Global recycled-resource policies are shifting from encouraging recycling toward prioritising domestic supply. The EU, the US and several resource-producing countries are introducing export restrictions, domestic sales requirements, export taxes and reporting rules to retain more copper scrap for local smelters and manufacturers.
However, retaining copper scrap does not necessarily mean it can be effectively consumed. If domestic sorting, pre-treatment, smelting and fabrication capacity cannot match the grades and volumes generated, export restrictions may lead to stockpiles and lower local prices, eventually weakening incentives for collection, sorting and investment.
Why Does BIR Warn That Trade Restrictions Could Hurt Recycling?
At the BIR World Recycling Convention on October 26, industry participants warned that restrictions on recycled-metal exports could trigger four consequences: fewer export outlets, lower domestic scrap prices, weaker incentives to collect and sort complex materials, and less capital available for recyclers to invest.
Copper alloy scrap accounted for 41.7% of EU copper scrap exports in 2025, around 80% of which went to China and India. Europe still has limited capacity to consume brass and other alloy scrap domestically. Some recently added recycling capacity is designed mainly for copper rod production, clean scrap or specific complex materials and cannot process every category of copper scrap.
Copper scrap is not a homogeneous raw material. Millberry and clean production scrap require relatively limited processing before returning to fabrication, while brass, bronze, mixed scrap and electronic waste need specialised sorting, impurity removal, smelting and refining facilities.
A region may therefore have substantial nameplate recycling capacity without being able to process all the scrap retained by export restrictions. The key is whether local processing capacity matches the available scrap categories—not simply the total capacity figure.
Why Are Countries Accelerating Resource Retention?
The shift is being driven not only by environmental considerations but also by copper’s rising strategic importance.
Grid expansion, renewable energy, data centres, transport electrification and manufacturing upgrades all require large volumes of copper. Meanwhile, new mines face long development periods, high capital costs and declining ore grades, preventing mine supply from responding quickly to demand growth. SMM expects global copper concentrate supply to remain tight until around 2029.
Global copper supply mainly comes through two routes: primary ores and recycled copper. Blister copper and copper anodes are important traded materials, but they are generally intermediate products derived from concentrate or scrap. As concentrate supply tightens, copper scrap is becoming more than a lower-cost alternative—it is increasingly important to national copper supply security.
This explains why more countries are seeking to retain scrap domestically. The EU’s revised Waste Shipment Regulation raises the approval threshold for non-hazardous waste exports to non-OECD countries and may be followed by additional measures targeting copper scrap. The US is pursuing domestic sales requirements for part of its high-quality copper scrap, while South Africa and other resource-producing countries use export taxes and licensing systems to raise the cost of scrap exports.
These policies have different objectives, ranging from environmental oversight and supply-chain security to support domestic smelting and manufacturing. Their common direction, however, is to retain more primary and secondary resources as concerns over future copper availability increase.
Yet copper scrap only contributes to supply if it can be efficiently sorted, processed and returned to production. If domestic processing capacity cannot absorb the grades and volumes retained, resource security measures may become restrictions on circulation, resulting in falling prices, rising inventories and weaker recycling incentives.
How Could Scrap Retention Suppress Recycling?
Export restrictions initially reduce the number of available buyers rather than the volume of scrap generated. As overseas buyers withdraw, domestic suppliers face a more concentrated buyer base, potentially pushing down local scrap prices and payabilities.
If domestic smelters and fabricators can absorb the material, lower feedstock costs may improve processing margins and encourage investment. But where suitable capacity is insufficient, the policy could trigger a negative cycle:
Fewer export outlets → domestic oversupply → lower scrap prices → weaker recycler margins and cash flow → lower collection bids and sorting investment → reduced collection incentives → slower growth in actual recycling volumes.
The risk is greater for complex and alloy scrap, which requires more labour, equipment, energy and environmental expenditure. Without stable buyers for processed products, recyclers may reduce deep sorting, downgrade recoverable materials, hold them in inventory or move them outside formal recycling channels.
Can Europe’s Capacity Expansion Solve the Problem?
Europe is expanding its secondary-material processing capacity. Atlantic Copper has commissioned its CirCular project, designed to process 60,000 mt of pre-treated electronic waste annually. Sofia Med is also planning a project that would process low-grade and mixed copper scrap into copper with purity above 99.9%.
However, these projects have specific feedstock requirements and commissioning schedules. Their design capacity cannot be treated as immediately available capacity for all additional European scrap. Some require pre-treated electronic waste, others target internal production scrap, while several remain under construction or at the funding stage.
The EU’s new waste export rules will begin affecting trade in 2027, while some additional recycling capacity will not become available until 2028 or later. This timing gap may leave brass, mixed materials and lower-grade scrap particularly exposed to stockpiling and price pressure.
Regional Differences in the Global Scrap Market Will Widen
SMM believes resource-retention policies will not directly reduce global scrap generation, but they will change regional prices and circulation.
In markets restricting exports, scrap grades that lack sufficient domestic processing capacity may trade at discounts and accumulate in inventories. In import-dependent markets such as China, India and Southeast Asia, freely tradable high-grade scrap may become scarcer, supporting import payabilities.
Some companies may also process scrap into copper ingots, anodes or other recycled intermediate products before exporting. Global trade would therefore not disappear but gradually shift from raw scrap toward more highly processed products, allowing more processing margins to remain in the country of origin.
The effectiveness of resource-retention policies ultimately depends on whether domestic markets have suitable sorting capacity, smelting facilities, end-user demand and economically sustainable collection prices. Restricting exports may temporarily increase local supply, but it cannot automatically create a complete recycling value chain.
If processing capacity develops more slowly than policy implementation, resource retention could instead result in depressed prices and rising stockpiles, weakening incentives at the collection stage. Effective policy must therefore do more than simply “keep copper scrap at home”—it must ensure that every retained scrap category has suitable processing capacity, stable buyers and sustainable margins.
