The Global Trade No One Talks About
- Heet Dhawale
- 6 days ago
- 5 min read
By: Heet Dhawale; Edited by: Shagun Khetan
You might see the growing hills of garbage dumps in India and wonder how inefficient the country is at managing its waste. But have you ever wondered if it is actually ours or another country’s? And if we imported it willingly? In this article, we explore the nuances of waste and how it moves from one country to another. A phenomenon such as global waste trade exists, and it involves more volatility than you would expect.
Annual Municipal solid waste generated per capita (kilograms/capita/day)
Understanding the Problem
Let’s understand some figures first. To date, humans have produced 10 billion tonnes of waste, of which 6 billion tonnes still remain in the environment. The United States comes at the top with each citizen generating an average of 808 kilograms of waste annually, more than double that of Japanese citizens. The United States produces 12% of the world's municipal solid waste, even though it only has about 4% of the world's population.
An aftereffect of the burgeoning population is the amount of waste our civilisation produces. Contrary to common belief, a significant portion of this waste does not remain within national borders, but is instead part of a complex global waste trade network. The countries that import waste often get blamed for producing that waste, however, we first need to identify where exactly the problem lies. The statistics indicate the overconsumption by developed countries. One cannot innovate solutions for the problem until the root of it is solved, which remains overconsumption and the move towards always replacing one’s old items with the more “fashionable” ones. Some hypotheses as to why this overconsumption remains in the developed countries are due to the easy access to credit (nearly 82% of adults owned a credit card in 2023 in the USA), distancing from environmental degradation and a culture of consumerism.
Another aspect that comes into play is urbanisation. The World Bank highlights how at the regional level, North America, with the highest urbanization rate at 82%, generates 2.21 kg per capita per day, while Sub-Saharan Africa generates 0.46 kg per capita per day at a 38% urbanization rate. We can always blame developing countries for imposing stricter laws, but until the country takes economic and environmental responsibility for their waste, this problem will last.
Current Scenario
This long-standing system of exporting waste to developing nations was sustained in large part by China, which, for over two decades, served as the world’s largest importer of recyclable materials. China’s dominance in the global waste industry wasn’t accidental — it stemmed from its booming manufacturing sector, which had a high demand for cheap raw materials like plastics, paper, and metals. Developed countries, eager to offload their waste and avoid the costs of processing it domestically, found a ready buyer in China. This mutually beneficial — yet environmentally costly — arrangement allowed wealthier nations to continue their cycle of consumption while externalising the environmental burden. However, this unsustainable dynamic reached a tipping point in 2018 when China implemented a sweeping ban on most plastic waste imports through its “National Sword” policy, citing rising domestic pollution and a need to improve environmental standards. China’s decision followed the shift to “single-stream” recycling, which increased contamination and made materials harder to recycle. Growing complexity in plastic packaging in the form of various colours, additives, and multilayer compositions further complicates the process. In response, China now only accepts the cleanest materials, enforcing a 99.5% purity standard that most exporters struggle to meet.
This policy shift led waste-exporting countries to seek alternative destinations for their waste. Consequently, countries in Southeast Asia, such as Malaysia, Vietnam, Thailand, and Indonesia, became the primary recipients of this redirected waste. Malaysia, for instance, became a primary destination, receiving substantial shipments from countries such as the United States and the United Kingdom.
However, this sudden influx overwhelmed local capacities. Many of these countries lacked the infrastructure to manage and process the imported waste adequately, leading to environmental pollution and public health concerns. In response, Malaysia took decisive action in 2020 by returning thousands of tons of plastic waste to their countries of origin, declaring that it would not become the world's garbage dump.
The challenges faced by Southeast Asian countries underscore a critical issue of the ethical and environmental implications of exporting waste. This practice not only transfers the burden of waste management but also shifts accountability, usually from a more developed nation to a lesser one. This exacerbates environmental degradation in regions already grappling with their own waste challenges. The global waste trade has also been linked to organized crime and human rights violations. Illegally shipped waste often ends up in informal recycling operations, where workers, including children, are exposed to hazardous conditions. These practices highlight the darker side of the waste trade, where profit is prioritized over human health and environmental stewardship.
The global waste trade continues to evolve. In 2023, exports of ferrous scrap and waste amounted to approximately 45 billion US dollars, while exports of copper scrap neared 30 billion dollars. The United States was by far the leading exporter of scraps of both these metals, while Turkey and China were the main destinations for iron and copper scrap, respectively. However, the trade of plastic waste has seen a decline. The annual reported global export volume of plastic scrap and waste declined by almost half, indicating a shift in how countries manage plastic waste.
Global plastic waste import and export trade volume from 1990 to 2019
Electronic waste (e-waste) is an emerging crisis. In 2022, a record 62 million tonnes of e-waste were generated globally—an 82% increase since 2010. This figure is expected to rise another 32%, reaching 82 million tonnes by 2030. While exporting e-waste may seem economically beneficial for developing nations, the long-term environmental and health costs far outweigh the profits. The influx of foreign waste disrupts local waste management efforts, creating cycles of dependency and environmental injustice. International agreements like the Basel Convention (members include 188 UN member states, the Cook Islands, the European Union, and the State of Palestine) aim to regulate hazardous waste movement, especially from developed to developing countries. However, enforcement remains weak, and illegal shipments continue. Recent cases—such as Malaysia seizing over 100 containers of illicit e-waste—highlight ongoing waste trafficking issues.
This isn’t just about where waste ends up; it’s about how much is being generated and why. As mentioned previously, the towering landfills in developing countries often aren’t filled with their own waste, but they are left to deal with the consequences. And while it’s tempting to blame inefficiencies or lax regulations, the real issue lies in unchecked overconsumption. At the heart of it is the endless desire to replace the old with the new, to buy more, use briefly, and discard immediately. The World Bank predicts that as economies grow and urbanize, waste generation will increase significantly. For a rapidly urbanizing country like India, this could lead to major challenges. However, the disruptions in the global waste trade present an opportunity to rethink waste management and implement more sustainable practices. Some nations are already taking action. Thailand, for example, recently banned plastic waste imports to combat toxic pollution, following pressure from environmental activists. This shift signals a growing resistance among developing nations against becoming dumping grounds for wealthier countries’ waste.
The shifts prompted by policies like China’s National Sword have exposed the vulnerabilities and ethical dilemmas inherent in the current system. Ultimately, the future of global waste management depends on stronger regulations, better enforcement, and a collective effort to reduce waste at its source. Without these changes, the waste crisis will only worsen, pushing environmental and human costs onto those least equipped to bear them.
Sites for Further Reading:
Comments