Will COP31’s Zero-Waste Agenda Move Beyond Rhetoric?

On 5 October 2026, The Guardian published an article based on an analysis by UCLA researchers using Carbon Mapper satellite data, which identified the 10 landfill sites in Turkey with the highest methane emissions. According to the report, the Silivri landfill site in Istanbul emits an average of 7.4 tonnes of methane per hour, whilst the landfill site in Şile emits approximately 4 tonnes. The timing of the report is particularly noteworthy for Turkey, which is set to host the 31st Conference of the Parties (COP31) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) from 9 to 20 November 2026. 

This is because Turkey has placed zero waste and methane reduction among the priority items on the action agenda for the summit. Although it supported the Declaration on the Reduction of Methane from Organic Waste at COP29 in Baku, it has not yet joined the Global Methane Pledge (GMP), which currently includes 159 countries and the European Commission and aims to reduce global anthropogenic methane emissions by at least 30 per cent by 2030 compared to 2020 levels. Consequently, three questions come to the fore ahead of the summit to be held in Antalya in November. How prominent is zero waste on the COP31 agenda? What is the current situation regarding waste management in Turkey and globally? What can realistically be expected from the COP31 summit?

Zero Waste: Strong Rhetoric, Unclear Framework

The key question regarding the zero-waste agenda is to what extent this rhetoric will translate into concrete and measurable policies.

The COP31 Presidency identified zero-waste as one of its priorities from the outset. The role of High-Level Climate Champion was assigned to the President of the Zero Waste Foundation, one of the leading figures behind Turkey’s official ‘Zero Waste’ narrative. The Global Zero Waste Forum, organised by the Foundation in June 2026 and attended by participants from various regions of the world, was also presented as part of the preparations for COP31. Furthermore, on 9 June, COP31 President Murat Kurum announced a target to halve the growth in global waste generation by 2035. However, the details of this target – in terms of the base year, scope and implementation tools – remain unclear. It is also uncertain how the announced target addresses issues such as reducing plastic production, ensuring a just transition for waste collectors, and dealing with waste incineration and pyrolysis.

Whilst ‘zero waste’ has been one of the prominent themes on the COP31 agenda from the outset, electrification appears to be taking centre stage as the summit approaches. However, the key question regarding the zero-waste agenda is to what extent this rhetoric will translate into concrete and measurable policies; in other words, whether this rhetoric will translate into measurable policies and tangible changes on the ground. Turkey’s current waste management practices, methane emissions and recycling figures also make this question all the more important.

The Situation in Turkey: Methane, Landfill, Recycling

In Turkey, local authorities collect approximately 33 million tonnes of waste annually; 50.3 per cent of this – that is, half – consists of organic waste. With approximately 70 per cent of waste going to landfill, landfilling remains Turkey’s main waste management method. Whilst 16.5 million tonnes of compostable waste is generated annually, the amount of waste recovered at composting facilities is just 124,000 tonnes. In other words, a significant amount of organic waste is being sent to landfill sites.

Methane emissions from solid waste could be reduced by 95 per cent by 2030.

However, as The Guardian report illustrates, significant amounts of methane can escape into the atmosphere from landfill sites. Whilst the proportion of methane that can be captured depends on the site’s design, the system’s efficiency, and maintenance and operational conditions, even a well-equipped site can capture no more than 60 per cent of the methane produced. Due to the lack of an adequate and effective waste management infrastructure in the country, most waste ends up in landfill sites in a mixed state. However, when waste prevention, separate collection at source and bio-stabilisation methods are applied together, methane emissions from solid waste could be reduced by 95 per cent by 2030. Even separating organic waste – one of the most sustainable ways to reduce methane emissions – would cut landfill methane by 62 per cent.

It remains unclear what policies and financing mechanisms will underpin Murat Kurum’s statements on reducing methane emissions from waste. Viewed on a global scale, funding priorities also present a contentious picture. According to Climate Policy Initiative’s tracking of methane-abatement finance for 2021-2022, 94 per cent of global climate finance allocated to methane reduction in the solid waste sector (approximately 3.86 billion dollars) went to incineration plants, whilst the share allocated to organic waste management stood at just 1 per cent. This distribution of funding also contributes to a situation in which global waste management approaches are trapped in a choice between incineration and landfilling, pushing waste reduction at source further down the agenda. Landfilling and incineration generate different greenhouse gas emissions. While organic waste decomposing in landfill sites releases methane, burning waste produces CO₂ emissions, particularly from fossil-derived materials such as plastics. Although incineration may be considered more climate-friendly than landfilling under certain conditions, reports suggest that waste incineration plants can produce more greenhouse gas emissions than many other forms of power generation, including coal-fired power plants.

