This chapter presents the main insights from the report and puts them into the wider policy context. It also provides an overview of the modelling framework and describes the policy scenarios developed in the report.
Policy Scenarios for Eliminating Plastic Pollution by 2040
Abstract
The large and growing role played by plastics in the economy, combined with increased public, scientific and policy attention to the fate of plastics in the environment, has led to unprecedented scrutiny of the health, environmental and socio-economic consequences associated with the plastics lifecycle. On the one hand, plastics bring innumerable benefits to society, as exemplified by the widespread use of plastics in consumer products such as beverage containers, as protective medical equipment, or as cheap lightweight material in cars. On the other hand, the production, use and disposal of plastics comes with severe negative consequences for the environment, human health and our economies and livelihoods (OECD, 2022[1]; OECD, 2022[2]).
In March 2022, all 193 UN Member States united in a landmark decision to develop an international legally binding instrument on plastic pollution, including in the marine environment, based on a comprehensive approach that addresses the full lifecycle of plastics (UNEA Resolution 5/14 entitled “End Plastic Pollution: Towards an International Legally Binding Instrument”). Despite a growing sense of urgency to mitigate and prevent the multitude of adverse consequences of plastic pollution, current policies have fallen short of significantly altering trends in plastic flows and pollution. The future legal instrument presents a unique opportunity to scale up policy efforts and catalyse a much-needed, immediate and global response to plastic pollution. The International Negotiating Committee (INC) to develop the instrument began its work during the second half of 2022, with the ambition to complete the negotiations by the end of 2024 (UNEP, 2024[3]) and adopt a treaty in early 2025.
As international negotiations unfold, policymakers and negotiators are discussing the strategies, targets and actions that could achieve the ambitious goal set by UNEA Resolution 5/14. In this context, there is growing political momentum for implementing comprehensive policy approaches that address the full lifecycle of plastics, towards a common international target to 2040 to eliminate plastic pollution. Beyond submissions by some member states to the INC, the following international initiatives aim to bolster the ambition to end plastic pollution by 2040:
Signatories of the High Ambition Coalition to End Plastic Pollution1 (2024[4]) have called for the establishment of an international legally binding treaty, based on “a comprehensive and holistic approach able to end plastic pollution by 2040, including by committing to take immediate actions at all levels and across the full life cycle of plastics”, in order to protect human health and the environment from plastic pollution while contributing to the restoration of biodiversity and curbing climate change.
In April 2024, the G7 Ministers of Climate, Energy and the Environment (2024[5]) renewed their commitment to ending plastic pollution, announcing the ambition “to reduce additional plastic pollution to zero by 2040”, and to take “ambitious actions throughout the full life cycle of plastics to end plastic pollution and call on the global community to do the same, with the aspiration to reduce and, as appropriate, restrain the global production and consumption of primary plastic polymers”.
At the same time, countries and regions around the world have diverse preferences regarding the types and stringency of potential policy instruments to achieve these objectives. Accordingly, different jurisdictions have taken different positions on the intended scope of the future treaty and its elements, including regarding the balance between actions to reduce primary plastics production and demand versus actions to improve waste collection and treatment. Furthermore, countries may face significant challenges in ramping up policy action and investments. Ending open dumping and open air burning and setting up waste collection and management systems are notable challenges faced in many low-income countries. The absence of sufficiently strong support for policy implementation could lead to barriers to effective actions to reduce, let alone eliminate, leakage of plastics to the environment.
Without prejudice to their outcome, this report intends to inform ongoing negotiations by providing insights regarding the potential benefits and consequences of varying levels of international ambition towards the elimination of plastic pollution. To do so, the report develops and contrasts alternative policy scenarios that simulate varying degrees of policy stringency, lifecycle scope and geographical coverage.
The report aims to provide insights on the following main questions:
What package of policies could achieve a sustainable plastics economy and set countries on the path towards eliminating (specific aspects of) plastic pollution by 2040? What opportunities, barriers and priorities lie ahead for policymakers in order to meet this goal?
What are the trade-offs, in terms of environmental consequences (including waste mismanagement, leakage to the environment, including in in rivers and oceans, greenhouse gas emissions) and economic implications (including GDP impacts and waste management costs) of limiting policy ambitions?
Limited lifecycle scope, with a policy mix focused on enhanced waste collection and treatment, but limited or absent interventions to reduce the flows of (primary) plastics into and through the economy.
Limited geographical coverage, with high ambition limited to a group of advanced economies that implement ambitious policy mixes covering the entire lifecycle to aim for a 2040 target for the elimination of plastic pollution.2
Broad action in terms of geographical coverage and lifecycle scope, but with limited policy stringency, such as lower tax rates and less ambitious recycling targets.
This report is structured as follows. The current chapter provides an overview of the methodology, as well as a high-level summary of the main insights stemming from the analysis. Chapter 2 presents projections and findings for a Baseline scenario to 2040. Chapter 3 details the modelling framework and introduces the policy scenarios used in the analysis. Chapter 4 discusses the impacts of scenarios with partial ambition. Chapter 5 then highlights the benefits of more integrated and ambitious scenarios that combine broad policy action across geographical coverage and lifecycle scope. Chapter 6 compares the macroeconomic and waste management costs across the various scenarios. Finally, Chapter 7 puts the results into context by highlighting the challenges that must be overcome to reap the environmental benefits in a cost-effective manner.
The policy scenario analysis builds on the previous two OECD Global Plastics Outlook publications and exploits the same modelling framework to quantify the main mechanisms driving plastics production and use, waste and pollution (OECD, 2022[1]; OECD, 2022[2]).3 The modelling framework is summarised in Infographic 1.1.
