Sustainable solid waste management: The German case and lessons for South America

Abstract

With nearly 80% urbanization, South America faces critical challenges in managing municipal solid waste, particularly the continued reliance on landfilling and the prevalence of open dumps. The region’s rapid population growth, high organic waste content and inadequate infrastructure further exacerbate health and environmental risks. In response to increasing international attention on dumpsite closure, this study examines the potential for system transitions by drawing lessons from the evolution of waste management in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern (MV), a rural and less industrialized state in Germany. Following the reunification of Germany in 1990, eastern states, such as MV, were required to adopt national waste regulations that had already been implemented in the west. The transition from dumping and informal practices such as feeding biowaste to pigs, to the establishment of source separation, composting and energy recovery offers relevant insights for mid-sized cities in Latin America seeking sustainable alternatives to open dumping. Using a comparative approach, the study reviews trends in waste dumping across 12 South American countries, alongside a historical and regulatory analysis of Germany’s transformation. Key findings transition was driven by policy and regulatory reforms, political will at the national level, harmonization of standards across federal states and a national strategy to reduce methane emissions from landfills. Additional pillars of success included the introduction of a compost quality assurance system, cost-recovery financing mechanisms and differentiated user fees to incentivize source separation.

Introduction

Waste management in South America presents a complex challenge, primarily driven by rapid population growth and urbanization (UNEP Outlook). Most countries in the region are classified as upper-middle-income, with Chile and Uruguay being the only high-income exceptions (World Bank Group, 2025). As cities expand, municipal waste generation has surged, with projections indicating a continued increase in the near future. The average waste generation per capita is approximately 1 kg per day, with organic waste comprising around 50% of total waste (Sandoval Duarte et al., 2020; UN Environment, 2018). Waste collection coverage is relatively high compared to the global average, and in Chile and Uruguay, collection rates have reached 100% (UNEP, 2021b). Individuals and groups operating outside formal municipal systems play a significant role in waste management, actively recovering valuable recyclable materials from streets and dumpsites (Margallo et al., 2019; UN Environment, 2018).

According to Wilson’s Physical Component Indicator for solid waste management (Wilson et al., 2015), environmentally controlled disposal in the region ranges from medium (75%–84%) to medium-high (85%–94%). However, open dumping and burning of waste persist in some areas, posing serious health and environmental risks. Recognizing these challenges, the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) published the Waste Management Outlook for Latin America and the Caribbean in 2018. Among its key messages were the rapid increase in waste generation, the urgent need to close dumpsites and the importance of effective organic waste management. That same year, a voluntary coalition of governments and relevant organizations was established to facilitate the gradual closure of dumpsites across the region. In 2021, the coalition published a baseline study (UNEP, 2021a) and a roadmap for progressive dumpsite closure (UNEP, 2021a).

These reports indicate that efforts have been made to establish sanitary landfills across most countries in the region. Large cities and capitals have advanced in implementing sanitary landfills equipped with gas collection systems. Some examples include Colombia (96.1%), Chile (79.6%), Ecuador (72.8%), Argentina (65.6%), Uruguay (64.8%), Brazil (59.5%) and Peru (53.4%) (UNEP, 2021a,b). Although the development of biogas collection systems in landfills and the generation of renewable energy are partly driven by economic incentives from the carbon market, mid-sized cities, towns and rural areas often lack the financial and infrastructural capacity to implement sanitary landfills, making open dumping a persistent challenge (UN Environment, 2018).

The difficulties associated with sustainable waste treatment and disposal in South America, as in many other developing regions, are multifaceted. Closing dumpsites without providing alternative employment opportunities for waste pickers – who rely on informal waste collection for their livelihoods – introduces significant social risks (Cruvinel et al., 2019; Hettiarachchi et al., 2018). Additionally, the adoption of alternative waste treatment technologies requires substantial infrastructure, financial investment and government support (Lara-Topete et al., 2023; Margallo et al., 2019). Although most countries in the region have legislation regulating final solid waste disposal and are committed to international agreements such as the Paris Agreement to reduce methane emissions from waste disposal (Cohen, 2017), ineffective policies and weak regulatory frameworks continue to hinder the development of integrated and sustainable waste management systems (Hettiarachchi et al., 2018; UNEP, 2021b).

This study seeks to address these challenges by drawing on the experience of an eastern German province that transitioned from widespread waste dumping to modern waste management systems following reunification. The province is characterized by a lower population density than the German national average, with predominantly mid-sized and small towns. Additionally, it is less industrialized compared to other regions of Germany, with agriculture and tourism being key economic activities.

To compare case studies, we reviewed waste management practices in 12 South American countries, assessing trends in final disposal, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and national targets for system improvements. We also conducted a critical analysis of waste management frameworks and policy development in Germany to serve as a reference for South America. By examining the systematic approach taken in an eastern German province to reduce landfill dependency and enhance material recovery, this study goes beyond technological solutions to emphasize governance and regulatory strategies as fundamental components of sustainable waste management.

