Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA)

Climate advocates warn against false solutions and urge governments to invest in waste prevention, reuse, and locally led zero waste systems.

ANTALYA, TÜRKİYE (November 11, 2026)– As world leaders gather at COP31 to advance climate action, climate advocates, researchers, youth leaders, and local government representatives are calling on governments and climate financiers to reject incineration and invest in real zero waste solutions.

At the press conference “Zero Waste COP – Incinerators Out. Zero Waste In.”, speakers highlighted why addressing the climate impact of waste requires moving upstream through waste prevention, reuse, repair, redesign, and composting—not expanding disposal infrastructure.

“Zero waste is climate action—but only when we address the problem at its source. We cannot solve the waste crisis by building more infrastructure to burn or dispose of what we produce,” said Mariel Vilella, Climate Program Director at GAIA. “Preventing waste, expanding reuse and composting organic materials are practical and proven solutions that can cut emissions while delivering benefits for communities.”

The climate impacts of waste extend beyond disposal. Plastic production is deeply tied to fossil fuels, with emissions occurring across its lifecycle. Mohamed Kamal, Coordinator, Climate Action Network Arab World (CANAW), emphasized: “We cannot tackle climate change while allowing plastic production to keep expanding. Reducing plastic production and scaling reuse must be part of any credible climate strategy.”

The growing promotion of waste-to-energy incineration is another concern. A new report by the GAIA Africa examines 15 incineration projects and proposals across 10 African countries, raising questions about their viability and long-term impacts.

“Incineration can lock municipalities into costly infrastructure, expose communities to harmful pollution, and divert resources from more inclusive zero waste alternatives,” said Weyinmi Okotie, Executive Director of Green Knowledge Foundation.“ Africa needs solutions that respond to its actual waste realities—not expensive technologies that create new problems.”

The financing imbalance is also a major barrier to the zero waste transition. Jacob Johnson Attakpah, Zero Waste Director of the Green Africa Youth Organisation, called for a shift in investment priorities: “Governments and climate financiers must correct this imbalance and make climate finance accessible to the communities and cities already delivering solutions.”

Cities are already demonstrating what practical action can look like. Shahriar Hossain from the Government of Bangladesh, highlighted the role of local governments. Cities are on the frontlines of the waste and climate crises, but they are also where many of the solutions can happen. What cities need is strong political support, consistent public investment and policies that make zero waste systems possible at scale.

Moderated by Yogi Tujuliarto of CNN Indonesia   the press conference will call for climate commitments to translate into implementation, with policies and financing that prioritize prevention over disposal.

The message to COP31 is clear: Incinerators out. Zero waste in.

ABOUT GAIA

GAIA is a global network working toward a just, zero waste world, where resources are conserved and communities are protected from pollution and harmful waste practices. no-burn.org

MEDIA CONTACT:
Sonia Astudillo | Global Climate Communications Lead, GAIA
sonia@no-burn.org | +63 917 596 9286

Carissa Marnce | GAIA Africa
carissa@no-burn.org 

The post Incineration Is Not Climate Action: Experts Call for Zero Waste Solutions at COP31 first appeared on GAIA.

Photo by V. Villafranca

For years, zero waste solutions have quietly formed the backbone of community-led climate resilience. Yet, they have historically been sidelined in global climate discussions and storytelling. COP31 changes that. Türkiye, the host country, has placed zero waste and circular economy planning at the very top of its priority themes. For the first time in the history of UN climate summits, a host presidency is elevating waste-derived emissions to a leading position on the climate action agenda and the international stage.

Methane from landfills is created when food scraps, garden waste and other organic materials rot without oxygen in dumps and landfills. It is a short-lived but extremely powerful climate pollutant, so cutting it is one of the fastest ways to slow warming this decade — and the quickest, cheapest way to do that is to keep organic waste out of landfills through food waste prevention, source separation and composting, not by burning it in incinerators.

The COP31 presidency has made “Zero Waste and Methane Reduction” one of its headline themes, treating waste as a climate issue rather than only a municipal service. That is good news — at COP31, the UN climate conference taking place in Antalya, Türkiye, from 9 to 20 November 2026, our message is clear: zero waste is a proven climate action when it tackles waste at source and is rooted in justice — and the climate finance that follows must go to proven zero waste solutions, not to so-called “waste-to-energy” incinerators.

What is landfill methane?

When organic waste is buried in a landfill or piled in an open dump, it breaks down without oxygen. That process, called anaerobic decomposition, releases methane — a greenhouse gas that traps far more heat than carbon dioxide in the short term. The more food and garden waste a city sends to disposal, the more methane its landfills produce.

The science is clear. Organic waste is the largest part of the problem. In Asia, organic matter — mainly discarded food and agricultural material — makes up 50% to 70% of municipal solid waste, as delegates highlighted at GAIA Asia Pacific’s Second Regional Congress on Organics and Climate. Citing studies that attribute around 30% of current global warming to methane, the COP31 presidency has argued that waste prevention and better management of organic waste can deliver rapid climate benefits.

Landfill methane is also a public safety issue. The same rotting waste that generates methane fuels landfill fires and collapses. In recent months, a series of landfill fires and landslides across Asia blanketed cities in toxic fumes and claimed residents’ lives, many of them waste pickers.

“When communities prevent food waste and sort organics at the source, we win twice: we cut methane emissions at the source and eliminate the toxic landfill fires choking our neighborhoods.” — Froilan Grate, Regional Coordinator, GAIA Asia Pacific

Why incineration is not a solution

Proven solutions exist, and scaling them in the next five years is crucial. Incinerator companies often pitch “waste-to-energy” as a way to avoid landfill methane. But burning organic waste simply swaps one climate pollutant for another: the carbon in food scraps and paper is released as CO2 right away, alongside the fossil carbon in burned plastics. Waste-to-energy is the most carbon-intensive way to manage waste and releases more greenhouse gases than any other type of energy facility — 1.7 times as much as coal-fired power plants.

GAIA’s new Burn Book analysis of twenty incinerators and incinerator proposals found that the eleven facilities with available data release a combined 5.5 million metric tons of CO2e every year — the equivalent of 1.3 million passenger cars. And because incinerators need a steady supply of waste to stay financially viable, they compete directly with the composting and food waste programs that stop methane at the source.

Burning wet organic waste also makes little sense. In Mauritius, communities stopped a proposed 300,000-tonne waste-to-energy plant by pointing out a simple mismatch: roughly 70% of the island’s waste is green and kitchen waste. It’s one of the inspiring victories against incinerators GAIA members shared during the Global Week of Action.

Follow the money: climate finance is going to the wrong solutions

The biggest obstacle to cutting waste methane isn’t technology — it’s finance. Delegates at the Organics Congress highlighted a stark imbalance: nearly USD 4 billion has gone into capital-intensive waste incineration projects, capturing 94% of waste-sector methane finance, while barely 1% reaches organic waste management and food rescue systems.

The Jakarta Declaration, adopted at the Congress in September 2026, sets out a roadmap to fix that. It calls on national governments and financing institutions to halt funding for incinerators and redirect climate finance into low-cost, decentralized, and proven locally led organic waste systems and food loss and waste reduction.

Cities already cutting methane with zero waste

Community-led organic waste systems are not a pilot idea. They are working at scale today:

• Florianópolis, Brazil: the city’s Capital Lixo Zero program more than quadrupled food waste composting, from 1,175 tonnes in 2020 to 5,126 tonnes in 2024.
• Valparaíso, Chile: waste pickers from Chile’s national movement ANARCH began managing organic waste in September 2026, in a region where around 70% of municipal waste is organic.
• Pune, India: SWaCH’s 4,000 door-to-door waste pickers enforce source segregation across 1 million households and divert 25 tonnes of organic waste a day.
• Bandung, Indonesia: a Climate Policy Initiative analysis found decentralized community systems save the local government up to IDR 30 billion (about USD 1.7 million) a year in avoided transport and tipping fees.
• Barangay Potrero, Malabon City, Philippines: by integrating 80 waste workers into its system, this community of 43,000 residents diverts more than 100,000 kg of organic waste a year.
• Durban, South Africa: groundWork and eThekwini Municipality turned 586 tonnes of organic waste from three municipal markets into 190 tonnes of compost for city parks and community food gardens, avoiding an estimated 133 tonnes of methane. A cost-benefit analysis found market composting delivers a net benefit of R18 million (about USD 1.09 million) over ten years, while landfilling the same waste would cost R32 million.
• Dar es Salaam, Tanzania: Nipe Fagio’s community-based model collects waste from 4,500 households and diverts virtually 100% of their organic waste from disposal, avoiding about 16.4 tonnes of methane emissions a year.
• Accra, Ghana: the Green Africa Youth Organization (GAYO) has formally integrated more than 600 informal waste workers into a decentralized organic waste model that won the 2024 Earthshot Prize.

These results come from places with limited budgets. They show that the most cost-effective climate infrastructure is often people — waste workers, residents and local officials — backed by clear policy. Learn how Bandung, Durban and Valparaíso are financing inclusive organic waste systems, and meet the five Global South cities the UN recognized for zero waste. Explore more zero waste solutions and how GAIA members are building zero incineration cities.

What COP31 negotiators should do about waste methane

As negotiations continue in Antalya, GAIA members are calling on:

• Policymakers to prioritize waste prevention, reuse, source separation, and organics management in climate policies and national climate plans (NDCs), with targets for composting and food waste prevention, while keeping incineration and other polluting technologies out of zero waste solutions.
• Financiers to direct accessible climate and methane finance towards proven, locally led zero waste systems that cut emissions, strengthen communities, and avoid polluting infrastructure, including decentralized organic waste systems, food rescue and direct support for municipalities, and to stop treating incineration as a methane solution.
• Governments and decision-makers to cut waste methane and black carbon at the source, reduce plastic production and fossil fuel dependence, back city-level commitments like the Cities Methane Pledge, and protect and formally integrate waste pickers and workers through a just transition.

Frequently asked questions about landfill methane How do landfills produce methane?

Landfills produce methane when organic waste such as food scraps, garden waste and paper breaks down without oxygen. Keeping organics out of landfills through prevention, separation and composting stops that methane at the source.

Does composting reduce methane?

Yes. Well-managed composting breaks organic waste down with oxygen, which largely avoids the methane that forms in landfills, and turns the waste into a soil amendment.

Is incineration better than landfill for the climate?

No. Incineration releases the carbon in waste as CO2 immediately, and waste-to-energy emits more greenhouse gases than any other type of energy facility. The climate-friendly alternative to both is zero waste: preventing waste, composting organics and recycling.

When and where is COP31?

COP31 takes place in Antalya, Türkiye, from 9 to 20 November 2026. The COP31 presidency has made zero waste and methane reduction one of its key themes.

What is the Jakarta Declaration?

The Jakarta Declaration was adopted in September 2026 at GAIA Asia Pacific’s Second Regional Congress on Organics and Climate. It calls on governments and financiers to stop funding incinerators and redirect climate finance into decentralized organic waste management and food waste reduction.

Take action during COP31

Zero waste is a climate action, but only when it tackles waste at source and is rooted in justice. Methane from waste is one of the most solvable parts of the climate crisis. Read the Jakarta Declaration, share this article with your local officials, learn more about GAIA’s engagement at COP31 and sign up for GAIA’s updates to follow our work at COP31 and beyond.

The post Landfill Methane at COP31: Why Zero Waste Is a Climate Action first appeared on GAIA.

Why Zero Waste is Essential to Climate Action and Delivering Real Solutions

WHAT: Climate advocates, researchers, youth leaders, and local government representatives will challenge the growing push for waste incineration and make the case for zero waste as a proven practical climate solution.

The press conference will present findings from a report examining 15 waste-to-energy incineration projects and proposals across 10 African countries, highlighting their environmental, financial, and public health risks. Speakers will also discuss the links between waste, methane, plastics, and fossil fuels; the need to redirect climate finance toward locally led zero waste solutions; and how cities can deliver practical alternatives.

WHEN: November 11, 2026 | 2:30–3:00 PM

WHERE: Press Conference Room 2, Area D4
Local room name: Press Conference Room Yunus Emre

SPEAKERS:

• Mariel Vilella, GAIA Climate Program Director
• Mohamed Kamal, Climate Action Network Arab World (CANAW)
• Shahriar Hossain, Government of Bangladesh
• Weyinmi Okotie, Executive Director, Green Knowledge Foundation (GKF) 
• Jacob Johnson Attakpah, Zero Waste Director, Green Africa Youth Organization 

MODERATOR: Yogi Tujuliarto, CNN Indonesia

KEY MESSAGE: Incineration is not climate action. Governments and climate financiers must move away from false solutions and invest in inclusive, locally led zero waste systems.

MEDIA CONTACT:
Sonia Astudillo | Global Climate Communications Lead, GAIA
sonia@no-burn.org | +63 917 596 9286

Carissa Marnce | GAIA Africa, Communication Manager
carissa@no-burn.org | +27 76 934 6156

The post Media Advisory: Zero Waste COP – Incinerators Out. Zero Waste In. first appeared on GAIA.

ZERO WASTE FOR CLIMATE: MOVE UPSTREAM, CUT EMISSIONS, DELIVER JUSTICE
Zero waste is on the climate agenda. Now we need to get it right.

At COP31 in Antalya, Türkiye, GAIA will champion zero waste as a practical climate solution that cuts emissions at the source, protects communities, and advances a just transition. From preventing waste and reducing methane and black carbon to financing community-led solutions, we know what works. Now governments and financiers must turn ambition into action.

What is COP31?

COP31 is the 31st UN Climate Change Conference (the UNFCCC Conference of the Parties), held at the Antalya Expo Center in Antalya, Türkiye, from 9 to 20 November 2026. Governments meet to negotiate the next steps in global climate action, and Türkiye’s COP31 Presidency has placed zero waste among its priorities. GAIA members from Africa, Asia Pacific, Latin America and the Caribbean, Europe, and the US and Canada will be in Antalya and online to make sure zero waste delivers real emission cuts, and that incineration stays out of climate solutions.

At COP31, we call on:

• Policymakers to prioritize waste prevention, reuse, source separation, and organics management in climate policies, while keeping incineration and other polluting technologies out of zero waste solutions.
• Financiers to direct accessible climate finance towards proven, locally led zero waste systems that cut emissions, strengthen communities, and avoid polluting infrastructure.
• Governments and decision-makers to cut waste methane and black carbon at the source, reduce plastic production and fossil fuel dependence, and protect waste pickers and workers through a just transition.

Climate action must move upstream. The solutions already exist. What we need now is the political will and financing to scale them.

GAIA AT COP31

A global network of climate and zero waste advocates bringing community-led solutions, evidence, and frontline voices to the climate conversation.

At COP31, we will work to ensure zero waste delivers real climate action and environmental justice through events, engagement with policymakers and allies, and traditional and digital media.

Meet the GAIA Experts at COP 31 Check out and Join GAIA COP31 Events Join the GAIA@COP31 Broadcast Channel WHY ZERO WASTE MATTERS AT COP31

For years, communities around the world have demonstrated how zero waste solutions can cut emissions, protect public health, create local livelihoods, and strengthen resilience. Yet these solutions have too often been overlooked in global climate policy and financing.

COP31 presents an important opportunity to change that.

Türkiye’s COP31 Presidency has elevated zero waste and circular economy planning among its priorities, creating momentum to advance waste prevention, reduce waste methane, and transform how materials are produced, used, and recovered.

The Presidency’s Action Agenda includes two targets:

• Reduce the projected growth in global waste generation by 50% by 2035.
• Increase the global circular material use rate in production and manufacturing to at least 15% by 2035.