The OECD’s in-house dynamic computable general equilibrium model ENV-Linkages is used to estimate the economic activities that drive plastics use. ENV-Linkages is a dynamic multi-sectoral, multi-regional model that links economic activities to energy and environmental issues and provides annual projections of economic activity and environmental pressures between 2020 and 2060.4 ENV-Linkages has been enhanced to include data on plastics use, waste and end-of-life treatment (see OECD (2022[6]) for more details). The modelling framework links plastics use directly to specific inputs in production processes and the consumption of goods, enabling detailed sectoral and regional projections of the plastics lifecycle by polymer and application. A wide range of policy instruments can be modelled in this framework, including upstream and midstream policies to influence production and consumption, as well as downstream policies to enhance recycling and reduce mismanaged waste.
Source: Authors’ own elaboration.
In this report, policy scenarios model alternative policy packages. All scenarios contain (a subset of) the same ten policy instruments covering multiple stages of the plastics lifecycle, but differ in terms of policy ambition. In addition to a Baseline scenario, the report develops five policy scenarios that differ along three dimensions: geographical coverage (global or Advanced economies only), lifecycle scope (broad lifecycle policies or downstream policies only), and policy stringency (high stringency, low stringency or current policies). Three hypothetical partial ambition scenarios simulate stylised directions for the international treaty currently being negotiated, including:
high policy stringency focusing exclusively on enhancing downstream waste collection and treatment (policy pillars 3 and 4) with global scope (Global Downstream High stringency policy scenario)
high policy stringency throughout the plastics lifecycle, but limited to a selected set of economies (Advanced economies Lifecycle High stringency policy scenario) and
common global targets and measures across the plastics lifecycle, with relatively low policy stringency (Global Lifecycle Low stringency policy scenario).
Two hypothetical integrated, high ambition scenarios are also investigated, including:
global alignment on the lifecycle scope of policies, with mixed policy stringency (Global Lifecycle Mixed stringency policy scenario) and
high policy stringency and full global alignment on the need for stringent interventions for all four policy pillars (Global Lifecycle High stringency [Global Ambition] policy scenario).
Table 1.1 describes the policy scenarios and presents a visualisation of the policy packages modelled in each. Chapter 3 goes into more details on the set-up of policy scenarios and the policy instruments modelled. The full details of the numerical implementation of the policy scenarios in the modelling framework are presented in Annex B.
1. White boxes reflect the Baseline scenario, i.e. current policies and accompanying assumptions; light shaded boxes reflect low policy stringency and dark shaded boxes reflect high policy stringency.
2. The Global Lifecycle Mixed stringency policy scenario could be more precisely described as the Global Downstream High stringency, Advanced economies Upstream/Midstream High stringency, and Emerging and Developing Economies Upstream/Midstream Low stringency.
3. Chapter 6 explores a variant of the Global Lifecycle High stringency [Global Ambition] policy scenario called Global Lifecycle Delayed stringency policy scenario where the targets are met by 2060 rather than 2040.
Source: Authors’ own elaboration.
Projections are not predictions or forecasts; rather, they are stylised representations of how specific assumptions, e.g. regarding policy changes, will affect the evolution of key variables. Models represent a stylised version of reality that omits numerous factors that can influence economic and environmental outcomes. Projections over long time horizons are inevitably subject to uncertainties, since it is not possible to foresee socio-economic changes in the coming decades with a high degree of accuracy. Nevertheless, policy scenarios remain valuable insofar as they can highlight the possible long-term consequences of current policy choices and the costs and benefits of ambitious policy action.
By comparing the alternative hypothetical scenarios presented in this report, policymakers can gain insights into the environmental and economic consequences of different choices in the development of an international legally binding instrument on plastic pollution. The policy scenarios presented in this report are not intended to precisely represent ongoing treaty negotiations, nor to describe specific country positions. However, their design is informed by cross-cutting issues currently under discussion in the context of treaty negotiations, such as the balance between measures to curb plastics production and demand, and measures to enhance waste management.
This report recognises that plastic pollution encompasses all emissions and risks resulting from the plastics lifecycle (OECD, 2022[2]). However, for the purpose of the analytical modelling carried out in this report, policy scenarios are constructed with a focus on the leakage of macroplastics to the environment (including by singling out the share entering to rivers and oceans). This focus is driven by issues of limited data and information on other aspects, for instance on:
microplastic leakage or the effectiveness of policies to mitigate microplastic pollution. However, quantifications for microplastic leakage are presented in previous reports that contain similar modelling efforts (OECD, 2022[1]).
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. This report can only quantify GHG emissions from certain stages of the plastics lifecycle, specifically from production and conversion, and from recycling and incineration at the end-of-life stage. Analysis of climate change mitigation policies specifically aimed at reducing GHG emissions is beyond the scope of this report. However, (OECD, 2022[1]) investigates the interactions of plastics policies with mitigation policies.
a variety of other impacts resulting from the plastics lifecycle, including resource scarcity, land use, ground-level ozone formation and human toxicity, are also beyond the scope of this report. However, (OECD, 2022[1]) details a (global) lifecycle analysis (LCA) for the production and disposal of seven commonly used polymers, showing impacts on land use, ozone formation, eutrophication, ecotoxicity, toxicity and acidification, with projections until 2060.
The modelling employs mostly economic instruments to represent interventions at specific steps in the lifecycle of plastics, such as taxes on plastics consumption by downstream industries and households. These instruments constitute a cost-effective benchmark against which countries can evaluate alternative instruments. Due to a lack of a detailed modelling of plastics production at the regional level, the report does not model measures that would directly aim to control or otherwise restrain the production of primary or total plastics. However, in the economic model, behaviour is driven by the wedge between producer prices and consumer prices such that a tax on consumption has an equivalent effect to a tax on production with partial feedthrough to consumers. The analysis does not consider options for the reform of subsidies to primary plastics production, including for instance subsidies on the use of fossil fuels as feedstock, due to a lack of data.
Some of the policy scenarios presented in this report build on the earlier analysis presented in (OECD, 2022[1]). Box 1.2 clarifies the scope of the current analysis with respect to such earlier work.