Whilst waste incineration reduces the volume of waste and is presented as a method of energy production, it does nothing to address the current shortfall. The high investment costs of incineration plants mean they require a steady supply of waste over the long term, creating pressure on municipalities to maintain a steady flow of waste to these facilities. Consequently, approaches that would genuinely contribute to the circular economy – such as prevention, recovery and reuse – are sidelined or not prioritised.

The discrepancies in waste recovery performance data in Turkey are also striking: whilst the Ministry of Environment, Urbanisation and Climate Change, headed by COP31 President Kurum, has announced a municipal waste recovery rate of 36.08 per cent for 2024, independent estimates suggest this rate is around 10–12 per cent and therefore well below the EU average (48 per cent). In this context, the legal framework in Turkey is also rather inadequate. The Single-Use Plastics Regulation, announced in March 2026, was due to come into force on 1 September; however, as of October, when this article was written, the regulation had still not come into force. It has been claimed that one of the reasons for this delay is the dominant role played by the industry in decision-making processes.

Meanwhile, Turkey’s plastics sector ranks second in Europe and sixth in the world in terms of production capacity. Moreover, the construction of a 27-billion-dollar petrochemical complex in Yumurtalık and Ceyhan in Adana is planned to push this ranking even higher.

Waste Trade and the Mediterranean

Turkey’s leading position in the plastics sector is not limited to production. Turkey is the top destination for plastic waste exports from the EU. The volume of plastic waste sent from the EU to Turkey reached a record level of approximately 510,000 tonnes in 2025. Under the new Waste Shipment Regulation adopted by the EU in 2024, the export of plastic waste to third countries has been subject to a prior notification and authorisation procedure since May 2026; the export of plastic waste to non-OECD countries, meanwhile, will be banned from 21 November 2026. As Turkey is an OECD member, it is not covered by this ban. The fact that the country is currently the EU’s largest OECD recipient of plastic waste is raising concerns about the potential impact of the ban on the volume of waste directed towards Turkey; indeed, it is forecast that, unless further measures are taken, imports could exceed 1 million tonnes in 2026.

Turkey is currently the EU’s largest OECD recipient of plastic waste.

The environmental consequences of the plastic waste trade are becoming particularly evident around the Mediterranean. Microplastic pollution, which came to the fore along the Adana and Mediterranean coasts throughout 2026, also highlighted the environmental impacts of plastic recycling activities. A 2026 study conducted in the irrigation canals surrounding recycling facilities in Adana revealed that microplastic concentrations in the canals downstream of the facilities were up to 132 times higher than in the upstream sections. Given the canals’ connection to rivers and the sea, the possibility that the Seyhan River could carry 5.3 billion microplastic particles into the Mediterranean Sea every hour is a cause for concern. Furthermore, the presence of certain plastic pellets and industrial copolymers – detected exclusively in the lower reaches of the facilities – clearly demonstrates that this pollution is directly linked to recycling activities.

The sector’s environmental impact is not limited to microplastics or plastic pollution. In Turkey, more than 600 fires have occurred at recycling facilities over the past five years. INTERPOL’s assessment of the global plastic waste trade notes an increase in illegal waste fires in Europe and Asia, whilst highlighting strong indications that deliberate fires are being set in some countries to dispose of non-recyclable stockpiles.

Despite the fate of some of the waste – much of which originates from the EU – as described above, the assessment published by the European Commission in September 2026 is striking in that it highlights the EU’s contradictory stance. The report highlights deficiencies in data and oversight regarding the management of exported plastic waste, as well as incidents of open burning and dumping, and issues such as uncontrolled microplastic emissions and air, water and soil pollution. Despite these findings, and without providing any concrete indicators, the Commission states that exports will continue to be monitored and that shipments to Turkey will be reassessed by the end of 2028, whilst making specific reference to Turkey’s efforts to bring its legislation up to EU standards. This approach has also drawn criticism that the EU prioritises the monitoring of shipments through data collection rather than making a genuine effort to reduce plastic waste exports.

