This chapter describes the policy levers used in the various scenarios to revert the trends expected in the Baseline scenario and chart pathways for eliminating plastic pollution. It highlights how the modelling analysis combines ten different policy instruments, grouped into four policy pillars (curb production and demand, design for circularity, enhance recycling and close leakage pathways), in the design of alternative policy scenarios with various degrees of policy ambition. Policy scenarios are characterised by different levels of stringency, lifecycle scope and geographical coverage of the ten policies modelled.
Policy Scenarios for Eliminating Plastic Pollution by 2040
Abstract
Growing awareness of the adverse impacts associated with the plastics lifecycle has led policymakers and governments worldwide to seek out effective policy instruments that could counter the current unsustainable trends described in Chapter 2. In this sense, a range of policy interventions that can mitigate plastics-related adverse impacts, including the leakage of plastic waste and litter to the environment, are available to policymakers.
Source: Authors’ own elaboration.
Countries have a wide array of policy tools at their disposal to mitigate plastic pollution. As described in Chapter 1, policy interventions influence several stages of the plastics lifecycle and can be grouped into four core policy pillars:1
1. Curb production and demand: restrain production and demand at sustainable levels. Existing and potential policy instruments that could achieve this objective include avoiding the production and use of unnecessary and problematic plastics, such as via bans, standards, phaseouts or taxes; promoting longer product lifespans; mandatory reuse systems and a shift of demand to services; taxes and regulations applying to all plastics to discourage the production of primary polymers; removal of fossil fuel subsidies. Controls on the production of virgin plastics, e.g. of specific polymers, could also be an effective strategy for reducing environmental impacts associated with the upstream segments of the plastics lifecycle, as well as curbing plastics use and slowing the flow of plastics through the economy.
2. Design for circularity: make production process for plastics more circular, for instance via restrictions or phaseouts on problematic materials and hazardous chemicals; Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) with fee modulation; recycled content standards; eco-design criteria for reuse of packaging and durables, or to improve repairability and substitution away from plastics (where environmentally beneficial); eco-design criteria to prevent microplastic leakage during product use.
3. Enhance recycling: close material loops by improving separate collection, sorting and recycling of plastic waste. Relevant instruments include landfill and incineration taxes, EPR for packaging and durables; deposit-refund schemes (DRS), pay-as-you-throw schemes.
4. Close leakage pathways: decrease losses into the environment, including by setting up well-functioning collection systems and treatment infrastructure; enhancing municipal litter management; addressing sea-based leakage sources, such as abandoned, lost or discarded fishing gear; improving end-of-pipe capture (e.g. wastewater treatment); improving policies to mitigate the leakage of microplastics, such as upstream interventions to mitigate pellet loss during manufacturing and transport, eco-design measures to reduce microplastics emissions, or downstream interventions to capture emitted microplastics.
A fifth lever concerns clean up and remediation, i.e. the removal of plastic from the environment (e.g. via collection on beaches or via the installation of river litter booms that capture plastics) and the mitigation of associated risks. Evaluation of this approach is not included in the policy scenarios used in this report, which focus on the objective of preventing plastic leakage to the environment, and is left for future analysis.
While a wide range of policies could be employed by countries to reduce plastic pollution, only a selection of the instruments listed above has been used in the development of policy scenarios presented in the next sections. Section 3.2 introduces the policy scenarios, including the policy mix modelled and the degrees of policy ambition across the various scenarios.
Alternative policy measures vary in focus: some policy instruments are specific to plastics (e.g. single-use plastic bans and taxes), while others address a wider spectrum of waste or material types (e.g. landfill taxes that discourage disposal of solid waste and promote recycling more generally). There are also opportunities to leverage sectoral policies, such as those related to chemicals or waste management as well as policies designed to address specific externalities, like carbon taxes.
