BreakingThePlasticWave MainReport

Breaking
the Plastic
Wave
A COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT OF PATHWAYS
TOWARDS STOPPING OCEAN PLASTIC POLLUTION
Thought Partners
FULL REPORT
About The Pew Charitable Trusts
The Pew Charitable Trusts is driven by the power of
knowledge to solve today’s most challenging problems.
Pew applies a rigorous, analytical approach to improve
public policy, inform the public, and invigorate civic life.
As the United States and the world have evolved, we
have remained dedicated to our founders’ emphasis on
innovation. Today, Pew is a global research and public policy
organization, still operated as an independent, nonpartisan,
nonprofit organization dedicated to serving the public.
Informed by the founders’ interest in research, practical

knowledge, and public service, our portfolio includes public
opinion research; arts and culture; civic initiatives; and
environmental, health, state, and consumer policy initiatives.
Our goal is to make a difference for the public. That means

working on a few key issues, with an emphasis on projects
that can produce consequential outcomes, foster new ideas,
attract partners, avoid partisanship or wishful thinking, and
achieve measurable results that serve the public interest.
Learn more at https://www.pewtrusts.org/en
For more information, contact us at

[email protected]
About SYSTEMIQ
SYSTEMIQ Ltd. is a certified B Corp with offices in London,
Munich, and Jakarta. The company was founded in 2016
to drive the achievements of the Paris Agreement and
the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals by
transforming markets and business models in three key
economic systems: land use, materials, and energy.
Since 2016, SYSTEMIQ has been involved in several
system change initiatives related to plastics and
packaging, including the New Plastics Economy initiative
(Ellen MacArthur Foundation) and Project STOP (a city
partnership programme focused on eliminating plastic
pollution in Indonesia), among others. At the heart of our
work is the core belief that only a smart combination of
policy, technology, funding, and consumer engagement
can address system-level challenges. The global plastics
challenge is no different.
Learn more at https://www.systemiq.earth/
For more information, contact us at

[email protected]
Cover: Willyam Bradberry/Shutterstock

Table of contents
PREFACE 4
EXPERT PANEL 5
ENDORSEMENTS 6
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: TEN CRITICAL FINDINGS 8
FAST FACTS: ‘BREAKING THE PLASTIC WAVE’ IN NUMBERS 14
INTRODUCTION: PLASTIC, THE OCEAN, AND THE GLOBAL DEBATE 16
Ocean plastic pollution: Challenges and opportunities in a complex system 17
About this project: A global stochastic model 18
CHAPTER 1. AN UNTENABLE TRAJECTORY—THE IMPERATIVE TO ADDRESS THE OCEAN PLASTIC POLLUTION CRISIS 24
Super growth: Business-as-Usual will have nearly three times more plastic leaking into the ocean in 2040 25
Falling short: Current commitments are inadequate for the scale of the challenge 30
No panacea: Single-solution strategies cannot stop plastic pollution 31
CHAPTER 2. CHANGING THE SYSTEM—A STRATEGY TO REDUCE OCEAN PLASTIC POLLUTION RATES BY 80 PER CENT 37
A viable pathway: An integrated circular strategy can offer better economic, environmental, and social outcomes 39
A workable agenda: Eight synergistic system interventions can break the cycle of ocean plastic pollution 47
– Macroplastic system interventions 48
– Microplastic system interventions 89
– Maritime sources of leakage 96
CHAPTER 3. BRIDGING THE GAP—INNOVATION IS ESSENTIAL FOR A FUTURE WITH NEAR-ZERO PLASTIC POLLUTION 99
Alternative worlds: Sensitivities and design choices for pollution reduction strategies 100
The innovation gap: Near-zero leakage requires significant innovation 101
CHAPTER 4. THE TIME IS NOW—SUCCESS REQUIRES ALL PLAYERS TO TAKE RAPID AND CONCERTED ACTION 104
A substantial transition: Investments in the new system are significant, but returns are attractive 105
From theory to action: Unprecedented and resolute action from all stakeholders is required to stop plastic pollution 106
Regional priorities: Applying different solutions for different geographies 114
The cost of waiting: Delaying implementation of the system interventions from 2020 to 2025 would add
80 million metric tons more plastic to the ocean 116
CONCLUSION 119
APPENDIX A: KEY ASSUMPTIONS AND DATA SOURCES 120
APPENDIX B: SYSTEM MAPS 129
GLOSSARY 137
ENDNOTES 140
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 150
THOUGHT PARTNERS 152
A Comprehensive Assessment of Pathways Towards Stopping Ocean Plastic Pollution 3

Preface
In recent years, an increasing number of studies and reports By highlighting the systemic link between better plastic
have advanced the global understanding of the challenge design, reuse, improved recycling economics, and increased
posed by ocean plastic pollution. But most leaders across collection incentives, these reports provided a central theme
industry, government, and civil society have noted a critical for the challenge addressed in “Breaking the Plastic Wave”:
gap: an evidence-based roadmap to describe the pathways how to apply the concept of a circular economy—along with
available and to foster convergent action. increased reduction and substitution of plastics, and better
waste management—in a way that urgently addresses this
As a step towards building that roadmap, The Pew Charitable
serious environmental challenge.
Trusts partnered with SYSTEMIQ to build on previous research
and create this first-of-its-kind model of the global plastics The model is already being applied at the national level in
system, with results suggesting that there is an evidence-based, Indonesia under the public-private collaboration Global
comprehensive, integrated, and economically attractive Plastic Action Partnership. Our hope is that the results of
pathway to greatly reduce plastic pollution entering our “Breaking the Plastic Wave” can serve as a map for policy
ocean. The findings of our analysis were published in the leaders, decision-makers, and businesses in search of
peer-reviewed journal, Science on 23 July 2020. solutions to stem the flow of plastic into the ocean. This
model can also be updated by stakeholders on an ongoing
The speed at which ocean plastic pollution has climbed up
basis to inform solutions to the plastics pollution problem.
the public agenda has been surprising. Yet, even as the world
starts to comprehend the enormity of the challenge, major The problem of ocean plastic pollution was created in a
actors disagree on the solution. In preparing “Breaking the lifetime, and we have reason to believe that it can be solved
Plastic Wave: A Comprehensive Assessment of Pathways within a generation, or sooner. But such a solution requires
Towards Stopping Ocean Plastic Pollution,” we consulted political leaders, policymakers, business executives, and
an extensive group of stakeholders from academia, industry, investors to shift from incremental to systemic change.
government, and nongovernmental organizations, who
Among our findings, one is particularly stark: On the current
without exception shared the concern and demonstrated
trajectory, which we call Business-as-Usual, annual flows
willingness to act—but often offered contradictory solutions.
of plastic into the ocean could nearly triple by 2040. What’s
We then developed perhaps the most comprehensive more, even if all current major industry and government
plastic system modelling tool to create a global analysis that commitments are met, the world would see a reduction in
evaluates various strategies to reduce ocean plastic flows annual rates of plastic pollution flowing into the ocean of
and quantifies the associated economic, environmental, only 7 per cent from the Business-as-Usual scenario.
and social implications of each pathway. The ultimate aim of
Yet we also show that if the world were to apply and robustly
this work is to help guide policymakers, industry executives,
invest in all the technologies, management practices, and
investors, and civil society leaders through highly contested,
policy approaches currently available—including reduction,
often data-poor, and complex terrain. Our analysis includes
recycling, and plastic substitution—in 20 years there would
several key findings that could help define changes to the
be about an 80 per cent reduction from the current
global system that are necessary to stop plastic pollution
trajectory in the flow of plastic into the ocean. And the
from flowing into the ocean.
new solutions recommended in this report would provide
The research supporting this report involved 17 experts consumers with the same services that plastic delivers
from across the spectrum of people looking at the today—at a lower cost to society.
plastic pollution problem and with broad geographical
We hope that the “Breaking the Plastic Wave” concepts, data,
representation, and was undertaken by our two independent
and analyses inform decision-makers who are responsible
organizations in collaboration with four partner institutions—
for setting industry and government action. The report’s
the University of Oxford, University of Leeds, Ellen MacArthur
most important message is that, with the right level of
Foundation, and Common Seas.
action, tackling the problem of plastics pollution may be
In addition, the project team drew upon major publications, remembered as a success story on the human ability to
analyses, and reports, and consulted more than 100 rethink and rebuild systems that can sustainably support lives
independent experts, to develop and populate the model. and livelihoods while the environment thrives.
These experts represented the plastic supply chain,
academia, and civil society, and neither they nor their
institutions necessarily endorse the report’s findings.
“Breaking the Plastic Wave” follows two reports from the

Ellen MacArthur Foundation that established the vision Tom Dillon
Martin R. Stuchtey
of a circular economy, aimed at eliminating waste and Founder & Managing Partner Vice President & Head of Environment
encouraging the continual use of resources by reusing, SYSTEMIQ The Pew Charitable Trusts
redesigning, and recycling. This concept has garnered
unprecedented support across the global plastics system.
4 BREAKING THE PLASTIC WAVE

Expert panel
This work was developed in partnership with an expert panel representing all relevant disciplines and geographies:
Richard Bailey Julien Boucher Jill Boughton Arturo Castillo

Professor of Co-founder Founder Research fellow
Environmental Systems Quantis and Shaping Waste2Worth Innovations Imperial College London
University of Oxford Environmental Action
Mao Da Enzo Favoino Malati Gadgil Linda Godfrey

Executive director Researcher Independent consultant Principal researcher
Shenzhen Zero Waste Scuola Agraria del Parco Informal sector waste Council for Scientific
di Monza management and Industrial Research
Jutta Gutberlet Edward Kosior Crispian Lao Daniela Lerario

Professor Managing director Founding president Triciclos Brazil
University of Victoria Nextek Philippine Alliance for
Recycling and Material
Sustainability
Ellie Moss Daniella Russo Ussif Rashid Sumaila Richard Thompson

Senior adviser Co-founder and CEO Professor Professor
Encourage Capital Think Beyond Plastic University of British University of Plymouth
Columbia
Costas Velis
Lecturer
University of Leeds

Endorsements
Inger Andersen, U.N. under-secretary-general and executive director, United Nations Environment
Programme (UNEP)
“Breaking the Plastic Wave: A Comprehensive Assessment of Pathways Towards Stopping Ocean Plastic
Pollution” comes at a critical time to inform global discussions and help decision-makers evaluate options that
will eliminate the long-term flow of plastic and microplastics into the ocean. By providing the evidence base
for a way forward, the study convincingly shows the need for system-wide change and urgent action across
the entire value chain. It inspires by demonstrating that projected plastic leakage can be reduced by 80% with
existing solutions. The next two years will be critical in getting the world on a zero-plastic pollution path. We
need to catalyse rapid transition; we need to act now!”
Marisa Drew, CEO, impact advisory and finance department, Credit Suisse
“Despite the awareness-raising and global efforts to reduce plastic production, consumption, and waste in our
oceans, the current trajectory points to a dire outcome without a concerted effort to mobilise industry, civil
society, and governments to address this critical environmental issue. This well-researched, peer-reviewed report
from The Pew Charitable Trusts and SYSTEMIQ provides a roadmap for the investment and innovation required
to tackle the challenge. The report also shows us that economically viable solutions exist today that
are implementable if all relevant stakeholders across the value chain act with urgency.
Professor Juliet A. Gerrard, chief science advisor to the Prime Minister of New Zealand
“This is a seminal piece of work on a topic of global importance. It will guide countries to align and unite as we
move to conquer the plastic problem.”
Von Hernandez, global coordinator, Break Free From Plastic
“Break Free From Plastic (BFFP) welcomes “Breaking the Plastic Wave” as a helpful addition to the global
conversation about this rapidly growing threat to human and ecosystem health. “Breaking the Plastic Wave”
demonstrates that no solution to the plastic crisis is possible without prioritizing urgent action to reduce the
quantity of plastic used and produced. The report makes clear that existing private-sector commitments and
public policies to limit plastic pollution are wholly inadequate and demonstrates that industry’s expansion
plans will produce even more staggering quantities of plastic pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, and
irreversible damage to the ocean. While we agree with the report’s general recommendation calling for a
radical system change in how the world deals with plastic, we disagree that certain technologies analyzed
in the report—including incineration, chemical recycling, and plastic-to-fuel—are part of that solution, as
they will only perpetuate the problem as we see it. Above all, this report should serve as a wake-up call to
governments: They must step in to halt the expansion of plastic production. Only then can we begin to see
significant and sustained decline of plastic leakage into the oceans and to the environment.”
Her Excellency Ms. Thilmeeza Hussain, ambassador of the Maldives to the United States and permanent
representative of the Maldives to the United Nations
“This report is an important contribution to understanding the nature of the marine plastic pollution problem and
provides many important ideas and proposals that diplomats and other actors will need to consider in deciding
how the global community can effectively address this pressing problem.”
Ramon Laguarta, chairman and CEO, PepsiCo
“Addressing the challenge of plastic waste is both urgent and complex and will require accelerated, collective
action and a transformation of the way society thinks about single-use plastics. This report calls for immediate
bold action in the global effort to stem the tide of ocean plastics. It makes clear that through increased
collaboration, across industries, we can help create systems change, build a circular economy for packaging,
and turn the corner on ocean plastics.”

Dame Ellen MacArthur, founder and chair of trustees, Ellen MacArthur Foundation
“Breaking the Plastic Wave” brings an unprecedented level of detail into the global plastic system, confirming
that without fundamental change, annual flows of plastic into the ocean could nearly triple by 2040. To turn
the tide on plastic waste and pollution, we need to radically increase our efforts and speed up the transition
to a circular economy. We must eliminate the plastics we don’t need, and drastically reduce virgin plastic use.
We need to innovate to create new materials and business models based on reuse and refill systems. And
we need improved infrastructure to ensure that all plastics we use are circulated in the economy and never
become waste or pollution. The question is not whether a circular economy for plastic is possible, but what
we will do together to make it happen.”
Grant Reid, CEO, Mars Inc.
“We applaud the depth and rigor of this report on what’s necessary to stop ocean plastic pollution. Mars is
committed to being a part of the transformational system change that this issue requires. We’re taking action
by removing packaging we don’t need, exploring reuse models, redesigning what we do need for circularity,
and investing to close the packaging waste loop with recycling systems that work for business and communities.
We have much to do, so we must work together as a global community like never before.”
Erin Simon, head, plastic and business, World Wildlife Fund
“If we’re going to significantly reduce ocean plastic pollution, we need an innovative and rigorous approach to
ensure that the strategies we design are set up to delivering results. This research does exactly that. By identifying
a modelling approach that looks at plastic pollution holistically, we’re able to better measure the environmental,
economic, and social impact of the strategies being considered, and call for a greater level of ambition and
immediate action from all stakeholders. This deeper understanding will help companies, governments, and other
stakeholders to strengthen their efforts on plastic pollution. It will continue to be crucial to monitor and evaluate
strategies on the ground to ensure that we as a society are delivering against our ambition.”
Andrew Steer, president and CEO, World Resources Institute
“The ocean is being filled with plastic—hurting sea life and the billions of people who depend on the ocean
for food, livelihoods and recreation. This is entirely unnecessary and unacceptable. This new important report,
“Breaking the Plastic Wave” presents important solutions that can reduce plastic flows by 80% over the next
20 years. It is urgent that industry and government leaders follow these recommendations – starting today.”
Laura Tuck, vice president for sustainable development, World Bank*
“The plastic problem took a lifetime to create and could be solved in a generation. That’s the stark message
of “Breaking the Plastic Wave,” a welcome and comprehensive look at what we need to do—at every layer of
society—to clean up the mess we are making. Its positive message is that we already have the solutions we
need to address the challenge. But we will need to step up with multi-stakeholder coalitions that can tackle
each element of the agenda as they are laid out here.”
* Retired from the World Bank as of April 1, 2020
Melati Wijsen, founder, Bye Bye Plastic Bags
“Since starting to campaign against plastic pollution at 12 years old, I have seen numerous efforts come and
go. Being born and raised in Bali, Indonesia, it was like watching the problem of plastic grow up with you. This
is why we understood early on the importance of data and consistency. It is beyond exciting to hear that my
home country has already applied the model featured in “Breaking the Plastic Wave.” The only way forward is
collaboration and persistence; let’s turn the tide on plastic pollution once and forever.”

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Executive
Summary
10 critical findings
Plastic waste lines the shore of a lake.

Sergey/Adobe Stock

TEN CRITICAL FINDINGS
The flow of plastic into the ocean is projected to nearly triple by 2040. Without considerable action
to address plastic pollution, 50 kg of plastic will enter the ocean for every metre of shoreline.
Our analysis shows that a future with approximately 80 per cent (82 ±13 per cent*) less annual
plastic leakage into the ocean relative to business as usual is achievable by 2040 using existing
technologies. This pathway provides benefits to communities, to governments, and even to
industry. However, it depends on the immediate, ambitious, and concerted global implementation
of solutions across the entire plastics value chain. This vision for system change represents an
attractive and viable way forward.
Plastic pollution in the ocean is a major environmental

challenge, yet a coherent global strategy to solve this
2
Governments and industry leaders are stepping up with
growing crisis remains elusive. It is a by-product of
new policies and voluntary initiatives, but these are often
fundamental flaws in an essentially linear plastic system in
narrow in focus or concentrated in low-leakage countries.
which 95 per cent of aggregate plastic packaging value—
By 2040, current government and industry commitments
US$80 billion-US$120 billion a year—is lost to the economy
are likely to reduce annual plastic leakage to the ocean by
following a short first-use cycle.1
only 7 per cent (±1 per cent) relative to the Business-as-
Very different responses to the crisis have been proposed, Usual Scenario.
from eliminating plastic entirely to turning it into fuels, and A review of the key government initiatives worldwide—such
from developing biodegradable substitutes to recycling as the European Union’s single-use plastics directive and the
plastic back into usable products. Each solution comes with growing number of national plastic policies—often reveals
advantages and drawbacks. Understanding the effectiveness a narrow focus on select items (e.g., straws, bags, cups,
of different solutions, and the related economic, stirrers, cotton swabs, and bottles), which severely limits the
environmental, and social implications, is crucial to making reduction in total leaked plastic mass. Industry has also made
progress towards stopping ocean plastic pollution. high-profile commitments, but these are primarily focused
Here we lay out our report’s 10 critical findings, showing on post-consumer downstream solutions and often in low-
that a path forward to a low plastic pollution future already leakage countries. Our results indicate that a far greater scale
exists—now we have to make the choice to walk this path. of action at the system level will be needed to meaningfully
address the challenge of plastic pollution. Government
policies and leadership by consumer goods companies will
1 be critical in driving upstream action on reduction, reuse,
Without action, the annual flow of plastic into the ocean
and redesign as well as downstream action to improve
will nearly triple by 2040, to 29 million metric tons per
collection and recycling. Governments and investors also
year (range: 23 million-37 million metric tons per year),
need to curtail the planned expansion in plastic production
equivalent to 50 kg of plastic per metre of coastline
capacity to prevent locking us deeper into the status quo..
worldwide.
Owing to four compounding trends—continued population 3

growth; increases in plastic use per capita driven in part by There is no single solution to end ocean plastic pollution.
increasing production of cheap virgin plastic; shifts to low- Upstream and downstream solutions should be deployed
value/nonrecyclable materials; and the growing share of together.
plastic consumption occurring in countries with low rates of
collection—annual plastic flows to the ocean are expected To date, much of the debate has focused on either
to grow from 11 million metric tons (range: 9 million-14 “upstream” (pre-consumer, such as material redesign, plastic
million metric tons per year) in 2016 to 29 million metric reduction, and substitution) or “downstream” solutions (post-
tons in 2040 (range: 23 million-37 million metric tons per consumer, such as recycling and disposal). Our analysis
year), with consequences for communities, businesses, and shows that this is a false dichotomy. Upstream solutions
ecosystems. Under our Business-as-Usual (BAU) Scenario, that aim to reduce or substitute plastic use are critical and
about 4 billion people are likely to be without organized waste should be prioritized but will need to be scaled carefully to
collection services by 2040, contributing significantly to the limit adverse social or environmental effects. Downstream
expected mass of plastic leakage to the ocean. The cost of solutions are also essential but limited by economic viability
inaction is high to businesses, communities, and ecosystems; and the realistic speed of infrastructure development in the
particularly stark is the US$100 billion annual financial risk that face of growing plastic waste production. Moreover, given
businesses face if governments require them to cover waste the potential negative impacts on human health and the
management costs at expected volumes and recyclability. environment of some downstream disposal technologies,
their use should be weighed against different trade-offs
and carefully controlled. Modelled on their own, no “single-
solution” strategies reduce annual leakage of plastic to
the ocean even below 2016 levels by 2040. An ambitious
* All figures stated in parentheses are 95 per cent confidence intervals, unless
otherwise specified. The range is given where distributions are not symmetrical.
recycling strategy, for example, with ambitious scale-up of

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
collection, sorting, and recycling infrastructure coupled with As modelled in our integrated System Change Scenario,
design for recycling, reduces 2040 leakage by 38 per cent annual land-based plastic leakage into the ocean can be
(±7 per cent) relative to BAU, which is 65 per cent (±15 per reduced by around 80 per cent (82 ±13 per cent) by 2040,
cent) above 2016 levels. Similarly, an ambitious reduction compared with BAU, through the concurrent, ambitious,
and substitution strategy, without massive expansion of and global implementation of multiple synergistic system
downstream infrastructure, reduces 2040 leakage by 52 interventions:
per cent (±9 per cent) relative to BAU, 28 per cent (±5 per
cent) above 2016 levels. An integrated approach with new Reduce growth in plastic production and consumption to
ways to deliver the benefits of today’s plastic is needed to avoid nearly one-third of projected plastic waste generation
significantly reduce ocean plastic pollution. through elimination, reuse, and new delivery models.
Substitute plastic with paper and compostable materials,

4 switching one-sixth of projected plastic waste generation.
Industry and governments have the solutions today to
reduce rates of annual land-based plastic leakage into Design products and packaging for recycling to expand
the ocean by about 80 per cent (82 ±13 per cent) below the share of economically recyclable plastic from an
projected BAU levels by 2040, while delivering on other estimated 21 per cent to 54 per cent.
societal, economic, and environmental objectives.
Expand waste collection rates in the middle-/low-income
It is not the lack of technical solutions that is preventing countries to 90 per cent in all urban areas and 50 per cent in
us from addressing the ocean plastic crisis, but rather rural areas and support the informal collection sector.
inadequate regulatory frameworks, business models, and
funding mechanisms. Although the technical solutions Double mechanical recycling capacity globally to 86
exist, the incentives are not always in place to scale up these million metric tons per year.
changes fast enough. A reduction of plastic production— Develop plastic-to-plastic conversion, potentially to a
through elimination, the expansion of consumer reuse global capacity of up to 13 million metric tons per year.
options, or new delivery models—is the most attractive
solution from environmental, economic, and social Build facilities to dispose of the 23 per cent of plastic that
perspectives. It offers the biggest reduction in plastic cannot be recycled economically, as a transitional measure.
pollution, often represents a net savings, and provides the
highest mitigation opportunity in GHG emissions. Reduce plastic waste exports by 90 per cent to countries
with low collection and high leakage rates.
Figure 5: Plastic fate in the System Change Scenario: a ‘wedges’ analysis
There is a credible path toLatest title and reduce
significantly notes onplastic
reportleakage to the ocean but only if all
Figure 1:are
solutions Plastic fate in theconcurrently,
implemented System Change Scenario:and
ambitiously, a ‘wedges’
starting analysis
immediately
There is a credible path to significantly reduce plastic leakage to the ocean but only if all solutions
are implemented concurrently, ambitiously, and starting immediately
Million metric tons per year

450
al Reduce:
Usu
s-as- 130 (30%)
s Eliminate
ine
400 Bus Reuse (consumer)
Reuse (new delivery models)

350 RECYCLE
Substitute:
Paper 71 (17%)
300 Coated paper
Compostables
Recycle:
250 Mechanical recycling 84 (20%)
–closed loop (CL)
Mechanical recycling
–open loop (OL)
200 Chemical recycling
–plastic to plastic (P2P) Dispose:
150
Chemical conversion
–plastic to fuel (P2F)
101 (23%)
Landfill
100 Incineration
Mismanaged:
Open burning 44 (10%)
50 Terrestrial pollution
Ocean pollution
0
2016 2020 2030 2040
This “wedges” figure shows the share of treatment options for the plastic that enters the system over time under the System Change Scenario. Any plastic that enters
the system has a single fate, or a single “wedge.” The numbers include macroplastic and microplastic.
This “wedges” figure shows the share of treatment options for the plastic that enters the system over time under the System Change Scenario.
Latest title and notes on report
Any plastic that enters the system has a single fate, or a single “wedge.” The numbers include macroplastic and microplastic.
TEN CRITICAL FINDINGS
Roll out known solutions for four microplastic (<5mm) investors. The total global cost to governments of managing
sources—tyres, textiles, personal care products and plastic waste in this low-leakage System Change Scenario
production pellets—to reduce annual microplastic leakage to between 2021 and 2040 is estimated to be US$600 billion
the ocean by 1.8 million metric tons per year (from 3 million (range: US$410 billion-US$630 billion) in present value,
metric tons to 1.2 million metric tons) by 2040. compared with the US$670 billion (range: US$450 billion-
US$740 billion) cost to manage a high-leakage system
Taken together, these system interventions describe a under BAU.
credible scenario for dealing with ocean plastic pollution.
Under the System Change Scenario, 30 per cent (range: 27
per cent-32 per cent) of BAU plastic demand is reduced,
7
Reducing approximately 80 per cent (82 ±13 per cent)
17 per cent (range: 15 per cent-18 per cent) is substituted,
of plastic leakage into the ocean will bring to life a new
20 per cent (range: 18 per cent-21 per cent) is recycled,
circular plastics economy with major opportunities—and
23 per cent (range: 22 per cent-26 per cent) is disposed
risks—for industry.
of and 10 per cent (range: 9 per cent-12 per cent) remains
mismanaged, as shown in Figure 1. Plastic pollution presents a unique risk for producers and
users of virgin plastics given regulatory changes and growing
5 consumer outrage. But it is also a unique opportunity for
Going beyond the System Change Scenario to tackle providers of new and existing circular business models and
the remaining 5 million metric tons per year (range: 4-7 materials. Embarking on the trajectory to get to about 80
million metric tons per year) of plastic leakage demands per cent (82 ±13 per cent) leakage reduction will create
significant innovation across the entire value chain. significant opportunities for companies ahead of the
curve, ready to embrace new business opportunities that
In 20 years, we can break the seemingly unstoppable wave unlock value from a circular economy that derives revenue
of plastic pollution, but the System Change Scenario still from circulation of materials rather than one based on
does not go far enough. It leaves 5 million metric tons the extraction and conversion of fossil fuels. Large new
(range: 4 million-7 million metric tons) of plastic flowing value pools can be created around better design, better
into the ocean in 2040—which represents a 52 per cent (±8 materials, better delivery models, improved sorting and
per cent) reduction from 2016 rates. Achieving the vision of recycling technologies, and smart collection and supply
near-zero ocean plastic pollution will require technological chain management systems. Our analysis shows that
advances, new business models, significant spending, and, through integrated application of upstream and downstream
most crucially, accelerating upstream innovation. This interventions under the System Change Scenario, we could
massive innovation scale-up requires a focused and well- fulfil the growing global demand for “plastic utility” in 2040
funded R&D agenda exceeding US$100 billion per year by with roughly the same amount of plastic in the system as
2040, including moon-shot ambitions, to help middle-/ today, and 11 per cent (±1 per cent) lower levels of virgin
low-income countries to leapfrog the unsustainable linear plastic production, essentially decoupling plastic growth from
economy model of high-income countries. Most crucial economic growth. However, in the meantime, hundreds
will be solutions that focus upstream and can work in rural/ of billions of dollars are being invested in virgin plastic
remote areas (where collection economics are challenging), production plants, locking us deeper into a BAU trajectory
that replace multilayer and multimaterial plastics (e.g., new every day and making system change ever more urgent.
delivery models or new materials), and that lead to new tyre
designs to reduce abrasion of microplastic particles while
maintaining safety standards. Innovation will also be critically
8
A system change would require different implementation
needed in financing and policy. The alternative is to greatly
priorities in different geographies and for different plastic
increase the ambition levels above the maximum foreseeable
categories.
levels modelled under the System Change Scenario.
Different regions of the world have fundamentally different
6 contexts and jumping-off points: different sources of
The System Change Scenario is economically viable for plastic leakage, waste composition, collection rates, policy
governments and consumers, but a major redirection of regimes, labour and capital costs, infrastructure, population
capital investment is required. demographics, and consumer behaviour. Our model
highlights the most urgently needed interventions and the
The present value of global investments in the plastic unique set of outcomes projected for different geographies
industry between 2021 and 2040 can be reduced from under the System Change Scenario. High-income countries
US$2.5 trillion (±US$800 billion) to US$1.2 trillion (±US$300 should prioritize addressing microplastic leakage (which
billion), but the System Change Scenario will require a represents 62 per cent [range: 29 per cent-76 per cent]
substantial shift of investment away from the production and of leakage in high-income countries), technological and
conversion of virgin plastic, which are mature technologies policy innovation to incentivize reduction and substitution,
perceived as “safe” investments, to the production of new and further increasing recycling rates. Middle-/low-income
delivery models, plastic substitutes, recycling facilities, and countries should prioritize expanding formal collection,
collection infrastructure, some of which are less mature decreasing overall plastic consumption, investing in sorting
technologies and perceived as riskier. This shift will require and recycling infrastructure, and reducing post-collection
government incentives and risk-taking by industry and leakage. However, universally, the top priority is reducing

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
avoidable plastic—of which we estimate there will be 125 implementing the eight interventions would likely take the
million metric tons (range: 110 million metric tons-142 world off the path towards near-zero leakage. The next two
million metric tons) globally by 2040 under BAU. Similarly, years will be pivotal for breaking the trend and implementing
we should universally prioritize solutions for the highest- a first horizon of change that will allow key milestones to be
leakage plastic categories. Flexible packaging (bags, films, met by 2025, including stopping the production of avoidable
pouches, etc.), multilayer and multimaterial plastics (sachets, plastic, incentivizing consumers around reuse, improving
diapers, beverage cartons, etc.), and the microplastics that labelling, and testing innovations such as new delivery
we modelled account for a disproportionate share of plastic models. This work will lay the groundwork for the second
pollution compared with their production, making up 47 per and third horizons of change to take place by 2025 and
cent (range: 34 per cent-58 per cent), 25 per cent (range: 17 2030, and enable the implementation of further systemic
per cent-34 per cent) and 11 per cent (range: 6 per cent-17 solutions required in 2030-2040.
per cent) of the leakage mass, respectively.
9
Addressing plastic leakage into the ocean under the Achieving the outcomes modelled under the System
System Change Scenario has many co-benefits for Change Scenario would require substantial changes in
climate, health, jobs, working conditions, and the the business models of firms producing and using plastics
environment, thus contributing to many of the United and their substitutes; overhauls to the recycling and waste
Nations Sustainable Development Goals. disposal industries; transformation of the criteria used by
investors; and modification of consumer behaviour.
Our analysis suggests that addressing the ocean plastic
pollution crisis helps reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions Although these changes are feasible, they are unlikely to
relative to BAU. The integrated System Change Scenario materialize unless governments create significant incentives
results in 25 per cent (±11 per cent) lower plastic-related GHG for more sustainable business models and remove the cost
emissions in 2040; however, it still represents an increase advantage that virgin plastic feedstock has over recycled
in emissions relative to today. As such, it will be vital to scale materials. Policies that create a clear and stable set of
up measures offering the greatest GHG savings and further incentives and targets will make the conditions required
decarbonize energy sources. In the System Change Scenario, under the System Change Scenario possible.
peak virgin plastic is reached by 2027. In addition, net direct
employment in the value chain (including manufacturing, Industry, at the same time, should stop placing avoidable,
collection, recycling, and new delivery models) increases single-use, and hard-to-recycle plastic on the market, invest
by 6 per cent (±1 per cent) relative to BAU by 2040. That’s in material and business model innovations, and join with
equivalent to 700,000 jobs (range: 541,000-795,000), governments to help finance waste collection and sorting.
redistributed among sectors and geographies, with almost all To achieve an approximately 80 per cent (82 ±13 per cent)
of the job growth occurring in middle-/low-income countries. reduction in annual plastics leakage into the ocean by 2040,
The System Change Scenario also represents a positive social public-private collaborations will be required to set higher
vision for the global community of 11 million waste pickers, standards on materials, formats, reuse, and recyclability.
who in 2016 were responsible for 60 per cent (range 56 per Fortunately, there are promising existing efforts to build on.
cent-65 per cent) of global plastic recycling. To date, their The Ellen MacArthur Foundation’s New Plastics Economy
contribution to preventing ocean plastic pollution has largely initiative, for example, has already united more than 400
gone unrecognized and typically underpaid. An increase organizations behind a vision for a circular economy
in plastic material value through design for recycling can under a global commitment for plastic that is a good first
contribute to social justice by increasing the retained value step towards pursuing the systemic changes identified
for waste pickers and improving working conditions. Health in this report. There are also early discussions regarding
hazards are also significantly reduced under this scenario, strengthening an international agreement to prevent plastic
including the reduction relative to BAU of 109 million metric pollution that may help provide the global policy framework
tons per year (range: 108-111 million metric tons per year) for united government action.
of open burning of plastic waste—a process that releases
airborne particulates, carcinogens, and other toxins. Conclusion
Taken together, our findings on plastic pollution
10 substantiate catastrophic outlooks for the ocean if we
The time is now: If we want to significantly reduce continue on the current trajectory. They also highlight
plastic leakage, we have the solutions at our fingertips. the economic exposure to the plastic industry in the
An implementation delay of five years would result in an absence of resolute action. Yet our report gives us some
additional ~80 million metric tons of plastic going into the cause for optimism: It shows that an approximately 80
ocean by 2040. per cent (82 ±13 per cent) reduction in projected plastic
leakage is possible—without compromising social or
All elements of the System Change Scenario exist today or
economic benefits. Achieving the potential of such a
are under development and near adoption. A system-wide
rapid and holistic pathway towards the goal of near-zero
implementation delay of five years would result in ~80 million
ocean plastic leakage is within reach, but it will require
metric tons more plastic stock in the ocean by 2040. That is
enhanced ambitions.
equivalent to approximately half of today’s stock. Delays in

A fisherman in Sri Lanka hauls in fish caught in his synthetic net. Nets like these are sometimes
abandoned in the ocean, entangling marine life, leading to injury or death.
SmallWorldProduction/Adobe Stock
11 million 29 million 40% 7% 500,000 11%
Scale of the problem

FAST FACTS
metric tons metric tons
‘Breaking the of plastic leaked into

the ocean in 2016
of plastic leakage into
the ocean in 2040
of today’s global plastic
waste ends up in the
environment
reduction of leakage if all
current government and industry
commitments were implemented by 2040
people need to be connected
every day until 2040 to close
the collection gap
of leakage is
microplastic in 2016
Plastic Wave’ By 2040:
US$100B 45% 21% 19% 80%

2x 3x 4x
in numbers plastic
generation
plastic
leakage
into the
plastic
stock
in the
financial risk to industry
under BAU in 2040
of today's leakage is
from rural areas,
where collection
of plastics are economically
recyclable (but only 15% are
actually recycled) in 2016
share of carbon budget used
by plastic industry by 2040
under BAU to stay under 1.5°C
share of leakage from
flexible and multilayer
plastics in 2016
ocean ocean economics don’t work
1 REDUCE
The System Change Scenario reduces growth in plastic
consumption to avoid
2 SUBSTITUTE
plastic with paper
80% of plastic pollution by 2040 nearly one-third of projected

plastic waste generation
and compostable materials,
switching one-sixth of
by 2040 projected plastic waste
through the immediate implementation generation by 2040
Tyre dust Textiles
of eight complementary system 3 DESIGN
interventions across the products and
packaging for recycling to
plastics value chain REDUCE
expand the share of
8 economically recyclable
Personal care products Pellets
WASTE plastic from an estimated
22% today to 54% by 2040
EXPORTS
into countries with REDUCE
low collection and MICROPLASTIC
high leakage rates LEAKAGE
by 90% by 2040
DISPOSE 7 by 1.8 million metric tons per year by
securely the 2040 through the rollout of
23% of plastic known solutions for four
REDUCE that still cannot DEVELOP microplastic sources
MARITIME be economically 6
recycled
PLASTIC-TO-PLASTIC
SOURCES CONVERSION
of ocean plastic pollution
potentially to a global
such as from fishing
capacity of up to 13 million DOUBLE 5
and shipping
metric tons per year* MECHANICAL
RECYCLING
capacity globally to
4 SCALE UP
86 million metric tons
per year by 2040 COLLECTION
rates in middle-/low-income
countries to at least 90% in
urban areas and 50% in rural
areas by 2040
* Contingent on a decarbonization of energy sources
Integrated system
80% US$70B 700,000 25% 55% 195
million
metric
change achieves social, tons
reduction in plastic saving for governments jobs created by 2040 reduction in annual reduction in virgin reduction in other environmental
environmental, and leakage into the ocean over 20 years relative to BAU relative to BAU GHG emissions by 2040 plastic demand by leakage (land and atmosphere)
by 2040 relative to BAU relative to BAU 2040 relative to BAU
economic benefits
14 BREAKING THE PLASTIC WAVE A Comprehensive Assessment of Pathways Towards Stopping Ocean Plastic Pollution 15
Introduction
Plastic, the ocean, and
the global debate
A plastic bag floats underwater in France.

damedias/Adobe Stock
INTRODUCTION
Ocean Plastic Pollution:

Challenges and opportunities in a complex system
Plastic was first invented in the 19th century, but it wasn’t What are the major challenges when
until the 20th century that plastic production soared, going
analysing solutions to plastic pollution?
from 2 million metric tons in 19502 to 348 million metric
tons in 2017,3 becoming a global industry valued at US$522.6 • A fundamentally systemic problem requires a
billion.4 Plastic’s low cost, light weight, convenience, systemic answer.
durability, and ability to be produced in different colours and Plastic pollution arises from structural flaws in an
shapes for marketing have driven this proliferation. It is now essentially linear plastic system— namely, that 95 per
used across thousands of applications and many sectors, cent of the aggregate value of plastic packaging is lost
ranging from packaging to automotive and construction. By to the economy after a single use cycle and that many
2040, production is expected to double yet again.5 plastic products are placed in markets that lack the
capacity to collect and treat them economically after
As plastic production and use have surged, so too has plastic use.23 The low and potentially decreasing cost of virgin
pollution, and with it the amount of plastic in the ocean,6 plastic production relative to the cost of post-consumer
which could already be as high as 150 million metric tons.7 collection poses a fundamental economic challenge
From coral reefs8 to deep sea trenches9 and from remote to managing the material at end of life. Today, only
islands10 to the poles,11 plastic alters habitats, harms wildlife, 71 per cent of plastic produced is formally collected,
and can damage ecosystem function and services.12 More and less than 15 per cent is actually recycled. To make
than 800 species are already known to be affected by marine a real difference, solutions should take a systemic
plastic pollution, including all sea turtle species,13 more than approach and not only target the plastic leaking
40 per cent of cetacean species, and 44 per cent of marine into the ocean, but also the much larger quantity of
bird species.14 municipal solid waste (MSW) plastic produced every
year. Effective systemic solutions require collaboration
Plastic has also been identified as having human health
and accountability across the value chain (e.g.,
impacts throughout its life cycle, from the impacts of
petrochemical producers, resin makers, converters,
raw material extraction and production on neighbouring
brand owners, retailers, consumers and waste
communities15 to the chemicals in food packaging16 and the
management); across borders (to set global standards
health impacts of mismanaged waste.17 Plastic waste can block
for materials, trade, and reporting); between the public
rivers and drainage systems, causing flooding and trapping
and private sectors (to reduce investment risk and
stagnant water that exacerbates the spread of diseases in
develop infrastructure); and among the value chains of
impacted communities,18 while open burning transfers the
different material types, to ensure a holistic approach to
pollution burden to air and water, emitting toxic chemicals and
resource efficiency and environmental sustainability.
greenhouse gases (GHGs). In 2016, open burning of plastic
waste released an estimated 1 gigaton of equivalent carbon • Formal collection is underfunded, and expanding
dioxide (GtCO2e) of GHGs, a figure expected to grow to 2.1 informal collection entails economic limitations and
GtCO2e under our Business-as-Usual Scenario. undesired social consequences.
Collection of waste is chronically underfunded and,
Recent analyses based on beach clean-up data have despite often being the single highest item in the
identified the predominant items contributing to budgets of municipalities,24 formal collection coverage
macroplastic pollution, namely single-use plastic items.19 remains patchy. A significant share of plastic waste
Single-use plastic is defined as products and packaging collection is carried out by the informal recycling sector,
made wholly or partly from plastic that is not conceived, involving exposure to undignified labour conditions and
designed, or placed on the market to accomplish—within its significant health risks.
life span—multiple trips or rotations by being returned to a
producer for refill or reused for the same purpose for which • Design and packaging choices do not account for
it was originally conceived.20 Abandoned, lost or discarded local infrastructure.
fishing gear, often known as “ghost gear,” is also a significant Many plastic products are designed for a global market,
source and poses an elevated risk of entanglement for with marketing and sales rather than end-of-life
many marine species.21 Microplastic sources are varied and sustainability as primary drivers of product design. There
include both primary microplastic sources, such as tyre dust, are thousands of plastic applications, requiring different
plastic pellets, and microfibres from synthetic textiles, and solution sets, with little harmonization from region
secondary microplastics derived from the fragmentation of to region over what is placed on the market, what is
larger, macroplastic items already in the environment.22 considered recyclable, and what is actually collected
for recycling. Globalized supply chains of consumer
Plastic pollution is not only an environmental tragedy, it is goods fail to account for the realities of the local waste
also economically imprudent— because billions of dollars of management infrastructure available to deal with them,
economic value are “thrown away” after a single, short use— which can vary greatly from one municipality to another.
as well as a social offence due to the health risks it creates. Fast innovation cycles in product design outpace

INTRODUCTION
slow innovation downstream (waste infrastructure), • The debate is data-poor.

exacerbating the problem further. Consistent definitions and conventions for plastic waste
data and metrics are lacking, and there is insufficient
• A lack of incentives discourages the adoption of new
transparency regarding the plastic being placed on
solutions.
the global market (type, chemical additives, etc.), trade
Today’s markets are structured around the pervasive use
flows, waste production, consumption, and post-
of plastic, particularly in packaging. Reducing single-use
use patterns. In addition, there is a lack of field data
plastics would require, in many cases, not just simple
measuring plastic stocks and flows throughout the value
material substitutes but entirely new business models,
chain, and many parameters have high uncertainty.
providing an opportunity to providers of innovative
The result is a very data-poor debate, often led by
solutions but also posing a risk to existing companies.
opinions and preconceptions instead of facts. But there
There are currently few policy incentives to encourage
is sufficient data to better inform decision-makers and
the adoption of alternative materials, delivery models, or
stakeholders about the outcomes of current policies
end-of-life technologies.
and proposed solutions: That is the goal of this report.
About this project: A global stochastic model

This report presents a feasible and meaningful pathway • Do we have the technology to solve the problem?
towards collectively solving the ocean plastic pollution
• What is the way out?
crisis. Prepared by The Pew Charitable Trusts and SYSTEMIQ,
with a panel of 17 global experts, the University of Oxford, • What will it cost and who will bear the burden?
the University of Leeds, the Ellen MacArthur Foundation,
and Common Seas, the report introduces a new model • Is the solution attractive for citizens, for businesses,
designed to quantify key plastic flows and stocks in the for governments, and for ecosystems?
global plastic system, estimate the quantity of ocean • Where do we start?
plastic pollution expected under six scenarios between
2016 and 2040, and assess the economic, environmental, “Breaking the Plastic Wave” builds on a global body of work
and social impacts of the principal known solutions and by scientists, researchers, and institutions whose findings and
technologies. We estimate the capital expenditure (capex), determination have served to raise plastic pollution to the
operating expenditure (opex), direct employment, and GHG forefront of global debates, including the vision presented
emissions associated with each future scenario at a greater by the Ellen MacArthur Foundation’s New Plastics Economy.
granularity than previous studies. The analysis incorporates And yet our project is unique in the following ways:
all major land-based sources of ocean plastic pollution,
including both macroplastics (>5mm) and four sources of • Quantitative analysis of solutions: There are existing
microplastics (<5mm), and highlights the factors contributing analyses of BAU projections of ocean plastic pollution,25
most strongly to plastic leakage to the ocean. Although our but we provide one of the first in-depth quantitative
focus is on ocean plastic pollution, this problem is clearly analyses of the main available solutions and the
connected to pollution of terrestrial environments, and economic, environmental, and social implications
mitigation strategies should seek to address both. of each. Our study assesses both upstream and
downstream solutions in great depth.
In undertaking this analysis, we aim to provide a new
• Criteria-based comparison of solutions: We develop
evidence base for decision-makers across government,
clear criteria designed to enable the comparison of very
business, civil society, and academia as they navigate their
different solutions along environmental (pollution and
responses to this emerging global challenge, evaluate trade-
GHG), economic, performance (health and safety), and
offs, and implement solutions. Our goal is that the direction
consumer acceptance dimensions.
and conclusions of this analysis will inform the global
discussion and planning around this urgent challenge. We • Scientific rigour and diverse input: This analysis was
found that through an ambitious, system-wide strategy, the conducted with scientific rigour, in conjunction with a
international community can stem the growing sources of panel of 17 experts representing diverse geographies
plastic pollution and stop it from reaching the ocean. and the full value chain, and involving more than 100
additional experts. All assumptions and methodologies
This study provides one of the most comprehensive global have been extensively peer-reviewed and are available in
fact bases and analyses available to date to quantify and offer a detailed technical appendix.
solutions to the ocean plastic pollution crisis. Specifically,
this project is designed to address seven strategic questions • First-of-its-kind system-wide perspective: Modelling
that have not previously been answered: provides us with a method by which to project future
trajectories of ocean plastic pollution under different
• Are we on track to solve the plastic pollution crisis? scenarios. The system map at the heart of this work
(see Appendix B), and the stochastic model we
• How bad will it get for the economy, for the
environment, and for communities? developed together with Oxford University, allowed

INTRODUCTION
us to better understand complex system dynamics Taking a “wedges” approach

and the relationships and synergies among different
interventions in the system. In undertaking this analysis, we aim to provide a new
evidence base for decision-makers across government,
• Broad scope: The analysis covers all geographies, business, civil society, and academia as they navigate their
the entire value chain, and includes all municipal solid responses to this emerging global challenge, evaluate trade-
plastic waste and four key sources of microplastics: tyre offs, and implement solutions. Our goal is that the direction
abrasion, textile losses, personal care products, and pellet and conclusions of this analysis will inform the global
losses. Maritime sources of leakage are also considered, discussion and planning around this urgent challenge. We
albeit qualitatively given constraints on data availability. found that through an ambitious, system-wide strategy, the
• Highly granular: The project is global in nature, but international community can stem the growing sources of
our analysis also distinguishes among eight different plastic pollution and stop it from reaching the ocean.
geographic archetypes to understand their vastly
different characteristics and identify the most relevant
solutions. The archetypes are divided into four groups Box 1: Where can managed plastic
depending on country income, according to World waste end up? The four “wedges”:
Bank definitions: high-income (HI) economies; upper
middle-income (UMI) economies; lower middle-income
(LMI) economies; and low-income (LI) economies; REDUCE
as well as according to United Nations urban-rural
classifications. Because the problem of plastic pollution Reduction of plastic production and consumption
cannot be solved using a one-size-fits-all approach, the without substituting to other short-lived materials.
model differentiates among three plastic categories, Sub-wedges include eliminating plastic (e.g., product
due to their differing economics, applications and redesigns, reduced overpackaging, and plastic bans),
recyclability: rigid monomaterials (such as bottles, tubs, consumer reuse models (i.e., switching from single-
pots and trays), flexible monomaterials (such as bags or use plastics to reusable items), and new product
films), and multilayer/multimaterials (which combine delivery models (e.g., refill services, shifting products to
different polymers and/or nonplastic materials, such as services, e-commerce, and dispensers).
beverage cartons, sachets and diapers).
In undertaking this project, we followed three guiding SUBSTITUTE
principles:
Substitution with alternative materials that meet
• Focus on prevention of leakage: Our work is functional requirements for specific applications
centred on preventing plastic from leaking into the but are more easily recyclable or compostable after
ocean rather than cleaning up what is there already, use. Sub-wedges include paper, coated paper, and
although we estimate the volume of beach clean- industrially compostable or home-compostable
ups for completeness and to understand their relative materials.
importance. Although new techniques to remove plastic
waste from waterways are positive developments,
strategies that rely predominantly on post-leakage RECYCLE
collection will not bring about the systemic change
needed. We focus on treating the problem at the source. Recycling of products or materials. Sub-wedges
include mechanical closed-loop recycling, mechanical
• Balance environmental, economic, and social
open-loop recycling, and plastic-to-plastic chemical
outcomes: To understand the potential for unintended
conversion systems that produce new packaging,
consequences, we model GHG emissions, costs,
products, or feedstock.
and jobs to quantify and balance key environmental,
economic, and social outcomes of the interventions.
Future analyses should build on this to also incorporate DISPOSE
other outcomes, such as land use requirements, water
use, chemical pollution, and human health to help Controlled disposal of plastic waste in ways that
ensure systemic and sustainable change. prevent leakage to the ocean. Sub-wedges include
sanitary landfills (but not dumpsites), incineration, and
• Incorporate equity in health and safety standards:
plastic-to-fuel technologies.
When modelling solutions or infrastructure
development, we assume that the same high level Any plastic waste that is not included in these four
of environmental, safety, and health standards for wedges is considered mismanaged waste; this
technologies should apply globally, so we model costs category includes waste that is open burned, or either
for infrastructure that meet strict environmental, safety, dumped directly into or leaked to land or waterways.
and operational standards.

