Clear The Air News Blog Rotating Header Image

August 30th, 2012:

Call for comments on KfW’s reply to Chinese NGOs on Nangong Incinerator, Beijing

From: GAIA
Sent: 30 August, 2012 11:10
To: GAIA Members; GAIA European Network
Subject: [GAIA] Call for comments on KfW’s reply to Chinese NGOs on Nangong Incinerator, Beijing

Dear GAIAns,

The German KfW banking group sent Chinese NGOs a reply letter on Monday (27 August) as below, which we think is very burearatic and lack of substantial response to the problems that we raised. And bearing in mind, this is their first reply since we firstly sent them open letter on August 8.

But they said they are willing to talk with us, and we have already set up a meeting with their Beijing representatives on Tuesday morning.

Please give us your comments on KfW’s reply, and help to give pressure to KfW to directly respond to our 7 recommendations in our open letter (in English and with photos of previous KfW invested projects in trouble

KfW’s reply:

Financial Cooperation with the PR China
Nangong Waste Incineration Plant
Reply to your Open Letter dated August 8th, 2012

Dear Sirs,

We thank you for the above mentioned letter expressing your concerns regarding the Nangong Waste Incineration Project in Beijing. We appreciate the seriousness of concerns and the competent content of the letter. We would like to invite you to have a meeting with our office in Beijing for a further discussion. However, please find some comments to the letter in the following.

Currently the planning for the Nangong Waste Incineration Plant is ongoing. The project has not yet been tendered. It is our intention and in line with the mission of our institution as a financing partner to ensure the construction of a plant that conforms with the best Chinese and European standards. As you are aware in Germany the huge majority of waste is incinerated, also in densely populated areas. Close to our headquarters in the city of Frankfurt such a plant is located. There is a proven technology available to reduce to environmental impacts to an acceptable minimum. We share the view with the Chinese project partners to realize such a solution in order to demonstrate in China how such plants can be designed and operated properly and without inacceptable environmental consequences.

With our bank we have significant technical and managerial expertise available to make sure that only a solution will be realized that is in line with this approach.

As a financing partner we request the right to confirm all significant steps before and during implementing of such a project. Numerous safeguards will be imposed. We also follow up the operation of any project financed for approximately three years.

Secondly you refer to the existing composting plant also in Nangong and describe some operational problems. The compost plant is one component of a large waste disposal project which you describe in your letter as overall successful. The facilities are already in operation for more than ten years. We thank you for the information and will follow up.

As mentioned in your letter KfW is guided by high social and ecological principles. We seriously apply such principals in Germany, Europe and also with projects financed in Developing Countries. These principals in Germany, Europe and also guide all our decisions regarding our participation as a financing partner for the Waste Incineration Plant in Nangong.

With kind regards,


Dr. Christine Heimburger

Michael Sumser
Senior Project Manager

Download PDF : Reply open letter 27 Aug 2012

Greens dig in over third runway

SCMP 30 Aug 2012

Hong Kong’s green groups are playing hardball with the Airport Authority Hong Kong over efforts to get them to attend a Green NGO roundtable meeting with the AAHK to discuss environmental aspects of the proposed third runway. The airport authority, which is endeavouring to become the world’s greenest airport, is desperate to get the green groups onside.

However, a meeting scheduled for Tuesday has had to be postponed until next month following concerns expressed by eight green groups in a letter to the AAHK.

Their letter points to a “divergence of opinion” with deputy director Kevin Poole and others over what components should be included in a proposed social return on investment (SROI) study. The signatories have included the elements they want to see included and say: “We feel that it is essential to have your agreement on these fundamentals ahead of the roundtable meeting to ensure that we are all on the same page regarding the fundamental scope of such a study…”

The AAHK was initially opposed to such a study and even when the Legco environmental affairs panel called for it to be conducted together with a carbon audit, it maintained a deafening silence. However, since the green groups have dug their heels in on this, and the AAHK wants them onside to sustain its green credentials, it is reluctantly getting dragged into agreeing to do one.

An SROI conducted for the third runway at London’s Heathrow airport concluded that Britain would be £5 billion (HK$62.6 billion) worse off if it was built, and contributed to the decision not to proceed with it.

Contact Us Have you got any stories that Lai See should know about? E-mail them to

INCINERATOR LATEST – Campaigners’ delight as ministers call in Saddlebow incinerator proposal

Whereas in Hong Kong the official charged with protecting the Environment is also the EIA rubber stamp for destroying it !