These ambitions create an opportunity to advance zero waste as a core climate solution. But targets alone are not enough. Their success will depend on what counts as zero waste, how progress is measured, which solutions receive investment, and whose voices shape implementation.

The challenge is to ensure that zero waste means preventing waste and cutting emissions at their source—not simply managing growing volumes of waste through conventional disposal technologies.

COP31 must move from managing the consequences of a wasteful economy to transforming the systems that create waste.

WHAT WE’RE CALLING FOR

At COP31, GAIA calls on governments, financiers, and other decision-makers to turn zero waste commitments into practical, equitable, and measurable climate action.

1. Make zero waste a core climate solution

Prioritize waste prevention, reuse, repair, source separation, recycling, and composting. Embed these strategies in climate and waste policies, and keep incineration and other polluting end-of-pipe technologies out of zero waste and climate finance.

2. Cut methane and black carbon at the source

Act on super pollutants to deliver rapid climate benefits. Prevent food waste, separate organic waste at source, and expand effective organics management to keep organics out of landfills. Prioritize prevention and diversion over approaches that simply manage emissions after they are created.

3. Finance solutions that work

Direct predictable, accessible climate finance towards proven zero waste systems, organics management, reuse, and locally led implementation. Support cities, communities, waste pickers, and local organizations instead of locking public resources into expensive, polluting infrastructure.

4. Put environmental justice and a just transition at the center

Recognize waste pickers and waste workers as essential climate actors. Protect livelihoods, strengthen social protection, ensure decent work, and give workers and affected communities a meaningful role in the policies, investments, and systems that shape their lives.

5. Connect zero waste to the wider climate transition

Reduce plastic production and dependence on fossil fuels through prevention and reuse. Reduce pressure on natural resources and transition minerals by extending product lifetimes, repairing goods, and keeping materials in circulation.

6. Scale community-led solutions beyond COP31

Show what works in practice. Build on successful zero waste models, Zero Waste Districts, and GAIA member experiences to strengthen commitments, mobilize resources, and support implementation long after the climate summit ends.

Zero waste is practical climate action—but only when it tackles waste at source and is rooted in justice.

GAIA@COP31 LATEST RESOURCES

Previous Next Building Community Resilience and Green Jobs through Organic Waste: The Case of Bandung, Indonesia

The Neglasari pilot project in Bandung, Indonesia demonstrates that community-based organic waste management can be financially feasible when the government finances the public-service functions that markets do not pay for, particularly land, source-separated organics collection, education, and waste treatment. This model is financially attractive as it generates public goods such as recoverable organic products, local livelihoods, and avoided landfill costs. 

Building Community Resilience and Green Jobs through Organic Waste: The Case of Bandung, Indonesia

Building Community Resilience and Green Jobs through Organic Waste: The Case of Durban, South Africa

The Durban Zero Waste Project pilot shows that decentralized organic waste management can deliver powerful environmental and economic outcomes when regarded as a municipal public service rather than a commercial enterprise. The model reduces costs already borne by the municipality through avoided landfill disposal, avoided transport, avoided compost purchases, and reduced greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. 

Building Community Resilience and Green Jobs through Organic Waste: The Case of Durban, South Africa 

Methane Emissions Mitigation by Waste Pickers: The Case of Valparaíso

The National Waste Pickers Movement of Chile (ANARCH) is taking foundational steps to find solutions for organic waste through management models led by waste pickers. Among these is a pilot project in the city of Valparaíso, in collaboration with its local affiliate, the El Molle Workers’ Cooperative. The project aims to mitigate methane emissions from the waste sector through the separate collection and composting of organic waste from the El Cardonal wholesale market, the resulting reduction in the amount of waste sent to landfills, and the creation of new economic opportunities for waste pickers.

(EN) Methane Emissions Mitigation by Waste Pickers: The Case of Valparaíso

(SP) Mitigación de emisiones de metano a cargo de recicladores de base: el caso de Valparaíso

Managing Organics With Waste Pickers: A Briefing for Policymakers

The report, co-presented by the International Alliance of Waste Pickers and supported by the Climate & Clean Air Coalition, outlines a series of recommendations for governments, including recognizing waste pickers as formal service providers, ensuring fair compensation, investing in decentralized waste infrastructure, and incorporating gender-responsive policies. It also emphasizes the importance of sustained public funding, noting that while composting and other organic waste outputs can generate some income, they are not sufficient on their own to support livelihoods at scale.

(EN) Managing Organics With Waste Pickers: A Briefing for Policymakers

(ES) Gestión de residuos orgánicos con recicladores de base: informe para responsables políticos (coming soon)

(Infographics) Waste Pickers: Cutting Methane Emissions through Organic Waste Management

Separation at Source (S@S): 12 Real-World Zero Waste Practices That Work

Establishing waste separation at source (S@S) is the foundation of zero waste systems. It means separating different types of waste—such as organic, recyclable, and residual materials—at the point where waste is generated, keeping materials clean and preventing contamination. This publication presents 12 diverse successful cases from five regions: Africa (Tanzania), Asia (India, The Philippines), Europe (Greece, Slovenia, Italy), North America (USA), and Latin America (Costa Rica). The communities featured range in scale, from Tilos Island with a permanent population of 700 residents, to megacities such as Bengaluru, where the zero waste systems reach approximately 2 million people. Across these jurisdictions, source separation rates vary according to local mandates and frameworks, ranging from 30-33% organic waste diversion in Portland to outstanding rates of 80- 95% in places such as Varkala, San Fernando, and Dar es Salaam, and reaching 100% in Tilos Island.

(EN) Separation at Source (S@S): 12 Real-World Zero Waste Practices That Work

(SP) Separación en origen: 12 prácticas reales basura cero que funcionan

Financing Zero Waste: Practical Guidance for Immediate Action by Local and National Governments

Zero waste is emerging as one of the most powerful, immediate climate actions available to governments. This publication provides practical, context‑specific guidance to help local and national governments finance and sustain zero waste systems that cut methane, improve public health, strengthen livelihoods, and build fiscal resilience.

(EN) Financing Zero Waste: Practical Guidance for Immediate Action by Local and National Governments

(ID) Pembiayaan Zero Waste: Panduan Praktis untuk Tindakan Segera oleh Pemerintah Daerah dan Nasional (Coming soon)

(SP) Financiando Basura Cero: Guía práctica para la acción inmediata de gobiernos locales y nacionales

Financing Zero Waste: A High-Level Synthesis Report

This high‑level synthesis distills the core insights from Financing Zero Waste: Practical Guidance for Immediate Action by Local and National Governments, showing how governments can finance zero waste systems by aligning local implementation with national enabling conditions—and by recognizing the broader public value that zero waste generates across climate, health, livelihoods, and resilience.

(EN) Financing Zero Waste: A High-Level Synthesis Report

(ID) Pembiayaan Nol Sampah (Zero Waste): Laporan Sintesis Tingkat Tinggi (Coming soon)

(SP) Financiando Basura Cero: Informe de síntesis de alto nivel

Previous Next

/

GAIA@COP31 REGIONAL LENS

Previous Next AFRICA

GAIA Africa’s Priorities at COP31

At COP31, GAIA Africa will spotlight four key priorities: integrating food loss and waste management into Africa’s climate commitments, recognizing waste pickers as essential climate actors, challenging waste-to-energy incineration, and scaling up proven organic waste diversion models across African cities.

Integrating Food Loss and Waste into Africa’s NDCs: We will advocate for stronger food loss and waste commitments in African Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), positioning organic waste management as a key strategy for reducing methane emissions. 

Recognizing Waste Pickers as Climate Actors: We will champion waste pickers as essential contributors to climate action, calling for their meaningful inclusion in waste management and climate policies. We will highlight the importance of strengthening waste picker movements, protecting livelihoods, and scaling up waste picker integration across African countries.

Challenging Waste-to-Energy Incineration: We will challenge the promotion of waste-to-energy incineration as a solution to Africa’s waste management challenges. Drawing on an analysis of 15 waste-to-energy incineration projects and proposals across 11 African countries.

Scaling Up Organic Waste Diversion Across African Cities: Through insights from the Methane Reduction in Nigeria (MAMRN) Project, we will showcase organic waste diversion efforts in Lagos, Abuja, Jos, and Benin City. We will share data, practical lessons, and replication resources to help more African cities establish and scale their own waste diversion programmes.

[Photo Credit: Green Knowledge Foundation, GKF]

ASIA PACIFIC

At COP31, Asia Pacific demands that climate financiers and national governments stop funding debt-heavy, ineffective incineration technologies, like Waste-to-Energy (WtE), and instead redirect public finance toward upstream, community-led zero waste systems. With organics making up over half of the region’s municipal waste, governments must embed separate collection and decentralized composting into updated NDCs to rapidly cut methane, scale reuse models to reduce  fossil-fuel packaging at the source, and ensure a just transition that legally protects and funds informal waste workers and waste pickers. 

LATIN AMERICA & THE CARIBBEAN US & CANADA

At COP31, the GAIA U.S. & Canada region advocates for tangible methane action and urges governments to consider real solutions to our growing waste problem, such as community-led composting. Our members’ campaigns against toxic waste facilities not only work to close incinerators and stop landfill expansions, but also to implement change at the community level and through policy. As a region, our core priorities include:

Reducing methane emissions through actionable zero waste interventions. Much of the “waste” we burn or bury can be recovered — organics that can be composted and materials that can be recycled. 

Mitigating the damage that toxic waste management infrastructure creates in overburdened communities. We empower our members to lead the change in their communities.

Advocating against waste colonialism and ensuring that waste from the Global North is not exported to vulnerable countries in the Global South.

EUROPE

At COP31, Zero Waste Europe will bring two lessons from Europe’s experience: how to manage leftover mixed waste in the most climate-friendly way, and why waste incineration must not be exported to the rest of the world as a climate solution.

Managing residual waste the climate-friendly way: While cities work to prevent and separate more of their waste, some mixed residual waste still needs to be managed along the way. We will make the case for Material Recovery and Biological Treatment (MRBT) as the most climate-friendly option for managing it. MRBT recovers the remaining recyclables, such as metals, plastics and paper, and biologically stabilizes the organic fraction before landfilling, sharply cutting methane emissions. It is cost-effective, needing a fraction of the investment of an incinerator per tonne of capacity, and easily scalable: modular plants can be up and running in around two years, work well at small scale, and adapt as separate collection improves, instead of locking cities into burning waste for decades.

Making the economic case for methane reduction: Food waste prevention, separate bio-waste collection and effective bio-waste management are essential to reducing methane emissions. We will highlight the climate and economic benefits of these measures, alongside solutions such as MRBT that recover valuable materials and reduce methane emissions from residual waste. We will showcase which economic and fiscal tools governments can use to make food waste prevention and bio-waste management more financially attractive than disposal. Drawing on our local methane work, we will highlight practical approaches that can deliver emissions reductions while making better use of resources and public investment. 

Exposing false solutions: waste incineration: Waste incineration, often marketed as “waste-to-energy”, is a false climate solution. Europe is a clear warning: emissions from waste incineration have roughly doubled since 1990, while the EU’s overall emissions have fallen. Every new plant locks in fossil emissions, mostly from burning plastics, for decades. We will share how Europe is starting to tackle the problem, including the move to bring municipal waste incineration into the EU Emissions Trading System, and what the alternatives look like in practice: waste prevention, reuse, separate collection, and MRBT for what is left.

Building support for Extended Producer Responsibility for Food Products (ERPFP): COP31 will also be an opportunity to test the ground for ERPFP, build interest and alignment among potential partners, and map opportunities to advance producer responsibility as a way to support food waste prevention and more sustainable food systems.

Previous Next COP31 and Zero Waste: Frequently Asked Questions When and where is COP31?

COP31, the 31st UN Climate Change Conference (UNFCCC), takes place from 9 to 20 November 2026 at the Antalya Expo Center in Antalya, Türkiye, under Türkiye’s COP31 Presidency.

Why does zero waste matter for the climate?

Waste is a major source of methane and black carbon, two short-lived super pollutants. Waste prevention, reuse, source separation and organics management cut these emissions at the source, create local jobs and protect communities, without locking cities into incinerators.

What is GAIA calling for at COP31?

GAIA calls on governments, financiers and decision-makers to make zero waste a core climate solution, cut methane and black carbon at the source, finance solutions that work, put environmental justice and a just transition for waste pickers at the center, connect zero waste to the wider climate agenda, and scale community-led solutions beyond COP31, while keeping incineration out of zero waste and climate finance.

What are the COP31 Presidency’s waste targets?

The COP31 Presidency’s Action Agenda sets two targets for 2035: reducing the projected growth in global waste generation by 50%, and increasing the global circular material use rate to at least 15%. GAIA argues that their success depends on how zero waste is defined and measured.

Is waste incineration a climate solution?

No. Waste-to-energy incinerators emit more greenhouse gases per unit of electricity than coal, lock cities into long contracts that depend on a steady supply of waste, and harm nearby communities and waste pickers. GAIA’s statement Incinerators Out of COP31 explains why climate finance should fund zero waste instead.

GAIA@COP31 NEWS & UPDATES

Follow GAIA’s COP31 engagement through our latest:

• MEDIA ADVISORIES AND PRESS RELEASES
• COMMENTARIES AND BLOGS
• EVENTS AND PRESS CONFERENCES
• NEWS COVERAGE
• PHOTOS AND VIDEOS FROM COP31

From community-led solutions to global climate policy, GAIA will share the stories, evidence, and voices demonstrating why zero waste is essential to climate action.

Zero waste is practical climate action—when it tackles waste at source and is rooted in justice.

The post GAIA at COP31: Zero Waste for Climate first appeared on GAIA.

By Menna Zayed, 2026 Africa Zero Waste Academy Participant

What if solving the waste crisis means changing the system, not simply managing the waste?

Coming from Egypt, I have seen waste in many forms. I have seen it along roadsides, in villages, around agricultural lands, and in places where communities live alongside dumpsites. I have worked around questions of environmental health, climate change, public health and community development, and over time I have come to understand that waste is never simply about what we throw away.

But I still didn’t understand how much there was left to learn. So when I travelled to Ghana to join the Africa Zero Waste Academy, I carried the five questions I had encountered through my own work and communities.

• What happens to the things we throw away?
• Who is responsible for managing them?
• Who benefits from the materials we discard?
• Who bears the health and environmental consequences when waste systems fail?
• And perhaps most importantly: What would a truly just zero-waste transition look like for African communities?

I was thinking about these questions throughout the week-long academy alongside young people working across the continent on waste, climate, and community solutions.

I did not expect these days to give me all the answers. Instead, they gave me more questions.

Travelling to Ghana was an experience in itself, and one of the most beautiful parts was the people I met along the way. Sharing a room, a meal, a bus ride, and so many conversations with amazing young people from across Africa.

Different countries, different stories, yet so much in common.

Meeting Africans beyond conferences and international reports is powerful.

You begin to see the continent through people.

Through their stories.
Through their traditions.
Through the food on the table.
Through the way people greet each other.
Through conversations about what is happening in their neighbourhoods, communities, and countries.

The Academy brought together emerging and experienced youth from across Africa. Each arrived with a different experience. Our contexts were different. But the problems often sounded familiar. From pen dumping, Plastic pollution, Limited infrastructure, Low public awareness, Weak enforcement, Health risks, the struggle to finance better systems, and communities that are often expected to live with the consequences of decisions they had little role in making.

Our waste problems may look different, but many of their roots are connected.

Learning that waste is never “just waste”

The Academy challenged the way I think about the word waste.