INTRODUCTION
Scenarios modelled 5. Reduce and Substitute

Assumes dramatic reduction of plastic use through
This analysis defines eight system interventions and
elimination, ambitious introduction of reuse and new
models the main economic, environmental, and social
delivery models, and ambitious introduction and
implications of applying different combinations of these
investment in plastic substitutes. This intervention would
changes to the system, at different ambition levels, and in
require strong policy interventions to ban specific single-
different geographic archetypes. Six possible scenarios for
use plastics and incentivize design for reuse and reduce.
tackling ocean plastic pollution, each comprising a different
combination—or lack—of system interventions are analysed 6. System Change Scenario
in this report: Assumes that all eight system interventions are applied
concurrently and ambitiously for both macroplastics and
1. Business-as-Usual microplastics. This scenario benefits from the synergies
Assumes no intervention is made in relation to current among upstream and downstream interventions, as it is
plastic-related policy, economics, infrastructure, or the only one that includes both.
materials, and that cultural norms and consumer
behaviours do not change.
The specific macroplastic system interventions modelled
2. Current Commitments
in each scenario are shown in Figure 2. In addition, we
Assumes all major commitments already made by the
have modelled microplastic interventions for the integrated
public and private sectors between 2016 and 2019 are
System Change Scenario. Maritime sources of waste have
implemented and enforced. These include existing
been analysed qualitatively only.
bans/levies on specific plastic products, and recycling
and recyclability targets. Integral to our approach is that the interventions are
3. Collect and Dispose constructed to deliver the same utility to consumers, in
Assumes ambitious global expansion of collection services which utility refers to the total satisfaction received from
and increases in the global capacity of engineered and consuming a good or service. Plastic utility is defined as the
managed landfills and incineration facilities. services (including protection, food preservation, etc.) that
are provided by plastic under a Business-as-Usual Scenario.
4. Recycling In alternative scenarios, the goods and services provided deliver
Assumes ambitious expansion and investment into the same utility to consumers in other ways with less plastic.
collection, sorting, mechanical recycling, and plastic-to-
plastic chemical conversion infrastructure.
Figure 2: System interventions modelled under each scenario

for latest titles & captions see report indesign doc
Figure 2: System interventions modelled under each scenario
Reduce Substitute Recycle Dispose
Baseline Downstream Upstream Intergrated

scenarios scenarios scenario scenario
Business-as- Current Collect & Recycling Reduce & System

Usual (BAU) Commitments Dispose Substitute Change
System interventions
I. Reduce consumption
II. Substitute for alternatives
III. Design for recycling
IV. Expand waste collection
V. Increase mechanical recycling
VI. Scale up chemical conversion
VII. Build safe disposal facilities
VIII. Reduce waste exports
Modelled at current Maximum

commitment level foreseeable level

INTRODUCTION
Project scope
Our analysis quantifies leakage rates and solutions for losses, pellet losses, and personal care products). Other
municipal solid waste plastic. This includes plastic packaging sources of microplastics, for example, artificial turf, paint,
and single-use products, diapers and sanitary waste, cigarette microplastics generated by abrasion in food packaging,26 and
butts, durable consumer products, household products, microplastic ingredients in other products such as fertilisers,
and business-to-business packaging (see Figure 3). Excluded were excluded due to limited data availability. Of the 335 million
from the project scope are medical waste; hazardous waste; metric tons of plastic produced globally in 2016,27 215 million
electronics; textiles; furnishings; agricultural waste; and metric tons was within the scope of our analysis, covering the
transportation, construction, and other industrial waste as vast majority of land-based sources of plastic leakage to the
these do not typically enter municipal solid waste. We also ocean. Maritime sources of leakage were also considered,
modelled four sources of microplastics (tyre abrasion, textile albeit qualitatively given constraints on data availability.
Figure 3: Project scope Rigid monomaterial
The project scope covers 64 per cent of plastic production, which Flexible monomaterial
Multimaterial/multilayer
represents the vast majority of plastic pollution to ecosystems Out of scope
Pots, tubs, and trays

3%
Plastic bottles
disposables
Food service
6%
Building and construction
15% Household
goods
2%
3%
Other rigid packaging
B2B packaging
Films
6% 2%
19%
hygiene 1% goods 1%
Diapers and Household
and aluminium <1%
Laminated paper
Transportation
Textiles 6% Carrier bags B2B films Sachets and multilayer flexibles
14% Machinery 1% 5% 5% 12%
Out of scope Project macroplastic scope

Share of global plastic production: Share of global plastic production: 64 per cent (215 million metric tons)
36 per cent (120 million metric tons)
Estimated leakage in 2016: 11 million metric tons
Leakage: Precise numbers unknown but estimated to be
a very small share given that these plastics are durable
and typically high value
The project scope shows the municipal solid waste macroplastic applications and their relative contribution to municipal solid waste globally. Total global plastic
production in 2016 was 335 million metric tons, of which municipal solid waste represented 215 million metric tons, or 64 per cent.
System map where expert opinion was unavailable, assumptions were

transparently made—the rationale for which is outlined in the
At the heart of our analysis is a conceptual model that technical appendix.
highlights the main flows and stocks of the global plastic
system for both macroplastics (Figure B.1) and microplastics To quantify the system map, we designed a stochastic stock
(Figure B.2, Figure B.3, Figure B.4, Figure B.5). We collected and flow model of coupled ordinary differential equations.
data to set parameters for the size of each box and arrow We used municipal solid waste data from the World Bank
in the system map for each geographic archetype, for “What a Waste v2.0” data set to estimate the total land-based
each plastic category, and for each of the six scenarios. macroplastic input into the system with the potential to enter
Where data were unavailable, expert opinion was collected; the ocean as plastic pollution. We projected the growth in

INTRODUCTION
demand for plastic as a function of population size coupled measured—let alone modelled—with a high level of certainty.
with per capita municipal solid waste generation derived Accordingly, we designed a series of scenarios to better
from country-level municipal solid waste generation data. understand the extent to which near-term decisions affect
To set parameters for the potential scaling of the different future plastic pollution and the conditions likely to minimize
interventions, we estimated maximum foreseeable growth this pollution. The analyses we present in this report allow
and implementation rates based on historical trends. for the evaluation of major differences in the global plastic
Economic costs calculated include operating and capital system through the assessment of alternative futures.
expenditures (opex and capex) where relevant, but do not
include taxes, subsidies, or externalities; all government Although modelled scenarios were designed by an expert
and private sector costs cited as outputs of scenarios are panel representing all relevant disciplines, and we used
reported in 2016 US$. the best available information to inform mass flows and
costs, the model does not capture all the components and
Due to the differences in data availability, quality, and complexity of the global plastic system. Because gaps exist
uncertainty of the data used in the analyses (e.g., plastic in data on the generation, collection, recycling, disposal, and
flows across the system map, among geographic leakage of plastic waste, the model is unable to accurately
archetypes, and plastic categories), we developed a data measure all feedbacks in the system. Model design and
pedigree scoring framework to standardize uncertainty construction required expert judgment to fill data gaps and
across all input variables. For each input variable, all data estimate current and potential rates of change for the system
sources were scored across four attributes: sample size, components, which were then used to generate scenarios.
uncertainty, accuracy and reliability, and date of publication As a result, the analyses include inherent assumptions and
(see the technical appendix). This uncertainty is propagated are unable to determine system sensitivities to important
through to the model outputs using a Monte Carlo external drivers, such as the price of oil. In addition, a
simulation. The Monte Carlo simulation allows us to estimate global model has, by definition, limited granularity, and our
the variability in scenario outcomes, given the significant conclusions need to be applied carefully to local contexts.
uncertainty associated with many flows in the system maps
and the coupled nature of flow magnitudes. Using this Despite these limitations, the model results are informative
approach, we ran 300 simulations of each scenario, for each as long as they are appropriately contextualized. Outputs
archetype, over the years 2016-2040. In each simulation, from the Monte Carlo modelling approach should be treated
input values throughout the model were sampled at random as a range of potential values that could be observed, and
from a range of uncertainty defined by the data pedigree individual numerical results should be treated as approximate
framework. This stochastic approach to estimating stocks and part of a range of possible outcomes. Despite some
and flows in the global plastic system produces a different wide ranges, comparisons among scenarios can be robust,
model result for each model run, which collectively forms particularly when the rank-order of scenario results is
the range of potential outcomes for a given scenario. consistent across Monte Carlo simulations. This means that,
By comparing the range of outcomes among scenarios, rather than providing specific directions for government and
robust trends emerge across scenarios, allowing us to draw industry decision-makers to pursue at individual locations,
conclusions about effective strategies and interventions for outputs should be viewed as a system-level assessment
reducing ocean plastic pollution. Because there is no data of potential futures based on a broad suite of actions and
set that is sufficiently detailed for validating the model, we stakeholder priorities. By conducting a sensitivity analysis
conducted sensitivity analyses to assess the influence of to key assumptions, we found that the high-level findings
key variables and assumptions on the results, as well as to outlined in the report’s executive summary are robust. For
identify the key drivers in the system. The analytical engine example, it is evident that the plastic pollution crisis can
for the model is constructed in Matlab and the code can be only be solved with significant reduction and substitution
run using freely available software. The Matlab source code of plastic in the system. Similarly, the economic limitations
and all data gathered for this project are publicly available. of recycling described in the report hold true even when
This project is less about providing one definitive answer different assumptions are made for some data inputs.
than about a decision support tool for facilitating the debate
on appropriate and effective strategies. Uncertainty
Taken together, our model and findings can help decision- All stochastic modelling results presented in the Executive
makers understand some of the economic, environmental, Summary include 95 per cent confidence intervals. In the
and social implications of settling for BAU, and some of rest of the report, results are presented without confidence
the potential benefits and risks of key system intervention intervals. For the details on uncertainty calculations, please
strategies to reduce ocean plastic pollution. Moreover, our see section 5 in the technical appendix.
model would allow stakeholders to evaluate these trends,
Additional information is available upon request.
and benefits and risks, with their own data for their own
The complete codebase, all input files, and raw outputs
situation.
for model runs are available at https://dx.doi.org/10.5281/
zenodo.3929470.
Model limitations
The quantity and global distribution of plastic pollution
depend on a complex set of human actions and system
components that are constantly in flux and unlikely to be

INTRODUCTION
A waste picker sifts through a mountain of garbage at the Jabon landfill site in Sidoarja, Indonesia.
Ulet Ifansasti

CHAPTER 1: AN UNTENABLE TRAJECTORY
An Untenable
Trajectory
The imperative to address the
ocean pollution plastic crisis
Plastic waste in Pattaya, Thailand

Leonid Danilov/Pexels

THE IMPERATIVE TO ADDRESS THE OCEAN POLLUTION PLASTIC CRISIS
The plastic crisis is getting worse—fast—and neither business-as-usual,

nor the combined results of current commitments, nor any single solution,
will solve the problem. This situation poses a growing risk to ecosystems,
communities, businesses, and unaware investors alike.
Super growth: Business-as-Usual will have nearly three times

more plastic leaking into the ocean in 2040
We estimate that 11 million metric tons of plastic entered the ocean from land in 2016, adding to
the estimated 150 million metric tons of plastic already in the ocean.28 Plastic flows into the ocean
are projected to nearly triple by 2040 to 29 million metric tons per year. Even worse, because plastic
remains in the ocean for hundreds of years, or longer, and may never biodegrade, the cumulative
amount of plastic stock in the ocean could grow by 450 million metric tons in the next 20 years—
with severe impacts on biodiversity, and ocean and human health. The Business-as-Usual (BAU)
Scenario presents significant health risk to communities—with a three-fold growth in open burning
of plastics, increasing the release of persistent toxic chemicals, and a 2.4-fold growth in primary
microplastic leakage to the ocean. BAU is also incompatible with the goals of the Paris Agreement:
Without action, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with plastic production, use and
disposal in 2040 would account for 19 per cent of the total emissions budget allowable if we are to
limit global heating to 1.5oC. Businesses may also suffer financially under BAU, given that they may
in the future be required to pay a virgin plastic tax or Extended Producer Responsibility fees to help
cover the cost of collection and safe disposal—a total financial risk of US$100 billion per annum,
equivalent to 25 per cent of turnover in a low-margin business.29 Industry also risks losing the social
Figure
1: Fate1:to
Figurelicense Fate
of of all plastic
all plastic
operate, wastewaste
among under under
multiple Business-as-Usual
Business-as-Usual
other risks.30
Mismanaged
Mismanaged plasticplastic
wastewaste will for
grow latest
from titles
91 see
million
for latest titles see report
will grow from 91 million report
tonstons inindesign
2016
inindesign
2016 to
doc
to 239 doc
239 million
million tons
tons by by 2040
2040
Figure 4: Fate of all plastic waste under Business-as-Usual

Mismanaged plastic waste will grow from 91 million metric tons in 2016 to 239 million metric tons
by 2040
Million metric tons of plastic waste (macroplastic and microplastic)
Million metric tons of plastic waste (macroplastic and microplastic)
430
430
55 Recycled
55 Recycled
content
content Total managed:
Total managed:
Landfill 191 million
54
54
Landfill 191 million
metric tons
metric tons
(44 per cent)
80 Incineration (44 per cent)
80 Incineration
220 2 Plastic to fuel (P2F)
Total managed: 220 2 Plastic to fuel (P2F)
31 Terrestrial leakage
129 million
Total managed:
31
77
Terrestrial leakage
129 million
metric tons 69
77
Total mismanaged:
metric
(59tons
per cent) 69 239
Total million
mismanaged:
(59 per cent) 28 133
Open burning 239 million
metric tons
Total mismanaged: 28 31
1
133
Open burning metric tons
(56 per cent)
91 million
Total mismanaged:
31
1
(56 per cent)
91 million
metric tons 49
Ocean leakage
(41tons
metric per cent) 49
11
29
Ocean leakage
(41 per cent) 11 2016 29 2040
2016 2040
More mismanaged plastic means more • Upper middle-income (UMI) and lower middle-income
(LMI) countries collectively contribute 9.5 million metric
ocean plastic
tons (88 per cent) of total leakage.
Our model shows that the global mass of mismanaged plastic
under BAU could grow from 91 million metric tons in 2016 to
Our analysis modelled the four main routes through
239 million metric tons in 2040; plastic leakage to the ocean
which land-based macroplastic waste enters the ocean,
could therefore grow from 11 million metric tons in 2016 to 29
as presented in Figure 7: 1) uncollected waste directly
million metric tons in 2040, as shown in Figure 4. As a result,
dumped into water; 2) uncollected waste dumped on land
an estimated 1.7 trillion-6.6 trillion (1012) pieces of macroplastic
that makes its way to water; 3) collected waste deposited
waste and 3 million trillion (3x1018) pieces of microplastic
in dumpsites that moves via land and air into water and;
waste could be entering the ocean annually by 2040.
4) collected waste dumped directly into the water by
Total plastic waste generation could increase by a factor of collection trucks. Based on our analysis, 61 per cent of total
2 by 2040; with waste infrastructure not being able to keep macroplastic leakage originates from uncollected waste,
up with this exponential growth, plastic leakage to the ocean and this share could grow to 70 per cent by 2040 in the
will, without massive intervention, nearly triple. Under such a BAU Scenario as collection services fail to keep pace with
scenario, the cumulative stock of plastic in the ocean is likely macroplastic waste generation.
to grow by a factor of more than 4 by 2040 (see Figure 5).
The perfect storm behind Business-as-
What is leaking into the ocean and where is Usual plastic leakage
it coming from?
Owing to four compounding trends—rapid population
Figure 6 provides a detailed overview of the sources of growth, rising per capita plastic use, shifts to low-value/hard-
plastic leakage into the ocean in 2016, based on our analysis, to-recycle materials, and disproportionate growth in markets
showing that: with low collection—plastic flows to the ocean are expected
to nearly triple by 2040.
• Rural areas contribute 4.7 million metric tons (43 per
cent) of total annual plastic leakage to the ocean. Trend 1: A growing global population
• Flexible monomaterials (such as films, wraps, and bags) The world’s population is expected to grow by 23 per cent,
make up 5 million metric tons (46 per cent) of leakage, from 7.5 billion in 2016 to 9.2 billion in 2040.32 An estimated
and multilayer/multimaterial plastics (such as sachets, 84 per cent of the global population lives in middle-/
diapers, and beverage cartons) make up 2.8 million low-income countries, where most countries don’t have
metric tons (26 per cent). sufficiently high levels of waste collection.
• Microplastics contribute 1.3 million metric tons (11 per
cent) of total leakage.
2: Business-as-Usual projections for critical plastic indicators

ext 20 years, latest
Figure plastic waste titles in projections
design
generation
5: Business-as-Usual willdoc
double, plastic
for critical leakage
plastic to the
indicators
will nearly
Thetriple,
next 20and plastic
years stock
will see inwaste
plastic the ocean 20
will
generation moreplastic
double, than leakage
quadruple
to the ocean nearly triple,
and plastic stock in the ocean more than quadruple31
420 29 646
~2x ~3x ~4x

215
11
150
2016 2040 2016 2040 2016 2040

Macroplastic waste generation, Plastic leakage into ocean, Plastic stock in the ocean,
million metric tons per year million metric tons per year million metric tons

Figure 6: Main leakage points by geographic archetype and plastic category, 2016
Flexible monomaterials and multilayer materials have a disproportionate share of leakage
Plastic leakage in 2016 by geographic type Plastic leakage in 2016 by category Low-income countries
Lower-middle income countries
6.3 5.0
(57%) (46%) Upper-middle income countries
Million metric tons per year of waste
Million metric tons per year of waste

0.3 0.4 High-income countries
4.7
(43%)
2.3
0.4 2.2 2.8
(26%)
2.2 1.9 0.2
(18%)
0.2
1.2 1.3
3.1 (11%)
0.9 2.4
0.0
1.9 0.3
1.3
0.8 0.5
0.5 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.4
Urban Rural Rigid Flexible Multilayer Microplastics
mono- mono- material
materials materials
Share of
plastic
production 4% 8% 2% 7% 6% N/A
that leaks
Trend 2: Rising per capita plastic consumption under BAU, we estimate that the mass of uncollected
macroplastic waste could triple, from 47 million metric tons
Our analysis suggests that average global per capita plastic
per year in 2016 to 143 million metric tons per year.
consumption will grow by 58 per cent under BAU, from 29
kg per year in 2016 to 46 kg per year by 2040. This global
increase is largely driven by urbanization and rapid economic
Microplastics
development in LI, LMI and UMI archetypes, where today’s Another set of trends will contribute to greater levels
per capita consumption is much lower than the high- of microplastic pollution in the ocean. Four sources of
income (HI) average of 76 kg per year. It is also caused, at microplastic leakage are included in this analysis: tyre abrasion
least in part, by the continued rise in the production and from vehicle driving, plastic microfibres from synthetic textiles,
supply of cheap virgin plastic and the transition over the past personal care products containing microplastic ingredients,
generation to businesses using large amounts of single-use and pellet losses from plastic production and conversion
plastic in place of reusable alternatives or other materials or facilities. Leakage from these sources is less well understood
business models. than macroplastic, but it is expected to increase by between
1.3 and 2.5 times by 2040 under BAU, driven by population
Taking trends 1 and 2 together, plastic waste generation growth, more vehicles per capita, increased consumption
nearly doubles over the next two decades, with the highest and production of plastic-based textiles, growing usage of
rates of growth occurring in LI, UMI and LMI archetypes at personal care products containing microplastic ingredients,
260 per cent, 133 per cent and 127 per cent, respectively. and rising plastic pellet production.
Trend 3: Shift to low-value, hard-to-recycle plastics Our study quantifies primary microplastic leakage, i.e.,
waste that enters the environment as microplastic particles.
Rising waste generation could be exacerbated by an
However, the breakdown of macroplastic already in the
anticipated “race to the bottom,” with a shift towards low-
environment into microplastic and nanoplastic particles is
cost/low-value, hard-to-recycle plastic materials. Because
also an important risk to address, as it is expected to increase
low-value materials have significantly lower collection rates,
significantly as the stock of ocean plastic pollution grows..33
this would likely increase ocean plastic pollution.
Trend 4: Disproportionate growth in markets with The multiple risks and costs of inaction
low collection
Environmental risks
Our analysis indicates that the share of plastic waste
generated in middle-/low-income countries is expected Adding 450 million metric tons of plastic stock in the
to grow from 58 per cent in 2016 to 71 per cent in 2040. ocean would likely have severe impacts on biodiversity
This is because these countries will experience the greatest and ecosystem services. More than 800 species are
compounding effects from the first two trends. By 2040, already known to be affected by marine plastic pollution,

Figure Figure 7: Macroplastic

7: Macroplastic leakage leakage
into
for latest the
titles &into theglobally
ocean
captionsocean globally bydoc
byindesign
see report leakage leakage route, 2016
route, 2016
In 2016, uncollected waste contributed 61 per cent of total leakage, while the remaining 39 per cent
was waste that was mismanaged after collection
9.8
1.2
61%
Uncollected
Million metric tons of plastic waste
2.6
4.0
39%
Post-collection
mismanaged
2.0
Terrestrial leakage Direct discard Direct discard Leakage from Total leakage
to ocean to water to water (post- dumpsites (macroplastic
(uncollected) collection) only)
This graphic reflects our estimate of how much macroplastic enters the ocean through different routes (and excludes microplastics). These numbers have high
uncertainty and are highly sensitive to model inputs.
including all sea turtle species,34 more than 40 per cent of to avoid thresholds or shifts in the Earth’s functioning that
cetacean species and 44 per cent of marine bird species.35 would create increasing risks for the public. One review
Through ingestion or entanglement, macroplastics can found that plastic pollution in the ocean is irreversible and
cause mortality,36 injury, and sublethal impacts such as globally pervasive, but that there is inconclusive evidence to
malnutrition.37 These impacts would be expected to occur determine whether it has disrupted Earth-system processes
at a greater frequency, affecting more individual animals or regulating capacities.43 Filling these knowledge gaps
and a greater number of species, as levels of plastic in the could allow a better understanding of the tipping points and
ocean rise. The uptake and trophic transfer of microplastics environmental thresholds for plastic pollution.
has also been observed in aquatic food webs, and laboratory Following the BAU trajectory would also further jeopardize
studies have demonstrated dose-dependent impacts on our ability to mitigate climate change due to rising GHG
growth, health, fecundity, survival, and feeding in a range of emissions arising from increased plastic production. The
invertebrate and fish species.38 Potential impacts on ocean goals of the Paris Agreement would be difficult to achieve,
carbon sequestration have also been postulated.39 Although with life-cycle plastic-related emissions doubling from 1.0
we still lack methods for measuring the harm caused by GtCO2e in 2016 to 2.1 GtCO2e by 2040, accounting for 19
microplastics and nanoplastics in the natural environment, if per cent (compared with 3 per cent today) of the total annual
microplastic emissions to the environment remain the same emissions budget allowable if we are to limit global heating
or increase, risk assessments indicate that the ecological to 1.5oC.44
impacts may be widespread within a century.40
Business risks
Disturbances to the aquatic food web from plastic pollution
can also negatively impact the scientific and cultural value There are direct, physical risks from marine plastic pollution
of marine ecosystems and may degrade the function and to businesses that rely on a clean ocean. This pollution is
productivity of marine environments.41 Other studies show responsible for significant business costs to fisheries, tourism
that invasive species and diseases are being transported on and infrastructure operators, among others, estimated at
plastic debris to new locations where they can cause harm US$13 billion per year.45 Risks include physical damage
to local populations.42
to ships and fishing assets, reduced fish catches from or
New research suggests that the impacts from ocean plastic declining fish stocks, and reduced demand and higher
meet two of the three essential conditions for compounds operating (i.e., clean-up) costs in the tourism industry. In
to be considered a threat under the planetary boundary addition, there are indirect risks to businesses stemming
framework for chemical pollution. The framework defines from the response to plastic pollution from regulators,
boundaries for some manmade disturbances, set at levels investors, consumers, employees, and the general public.

In the event of a public backlash, businesses could face organic compounds (VOCs, e.g., benzene, styrene and
significant supply chain disruptions, reduced demand for propylene) and persistent bio-accumulative and toxic
plastic-intensive products, and reputational risk from brand pollutants (PBTs, e.g., lead, mercury and some polyaromatic
association with plastic pollution.46 hydrocarbons [PAHs]).50 Long-term exposure in human
populations is believed to increase the risk of cancer and
Our analysis suggests that the global cost of all MSW plastic reproductive health complications.51 Plastic products
waste collection and management in 2040 will be US$100 themselves could also pose health risks due to the presence
billion under BAU, out of which governments will fund of PBTs and endocrine disrupting chemicals.52, 53
US$60 billion, as shown in Figure 8. The remaining “funding
Mismanaged plastic waste can undermine the psychological
gap” of US$40 billion presents a risk to the plastic industry
benefits from coastal environments; it can block rivers and
in case it is required by government policy to fund that gap.
drainage systems, causing flooding and trapping stagnant
Moreover, the industry also risks being required to pay for
water that exacerbates the spread of diseases in impacted
the US$60 billion funded by governments, through Extended communities.54 Some of the most harmful health risks result
Producer Responsibility (EPR) or other schemes. Together, from open burning, which based on our analysis is expected
this risk accounts for 25 per cent of the US$400 billion of the to nearly triple under BAU, from 49 million metric tons
plastic industry’s turnover.47 in 2016 to 133 million metric tons in 2040. In addition to
GHG emissions, open burning releases a host of pollutants
Socioeconomic risks known to negatively affect human health.55 These pollutants
The use of virgin plastics is not as cheap as the market can increase the risk of heart disease, cancer, respiratory
suggests. In fact, the current methods of (mis)handling end of infections and asthma, reproductive health complications,
life for these products have large costs that are not reflected and damage to the central nervous system.56 The only real
in markets. Socioeconomic impacts include loss of land value remedy is to avoid open burning altogether. For more details
due to proximity to plastic pollution and reduced quality of about the health implications of incinerating plastic waste,
life for coastal communities. One estimate suggests a loss of see Box 14.
US$1.5 trillion per year from the ocean due to the reduction
Microplastic leakage from land-based sources, which is
in seafood, genetic resources, oxygen, clean water, cultural
expected to increase by 2.4 times under BAU for the four
value, and the reduced ability to regulate climate.48 Another
sources modelled, also has potential health impacts. Studies
study models the social and environmental impacts of marine
have identified microplastics in foodstuffs, including in
plastic even higher, at US$2.2 trillion per year.49 Although
shellfish, in bottled water, and in the tissues of terrestrial and
these specific estimates are contested, the socioeconomic
marine invertebrates, fish and humans.57 However, this is a
risks of a polluted ocean are clearly significant.
relatively new area of research, and microplastic exposure
levels and their potential long-term consequences are not
Health risks
yet fully understood, as was concluded by the 2019 World
There are numerous human health implications across every Health Organization report on microplastics in drinking
stage of the plastics supply chain. Health risks associated water, which calls for further assessment of the potential
Figure 8: Industry
are oftenfaces an annual $100 billion (USD)
health.58financial risk if it is required
with virgin plastic production
caused by volatile impacts on human
to cover costs for global plastic waste collection and management
Figure 8: Full plastic waste management cost versus government spending
Industry could face an annual US$100 billion financial risk by 2040—25 per cent of current
turnover—if required to cover global plastic waste collection and management
$100B
Risk if governments $60B

pass full cost of plastic
waste management
to industry through
Extended Producer
Responsibility
Risk if industry is
$40B asked to cover for
funding gap only
2040 global cost 2040 BAU Funding

of full plastic waste government gap
management spending on plastic
waste management

Falling short: current commitments are inadequate for the

scale of the challenge
Even if current government and industry commitments are fully implemented, plastic flows into the
ocean in 2040 would likely be only 7 per cent lower than under BAU. In the meantime, hundreds of
billions of dollars are being invested in new virgin plastic production plants, locking us deeper into
the status quo every day.
Mounting public pressure on ocean plastic pollution has led targets and commitments—including the 2019 European
many governments and businesses to make commitments. Union single-use plastics directive (which bans certain plastic
These range from banning certain plastics and setting more products and introduces consumption reduction measures
ambitious recycling targets to introducing product standards and collection targets for others),59 multiple national plastic
and Extended Producer Responsibility schemes, investing bag and straw bans—are implemented and enforced, leakage
in recycling infrastructure, and imposing trade restrictions to the ocean for the plastic categories modelled is still
on plastic waste. The estimated impact of this Current expected to reach 27 million metric tons per year by 2040,
Commitments Scenario adds up to 19 million metric tons per 7 per cent less than the BAU projection for 2040, as shown
year reduction in plastic production and consumption due to in Figure 9.
policy regulations by 2040 and 5.4 million metric tons per year
increase in recycled content by 2025 due to commitments Government aspirations are broad and, if fully implemented,
expressed by more than 400 companies (see the technical can have impact. However, most new regulations focus on
appendix). specific items rather than enacting system-wide policies
and setting system-wide standards, and do not address or
significantly curb the projected growth in plastic production.
Good intentions
This limited impact is further illustrated by the fact that, even
Although these current commitments represent very if legislation akin to the European Union single-use plastics
gure 3: Land-based plastic leakage under BAU and Current Commitment sce
welcome and vital first steps, and the potential beginning of directive, one of the most ambitious regulatory initiatives
mutually reinforcing trends, our model indicates that even to date, was emulated by all countries and implemented
rrent commitments from industry and government policies achieve only a 7 per ce
if all major existing industry pledges and government plans, globally, it would still reduce plastic leakage to the ocean
for latest titles see report indesign doc
duction in plastic leaking into the ocean relative to Business-as-Usual
Figure 9: Land-based plastic leakage under the Business-as-Usual and Current
Commitments scenarios
Current commitments from industry and government policies achieve only a 7 per cent reduction in
plastic leaking into the ocean relative to Business-as-Usual
30
-7%
Million metric tons per year of plastic waste
25
Plastic leakage into the ocean
BAU
20
Current Commitments +147%
15
10
0
2016 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040

by only 15 per cent compared with BAU by 2040. The should do so and ensure their implementation. Industry will
collective impact of all current national and municipal need to fundamentally redesign business models, products,
legislation regarding items such as straws, bags, stirrers, and materials at scale, and in ways that explicitly decouple
cups, cotton swabs, and bottles simply does not add up to a economic growth from plastic growth, significantly scaling
significant reduction in the overall quantity of plastic waste up its efforts on reduction, refill, and new delivery models.
generated and leaked globally. To compound this shortfall,
there has been insufficient growth in waste collection In the meantime, the status quo is being reinforced every
infrastructure over the past two decades relative to plastic day, with global plastic production expected to increase by
waste generation, which we estimate has been growing at a 40 per cent over the next decade.60 Capacity growth is being
4-7 per cent compound annual growth rate. Governments driven by major petrochemical companies worldwide, which
need to act now to curb the growth in plastic production; have announced large-scale investments in new refineries,
set system-wide standards, targets, and incentives to drive steam crackers and production plants. The United States
upstream reduction, reuse, appropriate substitution and chemical industry alone is forecast to spend more than
design for recycling; and invest in downstream collection US$164 billion on 264 new plastic factories by 2023, with an
and recycling infrastructure. additional US$140 billion being spent on 15 large projects in
China, and more than US$100 billion earmarked for projects
Industry has made commitments through the New Plastics in Saudi Arabia.61 Globally, the ethylene market—one of the
Economy Global Commitment, the Alliance to End Plastic main building blocks for plastic—is expected to grow at a
Waste, and other vehicles. It is focusing most visibly on compound annual rate of 8.7 per cent between 2019 and
recyclability, recycling targets, and other downstream 2026.62 In effect, plastic production is becoming the new
solutions, but significant efforts are also needed on upstream engine of growth for a petrochemical industry potentially
solutions. Business signatories to the Global Commitment facing declining demand for oil in transportation and energy,
have pledged to adopt 100 per cent reusable, recyclable, raising concerns about the creation of a “plastic bubble”
or compostable packaging by 2025 and to take action to whereby new investments risk becoming stranded assets.
eliminate problematic or unnecessary plastic packaging and
move from single-use towards reuse models, but have not Our analysis shows that even if all current commitments
yet committed to specific targets on elimination or reuse. are implemented, virgin plastic will likely continue to be a
cheap commodity, plastic production will remain high and
Although these initiatives can have an impact, they also growing, and our dependence on the highest leakage plastic
do not add up to a significant reduction in the quantity of applications will persist. Avoiding the creation of a “plastic
plastic waste generated and leaked globally. To achieve a bubble” requires redesigning the system—instead of tinkering
meaningful reduction in ocean plastic pollution, companies at the edges—and shifting ambitiously to circular solutions.
that have not made any commitments (the vast majority),
No panacea: single-solution strategies cannot stop

plastic pollution
Many strategies have been proposed for reducing or even eliminating plastic leakage into the ocean,
but there is no single solution that can do so effectively by 2040. Our modelling shows that, by 2040,
none of the single-solution strategies can reduce leakage to the ocean below 2016 levels, let alone
achieve near-zero leakage, without hitting significant technical, economic, social or environmental
limits. Claims that we can combat ocean plastic pollution by focusing only on waste management or
only on reduction and substitution may sound appealing but at best tell only half the story.
To achieve the desired outcomes, we must combine solutions from all the different pathways.
Much of the current debate and strategizing on preventing and must be coupled with upstream efforts on reduction and
plastic pollution focuses on either upstream or downstream reuse to maximize the efficient use of resources.
solutions. Our analysis shows that this is a false dichotomy.
Upstream solutions that aim to reduce or substitute We modelled three single-solution scenarios that focused on
plastic use are critical but need to be scaled carefully to ambitious implementation of either upstream or downstream
limit unintended social or environmental consequences. measures—the Collect and Dispose Scenario, the Recycling
Downstream solutions are also essential but are restricted Scenario and the Reduce and Substitute Scenario. Each of
by the limits of economic viability, their negative impacts on these scenarios was modelled using two approaches. In the
human health and the environment, and the realistic speed of first approach, we defined economic, environmental and
infrastructure development—especially in the face of growing social “red lines” for each scenario that are reflected in their
plastic waste production in middle-/low-income countries— maximum foreseeable growth and implementation limits.

To compare among solutions with very different environmental • Convenience: Is the intervention acceptable for lifestyle
(pollution and GHG), economic, performance (health, safety, and convenience?
product protection), and consumer acceptance dimensions,
• Affordability: Are the cost implications of the alternative
each potential solution was evaluated against four criteria,
acceptable?
and these informed the maximum foreseeable limits
modelled for each potential solution: In the second approach, we set the scenarios to achieve
a level of plastic leakage to the ocean similar to the
• Technology Readiness Level: Is a solution available
System Change Scenario, but without setting technical,
today?
environmental or social limits. The difference between these
• Performance: Does the intervention satisfy performance two approaches is described in Table 1.
and health requirements?
Table 1: Description of the two scenario approaches

Approach 1: Approach 2:
Scenarios constrained by limiting factors Unconstrained scenarios, set to achieve System
Change Scenario leakage levels
Collect & Dispose Scenario constrained by maximum For each of the scenarios, we set the model to achieve similar
foreseeable: leakage levels as the System Change Scenario by not constraining
• Collection rates by archetype, split by urban and rural regions collection and landfill levels to maximum foreseeable political,
(Affordability & Performance limit) economical, environmental, or social realities.
• Scaling up of controlled waste management (Affordability limit)
Instead, we modelled that collection and landfill are scaled to the
Recycling Scenario constrained by maximum foreseeable: extent necessary to bridge the gap between the remaining leakage
in each scenario under Approach 1 and that of the System Change
• Collection rates by archetype, split by urban and rural regions
Scenario.
(Affordability & Performance limit)
• Separation at source (Convenience limit)
• Food-grade requirements (Performance limit)
• Technological improvements (Technological limit)
• Incentives for recycling/recycled content (Performance limit)
• Design for recycling (Performance & Convenience limit)
• Scale up of chemical conversion technologies (Technology,
Environmental & Affordability limit)
Reduce & Substitute Scenario constrained by maximum

foreseeable:
• Technological availability of alternative materials and new delivery
models (Technology limit)
• Performance and environmental impact of alternative materials
and reuse/new delivery models (Performance limit)
• User adoption of substitute materials and reuse models
(Convenience limit)
• Industry adoption of alternative materials and new delivery
models (Affordability limit)
Results of Approach 1: Modelled scenarios with gap would require connecting about 500,000 people to
technical, social, and environmental limits collection services per day, every day, until 2040. Most
people without waste collection live in middle-/low-income
Although all three scenarios represent a significant reduction
countries, where funding is less available, and/or in rural
of plastic leakage to the ocean by 2040 relative to the BAU
areas, where collection is more logistically challenging and
or Current Commitments scenarios, as Figure 10 shows,
expensive. Considering the growth of plastic production and
none of them offers a credible pathway to a near-zero
consumption projected under BAU, collecting all plastic,
leakage future by 2040. For full assumptions and results by
including in all rural locations, would come at the very
scenario, see the technical appendix.
high cost of US$510 billion from 2021 to 2040. To make
It is important to acknowledge that attempting to solve matters more difficult, collection is a “bundled system”—in
the ocean plastic challenge through waste management other words, plastics cannot be collected in isolation; other
alone would require closing a huge collection gap. Today, waste streams also need to be collected. As a result, the
2 billion people globally do not have waste collection actual government cost for waste management amounts to
services.63 By 2040, the global population is expected to US$3.1 trillion in present value for all municipal solid waste
grow by 1.7 billion (out of which 95 per cent are in middle-/ to be collected in this period (see Box 7). Any solution based
low-income countries), making the total number of people only on waste management is therefore highly unlikely to
who require being connected to collection services succeed in curbing plastic pollution unless accompanied by
approximately 4 billion by 2040. Closing this collection a meaningful reduction of waste in the system.

Figure 10: Land-based plastic leakage under different scenarios

Figure
The 4: Land-based
System plastic
Change Scenario leakage
would under
achieve different
about scenarios
an 80 per cent reduction in annual plastic
The System
leakage to theChange for
Scenario
ocean relative to latest
wouldtitles see report
achieve
Business-as-Usual,about indesign
an 80 all
exceeding per docmodelled
cent
other reduction in annual plastic
scenarios
leakage to the ocean relative to Business-as-Usual, exceeding all other modelled scenarios
30 Business-as-Usual
Current Commitments
Million metric tons of plastic leakage
25
into the ocean per year
20
Recycling
15 Reduce and Substitute

Collect and Dispose
10
5 System Change
0
2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030 2032 2034 2036 2038 2040
The graphic shows expected levels of plastic leakage into the ocean over time across different scenarios. It shows that although upstream-focused pathways
(Reduce and Substitute Scenario) and downstream-focused pathways (Collect and Dispose Scenario and Recycling Scenario) reduce annual leakage rates relative
The graphic shows expected levels of plastic leakage into the ocean over time across different scenarios. The graphic
to BAU, they do not reduce leakage below 2016 levels. Only the integrated upstream-and-downstream scenario (System Change Scenario) can significantly reduce
showslevels.
leakage that although upstream-focused pathways (Reduce & Substitute Scenario) and downstream-focused pathways
(Collect & Dispose Scenario and Recycling Scenario) reduce annual leakage rates relative to BAU, they do not reduce
leakage below 2016 levels. Only the integrated upstream-and-downstream scenario (System Change Scenario) can
significantly reduce
Implications leakage
of the levels. & Dispose
Collect majority of these costs would fall on middle-/low-income
countries. This pathway is very uneconomical (and very
pathway
unlikely) because landfilling is a net-cost solution that
A strategy focused solely on collection and disposal would generates no revenue (except for tipping fees, which are a
likely still leave 13 million metric tons of plastic leakage to tax, not a revenue driven by economic value creation) and is
the ocean per year by 2040, 18 per cent above 2016 levels, therefore not scalable through market forces. Like landfills,
and would cost governments US$130 billion more than incineration with energy recovery is also a net-cost solution
BAU in present value between 2021 and 2040. once collection costs are factored in, although—based on
local market prices for electricity—it is more economical
One option, in theory, for dealing with all mismanaged than landfilling. Investing in incinerators would also lock
plastic waste is to scale up collection systems globally us even further into carbon-intensive energy generation,
and develop sanitary landfills and/or incinerators to relying on a long-term, stable flow of plastic feedstock to
dispose of the waste. Landfills have been presented as a recuperate the hundreds of millions of dollars in capital costs
potential panacea for their (perceived) affordability, ease required to build each plant. Moreover, the value of heat or
of implementation and generation of tax revenue through energy recovery is persistently below collection costs. If we
landfill fees. Incineration with energy recovery has been accounted for the cost of carbon, even at low carbon prices
proposed as a scalable solution because it does not require (e.g., US$50 per ton of CO2e), incinerators would no longer
redesigning products or sorting waste; it makes plastic
have a business case.
waste “disappear,” generating electricity in the process.
Some countries, including China, are scaling up incineration Health and environmental implications: This scenario
rapidly to reduce the need for landfills. Our analysis reveals would result in annual GHG emissions of 1.8 GtCO2e by
insurmountable limitations to this approach. 2040, making up 17 per cent of the total allowable annual
carbon budget if we are to limit global heating to 1.5oC.
Economic implications: Attempting to address plastic
Incineration emits 5.4 tons of carbon dioxide equivalent
pollution through this scenario would cost governments
(tCO2e) per metric ton of plastic, making it the solution with
US$800 billion in present value between 2021 and 2040
the highest level of GHG emissions among all solutions
for waste management (i.e., collection, sorting, and safe
analysed (see Figure 12), as well as generating significant
disposal), relative to US$670 billion under BAU. The vast
health risks, as outlined in Box 14.

Implications of the Recycling pathway recycling loops before quality deteriorates. Although this is
not a technological limiting factor in chemical conversion,
A strategy focused solely on recycling—including an emerging recycling technology that returns plastics to
ambitious design for recycling coupled with an ambitious their more basic molecular building blocks, we estimate
scale-up of collection, sorting, mechanical recycling and that 20 per cent of plastic could be eligible for chemical
plastic-to-plastic chemical conversion infrastructure— conversion, as shown in Figure 11, because of contamination
would still result in 18 million metric tons of plastic flowing or limited feedstock due to collection limitations.
into the ocean each year by 2040, 65 per cent above 2016
levels, and would cost governments US$140 billion more Even though this scenario includes ambitious design for
than BAU in present value between 2021 and 2040. recycling and investment in infrastructure, unless recycling
economics can pay for collection, it will recycle plastic
Many envision a system with a high-quality, economically that would have been collected anyway. In other words,
viable mechanical recycling component (powered by the recycling feedstock would be made up of landfill-bound
improved design of materials, products, and recycling plastic, not ocean-bound plastic. Although diverting more
technologies; high demand for recycled content; and new plastic from landfill to recycling is beneficial in terms of
automated waste sorting and separation technologies) resource efficiency, GHG emissions, and health implications,
coupled with emerging chemical conversion technologies significant plastic pollution will still flow to the ocean under
that convert low-value plastic waste into chemical the Recycling Scenario because not enough is done to
feedstocks for petrochemical products. reduce the amount of unmanaged plastic waste.
Although scaling up recycling is critically needed, our study Economic implications: The total present value of the
finds that stopping plastic pollution by capturing all plastic 2021-2040 costs amount to US$810 billion for governments
materials in the recycling process is neither technically nor globally (21 per cent above the US$670 billion under BAU).
financially feasible. The utility of mechanically recycled As the left side of Figure 11 shows, we estimate that even
plastic is limited by the quality requirements of food-grade in HI countries, about half (54 per cent) of plastic could be
plastic and the fact that most plastic is limited to two or three economically recycled using mechanical recycling by 2040
Figure 11: Limitations of mechanical recycling and plastic-to-plastic chemical conversion

By 2040, mechanical recycling could deal with 54 per cent of the plastic waste stream economically
while plastic-to-plastic
Figurechemical conversion
11: Limitations of mechanical
for latest
couldrecycling
deal
titles & captions
with 20 perdoc
andindesign
see report
cent
chemical conversion
1. Financial feasibility of mechanical recycling, 2. Plastic waste feasible for plastic-to-plastic chemical
high-income (HI) countries only, 2040 conversion, 2040
Rigids
Rigids (clear) (colour)
+500 Flexibles
(clear)
Percentage of plastic waste
42%
Net profit (US$/metric ton)
0
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Rigids and flex
(contamination)
-500 18%
-1,000 54% 20%
Multi
20%
-1,500
Total Mechanically Rural Contamination, Plastic-

Economically viable Not economical plastic recyled ineligibility low feedstock to-plastic
availability chemical
conversion
potential
Left: By 2040, 54 per cent of plastic will be economically recyclable in HI, when accounting for design for recycling. Net profit is US$ per metric ton of collected
plastic, which is calculated as sales price minus the cost of recycling for different material types. No taxes are included, and the costs of collection and sorting
have been excluded. Contamination is defined as the share of plastic that is not collected separately for recycling. This analysis represents HI, where the share of
uncontaminated waste is higher than in middle-/low-income countries. Commodity prices are assumed to remain stable.
Right: The scope of chemical conversion is limited to 20 per cent of total plastic waste. Mechanical recycling takes precedence over chemical conversion. The scale
requirements further reduce the chemical conversion potential by eliminating rural areas based on low feedstock availability. Of the remaining plastic waste, 50 per
cent is assumed to be either contaminated or incompatible with a pyrolysis plant.

(compared with 21 per cent today). This assumes that the Substitute materials also have their own environmental
recycler does not cover the costs of collection and sorting, impacts—on land and water use, GHG emissions, pollution,
which in HI countries are often absorbed by governments etc.—and require investment in end-of-life collection and
or can be paid by industry through Extended Producer processing infrastructure. Their use should therefore always
Responsibility schemes. be considered with a holistic set of environmental indicators
in mind. Our scenario includes substituting nonrecyclable
Health and environmental implications: This scenario plastics with recyclable paper and coated paper, or with
would result in GHG emissions of 1.8 GtCO2e per year by certified compostable materials in situations where suitable
2040, making up 17 per cent of the total allowable annual home- or industrial-scale composting infrastructure is rolled
carbon budget if we are to limit global heating to 1.5oC, out. Our global analysis does not include substituting to single-
largely driven by the fact that chemical conversion uses use glass, metal or drinks cartons due to our assessment of
high levels of energy, as described in Figure 20. Chemical social, economic, and environmental trade-offs, although in
conversion with pyrolysis also releases several harmful specific cases and geographies, these may be suitable (see
pollutants that increase risks for cancer, respiratory section on System Intervention 2 for further details).
infections, kidney damage and neurotoxicity.64 More
information can be found in Box 11. Given existing market conditions and available solutions, it is
therefore not likely to be feasible to reduce or substitute 100
per cent of plastic in use by 2040. A Reduce and Substitute
Although scaling up recycling is critically Scenario in isolation would reduce ocean leakage by 58
per cent compared with BAU in 2040. However, without a
important, stopping plastic pollution comprehensive set of downstream solutions being rolled out
by capturing all plastic materials in the at the same time, significant ocean leakage will still occur
because much of the plastic produced will fail to be collected
recycling process is neither technically
and managed, particularly in middle-/low-income countries.
nor financially feasible.
Economic implications: The total present value of the
2021-2040 costs amount to US$540 billion for governments
Implications of the Reduce & Substitute globally (20 per cent less than the US$670 billion under
BAU), driven by 90 million metric tons less waste needing
pathway collection and processing. However, the cost to businesses
A strategy focused solely on reduction and substitution and consumers increases significantly, driven by the higher
would result in 14 million metric tons of plastic leaking production cost of paper and compostable packaging
into the ocean per year by 2040, 28 per cent higher than compared with plastic. These extra costs of substitute
2016 levels. materials are to a large extent offset by the savings created
by reducing unnecessary plastics and moving towards reuse
Some organizations, government bodies and citizens have and new delivery models. It is possible to increase the extent
proposed a dramatic reduction of plastic use through bans, of substitution further than in this scenario by using other
reuse and refill models, coupled with substitution of plastics substitutes, such as glass or metal, but this could have further
for other materials. Yet, while reduction and substitution negative impacts on product prices due to higher production,
of plastic is critically needed, if carried out in isolation, recycling and/or shipping costs. Aluminium cans and glass
these strategies are unlikely to succeed in eliminating bottles are 33 per cent and 167 per cent more expensive than
plastic leakage by 2040 because there are many plastic PET (polyethylene terephthalate) bottles, respectively.66
applications that are difficult to reduce or substitute within
social, political, environmental, and economic limitations Health and environmental implications: This scenario
and within this time scale. Considering these limitations (see would result in GHG emissions of 1.7 GtCO2e per year by
System Intervention 1 and technical appendix for the scoring 2040, making up 16 per cent of the total allowable annual
framework used to determine limiting factors), our analysis carbon budget if we are to limit global heating to 1.5oC.
estimates that 47 per cent of BAU plastic utility demand can Caution is required in sustainably sourcing the paper and
be met by plastic reduction and substitution measures by compostable materials, and ensuring that they are recycled
2040. This is equivalent to capping global plastic production or composted at end of life. If levels of substitution were
and consumption at 2017 levels, while continuing to provide significantly higher than those modelled here, it would likely
the projected total utility demands and lifestyle expectations exceed the availability of materials that could be sourced
of a growing population through new delivery models and/ and processed sustainably. The environmental footprint of
or alternative materials. alternative materials depends on several factors, including
the length of supply chains, the rate of reuse and recycling,
Reuse models can certainly reduce costs, and some reuse and the availability of recycled content. For example, glass
solutions have already reached scale, such as soft drinks has very high reuse rates in Latin America, and a lower GHG
and milk distributed in reused plastic or glass bottles, and footprint as a result,67 but it has a higher GHG footprint
reusable crates and pallets used in business-to-business in single-use applications in regions where there is a low
packaging. However, expanding reuse to 100 per cent of glass recycling rate. If supply chains could be shortened,
plastic may face significant barriers to consumer adoption in materials reused, or transport decarbonized, a variety of
certain applications, and many refill projects are small scale substitute materials may perform well, but all options should
and too new to have proved their long-term viability.65

be assessed on multiple criteria, including the likelihood of In either approach—with or without enforcing technical
leaking into the environment, water and land use, pollution, limits—the System Change Scenario produces superior
and health risks from the use of unregulated chemicals or results across economic, environmental, and social
recycled content. For detailed GHG emissions of specific dimensions. The conclusion of this analysis is that a system-
material alternatives, refer to Figure 20. wide problem demands system-wide change. Any of the
single-solution strategy approaches hit technical, economic,
Results of Approach 2: Releasing feasibility constraints environmental, and/or social limits. To solve the open plastic
pollution problem, we need a portfolio of both upstream and
The scenarios modelled above are all limited by technical,
downstream solutions—or system interventions. The next
economic, environmental, and political constraints to what
chapter describes what such an integrated pathway could
is feasible. We also modelled the implications of overriding
look like—one that matches available solutions to different
these constraints to quantify what the cost of the Collect
plastic categories and different geographies, and estimates
and Dispose and the Recycling scenarios would be if we
the relative share of the ocean plastic problem that each
“forced” them to achieve similar levels of plastic leakage to
solution contributes towards reducing when they work in
the ocean by 2040 as under the System Change Scenario
synergy. These estimates aim to provide an indication of the
(5 million metric tons per year). The present value cost to
relative effort, investment and policy support to be allocated
governments of forcing the Collect and Dispose Scenario
to each system intervention to achieve the overall result of
and the Recycling Scenario is estimated at US$820 billion
the System Change Scenario.
and US$850 billion, respectively, compared with a cost
of US$600 billion under the integrated System Change
Scenario. Figure 12 compares the different scenarios on key
economic and environmental indicators. It shows that an
integrated System Change Scenario, as outlined in Chapter
2, outperforms all other scenarios across all dimensions.
Figure 12: Comparison of different scenarios on cost, plastic leakage, and GHG emissions
Figure 12: Comparison of different scenarios on cost, plastic leakage, and GHG emissions
The System Change Scenario isfor
thelatest
mosttitles & captions
affordable see report indesign doc
for governments
Cost to governments, in US$ billions, 2021-2040 (net present value)
$820B $850B
$670B
$600B
Business- Collect and Dispose Recycling Scenario System

as-Usual Scenario Scenario set to set to System Change
System Change Change Scenario Scenario
Scenario levels of levels of leakage
leakage
2040 plastic leakage,

29 5 5 5
million metric tons
2040 GHG, GtCO2e 2.1 1.8 1.7 1.6

Changing
the System
A strategy to reduce ocean
plastic pollution rates by
80 per cent
Waves roll ashore in Cape Town, South Africa.

Dan Grinwis/Unsplash
Figure 13
Changing the plastics system: better for the economy,
the environment, and communities
Continuing on our current Business-as-Usual trajectory will nearly triple the annual flow of plastic into the
ocean by 2040, with severe environmental, economic, and social impacts. A cleaner, more sustainable future
is possible with concerted action starting in 2020 across the entire global plastics system, with lower costs
to governments and lower greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
BUSINESS-AS-USUAL 2040
COST TO BUSINESS
2.1
$670 $10.0
GOVERNMENT COST
TRILLION
BILLION
GHG EMISSIONS
(tCO2e) VIRGIN
11
PLASTIC PRODUCTION
400
BILLION
MILLION JOBS
MILLION METRIC TONS
PLASTIC LEAKAGE
29
MILLION METRIC TONS
3 MILLION METRIC TONS MICROPLASTIC 26 MILLION METRIC TONS MACROPLASTIC
SYSTEM CHANGE 2040
1.6
COST TO BUSINESS
$8.7
GOVERNMENT COST
BILLION
$600 TRILLION GHG EMISSIONS
(tCO2e) VIRGIN
12
BILLION
MILLION JOBS
PLASTIC PRODUCTION
181
MILLION METRIC TONS
PLASTIC LEAKAGE
5
MILLION METRIC TONS
1 MILLION METRIC TONS MICROPLASTIC 4 MILLION METRIC TONS MACROPLASTIC
A STRATEGY TO REDUCE OCEAN PLASTIC POLLUTION RATES BY 80 PER CENT
A viable pathway: an integrated circular strategy can offer

better economic, environmental, and social outcomes
Dramatically reducing the mismanaged waste generated by the plastic ecosystem is a complex
system-level challenge that requires system-level interventions. Our System Change Scenario
sets out a feasible pathway towards ending ocean plastic pollution while creating co-benefits for
climate, health, jobs, and the environment. To realize this transformation, the scenario applies eight
system interventions concurrently, ambitiously, and starting immediately.
Figure 14 summarizes the upstream and downstream system Some interventions rely on others to be effective; for
interventions that define the System Change Scenario, example, collection precedes recycling, landfilling and
according to the plastic categories and geographies for incineration; and design for recycling helps improve
which they are most relevant. To be successful, these the economic viability and scalability of mechanical
system interventions must be applied together and to both recycling. The synergistic impact of scaling all interventions
Figure 15: System intervention relevance by geographic archetype and
macroplastics and microplastics where possible. concurrently is shown in Figure 15.
for latest titles see report indesign doc
plastic category
Figure 14: System interventions relevance by geographic archetype and plastic category
System interventions need to be applied to the regions and plastic categories for which they are
most relevant
Highly applicable Somewhat applicable Not applicable
Most relevant Urban/ Main responsible

System intervention Most relevant plastic categories
income groups rural stakeholder
Reduce growth in plastic Consumer goods

1 HI UMI LMI LI U R Rigid Flex Multi Microplastics
consumption brands; retailers
Substitute plastics with

Consumer goods
2 suitable alternative HI UMI LMI LI U R Rigid Flex Multi Microplastics
brands; retailers
materials
Design products and Consumer goods

3 HI UMI LMI LI U R Rigid Flex Multi Microplastics
packaging for recycling brands
Expand waste collection

4 HI UMI LMI LI U R Rigid Flex Multi Microplastics Local governments
rates in the Global South
Increase mechanical
Waste management
5 recycling capacity HI UMI LMI LI U R Rigid Flex Multi Microplastics
companies
globally
Waste management
Scale up global capacity
6 HI UMI LMI LI U R Rigid Flex Multi Microplastics companies;
of chemical conversion
petrochemical industry
Build safe waste disposal

7 HI UMI LMI LI U R Rigid Flex Multi Microplastics National governments
facilities
Reduce plastic waste

8 HI UMI LMI LI U R Rigid Flex Multi Microplastics National governments
exports
Behind the BAU vs. System Change Scenario numbers

All costs reflect the present value of global costs incurred between 2021 and 2040 (capex and opex) using a 3.5 per cent discount rate.
Cost to government: Net opex and capex to governments for formal collection, formal sorting (material recovery facilities), incineration plants, and landfill facilities for plastic and
substitute materials (excluding the cost of nonplastic waste), excluding taxes and subsidies such as landfill fees.
Private costs: Net opex and capex of the plastics value chain (and substitutes) to the economy, including material production, conversion, informal collection, sorting, recycling,
landfilling, and incineration. Costs are net of any revenues generated, such as from recycling.
Plastic leakage to ocean: Total mass of 2040 plastic leakage to the ocean (microplastic and macroplastic).
GHG emissions: Total 2040 life-cycle assessment emissions of all plastics (and substitutes), including production, conversion, collection, sorting, mechanical recycling, chemical
conversion, incineration, landfill, and open burn.
Job creation: Number of livelihoods in 2040 directly connected to the plastics value chain or making a living by selling waste (waste pickers); includes formal and informal employment;
System Change Scenario likely an underestimate as new delivery models were assumed to generate the same jobs as the plastic it replaces.
Virgin plastic production: Total amount of virgin plastic production in 2040.

CHAPTER 2: CHANGING THE SYSTEM
Figure 15: Plastic fate in Business-as-Usual versus System Change Scenario: a “wedges”
analysis
Mismanaged
Figure 15: Where plasticwaste
ends up incould be reduced
BAU vs System from
Change Scenario: 56 analysis
a “wedges” per cent under Business-as-Usual to 10 per cent
under the System Change Scenario
BAU Scenario System Change Scenario
Million metric tons of plastic leakage to the ocean per year Million metric tons of plastic leakage to the ocean per year
450 450
400 Recycle 400

Reduce
Managed: Reduced or
350 350
191 (44%) substituted:
300 Dispose 300 201 (47%)
RECYCLE
Substitute
250 250
200 200
Recycle
150 150 Managed:

Mismanaged 239 (56%) 185 (43%)
100 100
Dispose
50 50
Mismanaged 44 (10%)
0 0
2016 2020 2030 2040 Total: 430 2016 2020 2030 2040 Total: 430
This figure compares the mass of plastic in each “wedge” under BAU, left, with the amount of plastic in each “wedge” under System Change Scenario, right, over
time. Reduced “wedge” refers to plastic utility that can be fulfilled without generating any plastic waste (details in System Intervention 1). Substituted “wedge” refers
to plastic utility that can be fulfilled with alternative materials (details in System Intervention 2). This figure shows that mismanaged waste can be reduced from 239
million metric tons under BAU to 44 million metric tons under the System Change Scenario, a reduction of about 80 per cent (82 ±13 per cent). This is the same
level of reduction to annual plastic leakage mass by 2040 if the System Change Scenario is implemented.
Figure 5: Plastic fate in the System Change Scenario: a ‘wedges’ analysis

There is a16:
credible Latest title and reduce
notes onplastic
reportleakage to the ocean but only if all
Figure Plasticpath to
fate in significantly
the System Change Scenario: a “wedges” analysis
solutions
There is a credible path to significantly reduce plastic leakagestarting
are implemented concurrently, ambitiously, and immediately
to the ocean, and it requires all
solutions to be implemented concurrently, ambitiously, and starting immediately

450
ual Reduce:
-Us
ss-as Eliminate 130 (30%)
ine
400 Bus Reuse (consumer)
Reuse (new delivery models)

350 RECYCLE
Substitute:
Paper 71 (17%)
300 Coated paper
Compostables
Recycle:
250 Mechanical recycling 84 (20%)
–closed loop (CL)
Mechanical recycling
–open loop (OL)
200 Chemical recycling
–plastic to plastic (P2P) Dispose:
150
Chemical conversion
–plastic to fuel (P2F)
101 (23%)
Landfill
100 Incineration
Mismanaged:
Open burning 44 (10%)
50 Terrestrial pollution
Ocean pollution
0
2016 2020 2030 2040
This
This “wedges” figure
“wedges” figure shows
shows thethe
share of treatment
share options
of treatment for the plastic
options for the that entersthat
plastic the system
entersover
the time under
system overthe time
System Change
under theScenario.
SystemAny plastic Scenario.
Change that enters
Latest title
the system has a single fate, or a single “wedge.” The Reduce and notes onutility
report
Any plastic that enters the system has a single fate, or awedge singlerepresents
“wedge.”plastic
The numbers that has been fulfilled without using physical plastic. The Substitute
include macroplastic and microplastic.
wedge reflects plastic utility that has been fulfilled by alternative materials such as paper or compostable materials. The Recycle wedge accounts for the plastic that
is recycled in the system, either mechanically or chemically. The Dispose wedge includes plastic that cannot be reduced, substituted, or recycled but is managed in
a way that ensures that it does not leak into the environment. All other plastic is considered Mismanaged. The numbers include macroplastic and microplastic.

Figure 16 shows that there is a credible and appealing Chemical conversion is estimated to offer a savings only in
pathway to deal with ocean plastic pollution. This strategy LMI countries due to the relatively lower cost of collection.
involves scaling up Reduce levers to 130 million metric tons Dispose options (landfill and incineration) cost between
(30 per cent of Business-as-Usual plastic waste) to replace US$92 and US$259 per metric ton (including collection),
avoidable plastic, growing Substitute levers to 71 million depending on the technology and geographic archetype, and
metric tons (17 per cent), expanding Recycle levers to 84 always incur net costs to the system. Finally, substitution is the
million metric tons (20 per cent) and Disposing 101 million most expensive option, not least because more than a metric
metric tons (23 per cent) of the remaining plastic waste in ton of paper is required to substitute a metric ton of plastic.
controlled facilities. However, relative to the cost of the products themselves,
substitutes may be affordable for certain products and in
As Figure 17 shows, Reduce levers are the most attractive certain geographies, and, within GHG emission budgets, they
from an economic perspective, often representing a net- have a role to play in addressing the global plastic pollution
saving solution. Plastic elimination, such as through bans and challenge. Mismanaged plastic has not been costed, but we
product redesign, is assumed to have zero cost; therefore, have assumed it to be the least desirable outcome.
each metric ton of eliminated plastic would save the full
cost of 1 metric ton of plastic in the Business-as-Usual (BAU) The systemic shifts in the global plastics value chain brought
plastics value chain, i.e., US$2,241. Mechanical recycling about by the System Change Scenario interventions
offers a saving in low-income (LI), lower middle-income would make a major contribution to the 2030 Agenda
(LMI) and upper middle-income (UMI) archetypes, but a for Sustainable Development adopted by United Nations
cost in high-income (HI) countries due to higher labour Member States in 2015.68 Reducing plastic production and
costs. Although recycling solutions represent a net cost controlling unmanaged waste streams will help towards
today, they could become much more economical in the achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), with
future with scale, technological improvements, and policy the impact felt well beyond the specific target to prevent
support, and could even represent a net-saving solution for and significantly reduce marine pollution, to include SDGs
certain plastic categories in certain geographies (especially related to poverty, health, employment, innovation, climate
if oil prices do not fall, driving down the value of recyclates). change, and more, as shown in Figure 18.
Figure 17: Costs and masses per treatment type in the System Change Scenario, 2040
Reduce levers are often the most economical to implement while plastic substitutes are typically
more expensive
1,945
Reduce Substitute Recycle Dispose Mismanaged
Total system cost in US$/metric ton of plastic

Paper
442
232 243 247 259
174 Plastic
43 87 Not costed
-240 -116 waste
-76 -14 420 million

C
H Op hem op ers
H Inc
U
U
LM hem-loo al c cha
Pa
M
H
H I–C
-184 -124
om
M
I– e
I–
I–
ism
I–
pe
LM
metric tons
I/L ic p
U
C n
La iner
I–
I–
In
H he
po
r
La
-331
ci
U
an
I–
I– al me ve
nd
U
I– m
M
ne
C
La co c
LM lo
nd
M
st
ag
C i
fil ion
I–
ab
I–
ra
nd n ha sion ecy
l
o
fil
ed
I/L ed
-516
C
O
LM
tio
le
l
a
fi
ed c
pe
I– -lo
w
ll
s
n
c
s
I/L
ic
O o
-lo on
as
al
n-
pe p
Re
I–
te
v
lo
e
C
n-
u
op
rs ca
o
l
m io
se
os
n
lo ec
io l
v
ni
m
e n
n re
o
e
(n
m
d-
p an
r
e
ew
ch
m ic
lo
n
h
ec al
op
an
de
-1,289
c
c
y
al
h
ic
liv
c
a
al
lin
ni y
er
ec
Re
re
ca cl
g
y
r
ha
ec
cy
m
cl
us
l r ing
ni
in
od
cl
ec
e
ca
g
i n
(c
yc
el
g
lr
on
lin
ec
su
g
yc
m
lin
er
g
)
-2,241
El
im
in
at
e
The X axis of this chart shows the mass (million metric tons) of plastic waste per treatment type under the System Change Scenario in 2040. The Y axis represents
the net economic cost (US$) of that treatment, including opex and capex, for the entire value chain needed for that treatment type (for example, mechanical
recycling costs include the cost of collection and sorting). Negative costs (on the left) represent a savings to the system relative to BAU, while positive costs reflect
a net cost to the system for this treatment type. Costs near 0 mean that their implementation is near “cost neutral” to the system. Subsidies, taxes or other “artificial”
costs have been excluded; this graphic reflects the techno-economic cost of each activity. The costs shown do not necessarily reflect today’s costs, but costs that
could be achieved after the system interventions are implemented, including design for recycling and other efficiency measures. Where costs in different archetypes
were similar, we combined the figure stacks for simplification and took a weighted average of the cost per archetype. The cost of mismanaged waste, such as plastic
in the environment, has not been factored in because we did not price the externalities that mismanaged waste causes.