Published on Thursday 30 August 2012 16:15

THE Lynn incinerator project is set to go to a full public inquiry after ministers decided to call-in the scheme, it has emerged this afternoon.

News of the decision emerged within the last hour, as tomorrow’s edition of the Lynn News went to press, and has been hailed by residents and politicians in West Norfolk who have fought against the scheme, with the support of thousands of people who have voiced their opposition to the government.

Leading campaigner Mike Knights said: “I am absolutely delighted at this news. It means it’s going to be the first time that this planning application will be heard by an independent, decision-making body.”

As previously reported, members of Norfolk County Council’s planning committee voted to grant permission for the plant at their meeting in June, subject to the scheme not being called-in by ministers.

A holding directive was issued by communities’ secretary Eric Pickles on the eve of that meeting to prevent final permission from being granted until the government gave ultimate approval. The plant has already received an environmental permit to operate, but needs planning consent.

But it is understood that the issue will now be referred to an inquiry led by a planning inspectorbecause of the regional and national implications of the development.

It is also believed that around 6,000 letters were sent to the Department for Communities and Local Government by people opposed to the proposal, a record number for the department.

And North West Norfolk MP Henry Bellingham has paid tribute to the public’s contribution to the campaign.

He said: “This is really fantastic news. It’s a very important development.

“It’s the result of thousands of people who have written in and joined the campaign and I am deeply indebted to them, because without them, we wouldn’t have got this call-in.”

South West Norfolk MP Elizabeth Truss said the government had done the right thing in listening to the public.

She said she also plans to continue lobbying the Treasury to review the basis of the government’s contribution to the financing of the plant.

A multi-million pound grant towards the cost of the scheme was approved by environment secretary Caroline Spelman earlier this year.

But, following the latest ruling, there is likely to be many more months of uncertainty over whether the plant will be built at all.

Norfolk County Council say they have not received any official notification of the decision, while Cory Wheelabrator, the consortium hoping to build the plant, have not yet commented.

Further updates when available

An Open Letter to the German KfW Banking Group on Beijing N

时间:2012-08-30 07:45来源:自然之友 作者: 点击: 27次

We are a group of non-governmental organisations and individuals who care about China’s environmental protection and social wellbeing. In this letter we would like to express our heartfelt concern regarding the investment and construction arrangemen


21 Chinese NGOs and 16 Citizens

August 8, 2012


KfW Bankengruppe
Palmengartenstraße 5-9
60325 Frankfurt am Main


Telefon: 0049-069 74 31-0


KfW Office Beijing
1170, Sunflower Tower
No. 37 Maizidian Street
Chaoyang District, Beijing 100025
PR of China

Tel: +86 10 85 27 51-71 / 72 / 73 / 74


Dear Sir or Madam,

We are a group of non-governmental organisations and individuals who care about China’s environmental protection and social wellbeing. In this letter we would like to express our heartfelt concern regarding the investment and construction arrangements of the Beijing Nangong Municipal Solid Waste Incinerator, and would like to seek an opportunity to develop a frank dialogue with your bank.

In early May 2010 the Beijing General Municipal Engineering Design & Research Institute website revealed that the Chinese and German governments “will include Beijing NangongMunicipal Solid Waste Incinerator as a financial cooperation project under the Sino-German Financial Cooperation Framework. According to a 2006 feasibility research report the total investment allocated to this project is 775,530,000 Renminbi (about 99,000,000 Euros). 55,000,000 Euros will come from the Sino-German Financial Cooperation Fund, and will be implemented by the KfW Bank.” [1]

It was through the above information that we realised that your bank is a direct investor and important interested party in the Nangong Waste Incinerator. We believe that your bank can exert influence over this project, and that whether or not it is successfully operated will affect the reputation of German government and enterprises’ economic and environmental protection cooperation with China.

We noticed that your bank’s official website states: “The sustainability of our own actions and the projects we promote are at the top of KfW’s corporate agenda, and are even part of our global promotional mission. Our aim is to help stimulate sustainable investment that benefits the natural environment and economic development equally. Conversely, KfW therefore does not fund projects that are likely to generate unacceptable ecological or social impacts.”[2]

We have also noticed that the KfW Bank adopted the Equator Principles quite early, and such principles require banks look out for possible social and environmental risks and dangers to clients and other major stakeholders during the construction, production and operation of projects.