We use the word so casually.
We say, “throw it in the waste.”
As if something becomes worthless simply because we no longer want it. I kept coming back to a different question:

What if we stopped asking where waste should go and started asking why we are creating it in the first place?

That shift sounds simple, but it changes everything.

It shifts the conversation from collection and disposal to prevention, reuse, repair, composting, recycling, resource recovery, and circularity.

It also forces us to look at the systems behind our consumption.

• Who designed the product?
• How was it produced?
• What resources were used?
• How long will it remain useful?
• What happens when it reaches the end of its life?
• And who is expected to deal with it?

Zero waste is not simply about having cleaner streets.

It is about redesigning systems so that resources remain resources for as long as possible.

It is also about questioning a model that leaves communities to manage the consequences of endless production and consumption.

At the landfill, the conversation about waste became physical.

We could see the scale of what we were discussing.
We could smell it.
We could see the discarded materials, the environmental pressures surrounding the site, and the people whose daily realities are connected to the waste economy.

Standing there, I could not help but think about Egypt.

I thought about the communities I have encountered back home and the environmental and health questions surrounding poorly managed waste.
I thought about rural areas where burning agricultural residues can become an environmental and public-health concern.
I thought about people who live close to waste sites and often have very little power over the systems surrounding them.

The landfill was not simply a place where waste ended up.

It was evidence of decisions made much earlier in the system.

Every item there had a story before it became a waste.
And every pile of waste had consequences after it arrived.

That was difficult to ignore.

Seeing circularity in action

But Ghana didn’t just show us the problem.

It showed us what can happen when people begin to redesign the system.

Waste can be a problem. But under the right systems, it can also become a resource, an income opportunity, a source of soil improvement, and a part of a more resilient local economy.

The challenge is not simply to tell people to “recycle more.”

The challenge is to build systems that make recovery possible, accessible, economically viable, and socially just.

The people who make the system work

Perhaps one of the most powerful parts of the Academy for me was meeting the people whose work is so often invisible. Launching the Federation of Informal Sector Waste Workers Associations of Ghana (FISWWAG) was one of those moments.

Watching waste workers from different regions of Ghana come together reminded me that enormous knowledge already exists among the people working closest to waste.

They know materials, markets, what has value, and what can be recovered.

Yet waste workers are often treated as if they are outside the formal waste system. We talk about building a circular economy. But we can’t build circularity while ignoring the people who already recover materials every day.

We talk about green jobs.
But many people already do environmental work without the recognition, protection, or dignity it should come with.

We talk about a just transition.
But justice has to mean something for the person standing in front of us.

It has to mean recognition.
It has to mean safer working conditions.
It has to mean decent livelihoods.
And it has to mean that people who know the system aren’t treated as an afterthought when we redesign it.

That experience made something very clear to me:

A zero-waste future cannot be people-free.
It has to be people-centered. 

Africa is not one waste story

One of the things I appreciated most about the Academy was the opportunity to listen to people from different African contexts.

It’s easy to talk about “Africa’s waste crisis” as though the continent were one place facing one problem. It is not.

• The challenges of a coastal community are not necessarily the same as those of a rural agricultural area.
• The waste composition differs.
• The infrastructure differs.
• The policies differ.
• The economies differ.
• And the solutions need to respond to those realities.

But there were also common threads.

Across our conversations, I kept seeing the same underlying themes: people, dignity, livelihoods, climate, health, policy, and community ownership.

That is what made the Academy feel bigger than a training programme. It became a space where experiences could travel.

• An idea from Ghana could spark a question about Egypt.
• A challenge from Nigeria could make someone from another country rethink their own approach.
• A solution from Kenya could inspire a conversation somewhere else.

Beyond the sessions

And then there was Ghana itself.

Some of my favourite memories happened outside the official programme.

• The long conversations during bus rides.
• The laughter after intense sessions.
• Trying new food.
• Learning things about each other’s countries.
• Listening to people’s stories outside the context of their organisations or job titles.

The most important thing about the experience is the people.

It is a community of people from across the continent.

What I brought back to Egypt

When I returned home, I realised that I had brought back a different lens.

I began thinking more carefully about the connections between:

• waste and public health
• waste and climate change
• waste and livelihoods
• waste and environmental justice
• waste and gender
• and between waste and the question of who gets to participate in shaping the solutions

For me, this matters most in rural communities.

Waste is not an isolated environmental issue when you are living in a community where agricultural burning affects air quality, where organic residues have economic potential, or where environmental degradation intersects with people’s health and livelihoods.

The waste conversation needs to broaden.

We need to ask not only, “How do we manage waste?”

But also:

• How do we prevent it?
• How do we create value from what already exists?
• How do we protect people’s health?
• How do we create decent livelihoods?
• How do we make communities part of the decision-making?
• And how do we ensure the transition itself is just?

These are the questions I want to continue carrying into my work.

I came to learn. I left wanting to do it.

A particular kind of experience stays with you after you return home.

Not because you suddenly have all the answers.

But because you can no longer look at the problem in quite the same way.

This experience gave me something more useful: a stronger understanding of how much knowledge already exists within African communities, and how much potential there is when people are given space to connect, learn and build together.

It reminded me that solutions do not always need to be imported.

Sometimes they are already there.

• In a community’s knowledge.
• In a young person’s idea.
• In a composting initiative.
• In people coming together to say that the system can be different.

And perhaps this is what I will remember most from Ghana:

Waste is not only about what we throw away.
It is about what we choose to value.

We decide what is disposable.
We decide whose work is visible.
We decide which materials have value.
We decide whose knowledge is included.
And we decide what kind of systems we are willing to build.

The Africa Zero Waste Academy ended, but the conversations did not.

And the relationships certainly did not.

From Ghana back to Egypt, I carry new perspectives, new friendships, new questions, and a renewed commitment to connecting environmental action with the realities of people’s lives.

Because ultimately, zero waste is not only about waste.

It is about people, resources, health, dignity, livelihoods and the kind of future we choose to create.

And across Africa, that future is already being built in communities, by youth, and by people who refuse to accept that the systems we inherited are the only systems possible.

The experience gave us space to learn from one another and turn what we learned into action.

Writer’s Bio

Menna Zayed is a public health and environmental researcher, clinical and development practitioner, and youth advocate working at the intersection of environmental health, climate action, community engagement, science, and policy. She actively engages in youth climate and environmental initiatives across Egypt, Africa, the Arab region, and international climate spaces, and is passionate about strengthening connections among community knowledge, environmental action, and public health.

The post Africa Zero Waste Academy 2026: Rethinking Waste, People and Possibility  first appeared on GAIA.

By Mariel Vilella, GAIA Climate Program Director

Methane emissions from the waste sector can be reduced with technologies that are already available. The harder question is often institutional and financial: how can cities build organic waste management systems that work over the long term, while including the workers and communities already providing essential waste services?

Over the past three years, GAIA and local partners YPBB in Indonesia, groundWork in South Africa and ANARCH in Chile have worked with municipalities and communities in Bandung, Durban and Valparaíso to answer that question.

Supported by the Climate and Clean Air Coalition (CCAC), the project set out to test and strengthen community-based models for diverting organic waste from disposal, reducing methane emissions and improving the financial sustainability of the organizations delivering these services. At its core was a simple proposition: municipalities frequently lack the resources to provide adequate waste services, while informal and community-based organizations already possess knowledge, infrastructure and relationships that can form part of a lower-cost and more inclusive pathway to methane mitigation.

The experience across the three cities points to an important conclusion: community-based organic waste management can deliver significant climate and social benefits, but it should not be expected to operate as a conventional profit-making business. Organic waste management is an essential public service. Scaling it requires sustained public investment alongside appropriate mechanisms for community participation and cost recovery.

Bandung: source separation is the foundation

In Neglasari, Bandung, YPBB has developed a decentralized system combining separate collection with Black Soldier Fly (BSF) bioconversion and composting. The system currently serves 1,777 households—around 9,700 people—and treats approximately 400–600 kg of organic waste per day.

One of the most important lessons from Bandung is that the technology was the relatively easy part.

Years of door-to-door engagement and support for the government’s organic waste segregation program increased household separation at source from 9% to 27%. This has improved the quality of incoming organic material sufficiently for it to be treated locally: approximately 75% through BSF bioconversion and 25% through decentralized composting. The resulting larvae, frass and compost can in turn support livestock and urban agriculture, creating a local circular system.

Community participation has been fundamental to this transformation. Through sustained door-to-door engagement, YPBB has helped households become active participants in the system, rather than simply recipients of a waste collection service. This experience demonstrates that source separation is not just a technical requirement but a social process that depends on building trust, changing practices and sustained collaboration with communities. The proposed institutional model builds on this foundation by creating opportunities for community cooperatives to participate in value-added activities and benefit from local resource recovery.

The climate implications are significant. Compared with the baseline, the current system is estimated to reduce methane emissions by around 15%. With full source separation, modelling indicates reductions could reach 74%.

But Bandung also demonstrates why these systems cannot be designed around the assumption that revenues from compost, larvae or agricultural products will cover the full costs of waste management.

The project proposes instead a two-part institutional model. Waste collection and processing are treated as an essential municipal service, with public funding covering the core infrastructure and operating costs. Value-added activities—including urban farming and livestock production—can then operate through community-based structures and recover part of the system’s costs.

This distinction matters. Trying to make organic waste processing entirely self-financing through product sales risks operational failure and underpaid labor. Public finance should pay for the public service; revenues from recovered resources should complement that finance rather than replace it.

Durban: making the economics of decentralized composting visible

In Durban, South Africa, groundWork has worked with eThekwini Municipality and local partners to demonstrate how organic waste from municipal markets can be diverted from landfill and transformed into compost for municipal parks and community food gardens.

The results are already tangible. The project has diverted 586 tonnes of organic waste from three municipal markets, producing 190 tonnes of compost distributed to municipal parks across eight of the city’s ten districts and to community food gardens. The initiative has served approximately 900 market traders, created employment for 10 composting workers and established three composting facilities. The project also reports an estimated 133 tonnes of methane emissions avoided.

The project illustrates how decentralized composting can be integrated into existing municipal systems while creating opportunities for local participation and employment. By engaging market traders and employing composting workers, the initiative connects waste generators, workers and local beneficiaries. Collaboration with municipal departments has helped embed organic waste diversion within existing public infrastructure, rather than developing a parallel service dependent entirely on external project funding.

Crucially, the project has generated evidence of the economic benefits of decentralized composting. A cost-benefit analysis covering two municipal markets found that diverting organic waste to composting could generate a net benefit of R18 million (approximately USD 1.09 million) over ten years, with a net present value of R14.1 million (USD 852,000). By comparison, continuing to landfill the same waste would generate an estimated net cost of R32 million (USD 1.93 million) over the same period.

The analysis also identifies potential annual municipal savings of approximately R2.9 million (USD 175,000), including avoided disposal fees, landfill airspace costs and purchases of compost for municipal parks. These benefits are distributed across different municipal departments, demonstrating why the economics of organic waste management cannot be assessed solely through revenues from compost sales.

The lesson from Durban is that decentralized composting can generate significant public value, even without operating as a conventional profit-making business. Its benefits include avoided disposal costs, reduced methane emissions, local employment and useful resources for urban green spaces. Recognizing these combined benefits can help municipalities make the case for sustained public investment and scaling up organic waste diversion.

Valparaíso: extending waste picker inclusion from recycling to organics

The experience in Valparaíso adds another dimension: a just transition in the waste sector requires expanding the role of waste pickers as waste systems evolve.

ANARCH’s network already demonstrates the scale at which organized waste pickers can operate. Its member organizations include 55 operational cooperatives across 14 of Chile’s 16 regions, with more than 1,000 waste pickers formalized and approximately 40,000 tonnes of materials recovered in 2025.

The Valparaíso pilot is now applying that experience to organics.

The region generates approximately 133,000 tonnes of municipal waste annually, with an estimated organic fraction of around 70%. With the useful life of the El Molle disposal facility projected to end in 2028, increasing diversion has become increasingly urgent.

The project has involved direct capacity building with grassroots waste pickers, including three training sessions totalling 12 hours for five participants, covering composting, safe operations, traceability and business-model development. Following collaboration with municipal and regional authorities, organic waste management began in September 2026 with direct participation from waste pickers. Building on ANARCH’s experience organizing waste picker cooperatives, the initiative seeks to extend their role beyond recyclable materials into organic waste management, creating opportunities for workers to participate in operations and potentially in the future governance of organic waste infrastructure.

The significance goes beyond a single composting project. It demonstrates a pathway through which workers who have historically recovered recyclable materials can become participants—and ultimately co-managers—in the infrastructure required for organic waste management.

ANARCH is already exploring how this approach could move from a pilot towards regional infrastructure, including a financing model combining preparation grants, public and international investment, and potentially results-based finance linked to verified organic waste diversion, methane reductions, livelihoods and traceability.

The conditions are critical: public co-management, appropriate permitting and waste picker leadership need to be designed into the investment model rather than added afterwards.

Five lessons for cities and funders

Taken together, the three experiences suggest several principles for governments, development finance institutions and climate funders seeking rapid methane reductions from organic waste:

1. Treat organic waste management as essential public infrastructure. Collection and treatment provide a public service and require reliable public financing, including operating expenditure—not only capital investment.
2. Invest in source separation before focusing on technology. Clean organic feedstock is fundamental to successful composting and biological treatment. Bandung demonstrates that sustained household engagement and separate collection are as important as the treatment technology itself.
3. Value the full range of benefits. Financial assessments should include avoided disposal and transport costs, reduced municipal purchasing, climate mitigation, employment and other local benefits—not simply revenues from compost or other products.
4. Build inclusion into the institutional model. Informal workers and community organizations should not merely be consulted or contracted at the end of the process. They can be operators, co-managers and partners in designing the system.
5. Finance operations, not just infrastructure. Land, labor, collection, maintenance and community engagement determine whether infrastructure continues functioning after a project ends. The Bandung analysis, for example, identifies labor as 77% of operating costs, while access to publicly provided land substantially changes project economics.

From local evidence to global methane action

These projects were never intended to remain isolated pilots. The objective has been to generate practical evidence that can inform policy, investment and replication.

Lessons from Bandung, Durban and Valparaíso are already feeding into national policy engagement, technical guidance and regional exchanges, as well as international discussions through the CCAC and UN climate processes. The pathway is deliberate: local evidence → policy change → replication → global impact.

The three experiences demonstrate different but complementary dimensions of inclusive organic waste management. In Bandung, sustained household engagement makes source separation and decentralized treatment possible. In Durban, collaboration between market traders, workers and municipal departments connects organic waste diversion with public services and local employment. And in Valparaíso, organized waste pickers are developing the skills and institutional relationships needed to participate directly in organic waste management.

Together, they show that scaling organic waste solutions does not primarily require new technologies. It requires building the institutional, financial and social conditions that allow existing solutions to become part of mainstream municipal waste systems. Inclusion cannot be an afterthought: communities and workers need meaningful roles in designing, delivering and benefiting from these services.

For climate finance, the implication is equally clear: finance needs to reach the local systems and organizations capable of turning methane commitments into measurable reductions on the ground.

That is how community-led projects move beyond pilots—and become part of the infrastructure of a low-methane, inclusive and zero waste future.

Read the case studies from Bandung, Durban, and Valparaiso here.

The post From pilots to public systems: what three cities teach us about financing inclusive organic waste management first appeared on GAIA.

