Home > Opinion > Columns

Household waste policy should not stop at putting out the immediate fire

Published: 23 Dec. 2025, 00:04

Hong Su-yeol

The author is the director of the Resource Circulation Society and Economy Institute.

The Ministry of Climate, Energy and Environment has moved ahead as scheduled with a ban on the direct landfilling of household waste in the greater Seoul area, effective Jan. 1 next year. As a result, local governments in Seoul, Gyeonggi and Incheon must either reduce the volume of waste disposed of in pay-as-you-throw bags through recycling and reduction efforts or incinerate it first and landfill only the residue. Although the enforcement decree of the Waste Management Act was revised in 2021 and a grace period of nearly five years was provided, not a single new public incineration facility has been built or expanded in the metropolitan area. Local governments did not simply sit idle, but the outcome suggests a failure to prepare adequately for the landfill ban.

A view of the Sudokwon Landfill Site, operated by the Sudokwon Landfill Site Management Corporation, where direct landfilling will be banned starting in 2026. [SUDOKWON LANDFILL SITE MANAGEMENT CORPORATION]

Most local governments that failed to secure public incineration capacity are now expected to turn to private contractors. Waste will likely be incinerated directly at private facilities or sent through private recycling firms before being burned at cement manufacturing plants. Since the introduction of a cap on waste deliveries to the Sudokwon Landfill Site in 2020, reliance on private contractors for household waste has already risen sharply.

According to national statistics on waste generation and treatment released by the Ministry of Climate, Energy and Environment, the volume of household waste outsourced by metropolitan local governments rose from 320,000 tons in 2020 to 760,000 tons in 2023, an increase of 2.4 times. If the 620,000 tons currently landfilled at public sites are also shifted to private treatment, a total of 1.38 million tons of household waste would depend on private facilities.

Even with the ban on direct landfilling, an immediate waste crisis is unlikely, provided that waste unsuitable for public incineration is handled by private contractors. Still, a sudden surge of waste into the private market could drive up processing fees, increasing the fiscal burden on local governments. While addressing this immediate risk is necessary, the issue must be viewed more broadly and structurally.

First, the policy is likely to trigger interregional transfers of household waste. Because private facilities in the metropolitan area alone cannot absorb the volume, waste will inevitably be shipped to plants in the Chungcheong region and elsewhere. From the perspective of residents in those regions, this may look like metropolitan selfishness. Moreover, private treatment facilities are not eligible for cooperation fees paid to host communities that accept household waste. Even if waste moves across regions, current law does not allow fees collected from the originating local governments to support residents in the receiving areas. Is it fair to uphold the principle of banning direct landfilling by demanding sacrifices from other regions.

Second, there is the question of whether private facilities have sufficient capacity. As of 2023, private incinerators operate at an estimated utilization rate of 91 percent, assuming 330 operating days per year. If all waste currently landfilled in the metropolitan area were redirected to private incineration, utilization would exceed 100 percent. It is true that facilities are permitted to incinerate up to 130 percent of their licensed capacity. But running incinerators continuously beyond their approved capacity cannot be considered normal or sustainable.

Cement plants, another pillar of household waste processing, also face constraints. A slowdown in the construction sector has reduced cement demand, sharply limiting the ability of these facilities to accept waste as auxiliary fuel. There have already been cases in which waste delivered to recycling firms was left unattended or illegally dumped. Even if private outsourcing poses no immediate problem, it clearly makes the waste treatment system structurally more vulnerable to market fluctuations over the long term.

Third, the expansion of public incineration facilities faces an uncertain future. If the perception takes hold that private outsourcing can manage household waste without difficulty, public opposition to building public incinerators is likely to grow stronger. What was meant to be a temporary solution could harden into a permanent one, with private outsourcing becoming an obstacle to expanding public infrastructure.

A view of the Seosan Resource Recovery Facility in Seosan, South Chungcheong [JOONGANG ILBO]

Fourth, if the ban on direct landfilling simply results in higher incineration volumes, it could conflict with Korea’s Nationally Determined Contribution under its climate commitments. To reduce carbon emissions from the waste sector by 2035, the absolute volume of both incineration and landfilling must decline. An increase in incineration would risk derailing those targets.

Banning direct landfilling is necessary for stable waste management. But policy cannot be forced through without regard for broader consequences. The distortions created by the abrupt 2005 ban on landfilling food waste offer a cautionary lesson. Household waste management should be centered on public recycling infrastructure. Rather than focusing solely on building incinerators, authorities should expand pretreatment facilities that reduce waste volumes before pay-as-you-throw disposal, ensuring that incineration itself is minimized.

This article was originally written in Korean and translated by a bilingual reporter with the help of generative AI tools. It was then edited by a native English-speaking editor. All AI-assisted translations are reviewed and refined by our newsroom.