We deeply appreciate and acknowledge your bank’s above statement on environmental protection and sustainable development, and hotly anticipate that such principals will be applied to the investment and construction activities for the Beijing Nangong Waste Incinerator. However, according to our information, there are widespread problems associated with the use of waste incineration technology in China. Some aspects of environmental hygiene facilities in Beijing, which Germany has helped construct, are also worthy of re-examination. If these already existing problems are not addressed, resolved, or taken seriously by the responsible parties, the implementation of the Nangong Waste Incinerator project could harm the public interest of Beijing residents. It would also contradict your bank’s investment principles and harm the international reputation of the German government and companies.

In China municipal solid waste incineration is already an environmental pollution source that cannot be ignored. First, it is commonly known that the burning of waste will produce and emit dioxin-type pollutants. The Chinese government’s “People’s Republic of China National Implementation Plan for the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants” lists municipal solid waste incineration as an emissions source whose control must be prioritised.[3] In 2009 academics from the China Urban Construction Design & Research Institute published an article stating that in 2007 the estimated airborne dioxin emissions from municipal solid waste incineration (there were less than 70 incinerators in operation in that year) in China was 157.93g TEQ (toxicity equivalent), which was a big increase on the 2004 figure of 125.8g TEQ. For comparison, in 1994 airborne dioxin emissions from municipal solid waste incineration in Germany were only 30g TEQ. It is estimated that this figure has been below 0.5g TEQ since the beginning of the 21st Century (around 70 municipal solid waste incinerators are running in Germany now). [4]In the same year, scholars from the Chinese Academy of Sciences published the results of their research into the airborne dioxin emissions from 19 municipal solid waste incinerators in China. According to their results, 13 incinerators did not meet the EU standard of 0.1ng TEQ/m3. Three incinerators even exceeded the Chinese national standard of 1ng TEQ/m3.[5] In addition, whilst investigating the environmental quality of soil around a waste incinerator in Shanghai’s Jiading District, researchers from the Shanghai Academy of Public Measurement discovered that dioxin levels were markedly higher than the surrounding area. Based on this, they made the following conclusion: waste incinerators are a source of dioxins in the Shanghai area’s land.[6]

Apart from dioxins, China’s waste incinerators also emit a large amount of the heavy metal mercury. According to a 2011 article by academics from the South China University of Technology, mercury emissions from municipal solid waste incineration account for 21% of total man-made mercury emissions in the Pearl River Delta, second only to emissions from coal-burning (28%).[7] In other case studies, Chinese academics have discovered that airborne emissions from municipal solid waste incinerators have resulted in sharp increases in the mercury content of surrounding land and flora.[8]

Why do waste incineration facilities that can be operated relatively safely in some European countries and Japan “fail to acclimatise” when they reach China? Apart from the complicated mix of Chinese waste (high moisture content, low burning value, large quantity of hazardous waste products), the low standard of engineering technology and a lack of investment in pollution control, we believe that the main reason is that government departments are seriously lacking supervision and control over waste incinerators.

According to a 2011 article by scholars from the China Urban Construction Design & Research Institute, apart from a minority of cities including Shanghai and Guangzhou, the majority of fly ash from Chinese municipal solid waste incinerators is not handled safely.[9] Faced with this situation, it cannot be denied that there has been negligence from supervisory departments. The media has also reported cases of waste incinerators operating in breach of standards. For example: fly ash from the Macau Waste Incinerator was improperly dumped, ash residue from the Shenzhen Nanshan Waste Incinerator flowed into a black brick yard, and leachate from the Shenzhen Nanshan and Laohukeng waste incinerators was dumped directly into the sea without treatment. A programme televised by Shenzhen TV revealed that in May 2011 an incinerator operated by the Herrel Group in Sichuan was fined 50,000 Renminbi by the Chengdu City Environmental Protection Bureau for failing to adhere to regulations concerning the reporting of fly ash production, transportation and handling. However, in July the HerrelGroup and the Environmental Protection Bureau “agreed to mediate” and the fine would not be enforced. We can say that these incidents have resulted from a lack of government supervision and control.

