The Global Waste Trade: Unveiling Waste Colonialism in Southeast Asia

Although 19th-century colonialism may seem like a relic of the past, the global community continues to grapple with its modern counterparts, often referred to as neo-colonialism. A prominent form of neo-colonialism today is “waste colonialism”, which has gained increased attention in international discourse, particularly following the initiation of negotiations on a global plastics treaty. The proposed treaty seeks to establish an international agreement aimed at reducing plastic pollution and mitigating its harmful effects on both the environment and human health. The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) has committed to finalizing the treaty by 2025, underscoring the urgency of addressing the global plastics crisis.

While global measures are underway, individual countries – such as Vietnam – must confront the unique manifestations of waste colonialism within their borders. In each region, waste colonialism intertwines with distinct social structures, varying degrees of environmental degradation, and pre-existing mechanisms of oppression. Together, these factors create a complex mosaic of overlapping challenges that demand tailored, context-specific responses.

Colonialism in the Post-19th Century Era

Following the formal end of colonialism in the mid-20th century, the mechanisms of control and exploitation underwent significant transformation, giving rise to what is now termed “neocolonialism”. Coined by Ghana’s first president, Kwame Nkrumah, the term captures the ways in which former colonial powers – and other developed nations – continue to wield economic, political, and cultural influence over less affluent countries, despite the absence of formal political control. Neocolonialism thus represents a continuation of colonialism, albeit in a more subtle and indirect form.

Neocolonialism manifests in numerous forms. Key examples of that practice include control through trade imbalances, debt and aid dependency, cultural imperialism, exploitation of natural resources, engagement in proxy wars and conflicts, digital colonialism, and notably waste colonialism. These mechanisms collectively sustain the influence of powerful nations over less influential ones, perpetuating cycles of dependency and inequity.

Waste colonialism refers to the practice whereby wealthier, developed nations export their waste – often hazardous, toxic, or non-recyclable materials – to poorer, less powerful countries under the pretense of recycling, waste management, or economic assistance. This practice is frequently accompanied by misleading justifications, wherein exporting nations claim that such waste transfers benefit the receiving countries. In reality, however, these actions primarily serve the economic and political interests of the exporting nations, often exacerbating environmental and health challenges in the recipient countries. For example, an exporting country may argue that sending waste to other nations benefits the recipient by providing opportunities to process or reuse the materials in ways that support their economy. However, in practice, many of the materials designated for “recycling” are either non-recyclable or contaminated, rendering them unusable. Consequently, these materials often end up in landfills or are incinerated, exacerbating environmental pollution and undermining the intended economic benefits for the receiving countries. 

It is important to note that the term “waste colonialism” was first introduced during the United Nations Environment Programme’s Basel Convention in 1989. This convention led to the establishment of the Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal, which came into force in 1992. The primary objective of the convention was to halt the practice of affluent countries dumping toxic waste in less developed regions of the world, thereby addressing the global environmental and health risks associated with such waste disposal.

Global waste trade: exporters and importers in context

According to figures from Our World in Data, Europe is the largest exporter of waste, sending approximately 3.9 million tonnes abroad. This is followed by Japan, which exports 821,000 tonnes, and North America, at 751,000 tonnes. Other Asian countries also contribute to the global waste export. Interestingly, Europe is also the largest importer of waste, receiving 2.8 million tonnes, followed by Asian countries, which import 1.9 million tonnes. This flow of waste highlights the global dynamics of waste trade, with affluent regions both exporting and importing significant quantities of waste, often to and from economically disadvantaged countries.

This data highlights a significant imbalance between the export (and, by extension, the production) of waste and its import. It prompts the question: Why should one region or country export a portion of its waste while simultaneously importing the waste of others? In certain contexts, waste is not inherently disadvantageous; it only becomes problematic when mismanaged or when it cannot be reused effectively. In some instances, waste can be viewed as a resource, making the export of materials that can be repurposed or efficiently recycled elsewhere a rational decision.

