Comms Pack: EU Waste Shipment Regulations (Non-Plastic)

This communications pack is designed to mobilize research institutions, NGOs, and media personnel to gather evidence to strengthen the implementation of the revised EU Waste Shipment Regulations.

Context

The revised EU Waste Shipment Regulation (WSR) presents a critical window to prevent the continuation of harmful waste exports to developing countries under the guise of ‘resource recovery.’ While the regulation introduces stronger protections, a significant loophole allows non-OECD countries to request exemptions to receive non-plastic waste from the EU. This communications pack provides research institutions, NGOs, and media with the tools to gather evidence and advocate against these exemptions that perpetuate environmental injustice and waste colonialism.

What Changed?

The EU Waste Shipment Regulation was revised with new obligations that officially came into force in 2024, representing the most significant overhaul of EU waste export rules in decades.

Key Changes:

• Ban-by-default: All EU waste exports to non-OECD countries are now prohibited unless specifically approved
• Plastic waste ban: Complete prohibition on all plastic waste exports to non-OECD countries from 21 November 2026 (to at least 21 May 2029)
• Exemption process: Non-OECD countries can apply to receive specific non-plastic waste streams by demonstrating compliance with WSR obligations
• Evidence-based review: The EU Commission must evaluate whether requesting countries can genuinely handle waste according to environmental and social standards

Key Timelines:

The Problem: A Loophole That Perpetuates Waste Colonialism

What countries claim: "We need EU waste to meet domestic recycling needs and support our waste-to-energy programs."

The reality: Countries requesting these exemptions often cannot adequately manage their domestically generated waste, creating a dangerous precedent that:

• Enables continued dumping: High-income nations continue exporting their waste problem rather than addressing consumption and waste management at source.
• Perpetuates waste colonialism: Disproportionately impacts vulnerable populations in low- and middle-income countries.
• Promotes false solutions: Reliance on imports diverts attention and investment from source reduction, reuse and domestic recycling capacity.
• Profits middlemen, not communities: Trade creates lucrative opportunities for waste brokers that facilitate illegality, while local communities bear the environmental and health costs.

Why This Matters Now & How You Can Pitch In

This exemption process represents a critical opportunity to prevent new ‘legal’ waste dumping routes before they are created. Prevention is vital; once countries are placed on the approved list, the trade can become entrenched, creating powerful vested interests that make reversing course and stopping harmful practices far more difficult. Allowing exemptions also risks locking in harmful waste flows for years, delaying the shift and investment into real solutions. Transparency through community-based reporting is essential to exposing the real state of play and ensuring EU authorities do not just hear the version presented by recyclers seeking easier profits. Act now to avoid long-term damage and an uphill battle to reverse decisions later.

Evidence Gathering for Research Organisations and NGOs:

1. Inadequate Domestic Waste Management Infrastructure

What to document:

• Overflowing landfills and unauthorised dumpsites
• Lack of waste collection services in urban and rural areas
• Open burning of domestically generated or imported waste
• Waste sites contaminating nearby water, soil and air
• Inadequate waste treatment infrastructure capacity
• Evidence of illegal storage or stockpiling of imported waste, including waste left untreated in warehouses or ports
• Waste diversion to unpermitted facilities

Suggested documentation methods: satellite imagery analysis of dumpsites, stockpiles or inadequate facilities, trade data, government waste management statistics, on-ground site visits, photographic and video evidence, community audiovisual testimonies and water and soil quality testing.

2. Worker Rights and Safety Violations

What to document:

• Lack of protective equipment for waste workers
• Child or informal labour
• Unsafe working conditions, including exposure to toxic smoke or particles
• Absence of worker safety training programs or protocols, particularly when handling hazardous or mixed waste
• Health impacts on waste sector workers
• Lack of contracts, social protections or health insurance

Suggested documentation methods: Worker interviews (with protection protocols), health and safety audit reports, medical records showing occupational health issues, photographic and video evidence and labour reports.