.stk-0359e53 {margin-top:var(--stk--preset--spacing--70, 3.38rem) !important;margin-bottom:var(--stk--preset--spacing--70, 3.38rem) !important;} .stk-2zo0h3w {margin-top:50px !important;margin-right:50px !important;margin-left:50px !important;}.stk-2zo0h3w .stk-block-heading__text{font-size:3rem !important;font-family:"Barlow Semi Condensed", Sans-serif !important;}@media screen and (max-width: 1023px){.stk-2zo0h3w .stk-block-heading__text{font-size:3rem !important;}}Citizens’ Atlas on False Climate and Circularity Solutions
In Focus: Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank

.stk-fadc901 .stk-inner-blocks{gap:9px !important;}.stk-fadc901 {margin-left:50px !important;} .stk-hzfvrpd .stk--svg-wrapper .stk--inner-svg svg:last-child{height:20px !important;width:20px !important;}.stk-hzfvrpd .stk--svg-wrapper .stk--inner-svg svg:last-child, .stk-hzfvrpd .stk--svg-wrapper .stk--inner-svg svg:last-child :is(g, path, rect, polygon, ellipse){fill:#f5d18e !important;} .stk-vybxwqf {margin-left:0px !important;}.stk-vybxwqf .stk-block-heading__text{color:#2e5a9a !important;}GAIA Asia Pacific

This fact sheet assesses 14 false solutions projects by the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank from January 2015 to August 2026.  It highlights total financing by false solution type, recipient countries, funding types and financial instruments, and environmental and social risk categories. Since 2015, the bank has supported USD 5.4 billion worth of projects with false solutions to circularity and climate action, worsening the debt burdens of countries.

Download your copy of the fact sheet here!

The post first appeared on GAIA.

By Biruk Tsehay Abera, 2026 Africa Zero Waste Academy Participant

My name is Biruk Tsehay Abera, and I co-founded Jitu Organic Fertilizer. “Jitu” means giving and providing, and it also symbolizes prosperity and fertility.

I was born and raised in Addis Ababa. Like many rapidly growing African cities, it is experiencing migration, rapid urbanization, and modernization, all of which increase and diversify waste generation. The city generates about 3,000 metric tonnes of waste daily, much of which ends up in landfills rather than at decentralized composting facilities such as Jitu Organic Fertilizer. About 70% of the waste generated is organic and can be composted.

Currently, Addis Ababa’s reliance on open landfilling creates serious environmental problems, including methane emissions, leachate that can contaminate surface and groundwater, and air pollution.

At Jitu, we have been working on practical solutions by advocating for better waste management, creating accessible waste streams for compost producers, developing market opportunities, and providing training and capacity development.

I have witnessed this transformation firsthand and contributed to it alongside my fellow actors in the waste sector. We have achieved important successes, but the biggest change is still ahead.

This combined experience is why I applied to the Zero Waste Academy. 

I have always told myself I am a lion among lions. But through the Zero Waste Academy, I have met the true lions, the heroes and heroines of the zero waste movement.

Seeing my fellow African brothers and sisters join this journey—bringing innovations rooted in their local contexts, creating social and economic change, and making their voices heard— has been an incredible experience.

Being part of this global movement—sharing our stories in person, building connections, learning from one another’s lifelong experiences, and witnessing how far people have come—and the determination they have to keep moving forward with hope and commitment—has been one of the most powerful experiences of my life.

ABIB Zero Waste Project: A New Beginning

Our goal is to move toward zero waste.

ABIB is a Hebrew word associated with spring, renewal, and a new beginning. For me, it represents the transformation we seek in the waste sector.

To achieve this transformation, integrating and building capacity across the waste sector are essential. I came to the Zero Waste Academy looking for practical solutions and an eye-opening experience that would help me see waste from a broader perspective—not only from a scientific standpoint, but also through its social, economic, political, and global dimensions.

The waste sector affects diverse groups, including women, children, minority communities, persons with disabilities, waste workers, and compost producers. Their experiences and challenges must be part of the zero-waste conversation at both the national and international levels.

In the waste sector, we often see a mountain of waste that seems impossible to move, a wall of dirt that seems impossible to break, and the distance that seems impossible to reach. Yet, beyond the dark sky covered by dust, we can always see a horizon.

That horizon represents hope and determination.

One of our greatest challenges is building greater integrity, collaboration, and solidarity within the sector. Waste workers and compost producers need to come together, share knowledge and skills, advocate collectively, and create safe spaces for dialogue.

The Zero Waste Academy has shown me that I am no longer standing alone.

The challenges we face are similar. The system is broken in ways that keep those working toward circularity and zero waste from reaching their full potential.

But I believe that these challenges can also become opportunities for transformation.

My Dream

I have a dream: to build Africa’s largest organic fertilizer facility.

With great power comes great responsibility. Understanding the reality of the waste sector, identifying the right direction, and building the right partnerships have therefore been among my biggest considerations.

The Zero Waste Academy has given me something beyond knowledge. It has connected me to a regional and continental network of waste workers and changemakers across Africa who have the will, determination, and belief to transform the sector.

This network is a major step toward creating sustainable jobs and improving livelihood security. It strengthens our ability to advocate, share experiences, learn from one another, and change people’s attitudes toward waste.

What I Am Taking Forward

Through the Zero Waste Academy, I have learned the power of advocacy, community engagement, and collective action. I have seen how associations can help waste workers organize, strengthen their voices, and advocate for better working conditions and legal protection.

This experience has also strengthened my confidence as an advocate. It has helped me understand that waste is not simply waste. It has economic, political, social, environmental, and global dimensions.

The overwhelming challenges waste pickers and informal waste collectors face have further convinced me of the importance of building strong organizations and associations for compost producers and waste workers. Collective organization can create stronger negotiating power for better working environments, recognition, and legal protection.

Shaping the Future

Shaping the future is like carving stone. It is not a simple task. You need the right tools, the right skills, and the determination of a skilled craftsman.

I believe the Zero Waste Academy has given me some of those tools.

Now, it is time for me to turn social problems into life-changing solutions.

I came to the Academy looking for practical solutions. I leave with new knowledge, new partnerships, new confidence, and a stronger belief that transformation is possible when we work together.

The journey toward zero waste is far from over.

This is only the beginning.

See you at the top!

Biruk Tsehay Abera

The post Diaries from Accra: Biruk’s Experience at Africa Zero Waste Academy first appeared on GAIA.

20 historias inspiradoras de victorias contra los incineradores de basura

20 de octubre de 2026

A lo largo de los últimos 25 años de GAIA, hemos sido testigos del cierre de más de 375 incineradores en todo el mundo. En esta serie dedicada a la Semana Global de Acción contra la Incineración, destacamos más de 20 ejemplos inspiradores de comunidades que han salido victoriosas frente a incineradores y propuestas de construcción de incineradores en sus ciudades.

Desde intervenciones apasionadas e informativas en reuniones del consejo municipal, pasando por consultas técnicas con instituciones financieras internacionales, hasta campañas históricas de peticiones y la obtención de apoyo de la comunidad internacional, descubre los factores clave de las siguientes victorias contra las falsas soluciones tóxicas en todo el mundo.

.stk-md69fw0 .stk-block-heading__text{color:#952925 !important;}América Latina y el Caribe View this post on Instagram

A post shared by GAIA Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (@gaia_zerowaste)

WTE ARAUCANÍA

Lautaro, región de La Araucanía, Chile

Año de cierre/suspensión: 2022

Factor clave para el éxito:

Participación pública: Más de 17.000 comentarios por escrito durante la etapa de consulta pública del proceso de evaluación ambiental.

Campaña educativa: Participación constante del público en general al poner a disposición información crítica y fácil de entender.

Coalición: Formación de una fuerte coalición entre las comunidades mapuches, el municipio y las organizaciones ambientales.

Experiencia técnica: Evidencia pericial relevante y altamente calificada en las audiencias.

Defensa consistente: Vigilancia constante y continua a lo largo de las diferentes etapas del proceso.

Visibilización del rechazo a la incineración en Europa y promoción de la estrategia Basura Cero: en paralelo con el rechazo a la incineración de basura, se promovió la implementación de la estrategia basura cero, mostrando ejemplos en el mundo. También se expuso la contaminación de incineradores en Europa.

Recursos:

Artículo relevante: https://araucaniadiario.cl/contenido/35379/rada-celebra-nuevo-rechazo-a-la-incineracion-de-basura-en-chile

Sitio web de RADA: www.radaraucania.org

Miembros que participaron en la victoria: Red de Acción por los Derechos Ambientales (RADA), Comunidades mapuches, municipio de Lautaro.

.stk-73e5lbh .stk-block-heading__text{color:#952925 !important;}Asia-Pacifico View this post on Instagram

A post shared by GAIA Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (@gaia_zerowaste)

PLANTA DE PIROLISIS DE DUMAGUETE

Dumaguete, Filipinas

Año de cierre: 2025

Factor clave del éxito: El poder de la ciencia comunitaria, la experiencia sobre el terreno y el liderazgo de los miembros de las comunidades afectadas, incluidos los trabajadores del sector de residuos, las amas de casa, los residentes, los estudiantes y los maestros de Dumaguete.

Estudio de caso y recursos:

Informe «Clearing the Air»

Lee sobre la conferencia de prensa aquí: https://www.pna.gov.ph/articles/1253343

Miembros involucrados en la victoria: WOW, DWWA (Asociación de Trabajadores de Residuos de Dumaguete), GAIA

PROPUESTA DE PLANTAS DE CONVERSIÓN DE RESIDUOS EN ENERGÍA EN 4 CIUDADES

Gujarat, India

Año de cierre/suspensión: 2025

Factores clave del éxito:

1. El análisis del informe de EIAS y la identificación de cómo este viola las normas de desempeño del Banco Mundial

2. La difusión de las voces locales a nivel global

3. Documentación de los impactos sobre el terreno de la empresa de incineración de basura con generación de electricidad (WTE) y su análisis financiero.

Recursos: Carta al Banco Mundial, carta colectiva firmada por 174 organizaciones

Miembros involucrados en la victoria: Alianza por un Gujarat sin Incineradoras, incluyendo a CFA, IAP y las comunidades afectadas

PROPUESTA DE INCINERADORA EN VARIOS PAÍSES

Indonesia, Malasia, Filipinas, Singapur, Tailandia y Vietnam, China y Hong Kong

Año en que se cerró o detuvo el proyecto: 2024

Factor clave del éxito: Esfuerzos colectivos de campaña, incluso en espacios estratégicos como la Reunión Anual del AIIB, además de una carta técnica enviada al AIIB (Banco Asiático de Inversión en Infraestructura) y la denuncia de la relación de la empresa de incineración con la corrupción y la contaminación

Recursos: Documento del proyecto del AIIB, artículo sobre el caso en AIIB Observer

Miembros involucrados: Miembros en Indonesia, Malasia, Filipinas, Singapur, Tailandia y Vietnam, China y Hong Kong, GAIA Asia-Pacífico

PROPUESTA DE PLANTA DE GENERACIÓN DE ENERGÍA A PARTIR DE RESIDUOS EN TE AWAMATU

Te Awamatu, Aotearoa Nueva Zelanda

Año de cierre/suspensión: 2025

Factores clave para el éxito: Oposición pública con más de 900 comentarios por escrito + sólidos testimonios de expertos en contra de la planta durante las audiencias de la Junta

Gran participación comunitaria

Excelente formación de una coalición entre la comunidad, los maoríes y las organizaciones ambientales

Pruebas periciales relevantes y altamente calificadas en las audiencias

Recursos:

Sitio web de la campaña, presentación de GAIA

Llamado a enviar observaciones al proyecto de incinerador de Te Awamatu https://zerowaste.co.nz/action-alert-make-a-submission-on-the-te-awamutu-incinerator/ 

Miembros que participaron en la victoria: Zero Waste Aotearoa, Regeneration Not Incineration

PROPUESTA DE LA INSTALACIÓN DE RECUPERACIÓN DE MAPO

Mapo-gu, Corea del Sur

Año de cierre/suspensión: 2026

Factores clave del éxito: Creación de una alianza para luchar contra esta propuesta de incinerador.

La determinación de los residentes y una sólida organización comunitaria: la feroz oposición y la persistencia de la comunidad fueron la fuerza impulsora que mantuvo la campaña hasta el final.

Victoria en el litigio: La comunidad ganó una demanda al revelar fallas procesales.

Amplia solidaridad de la sociedad civil: la campaña construyó una amplia coalición que se extendió más allá del grupo de residentes, reuniendo a residentes, organizaciones de la sociedad civil y la oficina del distrito local.

Recursos: La ciudad de Seúl descarta el plan de la planta incineradora de Mapo-gu https://www.chosun.com/english/national-en/2026/03/03/D2EWSGFRPVEDZH6R5PJZWZY26E/

Miembros que participaron en la victoria: Mapo Resource Circulation Network

.stk-zlr0c65 .stk-block-heading__text{color:#952925 !important;}Europa View this post on Instagram

A post shared by GAIA Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (@gaia_zerowaste)

APROXIMADAMENTE 200 INCINERADORES

Varias ubicaciones, Reino Unido

Año de cierre: desde 2007

Factor clave del éxito: Los logros de los activistas pueden atribuirse a muchos factores, entre ellos:

• El uso de argumentos basados en hechos y respaldados por evidencia, incluyendo los daños causados por la incineración de residuos
• El asesoramiento, la orientación y el apoyo para establecer contactos por parte de una red sin fines de lucro consolidada: UKWIN
• Una fuerte y sostenida oposición pública que se traduce en el respaldo político de los funcionarios locales

Estudio de caso y recursos:

Act Locally

https://ukwin.org.uk/files/pdf/BiIG-success-for-Buttington.pdf

From concerned locals to national change: How Dovesdale Action Group built power and won Why Oppose Incineration

Miembros que participaron en el logro: UKWIN, comunidades locales, organizaciones asociadas y redes aliadas

INCINERADORA MUNICIPAL DE RESIDUOS

Skalica, Eslovaquia

Año de cierre o suspensión: 2026

Factores clave del éxito:

• Monitoreo temprano y recopilación de información: dar seguimiento a los avances en la gestión de residuos y recopilar información sobre el proyecto desde el inicio del proceso de Evaluación de Impacto Ambiental (EIA), lo que permitió a los activistas contar con tiempo suficiente para comprender la propuesta y responder de manera efectiva.
• Identificar y empoderar a los residentes locales afectados: encontrar personas activas en la comunidad que pudieran verse directamente afectadas por el proyecto, involucrarlas a través de reuniones públicas y campañas de información, y apoyarlas para que se convirtieran en defensores locales clave.
• Brindar apoyo constante por parte de las ONG y los expertos: crear un foro en el que las ONG y los expertos puedan explicar el proyecto y sus posibles impactos a los residentes, las autoridades locales y los defensores de la comunidad, al tiempo que se haga hincapié en la paciencia y la perseverancia necesarias para mantener la campaña a largo plazo.

Recursos:

Puedes encontrar más información sobre nuestra lucha conjunta aquí:

https://www.priateliazeme.sk/spz/z-nasej-prace/definitivne-vitazstvo-zamer-na-vystavbu-spalovne-odpadov-pri-meste-skalica-nebude

Artículos relevantes:

Spaľovne? Po skládkovaní druhé najhoršie riešenie! Spaľovanie odpadov je škodlivým prežitkom

http://skalickyobzor.sk/cms/zo-skalickej-spalovne-je-medzinarodny-skandal/

http://skalickyobzor.sk/cms/podme-porovnat-oba-varianty-likvidacie-odpadu-ceh-zevo-kontra-mbu/

http://skalickyobzor.sk/cms/je-dokazane-uz-dnes-spalujeme-skalicky-odpad-v-cementarni-v-rohozniku/

Miembros que participaron en la victoria: la comunidad local, Priatelia Zeme – SPZ (Amigos de la Tierra – SPZ)

INCINERADORA ALIMENTADA CON RDF

Pavlikeni, Bulgaria

Año de cierre/suspensión: 2026

Factores clave del éxito:

Una comunidad local unida y el apoyo de las empresas locales: los residentes se unieron más allá de sus diferencias para proteger el ambiente limpio de la región, las tierras agrícolas fértiles y la calidad de vida, y las empresas locales también respaldaron la campaña.