The central research question of this study is: How can the experience of eastern Germany’s transition inform improvements in waste management in South America? The primary objective is to provide insights into sustainable waste treatment and disposal strategies that reduce reliance on landfilling and minimize emissions. This study offers practical recommendations for policymakers, researchers and stakeholders committed to advancing solid waste management in South America.

Methods

This study follows a structured qualitative comparative approach to analyse waste treatment and disposal in South America and Germany. The methodology is guided by the central research question: How can countries transition from open dumping to more sustainable waste management practices, particularly in small- and mid-sized cities? The structured nature of the approach lies in its stepwise analysis of both regions, guided by defined criteria including population density, dominant disposal practices, the evolution of waste policies and reported emission trends. The structuring logic is visualized in Figure 2 and supported by comparative matrices and indicators presented in Tables 1–3.

Figure 2.

Structured three-step approach used to assess waste management in South America and extract relevant insights from the case of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern.

Table 1.

Country profiles of the study area in South America (Worldometer, 2025).

Country	Population	Land area	Cities with >500,000 population		Urbanization rate	Average per capita waste generation
		(km²)	Number	Share of population (%)	(%)	(kg year-1)	year
Argentina	45,851,378	2,736,690	6	15	96	474.5	2021
Bolivia	12,581,843	1,083,300	3	38	71	251.85	2021
Brazil	212,812,405	8,358,140	42	29	91	347	2020
Chile	19,859,921	743,532	2	27	85	430.02	2021
Colombia	53,425,635	1,109,500	10	32	81	276.078	2021
Ecuador	18,289,896	248,360	3	34	66	305.46	2019
Guyana	835,986	196,850	0	0	27	311.162	2021
Paraguay	7,013,078	397,300	1	21	68	438	2020
Peru	34,576,665	1,280,000	5	34	81	302.95	2021
Suriname	639,850	156,000	0	0	62	215.35	NA
Uruguay	3,384,688	175,020	1	38	NA	365	2021
Venezuela	28,516,896	882,050	8	43	NA	527.54	2021

Table 2.

Sectoral emission data and waste sector reduction targets in selected South American countries.

Country	Country emissions by sector (%)					Reduction target	Waste sector goals	References
	Energy	Land Use	Agriculture	IPPU a	Waste
Argentina	50	13	25	6	6	Limit net emissions to 349 MtCO₂eq; 21% below 2007 levels.	Minimize waste generation, improve MSW disposal, promote biogas and landfill gas use, support local regulations and utilize organic waste for energy.	MAyDS (2020) SSAmb (2024)
Bolivia	21	50	23	3	3	Reduce deforestation by 80%; increase renewable energy use by 79%.	Improve waste management through integrated strategies: recovery, reduction and alternative uses.	Estado Plurinacional de Bolivia (2024) and Ministry of the Environment and Water (2021)
Brazil	20.5	39.5	30.5	5	4.5	Achieve climate neutrality; Reduce GHG emissions by 59%–67% below 2005 levels by 2035.	Promote circular economy, waste-to-energy, sustainable landfilling and energy generation from biogas.	Brasília: Ministry of Science, Technology (2024) and Brazilian Government (2024)
Chile	50.6	33.8	5.5	4.9	5.3	Carbon neutrality; max 1,100 Mt CO₂eq emissions between 2020–2030, current emissions (2022) 54.4 Mt CO₂eq, reduction by 42% to 31.5 Mt CO₂eq in 2030.	Landfills with energy recovery, promote vermicomposting and support anaerobic digestion projects.	Gobierno de Chile (2020) and Gobierno de Chile – Ministry of the Environment (2024)
Colombia	32.7	34.5	20.7	4.1	7.9	Reduce emissions by 51% from baseline scenario to 164.44 MtCO₂eq.	Promote Mechanical Biological Treatment (MBT), recycling, landfill biogas use, enhance Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) and advance waste management.	Ideam et al. (2024a) and Ideam et al. (2024b)
Ecuador	47.2	29.3	13.29	4.8	5.4	9% unconditional and 13.5% emission reduction with international support.	Capture and flare landfill methane, promote composting and develop new waste regulations.	MAATE, (2024) and Republic of Ecuador (2025)
Guyana	40.89	56.13		0	2.97	Avoid 108.47 MtCO₂eq in the forest sector from 2016 to 2030 (reduction:76.8%) avoid 783 kt CO₂eq in energy sector (reduction: 12,8%).	Avoid 108.47 MtCO₂eq in the forest sector from 2016 to 2030 (reduction: 76.8%).	Government of Guyana (2024a,b)
Paraguay	25.69	13.06	50.29	3.89	7.07	avoid 783 kt CO₂eq in energy sector (reduction: 12.8%).	Promote composting, anaerobic treatment, methane control and food waste separation at source.	DNCC/MADES (2021) and Gobierno del Paraguay (2024)
Peru	31.8	43.5	15.28	3.78	5.6	Reduce total emissions by 20%; 55% land use reduction.	Strengthen integrated management, valourize waste, capture landfill methane, treat organic waste and use semi-aerobic landfills.	Ministry of the Environment (2021, 2024)
Suriname	82	15		0.2	2.7	41.3% total reduction, 53.1% reduction from Forestry.	Limit net emissions to 208.8 MtCO₂eq with a 30% unconditional reduction, current emissions 194.9 Mt CO₂eq (2021), reduction by 36.4% to 124 Mt CO₂eq in 2030.	(Cabinet of the President of the Republic of Suriname (2019), Ministry of the Environment (2021, 2024) and The Republic of Suriname (2022)
Uruguay	20	24	73	2	5	41.3% total reduction, 53.1% reduction from Forestry.	Reduce landfill use, capture methane and implement a waste traceability system.	Oriental Republic of Uruguay (2024a, b)
Venezuela	48	NA	36.65	10.5	4.8	Limit emissions by 2035: CO₂ 9,267 Gg (+20%); CH₄ 818 Gg (+6.2%); N₂O 32 Gg (−3%).	Strengthen waste management, ensure proper collection/recycling and develop sanitary landfills.	MINEC, (2024) and Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (2021)