No single policy instrument operates effectively in isolation, and individual measures should constitute part of broader policy mixes that combine mutually reinforcing and complementary tools. Certain policies (e.g. EPR schemes) can contribute to pursuing multiple policy objectives. Economic instruments, such as EPR approaches and plastics, landfill and incineration taxes, work in tandem with regulations, such as product bans, product standards for eco-design, mandatory separate collection of waste and landfill bans. Enabling policies are of central importance in a comprehensive policy approach, including investments in research and development, information, education, nudging and stakeholder alliances.
Countries will need to expand and strengthen policy packages and select the instruments from across the four levers above that are best suited to their specific circumstances. Some countries may require the establishment of efficient waste collection and treatment systems as the most critical first step towards safe and effective plastic waste management. Meanwhile, countries with well-established waste management systems may focus more on internalising negative externalities more effectively, for instance via the use of advanced policy instruments such as pay-as-you-throw schemes or EPR schemes with modulated fees. Overall, a single blueprint to apply to all countries does not exist: rather a multitude of tailored approaches will need to be developed according to the environmental, economic and social features of specific country contexts, contingent on the stringency required to achieve global ambitions.
The analysis in this report considers alternative policy scenarios that reflect issues and positions that have arisen in the context of ongoing international negotiations for a legally binding instrument to end plastic pollution. The policy scenarios modelled in this analysis vary in terms of their geographical coverage, the stringency of their domestic policy mixes, as well as the scope of policy coverage along the plastics lifecycle.
In the complex international landscape, countries offer diverging perspectives on the possible elements of a global instrument on plastic pollution, including with respect to its scope and the foreseen policy measures to implement. Some countries call for comprehensive approaches targeting all lifecycle stages, while others would prioritise downstream interventions (such as improving waste collection, sorting, treatment and municipal litter management) and opt for less stringent interventions upstream and midstream (such as curbing production and demand and designing for circularity). Similarly, enhanced policy action could be limited to a subset of countries that implement more ambitious policies than other countries. Finally, negotiations could result in global action with a broad coverage of policies along the plastics lifecycle and significant global engagement, but with limited policy stringency.
Specifically, three hypothetical scenarios with partial ambition are simulated to reflect the implications of specific directions the treaty that is being negotiated could pursue:
The Global Downstream High stringency policy scenario reflects a possible outcome of treaty negotiations focused on targets and approaches for waste management (i.e. pillar 3 on enhancing recycling, and pillar 4 on closing leakage pathways). This includes stringent policies to improve waste collection, sorting, recycling as well as litter collection and municipal litter clean-up. Policy action to curb production and demand and to design for circularity is limited to current policies (i.e. no additional action is taken on pillars 1 and 2).
The Advanced economies Lifecycle High stringency policy scenario models a situation where, in the absence of common, global targets, only select countries enhance policy stringency along the lifecycle of plastics. More specifically, a group of advanced economies (approximated as OECD and European Union countries) implement policies with a high level of policy stringency across all four policy pillars, while other countries do not go beyond the improvements already expected in the Baseline scenario.
The Global Lifecycle Low stringency policy scenario reflects a possible outcome of the treaty negotiations with broad lifecycle coverage but low policy stringency. This scenario models additional, but more incremental policy action in all countries across all four pillars, but with limited policy stringency.
Two additional hypothetical policy scenarios are constructed that combine multiple aspects of the scenarios presented above. These integrated, high ambition scenarios entail more stringent policy action taken in all world regions and along multiple stages of the plastics lifecycle.
The Global Lifecycle Mixed stringency policy scenario combines the three individual scenarios outlined above. It reflects a treaty outcome characterised by moderate alignment across countries on the lifecycle scope of policies. Countries in this scenario agree to pursue all three aspects of the partial ambition scenarios above, but do not move beyond these. Advanced economies implement policies with high stringency throughout the plastics lifecycle (aligned with Advanced economies Lifecycle High stringency), while other countries implement high stringency for pillars 3 and 4 (aligned with Global Downstream High stringency) and limited stringency for pillars 1 and 2 (aligned with Global Lifecycle Low stringency).