While the export of plastic waste is a significant concern, it represents only 2% of the 350 million tonnes of plastic waste generated globally each year. This indicates that 98% of plastic waste remains in the country of origin. The relatively small proportion of exported plastic is primarily due to the fact that only recyclable plastic is typically traded. Unfortunately, recyclable plastic constitutes only 20% of the total plastic produced worldwide. Moreover, the widespread belief that most plastic waste is traded overseas is inaccurate. In reality, there is a global trend of regional trade in plastic waste, with regional powers such as Germany and Japan often exporting waste to neighboring countries. This intra-regional exchange reflects the geographic and logistical considerations that influence waste trade patterns.

Although the data may present the issue in a more favorable light, waste mismanagement continues to be a significant concern. It is estimated that wealthy countries contribute approximately 5% of the ocean’s plastic pollution through exported waste, with worst-case scenarios suggesting that as much as 7% of this waste could ultimately end up in the ocean. However, precise data on this issue remains scarce. Furthermore, over 80% of the plastic entering the oceans is estimated to originate from rivers in Asia, while only 5-10% comes from rivers in Europe and North America. This disparity highlights the regional variations in plastic pollution and the significant role that Asian countries play in the global plastic waste crisis. 

On the other hand, considering that regions like Europe export more waste than they import might suggest that a significant portion of river waste in Asia could originate from other regions. This, combined with the issue of waste trafficking, provides a broader perspective on the scale of the waste management problem in Asia and raises questions about the true responsibility for the pollution. This interconnectedness of waste flows underscores the global nature of the issue and the shared duty for addressing it.

One environmental report that has not received sufficient recognition in international discourse is Turning the Tide: A Look Into the European Union-to-Southeast Asia Waste Trafficking Wave, published in 2024 by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) in collaboration with the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the United Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR). As the report highlights:

Import quantities from the current European Union Member States (EU27) to ASEAN countries substantially increased, from 1.25 million tonnes in 2017 to a peak of 3.16 million tonnes in 2019 (an increase of 153%, or 2.5 times). Import values peaked at $1.5 billion in 2021 (Figure 17). During the 2017–2019 period and while still a member of the European Union, the United Kingdom exported nearly 4 million tonnes of waste to ASEAN countries, with a value exceeding $1 billion. Subsequently, United Kingdom exports to the region continued to rise, reaching more than 2 million tonnes in 2021, valued at $734 million. The main types of waste imports into the ASEAN region from the current European Union Member States from 2017 to 2021 (Figure 18) consisted of paper waste (HS 4707), plastic waste (HS 3915), ferrous waste (HS 7204), aluminium waste (HS 7602) and copper waste (HS 7404). Paper waste accounted for 76% of the ASEAN region’s overall waste imports from the European Union, with the largest amount of paper waste imported in 2019 (2.44 million tonnes). Plastic waste (HS 3915) imported to the ASEAN region peaked in 2018, amounting to 370,000 tonnes and slightly decreased to an average of 300,000 tonnes in the past years. 

Which waters are most polluted?

It is important to note that 70-80% of oceanic plastic pollution originates from land, primarily through rivers and coastlines. Of this, 18% is attributed to the top 10 river polluters, while the remaining 80% comes from 1,656 smaller rivers. This is a relatively recent finding, as earlier models of plastic pollution did not adequately account for the role of smaller rivers. The updated model indicates that these smaller streams are, in fact, responsible for the majority of plastic waste entering the ocean. Consequently, global solutions must prioritize these rivers and focus on localized waste management improvements that are tailored to the specific needs and realities of the affected areas.

Seven of the top ten rivers responsible for plastic emissions are located in the Philippines, with the Pasig River alone contributing 6.4% of global river plastic pollution. Asia dominates the issue of plastic pollution, with the Philippines, India, and Malaysia ranking among the top contributors. However, other regions also play a role in this global problem: Africa accounts for 8%, South America contributes 5.5%, and North America is responsible for 4.5% of river plastic pollution. These figures highlight the widespread nature of the issue and the need for coordinated global efforts to address plastic waste across different regions.