This report employs the methodology developed in the OECD Global Plastics Outlook reports (OECD, 2022[2]; OECD, 2022[1]), notably the ENV-Linkages model, which calculates macroplastic leakage. Macroplastic leakage to the aquatic environment is derived from the ENV-Linkages projections using a spatially explicit model (Lebreton, 2024[7]) that assesses the probability that plastic waste ends up in aquatic environments (OECD, 2022[1]). Plastics-related GHG emissions are also quantified in the ENV-Linkages model. The quantification of other adverse environmental and health impacts related to plastics is beyond the scope of this analysis, although some of these aspects are qualitatively assessed to provide additional context.
Some of the policy scenarios presented in this report have already been explored in the Global Plastics Outlook (OECD, 2022[1]). An earlier version of the Global Lifecycle Low stringency policy scenario was labelled in the earlier report as “Regional Action” and an earlier version of the Global Lifecycle Delayed stringency policy scenario was labelled “Global Ambition”. These scenarios have been recalculated using updated economic baseline projections (OECD, 2021[8]), as well as with minor adaptions to the policy packages. The numbers presented here are therefore an update from those presented in the Global Plastics Outlook. The projections herein exhibit minor differences in numerical projections compared to the Global Plastics Outlook scenarios due to differences in the underlying Baseline economic trends, however the overall trends in plastic flows remain very similar.
The report explores the environmental and economic consequences of policy scenarios reflecting different levels of policy ambition. As described in Section 1.2 and illustrated in Figure 1.1, all policy scenarios implement (a subset of) the same ten policy instruments, but with different levels of ambition along three dimensions:
policy stringency, i.e. the envisioned targets for each policy measure modelled
lifecycle scope, i.e. either a focus on policy measures that aim at improving waste collection and treatment or the implementation of measures throughout the plastics lifecycle
geographical coverage, i.e. only a selected set of countries taking more ambitious policy action versus the same level of ambition spread out across all world regions.
Note: White boxes reflect Baseline, i.e. current policy assumptions; light shaded boxes low stringency of policy action and dark shaded high stringency.
Source: Authors’ own elaboration.
The environmental benefits of the policy scenarios modelled depend on four policy pillars: i) reducing the production and use of primary plastics, ii) reducing the plastics intensity of the economy, iii) increasing recycling rates, iv) eliminating plastic leakage to the environment.5
1.3.1. Under business as usual, plastic pollution is projected to increase further
The Baseline scenario projects population growth (though not in all regions), income growth in all regions, as well as technological developments that lead to efficiency improvements in production and structural change (including towards a higher share of services) in all regions. These drivers interact and, in combination, lead to a 70% global increase in annual plastics production, use and waste generation in 2040 compared to 2020 (Figure 1.2). Total plastics use would rise from 435 million tonnes (Mt) in 2020 to 736 Mt in 2040, with primary plastics constituting a roughly constant 94% of the total over this period. Increases in plastics use comes from all applications and involves all polymers. The fastest growth rates in plastics use are expected in emerging and developing economies such as India and Sub-Saharan Africa.
Global plastics production and use in million tonnes (Mt) by application (left-hand panel), and by polymer (right-hand panel), in 2020 and 2040
Source: OECD ENV-Linkages model.
Despite expected improvements in waste collection, sorting and treatment that are projected to emerge under current policies, higher plastic waste generation (617 Mt in 2040, up from 360 Mt in 2020) would lead to an increase in the absolute volumes of mismanaged waste (i.e. waste that is not disposed of in an environmentally sound manner) from 81 Mt in 2020 to 119 Mt in 2040 (Figure 1.3; left-hand panel) in the Baseline scenario. Similarly, while recycling output is set to continue to increase, higher plastic waste generation would lead to the continued prominent role of landfilling and incineration in the end-of-life treatment of plastic waste.
In the absence of more stringent policies, burgeoning plastics production, use and waste would continue to amplify the associated environmental risks. As a result of the increase in mismanaged plastic waste, leakage of macroplastics to the environment are projected to continue to grow, amounting to 30 Mt annually by 2040 (compared to an estimated 20 Mt in 2020). The majority of plastic leakage (by weight) is to terrestrial environments, but a significant share of leaked plastics end up in aquatic environments (9.3 Mt by 2040; right panel of Figure 1.3). The model projections suggest that, by 2040, accumulated plastics in the environment would amount to 300 Mt in rivers and oceans alone (up from the estimated 152 Mt in 2020). In other words, unless plastic pollution policies are amplified, in a mere 20 years the total amount of plastics accumulating in aquatic environments (148 Mt of accumulated aquatic stocks) would be about as large as all historically accumulated leakage in aquatic environments before 2020 (152 Mt).
Plastic end-of-life fates (left-hand panel), and plastics leakage to environmental media in million tonnes (right-hand panel) in million tonnes (Mt), Baseline scenario
Note: In both panels, shares in total in 2040 are also indicated in data labels.
Source: OECD ENV-Linkages model.
Beyond plastic leakage, other types of pollution associated with the production and lifecycle of plastics are also projected to grow significantly. Not all sources of pollution related to the production, use and end-of-life treatment of plastics can be quantified in this study. The broad environmental impact assessment presented in (OECD, 2022[1]) shows significant increases in a wide range of environmental and human health issues in the coming decades due to plastics-related pollution. Specifically for the Baseline projection, emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) are projected to increase in line with increased volumes of production, conversion and waste management. Despite current climate mitigation policies, GHG emissions from plastics are projected to account for 5% of global GHG emissions in 2040 (2.8 of in gigatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent [GtCO2e]), which is not in line with the Paris Agreement.6 In the Baseline, the production and conversion stage of plastic manufacturing accounts for almost 90% of quantified plastics-related emissions.7 As a result, other negative impacts on ecosystems, human well-being and coastal economies continue to be amplified in the Baseline scenario, risking potentially irreversible damage.