The Global Lifecycle High stringency [Global Ambition] policy scenario models a comprehensive and co-ordinated approach that entails a global ramp up of policy action across the lifecycle of plastics, aligned with the shared objective of ending plastic pollution by 2040. In the model, this is reflected as the (narrower) target to mitigate plastic waste mismanagement and end macroplastic leakage by 2040.2 Compared to the Global Lifecycle Mixed stringency scenario, more stringent upstream and midstream policies would be implemented in non-OECD, non-EU countries, thus aligning their degree of policy ambition for all four policy pillars with the ambitions of the Advanced economies.
3.2.1. Policy scenario set-up
A simple visual representation of the various scenarios is given in Figure 3.2. In the Baseline scenario, only current policies are adopted. The three scenarios with limited co-ordination differ in geographical and lifecycle scope on which policy stringency focuses. The Global Downstream High stringency scenario limits the lifecycle scope to a focus on downstream measures with global coverage. The Advanced economies Lifecycle High stringency scenario covers policies targeting multiple stages of the plastics lifecycle, but in a limited group of countries. The Global Lifecycle Low stringency scenario is characterised by full regional coverage and lifecycle scope but less ambitious policy stringency. The Global Lifecycle Mixed stringency scenario combines elements of these three partial ambition scenarios, but leaves a stringency gap for upstream and midstream measures in the countries that are not part of the Advanced economies Lifecycle High stringency scenario. Finally, the only scenario with full policy stringency across all policy pillars in all regions is the Global Lifecycle High stringency [Global Ambition] scenario.
Note: Empty boxes reflect current policy assumptions, light shaded boxes reflect limited policy stringency and dark shaded boxes reflect high policy stringency.
Source: Authors’ own elaboration.
3.2.2. Policy instruments modelled
Although degrees of policy stringency and geographical coverage of the policy package vary across scenarios, all scenarios involve (a subset of) ten policy instruments across the four key policy pillars: curb production and demand, design for circularity, enhance recycling and close leakage pathways. The ten different instruments used in the policy scenarios are presented in Figure 3.3. Depending on the scenario, the ten policy instruments or a subset of those are quantified to provide inputs to the modelling. The quantification in the Global Lifecycle High stringency [Global Ambition] scenario is also provided in Figure 3.3 as an example, while details on the quantification of the other scenarios are presented in Annex B.
Note: The choice of policy instruments modelled in the policy scenarios is not intended to be prescriptive, but rather indicative of a potential set of effective instruments that could be implemented. For instance, the packaging tax translates into roughly EUR 0.90 per kilogramme, and could be interpreted as a shadow-price for alternative instruments to curb production and demand. Furthermore, in the pillar “Design for circularity”, the ban on single-use plastics models measures to restrict or reduce the use of avoidable or unnecessary plastics. In the policy scenarios that include it, the measure is modelled as a 20% global reduction in the use of polypropylene (PP) in consumer and institutional products, based on a representative set of consumer products covered by the European Union’s Single Use Plastic Directive (e.g. plastic bags, straws, cutlery). In practice, measures to restrict avoidable or unnecessary plastics could have a coverage that varies across different countries.
Source: Authors’ own elaboration.
The policy scenarios presented in this report present the consequences of different configurations of policy mixes. For modelling purposes, they are based on a representative set of ten policy instruments (see Figure 3.3). These instruments constitute a cost-effective benchmark against which countries can evaluate alternative instruments. Bringing together the dimensions of the policy pillars and the policy scenarios, Figure 3.4 presents a schematic overview of the implied stringency of the various policy scenarios by pillar. These outcomes are presented using indicators that are – at least roughly – representative of the ambitions of the different pillars in terms of policy stringency.3 If alternative policy instruments are chosen, these implied stringencies can be a guide to the required ambition level of alternative policy choices.
