Breaking
the Plastic
Wave
A COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT OF PATHWAYSTOWARDS STOPPING OCEAN PLASTIC POLLUTION

Thought Partners

FULL REPORTAbout The Pew Charitable Trusts
The Pew Charitable Trusts is driven by the power ofknowledge 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, practicalknowledge, and public service, our portfolio includes public
opinion research; arts and culture; civic initiatives; andenvironmental, 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, andachieve measurable results that serve the public interest.
Learn more at https://www.pewtrusts.org/en
For more information, contact us atPreventingOceanPlastics@pewtrusts.org

About SYSTEMIQSYSTEMIQ 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 andthe United Nations Sustainable Development Goals bytransforming 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 andpackaging, 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 ourwork is the core belief that only a smart combination ofpolicy, 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
OceanPlastics@systemiq.earth

Cover: Willyam Bradberry/ShutterstockTable of contents
PREFACE

4

EXPERT PANEL

5

ENDORSEMENTS

6

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: TEN CRITICAL FINDINGS

8FAST 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 challenge30

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 interventions48– 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

119APPENDIX A: KEY ASSUMPTIONS AND DATA SOURCES

120

APPENDIX B: SYSTEM MAPS

129

GLOSSARY137

ENDNOTES140ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

150

THOUGHT PARTNERS

152

A Comprehensive Assessment of Pathways Towards Stopping Ocean Plastic Pollution3

Preface
In recent years, an increasing number of studies and reports
have advanced the global understanding of the challenge
posed by ocean plastic pollution. But most leaders acrossindustry, government, and civil society have noted a criticalgap: an evidence-based roadmap to describe the pathways
available and to foster convergent action.
As a step towards building that roadmap, The Pew Charitable
Trusts partnered with SYSTEMIQ to build on previous researchand create this first-of-its-kind model of the global plastics
system, with results suggesting that there is an evidence-based,
comprehensive, integrated, and economically attractive
pathway to greatly reduce plastic pollution entering ourocean. The findings of our analysis were published in thepeer-reviewed journal, Science on 23 July 2020.
The speed at which ocean plastic pollution has climbed up
the public agenda has been surprising. Yet, even as the world
starts to comprehend the enormity of the challenge, major
actors disagree on the solution. In preparing “Breaking the
Plastic Wave: A Comprehensive Assessment of Pathways
Towards Stopping Ocean Plastic Pollution,” we consulted
an extensive group of stakeholders from academia, industry,
government, and nongovernmental organizations, who
without exception shared the concern and demonstrated
willingness to act—but often offered contradictory solutions.
We then developed perhaps the most comprehensive
plastic system modelling tool to create a global analysis that
evaluates various strategies to reduce ocean plastic flows
and quantifies the associated economic, environmental,
and social implications of each pathway. The ultimate 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. Our analysis includes
several key findings that could help define changes to theglobal system that are necessary to stop plastic pollution
from flowing into the ocean.
The research supporting this report involved 17 experts
from across the spectrum of people looking at theplastic pollution problem and with broad geographicalrepresentation, and was undertaken by our two independent
organizations in collaboration with four partner institutions—the University of Oxford, University of Leeds, Ellen MacArthur
Foundation, and Common Seas.
In addition, the project team drew upon major publications,analyses, and reports, and consulted more than 100
independent experts, to develop and populate the model.
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 visionof a circular economy, aimed at eliminating waste andencouraging the continual use of resources by reusing,redesigning, and recycling. This concept has garnered
unprecedented support across the global plastics system.
4