1.3.2. Policy action with partial ambition would at best slow down plastic leakage
The scenarios characterised by limited policy ambition in terms of lifecycle scope, geographical coverage or stringency (Global Downstream High stringency, Advanced economies Lifecycle High stringency, and Global Lifecycle Low stringency) would all fall short of significantly altering trends in plastic pollution, with limited outcomes in all four policy pillars and the associated environmental benefits (Figure 1.4):
None of these scenarios can stabilise primary plastics production and use at or below 2020 levels, which is essential to i) reduce GHG emissions and other adverse impacts associated with extraction and production, and ii) slow down the use of plastics in the economy and reduce the amount of waste to be managed. The more stringent policies to curb production and demand and to improve eco-design, implemented in Advanced economies Lifecycle High stringency, reduce primary plastics use only in the selected economies.
Reducing the plastics intensity of the global economy would allow for a decoupling of economic growth from plastics production and use, thereby facilitating economic development while mitigating plastic pollution. The Advanced economies Lifecycle High stringency scenario is partially effective, but the improvements are largely limited to the countries undertaking policy action, i.e. the OECD and non-OECD European Union, with very small effects on other countries and overall marginal impacts on global plastic flows. The Global Downstream High stringency scenario has virtually no effect on the plastics intensity of the global economy, as its policies focus on the downstream stages of the plastics lifecycle. With limited policy stringency, the Global Lifecycle Low stringency scenario would only partially reduce plastics use and plastics intensity.
Increasing recycling rates to make recycling the main waste management option is a prerequisite for transitioning to a circular economy and crucial for creating the scrap needed to produce secondary plastics that could displace primary plastics. Increasing recycling rates also contributes to avoiding mismanaged waste. All scenarios that include downstream policies with high stringency (Global Downstream High stringency and Advanced economies Lifecycle High stringency) would lead to large improvements in recycling. Assuming that existing barriers to further scaling up mechanical recycling are overcome, the Global Downstream High stringency scenario achieves a quadrupling of the global recycling rate. Thus, by 2040 42% of plastic waste is collected for recycling, processed, and used for the production of secondary plastics. The Global Lifecycle Low stringency scenario is less effective in enhancing recycling, and improvements in recycling are limited to a subset of countries in the Advanced economies Lifecycle High stringency scenario.
In terms of plastic leakage to the environment, which is a core aspect of reducing plastic pollution, the Global Downstream High stringency scenario achieves a considerable reduction (-55% compared to Baseline), showing that stringent downstream policies are important for reducing waste mismanagement and plastic leakage. At the same time, the Global Downstream High stringency scenario cannot close all leakage pathways in the absence of action to reduce plastics use and related plastic waste generation to more manageable levels.
Key indicators across partial ambition scenarios in 2040, compared 2020 levels and the Baseline scenario
Note: The striped portion of the bars for plastics use indicate secondary plastics.
Source: OECD ENV-Linkages model.
The combined effect of policies along the lifecycle (to curb production and demand, to improve eco-design and to improve waste collection and management), as simulated in the Global Lifecycle Mixed stringency scenario, would generate sufficient incentives to alter plastic flows at the global level, reducing both plastics production and use, as well as leakage to the environment below 2020 levels (Figure 1.5). By combining reductions in total plastics demand with improved recycling, this scenario ensures that all growth in plastics use is met through secondary plastics. However, the Global Lifecycle Mixed stringency scenario leads only to marginal improvements in terms of overall (primary and secondary) plastics production and use and in terms of reductions in plastics intensity. Moreover, the Global Lifecycle Mixed stringency scenario does not completely eliminate plastic leakage to the environment, as it lacks ambitious upstream and midstream action (to curb production and demand and to promote eco-design) in the less advanced economies.
Key indicators across high ambition scenarios in 2040, compared 2020 levels and the Baseline scenario
Note: The striped portion of the bars for plastics use indicate secondary plastics.
Source: OECD ENV-Linkages model.
By contrast, implementing a high stringency policy package in all world regions and covering all four policy pillars (Global Lifecycle High stringency [Global Ambition]), would outperform the other scenarios across multiple aspects, as shown in Figure 1.5. Only the Global Lifecycle High stringency [Global Ambition] scenario can eliminate plastic waste mismanagement and plastic leakage, as this requires both limiting the amounts of total waste generated, as well as enhancing waste management systems.
1.3.3. Global Ambition with high stringency and broad lifecycle scope can chart a viable path to eliminating plastic leakage by 2040
The Global Lifecycle High stringency [Global Ambition] scenario would achieve an almost total elimination of mismanaged waste and macroplastic leakage by 2040. In this scenario only 4 Mt and 1.2 Mt of mismanaged waste and macroplastic leakage remain in 2040, respectively (Figure 1.6; 3rd and 4th panel).8 In countries with advanced waste management systems, macroplastic leakage already steadily falls in the Baseline scenario, but in other regions this policy package is able to overcome otherwise significant Baseline growth in annual amounts of plastic leakage.
The projections indicate that an ambitious scale-up of interventions downstream in the plastics lifecycle will be needed in order to reduce plastic leakage. In particular, enabling all countries to have adequate waste management systems in place by 2040 will be crucial to ending macroplastic leakage. While most developed countries already have widespread municipal waste collection and treatment, this is not the case in a large share of developing countries, especially in non-urban areas. An urgent expansion of waste collection systems is a crucial prerequisite for ending plastic pollution, as waste that is not collected is mostly mismanaged and may end up in natural environments or be burned informally, leading to serious adverse consequences for human health and ecosystems. At the same time, a scale-up of waste treatment infrastructure is also required, including in both OECD and non-OECD countries, to support improved recycling.
Percentage change compared to the Baseline, Global Lifecycle High stringency [Global Ambition] scenario
Source: OECD ENV-Linkages model.