The Philippines, in particular, is responsible for more than one-third (36%) of global river plastic pollution. Contrary to earlier assumptions, China and India contribute less to this issue than initially believed, particularly after China implemented a ban on plastic imports in 2017. Prior to the ban, China was the largest importer of plastic waste. However, since the ban, countries such as Malaysia, Vietnam, Indonesia, and Turkey have emerged as major importers of both legal and illegal plastic waste, filling the void left by China as a destination for waste exports.

Why pollution of Mekong Delta is relevant?

The Mekong Delta is one of Southeast Asia’s most critical ecosystems and is unfortunately heavily impacted by waste colonialism. It serves not only as an agricultural and economic hub, but also as a significant site in the broader struggle against waste colonialism. The Mekong Delta spans six countries – China, Myanmar, Laos, Thailand, Cambodia, and Vietnam – making it central to the livelihoods of hundreds of millions of people. It sustains some of the world’s most diverse and productive inland fisheries, supplying up to 80% of animal protein for local communities. It also provides fertile soil, fresh water, transportation, and recreational opportunities, while shaping cultural identities and livelihoods. However, the Mekong Delta is among the regions most threatened by plastic waste and environmental degradation, issues that are often exacerbated by the importation of waste from wealthier nations.

Despite generating relatively little waste themselves, communities along the Mekong River are disproportionately impacted by global plastic waste flows. The plastics that enter the Mekong ultimately flow into the South China Sea, thereby making a significant contribution to ocean pollution. Waste mismanagement in the Mekong Delta is contributing to the destruction of fragile ecosystems, including mangroves and fisheries. Local communities, which rely heavily on the delta for agriculture and fishing, are increasingly facing the adverse effects of toxic waste.

Moreover, the Mekong Delta serves as a prime example of the impact of waste colonialism and both global and national power structures. From the perspective of anthropological ecology, this influence is particularly evident as local communities, affected by pollution in the Mekong, are forced to adapt to new ecological and economic realities. Ecological anthropology explores how cultural practices, social structures, and economic systems interact with, and are shaped by, the surrounding ecosystem.

The Mekong region is exceptionally rich in both ecological systems and cultural diversity. Its landscape, characterized by mountainous terrains and fertile lowland valleys, supports dense human populations. However, rapid modernization, economic development, waste pollution, and state centralization are driving significant transformations in both traditional cultures and natural ecosystems in the region. These shifts present challenges to the sustainability and self-sufficiency of local communities, as their longstanding practices and ways of life are increasingly threatened by environmental degradation and socio-economic changes. As is evident, research in political ecology is often associated with ecological conflicts related to conservation, identity, degradation, and development.

Ecological anthropology perspective and intersectionality of oppression in Mekong Delta

The communities of the Mekong Delta face numerous challenges that adversely affect all local populations. Pollution and waste mismanagement represent just one of these challenges. Other challenges include deforestation and wetland destruction driven by agriculture and urbanization, which have resulted in habitat loss and disrupted local fishing and farming practices. Additionally, large-scale land acquisitions for commercial agriculture and development projects contribute to land grabbing, leading to the displacement of local communities. Unsustainable fishing practices have further contributed to the depletion of fish stocks, severely impacting the livelihoods of local fishermen. As fish populations decline, communities that rely on fishing are confronted with economic hardship and increased food insecurity.

Mekong Delta communities must also contend with broader climate changes, which frequently lead to floods and droughts, driving increased migration to and from local areas. These challenges are compounded by water mismanagement, including unsustainable dam construction, and various health issues that contribute to the declining living conditions in the Delta. These ecological and economic changes not only contribute to the impoverishment of local communities but also result in cultural erosion. As communities adjust to new economic realities, they risk losing their identity and cultural heritage. These impacts underscore the complex interplay between environmental, social, and economic factors affecting the Mekong Delta and its communities. Human activities are driving environmental changes in the region, while the changing environment, in turn, is negatively impacting the livelihoods of local communities.

