China’s Waste Management: Following Japan’s ‘Old Path’ of Incineration?
Food waste accounts for over a third of all municipal waste and could otherwise be used for composting or biogas production. While major cities have begun implementing waste sorting, we must ask: where does the waste actually go after it is sorted? Is food waste being properly treated, or is it mixed with other refuse and incinerated?
At the same time, the operation of the food system generates various other types of waste. It is estimated that in 2020 alone, the food delivery industry produced 570,000 tonnes of plastic waste. Has this been properly recycled? In this process, who should foot the bill—the companies or the consumers?
How does our traditionally “advanced” neighbour, Japan, handle its waste? The book *Where Did the Rubbish Go?*, shared by the Foodthink community, describes the current state of waste management in Japan. What are the actual differences between waste treatment in China and Japan? Is Japan’s experience worth learning from? At the book club on 22 February, two environmental activists, Dr Mao Da and Li Jiacheng, shared their insights on these issues, which have been summarised in this article.
Part 1: Comparing Waste Management in China and Japan
Guest Speaker
Li Jiacheng
Waste Generation
In 2021, urban areas in China incinerated and landfilled approximately 320 million tonnes of municipal waste—more than six times that of Japan. Based on urban population figures, the per capita waste generation was 0.94 kg per day, essentially reaching the level Japan had in 2013.
Waste Recycling
Food waste is the largest component of municipal waste. The book mentions the “Rainbow Project” for food waste recycling in Nagai City, Japan, which uses composting to treat food waste, producing a high-quality, dry, and odourless product. Although impurity issues were solved—with only 30 kg of foreign objects found in 800 tonnes of food waste—the economic cost of composting is high, meaning composting is limited to the city centre.
In China, the challenges are similar. Food waste sorting is incomplete, leading to high levels of impurities, and the sector faces challenges regarding odour and operating costs. In a 2022 survey of four composting projects by Greenpeace, the overall economic benefit of several food waste composting plants was negative, even when environmental benefits were taken into account.
Plastic recycling in China is also unsatisfactory. In 2020, China generated 60 million tonnes of waste plastic, of which only 26% was recycled, 41.9% was incinerated, and the remaining 31.4% was landfilled or leaked into the natural environment.
Final Disposal
History is now repeating itself in China. Fifty years after Tokyo proposed its total incineration goal, several local governments in China (such as those in Fujian, Hainan, Chongqing, and Anhui) have set similar targets, aiming for 100% waste incineration. Alongside these recent government goals, China has seen exponential growth in its waste incineration capacity. According to our latest statistics from the end of 2022, there are 867 waste incineration plants in operation. Averaged across more than 300 prefecture-level cities, almost every city has at least one or more. This will inevitably lead to a shortage of waste to burn. Our calculations show that in at least 10 provinces and regions, including Zhejiang and Shandong, waste incineration capacity has already exceeded the volume of municipal waste collected. In Zhejiang, for example, the daily incineration capacity exceeds collection volume by 27,500 tonnes. Because there is no waste to burn, these incinerators are currently sitting idle.
This rapid development and over-construction of incineration facilities have had a negative impact on waste sorting and reduction. The following chart shows the waste sorting and disposal situation in Shanghai for 2021. That year, “wet waste” (organic waste) totalled 3.83 million tonnes; however, because sorting policies were implemented so rapidly and disposal capacity was insufficient, it was inevitable that some of the sorted food waste ended up in incineration plants.
This situation is not unique to Shanghai. Some regions have already recognised this problem, and we are seeing Beijing, Shanghai, and Haikou building new food waste treatment plants.
Incineration Technology
In comparison, this technology adopted by Japan over twenty years ago is more environmentally friendly than the mainstream technology currently used in China.
China’s mainstream approach is chelation solidification followed by landfill—essentially mixing the fly ash into cement or chelating agents before burying it underground. However, this technique carries significant environmental risks; particularly in the absence of effective supervision, chelation solidification can fail after a few years, leading to environmental pollution. Adopting more environmentally friendly technologies involves higher economic costs and requires government mandates to drive implementation.
