UnEarth Magazine.

Words by Gaby Garcia, Art by Sky Maher

In 2019, the Philippines sent dozens of shipping containers filled with toxic household waste back to Canada—a symbolic act of defiance. For years, the containers festered in Manila’s ports, mislabelled as recyclables. The Philippines’ gesture made headlines, but it also revealed something deeper: in the global waste trade, power decides who gets to stay clean. While the Global North buries its sins, the Global South bears the stench.

When viewed against the backdrop of global power and inequality, the widely-known term “waste trade” is misleading. Instead, waste colonialism is more fitting: the Global North exporting its environmental burdens to the often ill-equipped Global South under the guise of commerce and recycling. Waste exportation today mirrors the exploitative actions of the past—a power asymmetry compounded by the looming threat of environmental collapse.

First as tragedy, then as farce

History truly repeats itself. Today, colonialism takes on a new form: from stripping the Global South of resources and labour in the past, the Global North now doubles down by passing off its ecological footprint. Historically, colonial powers extracted raw materials from the South to fuel industrialisation. Driven by weak regulations and economic dependence on wealthier countries, those same regions receive the toxic afterlife of that industrial system in plastic, e-waste, and other hazardous residues. This pattern is made even more apparent by how waste flows draw eerie parallels to historical colonialism. 

Malaysia is a former colony of the UK, gaining independence in 1957. Yet decades on, an increase in the UK’s waste exports finds the country a top destination in 2025. British rubbish constantly overwhelms Malaysia’s waste management systems, often reported to be dumped and burned in illegal grounds.

The perception of certain regions as expendable persists with waste exportation, reproducing old colonial structures of dependence and exploitation. Without meaningful accountability from the North, these countries remain trapped in a cycle that denies them true autonomy, environmental or otherwise.

Who pays the price?

A stark reminder of global inequality, outsourcing waste is counterproductive to developments connecting the Global North and South. Frankly, it reveals who disproportionately bears the burden of pollution and environmental vulnerability. Southeast Asian countries have become a hotspot for foreign waste dumping, often poorly prepared to deal with their domestic waste, much less foreign countries’. From 2021 to 2023, Malaysia received 1.4 billion kilograms of plastic waste, Vietnam 1 billion, and Indonesia almost 600 million. 

Congested landfills effectively devastate surrounding residential areas, leaching hazardous chemicals into groundwater and soil. In Malaysia, residents living near rubbish dumps have suffered from respiratory illnesses and exposure to heavy metals, while agriculture has been harmed by contaminated water and soil. These communities, and the Global South at large, face the consequences of the mess they didn’t make. The largest waste exporters—ironically also the world’s top recyclers—obfuscate their true environmental damage by passing their burdens onto those least responsible for it.

When ties fail us

The Basel Convention and similar treaties have made a promise to end waste dumping, but loopholes, inconsistent enforcement, and power asymmetries keep them hollow. With the aim to reduce the movement of hazardous waste globally, the Basel Convention is a treaty with 191 parties obligated to establish a “notice and consent” regime for exports. Its Ban Amendment in 1995 addresses the inherent injustice of outsourcing waste, prohibiting the export of hazardous waste for final disposal from parties of the OECD and European Union to non-OECD countries.

Thirty years since its adoption and six years since coming into force, it seems that progress has stalled. The US, Canada, and the EU have continued offloading millions of tonnes of plastic on other countries. Loopholes have enabled exporters to classify waste, such as certain used electrical and electronic equipment, as non-hazardous to be shipped out. 

The Global Plastics Treaty’s recent developments haven’t eased the issue either. As an integral element to exported waste, reaching a global agreement to reduce plastic generation and exportation is urgent. Yet in August, parties failed to reach an agreement on a legally binding framework, leaving continued plastic production unchecked. 

Basel’s failure mirrors broader problems in global environmental governance: treaties that assume equality among nations ignore real-world power disparities. International agreements will continue to reinforce waste colonialism as long as nations in power refuse to confront the unequal systems of production and consumption that make waste a tool of domination rather than a shared responsibility.

Conclusion

The story of waste colonialism reminds us that cleanliness has a cost, and that someone, somewhere, is paying for it. Pursuing climate justice means pursuing the right to live free from another nation’s refuse. Until the Global North learns to live with its own mess—literally and politically—the promise of a sustainable world will remain an illusion wrapped in garbage.