Figure 16: United

Figure NationsNations
18: United Sustainable Development
Sustainable Goals impacts
Development to 2040
Goals under
impacts bythe System
2040 Change
under the Scenario
The System Change Scenario is better than BAU for society, for the economy, and for the environment
System Change Scenario
The System Change Scenario is better than BAU for communities, for the economy, and for the environment
Better for the economy

Creation of Reduced exposure Larger share
700,000 net new to chemicals and of collection
jobs in middle-/ toxins from 82% and recycling
low-income lower levels of served by the
countries by 2040 open burn by 2040 formal sector
Better for society

Development Reduction of 11% Decoupling
of better plastic in government of economic
alternatives spending on growth from
and recycling waste between plastic growth
technology 2021 and 2040
Better for the environment

Reduced GHG Reduced leakage Reduced leakage
emissions by of plastic into the of plastic to land
25% by 2040 ocean by 80% by more than
by 2040 80% by 2040
Better for the economy socially attractive to communities than BAU. The shift towards
reusable, sustainable products will also save consumers
Savings for governments money if reuse systems are well-designed and reach scale,
and if brands pass these cost savings on. On the other
The total global cost to governments of managing plastic
hand, as shown in Figure 17, substitutes are more expensive
waste in this low-leakage system between 2021 and 2040 is
currently than plastic and these costs could be passed on
estimated to be US$600 billion in present value, compared
to the consumers for certain products. However, similarly,
with the US$670 billion cost to manage a high-leakage
the costs of using plastic could increase, such as through
system under BAU. In other words, governments can save
Extended Producer Responsibility schemes.
US$70 billion globally, while also reducing plastic pollution
(although the cost in middle-/low-income countries will be Although the total system costs under the System Change
US$36 billion higher under the System Change Scenario, Scenario (which include opex and capex and account for
spread over 20 years). Costs are higher under the Collect and annualized depreciation) are similar to BAU, the present
Dispose and Recycling scenarios than under BAU, given that value of global investments in the plastic industry between
those scenarios do not include a reduction in plastic mass. 2021 and 2040 (which includes capex only and indicates
the cash flow required to acquire or upgrade fixed assets
Overall system cost and social welfare
such as technology or buildings) can be reduced from
The total system cost (for both the public and private sectors) US$2.5 trillion to US$1.2 trillion under the System Change
is comparable under the System Change Scenario relative Scenario, with a substantial shift of investment away from
to BAU, making the new system economically feasible and the production and conversion of virgin plastic to the
affordable for society. These similar costs, for equal plastic production of new delivery models, plastic substitutes,
utility, suggest that overall social welfare is comparable recycling facilities, and collection infrastructure.
between the System Change Scenario and BAU. However,
this assessment excludes externalities such as health, climate, Benefits and opportunities for industry
and the biodiversity impacts of plastics, which we have not
Plastic pollution presents a unique risk for producers and users
quantified. These externalities would likely make the System
of virgin plastics given ongoing regulatory changes and rising
Change Scenario substantially more economically and
consumer outrage. But it also presents a unique opening for

providers of new and existing circular business models and and proactive efforts to improve working conditions and
materials. Embarking on a trajectory to achieve about an 80 per integrate informal workers into waste management systems
cent reduction in plastic pollution rates will create opportunities in sensitive and mutually beneficial ways, can significantly
for companies ahead of the curve: Consumer goods companies improve the lives of waste pickers.
and retailers can connect with their consumers in new ways,
and other suppliers in the value chain can provide alternative Health hazards would also be significantly lessened under
materials, business models, technologies, and solutions to help the System Change Scenario. Among the key health benefits
accelerate the change to a circular plastics economy. System would be a large reduction in the open burning of plastic
change will generate new business opportunities to unlock waste, which releases carcinogens and other toxins, from 133
value from a circular economy that derives revenue from the million metric tons per year in 2040 under BAU to 23 million
circulation of materials rather than one based primarily on the metric tons per year.
extraction of fossil fuels; large new value pools can be
created around better design, better delivery models, improved Better for the environment
recycling technologies, higher recycling demand, and smart
collection systems. Our analysis shows that through the Plastic pollution
integrated application of upstream and downstream Under the System Change Scenario, about an 80 per cent
interventions, we could fulfil the growing global demand for reduction in annual leakage rates can be achieved by 2040
plastic utility in 2040 with roughly the same amount of plastic relative to BAU. This reduction will significantly lessen the
in the system as today, and 11 per cent lower levels of virgin impacts on ecosystems, habitats, and biodiversity. However,
plastic production, essentially decoupling plastic growth from 5 million metric tons of plastic waste will still flow into the
economic growth. ocean in 2040 and a cumulative 248 million metric tons of
plastic will have entered the ocean between 2016 and 2040.
Better for society It is important that stakeholders strive to accelerate upstream
innovation and go beyond the maximum foreseeable levels
Under the System Change Scenario, 700,000 net new
modelled under the System Change Scenario.
formal jobs will be created by 2040 in middle-/low-income
countries to fulfil demand for plastic services, including
Climate change
new delivery models and the production of compostables.
Crucially, the System Change Scenario represents a positive The eight integrated System Change Scenario interventions
social vision for the global community of 11 million waste result in 14 per cent lower cumulative plastic-related
pickers who are currently responsible for 60 per cent of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions relative to BAU over 2021-
2040 (and 25 per cent lower annual emissions in 2040), driven
osts removed as per ho ting email 17.04.20 17:05
global plastic recycling. To date, the huge contribution of the
informal sector towards preventing ocean plastic pollution by a reduction in both the production and conversion of virgin
has gone largely unrecognized and is often underpaid. An plastic (together, currently responsible for 80 per cent of
increase in the material value of plastic through design for life-cycle plastic emissions) as well as from decreases in open
recycling, as well as the implementation of new technologies burning. Different solutions have very different GHG profiles
Figure for
19:latest
Totaltitles
government
& captions cost by income
see report indesigngroups
doc
Figure 19: Total government cost by income groups
The System Change Scenario can save governments US$70 billion in present value between 2021 and 2040
US$ billions, present value of 2021-2040
$670B
Low-income countries
53
4 $600B
Lower middle-income countries
12
241 67
Upper middle-income countries 184
278
199
High-income countries 429

322
Business-as-Usual System Change Scenario

Figure 10: Greenhouse gas emissions of 1 metric CHAPTERton of plastic
2: CHANGING utility
THE SYSTEM
for latestoptions
Different treatment titles & captions see report
have vastly indesign
different doc
greenhouse impacts
Figure 20: Greenhouse gas emissions of 1 metric ton of plastic utility

Different treatment options have vastly different greenhouse impacts
Material production Use phase Disposal

Collection and sorting Recycling Repolymerization
8
6.9
6
5.2 5.4
tCO₂e/t
4.4 4.4 4.5

4.0
4 3.5
2.5
2.1
2 1.6
0
0
Eliminate Reuse- Mechanical Paper3 Mechanical Landfill Plastic-to- Plastic-to- Reuse-new Compo- Inciner- Open
consumer1 recycling recycling plastic (P2P) fuel (P2F) delivery stables8 ation9 burn
(100% (25% chemical chemical models7
recycled recycled conversion5 conversion6
content)2 content)4
1. Production and disposal emissions were based on how much less waste would be produced (65% less). “Disposal” in this lever includes all end-of-life emissions, including collection,
sorting, and recycling.
2. 1.for both
Valid Production andand
closed-loop disposal emissions
open-loop were
recycling. Thisbased on100
assumes howpermuch less waste
cent recycled would
content, be produced
which (65% less).
entails the collection “Disposal”
and sorting ofin this lever
a larger includes
proportion all end-of-
of waste to account for losses.
3. lifelife-cycle
The average emissions, including
emissions collection,
of paper sorting,
or coated paperand recycling.
packaging per metric ton, multiplied by an average material weight increase from plastic to paper of 1.5. Emissions differ
depending
2. on how
Valid the paper
for both is sourced.
closed-loop Disposing
and includes
open-loop all end-of-life
recycling. emissions
This assumes including
100 recycling,
per cent recycledwhich we don’t
content, distinguish
which entails for
thethis lever.
collection and sorting of a
4. larger
Valid for both proportion
closed-loop andofopen-loop
waste to account
recycling.for
Thislosses.
assumes 25% recycled content, which entails the collection and sorting of a larger proportion of waste to account for losses.
The3.remaining 75% is fulfilled
The average by virgin
life-cycle plastic production.
emissions of paper or coated paper packaging per metric ton, multiplied by an average material weight increase from plastic
5. Emissionsto paperthe
include of repolymerization
1.5. Emissions differ depending
of naphtha as wellon
ashow the paper
the pyrolysis is sourced.
process itself. It Disposing includes
should be noted that all
dataend-of-life emissions
for GHG emissions forincluding recycling,
this technology which we
are limited.
6. don’t distinguish
Does not include for from
the emissions this lever.
burning the fuel, as we assume that it replaces regular fuel with a similar GHG footprint. It should be noted that data for GHG emissions for this
technology
4. are for
Valid limited.
both closed-loop and open-loop recycling. This assumes 25% recycled content, which entails the collection and sorting of a larger
proportion of waste to account
7. NDM=New delivery models. Production and for losses.
disposal The remaining
emissions 75%
were based onishow
fulfilled
much byless
virgin plastic
waste would production.
be produced (88% less). “Disposal” in this lever includes all end-of-life
emissions,
5. including collection,
Emissions include thesorting, and recycling;of
repolymerization use-phase
naphthaemissions
as well aswere assumed to
the pyrolysis be the same
process itself. as traditional
It should beplastics, although
noted that data in
forpractice they couldfor
GHG emissions be this
much lower once
NDMs reach scale.
technology are limited.
8. Life-cycle emissions from polylactic acid (PLA) per metric ton.
6. Does not include the emissions from burning the fuel, as we assume that it replaces regular fuel with a similar GHG footprint. It should be noted
9. The emissions for incineration
that data are adjusted
for GHG emissions fortothis
reflect the emissions
technology replaced from generating an equivalent amount of energy with average emissions.
are limited.
7. NDM=New delivery models. Production and disposal emissions were based on how much less waste would be produced (88% less). “Disposal”
The GHG emissions associated
in this lever includeswith each pathway
all end-of-life are calculated
emissions, includingfrom the point
collection, at which
sorting, plastic waste
and recycling; is generated
use-phase to the
emissions wereproduction
assumed toofbe
1 metric ton
the same asof plastic
utility. One metric ton ofplastics,
traditional plastic utility
althoughis defined as the
in practice material/services
they required
could be much lower oncetoNDMs
provide the scale.
reach equivalent value to consumers as 1 metric ton of plastic.
8. Life-cycle emissions from polylactic acid (PLA) per metric ton.
9. The emissions for incineration are adjusted to reflect the emissions replaced from generating an equivalent amount of energy with average
(see Figure 20). Eliminating low-utility avoidable plastic through
emissions. important to look beyond the interventions modelled in the
bans and incentives is assumed to emit zero emissions; reuse scenario and identify ways to scale reduction and reuse beyond
creates only 1.6 tons of CO2e per metric ton of plastic utility; the levels modelled to reap the potential CO2 savings; advance
The GHG emissions
and compostables, associated
incineration andwith eachburn
open pathway
emitare calculated from the
the point at which
technologies plastic
that waste is generated
decarbonize to the production
the production of plastics and
highestofquantities at 5.2, 5.4 and 6.9 tons of CO forof
1 metric ton of plastic utility. One metric ton
elatest
plastic titles
per utility issee
metric report
defined as theindesign
substitutes beyonddoctherequired
material/services to provide the equivalent
assumptions in our model; limit the
2
value to consumers as 1 metric ton of plastic.
ton of plastic utility, respectively, although emissions from expansion of carbon-intensive end-of-life technologies, such
compostables could decrease significantly over time with the as incineration and chemical conversion; and focus on broader
correct sourcing and composting infrastructure. systemic change, including reduced consumption, sourcing
locally, and decarbonizing transport. Analysing these potential
Although the System Change Scenario represents a GHG emissions reduction solutions are outside the scope of
significant improvement over BAU, it still uses 15 per cent of this report. We caution that when choosing the appropriate
the 2040 carbon budget, compared with the plastics value portfolio of interventions, all decision-makers must carefully
chain contributing 3 per cent of global emissions today. This consider the trade-off between GHG emissions and preventing
five-fold increase in the share of the carbon budget is driven plastic from entering the ocean.
by a combination of a 54 per cent growth in annual plastic
life-cycle GHG emissions under the System Change Scenario Use of natural resources
in 2040 compared with today, and a reduction in the annual
carbon budget allowable by 2040 under the Paris Agreement. Our analysis shows that, by 2040, it is possible to fulfil a
These increases are projected despite our assumption that doubling of demand for the services that plastic provides
the energy used throughout the plastic life cycle (notably, in with 11 per cent less virgin plastic than in 2016, through
mechanical recycling and chemical conversion) would be reduction, substitution and switching to recycled plastic.
provided by a rapidly decarbonizing energy sector. For this The composition of feedstock under the System Change
calculation, we followed the International Energy Agency Scenario would be transformed from the 95 per cent virgin
projections for a 2 C global heating scenario based on a
o plastic we have today to only 43 per cent of plastic utility
radical transformation of the global energy sector. 69 fulfilled by virgin plastic in 2040; with 44 per cent of plastic
utility replaced by reduction and substitution and 8 per cent
Given that the GHG emissions in 2040 under the System by recycled feedstock. Under the System Change Scenario,
Change Scenario are higher relative to today, it will be critically peak virgin plastic production would be reached by 2027.

Prioritizing solutions discussed in this report emissions relative to virgin plastic production, reduces
the need for the extraction of virgin materials, and helps
Under the System Change Scenario, the overall reduction in achieve a circular economy.
plastic leakage into the ocean depends on the condition that all
• Substitution of plastic with alternative materials should
system interventions are applied ambitiously and concurrently;
be evaluated on a case-by-case basis depending on
deviation from the levels set for any modelled intervention the desired application and geography. Substitutes are
could yield a different outcome. In practice, where government typically more expensive than plastics and their carbon
funding and investment dollars are limited, guidance on impact could be better or worse depending on the
prioritization can be helpful. How the different solutions and specific material/geography in question. Designing
system interventions could be prioritized depends on the products for reuse is preferable to simple substitution
desired outcome, such as cost reduction, plastic pollution with another single-use material. Yet, where this is not
reduction, GHG emission reductions, implementation speed, possible, certain materials may be very effective for
certain applications (see details in System Intervention 2).
technology readiness or feasibility, and the acceptable trade-
offs. Although the plastic system is complex, our model design, • Plastic-to-plastic chemical conversion allows feedstock
coupled with a criteria- and evidence-based approach, to be reintroduced into the petrochemical process
allowed us to evaluate which solution applies to different to produce virgin-like plastic, reducing the need for
materials and geographies. And, in turn, we were able to extraction of virgin materials, which helps achieve
derive some general guidance on prioritization: a circular economy. Furthermore, it could create
an economic sink for low-value plastic where other
• A reduction in plastic production—through elimination, solutions do not work. However, for the time being,
the expansion of consumer reuse options or new chemical conversion has not been proved at scale.
delivery models—is the most attractive solution from Compared with mechanical recycling, it has higher costs,
an environmental, economic, and social perspective. energy requirements and GHG emissions. Although its
It offers the biggest reduction in plastic pollution, often viability at scale should be developed and evaluated, its
represents a net savings, and provides the highest expansion should be contingent on the decarbonization
mitigation opportunity in GHG emissions. of energy sources, and natural lead times and limitations
of emerging technologies must be recognized.
• Mechanical recycling is more attractive than chemical
conversion or substitute materials from an economic, • Controlled disposal (e.g., landfill, incineration and
climate, technology readiness and regulatory point of plastic-to-fuel) should be a last resort given that it is not
view. To be viable, plastic should and can be designed a circular solution and hence has a high resource and
for recycling and, importantly, be mechanically long-term environmental footprint. Its economic costs
recycled wherever that is possible (see details in System are also high if full system costs, e.g., collection, and
Interventions 3 and 5). Each metric ton of mechanically externalities, e.g., land-use change and emissions, are
recycled feedstock offsets 48 per cent in GHG properly accounted for.
Figure
Figure 21: 21: Feedstock
Virgin sources
plastic demand fortitles
plastic
under
for latest utility over
Business
& captions timeindesign
asreport
see Usual inand
the the
System Change
docSystem Scenario
Change Scenario
By 2040, virgin plastic demand could fall by 11 per cent relative to 2016 under the System Change Scenario
400
350
Million metric tons of virgin plastic
300
250
-11%
200 400
150
205
100 181
50
0
Virgin Business- Virgin Reduce Substitute Increased Virgin
plastic as-Usual plastic recycled plastic
demand, growth demand, feedstock demand,
2016 in virgin 2040 BAU 2040 SCS
plastic
demand
Today, 95 per cent of plastic demand is fulfilled by virgin plastic. By 2040, we expect the demand for virgin plastic to reduce by 11 per cent relative to today due to
the significant reduction by Reduce and Substitute as well as an increase in recycled feedstock. This calculation includes only plastic in Municipal Solid Waste (MSW).

System change and the future of plastic products
Five product
Changing the plastic system would secure a world in which many of the single-use plastic types/applications
products we know and use today would be eliminated or replaced by reusable items and contribute to 85% of all
new delivery models. Nonrecyclable and hard-to-recycle plastics could be substituted to plastic leaking into the
paper or compostable materials, with the remaining plastic waste being recycled at much ocean today. Taking action
higher rates, resulting in much less plastic polluting the environment. across the global plastics
system would lead to
many of these plastic
product types/applications
% of Business-as-Usual demand of the following products:
being removed,
Reduced RECYCLE
Substituted Recycled Disposed Mismanaged substituted or recycled
by 2040.
Monomaterial films (e.g., cling film, flow wrap, pallet wraps)
58% of monomaterial films

can be avoided through
25% 33% 12% 20% 10% reduction measures and
substitution to paper and
compostable alternatives.
Carrier bags (e.g., grocery bags, shopping bags)

10%
45% of bags can be avoided
45% 13% 12% 20% through bans, incentives, and
reuse models.
Bottles (e.g., water bottles, drinks, cleaning products)
The recycling rate of rigid

43% 31% 19% 7% monomaterial plastic would
double compared with today.
Sachets and multilayer films (e.g., condiment and shampoo single-portion

sachets; coffee, chips, and sweets packets)
In 2016, 48% of these plastic

products were mismanaged.
44% 7% 14% 23% 12% Under the System Change
Scenario, the mismanaged rate
for these products could
drop to 12%.
Household goods (monomaterial and multimaterial plastic objects, e.g., pens,

toys, combs, toothbrushes, durable goods, buckets)
The recycling rate of household

10% 34% goods nearly quadruples
54% 3% compared with today.
A woman cuts the labels off of plastic bottles that are collected by Project STOP in Muncar, Indonesia.
SYSTEMIQ
A workable agenda: Eight synergistic system interventions can

break the cycle of ocean plastic pollution
All the solutions presented under the System Change Scenario already exist, and their implementation
is technically feasible, economically viable, and socially acceptable. It is not a lack of technical
solutions that is preventing us from addressing the ocean plastic crisis, but rather inadequate
regulatory frameworks, business models, incentives, and funding mechanisms. If we overcome these
challenges, we can realize the full potential of the integrated pathway demonstrated by the System
Change Scenario and achieve about an 80 per cent reduction of annual leakage by 2040.
The System Change Scenario integrates the main available Upstream and downstream solutions have very different
system interventions for land-based sources of plastic leakage basic requirements. The former will require more responsible
across both macroplastics and microplastics. For several use of plastic and is about valuing plastic as a resource,
of the system interventions, the analysis is divided between using plastic strategically, and putting less and higher-value
various “levers,” specific methods with different assumptions plastic waste into the system; the latter will require more
related to feasibility, costs, emissions, and jobs. We also responsible management of plastic waste and is about
present a qualitative framework for addressing maritime linking up the entire plastic life cycle from design to disposal
sources of plastic pollution, as this can be a significant and increasing the capacity of waste management systems.
source of ocean plastic pollution, but the current lack of data
precluded a quantitative analysis. Qualitative insights on how
to reduce maritime sources of plastic are presented.

Macroplastic system interventions
SYSTEM INTERVENTION 1
Reduce growth in plastic production and
consumption to avoid one-third of projected
plastic waste generation by 2040
INTERVENTION SUMMARY
• It is socially, technically, and economically feasible to Highly applicable Somewhat applicable Not applicable
reduce BAU plastic consumption by 30 per cent by
2040—reducing 125 million metric tons per year of
avoidable macroplastic waste—before considering
switching to single-use substitute materials.
Most relevant geographic archetypes
• This proposal decouples economic growth from
plastic growth, so that global plastic consumption
HI UMI LMI LI
per person remains approximately flat, rather than
the 60 per cent increase expected under BAU. Global
Urban Urban Urban Urban
demand for plastic still increases overall nevertheless,
driven by a 23 per cent increase in population. HI UMI LMI LI
• Reductions include eliminating unnecessary items Rural Rural Rural Rural
and over-packaging (an 8 per cent reduction in
plastic); expanding reuse options that can replace HI: High-income LMI: Lower middle-income
the utility currently provided by plastic, including UMI: Upper middle-income LI: Low-income
products intended for consumers to reuse (4 per
cent reduction); and new delivery models such as
refill systems (18 per cent reduction). See definitions
in Table 2.
Most relevant plastic categories
• Focusing on six key applications—multilayer/
multimaterial flexibles, business-to-business
packaging, films, bottles, carrier bags, and food Rigid Flex Multi
service disposables—can achieve 86 per cent of the
avoidable growth in plastic waste. Other products,
such as multimaterial household goods, have fewer
feasible solutions.
• Low- and middle-income countries have an

opportunity to leapfrog to low-waste solutions Main responsible stakeholders
that appeal to consumers, reduce costs, and avoid
kyrychukvitaliy/Adobe Stock
exacerbating their already overburdened waste • Consumer goods brands

infrastructure. • Retailers

The first system intervention is dedicated to reducing the general consumption, but rather an elimination of avoidable
amount of plastic waste generated (substituting plastic with plastic and a shift towards products and services based on
alternative materials is covered in System Intervention 2). reuse. After an initial transition period, this intervention offers
The focus is on the transition away from plastics that have significant cost savings across the board, both by cutting
only a short period of use, such as packaging and disposable spending on single-use packaging and by decreasing the
items, which are low-value applications and a key driver of burden on waste management systems.
ocean plastic pollution. Our analysis is constrained by design
to deliver the same or equivalent utility as BAU, meaning To calculate the maximum potential reduction achievable by
that any solutions must adequately replace the services 2040, we analysed three Reduce levers, i.e., solution options:
currently provided by plastic, such as food preservation and (a) eliminate; (b) reuse-consumer; and (c) reuse-new delivery
protection. This intervention does not demand a reduction in models, as laid out in Table 2.
Table 2: Definition and examples of the three modelled Reduce levers
Definition Examples
Eliminate Policy interventions, innovations, Redesign overpackaging such as double-wrapping plastic film and
consumer behaviour shifts and excess “headspace,” develop packaging-free products, decrease
incentives that lead to reduced consumption and production of avoidable bags and films, increase
material demand or product redesign utility per package, extend life of household goods. (Note: Does
for low-utility avoidable plastic, and not include light-weighting or shifting from rigids to flexibles as
that do not require a replacement. this commonly reduces the end-of-life value and can increase the
likelihood of plastic leakage in middle- and low-income countries).
Reuse (consumer) Replacement of single-use products Reusables owned by consumers (e.g., water bottles, bags for life),
and packages with reusable items or owned by institutions (e.g., cutlery, crockery, plastic pallets).
owned and managed by the user.
Reuse (new Services and businesses providing Refill from dispensers (e.g., bottles, multilayer/multimaterial
delivery models) utility previously furnished by flexibles and sachets), subscription services, concentrated
single-use plastics in new ways, with product capsules, take-back services with reverse logistics and
reduced material demand. washing, package-as-a-service models (e.g., shared ownership
of takeaway containers).
Figure 22: Utility demand

Figure 22:in 2016
Utility and
demand 2040,
in 2016 andandhow
2040,it and
is met
howby the
it is three
met Reduce
by the
levers in
three Reduce
the System Change Scenario levers in the System Change Scenario
Avoidable plastic accounts for 30 per cent of total plastic waste generation in 2040 under Business-as-Usual
450
400 34 15
350
Million metric tons of plastic utility
76
300
250
200 420
150 294
100 215
50
0
2016 2040 plastic Eliminate Reuse- Reuse- Remaining plastic
plastic utility utility demand consumer new delivery utility demand
demand models
This figure shows plastic utility demand (in other words, plastic waste generated under BAU) in 2016, 2040, and in 2040 after the Reduce levers are applied.
The respective per cent of plastic waste in 2040 that is reduced by each lever is 8 per cent, 4 per cent and 18 per cent, for a total reduction of 125 million metric
tons or 30 per cent of projected 2040 utility demand.

Figure 23:A Four

Figure 23: criteria
four-criteria framework was used to determine the maximum feasible uptake of
each Reduce solution
A B C D
Technology Performance Convenience Affordability
Does the Is the

intervention intervention Are the cost
Is a solution 2030 2040
satisfy acceptable for implications of Overall
available market market
performance lifestyle and the alternative score
today? penetration penetration
and health convenience? acceptable?
requirements?
Yes: Technology
Readiness Level
(TRL) 9, available Yes Yes Yes 4 50% 80%
in multiple (net savings or
acceptable cost)
locations
Only at pilot: Mostly Mostly Mostly

(but not for all (some (but not for all 3 20% 50%
TRL 5-8
applications) challenges) applications)
Only in labs: Partially Partially Partially

(limited (niche (niche 2 1% 10%
TRL 1-4
applications only) consumers) consumers)
No alternative
No No No 1 0% 0%
available
This framework was used to determine the maximum foreseeable uptake of Reduce solutions. In this context, a solution is one of the three Reduce levers, applied to one
of 15 product subcategories. Each solution was scored against four criteria labelled A-D, with its lowest score determining its “limiting factor” of 1-4. Each limiting factor
was assigned a corresponding market penetration potential at 2030 and 2040, based on an analysis of the speed of historical socio-technical shifts (see the technical
appendix). For example, combinations with a limiting factor score of 3 out of 4 were assumed to reach 20 per cent market penetration by 2030 and 50 per cent by 2040.
The same scoring framework and limiting factor market penetration assumptions are also applied to the Substitute intervention described in a later section.
To estimate the potential to reduce plastic waste, we divided Second, we analysed how much of the remaining plastic
the waste stream into 15 plastic application subcategories could be reused by consumers, such as with reusable bags
and assessed the applicability of each reduction lever to (which accounted for 53 per cent of the waste reduction
each subcategory based on existing businesses, policies, under this lever), water bottles, and crockery for sit-in
available technologies, environmental trade-offs, and restaurants. This lever delivers system cost savings of 40 per
consumer trends. Each combination of plastic application cent compared with disposables, as multiuse products are
subcategory and Reduce lever was scored against four initially more expensive but generally deliver cost savings
criteria laid out in Figure 23—technology readiness level, over time. Key barriers to this lever are consumer and
performance, convenience, and cost—with the lowest business convenience, which are not quantified but could
score determining this combination’s “limiting factor” and be significant if reuse systems are poorly designed or have
maximum foreseeable uptake rate over time. insufficient policy and financial incentives.
We applied the three Reduce levers in order of priority in Finally, we applied the reuse-new delivery model lever,
terms of costs and environmental impact, with each lever which is the most effort-intensive of the three levers, as it
resulting in reductions as laid out in Figure 22. First, for each requires new services and infrastructure to be rolled out
plastic application subcategory, we assessed how much and sometimes water resources for washing, but offers the
avoidable plastic could be eliminated, through redesign, largest reduction potential. This lever is responsible for more
policy, and consumer incentives. The eliminate lever avoids than half of all avoided waste under the Reduce intervention.
the need for producing materials in the first place and is It delivers 23 per cent cost savings compared with single-use
assumed to offer 100 per cent cost savings on eliminated plastic when new delivery models reach scale, including the
plastic without unacceptably reducing utility. cost of purchasing reusable packaging and operating reverse
logistics and washing.

Scoring was conducted separately for the HI archetype and An increased focus is needed on reduction
the other archetypes to reflect differing constraints, such
strategies for avoidable sachets and
as access to clean water in LI, LMI, and UMI countries. We
recognize that differences in transportation systems, food multilayer flexibles, business-to-business
systems, cultural practices, and more will affect the portfolio packaging, monomaterial films, and bottles
of solutions that are most suitable for rural areas. However,
Many plastic reductions implemented to date have focused
there are many cases in which Reduce levers work very
on the Eliminate lever, largely by light-weighting packaging,
effectively in rural settings. For example, there are glass
and regulating bags, straws, and other small-mass items. Our
bottle refill schemes that have operated economically even
analysis suggests that greater reductions could be achieved
in the most remote locations, and many essential products
by focusing on the six plastic applications projected to
are already refilled or sold without packaging in local village
account for 86 per cent of the total reduction achievable
markets.
in 2040 (see Figure 25). In terms of the absolute mass of
In HI countries, because per capita plastic consumption is plastic avoided, sachets and multilayer/multimaterial flexibles
already high and the expected further growth in demand for (such as for shampoo and condiment portions, chips,
plastic utility is slower than in the rest of the world, our analysis and sweets packets) have the highest reduction potential
suggests that plastic waste per capita could be decreased at 26 million metric tons per year plastic waste avoided,
through the Reduce intervention alone, bringing plastic waste followed by business-to-business packaging such as crates
generation per person down from 76 kg in 2016 to 68 kg in and pallet wrap, monomaterial films, bottles, carrier bags,
2040. In contrast, average per capita plastic across the LI, and food service items. Currently, national and subnational
LMI, and UMI archetypes grows from 20 kg to 26 kg per year product bans and regulations overwhelmingly focus on
despite ambitious reductions in key items (see Figure 24). carrier bags and food service items,70 two applications that
Figure 24: Change in total plastic waste generation and plastic bag consumption
for latest titles &
per capita in the Business-as-Usual captions seeand
Scenario reportafter
indesign doc
Reduce interventions are
Figure 24: Change in total plastic waste generation and plastic bag consumption per capita
inapplied
the Business-as-Usual Scenario and after Reduce interventions are applied
Most plastic reductions in the System Change Scenario are in high-income countries
2016 2040 BAU 2040

after Reduce intervention
Middle-/ Plastic waste

low-income per person 20 38 26
kg kg kg
countries per year
Average per person
waste for UMI/LMI/LI
archetypes as a whole … including
single-use 1.5 3.0 0.5
plastic bags kg kg kg
High-income
countries
Average per person
Plastic waste
per person 76
kg
95 68
kg
per year kg
waste for HI archetype
… including
single-use
3.1 4.0 0.4
plastic bags kg kg kg
Per capita waste generated decreases from 2016 to 2040 in HI countries after the Reduce levers are applied, as this archetype starts with high waste per capita.
In contrast, in LI, LMI, and UMI countries, plastic waste increases slightly even after the Reduce intervention, as these archetypes start from a much lower level
per person. The chart also highlights specific results for single-use carrier bags in each scenario as an example of a product application for which the Reduce
interventions cause rapidly decreased consumption across all archetypes. Single-use plastic bag mass excludes the weight of reusable bags (not shown). Note: Per
capita waste for LI, LMI, and UMI is a weighted average across the archetypes; the actual 2016 per capita waste for each is 28 kg for UMI, 15 kg for LMI, and 12 kg for LI.

together make up just 10 per cent of the entire plastic waste A reduction of plastic production—
stream and 16 per cent of potential reductions from this
intervention. The other four applications represent a huge, through elimination, the expansion
untapped opportunity. of consumer reuse options, or
Sachet packaging is an iconic single-use, multilayer/ new delivery models—is the
multimaterial waste item in LI, LMI, and UMI countries; it makes
up approximately 10 per cent of plastic waste in the Philippines,
most attractive solution from
for example.71 After consumption, these low-value plastic environmental, economic, and social
materials are often not collected and are a major source of
ocean pollution. In some countries, such as India, our market
perspectives. It offers the biggest
observations suggest that full-size bottles are currently more reduction in plastic pollution,
expensive per use for consumers than buying sachets, but
regulations such as Extended Producer Responsibility with full
often represents a net savings, and
end-of-life cost recovery could make recyclable rigid plastic provides the highest mitigation
packaging less expensive than sachets in the future. Our
analysis suggests that new delivery models could also offer a
opportunity in GHG emissions.
better alternative for delivering products to consumers in these
countries; new delivery models on the market today offer
30 per cent savings to consumers compared with bottles,72
bringing them in line with sachet costs—with radically less
waste and plastic flow to the ocean per use (see Figure 26).
Figure 6: Annual mass of plastic reduced compared to Business-as-Usual,

and remaining material demand after Reduce intervention applied,
andfor top six
Figure 25: Annual mass of plastic
applications ranked
for latest
reduced titles see
compared
by absolute
report indesign doc
with Business-as-Usual,
mass reduced, 2040
remaining
material demand after Reduce intervention applied, for top six applications ranked by
Six product applications
absolute mass reduced, 2040 represent the vast majority of avoidable plastic
Six product applications represent the vast majority of avoidable plastic
Million metric tons of plastic waste
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130
1. Sachets and
multilayer flexibles 44%
2. B2B packaging 59%
3. Monomaterial films 19%
4. Bottles 43%
5. Carrier bags 45%

6. Food service
disposables 55%
7. Other 14%
Mass reduced under System Change Scenario relative to BAU

Remaining plastic material demand after Reduce intervention
but before Substitute intervention and before design for recycling
Plastic waste in 2016
Numbers by the bars reflect per cent of BAU plastic in 2040 of each product category that is reduced under the System Change Scenario. The remaining material
demand, in light blue, is before the Substitute intervention is applied (see System Intervention 2) and before design for recycling is applied (see System Intervention
Numbers by the bars
4). Business-to-business reflect
packaging per cent
includes of BAU
both flexible andplastic in 2040
rigid packaging; of each
bottles includeproduct
water, food,category
and nonfood that is reduced
bottles; in the
other includes pots,System Change Scena
tubs, and trays;
household
The goods; other
remaining rigid monomaterial
material demand, in packaging; laminated
light blue, cartons the
is before and aluminium;
Substitute andintervention
diapers and hygiene products. (see System Intervention 2) and before
is applied
for latest captions see report indesign doc
design for recycling is applied (see System Intervention 4).
Figure
Figure 26: 26: Implications
Implications of differentpackaging
of different packaging options
optionsto to
consumers and the
consumers andenvironment
the environment
New delivery models can generate less plastic waste, cost consumers less, and bring less leakage to
the ocean
Average cost to consumer in Average plastic leakage to the ocean
Average plastic waste middle-/low-income countries in middle-/low-income countries
Grams per 1,000 uses US$ per use Grams of plastic leakage to the ocean
per 1,000 uses
Sachet
Bottle
New
delivery
model
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0 50 100 150 200
The data suggest that shampoo delivered via new delivery models (light blue bars) could reduce waste and plastic pollution without increasing consumer cost per
use compared with sachets or bottles. Due to small sample sizes, this analysis should be considered illustrative only. Primary data on the consumer cost and mass
of bottled shampoo and sachet-packaged shampoo, per 8 gram serving, was provided by direct measurements in India73 and Indonesia.74 New delivery model costs
and mass were based on an existing business case study.75 Leakage was calculated using average leakage probability in BAU 2016 for middle-/low-income countries,
for the rigid plastic category (for bottles and new delivery model bottles), and for the multilayer/multimaterial plastic category (for sachets).
Figure 27: Examples of attractive reuse and new delivery models that are available
today in high-income countries, maintaining lifestyles with much less plastic waste
Figure 27: Illustrative examples of attractive Reuse solutions and New Delivery Models that are
available today in high-income countries, maintaining lifestyles with much less plastic waste
Solutions that avoid plastic already exist, and are growing
6 a.m. 7 a.m. 8 a.m. 8 a.m. 9 a.m. 4 p.m. 5 p.m. 6 p.m. 7 p.m. 8 p.m.
Morning routine On-the-go Packaging-free meals

6 a.m. Use concentrated capsules to 8 a.m. Pack reusable water bottle and 7 p.m. Fast food served on real
top up household cleaners,a bag crockery for a quick sit-down
soapsb and soda fountainc mealk
9 a.m. Coffee in a returnable coffee
7 a.m. Fresh food delivery, in cuph
8 p.m. Top up the pantry with some
returnable box and containers. basics bought from bulk
4 p.m. Refill at soda fountain dispenseri
Leave refillable packaging on dispensersl and fresh produce
the doorstep for collection,d and 5 p.m. Return reusable to collection from the plastic-free aisle, all
diapers for centralised washinge point placed in a reused bag
8 a.m. Tooth brushing using 6 p.m. At the gym, top up on sports
concentrated toothpaste tabsf drink in an edible seaweed
and hair washing with “bubble”j
a shampoo barg
Each of the examples are of solutions already emerging today, as per the following example businesses: a) RePlenish, b) Splosh, c) SodaStream, d) GoodClub,
e) Tidee Didee, f) Signal, g) Lush, h) CupClub, i) Pepsi, j) NotPla, k) Rethink Disposables, l) MIWA.

Box 2: Waste and emission reductions from reuse levers

Data on existing consumer reuse and new delivery models was leveraged to calculate the significant waste savings that both
models can offer: 65 per cent mass reduction for reuse-consumer and 88 per cent for reuse-new delivery models. The reusable
packaging can be made from glass, metals, new materials, or plastics, depending on the best trade-offs of GHG emissions and
performance. For the reuse-consumer lever, it was assumed that GHG emissions savings would be proportional to the mass
reduction achieved, as only a minority of the reuse would require significant additional emissions, such as from washing. For the
new delivery model lever, as most models involve GHG emissions from transportation and reverse logistics, we conservatively
assume that new delivery models emit the same amount of CO2e by mass as using single-use plastic, although this could change
in the future with low-carbon transportation and renewable energy powering reverse logistics.
Box 3: Is plastic really necessary to protect our fruits and vegetables?

Plastic can play an important role in increasing the shelf life of perishable food. Approximately 40 per cent of plastic packaging is
used for perishable food and drinks.76 With one-third of all food produced currently ending up as waste, contributing 7 per cent of
global GHG emissions,77 it is important that action taken to reduce plastic packaging does not inadvertently increase food waste.
We take that into account in our analysis, and 29 per cent of the total reductions we modelled relate to packaging for perishable
foods. This intervention assumes that packaging for perishable food and drinks can be reduced by 27 per cent compared with
packaging mass in 2040 under BAU, which is a moderate increase in mass compared with today’s levels.
Avoidable plastic: Our model suggests that much of the projected growth in plastic food packaging can be avoided by
eliminating the packaging that is not playing an essential food preservation role. For example, packaging used for branding
purposes or to incentivize purchasing multipacks or large quantities can encourage people to buy more than they need, driving
up food waste. Spoilage can also be prevented in other ways, such as improved cold chains, digital trackers, shorter supply chains,
reusable business-to-business packaging, and misting.
Health impacts: Although many consumers believe that packaged products are safer, the link between plastic packaging and
health is complex. In most cases, fresh produce either has a peel or skin providing a natural barrier to contamination or that can
be washed by consumers before eating. Plus, reducing plastic usage for food and beverages in general could reduce human
exposure to chemicals and additives in plastic.78 However, new legal and regulatory safeguards will be required to ensure that
reuse and refill systems satisfy food safety standards and reassure consumers.
Design and scaling innovations can enable Enabling conditions

substantial reductions in material demand, Policy, economic, and innovation drivers required to
and catalyse a leapfrogging to attractive accelerate this intervention include:
low-waste alternatives • Adoption of standards or regulatory requirements for
Beyond plastic product bans, it is possible to achieve plastic packaging that focus on elimination of avoidable
large waste reduction outcomes by scaling up attractive packaging and product redesign, alongside regulation
on uses of plastic with a high likelihood of leakage.
alternatives that produce radically less waste, particularly
through the new delivery models lever. In middle-/low- • Global uptake by multinationals of innovative models
income countries, in particular, there is an opportunity to and commitments to long-term quantitative goals to
leapfrog directly to a low-plastic-waste system, reducing eliminate and reuse packaging; companies leveraging
both environmental pollution and the massive burden on their global reach and R&D budgets to facilitate change
waste management systems without constraining lifestyle across geographic archetypes.
aspirations. Products would increasingly be delivered
• Regulatory and/or voluntary standards, consumer
through services rather than increasing amounts of single- education, and reusable packaging targets to facilitate
use packaging, either leveraging traditional delivery routes reuse and address hygiene concerns regarding food
such as local markets, street vendors, and glass or plastic contact materials.
bottle refill schemes, which already have large market reach,
or using new digitally enabled technology and services (see • Policies that shift the burden of waste generation onto
producers and so “level the playing field” for new business
Figure 27). As HI countries are starting from higher plastic
models and zero-packaging solutions, for example,
consumption levels, they can make even greater reductions
Extended Producer Responsibility schemes, a tax on
per capita using the types of models emerging today, as single-use plastics, and landfill or incineration fees.
shown in Figure 27.
• Innovation in system design, such as seasonal food,
shortening supply chains, e-commerce, digital trackers,
and choice editing (reducing the need for packaging to
differentiate products).

Substitute plastic with paper and compostable
materials, switching one-sixth of projected
plastic waste generation by 2040
• In the System Change Scenario, paper, coated Highly applicable Somewhat applicable Not applicable
paper, and compostable materials can substitute
17 per cent of plastic waste generated by
2040, equivalent to 71 million metric tons of
plastic, without fundamentally decreasing Most relevant geographic archetypes
the performance, affordability, or social and
environmental acceptability of packaging and
HI UMI LMI LI
single-use items.
• Ninety-five per cent of this potential substitution
comes from six key product applications for which
HI UMI LMI LI
known material alternatives already exist at some
Rural Rural Rural Rural
level of scale: monomaterial films; other rigid
monomaterial packaging; sachets and multilayer HI: High-income LMI: Lower middle-income
films; carrier bags; pots, tubs, and trays; and food UMI: Upper middle-income LI: Low-income
service disposables.
• All substitutions need careful management at end

of life and have varied environmental impacts.
They create opportunities, risks, and trade-offs
that must be carefully managed and assessed on a Most relevant plastic categories
case-by-case basis.
• The Substitute system intervention has 1.7-2 Rigid Flex Multi

times higher production costs than virgin plastic
per metric ton of plastic utility, so substitutes
were selected only when they replace plastic that
cannot be reduced or mechanically recycled. The
intervention plays an important role in minimizing
ocean plastic pollution and could help reduce Main responsible stakeholders
overall GHG emissions.

• Consumer goods brands
• Retailers

After implementing both the Reduce and Substitute system The analysis of this system intervention is based on
interventions, our analysis indicates that plastic waste three selected substitution material levers: (a) paper; (b)
generation could be capped at approximately today’s global coated paper with a maximum 5 per cent by weight of
levels by 2040 without unacceptable compromises on cost, plastic coating, which is acceptable to recyclers;79 and (c)
utility, or performance (see Figure 22), despite increasing certified and appropriate compostable materials, including
populations and economic development. This equates to compostable plastic and nonplastic materials (see Table 3).
an absolute decrease in plastic waste in HI countries (-27 per Compostable materials make up the largest proportion of
cent) and an absolute increase in plastic waste from middle-/ substituted plastic (see Figure 28).
low-income countries compared with today (average +26
per cent), driven by population growth as per capita plastic The three material substitutes were selected because they
production and consumption remain at today’s levels. We are the most prevalent ones available today for replacing
estimate that 17 per cent of plastic waste can be substituted problematic plastic films and multilayer flexibles, which
in 2040, relative to BAU: 4.5 per cent to paper, 3.5 per cent have low recycling rates and high leakage rates, particularly
to coated paper and 9 per cent to compostable materials in LI and LMI countries. We also analysed glass, aluminium,
(see Figure 28). That is equivalent to 71 million metric tons and aseptic containers as possible substitutes for rigid
of plastic waste avoided annually. monomaterial plastics, such as bottles, but these alternatives
were not selected for modelling for two reasons: first,
The use of any substitute material will involve significant
because rigid monomaterial plastics are less problematic
economic costs in both production and end-of-life disposal,
than flexible plastic as they have comparatively high
as well as environmental impacts and other trade-offs to
collection and recycling rates and, second, because single-
balance. The Substitute intervention is therefore applied
use glass, aluminium, and aseptic cartons were found to
only to the plastic in each of the 15 plastic subcategories
have potential negative trade-offs in costs, GHG emissions,
that remain after the three Reduce levers have been applied.
and recycling rates compared with rigid monomaterial
Substitutions were made only with materials expected to
plastics. For example, aluminium cans and glass bottles
be less likely to leak into the environment in 2040, focusing
are 33 per cent and 167 per cent more expensive than PET
on substituting nonrecyclable items, monomaterial flexible
bottles, respectively,91 although they may be suitable for
plastic, and multilayer plastic, which have high leakage rates.
Figure 28: Utility demand in 2016 and 2040, and how it is met by the Substitute
Figure 28: Utility demand inlevers
2016 andin the2040, andChange
System how it isScenario
met by the Substitute levers in the
The System Change Scenario shows 17 per cent of plastic production substituted with alternatives
by 2040
Reduce Substitute
450
400
350 125
Million metric tons of plastic utility
18
300
14
250 39
420
200
150
215 224
100
50
0
2016 2040 Reduce Paper Coated Compostables Remaining
plastic utility plastic utility intervention paper plastic
demand demand waste
generated
This figure shows plastic utility demand in 2016, 2040, and in 2040 after the Reduce and Substitute levers are applied.

Table 3: Substitute material levers selected, and examples of substitutions modelled
Substitute Definition and rationale Examples of plastic products

material lever with available substitutes
Paper Substitute with recyclable paper, or other pulp-based or fibre-based Plastic fruit and vegetable
material, ensuring that it is sustainably sourced. Paper recycling is punnets, display trays, shrink
widespread globally; for example, 85 per cent of paper and cardboard wraps on drinks,81 paper
packaging is recycled in the European Union compared with just 42 substitutes for polystyrene
per cent of plastic packaging.80 Paper substitutes are undergoing rapid foams,82 paper food service
innovation, leading to improved barrier properties and cost/weight items (plates, cutlery, straws),
performance. For nonfood applications, high recycled content is paper wet-wipes
possible in current market conditions.
Coated paper Substitute with paper lined with a plastic coating acceptable to paper Confectionery wrappers, e.g.,
recyclers. Coatings improve the barrier properties of paper, making recyclable paper packaging
paper substitutes relevant to a wider packaging segment, particularly for snack bars85 and sachets
food applications. Plastic coatings of a maximum 5 per cent of weight for powdered drinks86
are considered tolerable to recyclers today83 but should be easily
removable, with weak adhesives to facilitate acceptance in paper
recycling streams. Our scenarios would add <0.3 per cent coatings by
mass to today’s global paper production of 409 million metric tons,84
which we assume would be tolerable to recyclers, but further research
is needed to confirm maximum allowable volumes of coated paper.
Rapid innovation is occurring that could replace plastic linings with
dissolvable, compostable or other ephemeral barrier coatings that could
further increase coated paper recyclability and improve coated paper
performance and suitability for new applications. Coated paper excludes
laminated materials such as aseptics, beverage cartons, and coffee
cups, for which the lamination weight or double-sided application mean
they are only recyclable in a specialist recycling facility.
Compostables Existing materials and new formats under development (including Banana leaves for
nonplastic compostable materials—cellulosics, alginates, banana leaves, takeaway food, fibre-based
edible and ephemeral packaging as well as compostable plastics) that compostable-ready meal
are approved to meet relevant local compostability standards (for trays,87 seaweed pouches,88
example, industrial composting standard EN 13432 where industrial- compostable chips packets89
equivalent composting is available and effective). These materials and tea bags90
should be capable of disintegrating into natural elements in a home or
industrial composting environment, within a specified number of weeks,
leaving no toxicity in the soil. Compostables are most relevant where
composting infrastructure exists or will be built, and for substituting thin
plastic films and small formats. Substitution with compostable materials
is most appropriate for products with low plastic recycling rates and
high rates of food contamination, making co-processing with organic
waste a viable option.
reusable packaging. For these reasons, no clear picture conservative, as further plastic replacement options could be
emerged to indicate that these other substitutes would derived from other materials, either already existing or thanks
decrease the amount of material leaked to the ocean to new innovations. In a globalized system of food production
globally without creating unacceptable economic, social, or and consumption, the GHG emission savings offered by
environmental outcomes. lightweight plastic materials are important. However, if supply
chains are shortened, transport is decarbonized, or reuse and
The three substitutes modelled should not be considered recycling rates are high, other substitute materials, such as
predictions of change or recommendations, but as indicative glass and metals, may perform well.
of the possible future scaling of substitutes that already exist
in the market. The potential mass of plastic substitution To avoid unintended consequences, local authorities,
estimated in the System Change Scenario could be considered brands, and manufacturers should consider the local

Table 4: Global substitution potential of plastic in 2040 for the six plastic subcategories
with the largest substitute potential by mass
Plastic subcategory Paper Coated paper Compostables Explanatory notes
Per cent of plastic subcategory substituted in 2040; million metric tons of plastic substituted in 2040
1. Monomaterial films 6.5%; 7 million 9%; 10 million 25.5%; 28 million Paper/coated paper where water
metric tons metric tons metric tons barrier properties not necessary;
41%; 45 million compostable plastic, cellulosics,
metric tons or alginates where transparency is
essential or food contamination risk
is high
2. Other rigid 18.5%; 7.5 million 0% 4.5%; 2 million Subcategory does not require food
monomaterial metric tons metric tons contact; paper and compostable
packaging substitutes readily available for
expanded polystyrene and other
23%; 9.5 million protective packaging
metric tons
3. Sachets and 2%; 1 million 3%; 2 million 2%; 1 million Coated paper and compostable
multilayer films metric tons metric tons metric tons alternatives available today with
adequate performance for dry or
7%; 4 million short-life goods
metric tons
4. Carrier bags 3%; 1 million 0% 10%; 3 million Compostable bags where water
metric tons metric tons resistance required (for meat, fish,
13%; 4 million etc.); paper bags widespread today
metric tons
5. Pots, tubs, and trays 5.5%; 1 million 6.5%; 2 million 0% Paper punnets for fresh produce;
metric tons metric tons coated paper for other
12%; 3 million
metric tons
6. Food service 4%; 0.5 million 4%; 0.5 million 9%; 1 million Widely available alternatives, e.g.,
disposables metric tons metric tons metric tons bamboo cutlery, paper/coated paper
clamshells and cups, banana leaf
17%; 2 million wraps
metric tons
Column total 18.5 million 14 million 35 million Columns may not sum to column
metric tons metric tons metric tons total due to rounding of decimals
(out of a total (out of a total (out of a total
19 million metric 14 million metric 38 million metric
ton paper ton coated paper ton compostables
potential) potential) potential)
conditions and trade-offs of any substitute materials before performance. This is a significant finding because plastic
making any switches, such as by using full life-cycle analysis films contribute more than half of the plastic entering the
conducted by neutral bodies to recognized standards. Local ocean today.
considerations include the sustainability of sourcing raw
materials; capacity for collection, recycling or composting;
GHG footprint; and likelihood of the materials leaking either In the System Change Scenario, paper,
now or in the future. coated paper, and compostable materials
Quantifying the potential for plastic substitution followed can substitute 17 per cent of plastic
a similar method as the Reduce intervention, scoring waste generated by 2040, equivalent
each solution for each product application according to
technology readiness, performance, convenience, and
to 71 million metric tons of plastic,
cost (see Figure 23). Our analysis shows that 95 per cent of without fundamentally decreasing the
the potential material substitutes for plastic are for just six performance, affordability, or social
plastic subcategories (see Table 4). The largest subcategory
is monomaterial plastic films, an estimated 41 per cent of
and environmental acceptability of
which could be substituted by 2040 without sacrificing packaging and single-use items.

Box 4: The case for substitute materials

• Doesn’t plastic lower transport emissions?
Plastic is lightweight, but transport GHG emissions are overwhelmingly driven by both the weight of a package’s
contents and the amount of space that goods occupy in trucks or crates. The substitutes we modelled, if applied
astutely (see Box 5), overall have a lower GHG footprint in the production and end-of-life disposal phases than
plastic, which would create emission savings. Therefore, adding 30-50 per cent more weight by switching to paper
or compostable packaging should not significantly increase overall emissions. For much heavier substitutes, such as
glass, managing emissions trade-offs requires reducing transport distances, decarbonizing transport, or switching to
reuse models. Ultimately, more localized supply chains and seasonal consumption could drive down emissions and
packaging amounts even further.
• Do plastic alternatives have the same barrier properties?

Plastic does have important barrier properties (especially for food preservation), so we applied substitutes to products
that have long shelf lives, that can be produced locally or with shorter supply chains so as to lessen the preservation
required, or for which substitute materials with adequate barrier properties are already available or being brought
to market. Our estimates could be conservative because we did not, for example, substitute any cheese or meat
packaging due to strict barrier requirements, although even meat trays have recyclable cardboard alternatives (with a
peel-off plastic layer) that do not increase food waste.
• Won’t food costs skyrocket without plastic?

Our analysis substitutes only 17 per cent of packaging, making it theoretically possible to implement the entire
Substitute intervention on only nonfood packaging. However, where producers do choose to substitute food
packaging, it represents only a small fraction of the overall product cost. For example, the price of a plastic drinks
bottle is less than US$0.07,92 typically less than 10 per cent of the overall product price. In the future, if producers
are charged through Extended Producer Responsibility schemes for full end-of-life costs, alternative materials could
become even more cost-competitive. For reusable packaging, metal and glass could be even cheaper options per
use, due to their nonporosity and durability.
• Will consumers accept substitutes?

Convenience does not need to be sacrificed. In fact, in some markets, consumers prefer nonplastics.93 Achieving the
projected level of material substitution cannot rely on eco-conscious buying behaviour alone: The transition must be
accelerated by innovation, business leadership and marketing of alternatives, consumer education, and policy.
• Would we be creating new streams of waste?

Paper collection and recycling are already widespread. The acceptability of coatings on paper to recycling facilities
outside HI archetypes is unclear; recyclers may need to adapt their practices, or paper coatings may need to be better
optimized for recycling, to mitigate this risk. Compostable packaging could introduce new formats of waste and
require scale up of higher standard and compatible composting systems worldwide (see Table 5).
• Are substitutes safe for food contact?

There are risks for both plastic and nonplastic materials; food safety is an area that will require better regulation and
further research.
If managed carefully, it is possible to The primary risk is that the benefits of paper would be
negated if this increase causes deforestation, highlighting the
meet the material requirements of the
importance of sustainable forest management, especially
Substitute intervention, but unintended in specific middle-/low-income countries where paper
consequences need astute monitoring demand is a driver of deforestation today.96 To minimize the
risk of deforestation, our analysis indicates that a strong effort
In selecting any substitute material, it is important that
in paper recycling makes it possible to meet the additional
a broad range of environmental and health impacts are
paper needed for the Substitute intervention globally without
assessed holistically—from land and water use to GHG
expanding virgin paper input. This step requires increasing
emissions and pollution—and that any life-cycle assessment
paper’s global average recycled content from today’s 56 per
also takes into account human health and end-of-life
cent97 to 60 per cent. Southeast Asia already surpasses this
impacts on biodiversity.
level of recycled content;98 other regions must follow suit.
A key concern when switching to paper is whether the Avoiding deforestation will also require careful selection of
additional material requirements can be met sustainably. the applications where virgin paper is absolutely necessary
On average, 1 metric ton of plastic packaging needs to be for food contact safety to avoid chemical migration into
replaced with 1.5 metric tons of paper,94 meaning that the food from recycled sources,99 increasing recycled content
Substitute intervention requires 45 million metric tons of in all other paper applications where possible, and tackling
paper per year by 2040. Globally, this represents an 11 per inefficiencies in paper recycling.100
cent increase above 2016-17 paper production.95

Sourcing compostable materials could also trigger land use Substitute materials come with higher
change if not managed holistically. Today, approximately
costs, but could have lower emissions
2 million metric tons of bio-based plastic (plastics made
in whole or partially from renewable biological resources) On average, substitute materials come with higher
is produced using less than 0.01 per cent of arable land.101 production costs (up to two times more for compostables),
Our model requires 52 million metric tons of compostable but different stakeholders bear the costs and garner the
material substitutes per year, be they compostable plastic savings. Some of the cost differential is due to government
(sourced from fossil fuels or from biomass) or nonplastics subsidies or perverse incentives, such as extraction subsidies
such as fibre- or leaf-based packaging. However, options exist on fossil fuels, that drive down the price of plastic. There is
to expand biomass availability without unsustainable land a net increase in end-of-life collection and disposal costs
use. These include the use of by-products and discards from because of the heavier mass of substitute materials. But the
the timber and agricultural industries, and alternative fibre Substitute intervention could produce an overall reduction
sources from plants grown on marginal land. For example, in GHG emissions compared with BAU by 2040, driven
compostable plastic is already being created from waste by switching to sustainably sourced paper (see Box 5).
methane102 and food waste.103 Table 5 summarizes other Emissions will vary depending on location, and substitutes
considerations when expanding compostable packaging. should be assessed on a case-by-case basis, considering the
likelihood of recycling and composting and trade-offs such
as chemical use (see Box 6 on health concerns), sourcing,
land use, and energy and water requirements involved in
paper manufacturing. Efforts must be made to bring the
GHG emissions of substitute materials down over time, for
example, by sourcing from waste or recycled content and
expanding composting. For estimates of GHG implications
of each substitute, please refer to Figure 20.
Table 5: Expanding compostable packaging—opportunities and obstacles
Opportunities Obstacles and mitigation measures
• Composting provides a circular end-of-life treatment • Lack of definitions, standards, and consumer
option to return nutrients and food waste to the confusion around the term “bioplastics” and
system. Compostables could be suitable where “biodegradable,” which includes noncompostable
a plastic application is unlikely to be recycled or plastic.106
collected.
• Compostable materials should meet strict national
• Where high food contamination is likely to make food standards according to the end-of-life processing
packaging nonrecyclable, compostables provide a technologies that exist in the country, and safe,
solution and could boost the diversion of organic effective standards need refinement, for example, to
waste away from residual waste. ensure soil fertility.
• In some HI countries, incentives towards separate • Considerable investment and policies are needed
organic waste treatment means access to composting to expand organic waste collection and processing
is increasing and is cheaper than landfill.104 facilities that can accommodate and safely process
compostable packaging, particularly in middle-/low-
• Composting could bring cost savings in middle-/low- income countries.
income countries via decentralized community-based
composting that avoids collection costs, making it • There is a risk that compostable plastic could be
particularly suitable for rural and remote locations perceived as acceptable to litter107 and that it could
with high plastic leakage rates. A directional estimate contaminate conventional mechanical recycling,108
suggests that this could be done for US$20 per metric making distinctive labelling, consumer education, and
ton, which is cheaper than landfill. Substituting 9 per appropriate collection and composting infrastructure
cent of plastic with compostable packaging would essential.
contribute only 6 per cent to the organic waste stream
globally, which should not damage key performance • In high-leakage archetypes, leakage risks should
indicators of the composting processes, which have be considered. Some compostable plastic may not
been tested with levels up to 25 per cent compostable biodegrade under certain environmental conditions,109
packaging.105 so nonplastic alternatives are lower risk. As industrial
composting is not typically available in low- and
middle-income archetypes, home-compostable
materials suitable for decentralized composting are
required; industrially compostable materials (such as
PLA [polylactic acid]) would not be suitable.

