SPECIAL REPORT: ‘Why exporting waste can work in certain conditions’

For years, the phrase “exporting waste is bad” has echoed in political, academic and public discourse. While well-intentioned, this blanket statement oversimplifies a complex issue. A mature, fact-based discussion is needed to address both the valid concerns about waste exports and the circumstances where exports are not only necessary but beneficial – particularly in achieving net zero goals.

Why is waste export viewed negatively?

Waste exports have earned a negative reputation for several reasons:

1. Ethical concerns: Sending waste abroad raises fears about weaker environmental regulations in receiving countries, which can lead to pollution and health risks.
2. Carbon impact: Transporting waste adds emissions, challenging the idea of reducing environmental harm.
3. Missed opportunities: Relying on exports can discourage investment in domestic recycling infrastructure, losing the chance to add economic value.

These concerns are valid. However, imposing a blanket ban on waste export risks greater harm, higher costs to taxpayers and missed opportunities for efficiency and environmental benefits.

Recyclables: A case for pragmatism  

Recyclables like glass, plastic, aluminium and paper are the backbone of the circular economy. But retaining all recyclables locally often ignores practical realities of scale and efficiency.

Take paper: A modern paper mill requires at least 450,000 tonnes of material annually to be economically viable. Small regions, like Northern Ireland, generate far less – only 56,000 tonnes of paper/cardboard per year available in the kerbside household waste stream (NIEA NI LACMW Management Statistics 2023/24). It’s impractical and entirely unviable to suggest that every region fully reprocess its recyclables without adequate supply or demand.

Instead, creating regional “centres of excellence” elsewhere, for reprocessing materials could make economic and environmental sense. For example, Northern Ireland could export materials to advanced facilities elsewhere while investing in industries where it can lead.

This approach demands competitiveness. For instance, Northern Ireland’s glass industry cannot process glass from commingled collections effectively, due to underinvestment. However, other nations with enhanced technology are able to. To retain economic value locally, the government should incentivise investment in cutting-edge facilities, reducing costs and boosting green jobs.

Without either scale or excellence, local reprocessing risks inefficiency and higher carbon footprints. Exporting to advanced facilities abroad is often more sustainable and aligned with circular economy principles.

The wrong turn on Northern Ireland’s policy

Northern Ireland’s Department for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs (DAERA) appears focused on increasing domestic material separation to compensate for underinvestment in reprocessing infrastructure. This approach is flawed:

1. Increased costs: Councils, already under budget pressure will face higher collection expenses, potentially raising taxes.
2. Lower recycling rates: Evidence shows that excessive household waste stream separation reduces participation as demonstrated by the NIEA NI LACMW Management Statistics 2023/24.
3. Unsustainable industries: Protecting outdated facilities delays the inevitable and badly needed restructuring.
4. Higher carbon footprints: Eunomia concluded that Re-Gen’s specific process significantly outperforms Northern Irish multi-stream kerbside boxes system for carbon impact per tonne. (e.g., Eunomia Report. NI June 2024)

Exporting residual waste: A key to maximising carbon benefits

Residual waste – materials that cannot be recycled, such as non-recyclable plastics, contaminated materials and some general waste – presents a critical challenge in modern waste management. While organic waste such as food and garden waste can often be managed locally through anaerobic digestion or composting, non-recyclable residual waste demands more complex solutions. One of the most efficient and sustainable methods is energy from waste in combined heat and power (CHP) plants where both electrical and heat energy is recovered and used.

However, in regions like Northern Ireland, where infrastructure for district heating is absent, exporting residual waste to countries with advanced CHP facilities and established district heating networks offers significant carbon and efficiency advantages.

The advantages of exporting residual waste

There are two major advantages to the exporting of residual waste.

1. Higher energy efficiency: HP systems achieve up to 80% energy efficiency by capturing both heat and electricity. This is a stark contrast to the 30 to 35% efficiency typical of electricity-only incinerators commonly used in regions without district heating.
2. Carbon footprint reduction: By exporting waste to countries equipped with district heating networks, the heat generated during incineration is utilised to warm homes and businesses, displacing fossil fuel-based heating systems. This ensures that every unit of energy extracted from the waste contributes to lowering overall carbon emissions.

Exporting also reduces landfill reliance, avoiding methane emissions – a greenhouse gas far more potent than CO₂.

A balanced perspective  

Exporting recyclables or residual waste when Northern Ireland’s infrastructure is inadequate is not a failure – it’s a pragmatic, environmentally sound solution. Properly managed exports ensure materials are processed efficiently, support global recycling and manufacturing markets, and minimise the overall carbon footprint.

To meet net zero goals, we need a balanced approach: investing in local infrastructure where viable, enabling exports when necessary and prioritising efficiency and environmental outcomes over current ideology.