Interventions that curb primary plastics production and demand and incentivise the eco-design of plastic products and packaging are pivotal to reduce plastic waste volumes to be collected and treated, as well as to mitigate adverse environmental and health impacts along the plastics lifecycle. Policy measures in the Global Lifecycle High stringency [Global Ambition] scenario would reduce primary plastics use by one-half (both for packaging and non-packaging applications) compared to the Baseline scenario (Figure 1.6; 1st panel). This impact is primarily driven by policy measures to curb production and demand and to improve eco-design for circularity. Overall plastics use would be reduced by one-third (not shown in the chart). As growth in plastics use is mitigated, the resulting plastic waste is reduced by one-fourth compared to Baseline level (Figure 1.6; 2nd panel). The prevention of approximately 158 Mt of waste generation by 2040 (compared to the Baseline level) would help to relieve the burden on waste management systems around the globe. Importantly, projected waste generation in non-OECD countries would fall from a projected doubling in the Baseline scenario between 2020 and 2040, to a 40% increase over the same time frame in the Global Lifecycle High stringency [Global Ambition] policy scenario.9
The policy pillars to curb production and demand and to design for circularity also contribute to reducing mismanaged plastic waste and leakage to the environment. By scaling down the total amounts of waste generated, significant improvements can be made on these downstream outcomes even in absence of improved waste management systems. To comprehensively eliminate plastic leakage, however, efforts to enhance recycling and improve waste collection, sorting and treatment are also essential, contributing to 26% and 44% of total reduction in leakage, respectively. The comprehensive policy package in the Global Lifecycle High stringency [Global Ambition] scenario also facilitates the transition to more circular plastics use, as secondary plastics production rises in parallel to the increased availability of scrap from downstream recycling efforts. As a result, demand for primary plastics would be lower than in 2020.
The comprehensive mix of upstream, midstream and downstream policies envisioned in the Global Lifecycle High stringency [Global Ambition] scenario promises to deliver ample global benefits for ecosystems and human health. The combination of waste prevention measures and improvements in waste collection and management leads to an almost immediate fall in the leakage of macroplastics to the environment and a near elimination of leakage by 2040. This scenario is also likely to deliver considerable benefits for human health, in particular by mitigating adverse impacts on human health associated with unsafe waste disposal practices, such as air pollution from open pit burning.
Importantly, the plastics lifecycle is closely linked to climate change, due to the fossil-based origins of most plastics and the domination of fossil-based primary plastics in current production and use. As discussed in (OECD, 2022[1]), a reduction in plastics-related GHG emissions is essential for achieving ambitious climate scenarios, including net-zero emissions scenarios. Implementing the Global Lifecycle High stringency [Global Ambition] scenario could achieve a 41% reduction in plastics-related GHG emission levels compared to levels expected in 2040 under a business-as-usual policy course (1.7 GtCO2e in 2040 versus 2.8 GtCO2e in Baseline). This scenario would also prevent significant increases compared to 2020 levels but would not be compatible with the ambitions of the Paris Agreement.
The Global Lifecycle High stringency [Global Ambition] scenario achieves very significant reductions of the accumulated stock of plastics in aquatic environments compared to Baseline levels, preventing up to 64 Mt in rivers and up to 11 Mt in oceans from being added to existing stocks. Although projections of all major flows of plastics in aquatic environments are significantly lower in the policy scenario compared to the Baseline scenario, stocks are nevertheless projected to grow under the policy scenario, reaching 226 Mt of total accumulated plastics in 2040. As even a full elimination of plastic leakage by 2040 cannot prevent an increase in the stocks of plastics in oceans and rivers over this period, cost-effective remediation measures will be required to mitigate the risks of terrestrial and aquatic plastic pollution.
Despite the large benefits expected from the Global Lifecycle High stringency [Global Ambition] scenario, the ten policies modelled to eliminate plastic waste mismanagement and macroplastic leakage would not be sufficient to fully address all aspects of plastic pollution. Chemicals of concern also need to be phased out to reduce risks for human health and the environment and enable safe reuse and higher recycling rates. It is also essential to advance policies to mitigate the leakage of microplastics, such as losses of plastic pellets as well as unintentional releases from vehicle tyres, textiles or paints (see also Section 1.3.4).
1.3.4. A range of policy interventions are nevertheless required to overcome significant technical and economic barriers to Global Ambition
As the Global Lifecycle High stringency [Global Ambition] scenario significantly increases the level of policy stringency on the ten policies included in the policy package, significant technical and economic barriers will need to be overcome in order to enable its implementation.
Curb production and demand, including via improved eco-design and a scale-up of reuse systems. To curb plastics demand and decouple it from economic growth, it is essential to promote the eco-design of products and packaging that is aligned with safe reuse and recycling, such as the development of product standards at the international level. Reuse models could play a critical role in reducing demand for short-lived applications and keeping plastic materials in use for longer before they are disposed, but stronger public incentives and harmonised reuse standards are required to facilitate investments in infrastructure and the scale-up of reuse models. Advancing research on the environmental impacts of on alternative materials in different applications will be needed in order to better inform product design and avoid the risk of unanticipated impacts associated with substitute materials. Furthermore, even if the Global Lifecycle High stringency [Global Ambition] scenario could achieve a 41% reduction in plastics-related GHG emission levels, 1.7 GtCO2e of GHG emissions from plastics production would persist in 2040.
Enhance waste collection, sorting and treatment, especially in developing countries. Improvements in waste collection are essential to reduce mismanaged waste, especially in developing and emerging economies. Many low- and middle-income countries tend to have lower use and waste generation rates, compared to advanced economies. However, these countries lack well-functioning waste collection and management services, often resorting to informal waste picking and practices such as open dumping and burning that exacerbate environmental and human health concerns. Governance challenges and limited financial resources currently hinder the rapid establishment of effective waste management infrastructure in these contexts. Solutions that ensure the integration of the informal sector in waste management systems would allow for the participation of waste pickers in improving reuse systems and increasing collection rates, while also mitigating human health concerns for workers. At the same time, curbing expected growth in demand can play an important role in managing the costs of waste collection and treatment.
