment
See below.
18.6.1. Adjustment for impurities and humidity
| Factors | Total | Plastic | Wood | Ferrous metals | Aluminium | Glass | Paper and Cardboard | Other |
| Correction factors for impurities and humidity in % of waste | Not available | 83.5% | Not available | Not available | Not available | Not available | Not available | Not available |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| How the correction factors are derived | Source: Avfall Sverige, U2014:04 Korrektionsfaktorer vid plockanalyser för utsorterat brännbart avfall | |||||||
| If no correction of impurities and humidity is applied, how they are accounted | Information is not available | |||||||
18.6.2. Attribution of waste to packaging and non-packaging types and correction for humidity
Description, where applicable, of the methodology to exclude non-packaging waste from the reported amount of recycled packaging waste and of the methodology to correct the amount of packaging waste at the measurement point in order to reflect the natural humidity rate of packaging (including by using relevant European standards). Aggregated data across facilities of a similar type is acceptable.
| Packaging waste material | Facility type | Share of packaging waste (%) | Description of the methodologies applied to obtain the percentage |
|---|---|---|---|
| All packaging material | Not available | Not available | SMED collects data via EPR schemes. Calculations to exclude non-packaging waste are carried out by the EPR organisations. SMED is not able to verify the reported data and have limited insight in the methodology used by the EPR organisations |
18.6.3. Attribution of waste
Description of the methodology to exclude waste originating from other countries, where applicable. Aggregated data across facilities of a similar type is acceptable.
| Packaging waste material | Facility type | Share of waste from the Member State (%) | Description of the methodologies applied to obtain the percentage |
|---|---|---|---|
| All packaging material | Not available | 100 | The questionnaries sent out to EPR schemes include the possibility to report waste imported/exported from other countries. SMED is not able to verify how the EPR schemes in practice make sure the amounts are reported correctly. |
Yes, Sweden have collected data on the amount of wooden packaging that is repaired for reuse in the calculation of targets for reference year 2023.
We have used the new calculations rules since reference year 2021. We have not reported compliance with the old recycling targets according to the old calculation rules.
The derogation to make use of delegated act on average loss rates is not applicable for 2021 data collection as legal act not yet in force.
For reference year 2023, A 50/50 balancing of the placed on the market (PoM) and waste composition analysis (WCA) methods according to the own resources reporting has been used to report plastic waste generated. This method was also used for reference year 2022, hence no Break in series flag used.
24 June 2025
Yes, Sweden have collected data on the amount of wooden packaging that is repaired for reuse in the calculation of targets for reference year 2023.
Sweden do not wish to take into account the amount of metals in incineration bottom ash for the calculation of targets.
Producer responsibility organisation fulfilling the producer responsibility obligations for its member producers.
All Producer responsibility organisation (PROs).
Sweden.
Calendar year
SMED collects data through web based questionnaires sent out to EPR schemes. The survey is a total survey without non-response. No adjustments is made for any coverage errors (free-rider etc.) for other packaging types than plastic.
The main issues affecting the accuracy of data is related to the lack of full producer coverage, most likely leading to underestimation of the amount of packaging placed on the Swedish market. Comparison with other data sources indicates that Put on market (PoM) may be underestimated for all packaging types except deposit cans and PET bottles, sub-categories of aluminium and plastic packaging. Free-riders, internet sales, and goods imported by private journeys are not adjusted for. This means that the Swedish put on the market data is underestimated to an unknown extent. The underestimation of the amount of packaging placed on the market leads to an overestimation of the recycling rates. The overestimation is thus not quantifiable.
Data on reusable packaging were collected the first time in reference year 2020. In reference year 2021 we had access to previous data and could compare the data on reusable packaging in reference year 2020. The aggregated data showed some differences between reference years 2020 - 2023. Reported amounts of resuable packaging is thus most likely underestimated.
Regarding clarification Request nr 4-6 reference year 2020.
The reporting on reusable packaging is new, both for the systems and for the producers. This will cause uncertainties when it comes to data quality during an start-up period. In terms of reporting (of reusable packaging), systems for reuse are surveyed regarding both rotations and reusable packaging placed on the market for the first time. However, the individual producer is formally (by law) responsible to report the amount of reusable packaging they put on the market. And during 2020 individual producers had the opportunity to report figures directly to SEPA (the systems for reuse reported to SMED). This meant that individual producer’s, regarding 2020, could report reusable packaging placed on market regardless of if they were connected to an (known) system of reuse or not. This data collection apparatus could result in minor data flaws (eg that the reusable packaging reported as placed on the market is in fact not a sales packaging, or that the reusable packaging is rotating within a hybrid system, etc).
Tonnes.
See below
A web based questionnaries are sent out to producer responsibility organisations fulfilling the producer responsibility obligations for their member producers.
Yearly.
| Activity |
Start |
Completed |
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|
| Planning, preparations and supplementary method developments |
January 2024 |
February 2024 |
| Data collection and processing |
March 2024 |
March 2024 |
| Compilation of statistics |
April 2024 |
June 2024 |
| Data processing (checks of accuracy, completeness etc.) |
June 2024 | August 2024 |
| Drafting of national statistical report |
August 2024 |
October 2024 |
| National publication of statistical reports and available statistics in public database |
October 2024 | November 2024 |
| Delivery of statistics and quality report to Eurostat |
30 June 2025 or earlier |
30 June 2025 or earlier |
Not applicable.
A 50/50 balancing of the POM and WCA methods according to the own resources reporting has been used to report plastic waste generated.