3. Environmental Harm and Public Health Impacts

What to document:

• Soil, air and water contamination around waste facilities
• Health impacts on nearby communities (e.g. respiratory disease, cancers, reproductive health problems)
• Ecosystem damage from waste operations or waste mismanagement
• Failure to meet international environmental standards
• Lack of environmental monitoring systems or ignored monitoring dta
• Fires and toxic releases from illegal storage or stockpiles
• Absence of consultation processes for affected communities near waste management sites

Suggested documentation methods: Environmental impact assessments (EIA) and EIA reviews, health surveys in affected communities, mapping of impacts, scientific studies on contamination levels, government environmental monitoring data or lack thereof, and medical testimonies of residents in affected areas.

4. Regulatory and Governance Failures

What to document:

• Weak enforcement of existing national waste laws and regulations, including selective enforcement
• Corruption in waste management contracts and customs clearance
• Lack of transparency in permits or waste facility operations
• Absence of public participation in waste planning decision-making
• Failure to adequately transpose legal obligations for waste management (e.g. Basel, Bamako)

Suggested documentation methods: Regulatory audit reports, freedom of information requests (FOI), court cases related to waste violations, investigative journalism, analysis of customs and trade data, civil society monitoring reports, and policy gap analyses.

5. Evidence of Illegal Waste Trade and Links to Organised Crime

What to document:

• Evidence of fraudulent classifications of waste (e.g., misdeclaration as recyclable when contaminated)
• Falsified financial and customs documents (e.g. invoices, bills of lading, certificates or credits for recycling)
• Fraudulent recycling facilities that dump or burn waste
• Connections between brokers, exporters and politically exposed persons
• Politically exposed persons awarded government contracts or with connections to customs entry points
• Containers containing waste that disappear, are abandoned or diverted
• Evidence of money laundering (e.g. over- or under-invoicing, circular trade flows, shell companies)
• Illegal or abandoned storage of waste at ports, warehouses or industrial zones

Suggested documentation methods: Discrepancies in customs and trade data, financial investigations, tracking containers or waste and verification of declared destinations, FOI requests, investigative journalism, court cases related to previous violations, open source research on trading companies, enforcement agency and police reports.

How to Use Evidence for Advocacy?

Direct Engagement with the EU

1. Submit comprehensive evidence packages documenting non-compliance to the European Commission
2. Participate in public consultations on waste shipment policies
3. Unified advocacy and information sharing towards policy-makers

National Governments

1. Present evidence to the environment ministries and competent authorities in the exporting and requesting countries
2. Engage with parliamentary committees on environment and development
3. Work with local NGOs to build domestic pressure
4. Utilise freedom of information laws to access government documents and evidence of illegality

International Arena

1. Present findings at UN forums on waste and sustainable development
2. Engage with Basel Convention processes and meetings
3. Coordinate with global waste justice networks
4. Use international human rights mechanisms where applicable

Whistleblower Protections

The revised WSR explicitly protects whistleblowers who provide evidence of non-compliance with the law. This includes:

• Protection from retaliation
• Confidentiality of identity where requested
• Legal support for those facing pressure
• Anonymous submission options

For Media Personnel

Asia has long been the world's dumping ground for unwanted waste. As the EU considers exemptions to its waste export ban, Asian countries face a critical choice: continue accepting the developed world's trash or unite to build sustainable, sovereign waste management systems. This is not just an environmental story—it's about economic justice, public health, and whether Asia will continue to whitewash Western waste colonialism.

Historical Overview

For decades, China has handled nearly half of the world's waste exports. This created a global system where high-income countries could offshore their waste problem to Asia, claiming it was ‘recycling’ while often dumping contaminated or hazardous materials.

In January 2018, China implemented its National Sword policy, which effectively banned the import of most plastics and other materials, thereby fundamentally disrupting global waste flows. Instead of high-income countries managing their own waste, the system shifted the burden to other regions with weaker regulatory frameworks.

Asia became the primary alternative destination, with countries such as Malaysia, Thailand, Vietnam, the Philippines, Indonesia, and India — nations with weaker waste regulatory systems and fewer safeguards — suddenly overwhelmed by new waste streams.

Africa emerged as another significant dumping ground, particularly for textiles, electronic waste and plastic imports. Countries like Ghana receive both legal, and illegal electronic waste, and other African states receive e-waste disguised as donations or second-hand products. Egypt, Nigeria, and South Africa became the largest importers of plastic polymers and products, with Ghana, Malawi and South Africa identified by INTERPOL as destinations for illegal plastic waste shipments. Angola, Kenya, DR Congo, Tunisia, Ghana and Benin have become major destinations for the global trade of second-hand clothing – a significant percentage of these comprise of fossil-fuel derived synthetic fibres.