Encourage improvements in sorting and recycling as well as technological innovation. The Global Lifecycle High stringency [Global Ambition] scenario also assumes very significant improvements in recycling in all regions, with an increase in the average global recycling rate from 9.5% in 2020 to 42% in 2040. This includes also large increases in mechanical recycling for polymers and applications for which recycling is currently minimal. Achieving this ambition would require significant improvements in recycling yields and quality, as well as reductions in recycling losses to ensure sufficient availability of scrap material. Scaled investments in recycling technologies, combined with improved design for recycling, are required to expand the sources of viable feedstock for mechanical recycling. Scaling up well-functioning markets for scrap and secondary plastics is essential to providing a business case for plastics recycling. Should the expected technical breakthroughs fail to materialise, meeting the ambitions of the policy package will require heightened ambition in other parts of the policy package, for instance via reductions in the use of hard-to-recycle polymers or via more significant reductions in demand.
Enhance municipal litter management. Even the implementation of the ambitious policy package envisioned in the Global Lifecycle High stringency [Global Ambition] scenario would not eliminate plastic pollution completely. By 2040, about 4 Mt of plastics would still be mismanaged in this scenario, largely due to littered waste that is difficult to collect via municipal litter collection. Large increases in municipal litter management are expected especially in Africa and India (from 65% in 2020 to 75% in 2040 in the policy scenario).
Encourage research to support the implementation of cost-effective policy measures targeting microplastic leakage. The leakage of microplastics remain largely unaddressed in all the scenarios. While reducing the plastics intensity of the economy may help to reduce microplastic leakage, targeted solutions are also required. These may include interventions to prevent pellet losses (e.g. best handling practices, mandatory certifications), improved eco-design of products (e.g. tyres, vehicles, roads, paints and textiles) to minimise emissions, uptake of best practices during use, and end-of-pipe capture solutions at hotspots (e.g. improved treatment of road runoff and stormwater).
Consider the relevance of remedial interventions. Legacy plastic pollution and additional contributions that are still expected between 2020 and 2040 would lead to continued increases in plastic pollution. Stocks of macroplastics accumulating in rivers and oceans, often used as an indicator of global pollution, would still rise from 152 Mt in 2020 to 226 Mt in 2040 in the Global Lifecycle High stringency [Global Ambition] scenario (74 Mt less than in the Baseline scenario). In addition to the policy interventions envisioned in the policy scenario, remedial interventions would have an important role to play in mitigating environmental risks, especially in developing countries most affected by plastic pollution. Clean-up interventions, such as citizen clean-ups and interventions targeted at hotspots, may also help to gather data on environmental pollution and inform policy efforts. At the same time, specific attention should be paid to the potential environmental impacts of clean-up interventions, especially with respect to technologies that may be associated with risks of ecosystem damage and low cost-efficiency.
Enable quantification of the broader environmental impacts associated with plastics. The Global Plastics Outlook (OECD, 2022[1]) contains a lifecycle environmental impact assessment of the plastics lifecycle at the global level, rather than at regional levels. Furthermore, the reductions in pollution from mismanaged waste from closing leakage pathways could not be quantified beyond plastic leakage to the (aquatic) environment. A better understanding of the environmental impacts of plastics at regional levels is essential for effective management and identifying the most appropriate policy measures for ending plastic pollution.
1.3.5. Intervening across the plastics lifecycle is more effective and less costly than focussing solely on downstream action
Unbalanced policy packages that ignore upstream action increase costs
The Global Lifecycle High stringency [Global Ambition] scenario can achieve the largest benefits and limit the overall costs of the transition, compared to less ambitious and less balanced scenarios (Figure 1.7). Stringent supply-side and demand-side interventions are the most effective way to slow plastics production and consumption and reduce environmental impacts. At the same time, stringent waste management policies are critical to ensure the safe disposal of waste and reduce risks to the environment and human health. Improved waste sorting and recycling infrastructure is also critical to improving recycling rates and transitioning from primary to secondary plastics.
Implementing the ten policy instruments modelled in the Global Lifecycle High stringency [Global Ambition] scenario would cost 0.5% of global GDP in 2040. Overall, implementation costs are substantially higher in non-OECD countries than in OECD countries (0.62% vs. 0.37% of GDP in 2040, respectively, in the Baseline scenario). These costs exclude the avoided costs of inaction and should be considered in the context of vastly improved environmental outcomes. Substantial economic benefits would result from reduced pressures on the environment, climate and human health along the plastics lifecycle. Even if such benefits have not been included within the scope of the projections in this analysis, it is expected that they would largely offset the quantified costs (OECD, 2022[1]).
Significant differences in the macroeconomic impacts of the Global Lifecycle High stringency [Global Ambition] scenario exist across policy pillars (see Chapter 6). Policies to enhance recycling are the largest drivers of macroeconomic costs. Policies to design for circularity, in contrast, are characterised by lower costs. These include some policies that can bring both economic and environmental benefits, as they focus more on improving the economic efficiency of plastics use (i.e. reducing the plastics intensity of the economy). Such measures are not profitable in the Baseline scenario, where plastics remain cheap, but they become cost-effective when combined with policies that increase the costs of primary plastics use (e.g. plastic taxes contained in the curb production and demand pillar). Policies to close leakage pathways can be relatively cheap from a macroeconomic perspective, but only if total waste volumes are not too high.
Percentage change in GDP (left axis) and in plastic leakage (right axis) compared to Baseline in 2040
Note: The lower reduction in leakage in OECD countries compared to non-OECD countries in the Global Lifecycle Mixed stringency and Global Lifecycle High stringency [Global Ambition] scenarios reflects the lower share of mismanaged waste in these scenarios, rather than a lower level of ambition.
Source: OECD ENV-Linkages model.
Ambitious action would require major redirections in investment flows to support the implementation of stringent policies along the lifecycle across countries, including significant improvements in plastic waste management – i.e. enhancing waste collection, sorting and treatment – expected in the Global Lifecycle High stringency [Global Ambition] scenario. Baseline investment needs for plastic waste collection, sorting and treatment are projected to amount to more than USD 1 trillion between 2020 and 2040 for non-OECD countries combined. The Global Lifecycle High stringency [Global Ambition] scenario would have two distinct effects on these investment needs: i) on the one hand, the upstream and midstream measures (of the first and second policy pillars) can reduce total plastic waste volumes, thereby reducing the costs of collection, sorting and treatment; ii) on the other hand, the downstream measures imply larger shares of waste (and litter) are collected, and more expensive waste management options are used, such as for recycling. On balance, an additional USD 50 billion in investment is required in this policy scenario relative to levels projected in the Baseline scenario.
