Sara writes*
Before 2018, China was the largest global waste importer in the world, importing approximately 95% of Europe’s plastic waste (Sommer, 2024; Katz, 2019). In 2018, China’s “Operation National Sword” banned the import of 24 different kinds of waste, including plastics (Sommer, 2024; Tamma, 2018). The aim of the ban was to alleviate detrimental environmental and health effects in China’s domestic environment (Sommer, 2024). By January 2018, waste imports plummeted, and the ban has already exhibited some success, seen by the decline of air pollution that is seen to be in correlation with the policy (Sommer, 2024). The question that therefore remains is whether the European response to the ban can promote similarly equitable and sustainable practices in the management of waste?
China’s ban confronts Europe’s “out of sight out of mind” strategy toward waste management, and has grave consequences for the global waste trade (Tamma, 2018). Until 2017, the European model for dealing with plastic waste was based on, for example, 40% incineration, 30% landfilling and 12% exports to the Global South and countries such as China (Rosa, 2018). As a key player in manufacturing, with low wages, China was a favorite destination for waste (Sommer, 2024). In 2016 alone, approximately 14% of European paper waste (8 million tons) ended up in China (Tamma, 2018).
But can the upside of this waste crisis be realised? While the outsourcing of waste management is easy, there are concerns regarding how the waste is handled abroad and whether it’s really recycled (Rosa, 2018). The Chinese ban therefore presents Europe with the opportunity to better align waste management with European standards, but in turn, we are faced with the dilemma of having to find new partners for waste management (Rosa, 2018).
On the one hand, Europe has hopes for tackling the issue at its source by producing more recyclable materials and improving recycling capacity to reduce the need for waste disposal (Tamma, 2018; Rosa, 2018). Indeed, between 2019 and 2020, Europe’s plastic recycling capacity increased by 13% (Joltreau, 2022). Dealing with the influx of waste domestically might also mean better alignment of environmental and social conditions with European standards, as such conditions stand to question with the outsourcing of management to China (Rosa, 2018).
On the other hand, Europe lacks the recycling capacity to process waste that used to go to China (European Parliament, 2018). China’s import ban has thus strengthened a “waste haven” dynamic in which high-cost countries export plastic waste to low-cost countries like Turkey, India and Bulgaria, thereby redistributing the negative externalities from waste and pollution (Sommer, 2024; Tamma, 2018; Joltreau, 2022). However, the desirability of these locations is parallel to the desirability of China, being their low cost of waste processing. Bulgaria for example, imposes minimal taxes on landfilling waste (Tamma, 2018).
Bottom line: Europe lacks the institutional and structural capacity to contribute to a circular global economy through this Chinese import ban, and hence, that the benefits of sustainable and equitable waste processing are yet to be realised.
* Please help my Environmental Economics students by commenting on unclear analysis, alternative perspectives, better data sources, or maybe just saying something nice :).
The solution to the problem looks pretty simple to me –> build more recycling centres and increase capacity. I am also a bit sceptical of what you mean by “Europe lacks the institutional …. capacity”. If the Europeans do not have the institutional capacity then who does?