Latin America, too, became the new frontier for waste exports, particularly from the United States. Countries such as Mexico, El Salvador, Ecuador, and other Central and South American nations have become major destinations for plastic waste shipments as exporters seek new routes following the implementation of restrictions in Asia. Chile has become a hotbed for textile waste from Europe and North America, often including synthetic, or plastic-based materials, which are dumped or incinerated in the Atacama desert. This represents a dramatic shift in global waste flows, with Latin American countries now handling significant volumes of contaminated plastic materials, which they are ill-equipped to process safely.

Eastern Europe and Turkiye became critical nodes in the global waste trade network, serving both as destinations for EU waste and transit points for shipments ultimately bound for Asia and Africa. Turkiye emerged as a major destination: EU plastic waste exports to Turkiye quadrupled between January 2023 and April 2025, and this trend is expected to continue as restrictions on exports to non-OECD countries come into place (Turkey is an OECD country). There is also important trade within the EU, including to Eastern EU countries (e.g. Poland, Romania) as well as exports from the EU to Eastern European non-EU countries such as Bosnia and Herzegovina. The UK also exports significant quantities of waste to Poland.

This global system creates a form of "waste colonialism" where the direction of trade is mainly one way: waste exported from wealthy developed countries to low- and middle-income nations, perpetuating environmental injustice and preventing the development of sustainable waste management systems in both exporting and receiving countries.

What's at Stake

The EU's waste shipment ban exemption process could establish new "legal" waste dumping routes to Asia and beyond. If exemptions are granted, it will:

1. Legitimise continued dumping under the guise of ‘resource recovery’
2. Undermine regional cooperation by creating competitive pressure to accept waste
3. Delay domestic capacity building by maintaining dependence on waste imports
4. Weaken environmental regulations through regulatory capture by the waste industry

The EU’s exemption process under the revised WSR represents a critical juncture where media coverage can help draw attention to the domestic waste management challenges, the gaps in implementing national and regional policies, and the additional burden of continued waste trade faced by vulnerable low- and middle-income nations.

Investigative Angles

• Follow the money: Track financial flows and profits in the waste trade
• Human impact stories: Document effects on communities and workers
• Government accountability: Examine decision-making processes
• Corporate responsibility: Investigate the roles of companies driving trade
• International connections: Link local impacts to global waste flows

Suggested Questions for Interviews

• For government officials: Does requesting more waste align or compound with domestic waste management challenges? What specific infrastructure or capacity does your country currently have to process the waste streams you are requesting? How will your government ensure transparency and accountability in monitoring imported waste shipments? How do you plan to safeguard against waste imports being dumped, mismanaged, or burned in ways that harm local communities? Given the EU’s own challenges with waste reduction, why should non-OECD countries bear the burden of European waste?
• For affected community members: What has been your experience with waste facilities in your area? How have these facilities affected your livelihoods and health? Have you noticed changes in air quality, water quality, or soil conditions linked to these facilities? How have waste imports affected your livelihoods, health, or access to clean resources? Do you feel your community was consulted or informed about the potential risks of receiving waste from abroad?
• For the waste management sector: How can we ensure imported waste doesn't end up at unauthorised sites? What happens to the waste that doesn’t find a market? Who takes responsibility when shipments are abandoned or mismanaged?

Resources

• UN Comtrade is a comprehensive global trade data platform with detailed global annual and monthly trade statistics by product and trading partner
• Plastic Waste Transparency Project by Basel Action Network provides up-to-date information on the global trade in plastic waste, the countries and actors engaged in it
• EU’s waste shipment webpage
• Financial Crime Risks in the Plastic Waste Trade Briefing by the Environmental Investigation Agency includes a background on illegality and key crime risk indicators for monitoring and investigating financial crimes.
• Break Free From Plastic movement for more details on what’s wrong with the waste trade. Connect with devayani@breakfreefromplastic.org, justinemaillot@eia-international.org, and amyyoungman@eia-international.org to feature voices from waste trade policy experts, researchers, and affected communities from across the world.