BREAKING THE PLASTIC WAVE

By highlighting the systemic link between better plastic
design, reuse, improved recycling economics, and increased
collection incentives, these reports provided a central theme
for the challenge addressed in “Breaking the Plastic Wave”:
how to apply the concept of a circular economy—along withincreased reduction and substitution of plastics, and better
waste management—in a way that urgently addresses thisserious environmental challenge.
The model is already being applied at the national level inIndonesia under the public-private collaboration Global
Plastic Action Partnership. Our hope is that the results of“Breaking the Plastic Wave” can serve as a map for policy
leaders, decision-makers, and businesses in search ofsolutions to stem the flow of plastic into the ocean. Thismodel can also be updated by stakeholders on an ongoingbasis to inform solutions to the plastics pollution problem.
The problem of ocean plastic pollution was created in a
lifetime, and we have reason to believe that it can be solved
within a generation, or sooner. But such a solution requires
political leaders, policymakers, business executives, andinvestors to shift from incremental to systemic change.
Among our findings, one is particularly stark: On the current
trajectory, which we call Business-as-Usual, annual flowsof plastic into the ocean could nearly triple by 2040. What’smore, even if all current major industry and government
commitments are met, the world would see a reduction in
annual rates of plastic pollution flowing into the ocean of
only 7 per cent from the Business-as-Usual scenario.
Yet we also show that if the world were to apply and robustly
invest in all the technologies, management practices, andpolicy approaches currently available—including reduction,
recycling, and plastic substitution—in 20 years there would
be about an 80 per cent reduction from the current
trajectory in the flow of plastic into the ocean. And the
new solutions recommended in this report would provide
consumers with the same services that plastic delivers
today—at a lower cost to society.
We hope that the “Breaking the Plastic Wave” concepts, data,
and analyses inform decision-makers who are responsible
for setting industry and government action. The report’s
most important message is that, with the right level ofaction, tackling the problem of plastics pollution may beremembered as a success story on the human ability torethink and rebuild systems that can sustainably support lives
and livelihoods while the environment thrives.

Martin R. Stuchtey

Tom Dillon

Founder & Managing Partner
SYSTEMIQ

Vice President & Head of Environment
The Pew Charitable Trusts

Expert panel
This work was developed in partnership with an expert panel representing all relevant disciplines and geographies:

Richard Bailey
Professor ofEnvironmental Systems
University of Oxford

Julien Boucher
Co-founder
Quantis and Shaping
Environmental Action

Jill Boughton
Founder
Waste2Worth Innovations

Arturo Castillo
Research fellow
Imperial College London

Mao DaExecutive director
Shenzhen Zero Waste

Enzo Favoino
Researcher
Scuola Agraria del Parcodi Monza

Malati Gadgil
Independent consultant
Informal sector waste
management

Linda Godfrey
Principal researcher
Council for Scientificand Industrial Research

Jutta Gutberlet
Professor
University of Victoria

Edward Kosior
Managing director
NextekCrispian Lao
Founding president
Philippine Alliance for
Recycling and Material
Sustainability

Daniela Lerario
Triciclos Brazil

Ellie Moss
Senior adviser
Encourage Capital

Daniella Russo
Co-founder and CEO
Think Beyond Plastic

Ussif Rashid Sumaila
Professor
University of British
Columbia

Richard Thompson
Professor
University of Plymouth

Costas Velis
Lecturer
University of Leeds

A Comprehensive Assessment of Pathways Towards Stopping Ocean Plastic Pollution5

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 thatwill eliminate the long-term flow of plastic and microplastics into the ocean. By providing the evidence basefor a way forward, the study convincingly shows the need for system-wide change and urgent action acrossthe entire value chain. It inspires by demonstrating that projected plastic leakage can be reduced by 80% withexisting 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, civilsociety, and governments to address this critical environmental issue. This well-researched, peer-reviewed reportfrom 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 thatare 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 wemove 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 thequantity of plastic used and produced. The report makes clear that existing private-sector commitments andpublic 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, andirreversible damage to the ocean. While we agree with the report’s general recommendation calling for aradical 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 togovernments: 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 andprovides 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 immediatebold 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.”

6

BREAKING THE PLASTIC WAVE

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, confirmingthat without fundamental change, annual flows of plastic into the ocean could nearly triple by 2040. To turnthe 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 iscommitted 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 toensure 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 otherstakeholders 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 ofsociety—to clean up the mess we are making. Its positive message is that we already have the solutions weneed 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 andgo. 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 myhome country has already applied the model featured in “Breaking the Plastic Wave.” The only way forward iscollaboration and persistence; let’s turn the tide on plastic pollution once and forever.”A Comprehensive Assessment of Pathways Towards Stopping Ocean Plastic Pollution

7

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Executive
Summary
10 critical findings

Plastic waste lines the shore of a lake.
Sergey/Adobe Stock8

BREAKING THE PLASTIC WAVETEN CRITICAL FINDINGSThe 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 toindustry. However, it depends on the immediate, ambitious, and concerted global implementationof 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 thisgrowing crisis remains elusive. It is a by-product offundamental flaws in an essentially linear plastic system inwhich 95 per cent of aggregate plastic packaging value—
US$80 billion-US$120 billion a year—is lost to the economy
following a short first-use cycle.1
Very different responses to the crisis have been proposed,from eliminating plastic entirely to turning it into fuels, andfrom developing biodegradable substitutes to recycling
plastic back into usable products. Each solution comes withadvantages and drawbacks. Understanding the effectivenessof different solutions, and the related economic,
environmental, and social implications, is crucial to making
progress towards stopping ocean plastic pollution.
Here we lay out our report’s 10 critical findings, showingthat a path forward to a low plastic pollution future alreadyexists—now we have to make the choice to walk this path.