Part 2: How should we view Japan’s waste management?
Guest Speaker
Mao Da
Is Japan a model for waste management?
There are likely two reasons for this public perception. First, there is a certain cognitive inertia: because Japan’s overall environment is relatively clean, we assume that all its environmental governance, including waste management, must be of a very high standard. Second, it is influenced by media reports, which may be incomplete or only provide surface-level information, leaving us unable to see the full picture or gain a deep understanding.
NHK’s *Cool Japan* programme once produced a special titled “Waste Circulation”. It included a street interview asking, “Do you think Japan is an advanced nation in waste circulation and recycling?” The result was that most Asians (including Japanese), Americans, and Australians believed Japan was advanced in this area, whereas all the Europeans interviewed felt that Japan did not perform as well as Europe.
Using their own countries as a benchmark, Europeans believe Japan falls short. This may be a fact, but it could also be a result of arrogance or bias. Do the Japanese themselves share this view?
Hiroaki Sugimoto, author of *Where Does the Rubbish Go?*, believes that the European Union—exemplified by Germany—is more advanced than Japan in waste management. Similarly, Yuichiro Hattori, author of The Complete Report on Waste Incineration in Japan, and Setsuko Yamamoto, author of The Society of Waste Incineration, also do not believe that Japan’s waste management is particularly advanced.
Based on various perspectives as well as my own research and observations, my view is that Japan is not the gold standard for waste management on a global scale.
In terms of the waste management hierarchy, the priority is waste prevention and reduction at source, followed by recycling and recovery, and finally, end-of-pipe disposal where no resources are recovered. The majority of issues should be addressed by the higher-level strategies; only those that remain unresolved after every effort is made should proceed to the next level. Consequently, the volume of waste and pollutant emissions should decrease as one moves down the hierarchy, ultimately forming an inverted triangle.
However, Japan’s waste management model is neither an inverted triangle nor a standard triangle; instead, it resembles an hourglass, wide at both ends and narrow in the middle: while reduction at source is handled reasonably well—as total and per capita waste production have declined significantly year by year—recycling and recovery are weak, and final disposal accounts for a huge proportion, with landfill and incineration together making up 80% of all waste treatment.
First, a system dominated by incineration. The book concludes: “If a waste management system centred on incineration persists, a ‘3R’ (Reduce, Reuse, Recycle) based environmentally friendly society will be impossible to achieve.” We will explore the reasons behind the formation of this system in more detail later.
Second, the insufficient implementation of producer responsibility. This has led to very low recovery efficiency for many recyclables, leaving incineration as the only option. Food waste, which makes up the majority of household waste, is either not incinerated or should not be incinerated in Europe; however, in Japan, most of it is categorised as “combustible waste.”
Third, Japan’s position at the top of the global industrial supply chain makes it easy to obtain relatively cheap industrial raw materials from developing countries, as well as to find developing countries willing to accept its waste. Because the cost of domestic recycling in Japan is high while exporting waste is inexpensive, establishing a circular economy within the country has proven extremely difficult.
China’s policy banning “foreign waste” has dealt a significant blow to the previous waste export models of developed nations like Japan. However, this has also incentivised them to push harder for the development of domestic circular industries, which will ultimately benefit both parties.
A System Dominated by Incineration
*Where Does the Rubbish Go?* offers an explanation: Europe, with its multitude of countries, possesses technical and economic diversity and robust competition, allowing a variety of technologies to flourish. In contrast, within Japan’s relatively homogenous and closed economic system, incineration technology easily became the dominant force.
There is also the element of political maneuvering and the influence of interest groups. For instance, whether food waste is incinerated or turned into compost or biogas involves the interests of MPs, various government departments, and the industries behind them, with experts and scholars often providing the necessary academic endorsement for either side.