Sólidos conocimientos técnicos, legales y científicos: abogados, biólogos, ecologistas y otros expertos técnicos aportaron conocimientos fundamentales, mientras que la organización ambientalista Za Zemiata apoyó la campaña con su experiencia y capacidad legal.

Una movilización pública sin precedentes y una perseverancia constante: más de 20.000 personas de la región firmaron una petición, lo que generó una gran atención mediática y demostró una fuerte oposición pública. Cuatro años de batallas legales requirieron una perseverancia constante, mientras que la demanda exitosa de Za Zemiata contra la incineradora de Sofía ayudó a mantener la esperanza de que la campaña pudiera tener éxito.

Recursos:

<ESTUDIO DE CASO PRÓXIMAMENTE>

Miembros involucrados: Za Zemiata, comunidad afectada, red de aliados

.stk-a5efrk3 .stk-block-heading__text{color:#952925 !important;}Africa View this post on Instagram

A post shared by GAIA Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (@gaia_zerowaste)

PLANTA DE INCINERACIÓN A GRAN ESCALA DE DRAKENSTEIN

Drakenstein, Sudáfrica

Año en que se detuvo el proyecto: 2016

Factor clave del éxito: Las comunidades y organizaciones locales se opusieron al proyecto de incineración a gran escala propuesto, de 25 millones de dólares, incluyendo preocupaciones en torno a la participación de empresas extranjeras y la Agencia de Comercio y Desarrollo de EE. UU.

Recursos:

• https://www.no-burn.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/South-Africa-Case-Study-2.pdf

Organizaciones que participaron en la victoria: Drakenstein Environmental Watch (DEW), Asociación de Wellington contra la Incineradora (WAAI), groundWork, la Asociación Sudafricana de Recicladores (SAWPA), GAIA y los residentes de la comunidad

PROYECTO DE GENERACIÓN DE ENERGÍA A PARTIR DE RESIDUOS EN MAURICIO

La Chaumière, Mauricio

Factor clave del éxito: Poner de relieve la incompatibilidad de la planta de conversión de residuos en energía Gamma Covanta, de 300.000 toneladas, en una isla donde aproximadamente el 70% de los residuos son residuos verdes y de cocina.

Recursos: https://www.lalitmauritius.org/en/newsarticle/843/the-la-chaumire-waste-to-energy-project-criticized/

Miembros que participaron en la victoria: Collectif des Opposants a l’Incineration de Déchets, DION y groundWork

PLANTA DE INCINERACIÓN A GRAN ESCALA

Johannesburgo, Sudáfrica

Año de cierre o suspensión: 2013

Factor clave del éxito: Reconocer y seguir el ejemplo de los 500 recicladores de base, poniendo sus voces y sus medios de vida en el centro de la campaña.

Recursos: Marcha contra la destrucción de empleos por la energía sucia

Miembros involucrados: SAWPA, groundWork y la Alianza Internacional de Recolectores de Residuos (IAWP)

PLANTA DE PIROLISIS DE NEUMÁTICOS DE OGIJO (ALTO PERFIL TECNOLÓGICO)

Ogijo, Nigeria

Año de cierre o suspensión: 2025

Factores clave del éxito: La ciencia ciudadana que llenó el vacío en los datos oficiales para documentar la contaminación cerca de la planta de quema de residuos.

Recursos:

Informe «Clearing the Air»

Miembros involucrados en la victoria: Comunidades afectadas, Green Knowledge Foundation

¿Te sientes inspirado para actuar en tu comunidad?

Comienza con el documento «Cómo las comunidades pueden rechazar la incineración y ganar» y la guía comunitaria «Incineración de residuos: lo básico», y conoce las incineradoras que aún amenazan a las comunidades en el «Burn Book» de GAIA. Luego, únete a la Semana Global de Acción para Detener la Incineración.

The post CUANDO LAS COMUNIDADES GANAN, EL MUNDO GANA. first appeared on GAIA.

GAIA Statement | Global Week of Action to Stop Incineration | October 2026 · Leer en español

As communities across the world mobilize against waste incineration, the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA) is raising the alarm about the waste-burning industry’s presence at COP31, the UN Climate Change Conference taking place in Antalya, Türkiye, this November.

At a time when the COP31 Presidency has made zero waste a priority, representatives of the incineration industry are expected to participate in discussions on circular cities, waste management, and climate finance.

These include CEWEP, the European waste-to-energy industry’s lobbying association, which actively promotes incineration as a climate and energy solution, and Kanadevia Inova, a major waste-to-energy technology provider, both listed in the COP31 official side events agenda. CEWEP has previously promoted incineration at UN climate conferences, including COP30. Meanwhile, Kanadevia Inova’s involvement in the proposed Smokey Mountain incineration project in Manila, alongside its local partner Philippine Ecology Systems Corp. (PhilEco), has raised serious concerns among human rights advocates, environmental organizations, and local residents, as documented in GAIA’s report, The Smokey Mountain Waste-to-Energy Project: Arrested Development and Environmental Justice in Urban Manila.

There is a fundamental contradiction at the heart of this participation: an industry whose business depends on burning waste is seeking to influence discussions about waste prevention, climate action, and the transition towards sustainable waste systems.

The global zero waste agenda must not become an opportunity to greenwash incineration, legitimize polluting infrastructure, or redirect climate finance away from real solutions that protect communities, support a just transition for waste workers, and deliver meaningful climate benefits.

Key findings

• Waste-to-energy incineration emits about 1.7 times more greenhouse gas per unit of electricity than coal-fired power.
• Europe’s existing incinerators could burn almost 65 million more tonnes of waste a year than they currently process.
• GAIA’s Clearing the Air research recorded fine particulate levels 5 to 8 times above WHO guidelines near sites in Indonesia, Nigeria and the Philippines.
• The proposed Smokey Mountain project in Manila: ₱26 billion, 100 MW, built to burn around 3,000 tonnes of waste a day.
• More than 550 municipalities worldwide are taking steps towards zero waste.

Burning waste fuels the climate crisis

Waste-to-energy is often marketed as clean or renewable energy. But burning waste does not make its carbon emissions disappear.

Waste-to-energy incineration produces approximately 1.7 times as much greenhouse gas pollution per unit of electricity as coal-fired power plants. Plastics, which are made primarily from fossil fuels, contribute significantly to these emissions.

Incineration also destroys materials that could otherwise be reused, recycled, or composted, creating additional emissions through the extraction and manufacture of replacement products.

Far from advancing a circular economy, incineration perpetuates a linear model of extraction, consumption and destruction.

An expensive industry that locks cities into burning waste

Incinerators are among the most capital-intensive waste management facilities. Their financial models frequently depend on long-term contracts, public subsidies, and guaranteed volumes of waste.

These arrangements can lock municipalities into decades of waste burning, even as they seek to reduce waste generation, expand recycling and introduce separate collection of organic waste.

The financial consequences are particularly serious for cities in the Global South, where scarce public resources are urgently needed for basic waste services, community infrastructure, and climate adaptation.

Meanwhile, Europe is already struggling with overcapacity. According to Zero Waste Europe’s latest update of its Enough is Enough report, existing incineration infrastructure has the capacity to burn almost 65 million tonnes more waste annually than it currently processes.

Yet incineration companies continue promoting and exporting the same infrastructure model internationally.

Why should countries facing urgent development and climate challenges invest in infrastructure that other regions have already built in excess?

Communities pay the price

Behind the industry’s promises of clean energy and modern infrastructure are communities facing pollution, financial burdens, and threats to their livelihoods.

GAIA’s Burn Book: Incinerators that Threaten the Climate, Public Health, and our Finances highlights how these concerns recur across countries and regions.

In Delhi, India, communities around the Timarpur-Okhla waste-to-energy plant have raised concerns about air pollution and the facility’s proximity to residential neighbourhoods.

In Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, the Reppie waste-to-energy facility illustrates the risks of prioritizing large, centralized waste-burning infrastructure in cities where recycling, organic waste recovery, and inclusive waste services require investment.

In Surabaya, Indonesia, community-led air quality monitoring near waste-burning operations has documented serious pollution concerns. GAIA’s Clearing the Air research, covering sites in Indonesia, Nigeria, and the Philippines, recorded fine particulate matter levels five to eight times higher than World Health Organization guidelines.

And in Manila, Philippines, the proposed Smokey Mountain waste-to-energy project offers a stark warning about the environmental justice implications of incineration expansion.

The proposed ₱26 billion, 100 MW project, designed to process approximately 3,000 tonnes of waste per day, threatens to transform an area with a long history of environmental injustice into a new site of industrial waste burning.

GAIA’s investigation into the Smokey Mountain project documents concerns over displacement, inadequate community consultation, environmental risks, and threats to waste-picker livelihoods. Kanadevia Inova has been identified as a technology partner in the project.

These examples expose a wider pattern: communities already bearing the burden of waste pollution are being asked to accept new infrastructure that may deepen existing inequalities, while the companies promoting these projects present themselves as providers of climate solutions.

Incineration also threatens the livelihoods of waste pickers, who play a vital role in recovering materials and sustaining local recycling economies. By burning valuable recyclables, incinerators can displace workers and undermine existing recovery systems. A just transition must recognize their contributions, protect their rights and livelihoods, and strengthen their role in building inclusive zero waste systems.

Climate finance must not subsidize false solutions

At COP31, the participation of CEWEP in an event addressing the Global Zero Waste and Methane Fund raises particularly serious concerns.

Methane reduction in the waste sector is urgently needed. But replacing methane emissions from organic waste with fossil carbon emissions from burning plastics is not a credible pathway to a zero waste future.

Climate finance should support prevention, separate collection, composting, anaerobic digestion where appropriate, recycling, and the inclusion of waste pickers.

It should not be used to finance infrastructure that burns recoverable materials, creates long-term financial liabilities, and competes with the very systems needed to achieve zero waste.

The presence of industry representatives in climate policy discussions also raises important questions about conflicts of interest, transparency, and whose expertise is prioritized.

The companies and associations that stand to profit from expanding incineration should not be given privileged influence over the policies and financing mechanisms intended to accelerate the transition away from polluting waste management.

Real solutions are already here

Around the world, GAIA members are working with municipalities, waste pickers, and communities to demonstrate practical alternatives to incineration.

More than 550 municipalities worldwide are taking steps towards zero waste, demonstrating that preventing waste, recovering materials, managing organics, and protecting livelihoods can form the foundation of effective local climate action.

These approaches reduce methane emissions, prevent pollution, conserve resources, and support a just transition by recognizing waste pickers, improving working conditions, and creating opportunities for decent livelihoods.

They are the solutions that deserve international recognition, technical support, and climate finance.

GAIA calls on the COP31 Presidency and climate finance institutions to:

1. Keep the incineration industry out of climate policymaking. Establish safeguards against conflicts of interest and prevent companies with vested interests in waste burning from shaping the zero waste agenda.
2. Reject incineration as a zero waste or climate solution. Ensure that COP31 commitments prioritize waste prevention, reuse, separate collection, recycling, and organic waste management.
3. Exclude incineration from climate finance. Establish explicit safeguards preventing the Global Zero Waste and Methane Fund and other climate finance mechanisms from supporting waste burning, including refuse-derived fuels and co-incineration.
4. Put communities, waste pickers and a just transition at the center. Guarantee meaningful participation, protect workers’ rights and livelihoods, and invest in inclusive zero waste systems that improve working conditions, provide social protection, and strengthen local economies.
5. Invest in proven, community-led solutions. Direct international climate finance towards zero waste systems that reduce emissions, improve public health, create dignified livelihoods, and support local governments, waste picker organizations, and communities.

As the Global Week of Action to Stop Incineration brings together communities resisting waste burning across the world, their message to COP31 is clear:

The climate crisis cannot be solved by burning more waste.

Climate finance must not fuel incineration. Climate policy must not be shaped by the industries that profit from it. And a just transition must not leave behind the workers and communities who are already building the solutions we need.

Incinerators Out of COP31. Zero Waste In.

Frequently asked questions Why does GAIA want incinerators kept out of COP31?

Waste-burning industry groups, including CEWEP and Kanadevia Inova, are listed in COP31’s official side events on circular cities, waste and climate finance. GAIA argues that an industry that profits from burning waste shouldn’t shape the zero waste agenda.

Is waste-to-energy a clean or renewable energy source?

No. Burning waste releases its carbon, and waste-to-energy produces about 1.7 times more greenhouse gas per unit of electricity than coal. It also destroys materials that could be reused, recycled or composted.

Why shouldn’t climate finance pay for incinerators?

Incinerators rely on long contracts and guaranteed waste volumes that lock cities in for decades and compete with recycling and composting. Swapping methane from organic waste for fossil carbon from burning plastic isn’t a credible path to zero waste.

What is GAIA asking the COP31 Presidency to do?

Keep the incineration industry out of climate policymaking, reject incineration as a climate or zero waste solution, exclude it from climate finance, put communities and waste pickers at the center, and invest in proven, community-led zero waste solutions.

What are the alternatives to incineration?

Waste prevention, reuse, separate collection, composting, recycling and the inclusion of waste pickers. More than 550 municipalities worldwide are already moving towards zero waste.

Related resources

• Global Week of Action to Stop Incineration
• Waste-Burning 101: What Is Waste-to-Energy?
• The High Cost of Waste Incineration
• Lee esta declaración en español

{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"FAQPage","inLanguage":"en","mainEntity":[{"@type":"Question","name":"Why does GAIA want incinerators kept out of COP31?","acceptedAnswer":{"@type":"Answer","text":"Waste-burning industry groups, including CEWEP and Kanadevia Inova, are listed in COP31's official side events on circular cities, waste and climate finance. GAIA argues that an industry that profits from burning waste shouldn't shape the zero waste agenda."}},{"@type":"Question","name":"Is waste-to-energy a clean or renewable energy source?","acceptedAnswer":{"@type":"Answer","text":"No. Burning waste releases its carbon, and waste-to-energy produces about 1.7 times more greenhouse gas per unit of electricity than coal. It also destroys materials that could be reused, recycled or composted."}},{"@type":"Question","name":"Why shouldn't climate finance pay for incinerators?","acceptedAnswer":{"@type":"Answer","text":"Incinerators rely on long contracts and guaranteed waste volumes that lock cities in for decades and compete with recycling and composting. Swapping methane from organic waste for fossil carbon from burning plastic isn't a credible path to zero waste."}},{"@type":"Question","name":"What is GAIA asking the COP31 Presidency to do?","acceptedAnswer":{"@type":"Answer","text":"Keep the incineration industry out of climate policymaking, reject incineration as a climate or zero waste solution, exclude it from climate finance, put communities and waste pickers at the center, and invest in proven, community-led zero waste solutions."}},{"@type":"Question","name":"What are the alternatives to incineration?","acceptedAnswer":{"@type":"Answer","text":"Waste prevention, reuse, separate collection, composting, recycling and the inclusion of waste pickers. More than 550 municipalities worldwide are already moving towards zero waste."}}]}

The post Incinerators Out of COP31: The Climate Crisis Cannot Be Solved by Burning Waste first appeared on GAIA.

