Turkey's Plastic Waste Imports: Environmental Risks and Policy Options

Executive Summary

In recent years, Türkiye has become one of the main destinations for Europe’s plastic waste. This trend is often justified as a way to support recycling capacity and meet the demand for raw materials. However, available evidence shows that plastic waste imports create serious environmental, social, and governance risks. Türkiye already faces major challenges in managing a large share of its own municipal waste. Imported plastic waste adds further pressure to this already fragile system. This policy brief examines the plastic waste trade not only as an economic activity but also as a form of pollution transfer, an environmental injustice, and an ecological security risk. A review of the Basel Convention, the EU Waste Shipment Regulation, and Türkiye’s current waste management rules shows that important gaps remain in enforcement, traceability, and data transparency, despite the existence of a legal framework. Plastic waste imports also intensify pollution from recycling facilities. Microplastic discharges, illegal dumping, open burning, and fires at recycling sites create long-term risks for water, soil, air, and the food chain. These risks show that Türkiye needs to move away from a recycling model that depends on imported plastic waste. To reduce these risks, Türkiye should gradually phase out plastic waste imports, establish real-time mass-balance tracking, strengthen independent inspections, and give priority to domestic waste reduction, reuse systems, and deposit return schemes designed around reuse and refill.

Introduction

Global plastic production was about 1.5 million tons in 1950. By 2025, it had exceeded 450 million tons.1 If current trends continue, production is expected to double by 2045.2 About 99% of plastics are made from fossil fuels, and plastic production is responsible for a significant share of greenhouse gas emissions. It is estimated that plastic production could use one-fifth of the global carbon budget by 2050.3 When this rapid growth is combined with inadequate waste management, the impacts become more severe. Around 8 million tons of plastic leak into the oceans every year, ecosystems are increasingly affected by microplastics, and toxic chemicals enter the food chain.4 The fact that only 9–10% of all plastics ever produced have been recycled shows that the problem is too large to be solved by recycling alone.

Conclusion and Recommendations

Türkiye’s current recycling model, which depends on plastic waste imports, is often justified through the need for raw materials and the transition to a circular economy. However, field evidence shows that this process has turned into a transfer of the environmental pollution burden and a form of waste colonialism. Point source microplastic pollution documented in Adana shows that recycling facilities themselves can become pollution sources. It also shows that ESM criteria do not have a clear technical or economic basis in practice. Cases such as 2B Plast confirm that the independent audits proposed under the EU’s new Waste Shipment Regulation may remain only on paper. Without transparent tracking mechanisms and cross-checking systems protected from local political pressure, these audits will not be sufficient. In a country where 80–90% of municipal waste is still not effectively recovered, allowing the inflow of low-quality foreign waste prevents the development of domestic collection systems and turns Türkiye into a global pollution sink.