^aIPPU: Industrial processes and product use.

Table 3.

Overview of the waste treatment facilities in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern in 2023.

Facility type	Number of facilities	Type of waste
Mechanical treatment	2	Residual waste
Mechanical-biological treatment	2	Residual waste
Thermal treatment	1	Residual waste
	2	Refuse-derived fuels (RDF)
Composting	34	Source-separated biowaste
Fermentation	8	Source-separated biowaste
Recycling and sorting plants	71	packaging, paper, wood, etc.

Selected Latin American countries

The selected countries, along with their demographic information, are presented in Table 1. South America exhibits a diverse distribution of urban centres, ranging from countries with multiple large cities to those where the population is more dispersed. Brazil has the most extensive urban network, with 42 cities with over 500,000 people, whereas Argentina’s urban population is spread across mid-sized cities, with only six large urban centres. Colombia and Venezuela also have a significant number of large cities, with a substantial portion of their populations concentrated in major urban hubs. In contrast, Chile, Peru, Ecuador and Bolivia have fewer large cities. Uruguay and Paraguay have only one major city each, with most of their populations living in smaller towns. Guyana and Suriname lack large cities altogether, reflecting a predominantly rural settlement pattern.

Selected province in Germany

Mecklenburg-Vorpommern (MV), covering 23,174 km², is Germany’s sixth-largest state but among the least populated, with around 1,628,680 residents and an average population density of 70 people per km² (Figure 1), compared to Germany’s 235 people per km (Statistical Office of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, 2023). The state is predominantly rural, with its largest city, Rostock, having about 209,839 residents, followed by Schwerin (~98,546). Historically, MV was one of the five provinces that became part of East Germany (GDR) after World War II and remained under socialist rule for over 40 years until German reunification in 1990. Economically, MV relies on agriculture, tourism and shipbuilding. Its Baltic Sea coastline and islands drive tourism, whereas wind energy and maritime industries contribute to regional development.

Figure 1.

Population density in the districts of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern (people per km²) (Statistical Office of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, 2023).

Methodology

The methodology consisted of three main steps (Figure 2).

• Step 1: A comprehensive review of literature and official documents was conducted to assess the current status of solid waste management and the business-as-usual (BAU) scenario in South America. Key sources included international scientific publications, UNEP reports and publicly available databases. Data on GHG emissions were primarily extracted from Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), Biennial Update Reports (BURs) and National Communications (NCs). This step aimed to evaluate the trend of waste dumping across the region and national mitigation goals.

• Step 2: The second phase focused on analysing the waste management transition in MV, Germany, after the reunification of Germany in 1990. Three key aspects were examined: (1) regulatory evolution in Germany and its impact on MV’s practices; (2) the landfill closure strategy implemented after reunification and (3) the development of alternative treatment technologies.

• Step 3: Finally, broader insights from the post-reunification waste management transition in MV were analysed to inform potential pathways for South America. Rather than prescribing specific solutions, this step highlights transferable elements of systemic change that could support the gradual elimination of open dumping in the region.

Solid waste management in South America

One of the key challenges encountered during this research was the lack of reliable and consistent data across South American countries. Although international reports, such as those from the UN, and national documents were reviewed, discrepancies in values were common. Furthermore, due to the very nature of the problem – waste dumping in areas with limited or no formal infrastructure – most available data are based on estimations rather than direct measurement. Given these limitations, the results are presented as indicative trends and contextual insights. The focus was placed on identifying patterns in waste collection and disposal, such as the proportion of uncollected waste or instances where waste is reportedly collected but still ends up in open dumpsites. Additionally, the analysis looked at trends in waste sector emissions and how these align with national climate goals.

Trends of solid waste collection and disposal

Solid waste management in South America reflects a complex interplay between geographic, demographic and service-related factors. Although many countries in the region report collection rates between 80% and 100% (Figure 3), extensive forest cover, mountainous terrain and dispersed rural populations pose significant logistical challenges to achieving universal waste collection and safe disposal, particularly in remote and low-density areas. These challenges are especially evident in countries such as Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, Bolivia, Guyana, Paraguay and Peru, all of which have approximately 50% or more of their land area covered by forests.

Figure 3.

Solid waste collection and dumping rate (%) in the selected countries of South America (RMI, 2023).