An ecological anthropology perspective is essential for understanding the lived realities of local communities and the intersectionality of oppression faced by certain groups. Intersectionality considers how various social identities – such as gender, race, class, and environmental context – intersect to shape unique experiences of both oppression and privilege. In the Mekong Delta, different groups encounter multiple layers of oppression arising from their social identities, environmental vulnerabilities, and economic circumstances.

For instance, women in the Mekong Delta experience heightened challenges related to displacement and resettlement due to pollution, which exacerbates their economic and social hardships. Notably, women are disproportionately affected by the loss of water access, facing greater domestic and financial burdens compared to men. Moreover, women play a central role in agricultural production in the Mekong Delta, especially in rice farming and aquaculture. However, they generally have less access to essential resources such as land, credit, and technology compared to men. This economic inequality is further compounded by women’s household responsibilities, which limit their capacity to engage in more profitable agricultural activities or participate actively in community decision-making processes. This situation is further exacerbated by women’s heightened vulnerability to gender-based violence, particularly in contexts where economic hardship intensifies domestic tensions. Traditional gender roles often restrict women’s access to legal recourse, support systems, and educational opportunities, further entrenching their social and economic disadvantages.

An additional manifestation of intersectional oppression is ethnic discrimination. Ethnic minority groups in the Mekong Delta frequently encounter systemic discrimination and marginalization. Their ancestral lands are disproportionately susceptible to exploitation for agricultural expansion or development initiatives, which not only jeopardizes their economic stability but also erodes cultural practices and disrupts community cohesion.

These examples highlight the intersection of multiple forms of oppression in the Mekong Delta, underscoring the importance of a nuanced approach to social dynamics in addressing environmental challenges and community development. Effectively engaging with these complexities necessitates inclusive policies that recognize and address the diverse experiences and needs of distinct social groups.

Case study: Vietnam waste colonialism and waste trafficking

In examining waste colonialism in Vietnam, it is essential to first consider the regulations and legal frameworks established by the Vietnamese government. The 2005 Environmental Protection Law introduced a clear distinction between “waste” and “scrap”. Scrap refers to leftover materials that can be reused as raw materials for new production, while waste refers to materials discarded from production. Importing of which is strictly banned. Furthermore, beginning in 2025, Vietnam will implement a permanent ban on the import of plastic scrap, following China’s precedent in prohibiting waste and scrap imports. This policy is expected to play a significant role in reducing environmental degradation within the country.

From 2017 to 2021, Japan, the United States, Australia, Hong Kong, and the United Kingdom positioned themselves as the largest exporters of waste materials to Vietnam. In 2019, 9% of the plastic waste imported into Vietnam originated from the European Union, with 41.9% coming from Japan. Other notable sources included Hong Kong (8.25%) and the Philippines (6.47%). Between 2016 and 2020, Vietnam saw a notable increase in plastic waste imports, particularly from key European exporters, including Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands, Spain, and the United Kingdom. Altogether, since 2019, Vietnam has received a total of 133,928 tonnes of plastic waste from the European Union (comprising 27 countries) and an additional 16,563 tonnes from the United Kingdom.

In 2018, waste exports to Vietnam declined significantly due to the Basel Convention’s regulations, but rose again in 2019. However, Vietnam’s Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment reported that the officially permitted import volume for plastic waste in 2019 was limited to only 3,958 tonnes. However, the Basel Convention database recorded a significantly higher volume of waste imports, suggesting potential gaps in Vietnam’s hazardous waste reporting. Furthermore, in 2023, Vietnam reported only a single import case under the Basel Convention: a shipment of PVC plastic originating from Japan.

