When the revised Waste Shipment Regulation (WSR) entered into force in May, it was presented as the European Union’s master plan to end the practice of “exporting its waste problem” to developing countries. The new rules also aim to tackle illegal shipments, boost circularity within Europe and, theoretically, ensure valuable material stays within the EU for recycling and reuse.
However, the reality for Europe’s recycling industry is proving far more complex. The regulations, which are scheduled to be fully implemented by 2027, introduce a series of measures that disrupt recyclers’ operations and jeopardize EU’s circular economy ambitions.
The real impact on recyclers and international trade
Under the new rules, non-OECD, or non-Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development, countries wishing to import EU “waste” must submit applications proving their ability to handle these materials in an environmentally sound way. These countries are required to meet EU-equivalent environmental standards as assessed by the European Commission. Only countries that pass this scrutiny will be approved to join the EU list and receive European recyclables. Additionally, all facilities based in these approved countries as well as OECD countries that want to treat materials from the EU must undergo auditing to demonstrate compliance with the updated rules. While OECD countries can receive a waiver for these auditing requirements through a bilateral agreement with the EU, the specifics of this process remain unclear. Key questions include what documentation, or evidence, will be necessary and how these agreements will be implemented in practice.
This stricter approach shifts away from the EU’s previous stance, which often lacked oversight of end-of-life processes in recipient countries, raising the bar for environmental accountability but adding layers of compliance and red tape, affecting how recyclers operate across Europe and globally.
For the European recycling industry, already burdened by high operational costs and limited domestic demand for recyclables, these restrictions complicate or fully restrict access to crucial export markets, further pressuring an industry that serves as a cornerstone for Europe’s circular economy.
The case for updated e-scrap shipments
In addition to the new EU Waste Shipment Regulation, the European Union introduced changes to the shipment procedures for e-scrap to align with its international commitments under the Basel Convention. These changes bring hazardous and nonhazardous e-scrap under stricter regulatory oversight for shipments within OECD countries and completely halt shipments to non-OECD countries.
E-scrap is in high demand globally, with European recyclers competing for it within the EU and abroad. The process of handling e-scrap shipments is complex, influenced by factors such as the origin, destination and classification of the material as hazardous or nonhazardous. Ensuring a steady supply of e-scrap to recycling facilities is essential as delays or unpredictability in shipments—especially for notifiable materials—can disrupt recycling chains. Such delays might result in e-scrap being diverted to less environmentally sound treatment or incurring additional storage costs.
Despite the possibility to employ easier procedures for shipments of nonhazardous e-scrap within the EU, a lack of clear guidance on the classification criteria to determine when e-scrap is hazardous or nonhazardous is striking. Without clear guidance, compliance efforts will be hindered, potentially delaying the flow of e-waste to recyclers and increasing administrative burdens for the industry.
Introducing a system that requires approval for large amounts of e-scrap notifications would hinder the EU’s Circular Economy goals. It would make it more difficult to manage and recycle e-scrap within the EU and impose the same stringent requirements for shipments within the EU and to OECD countries, without simplifying intra-EU movement. This potentially could slow down or even reduce the flow of e-scrap to recyclers, counteracting efforts to streamline the recycling process and manage waste more efficiently.
Policy intent versus market reality
The EU’s revised waste shipment rules rest on the premise that restricting exports will lead to increased domestic use of circular materials, reducing reliance on imported raw materials. However, the European recycling industry has long warned the European Commission that demand for recycled materials within the EU remains insufficient to absorb the produced volumes. European recyclers rely on export markets to bridge this gap, especially because primary materials continue to be cheaper and more accessible, outcompeting recycled alternatives.
The result is a paradox: While the EU is pushing for a circular economy, the domestic market is not absorbing the recycled materials being produced. As a result, recycling facilities are left with fewer options and higher operational costs. Without greater investment in circular material demand or reliable access to international markets, recyclers are faced with the possibility of having to reduce capacity or, in the worst-case scenario, close operations altogether. Is this really what we had in mind?
What do we do next?
As these new regulations move toward implementation, it is essential for governments in OECD and non-OECD countries to understand the requirements being placed on them and upon which they will have to act. Taking the necessary steps will enable these countries to continue receiving EU recyclables or qualify for an exemption from the auditing obligation in the case of OECD countries.
It is also clear that a robust dialogue between policymakers and the recycling industry is essential to develop a balanced, practical approach that takes into account the EU’s environmental objectives and the economic realities the recycling industry faces. The EU must recognize the operational challenges recyclers face and support industry innovation, market expansion and efficiency.
The lack of demand for recycled materials and the barriers to export markets highlight the urgent need for stronger public procurement policies and incentives for innovation across the EU. Such measures would help build demand for circular materials and ensure recycling businesses remain viable and competitive.
EuRIC, representing the voice of Europe’s recycling industry, has long advocated for policies that facilitate trade, strengthen demand for recycled materials and offer incentives for technological innovation in recycling. The constraints of the revised WSR must be tempered with practical solutions to address the lack of demand and competitive disadvantages that recycled materials face compared with primary raw materials.
Recyclers within Europe are struggling with overregulation, and the revised WSR is yet another example of the mounting legislative burden. The European recycling sector is facing a tsunami of legislation—though well-intentioned, much of it remains unclear in its interpretation, creating significant uncertainty. This regulatory overload makes it difficult for recycling companies to plan for compliance, investment and long-term growth within an unpredictable framework.
As policymakers consider the next steps, integrating feedback from recyclers will be crucial to ensure the WSR supports rather than hinders the green transition. As the European recycling industry adapts to these new regulations, recyclers cannot be forced to halt operations or resort to environmentally detrimental disposal methods. Building demand for recycled materials can salvage an industry that’s been the backbone of Europe’s economy and also facilitate a circular economy that is resilient and competitive.
For the EU to meet its environmental objectives without undermining the viability of its recycling industry, it must provide a regulatory framework that is both effective and flexible. Without this balance, the green transition could be jeopardized, leaving the recycling sector unable to perform its crucial role in the European circular economy.
To read the whole article: “Click Here“