The urbanization rate is a key factor in determining the feasibility of safe waste disposal in South America. Countries with large, densely populated urban centres are better positioned to establish economically viable sanitary landfills. Colombia and Chile exemplify this trend, making substantial progress in formalizing sanitary landfills. In contrast, countries with more small- and mid-sized cities face significant limitations in ending waste dumping and expanding sanitary disposal. For example, despite achieving high collection rates, approximately 35% of Uruguay’s waste is still disposed of through open dumping.

The geographic and demographic challenges are even more pronounced in countries with lower gross domestic product (GDP). Bolivia, the only lower-middle-income country in South America, with high forest cover and limited infrastructure, has a collection rate of around 70% and continues to dump more than half of its waste. Similarly, in Suriname and Guyana, where over 85% of the land is covered by forest, no sanitary landfills currently exist, underscoring the structural and economic barriers to establishing safe final disposal systems in rural and ecologically sensitive contexts.

Trend of GHG emissions and reduction targets

The data clearly shows that Brazil, the largest country in South America in both population and land area, has the highest total emissions in the region (Figure 4). It also has one of the most ambitious targets – achieving climate neutrality. When looking into the emission breakdown by subsector, countries with significant vegetation cover, particularly those in the Amazon region like Brazil, Bolivia and Peru, report land use, forestry and agriculture as their top emission sources. This highlights the persistent challenge of deforestation in South America. In contrast, countries with lower forest cover, such as Argentina and Chile, show energy as their dominant source of emissions.

Figure 4.

Total GHG emissions of the selected countries and the rate of waste sector emissions.

GHG = greenhouse gas.

Regarding the waste sector, most South American countries report waste-related emissions within the global average range of 4% to 5%. However, Colombia stands out with a waste sector share of nearly 8%, which is likely linked to its high rate of sanitary landfilling and lower reliance on open dumping. With higher dumping rates, Bolivia, Suriname and Guyana are showing the lowest emission rate from the waste sector. This suggests that as other countries shift away from dumping and towards sanitary landfilling – a necessary step for environmental protection – there may be an increase in measurable emissions from the waste sector, particularly methane.

A closer look at national waste management goals reveals common priorities: improving landfill management, capturing landfill gas for energy use and promoting biological treatment methods such as composting and anaerobic digestion (Table 2). These measures aim to divert organic waste from landfills and reduce methane emissions. However, whereas biological treatment is widely mentioned, only Paraguay explicitly refers to source separation, particularly of food waste, which is a critical precondition for producing high-quality compost or digestate. Without proper source separation, quality standards and monitoring systems, these treatment strategies risk producing low-quality end products. This can lead to challenges in marketing the final output, limiting the economic viability and long-term sustainability of biological treatment facilities.

Overall, the dominant trend across the region is increasing gas recovery for energy use. Countries like Argentina, Brazil and Bolivia also highlight circular economy principles and waste reduction, whereas others, such as Suriname, Uruguay and Ecuador, emphasize the need for improved legislation and regulatory frameworks. Notably, there is little mention of specific strategies to address open dumping and informal waste sectors despite their significant role in waste recovery in many countries.

Solid waste management in Germany

Germany: Developments of the national framework from 1960 until today

Germany’s waste management framework was developed independently under the conditions of a divided country. With the reunification in 1990, the national framework of former West Germany, the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG), was adopted by all government districts of former East Germany, the German Democratic Republic (GDR). When discussing the national framework or Germany’s waste management system in this section, the focus is on the developments in the FRG as the system that provided the framework for MV, the federal state formed with the reunification of Germany. Information on the waste system of the GDR is included in the description of waste management in MV as far as necessary. The national framework provides the necessary context to understand how, after reunification, MV aligned with federal goals and gradually improved its waste treatment and disposal practices.

Germany’s waste management system demonstrates a clear correlation between political decision-making, regulatory advancements, the development of waste treatment infrastructure and a significant reduction of the sector’s emissions. Over the decades, the country has implemented progressive legal frameworks that have shaped its transition from landfill dependence to an integrated waste system and a circular economy approach. Figure 5 shows the regulation change over time.

Figure 5.

Development of the solid waste management framework in Germany.

By the late 1960s, increasing waste volumes and environmental concerns highlighted the need for a coordinated national approach (Nelles et al., 2016). Incineration existed but lacked emission controls, contributing to air pollution (Johnke, 1992). The 1972 Waste Disposal Act was the first law to establish standards for collection, treatment and disposal, emphasizing municipal responsibility and promoting incineration and landfill improvements as disposal methods (Thomé-Kozmiensky, 2012). Before the Waste Disposal Act of 1972, municipalities managed waste independently, primarily relying on nearby open dumping and poorly regulated landfills, leading to significant environmental pollution (Thomé-Kozmiensky, 2012). Within about a decade, these local dump sites or unregulated landfills were gradually closed, and controlled central landfills were constructed and operated, often by a union of municipalities, as the infrastructure development and operation were costly.