In contrast, policy packages that focus purely on downstream measures, i.e. the Global Downstream High stringency scenario, reduce plastic leakage without reducing total plastic waste. As a consequence, the total waste management costs increase significantly, making the effort needed to eliminate leakage much more difficult and likely impossible (Figure 1.8). This is particularly an issue for developing countries with less developed waste management systems, including in Sub-Saharan Africa and Asia, which would face very significant increases in waste generation and waste management costs. Beyond considerations of cost-effectiveness, uncertainty exists regarding the viability of a downstream-oriented strategy in low- and middle- income countries, as this scenario assumes that nations that currently lack robust waste management collection and treatment systems can swiftly implement the necessary measures to improve these systems. Technological constraints, e.g. the time needed to establish sanitary landfills or recycling facilities, as well as governance challenges may impede a rapid development of waste management systems and inflate the economic costs of this development. Overall, as the modelling in this report shows, upstream and midstream solutions that reduce the amount of plastic materials in the economy are critical to an efficient policy mix that can make waste management solutions less costly and easier to implement.
Directing policy ambitions to OECD and non-OECD European Union countries only, as in the Advanced economies Lifecycle High stringency scenario, will have very limited effects on waste management costs, as most advanced economies have very high waste collection rates and adequate treatment facilities, as reflected in the Baseline scenario. Correspondingly, the reduction in global plastic leakage in this scenario remains small.
The Global Lifecycle Low stringency scenario, which balances upstream and downstream measures with partial ambition levels, suggests that additional and incremental improvements to current policies would fall far short of eliminating plastic pollution in the absence of common, ambitious targets and policies.
Bringing the three partial ambition scenarios together, in the Global Lifecycle Mixed stringency scenario, helps to avoid the largest costs of the Downstream scenario by incorporating ambitious upstream and midstream policies in advanced economies (as in the Advanced economies Lifecycle High stringency scenario), although these remain limited in emerging and developing economies (with the same level of stringency as in the Global Lifecycle Low stringency scenario). However, this integrated, high ambition policy scenario does not eliminate all plastic leakage and still overly relies on downstream policies and associated excessive costs.
The Global Lifecycle High stringency [Global Ambition] scenario can improve on the Global Lifecycle Mixed stringency scenario by further aligning upstream policies over all countries, eliminating plastic leakage and simultaneously reducing total global waste management costs.
Percentage change in plastic leakage compared to Baseline in 2040, versus cumulative waste management costs for 2020-2040 (in USD billion)
Source: OECD ENV-Linkages model.
Balanced whole-of-lifecycle approaches are the most cost-effective strategy to work towards ending plastic pollution, but their implementation requires strong international co-ordination on shared targets and approaches. Upstream in the plastics lifecycle, in particular, the absence of strong co-ordination across countries could limit the potential of interventions required to alter plastic flows significantly and achieve a safe and circular economy for plastics. International co-ordination is beneficial for the introduction of harmonised eco-design criteria, the development of common standards on reuse, as well action on chemicals of concern and problematic plastics and polymers.
Limited international co-ordination or failures to overcome the technical, political and financial barriers to the implementation of the Global Lifecycle High stringency [Global Ambition] scenario could result in slower global action, with large environmental and health repercussions for future generations (see Section 6.5 in Chapter 6). Delayed action (Global Lifecycle Delayed stringency, with a 2060 target for the elimination of macroplastic leakage) could reduce macroeconomic costs until 2040, while costs to 2060 would be of similar magnitude to Global Lifecycle High stringency [Global Ambition]. However, short-term economic savings would come at the expense of substantially lower environmental and climate benefits, with repercussions in the long term.
Large financial needs and an uneven geographical distribution of costs imply a need for international co-operation
Although there is no perfect correlation between the increase in waste management costs and the impacts of the policy scenarios on GDP, the largest costs both in terms of policy-induced waste management costs and the change in GDP resulting from ambitious global action are projected for fast-growing countries with less advanced waste management systems, especially in Sub-Saharan Africa (Figure 1.9). In the Baseline scenario, waste management costs are relatively low in Sub-Saharan Africa, and the increase in collection and transition towards recycling comes with significant additional costs. Reduced waste management costs associated with measures that slow plastics production, use and waste generation cannot fully compensate for the increase related to higher collection and recycling rates.
Distribution of economic costs (change in GDP) of implementing the policy scenario and policy-induced cumulative waste management costs by region, both in percentage changes compared to the Baseline in 2040, Global Lifecycle High stringency [Global Ambition] scenario
Source: OECD ENV-Linkages model.
The People’s Republic of China (hereafter China) and OECD countries generally have advanced waste management systems in place, and recycling rates are already higher than the global average in the Baseline scenario. As such, the Global Lifecycle High Stringency [Global Ambition] scenario entails limited additional costs associated with downstream policies, while the cost savings from upstream and midstream policies are significant. Furthermore, stable, diversified economies can absorb the shocks of the upstream plastics policies more easily, and thus limit macroeconomic impacts (on GDP).
While progress towards the goal of ending plastic pollution is likely to benefit all countries, the larger cost burden in developing countries suggests a strong need for enhanced international co-operation to achieve these benefits. Developing countries, including small island developing states, generally face greater challenges to reducing plastic pollution. On the one hand, they are often the most affected by such pollution, along with accompanying negative impacts on human well-being and economic sectors such as tourism or fisheries. On the other hand, these states would need to make the greatest efforts to close leakage pathways, as they do not yet have the waste collection and treatment systems in place to manage the increases in waste generation that are expected in the coming years (even in the presence of policies to curb production and demand).
