Do something for our planet, print this page only if needed. Even a small action can make an enormous difference when millions of people do it!
Personal tools
For the public:
Ask your question
Press room
The EEA Web CMS works best with following browsers:
Internet Explorer is not recommended for the CMS area.
If you have forgotten your password, we can send you a new one.
Skip to content. | Skip to navigation
In Europe, between 2005 and 2013, the average water intensity of crop production was around 6 m 3 of water (irrigation plus soil moisture) for one unit of gross value added (GVA*) from all crops. In 2013, around 9 % less water was input to crops to produce the same GVA as in 2005. In western Europe, between 2005 and 2013, on average 5 m 3 of water (irrigation plus soil moisture) was input to crops to generate one unit of GVA. The water intensity of crop production improved by 5 % over the period. In southern Europe, between 2005 and 2013, on average 6 m 3 of water was input to crops to generate one unit of GVA. The water intensity of crop production improved by 13 % over the period. Crop patterns in southern Europe are, in general, associated with a relatively high GVA per hectare while irrigation is a major part of total water input to crops. In eastern Europe, between 2005 and 2013, on average 7 m 3 of water was input to crops to generate one unit of GVA. The water intensity of crop production improved by 18 % over the peiod. Improvements in water infrastructure and agricultural equipment resulted in reduced water losses and increased harvested yields. Between 2005 and 2013, the average water intensity of crop production was lowest in the Netherlands (0.6 m 3 for one unit of GVA) in western Europe, Malta (2 m 3 for one unit of GVA ) in southern Europe and Slovenia (3 m 3 for one unit of GVA ) in eastern Europe. * See definition of GVA and its units in Units section of this indicator.
Read more
The per-person total animal protein consumption in the EU remained relatively stable between 2000 and 2013. It increased modestly up to 2007 and reduced slightly after that year. EU citizens, on average, covered more of their protein needs with fish and seafood, and cheese in 2013 than in 2000. Meat consumption shifted from beef to poultry. Bovine meat and cheese have a higher environmental footprint per kg than poultry meat, so the trend in related environmental impact is less clear.
Latest available trends show that recycling rates for both municipal waste and packaging waste have increased substantially: recycling rates for municipal waste increased by 13 percentage points between 2004 and 2014, and recycling rates for packaging waste by 10 percentage points between 2005 and 2013. In 2014, 43 % of the municipal waste generated in the EU-27 and Norway was recycled, while in 2013, 65 % of packaging waste generated was recycled. These improvements are, among others, driven by EU targets for the recycling of these two waste streams introduced in 1994 and 2008, respectively. Higher overall recycling rates for packaging waste compared to municipal waste probably result from the earlier introduction of packaging waste targets, producer responsibility schemes and the relative ease of recycling packaging waste from commercial sources. For municipal waste, large differences in recycling rates between European countries prevail; in 2014, the rates ranged from 64 % in Germany to 1 % in Serbia. In six countries, recycling rates were equal or higher than 50 %, while five countries recycled less than 20 %. In 2014, 24 countries recycled 55 % or more packaging waste and overall recycling rates ranged from 81 % in Belgium to 41 % in Malta. These differences indicate a large potential for improvement.
Between 1996 and 2012, trends in household spending patterns were mixed. The trend, however, is towards an increasing share of consumption categories with reduced environmental pressures per Euro spent. In addition, almost all consumption categories have also seen reductions in environmental pressure intensities. Together, these two developments are likely to have caused a relative decoupling of environmental pressures from growth in household consumption expenditure.
European economic production and consumption have become less waste intensive, even after the economic downturn since 2008 is considered in the analysis. From the production side, waste generation from manufacturing in the EU-28 and Norway declined by 25% in absolute terms between 2004 and 2012, despite an increase of 7% in sectoral economic output. Waste generation by the service sector declined by 23% in the same period, despite an increase of 13% in sectoral economic output. Turning to consumption, total municipal waste generation in EEA countries declined by 2% between 2004 and 2012, despite a 7% increase in real household expenditure. One of the objectives in EU waste policy is to reduce waste generation in absolute terms, within the overall goal to decouple economic growth from resource use and environmental impacts. Waste prevention efforts across Europe seems to contribute to the waste objectives; with considerable differences between the countries. Wider analysis across different economic sectors within and beyond EU borders will be needed in order to provide more comprehensive conclusions.
Absolute decoupling of nutrient emissions from domestic sector and the population growth over the period of almost two decades (1990-2009) is observed in thirteen countries (Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Germany, Greece, Finland, Ireland, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Slovenia and Turkey). The actual extent of decoupling, and the differences in trends among countries, may be partially explained by different levels of numbers of inhabitants connected to tertiary wastewater treatment technologies When making the EU wide comparison of the extend of decoupling of nutrient emissions from population growth, the actual rate of population connected to different types of treatment (elaborated in the CSI 024) should be taken into consideration, and completeness of the data available on population connected to collecting systems without treatment. The status of the implementation of the UWWTD which protects the water environment from the adverse effects of discharges of urban waste water, the level of investment in the water and wastewater management ,as well as the status of the implementation of the Water Framework Directive (WFD) and Groundwater Directive may have an impact. Furthermore household patterns as well as the household income level affecting the production and composition of waste water should be considered as well. It is assumed that the use of actual data on loads discharged from wastewater treatment plants combined with the load values calculated for population not connected to the waste water treatment would add value to the decoupling indicator, as it would better reflect the real situation..
The number of organisations registered under the EMAS standard rose by 50% during the period 2003-2010, while organisations from EU countries certified according to the international ISO 14001 standard more than quadrupled in the period 2001-2009. This indicates that private companies and public institutions in the EU are increasingly engaging in environmental management.
All A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
For references, please go to https://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/waste/indicators or scan the QR code.
PDF generated on 22 Jun 2018, 08:11 PM
Engineered by: EEA Web Team
Software version: EEA Plone KGS 18.6.15
Software updated on 15 June 2018 15:35 from version 18.5.29
CMS login Site usage Software updates history Code for developers
We use cookies to record some preference settings and to analyse how visitors use our web site. Cookies do not contain any personal information about you. If you wish, see how to delete/disable cookies in your web browser. See also our privacy policy.
Document Actions
Share with others