In the 1980s, West Germany (FRG) introduced measures to reduce reliance on disposal by promoting recycling. The 1986 Waste Management Act introduced the two-tier waste hierarchy, prioritizing waste prevention, recycling and recovery over disposal (Nelles et al., 2016). During this period, composting facilities expanded, and separate collection systems for materials such as paper, glass and metals became more common. Although these efforts improved material recovery, they remained voluntary and producer responsibility had not yet been formally established.

In the early 1990s, after the reunification, Germany began reforming its waste management system with a strong focus on producer responsibility and material recovery and a ground-breaking decision to curb the negative long-term effects of final disposal by practically banning the landfill of untreated municipal waste. The Packaging Ordinance, introduced in 1991, required manufacturers and retailers to take responsibility for the waste generated from their products. This led to the creation of the Dual System Germany (DSD), a nationwide collection and recycling programme for packaging waste, primarily managed through the yellow bin system (Azevedo et al., 2021). In 1993, the Technical Ordinance on Municipal Solid Waste imposed the mandatory collection of landfill gas and defined waste acceptance criteria for landfills to reduce emissions, environmental impact and aftercare period. A Total Organic Carbon (TOC) of less than 3% in waste destined for non-hazardous landfill was required, practically a ban on landfilling of untreated municipal solid waste. In order to build the necessary treatment capacities, the competent authorities could make use of a transition period of up to 12 years, until the legislation came into force in June 2005 (Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety, 1993). These efforts were reinforced by the Circular Economy and Waste Management Act of 1994, introducing the three-tier waste hierarchy of waste prevention, recycling/recovery, followed by disposal as a guiding principle. The Act also extended producer responsibility beyond packaging waste and encouraged investment in modern recycling infrastructure (Thomé-Kozmiensky, 2012).

In response, Germany began expanding its waste infrastructure by MBT plants, material recovery facilities (MRFs), incineration plants with energy/heat recovery and composting facilities, all of which contributed to a significant reduction in landfill use, whereas increasing energy recovery and resource efficiency (Johnke, 1992; Nelles et al., 2016). The strict waste acceptance criteria were reinforced by the Waste Disposal Ordinance in 2001 and, since 2009, guaranteed by the Landfill Ordinance, limiting environmental, climate and health impacts of landfills and resulting in continuous improvement of the comprehensive integrated waste system in Germany. Since 2001, waste acceptance criteria for the landfill of waste treated by mechanical biological treatment have included (TOC < 18%, Respiration Activity (AT4) < 5 mg O₂/g and Gas Formation Rate (GB21) < 20 ml/g).

In 2012, the Circular Economy Act was enacted, establishing the five-tier waste hierarchy – prevention, preparation for reuse, recycling, recovery and disposal – as the guiding framework for waste management decisions. The separate collection of biowaste became mandatory in 2015, requiring municipalities to implement systems for separately collecting organic waste from both households and commercial sources (Federal Republic of Germany, 2012). And in this decade, efforts have also been made to improve the quality of source-separated biowaste. Revisions to the Biowaste Ordinance set stricter contamination limits, especially for plastics, to ensure that compost and digestate from organic waste are safe for agricultural use (Federal Republic of Germany, 2022). Municipalities have responded by increasing public education and tightening monitoring to reduce impurity levels in collected biowaste. The focus in biowaste treatment is now on expanding anaerobic digestion.

Since 2015, Germany has intensified its efforts to enhance resource efficiency and align with the EU Circular Economy Action Plan (German Environment Agency, 2015). Policy developments have increasingly focused on reducing waste generation, promoting eco-design and improving the quality of recyclables. Producers are incentivized to design packaging that uses fewer materials and is easier to recycle, contributing to both waste reduction and higher recycling rates. Germany has also broadened the scope of separate collection to other waste streams. Textile waste is now targeted for separate collection and reuse (European Commission, 2023). These developments reflect a broader shift from end-of-pipe waste management towards a systemic circular economy.

Germany: Mitigation success for methane emissions from landfills

Germany aims to minimize the environmental impact of engineered landfills not only through technical or construction measures but also by controlling the content of the landfill body through strict waste acceptance criteria. Limiting the landfilling of biodegradable substances is key, as the anaerobic decomposition of organic waste in landfills leads to the formation of methane and leachate and causes volume reduction of the landfill body, which becomes visible through uneven surface settlement processes – developments that continue for decades even after landfill closure. The decisive factor in curbing the long-term bioreactor effect of landfills, and the associated emission profile, was the ban on landfilling untreated municipal waste, which has been in force since 2005.

As a result, Germany has reduced its methane emissions from landfills by more than 94% between 1990 and today. The main driver of this successful mitigation of methane emissions has been the landfill ban on untreated waste through strict waste acceptance criteria since 2005 (see Figure 6). Relying solely on the compulsory collection of landfill gas would have achieved mitigation of only about 20%–25%. Over the past decade, methane formation in landfills has naturally declined to very low levels, but it will continue at even lower levels for more than a decade. To accelerate this process, Germany has supported the improvement of landfill gas capture systems and the forced aeration of landfill bodies through national climate funding since 2013.

Figure 6.

The impact of waste policy on methane emissions from landfills in Germany (German Environment Agency, 2024).