The large financial needs and uneven distribution of costs across countries imply a need for international co-operation in the form of strengthened technical, technological and financial support. The investment needs for waste management systems in non-OECD countries would amount to more than USD 1 trillion over a 20-year period in the Global Lifecycle High stringency [Global Ambition] scenario. Investments would also be required to support the implementation of ambitious upstream and midstream policies such as restrictions on problematic or unnecessary plastics, reuse systems, eco-design and the promotion of material substitutes.
Given the critical role of developing countries in ending plastic pollution, achieving this target requires adequate development finance, including the re-orientation and scale-up of Official Development Assistance (ODA). Flows of ODA to support actions to curb plastic pollution have been increasing in recent years, amounting to USD 269 million for plastics specifically and USD 1 191 million for solid waste management more generally in 2022. While ODA alone will not suffice to cover all investment needs required in future years, there are ample opportunities to increase its impact via better targeting, especially to ensure that it reaches regions where the majority of leakage is expected to occur in future years. Also, a catalytic role of ODA can help to leverage other sources of financing, including private finance.
Strengthened technical support is required to progress with the implementation of robust policy frameworks that would support the goal to end plastic pollution and generate an enabling environment for investments. This includes setting up reliable revenue streams for domestic financing of waste collection and treatment (e.g. Extended Producer Responsibility) or targeted bans or fees on problematic plastic applications. As discussed above, the inclusion of measures to reduce plastic flows in the economy is likely to increase the cost-effectiveness as well as the technical viability of the transition.
A redirection of financial flows will be required all over the world. In OECD countries, where mismanaged waste levels are already largely eliminated in the Baseline scenario, additional costs are concentrated in recycling activities, amounting to more than USD 120 billion over the 2020-2040 period in the Global Lifecycle High stringency [Global Ambition] scenario. Beyond scaling up recycling and enabling the substitution of primary plastics with secondary plastics, redirecting investments will be required to support the implementation of solutions upstream and midstream in the plastics value chain, including to implement reuse systems for packaging and products. Aligning financial flows from both public and private sources with the objectives of the legally binding instrument currently being negotiated is critical to enabling a comprehensive transition across the entire lifecycle of plastics.
References
[10] Château, J., R. Dellink and E. Lanzi (2014), “An Overview of the OECD ENV-Linkages Model: Version 3”, OECD Environment Working Papers, No. 65, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/5jz2qck2b2vd-en.
[5] G7 Ministers of Climate, Energy and the Environment (2024), Climate, Energy and Environment Ministers’ Meeting Communiqué (Torino, April 29-30, 2024), https://www.g7italy.it/wp-content/uploads/G7-Climate-Energy-Environment-Ministerial-Communique_Final.pdf (accessed on 5 June 2024).
[4] High Ambition Coalition to End Plastic Pollution (2024), High Ambition Coalition Ministerial Joint Statement INC-4, https://hactoendplasticpollution.org/hac-member-states-ministerial-joint-statement-for-inc-4/ (accessed on 11 June 2024).
[9] Karali, N., N. Khanna and N. Shah (2024), Climate Impact of Primary Plastic Production, https://escholarship.org/uc/item/12s624vf.
[7] Lebreton, L. (2024), Quantitative analysis of aquatic leakage for multiple scenarios based on ENV-Linkages, unpublished.
[2] OECD (2022), Global Plastics Outlook: Economic Drivers, Environmental Impacts and Policy Options, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/de747aef-en.
[1] OECD (2022), Global Plastics Outlook: Policy Scenarios to 2060, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/aa1edf33-en.
[6] OECD (2022), Modelling plastics in ENV-Linkages: A novel approach to projecting future plastics use and waste, https://www.oecd.org/environment/plastics/Technical-Report-Modelling-plastics-in-ENV-Linkages.pdf.
[8] OECD (2021), “Long-term baseline projections, No. 109 (Edition 2021)”, OECD Economic Outlook: Statistics and Projections (database), https://doi.org/10.1787/cbdb49e6-en (accessed on 18 March 2024).
[3] UNEP (2024), Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee on Plastic Pollution, https://www.unep.org/inc-plastic-pollution.
← 1. The High Ambition Coalition to End Plastic Pollution (HAC) is a group of 64 like-minded countries committed to developing an ambitious legally binding international instrument to end plastic pollution by 2040. As of March 2024, 28 OECD countries are members of the HAC.
← 2. The group of advanced economies is taken as a proxy for countries that have communicated the ambition to implement ambitious policy mixes covering the entire lifecycle and to aim to eliminate plastic pollution by 2040. For the purposes of the modelling, “advanced economies” includes OECD countries as well as non-OECD EU countries.
← 3. The terminology in this report uses “primary production” to refer to “production of primary polymers”, “leakage” to refer to “emissions and releases to the environment”, and “mismanaged” to describe all waste categories that are not recycling, incineration or sanitary landfilling. This terminology is meant to be widely understandable and consistent with related OECD reports, including the Global Plastics Outlook.
← 4. See Chateau, Dellink and Lanzi (2014[10]) for a comprehensive model description.
← 5. This is a subset of outcomes with possible environmental benefits, as further improvements can be reached through e.g. targeting specific polymers, problematic applications or harmful chemicals, and implementing policies to deal with microplastics. An assessment of these outcomes is beyond the scope of the current analysis.
← 6. If the decarbonisation of other sectors continues or accelerates, this share may grow even more rapidly. More ambitious climate policies could incentivise emission reductions in plastics production, use and waste management.
← 7. This finding points to the important contribution of the extraction and production stages to plastics-related GHG emissions and is aligned with the Global Plastics Outlook (OECD, 2022[1]). Karali et al (2024[9]) found that 75% of production-related GHG emissions are generated in steps before polymerisation.
← 8. A full reduction of 100% is not feasible as some waste streams will continue to evade the modelled waste management systems, including microplastics and uncollected litter.
← 9. See Chapter 5; result not shown in Figure 1.6.