Declaración de GAIA | Semana Mundial de Acción contra la Incineración | Octubre de 2026 · Read in English

Mientras comunidades de todo el mundo se movilizan contra la incineración de residuos, la Alianza Global para Alternativas a la Incineración (GAIA) alerta sobre la presencia de la industria de la incineración en la COP31, la Conferencia de las Naciones Unidas sobre el Cambio Climático que tendrá lugar este noviembre en Antalya, Turquía.

En un momento en que la Presidencia de la COP31 ha situado la basura cero entre sus prioridades, se espera que representantes de la industria de la incineración participen en debates sobre ciudades circulares, gestión de residuos y financiación climática.

Entre ellos se encuentran CEWEP, la asociación europea que representa los intereses de la industria de la valorización energética de residuos y que promueve activamente la incineración como solución climática y energética, y Kanadevia Inova, uno de los principales proveedores de tecnología de incineración con recuperación de energía. Ambas organizaciones figuran en el programa oficial de eventos paralelos de la COP31. CEWEP ya ha promovido anteriormente la incineración en conferencias climáticas de la ONU, incluida la COP30. Por su parte, la participación de Kanadevia Inova en el proyecto de incineración propuesto para Smokey Mountain, en Manila, junto con su socio local Philippine Ecology Systems Corp. (PhilEco), ha suscitado graves preocupaciones entre organizaciones de derechos humanos, organizaciones ambientales y residentes de la zona, como documenta el informe de GAIA The Smokey Mountain Waste-to-Energy Project: Arrested Development and Environmental Justice in Urban Manila.

Existe una contradicción fundamental en esta participación: una industria cuyo modelo de negocio depende de quemar residuos pretende influir en los debates sobre prevención de residuos, acción climática y transición hacia sistemas sostenibles de gestión de residuos.

La agenda mundial de basura cero no puede convertirse en una oportunidad para maquillar de verde la incineración, legitimar infraestructuras contaminantes o desviar la financiación climática de las verdaderas soluciones que protegen a las comunidades, apoyan una transición justa para las personas trabajadoras del sector de residuos y generan beneficios climáticos reales.

Datos clave

• La incineración con recuperación de energía emite unas 1,7 veces más gases de efecto invernadero por unidad de electricidad que las centrales de carbón.
• Las incineradoras de Europa podrían quemar casi 65 millones de toneladas más de residuos al año de las que procesan actualmente.
• La investigación Clearing the Air de GAIA registró partículas finas entre 5 y 8 veces por encima de las guías de la OMS cerca de instalaciones en Indonesia, Nigeria y Filipinas.
• El proyecto propuesto en Smokey Mountain (Manila): 26.000 millones de pesos filipinos y 100 MW, para quemar unas 3.000 toneladas de residuos al día.
• Más de 550 municipios de todo el mundo avanzan hacia la basura cero.

La quema de residuos agrava la crisis climática

La incineración con recuperación de energía suele presentarse como una fuente de energía limpia o renovable. Sin embargo, quemar residuos no hace desaparecer las emisiones de carbono.

La incineración de residuos con recuperación de energía genera aproximadamente 1,7 veces más emisiones de gases de efecto invernadero por unidad de electricidad producida que las centrales eléctricas de carbón. Los plásticos, fabricados principalmente a partir de combustibles fósiles, contribuyen significativamente a estas emisiones.

La incineración también destruye materiales que podrían reutilizarse, reciclarse o compostarse, lo que genera emisiones adicionales asociadas a la extracción de materias primas y la fabricación de nuevos productos para sustituirlos.

Lejos de impulsar una economía circular, la incineración perpetúa un modelo lineal de extracción, consumo y destrucción.

Una industria costosa que condena a las ciudades a seguir quemando residuos

Las incineradoras se encuentran entre las instalaciones de gestión de residuos que requieren mayores inversiones de capital. Sus modelos financieros suelen depender de contratos a largo plazo, subvenciones públicas y volúmenes garantizados de residuos.

Estos acuerdos pueden comprometer a los municipios a seguir quemando residuos durante décadas, incluso cuando intentan reducir su generación, ampliar el reciclaje e introducir la recogida separada de residuos orgánicos.

Las consecuencias financieras son especialmente graves para las ciudades del Sur Global, donde los escasos recursos públicos se necesitan urgentemente para servicios básicos de gestión de residuos, infraestructuras comunitarias y adaptación al cambio climático.

Mientras tanto, Europa ya se enfrenta a un problema de sobrecapacidad. Según la última actualización del informe Enough is Enough de Zero Waste Europe, la infraestructura de incineración existente tiene capacidad para quemar casi 65 millones de toneladas adicionales de residuos al año respecto a los volúmenes que procesa actualmente.

A pesar de ello, las empresas incineradoras siguen promoviendo y exportando este mismo modelo de infraestructura a otros países.

¿Por qué deberían los países que afrontan desafíos urgentes de desarrollo y acción climática invertir en infraestructuras que otras regiones ya han construido en exceso?

Las comunidades pagan las consecuencias

Detrás de las promesas de energía limpia e infraestructuras modernas de la industria de la incineración hay comunidades que sufren contaminación, cargas financieras y amenazas a sus medios de vida.

La publicación de GAIA Burn Book: Incinerators that Threaten the Climate, Public Health, and our Finances muestra cómo estas preocupaciones se repiten en distintos países y regiones.

En Delhi, India, las comunidades que viven alrededor de la planta de incineración con recuperación de energía de Timarpur-Okhla han expresado su preocupación por la contaminación atmosférica y la proximidad de la instalación a zonas residenciales.

En Adís Abeba, Etiopía, la planta de incineración con recuperación de energía de Reppie ilustra los riesgos de priorizar grandes infraestructuras centralizadas de quema de residuos en ciudades donde el reciclaje, la recuperación de residuos orgánicos y los servicios inclusivos de gestión de residuos necesitan inversión.

En Surabaya, Indonesia, el monitoreo comunitario de la calidad del aire cerca de instalaciones de quema de residuos ha documentado graves problemas de contaminación. La investigación de GAIA Clearing the Air, que abarca instalaciones en Indonesia, Nigeria y Filipinas, registró niveles de partículas finas entre cinco y ocho veces superiores a los valores recomendados por la Organización Mundial de la Salud.

Y en Manila, Filipinas, el proyecto de incineración con recuperación de energía propuesto para Smokey Mountain constituye una clara advertencia sobre las implicaciones de la expansión de la incineración para la justicia ambiental.

El proyecto propuesto, valorado en 26.000 millones de pesos filipinos, con una capacidad de 100 MW y diseñado para procesar aproximadamente 3.000 toneladas de residuos al día, amenaza con transformar una zona marcada por una larga historia de injusticia ambiental en un nuevo emplazamiento de quema industrial de residuos.

La investigación de GAIA sobre el proyecto de Smokey Mountain documenta preocupaciones relacionadas con posibles desplazamientos de población, consultas comunitarias insuficientes, riesgos ambientales y amenazas a los medios de vida de las personas recicladoras de base. Kanadevia Inova ha sido identificada como socio tecnológico del proyecto.

Estos ejemplos ponen de manifiesto un patrón más amplio: se pide a comunidades que ya soportan las consecuencias de la contaminación por residuos que acepten nuevas infraestructuras que pueden profundizar las desigualdades existentes, mientras las empresas que promueven estos proyectos se presentan como proveedoras de soluciones climáticas.

La incineración también amenaza los medios de vida de las personas recicladoras de base, que desempeñan un papel fundamental en la recuperación de materiales y el sostenimiento de las economías locales del reciclaje. Al quemar materiales reciclables valiosos, las incineradoras pueden desplazar a estas personas trabajadoras y debilitar los sistemas de recuperación existentes. Una transición justa debe reconocer sus contribuciones, proteger sus derechos y medios de vida, y fortalecer su papel en la construcción de sistemas inclusivos de basura cero.

La financiación climática no debe subvencionar falsas soluciones

En la COP31, la participación de CEWEP en un evento dedicado al Fondo Mundial de Basura Cero y Metano (Global Zero Waste and Methane Fund) plantea preocupaciones especialmente graves.

Reducir las emisiones de metano del sector de residuos es una necesidad urgente. Pero sustituir las emisiones de metano procedentes de los residuos orgánicos por emisiones de carbono fósil derivadas de la quema de plásticos no constituye una vía creíble hacia un futuro de basura cero.

La financiación climática debe apoyar la prevención de residuos, la recogida separada, el compostaje, la digestión anaerobia cuando resulte apropiada, el reciclaje y la inclusión de las personas recicladoras de base.

No debe utilizarse para financiar infraestructuras que queman materiales recuperables, generan obligaciones financieras a largo plazo y compiten con los mismos sistemas necesarios para alcanzar la basura cero.

La presencia de representantes de la industria en los debates sobre políticas climáticas también plantea cuestiones importantes sobre los conflictos de intereses, la transparencia y qué conocimientos y experiencias reciben prioridad.

Las empresas y asociaciones que se benefician económicamente de la expansión de la incineración no deben gozar de una influencia privilegiada sobre las políticas y los mecanismos de financiación destinados a acelerar la transición hacia sistemas de gestión de residuos no contaminantes.

Las verdaderas soluciones ya existen

En todo el mundo, las organizaciones miembro de GAIA trabajan con municipios, personas recicladoras de base y comunidades para demostrar que existen alternativas prácticas a la incineración.

Más de 550 municipios de todo el mundo están avanzando hacia la basura cero, demostrando que la prevención de residuos, la recuperación de materiales, la gestión de residuos orgánicos y la protección de los medios de vida pueden constituir la base de una acción climática local eficaz.

Estos enfoques reducen las emisiones de metano, previenen la contaminación, conservan los recursos y apoyan una transición justa mediante el reconocimiento de las personas recicladoras de base, la mejora de las condiciones laborales y la creación de oportunidades de trabajo digno.

Estas son las soluciones que merecen reconocimiento internacional, apoyo técnico y financiación climática.

GAIA hace un llamamiento a la Presidencia de la COP31 y a las instituciones de financiación climática para que:

1. Mantengan a la industria de la incineración fuera de la formulación de políticas climáticas. Establezcan salvaguardas frente a los conflictos de intereses e impidan que las empresas con intereses económicos en la quema de residuos influyan en la agenda de basura cero.

2. Rechacen la incineración como solución climática o de basura cero. Garanticen que los compromisos de la COP31 den prioridad a la prevención de residuos, la reutilización, la recogida separada, el reciclaje y la gestión de residuos orgánicos.

3. Excluyan la incineración de la financiación climática. Establezcan salvaguardas explícitas para impedir que el Fondo Mundial de Basura Cero y Metano y otros mecanismos de financiación climática apoyen la quema de residuos, incluidos los combustibles derivados de residuos y la coincineración.

4. Sitúen a las comunidades, las personas recicladoras de base y la transición justa en el centro de las decisiones. Garanticen una participación efectiva, protejan los derechos y los medios de vida de las personas trabajadoras e inviertan en sistemas inclusivos de basura cero que mejoren las condiciones laborales, proporcionen protección social y fortalezcan las economías locales.

5. Inviertan en soluciones probadas y lideradas por las comunidades. Orienten la financiación climática internacional hacia sistemas de basura cero que reduzcan las emisiones, mejoren la salud pública, generen medios de vida dignos y apoyen a los gobiernos locales, las organizaciones de personas recicladoras de base y las comunidades.

Mientras la Semana Mundial de Acción contra la Incineración reúne a comunidades de todo el mundo que se oponen a la quema de residuos, su mensaje a la COP31 es claro:

La crisis climática no se resuelve quemando más residuos.

La financiación climática no debe alimentar la incineración. Las políticas climáticas no deben estar determinadas por las industrias que se benefician de ella. Y una transición justa no puede dejar atrás a las personas trabajadoras y las comunidades que ya están construyendo las soluciones que necesitamos.

¡Fuera las incineradoras de la COP31! ¡Sí a la basura cero!

Preguntas frecuentes ¿Por qué GAIA pide sacar a las incineradoras de la COP31?

Representantes de la industria, como CEWEP y Kanadevia Inova, figuran en el programa oficial de eventos paralelos de la COP31 sobre ciudades circulares, residuos y financiación climática. Una industria que se beneficia de quemar residuos no debería definir la agenda de basura cero.

¿La incineración con recuperación de energía es limpia o renovable?

No. Quemar residuos libera su carbono y genera unas 1,7 veces más emisiones de gases de efecto invernadero por unidad de electricidad que el carbón. Además, destruye materiales que podrían reutilizarse, reciclarse o compostarse.

¿Por qué la financiación climática no debe apoyar la incineración?

Las incineradoras dependen de contratos largos y volúmenes garantizados de residuos que atan a las ciudades durante décadas y compiten con el reciclaje y el compostaje. Sustituir el metano de los residuos orgánicos por carbono fósil de la quema de plásticos no es un camino creíble hacia la basura cero.

¿Qué le pide GAIA a la Presidencia de la COP31?

Mantener a la industria de la incineración fuera de las políticas climáticas, rechazarla como solución climática o de basura cero, excluirla de la financiación climática, poner a las comunidades y a las personas recicladoras de base en el centro, e invertir en soluciones de basura cero lideradas por las comunidades.

¿Qué alternativas hay a la incineración?

La prevención de residuos, la reutilización, la recogida separada, el compostaje, el reciclaje y la inclusión de las personas recicladoras de base. Más de 550 municipios de todo el mundo ya avanzan hacia la basura cero.

Recursos relacionados

• Semana Mundial de Acción contra la Incineración
• Incineración
• Clima
• Read this statement in English

{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"FAQPage","inLanguage":"es","mainEntity":[{"@type":"Question","name":"¿Por qué GAIA pide sacar a las incineradoras de la COP31?","acceptedAnswer":{"@type":"Answer","text":"Representantes de la industria, como CEWEP y Kanadevia Inova, figuran en el programa oficial de eventos paralelos de la COP31 sobre ciudades circulares, residuos y financiación climática. Una industria que se beneficia de quemar residuos no debería definir la agenda de basura cero."}},{"@type":"Question","name":"¿La incineración con recuperación de energía es limpia o renovable?","acceptedAnswer":{"@type":"Answer","text":"No. Quemar residuos libera su carbono y genera unas 1,7 veces más emisiones de gases de efecto invernadero por unidad de electricidad que el carbón. Además, destruye materiales que podrían reutilizarse, reciclarse o compostarse."}},{"@type":"Question","name":"¿Por qué la financiación climática no debe apoyar la incineración?","acceptedAnswer":{"@type":"Answer","text":"Las incineradoras dependen de contratos largos y volúmenes garantizados de residuos que atan a las ciudades durante décadas y compiten con el reciclaje y el compostaje. Sustituir el metano de los residuos orgánicos por carbono fósil de la quema de plásticos no es un camino creíble hacia la basura cero."}},{"@type":"Question","name":"¿Qué le pide GAIA a la Presidencia de la COP31?","acceptedAnswer":{"@type":"Answer","text":"Mantener a la industria de la incineración fuera de las políticas climáticas, rechazarla como solución climática o de basura cero, excluirla de la financiación climática, poner a las comunidades y a las personas recicladoras de base en el centro, e invertir en soluciones de basura cero lideradas por las comunidades."}},{"@type":"Question","name":"¿Qué alternativas hay a la incineración?","acceptedAnswer":{"@type":"Answer","text":"La prevención de residuos, la reutilización, la recogida separada, el compostaje, el reciclaje y la inclusión de las personas recicladoras de base. Más de 550 municipios de todo el mundo ya avanzan hacia la basura cero."}}]}

The post Fuera las incineradoras de la COP 31: la crisis climática no se resuelve quemando residuos first appeared on GAIA.