In addition to the ban on landfill of untreated municipal solid waste since 2005, a major boost for the biological treatment of separately collected organic waste was the Renewable Energy Sources Act (EEG) in 2000, which offered financial incentives – especially feed-in tariffs – for electricity generated from biogas produced through anaerobic digestion (Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Climate Action, 2000). This regulatory and financial support accelerated the construction of anaerobic digestion facilities, making biological treatment more economically attractive and widely adopted.

Germany: Waste management finance

The financing of waste management in Germany is based on the polluter pays principle, which allows for the levying of cost-covering waste tariffs to offset investment and operation costs. Facilities charge cost-covering gate fees, whereas income from the sale of energy or materials is used internally to lower expenses, ultimately resulting in lower waste tariffs charged to the polluter (households, commerce, industry or others). At the municipal level, households pay waste tariffs/fees that vary based on the type of waste, bin size and collection frequency. To incentivize waste separation and prevention, residual waste is significantly more expensive than separated organic waste, which is sometimes collected free of charge. Paper and cardboard are typically collected free of charge, as the market value of these materials also covers collection costs. Packaging waste is paid for when the product is purchased; therefore, collection and treatment costs are covered through extended producer responsibility schemes. For commercial entities, fees depend on the volume and type of waste generated and whether the service is provided municipally or privately, particularly for large or atypical waste streams. This tiered and incentive-based financing model ensures both environmental compliance and economic efficiency.

Mecklenburg-Vorpommern: Waste management and disposal

Following the Second World War and the subsequent division of Germany into the German Democratic Republic (GDR) and the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG), the region of MV became part of East Germany (GDR). Between the 1950s and 1989, the GDR adopted a distinctive approach to waste management, driven largely by a shortage of raw materials and limited access to foreign currency, which made waste recycling an economic necessity.

Recyclable waste was managed in a systematic and community-driven manner. A deposit system was applied to many packaging materials, and kitchen waste was collected separately for use as pig feed. Additionally, paper, cardboard, glass, metals, textiles and later plastic packaging were collected through a decentralized network of local collection points. Children and young people, incentivized by small monetary rewards, played a central role in this collection system, which was considered socially acceptable and not regarded as child labour.

Residual waste disposal in the GDR relied heavily on landfilling. Former excavation sites for gravel, sand or clay were repurposed as landfills. As groundwater levels often rose after resource extraction ceased, waste came into contact with groundwater, an important source of drinking water in Germany, leading to environmental concerns. In 1973, the issue gained greater attention when West Berlin began exporting waste to three GDR landfills due to space constraints. These imports, later extended to waste from the FRG, provided the GDR with much-needed foreign currency. One such landfill, located in the far west of MV, was constructed in 1979 specifically to receive waste from West Germany.

Despite a policy decision in the 1970s to reduce the number of landfills from approximately 9,000 to fewer than half within a decade, the number had increased to an estimated 13,000 by 1989. This high number, approximately one landfill per 1,200 residents or 8.5 km², was largely a consequence of limited transportation infrastructure. MV alone is believed to have hosted more than 1,300 landfills, with nearly every village maintaining its own site (Buck, 1999). As of 2023, approximately 2,400 potentially contaminated sites, resulting from the improper deposition of solid or liquid waste, have been identified in MV (Ministry for Climate Protection, Agriculture, Rural Areas and the Environment, 2025). A large proportion of these have already been remediated or dismissed after investigation. GDR landfills were typically characterized by low compaction and slow vertical growth (Figure 7). Due to the low proportion of organic content in the mixed waste and predominantly aerobic degradation, GHG emissions from these sites were relatively modest. However, leachate rich in inorganic salts posed significant risks to soil and water systems (Lale, 2000).

Figure 7.

Waste disposal in a landfill in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern during the GDR era (Schulze, 2013).

Following German reunification in 1990, West German waste management regulations were extended to all federal states. Small and unregulated landfills were promptly closed, and usually, risk assessments were conducted to determine the closure requirements, for example, for surface sealing. Most landfills in MV, assessed as having low environmental risk, were recultivated with minimal cover, reducing rainfall infiltration. Larger facilities were subject to new environmental assessments and technical upgrades, with major sites receiving comprehensive capping of the existing landfill body in line with legislative standards. From 1993 onward, new landfills and expansions of existing sites by additional cells or enlargement by new landfill areas required the full application of legal standards, including base sealing systems to prevent leachate infiltration. By 2002, landfill operations in MV had been significantly consolidated. Only eight landfills for municipal waste remained, supplemented by 12 newly established waste transfer (State Office for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Geology of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, 2003). These transfer stations allowed for more economical transport of waste by enabling collection close to waste producers and reloading into larger vehicles for long-distance transport. In one case, rail was tested as a transport mode between a transfer station and a landfill; however, it was discontinued after a few years due to logistical drawbacks. The main challenges included long transit times, which led to odour problems, and the inefficiency of reloading waste between trucks and trains.