The Global Picture: Fragmented Commitments

The waste sector is a significant source of pollution and emissions, driven not only by local waste management practices but also by the global circulation of waste. Current estimates indicate that the waste sector is responsible for approximately one-fifth of global anthropogenic methane emissions. However, disposal methods requiring significant investment – particularly waste incineration – are criticised for their high financial costs, their potential to lock in waste, and their contribution not only to CO₂ emissions but also to chemical pollutants.

A report published in October 2026 by the global anti-incineration network GAIA, which examined 20 operational or planned incineration plants worldwide, also highlights certain aspects of this debate. According to the report, the 11 plants with publicly available emissions data release at least 5.5 million tonnes of CO₂e annually. It appears that the Runcorn plant in the UK alone was responsible for over 1.1 million tonnes of carbon emissions in 2025. To date, approximately 7 billion dollars have been invested in the 20 plants examined. The report also emphasises that long-term contracts oblige local authorities to send a specific amount of waste to the plants, which is in conflict with waste reduction policies.

These plants emit mercury, dioxins, furans and heavy metals from their chimneys. The remaining ash poses a separate problem. Publicly available data from the plants under review indicates that they produce at least 1.7 million tonnes of incineration ash annually. At this point, the lack of publicly available, transparent and comparable data regarding the emissions from incineration plants in Turkey, the volume of ash produced and how it is managed is striking. Given that the COP31 Presidency has presented the ‘zero-waste’ agenda as one of its priority topics, transparency in this aspect of waste management is also crucial for the credibility of the agenda.

Despite all these impacts, capacity figures in Europe are reigniting the debate on new incineration investments. According to a 2026 study prepared for Zero Waste Europe using Eurostat data, the total capacity of incineration plants in the EU reached 198.4 million tonnes in 2022, whilst approximately 133.6 million tonnes of waste were incinerated in the same year. The difference of approximately 65 million tonnes between these two figures implies that around one-third of Europe’s current incineration capacity remains unused. Whilst incineration capacity increased by an average of approximately 8 million tonnes per year between 2004 and 2012, the rate of increase has since 2012 been observed to be approximately 2 million tonnes per year. Based on these figures, it is argued that there is no need for new incineration capacity in the EU and that new investments could conflict with waste prevention and recycling targets. 

Plastic production is also a direct climate issue.

A similar divide is evident in the negotiations on the Global Plastics Treaty. The negotiations, held in Geneva in August 2025, concluded without agreement on the text of the treaty. One of the key points of contention was whether the agreement would cover the entire life cycle of plastics and include restrictions on primary plastic production. Whilst a group of countries called for global and binding measures, including production limits, some countries argued that the scope of the agreement should be limited primarily to product design, recycling and waste management. Fossil fuel-producing countries, which are among the main opponents of production limits, have been criticised for attempting to reduce the agreement essentially to waste management.

Yet plastic production is also a direct climate issue. Approximately 99 per cent of plastics are produced from fossil fuel-derived raw materials. According to a study, primary plastic production alone accounted for 5.3 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions in 2019, with 2.24 billion tonnes of carbon emissions. However, this calculation does not include emissions from plastics after the end of their useful life.

What Can Be Expected From COP31?

The current situation suggests that it is more likely that COP31 will result in voluntary commitments rather than a binding international regulation on zero waste. Although the host country, Turkey, may call for a new declaration or alliance, the summit’s success should be assessed by the extent to which this rhetoric is translated into concrete targets, timetables, funding and implementation mechanisms. In this context, the steps listed below could serve as key indicators for evaluating the extent to which COP31’s zero-waste agenda has been realised:

• The introduction of sector-specific quantitative methane reduction targets, interim targets and measurement, reporting and verification mechanisms for the waste sector;
• Turkey’s accession to the Global Methane Pledge and the setting of time-bound targets to end the disposal of organic waste in landfill sites within the next five years;
• The COP31 Presidency issuing an international call to ban the import of plastic waste and to end the international waste trade;
• The implementation of legislation on single-use plastics in Turkey, including a production ban, and the signing of a global declaration of intent in this context;
• The explicit inclusion of targets for the separate collection of organic waste at source in national climate plans and NDCs, and the setting of short-, medium- and long-term targets for composting;
• A commitment that, within the framework of climate finance, no funds will be channelled towards high-cost disposal technologies such as waste incineration and chemical conversion;
• The official recognition of waste collectors, their inclusion in the social security system, and ensuring their participation in decision-making processes regarding waste policies.

The question to be asked at the end of the summit is a simple one: Will “zero waste” become a measurable policy that genuinely reduces emissions and waste generation, or will it remain largely a matter of rhetoric?