Burning plastic waste releases toxic gases including dioxins and furans, as well as CO2 emissions, making plastic incineration one of the hidden drivers of the climate crisis. When plastic burns, it does not disappear — it transforms into airborne poisons that settle in the lungs, soil, and bloodstreams of the communities living closest to the smoke.

People living near incinerators have a right to know what they are breathing. This explainer delves into what is released when plastic is burned in incinerators (sometimes called “waste-to-energy”), why it worsens the climate crisis, and who is statistically most impacted by these facilities.

Plastic incineration is the burning of plastic waste — whether in an open pit, a backyard barrel, or a large incineration or “waste-to-energy” facility — to dispose of it and/or generate energy. While often marketed as a solution to the plastic crisis, it is anything but.

What toxic gases does burning plastic waste release?

Burning plastic releases a cocktail of hazardous compounds. According to GAIA’s research in The Hidden Climate Polluter: Plastic Incineration, these emissions include some of the most dangerous pollutants known to science.

The primary toxic gases and pollutants released when plastic is burned include:

• Dioxins and furans — persistent organic pollutants that build up in the food chain and are linked to cancer and reproductive harm.
• Particulate matter — microscopic particles that lodge deep in the lungs and enter the bloodstream.
• Hydrogen chloride — a corrosive acidic gas produced when PVC and chlorinated plastics burn.
• Heavy metals and volatile organic compounds — released due to plastics’ additives, dyes, and stabilizers.

Dioxins and furans are among the most toxic chemicals ever studied — they persist in the environment for decades and accumulate in living tissue.

These are not trace emissions. They are the predictable byproducts of setting synthetic, fossil-fuel-derived materials on fire.

Why plastic burns dirty

Plastic is made from fossil fuels. When you burn plastic, you are burning oil and gas in one of the most polluting ways possible. The additives that make plastic flexible, colorful, and durable become airborne toxins the moment they combust.

Why plastic incineration is a hidden climate polluter

Plastic incineration is a climate problem, not just an air quality problem. Because plastic is fossil-based, burning it converts stored carbon directly into carbon dioxide — while releasing the toxic gases named above.

Waste-to-energy incineration is frequently sold as a clean way to handle waste. GAIA’s research documents that these facilities contribute to greenhouse gas emissions and toxic air pollution rather than reducing them. The “energy” recovered is dwarfed by the climate cost of burning material that could have been reduced, reused, or composted.

The framing matters. Every ton of plastic sent to an incinerator is a ton that was never prevented at the source — and a fresh release of climate-warming and health-harming emissions into the air.

The health impacts on frontline communities

The communities living nearest to incinerators and open burning sites breathe the consequences first. These are disproportionately low-income neighborhoods and communities of color — the frontline of what environmental justice advocates call sacrifice zones.

Exposure to the toxic gases from burning plastic is associated with serious health effects, including respiratory illness, cardiovascular stress, and elevated cancer risk from long-term dioxin exposure. Children, older adults, and pregnant people face the greatest danger.

This is not an abstract risk. It is the daily reality for people who never chose to host a facility that turns the world’s plastic waste into the air they breathe.

Why this is an environmental justice issue

Waste infrastructure is rarely built in wealthy neighborhoods. The burden of plastic incineration falls on communities with the least political power and the fewest resources to fight back. Centering these voices is central to GAIA’s mission for a just, zero waste world.

Why burning plastic won’t solve the plastic crisis

Burning plastic is a false solution — a strategy that appears to solve the problem while deepening it. GAIA’s analysis in Burning Plastic Won’t Solve the Plastic Crisis shows why incineration is a dead end.

Here is the core logic:

1. It does not reduce plastic production. Incineration creates demand for a steady stream of waste to burn, which locks in more plastic, not less.
2. It trades one crisis for another. Solid waste becomes toxic air and ash.
3. It undermines real solutions. Money spent on burners is money not spent on reduction, reuse, and community-led zero waste systems.

The real answer is to stop making so much plastic and to build community-led systems that keep it out of both landfills and incinerators. That is the work GAIA and its global network advance every day.

Frequently asked questions about burning plastic What gases does burning plastic release?

Burning plastic releases dioxins, furans, particulate matter, and hydrogen chloride, along with heavy metals and volatile organic compounds. Dioxins and furans are especially dangerous because they persist in the environment and accumulate in the food chain.

Is burning plastic worse than coal?

Burning plastic is a fossil-fuel-based combustion process, so it releases climate-warming carbon dioxide much like burning coal or oil. It also releases toxic pollutants such as dioxins and hydrogen chloride, which is why GAIA classifies plastic incineration as a climate and health threat rather than a clean energy source. The EU excludes general waste-to-energy incineration from sustainable finance taxonomy lists.

What health effects does plastic smoke cause?

Exposure to plastic smoke is linked to respiratory illness, cardiovascular stress, and increased cancer risk from long-term dioxin exposure. Frontline communities living near incinerators and open burning sites face the highest risk, with children and pregnant people most vulnerable.

Why is plastic incineration called a false solution?

Plastic incineration is called a false solution because it appears to dispose of waste while creating new toxic air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. It also locks in continued plastic production instead of reducing it at the source, undermining genuine zero waste alternatives.

Take action against burning plastic

The science is clear: burning plastic waste poisons the air and accelerates the climate crisis. The good news is that community-led, zero waste solutions already exist — and they work.

Share this explainer with your network, learn more about GAIA’s work on plastic, and join the Global Week of Action to Stop Incineration. Every voice makes the movement to end plastic incineration stronger.

The post Burning Plastic Waste: The Toxic Gases and Health Risks first appeared on GAIA.

Communities can refuse incineration by organizing early, demanding air-quality monitoring, and advancing zero waste plans before waste-to-energy contracts are signed. That single sequence — organize, monitor, propose an alternative — is how residents have stopped proposed incinerators from breaking ground.

To refuse incineration means treating burning waste not as an inevitable “solution” but as a false one that can be blocked through collective action, legal pressure, and a credible zero waste plan. This guide equips organizers and residents facing a proposed incinerator or waste-to-energy (WTE) facility with the concrete steps to fight back — and win.

Anti-incineration protest in Chile. © Oren Langelle

What does it mean to refuse incineration?

To refuse incineration is a community strategy: residents reject the burning of waste — including WTE, plastic-to-fuel, and chemical recycling — and organize to stop proposed facilities before contracts are signed.

Waste incineration is often marketed as “waste-to-energy,” a green-sounding label for burning trash to generate electricity. It is a false solution. Incineration of waste releases toxic air pollutants, undermines recycling and composting, and locks communities into decades-long contracts that require a constant stream of garbage to feed the burner.

Refusing incineration is not only about saying no. It is about saying yes to something better — a zero waste plan that reduces waste at the source, protects public health, and keeps decision-making in the hands of the community rather than the industry.

Incineration is not a climate solution. GAIA’s research documents that zero waste approaches cut climate pollution more effectively than burning trash, without the air-quality harm that falls hardest on frontline communities.

How to Refuse Incineration: A Step-by-Step Community Guide

Here is a practical, extractable sequence communities have used to refuse incineration and stop proposed facilities.

1. Organize early — before the contract is signed. The window to stop an incinerator is widest before permits are issued and financing is locked in. A core group of 5–10 committed residents can map local decision-makers and draft a campaign timeline. The goal is to begin before any permits are submitted.
2. Map the proposal and the permits. Identify the developer, the proposed site, and every permit the project needs. Incineration permits typically require environmental and air-quality approvals from local and national regulators — request every public document. Knowing exactly which agencies hold approval power tells you where to concentrate legal and public pressure.
3. Demand independent air-quality monitoring. Do not accept the developer’s own data. Push for community-led air monitoring and independent review, and make air quality the center of your public case. Independent data is often the most persuasive evidence in permit hearings and media coverage.
4. Expose the false-solution framing. Waste-to-energy, plastic-to-fuel, and chemical recycling are marketed as green. Document what they actually emit and who bears the harm. GAIA’s webinar on incineration as a false solution breaks down the arguments organizers can use. Sharing this evidence early shapes media coverage and public opinion before the developer’s narrative takes hold.
5. Build a coalition rooted in environmental justice. Incinerators are disproportionately sited near low-income communities and communities of color. Center the voices of directly impacted residents, and bring in health professionals, waste pickers, unions, and faith groups. A broad, visible coalition signals to decision-makers that opposition is not a fringe position.
6. Intervene in the legal and permitting process. File public comments, request hearings, and — where the case supports it — challenge permits in court. Legal pressure has delayed and defeated projects, as in Chile’s Araucanía region. Even interventions that do not immediately block a project create delay, raise costs for developers, and generate public record.
7. Put a zero waste plan on the table. Refusing incineration is strongest when paired with a credible alternative. Present a zero waste plan that shows decision-makers a better path (see the section below). A concrete alternative removes the “no other option” argument that developers rely on.
8. Keep the pressure public and sustained. Rallies, media coverage, petitions, and testimony keep the issue visible until the proposal is withdrawn or rejected. Decision-makers are more likely to act when they know the community is watching and will not disengage between official hearings.

Local groups protest incinerator plans in Indonesia. Source: WALHI

Building a zero waste plan as the alternative

A zero waste plan is a community roadmap to reduce, reuse, recycle, and compost the maximum amount of waste — so there is nothing left to burn or bury.

This is the yes that makes the no credible. When residents refuse incineration without an alternative, decision-makers claim there is “no other option.” A zero waste plan removes that excuse.

A strong community zero waste plan usually includes:

• Source separation and organics diversion — composting food and yard waste, which is the largest and most burnable fraction of the waste stream.
• Reuse and repair systems that cut waste before it is generated.
• Integration of waste pickers and recyclers as recognized workers, not an afterthought.
• Producer accountability that shifts the cost of packaging and plastic back onto the companies that create it.

GAIA’s Zero Waste Academy has trained more than 500 participants across regions from Africa to Latin America to build exactly these kinds of plans. Learn how communities design zero waste systems through GAIA’s work on zero waste for all communities and the evidence that zero waste beats incineration in cutting climate pollution.

Communities that refused incineration and won

Communities have refused incineration and won by combining early organizing, legal action, and zero waste alternatives — from Canada to Chile. For more examples, explore 20 Inspiring Stories of Victory Against Incinerators, GAIA’s Global Week of Action series spotlighting communities that stopped incinerators around the world.

GAIA’s case documentation on stopping waste-to-energy in Canada records how community and civil-society pressure has challenged proposed WTE projects and pushed decision-makers toward waste reduction instead of burning.

In Chile, residents in the Araucanía region carried their fight into the courts. GAIA’s coverage of the case — WTE Araucanía awaits the tribunal’s resolution — documents how the community used the legal system to contest a proposed incineration project, demonstrating that permitting and tribunal processes are real leverage points for refusing incineration.

The pattern across these cases is consistent: organize before the contract is signed, make air quality and public health the core argument, and offer a zero waste plan as the alternative.

These are not isolated wins. They are part of a global movement in which residents, waste pickers, and organizers refuse to accept incineration as the price of managing waste.

Frequently asked questions about stopping incinerators Can a community legally stop an incinerator?

Yes. Communities can legally stop an incinerator by intervening in the permitting process, filing public comments, requesting hearings, and challenging permits in court. In Chile’s Araucanía region, residents took a proposed WTE project to a tribunal, showing that legal channels are a real path to refuse incineration.

What is a zero waste plan?

A zero waste plan is a community roadmap to reduce, reuse, recycle, and compost the maximum amount of waste so that little or nothing needs to be burned or landfilled. It typically includes source separation, organics composting, reuse systems, integration of waste pickers, and producer accountability.

How long does it take to block an incinerator?

It varies. Some campaigns win in months by mobilizing before a contract is signed; others take years of sustained legal and public pressure. The earlier a community organizes — ideally before permits and financing are locked in — the shorter and more winnable the fight tends to be.

What agencies regulate incineration permits?

Incineration and waste-to-energy facilities generally require environmental and air-quality permits from local and national regulators. The exact agencies depend on the country and region, so a key early step is to map every permit the project needs and request all public documents.

Refuse incineration with us

Burning waste is not inevitable — and it is not a solution. Communities everywhere are proving that incineration can be refused and replaced with community-led zero waste. You don’t have to fight alone.

Join the Global Week of Action to Stop Incineration. Take part in the Global Week of Action to connect with organizers, access campaign resources, and help build the zero waste alternative in your community.

The post How Communities Can Refuse Incineration and Win first appeared on GAIA.

If your community is being pitched a “waste-to-energy” incinerator as a clean, modern fix for its garbage, this page equips you to evaluate that claim with evidence rather than industry marketing.

The short version: a waste-to-energy incinerator is not renewable, not cheap, and not clean. It is one of the most expensive ways to manage waste, locks cities into decades of burning materials that should be reduced, reused, and composted, and releases pollutants into the neighborhoods least able to fight back. If that weren’t bad enough, it’s a climate disaster, emitting almost twice as much CO2 per unit of energy than coal. Zero waste solutions cut climate pollution, cost less, and create more jobs.

This is GAIA’s evidence base for policymakers, community organizers, and journalists assessing incineration proposals. It draws on GAIA’s more than two decades of research and community organizing across the global zero waste movement. Read it, share it, and download the full brief to bring the receipts to your next council meeting.

What is a waste-to-energy incinerator?

A waste-to-energy incinerator is a facility that burns municipal solid waste at high temperatures to produce heat, which drives a turbine to generate electricity. “Waste-to-energy” (often shortened to WTE) is the industry’s preferred name for what is, at its core, mass-burn incineration.

The term is a marketing frame. Burning trash to make a small amount of power does not make incineration a clean or circular technology. It converts discarded materials — much of which could be recycled or composted — into ash, air pollution, and greenhouse gases.

How waste-to-energy incineration actually works

Mixed municipal waste is fed into a combustion chamber and burned at roughly 850°C or higher. The heat boils water into steam, the steam spins a turbine, and the turbine generates electricity. Whatever is left becomes bottom ash and fly ash, both of which require disposal — often in a landfill.

This is the detail the industry rarely leads with: incineration does not make waste disappear. It transforms one waste stream into three — air emissions, toxic fly ash, and bottom ash — while destroying the material value of everything it burns.

Why “energy recovery” is a misleading label

The amount of energy recovered from burning waste is low relative to the energy that was embedded in producing those materials in the first place. Recycling an aluminum can or a plastic bottle saves far more energy than burning it ever recovers.

Burning waste for a modest electricity yield destroys that embedded energy permanently. GAIA’s research shows that a zero waste approach — reduce, reuse, recycle, compost — retains far more value and cuts far more climate pollution than any “energy recovery” from an incinerator.

Why incineration of waste harms the climate and communities

The incineration of waste harms the climate because it emits more carbon dioxide per unit of electricity than coal, and it harms communities because it releases hazardous air pollutants into the neighborhoods surrounding the plant.

Waste-to-energy incinerators emit 1.7 times as much greenhouse gases (GHGs) per unit of electricity produced compared to coal-fired power plants. They also emit more air pollutants than other sources of energy.

That single comparison dismantles the “clean energy” claim. A technology that out-pollutes coal per megawatt-hour cannot credibly be sold as a climate solution. GAIA’s peer analysis found that zero waste beats incineration in cutting climate pollution, and the emissions math is the reason why.

The pollutants a waste-to-energy incinerator releases

GAIA’s WTE Facts and Figures brief documents that waste-to-energy incinerators release a range of hazardous pollutants, including dioxins, furans, mercury, lead, and particulate matter. These are not trace nuisances — they are among the most toxic substances in industrial air pollution.