Over the past three decades, MV has adopted the national waste management strategy, which emphasizes source separation, material recovery and energy efficiency. In 2023, 48% of municipal waste was collected separately, whereas 52% was collected as residual (mixed) waste (State Office for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Geology of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, 2024). Among the source-separated streams, paper and cardboard, mixed packaging and organic waste (biowaste and garden waste) accounted for the largest shares (Figure 8). Residual waste, primarily generated by households and commercial activities, remains the largest single waste stream. The collected waste is then transported to treatment facilities tailored to the characteristics of each stream.

Figure 8.

The mass flow of the collected municipal solid waste in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern in (State Office for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Geology of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, 2024).

Treatment facilities are strategically distributed near urban centres and transport corridors, with several sites connected to harbour infrastructure, facilitating cross-regional waste logistics. Source-separated recyclables are processed at 71 sorting facilities (Table 3). Residual waste undergoes pre-treatment in mechanical or mechanical-biological treatment (MBT) plants. Additional refuse-derived fuel (RDF) is also generated from sorting residues and commercial plastic waste. MV operates only one small-scale municipal waste incineration plant with a capacity of just 50,000 tonnes, it incinerates the residual waste of a district. Two incineration plants burn RDF, and two landfills accept pre-treated municipal waste (State Office for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Geology of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, 2024).

Organic waste treatment in MV is dominated by composting, supported by a network of 34 composting facilities and 6 anaerobic digestion plants. The prevalence of composting over biogas production can be attributed to lower capital and operational costs, greater process flexibility and the production of a marketable compost product. Composting systems are also less sensitive to seasonal fluctuations in input material, making them well-suited for decentralized, low-volume waste streams.

Although most districts offer separate collections of household kitchen and garden waste through biowaste bins, achieving full coverage remains a challenge in some remote areas. In these regions, municipalities often cite economic constraints and contamination levels as barriers for implementing separate biowaste collection. In contrast, green waste collection is well established across the state. Municipalities provide drop-off centres, seasonal pick-up services and container systems for garden trimmings (Figure 9). These measures contribute to the relatively high recovery rate for garden waste and highlight the effectiveness of localized, low-barrier collection schemes.

Figure 9.

Green waste collection at an allotment garden site (left) and in a rural community (right).

Discussion

A review of both case studies reveals that unsafe disposal of mixed waste – particularly open dumping – without any pretreatment has been a central challenge in both South American countries and the area of MV before German reunification. In both contexts, logistical limitations have played a critical role. Waste collection and transportation are often the most expensive components of a waste management system. In the former East Germany (GDR), although waste was generally collected, limited transportation capacity hindered centralized disposal, leading to the proliferation of small, local dumpsites – over 1,300 in MV alone. Similarly, in South America, many countries still face logistical and financial constraints, which prevent the provision of universal collection services and safe final disposal.

Following reunification in 1990, MV benefited from financial support, but it was the implementation of comprehensive policy reforms and regulatory measures that enabled transformation of its waste management system. Similarly, South American countries seeking to eliminate waste dumping must navigate a transitional phase that requires both financial resources and strong governance. This session aims to draw relevant lessons from MV’s experience to inform strategies for phasing out open dumping and burning in the South American context. Although regional differences exist, Germany’s post-reunification sector transformation may offer valuable insights – or at the very least – highlight approaches to avoid.

Regulatory Harmonization: In the 1990s, Germany faced significant challenges in harmonizing environmental regulations across its 16 federal states. National laws generally applied to all states; however, individual states could issue their own regulations if they identified gaps in federal legislation. This led to inconsistencies in key areas of environmental protection – such as differing limit values for contaminated soils, water quality and compost standards. As a result, waste was often transported to states with less stringent or more cost-effective regulations. To address these issues, Germany moved towards greater regulatory harmonization through the formation of the Federal States Working Group on Waste (Länder-Arbeitsgemeinschaft Abfall – LAGA), where representatives from all states coordinated efforts to align regulations and establish unified standards. Similar working groups were also established for water and soil protection. These groups played a crucial role in bridging regulatory gaps before national legislation was enacted and often served as advisory bodies, with many of their agreed-upon standards later incorporated directly into federal ordinances.

Strong policy enforcement combined with financial support and transition guidance: The transformation of the waste system in the federal state MV was guided by strong national regulation coupled with waste management planning, administration and enforcement at local level. Capacity building and massive financial support through national programmes making loans or grants available to municipalities and local actors led to substantial investment in infrastructure. The programmes offered specific funds with clearly defined accountability, intended for purposeful use within a limited time frame. The German government prioritized improving waste management to reduce environmental contamination, for example pollution of freshwater resources, GHG emissions. In MV these political priorities guided the closure or remediation of existing dumpsites and the construction of state-of-the-art infrastructure from landfill to treatment of waste.

Transition of the disposal system from local dump sites to central landfill sites: A key aspect in the transition was the closure of local dump sites with adequate surface sealing according to their environmental risk level, whereas only a few existing larger sites were permitted to continue operation. The new cells and expansion of these few central landfills were subject to strict regulations requiring controlled waste input, regulated operational procedures, base sealing and the collection and treatment of leachate and landfill gas. Landfill gas collection in new expansions was usually combined with heat and power (CHP) plants, also to support the operation costs by generation of power and heat for own uses and sales of excess power as electricity generated from landfill gas was classified as renewable energy and subsidized through feed-in tariffs. The transition from local dumping to the use of central landfills needs to be organized responsibly and organization-wise. Municipalities with closed dump sites and municipalities with existing sites that were permitted for continuation and extension, applying new high standards, formed Municipal Waste Associations together. In these Municipal Waste Associations, all municipalities were jointly responsible for decision-making, organization and finance of infrastructure in and around the existing sites and their operation.