In addition, some important supervision and control information concerning the operation of incinerators is frequently not publicly disclosed in a timely manner, and monitoring data are not completely trustworthy. From February to April of this year the environmental non-governmental organisation Wuhu Ecology Centre applied to China’s 31 provinces, cities, and autonomous regions’ environmental protection bureaus and the Ministry of Environmental Protection for the release of a list naming companies that emit large quantities of dioxins (waste incinerators count as major emission source companies). However, only six provinces and cities’ environmental protection bureaus responded meaningfully.[10] As to the monitoring data concerning waste incinerator emissions of harmful pollutants (dioxins, heavy metals, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon, PM2.5), it is extremely rare for environmental protection departments to voluntarily release this information or to do so in response to an information disclosure request application. Some scholars have emphasised that most data in scientific research articles concerning legal dioxin emissions from waste incinerators is based on measurements taken under the most favourable conditions.[11] As a result, it is questionable whether or not these data can represent the normal operating situation of waste incinerators in China.

Because waste incineration in China has already resulted in significant amounts of pollution, and due to insufficient supervision and control and a lack of transparency, waste incineration projects in many urban and rural locations face increasingly strong opposition from local residents. Some opposition activities have even evolved into serious street protests, involving urban residents in cities including Beijing, Shanghai, Wuhan and Nanjing, and residents from towns or villages in locations including Likeng Village in Guangzhou’s Taihe Township, PingwangTownship in Jiangsu’s Wujiang, and Huangtutang Village in Wuxi’s Donggang Township. It can be said that waste incinerators cannot avoid causing anxiety to local residents wherever they are planned.

In reality, apart from problems associated with the supervision and control of harmful pollutant emissions, “low level” mistakes are often made in planning, investment and operation of waste incineration projects in China. This exacerbates the public’s serious lack of trust. First, due to irregular operation, bad smell from waste discharge pits or storage pools often covers the surrounding areas. Loud noise bothers residents living nearby. Second, the site selection for incinerators in some places does not accord with planning procedures. This might be one reason for the abandonment of the Beijing Liulitun waste incinerator plan. Third, the overall quality of public opinion solicitation for waste incinerator environmental impact assessments is very low. Some units in charge of carrying out environmental impact assessments have been found to have fabricated public opinion statements. In light of this, residents of planned incinerator sites in numerous locations have expressed anger. For instance, because of these problems, farmers from Panguanying Village in Liushouying Township in Hebei Province’sFuning County managed to force the Qinhuangdao West Waste Incinerator being brought to a standstill.[12]

Apart from the fact that the overall development of waste incineration technology in China is a cause of concern, the operation of Beijing’s environmental hygiene facilities funded by the German government in the past ten years also needs re-examining. We believe that if problems exist with these facilities and that if they are not effectively resolved, the future construction and operation of the Nangong Municipal Solid Waste Incinerator – as the extension of a long-term cooperation between China and Germany in the field of environmental hygiene projects – is an even larger cause for serious concern.

At present, there are five environmental hygiene facility sites funded by Germany in Beijing, including Majialou Transfer Station, Xiaowuji Transfer Station, Anding Landfill, BeishenshuLandfill and Nangong Composting Plant. On the whole, this system has played an active role in reducing waste transportation cost as well as controlling waste treatment pollution. However, the actual effectiveness of the “transfer station mechanical sorting + composting plant composting” sub-system has not met expectations, and has possibly resulted in secondary pollution that cannot be ignored. According to our on-site investigations, although waste entering the Nangong composting plant has been mechanically and manually sorted, it still contains a large amount of plastic bags, plastic and metal packaging and disposable chopsticks. In the composter, it is even possible to find harmful waste such as used batteries and expired medical products that should not be allowed to enter the composting production line. They will also once again be transported to landfills for final treatment, increasing transportation costs and energy input. In addition the quality of the compost is low. According to a report by Beijing Municipal Government department technicians, the content level of arsenic and mercury in some composting products from this factory exceeds the Control Standards for Urban Wastes for Agricultural Use (GB8172-87) and these composting products are difficult to sell.[13] Furthermore, our on-site investigation revealed that the working environment in the composting facility is filled with foul and irritating air, workers hardly wore necessary protective equipment such as masks, and their health might be seriously damaged in the long term.

Another surprising phenomenon is that the temporary medical incinerator inside the Nangong composter, which was set up due to the outbreak of SARS in 2003, was going to be developed by Beijing as a “permanent” medical incinerator after being renovated in 2004.[1 However, when we carried out on-site investigation in 2007, the operation of this incinerator had been stopped and to this date once dilapidated workshops and equipment have been demolished. As we all know, if the administration of medical incinerators is insufficient, not only will it produce pollution containing infecting bacteria, but also the emission level of dioxins and heavy metal is very high. This might directly affect the composting plant workers’ health as well as the compost quality. As far as we know, the planned site of Nangong incinerator is also next to the composting plant. Its influence on the composting work naturally deserves attention.