Box 5: A careful use of substitutes could save GHG emissions, if key impact
considerations are well-managed
• Packaging weight considerations
Comparing different life-cycle analyses of GHG emissions is notoriously challenging, due to different boundary
conditions. Some studies assume that plastic is replaced with materials such as glass that weigh many times more
than plastic, driving up transport emissions. However, the lower weight substitutes we have modelled minimize this
effect because they weigh only up to 1.5 times more than plastic on average. Applications such as paper bags require
much more weight, as paper lacks tensile strength; our assessment has therefore switched only 3 per cent of all
plastic bags towards paper. Our approach suggests that making carefully considered plastic substitutions with paper
or compostable materials could offer GHG savings. This assessment excludes the transport emissions of packaging;
however, these are expected to be insignificant compared with the emissions savings of moving from a fossil fuel-
based product (plastic) to a largely renewably sourced one.
• Sustainable sourcing
Emissions estimates vary widely according to how a material is sourced, processed and treated at end of life. Sourcing
can be from fossil fuels, from waste, or from sustainably sourced biomass or recycled paper. End-of-life treatment
varies widely by country, with higher recycling rates decreasing emissions. Paper has one of the highest recycling rates
in the world, with a global average of 58 per cent.110 For paper, our assessment of emissions per metric ton of plastic
substituted is based on HI paper emissions per metric ton, where it is sourced sustainably, and paper production often
uses renewable energy. If not managed correctly, paper emissions could be higher in some geographic archetypes.
• Technological advances
Our analysis suggests that, under certain assumptions, emission savings could be achieved from paper substitutes.
Emissions from early-stage compostable plastic is assumed to be slightly higher than traditional plastic today but
could be expected to improve over time. For example, some improved manufacturing processes decreased emissions
~50 per cent in just three years111 through improved manufacturing processes. Emissions could decrease further if
manufacturers source from waste materials, decarbonize energy use, or if composting infrastructure is scaled.112 For
example, in Europe, the life cycle of compostable materials could offer 65 per cent emissions savings compared with
plastic if the optimum end-of-life treatments were used.113
Enabling conditions
Policy, economic, and innovation drivers required to recycled content in paper, reduce contamination, and
accelerate this intervention include: scale separate organic waste treatment that can accept
compostable packaging.
• Economic incentives that help level the playing field
between plastic and other materials across the life • Standard-setting that defines acceptable compostable
cycle, such as the removal of extraction subsidies for materials according to locally available waste
oil and gas, taxes on virgin plastic content, or Extended infrastructure and provides clarity around definitions of
Producer Responsibility-type schemes with modulated terms such as “biodegradable.”
fees for different packaging formats.
• Certification of sustainable sourcing of biomass, and the
• Funding for innovation in new materials, packaging adoption of strict criteria by brands and producers to
designs, and barrier coatings. ensure that substitutes contain recycled content and are
sourced responsibly.
• Policies and voluntary commitments to accelerate the
expansion of paper collection and recycling, increase • Commitment from brand owners to transfer innovations
and new materials across geographic archetypes.
Box 6: Substitutes also have health concerns that present key areas for innovation
• Paper production and recycling are associated with the release of particulate matter (PM), nitrogen oxides (NOx),
sulfur oxides (SOx), wastewater containing chlorine for bleaching paper, lead, and dioxins/furans.114 Technologies
such as chlorine-free bleaching and “DryPulp” could mitigate the risks from wastewater that is not properly treated.
Recycled content in paper can also lead to health concerns for food-contact packaging, such as from mineral oils in
dyes.115 Coated paper, in which the coating is plastic, poses the same chemical migration concerns for health as any
other plastic packaging, and PFAS coatings may be of concern.116
• Compostable materials generally have fewer known pollutants or risks.117 However, compostable materials vary widely,
from fossil fuel-based to bio-based feedstocks, and continued research and regulation are required to ensure the food
safety of new materials, additives, and coatings.118 New materials should be thoroughly assessed to ensure that their
introduction does not generate more serious environmental and health problems.

Design products and packaging for recycling
to expand the share of economically recyclable
plastic from an estimated 21 per cent to 54 per
cent by 2040
• Flexible and multimaterial plastics currently make Highly applicable Somewhat applicable Not applicable
up only 59 per cent of plastic production but
are responsible for 80 per cent of macroplastic
leakage, highlighting the urgent need to target
these formats through redesign. Most relevant geographic archetypes
• Only 15 per cent of plastic is currently recycled—
and this figure varies significantly by type; HI UMI LMI LI
designing plastic for recycling can help increase Urban Urban Urban Urban
this percentage through two separate but
synergistic benefits: 1) increase the share of
recyclable plastic; and 2) improve the economics
HI UMI LMI LI
(and hence likelihood) of recycling. Rural Rural Rural Rural
• Design for recycling interventions can increase HI: High-income LMI: Lower middle-income
UMI: Upper middle-income LI: Low-income
both the yield and value of recycled plastic,
improving the economics by US$120 per metric
ton and virtually doubling recycling profitability;
a shift from multimaterials to monomaterials
plays a fundamental role in increasing material Most relevant plastic categories
recyclability.
• Removing pigments from plastic can increase their

recyclate value by approximately 25 per cent. Rigid Flex Multi
Main responsible stakeholders

• Consumer goods brands

Many plastic items are designed in ways that make recycling Low-value flexible and multilayer plastic currently contribute a
difficult, uneconomical, or even impossible. This problem disproportionate amount of leakage to the ocean: They make
is exacerbated by the centralized design and production of up 59 per cent of production but constitute 80 per cent of
mass consumption products for all global markets, which is macroplastic leakage (see Figure 29). This finding highlights
incompatible with the local waste management systems into the urgent need to target these formats through redesign.
which these products are introduced after use.
The inherent design of many plastic products makes
Design for recycling can increase recycling rates worldwide recycling difficult and costly, but streamlined changes
by raising the yield and value of recycled plastic, thereby to improve the quality of the output will strengthen the
improving the profitability of the mechanical recycling secondary market while reducing costs in the recycling
industry. Only 21 per cent of today’s plastic is economically process. For materials for which recycling economics are
recyclable, and therefore of higher value, and current already almost profitable, design for recycling can help make
industry trends show that, going forward, this share is them profitable through a combination of levers.
expected to decrease under BAU.119 Both the formal and
informal recycling sectors target plastic with the highest We identified five principal design for recycling levers to
market value, often leaving the low-value materials to go achieve this goal:
uncollected or be mismanaged if collected.
1) Switch 50 per cent of multimaterial flexibles to
The low value of discarded items is dictated by their monomaterial flexibles by 2030 and 100 per cent by 2040
inherent lack of recyclability, their degradation during
Multimaterial flexibles often exist to meet the toughest
use, and the limited demand for their reuse. The mix of
packaging requirements but are not mechanically recycled
polymers, additives, and dyes that make up low-value
due to poor economics. Reduction and substitution
plastic dilute the quality of the recycled output and limit
solutions are available for some of this packaging type in the
its viability as recycled content in many applications.
System Change Scenario, but for the remaining multimaterial
Designing plastic for recycling in local settings is the easiest
flexibles that cannot be reduced or substituted, we have
way to increase its inherent value while improving the
applied an ambitious design for recycling intervention.
profitability of the mechanical recycling industry. Boosting
Research is already gathering speed in this area, with one
the uptake and quality of recycled content also reduces
industry expert reporting that technical monomaterial
the need for virgin plastic input and thereby cuts GHG
solutions are in development that could meet 100 per cent
emissions from virgin plastic production.
of barrier property requirements of multimaterial flexibles as
Figureproduction,
gure 7: Global 29: Global production, collection,
collection, and leakageand leakage
rates ratescategory,
by plastic by plasticBusiness-as-Usual,
category, Business- 2016
as-Usual, 2016
exible monomaterials and multilayer/multimaterials represent 59 per cent of plastic production but
ontributeFlexible
80 per monomaterials and multilayer/multimaterials represent 59 per cent of plastic production
cent of plastic leakage to the ocean
but contribute 80 per cent of plastic leakage to the ocean
Multilayer/multimaterial
1% Flexible monomaterial
14% Rigid monomaterial
23%
29%
43%
59%
36% 80%
86% 51%
56%
41%
20%
Plastic Formal Informal Leakage into

production collected for collected for the ocean
recycling recycling
Flexible and multilayer plastic make up 59 per cent of plastic production, while collectively contributing to 80 per cent of the plastic leakage. The plastic that is
collected for recycling by both the formal and informal sectors is predominantly rigid.

soon as 2030.120 We therefore assume that it is possible to sales value than coloured), while other improvements to
switch 100 per cent of the multimaterial flexibles that remain, streamlining will reduce the cost of closed-loop recycling as
which will increase the proportion of recyclable plastic waste sorting losses decrease.
and its value, driving higher recovery and recycling rates. We
have not modelled replacing single-use flexibles with single- Example: A soft drinks company
use rigid packaging as this would increase packaging weights operating in Latin America is using
significantly, but this could be suitable in some instances one clear bottle design for its full
after holistically assessing cost and environmental trade-offs. range of multibranded products and
A switch towards monomaterial flexibles must go hand in distinguishing among them using
hand with an expansion in their collection. paper labels. Bottling facilities are
equipped to take back bottles, wash
Example: One brand owner has off paper labels, then clean, refill, and
developed a resealable monomaterial rebrand bottles with fresh labels.122
pouch that could be recycled
alongside polyethylene (PE) films
once collection and sorting has 4) Increase homogeneity and cleanliness of recycling inputs
scaled. Currently it is recyclable and eliminate problematic polymers and packaging formats
through store take-back.121
There are currently thousands of different plastic types
(even under a single-polymer name) and multiple formats,
2) Switch 5 per cent of multimaterial rigid household which inhibits the quality guarantee of the recyclate. By
goods to monomaterial rigids by 2030 and 10 per cent by eliminating hard-to-recycle polymers that would otherwise
2040 contaminate the rest of the plastic waste stream (such as
PVC, PS, EPS) and by reducing the number of polymers
Shifting multimaterial household goods to monomaterials is used, both the sorting and recycling of plastic will be
more challenging due to the unique performance properties improved. These changes will decrease the complexity
required. Switching 10 per cent of rigid household goods of sorting (for both consumers and sorters) and simplify
from multimaterial to monomaterial will further increase recycling processes, ultimately increasing recycling yields
the proportion of recyclable plastic waste, driving higher and reducing costs.
recovery and recycling rates.
The type of plastic is a key factor in determining what is
Example: Household items such as economically recyclable, but specific format types and the
brushes, combs, brooms, cases, and scale at which they are placed on the market and collected
spatulas could transition towards are also important for any mechanical recycling. Certain
recyclable monomaterials such as packaging formats are particularly problematic and should
PP if the switch would not decrease either be fundamentally redesigned to allow them to be
the longevity of products. Some economically collected and recycled at scale, or eliminated
items require multiple material through reduction and substitution mechanisms. Examples
components, which could be include small format packaging such as sachets, which also
designed for disassembly. have a high propensity to leak into the environment and are
difficult to economically collect at scale.
3) Redesign (or remove) dyes, plastic pigments, and Example: With all components made
additives of the same plastic type, not only
is this design made of 100 per cent
This is a vital transition as it represents one of the biggest recycled plastic, but it is also 100 per
barriers preventing recyclers from creating recycled quality cent recyclable.123
that can compete with virgin output. Plastic often contains
additives, from colourants to stabilizers and flame retardants.
These additives are difficult to trace or remove and can
contaminate plastic or make it unsafe or unusable in new
products. Colour is typically used for marketing purposes,
5) Improve labelling
but this results in two conflicting problems. First, the post-
consumer plastic available for recycling is made up of The purpose of labelling is to help both the consumer
many colours, creating a complex mix that is impossible and the sorter to place products into the correct recycling
to separate into single colours. Second, the demand is for stream. Labelling should therefore conform to clear national
recycled plastic in neutral colours (similar to virgin plastic). To or international standards that take the practical recyclability
create a circular loop between plastic and products, many of the materials into account. The packaging industry should
more items need to be made from unpigmented plastic also ensure that “labelling for recycling” is intuitive, especially
and new marketing approaches need to be developed, when multiple polymers are used, to maximize recycling
such as using recyclable inks and labels. Through design for efforts from consumers, pickers, and sorters, as well as from
recycling, more plastic material can be profitable to recycle recyclers themselves. For example, a box made of high-
(for example, clear PET recyclate has a 25 per cent higher density polyethylene (HDPE) with a lid made of low-density

polyethylene (LDPE) should have each component labelled covered by Extended Producer Responsibility schemes, as is
separately, as opposed to the current practice in which, for usually the case in HI countries).
the sake of aesthetics, HDPE and LDPE are both mentioned
on the bottom of the box. The five design for recycling levers also improve the
economics of recycling by US$120 per metric ton,124 virtually
By improving labelling practices, the complexity of sorting doubling recycling profitability (see Figure 31).
and recycling processes will decrease, which will ultimately
increase the share of waste collected for recycling, increase In addition to economically benefiting the recycling
recycling yields, and reduce costs during sorting and recycling. system, this intervention is expected to deliver social and
environmental benefits. The first benefit is greater profits
for the informal collection sector through both increased
collection and the sale of higher-value products. The second
Taken together, the five design for recycling levers outlined benefit relates to lower levels of air and water pollution from
above could significantly expand the share of plastic that unknown chemical compounds as a result of increased
is economically recyclable mechanically. In high-income standardization of additive and polymer use. Moreover,
countries, an estimated 54 per cent of plastic waste could increasing recycling and offsetting the use of virgin plastic
be economically recyclable within system restraints by reduces GHG emissions by 48 per cent relative to depositing
2040, up from 21 per cent today, as shown in Figure 30 (this plastic in landfills (and even more relative to incineration),
Figure 30: Mechanical recycling economics for different which
assumes that collection and sorting costs are not paid for by is equivalent
material to a reduction
types, 2016 of 1.9 tCO2e per metric
versus 2040
for latest titles
the recycler but by the government, &authority
local captions taxes,
see report
or indesign doc
ton of plastic recycled (see Figure 20 for details).
Figure 30: Mechanical recycling economies for different material types in high-income
countries, 2016 versus 2040
The share of plastics that is economically recyclable mechanically could grow from 21 perviable
Economically cent in
Almost economically viable
2016 to 54 per cent in 2040
Not economical
2016
Cost of
500
collection
Rigids Rigids Rigids Rigids and flexibles and sorting
Net profit (US$/ metric ton)
(clear) (colour) (no end market) (contamination) Multilayer material

0
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55% 60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100%
-500
Figure 30: MechanicalFlexibles

recycling economics for different material types, 2016 versus 2040
21% (clear)
-1,000
-1,500
Economically viable
Almost economically viable
Not economical
2040 System Change Scenario

2016 Rigids
(clear) Cost of
500
Cost of
500
Rigids collection
Flexibles collection
Rigids Rigids Rigids (colour) (clear)Rigids andRigids
flexibles
and flexibles and sorting
(clear) and sorting

(colour) (no end market) (contamination)

(contamination) Multilayer
Multilayer material
material
0
0
0%0% 5%5% 10%10% 15%15% 20%

20% 25%
25% 30%
30% 35%
35% 40%
40% 45%
45% 50%
50% 55%
55% 60%
60% 65%
65% 70%
70% 75%75% 80%
80% 85%
85% 90%
90% 95%
95%100%
100%
-500
-500
Flexibles
21% (clear)
-1,500 -1,000
54%
-1,500 -1,000
In 2016, the share of plastic that is economically recyclable is estimated to be 21 per cent. By 2040, we estimate this figure can expand to 54 per cent. The analysis
represents the System Change Scenario, thereby including Reduce and Substitute, design for recycling and improvements in collection. Net profit is “US$ per metric ton
of collected plastic,” which is calculated as sales price minus the cost of recycling for different material types. Cost of recycling factors in mass losses in sorting (20 per
cent) and recycling (27 per cent). No taxes are included, and the costs of collection and sorting have been excluded given that these are often covered by governments.
Contamination is defined as the share of plastic that is not collected separately for recycling. This analysis represents high-income countries, where the share of
uncontaminated waste is higherRigidsthan in middle-/low-income countries. “No end market” includes PVC, PS and EPS. Commodity prices are assumed to remain stable.
(clear) Cost of
500
Rigids
(colour) Flexibles collection
(clear) Rigids and flexibles
A Comprehensive Assessment of Pathways Towards Stopping Ocean Plastic Pollution and sorting 65
tric ton)
(contamination) Multilayer material

0
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55% 60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100%
Enabling conditions • Shifting consumer preferences driving higher demand

for recycled content and higher recyclability of plastic
Several enabling conditions can help accelerate the design- products.
for-recycling system intervention and help achieve its full
potential. These include: • Voluntary commitments by producers and retailers to
increase recyclability and integrate recycled content in
• Strong policy interventions that promote the use and plastic products.
increase the value of recycled polymers and incentivize
producers to develop products with end-of-use Limiting factors
considerations. Examples include fee modulation based
on recyclability in Extended Producer Responsibility There are also barriers to scaling up design-for-recycling
schemes; design for recycling standards; recycling targets; solutions that need to be considered and overcome, for
minimum recycled content targets; taxes on the use of example:
virgin plastic feedstock; regulatory mandates on certain
pigments, polymers and additives; disclosure mandates; • Product differentiation is often established through
and the regulation of recycling labelling practices. multiple levels of packaging and labelling. New product
branding devices will be needed.
• Greater industry collaboration and engagement, including:
• Some applications need multilayers because they
– Development of new polymer production and currently have no technical alternatives, although this
packaging designs in coordination with recycling represents a small proportion.
and sorting technology companies.
• Some consumers may prefer smaller format packaging
– Collaboration with ink manufacturers over the due to limited space or because they can only afford
development of re-extrudable inks and new printing smaller volume products. For such products that are
processes to enable brand differentiation without unlikely to ever cross the barrier to becoming collected
the contamination associated with inks, additives, at scale and profitable to recycle, solutions may lie in
and mixed polymer use. new delivery models, at an equivalent or lower cost,
rather than design for recycling.
– Harmonization of materials and packaging formats
across companies. Coordination to improve and • Barriers and additives in plastic are often important for
standardize recycling bin designs. food and drug preservation and extended shelf life.
Innovation and research are needed to design more
• Increased public- and private-sector R&D investment
recyclable alternatives that avoid spoilage.
into design for recycling and associated technology,
including: • Plastics can be contaminated by the substances
that they held, which can lead to the accumulation
– Investments in products that meet recycling
of hazardous chemicals in recycled material. Better
specifications without sacrificing product safety,
separation of food contact and nonfood contact
stability, or purity.
packaging would help reduce contamination.
– Support for further innovation in sorting technologies
Figure 31: Recycling economics
latest titlesper ton of input, high-income
indesign docarchetype, 2016 USD
to address pigments, additives, inks, andfor
labels. & captions see report
Figure 31: Recycling per metric ton of input in high-income countries, 2016 US$
Design for recycling could almost double the profitability of mechanical recycling
$711 $583
US$/metric ton of collected plastic
+94%
$120 $248
$128
Revenue Cost of recycling Net profit Design for recycling Net profit after
operation improvements design for recycling
Source: Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2017), The New Plastics Economy: Catalysing Action
Revenue is based on a blended price of high-value plastics (PET, HDPE, and PP). The recycling costs include opex and capex. Revenue per metric ton of collected plastic
factors in mass losses in sorting (20 per cent) and recycling (27 per cent); cost per metric ton of collected plastic factors in 20 per cent sorting losses. No taxes, subsidies,
or gate fees are included. This represents an archetype average; economics may vary based on local regulations, incentives, costs, and waste composition/quality.

Expand waste collection rates in middle- and
low-income countries to 90 per cent in all urban
areas and 50 per cent in rural areas by 2040, and
support the informal collection sector
• We estimate that 22 per cent of global plastic Highly applicable Somewhat applicable Not applicable
waste is left uncollected; this figure could grow to
34 per cent by 2040 under BAU.
• By 2040, approximately 4 billion people need to Most relevant geographic archetypes

be connected to collection services (2 billion who
lack it today125 and 1.7 billion population growth).
Closing this gap would require connecting HI UMI LMI LI
approximately 500,000 people to collection Urban Urban Urban Urban
services per day, every single day,
until 2040.
HI UMI LMI LI
• Although rural areas make up 28 per cent of Rural Rural Rural Rural
waste generation, they represent 57 per cent of
uncollected waste, as collection is more difficult HI: High-income LMI: Lower middle-income
and costly.
• The informal sector plays a critical role in reducing

plastic pollution; in 2016, it collected an estimated
27 million metric tons of plastic that may have Most relevant plastic categories
otherwise leaked. About 59 per cent of all plastic
recycled globally is collected by the informal
sector.
Rigid Flex Multi
Main responsible stakeholders

• Local governments

Collection under Business-as-Usual Collection under the System Change

By 2040, under BAU, we estimate that the mass of Scenario
uncollected macroplastic waste will grow from 47 million In the System Change Scenario, we assume that LI, LMI,
metric tons per year (22 per cent of total plastic waste) and UMI countries will achieve a similar collection rate to
to 143 million metric tons per year (34 per cent of total HI countries when they reach the same per capita GDP
plastic waste)—the vast majority in middle-/low-income level. Effectively, this means that we assume collection rates
countries—with profound implications for communities (formal and informal) will reach 90 per cent in urban areas of
and ecosystems. Closing this collection gap is one of the middle-/low-income countries and 50 per cent in rural areas.
most critical interventions needed to achieve a meaningful We assume that informal collection will grow at the same
reduction in ocean plastic pollution. Expanding plastic waste rate as under BAU, and hence that most growth in collection
collection to the extent modelled in the System Change will be through the formal sector.
Scenario will take significant funding and innovation.
Achieving these aspirational collection rates will require
As populations and wealth increase across middle-/ tremendous resources from governments and industry
low-income countries, it is reasonable to assume, based throughout the world. HI countries are probably equipped
on historical trends, that the amount of macroplastic to absorb these additional costs, but middle-/low-income
waste generated will increase faster than the ability of countries will have much more difficulty.
governments to plan waste management systems and
develop infrastructure. The proportion of collected waste Rural areas generate a disproportionate share of plastic
will therefore likely stall or decrease as governments entering the ocean, accounting for 45 per cent of leakage in
struggle to keep pace. This explains why the mass of 2016, but 28 per cent of total waste generated; it is therefore
uncollected waste, and the leakage to the ocean that flows critical that the expansion of collection services is focused
from it, is expected to grow so rapidly. In our BAU Scenario, on rural as much as urban communities.
we assume that collection rates remain constant or are
constrained not to grow faster than global GDP growth,
averaged at 3 per cent per annum.126
Box 7: The economics of formal and informal macroplastic waste collection

Collection can be classified into service-driven collection and Method 1: Allocated cost of plastic collection (through
market-driven collection. formal sector)
Service-driven collection is usually carried out by the formal Macroplastic waste has a low bulk density, which means
sector, at the behest of municipal authorities who provide it occupies significant space on waste collection vehicles
waste management as a service to their citizens. Service- compared with other, denser materials. Although the lightness
driven collection is strongest in HI countries and the urban and high ductility of plastic products is beneficial during the
centres of LMI, UMI, and LI countries. Most plastic waste is use phase, its impact on waste collection costs is profound. In
collected mixed with other waste streams (mainly organics), this method, we estimate the cost of plastic collection to be
but some can be separated at source for recycling and between US$54 and US$156 per metric ton across LI, LMI, and
collected separately (usually with other dry recyclables). UMI countries (detailed figures per archetype can be found in
the technical appendix).
Market-driven collection is usually carried out by the informal
sector, whose participants “cherry-pick” the most valuable Method 2: Full cost of waste collection (through formal
materials from household waste, either at the kerbside sector)
from waste bins or from dumpsites and landfills. Although
increasing service-driven collection rates requires funding In most cases, plastic is mixed with other waste streams and
from governments, increasing market-driven collection rates cannot be collected in isolation (in other words, collection is a
can be achieved by raising the value of materials. A material’s “bundled system”). To collect 1 metric ton of plastic, one must
value is the key driver of its collection rate. The result of this therefore effectively also collect 9 metric tons of nonplastic
cherry-picking is that lower value and lighter items of plastic waste, which costs US$43-US$123 per metric ton (collecting
waste (mainly flexible monomaterials such as bags and films, mixed waste is cheaper per metric ton than plastic in isolation).
and multimaterial or multilayer items such as sachets and The cost of collecting 1 metric ton of plastic as MSW therefore
beverage cartons) are more likely to remain uncollected and actually costs on average US$770 per metric ton across
ultimately are burned openly or leaked into the environment. middle-/low-income countries. This method more accurately
Focusing system interventions on these materials is therefore a reflects the real costs for governments to collect a metric ton
top priority for reducing the negative environmental impacts of of plastic.
waste plastics globally.
Method 3: Collection through informal sector
There are three reasonable methods to estimate the cost
Another option is to collect waste through the informal sector.
of collecting plastic per metric ton in middle-/low-income
We estimate this cost at US$315 per metric ton. This method
countries.
does not need to account for other waste streams because
waste collectors can choose what they collect.

Figure 32: Collection rate under the Business-As-Usual and System Change Scenarios in
middle-/low-income countries
The System Change Scenario could significantly increase 2040 collection rates relative to BAU
without increasing collection mass significantly thanks to the Reduce and Substitute system
Figure 32: Collection rate under the Business-as-Usual and System Change
interventions for latest titles & captions see report indesign doc
Scenario in middle-/low-income countries
X% Collected rate
Business-as-Usual Scenario System Change Scenario Reduce & Substitute
Uncollected waste
Collected waste
320 320
300 300
280 280
260 260
Plastic mass, million metric tons

Plastic mass, million metric tons
240 240
220 220
200 200
180 180
160 160
140 140
120 120
100 100
80 80
60 60
40 63% 52% 40 63% 82%
20 20
0 0
2016 2030 2040 2016 2030 2040
The System Change Scenario could significantly increase Informal recycling sector participants are exposed to
2040 collection rates relative to BAU (from 66 per cent to unacceptably high levels of risk from hazards, such as airborne
87 per cent) without increasing collection mass significantly particulate matter from open burning, contaminated medical
thanks to the Reduce and Substitute system interventions. sharps, nonmedical sharp objects, and bio-aerosols, to name
Although substitutions (e.g., paper) also require collection a few.133 Furthermore, waste pickers are often stigmatized
(and this cost has been accounted for in our model), these and even criminalized for their work, which is mostly
materials have significantly higher collection rates relative to unrecognized by other agents.134 Discouraging waste-picking
plastic because of paper’s higher recyclability. on the grounds of poor working conditions would deprive
entrepreneurs of vital income. Conversely, encouraging
Improving effectiveness of collection the proliferation of the informal recycling sector as a cost-
effective waste management service is to be complicit with
through better governance
sometimes unacceptably hazardous working conditions.
Our model estimates that 25 per cent of the macroplastic
that enters waterways every year is dumped there directly by Rather than propose either of these opposing options,
collection vehicles whose operators want to avoid landfill taxes our System Change Scenario assumes that the informal
and/or the cost and time of travelling to controlled treatment recycling sector will grow at the same rate as the global urban
or disposal facilities (or because no facility is available). Evidence population; this means a 58 per cent increase in both the
to support the underlying assumptions behind this estimate is number of waste pickers and the macroplastic they collect by
scant and anecdotal at best127 because the activity is generally 2040.
illegal and participants are understandably reluctant to share
For the expansion of the informal sector to become a
information. However, it is a phenomenon that can easily be
socially just solution to plastic pollution, its participants
observed in many areas in the middle-/low-income countries.
need to be remunerated fairly and their working conditions
In the System Change Scenario, we ambitiously estimate improved. In many areas, waste pickers have been shown
that direct dumping of post-collected waste could be to reduce municipal spending on waste management. If
reduced by 80 per cent by combining existing technological even a proportion of these savings could be allocated to
innovation and stronger regulatory oversight. For instance, the their direct remuneration and improving working conditions,
movement of waste collection vehicles could be monitored there would be potential for the sector to develop, reduce
with the help of new developments in telemetry that allow risk, and professionalize its activities. Improving the situation
the cost-effective tracking of vehicles. This technology is for waste pickers will help solve a host of chronic social and
becoming cheaper and has already been employed in some economic problems and contribute towards meeting several
cities in middle-/low-income countries.128 Sustainable Development Goals.

Box 8: The informal recycling sector: huge potential for curbing macroplastic leakage
Waste pickers are responsible for 60 per cent of global plastic recycling. Yet, to date, the huge contribution
of the informal sector to reducing ocean plastic pollution has largely gone unrecognized and underpaid.
An increase in plastic material value through design for recycling, as well as the implementation of new
technologies, can significantly increase the retained value for waste pickers and contribute to social justice.
For the purpose of this project, we defined the informal recycling sector (waste pickers) as individuals or
enterprises who are involved in private-sector recycling and waste management activities that are not
sponsored, financed, recognized, supported, organized, or acknowledged by the formal solid waste
authorities, or which operate in violation of or in competition with formal authorities.129
Waste pickers in the informal sector work in diverse ways.130 They may operate independently, collecting
and separating recyclable materials and selling them to intermediaries or directly to reprocessors.131 In many
countries, waste pickers have organized in cooperatives, associations, federations, and networks.132 In other
parts of the world, waste pickers have created unions and are integrated as informal workers in the formal
collection, separation, and recycling of plastic waste.
The complex landscape of the informal recycling sector, and the inherent lack of documentation and paucity
of reliable data, make it very difficult to report on the sector with sufficient accuracy. We estimate the number
of (full-time equivalent) participants worldwide to be 11 million in 2016, collecting a total of 27 million metric
tons of macroplastic waste each year, 12 per cent of all the municipal solid waste produced annually.
Worldwide, the informal sector could be responsible for collecting more plastic for recycling than the formal
sector, underlining its key importance (Figure 33). In all but the HI archetype, the informal sector is the main
actor in the recycling business, as the formal sector focuses on mixed collection, which is largely landfilled.
Figure 33: Global collection by type of collection, 2016

Figure 33: Global collection by type, 2016
Globally, the informal sector collects more plastic for recycling than the formal sector
131
(73%)
Million metric tons of plastic collected
27
22 (15%)
(12%)
Collected for recycling by the Collected for recycling by the Collected for disposal
formal sector informal sector1
1
Includes collection from households, streets, and dumpsites.

• Increasing the value of materials

Box 9: Health and environmental risks For market-driven collection to expand, the value of
materials must be higher than the cost of collection.
of open burning Examples of ways to increase the material value of
waste include:
There are many significant risks associated with
uncollected waste, many of which stem from the open – Mandating the use of recycled content to increase
burning of plastic waste. Our model shows that, in 2016, demand for secondary materials.
49 million metric tons of uncollected macroplastic
waste was burned openly, either as fuel or as a means – Designing more plastic for recycling (see System
Intervention 3).
of disposal in the absence of a waste management
provision. By 2040, our model anticipates that this figure – Reducing the variety of polymers to lessen the
could increase to 133 million metric tons under BAU. need for sorting.
Combustion is rarely complete in open burning, – Creating and developing local or regional markets
leading to the formation of fine particulate matter, to provide better access for the informal recycling
coated in oily materials such as tars and polyaromatic sector.
hydrocarbons (PAH). Particulate matter, particularly PM
2.5 PAH, is both mutagenic and carcinogenic, causing Limiting factors
developmental and immunological impairments
Several limiting factors also need to be addressed:
as well as reproductive abnormalities. Air pollution
is responsible for as many as 3.7 million deaths per • Funding
year135 and open burning is believed to be a significant Waste collection is already a significant cost burden for
contributor. Plastic waste combustion also contributes municipal authorities throughout the world, typically
to climate change because plastic is almost entirely accounting for 19 per cent of municipal budgets in LI
made from fossil carbon. The partial combustion of countries, 11 per cent in LMI and UMI countries, and 4
per cent in HI countries.137 Central governments shoulder
plastic releases black carbon aerosols, which may have
much of the burden of investment in treatment, disposal,
as much as 5,000 times the global warming potential
storage, and collection infrastructure. Plus, investment
of CO2.136 The negative impacts on health and the is often most needed where monetary resources are
wider environment make open burning an entirely least available. The billions of dollars of investment in
unacceptable disposal option. collection and storage equipment, let alone the operating
expenditure necessary to keep collection systems
running, are unlikely to become available from taxation
Enabling conditions in middle-/low-income countries over the next 20 years.
Governments will need to source funds elsewhere. One
Several enabling conditions can help accelerate the scale-up option is to increase industry funding through Extended
of collection and help this system intervention achieve its full Producer Responsibility, a virgin plastic tax, or other
potential. These include: mechanisms.
• Innovation and technology • Chronic lack of collection in rural areas, unlawful

Innovations in waste collection can help solve a range settlements, and slums
of challenges. New models for the aggregation of waste Rural and remote areas have significantly lower
(including decentralized management and deposit collection rates and higher collection costs, while some
schemes), enhancing communication with waste settlements may have no waste collection services at
producers, and better logistics for collectors could all all,138 meaning that residents have to manage their waste
improve the microeconomic viability of waste collection informally. Similar issues affect many of the lowest-
in less accessible areas. Decentralized waste storage, income and slum areas. Extending and expanding
processing, and treatment can empower local people collection in these areas is critical to reducing plastic
while diverting resources away from disposal and pollution, but will rely on funding, policy, and innovation.
reducing the chance of mismanagement. New business
models can also play a role. Companies are piloting • Addressing organic waste
business models that incentivize consumers to collect Although this report focuses on plastic, it is important to
and separate at source by sharing the value of collected acknowledge that formal collection services target all
products. Advances in telemetry to monitor collection waste streams, not plastic alone. The solutions available
vehicles, in combination with regulatory enforcement, (or not) for other waste streams, and particularly organic
can be used to reduce the direct dumping of collected matter, will have a fundamental impact on the value
waste into waterways. of plastic because mixing organic and plastic waste in
bins is one of the leading causes of plastic value loss
• Governance, quality of collection, and planning due to contamination. Crucially, the need to collect
Dumping waste in the natural environment is illegal organics is also the largest cost driver when expanding
in many countries, but progress is needed to increase collection coverage because organics are the largest
compliance with regulations, combat corruption, and waste stream, often making up more than 50 per cent of
boost the enforcement capacity of governments. Results- municipal waste.139
based financing, including contract instruments such
as capping fees and performance-based remuneration,
may be effective both in improving the quality of waste
collection and in preventing illegal dumping.

Double mechanical recycling capacity globally
to 86 million metric tons per year by 2040
• Today’s plastic recycling system is failing us: Only Highly applicable Somewhat applicable Not applicable
20 per cent of plastic enters recycling systems
and, after accounting for sorting and recycling
losses, only 15 per cent of global plastic waste is
actually being recycled.
• Recycling today is less economical than landfill or
incineration, but it has the potential to be US$350-
US$540 per metric ton more profitable in the HI UMI LMI LI
future across all archetypes because, unlike landfill Urban Urban Urban Urban
and incineration, it generates revenue.
• Mechanical recycling capacity can scale up HI UMI LMI LI

to address 86 million metric tons per year of Rural Rural Rural Rural
plastic waste by 2040, equivalent to opening 107
recycling plants of 20,000 metric tons per year HI: High-income LMI: Lower middle-income
capacity globally every year from 2021 until 2040.
By 2040, 33 per cent of total plastic MSW would
be mechanically recycled (after Reduce and
Substitute interventions). Even in this aspirational
scenario, 67 per cent of plastic waste remains
unrecycled due to limitations on expanding Most relevant plastic categories
collection, on what can be profitably recycled, and
on material losses.
• Each reprocessing cycle degrades the material, Rigid Flex Multi

which means that even a product designed for
recycling is only kept out of the managed disposal
or improper disposal pathways for a limited
amount of time. Contamination and degradation
prevent the material from continuously staying in
play. Main responsible stakeholders
• Each metric ton of recycled feedstock offsets 48

per cent in GHG emissions (1.9 tCO2e/t) relative to
• Waste management companies
virgin plastic production.

This system intervention quantifies how far mechanical plastic recycling include exported waste, which is assumed
recycling can go towards managing the plastic waste to be fully recycled, although anecdotal evidence indicates
that remains after the upstream Reduce and Substitute that this is not always the case.140 Even when plastic is
interventions have been applied and after design for recycled, open-loop recycling makes up an estimated two-
recycling has been ambitiously applied. The analysis clearly thirds of global capacity, highlighting the lack of circularity
illustrates that, although we cannot recycle ourselves out in the system. Materials need to be recycled to the highest
of the plastic pollution problem, mechanical recycling is an standard and level of purity to be able to be used for a wide
important part of the integrated solution. variety of products and for recyclates to become a valuable
commodity.
Today, many industry efforts and commitments are being
directed towards recyclability, but mechanical recycling has There is an intrinsic limitation on how much of the plastic
historically struggled due to a combination of factors, most waste stream can currently be recycled. For something to be
notably fragile economics. This fragility is driven by three deemed recyclable, the system must be in place for it to be
important factors: collected, sorted, reprocessed, and manufactured back into
a new product or packaging—at scale and economically.141
• Volatile and low prices for recycled plastic, linked to There are currently four factors that limit how much of the
low global commodity prices for oil and virgin plastic: plastic waste can therefore be defined as recyclable:
Recycled plastic prices have been volatile, and this has
limited investments in collection and recycling capacity, 1. Many product designs are technically problematic
reducing raw recyclate material and restricting growth. for mechanical recycling, for example, composite or
multilayer designs made up of different materials or
• Consistency and grade: Recycled plastic has polymer types.
traditionally not matched the consistency and grade of
virgin plastic and is usually traded at lower prices, which 2. Local infrastructure and technology to collect, sort,
limits the value generated from the recycling supply and recycle the product after use is often lacking.
chain.
3. Plastic often becomes contaminated with other waste,
• Low disposal costs: Landfill and incineration options making recycling unviable because it can become too
have historically been attractively inexpensive, stifling costly to clean and separate the plastic fractions.
the demand for alternative methods of treating waste.
4. Some plastic is not economically recyclable within
Today’s recycling system has failed to cope with current reasonable system constraints due to the additional
volumes and types of plastic waste, resulting in 15 per cent costs required for certain product types, e.g., small,
of global plastic waste being recycled. Moreover, this figure lightweight items with high collection and separation
is probably an overestimation because reported figures for costs.
Box 10: Why is fixing our recycling system such an important part of the solution?
• Even after reducing and substituting wherever feasible, there is still a significant amount of single-use
plastic required, for which a circular end-of-life system should be developed.
• Achieving the true potential of plastic recycling—through better product design; new collection,
separation and recycling technologies (chemical and mechanical); and smart policies—will contribute to
the expansion of plastic waste collection.
• When it operates at a profit, recycling can provide a financial incentive for stakeholders to fund additional
material recovery. Improving recycling economics can drive increased material recovery and reduce
leakage of plastics to the ocean.
• Landfill capacity is limited and under high pressure in many places, creating a disincentive for increasing
waste collection rates. Recycling can counter this disincentive by taking landfill-bound waste out of the
waste stream.
• Recycling allows us to move away from linear plastic production by maximizing the longevity of previously
extracted hydrocarbons, thereby reducing the need for additional extraction. This improved circularity
addresses not only climate change (through a reduction of 1.9 tCO2e per metric ton of plastic recycled
relative to virgin plastic production), but ultimately also the growing concerns regarding land use (e.g., for
landfills or sourcing of feedstock for bio-based plastics), biodiversity, and intensive resource extraction.
• Recycling has a GHG emissions benefit compared with landfilling or incineration, neither of which drive a
reduction in emissions by offsetting the need for virgin plastic production.

Material losses inherent in the system mean that there is a Not accounting for landfill tipping fees, the recycling of
further important distinction between what is collected for many plastic types is currently less economical than landfill
recycling and how much is actually recycled. These sorting or incineration, which means they are recycled only when
and recycling losses collectively lead to a 42 per cent loss either:
in material in high-income countries. The prevalence of the
informal sector and manual sorting in middle-/low-income a) Collection and/or sorting are subsidized by the
countries results in a lower cumulative loss rate of 31 per government or funded through Extended Producer
cent, because the sorted plastic waste is generally of a Responsibility schemes; or
higher quality.
b) Informal and private-sector collectors target the plastic
Even if we could significantly increase recycling rates, this types with highest value for recycling and build private
would not automatically translate into lower leakage to the collection systems and supply chains—often “piggy-backed”
ocean. If we increase recycling rates in areas that already onto formal waste systems where materials have already
have secure disposal of waste—as in most high-income been aggregated in waste transport vehicles, transfer
countries—ocean plastic pollution will barely be impacted stations, or dumpsites.
because the feedstock is landfill-bound (or incinerator-
Currently, mechanical recycling could generate a net system
bound) plastic, not ocean-bound plastic. This is not
profit in LMI countries of US$51 per metric ton of collected
necessarily the case for plastic that is exported, and as such it
plastic, while recycling in HI countries would result in a loss
is important for high-income countries to increase their own
of US$293 per metric ton of collected plastic, if collection
local recycling infrastructure (see System Intervention 8).
and sorting is included (see Figure 34).
There are many other reasons why recycling plastic is better
than landfilling or incinerating it, even in situations where it Landfilling and incineration are always likely to incur a net
does not directly reduce plastic pollution, including reducing cost because they do not generate sufficient revenue, but
GHG emissions and natural resource extraction. recycling has the potential to break even and even become
net profitable across all archetypes if design for recycling
If recycling is to contribute to reducing leakage, it is
is implemented, collection systems are improved and
important to build a profitable recycling and sorting industry
expanded, and technology improves (see Figure 35).
that can cover the cost of plastic collection and implement it
at scale in the places that contribute the most to leakage.
Figure 34: End-to-end closed-loop recycling economics in high-income (HI) and

formiddle-income
lower latest titles & captions
(LMI)see report indesign
countries, 2016 doc
Figure 34: End-to-end closed-loop recycling economics in high-income and lower middle-
income countries, 2016
Mechanical recycling is not profitable in high-income countries if the cost of collection and sorting
is accounted for
High-income countries Lower middle-income countries
Recycling
Collection & sorting
Net profit/loss
$711 $583 $760 $394
$315
$421
$51
Sale price of Cost of Cost of Net profit/

recycling recycling collection loss
and sorting
$-293
Sale price of Cost of Cost of Net profit/
recycling recycling collection loss
and sorting
With the cost of collection and sorting included, mechanical recycling produces a net loss of US$293 per collected metric ton in HI, and a profit of US$51 per metric
ton in LMI. The sales price is a blended price of high-value plastics (PET, HDPE, and PP) and appears higher in LMI due to lower system losses (because prices/costs are
calculated per metric ton of collected plastic). No taxes/subsidies or landfill gate fees are included. Costs include both opex and capex costs. Revenue per metric ton of
collected plastic factors in mass losses in sorting (20 per cent) and recycling (27 per cent); cost per metric ton of collected plastic factors in 20 per cent sorting losses.
Mechanical recycling in LMI assumes informal collection, while HI is calculated using formal collection costs. In HI, the public sector pays for collection and sorting.

Figure 8: Development of net system loss/profit per technology, 2016-2040
Afor latest
STRATEGY titlesOCEAN
TO REDUCE & captions see report
PLASTIC POLLUTION RATES BY indesign
80 PER CENT doc
Closed-loop mechanical recycling could be net-profitable in all regions without subsidies
Figure 35: Development of net system loss/profit per technology, 2016-2040

Closed-loop mechanical recycling could be net profitable in all regions without subsidies
350 LMI-Disposal
300 LMI-Closed-loop
mechanical recycling
250
(US$/metric ton of collected plastic)
HI-Disposal
200 HI-Closed-loop
mechanical recycling
150
Net profit/loss
100
50
0
-50
-100
-150
-200
-250
-300
2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030 2032 2034 2036 2038 2040
Mechanical recycling could be net profitable over time in both LMI and HI, while disposal (incineration/landfill) will always be net cost. Net profit/loss includes full
life-cycle costs, including the cost of collection and sorting. The revenue is based on a blended price of high-value plastics (PET, HDPE, and PP). No taxes/subsidies
Mechanical
or landfill gate recycling
fees are included. could
The material be
losses net-profitable
throughout over
the life cycle time
have beenin both LMIbyand
incorporated HI, while
representing the disposal (incineration/landfill)
net loss/profit as a function of a metric will
ton of collected plastic. Mechanical recycling in LMI assumes informal collection, while HI is calculated using formal collection costs. Disposal costs increase over
always be net-cost. Net profit/loss includes full life-cycle costs, including the cost of collection and sorting. The
time to account for the increasing cost per metric ton of collection with increasing coverage.

revenue is based on a blended price of high-value plastics (PET, HDPE, and PP). No taxes/subsidies or landfill gate
fees are included. The material losses throughout the life cycle have been incorporated by representing the net
profit/loss as a function of a ton of collected plastic. Mechanical recycling in LMI assumes informal collection while
Pathway tocalculated
HI is the System using Change Scenario
formal collection costs. DisposalEnabling conditions
costs increase over time to account for the increasing cost
perthat
We estimate ton in
ofthe
collection with increasing
System Change Scenario,coverage. Several enabling conditions can help accelerate this system
mechanical recycling capacity could scale up globally to intervention and allow it to achieve its full potential.
address 86 million metric tons per year of plastic waste
by 2040, equivalent to 38 per cent of total plastic MSW • Improved recycling economics:
worldwide (after the Reduce and Substitute wedges have – Increased demand for recycled plastic, such as the
been applied). This is an increase from the 43 million metric need for fast-moving consumer goods (FMCGs)
tons, or 20 per cent of total plastic waste, in 2016, and will to meet voluntary public commitments and policy
requirements in terms of recycled content. This
require opening 107 recycling plants of 20,000 metric tons
would lead to higher prices paid for recycled
per year capacity globally every year from 2021 until 2040. content.
The resulting increase in recycling could allow 14 per cent – Machinery for mechanical recycling coming down
of virgin plastic demand to be offset by 2040, equivalent to a in cost due to the commoditization of recycling
59 million tons CO2e reduction in GHG emissions annually. technology.
However, even in this aspirational scenario, 67 per cent of
plastic waste remains unrecycled (mechanically) due to – Virgin plastic and landfill/incineration gradually being
made more expensive via taxation to the degree
limitations on expanding collection, limits on what can be
that recycling is more financially competitive.142
profitably recycled, and technical limits on material losses. It is important that this taxation be paired with
In other words, we cannot simply recycle our way out of our good enforcement to avoid open dumping/illegal
plastic problem. disposal. Historically, increases in landfill tax have
reduced landfill rates and incentivized recycling.143
• Increased and improved investments:

– Targeted investment in recycling technology,
especially the types that have not yet reached
commercial viability, including improved technology

to reduce sorting and recycling losses, to address Limiting factors

capacity restraints and to create higher quality
output able to meet food-grade standards. It is important to recognize that mechanical recycling has
several limiting factors:
– More investment in infrastructure capacity across
archetypes to accommodate increasing waste. • Volatile prices linked to commodity prices for oil and
virgin plastic.
• Higher demand for recycled content:
• Losses of material (to a landfill or to incineration) in the
– Legislation and effective enforcement aimed at
sorting and recycling chain.
driving demand (e.g., recent announcements on
recycled content taxes in the United Kingdom and • Losses in material properties during mechanical
France, virgin feedstock tax, minimum recycled recycling, which limits most plastic to two or three
content requirements under European Union recycling loops before quality deteriorates.
legislation, potential eco-modulation of Extended
Producer Responsibility schemes according to • Quality of mechanically recycled plastic often
recycled content). inadequate for current packaging standards, thus
limiting its potential utility (two-thirds of all recycled
– Public procurement policies, which can leverage packaging is estimated to be food-grade).
volume to create increased demand for recycled
content/recyclable products. • Recycled materials can contain hazardous chemicals
from diffuse or unknown sources, including chemical
– Industry commitments by plastic producers and additives used in plastic products. Recycling can
retailers (e.g., New Plastics Economy Global therefore lead to increased human exposure to
Commitment by consumer goods companies and hazardous chemicals. This is a major concern and
retailers). barrier for circularity, especially for food packaging, and
requires work to improve transparency regarding the
– Long-term agreements with both the private and
chemical composition of products.
public sectors to guarantee demand for recycled
polymers and mitigate investment risks.
Due to all these limiting factors, mechanical recycling
– Enhanced matchmaking mechanisms to enable cannot process all plastic within reasonable system
secondary markets for recycled materials. constraints, even under the System Change Scenario,
because:
• Incentives and policies aimed at improving collection
systems: • Even in countries with a developed collection system
subsidized by the government, recycling economics
– Optimizing convenience and quality of collection vary massively by material and contamination level.
services (e.g., one drop-off centre in a town
captures notably less material than curbside • Anticipated growth in new plastic types and designs
collection). (e.g., compostable plastic or compostables that
aesthetically look like plastic) could drive up costs due to
– Developing country-specific Extended Producer additional sorting technology requirements and could
Responsibility schemes to provide price support dilute the quality of the recyclate stream.
for the informal sector to collect more low-value
plastic, while improving working conditions.
– Increasing source separation in collection systems

through regulation.
– Simplifying source separation in collection systems

through education, incentives, and improved
labelling standards.
Plastic moves through a recycling facility.

Albert Karimov/Shutterstock

Develop plastic-to-plastic conversion, potentially to a
global capacity of up to 13 million metric tons per year
• We estimate that chemical conversion could achieve Highly applicable Somewhat applicable Not applicable
a global capacity of 26 million metric tons per year
by 2040, up from 1.4 million metric tons today, about
half of which will be converted back into plastic (and
the other half turned to fuel). Expanding the plastic-
to-plastic component to 13 million metric tons per Most relevant geographic archetypes
year is equivalent to opening roughly 32 plastic-
to-plastic plants (of 20,000 metric tons per year
capacity each) every year from 2021 until 2040. HI UMI LMI LI
• The end-to-end economics of plastic-to-plastic
using pyrolysis are only estimated to generate a
net system profit by 2040 for LMI countries, while HI UMI LMI LI
in HI countries it is economically viable only if Rural Rural Rural Rural
governments or industry subsidize collection and
sorting.
HI: High-income LMI: Lower middle-income
• Chemical conversion has a role to play in stemming
plastic leakage to the ocean because it could create
an economic sink for certain low-value plastic types
that make up a high proportion of plastic pollution
and cannot be readily reduced, substituted, or
mechanically recycled. However, for chemical
conversion to help reduce plastic entering the Most relevant plastic categories
environment, it needs to be profitable enough to
cover collection costs; otherwise, the feedstock
will come from plastic that is already collected for Rigid Flex Multi
landfilling, not from the unmanaged waste bound for
the ocean.
• Chemical conversion through pyrolysis is synergistic

to, not in competition with, mechanical recycling
because each method handles different feedstocks.
When used together, the economics of both are
improved. Chemical conversion technology should
only ever use feedstock that cannot be reduced, Main responsible stakeholders
substituted, or mechanically recycled.
• Waste management companies
• The GHG emissions generated to produce 1 metric
ton of feedstock through plastic-to-plastic is 19 per

cent lower than a metric ton of virgin plastic destined • Petrochemical industry
for incineration and 9 per cent higher than 1 metric
ton of virgin plastic destined for a landfill.

The term chemical conversion refers to any reprocessing plastic not suitable for mechanical recycling, chemical
technology that uses chemical agents or processes to break conversion has the potential to provide a method of
down plastic into basic chemical building blocks that can be reintroducing the plastic polymers back into the system
used to make new plastic or other materials. This contrasts and closing the loop. However, for chemical conversion to
with mechanical recycling, which uses physical methods to contribute to the reduction of plastic leakage to the ocean,
re-form plastic pellets for plastic manufacturing. Due to the its economics must account for the cost of collection;
limitations of mechanical recycling for some plastic types, otherwise, the waste plastic feedstock will likely come
new recycling technologies are being advanced that can from plastics that are bound for landfills, rather than those
handle lower-value plastic, such as film and multimaterials, destined to leak into the environment.
and plastic that has been contaminated.
Deploying mechanical and chemical recycling technologies
Several chemical conversion technologies are being together creates many synergies as feedstock acceptability
developed that can chemically treat waste plastic back into expands and the economics improve due to higher recycling
petrochemical compounds that can then be reintroduced yields and lower transportation costs. Synergies may be
into the petrochemical process to produce plastic feedstock maximized when mechanical recycling and chemical
with the same properties as virgin plastic—a route known conversion are co-located because, together, they can
as plastic-to-plastic chemical conversion and considered a deal with almost the entire plastic waste stream. Recent
type of recycling. These feedstocks can also be refined into modelling of this kind of co-location arrangement estimates
alternative fuels, such as diesel—a route known as plastic-to- that a combined facility could increase revenue by 25 per
fuel and that we consider to be a type of disposal as it does cent compared with a best-in-class mechanical recycling
not allow carbon to be utilized for additional anthropogenic plant on its own.144 Chemical conversion could act as an
loops (see System Intervention 7). end market for many materials that cannot be mechanically
recycled profitably. However, if there is a mechanical
Many companies are actively considering plastic-to-plastic recycling end market for the same material that pays better,
chemical conversion, for several reasons: material would be expected to flow there instead.
• It expands feedstock options beyond what mechanical
recycling tolerates, including mixed polymers, low-value Chemical conversion technologies
and contaminated plastic, and pigments. It is important
to note that chemical conversion still has limitations on Many chemical recycling technologies exist, but there are
feedstock, as shown in Figure 36. three main types, and they differ significantly in how they
work and the outputs they produce:
• In contrast to mechanical recycling, in pyrolysis-based
technologies, the polymer is broken down rather than • Solvent-based purification is a process in which plastic
preserved, which allows for infinite reprocessing cycles. is dissolved in a solvent and a series of purification
steps are undertaken to separate the polymer from
• It creates a new revenue stream and the potential additives and contaminants. The resulting output is the
to charge a price premium for plastic derived from precipitated polymer, which remains unaffected by the
recycled content, while still meeting regulatory process and can be reformulated into plastics. Solvent-
requirements for recycled content. based purification does not change the constitution
of the polymer itself, so there are ongoing discussions
• For many food companies, plastic-to-plastic chemical as to whether this technology should be defined as
conversion currently represents the only way to mechanical rather than chemical recycling, or as a
incorporate recycled content into their packaging separate class (see also ISO 15270:2008).
because there is no food contact-approved
mechanically recycled content apart from PET and • Chemical depolymerization yields either single
minimal HDPE. Chemical conversion therefore provides monomer molecules or shorter fragments often called
a pathway to meet the growing demand for virgin- oligomers. This can provide recycled content for PET.
quality, food-grade recycled plastic.
• Thermal depolymerization is any thermal process that
• It partially “de-risks” the petrochemical industry, which is converts polymers into simpler molecules. The two
seeking ways to source plastic feedstock in a 1.5oC world. main processes for this are pyrolysis and gasification.
The products of pyrolysis or gasification can easily
For the time being, however, chemical conversion has integrate into existing chemical processing supply chains.
not been proved at scale. Compared with mechanical Feedstock recycling can provide recycled content for all
recycling, it has higher costs, energy requirements, and GHG our polypropylene (PP) and polyethylene (PE) packaging.
emissions. Although its viability at scale should be developed
For the purpose of this system intervention, we modelled
and evaluated, its expansion should be contingent on the
the economics of pyrolysis because this technology is the
decarbonization of energy sources, and natural lead times and
most mature and therefore has the most reliable data. It can
limitations of emerging technologies must be recognized.
handle feedstock made up of mixed plastics that cannot be
reduced, substituted, or recycled, and there is no limit to the
Chemical and mechanical recycling synergies number of times plastic can be reprocessed as the polymer
Mechanical recycling and chemical conversion are is not degraded. The output can be used to deliver food-
complementary—not competing—technologies as they safe recycled content. The plants can be modular, which
handle different feedstock. For low-value or contaminated increases the potential for global scale-up by allowing the
supply chain economics to work.