Frequently Asked Questions: EU Waste Shipment Regulation

The EU Waste Shipment Regulation (WSR) controls and sets conditions for the shipment of waste within EU Member States, from the EU to third countries (exports), from third countries to the EU (imports) and in transit through the EU.

By regulating waste trade, the WSR aims “to protect the environment and human health and to contribute to climate neutrality and to achieving a circular economy and zero pollution” (Article 1). The EU Waste Shipment regulation was last revised in 2024, and most new rules will apply from 21 May 2026, with important staggered start dates on some provisions. In particular, the plastic waste export ban to non-OECD countries enters into effect from November 2026, and the new non-OECD export regime for other non-hazardous waste applies from May 2027. This revision integrates amendments to the Basel Convention Annexes and creates stronger rules for waste shipments, notably for plastic waste.

The EU WSR sets different rules depending on whether the recipient country is an OECD country or a non-OECD country. It also differentiates between trade for disposal or trade for recovery, and sets a number of different regimes (e.g. prohibition, prior informed consent (PIC) procedure) for different waste streams, including specific provisions for plastic waste.

What does the Regulation mean for EU plastic waste exports?

EU plastic waste exports to non-OECD countries: ban

The WSR prohibits the shipment of plastic waste to non-OECD countries, including :

• hazardous plastic waste (already the case before the revision)
• unsorted, contaminated or difficult to recycle plastic waste subject to the PIC procedure under the Basel Convention (already the case before the revision)
• non-hazardous clean, sorted plastic waste classified under entry Basel Code B3011, which is not subject to PIC under the Basel Convention (new addition with the revision), from 21 November 2026

This means that all plastic waste exports to non-OECD countries are prohibited from the 21st of November 2026 until at least the 21st of May 2029, i.e a 2.5-year complete ban. A non-OECD country may apply to receive B3011 plastic waste for recycling if it meets EU-level conditions from that date (Article 42(4)).

After the 21st of May 2029:

• Shipments of hazardous plastic waste and plastic waste otherwise subject to PIC under the Basel Convention remain prohibited to non-OECD countries (Article 39).
• Shipments of B3011  plastic waste remain banned by default. Yet, non-OECD countries may submit a request to the European Commission to be included in an authorised list of recipient countries after demonstrating that all safeguards for environmentally sound management (ESM) are met. In accordance with Article 42.4, the non-OECD country sending a request must provide evidence that:

• it has a comprehensive waste management system in place that covers its entire territory and effectively ensures the separate collection of plastic waste;
• it has a legal framework for waste management in place, which includes at least the following elements: prohibition of open burning and of uncontrolled landfilling of waste; prohibition of incineration and of landfilling of separately collected plastic waste;  provisions on enforcement, inspection and penalties;
• imports of plastic waste from the Union do not have any adverse effects on the management of plastic waste generated in the country.

EU plastic waste exports to OECD countries: prior consent, power to ban on a case-by-case basis

Shipments destined for disposal and shipments of hazardous waste, including hazardous plastic waste, are also prohibited to OECD countries (Articles 37 and 44.2).

Shipments of non-hazardous waste destined for recovery, including B3011 plastic waste, in OECD countries are subject to the notification and PIC procedure and heightened scrutiny of plastic waste. By May 2026, the Commission must assess whether OECD countries that receive significant volumes of plastic waste comply with Article 45, which requires OECD countries to :

• put in place and implement an adequate legal framework to ensure ESM of both imported waste and waste generated in the country;
• separate reporting on the quantity of waste generated domestically and of waste imported;
• have sufficient capacity allowing ESM of domestic waste, accounting for imported waste, and measures to ensure  imported waste does not substantially adversely affect the collection and management of domestic waste;
• Implementation of adequate enforcement measures to ensure ESM and address possible illegal shipments

In the case of the export of non-hazardous plastic waste, the Regulation foresees additional requirements to ensure the ESM of plastic waste and residuals, including the prohibition of open burning or dumping of plastic waste and specific enforcement and inspections of shipments of plastic waste and facilities. It also takes steps to prevent re-export to third countries (Articles 44 and 45), for example, through transhipment in the United Kingdom.