The import of scrap plastic is economically motivated, as it provides raw materials for local recycling industries. However, this reliance on imported waste undermines the development of a robust domestic recycling infrastructure and weakens the overall waste management system. The Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment (MONRE) plays a pivotal role in establishing and enforcing environmental regulations; nonetheless, Vietnam’s waste management system is a collaborative framework that also includes local authorities, recycling companies, and NGOs. Despite existing regulations, the effective implementation of waste management in Vietnam faces substantial challenges. These challenges are primarily due to inadequate infrastructure, limited technological capacity, waste trafficking, and persistent policy inconsistencies, all of which impede recycling initiatives. The informal sector remains a vital component of the waste management system, with waste pickers and small-scale recyclers often operating in precarious conditions and struggling to achieve formal recognition and support. Additionally, these informal actors frequently operate outside of governmental sustainability guidelines, remaining largely unregulated and beyond the reach of formal environmental policies.

These challenges are further compounded by a lack of transparency and practices associated with waste colonialism. Limited transparency around waste shipments and recycling processes obstructs research efforts and impedes a clear understanding of how imported plastic waste is managed within Vietnam’s borders. Researchers frequently encounter difficulties in accessing information from the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment (MONRE) or port authorities tasked with regulating waste imports. Moreover, despite the presence of regulatory frameworks, policy inconsistencies create loopholes that enable illegal activities within the waste management sector.

Waste trafficking constitutes a significant illegal industry in Vietnam, with major hubs located at the ports of Ho Chi Minh City, Hai Phong, and Vung Tau. The bulk of illegally imported waste comprises iron, paper, and plastic. Numerous imported containers have been found to fall short of import standards, necessitating either re-exportation to other countries or destruction – processes that substantially contribute to environmental pollution. As the Unwaste study tour to Belgium from 2022 revealed that numerous containers had been abandoned in Vietnamese ports, placing the burden of managing these shipments on port authorities. The study tour aimed to identify strategies for improving waste management practices to prevent waste trafficking from the EU to countries such as Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, and Vietnam.

The report highlighted various methods employed in waste trafficking, including the use of falsified or altered documentation, fraudulent activities, and false declarations (such as claiming exemptions from inspection). Additional tactics involve smuggling – where waste is imported under the pretense of re-export but remains in the country – operating without required licenses or permits, and concealing prohibited materials within shipments. According to the Unwaste report, the trafficked waste primarily originated from the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Puerto Rico, and various European countries, including Spain, Belgium, the United Kingdom, Greece, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Slovenia, and Italy. Additionally, evidence of one detected crime points to the existence of an organized crime group involved in trafficking waste from Laos into Vietnam.

This lack of transparency fosters a void in accountability and raises significant ethical concerns regarding the waste trade from European countries. While UN negotiations for an international plastics treaty are ongoing, wealthier nations continue to export substantial quantities of plastic waste without ensuring its proper recycling or preventing criminal activities. This practice effectively shifts the responsibility for managing such waste to importing countries like Vietnam. Meanwhile, Vietnam faces significant challenges in managing this waste due to inadequate infrastructure and the overwhelming volume of waste it must process. Much of this waste ultimately ends up in the Mekong Delta, exacerbating the degradation of local communities’ livelihoods and contributing to oceanic pollution.

The issue of waste management, coupled with concerns over waste colonialism and Vietnam’s evolving strategic narrative under General Secretary To Lam, has created a pivotal moment for the nation. Drawing on its deep historical legacy of resisting colonialism, Vietnam now confronts a new form of exploitation through the influx of imported waste from wealthier countries. As Vietnam aims to become a sustainable, high-income nation by 2045, addressing these environmental challenges has become a central component of its policy agenda. In alignment with this vision, the country is advancing plans to implement stricter regulations and may consider imposing a ban on the import of certain types of waste. Furthermore, during the recent Asia Zero-Emission Community (AZEC) meeting in Vientiane on October 11, 2024, Vietnam’s Prime Minister Pham Minh Chinh called on countries to take more decisive actions toward achieving net-zero emissions across Asia. This underscores Vietnam’s serious commitment to addressing the challenges posed by climate change.