Dioxins and furans are persistent, bioaccumulative, and linked to cancer and reproductive harm. Mercury and lead are neurotoxins. Fine particulate matter penetrates deep into the lungs and is associated with heart and respiratory disease. The exact pollutant profile of any given plant depends on what is burned and how emissions are controlled.

Environmental justice: who lives next to the smokestack

Incinerators are not distributed evenly. They are disproportionately sited in low-income communities and communities of color — the same communities that have historically had the least political power to refuse them.

This is the heart of GAIA’s objection. A waste-to-energy incinerator does not just produce emissions; it concentrates them where the people breathing them did not consent. Community air-quality monitoring by GAIA members repeatedly documents this pattern. That is why more than 100 organizations have urged UN-Habitat to stop promoting waste-to-energy as a false solution.

The true cost of waste incineration vs. zero waste

Waste-to-energy incineration is one of the most expensive waste management options available — incinerators carry very high upfront capital costs, long-term debt, and “put-or-pay” contracts that lock cities into feeding the burner for decades. For a detailed breakdown, see GAIA’s resource on the high cost of waste incineration.

That one sentence is the answer most policymakers are searching for: what does a waste-to-energy incinerator cost? It costs more than nearly any other disposal method — and the bill lasts far longer than a single budget cycle.

Why incinerator cost is higher than it looks

The sticker price of an incinerator is only the beginning. A full accounting of incinerator cost includes capital financing over decades, ongoing operations and maintenance, pollution-control equipment, ash disposal, and the health and environmental costs borne by nearby residents.

Because the facilities are so expensive to build, they are financed with long-term debt. To service that debt, operators need a guaranteed volume of waste to burn. That is where the trap closes.

The put-or-pay trap

Many incinerator contracts include “put-or-pay” clauses. A put-or-pay clause is a contractual guarantee that a city will supply a minimum tonnage of waste — or pay a penalty as if it had.

This creates a direct financial disincentive to reduce, reuse, recycle, or compost. Once a city signs, cutting waste means paying penalties. The incinerator’s economics actively fight against the zero waste progress a community wants to make.

What communities get instead when they choose zero waste

Zero waste systems require far less capital, scale incrementally, and create more jobs per ton of material handled than incineration. Recycling and composting infrastructure can be built in stages, funded without decades of debt, and adjusted as a community’s needs change.

Crucially, zero waste keeps money and materials circulating in the local economy rather than sending them up a smokestack. It is the flexible, lower-cost, community-controlled alternative that a put-or-pay incinerator contract forecloses.

Zero waste alternatives that beat incineration

Zero waste alternatives — waste reduction, reuse, expanded recycling, and organics composting — cut climate pollution, cost less, and create significantly more jobs than a waste-to-energy incinerator. They are not aspirational; they are already working in cities across the GAIA network.

Reduce and reuse first

The cheapest, cleanest ton of waste is the one never created. Waste reduction and reuse — refillable systems, repair, product redesign, and bans on the worst single-use items — shrink the waste stream at the source before disposal is ever a question.

This is why incineration and zero waste are fundamentally incompatible. An incinerator needs a steady diet of waste; zero waste is designed to starve that diet down to nothing.

Recycling and separate collection

Separating materials at the source keeps recyclables clean and valuable. When waste is mixed and burned, that material value is destroyed forever. When it is separated and recycled, it displaces the far larger energy and emissions cost of producing materials from scratch.

GAIA’s global network has documented zero waste cities that have driven diversion rates high enough to make incineration unnecessary — proof that the model scales in the real world.

Composting and organics

Organic waste — food scraps and yard trimmings — is wet and heavy, which makes it a poor fuel and a major driver of an incinerator’s inefficiency. Diverted to composting instead, that same material becomes soil, sequesters carbon, and supports local agriculture.

Removing organics from the waste stream is one of the fastest ways to cut both landfill methane and incinerator emissions at the same time.

The trans-local model behind the movement

GAIA supports these alternatives through a trans-local organizing model — distributed leadership across regional communities rather than a single top-down blueprint. Programs like GAIA’s Zero Waste Academy equip citizens, policymakers, and organizations with the scientific knowledge and political frameworks to build community-led systems that make incineration obsolete.

Frequently asked questions about waste-to-energy Is waste-to-energy renewable?

No. Waste-to-energy incineration is not renewable. It relies on a continuous supply of discarded materials — much of it fossil-based plastics — and emits 1.7 times as much greenhouse gas per megawatt-hour as coal-fired power plants. Burning finite materials to make power is the opposite of a renewable cycle.

Is incineration better than landfill?

No — framing the choice as “incinerator or landfill” is a false dilemma. Both are disposal methods that destroy material value, and incineration adds hazardous air emissions and toxic ash on top. The real alternative is zero waste: reduce, reuse, recycle, and compost so that far less material needs disposal at all.

What does a waste-to-energy incinerator cost?

A waste-to-energy incinerator is one of the most expensive waste management options, with very high capital costs and long-term contracts that often lock cities in for decades. The full picture — including financing, operations, ash disposal, and health costs — is detailed in GAIA’s the high cost of waste incineration.

Does waste-to-energy reduce waste?

Not really. Incineration reduces the volume of waste but leaves behind bottom ash and toxic fly ash that still require disposal, and it destroys recyclable and compostable materials in the process. It converts one waste stream into three — air emissions, fly ash, and bottom ash — rather than genuinely eliminating waste.

Are waste-to-energy emissions regulated?

WTE incinerators are subject to air-quality regulations, but regulation does not make them safe. Emission limits vary widely between countries, monitoring is often intermittent, and pollutants like dioxins, furans, mercury, and lead are hazardous even at low, “permitted” concentrations. Community air-quality monitoring by GAIA members frequently reveals gaps between what is permitted and what communities actually breathe.

Take action against waste incineration

Waste-to-energy incineration is a false solution — more polluting than coal, more expensive than the alternatives, and a decades-long lock-in that punishes communities for choosing zero waste. The evidence is clear, and the movement to stop it is growing.

Download the full WTE Facts brief to bring GAIA’s complete data set — emissions figures, cost analysis, and pollutant profiles — to your next hearing, article, or campaign. Enter your email and we will send you the brief and updates from the movement.

Add your name to GAIA’s campaign against waste incineration. Communities across the global GAIA network are refusing incineration and building zero waste systems that work. Join the Global Week of Action to Stop Incineration, and help make the next proposed incinerator the one that never gets built.

See the evidence from twenty incinerators worldwide in GAIA’s Burn Book, and read GAIA’s new report on waste-to-energy in Africa.

The post Waste-to-Energy Incineration: The Facts, Costs & Risks first appeared on GAIA.

20 Inspiring Stories of Victory Against Incinerators

October 14, 2026

Over the past 25 years of GAIA, we have seen more than 375 incinerators shut down across the map. In this series for the Global Week of Action to Stop Incineration, we spotlight over 20 inspirational examples of communities emerging victorious against incinerators and incinerator proposals in their cities.

From passionate and informative representations at council meetings, to technical consultations with international finance institutions, to historic petition drives and gathering support from the international community, find out the key factors in the following victories against toxic false solutions around the world.

.stk-6uwpxd8 .stk-block-heading__text{color:#952925 !important;}Asia Pacific View this post on Instagram

A post shared by GAIA Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (@gaia_zerowaste)

DUMAGUETE PYROLYSIS PLANT

Dumaguete, Philippines

Year Closed: 2025

Key factor to success: Power of community science and on-the-ground expertise and leadership of the members of the impacted communities, including waste workers, housewives, residents, students, and teachers in Dumaguete.

Case study and resources: 

• Clearing the Air Report
• Read about the press conference here: https://www.pna.gov.ph/articles/1253343

Members involved in the win: WOW,  DWWA (Dumaguete Waste Workers Association), GAIA

WASTE-TO-ENERGY PLANT PROPOSAL IN 4 CITIES

Gujarat, India

Year closed/stopped: 2025

Key factor to success: 

1. Through analysis of the ESIA report and finding out how it violates World Bank’s performance standards 

2. Amplifying local voices globally through collaboration and writing about the issue to the Board of Directors of the World Bank

3. Documenting the on ground impacts of the WTE company and its financial analysis.

Resources: Letter to World Bank, Collective letter signed by 174 organizations

Members involved in the win: Alliance for Incinerator Free Gujarat including CFA, IAP and communities affected

MULTI-COUNTRY INCINERATOR PROPOSAL

Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam, China and Hong Kong

Year closed/stopped: 2024

Key factor to success: Collective campaign efforts, including in strategic spaces like the AIIB Annual Meeting + Technical letter sent to AIIB (Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank)  and raising concerns on the incinerator company’s association with corruption and pollution

Resources: Project Document from AIIB, Case feature on AIIB Observer

Members involved: Members in Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Viet Nam, China and Hong Kong, GAIA Asia Pacific 

TE AWAMATU WASTE TO ENERGY PROPOSAL

Te Awamatu, Aotearoa New Zealand

Year Closed/Stopped: 2025

Key factors to success: Public opposition with over 900 written submissions + strong expert testimonies against the plant in the Board hearings

• Great community engagement
• Great coalition building between community, Māori and environmental organisations
• Relevant and highly qualified expert evidence at the hearings 

Resources: 

• Campaign Website, GAIA’s submission
• Make a submission on the Te Awamutu Incinerator https://zerowaste.co.nz/action-alert-make-a-submission-on-the-te-awamutu-incinerator/ 

Members involved in the win: Zero Waste Aotearoa, Regeneration Not Incineration

MAPO RECOVERY FACILITY PROPOSAL

Mapo-gu, South Korea

Year Closed/Stopped: 2026

Key factors to success: Creation of an alliance to fight this incinerator proposal

• Residents’ determination and strong community organizing: Fierce opposition and persistence of the community was the driving force that kept the campaign going through to the end.
• Victory in the legal dispute: The community won a lawsuit by revealing procedural flaws.
• Broad civil society solidarity: The campaign built a broad coalition extending beyond the residents’ group, bringing together residents, civil society organizations, and the local district office.

Resources: Seoul City Scraps Mapo-gu Incineration Plant Plan https://www.chosun.com/english/national-en/2026/03/03/D2EWSGFRPVEDZH6R5PJZWZY26E/

Members involved in the win: Mapo Resource Circulation Network

.stk-p1ylu2b .stk-block-heading__text{color:#952925 !important;}Europe

ROUGHLY 200 INCINERATORS

Various locations, UK

Year Closed: since 2007

Key factor to success: Campaigners’ successes can be attributed to many factors, including:

1. Deploying factual arguments supported by evidence including the harms caused by waste incineration
2. The provision of advice, guidance, and networking support from an established nonprofit network – UKWIN
3. Strong sustained public opposition that translates into political buy-in from local officials

Case study and resources: 

• https://ukwin.org.uk/act-locally/
• https://ukwin.org.uk/files/pdf/BiIG-success-for-Buttington.pdf
• https://foe.scot/from-concerned-locals-to-national-change-how-dovesdale-action-group-built-power-and-won/
• https://ukwin.org.uk/oppose-incineration/ 

Members involved in the win: UKWIN, local communities, partner organizations, and allied networks

MUNICIPAL WASTE INCINERATOR

Skalica, Slovakia

Year closed/stopped: 2026

Key factor to success: 

1. Early monitoring and information-gathering: tracking waste-management developments and gathering information about the project from the very beginning of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process, allowing campaigners sufficient time to understand the proposal and respond effectively.
2. Identifying and empowering affected local residents: finding active people in the community who could be directly affected by the project, engaging them through public meetings and information campaigns, and supporting them to become key local advocates.
3. Providing sustained NGO and expert support: creating a forum where NGOs and experts could explain the project and its potential impacts to residents, local authorities, and community advocates, while emphasizing the patience and perseverance needed to sustain the campaign over time.

Resources: 

You can find out more about our joint struggle here: 

https://www.priateliazeme.sk/spz/z-nasej-prace/definitivne-vitazstvo-zamer-na-vystavbu-spalovne-odpadov-pri-meste-skalica-nebude

Relevant articles:

Spaľovne? Po skládkovaní druhé najhoršie riešenie! Spaľovanie odpadov je škodlivým prežitkom

http://skalickyobzor.sk/cms/zo-skalickej-spalovne-je-medzinarodny-skandal/

http://skalickyobzor.sk/cms/podme-porovnat-oba-varianty-likvidacie-odpadu-ceh-zevo-kontra-mbu/

http://skalickyobzor.sk/cms/je-dokazane-uz-dnes-spalujeme-skalicky-odpad-v-cementarni-v-rohozniku/

Members involved in the win: local community, Priatelia Zeme – SPZ  (Friends of the Earth – SPZ)

RDF-FUELLED INCINERATOR

Pavlikeni, Bulgaria

Year closed/stopped: 2026

Key factor to success: 

1. A united local community and support from local businesses: residents came together across their differences to protect the region’s clean environment, fertile agricultural land, and quality of life, with local businesses also supporting the campaign.
2. Strong technical, legal, and scientific expertise: lawyers, biologists, ecologists, and other technical experts provided critical expertise, with environmental organization Za Zemiata supporting the campaign with knowledge and legal capacity.
3. Unprecedented public mobilization and sustained perseverance: more than 20,000 people from the region signed a petition, generating significant media attention and demonstrating strong public opposition. Four years of legal battles required sustained perseverance, while Za Zemiata’s successful lawsuit against the Sofia incinerator helped maintain hope that the campaign could succeed.

Resources: 

<CASE STUDY COMING SOON>

Members involved: Za Zemiata, impacted community, network of allies

.stk-nitz4wg .stk-block-heading__text{color:#952925 !important;}Africa

DRAKENSTEIN MASS BURNING FACILITY

Drakenstein, South Africa

Year Stopped: 2016

Key factor to success: Local communities and organizations challenged the proposed US$25-million mass-burning project, including concerns around the involvement of foreign companies and the U.S. Trade and Development Agency (US TDA). 

Case study and resources: 

• https://www.no-burn.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/South-Africa-Case-Study-2.pdf

Members involved in the win: Drakenstein Environmental Watch (DEW), Wellington Association Against the Incinerator (WAAI), groundWork, the South African Waste Pickers Association (SAWPA), GAIA, and community residents 

MAURITIUS WASTE-TO-ENERGY PROJECT 

La Chaumiere, Mauritius

Year closed/stopped: 

Key factor to success: Highlighting the mismatch of the proposed 300,000-tonne Gamma Covanta waste-to-energy facility on an island where approximately 70% of waste is composed of green and kitchen waste. 

Resources: https://www.lalitmauritius.org/en/newsarticle/843/the-la-chaumire-waste-to-energy-project-criticized/

Members involved in the win: Collectif des Opposants a l’Incineration de Dechets, DION & groundWork

MASS-BURNING FACILITY

Johannesburg, South Africa

Year closed/stopped: 2013

Key factor to success: Recognizing and following the lead of the 500 waste pickers, putting their voices and livelihoods at the center of the campaign. 

Resources: March against killing jobs for dirty energy

Members involved: SAWPA, groundWork, and the International Alliance of Waste Pickers (IAWP) 

OGIJO TYRE PYROLYSIS FACILITY (TECH HIGH PROFILE)

Ogijo, Nigeria

Year Closed/Stopped: 2025

Key factors to success:  Citizen science filling the gap in official data to document pollution near the waste-burning facility. 

Resources: 

• Clearing the Air Report  

Members involved in the win: Affected communities, Green Knowledge Foundation

The post WHEN THEY WIN, THE WORLD WINS. first appeared on GAIA.