South Korea’s ban on direct landfill disposal of municipal waste in the capital region is pushing local governments to expand incineration and outsource waste treatment, rather than cut waste generation, a civic group said on Monday, raising concerns about growing reliance on burning trash.
The policy, introduced to curb landfill use and promote a circular economy, has been in place for 100 days. But a survey of 228 municipalities by the Korea Federation for Environmental Movements (KFEM) found that most responses have focused on changing disposal methods rather than reducing waste at source.
Only 34 municipalities identified waste reduction as a primary strategy, while 127 said they would rely on or expand incineration, the group said.
Ten responded they would pursue both reduction and incineration, and just one prioritised recycling. Eight municipalities cited alternative treatment facilities such as pre-processing or pyrolysis, while six said they would maintain existing landfill or incineration systems. Forty-one municipalities provided no data or did not respond.
“The intent of the landfill ban was to reduce waste generation itself, but in practice, local responses are centred on treatment rather than reduction,” the KFEM said.
The findings suggest that many municipalities have yet to place waste reduction at the core of their plans, even as the policy aims to accelerate a shift toward resource circulation.
A total of 96 municipalities have drawn up plans to build or expand incineration facilities, although none of Seoul’s 25 districts is pursuing additional public incinerators. Of those with expansion plans, only 12 have entered the construction phase, with most still at early stages such as design, permitting or site selection.
KFEM said the feasibility of some projects remains uncertain due to local opposition, site conflicts and financial constraints, warning that an over-reliance on incineration could delay the adoption of waste reduction policies.
The report also highlighted rising costs linked to outsourcing waste treatment. Average processing costs stood at KRW80,866 (US$60) per tonne for public landfill and KRW145,564 for public incineration, compared with KRW192,196 for private contractors – about 30 per cent higher than public incineration.
At least 105 municipalities rely on external treatment, the group said. Those without public incineration facilities outsourced 41.6 per cent of their waste on average, pointing to higher financial burdens where public infrastructure is lacking.
Despite the policy shift, South Korea’s waste treatment system remains dominated by landfill and incineration. Of 6.96 million tonnes of municipal waste processed nationwide, 1.28 million tonnes went to public landfill, 4.40 million tonnes to public incineration, 0.84 million tonnes to private incineration and 0.44 million tonnes to private recycling.
With a nationwide ban on direct landfill disposal set to expand by 2030, KFEM warned that without stronger policies to curb waste generation, the current approach risks entrenching an incineration-heavy system.
“The landfill ban should not remain a policy that simply reduces landfill use, but one that drives a transition to reducing waste generation itself,” the group said. “If current disposal-focused responses persist, the policy could end up expanding the incineration industry rather than advancing a circular economy.”
The trend seen in South Korea mirrors developments in Europe, where landfill restrictions have often led to increased reliance on incineration rather than a sustained reduction in waste generation.
A 2025 report by the European Court of Auditors found that EU waste policy has progressively shifted waste away from landfill toward incineration and energy recovery, with prevention and reuse lagging behind in practice.
Data from the plastics industry in Europe shows that as landfill rates declined, incineration rose in parallel. Between 2018 and 2022, the amount of post-consumer plastic waste sent for incineration increased by more than 15 per cent, even as landfill fell, underscoring a shift in treatment rather than a drop in waste volumes.
Even where landfill bans have been effective in sharply reducing dumping – such as in Nordic countries – gaps in domestic treatment capacity have led to increased waste exports for incineration, pointing to continued reliance on disposal rather than prevention.
Overall, while landfill rates in Europe have fallen significantly over the past decade, total waste generation has continued to rise, complicating efforts to transition to a circular economy.