Critically, the Regulation empowers the Commission to ban any non-hazardous waste exports to OECD countries on a case-by-case basis if there is evidence that the obligations are not met and waste is not managed in an environmentally sound manner.

Plastic waste under specific scrutiny

During the 2024 revision of the WSR, EU decision makers gave particular attention to plastic waste trade, due to the severe impacts the large volumes of EU plastic waste exports have on the environment, health and waste management in recipient countries. After May 2029, the Commission must report on whether the implementation of provisions on plastic waste, both in the EU and exported outside of the EU, has ensured the ESM of waste and that no significant adverse effects occurred on the treatment of domestic waste in recipient countries (Article 75(5)). If appropriate, the Commission shall accompany the report with a legislative proposal to amend the Regulation, including stricter conditions on the export of plastic waste to third countries, including bans.

What about the EU exports of other waste streams?

EU other waste exports to non-OECD countries: ban by default, trade on request

By default, all waste exports to non-OECD countries are banned.

If they intend to receive non-hazardous wastes and mixtures of non-hazardous wastes from the EU, non-OECD countries must submit a request to the European Commission to receive waste, to be included in the ‘list of countries to which exports are authorised’

The non-OECD countries interested in receiving waste had to submit their request by 21 February 2025. More than 30 countries submitted applications: Andorra, Bangladesh, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Egypt, El Salvador, Georgia, Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Lao DPR, Malaysia, Mauritius, Moldova, Monaco, Montenegro, Morocco, Nigeria, North-Macedonia, Oman, Pakistan, Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Serbia, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Taiwan, Thailand, Togo, Tunisia, Ukraine and Vietnam. Details of what waste each country requested is available here.

In accordance with Article 42, countries making a request have to demonstrate that they have taken and implemented all the necessary measures to ensure the ESM of the waste, including that they :

• have a comprehensive waste management strategy or plan able and ready to ensure ESM, including data and trends on waste generated domestically and waste concerned by the request, an estimation of treatment capacity, as well as information on the proportion of domestic waste that is separately collected, recycled, incinerated, landfilled and littered;
• have a legal framework for waste management which includes at least permitting, licensing or registration system or systems for waste treatment facilities and transport of waste, measures to ensure residual waste is managed in an environmentally sound manner, adequate pollution controls and enforcement, inspection and penalties in case of non-compliance with domestic and international requirements; and
• have a strategy for enforcement of domestic legislation on waste management and shipment of waste.
• are a party to a number of multilateral agreements on environment and labour rights, including the Basel Convention

So, countries must offer evidence that they will be able to manage imported waste in a way that protects workers’ rights, human health, the environment and climate, and does not impact their ability to manage domestic waste.

The European Commission is currently reviewing applications and will adopt a ‘list of countries to which exports are authorised’ by 21 November 2026, and will then have to revise the list at least every two years to add a country that complies with the obligation or remove a country that no longer complies. Stakeholders can submit initial evidence until November 2025.

From 21 May 2027, countries on the ‘list of countries that can receive waste’ can then receive waste under the general information requirements (Article 18) or through the prior written notification and consent procedure (Article 38) depending on the waste concerned and the decision of the recipient country (i.e whether they apply prior informed consent or not for the concerned waste)

EU other waste exports to OECD countries: prior consent, power to ban on a case-by-case basis

Shipments of waste for disposal are prohibited (with possible exemption for EFTA countries).

Shipments of non-hazardous wastes and non-hazardous mixtures of wastes to OECD countries for recovery are subject to the prior written notification and consent procedure, under several conditions outlined above (under plastic exports to OECD). The European Commission can ban non-hazardous waste exports to OECD countries on a case-by-case basis if there is evidence that the obligations are not met and waste is not managed in an environmentally sound manner.

Hidden plastic waste ?!

Several non-hazardous waste streams/categories that can still be exported to non-OECD countries if a request is granted include plastic.

This is notably the case of synthetic textile waste, electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE), as well as rubber and tyre waste, composite packaging and paper waste :

• Textile waste is increasing rapidly, together with fast fashion, and the share of synthetic fibres has been growing in recent decades. In 2023, synthetic fibres represented more than two-thirds of the global production of fibres, with polyester alone accounting for 57% of global textile production.
• WEEE is considered to contain about 20% plastic by weight.
• Rubber waste, including used tyres, almost doubled between 2013 and 2018.