Yuichiro Hattori and Setsuko Yamamoto provide more comprehensive explanations of this issue in their respective works:
Firstly, there is historical path dependency. As early as the 1950s and 60s, waste management became a public issue in Japan. At the time, the primary public concern was the spread of pathogens and harmful microorganisms caused by poor waste management; incineration was naturally an effective response. Once this technology was adopted, a certain path dependency formed, narrowing the scope for alternative methods.
Secondly, the Japanese public tends to prioritise the “quantity” of waste over its “quality”. In other words, people are less concerned whether incinerating waste produces dioxins or heavy metals; they are primarily concerned that the visible rubbish has simply disappeared.
Thirdly, and in my view most crucially, is a series of legal frameworks and financial subsidies.
Legal definitions strip local governments of their right to choose between different technologies. By legally defining waste incineration that generates heat as a form of “recycling” technology, the distinction between incineration and actual recycling is blurred. In practice, this makes incineration almost the only “applicable technology.”
Beyond legal recognition, the high cost of incineration requires financial subsidies. The capital- and technology-intensive nature of incineration facilities has created a powerful interest group within the incineration industry, which lobbies extensively within parliament and the government to secure benefits. Furthermore, these interest groups, linked to political and technical power, often promote misleading concepts to confuse the public—a form of information manipulation that prevents people from understanding the advantages of alternative approaches.
What can we learn from Japan?
First is the culture of “Mottainai” (cherishing objects). The book *Where Does the Rubbish Go?* discusses the rise of second-hand shops in Japan, driven by this culture of avoiding waste.
A second point worth emulating is “local autonomy and self-reliance in processing.” In Japan, administrative districts at the basic “municipality” (city, town, or village) level are autonomous local bodies. Regardless of size, they are responsible for processing the waste generated within their own borders. Transporting waste elsewhere for processing incurs high costs. This forces local authorities to be proactive and devise solutions tailored to their specific local needs. Under this tradition of local autonomy, intrinsic motivation is sparked, giving rise to exemplary towns and communities.
Osaki Town in Kagoshima Prefecture is a prime example. With a population of just over 10,000, Osaki Town has a recycling rate of 82%, far exceeding the Japanese national average of 20%.
Previously, the town had only one landfill, which was nearing capacity. Coupled with the high cost of incineration, the municipality was forced to find ways to reduce waste production. Consequently, they took waste sorting to the absolute extreme, which laid a solid foundation for subsequent recovery and recycling.
Osaki Town divides waste into 27 different categories. Notably, “food waste” is sorted into its own category—a practice not found in most other parts of Japan. Since 62% of the local waste is organic, it can be converted into compost. After this rigorous sorting, only 18% of the waste eventually requires landfilling, which is exceptionally rare in Japan.
Thirdly, there are pollution control technologies and specific recovery and processing techniques.
Pollution control involves managing the pollutants generated during waste incineration; all incineration plants must be equipped with the relevant facilities. While Japan performs well in this area, *Where Does the Rubbish Go?* notes that Japanese pollutant monitoring is often reactive. For example, stricter monitoring of mercury only began after the Minamata Convention came into effect. There may be new pollutants outside the current monitoring scope that pose potential risks if not proactively identified.
Then there are specific recovery technologies. For example, for many years, China has lacked adequate facilities for processing collected waste batteries. In contrast, Hokkaido in Japan has a specialised plant that centrally collects and processes waste batteries and fluorescent tubes from across the country.
Furthermore, Japan’s entire waste management system operates within a legalised process. Although flaws remain, the negotiation and bargaining between various stakeholders are relatively procedural and transparent.
An analysis of policy reveals that China’s waste management currently still relies primarily on waste incineration—a relatively singular end-of-pipe disposal measure—following a path similar to Japan’s. In reality, incineration is not our only option. We need to look more closely at better models from other countries, reflect on our current approach, and make changes.
Author: Mao Da, Li Jiacheng
Drafting: Yan Ou
Editor: Wang Hao