We also visited residents living within a one-kilometre radius of the Nangong composting plant. They told us that at the beginning of the composting plant’s construction, government departments did not inform them of the content and risk of the project. After the completion of the composting plant, it frequently emits unbearable bad smell which affects villagers’ daily life so severely that they call the composting plant the “human excrement plant”. They already blocked the plant entrance many times to protest. These protesting activities only temporarilyquietened down after the villagers received some compensation. Presently, although the residents have been informed of the construction of the incinerator next to the composting plant, they complain that the local government did not solicit their opinions to the full and failed to truly present the pollution risk of the incinerator. Considering that the level of public participation has always been too weak in the construction of environmental hygiene facility projects, we have all reasons to be concerned that big problems might exist in public opinion solicitation in the Nangong incineration project.

Based on all the existing practical problems we have identified about waste incineration technology development in China as well as those in environmental hygiene projects funded by Germany in Beijing, especially in Beijing’s Nangong district, we respectfully ask your bank to pay a high level of attention to these issues. Meanwhile, we will also put forward the few suggestions below for your bank to consider so that we can ensure the Nangong incineration will not repeat history or experience the same problems that are happening to other incinerations in China.

First, designate one department or certain officers to have dialogues and work closely with interested parties connected to the Nangong incineration project and environmental public interest groups in China. Carry out serious examination to ensure that your bank’s investment activities will not harm the local environment and health rights, and interests of the Chinese public and citizens of Nangong.

Second, promoters of the project including German government departments, the Beijing Municipal Commission of City Administration and Environment, project designers, consultants, and units in charge of the environmental impact assessment, should release information from the entire environmental impact assessment process related to the project’s planning, design, finance and equipment procurement. This will make the decision making process of this public project open and transparent.

Third, establish an independent investigation group that will assess the operation and effects of all environmental hygiene facilities in Beijing funded by the German government, including these projects’ economic, technical, social, and environmental impacts.

Fourth, in cooperation with the Beijing Municipal Government and social organisations, directly solicit the opinions of residents living in the Nangong district and identify potential social and environmental risk of the project.

Fifth, organise independent German technology experts to investigate the use of waste incineration technology in China and its overall situation. In particular, find the reasons for the pollution emitted by those problematic incinerators mentioned above.

Sixth, carry out activities that will inform Chinese government departments, waste treatment enterprises, social organisations and the media about Germany’s experience and safe operation conditions of waste incinerators.

Seventh, carry out activities that will inform Chinese government departments, waste treatment enterprises, social organisations and the media about Germany’s experience with reducing waste production, establishing extended producer responsibility, promoting waste sorting and recycling that have been prioritised in Germany’s waste management system.

Finally, for the sake of public interest and environmental health and happiness of Beijing residents, and for the sake of good cooperation between Germany and China across all different areas, we would like to establish a direct and frank dialogue with your bank and/or other relevant German organisations or enterprises based on the content of this letter and the suggestions that we have put forward. We believe that such a dialogue would be extremely valuable. It would not only benefit the careful investment, construction and operation of the Beijing NangongMunicipal Solid Waste Incinerator, but would also set a new model for German government and enterprises’ consideration of sustainable development and social welfare in overseas investment projects.

We look forward to hearing from you soon.

Yours Sincerely,



Friends of Nature

Nature University

Yunnan Green Watershed

Green Anhui

Green Stone Environmental Action Network

Environmental Protection Service Association of Green Zhuhai

Green Beagle


Beijing Waste Management Technology Co. Ltd.

Wuhu Ecology Centre

Fujian Green Home

Green Henan

Eco Canton

Xiamen Greencross Association

Green Camel Bell

Friends Of Green China Tianjin

Rock Energy and Environment Institute


Blue Dalian
Qinhuangdao Entrepreneur Association
Qinghuan Volunteer Service Center

Individual Citizens:

MAO Da (Researcher, Nature University)
CHEN Fu (P. S.: No double standard for the health of German and Chinese)
FENG Yongfeng (Co-Founder and Researcher, Nature University)
MO Jingteng
YUE Caixuan
ZHAO Zhangyuan (Researcher (retired) , Chinese Research Academy of Environmental Sciences; P. S.: There has been a fact regarding municipal solid waste incineration in China: almostevery new incinerator project will cause fierce opposition from surrounding residents, and pose heavy burdens to governments and enterprises!)
LI Bo (Commission on Environmental, Economic and Social Policy, IUCN; Board Member of Friends of Nature)
YANG Xiaojing
LI Jiamin
Basuo Fengyun
MA Tiannan
RAN Liping
CHEN Zhiqiang