How to repair this?

The dynamics of waste import and export, intertwined with neo-colonial discourse, create a tension that can only be addressed through a comprehensive and just process. Blame cannot simply be transferred from one entity to another. Additionally, waste exports must be more effectively monitored to ensure that more powerful countries are not merely shifting their ecological burdens from one continent to another. The efforts of both international and local organizations must be closely coordinated, with grassroots movements given due consideration, as local knowledge often proves more valuable in specific contexts than broader, generalized expertise. Government initiatives must be critically assessed to strengthen regulations surrounding waste importation and exportation, with the aim of fostering sustainable waste management practices.

Finally, global responsibility must be recognized, as this issue is not one-sided. Bias in the discourse has frequently resulted in the scapegoating of a single party, leading to misleading conclusions. For example, the U.S.-based organization Ocean Conservancy’s 2015 report Stemming the Tide presented a biased narrative by attributing the responsibility for plastic waste to five Asian countries – China, Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand, and Vietnam – while neglecting the role of the Global North in overproduction and waste exports. As a result, the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA) initiated a corrective process in 2022 to address this skewed narrative. Consequently, the report was removed from the Ocean Conservancy’s website. Current agreements now prioritize reducing plastic waste, promoting zero waste solutions, rejecting ineffective approaches such as “waste-to-energy” incineration and “chemical recycling” and ensuring greater accountability. As Froilan Grate, GAIA Asia Pacific Coordinator, stated: “This retraction represents an opportunity to break the cycle of waste colonialism”.

Moreover, considering the significance of the societies residing in the Mekong Delta, several initiatives have been launched to protect the river’s biodiversity. Interestingly, these organizations do not always explicitly use the term “waste colonialism”, even though their efforts are effectively addressing it. For example, the Plastic Flow Mekong organization monitors plastic waste across Southeast Asia, with a particular focus on Thailand, Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia. Founded in 1995, the Mekong River Commission serves as a platform for regional dialogue within the lower Mekong River basin. It is the sole intergovernmental river basin agency for the Mekong, established through an agreement between Laos, Thailand, Cambodia, and Vietnam. The Stimson Center’s Mekong Policy Project is particularly notable for its research on transboundary water governance and the impact of hydropower development on regional stability.

Additionally, several international organizations with a broader environmental focus, such as International Rivers, Oxfam, the World Wide Fund for Nature, and the Asian Development Bank, contribute to efforts in the Mekong region. There are also local NGOs dedicated to environmental protection, including the conservation of the Mekong River. Notable examples include PanNature and GreenID in Vietnam, and TERRA (Towards Ecological Recovery and Regional Alliance) based in Thailand.

Research initiatives like the Unwaste project make significant contributions to river and marine conservation by providing valuable insights for policymakers. Similarly, projects such as SEAjust play a crucial role by addressing international waste crime and actively working to combat it. 

The efforts of these international and local NGOs must be complemented by robust governmental actions, including bans on certain waste imports and strengthened monitoring of export practices. China’s 2018 waste import ban has significantly improved its own waste management, and other countries, such as Vietnam, are aiming to adopt similar measures.

Andżelika Serwatka Holds a bachelor's degree in Asian Studies and a master's degree in International Relations from the University of Lodz. She has participated in numerous research projects, including the Jean Monnet Module "Europe as an Actor in Asia," during which she presented her research findings at Fulbright University in Ho Chi Minh City, the "Transcultural Caravan" project coordinated by Zeppelin University, and the "Vietnam 2022" project organized by the University of Lodz. She is a member of the Forum of Young Diplomats and is currently involved in diplomatic activities as part of an internship at the Polish Institute under the Polish Embassy in New Delhi. Her interests include neocolonialism, ecological anthropology, sustainable development, and cross-cultural relations. As part of the Boym team, she edits the quarterly magazine.