Notes: 1. “Advanced econ.” reflects the group of countries that have a high ambition level in the Advanced economies Lifecycle High stringency scenario; they are by assumption approximated as OECD and non-OECD European Union in the model. “Other econ.” reflects countries not included in the “Advanced economies” group.
1. Plastics intensity (tonnes/USD) refers to the intensity of plastics use relative to GDP. It is a normalised indicator that allows for comparison of plastics use across countries and regions and over time.
Source: Authors’ own elaboration.
The modelling of economic flows, plastics use, plastic waste and environmental impacts involves several steps, as illustrated in Figure 3.5. Plastics production and use is linked to sectoral and regional economic projections, which drive the evolution of plastics use over time. Volumes of plastics are then used to calculate generated waste based on product lifespans of different applications. Trade in plastics is also taken into account. The amount of waste generated is further broken down by waste end-of-life fate, i.e. collected for recycling, recycled, incinerated, landfilled, mismanaged and littered waste, taking into account differences across regions. Calculation of waste treatment fates also includes an assessment of recycling losses, i.e. plastic that is collected for recycling but is in the end incinerated or landfilled, as well as a reattribution of collected litter to other fates. Finally, projections are made for a subset of environmental impacts, including leakage of macroplastics to the terrestrial environment, leakage to aquatic environments and emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG).
The analysis relies on a suite of modelling tools. More specifically, projections of the economic flows, plastics production and use, plastic waste, and greenhouse gas emissions rely the OECD ENV-Linkages model, while projections of aquatic leakage rely on calculations made by Lebreton (2024[1]). These modelling tools are described in more detail in Annex A.
Source: Authors’ own elaboration.
A detailed description of the treatment of plastics in the model is provided in OECD (2022[2]). Plastics flows are differentiated by polymer and application (Table 3.1).
Note: ABS = acrylonitrile butadiene styrene; ASA = acrylonitrile styrene acrylate; HDPE = high-density polyethylene; LDPE = low-density polyethylene; LLDPE = linear low-density polyethylene; PET = polyethylene terephthalate; PP = polypropylene; PS = polystyrene; PUR = polyurethane; PVC = polyvinyl chloride; SAN = styrene acrylonitrile.
Source: OECD ENV-Linkages model.
Regional leakage of macroplastics to the environment is calculated using the methodology described in OECD (2022[2]). Specifically, macroplastic leakage stems from three distinct sources: (i) leakage of mismanaged waste, (ii) leakage of littered items and (iii) leakage from marine activities. The former two sources of leakage respond to changes in waste management systems, while the latter is proportional to marine economic activities (and is thus similar across scenarios). Finally, note that providing projections of microplastic leakage and projections of the regional production of plastics extend beyond the scope of the current analysis, although the modelling framework does account for global projections of plastics production (see Box 1.1 in Chapter 1).
References
[1] Lebreton, L. (2024), Quantitative analysis of aquatic leakage for multiple scenarios based on ENV-Linkages, unpublished.
[3] OECD (2022), Global Plastics Outlook: Economic Drivers, Environmental Impacts and Policy Options, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/de747aef-en.
[2] 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.
← 1. This list is adapted from the policy roadmap presented in (OECD, 2022[3]).
← 2. A variant of the Global Lifecycle High stringency [Global Ambition] scenario is the Global Lifecycle Delayed stringency scenario. The latter models the implementation of the policy package of the Global Lifecycle High stringency scenario over an extended timeframe, towards a 2060 target for the elimination of leakage.
← 3. These indicators are thus not inputs in the scenario implementation, but outputs that reflect the stringency of the ten policy instruments. The numerical implementation of the policy scenarios in the modelling framework is done for the ten instruments and details of their implementation are presented in Figure 3.3 for the Global Lifecycle High stringency [Global Ambition] scenario and in Annex B for all scenarios.