Figure 36: Feedstock tolerance comparison for mechanical recycling versus pyrolysis
Figure 9: conversion
Chemical Feedstock expands
tolerance comparison
feedstock for mechanical recycling versus pyrolysis
tolerance
Chemical conversion expands feedstock tolerance
Value of plastic High Low
PET HDPE PP LDPE + PVC PS Multi-

LLDPE layers
Mechanical Technically
Clean/sorted recycling feasible
waste
Pyrolysis Feasible under some
circumstances
Technically not
Mechanical feasible
Contaminated recycling
waste
Pyrolysis
Pyrolysis is better suited to address low-value or contaminated plastics than mechanical recycling. Mechanical recycling includes both open- and closed-loop
Mechanical recycling includes both open- and closed-loop recycling capabilities. Contamination is defined as contamination by other waste
recycling capabilities. Contamination is defined as contamination by other waste (i.e., organics) or inks, additives, and mixed polymers. Mechanical recycling of
(i.e., organics)
LDPE/LLDPE or inks,
is mostly additives,
open-loop and mixed
recycling. polymers.
All polymers Mechanical
containing oxygenrecycling
or nitrogen ofare
LDPE/LLDPE is mostlyinopen-loop
considered impurities recycling.
pyrolysis; these polymers will need to be below
a certain threshold to avoid CO2 or NO2 formation as this will decrease the yield significantly.
A controversial technology • Plastic-to-plastic chemical conversion has high energy

requirements, leading to GHG emissions that are 110 per
Chemical conversion is a controversial technology because cent higher than mechanical recycling, and 9 per cent
it is still in its early stage of development, has high energy higher than landfilling—albeit 19 per cent lower than
requirements, and accurate assumptions about its impacts that of plastic that is incinerated (see Figure 37). This is
and contributions cannot yet be made. Critics fear that it is predominantly because the feedstock is reintroduced
being positioned by some advocates as a panacea; however, into the same plastic production process as virgin
our analysis illustrates that, despite having an important plastic. However, it should be noted that data for the
GHG emissions of these technologies is severely limited
role to play for low-value plastic, plastic-to-plastic chemical
and that further transparency and monitoring is needed
recycling can only tackle 6 per cent of plastic waste by 2040 to improve assessments. Currently, chemically recycled
and certainly cannot solve the crisis on its own. Concerns plastic could have a higher level of embedded carbon
about the technology include: than virgin plastic. Furthermore, if decarbonization of
electricity requirements does not occur in line with
• Chemical conversion investments could generate International Energy Agency projections, the emissions
potential “lock-in effects” and “path dependency,” which from this technology would be considerably higher.
means that cities that buy into the model then have to As such, its expansion should be contingent on the
stick with it for many years because large amounts of decarbonization of energy sources.
capital have been deployed and contracts to provide
certain quantities of waste have been agreed. This could • Plastic-to-plastic chemical conversion could risk
even lead to perverse incentives for governments not to diverting research and development financing away
decrease plastic waste generation, particularly if they are from better, more efficient solutions. Several chemical
locked into “deliver or pay” contracts. This was observed companies are funding the R&D of plastic products that
in Oregon, where the presence of a pyrolysis plant was can be mechanically recycled more easily.147 Promoting
used to argue against a partial ban on polystyrene.145 pyrolysis could eliminate the incentives for these R&D
Likewise, lock-in scenarios can mean other innovative efforts. Likewise, it risks diverting corporate attention
and potentially better systems have less chance to and investments away from more sustainable reuse
develop. This situation was observed in Scandinavia solutions.
and Germany, where heavy investment in incineration
plants 20 years ago prohibited further development
in alternative waste management until recently, when
plants were reaching the end of their lives.146

Figure 37: Greenhouse gas emissions of 1 ton of plastic utility

Figure 37: Greenhouse gas emissions of 1 metric ton of plastic utility
Chemical conversion emits more greenhouse gases than most other treatment types
6.0
5.4
-19%
5.0
4.4 4.4
4.0
+9%
tCO₂e/t of plastic treated
4.0
3.0
+110%
2.1
2.0
1.0
0.0
Plastic-to-plastic Mechanical Landfill Plastic-to-fuel Incineration4
(P2P) chemical recycling (100% (P2F) chemical
conversion1 recycled content)2 conversion3
The GHG1.emissions associated

Emissions includewiththe each pathway are of
repolymerization calculated
naphtha from the
as well aspoint at whichprocess
the pyrolysis plastic waste
itself. is generated
It should to the that
be noted fulfilment of GHG
data for 1 metric ton of plastic
emissions for thisutility.
One metric ton of plastic utility
technology is defined as the material/services required to provide the equivalent value as 1 metric ton of plastic.
are limited.
2. Valid for both closed-loop and open-loop recycling. This assumes 100% recycled content, which entails the collection and sorting of a larger
1. Emissions include the repolymerization of naphtha as well as the pyrolysis process itself. It should be noted that data for GHG emissions for this technology
proportion of waste to account for losses.
are limited.
3. Does not include the emissions from burning the fuel, as we assume that it replaces regular fuel with a similar GHG footprint. It should be noted
2. Valid for both closed-loop and open-loop recycling. This assumes 100% recycled content, which entails the collection and sorting of a larger proportion of
that data for GHG emissions for this technology are limited.
waste to account for losses.
4. The emissions for incineration are adjusted to reflect the emissions replaced from generating an equivalent amount of energy with average
3. Does notemissions.
include the emissions from burning the fuel, as we assume that it replaces regular fuel with a similar GHG footprint. It should be noted that data for
GHG emissions for this technology are limited.
4. The emissions for incineration are adjusted to reflect the emissions replaced from generating an equivalent amount of energy with average emissions.
Pathway to the System Change Scenario are similar, plastic-to-plastic chemical conversion has a
more focused offtake market that requires a large scale. The
Although it has limitations, chemical conversion could infrastructure will require significant capital investment to
have a role to play in stemming ocean plastic pollution develop and, as such, plastic-to-plastic chemical conversion
because of its ability to create an economic sink for certain needs a longer time horizon to both attract the funding
low-value plastic items that represent a high proportion of and build the infrastructure for its typically large plant size
plastic leakage and cannot be readily reduced, substituted, requirement. Based on our estimates, plastic-to-plastic
or mechanically recycled. In fact, chemical conversion chemical conversion has the potential to offset 5 per cent
may be the only path able to contribute to paying for their of virgin plastic demand by 2040, addressing waste that
collection. We estimate that global chemical conversion would otherwise go to landfills or incineration. In middle-/
capacity today is 1.4 million metric tons per year, of which low-income countries, plastic-to-plastic chemical conversion
we calculate that the vast majority is plastic-to-fuel. Under could eventually reduce ocean plastic pollution, but only if
the System Change Scenario, we project that chemical supply chains are put in place to take ocean-bound plastic and
conversion could grow to 26 million metric tons per year prices for collected plastic are sufficient to fund collection.
by 2040, of which 13 million metric tons per year will be
plastic-to-plastic chemical conversion. This is equivalent to The end-to-end economics of plastic-to-plastic chemical
opening about 32 plastic-to-plastic chemical conversion conversion using pyrolysis indicate that only lower middle-
plants (of 20,000 metric tons per year capacity each) every income (LMI) countries could generate a net system profit
year from 2021 until 2040. This rate of growth is based on a in 2016 and 2040 (see Figure 38). In high-income countries,
high compound annual growth rate of 16.5 per cent, a rate this technology is currently profitable only because
seen for technologies that were similarly capital expenditure- collection and sorting are being subsidized by governments,
intensive and aggressively pushed by governments (see the and additional revenues from tipping fees are collected.
technical appendix).
By 2040, both operational expenditure and capital expenditure
The growth of plastic-to-plastic chemical conversion at costs are estimated to have decreased over time to account
scale is only likely to commence from 2030 onward, with for efficiency improvements, technological innovation, and
the growth of plastic-to-fuel creating a pathway to achieving scale. With less material lost owing to an increasing yield
it. Although the technologies to convert to fuel and plastic over time, the price per metric ton of collected plastic for the

Figure 38: End-to-end chemical

Figure 38: End-to-endconversion
chemical (plastic-to-plastic) economics through formal
conversion (plastic-to-plastic)
collection, 2016-2040 for latest titles & captions see report indesign doc
economics through formal collection, 2016-2040
Chemical conversion economics can significantly improve globally by 2040 with scale and
innovation
Recycling
Collection and sorting
Net profit/loss
High-income countries Lower middle-income countries
378 278 377 188
US$/metric ton
US$/metric ton
198
421
2016
-9
Sale price Cost of Cost of Net profit/loss
-321 of recycling recycling collection
and sorting
of recycling recycling collection
and sorting
525 205
US$/metric ton
522 146
US$/metric ton
392 247
2040
130
-72 Sale price Cost of Cost of Net profit/loss

and sorting
and sorting
With the cost of collection and sorting included, plastic-to-plastic makes a net loss of US$321 per collected metric ton in high-income countries, and US$9 per
metric ton in LMI. By 2040, lower middle-income countries could be net profitable, while HI would still make a loss if collection and sorting costs are included. This
result is driven by an improvement in material losses, as well as a reduction in costs over time. In high-income countries, the public sector pays for collection and
sorting. The US$130 per metric ton net profit in LMI countries by 2040 refers only to 20 per cent of the feedstock most suitable for chemical recycling, as shown in
Figure 11. These costs do not include taxes/subsidies or landfill gate fees because they reflect the techno-economic costs only.
recycled feedstock would consequently increase. As a result, in the United Kingdom and France, and virgin plastic
chemical conversion could generate a net system profit in LMI taxes) and industry commitments (e.g., New Plastics
countries of US$130 per metric ton of collected plastic. This Economy Global Commitment). This is especially
could create an opportunity to reduce plastic pollution further important for food-grade applications because the
supply of recyclate that meets these quality standards
by using this revenue to fund the collection and sorting of the
through mechanical recycling alone is limited. Demand
remaining uncollected and mismanaged waste.
signals from customers, such as offtake agreements of
a certain volume and price point, will be an important
Enabling conditions mechanism to trigger the growth of plastic-to-plastic
chemical conversion.
Several enabling conditions can accelerate this system
intervention and help achieve its full potential, including: • Reaching sufficient scale to penetrate the market for
naphtha (which requires high volumes). The biggest
• Increasing flows of R&D funding and blended capital to barrier is therefore the scale rather than the economics,
finance and take on the risk of infrastructure build-up, as formal collection systems need to be set up first to
especially until the technology reaches commercial guarantee sustained supply. The informal sector is an
viability. important part of the solution, with chemical conversion
having the potential to boost the demand for including
• Mechanisms to verify and trace output so that the
the informal sector in waste collection.
output can be marketed as recycled content, which will
strengthen demand. • Collaboration between suppliers and end-customers to
share the risk through both feedstock agreements and
• Legislation to drive higher demand for recycled content
oil price contracts.
(e.g., recent announcements on recycled content taxes

Limiting factors output can be more readily utilized—whether for

fuel or for chemicals such as ethanol/methanol.
It is important to recognize that plastic-to-plastic chemical
conversion cannot entirely plug the gap as a solution for 3. In land-locked areas, transportation to shipping
low-value plastics due to a combination of limiting factors. In ports could become cost-prohibitive for the plastic-
addition to the significant problems outlined above relating to-plastic value chain.
to lock-in effects, high GHG emissions, pollution, and steep If plastic-to-fuel does not lead to a transition to plastic-to-
infrastructure costs, there are additional limitations that need plastic chemical conversion, then it risks locking us into a
to be considered: technology with high GHG emissions that would lead to the
• This technology is in its infancy and therefore we cannot loss of material and perpetuate the linear, fossil-fuel economy,
yet make accurate assumptions about its impacts, without the benefits of plastic-to-plastic conversion. There
economics, and contributions. The GHG emissions, is significant R&D investment underway in this space.
water and energy consumption, and health implications Some of the investment directly targets accelerating the
all need to be fully understood prior to its scale-up. scaling of plastic-to-plastic facilities or modifying large-scale
cracker plants to accept smaller quantities. However, other
• Growth is restricted to urban areas due to the high density
of feedstock required to make collection economical. investments seek to stimulate large-scale plastic-to-fuel
facility construction. Because plastic-to-fuel allows for only
• The sales price of the output will be vulnerable to one additional use of the initial plastic—as opposed to the
swings in commodity prices, specifically, the price of completely circular solution offered by plastic-to-plastic
oil. Excluding the costs of collection and sorting, our chemical conversion—it is important that enabling policies be
analysis shows that a 27 per cent reduction in naphtha focused on plastic-to-plastic chemical conversion to advance
prices would eliminate a pyrolysis plant’s profitability.
the circular economy.
• Given the scale requirements for plastic-to-plastic
chemical conversion, it is likely that plastic-to-fuel will
continue to be the preferred solution for low-value Mechanical recycling and chemical
plastic in the short term. However, as the scale of plastic-
to-plastic chemical conversion infrastructure matures, conversion are complementary—not
the capacity is eventually expected to attract plastic-to- competing—technologies as they
plastic off-take customers. It is important to address the
factors that could jeopardize the transition from plastic- handle different feedstock. For low-
to-fuel to plastic-to-plastic chemical conversion: value or contaminated plastic not
1. Plastic-to-plastic chemical conversion requires suitable for mechanical recycling,
a sustained and consistent amount of quality
feedstock to function effectively. In areas of
chemical conversion has the potential
middle-/low-income countries without a formal to provide a method of reintroducing
collection system, the volume of plastic feedstock the plastic polymers back into the
available through cost-effective channels is more
limited and unorganized, and inadequate supply system and closing the loop. However,
chains and lack of synergies among different actors for chemical conversion to contribute
are significant problems. Although the informal
sector plugs this gap for mechanical recycling, the to the reduction of plastic leakage to
small formats and flexibles destined for plastic-to- the ocean, its economics must account
plastic conversion are more time-consuming and
relatively more expensive to collect and sort, so for the cost of collection; otherwise,
the informal sector alone cannot guarantee the the waste plastic feedstock will likely
feedstock required at this scale.
come from plastics that are bound for
2. Plastic-to-fuel is more flexible and, in countries
where demand for oil is high and no ethylene
landfills, rather than those destined to
cracker plants exist, it is often preferred because the leak into the environment.
Box 11: Health implications for chemical conversion

Chemical conversion with a pyrolysis unit poses a risk to human health mainly due to five types of pollutants released:
heavy metals (e.g., arsenic and cadmium), dioxins, NOx, SOx, and volatile organic compounds (VOCs).148 The quantity of
the pollutants released is a function of the input to a pyrolysis plant and the emission controls that are put in place.
These pollutants have been reported to cause respiratory infections and irritation.149 In addition, longer-term exposure may
also increase the risk of cancer, kidney damage, and neurotoxicity leading to damage to the central nervous system.150
Preliminary research, however, indicates that well-designed pyrolysis units can potentially destroy harmful pollutants
in the combustion process.151 The validity of such research should be further investigated to understand the full health
implications of chemical conversion.

Build facilities to securely dispose of the
23 per cent of plastic that still cannot be recycled
• Landfills, incinerators, and plastic-to-fuel Highly applicable Somewhat applicable Not applicable
chemical conversion should be used only as a last
resort, after the Reduce, Substitute and Recycle
wedges have all been exploited to their fullest
potential, particularly because incinerators and
chemical conversion plants have significant health
risks. However, it is probably unrealistic to assume
that end-of-life disposal of plastic waste will no HI UMI LMI LI
longer be necessary in 2040. Urban Urban Urban Urban
• A significant amount of plastic entering the ocean
is plastic that has been collected but mismanaged; HI UMI LMI LI
building some disposal capacity to close leakage Rural Rural Rural Rural
points may be required as a bridge solution.
• The System Change Scenario shows that global UMI: Upper middle-income LI: Low-income
landfill expansion can peak by 2030 at 73 million
metric tons per year of new landfill capacity.
Rigid Flex Multi

Main responsible stakeholder
• National governments

Our model indicates that 39 per cent of land-based per year by 2040. The majority of this waste is deposited in
macroplastics entering the ocean comes from waste that has middle-/low-income countries, where even when landfills are
been collected and subsequently mismanaged (see Figure lined and access is restricted, daily cover is rarely implemented,
7), accounting for 3.8 million metric tons of macroplastic allowing waste to travel into the surrounding environment
leakage into the ocean in 2016. Of this mass, about one-third, either via surface water or through the air, as shown in Table 6.
or 1.2 million metric tons per year, is macroplastics that move
from dumpsites to the ocean through the wind or water. Reducing the number of open dumpsites in the world is
This system intervention focuses on the infrastructure that a core ambition of many governments, not only because
needs to be built to mitigate this risk and provide a secure dumpsites lead to significant plastic pollution, but also
disposal route for the plastic waste that remains after the because of their GHG emissions and negative health
implementation of the upstream and recycling interventions. consequences, including a significant number of reported
deaths.153 Our System Change Scenario projects a reduction
The International Solid Waste Association defines a dumpsite in the mass of plastic deposited in dumpsites from 23 per
as “a land disposal site where the indiscriminate deposit cent in 2016 to 10 per cent in 2040 (see Table 6).
of solid waste takes place with either no, or at best very
limited, measures to control the operation and protect In the System Change Scenario model, we assume that the
the surrounding environment.”152 In our model, we extend Dispose wedge—including sanitary landfills and incineration
this definition to include facilities described as “unsanitary as well as plastics-to-fuel chemical conversion—is a last resort
landfills,” where the waste is not prevented from escaping to be used only after the Reduce, Substitute and Recycle
by using either daily and intermediate covers to reduce the wedges have all been implemented to their maximum
likelihood of leakage to the environment. potential. We use historic trends to project the proportion of
residual plastic waste going to landfills and to incineration,
Our BAU Scenario suggests that the amount of macroplastic and show that this volume could be reduced from 54 million
waste being deposited in dumpsites or unsanitary landfills metric tons to landfills per year and 80 million metric tons to
in 2016 was 49 million metric tons, or 23 per cent of all incineration per year under BAU to 50 million metric tons per
macroplastic waste generated, and that without intervention year and 39 million metric tons per year, respectively, under
this figure is expected to grow to 100 metric million tons the System Change Scenario in 2040.
Table 6: Total plastic waste flow deposited in dumpsites, million metric tons
Income group 2016 2040 BAU 2040 SCS
HI 3 3 0.2
UMI 23 51 6
LMI 21 41 12
LI 2 5 5
Global 49 100 22
Box 12: Landfill—pros and cons

Landfill is a simple and effective method of containment (“secure disposal”). As the most cost-effective waste disposal
method, it has been popular for centuries. However, landfilling plastic is acknowledged to have significant drawbacks:
• If landfills are not managed effectively with daily and intermediate cover, plastic waste may be just as likely to leak into the
environment as in an open dumpsite. Coastal erosion also threatens to release pollution from historic landfill sites.
• Although macroplastics are unlikely to breach landfill liners, microplastics may pass through, and even the most modern
sanitary landfills carry the risk of leachate contaminating groundwater. The long-term stability of landfill liners is unknown,
but they are unlikely to fully function beyond 100 or 200 years.154
• Although plastics are almost completely inert in landfill (although some plastic leaching does occur), they are almost
always co-disposed with biological materials that generate methane, a powerful GHG. Even with capture systems,
approximately 10-65 per cent155 of methane can escape, depending on how comprehensively landfills are engineered
and managed.
• Landfills are modular and can reduce the potential for path dependency and technology lock-in from building large,
long-lasting incinerators.

Box 13: Incineration—pros and cons

Incineration is often being used as an alternative to a landfill; in the European Union, it was used to treat more than 68 million
metric tons of MSW (not just plastic) per year in 2016.156 It is effective at stabilizing biological material and reducing both
volume (by 90 per cent) and mass (by 80 per cent).157 Modern incinerators also produce electricity and heat, which can be
used as an alternative to purely fossil-based sources, although its effectiveness at electricity generation is well below other
methods, at approximately 20-35 per cent efficiency, compared with up to 50 per cent for coal.158 Many drawbacks with
incineration are recognized, including:
• Plastic incineration releases CO2 and other GHGs into the atmosphere, along with some nonfossil emissions from
biogenic wastes (“skyfill”). Under the System Change Scenario, incineration accounts for 4 per cent of the cumulative
GHG emissions (2016-2040).
• Inert material/slag for landfill remains as bottom ash.159
• Unlike landfills, incinerators require continuous feedstock to remain alight. Because their lifetime is about 25 years (or
longer), incinerators create a “lock-in” effect that can block out newer technologies or act as competition for recycling
feedstock.160
Box 14: Health implications of incineration

Historically, incinerators have had a poor reputation for environmental pollution as they were operated without any form
of emissions cleaning or monitoring, relying on dispersion and dilution in the atmosphere as a control mechanism. By
contrast, modern gas cleaning systems are highly effective at reducing harmful emissions from incinerators. However,
these systems require comprehensive management and monitoring that may not be carried out in regions where
expenditure, regulatory standards, and enforcement are insufficient.
Combustion of municipal solid waste results in the release of pollutants such as dioxins, furans, polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAH), halogenated flame retardants, particulate matter (PM), SOx and NOx.161 Exposure to these pollutants
has been linked to an increase in the risk of asthma, heart disease, reproductive health complications, respiratory
infections, cancer, and neurological damage, as well as damage to the central nervous system.162
In well-managed incinerators, atmospheric emissions are abated by controlling the temperature, the composition of input
material, and the speed of material flow in the furnace, and by cleaning the flue gas.163 Incinerators produce two solid
outputs. The first is bottom ash, which represents approximately 25 per cent of the input mass and is mostly inert.164 The
second is fly ash, which consists of airborne emissions and is hazardous. Fly ash must be disposed of in hazardous waste
landfill sites, where it is stored indefinitely, creating a negative legacy for future generations. The availability of appropriate
and secure disposal facilities in middle-/low-income countries is a significant concern.
Limiting factors effective at their respective functions while minimizing harm

to the environment. This oversight is particularly relevant
Lack of financial resources is the main limiting factor in middle-/low-income countries, which may have limited
underpinning the inadequacy of both incineration and capacity to enforce environmental legislation.165 Poor
landfill capacity in middle-/low-income countries, but administrative capacity and accountability is likely to be
particularly for incineration, which is cost-prohibitive for an ongoing barrier to implementing more formal national
most economies. Although incinerators generate some regulatory frameworks.
revenue, landfills generate nothing (except for methane
capture systems, which are broadly irrelevant for plastic Public perception also plays a big role. Understandably,
waste), and they are both a net cost to governments. Under dumpsites are unwelcome in most communities, while
the System Change Scenario, the present value of global incinerators also have a poor reputation, and landfill sites are
government spending on landfill and incineration from 2021 unpopular in areas of high population density due to odor,
to 2040 is estimated at US$44 billion. space, and land use concerns. Furthermore, both access-
controlled landfills and incinerators have attracted criticism
Because there are few market incentives to ensure that because they block the informal recycling sector from
these facilities are well-managed, both forms of treatment accessing materials that people rely on for income.
require strong public governance to ensure that they are

Reduce plastic waste exports into countries
with low collection and high leakage rates
by 90 per cent by 2040
• Current exports of plastic waste from HI countries Highly applicable Somewhat applicable Not applicable
to LMI, UMI, and LI countries amount to 3.5 million
metric tons per year in 2016. Much of this volume
is expected to end up as mismanaged waste, with
a portion of it leaking into the ocean. Most relevant geographic archetypes
• We estimate that 90 per cent of this mass could
be reduced by 2040 if the right policies are HI UMI LMI LI
implemented and if infrastructure is built to deal Urban Urban Urban Urban
with this plastic locally or regionally.
HI UMI LMI LI
Rural Rural Rural Rural

Rigid Flex Multi

Main responsible stakeholder

• National governments

The international trade in waste plastic has been ongoing decision by the most important global trader in waste plastic
for the past three decades, characterized by exports of has had huge repercussions, particularly for high-income
often unsorted mixed plastic from high-income countries to countries that had previously had a large export market for
countries in Asia. In recent years, however, there have been plastic that was expensive to sort and recycle domestically.
growing concerns that the residues from sorting and recycling
of these materials are being handled under uncontrolled Businesses in India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Taiwan, Thailand,
conditions, with poor working conditions, and that they Turkey and Vietnam were quick to respond to the Chinese
are leaking into the environment. There are also fears that ban, viewing it as an opportunity to attract high-grade
criminal and legal vulnerabilities within Extended Producer material.170 However, some of these alternative destinations
responsibility schemes could lead to the illegal dumping of have also implemented restrictions, temporary freezes,
plastic by HI countries in middle-/low-income countries.166 or bans on material imports over fears that their waste
management systems may become overwhelmed by
The exact impact of exports on plastic pollution in the ocean the additional mass entering the country. They are also
is hard to quantify because there is little evidence on the fate increasingly returning containers of “illegal” plastic waste that
of the estimated 3.5 million metric tons per year of plastic does not meet standards.171
exported from HI countries to UMI, LMI, and LI countries
every year. Anecdotal evidence suggests that 5-20 per cent of In 2019, governments agreed to amendments to the Basel
the scrap plastic exported has little market value and is often Convention that introduced stricter requirements for trade
mismanaged through open burning or illegal dumping.167 in plastic waste (see Box 15). A reduction in trade may result
from these amendments; we do not, however, model the
Crucially, the losses or residues from sorting and recycling impact of these under the Current Commitments Scenario
in middle-/low-income countries are not reported by the HI because it is not possible to predict whether countries will
countries of origin. This means that 100 per cent of plastic reduce exports significantly, obtain prior informed consent to
exported for recycling is erroneously added to recycling continue exporting mixed plastic waste, or choose to better
rates in the country of origin. This administrative discrepancy sort plastic wastes prior to export. For the System Change
creates a misleading impression of high resource efficiency Scenario, we model a 70 per cent and 90 per cent reduction
in HI countries when, in fact, there is evidence that some of in exports from HI to UMI, LMI, and LI countries by 2030 and
this material is actually polluting destination countries, to the 2040, respectively. The result is shown in Figure 39.
detriment of local people and the environment.
There are good arguments for restricting the trade in plastic
waste, given that it predominantly flows from HI countries
The China import ban
to those with higher rates of waste mismanagement and
For the past 30 years, the international market for waste plastic inadequate enforcement capacity. There is also a need for
has been dominated by China,168 which has imported 45 per greater transparency and better monitoring of plastic waste
cent of all internationally traded plastic waste since the early trade flows. However, the recent bans and restrictions
1990s.169 In January 2018, however, China ceased trading, imposed in many middle-/low-income countries have also
banning imports of post-consumer plastic almost entirely. This had negative short-term impacts in high-income countries,
Box 15: Amendments to the Basel Convention

Amendments to the Basel Convention, which will enter into force in January 2021, introduce new
requirements for trade in plastic waste. The most impactful changes are as follows:172
• Mixed plastic waste that contains anything other than PP, PE, and/or PET will be added to Annex II of the
Convention. Similarly, halogenated plastic, including PVC, will be added to Annex II. This change means
that the exporter will need to obtain consent from the government of the recipient country for exports of
these plastic waste types, improving transparency and facilitating monitoring of plastic waste trade.
• Sorted single-polymer waste plastic can continue to be permitted for export, without any requirement for
consent from the importing country, as long as it is destined for recycling in the recipient country.
• To avoid these controls, exporters will therefore need to carefully sort different polymers prior to export,
with the exception of mixtures of PE, PP, PET; be sure that all such plastic exports are going only to
recycling (no final disposal, no energy recovery); and are free of nontarget contaminants (e.g., paper or
metal). Due to additional European Union legislation, all exports of Annex II listed plastic (e.g., mixed or
contaminated plastic wastes) will be prohibited to countries that are not members of the Organisation for
Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Because the United States is not a party to the Basel
Convention, exports of mixed plastic wastes from the U.S. will also be prohibited to non-OECD countries
unless bilateral agreements are in place.

Figure 39: International exports of plastic waste between geographic archetypes

Figure 39: International exports of plastic waste between geographic archetypes
The System Change Scenario would reduce inter-archetype plastic exports by 90 per cent
5.6
Million metric tons of plastic exported per year

3.9
-90%
0.6
2016 2040 2040

Business-as-Usual System Change
Scenario
which have reportedly had to incinerate some waste or short-term risks. Future research should also examine the
direct it to landfills because they could not find a market trade in plastic raw materials, products, and packaging, and
overseas.173 Another unintended consequence of restricting how upstream trade policy interventions can play a role in
the international trade in waste plastic may be a switch to preventing plastic pollution.174
virgin material whenever the supply of recyclate is disrupted
or becomes more costly. Moreover, imports can sometimes
help build or expand recycling capacity in places where this
would otherwise not be possible. Building a circular economy closer
Ultimately, building a circular economy closer to the point
to the point of waste generation will
of waste generation will help create a sustainable sink help create a sustainable sink for
for material and free up infrastructure in countries that
previously imported large amounts of plastic, enabling them
material and free up infrastructure in
to process their own domestic waste. Therefore, despite countries that previously imported
the sparse data available to quantify its impacts, we believe
that this system intervention is critical to reduce the amount
large amounts of plastic, enabling
of plastic entering the ocean in the long term, despite its them to process their own waste.
Recycled plastic waste pressed into bales.

alexanderuhrin/Adobe Stock

Microplastic system interventions

ROLL OUT KNOWN SOLUTIONS FOR FOUR MICROPLASTIC (<5MM) SOURCES—TYRES, TEXTILES,
PERSONAL CARE PRODUCTS, AND PRODUCTION PELLETS—TO REDUCE ANNUAL MICROPLASTIC
LEAKAGE TO THE OCEAN BY 1.8 MILLION METRIC TONS PER YEAR (FROM 3 MILLION METRIC TONS
TO 1.2 MILLION METRIC TONS) BY 2040
Key takeaways
• Eleven per cent of total plastic entering the ocean in • Solutions should focus on reducing microplastics
2016 comes from the four key sources of microplastics at source because this is more cost efficient and
we selected to model (tyre dust, pellets, textile micro- feasible than collection of microplastic particles
fibres, and microplastics in personal care products). in the environment. This should be done through
innovation in tyres and textiles design, a revolution
• The largest contributor to 2016 microplastic leakage in transportation, decreasing plastic production,
into the ocean is tyre dust, contributing 78 per cent of regulatory and corporate measures to prevent pellet
the leakage mass; pellets contribute 18 per cent; and leakage, and bans on using microplastic ingredients
textiles and personal care products (PCP) contribute in PCPs.
4 per cent combined.
• New solutions will be required to reduce leakage
• There is a different pattern in terms of the number of further than modelled under this scenario, especially
microplastic particles entering the ocean, with tyres for tyres, and to address the other sources of
and textiles being the main sources of leakage. microplastic emissions not modelled here.
• In the System Change Scenario, where we implement • Microplastics represent 60 per cent of leakage in
all significant, known microplastic solutions at scale, HI countries, and hence should be a top priority
microplastic leakage can be reduced by 1.8 million in this geographic archetype.
metric tons per year (from 3 million metric tons to
1.2 million metric tons) by 2040, a 59 per cent
reduction compared with BAU.
Microplastic sources Leakage mass Feasibility of leakage reduction Modelled uncertainty
Tyre dust High Low High
Pellets Medium High Medium
Textile microfibres Low-medium Medium Medium
Microplastic in PCPs Low High Medium-high
Microplastics are defined in our report as pieces of plastic of potential solutions for each source. The results of our
between 1 micrometre and 5 mm in size that enter the model relate to the four modelled sources only, and do not
environment as microsized particles—widely called primary represent total microplastic emissions.
microplastic.175 We do not include secondary microplastics,
created through the breakdown of mismanaged To model flows of the four microplastic sources, individual
macroplastic waste, as its mass is already accounted for system maps were developed (see the technical appendix)
in the system interventions on macroplastics. Neither showing where releases from each of the modelled
do we quantify nanoplastics, defined as particles smaller sources occur during the use and/or production phase,
than 1 micrometre created through the breakdown of from which they are distributed to different pathways (e.g.,
microplastics, due to data limitations. combined sewers and drainage systems for tyres and pellets,
wastewater treatment for textiles and PCPs) and then on
Of the ~20 potential sources of primary microplastic, we to their final destinations, either controlled disposal (e.g.,
modelled four sources, representing an estimated 75-85 engineered landfills, incineration) or mismanaged (e.g.,
per cent of microplastic leakage: tyre abrasion/dust, pellet dumpsites, terrestrial pollution through land application
loss, textile microfibres, and microplastic ingredients in of sewage sludge, and leakage to the ocean). For detailed
PCPs (including the full size range of PCP ingredients).176 system maps illustrating our methodology for each of the
We selected these four sources based on existing research, four sources, see the technical appendix.
the relative leakage mass, and the ease and understanding

Microplastics and the ocean
About 11 per cent of today’s total flow of plastic into the ocean comes from only four sources of microplastics–tyre abrasion,
production pellets, textiles, and personal care products–released into the environment as microsize particles (<5mm).
Rapid action and innovation are needed to stop them from leaking into the ocean and, more broadly, into the environment.
How much do microplastics contribute to ocean plastic pollution?

The four sources of microplastics we analyzed now contribute about 1.3 million metric tons of
microplastic leakage into the ocean annually, growing to 3 million metric tons in 2040.
Tyre dust
contributes 78%
Pellets
contribute 18% Textiles & personal care
products contribute 4%
of microplastic leakage of microplastic leakage of microplastic leakage
2016
by mass by mass by mass combined

~1,200,000 TRILLION PARTICLES ~10 TRILLION PARTICLES ~144,000 TRILLION PARTICLES
Where does microplastic leakage come from?

The microplastics analyzed represent about 60% of total leakage in high-income countries.
High-income Middle-/low-income
countries leak countries leak
365 grams 109 grams

of microplastic of microplastic
per capita per capita
How can we reduce microplastic leakage?

With concerted action beginning in 2020 across the entire plastics system, microplastic leakage can be reduced by …
~1.8 million metric tons per year 59% by 2040 or

compared to Business-as-Usual.
Solutions include:
Better designed Modal shifts in Decreased plastic

tyres and textiles transportation to reduce production
mileage driven per capita Additional innovation
is necessary to reduce
the remaining 41% of plastic
leakage, particularly in
tyre design.
Regulatory and Extend wastewater Bans on using microplastic
corporate measures to treatment ingredients in personal
prevent pellet leakage care products
Microplastic emissions under a the ocean. An additional 63 per cent of releases end up
leaking into other environments, including soil and air. This
Business-as-Usual Scenario
mismanaged terrestrial leakage includes the direct releases
We estimate that microplastic leakage from the four of tyre particles into soil near roads; microplastics captured
modelled sources could grow from 1.3 million metric tons in in road runoff or wastewater facilities that leak to soil or
2016 to 3.0 million metric tons by 2040 under BAU, a growth that re-enter the terrestrial environment through the land
of 2.4 times, largely driven by increased transportation, application of sewage sludge;177 and the direct disposal
plastic production, and synthetic textile use in the middle-/ of wastewater to farmlands due to water scarcity.178 As
low-income countries. This means that microplastics would illustrated in Figure 40, the managed microplastics captured
contribute 11 per cent, by mass, of the total annual global from wastewater treatment and sent to sanitary landfills or
leakage of plastic to the ocean by 2040. incineration only amounted to 0.5 million metric tons per
year (±0.1 million metric tons per year), or 11 per cent of total
We estimate that 26 per cent of all microplastics released
microplastics released from all sources modelled in 2016.
(during production or use, onto roads, into wastewater
drains, or into the environment) ends up as leakage to
Figure 40: Microplastic

Figurepollution in the
40: Microplastic
for latest Business-as-Usual
& captions see reportScenario
pollution in the Business-as-Usual
titles indesign doc
Scenario
Mismanaged microplastics could grow from 4.4 million metric tons in 2016 to 10 million metric tons
by 2040
10.7 Total managed:

Incineration 0.2 0.7 million
0.5
Engineered landfills metric tons
Terrestrial pollution
(7%)
Million metric tons of microplastic
Ocean pollution
7.0
Total managed: Total mismanaged:
0.5 million 4.9 10 million

0.1
metric tons 0.4 metric tons
(11%) (93%)
3.1
Total mismanaged:
4.4 million 3.0
metric tons
(89%) 1.3
2016 2040
Solutions should focus on reducing microplastics at their source because

this is more cost-efficient and feasible than collection of microplastic
particles already in the environment. This approach could be done through
innovation in tyres and textiles design, a revolution in transportation to
decrease the total distance driven by cars, decreasing plastic production,
Figure 40: Microplastic pollution in the Business-as-Usual Scenario
regulatory and corporate measures to prevent pellet leakage, and bans on
using microplastic ingredients in personal care products.
10.7 Total
managed:
0.2
Incineration
Engineered landfills
0.5 0.7 million tons
91
A Comprehensive Assessment of Pathways Towards Stopping Ocean Plastic Pollution
Terrestrial pollution (7%)

Box 16: Uncertainty of modelling microplastic leakage

Modelling microplastic leakage to the ocean is a challenge due to a lack of standardized methods for sample collection
and analysis and insufficient understanding of degradation to nanoplastics, leading to knowledge gaps about their
distribution and pathways in the environment.179 Key areas of uncertainty vary for each source. Tyre wear is a well-
established fact, but where the particles end up is highly uncertain (they could settle in soils, leak to waterways, be
transported by rivers to the ocean, etc.).180 On the other hand, the state of knowledge about pellet loss rates shows high
uncertainty, even though their distribution pathways are better understood. Reported pellet loss rates range from 0.0002
per cent spilt per metric ton to as high as 0.9 per cent (according to a survey undertaken in Denmark).181 The losses and
pathways of both microfibres and microplastic ingredients in PCPs appear to be better documented, at least in high-
income countries, where a large share of the population is connected to wastewater treatment.182 The fate of these two
sources in middle-/low-income countries, where it is more common to wash laundry directly in rivers and use wastewater
for irrigation, may be different.183 Our findings estimate current high modelled uncertainty, with the highest uncertainty for
tyres (17 per cent), followed by PCPs (11 per cent), pellets (9 per cent) and textiles (8 per cent).
A sensitivity analysis was conducted to quantify the impact of model assumptions on output of tyre leakage, the highest
source of microplastic ocean leakage. The shares of road and runway runoff distributed directly to waterways have been
identified as the key drivers influencing the ocean leakage from tyres. Additional runoff captured and safely removed in
combined sewers would change the amount of runoff directed to waterways. The sensitivity analysis results indicate that
additional research is needed in the area of road runoff and tyre particle distribution to validate or improve our assumptions.
Of the four sources modelled, by far the largest contributor transfer through air of microfibres released from textiles
to microplastic leakage into the ocean and waterways during the production and use phases may be a significant
in 2016 is tyre abrasion, which contributes 78 per cent component of environmental leakage184 as microfibres are
of the leakage mass; pellets contribute 18 per cent of found worldwide, including in remote places such as the
the leakage mass; and textiles and PCP contribute 4 per High Arctic, proving that they can be transported over long
cent of leakage mass combined (Figure 41). However, the distances.185 Notably, our estimates of microfibre release
estimated contribution of microplastic particles to ocean rates are much smaller than some other studies because the
plastic pollution may potentially represent a different most recent data on fibre loss during washing shows much
pattern, with tyres leaking about 1,200,000 trillion particles, lower release rates—on average, 108 milligrams per kilogram
textiles about 140,000 trillion particles, PCPs about 4,000 (mg/kg) textile washed (see the technical appendix), while
trillion particles, and pellets about 10 trillion particles in the rates used in some previous studies were as high as
2016. The relative contribution of different sources, and 900 mg/kg.186 More research on microplastic emissions
the magnitude of leakage to the ocean, could change if we and pathways is needed to obtain a complete picture of the
modelled additional distribution pathways. For example, microplastic pollution problem.187
Figure 41: Microplastic leakage to the ocean by source and geographic
for latest titlesarchetype
& captionsin
see2016
report indesign doc
Figure 41: Microplastic leakage to the ocean by source and geographic archetype
Tyres are the largest source of microplastic leakage
2016 microplastic leakage to the ocean by source 2016 microplastic leakage to the ocean by
geographic archetype
510 kilotons
100%
40%
430 kilotons
% of microplastic emissions, 2016
980 kilotons
80% 34%
78% 300 kilotons
60% 24%
40%
20% 220 kilotons

40 kilotons 20 kilotons
20 kilotons
18% 3% 1% 2%
0%
Tyres Pellets Textiles Personal care HI UMI LMI LI
products

We estimate that the majority of the microplastic entering Microplastic solutions—System Change
the ocean in 2016—0.8 million metric tons or 66 per cent—
Scenario
originates in the middle-/low-income countries, and that
81 per cent of the growth of microplastic leakage by 2040 In the System Change Scenario, where we implement
could also come from these regions under BAU. The main all significant, known microplastic solutions at scale, we
drivers responsible for this in our model are population estimate that microplastic leakage can be reduced by
growth (slower for HI than the rest of the world), the 1.8 million metric tons per year—or approximately, with
projected increase in vehicle driving (expected to triple a conservative estimate, 1,600,000 trillion microplastic
in UMI and LMI), and the growth of plastic production particles—by 2040 compared with BAU (see Figure 42 and
(expected to nearly triple in UMI, LMI, and LI). The other Table 7). However, notably, even with all known solutions,
factors are related to the limited improvements in microplastic emissions in 2040 are similar to the 2016
downstream solutions for capturing microplastic in middle-/ leakage rate. This result means that, under the System
low-income countries, for example, by installing road Change Scenario, microplastic could be a significant part of
runoff treatment systems that safely remove and dispose of the remaining total plastic entering the ocean in 2040, at 23
captured microplastic. per cent. This is because there are fewer known solutions for
certain sources of microplastic compared with macroplastic.
However, HI countries account for about a third (34 per cent)
of all microplastic emissions in 2016 and, on a per capita Implementing all known solutions for microplastic
basis, microplastic emissions to the ocean in HI countries are could potentially reduce 59 per cent of annual modelled
3.4 times higher than the rest of the world today (an average microplastic leakage to the ocean, with the highest
of 365 grams in HI in 2016 compared with 109 grams in reduction potential for pellets (86 per cent reduction),
other archetypes), mainly driven by higher driving rates, followed by textiles (77 per cent), PCPs (77 per cent) and
plastic consumption, and textile washing in HI countries. tyres (54 per cent); see Figure 42 and Table 7.
In fact, microplastics represent 60 per cent of leakage in HI
countries, and therefore solving this challenge should be a
priority for this archetype.
Figure 42: Microplastic leakage to the ocean under Business-as-Usual in 2016 and leakage
reduction potential for four sources under the System Change Scenario in 2040
Figure 42: Microplastic leakage to the ocean under Business-as-Usual in 2016 and leakage
Microplastic solutions are relatively well
for latest understood
titles & captions seefor most
report sources,
indesign doc but not for tyres
reduction potential for four sources under the System Change Scenario in 2040
Tyres Pellets Textiles + PCPs

3.0
of microplastic leakage
2.5
2.5
0.7
2.0
1.5 0.5 1.3

1.0
0.5 0.2
0.5 0.2
0.1 0.1 0.1 0.02 0.02
0.0
BAU Reduce Reduce Unsolved BAU Reduce Reduce Unsolved BAU Textiles Personal Unsolved
mileage loss leakage plastic pellet leakage care leakage
driven rate (requires production loss (requires products (requires
innovation) rate innovation) innovation)
Three of the modelled sources have more readily By contrast, additional innovation will be required to
implementable solutions with low societal impacts. For further reduce leakage from tyres, which are responsible
example, by implementing relevant regulations, and with for 93 per cent of the remaining microplastic entering the
monitoring and enforcement of prevention measures across ocean in 2040 after all system interventions have been
the supply chain, pellet loss could be readily addressed by applied. To further reduce microplastic pollution, the tyre
2040. Similarly, textile leakage, which is the third-largest industry, supported by government research programmes,
source of microplastic pollution in terms of mass, has high should invest in innovation and redesign, for example, on
potential to be improved by switching to already existing biodegradability, while maintaining the tyre properties that
textiles, for example, natural or synthetic yarns with lower are essential for safety (e.g., rolling resistance, slip resistance,
shedding rates. Third, even though microplastic ingredients and wear resistance).188
from PCPs cause the lowest leakage of the four sources
modelled, they can be banned, as has already occurred in
several countries, without societal risks.

& captionsin
see2016
report indesign doc
2016 microplastic leakage to the ocean by source 2016 microplastic leakage to the ocean by
Table 7: Microplastic leakage to the ocean under Business-as-Usual and System Change
100%
scenarios with reduction potential rates and 510 levers
kilotons
required to reach estimated reduction rates
40%
430 kilotons
% of microplastic emissions, 2016
980 kilotons
80% 34%
Microplastic
78%
BAU leakage, SCS leakage Interventions required to reach estimated
300 kilotons
source million 2040, million reduction rates
60%
metric tons metric tons 24%
per year per year
40%
(per cent
220 kilotons
reduction
20%
20 relative to
kilotons
18% 3% BAU)
1% 2%
0%
Tyres 2016: products An ambitious programme to reduce microplastic emissions from tyre particle
1.0 (±0.2) abrasion could contribute a reduction of 1.3 million metric tons (±0.5 million
metric tons) of plastic leakage by 2040. Several factors influence tyre wear,
2040: 2040: including tyre, vehicle, and road surface characteristics (tyre size, profile,
2.4 (±0.5) 1.1 (±0.3) vehicle weight, road roughness, etc.) and “eco-driving” behaviour (speed,
(54% acceleration, tyre pressure).189 The most effective solutions are the reduction
decrease) of kilometres driven and decreasing tyre loss rate. Significant reductions in
kilometres driven per capita can be achieved by modal shifts in transportation,
for example, using automated, shared, or public transport;190 rail or barge
transport;191 airborne transportation,192 etc. Existing tyres show high ranges of
durability, so by choosing the less abrading types and brands, together with
promoting eco-driving habits, we could significantly reduce microplastic
pollution from tyres. Implementation of standardized testing of tyre abrasion
rate and tyre design regulations should be considered.
Figure 41: Microplastic leakage to the ocean by source and Interventions

geographicmodelled include:
& captionsin
see2016
report indesign doc
• Substitution of tyre material to improve durability: Assumes 50 per
cent of countries legislate that, by 2040, new tyres must have 36 per
cent lower release rates than today (eliminates worst-performing tyres).
croplastic leakage to the ocean by source 2016 microplastic leakage to the ocean by
• Reduction in km driven:
High-income countries reduce by 50 per cent
per capita by 2040 (e.g., for passenger cars, from 11,921 km/capita under
510 kilotons
BAU to 5,960 km/capita under the System Change Scenario); middle-/
40%
430 kilotons low-income countries reduce by 20 per cent per capita by 2040 (e.g.,
980 kilotons
34% for passenger cars, from 2,553 km/capita under BAU to 2,042 km/capita
78% 300 kilotons
under the System Change Scenario).
24%
• Eco-driving adds 6 per cent reduction to tyre loss rates.
220 kilotons
• Controlled disposal of sedimentation in drainage systems in urban
18%
20 kilotons areas in the middle-/low-income countries reaches similar levels as high-
3% 1% 2%
income urban areas.
Pellets 2016: products Solutions for reducing the leakage of plastic pellets to the ocean have the
0.2 (±0.02) potential to reduce 0.4 million metric tons (±0.05 million metric tons):
2040: 2040: • Nearly half of pellet leakage can be remedied by reducing the loss of
pellets at every stage of the supply chain via the implementation of best
0.5 (±0.05) 0.07 (±0.006)
practices, mandated by regulation. We model a conservative 70 c before
(86%
departing a facility; monitoring emissions within and near factories, and
decrease)
in waste effluents from drains; and using bags that prevent leakage and
securing them during transport.194
• The remaining pellet leakage is reduced through the reduction of plastic

production due to System Change Scenario macroplastic reduction
and substitution interventions.

Figure 41: Microplastic leakage to the ocean by source and geographic
& captionsin
see2016
report indesign doc
ge to the ocean by source 2016 microplastic leakage to the ocean by

510 kilotons
40%
430 kilotons
Microplastic BAU leakage,

34% SCS leakage Interventions required to reach estimated
300 kilotons
source million 2040, million reduction rates
metric tons metric tons 24%
per year per year
(per cent
reduction
220 kilotons
40 kilotons
20 kilotons relative to 20 kilotons
18% 3% BAU)
1% 2%
Pellets Textiles Personal care HI UMI LMI
Textiles products 2016:
There areLIfour levers driving reduction in leakage of microfibres to the ocean
0.04 (±0.003) that could reduce annual microfibre emissions by 0.05 million metric tons
(±0.005 million metric tons) under the System Change Scenario:
2040: 2040:
• Decrease microfibre loss rate from textiles through redesign and
0.07 (±0.005) 0.02 (±0.001)
shifting to textiles with lower loss rates or through use of natural
(77%
fibres, cutting to avoid raw edges, woven construction, filament yarns,
decrease)
and coatings.195 The introduction of standardized testing of microfibre
shedding rates and textile design regulations should be considered.
• Mandatory treatment of textile factory effluent. About 50 per cent of

all microfibre losses occur during the textiles production phase, and yet
there are no regulations to target microplastics in factory effluent.196 We
croplastic leakage to the ocean by source and geographic model that 95 per cent of countries mandate that all factories must use
& captionsin
see2016
report indesign doc
on-site treatment equivalent to tertiary treatment by 2040.
• Installing machine washing filters in households; Household washing

machine filters can capture 88.5 per cent of microfibres,197 however,
by source 2016 microplastic leakage to the ocean by the effectiveness of this lever largely depends on manufacturers being
obliged to install filters, retrofitting filters to existing machines, and
510 kilotons consumer behaviour. We model that 95 per cent of countries legislate
430 kilotons
40% that new washing machines must have filters capturing 88.5 per cent
34%
of microfibres by 2040, and assume that 50 per cent of consumers use
300 kilotons these correctly.
24%
• Extend wastewater treatment. The expansion of household
connections to wastewater treatment with at least secondary treatment
could help reduce microplastic pollution in wastewaters.198 We assume
0 kilotons
20 kilotons 20 kilotons all archetypes meet the Sustainable Development Goal of halving
3% 1% 2% untreated wastewater by 2030.
Textiles Personal care HI UMI LMI LI
PCPs
products 2016: PCP microplastic leakage is the lowest of the four sources modelled, but
0.2 (±0.002) solutions are readily available to reduce it still further and, if implemented
more widely, they would reduce 0.02 million metric tons (±0.001 million
2040: 2040: metric tons) of total leakage:
0.03 (±0.003) 0.006 (±0.001)
(77% decrease) • A ban on the use of microplastic ingredients and substitution with
natural alternatives. We model that 95 per cent of microplastic
ingredients in wash-off PCPs and 30 per cent of microplastic
ingredients in stay-on PCPs are banned by 2040. Legislation banning
some microplastic ingredients in certain products has already been
implemented by several local and national governments.199 However, it
is important to emphasize that most of these efforts focus on the larger
plastic beads in rinse-off cosmetics that constitute only a small part of
the total microplastic ingredients used in products. Alarmingly, some
companies have replaced these microbeads with unverified polymers
of concern of unknown size.200 There should be concerted action to
completely remove all microplastic ingredients from all PCPs to achieve
near-zero leakage from this source, as they are also known to pass
through wastewater treatment. 201
• Extending wastewater treatment according to the Sustainable

Development Goals.

Costs and emissions (reduce kilometres driven, expand treatment of municipal

wastewater and wastewater from textile production,
We calculated annualized indicative implementation costs introduce sustainable drainage systems for urban road
for seven (of 11) microplastic intervention levers. Medium runoff in the middle-/low-income countries). They were not
indicative costs, below US$10,000 to reduce a metric ton of quantified because they are not primarily driven by the desire
microplastic per lever, were estimated for preventing pellet to reduce microplastic pollution. For example, the expansion
loss, substituting microplastic with natural ingredients in of wastewater treatment—undertaken primarily to improve
PCPs, using better-performing tyres, and reducing plastic sanitation and health in communities—will reduce leakage of
production, with the last two being possible cost savings. all analysed microplastic sources. Similarly, as we continue
High costs, above US$10,000 per lever, were estimated for to experience modal shifts in transportation and the growth
eco-driving courses, shifting to textiles with lower shedding of the sharing economy—driven predominantly by an
rates, and installing washing machine filters. ambition to reduce GHG emissions, economic reasons and
The other four levers are driven by the Sustainable consumer preference—less tyre abrasion, and, by extension,
Development Goals and their wider human benefits microplastic pollution, will be a positive side effect.
Maritime sources of leakage

Key takeaways
• High uncertainty exists about exactly how much • Known levers that reduce maritime sources of leakage
plastic leaks into the ocean from maritime sources, could be very effective but are difficult to enforce and
preventing the inclusion of this category in our require strong stakeholder cooperation.
quantitative analysis, but it is estimated to be between
10 per cent and 30 per cent of total macroplastic • The most important areas for further research and
leakage.202 monitoring are the annual production and loss rate
per gear type, as well as the volume of waste returned
• Abandoned, Lost, or otherwise Discarded Fishing Gear to port.
(ALDFG) ranks among the most damaging to marine
ecosystems among all sources of ocean plastic
pollution and is, by definition, usually lost in areas with
the highest concentration of fish.203
Maritime sources of ocean plastic pollution, defined in tons of plastic waste per year is generated at sea.207 This
this report as all plastic that enters the environment from approach addresses the issues of relative contributions and
seagoing vessels (including from fishing activities), are some source attribution, but does not offer information on how
of the most visible contributors to ocean plastic pollution.204 European Union leakage rates compare to the rest of the
Although the lack of robust estimates of different maritime world. Combining recent estimates by other organizations
sources of leakage prevents the inclusion of this category in (midpoint estimate for at-sea sources: 1.75 million metric
our quantitative analysis, addressing this source of pollution tons)208 with our estimates for total municipal solid plastic
is of utmost urgency. There is sufficient data available to waste leakage from land (9.8 million metric tons) indicates
indicate the relative magnitude of this source of leakage, the that maritime sources could be responsible for about 15 per
main solution areas, and where more research is needed. cent of total ocean plastic pollution today, but it should be
noted that this estimate is highly uncertain.
Existing estimates of maritime sources of ocean plastic
pollution vary between 0.3 million metric tons and 5.91
Abandoned, lost or otherwise discarded
million metric tons per year.205 These are based on two
different approaches. On the one hand, some estimates fishing gear (ALDFG)
establish the relative share of different maritime sources as a Of all the sources of ocean plastic pollution, ALDFG—also
percentage of the total plastic collected in coastal clean-ups, known as “ghost gear”—ranks among the most damaging to
arriving at an estimate of 10-30 per cent of total ocean plastic marine ecosystems.209 ALDFG’s damaging properties, such as
pollution.206 Doing this for some fishing gear is relatively high entanglement risk, are the direct result of their original
straightforward, but not for all fishing gear (such as buoy lines design to trap and kill fish and other marine species. On top of
and ropes), and estimating other plastic pollution originating this, ALDFG is—by definition—most intensely leaked in areas
from vessels is difficult, as they are hard to distinguish with high densities of marine wildlife, as this is where fishing
from land-based sources. On the other hand, global is concentrated. Multiple sources have tried to quantify the
extrapolation of estimated leakage as a share of total waste annual leakage rates, with estimates ranging from 640,000 to
generated at sea annually in the European Union shows 1,150,000 metric tons, and this value is expected to increase
that between 1.3 million metric tons and 1.8 million metric as a result of growth in fishing effort and aquaculture.210

It should be noted that ALDFG is not the only plastic waste to be found in the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of
enter the marine environment from fishing vessels; the other the United Nations ALDFG report and the Global Ghost Gear
types are covered under the section on shipping litter. Initiative (GGGI) Best Practice Framework for the Management
of Fishing Gear.216 We also include enabling conditions that
It is crucial to note that multiple types of fishing gear exist that would facilitate their respective implementation.217 The
are very different in their respective likelihood of loss, ubiquity preventive levers are expected to have significant impact but
of usage, and potential impacts on wildlife when lost.211 The need wide-scale implementation to be effective. Remedial
likelihood of loss can depend on a complex interaction levers, on the other hand, are necessary but will be more
of factors, including spatial and operational pressures that labour and capital intensive than preventive levers.
lead to gear conflicts, poor weather conditions, economic
pressures that disincentivize onshore disposal, and the Preventive levers
presence of illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) • Economic incentives to help prevent gear loss and
fishing.212 It has been estimated that 29 per cent of lines are increase proper disposal of unwanted gear. These may
lost each year, 8.6 per cent of all traps and pots, and 5.7 per include accessible and no-special-fee port reception
cent of nets.213 A more specific assessment of fishing nets facilities, Extended Producer Responsibility for fishing
finds gillnets to have the highest risk of being lost, while gear, or disincentives for fishers to generate ALDFG by
bottom trawls are considered low risk, and purse seines and charging a fee for gear that cannot be accounted for.
midwater trawls are in the lowest risk category.214 However, • Adoption of gear-marking systems (local or global) that
although we have some information on the loss rates of provide information on ownership and location as well
different fishing gear, no comparable data exist on how much as increased surface gear visibility.
of each gear type is produced or used each year. Landed
catch per gear type is one possible proxy because global • Design of gear and employment of technology that
data is available, and combining this data with the likelihood reduces the risk of gear loss, entanglement, and
unwanted contact with the seabed.
of loss would suggest that the two highest priority gear types
for research and prevention of ocean plastic leakage are • Regulation of gear used, location of gear use and gear
gillnets and bottom trawls.215 However, given the differences use methods, as well as return-to-port and recycling
in catch rate per unit of effort across different gear types, targets.
this approach also has its limitations. Better information on
• Stronger enforcement of existing regulations against
production and usage rates per gear type, and the volumes
IUU fishing, including the Port State Measures
returned to port as waste, is needed to better quantify the
Agreement (PSMA). The PSMA, which entered
contribution of different gear types to ocean plastic pollution. into force in 2016, is the first binding international
agreement to take aim at many facets of IUU fishing
ALDFG reduction levers by denying port access to illegal fishing vessels and
preventing illegal catches from being landed. By
There are two main categories of intervention levers to reduce
limiting capacity for IUU fishing, the PSMA can
the presence of ALDFG in the marine environment: preventive
reduce intentional gear abandonment.218
and remedial. A comprehensive assessment of levers can
Fish are tangled in abandoned commercial fishing nets.