Contact persons:

CHEN Liwen (School of Waste, Nature University, Mobile: +86-15210347427, E-mail: liwenchen9230@gmail)

MAO Da (School of Waste, Nature University, Mobile: +86-15210033727, E-mail:

[1]Beijing General Municipal Engineering Design & Research Institute,”Our Institute Signed Consulting Service Contract with Pöyry Energy (Germany) on the Beijing Nangong Municipal Solid Waste Incinerator Project”,

[2]KfW, “Demonstrating our activities for sustainability through specific projects”,

[3]The Coordinating Office for National Implementation of the Stockholm Convention, “People’s Republic of China National Implementation Plan for the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants”, Beijing: China Environmental Science Press, 2008, p. 49.

[4]Zhao Shuqing, Huang Wenxiong, and Xie Li, “The Current Situation and Trend of Dioxin Emission from Municipal Solid Waste Incineration in Our Country”, Urban Managerial Technology, 2009 (2), pp. 58, 59; The Coordinating Office for National Implementation of the Stockholm Convention, “People’s Republic of China National Implementation Plan for the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants”, p. 42; Steffi Richter and Bernt Johnke, “Status of PCDD/F-Emission Control in Germany on the Basis of the Current Legislation and Strategies for Further Action”, Chemosphere, 54 (2004), pp. 1299-1302.

[5]Yuwen Ni, Haijun Zhang, Su Fan, Xueping Zhang, Qing Zhang, and Jiping Chen, “Emissions of PCDD/Fs from Municipal Solid Waste Incinerators in China”, Chemosphere, 75 (2009), 1153-1158.

[6]Deng Yunyun, Jia Lijua, and Yin Haowen, “Preliminary Study on the Level of Dioxin-like Compounds in Soil of Shanghai”, Journal of Environment and Occupational Medicine, Vol. 25, No. 4, 2008, pp. 353-359.

[7]Junyu Zheng, Jiamin Ou, Ziwei Mo, Shasha Yin, “Mercury emission inventory and its spatial characteristics in the Pearl River Delta region, China”, Science of the Total Environment, Volumes 412-413, 15 December 2011, 214-222.

[8]Tang Qinghe, Ding Zhenhua, Jiang Jiaye, Yang Wenhua, Cheng Jinping, and Wang Wenhua, “Environmental Effects of Mercury around a Large Scale MSW Incineration Plant”, Environmental Science, Vol. 26, No. 1, 2005, pp. 2786-2791.

[9]Zhao Shuqing, Song Wei, Liu Jinghao, and Pu Zhihong, “Pollution Status and Suggestions for Emission Reduction of Dioxin from Incineration of Municipal Solid Waste in China”, Environmental Engineering, Vol. 29, No. 1, 2011, pp. 86-88.

[10]Wuhu Ecology Centre, “The First Report of ‘Tracing the Information Disclosure of the Key Dioxin Emission Source of the Whole Country'”,

[11]Zhao Shuqing, Song Wei, Liu Jinghao, and Pu Zhihong, “Pollution Status and Suggestions for Emission Reduction of Dioxin from Incineration of Municipal Solid Waste in China”.

[12]Liang Jialin, and Wang Lu, “Farmers Complained to MEP, Intending to Postpone Zhejiang Weiming’s IPO, Economic Information, May 8, 2012,

[13]Li Yuchun, Li Yanfu, and Wang Yan, “A Report on Promoting the Sale of the Composting Product of Nangong Composting Plant”,

[14]Ma Nina, “SARS Warning, Beijing’s First Medical Waste Treatment Plant Starts Operation”, The Beijing News, December 29, 2004,

Appendix: Photos of Beijing Nangong Composting Plant

Photo 1: Mixed waste entering the plant (1)


Photo 2: Mixed waste entering the plant (2)


Photo 3: Mixed waste entering the plant (3)


Photo 4: Workers dealing with the waste


Photo 5: Waste battery in the compost


Photo 6: Waste battery and plastic in the compost


Photo 7: Waste medicine in the compost


Photo 8: Waste plastic containers and medicine in the compost

Photo 9: Abandoned medical waste incinerator next to the plant

Photo 10: Dilapidated equipments in the abandoned medical waste incinerator