Successful Methane Mitigation in Landfill: Applying waste acceptance criteria at landfills, such as limits on total organic carbon (TOC), respiration activity or gas formation rate, effectively served as a ban on disposing of untreated municipal waste, gradually phasing out methane emissions from landfills over time (see Figure 8). The legal requirement allowed for building a waste system that makes use of organic waste in a controlled and beneficial way, generating products like biogas, compost or animal feed. It also shortens the after-care period and costs for the closure of landfills. All in the landfill ban has limited the environmental, climate and health impacts of landfills and resulted in continuous improvement of the comprehensive integrated waste system in Germany.

Quality Assurance System for Organic Waste: During the early 1980s, when municipalities began implementing separate collection and composting, the compost was frequently of inconsistent quality and suffered from a poor market reputation. The lack of quality control hindered acceptance in agriculture and landscaping. In response, the Federal Compost Quality Assurance Organisation (Bundesgütegemeinschaft Kompost e.V., BGK) was established in 1989 by composting plant operators seeking to improve product quality and marketability (German Environment Agency, 2017). Working in collaboration with the German Institute for Quality Assurance and Certification (RAL), the BGK introduced a structured certification scheme based on strict quality standards, covering aspects such as contaminant thresholds, nutrient content and hygiene for biological treatment plants. The long-term effectiveness of these standards is reflected in the decline in heavy metal concentrations over time (Figure 10). The resulting quality assurance system (QAS) has played a central role in professionalizing the biological treatment sector, supporting legal compliance and increasing consumer confidence. For plant operators, the QAS facilitates access to guidance, regulatory alignment and simplified documentation for agricultural use, whereas for end-users, it guarantees reliable and safe final products (German Environment Agency, 2017).

Figure 10.

Average heavy metal content in the final output of composting facilities in Germany from 1991 to 2022 (Federal Compost Quality Assurance Organisation and Reinhold, 2004).

Conclusion

In South America, waste collection has improved over recent decades, with most countries now reaching coverage rates above the global average of 75% and some, such as Chile and Uruguay, achieving 100% coverage. However, the pace of improvement in environmentally sound final disposal has been considerably slower, with an estimated up to 33% of municipal waste still ending up in open dumpsites across the region. Although the establishment of sanitary landfills in major cities is a positive development, especially given that more than 80% of South America’s population lives in urban areas, it is not sufficient on its own to eliminate open dumping. To make meaningful progress, national and local governments must implement policies that are clearly defined, consistently enforced, legally binding and supported by stable financial mechanisms. These policies are essential to ensure that waste is managed safely, not only in large urban centres but also in mid-sized cities and rural areas, where open dumping remains widespread.

Reviewing the national climate mitigation goals for the waste sector, many countries emphasize landfill gas collection and biological treatment of waste as key strategies to reduce methane emissions. Yet, achieving these targets requires clear technical and regulatory criteria. In the case of landfill gas collection, the priority in South America should be to enforce bans on open dumping, particularly in environmentally sensitive areas. This requires targeted investments to close high-risk dumpsites and where feasible, to upgrade them into controlled landfills with gas and leachate collection systems. In locations where upgrading is not possible, environmental and health risk assessments should guide the establishment of new sanitary landfills. For biological treatment, the experience of Germany underscores the importance of establishing policies that support organic waste diversion, combined with quality assurance systems that ensure compost or digestate meets safety and market standards. Without such measures, treatment facilities may produce low-quality outputs, limiting their effectiveness and long-term viability.

Moreover, actual landfill gas capture rates in practice are often below 40%, below what is often modelled. In most cases, energy recovery from landfill gas does not generate sufficient revenue to cover operational costs. Therefore, financial sustainability depends on well-structured gate fees that reflect the true cost of disposal and treatment, along with cost-sharing mechanisms that ensure expenses are fairly distributed among municipalities, private operators and waste generators. To support these systems, especially during the initial transition period, public funding is essential to bridge financial gaps and enable the development of necessary infrastructure. Energy sales or compost marketing can serve as supplemental income, but cannot replace public funding or fees.

A critical lesson from Germany is the importance of starting policy reform early and allowing sufficient time for implementation. Germany introduced regulatory limits on landfilling in 1993 and only enforced a complete ban on untreated waste disposal in 2005, after a 12-year transition. For South America, especially mid-sized cities and towns, national governments should develop phased transition plans that include: (1) baseline assessments of existing infrastructure and service coverage; (2) financial and technical support for priority investments (e.g., sanitary landfill, composting plants, transfer stations); (3) capacity-building initiatives to strengthen local institutional capabilities and (4) legal reforms that restrict open dumping and support scalable, sustainable alternatives.