Josephine Julian/Adobe Stock

• Increased awareness among stakeholders of best The most comprehensive research conducted to date,
practices, existing rules and regulations and (economic) including not only an overview of the existing literature
damage inflicted by ALDFG, for example, through but also providing estimates of shipping litter in European
training programmes. Union waters, estimates that shipping litter accounts for
between 54,000 and 67,000 metric tons of plastic annually
Remedial levers
in the European Union, or 35 per cent of total maritime
• Stronger incentives to report, retrieve, and deliver sources. This estimate does not include waste from offshore
ALDFG encountered at sea, in combination with above-
platforms; the other 65 per cent is ALDFG.223
mentioned gear-marking technology.
• Increased awareness among stakeholders of how to Shipping litter reduction levers

report, retrieve, and deliver ALDFG encountered at sea,
The measures available to combat shipping litter can be
as well as on the benefits of these efforts.
divided between land-based and maritime-based levers. The
• Development of targeted programmes for ALDFG former includes levers that are part of wider efforts to reduce
detection, reporting, and safe retrieval. plastic pollution, while the latter focuses on specific levers
for shipping litter.224
• Establishment of programmes to reduce the ghost
fishing of ALDFG, for example, by making gear Land-based levers
biodegradable.
• Reduction of plastic consumption through innovation in
The magnitude of impact of the above levers is difficult to packaging, new delivery models, or improved resource
quantify, but two of them have undergone particularly close efficiency.
scrutiny as a result of associated legislative proposals in the • Substitution of plastic with materials that decompose at
European Union. Recent estimates for the effect of Extended sea, such as paper.
Producer Responsibility in conjunction with a deposit
scheme for fishing gear in the European Union found that it Maritime-based levers
could result in a reduction of ALDFG from 12 per cent of total • Current best practices of regulation, based on EU
production today to 2 per cent, at a cost of 150-200 euros Directive 2018/12/EC, include:
per metric ton.219
– Targeted and increased inspection regime in ports
and on vessels, including, for example, by fisheries
Enabling conditions observers already monitoring at-sea activities.
• More research into ALDFG, as outlined above,
combined with understanding the effectiveness and – Mechanisms that ensure free disposal of waste
feasibility of different measures. at ports, funded through indirect fees on all ships
depending on their expected waste generation.
• Increased international cooperation on ALDFG among
governments, international organizations, and other – Administrative fee systems, in which ships pay for
regulators, for example, through the harmonization docking and the amount of waste delivered, but
of reporting gear production and losses, codes of get a refund on the docking fee when waste is
practices, and communication protocols, such as delivered.
the newly adopted FAO guidelines in the PSMA and
voluntary guidelines on the marking of fishing gear.220 – Digital reporting of waste notification and waste
receipt information, harmonized and shared
• Inclusion of gear loss in sustainability criteria by fishery among governments.
certification bodies.
• Enforcement of MARPOL Annex V to ensure appropriate
capacity and quality of waste disposal facilities at ports,
Shipping litter standardized reporting by ships and ports, and the
inclusion of adequate waste storage facility on vessels.
Shipping litter, the deliberate dumping of plastic from
maritime vessels, defined as all plastic leakage generated as
a result of human activity on seagoing vessels, is illegal under
Enabling conditions
international law, with some exemptions (MARPOL Annex • Improved data collection at ports and on vessels
V). Nevertheless, the practice is believed to be widespread, around the world is desperately needed to allow better
and there is evidence that it has increased over the past 50 understanding of the global extent of the problem.
Existing efforts are already underway in Europe and
years in tandem with the growth in commercial shipping.221
should be supported and extended to other regions
Shipping litter includes general plastic waste generated
to address the global challenge of shipping litter more
and accidentally or intentionally disposed overboard on effectively.
shipping, fishing, and recreational vessels and cruise ships.
Shipping waste can contain about double the share of • In parallel, increased international cooperation on
plastic compared with our estimates of land-based MSW.222 shipping litter among governments, international
Combined with the fact that it is generated at sea, this could organizations and other regulators is required, for
example, through the harmonization of reporting waste,
result in significantly higher leakage rates, although this is
codes of practices, and communication protocols, as
hard to confirm due to lack of on-vessel monitoring.
outlined in MARPOL Annex V.

INNOVATION IS ESSENTIAL TO A FUTURE WITH NEAR-ZERO PLASTIC POLLUTION
Bridging
the gap
Innovation is essential for a future
with near-zero plastic pollution
Daisuke Kurashim/Shutterstock

CHAPTER 3: BRIDGING THE GAP
Alternative worlds: sensitivities and design choices for

pollution reduction strategies
The System Change Scenario represents one pathway to significantly reduce ocean plastic pollution
but, of course, it is not the only one. We conducted multiple sensitivity analyses to understand what
other sets of solutions can achieve similar reductions in plastic leakage levels and identify
the possible trade-offs.
One analysis looked at the trade-off between Reduce and Similarly, we tested how increasing design for recycling
Substitute intervention rates (in other words, the amount rates and making them even more ambitious than our
of plastic removed from the system relative to Business-as- System Change Scenario assumption would influence the
Usual 2040) and collection rates (the share of plastic waste Reduce and Substitute targets needed. In the LMI urban
that is collected by either the formal or informal sector). This archetype, for example, recyclability of multimaterials would
analysis was undertaken to assess what the implications need to grow from 25 per cent under the System Change
would be if there were less ambitious reductions in plastic Scenario to 100 per cent to enable a reduction of Reduce
production and consumption than those modelled under and Substitute from 47 per cent to 40 per cent. This target
the System Change Scenario. To test this idea, we fixed the would require making all multimaterial products recyclable,
plastic leakage rate at the System Change Scenario level and including laminated cartons, diapers, and household goods.
modeled the collection rates that would be required to offset
smaller plastic reductions. Based on our alternate scenario assessments, increasing the
percentage of either collection or design for recycling incurs
To maintain the same level of plastic leakage reduction greater costs financially and from a climate perspective than
achievable under the System Change Scenario, but with the employing Reduce and Substitute interventions at higher
Reduce and Substitute interventions contributing only 9 per rates. The most practical solution may be to implement
cent to leakage reduction (compared with 47 per cent under the Reduce and Substitute levels assumed in the System
the System Change Scenario), collection rates would need to Change Scenario through eliminating unnecessary plastics,
increase significantly across the archetypes in this alternate enhancing reuse and new delivery models, and substituting
scenario. In the lower middle-income (LMI) rural archetype, plastic for other materials.
for example, collection rates would need to increase to 80
per cent from the maximally foreseen assessment level of None of the alternative pathways we analysed can achieve a
50 per cent and from 33 per cent in 2016. Reaching 80 per plastic leakage reduction comparable to the System Change
cent collection in rural areas of LMI countries may be a very Scenario without hitting extremely high costs, rising GHG
challenging, if not impossible, task given the pressure on emissions, or other undesirable outcomes.
government budgets and high collection costs in rural areas.
We constrained our analysis to modelling solutions that
To achieve this level of collection by 2040, an additional
are available today, or under development, and assessing
US$22 billion in cost per year would be required—which the
maximum foreseeable future targets. However, alternative
plastics industry would probably need to pay for—and 40 per
worlds could become possible as new technologies and
cent more GHG emissions would be generated relative to
solutions emerge and allow positive disruptions to the
the System Change Scenario. Similarly, in the upper middle-
plastics value chain. For example, breakthroughs in new
income (UMI) rural archetype, collection rates would have
service models tailored for packaging and household goods,
to increase to 80 per cent relative to 45 per cent in 2016 and
compostable packaging and deployment of appropriate
the maximally foreseeable rate of 50 per cent. Like the LMI
collection and composting infrastructure, other alternative
rural areas, reaching this level of collection in the rural areas
materials, and improvements to the life-cycle emissions of
of UMI countries is a daunting task and would require an
existing substitutes, could all be game-changing. Transport
additional US$18 billion in cost per year by 2040 and would
and delivery automation and vehicle electrification, for
also emit 40 per cent more GHG.
example, could radically reduce the emissions of new
delivery models, as well as collection costs and their
associated emissions.

The innovation gap: near-zero leakage needs

significant innovation
The System Change Scenario describes a viable pathway that could dramatically reduce ocean
plastic pollution. But the ultimate goal is to achieve near-zero plastic entering the ocean, and to
realize this vision we need to close the innovation gap. The massive innovation scale-up required
to tackle the last 18 per cent of the projected plastic entering the ocean needs a focused and
well-funded R&D agenda alongside inspirational moonshot ambitions.
Taken together, the eight system interventions described in Plastic manufacturing is currently classified as a “medium R&D
Chapter 2 can have a massive impact on the global plastic intensity” industry (spending 4 per cent of gross value added,
system, not only by significantly reducing leakage to the GVA),226 and the waste management sector is classified as “low
ocean, but also by reducing GHG emissions and costs, R&D intensity” (spending 0.4 per cent of GVA). The System
and increasing employment relative to BAU. And yet, even Change Scenario depicts a future in which these industries
if all significant known system interventions are applied transition towards more competitive market dynamics,
concurrently, we estimate that 5 million metric tons of innovating rapidly to stay in business as markets evolve. For
plastic would still be leaking into the ocean every year by example, if the plastic manufacturing industry were to increase
2040, and annual GHG emissions would be 54 per cent its R&D spending to the level currently spent by the machinery
higher than 2016 levels, while the cumulative amount of industry, this would mean R&D spending of US$95 billion
plastic that will enter the ocean between 2016 and 2040 per year by 2040—more than double the percentage of GVA
amounts to 248 million metric tons. Getting to near-zero invested under the BAU Scenario, if GVA doubles in line with
leakage will require a concerted innovation thrust backed by BAU plastic production. This spending could go towards
a focused and well-funded research and development (R&D) improving existing manufacturing and design, advancing
agenda, a quadrupling or more of today’s annual spending of recycling technologies, as well as investing in the development
US$22 billion on R&D.225 of new substitute materials and packaging services.
Figure 43: Remaining 2040 leakage by geographic archetype and plastic category under the
Flexible monomaterials have disproportionate leakage after System Change Scenario interventions
have been implemented, thus requiring most of the innovation focus
Plastic leakage into the ocean Plastic leakage into the ocean
by geographic type by category
Plastic leakage into the ocean Plastic leakage into the ocean
by geographic type by category
2.7 2.7 2.9 Lower-income countries (LI)
(50%) 2.7(50%) 2.7 (54%) 2.9 Lower Lower-income
middle-incomecountries
(LMI) (LI)
(50%) (50%) (54%) Upper Lower
middle-income (UMI) (LMI)
middle-income
High-income (HI)
Upper middle-income (UMI)
High-income (HI)
1.2
(23%) 1.2
0.8 (23%)
(15%) 0.8
0.4
(15%)
(8%) 0.4
(8%)
Urban Rural Rigid Flexible Multilayer Micro-

mono- mono- material plastics
Urban Rural Rigid
materials Flexible Multilayer
materials Micro-
mono- mono- material plastics
materials materials

CHAPTER 3: BRIDGING THE GAP
Bridging the remaining gap to near-zero leakage will require especially for rural and remote areas; 2) flexible plastic and
additional R&D investment and innovations that go beyond multimaterials (62 per cent of remaining leakage), with a
today’s known solutions, furthering smart policies, alternative focus on alternative delivery systems and materials and
business models, new material substitutes, and more enhancing the material value of existing materials; and 3)
effective and faster scaling-up of reduction, collection and tyre microplastic leakage (21 per cent of remaining leakage).
recycling, composting, and controlled disposal systems, Other missing pieces may include: further ways to scale the
especially in the middle-/low-income countries. Spending on Reduce, Substitute and Recycling solutions; ability to achieve
R&D might be expected to exceed US$100 billion per year. 100 per cent collection; green chemistry breakthroughs; and
new technological, behavioural and business solutions. For a
This R&D would need to come not only from the plastic full list of innovation priorities, see Table 8.
manufacturing industry, but also from waste management,
recycling, logistics companies, and new service providers. The
scale of innovation required can be compared with what we The System Change Scenario requires
have seen during the internet revolution of the past twenty
years: We need a proliferation of hundreds of innovations a substantial shift of investment away
competing with each other to achieve the best possible from the production and conversion
outcomes financially, socially, and for the environment. of virgin plastic, into the deployment
To better understand the areas where innovation can be of new delivery models, substitute
most effective, Figure 43 shows the remaining sources materials, recycling and collection
of leakage after all System Change Scenario system
interventions have been implemented. New solutions
infrastructure, which are often less
must be developed that focus specifically on: 1) collection, mature/financially viable technologies.
Table 8: Innovation areas that could reduce leakage below System Change Scenario levels
Intervention Examples of key innovation areas for reduced leakage
Reduce • Product redesign to packaging-free alternatives.

• Further removal of cost, convenience, and solution-readiness barriers for reuse, packaging as a
service, and new delivery models.
• Systemic approaches such as shorter supply chains, eliminating the need for packaging.
Substitute • New materials that are bio-benign, ephemeral, lower-cost and/or are coupled to available waste
infrastructure for zero leakage.
• Improved barrier properties of paper and compostable materials and reduction of paper coatings.
• Enhanced deployment of composting infrastructure that accepts compostable packaging.
Collection • Reaching 100 per cent collection in low-income areas (especially rural, remote, and other low-
density areas) for which current technologies have prohibitive costs.
• Improving profitability, productivity, and working conditions for the informal sector through
technology, tools, and aggregation markets.
Design for • Enhanced barrier properties for monomaterials.

recycling • Design for recycling solutions for multimaterials, such as paper and aluminium laminations.
• Household goods made from recyclable monomaterials, or modular products designed for
disassembly and recycling.
Sorting and • New models for sorting and aggregation of waste (e.g., digital watermarking), including automated
mechanical sorting in markets without manual sorting.
recycling • Scaling and simplification of source separation in collection systems through regulation, education,
incentives, and improved standards.
• Improved technology to reduce sorting losses, handle higher levels of contamination, or create
higher-quality output affordably, particularly for food-grade outputs.
Chemical • Technology or financing solutions to reach widespread collection of low-value plastic in remote and
conversion low-income countries.
• Improve process efficiency to increase the naphtha fraction and reduce energy requirements.
• Development of technology to allow for a more varied feedstock composition and quality.

The role of innovation

Innovation is a key enabler across all system interventions subsidies, Extended Producer Responsibility fees,
modelled in this report, in all archetypes and for all plastic corporate and government procurement commitments,
categories. Although the System Change Scenario is based tax breaks on impact investing), or increasing the
on known solutions, innovation is still required to make these penalties for not innovating (e.g., plastic taxes or fees
and levies that incentivize waste reduction or help
solutions more affordable, more scalable, more convenient for
sustainable solutions compete on a cost basis).
consumers, and to further reduce environmental and health
impacts. Our model already takes into account assumptions • Regulatory drivers could include creating or refining
about how average costs of technological solutions decrease the “essential requirements” on the types of chemicals,
over time as a result of increased experience. We assumed a plastic, and formats put on the market; mandating
7 per cent average learning rate (the relative cost decrease of minimum recycled content; creating elimination, reuse,
a year-on-year doubling of output) for capital expenditures and recycling targets; incentivizing behaviour change,
for formal sorting, and closed- and open-loop mechanical etc.
recycling. For relatively new technologies, we assumed a 7
• Efficient funding and financing require coordinated
per cent average learning rate for both operational and capital
direction and active innovator support. Thousands
expenditures (see the technical appendix for details). This of innovations in green chemistry, new materials and
estimate applies to both plastic-to-plastic and plastic-to-fuel chemicals exist at the level of basic scientific research,
chemical conversion, and to substituting with compostable but transferring them into workable solutions requires
materials. Additional breakthroughs could improve these costs infrastructure support, guidance on what the high-
further and faster than we have modelled. priority areas are, and access to capital.
• Channelling funds towards the “valley of death” stage

The enablers of innovation (the gap between developing innovations and their
The enablers of innovation span economic, regulatory, legal, commercial application in the marketplace) offers a
and financing enablers for systemic change, and will require particular opportunity to rapidly transfer technology
and ideas out of labs and universities to reach early
building partnerships and coalitions for innovation, as well as
commercialization/implementation. These higher-risk
an overall mindset shift over how the problem of packaging investments require early-stage philanthropy, seed
is seen. funds, impact investing, government grants, patient
capital, nondiluted financing (i.e., grant and impact
• Economic incentives could be realigned to drive investing), and blended finance.
market demand for innovations or increase the financial
incentives for incumbents to innovate (e.g., credits,
Notpla sachets are made from seaweed and plants, and are 100% naturally biodegradable.
Notpla

CHAPTER 4: THE TIME IS NOW
The time
is now
Success requires all players to take
rapid and concerted action
The Warriors of Waste, who are employed by Project STOP, go door to door collecting
garbage from the community at Tembokrejo village in Muncar, Indonesia.
Ulet Ifansasti for Huffpost

SUCCESS REQUIRES ALL PLAYERS TO TAKE RAPID AND CONCERTED ACTION
A substantial transition: investments in the new system are

significant, but returns are attractive
The System Change Scenario is economically viable for governments and consumers, but a major
redirection of capital investment is needed. Although the present value of global investments in
the plastic industry between 2021 and 2040 can be reduced from US$2.5 trillion to US$1.2 trillion,
the System Change Scenario requires a substantial shift of investment away from the production
and conversion of virgin plastic, which are mature technologies perceived as “safe” investments,
into the production of new delivery models, substitute materials, recycling facilities, and collection
infrastructure, which are12:often
Figure riskier
Present and
value of less
global mature
capital technologies.
investments required This change will be possible
between 2021 and 2040 in different scenarios
only with government incentives andtitles
for latest risk-taking
see reportby industry
indesign doc and investors.
The System Change Scenario requires less capital investment than
Business-as-Usual, but the investments are riskier
Figure 44: Present value of global capital investments required between 2021 and 2040 in
different scenarios
The System Change Scenario requires less capital investment than Business-as-Usual, but the
investments are riskier
Virgin production Plastic conversion Substitute-paper Substitute-compostables Waste management Recycling
Mature New technologies that

technologies may require subsidy
US$ billions $2,280
Business-as-Usual $2,470
$190
System Change Scenario $1,180
$720
$460
Values in this figure represent the present value of all capital investments needed per scenario between 2021 and 2040.
Values in this figure represent the present value of all capital investments needed per scenario between
2021 and 2040.
As Figure 44 suggests, a major challenge for shifting the Table 9 details the capital investment requirements under
investment portfolio of the plastic ecosystem is that many the System Change Scenario by activity, technological
technologies are less financially viable or commercially maturity, and the type of stakeholder who typically funds the
proven than virgin plastic production, so the shift will not investment. All costs are global, in present value terms, and
happen naturally. The current petrochemical industry also refer to the period of 2021-2040.
benefits from global fossil fuel subsidies, estimated at US$53
billion in Virgin
2017,production
228
increasing the challenge of the transition.
Plastic conversion
Substitute-paper A Comprehensive Assessment of Pathways Towards Stopping Ocean Plastic Pollution 105
Substitute-compostables
Table 9: Total capital investments required under the System Change Scenario according to
financial viability
2021-2040
System Change Scenario investment Technological maturity Who pays
in billions
Virgin plastic production US$307B Mature Petrochemical industry
Plastic conversion US$236B Mature Petrochemical industry
Formal collection & sorting US$54B Mature, yet requires subsidy Governments
Recycling (mechanical) US$32B Somewhat mature Recycling industry
Recycling (chemical) US$35B Not fully mature Recycling industry
Incineration US$10B Mature, yet requires subsidy Governments
Landfilling US$20B Mature, yet requires subsidy Governments
Paper production US$174B Somewhat mature Paper industry
Compostables production US$312B Not fully mature New industry
Total US$1,180B
This table describes the present value of capital cost investment for different activities under the System Change Scenario, assuming a 3.5 per cent hurdle rate. It was
calculated by quantifying the capacity additions required for each type of activity in this scenario and multiplying by the capital requirements per metric ton of new
capacity. The calculation was done separately by geographic archetype and aggregated to the global level, given that waste infrastructure is typically local. Technological
maturity was assessed as a high-level estimate for the level of risk involved with different investments. Subsidy refers to activities that require government funding.
From theory to action: Unprecedented and resolute action

from all stakeholders is required to stop plastic pollution
As shown in this report, a shift to an integrated system in which plastic is consumed and managed
responsibly benefits the environment, economy, and society. To realize the full benefits that could
be reaped from this new plastics economy, resolute and collaborative action is needed: across the
value chain, between public and private actors, between levels of governments, and across borders.
This collaboration is critical because many organizations are willing to act, but only if other actors
act, too. For example, a consumer goods company depends on the availability of recycled plastic to
increase recycled content levels; recyclers depend on design and clear labelling to increase quantity
and quality of feedstock; and investors depend on access to affordable capital. In other words, the
success of each organization—and therefore of the system as a whole—depends on the actions of
others. This chapter outlines the role of five key stakeholder groups in enabling and accelerating
this transition: governments, industry, investors, civil society and consumers.
The role of governments materialize unless governments create significant incentives

for more sustainable business models and level the playing
The changes required under the System Change Scenario field in which currently virgin plastic feedstock has a cost
are enormous and require massive shifts in the business advantage over recycled materials. Although all players
models of firms creating plastics and their substitutes, large have a role, policies that create a clear and stable set of
changes in purchasing behaviour and business delivery incentives, targets, and definitions are the lynchpin that will
models of consumer goods companies that utilize plastic make the conditions required under the System Change
as an input to the services and products they provide, Scenario possible.
significant changes to the recycling and waste disposal
industries, and changes in the behaviour of consumers. Given the ubiquity of plastics in all aspects of our economic
Although these changes are feasible, they are unlikely to system, and the complexity of the problem, it is difficult

to see how the voluntary actions of consumers and being used to address plastic pollution around the world. A
companies alone can achieve anything like the System uniform mix of solutions will not apply across geographies,
Change Scenario. Governments at all levels play a key role in and the applicability of each solution should be considered
creating the policy framework for social and environmental within the context of local markets and governance systems.
protection and legal accountability, as well as incentivizing Maritime sources of waste will require a separate set of
innovation and investment. Regulatory action is essential to policies that are not included here, although indicative
drive system shifts across all archetypes, and national and examples are given in Chapter 2.
subnational policy leaders can catalyse progress towards
the System Change Scenario by: 1) facilitating the transfer
of effective policy instruments to new geographies; 2)
introducing the new innovative policies that will be required
Although these changes are
to address this issue at the urgency and scale needed; and feasible, they are unlikely to
3) improving regulatory governance and investing in policy
enforcement and compliance.
materialize unless governments
create significant incentives
One of the most crucial roles that governments (and
investors) can play in the coming years will be acting to curb for more sustainable business
the planned expansion of plastic production. Without this,
models and level the playing field
the supply of large quantities of cheap virgin plastic to the
market may undermine reduction and substitution efforts in which currently virgin plastic
and threaten the economic viability of recycling, while
feedstock has a cost advantage
making it even harder to close the collection gap. Table 10
includes illustrative examples of policy instruments that are over recycled materials.
Flags fly outside U.N. headquarters in New York.

Alex Kazmierski/Adobe Stock

Table 10: Illustrative examples of policy instruments
Reduce &
Interventions by policy group Collection Recycle Dispose Microplastic
Substitute
Producer accountability
Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) for

take-back, recycling, and plastic disposal,
with targets and fee modulation
Environmental pollution liability
Direct control regulations
Plastic product bans (single-use bags, cups,

other products, and microplastic ingredients)
Regulation on polymer types and product

designs (D4R, PVC/PS ban, pigments,
additives)
Design & labelling requirements (recycled

content, durability, reuse, repairability,
recyclability, textile/tyre design for
microplastic avoidance)
Statutory targets (e.g., landfill, collection,

reuse, recycling, recycled content)
Regulatory supply chain standards for

prevention of pellet loss
Waste or recycling trade regulations
Market-based instruments
Taxation on virgin plastic product and/or

hard-to-recycle items, levies on single-use
plastic
Increased landfill tipping fees and fees for

waste to energy
Deposit-return schemes, “pay as you throw”

schemes
Plastic recycling credit trading scheme
Removal of subsidies to plastic production

and rationalization of trade tariffs
Government support programs
Subsidized plastic recovery (collection,

sorting, recycling rebates)
Public procurement of reusable items or

suitable substitutes
Funding for plastic alternatives R&D
Incentives for increased personal collection,

sorting and recycling efforts
De-risking and blended-finance mechanisms

to lower capital costs
Funding consumer education and training

To be effective, policy solutions need to be appropriately Our model also shows that under the System Change
enforced, and their outcomes amplified through better Scenario, we would hit peak virgin plastic production by
integration across government departments. Governments 2027. Such a rapid global transition could leave significant
also have a critical role to play in developing the funding petrochemical assets stranded, many of which are expected
mechanisms to support adequate waste management to come online by the mid-2020s. Resin producers and
infrastructure—especially collection, sorting, and disposal—as converters could therefore:
shown in Figure 44.
• Embrace the new system by preparing for a low-
virgin-plastic world by:
The role of business
– Reducing investment in virgin plastic production
Businesses have a critical role to play in achieving the System plants—which are likely to become stranded—now.
Change Scenario. The specific actions required by business
depend on where they exist across the supply chain, and – Entering new value pools, such as recycling, more
whether they are in high-income or the middle-/low- aggressively.
income economies. Although there are considerable risks
– Working with chemical and mechanical recycling
to businesses across all sectors, there are also commercial companies to incorporate recycled content into
opportunities waiting for those ready to embrace change processes.
and position themselves as leaders in the new materials,
products, and delivery systems that will thrive in a world with – Designing out excess material and weight and
near-zero plastic pollution. eliminating avoidable packaging.
– Being early movers and advancing certification and

Understanding the risks regulation on recycled content, food safety, and
Businesses that do not act risk reductions in the value of their recycling definitions.
assets. Some of the key drivers of these risks, particularly to
• Radically innovate for more recyclable and recycled
single-use plastics, are detailed in Figure 45. plastic by:
Resin producers and converters – Developing new materials, barrier coatings, and
recycled content tracking systems.
Figure 46 shows how feedstock for plastic services will
be sourced over time if the System Change Scenario is – Proactively producing products that meet recycling
implemented. It illustrates the dramatic shift from a world in specifications without sacrificing product safety
which 95 per cent of plastic utility is made from virgin plastic to pre-empt the risk of expected regulatory shifts
to a world in which, by 2040, 43 per cent is sourced from against nonrecyclable plastic.
virgin plastic. This represents an 11 per cent net reduction in
the absolute metric tonnage of virgin plastic relative to 2016.
Figure 45: Potential future trends and challenges for single-use plastic and plastic packaging
Attitudes and policies Waste and recycling system
Societal trends continue: Growing system challenges:
• Consumer concern grows, increasing demand for • Domestic recycling struggles on capacity and
“plastic free” solutions (following Europe) economics; sorted recyclables go to landfill or
• NGO activism grows and targets major brands and incineration
plastics producers • Recycled content demand is frustrated by supply,
• Government regulation spreads on Extended quality, and approval challenges
Producer Responsibility and single-use plastics bans • Scepticism on 100% recyclability claims as recycling
(following European Union, Africa, Chile, India, systems do not keep up
California) • Landfill access limited and taxed highly; landfill costs
• Health effects of microplastics in food chain and air and externalities seen as a subsidy for poor design
is becoming a focus for research and activism • Incineration increasingly opposed on cost, air quality,
• Waste exports further limited by unilateral action climate impact, low energy yield, lock-in
(following China, India) or policy (Basel convention) • Higher cost of waste management is passed on to
companies (following United Kingdom, European
Union) and differentiated on recovery/recycling cost-
flexible and multimaterial penalized

Figure 46: Virgin for

plastic
latestneeds
titles &under BAU
captions seeand theindesign
report Systemdoc
Change Scenario
Figure 46: Virgin plastic demand under BAU and the System Change Scenario
By 2040, virgin plastic demand could fall by 11 per cent relative to 2016 in the System Change Scenario
400
350
Million metric tons of virgin plastic
300
250
-11%
200 400
150
205
100 181
50
0
Virgin Business- Virgin Reduce Substitute Increased Virgin
plastic as-Usual plastic recycled plastic
demand, growth in demand, feedstock demand,
2016 virgin plastic 2040 BAU 2040 SCS
demand
Today, 95 per cent of plastic demand is fulfilled by virgin plastic. By 2040, we expect the demand for virgin plastic to reduce by 11 per cent relative to 2016 due to the
significant reduction by Reduce and Substitute as well as an increase in recycled feedstock. This includes only plastic in municipal solid waste.
• Mitigate the risk of products leaking into the – Advancing the global uptake of innovative models
environment to lessen their business risk by: by leveraging global reach and R&D budgets to
facilitate change across geographic archetypes and
– Reaching 100 per cent collection and ensuring that industry sectors.
products do not end up as plastic pollution.
– Working across supply chains on sustainable
– Voluntarily paying for collection in geographies sourcing, effective end-of-life recycling, and
where producer responsibility is not mandated. composting of substitutes.
– Operating Packaging Recovery Organizations • Reduce and redesign for packaging-free products,
(PRO) and enhance monitoring and control of maximum recycled content, and recyclability by:
pellet spillage throughout the supply chain.
– Redesigning products and packaging to more
ambitiously reduce and substitute away from plastic.
Brand owners, fast-moving consumer goods (FMCG)
companies, and retailers – Restricting small formats, avoiding pigments or
Brands are under mounting international scrutiny to address additives, and limiting production to high-value
the plastic pollution crisis. There are huge opportunities for monomaterials, with intuitive labelling linked to
local recycling capabilities.
companies that can translate today’s costs into tomorrow’s
new markets. But seizing these opportunities, many of which • Facilitate consumer action and provide accessible,
require new business models, may require a significant cost-effective alternatives by:
shift in mindsets and leadership. Brand owners, FMCGs and
retailers could: – Creating products that are 100 per cent reusable,
recyclable or compostable.
• Lead the transition to new delivery models by:
– Facilitating new delivery models and integrating
– Committing to reduce one-third of plastic demand these in-store or through home deliveries for reuse.
through elimination, reuse, and new delivery
models by embracing product redesign and supply – Incentivizing shifts in consumer behaviour and
chain innovations. consumption patterns by aligning marketing efforts
towards more circular solutions, leveraging product
– Signalling a shift in demand towards new delivery placement, and improving labelling for recycling.
models, refill and alternative packaging materials to
disrupt and catalyse investments across the entire – Leveraging the transition to online shopping by
value chain. utilizing reverse logistics, and—particularly for
food retailers—investing in food preservation
– Enhancing disclosure to enable better tracking of technology and removing packaging where shelf-
materials and units produced, used, and sold. life requirements decrease.

– Harmonize and simplify recycling labelling and help • Facilitate source separation in collection systems by:
educate consumers on what and how to recycle.
To be effective, this step will require competitors to – Using incentives and improved standards aimed
collaborate and agree on industry-wide standards. at decreasing contamination and maximizing
recycling yields.
In the face of rising consumer pressure and policy action,
– Collaborating with producers/retailers to create
some businesses are already showing that they can
standardized labelling in line with local recycling
commit to plastic reduction targets and successfully
capabilities to maximize consumer participation.
deploy alternative delivery models.229 Businesses should
look to adopt more granular decision-making tools – Integrating waste workers in waste collection
when choosing the appropriate material for a particular (particularly in low middle-income and low-income
application and country, using tools that analyse not only countries).
GHG emissions, but also the other environmental and
• Reduce the risk of direct discarding of plastic waste
health impacts of a particular material choice. It is vital that into waterways by:
they carefully consider what packaging material is the right
choice for a particular product and region, whether there – Combining existing technological innovation and
are alternative delivery mechanisms better suited to the regulatory oversight to reduce deliberate dumping.
product application, the collection/recycling rate and risk of
– Using new developments in telemetry to allow
leakage to the environment, and how the business model tracking of waste collection vehicles.
can incentivize collection, reuse, and recycling. With more
careful assessments of delivery mechanisms and materials • Scale up and expand recycling systems by:
on a case-by-case basis, businesses, with the support of
– Adapting their practices to accommodate and
policy measures, could play the deciding role in reducing
capitalize on the massive material shifts in the
plastic entering the environment. supply chain.
Waste management (collectors, sorters, and recyclers) – Expanding their separate organic waste treatment
capacity and ensuring that it accepts compostable
Under the System Change Scenario, demand for recycled packaging, as well as building paper recycling
content is expected to grow by 2.7 times (see Chapter 2, capacities that accept coated paper.
System Interventions 3-6), creating an immense business
opportunity for the entire waste management industry. With – Expanding infrastructure capacity to enable the
space for landfills increasingly limited, rising opposition recycling of waste locally or regionally.
against incineration, and growing demand for circular • Improve efficiencies in the new waste system through
systems, the recycling industry is optimally positioned to technological improvements by:
plug the gap. With increases in capacity, recycling has the
potential to double the volume of plastic waste it handles – Improving sorting and separation technologies
compared with today. To maximize this opportunity, the that reduce losses and create a higher-quality, safer
output.
recycling industry can:
– Developing and scaling up chemical conversion
• Scale up and improve collection to reduce plastic
technologies to meet the growing demand for
pollution and secure feedstock for recycling by:
recycled content in food-grade applications.
– Working with the public sector to rapidly improve
– Advancing certification and regulation of recycled
efficiency and convenience in collection, scale
content.
up at-source waste separation, and improve the
logistics and economic viability of waste collection • Scale up and improve wastewater management in
in difficult-to-reach areas. households and textile production and road runoff
treatment:
– Developing and integrating new matchmaking
tools among waste producer, (formal and informal) – Establishing mandatory treatment protocols for
collector, recycler, and end user, creating targeted textile production wastewater to tackle microplastic
secondary markets for recycled materials and removal and safe disposal.
incentivizing more demand-driven collection.
– Expanding connection of households to
– Employing new business models to drive up wastewater treatment systems.
collection rates, including new models for
aggregation and decentralized management – Expanding and improving road runoff systems to
of waste. Forward-looking companies are safely capture and dispose of microplastic released
already piloting business models that incentivize from tyre wear.
consumers to collect and separate at source by
providing them with a share of the value of the
collected product.

Paper and compostable material manufacturers • Focusing on developing a robust investment pipeline
Arguably there is sufficient capital to fund proven
In the System Change Scenario, we estimate that paper,
technologies and business models (at least in the high-
coated paper and compostable materials could meet 17 per income economies). The challenge is to find investors
cent (or 71 million metric tons) of the plastic utility demand prepared to nurture and develop projects from the early
by 2040. This scenario offers a significant opportunity for ideas stage. The common refrain is that there is a “lack
manufacturers to: of pipeline” and that the new business ventures are
premature and not ready for commercial finance. But
• Capitalize on growing business opportunities by the pipeline will not appear overnight. Many promising
developing alternative formats and materials that can startups get stuck at the entrance to the “valley of
meet the requirements of the plastic they would be death,” the no man’s land between developing an idea
replacing. Innovations in product design and material and actually getting it on the market. Seed funding in
need to be thoroughly studied and tested so that the the form of grants, technical assistance, introduction
introduction of any new product or material to the to industry players, and guidance on which markets/
market works in circular systems and does not generate solutions to prioritize should help scale innovation.
new environmental and health problems. These new
materials must meet national certifications according to • Developing specific investment vehicles
the end-of-life processing technologies that exist in the The type of investment vehicle will depend on the type
country, and labelling should be clear for the consumer. of assets targeted (e.g., early stage technology with
venture capital, or waste management infrastructure
• Improve resource efficiency and paper recycling with institutional or development capital). The amount
capacity to meet the growing demand in this sector. It of capital required will depend on the strategy.
is important that the materials are sustainably sourced, Vehicles can combine blended/concessional capital
and—where possible and safe—sourced exclusively (by development agencies, donors, climate funds, or
from recycled content or, in the case of compostable philanthropy) to mitigate investor risk or to develop
materials, waste by-products. Suppliers need to work pipelines through project preparation facilities and
with certifiers and roll out recycled input wherever technical assistance grants.
possible to prevent material substitutes for packaging
becoming a driver of deforestation or land use change. • Analysing the commercial feasibility of various
business models
A thorough review of credit profile, new technologies,
The role of investors and financial and commercial market potential would help
institutions demonstrate the attractiveness of the solutions
proposed under the System Change Scenario compared
Investors should seek out opportunities in the new plastic with traditional products and infrastructure.
economy and urgently address potential risk exposure
related to assets in the “old” plastics economy. Otherwise, • Incorporating “plastic risk” in financial and environ-
if policies, technologies, brand owners, and consumer mental, social, and governance (ESG) assessments
behaviour continue to shift rapidly towards new delivery As we have shown in this report, the valuation of current
models and new materials, investors run the risk of being plastic assets does not account for the fact that the
exposed to overvalued or stranded assets. expected industry growth is not aligned with the clean
ocean agenda, commitment to a 1.5oC world, emerging
As shown in Figure 44, we estimate that the total investment societal and consumer trends, or changing government
requirements from 2021 to 2040 under the System Change policies—all of which may have significant implications
for financial performance. It is time for analysts
Scenario are about half those required under BAU, but the
and investors to account for these sector-specific
portfolio of investments is completely different. Although developments—or “plastic risks”—in their company
it may appear that investments under BAU (primarily virgin valuations. Investment banks, sustainability indices, and
plastic production and conversion plants) are less risky, as credit/ESG rating agencies could all play a role here. For
they are directed at mature technologies, supportive policies, example, there are already examples of credit ratings
and established markets, analysis in this report shows that the being punitive towards plastic packaging companies on
risks may be significantly higher than is currently understood the basis of increasing demand for recycled over virgin
by financial markets as policies, technologies, brand owners, material and possible clean-up costs.230 A longer-term
and consumer behaviour all continue to shift towards a and more holistic approach to risk and impact trade-offs
could be used, ensuring that plastic risk is not replaced
new, more circular plastics economy. But it is important to
by other risks, such as emissions and land use change.
acknowledge that many of the new investments required
under the System Change Scenario—mainly, alternative As highlighted in the previous section, investments in
materials and new delivery models—have risks associated the System Change Scenario need to cover formal new
with them, namely market, technology, and regulatory risks. delivery models, substitute materials, collection and sorting,
recycling (mechanical and chemical), incineration, and
Investment into the new value chain could come with many
landfilling. These different types of plastic assets are all at
co-benefits, including cost savings for governments and
various stages of development (e.g., R&D or growth stage)—
consumers, health improvements, GHG emission cuts, and
and each requires different forms of financing (e.g., venture
increased job creation relative to BAU. So why is attracting
capital, growth equity, corporate debt, project finance or
finance for this space often challenging? One reason is the
grant support). The table below provides an overview and
paucity of investable projects and perceived poor risk/return
examples of the different types of investors and sources of
profiles. Investors can seek to overcome this challenge by:
funding with roles to play.

Table 11: Various types of investors and sources of funding
Type Description
Government funding National or subnational/municipal (through public budgets)
Donor capital Through ministries or development agencies (through official

development assistance)
Public
Development banks Typically provide commercial rate lending or equity finance (multilateral
or bilateral)
Climate facilities Typically provide grants and technical assistance (often in the form of
trust funds managed by development banks)
Philanthropy Typically for grants and technical assistance or other form of catalytic
capital (programme-related investment and mission-related investment)
Impact private equity/blended funds For various stages of development (seed, venture capital, growth, etc.).
Can incorporate blending of public/philanthropic capital to mitigate risk
Private
Commercial finance Providing debt/bilateral lending, corporate finance advice
Institutional investors Representing pension funds, insurers, or sovereign wealth funds

(typically public security only or large infrastructure)
The role of civil society partners, conducting the necessary research and
advocacy to support corporations and entrepreneurs in
Civil society can play several important roles, including rolling out new solutions.
acting as watchdog to hold governments, business, and
institutions to account; conducting advocacy, setting • Communication campaigns
agendas, raising awareness, and lobbying for stronger Civil society, academia, and media have led the
regulation; and coordinating research and citizen science. way in making plastic pollution a high-profile issue
for policymakers and businesses alike. Sustained
In the context of plastic pollution, different factions
communication campaigns would help build even
of civil society are occupying all of these roles and, in stronger, more informed consumer engagement on
particular, helping direct the focus of governments and a practical level and support the shifts necessary to
corporations towards upstream action. Civil society will transition to the System Change Scenario.
be vital in achieving each of the eight system interventions
documented in this report and facilitating the transition to a • Grass-roots community action
System Change Scenario, including through the following Flagship zero-waste communities and cities have not
actions: only directly reduced the production of plastic waste
and leakage to the environment, but they also serve as
• Research and monitoring models for other regions. They can also help mobilize
Academic scientists and citizen science programmes assistance and resources for communities impacted by
are essential for building the evidence base for policy plastic pollution. Inspirational early adopters provide a
and corporate action through assessment of the platform to share and disseminate best practices and
distribution, scale, and impacts of plastic production will be vital, particularly in rural areas, in helping support
and pollution. Research and monitoring should be the rolling out of community waste reduction and
harmonized across countries and regions to better management schemes.
identify trends, leakage routes to the ocean, and the
impacts of plastic use and pollution on biodiversity The transition to a low-plastic future is impossible without
and health. Microplastics, contaminants, and maritime civil society; it is the key to both embracing deep reductions
sources are all areas that should be prioritized for further in plastic use and supporting governments and businesses in
research. achieving a circular economy.
• Incubation and acceleration of new solutions The role of consumers

Civil society campaigns have helped prompt retailers
and brands to adopt new reduction and recycling The changes modelled under the System Change Scenario
targets and spurred trials of new delivery models. Scaling entail significant changes to consumer habits and behaviour.
action on reduction, substitution where appropriate, and The scenario shift towards less single-use plastic, more
design for recycling will be essential to implementing
reuse, and more separate collection of recyclables requires
the System Change Scenario interventions. Academia
and civil society can act as expert and technical consumer acceptance and participation. Facilitating and
enabling such consumer behaviour change, in turn, needs

coordinated government policy, education, and industry Consumer demand has played and should continue to play
provision of accessible new products and services. For a catalytic role in accelerating the change. For example,
example, policies should be in place to drive reductions consumers expressing preferences for more sustainable
in avoidable plastic across the board and ensure full and products or services helps build the business case for
easy access to low-waste products, business models and scaling plastic reductions and increasing recycling, and can
waste services, rather than placing the burden on consumer catalyse businesses to go above and beyond their legal and
choice. regulatory responsibilities in addressing the plastic crisis.
There are already strong signs of high consumer demand
Incentive structures are likely to be crucial drivers if the for products with less plastic packaging,231 more recycled
required behaviour changes are to reach mass scale. These content,232 and sustainably branded products,233 which could
incentives could include “pay-as-you-throw” measures, translate into more buying choices.
deposit-return schemes, regulatory changes to make
behaviour such as waste separation mandatory, or changes Education, incentives, and clear labelling will be key
in product pricing structures (e.g., plastic bag charges and to delivering the outcomes modelled in the system
single-use packaging fees, taxation, or subsidies) so that interventions, both so that consumers are guided more
lower-waste and more circular solutions are also cheaper often to do the right thing in terms of their purchasing and
for customers. To make the transitions faster and smoother, recycling behaviours, and so that consumer pressure—
businesses and governments should work together to alongside advocacy from civil society groups—continues to
ensure that new systems are designed with usability, catalyse change by businesses and policymakers.
convenience, and affordability in mind.
Regional priorities: applying different solutions for different

geographies
Our model results suggest, unsurprisingly, that different Upper middle-income countries
archetypes require different solution sets. This finding stems
from the fundamentally different context and jumping- The most relevant system interventions for upper middle-
off points that different regions of the world are starting income (UMI) countries include:
with, specifically, different waste composition, policy
• Significantly reduce and substitute plastic
regimes, labour and capital costs, infrastructure, population
We estimate that UMI countries have the potential to
demographics, and consumer behaviour. cut 30 per cent of their plastic consumption by 2040
(relative to BAU) by reducing avoidable plastics and
For the purpose of this section, we have grouped the eight shifting to reuse and other new delivery models (detailed
geographic archetypes into three groups and have identified in System Intervention 1) and to substitute 17 per cent of
the priority system interventions that each of them should their plastic consumption (relative to BAU) with paper,
implement if they are to achieve the outcomes modelled in compostable materials, or other substitutes (detailed in
the System Change Scenario. Figure 47 highlights the most System Intervention 2).
urgently needed interventions in each group of archetypes,
based on our model. • Expand collection
Expand collection in urban areas from 85 per cent to 95
per cent by 2040 and in rural areas from 45 per cent to
High-income countries 50 per cent (detailed in System Intervention 4).
The most relevant system interventions for high-income
countries include: • Invest in sorting and recycling infrastructure
Grow mechanical recycling output by 2.5 times (from
• Deal with microplastic pollution 10 million metric tons per year to 25 million metric
In high-income countries, microplastics are the leading tons per year) by 2040 (detailed in System Intervention
driver of leakage; therefore, microplastic emissions 5), which will require significantly increasing the share
should be a top priority when looking for solutions. of separation at source and collection for recycling. A
growth in plastic-to-plastic chemical conversion from
• Lead innovation and policy on reducing and trivial amounts today to 4.3 million metric tons per year
substituting plastic and minimizing microplastic by 2040 would facilitate the processing of residual
emissions low-value plastic waste that has not been eliminated or
substituted (detailed in System Intervention 6).
• Increase separation at source and recycling
• Restrict plastic waste imports
• Reduce exports to the middle-/low-income countries Reduce plastic waste imports by 70 per cent by
and deal with plastic waste locally (or regionally) 2030 and 90 per cent by 2040 to ensure that local
infrastructure is used to handle local waste.
• Address maritime sources of leakage

Figure 14: Priority solutions for different geographic archetypes
Figure 47: Priority interventions for different geographic archetypes

By 2040, virgin plastic demand could fall by 11 per cent relative to 2016 in the System Change Scenario
1 2 3 4
High-income Upper-middle Lower-middle Low-income
economy income income economy
U
4 Urban areas Archetype 1U 2U 3U 4U
R Rural areas 1R 2R 3R 4R
Top solutions for high-income Top solutions for urban archetypes in Top solutions for rural archetypes in
countries: middle-/low-income countries: middle-/low-income countries:
• Address microplastic leakage • Invest in formal collection • Heavily invest in collection

• Lead innovation and policy on • Invest in sorting and recycling • Support informal sector by
reduce and substitute infrastructure designing more value into
• Increase separation at source • Significant reduce and substitute material
and recycling • Design for recycling: Increase • Significant reduce and substitute
• Reduce export to low-income share of high-value plastic • Reduce post-collection leakage
countries • Reduce post-collection leakage
• Address maritime sources of • Ban plastic waste imports
leakage
Today, 95 per cent of plastic demand is fulfilled by virgin plastic. By 2040, we expect the demand for virgin plastic to reduce by 11 per cent relative to 2016 due to the
significant reduction by Reduce and Substitute as well as an increase in recycled feedstock. This includes only plastic in municipal solid waste.
Lower middle-income countries with significant investment in sorting and recycling

infrastructure, we estimate that mechanical recycling
The most relevant system interventions for lower middle- can grow its recycled output from 8.9 million metric
income (LMI) countries include: tons per year in 2016 to 17.6 million metric tons per year
by 2040. In addition, a new plastic-to-plastic chemical
• Significantly reduce and substitute plastic conversion industry could be scaled to produce 3.4
The scale of waste infrastructure is insufficient to deal million metric tons per year of recyclate by 2040.
with the large volumes of waste, and this problem is
expected to become worse as plastic waste continues • Reduce post-collection leakage
to grow faster than the ability to expand waste According to World Bank data, only 4 per cent of
infrastructure. Reducing the amount of waste in the collected plastic in this income group is managed in
system and, where appropriate, substituting plastic with a way that it does not leak. Increasing this share to 50
other materials that are easier to deal with is essential. per cent by 2040, largely by replacing dumpsites with
We estimate that 30 per cent of plastic can be reduced managed landfills, can reduce vast amounts of plastic
and 17 per cent can be substituted in LMI countries by leakage to the ocean.
2040, compared with BAU
• Restrict plastic waste imports
• Invest in formal collection By limiting plastic waste imports from other regions, LMI
Collection rates in this archetype are relatively low, countries can ensure that their waste infrastructure is
and raising them is a critical component in addressing directed towards handling local waste.
plastic pollution. According to the World Bank, average
collection rates in urban areas are 71 per cent and in Low-income countries
rural areas 33 per cent. Following a similar path that
high-income countries have followed during their The most relevant system interventions for low-income (LI)
development can yield collection rates of 90 per cent countries to achieve a System Change Scenario include:
and 50 per cent in urban and rural areas, respectively, by
2040. • Massively expand collection
Our System Change Scenario model estimates that
• Invest in sorting and recycling infrastructure collection in LI countries could grow in urban areas
Today, almost the entire recycling industry relies on from 48 per cent to 90 per cent and in rural areas from
the informal sector and there is very little separation 26 per cent to 50 per cent by 2040.
at source. Under the System Change Scenario,

• Support the informal sector by choosing materials • Reduce post-collection leakage

that have higher inherent value According to World Bank data, only 3 per cent of
The majority of plastic in LI countries has very low collected plastic in this income group is managed in
inherent value and is hard to recycle. By shifting to a way that it does not leak. Increasing this share to 50
materials with higher inherent value, the large informal per cent by 2040, largely by replacing dumpsites with
sector can be supported to help reduce ocean plastic managed landfills, is essential to reducing leakage.
pollution.
• Significantly reduce and substitute plastic

As in other archetypes, plastic waste in LI by 2040
will significantly outpace local waste management
infrastructure. Our analysis shows that it is possible to
reduce 30 per cent of plastic by 2040 (relative to BAU) and
to substitute 17 per cent of plastic by 2040 (relative to BAU).
Details can be found in System Interventions 1 and 2.
The cost of waiting: delaying implementation of the system

interventions from 2020 to 2025 would add 80 million metric
tons more plastic to the ocean
All elements modelled under the System Change Scenario exist, or are already under development,
today and now need to be scaled up quickly. An implementation delay of five years—even if then
carried out at the same level of ambition and effectiveness—could result in an additional ocean
plastic stock of ~80 million metric tons. Moreover, delays in implementing the system interventions
could have knock-on effects for the rest of the plastic system, knocking the world off its critical
path towards—ultimately—near-zero leakage. The next few years are crucial for implementing an
ambitious set of “no regret” actions, so that key measurable milestones can be met by 2025. Only by
achieving key milestones in the short term can the groundwork be laid for implementing the further
solutions required in 2030-2040.
It is not the lack of technical solutions that is preventing us incentivizing consumers about reuse, improving labelling,
from addressing the ocean plastic pollution crisis, but rather and testing innovations such as new delivery models. This
inadequate regulatory frameworks, business models, and period is also critical for sending clear policy and market
funding mechanisms. Achieving the level of ambition laid demand signals that will determine the future direction of
out in the System Change Scenario requires triggering key travel, such as voluntary or regulatory commitments on
changes in 2020-2022, through regulatory frameworks, new reducing plastic, increased collection coverage, 100 per
business models, massive infrastructure investments and cent recyclable packaging, and minimum recycled content
funding mechanisms, and innovation. goals. Now is also the time to set up large-scale funding and
investment initiatives, ready to scale up new delivery models,
To be on track to achieve about an 80 per cent reduced waste collection services, recycling infrastructure, and
leakage by 2040, key milestones for the next five years innovations such as new packaging materials and tyres that
should be established and monitored for attainment. produce less microplastics.
Potential milestones for 2025, identified in the System
Change Scenario, are presented in Table 12. Assertive action in “no regrets” Horizon 1 will set the stage
for Horizon 2, to “catalyse” changes by 2025, including
There is a logical staging, or order of actions, that should large-scale financing and implementation of current
be achieved before other intervention solutions can be solutions, and scaling of innovative alternatives. By 2030, the
implemented. Catalysing this scale of change requires “breakthrough” Horizon 3 could then be reached, in which
pursuing “no regrets” actions in the next two years, which all incentives in the system are aligned towards radically
we call Horizon 1 (see Figure 49). These measures include reduced leakage, and the next phase of innovative solutions
stopping the production of avoidable plastic, educating or is being rolled out.

Figure 48: Implications of delaying
SUCCESS thePLAYERS
REQUIRES ALL implementation start
TO TAKE RAPID AND date of the
CONCERTED System Change Scenario
ACTION
for latestfor
titles & captions see report indesign
plastic leakage to the ocean doc
Figure 48: Implications of delaying the implementation of the System Change Scenario for
plastic leakage to the ocean
Delaying the implementation of the System Change Scenario by 5 years may increase plastic
pollution in the ocean by ~80 million metric tons
30
Business-as-Usual
Million metric tons of plastic leakage into the ocean per year
25
20
Additional leakage caused by delayed action
80 million metric tons
15
10
SCS (if implementation
started in 2025)
SCS (if implementation

5 started in 2020)
0
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
Red and light blue lines are modelled scenarios: Business-as-Usual and System Change Scenario, respectively. Dark blue line is a simple illustration of the possible
impact of five years’ delayed action, if: Business-as-Usual leakage is realized between 2021 and 2025; in 2026, the absolute mass of leakage reduced from BAU is
the same as System Change Scenario reductions in 2021; 2027 leakage reduction is the same as System Change Scenario reductions in 2022, etc. The cumulative
impact of this illustration of delayed implementation is shaded light blue and sums to a cumulative ~80 million metric tons of additional leakage between 2021 and
2040 as compared with the System Change Scenario.
Table 12: Milestones reached in the System Change Scenario by 2025
Intervention Proposed milestone for 2025
Reduce and 10 per cent reductions and substitutions achieved, capping plastic waste generated at 259 million metric
substitute tons per year globally (i.e., 91 million metric tons in HI and 168 million metric tons in LI/LMI/UMI) before
decreasing by 2040. In particular, by 2025 flexible plastic waste should be capped near 102 million metric
tons globally to ensure that the reductions represent a genuine decrease in the number of items rather than
“light-weighting” from a more recyclable rigid to lighter, less recyclable, and higher-leakage flexible packaging.
Design for Switch 25 per cent of multimaterial sachets/multilayer plastics and 2.5 per cent of household goods to
recycling monomaterials by 2025.
Collect and sort Collection service roll-out in middle-/low-income countries increased to 69 per cent, compared
with today’s 63 per cent, including through the integration of waste pickers into the municipal waste
management systems.
Mechanical Growth of recycled content to at least 30 per cent in plastic products.

recycling
Chemical Chemical conversion capacity grows 2.4 times to reach the scale required by plastic-to-plastic chemical
conversion conversion, contingent on reductions in associated GHG emissions.
Microplastics 10 per cent reduction of average kilometres driven per capita in passenger cars.
10 per cent reduction of tyre loss rate for passenger cars by switching to more durable tyres.
Pellet losses reduction of 15 per cent by minimizing losses from plastic handling facilities through
measures such as installing improved machinery and drain filters.

Figure 49: Three time for horizons, illustrating the actions that could be
latest titles & captions see report indesign doc
taken49:
Figure in Three
stages tohorizons,
time achieveillustrating
the System Change
the actions Scenario
that could be taken in stages to
achieve the System Change Scenario
1 2020-2022: Horizon 1
“No Regrets”
2 2025: Horizon 2
“Catalyse”
3 2030: Horizon 3
“Breakthrough”
• Eliminate overpackaging and • Ensure convergence and • Expand system innovations

avoidable plastic use, e.g., collaboration among government globally (e.g., reuse, new delivery
product bans, voluntary corporate and industry leaders to overcome models, bio-benign substitutes,
commitments. paralysis on differing visions. measures to minimize microplastic
emissions).
• Curb further expansion of virgin • Rapidly scale up system innovations
plastic production. including new delivery models • Achieve a value-driven system
(reuse-refill), reverse logistics, for recovery and recycling of
• Enable consumer behaviour incentives for packaging recovery. packaging and use of plastic waste
change through improved labelling, as feedstock-based on enhanced
economic incentives, and customer • Innovate to find new or improved material value and policy innovation.
communications. materials and technology to
increase value after use or expand • Align commercial benefits for
• Test delivery innovations, e.g., frontiers of compostable and bio- companies that navigate the circular
reuse-refill and new delivery models. benign materials. economy opportunity with new
business models based on reuse.
• Design current packaging and • Secure large-scale investment for
products for recycling and waste and recycling systems to • Provide packaging as a service
introduce standards, Extended catalyse improvements and ramp up based on reuse, with innovative
Producer Responsibility, and implementation. financing and material leasing
minimum recycled content models.
commitments. • Increase statutory targets to drive
continued progress (e.g., collection,
• Invest in collection infrastructure reuse, recycling, recycled content
and establish policy incentives, e.g., targets).
deposit-return schemes, statutory
targets. • Streamline polymer types and
product designs to facilitate reuse
• Commit to financing the transition, and recycling.
signalling a business opportunity for
innovators. • Innovate in textile and tyre design.
• Implement measures to address

microplastic sources, e.g., bans on
microplastic ingredients, mandatory
supply chain standards to eliminate
pellet loss.
If early milestones are not met, knock-on and snowball • Delays to expanding collection means additional
effects for other parts of the system could occur due to co- uncollected waste annually to 2040, which is not
dependency effects. Examples of co-dependencies between available as feedstock for recycling plants and which
interventions include: either leaks to the environment or is burned illegally,
driving up GHG emissions and other toxins.
• Delaying making plastic reductions and substitutions until
2025 places extra annual burden onto waste infrastructure There are also hard limits on how fast change can happen,
to 2040. This could mean businesses and consumers for policy, scaling new infrastructure, and consumer
become accustomed to higher plastic use rather than behaviour. Examples of time lag effects include:
leapfrogging towards a lower-waste world, with increased
effort required to bring production and consumption back • Pioneer countries and regions adopting and testing
down, and greater risk of stranded assets. It also means new policies today so that late adopter countries can
that there is more mass to be collected, redesigned for follow suit.
recycling, and processed each year after that.
• Implementation timelines, between passing a policy and
• Delaying design for recycling measures would create entering into force, or investing in infrastructure, and
more losses from mechanical recycling by 2040, with that infrastructure coming online.
an associated drop in recycling profitability in 2040 per
• Lags between when new products become available
metric ton collected. This outcome, in turn, decreases
and when they replace the stock of plastic currently
the financial incentives behind both informal and formal
in use, such as selling more reusable and recyclable
sector collection for recycling and could slow the pace
packaging, more durable tyres, or clothing with lower
of building recycling capacity.
microplastic shedding rates.