Therefore, there is significant plastic waste not covered under the plastic waste export ban (B3011), yet with high impacts on the environment and human health in receiving countries.  

What are the main plastic-relevant codes?

Waste is traded internationally under the Harmonised System (HS), the tariff coding system managed by the World Customs Organisation (WCO). However, HS codes are broad and not designed to capture waste types precisely. For hazardous and other controlled wastes, trade is governed by the Basel Convention, which assigns more specific waste codes (Annexes II, VIII, IX). The WSR integrates these Basel Codes into its control system; however, an understanding of HS codes and how the two are interlinked is crucial in understanding misdeclaration.

However, because customs declarations use HS codes while Basel uses its own waste codes, there is sometimes a mismatch. Further, this gap is frequently exploited by waste brokers and criminal networks, who misdeclare mixed or contaminated plastic waste under general HS codes to bypass stricter Basel and WSR controls.

Plastic Waste Codes (considered as “plastic waste” in the EU WSR)

Note: Even if countries have requested to receive the plastic waste codes above, they cannot until at least 21 May 2029, as there is a ban on all plastic waste exports to non-OECD countries between 21 November 2026 and 21 May 2029.

Other Waste Codes which likely contain plastic:

Key Takeaways

• HS codes are blunt instruments that are designed for tariff purposes, not environmental protection, and lack the granularity to distinguish clean recyclables from contaminated or hazardous wastes.
• Basel and WSR codes are more specific and classify waste streams by content, which should help consider environmental risks. Still, enforcement depends on correct customs declarations using correct HS codes. For example, plastic waste (3915) misdeclared under code 6304 does not make it clear that the PIC procedure is necessary.
• Scrupulous actors aim to avoid stricter regulations for contaminated or hazardous plastic waste by using 3915 and excluding the Basel code. Requiring PIC for all EU-traded plastic waste and DIWASS should minimise this modus operandi; however, misdeclaration under alternative HS codes, including those that contain plastic material, will continue to be a challenge for competent authorities.

How is all this being controlled?

Enforcement has long been the weak link in the waste trade. Complex waste streams, multiple brokers, misdeclarations and paper-based procedures have made the system highly vulnerable to fraud and organised crime. Criminal networks exploit loopholes faster than rules can catch up, with serious consequences for communities and ecosystems in recipient countries.

The WSR revision seeks to close these gaps by shifting responsibility upstream, strengthening EU oversight, and embedding transparency into the system. Notable improvements include that exporters must demonstrate all destination facilities fulfil ESM in accordance with Article 59 and must commission an independent third-party audit of the facility (with periodicity and competence requirements) or rely on a qualifying recent audit. Exports to facilities that fail to meet Annex X audit criteria are prohibited.

Additionally, increased inspections are required, at least at one point of the waste journey (point of origin, border, point of destination) (Article 60(2)). To facilitate coordination, cooperation, and uniformity, Member States are required to establish inspection plans, reviewed by the Commission, and amended based on learned experiences in view of the risk of illegalities for specific streams and information they possess, including information from customs, police, and other stakeholders (Article 62).

In furtherance of cooperation, Article 66 established an EU waste shipment enforcement group to facilitate and improve cooperation and coordination between Member States. Representatives from all EU Member States and recipient countries meet at least once a year to share information to prevent illegal shipments. The EU Network for the Implementation and Enforcement of Environmental Law (IMPEL) has undertaken work to carry out this objective.

This group will be able to build on the new Digital Waste Shipment System (DIWASS) for information sharing between EU countries, which is scheduled to start on May 21, 2026. DIWASS will be mandatory for all intra-EU waste shipments and PIC procedures, replacing paper-based procedures. Information will be made publicly available.

Despite these advances, enforcement resources remain limited compared with export volumes and the scale of illegal trade, which is also difficult to ascertain. Local communities, NGOs, researchers and journalists therefore remain critical in documenting what happens on the ground, exposing harmful practices and bringing evidence of non-compliance to authorities to inform enforcement and future legislative changes.