• Early-stage reuse and new delivery models that need stranded assets and so that new sustainable supply
piloting and refinement now so that the best models chains can be built.
emerge by 2025, then have time to reach the mass
market. • The “lock-in” effect means the longer that society
continues on the BAU path, the harder it is to implement
• Limits to how fast consumer paradigms can be shifted disruptive innovations.
from first adopters to mass uptake in how we use
packaging, consume and shop, and segregate waste. These time factors highlight both the urgency, and the
opportunity, of acting early to scale all system interventions,
• Improving technologies today—for better-performing and avoid delays, higher costs, and increased ocean plastic
substitute materials, more recyclable plastic products,
pollution later.
improved sorting, etc.—to avoid retrofitting and
Conclusion
“Breaking the Plastic Wave” is not about fighting plastic, it is about fighting plastic pollution. And
yet we must recognize that although the scale-up of recycling and waste management is critically
needed in many parts of the world and is the cornerstone of a circular economy, these efforts
alone will not be enough to avoid plastic pollution within budgetary and political constraints at
the current levels of plastic production—let alone the expected growth. Even if it were possible,
the associated GHG emissions from plastics in 2040, 1.6 GtCO2e, would nearly double compared
with 2016, and could account for 15 per cent of the forecast allowable emissions budget under the
IPCC’s Representative Carbon Pathway 2.6, a climate change scenario resulting in 1.5°C warming
by 2100. Reduction—through elimination, reuse, and new delivery models—and appropriate
substitution are essential to achieving a system change and stopping plastic leakage into the ocean.
This report outlines a feasible way to radically reduce the businesses, and innovators ready to lead the transition to a
amount of plastic entering the ocean. The mounting challenge more sustainable world, with circular business models and
of plastic pollution threatens the health of our ocean, upon new sustainable materials.
which so many lives and livelihoods depend. And like the
response required to tackle any global threat, effectively Breaking the wave of ocean plastic pollution is a challenge
stopping plastic from leaking into the ocean requires vast that respects no boundary: It affects communities,
coordination, increased resources, and close collaboration businesses, and ecosystems in both the high-income and
among governments and industry, as well as the ongoing middle-/low-income geographies. Businesses, governments,
vigilance and engagement of citizens and communities. investors, and civil society should aspire to a shared near-
zero leakage vision and commit to ambitious, concrete steps
Achieving the ambitious changes envisioned under the towards achieving this critical objective.
System Change Scenario would require governments to
incentivize more sustainable business models based on
the reuse of materials, and realign incentives that currently
give virgin plastic feedstock an advantage over recycled Unless the plastics value chain is
secondary materials. They would also need to enact
ambitious policy measures across the plastics value chain to
transformed in the next two decades,
foster innovation. Industry would need to remove avoidable, the compounding risks for marine
single-use and hard-to-recycle plastic from the market, species and ecosystems, our climate,
invest in material and business model innovation, and join
with governments to help finance waste collection and
our economy, and our communities will
sorting. Public-private collaborations would be required to become unmanageable. But alongside
set standards on materials, formats, reuse, and recyclability. these risks are unique opportunities
And the management of this progress would be critical.
for governments, businesses, and
Unless the plastics value chain is transformed in the next innovators ready to lead the transition
two decades, the compounding risks for marine species
and ecosystems, our climate, our economy, and our
to a more sustainable world, with
communities will become unmanageable. But alongside circular business models and new
these risks are unique opportunities for governments, sustainable materials.

Appendix A
Key assumptions and data sources
Fishing boats moored by a shore.

Vijak/Adobe Stock
KEY ASSUMPTIONS AND DATA SOURCES
Appendix A: key assumptions and data sources

This appendix describes the most important assumptions and data sources used for the purpose of
building the Business-as-Usual (BAU), Current Commitments, and System Change scenarios. For
full details of all assumptions, data sources, and methodology, please see the technical appendix. All
assumptions and methodologies in this project have been peer-reviewed.
Population and waste generation

The total mass of macroplastic waste generated for each archetype is estimated using World Bank data of waste generated by
country in 2016,234 United Nations population data by archetype, and projected growth rates of plastic generation from Material
Economics’ analysis.235 The results are summarized in Table A.1.
Table A.1: Estimated annual total macroplastic waste generation projections and calculated
compound annual growth rates (CAGR) by archetype from 2016 to 2040
Archetype Total annual plastic waste generated (million metric tons) Calculated CAGR
2016 2030 2040
High-income (HI) 72.8 90.3 104.2 1.51%
Upper middle-
53.3 104.7 143.7 4.22%
income (UMI)
Urban
Lower middle-
25.5 48.8 70.6 4.33%
income (LMI)
Low-income (LI) 3.8 10.1 17.2 6.58%
HI 17.0 17.3 16.7 -0.07%
UMI 19.2 23.6 25.0 1.11%

Rural
LMI 19.4 27.6 31.4 2.04%
LI 4.2 8.1 10.9 4.18%
Global 215.0 330.4 419.7 2.83%
Table A.2: Waste composition by plastic categories by income group
The proportion of municipal solid waste allocated to each

Plastic category Income group plastic category was done by analysing available full data
sets on waste composition from representative countries in
the high-income archetype and combined middle-income
HI UMI/LMI/LI and low-income archetypes, due to scarcity of data (see
technical appendix Section 8). The results are shown in Table
Rigid monomaterial 53% 33% A.2. We assumed that the trajectory observed from 2014
to 2019 for these proportions would continue to 2040: an
annual decrease in the share of rigid monomaterials of -0.22
Flexible monomaterial 24% 45%
per cent and an annual increase in the share of flexibles of
0.11 per cent across all archetypes.236
Lower middle-income (LMI) 23% 22%

APPENDIX A
Table A.3: Estimated populations living in We assumed that waste generated near coastal waters
proximity to rivers or coastal waters and rivers has a greater likelihood of reaching water and
therefore proportioned the population living within 1 km of a
river or coastal water using GIS modelling, as shown in Table
A.3, and assigned transfer ratios of mismanaged waste to
Archetype Proportion of population living in
the ocean accordingly (see “Transfer to waterways” section
proximity to water
below and technical appendix Section 14).
<1 km >1 km Business-as-Usual: Mass
HI-urban 43.5% 56.5%

Collection
Collection rates for each archetype are taken from the World
HI-rural 41.1% 58.9% Bank.237 The amount of plastic waste collected is projected
to increase over time, as total plastic waste generation
increases. We assumed that the proportion of government
UMI-urban 43.6% 56.4% budgets spent on waste management would remain
constant. Consequently, we assume gross domestic product
UMI-rural 40.9% 59.1% (GDP) growth is a proxy for the average annual growth of
government budgets, and therefore an estimate for growth
LMI-urban 46.2% 53.8% in waste management spending. The expansion in the
volume of collected plastic waste is therefore constrained by
global GDP growth at an average of 3 per cent per year.238
LMI-rural 42.0% 58.0%
The number of waste pickers in each income group is
LI-urban 40.2% 59.8% estimated based on Linzner and Lange, 2013.240 We assume
that the informal sector will grow at the same rate as the
overall population, such that their relative proportion remains
LI-rural 36.4% 63.6%
the same as in 2016.
Table A.4: Baseline conditions of plastic waste collection rates by archetype for base year
2016239
Archetype HI urban HI rural UMI urban UMI rural LMI urban LMI rural LI urban LI rural
Plastic collection rates 99% 96% 85% 45% 71% 33% 48% 26%
Table A.5: Estimated proportion of waste pickers in 2016
Income group Urban population (millions) Proportion of waste pickers in Number of waste pickers
urban population (millions)
HI 962 0.005% 0.05
UMI 1,693 0.33% 5.6
LMI 1,196 0.41% 4.9
LI 207 0.41% 0.85
Total 4,058 11.4

Managed waste Disposal

The share of managed waste in each archetype is based on The share of managed waste directed to landfill versus
World Bank data.241 Similar to collection rates, the growth incineration is based on existing trends in each archetype, as
of waste management infrastructure is constrained not shown in Table A.7.
to exceed GDP growth averaged at 3 per cent per year.
Moreover, to estimate the amount of mismanaged waste in Import and export of plastic waste
urban and rural areas, we assume it to be proportional to the
The increase in global trade is assumed to match the
amount of uncollected waste in urban and rural areas. The
growth rate in plastic waste generation in high-income
resulting proportions of managed waste in each archetype
countries because these countries represent a large share
are shown in Table A.6. We assume that these proportions
of the plastic waste export market. We base our analysis
remain constant to 2040 under BAU.
on total plastic waste mass data obtained from the United
Nations Comtrade database for 2018250 after the significant
Mechanical recycling disruptions to trade in plastic waste following the Chinese
In the BAU Scenario, all recycling between 2016 and import ban in January 2018.
2040 is assumed to be mechanical recycling, and only of
monomaterials. We assume that recycling rates will increase Open burning
over time in HI countries (driven by regulation) and that all
The percentage of collected plastic waste that is burned
recycling in UMI, LMI and LI countries is enabled, in some
openly in dumpsites and the rate of uncollected plastic
way or another, by the informal sector.
waste that is burned openly in residential settings is based on
general municipal solid waste data reported by Wiedinmyer
Chemical conversion et al., 2014, for middle income and low income countries.251
We model pyrolysis-based chemical conversion in urban Because of a lack of data, high-income countries are
areas of HI, UMI and LMI countries only. We assume that assumed to have the same rates. As a result, the open
all feedstock for this technology is flexible plastic (both burning of collected plastic waste in dumpsites is assumed
monomaterials and multimaterials). To approximate the total at 13 per cent and the open burning of uncollected waste in
mass input for the BAU Scenario, we quantify the current residential areas is assumed at 60 per cent, globally.
total installed capacity and project this forward to 2040 using
a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 2 per cent, which Transfer to waterways
has been observed between 2014 and 2019. Moreover,
The precise transfer rates of plastic waste in each route are
because plastic-to-plastic chemical conversion technologies
not well understood. Table A.8 shows the rates assumed
are all currently virtually at pilot scale, we assume that no
based on expert panel consensus, informed by published
commercial development of plastic-to-plastic chemical
research and survey data, where such data exist.252 The
conversion will occur under the BAU Scenario.
highest uncertainty band of 50 per cent is assigned to this
parameter due to the lack of empirical data. Transfer rates
are distinguished by distance to water.
Table A.6: Proportion of managed plastic
waste (as share of disposal) reported by
Kaza et al., 2018242
Managed plastic waste,

96% 94% 53% 28% 4% 2% 3% 2%
2016
Table A.7: Disposal rates by income group (as per cent of managed waste)
2016 BAU 2040

Engineered landfill Incineration with energy Engineered landfill Incineration with energy
recovery recovery
HIa,d 65% 35% 30% 70%
UMIb,d 85% 15% 58% 42%
LMIc,d 100% 0% 100% 0%
LIc,d 100% 0% 100% 0%
Sources: a = World Bank, 2018;243 b = Fernandez, 2020;244 Hu et al., 2015;245 Hu et al., 2018;246 Chinese Statistical Service;247 and
Ji et al., 2016;248 c = Kumar et al., 2019;249 d = expert panel consensus

APPENDIX A
Table A.8: Estimated transfer rates of mismanaged waste
Rigid Flexible Multi

Pathway System map arrow Denominator
<1km >1 km <1km >1 km <1km >1 km
Direct to water
Arrow Q3 Q: Uncollected 20% 0.1% 20% 0.1% 20% 0.1%
(resident)
Leakage to water
T: Diffuse terrestrial
from terrestrial Arrow T1 10% 3% 35% 8% 35% 8%
dumping
dumping
Direct to water
R: Post-collection
(collection Arrow R1 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5%
mismanaged
vehicle)
Dumpsite leakage V: Dumpsites/unsanitary

Arrow V3 1% 0.5% 8% 3% 8% 3%
to water landfills
Business-as-Usual: Costs Collection and sorting costs

Both operating and capital expenditures are assumed to The collection and sorting costs are prorated for plastics
improve at a fixed rate for every doubling of capacity, which such that the costs within the modelled system account for
varies based on activity. All cost data and estimates are only the costs attributable to plastic waste and are therefore
reported in 2016 US$. higher than the collection and sorting of other waste
streams, such as organic waste. Allocation is done to reflect
the relatively higher volume-to-weight ratio that plastic
occupies in a collection truck.
Table A.9: Cost of collection (allocated to plastics) (US$ per metric ton)
Weighted average—urban Weighted average—rural

Average
Income
cost for all
group Operating Capital Operating Capital
waste253 Total Total
expenditure expenditure expenditure expenditure
HI 145 149 64 213 202 86 288
UMI 75 81 35 115 109 47 156
LMI 53 56 24 81 76 33 109
LI 35 38 16 54 51 22 73
Sources: Kaza et al., 2018;254 Hogg, 2002255
Table A.10: Estimated formal sorting costs (US$ per metric ton)256
Income archetype Operating expenditure Capital expenditure Total
HI 156 52 208
UMI 117 39 156
LMI 88 29 117
LI 66 22 88

Recycling costs Sale prices

Both capital and operating expenditures for closed-loop The sale prices for different recyclates are based on a
and open-loop mechanical recycling plants are based composition of high-value plastics (PET, HDPE, and PP) as
on the experience and knowledge of our expert panel shown in Table A.12. We assume that these prices remain
and confirmed through interviews. Similar to mechanical constant to 2040.
recycling, costs for plastic-to-fuel and plastic-to-plastic
chemical conversion plants are based on consultation
with chemical conversion companies. These are nascent
technologies with limited cost data available.
Table A.11: Closed- and open-loop mechanical recycling costs (US$ per metric ton of input)
Operating expenditure Capital expenditure
Closed-loop Open-loop Closed-loop Open-loop

Income Chemical Chemical
mechanical mechanical mechanical mechanical
group conversion conversion
recycling recycling recycling recycling
HI 596 410 246 160 120 101
UMI 452 307 172 140 90 77
LMI 300 200 158 115 75 77
LI 300 200 N/A 115 75 N/A
Sources: Based on expert panel consensus; Deloitte, 2015;257 proprietary data by expert panel member Jill Boughton
Table A.12: Recyclate sale price by archetype (US$ per metric ton of output)
Mechanical recycling Chemical conversion c

Income group
Closed loop a, b Open loop Plastic-to-plastic Plastic-to-fuel
HI 1,218 810 648 637
UMI 1,157 770 645 637
LMI 1,096 729 645 637
LI 1,096 729 645 637
Sources: a = Plastics Information Europe, 2019;258 b = Based on expert panel consensus per proprietary data shared by panel
member Ed Kosior; c = Based on expert panel consensus per proprietary data shared by panel member Jill Boughton

APPENDIX A
Disposal costs panel consensus based on data from actual plants. The
costs reflect the same operating, safety, and environment
Total landfills costs are calculated based on World Bank
standards across all archetypes.
data and Eunomia data, as shown in Table A.13. The split
between operating and capital expenditures is done through Incineration revenues account for the sale price of the
expert panel consensus. The costs reflect the capital energy generated, as shown in Table A.14. We assume these
expenditures and annualized operating expenditures of prices remain constant to 2040.
engineered landfills. Incineration costs are based on expert
Table A.13: Disposal costs by income group (US$ per metric ton of input)
Engineered landfills Incineration

Income group
Operating expenditure Capital expenditure Operating expenditure Capital expenditure
HI 7.5 22.5 63 27
UMI 7.5 22.5 28 21
LMI 5.0 15.0 26 21
LI 5.0 15.0 26 21
Sources: Based on World Bank, 2018;259 Eunomia, 2002;260 and expert panel consensus per proprietary data shared by panel
member Jill Boughton
Table A.14: Incineration sale prices by income group (US$ per metric ton of input)
Income group Revenue
HI 44
UMI 34
LMI 35
LI 35
Source: Based on World Bank, 2018,261 and expert panel consensus per proprietary data shared by panel member Jill Boughton
Current Commitments Scenario: Mass New Plastics Economy Global Commitments

The New Plastics Economy Global Commitments are
The Current Commitments Scenario accounts for the
evaluated to quantify the potential plastic reduction of its
impact of major government policies as well as the
signatories resulting from the commitments in three ways:
reduction committed by industry through the New Plastics
Economy Global Commitments.262 This scenario includes 1. Increase in recycled content.
all commitments made between Jan. 1, 2016, and June 30,
2. Reduction in plastic resulting from the commitment
2019.
to “take action to eliminate problematic or
unnecessary plastic packaging by 2025.”
Government bans and levies
This element quantifies the anticipated reduction in plastic 3. Innovation where 100 per cent of plastic packaging is
due to government bans/levies that have been passed into reusable, recyclable, or compostable by 2025.
legislation. Where countries introduced bans on specific
Costs and sale prices for this scenario were assumed to be
items (e.g., plastic bags), we estimate that it will lead to
the same as for the BAU Scenario.
100 per cent elimination of that item. The European Union
single-use plastics directive263 is analysed separately to
determine its plastic reduction impact.

System Change Scenario: Mass The formal sorting losses are modelled to halve from 20 per
cent in 2016 to 10 per cent in 2040. This is due to an increase
Reduce and Substitute interventions in the proportion of plastic that is technically recyclable as
enabled by improvements in design for recycling, sorting
The methodology used for Reduce and Substitute is
at source, labelling for recycling, and recycling technology.
described under System Intervention 1 and System For the informal sector, the sorting losses are assumed to be
Intervention 2 (for details, see technical appendix Section 15). less than the formal sector because waste pickers generally
Collection and sorting “cherry pick” the most valuable recyclable plastic waste at
source. A loss rate of 5 per cent across all plastic categories
Table A.15 shows the target collection rates for each is modelled, which is assumed to remain stable over time.
archetype under the System Change Scenario. These rates
are determined based on our expert panel consensus of
what ambitious but realistic targets for each archetype would
be, and while comparing to what best-in-class countries
have achieved in each archetype.
Table A.15: 2040 targets of plastic waste collection rates by archetype under System
Change Scenario
Collection rate for

100% 100% 95% 50% 95% 50% 95% 50%
plastic waste
Recycling the industry. The Brazilian ethanol CAGR of 16.5 per cent is
used to project the maximum capacity growth of chemical
The share of rigid plastics going to closed-loop mechanical
conversion (for both plastic-to-fuel and plastic-to-plastic).
recycling is assumed to increase by 2040 as regulatory
In addition, the maximum mass flowing to chemical
requirements for recycled content increase and as recycled
conversion is constrained to a maximum of 50 per cent of all
technologies improve, as shown in Table A.16.
collected flexible monomaterial and multilayer/multimaterial
In the System Change Scenario, we assume that there will be plastic waste in any given year. We further assume that
a growth in chemical conversion capacity, both plastic-to- plastic-to-plastic chemical conversion begins in 2030, and
fuel and plastic-to-plastic. We base the maximum foreseen that a 50:50 split with plastic-to-fuel is achieved by 2040.
growth rate for chemical conversion on the compounded
Post-collection mismanaged plastic waste
annual growth rate (CAGR) of ethanol production in Brazil
between 1975 and 1995, a time in which the Brazilian Table A.17 shows the target rate of managed plastic waste as
government assertively drove the development of ethanol a proportion of all plastic waste for each archetype under the
production and incentivized it accordingly.264 We consider System Change Scenario. This rate is based on expert panel
the historical ethanol production trajectory in Brazil to be a consensus of what is achievable in an ambitious scenario.
good proxy because of the similar capex-intensive nature
as well as interest by public and private sectors to develop
Table A.16: Target outcome of formal and informal sorting processes for rigid monomaterial
plastics (as per cent of plastic waste entering sorting) under System Change Scenario
a. Formal:
2016 2040—after intervention

Income
group Going to closed Going to open Lost in sorting Going to closed Going to open Lost in sorting
loop loop process loop loop process
HI 53% 27% 20% 65% 25% 10%
UMI 10% 70% 20% 20% 70% 10%
LMI 5% 75% 20% 20% 70% 10%
LI 0% 80% 20% 0% 90% 10%

APPENDIX A
b. Informal:
2016 2040—after intervention

Income
group Going to closed Going to open Lost in sorting Going to closed Going to open Lost in sorting
loop loop process loop loop process
HI 70% 25% 5% 80% 15% 5%
UMI 25% 70% 5% 35% 60% 5%
LMI 25% 70% 5% 35% 60% 5%
LI 25% 70% 5% 35% 60% 5%
Table A.17: Target proportion of managed waste in 2040 under System Change Scenario
Managed plastic waste;

2040 (as per cent of 100% 100% 90% 75% 50% 50% 50% 50%
disposal)
System Change Scenario: Costs

End-of-life costs Recycling prices
The end-of-life costs per metric ton of plastic substituted In the System Change and Recycling scenarios, we model an
include the collection, disposal, and recycling/composting increase in recyclate prices, driven primarily by an increased
demand for recycled content as well as a higher quality of
costs of substitute material. These costs are multiplied by
recyclates due to design for recycling.
an average weighted factor increase of replacing a plastic
packaging unit with a substitute package (1.5 for paper or
coated paper265 and 1.3 for compostable materials).266 This
method is based on two key assumptions. First, it assumes
that 100 per cent of substitutes are collected, disposed of, or
recycled as managed waste, which is conservative to ensure
that end-of-life costs are not underestimated. Second, it
assumes that cost per metric ton and per cent by waste
treatment type remain at 2016 levels to 2040.
Table A.18 Closed-loop sale prices by income group (US$ per metric ton of output) assumed
under System Change Scenario
Closed loop Open loop

Income group
2016 2040—after intervention 2016 2040—after intervention
HI 1,218 1,350 810 1,000
UMI 1,157 1,283 770 950
LMI 1,096 1,215 729 900
LI 1,096 1,215 729 900
Source: 2040 price assumptions and rationale based on expert panel consensus per proprietary data shared by panel member
Ed Kosior

Appendix B
System maps
Simon Clayton/Pexels
APPENDIX B APPENDIX B
Figure B.1: Global macroplastic system map
Figure B.1: Global

for latest titles & macroplastic
captions see report indesign doc system map
The macroplastic system map depicts the five major

components of the global plastic system: production and Production & consumption Collection & sorting Recycling
G H
consumption; collection and sorting; recycling; disposal;
and mismanaged. The boxes labelled with letters (A to W) Separate system map Exported waste Imported waste
represent mass aggregation points in the model, and the
arrows represent mass flows. Boxes outlined in solid lines Plastic Mechanically
reduction F4 H1
recycled plastics
represent places where plastic mass leaves the system, I1
I
including where it leaks into the ocean (see Box W). The Closed-loop
boxes to the left of Box A reflect plastic demand. See Plastic A B C Collected for recycling F mechanical I2
Appendix A and the technical appendix for details on the substitution C1 F1 recycling
Formal Formal sorting
modelling methodology and parameters used. Demand Total
Collected collection (material D1
for plastic plastic
Recycled plastic plastic E recovery
utility waste A1 B1 C2 E3 Sorting Losses
F2
polymers facility)
J
E1 Open-loop
Mixed
F3 mechanical J1
Virgin plastic collection
recycling
D2
D E2 L
Recycled monomers Sorting Losses
& hydrocarbons Informal Unsorted K
B2 collection D4 Chemical
waste D3
Uncollected/littering & sorting conversion to
K3
monomers and
K1 A2 V1 hydrocarbons
Recycled monomers
and hydrocarbons
Reprocessing losses
Mismanaged waste Dumpsite recovery
Post-collection Post-collection disposal
mismanaged
Q R
Uncollected Post-collection mismanaged L2 Disposal L1
Post-leakage collection
M Unsorted managed waste
Q1 Q2 Q3 R1 R2
M2 M1 K2
T Terrestrial U Direct discard V Dumpsites/
pollution to water unsanitary landfill
N O P
T1 U1 V3 V2 Engineered Fuels fraction

Incineration
landfills from chemical
conversion
S W
Open burning Ocean pollution W1
Legend: Plastic flow Pre-consumer Points of mass accumulation
> Exhibits - Yoni / PAGE 26 FEEDBACK PENDING (portrait version with CAPTION text also supplied / see next page)
130 BREAKING THE PLASTIC WAVE A Comprehensive Assessment of Pathways Towards Stopping Ocean Plastic Pollution 131
APPENDIX B
Figure B.2: Detailed view of the subsystem map of the Reduction and Substitution boxes
Figure B2:
Detailed view of the subsystem map of the plastic Reduction and plastic substitution boxes
Box 0 and the Plastic Reduction and
Plastic Substitution boxes in Figure B.1
Utility Service provision Material requirements
are detailed in this subsystem map. The 0.1a
numbered boxes depict the flows of utility 0.1: 0.5:

0.2a 0.9:
Eliminate Total plastic reduction 0.7a
demand and supply (green boxes), plastic 0.3a Paper
mass demand and supply (blue boxes), 0.13
0.12:
and substitute material mass (pink boxes; 0.7b
0.10: Nonplastic waste
0.2: Total mass of generated
not modelled). Business-as-Usual (BAU) Coated paper
Reuse-consumer substitutes (requires management)
demand for plastic mass that accumulates 0.2b
0.6: 0.11:
in the system is estimated in Boxes 0.5 and Box 0: 0.7c
Demand for Multiuse packaging Compostables
0.7 such that utility in boxes 0.5, 0.7, and 0.3b 0.6a
plastic utility 0.3:
0.8 adds up to the sum of Box 0. Arrow
Reuse-new delivery
0.6 is a dotted arrow because it represents 0.13:
models
0.7: Virgin plastic
a partial flow as only multiuse packaging 0.4a
Substitution to single-
for nonfood applications was modelled use nonplastic materials
0.14: Box A:
as plastic. The three Reduce levers are
Recycled plastic polymers Plastic waste generated
depicted in Boxes 0.1, 0.2, and 0.3. See (enters main system map)
Appendix A and the technical appendix for
0.4: 0.8: 0.15:
details on the modelling methodology and 0.4b
Remaining utility Remaining plastic Recycled monomers &
parameters used. demand-no solution demand hydrocarbons
Utility demand Plastic mass Substitute

and supply flow material mass
The subsystem map indicates flows of utility demand and supply (green boxes), plastic mass demand and supply (blue boxes), and substitute
material mass (pink boxes; not modelled). Outlined boxes (0.5 and 0.7) indicate where Business-as-Usual (BAU) demand for plastic mass
accumulates in the system, such that utility in boxes 0.5, 0.7, and 0.8 sum to Box “0”; this Box “0” is the same as in Figure B.1. The dotted arrow
represents a partial flow, as only multiuse packaging for nonfood applications was modelled as plastic. Boxes 0.1, 0.2, and 0.3 refer to the three
Reduce levers modelled. Detailed information on the data and assumptions underlying each box and arrow, as well as associated levers and
costs, is presented in the technical appendix.

APPENDIX B
Figure B.3: Tyre wear particles system map
Figure B3: Microplastics system map-tyre abrasion

Microplastics generated from tyre-wear
particles (TWP) are microsize particles Production Use phase Recycling
with a spectrum of airborne (>10µm) to
coarse fraction (>1mm) released through Tyre recycling ?
mechanical abrasion of tyres, with chemical Tyre production
MTA: Losses on roads MTB: Losses on runways
composition depending on rubber type.
The major pathways are depicted in this
system map, but because of a lack of data, Losses from tyre chips ?
only the blue boxes and the associated
arrows are modelled. The grey boxes
are outside the scope of this study. Box Losses from manufacturing
MTA, “Losses on roads,” represents TWP
generated by vehicles on urban and rural Road runoff pathway
roads and motorways. Box MTB, “Losses
on runways,” represents TWP generated by ? MTA1 MTB1 MTA2 MTB2 MTA3 MTB3 MTA4 MTB4
airplanes during takeoffs and landings. Box

MTE, “Distributed to soil and air,” represents MTH: Captured in
Unmanaged MTE: Distributed to MTF: Runoff to local MTG: Captured in
sustainable drainage
TWP distributed directly or via air to near soil and air waterway combined sewage
system
MTH2
road/runway soils. Box MTF, “Runoff to

local waterway,” represents TWP distributed W: Ocean pollution
MTF1
directly to near road/runway waterways. MTG1 MTH1
Box MTG, “Captured in combined sewage,” ? MTE1 Disposal

represents TWP distributed and removed
by combined wastewater treatment plants. T: Terrestial pollution*
MA4
Land application of sewage sludge
MA1
O: Incineration
Box MTH, “Captured in sustainable drainage
system,” represents TWP distributed to near MA: Microplastic
removals
roads/runways, sumps, and filter systems. V: Dumpsite/unsanitary N: Engineered
Box T, “Terrestrial pollution,” includes landfill**
MA3 MA2
landfills ?
both the application of sewage sludge to
agricultural land and microplastics captured
* Includes both the application of sewage sludge to agricultural land and microplastics captured locally in “sustainable drainage systems” In scope for
locally in sustainable drainage systems that modelling
** Includes captured but unsafely disposed microplastic pollution
are not safely disposed. Box V, “Dumpsite/ Out of scope for
unsanitary landfill,” represents captured modelling
but unsafely disposed microplastics. See

Appendix A and the technical appendix for
details on the modelling methodology and
parameters used.

APPENDIX B
Figure B.4: Plastic pellets system map
Figure B4: Microplastics system map-pellets

Microplastics generated from plastic pellets
are microsize (≤5mm) granules usually in Production Recycling
the shape of a cylinder or a disk, produced
as a raw material (also from plastic
recycling) used in the manufacture of MNA: Losses from producers, intermediary
MNB: Losses from shipping Losses from road transport MNC: Losses from recycling
plastic products. Because of a lack of data, facilities, and processors
blue boxes represent the masses and flows

that are included in our analysis, while
grey boxes are outside the scope of this MNB1 MNC1
study. Box MNA, “Losses from producers,

intermediary facilities and processors,”
represents pellet loss across the plastic
MNA1
Wastewater pathway
supply chain. Box MNB, “Losses from
shipping,” includes pellet loss during sea
transport (loss of containers). Box MNC, MND: Losses entering drains
“Losses from recycling,” includes pellet loss MND3
during the plastic recycling process. Box Unmanaged MND1 MND2

MND, “Losses entering drains,” represents
lost pellets distributed to indoor and
MNH: Captured in
outdoor drains. Box MNE, “Runoff to local W: Ocean pollution MNE1
MNE: Runoff to local MNF: Captured in
sustainable drainage
waterway combined sewage
waterways,” represents pellets distributed system
directly to the sea. Box MNF, “Captured in ? Disposal

MNF1 MNH1
combined sewage treatment,” represents
pellets distributed and removed by T: Terrestial pollution*
Land application of sewage sludge O: Incineration
combined wastewater treatment plants. MA4 MA1
Box T, “Terrestrial pollution,” includes MA: Microplastic

both the application of sewage sludge removals
V: Dumpsite/unsanitary N: Engineered
to agricultural land and microplastics landfill**
MA3 MA2
landfills ?
captured locally in sustainable drainage
systems. Box V, “Dumpsite/unsanitary
landfill,” includes captured but unsafely * Includes both the application of sewage sludge to agricultural land and microplastics captured locally in “sustainable drainage systems” In scope for
modelling
disposed microplastics. See Appendix ** Includes captured but unsafely disposed microplastic pollution
Out of scope for
A and the technical appendix for details modelling
on the modelling methodology and
parameters used.

APPENDIX B
Figure B.5: Synthetic textiles system map
Figure B5: Microplastics system map-synthetic textiles

Microplastics generated from synthetic textiles
are microsize textile fragments (>1mm) released Production Use phase Recycling
via shedding to air, water, or wastewater
during production or use. Because of a lack Airborne losses from MSA: Waterborne Airborne losses from wear ? Textile recycling
production losses from production
processing losses ?
of data, blue boxes represent the masses
and flows included in our analysis, while grey Dry cleaning ?
MSA2 MSA1
boxes are outside the scope of this study. Box ? Life-cycle losses from
MSA, “Waterborne losses from production,” MSB3 recycled content in ?
MSB: Hand-washing losses
represents microfibres released during textile new textiles
MSB1
MSB2
production. Box MSB, “Hand-washing losses,”
MSC: Machine washing losses
represents microfibres released during hand- MSC1
(household + commercial)
washing of clothes within households. Box
MSC, “Machine washing losses (households
+ commercial),” represents microfibres Wastewater pathway MSC2
released during household machine washing

of clothes or commercial laundromats. MSE: Treatment
MD: Collected for wastewater treatment
Box MSD, “Direct to waterway,” represents Unmanaged of production
effluent
microfibres distributed directly to waterways MSE1 MD1 MD2 MD3 MD4
via hand-washing in rivers or wastewater MSD1
W: Ocean pollution
without treatment. Box MSE, “Treatment of ME: Stormwater MF: MG: MH:
MSD: Direct
production effluent,” represents microfibres to waterway overflow Primary Secondary Tertiary
? Disposal
distributed to wastewater treatments of textile
ME1 MF1 MF2 MG1 MG2 MH1 MH2
producers. Box MD, “Collected for wastewater
T: Terrestial pollution*
treatment,” represents microfibres distributed MA1 O: Incineration
to wastewater treatment facilities. Box MSD, MSE2
“Stormwater overflow,” represents microfibres MA4

MA: Microplastic removals
V: Dumpsite/unsanitary N: Engineered
released from wastewater treatment facilities landfill**
MA3
MA2
landfills ?
via overflows. Boxes MF, MG, and MH “1ary,”
“2ary,” and “3ary,” represent different stages
of wastewater treatment: primary, secondary, * Includes both the application of sewage sludge to agricultural land and microplastics captured locally in “sustainable drainage systems” In scope for
modelling
and tertiary, respectively. Box T, “Terrestrial ** Includes captured but unsafely disposed microplastic pollution
Out of scope for
pollution,” includes both the application modelling
of sewage sludge to agricultural land and
microplastics captured locally in sustainable
drainage systems. Box V, “Dumpsite/unsanitary
landfill,” includes captured but unsafely
disposed microplastics. See Appendix A and the
technical appendix for details on the modelling
methodology and parameters used.

APPENDIX B
Figure B.6: Personal care products (PCP) system map
Figure B6: Microplastics system map-personal care products (PCP)

Microplastics generated from personal care
products (PCP) are microplastic ingredients Production Use phase
added to PCPs intentionally by producers MPB1
for a range of functions. Because of a lack of MPB: “Stay-on” PCP production
data, blue boxes represent the masses and
flows included in our analysis, while grey MPC: PCP consumption: MPD: PCP consumption:
wash-off stay-on
boxes are outside the scope of this study. Box MPA: “Wash-off” PCP production
MPA, “‘Wash-off’ PCP production,” represents MPA1
wash-off PCPs (e.g., shampoos) production
MPC1 MPC2 MPD1 MPD2 MPD3
rate. Box MPB, “‘Stay-on’ PCP production,”
represents stay-on PCPs (e.g., makeup) Losses from manufacturing
production rate. Box MPC, “PCP consumption:
wash-off,” represents wash-off PCP usage by Wastewater pathway Disposal
consumers. Box MPD, “PCP consumption: ?
stay-on,” represents stay-on PCP usage by MPF: Solid waste
MD: Collected for wastewater treatment
consumers. Box MPE, “Direct to waterway,” Unmanaged
disposal
represents microplastic ingredients from PCPs

MD1 MD2 MD3 MD4
directly released to waterways via untreated
MPE1 MPF1 MPF2
W: Ocean pollution
wastewaters. Box MPF, “Solid waste disposal,” MPE: Direct to
ME: Stormwater MF: MG: MH:
represents microplastic ingredients in stay-on waterway MTG1
PCPs, removed by absorbent materials and

? overflow Primary Secondary Tertiary
disposed to solid waste. Box MD, “Collected for ME1 MF1 MF2 MG1 MG2 MH1 MH2 MA1 O: Incineration
wastewater treatment,” represents microfibres T: Terrestial pollution*
distributed to wastewater treatment facilities.
N: Engineered
Box ME, “Stormwater overflow,” represents MA4 MA2
landfills
microfibres released from wastewater MA: Microplastic removals
V: Dumpsite/unsanitary landfill** MPF3
treatment facilities via overflows. Boxes MF, MA3
MG, and MH “1ary,” “2ary,” and “3ary,” represent ?

different stages of wastewater treatment:
primary, secondary and tertiary, respectively.
* Includes both the application of sewage sludge to agricultural land and microplastics captured locally in “sustainable drainage systems” In scope for
Box T, “Terrestrial pollution,” includes modelling
** Includes captured but unsafely disposed microplastic pollution
both the application of sewage sludge to Out of scope for
modelling
agricultural land and microplastics captured
locally in sustainable drainage systems. Box
V, “Dumpsite/unsanitary landfill,” includes
captured but unsafely disposed microplastics.
See Appendix A and the technical appendix
for details on the modelling methodology and
parameters used.

GLOSSARY
Glossary Downstream solutions

Solutions applied post-consumer. This includes collection,
sorting, recycling, chemical conversion and disposal.
Additives Dumpsites
Plastic is usually made from polymer mixed with a complex blend Places where collected waste has been deposited in a central
of materials known as additives. These additives, which include location and where the waste is not controlled through daily,
flame retardants, plasticizers, pigments, fillers, and stabilizers, intermediate or final cover, thus leaving the top layer free to
are used to improve the different properties of the plastic or to escape into the natural environment through wind and surface
reduce its cost.267 water.
Business-as-Usual (BAU) Scenario Economic costs

See definition under “Scenarios.” Techno-economic costs of a process or technology. Includes
operating and capital expenditures (opex and capex) where
Bio-based (materials)
relevant, but does not include taxes, subsidies or externalities.
A material wholly or partly derived from biomass.
All government and private-sector costs cited as outputs of
Bio-benign (materials) scenarios are reported in US$ and are calculated as present value
A material harmless to natural systems in case it unintentionally using a 3.5 per cent discount rate.
escapes collection and recovery systems.
End-of-Life (EOL)
Biodegradable (materials) End-of-life is a generalized term to describe the part of the life
A material that can, with the help of microorganisms, break down cycle following the use phase.
into natural components (e.g., water, carbon dioxide, biomass)
Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR)
under certain conditions.
Schemes that enable producers to contribute to the end-of-life
Capex (capital expenditures) costs of products they place on the market.
Funds used by an organisation to acquire or upgrade assets such
Feedstock
as property, buildings, technology, or equipment.
Any bulk raw material that is the principal input for an industrial
Chemical conversion production process.270
Process that breaks down polymers into individual monomers
Flexible monomaterial plastics
or other hydrocarbon products that can then serve as building
See definition under “Plastic categories.”
blocks or feedstock to produce polymers again.268
Formal waste sector
Circular economy
Antonym of “informal waste sector.”
A circular economy is one that is restorative and regenerative by
design. It looks beyond the take-make-waste extractive industrial Geographic archetype
model, and aims to redefine growth, focusing on positive Geographic archetypes are parts of the world with similar
society-wide benefits.269 It is based on three principles: design characteristics when it comes to plastic waste. The archetypes
out waste and pollution; keep products and materials in use; and are divided into four groups depending on country income,
regenerate natural systems. according to World Bank definitions: high-income (HI)
economies; upper middle-income (UMI) economies; lower
Closed-loop recycling
middle-income (LMI) economies; and low-income (LI)
Closed-loop recycling is the recycling of plastic into any new
economies. The rural and urban settings for each of the four
application that will eventually be found in municipal solid waste,
income groups are also analysed separately to create the eight
essentially replacing virgin feedstock in “Box A” of the system
geographic archetypes.
map (i.e., plastic bottle, pen, etc.)
Incineration
Collect and Dispose Scenario
Destruction and transformation of material to energy by
See definition under “Scenarios.”
combustion.
Compostable (materials)
Informal waste sector
Materials, including compostable plastic and nonplastic
Individuals or enterprises who are involved in private-sector
materials, that are approved to meet local compostability
recycling and waste management activities that are not
standards (for example, industrial composting standard EN
sponsored, financed, recognized, supported, organized or
13432, where industrial-equivalent composting is available).
acknowledged by the formal solid waste authorities.
Current Commitments Scenario
Leakage
See definition under “Scenarios.”
Materials that do not follow an intended pathway and “escape” or
Design for recycling are otherwise lost to the system. Litter is an example of system
The process by which companies design their products and leakage.271
packaging to be recyclable.

GLOSSARY
Lever Open-loop recycling

A specific solution modelled within a system intervention (e.g., Process by which polymers are kept intact, but the degraded
within the Reduce intervention, three levers are pulled: eliminate; quality and/or material properties of the recycled material is used
reuse [consumer]; and reuse [new delivery model]). in applications that might otherwise not be using plastic (i.e.,
benches, asphalt).
Managed landfill
A place where collected waste has been deposited in a central Opex (operating expenses)
location and where the waste is controlled through daily, Expenses incurred during the course of regular business, such
intermediate and final cover, thus preventing the top layer from as general and administrative costs, sales and marketing, or
escaping into the natural environment through wind and surface research and development.
water.
Pathway
Maritime sources A course of action that combines system interventions across
All plastics that enter the environment from seagoing vessels geographic archetypes to achieve a desired system outcome.
(including from fishing activities).
Pellets
Mechanical recycling Microsize (≤ 5mm) granules usually with a shape of cylinder or a
Operations that collect after-use plastics via mechanical disk, produced as a raw material (also from plastic recycling) and
processes (grinding, washing, separating, drying, regranulating, used in the manufacture of plastic products.
compounding) without significantly changing the chemical
structure of the material.272 Plastic categories
Three plastic material categories that we have modelled as
Microfibres flowing separately through the system map: rigid monomaterial
Microsize fragments (>1mm) released via textiles shedding to air, plastics, flexible monomaterial plastics, multilayer plastics and
water or wastewater during production or use. multimaterials.
Microplastics–primary and secondary Rigid monomaterial plastics

Primary microplastics are those originally produced or directly An item made from a single plastic polymer that holds its
released into the environment as microsize particles (<5mm size). shape, such as a bottle or tub.
Secondary microplastics are microsize fragments originating Flexible monomaterial plastics

from the degradation of large plastic waste into smaller plastic An item made from a single plastic polymer that is thin,
fragments once exposed to the marine environment. such as plastic wraps and bags.
Mismanaged waste Multilayer plastics

Collected waste that has been released or deposited in a An item, usually packaging, made of multiple plastic
place from where it can move into the natural environment polymers that cannot be easily and mechanically
(intentionally or otherwise). This includes dumpsites and landfills separated.
that are not managed by applying daily cover to prevent waste
interacting with the air and surface water. Uncollected waste is Multimaterials
categorized as unmanaged. An item, usually packaging, made of plastic and nonplastic
materials (such as thin metal foils or cardboard layers) that
Monomaterials cannot be easily and mechanically separated.
See definition under “Plastic categories.”.
Plastic-to-Fuel (P2F)
Multimaterials Process by which the output material of chemical conversion
See definition under “Plastic categories.” plants is refined into alternative fuels such as diesel.
Multilayer plastics Plastic-to-Plastic (P2P)

See definition under “Plastic categories.” Several chemical conversion technologies are being developed
that can produce petrochemical feedstock that can be
Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) reintroduced into the petrochemical process to produce virgin-
Includes all residential and commercial waste but excludes like plastic—a route that we define as “Plastic-to-Plastic” (P2P).
industrial waste.
Plastic utility
New delivery models The valuable services (including protection, food preservation,
Services and businesses providing utility previously furnished by etc.) that are provided by plastic under a Business-As-Usual
single-use plastics in new ways, with reduced material demand. Scenario. In alternative scenarios, services of equivalent value
could be provided in other ways with less plastic.
Open burning
Waste that is combusted without emissions cleaning.

GLOSSARY
Polymers – Reduce and Substitute Scenario: Assumes ambitious

PET - Polyethylene terephthalate reduction and substitution of plastic globally relative to
HDPE - High-density polyethylene BAU scenario.
LDPE - Low-density polyethylene
LLDPE - Linear low-density polyethylene – System Change Scenario: Assumes all system
PP - Polypropylene interventions are applied concurrently, ambitiously,
PVC - Polyvinyl chloride and immediately; includes the benefits of Collect and
EPS – Expanded polystyrene Dispose Scenario, Recycling Scenario, and Reduce and
PS - Polystyrene Substitute Scenario.
Product application For detailed assumptions on each scenario, see the technical
Fifteen categories of plastic waste of similar functions and appendix.
formats (e.g., “water bottles,” “other food-grade bottles,” etc.), into
Single-use plastic
which we subdivided the waste stream for certain calculations.
A product that is made wholly or partly from plastic and that is
Recyclable not conceived, designed or placed on the market to accomplish,
For something to be deemed recyclable, the system must within its life span, multiple trips or rotations by being returned to
be in place for it to be collected, sorted, reprocessed, and a producer for refill or reused for the same purpose for which it
manufactured back into a new product or packaging—at scale was conceived.
and economically.273 Recyclable is used here as a short-hand
Social welfare
for “mechanically recyclable.”274 See “mechanical recycling”
Social welfare measures the overall well-being of people in the
definition.
economy; it is the summation of all individual welfare in a society,
Recyclate where individual welfare is the sum of satisfactions obtained from
Waste material that has been collected or has the potential to be the use of goods and services.
collected for recycling.
Stochastic model
Recycling Scenario A tool for estimating probability distributions of potential
See definition under “Scenarios.” outcomes by allowing for random variation in inputs over time.
Reduce and Substitute Scenario System Change Scenario

See definition under “Scenarios.” See definition under “Scenarios.”
Resin System map

A natural or synthetic solid or viscous organic polymer used as A visual illustration of the main flows and stocks of the global
the basis of plastic, adhesives, varnishes, or other products. plastic system. System maps can be found in Appendix B. For
the purposes of this project, we have collected, calculated, or
Rigid plastics estimated values for each of the arrows and boxes in each of the
See definition under “Plastic categories.” system maps on a global level, per geographic archetype, and
per plastic category.
Rural (vs. Urban)
See definition under “Urban vs. Rural.” Tyre dust
Tyre dust consists of microsize particles with a spectrum from
Scenarios airborne (>10µm) to coarse fraction (>1mm) released through
For the purpose of our modelling, we have defined six scenarios: mechanical abrasion of tyres, with chemical composition
depending on rubber type.
– Business-as-Usual (BAU) Scenario: Defined as “no
intervention” scenario; in other words, assumes that the Upstream solutions
current policy framework, market dynamics, cultural Solutions applied pre-consumer. This includes design for
norms, and consumer behaviours do not change. recycling (D4R); “Reduce” levers such as eliminate, reuse
(consumer), reuse (new delivery model); and “Substitute” levers
– Current Commitments Scenario: BAU scenario while
such as paper, coated paper, and compostable plastic.
incorporating key governmental commitments on
reducing plastic waste. Urban vs. Rural
Our classification of urban versus rural is in alignment with the
– Collect and Dispose Scenario: Assumes that the
United Nations Statistics Division, which allows countries to use
majority of efforts focus on ambitiously expanding
their own approaches for distinguishing urban and rural areas
collection and controlled disposal of waste in middle-/
according to their individual circumstances.275
low-income countries.
Wedges
– Recycling Scenario: Assumes that the majority of efforts
Four places in our model where a molecule of plastic can “end
focus on ambitiously expanding collection in middle-/
up”: “Reduce,” “Substitute,” “Recycle,” or “Dispose.” The wedges
low-income countries and recycling of waste globally;
are mutually exclusive, and each includes several sub-wedges.
includes design for recycling (D4R) levers.
For details, see Chapter 1.

ENDNOTES
Endnotes “Marine Debris: Understanding, Preventing and Mitigating

the Significant Adverse Impacts on Marine and Coastal
Biodiversity” (2016), https://www.cbd.int/doc/publications/
cbd-ts-83-en.pdf.
1
World Economic Forum, Ellen MacArthur Foundation,
and McKinsey & Co., “The New Plastics Economy: 15
D. Azoulay et al., “Plastic and Health: The Hidden Costs of
Rethinking the Future of Plastics” (2016), https://www. a Plastic Planet” (Center for International Environmental Law,
ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/publications/the-new- 2019), https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/
plastics-economy-rethinking-the-future-of-plastics. Plastic-and-Health-The-Hidden-Costs-of-a-Plastic-Planet-
February-2019.pdf.
2
R. Geyer, J.R. Jambeck, and K.L. Law, “Production, Use, and
Fate of All Plastics Ever Made,” Science Advances 3, no. 7 16
B. Geueke, K. Groh, and J. Muncke, “Food Packaging
(2017): e1700782, https://dx.doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1700782. in the Circular Economy: Overview of Chemical Safety
Aspects for Commonly Used Materials,” Journal of Cleaner
3
Association of Plastics Manufacturers in Europe and
Production 193 (2018): 491-505, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
European Association of Plastics Recycling and Recovery
jclepro.2018.05.005; K.J. Groh et al., “Overview of Known
Organisations, “Plastics—the Facts 2018: An Analysis of
Plastic Packaging-Associated Chemicals and Their Hazards,”
European Plastics Production, Demand and Waste Data”
Science of the Total Environment 651 (2019): 3253-68,
(2018), https://www.plasticseurope.org/application/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.10.015.
files/6315/4510/9658/Plastics_the_facts_2018_AF_web.pdf.
17
R. Verma et al., “Toxic Pollutants From Plastic Waste—a
4
Grand View Research, “Plastics Market Size, Share and
Review,” Procedia Environmental Sciences 35 (2016): 701-08,
Trends Analysis Report by Product (PE, PP, PU, PVC, PET,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.proenv.2016.07.069; M. Williams
Polystyrene, ABS, PBT, PPO, Epoxy Polymers, LCP, PC,
et al., “No Time to Waste: Tackling the Plastic Pollution Crisis
Polyamide), by Application, and Segment Forecasts, 2019-
Before It’s Too Late” (Tearfund, Fauna & Flora International,
2025” (2019), https://www.researchandmarkets.com/
WasteAid, and The Institute of Development Studies, 2019),
reports/4751797/plastics-market-size-share-and-trends-
https://learn.tearfund.org/~/media/files/tilz/circular_
analysis.
economy/2019-tearfund-consortium-no-time-to-waste-en.
5
World Economic Forum, Ellen MacArthur Foundation, and pdf?la=en.
McKinsey & Co., “The New Plastics Economy.” 18
E. Boelee et al., “Water and Health: From Environmental
6
C. Ostle et al., “The Rise in Ocean Plastics Evidenced From Pressures to Integrated Responses,” Acta Tropica 193 (2019):
a 60-Year Time Series,” Nature Communications 10 (2019), 217-26, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actatropica.2019.03.011.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-09506-1. 19
Ocean Conservancy, “The Beach and Beyond”
7
J.R. Jambeck et al., “Plastic Waste Inputs From Land Into the (2019), https://oceanconservancy.org/wp-content/
Ocean,” Science 347, no. 6223 (2015): 768-71, http://dx.doi. uploads/2019/09/Final-2019-ICC-Report.pdf.
org/10.1126/science.1260352. 20
European Parliament and European Council, Directive (EU)
8
J.B. Lamb et al., “Plastic Waste Associated With Disease on 2019/904 of the European Parliament and of the Council
Coral Reefs,” Science 359, no. 6374 (2018): 460-62, http:// of 5 June 2019 on the Reduction of the Impact of Certain
dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.aar3320. Plastic Products on the Environment (2019), https://eur-lex.
europa.eu/eli/dir/2019/904/oj.
9
S. Chiba et al., “Human Footprint in the Abyss: 30 Year
Records of Deep-Sea Plastic Debris,” Marine Policy 96 (2018):
21
C. Wilcox et al., “Using Expert Elicitation to Estimate the
204-12, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2018.03.022. Impacts of Plastic Pollution on Marine Wildlife,” Marine
Policy 65 (2016): 107-14, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
10
J.L. Lavers and A.L. Bond, “Exceptional and Rapid marpol.2015.10.014.
Accumulation of Anthropogenic Debris on One of the
World’s Most Remote and Pristine Islands,” Proceedings of
22
R.C. Thompson, “Microplastics in the Marine Environment:
the National Academy of Sciences 114, no. 23 (2017): 6052- Sources, Consequences and Solutions,” in Marine
55, http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1619818114. Anthropogenic Litter, eds. M. Bergmann, L. Gutow, and M.
Klages (Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing,
11
R.W. Obbard et al., “Global Warming Releases Microplastic 2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16510-3_7.
Legacy Frozen in Arctic Sea Ice,” Earth’s Future 2, no. 6
(2014): 315-20, http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/2014ef000240. World Economic Forum, Ellen MacArthur Foundation, and
23
McKinsey & Co., “The New Plastics Economy.”

N.J. Beaumont et al., “Global Ecological, Social and
12
Economic Impacts of Marine Plastic,” Marine Pollution

24
S. Kaza et al., “What a Waste 2.0: A Global Snapshot
Bulletin 142 (2019): 189-95, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. of Solid Waste Management to 2050” (International
marpolbul.2019.03.022. Bank for Reconstruction and Development, The World
Bank, 2018), https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/
E.M. Duncan et al., “Microplastic Ingestion Ubiquitous in
13
handle/10986/30317.
Marine Turtles,” Global Change Biology 25, no. 2 (2019): 744-
52, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14519.
25
Jambeck et al., “Plastic Waste Inputs From Land.”
14
Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity,
26
A. Winkler et al., “Does Mechanical Stress Cause

ENDNOTES
Microplastic Release From Plastic Water Bottles?” Water 40

Science Advice for Policy by European Academies
Research 166 (2019): 115082, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. (SAPEA), “A Scientific Perspective on Microplastics in Nature
watres.2019.115082. and Society” (2019), https://www.sapea.info/wp-content/
uploads/report.pdf; F. Wang et al., “Interaction of Toxic
27
Chemicals With Microplastics: A Critical Review,” Water
European Association of Plastics Recycling and Recovery Research 139 (2018): 208-19, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
Organisations, “Plastics—the Facts 2018.” watres.2018.04.003.
28
Jambeck et al., “Plastic Waste Inputs From Land.” 41
“Impacts of Marine Debris on Biodiversity: Current Status
29
and Potential Solutions” (2012), https://www.cbd.int/doc/
publications/cbd-ts-67-en.pdf.
Organisations, “Plastics—the Facts 2019: An Analysis of
European Plastics Production, Demand and Waste Data” 42
P. Villarrubia-Gómez, S.E. Cornell, and J. Fabres, “Marine
(2019), https://www.plasticseurope.org/application/ Plastic Pollution as a Planetary Boundary Threat—the Drifting
files/9715/7129/9584/FINAL_web_version_Plastics_the_ Piece in the Sustainability Puzzle,” Marine Policy 96 (2018):
facts2019_14102019.pdf. 213-20, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2017.11.035.
30
ClientEarth, “Risk Unwrapped: Plastic Pollution as a 43
Ibid.
Material Business Risk” (2018), https://www.documents.
clientearth.org/wp-content/uploads/library/2018-07-24-risk- 44
J. Rogelj et al., “Scenarios Towards Limiting Global Mean
unwrapped-plastic-pollution-as-a-material-business-risk-ce- Temperature Increase Below 1.5 °C,” Nature Climate Change
en.pdf. 8, no. 4 (2018): 325-32, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-
0091-3.
31
Ocean Conservancy, “Stemming the Tide: Land-Based
Strategies for a Plastic-Free Ocean” (2015), https:// 45
United Nations Environment Programme, “Valuing Plastic:
oceanconservancy.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/full- The Business Case for Measuring, Managing and Disclosing
report-stemming-the.pdf. Plastic Use in the Consumer Goods Industry” (2014), http://
wedocs.unep.org/handle/20.500.11822/9238.
32
United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs
Population Division, 2018 Revision of World Urbanization 46
ClientEarth, “Risk Unwrapped.”
Prospects, accessed Feb. 13, 2020, https://population.
un.org/wup.
47
33
G. Everaert et al., “Risk Assessment of Microplastics in Organisations, “Plastics—the Facts 2017: An Analysis of
the Ocean: Modelling Approach and First Conclusions,” European Plastics Production, Demand and Waste Data”
Environmental Pollution 242, Part B (2018): 1930-38, http:// (2018), https://www.plasticseurope.org/application/
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2018.07.069. files/5715/1717/4180/Plastics_the_facts_2017_FINAL_for_
website_one_page.pdf.
34
Duncan et al., “Microplastic Ingestion Ubiquitous in Marine
Turtles.” 48
Beaumont et al., “Global Ecological, Social and Economic
Impacts.”
35
“Marine Debris: Understanding, Preventing and Mitigating.” 49
A. Forrest et al., “Eliminating Plastic Pollution: How a
Voluntary Contribution From Industry Will Drive the Circular
36
J.P. Barreiros and V.S. Raykov, “Lethal Lesions and Plastics Economy,” Frontiers in Marine Science 6 (2019),
Amputation Caused by Plastic Debris and Fishing Gear on http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2019.00627.
the Loggerhead Turtle Caretta Caretta (Linnaeus, 1758):
Three Case Reports From Terceira Island, Azores (NE 50
Azoulay et al., “Plastic and Health.”
Atlantic),” Marine Pollution Bulletin 86, no. 1-2 (2014): 518-22,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2014.07.020.
51
Ibid.
37
J.L. Lavers, I. Hutton, and A.L. Bond, “Clinical Pathology
52
R.U. Halden, “Plastics and Health Risks,” Annual Review of
of Plastic Ingestion in Marine Birds and Relationships With Public Health 31 (2010): 179-94, http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/
Blood Chemistry,” Environmental Science & Technology annurev.publhealth.012809.103714.
53, no. 15 (2019): 9224-31, http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs. 53
Groh et al., “Overview of Known Plastic Packaging-
est.9b02098.
Associated Chemicals.”
38
GESAMP, “Sources, Fate and Effects of Microplastics in the 54
Boelee et al., “Water and Health.”
Marine Environment: Part 2 of a Global Assessment” (2016),
http://www.gesamp.org/site/assets/files/1275/sources-fate- 55
Williams et al., “No Time to Waste.”
and-effects-of-microplastics-in-the-marine-environment-
part-2-of-a-global-assessment-en.pdf. 56
Azoulay et al., “Plastic and Health.”
39
M. Shen et al., “Can Microplastics Pose a Threat to Ocean GESAMP, “Sources, Fate and Effects of Microplastics in the
57
Carbon Sequestration?” Marine Pollution Bulletin 150 (2020): Marine Environment: A Global Assessment” (2015), http://
110712, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2019.110712. www.gesamp.org/site/assets/files/1272/reports-and-studies-
no-90-en.pdf; World Health Organization, “Microplastics

ENDNOTES
in Drinking-Water” (2019), https://www.who.int/water_ and Microplastics: A Global Review of National Laws and
sanitation_health/publications/microplastics-in-drinking- Regulations” (2018), https://www.unenvironment.org/
water/en. resources/publication/legal-limits-single-use-plastics-and-
microplastics-global-review-national.
World Health Organization, “Microplastics in Drinking-
58
Water.” 71
Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives, “Plastics
Exposed: How Waste Assessments and Brand Audits
59
European Parliament and European Council, Directive (EU) Are Helping Philippine Cities Fight Plastic Pollution”
2019/904. (2019), https://www.no-burn.org/wp-content/uploads/
PlasticsExposed-3.pdf.
60
M. Taylor, “US$180bn Investment in Plastic Factories
Feeds Global Packaging Binge,” The Guardian, Dec. 26, 72
B. Bauer (sustainability manager, Algramo), interview with
2017, https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/ Systemiq, March 17, 2019.
dec/26/180bn-investment-in-plastic-factories-feeds-global-
packaging-binge. 73
A. Bagla, Sistema Asia Capital, pers. comm. to Systemiq,
Sept. 24, 2019.
61
A. Dipaola, “Saudi Looks to Petrochemicals for Its Next
Big Projects,” Bloomberg, Oct. 10, 2018, https://www. A. Kremer, associate, Systemiq, pers. comm. to Systemiq,
74
bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-10/saudis-look-past- Aug. 28, 2019.

crude-with-100-billion-in-downstream-projects; L. Haigh, “‘A
Who’s Who of Companies Investing in Plastic Production’:
75
B. Bauer, sustainability manager, Algramo, email to
Is the Alliance to End Plastic Waste Hypocritical?” Packaging Systemiq, March 29, 2019.
Insights, Jan. 23, 2019, https://www.packaginginsights. 76
Based on analysis of UK grocery packaging data from
com/news/a-whos-who-of-companies-investing-in-plastic-
WRAP, “Plasticflow 2025: Plastic Packaging Flow Data
production-is-the-alliance-to-end-plastic-waste-hypocritical.
Report” (2018), https://www.wrap.org.uk/sites/files/wrap/
html.
PlasticFlow%202025%20Plastic%20Packaging%20Flow%20
62
MarketWatch, “Global Ethylene Market to Surpass Data%20Report_0.pdf.
US$ 246.90 Billion by 2026, Owing to High Demand for 77
A. Parry, K. James, and S. LeRoux, “Strategies to Achieve
Ethylene Derivatives in Numerous End-Use Industries and
Economic and Environmental Gains by Reducing Food
for the Production of Polyethylene,” news release, Jan.
Waste” (WRAP, 2015), https://newclimateeconomy.report/
23, 2019, https://www.marketwatch.com/press-release/
workingpapers/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2016/04/WRAP-
global-ethylene-market-to-surpass-us-24690-billion-by-
NCE_Economic-environmental-gains-food-waste.pdf.
2026-owing-to-high-demand-for-ethylene-derivatives-in-
numerous-end-use-industries-and-for-the-production-of- 78
Groh et al., “Overview of Known Plastic Packaging-
polyethylene-2019-01-23. Associated Chemicals.”
63
United Nations Environment Programme and International 79
Confederation of Paper Industries, “Paper and Board
Solid Waste Association, “Global Waste Management Packaging Recyclability Guidelines” (2019), https://paper.
Outlook” (2015), https://www.unenvironment.org/resources/ org.uk/PDF/Public/Publications/Guidance%20Documents/
report/global-waste-management-outlook. CPI%20Recyclability%20Guidelines%20Revision%201_
Jan2020.pdf.
64
Azoulay et al., “Plastic and Health”; M. Kampa and
E. Castanas, “Human Health Effects of Air Pollution,” 80
Eurostat, Packaging Waste by Waste Management
Environmental Pollution 151, no. 2 (2008): 362-67, https:// Operations and Waste Flow, 1997-2017, accessed Feb. 13,
doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2007.06.012. 2020, https://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.
do?dataset=env_waspac&lang=en.
65
Ellen MacArthur Foundation, “Reuse—Rethinking
Packaging” (2019), https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation. 81
C. Quinault, “‘Replace Plastics With Fibre,’ Says DS Smith,”
org/publications/reuse. LetsRecycle.com, May 24, 2019, https://www.letsrecycle.
com/news/latest-news/replace-plastics-with-fibre-says-ds-
66
D. Kang, “Rethinking Single-Use Plastics: Responding
smith.
to a Sea Change in Consumer Behavior” (Citi GPS: Global
Perspectives & Solutions, 2018), https://www.citibank.com/ 82
L. Stine, “TemperPack Closes US$22.5M Series B for
commercialbank/insights/assets/docs/2018/rethinking- Sustainable Packaging to Replace Styrofoam With No
single-use-plastics.pdf. Competition, Slow Incumbents,” AgFunderNews, Jan. 17,
2019, https://agfundernews.com/temperpack-closes-
67
Ibid.
22-5m-series-b-for-sustainable-packaging-to-replace-
68
United Nations, “United Nations Sustainable Development styrofoam.html.
Goals Knowledge Platform,” accessed March 11, 2020, 83
Confederation of Paper Industries, “Paper and Board
https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/?menu=1300.
Packaging Recyclability.”
69
International Energy Agency, “Energy Technology 84
U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization, “Global Forest
Perspectives” (2017), http://www.iea.org/etp2017.
Products—Facts and Figures 2016” (2017), http://www.fao.
70
United Nations Environment Programme and World org/3/i7034en/i7034en.pdf.
Resources Institute, “Legal Limits on Single-Use Plastics

ENDNOTES
85
P. Chadwick, “Nestlé Claims Breakthrough for Recyclable de/files/IfBB/downloads/faltblaetter_broschueren/
Wrappers,” Packaging News, July 3, 2019, https://www. Biopolymers-Facts-Statistics_2016.pdf.
packagingnews.co.uk/news/nestle-claims-breakthrough-
recyclable-wrappers-03-07-2019.
102
Mango Materials, “Applications,” accessed Feb. 7, 2020,
http://mangomaterials.com/applications.
86
Nestlé, “Nesquik Launches All Natural Cocoa Powder in
Recyclable Paper Packaging,” news release, March 4, 2019, Full Cycle Bioplastics, “Full Cycle Bioplastics,” accessed
103
https://www.nestle.com/media/news/nesquik-launches-all- March 11, 2020, http://fullcyclebioplastics.com.

natural-cocoa-powder-in-recyclable-paper-packaging. 104
S. Burnley, “The Impact of the European Landfill
W. Qureshi, “Waitrose Launches ‘World First’ Home
87 Directive on Waste Management in the United Kingdom,”
Compostable Ready Meal Packaging,” Packaging News, Resources, Conservation and Recycling 32, no. 3 (2001):
May 24, 2019, https://www.packagingnews.co.uk/top-story/ 349-58, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
waitrose-launches-world-first-home-compostable-ready- S092134490100074X.
meal-packaging-24-05-2019. 105
Compost Manufacturing Alliance LLC, “Field Study:
88
Notpla, “Ooho! Edible and Biodegradable. The Alternative Foodservice Packaging as Compost Facility Feedstock”
to Plastic,” accessed Feb. 6, 2020, https://www.notpla.com/ (2018), https://tinyurl.com/compostableFSPtrial.
products-2. 106
A. Krieger, “Are Bioplastics Really Better for the
89
J. Scully, “Two Farmers Crisp Line Launches With 100% Environment? Read the Fine Print,” Ensia, July 16, 2019,
Compostable Packet,” FoodBev Media, Oct. 10, 2018, https://ensia.com/features/bioplastics-bio-based-
https://www.foodbev.com/news/two-farmers-crisp-line- biodegradable-environment.
launches-with-100-compostable-packet.
Packaging News, “Study: ‘Eco-Littering’ Could Blight
107
90
E. Henderson, “12 Best Plastic Free Tea Bags to Make the UK Due to Confusion,” Nov. 7, 2019, https://www.
Your Brew Better for the Planet,” The Independent, Dec. packagingnews.co.uk/news/environment/biodegradable-
20, 2019, https://www.independent.co.uk/extras/indybest/ compostable/study-eco-littering-blight-uk-due-
food-drink/best-plastic-free-tea-bags-clipper-t2-pukka- confusion-07-11-2019.
twinings-a8982626.html. 108
L. Alaerts, M. Augustinus, and K. Van Acker, “Impact
91
Kang, “Rethinking Single-Use Plastics.” of Bio-Based Plastics on Current Recycling of Plastics,”
Sustainability 10, no. 5 (2018): 1487, https://www.mdpi.
92
Ibid. com/2071-1050/10/5/1487.
93
Two Sides Europe, “Paper & Cardboard Packaging Comes 109
I.E. Napper and R.C. Thompson, “Environmental
Out on Top in New Consumer Survey,” accessed Feb. 11, Deterioration of Biodegradable, Oxo-Biodegradable,
2020, https://www.twosides.info/UK/paper-and-cardboard- Compostable, and Conventional Plastic Carrier Bags in the
packaging-survey. Sea, Soil, and Open-Air Over a 3-Year Period,” Environmental
Science & Technology 53, no. 9 (2019): 4775-83, https://doi.
94
Material Economics, “Sustainable Packaging—the Role of org/10.1021/acs.est.8b06984.
Materials Substitution” (2018), https://materialeconomics.
com/publications/sustainable-packaging. 110
Confederation of European Paper Industries, “Global
Forest and Paper Industry Releases Policy Statement on
95
U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization, “Global Forest Paper Recycling,” news release, May 8, 2015, http://www.
Products.” cepi.org/news/global-forest-and-paper-industry-releases-
policy-statement-paper-recycling.
96
D.L.A. Gaveau et al., “Rise and Fall of Forest Loss and
Industrial Plantations in Borneo (2000-2017),” Conservation 111
E.T.H. Vink et al., “The Eco-Profiles for Current and
Letters 12, no. 3 (2018): e12622, https://doi.org/10.1111/ Near-Future Natureworks Polylactide (PLA) Production,”
conl.12622. Industrial Biotechnology 3, no. 1 (2007): 58-81, https://www.
liebertpub.com/doi/10.1089/ind.2007.3.058.
97
U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization, “Global Forest
Products.” 112
I.D. Posen, P. Jaramillo, and W.M. Griffin, “Uncertainty
in the Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions From
98
Ibid.
U.S. Production of Three Biobased Polymer Families,”
99
Geueke, Groh, and Muncke, “Food Packaging in the Environmental Science & Technology 50, no. 6 (2016): 2846-
Circular Economy.” 58, https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b05589.
100
Environmental Paper Network, “The State of the COWI A/S, Directorate-General for Research and
113
Global Paper Industry—Shifting Seas: New Challenges Innovation (European Commission), and University of
and Opportunities for Forests, People and the Climate” Utrecht, “Environmental Impact Assessments of Innovative
(2018), https://environmentalpaper.org/wp-content/ Bio-Based Product” (2019), https://op.europa.eu/en/
uploads/2018/04/StateOfTheGlobalPaperIndustry2018_ publication-detail/-/publication/15bb40e3-3979-11e9-8d04-
FullReport-Final-1.pdf. 01aa75ed71a1.
Institute for Bioplastics and Biocomposites, “Biopolymers

101 114
Environmental Paper Network, “The State of the Global
Facts and Statistics 2016” (2016), https://www.ifbb-hannover. Paper Industry.”

ENDNOTES
115
M. Biedermann, Y. Uematsu, and K. Grob, “Mineral Oil 129
R. Linzner and U. Lange, “Role and Size of Informal Sector
Contents in Paper and Board Recycled to Paperboard for in Waste Management—a Review,” Resources, Conservation
Food Packaging,” Packaging Technology and Science 24, no. and Recycling 166, no. 2 (2013): 69-83, https://www.
2 (2011): 61-73, https://doi.org/10.1002/pts.914. icevirtuallibrary.com/doi/abs/10.1680/warm.12.00012.
J. Boucher, “Denmark to Ban PFAS in Paper & Board in

116 130
C.A. Velis et al., “An Analytical Framework and Tool
2020,” Food Packaging Forum, Sept. 3, 2019, https://www. (‘InteRa’) for Integrating the Informal Recycling Sector in
foodpackagingforum.org/news/denmark-to-ban-pfas-in- Waste and Resource Management Systems in Developing
paper-board-in-2020. Countries,” Waste Management Research 30, no. 9_
suppl (2012): 43-66, https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/
117
J. Vendries et al., “The Significance of Environmental abs/10.1177/0734242X12454934.
Attributes as Indicators of the Life Cycle Environmental
Impacts of Packaging and Food Service Ware: Final D.C. Wilson, C. Velis, and C. Cheeseman, “Role of Informal
131
Report” (State of Oregon Department of Environmental Sector Recycling in Waste Management in Developing
Quality, 2018), https://www.oregon.gov/deq/FilterDocs/ Countries,” Habitat International 30, no. 4 (2006): 797-
MaterialAttributes.pdf. 808, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
S0197397505000482.
118
L. Zimmermann et al., “Benchmarking the in Vitro Toxicity
and Chemical Composition of Plastic Consumer Products,” 132
J. Gutberlet, “More Inclusive and Cleaner Cities With
Environmental Science & Technology 53 (2019): 11467-77, Waste Management Co-Production: Insights From
http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.9b02293. Participatory Epistemologies and Methods,” Habitat
International 46 (2015): 234-43, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
119
Grand View Research, “Plastic Packaging Market Size, habitatint.2014.10.004.
Share and Trends Analysis Report by Product (Bottles, Bags,
Wraps and Films), by Type (Rigid, Flexible), by Application 133
S. Nyathi, J.O. Olowoyo, and A. Oludare, “Perception of
(Food and Beverages, Industrial), and Segment Forecasts, Scavengers and Occupational Health Hazards Associated
2018-2025” (2018), https://www.grandviewresearch.com/ With Scavenging From a Waste Dumpsite in Pretoria, South
industry-analysis/plastic-packaging-market. Africa,” Journal of Environmental and Public Health 2018
(2018): 7, http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2018/9458156; C.J.
G. Smith, head of product sustainability, flexible packaging
120
Schenck et al., “Exploring the Potential Health Risks Faced by
and engineered materials, Mondi Group, pers. comm. to Waste Pickers on Landfills in South Africa: A Socio-Ecological
Systemiq, June 27, 2019. Perspective,” International Journal of Environmental
Research and Public Health 16 (2019): 2059, http://dx.doi.
J. Paben, “Brand owner adopts recyclable PE pouch
121
org/10.3390/ijerph16112059.
for granola,” Resource Recycling, Jan. 29, 2020, https://
resource-recycling.com/plastics/2020/01/29/brand-owner- 134
S.M. Dias, “Waste Pickers and Cities,” Environment and
adopts-recyclable-pe-pouch-for-granola. Urbanization 28 (2016): 375-90; Velis et al., “An Analytical
Framework and Tool”; R. White, Global Environmental Harm:
122
Ellen MacArthur Foundation, “Reuse—Rethinking
Criminological Perspectives (CRC Press, 2013).
Packaging.”
135
Williams et al., “No Time to Waste.”
Seventh Generation, “Citrus Washing Up Liquid 500ml,”
123
accessed Feb. 13, 2020, https://www.seventhgeneration. 136

N. Reyna-Bensusan, D.C. Wilson, and S.R. Smith,
co.uk/products/dishwashing/washing-up-liquid-citrus.html. “Uncontrolled Burning of Solid Waste by Households in
Mexico Is a Significant Contributor to Climate Change in
World Economic Forum, Ellen MacArthur Foundation, and
124
the Country,” Environmental Research 163 (2018): 280-88,
McKinsey & Co., “The New Plastics Economy.”
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2018.01.042.
United Nations Environment Programme and International
125
137
Kaza et al., “What a Waste 2.0.”
Solid Waste Association, “Global Waste Management
Outlook.” 138
United Nations Environment Programme and
International Solid Waste Association, “Global Waste
The World Bank, GDP Growth (Annual %), 1961-2018,
126
Management Outlook.”
accessed Feb. 6, 2020, https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/
NY.GDP.MKTP.KD.ZG. 139
127
M. Hutchinson, “Plastic Rubbish Been Dump in the O. Franklin-Wallis, “‘Plastic Recycling Is a Myth’: What
140
Amazon River,” accessed Feb. 6, 2020, https://www.youtube. Really Happens to Your Rubbish?” The Guardian, Aug. 17,
com/watch?v=wVnMBGXVVUI; Ocean Conservancy, 2019, https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/
“Stemming the Tide.” aug/17/plastic-recycling-myth-what-really-happens-your-
rubbish.
D. Roy, “Indian Smart City Going Geospatial Way,”
128
Geospatial World (blog), May 19, 2017, https://www. 141

WRAP, “Defining What’s Recyclable and Best in Class
geospatialworld.net/blogs/indian-smart-city-going- Polymer Choices for Packaging” (2019), http://www.wrap.
geospatial-way/; United Nations Environment Programme org.uk/sites/files/wrap/Polymer-Choice-and-Recyclability-
and International Solid Waste Association, “Global Waste Guidance.pdf.
Management Outlook.”

ENDNOTES
142
European Commission, The Role of Waste-to-Energy 158
T. Hulgaard and J. Vehlow, “Incineration: Process and
in the Circular Economy (2017), https://ec.europa.eu/ Technology,” in Solid Waste Technology & Management,
environment/waste/waste-to-energy.pdf. ed. T.H. Christensen (Chichester: Wiley, 2011), https://
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/9780470666883.
143
ch26.
Organisations, “Plastics—the Facts 2018.” 159
S. Dalager and D.O. Reimann, “Incineration: Mass
Balances,” in Solid Waste Technology & Management, ed.
144
Ellen MacArthur Foundation, “Lodestar: A Case Study for T.H. Christensen (Chichester: Wiley, 2011), http://dx.doi.
Plastics Recycling” (2019), https://recyclingtechnologies. org/10.1002/9780470666883.ch28.
co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/RT-Lodestar-A-case-
study-for-plastic-recycling-2018-Report.pdf. 160
H. Corvellec, M.J. Zapata Campos, and P. Zapata,
“Infrastructures, Lock-In, and Sustainable Urban
145
D. VanderHart, “On Earth Day, Oregon House Shoots Development: The Case of Waste Incineration in the
Down Proposed Plastic Foam Ban,” Oregon Public Göteborg Metropolitan Area,” Journal of Cleaner
Broadcasting, April 22, 2019, https://www.opb.org/news/ Production 50 (2013): 32-39, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
article/oregon-plastic-foam-ban-fails-styrofoam-polystyrene. jclepro.2012.12.009.
146
K. Burton, “Up in Smoke: The Pros and Cons of Burning Azoulay et al., “Plastic and Health”; L. Giusti, “A Review of
161
Rubbish,” Geographical Magazine, Oct. 15, 2018, https:// Waste Management Practices and Their Impact on Human
geographical.co.uk/nature/energy/item/2969-incineration- Health,” Waste Management 29 (2009): 2227-39.
tax.
162
D. Carrington, “Air Pollution Particles Found in Mothers’
H. Rubel et al., “A Circular Solution to Plastic Waste”
147
Placentas,” The Guardian, Sept. 16, 2018, https://www.
(Boston Consulting Group, 2019), https://www.bcg.com/ theguardian.com/environment/2018/sep/16/air-pollution-
publications/2019/plastic-waste-circular-solution.aspx. particles-found-in-mothers-placentas; Verma et al., “Toxic
Pollutants From Plastic Waste.”
Azoulay et al., “Plastic and Health”; Y. Younan, M.W.M. van
148
Goethem, and G.D. Stefanidis, “A Particle Scale Model for L. Canopoli et al., “Physico-Chemical Properties of
163
Municipal Solid Waste and Refuse-Derived Fuels Pyrolysis,” Excavated Plastic From Landfill Mining and Current Recycling
Computers and Chemical Engineering 86 (2016): 148-59. Routes,” Waste Management 76 (2018): 55-67, http://doi.
org/10.1016/j.wasman.2018.03.043; National Research
Azoulay et al., “Plastic and Health”; Kampa and Castanas,
149
Council, Waste Incineration and Public Health (Washington:
“Human Health Effects of Air Pollution.”
National Academies Press, 2000), https://www.nap.edu/
150
Ibid. catalog/5803/waste-incineration-and-public-health.
151
A. Nandan et al., “Hazards Associated to Synthesis Gas and
164
Hulgaard and Vehlow, “Incineration.”
Its Mitigation Measures,” Research Journal of Engineering
International Solid Waste Association, “A Roadmap for
165
and Technology 5, no. 3 (2014), http://ijersonline.org/
Closing Waste Dumpsites.”
HTMLPaper.aspx?Journal=Research%20Journal%20of%20
Engineering%20and%20Technology;PID=2014-5-3-6. 166
Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs,
“Consultation on Reforming the UK Packaging Producer
152
International Solid Waste Association, “A Roadmap for
Responsibility System” (2019), https://consult.defra.gov.
Closing Waste Dumpsites, the World’s Most Polluted Places”
uk/environmental-quality/consultation-on-reforming-
(2016), https://www.iswa.org/fileadmin/galleries/About
the-uk-packaging-produce/supporting_documents/
ISWA/ISWA_Roadmap_Report.pdf.
packagingeprconsultdoc.pdf; A. Morse, “The Packaging
153
Ibid. Recycling Obligations” (Department for Environment, Food
& Rural Affairs and Environment Agency, 2018), https://www.
H. Scharff and O. Hjelmar, “Landfilling: Concepts and
154
nao.org.uk/report/the-packaging-recycling-obligations.
Challenges,” in Solid Waste Technology & Management,
ed. T.H. Christensen (Chichester: Wiley, 2011), https:// GRID-Arendal, “Controlling Transboundary Trade in Plastic
167
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/9780470666883. Waste (GRID-Arendal Policy Brief)” (2019), https://www.grida.

ch44. no/publications/443.
155
K. Spokas et al., “Methane Mass Balance at Three Landfill
168
C.A. Velis and International Solid Waste Association,
Sites: What Is the Efficiency of Capture by Gas Collection “Global Recycling Markets: Plastic Waste: A Story for One
Systems?” Waste Management 26, no. 5 (2006): 516-25, Player—China” (ISWA Task Force on Globalisation and Waste
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2005.07.021. Management, 2014), https://www.iswa.org/fileadmin/
galleries/Task_Forces/TFGWM_Report_GRM_Plastic_
Eurostat, Packaging Waste by Waste Management
156
China_LR.pdf.
Operations and Waste Flow.
169
A.L. Brooks, S. Wang, and J.R. Jambeck, “The Chinese
O. Hjelmar, A. Johnson, and R. Comans, “Incineration:
157
Import Ban and Its Impact on Global Plastic Waste Trade,”
Solid Residues,” in Solid Waste Technology & Management, Science Advances 4, no. 6 (2018): eaat0131, https://
ed. T.H. Christensen (Chichester: Wiley, 2011), http://dx.doi. advances.sciencemag.org/content/advances/4/6/eaat0131.
org/10.1002/9780470666883.ch29. full.pdf.

ENDNOTES
170
Resource Futures and Nextek, “Eliminating Avoidable United Nations World Water Assessment Programme,
178
Plastic Waste by 2042: A Use-Based Approach to Decision “The United Nations World Water Development Report
and Policy Making” (Resourcing the Future Partnership, 2017: Wastewater: The Untapped Resource” (2017), https://
2018), https://www.resourcefutures.co.uk/wp-content/ unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000247153.
uploads/2019/07/Eliminating-avoidable-plastic-waste-by-
2042-A-use-based-approach.pdf. GESAMP, “Sources, Fate and Effects of Microplastics in the
179
Marine Environment: Part 2.”

171
APL, “Vietnam—Waste Export Update,” 2018, https://www.
apl.com/news/426/vietnam-waste-export-update; CMA
180
M. Jekel, “Scientific Report on Tyre and Road Wear
CGM (Japan), letter to CMA CGM (Japan), Aug. 22, 2018, Particles, TRWP, in the Aquatic Environment” (European Tyre
“Ban of Plastic Scrap/Waste Paper to Taiwan”; Cotecna and Rubber Manufacturers Association, 2019), https://www.
Inspection Inc., “Change in Inspection Requirements for tyreandroadwear.com/news/scientific-report-on-tyre-and-
Non-Toxic and Non-Hazardous Waste to Indonesia”; K. road-wear-particles-trwp-in-the-aquatic-environment.
Das, “Vietnam to Restrict Surging Scrap Imports,” Vietnam
C. Lassen et al., “Microplastics: Occurrence, Effects and
181
Briefing, Aug. 22, 2018, https://www.vietnam-briefing.
Sources of Releases to the Environment in Denmark” (Danish
com/news/vietnam-to-restrict-surging-scrap-imports.
Environmental Protection Agency, 2015), https://orbit.dtu.
html/; Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries, “Indian
dk/files/118180844/Lassen_et_al._2015.pdf.
Government Modifies Ban of Importation of Plastic Scrap,”
July 19, 2016, https://www.isri.org/news-publications/ United Nations World Water Assessment Programme,
182
news-details/2016/07/19/indian-government-modifies-ban- “Wastewater: The Untapped Resource.”

of-importation-of-plastic-scrap; Plastics Recycling Update,
“From Green Fence to Red Alert: A China Timeline,” last 183
Ibid.
modified Jan. 22, 2020, https://resource-recycling.com/
plastics/2018/02/14/green-fence-red-alert-china-timeline/;
184
R. Dris et al., “Synthetic Fibers in Atmospheric Fallout:
C. Staub, “India Confirms Scrap Plastic Ban Will Be Delayed,” A Source of Microplastics in the Environment?” Marine
Plastics Recycling Update, March 20, 2019, https://resource- Pollution Bulletin 104, no. 1-2 (2016): 290-93, http://www.
recycling.com/plastics/2019/03/20/india-confirms- sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0025326X16300066.
scrap-plastic-ban-will-be-delayed/; C. Staub, “Malaysia 185
M. Bergmann et al., “White and Wonderful? Microplastics
Outlines New Plastic Import Criteria,” Plastics Recycling
Prevail in Snow From the Alps to the Arctic,” Science
Update, Oct. 31, 2018, https://resource-recycling.com/
Advances 5, no. 8 (2019): eaax1157, https://advances.
plastics/2018/10/31/malaysia-outlines-new-plastic-import-
sciencemag.org/content/advances/5/8/eaax1157.full.pdf.
criteria.
186
Boucher and Friot, “Primary Microplastics in the Oceans.”
Basel Action Network, “The Norwegian Amendments:
172
Implications for Recyclers” (2019), http://wiki.ban.org/ T. Backhaus and M. Wagner, “Microplastics in the
187
images/3/3e/Norwegian_Implications.pdf. Environment: Much Ado About Nothing? A Debate,” Global

Challenges (2019): 1900022, http://doi.org/10.1002/
173
C. Staub, “China Ban Causes Programs to Cut Plastics
gch2.201900022.
Collection,” Plastics Recycling Update, Oct. 25, 2017, https://
resource-recycling.com/plastics/2017/10/25/china-ban- 188
P.J. Kole et al., “Wear and Tear of Tyres: A Stealthy Source
causes-programs-cut-plastics-collection. of Microplastics in the Environment,” International Journal
of Environmental Research and Public Health 14, no. 10
174
C.D. Birkbeck, “Strengthening International Cooperation
(2017): 1265, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/
to Tackle Plastic Pollution: Options for the WTO” (2020),
PMC5664766.
https://www.plasticpolitics.solutions/research-1/2020/1/9/
policy-brief-strengthening-international-cooperation-to- 189
S. Wagner et al., “Tire Wear Particles in the Aquatic
tackle-plastic-pollution-options-for-the-wto. Environment—a Review on Generation, Analysis,
Occurrence, Fate and Effects,” Water Research 139 (2018):
175
GESAMP, “Sources, Fate and Effects of Microplastics.”
83-100, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2018.03.051.
176
J. Boucher and D. Friot, “Primary Microplastics in the 190
A. Stocker and S. Shaheen, “Shared Automated Vehicles:
Oceans: A Global Evaluation of Sources” (International Union
Review of Business Models” (working paper, Interntional
for Conservation of Nature, 2017), https://portals.iucn.org/
Transport Forum, 2017), https://www.itf-oecd.org/sites/
library/sites/library/files/documents/2017-002-En.pdf; S.
default/files/docs/shared-automated-vehicles-business-
Hann et al., “Investigating Options for Reducing Releases in
models.pdf.
the Aquatic Environment of Microplastics Emitted by (but
Not Intentionally Added in) Products” (Eunomia and ICF, Greenmodal Transport, “What Is the Modal Shift?”
191
2018), https://bmbf-plastik.de/sites/default/files/2018-04/ accessed Feb. 11, 2020, http://www.greenmodal.eu/en/

microplastics_final_report_v5_full.pdf. content/what-modal-shift.
177
P. Simpson, senior scientific officer, European 192
International Transport Forum & Organisation for
Chemicals Agency, “REACH Restriction on Economic Co-operation and Development, “(Un)Certain
Intentional Uses of Microplastics,” (presentation, Skies? Drones in the World of Tomorrow” (2018), https://
MICRO2018, Nov. 22, 2018), https://echa.europa.eu/ www.itf-oecd.org/sites/default/files/docs/uncertain-skies-
documents/10162/23668985/20181122_presentation_ drones.pdf.
simpson.pdf/6f9d4b7c-afe7-f868-bf48-92907b0f3a5d.

ENDNOTES
193
Operation Clean Sweep, “Operation Clean Sweep 209
Macfadyen, Huntington, and Cappell, “Abandoned, Lost or
Program Manual” (2017), https://www.opcleansweep.org/ Otherwise Discarded Fishing Gear.”
wp-content/uploads/OCS-Manual-2.pdf.
Ibid.; Sherrington et al., “The Development of Measures to
210
194
Ibid. Combat a Range of Marine Litter Sources.”
195
Fauna and Flora International, “Marine Pollution From T. Huntington, “Development of a Best Practice
211
Microplastic Fibers” (2018); K. Vassilenko et al., “Me, My Framework for the Management of Fishing Gear—Part 1:
Clothes and the Ocean: The Role of Textiles in Microfiber Overview and Current Status” (2016), https://www.ghostgear.
Pollution” (Ocean Wise Conservation Association, 2019), org/s/wap_gear_bp_framework_part_1_mm_lk-20171023-
https://assets.ctfassets.net/fsquhe7zbn68/4MQ9y89yx4 web.pdf.
KeyHv9Svynyq/8434de64585e9d2cfbcd3c46627c7a4a/
Research_MicrofibersReport_191004-e.pdf.
212
Ibid.
196
M. Brodin et al., “Microplastics From Industrial
213
K. Richardson, B.D. Hardesty, and C. Wilcox, “Estimates of
Laundries—a Laboratory Study of Laundry Effluents” (Swedish Fishing Gear Loss Rates at a Global Scale: A Literature Review
Environmental Protection Agency, 2018), http://www. and Meta-Analysis,” Fish & Fisheries 20, no. 6 (2019): 1218-31,
swedishepa.se/upload/miljoarbete-i-samhallet/miljoarbete- https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/faf.12407.
i-sverige/plast/1003-10-report-microplastics-from-industrial- 214
Huntington, “Development of a Best Practice Framework
laundries.pdf.
for the Management of Fishing Gear—Part 1.”
197
Hann et al., “Investigating Options for Reducing Releases 215
T. Cashion et al., “A Global Fishing Gear Dataset for
in the Aquatic Environment.”
Integration Into the Sea Around Us Global Fisheries
198
J. Sun et al., “Microplastics in Wastewater Treatment Databases” (Fisheries Centre Research Reports, 2018),
Plants: Detection, Occurrence and Removal,” Water https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/legacy.seaaroundus/
Research 152 (2019): 21-37, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. researcher/dpauly/PDF/2018/Reports/Global-Gear-Use-
watres.2018.12.050. FCRR_261-final.pdf.
Fauna and Flora International, “Removing or Restricting

199
216
E. Gilman et al., “Abandoned, Lost and Discarded Gillnets
Microplastic Ingredients or ‘Microbeads’ From Consumer and Trammel Nets: Methods to Estimate Ghost Fishing
and Industrial Products” (2017), https://cms.fauna-flora.org/ Mortality, and the Status of Regional Monitoring and
wp-content/uploads/2017/11/FFI_201701_Microbeads- Management” (Food and Agriculture Organization of the
Guidance-Document.pdf. United Nations, 2016), http://www.fao.org/3/a-i5051e.pdf;
T. Huntington, “Development of a Best Practice Framework
200
Ibid. for the Management of Fishing Gear—Part 2: Best Practice
Framework for the Management of Fishing Gear” (2016),
European Chemicals Agency, “Annex XV
201
https://www.ghostgear.org/s/wap_gear_bp_framework_
Restriction Report 2019” (2019), https://echa.europa. part_2_mm_lk-20171023.pdf.
eu/documents/10162/05bd96e3-b969-0a7c-
c6d0-441182893720. 217
Gilman et al., “Abandoned, Lost or Otherwise Discarded
Gillnets and Trammel Nets.”
202
C. Sherrington et al., “Study to Support the Development
of Measures to Combat a Range of Marine Litter Sources” U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization, Agreement on
218
(Eunomia, 2016), https://www.eunomia.co.uk/reports-tools/ Port State Measures to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal,
study-to-support-the-development-of-measures-to-combat- Unreported and Unregulated Fishing (2009), http://www.fao.
a-range-of-marine-litter-sources. org/fileadmin/user_upload/legal/docs/037t-e.pdf.
203
G. Macfadyen, T. Huntington, and R. Cappell, “Abandoned, 219
V. Viool et al., “Study to Support Impact Assessment
Lost or Otherwise Discarded Fishing Gear” (FAO Fisheries for Options to Reduce the Level of ALDFG” (European
and Aquaculture, 2009), http://www.fao.org/3/i0620e/ Commission, 2018), https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/
i0620e00.htm. maritimeforum/en/system/files/Final%20Report%20
Plastics%20from%20Fishing%20Gear%20Delivered.pdf.
204
L. Lebreton et al., “Evidence That the Great Pacific
Garbage Patch Is Rapidly Accumulating Plastic,” Scientific U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization, Agreement on
220
Reports 8, no. 1 (2018): 4666, https://doi.org/10.1038/ Port State Measures.

s41598-018-22939-w.
P.G. Ryan et al., “Rapid Increase in Asian Bottles in the
221
205
C. Sherrington, “Plastics in the Marine Environment” South Atlantic Ocean Indicates Major Debris Inputs From
(Eunomia, 2016), https://www.eunomia.co.uk/reports-tools/ Ships,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
plastics-in-the-marine-environment. 116, no. 42 (2019): 20892-97, https://www.pnas.org/
content/pnas/116/42/20892.full.pdf.
Sherrington et al., “The Development of Measures to
206
Combat a Range of Marine Litter Sources.” 222

CE Delft, “The Management of Ship-Generated Waste
On-Board Ships” (European Maritime Safety Agency, 2017),
207
Ibid. http://www.emsa.europa.eu/emsa-documents/latest/
download/4557/2925/23.html.
208
Sherrington, “Plastics in the Marine Environment.”

ENDNOTES
Sherrington et al., “The Development of Measures to

223
actually-consumers-do-buy-sustainable-products.
Combat a Range of Marine Litter Sources.”
234
S. Kaza et al., “What a Waste 2.0: A Global Snapshot
224
Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of Solid Waste Management to 2050” (International
of the Council on Port Reception Facilities for the Delivery Bank for Reconstruction and Development, The World
of Waste From Ships, Repealing Directive 2000/59/EC and Bank, 2018), https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/
Amending Directive 2009/16/EC and Directive 2010/65/ handle/10986/30317.
EU, 2018/0012/COD, European Parliament and European
Council (2018), https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ Material Economics, “The Circular Economy—A
235
TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52018PC0033. Powerful Force for Climate Mitigation” (2018), https://

materialeconomics.com/material-economics-the-circular-
225
Organization for Economic Co-operation and economy.pdf?cms_fileid=340952bea9e68d9013461c92fb
Development, Business Enterprise R&D Expenditure by c23cae.
Industry, 2008-2017, accessed Feb. 11, 2020, https://
stats.oecd.org/viewhtml.aspx?datasetcode=BERD_
236
Grand View Research, “Plastic Packaging Market Size,
INDU&lang=en#. Share and Trends Analysis Report by Product (Bottles, Bags,
Wraps and Films), by Type (Rigid, Flexible), by Application
F. Galindo-Ruedai and F. Verger, “OECD Taxonomy of
226
(Food and Beverages, Industrial), and Segment Forecasts,
Economic Activities Based on R&D Intensity” (working 2018-2025” (2018), https://www.grandviewresearch.com/
paper, OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working industry-analysis/plastic-packaging-market.
Papers, OECD Publishing, Paris, 2016), http://dx.doi.
org/10.1787/5jlv73sqqp8r-en.
237
227
Ibid. The World Bank, GDP Growth (Annual %), 1961-2018,
238
accessed Feb. 6, 2020, https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/

228
Based on global energy subsidies of US$5.3 trillion in NY.GDP.MKTP.KD.ZG.
2017, according to the International Monetary Fund, with
petroleum and natural gas making up 51 per cent and
239
assuming 2 per cent of that sum is used for petrochemicals, 240
R. Linzner and U. Lange, “Role and Size of Informal Sector
for a total of US$53 billion; D. Coady et al., “Global Fossil
in Waste Management—A Review,” Resources, Conservation
Fuel Subsidies Remain Large: An Update Based on Country-
and Recycling 166, no. 2 (2013): 69-83, https://www.
Level Estimates” (working paper, International Monetary
icevirtuallibrary.com/doi/abs/10.1680/warm.12.00012.
Fund, 2019), https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/
Issues/2019/05/02/Global-Fossil-Fuel-Subsidies-Remain- 241
Large-An-Update-Based-on-Country-Level-Estimates-46509;
J. Donev, “In a Barrel of Oil,” Energy Education, Unviersity of 242
Ibid.
Calgary, accessed Feb. 12, 2020, https://energyeducation.
ca/encyclopedia/In_a_barrel_of_oil.
243
Ibid.
229
P. Chadwick, “Sainsbury’s Targets 50% Plastic Reduction
244
M. Fernandez, “Waste-to-Energy in China: Perspectives,”
by 2025,” Packaging News, September 2019, https://www. BioEnergy Consult, Feb. 23, 2020, https://www.
packagingnews.co.uk/news/sainsburys-targets-50-plastic- bioenergyconsult.com/waste-to-energy-china/.
reduction-20125-13-09-2019; Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 245
H. Hu et al., “A Critical Evaluation of Waste Incineration
“Plastics Pact,” accessed Feb. 11, 2020, https://www.
Plants in Wuhan (China) Based on Site Selection,
newplasticseconomy.org/projects/plastics-pact; Ellen
Environmental Influence, Public Health and Public
MacArthur Foundation, “Reuse—Rethinking Packaging.”
Participation,” 12, no. 7 (2015): 7593-614, https://www.mdpi.
230
Moody’s, “European Packaging Firms’ Credit Quality com/1660-4601/12/7/7593.
Under Threat as Calls to Cut Plastic Waste Intensify,” news 246
Y. Hu, H. Cheng, and S. Tao, “The Growing Importance
release, March 4, 2019, https://www.moodys.com/research/
of Waste-to-Energy (WTE) Incineration in China’s
Moodys-European-packaging-firms-credit-quality-under-
Anthropogenic Mercury Emissions: Emission Inventories and
threat-as-calls--PBC_1163991.
Reduction Strategies,” Renewable and Sustainable Energy
231
V. Waldersee, “Most Brits Support Ban on Harmful Plastic Reviews 97 (2018): 119-37, http://www.sciencedirect.com/
Packaging,” YouGov.co.uk, April 19, 2019, https://yougov. science/article/pii/S1364032118306117.
co.uk/topics/consumer/articles-reports/2019/04/19/most- 247
National Bureau of Statistics of China, “China Statistical
brits-support-ban-harmful-plastic-packaging.
Yearbook 2018” (China Statistics Press, 2019), http://www.
S. George, “Report: Consumer Demand for Recycled
232 stats.gov.cn/tjsj/ndsj/2018/indexeh.htm.
Packaging Outpacing Corporate Action,” Edie Newsroom, 248
L. Ji et al., “Municipal Solid Waste Incineration in China
September 2018, https://www.edie.net/news/5/Report-
and the Issue of Acidification: A Review,” Waste Management
-consumer-demand-for-recycled-packaging-outpacing-
& Research 34, no. 4 (2016): 280-97.
corporate-action---.
C.R.K.J. Paulraj et al., “Sustainable Waste Management
249
T. Whelan and R. Kronthal-Sacco, “Research: Actually,
233
Through Waste to Energy Technologies in India—
Consumers Do Buy Sustainable Products,” Harvard Business
Opportunities and Environmental Impacts,” International
Review, June 19, 2019, https://hbr.org/2019/06/research-

ENDNOTES
Journal of Renewable Energy Research 9, no. 1 (2019): 309- eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2019/904/oj.

42.
264
A. Hira and L.G. de Oliveira, “No Substitute for Oil? How
United Nations Statistics Division, “UN Comtrade
250
Brazil Developed Its Ethanol Industry,” Energy Policy 37, no.
Database,” accessed March 16, 2020, https://comtrade. 6 (2009): 2450-56, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/
un.org/. article/pii/S0301421509001219; UNICA (Brazilian Sugarcane
Industry Association), UNICA Data for Total Ethanol
251
C. Wiedinmyer, R.J. Yokelson, and B.K. Gullett, “Global Production, 1980-2019, accessed March 16, 2020, http://
Emissions of Trace Gases, Particulate Matter, and Hazardous www.unicadata.com.br/historico-de-producao-e-moagem.
Air Pollutants from Open Burning of Domestic Waste,” php?idMn=31&tipoHistorico=2&acao=visualizar&idTabela=2
Environmental Science & Technology 48, no. 16 (2014): 335&produto=etanol_total&safraIni=1980%2F1981&safraFim
9523-30. =2018%2F2019&estado=RS%2CSC%2CPR%2CSP%2CRJ%2
CMG%2CES%2CMS%2CMT%2CGO%2CDF%2CBA%2CSE%2
252
J. Boucher et al., “(Micro) Plastic Fluxes and Stocks in
CAL%2CPE%2CPB%2CRN%2CCE%2CPI%2CMA%2CTO%2CP
Lake Geneva Basin,” Trends in Analytical Chemistry (2019);
A%2CAP%2CRO%2CAM%2CAC%2CRR.
L.C. Lebreton et al., “River Plastic Emissions to the World’s
Oceans,” Nature Communications 8 (2017): 15611; M. 265
Material Economics, “Sustainable Packaging—The Role
Ryberg, A. Laurent, and M. Hauschild, “Mapping of Global of Materials Substitution” (2018), https://materialeconomics.
Plastics Value Chain and Plastics Losses to the Environment com/publications/sustainable-packaging.
(With a Particular Focus on Marine Environment)” (United
Nations Environment Programme, 2018), http://wedocs. 266
B. Choi, S. Yoo, and S. Park, “Carbon Footprint of
unep.org/handle/20.500.11822/26745; C. Schmidt, T. Packaging Films Made From LDPE, PLA, and PLA/PBAT
Krauth, and S. Wagner, “Export of Plastic Debris by Rivers into Blends in South Korea,” 10, no. 7 (2018): 2369, https://www.
the Sea,” Environmental Science & Technology 51, no. 21 mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/7/2369.
(2017): 12246-53; Statistics Indonesia (Badan Pusat Statistik),
“Environmental Care Behavior Indicators 2014” (2015), World Economic Forum, Ellen MacArthur Foundation, and
267
https://www.bps.go.id/publication/2015/12/23/2cdc2ef0 McKinsey & Co., “The New Plastics Economy.”

8c706d6f205c69fc/indikator-perilaku-peduli-lingkungan- 268
Ibid.
hidup-2014.html.
269
Ellen MacArthur Foundation, “What Is a Circular
253
Non-allocated cost, mid-estimate from Kaza et al., “What
Economy?” accessed March 11, 2020, https://www.
a Waste 2.0.”
ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/circular-economy/concept.
254
Ibid.
World Economic Forum, Ellen MacArthur Foundation, and
270
255
D. Hogg, “Costs for Municipal Waste Management in McKinsey & Co., “The New Plastics Economy.”
the EU—Final Report to Directorate General Environment, 271
Ibid.
European Commission” (Eunomia Research and Consulting,
2002), https://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/studies/ 272
Ibid.
pdf/eucostwaste.pdf.
273
WRAP, “Defining What’s Recyclable.”
M. Hestin, T. Faninger, and L. Milios, “Increased EU Plastics
256
Recycling Targets: Environmental, Economic and Social World Economic Forum, Ellen MacArthur Foundation, and
274
Impact Assessment” (Deloitte, 2015), https://743c8380- McKinsey & Co., “The New Plastics Economy.”
22c6-4457-9895-11872f2a708a.filesusr.com/ugd/0af79c_
d3c616e926e24896a8b82b833332242e.pdf.
275
United Nations Statistics Division, “Population Density
and Urbanization,” accessed March 11, 2020, https://
257
Ibid. unstats.un.org/unsd/demographic/sconcerns/densurb/
densurbmethods.htm.
258
Plastics Information Europe, “Pet Recyclate Prices”
(2019), https://pieweb.plasteurope.com/default.
aspx?pageid=21002.
259
260
Hogg, “Costs for Municipal Waste Management in the EU.”
261
Ellen MacArthur Foundation, “The New Plastics Economy

262
Global Commitment 2019 Progress Report” (2019), https://

www.newplasticseconomy.org/about/publications/global-
commitment-2019-progress-report.
263
European Parliament and European Council, Directive
(EU) 2019/904 of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 5 June 2019 on the Reduction of the Impact of
Certain Plastic Products on the Environment (2019), https://

Acknowledgements
SYSTEMIQ core team The Pew Charitable Trusts core team

Martin Stuchtey, managing partner and co-founder; project Tom Dillon, vice president and head of environment
principal
Elizabeth Wilson, senior director, international policy
Yoni Shiran, project director
Simon Reddy, director, environment
Julia Koskella, workstream lead: reduce and substitute
Winnie Lau, senior officer, preventing ocean plastics; project
Laura Koerselman, workstream lead: recycling and disposal technical lead and program coordination
Ben Dixon, partner; content expert on circular economy and Jim Palardy, project director, conservation science; research
plastics design, statistical programming, and data analysis
Meera Atreya, workstream lead: recycling and disposal Margaret Murphy, officer, research review and support;
research design, microplastics
Emilia Jankowska, workstream lead: microplastics
Sarah Baulch, senior associate, preventing ocean plastics
Milan Petit, workstream lead: maritime sources; economic
analyst Kevin He, senior associate, conservation science
David Fischer, workstream lead: recycling and disposal Keith Lawrence, senior officer, international conservation
Alex Kremer, project design Justine Calcagno, manager, research; fact check and data
check lead
Ed Cook, workstream lead: collection and sorting (University
of Leeds) Peter Edwards, officer, conservation science; peer review
manager
Sun Oh, communications lead
Laura Margison, director, communications
Tugce Balik, communications associate
Brandon MacGillis, officer, communications
Benedicte Chung, communications associate
Ahsan Syed, data analyst
Carmela Gonzales, data analyst Additional contributions on behalf of

The Pew Charitable Trusts
Nikhil Raj, data analyst
Judith Abrahams, Nichele Carter-Peterson, Zeynep Celik,
Lauren Christopherson, Michael Freeman, Betina Frinault,
Katie Gronsky, Janelle Hangen, Elizabeth Hogan, Emma
Gilpin Jacobs, Megan Jungwiwattanaporn, Marina Kazakova,
Additional contributions on behalf of SYSTEMIQ
George Kroner, Michael Latimer, Matt Mahoney, Jessie
Joi Danielson, Jason Hale, William Handjaja, Bertram Mandirola, Matthew M. Moser, Laura Mudge, Graham
Kloss, Luke Mann, Andreas Merkl, Arthur Neeteson, Dinda Murphy, Stephanie Niave, Sally O’Brien, Nathan Pollard, Jen
Anissa Nurdiani, Toby Pilditch (University of Oxford), Janez Sirko, Joanna Smith, Sonny Sutton, Chris Thomson, Orian
Potočnik, Jessica Stewart, Mirja Wagner Tzadik, Anne Usher, Abel Valdivia, Luis Villanueva, Rebecca
Walker, Henry Watson, Mike Wissner, and staff in supporting
departments
Design & Editorial

Editor: Fiona Curtin (Communications INC)
Design: PGA Branding
Cover design: Regency Creative & PGA Branding

We also warmly thank the following contributors:
Neither they nor their institutions necessarily endorse the report’s findings.
Informal and formal peer reviewers and contributors Other contributors:

who provided feedback during the consultation phases:
Joshua Abbot Christie Keith Delphine Arri Stina Klingvall

Arizona State University Global Alliance for Incinerator World Bank Group Material Economics
Alternatives
Phan Bai David Azoulay Andrej Krzan
Veolia Gregory Keoleian Center for International Planet Care
University of Michigan Environmental Law
Dustin Benton Vicky Lam
Green Alliance Nicholas Mallos Petr Baca University of British Columbia
Ocean Conservancy MIWA
David Clark Kara Lavender Law
Amcor Ltd. Dilyana Mihaylova Priyanka Bakaya Sea Education Association
Plastic Oceans UK Renewlogy
Sander Defruyt Peter Levi
Ellen MacArthur Foundation Jane Muncke Brian Bauer International Energy Agency
Food Packaging Forum Algramo
Ralph Detsch Simon Lowden
Siegwerk Rob Opsomer Ricardo Bayon PepsiCo
Ellen MacArthur Foundation Encourage Capital
Sonia M.Dias Jeff Meyers
Women in Informal Employment: Libby Peake Joel Baziuk The Recycling Partnership
Globalizing and Organizing Green Alliance Global Ghost Gear Initiative
WIEGO José Manuel Moller
Emma Priestland Mark V. Bernhofen Algramo
Louise Edge Break Free From Plastic University of Leeds
Greenpeace UK Molly Morse
Jo Royle Amy Brook Mango Materials
Trisia Farrelly Common Seas TELONOSTIX LTD.
Massey University Political David Newman
Ecology Research Centre Daniel Schwaab Gev Eduljee Bio-Based and Biodegradable
TOMRA Systems ASA SITA Suez Industries Association
Graham Forbes
Greenpeace USA Neil Tangri Axel Elmqvist Jens Peter Ohlenschlager
Global Alliance for Incinerator Material Economics Port Environment
Tamara Galloway Alternatives
University of Exeter Ton Emans Jane Patton
Julia Vol Plastic Recyclers Europe Center for International
Sokhna Gueye TIPA Compostable Packaging Environmental Law
Nestlé Doyne Farmer
Elisabeth Whitebread University of Oxford Coen Peel
Von Hernandez Cambridge Institute for Dutch Ministry of Maritime
Break Free From Plastic Sustainability Leadership Jason Foster Affairs
Replenish
Mathieu Hestin Sara Wingstrand Grzegorz Peszko
Institute for European Ellen MacArthur Foundation Eric Gilman World Bank Group
Environmental Policy Pelagic Ecosystems Research
Kate Wylie Group LLC Safia Qureshi
Ibrahim Issifu Mars Inc. CupClub
University of British Columbia Rachel Goldstein
Mars Inc. Julia Schifter
Ben Jack TIPA Compostable Packaging
Common Seas Richard Gower
Tearfund Ralph Schneider
Sue Jennings World Plastic Council
Trash Hero Froilan Grate
Global Alliance for Incinerator Graeme Smith
Alternatives Mondi Group
Michael Hahl Petri Suuronen
(formerly at) Huhtamaki Flexible Natural Resources Institute
Packaging Finland
Denise Hardesty Nelson A. Switzer
CSIRO Loop Industries
Keefe Harrison Rupert Way
The Recycling Partnership University of Oxford
Cameron Hepburn Adrian Whyle
University of Oxford Plastics Europe
Tim Huntington Xiao Zhaotan
Poseidon RWDC Industries
Silpa Kaza Consumer Goods Forum
World Bank Group
Participants of the 2019
Laurent Kimman Klosters Forum
BioPack Packaging
Per Klevnäs World Economic Forum
Material Economics

Thought partners
SYSTEMIQ and The Pew Charitable Trusts wish to thank our thought partners for their contributions:
University of Oxford ranks among the top universities in The Ellen MacArthur Foundation was launched in 2010
the world and is widely known for research excellence and with the aim of accelerating the transition to a circular
impact across the arts, humanities, and sciences. Richard economy. Since its creation, the charity has emerged as
Bailey is professor of environmental systems at the School a global thought leader, putting circular economy on the
of Geography and the Environment, and co-director of agenda of decision-makers around the world. It has been
the Oxford Martin School Programme on Sustainable driving momentum towards a circular economy for plastic
Oceans. He and his multidisciplinary research group since 2014. Its New Plastics Economy Global Commitment,
(CoHESyS) develop computer simulations of large coupled launched in 2018 in collaboration with the United Nations
human-environmental systems, addressing questions of Environment Programme, unites more than 450 businesses,
sustainability and resilience in the face of global and local governments, and other organisations behind a common
scale change. Bailey’s main responsibility in this project was vision and targets to address plastic waste and pollution at
to build the numerical model of the various plastic flows and source. As a thought partner of this report, the foundation
associated economic impacts, running the simulations, and has contributed its expertise on the circular economy and
generating the data summaries used in the report. He also the plastics value chain.
helped design aspects of the empirical data analysis and
approaches to data handling.
University of Leeds, UK is renowned for its interdisciplinary Common Seas is a non-profit enterprise with one
approach to innovation for global challenges, featuring goal: healthy seas for all. Its global team works across
university-wide collaboration platforms. Being among the government, business and civil society, developing proven
50 most international universities worldwide, global thinking and rapidly scalable solutions to reduce the amount of
and expertise is distilled into tangible efforts to tackle the plastic waste polluting our planet. As thought partners,
most important challenges for our society and collective Common Seas drew from its pioneering policy modelling
future, aligned with attaining the United Nations Sustainable toolkit, Plastic Drawdown, designed to enable governments
Development Goals. Costas Velis’ research team at the to understand their country’s plastic waste flows and take
School of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and effective mitigation action. Commons Seas shared its
Physical Sciences, focuses on recovering resources from model, as well as datasets and key insights from Indonesia,
solid waste while preventing plastics pollution. University Greece, the Maldives, and across the Commonwealth
of Leeds led efforts on quantifying plastics pollution from Countries, where Plastic Drawdown has been used to shape
solid waste and was an integral part of the core team. policymaking and practical grassroots initiatives to reduce
It contributed to core aspects of the model, including the most pervasive forms of plastic waste.
collection, sorting, energy recovery, disposal, and all forms
of leakage (open burning, diffuse terrestrial dumping, and
marine litter).

Ocean swells in Bali, Indonesia.
Ines Álvarez Fdez/Unsplash
Developed by The Pew Charitable Trusts and SYSTEMIQ,
“Breaking the Plastic Wave: A Comprehensive Assessment of
Pathways Towards Stopping Ocean Plastic Pollution” presents
a first-of-its-kind model of the global plastics system. It is
an evidence-based roadmap that describes how to radically
reduce ocean plastic pollution by 2040 and shows there is a
comprehensive, integrated, and economically attractive pathway
to greatly reduce plastic waste entering our ocean.
The research supporting this report was co-developed with

17 experts from across the spectrum of professionals looking at the
plastic pollution problem, with broad geographical representation.
The findings of our analysis were published in the
peer-reviewed journal, Science.
The aim of this work is to help guide policymakers, industry

executives, investors, and civil society leaders through highly
contested, often data-poor, and complex terrain.
For more information about this report, please contact:

SYSTEMIQ: [email protected]
The Pew Charitable Trusts: [email protected]
Copyright © 2020 The Pew Charitable Trusts. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC-
BY-NC 4.0). Readers may reproduce material for their own publications, as long as it is not sold commercially and is given appropriate attribution.
Thought Partners

BreakingThePlasticWave MainReport

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

BreakingThePlasticWave MainReport

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

BreakingThePlasticWave MainReport

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Breaking

Informed by the founders’ interest in research, practical

Our goal is to make a difference for the public. That means

Learn more at https://www.pewtrusts.org/en

For more information, contact us at

Learn more at https://www.systemiq.earth/

For more information, contact us at

Cover: Willyam Bradberry/Shutterstock

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: TEN CRITICAL FINDINGS 8

FAST FACTS: ‘BREAKING THE PLASTIC WAVE’ IN NUMBERS 14

INTRODUCTION: PLASTIC, THE OCEAN, AND THE GLOBAL DEBATE 16

Ocean plastic pollution: Challenges and opportunities in a complex system 17

About this project: A global stochastic model 18

No panacea: Single-solution strategies cannot stop plastic pollution 31

– Macroplastic system interventions 48

– Microplastic system interventions 89

– Maritime sources of leakage 96

The innovation gap: Near-zero leakage requires significant innovation 101

Regional priorities: Applying different solutions for different geographies 114

APPENDIX A: KEY ASSUMPTIONS AND DATA SOURCES 120

APPENDIX B: SYSTEM MAPS 129

THOUGHT PARTNERS 152

A Comprehensive Assessment of Pathways Towards Stopping Ocean Plastic Pollution 3

“Breaking the Plastic Wave” follows two reports from the

4 BREAKING THE PLASTIC WAVE

Richard Bailey Julien Boucher Jill Boughton Arturo Castillo

Mao Da Enzo Favoino Malati Gadgil Linda Godfrey

Jutta Gutberlet Edward Kosior Crispian Lao Daniela Lerario

Ellie Moss Daniella Russo Ussif Rashid Sumaila Richard Thompson

A Comprehensive Assessment of Pathways Towards Stopping Ocean Plastic Pollution 5

Von Hernandez, global coordinator, Break Free From Plastic

Ramon Laguarta, chairman and CEO, PepsiCo

6 BREAKING THE PLASTIC WAVE

Grant Reid, CEO, Mars Inc.

Erin Simon, head, plastic and business, World Wildlife Fund

Andrew Steer, president and CEO, World Resources Institute

Laura Tuck, vice president for sustainable development, World Bank*

Melati Wijsen, founder, Bye Bye Plastic Bags

A Comprehensive Assessment of Pathways Towards Stopping Ocean Plastic Pollution 7

Plastic waste lines the shore of a lake.

8 BREAKING THE PLASTIC WAVE

Plastic pollution in the ocean is a major environmental

Owing to four compounding trends—continued population 3

A Comprehensive Assessment of Pathways Towards Stopping Ocean Plastic Pollution 9

Substitute plastic with paper and compostable materials,

Million metric tons per year

Reuse (new delivery models)

A Comprehensive Assessment of Pathways Towards Stopping Ocean Plastic Pollution 11

12 BREAKING THE PLASTIC WAVE

Scale of the problem

‘Breaking the of plastic leaked into

Plastic Wave’ By 2040:

US$100B 45% 21% 19% 80%

80% of plastic pollution by 2040 nearly one-third of projected

* Contingent on a decarbonization of energy sources

A plastic bag floats underwater in France.

Ocean Plastic Pollution:

A Comprehensive Assessment of Pathways Towards Stopping Ocean Plastic Pollution 17

slow innovation downstream (waste infrastructure), • The debate is data-poor.