1
Without action, the annual flow of plastic into the ocean
will nearly triple by 2040, to 29 million metric tons per
year (range: 23 million-37 million metric tons per year),
equivalent to 50 kg of plastic per metre of coastline
worldwide.
Owing to four compounding trends—continued population
growth; increases in plastic use per capita driven in part byincreasing production of cheap virgin plastic; shifts to lowvalue/nonrecyclable materials; and the growing share ofplastic consumption occurring in countries with low rates ofcollection—annual plastic flows to the ocean are expected
to grow from 11 million metric tons (range: 9 million-14
million metric tons per year) in 2016 to 29 million metrictons in 2040 (range: 23 million-37 million metric tons peryear), with consequences for communities, businesses, andecosystems. Under our Business-as-Usual (BAU) Scenario,
about 4 billion people are likely to be without organized waste
collection services by 2040, contributing significantly to the
expected mass of plastic leakage to the ocean. The cost ofinaction is high to businesses, communities, and ecosystems;
particularly stark is the US$100 billion annual financial risk thatbusinesses face if governments require them to cover waste
management costs at expected volumes and recyclability.

* All figures stated in parentheses are 95 per cent confidence intervals, unlessotherwise specified. The range is given where distributions are not symmetrical.

2
Governments and industry leaders are stepping up withnew policies and voluntary initiatives, but these are often
narrow in focus or concentrated in low-leakage countries.
By 2040, current government and industry commitments
are likely to reduce annual plastic leakage to the ocean by
only 7 per cent (±1 per cent) relative to the Business-asUsual Scenario.
A review of the key government initiatives worldwide—suchas the European Union’s single-use plastics directive and thegrowing number of national plastic policies—often reveals
a narrow focus on select items (e.g., straws, bags, cups,
stirrers, cotton swabs, and bottles), which severely limits the
reduction in total leaked plastic mass. Industry has also madehigh-profile commitments, but these are primarily focusedon post-consumer downstream solutions and often in lowleakage countries. Our results indicate that a far greater scaleof action at the system level will be needed to meaningfully
address the challenge of plastic pollution. Government
policies and leadership by consumer goods companies willbe critical in driving upstream action on reduction, reuse,
and redesign as well as downstream action to improvecollection and recycling. Governments and investors alsoneed to curtail the planned expansion in plastic production
capacity to prevent locking us deeper into the status quo..

3
There is no single solution to end ocean plastic pollution.
Upstream and downstream solutions should be deployed
together.
To date, much of the debate has focused on either“upstream” (pre-consumer, such as material redesign, plastic
reduction, and substitution) or “downstream” solutions (postconsumer, such as recycling and disposal). Our analysis
shows that this is a false dichotomy. Upstream solutions
that aim to reduce or substitute plastic use are critical andshould be prioritized but will need to be scaled carefully tolimit adverse social or environmental effects. Downstream
solutions are also essential but limited by economic viability
and the realistic speed of infrastructure development in theface of growing plastic waste production. Moreover, given
the potential negative impacts on human health and theenvironment of some downstream disposal technologies,
their use should be weighed against different trade-offs
and carefully controlled. Modelled on their own, no “singlesolution” strategies reduce annual leakage of plastic tothe ocean even below 2016 levels by 2040. An ambitious
recycling strategy, for example, with ambitious scale-up of

A Comprehensive Assessment of Pathways Towards Stopping Ocean Plastic Pollution

9

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

collection, sorting, and recycling infrastructure coupled withdesign for recycling, reduces 2040 leakage by 38 per cent(±7 per cent) relative to BAU, which is 65 per cent (±15 percent) above 2016 levels. Similarly, an ambitious reduction
and substitution strategy, without massive expansion ofdownstream infrastructure, reduces 2040 leakage by 52
per cent (±9 per cent) relative to BAU, 28 per cent (±5 percent) above 2016 levels. An integrated approach with new
ways to deliver the benefits of today’s plastic is needed tosignificantly reduce ocean plastic pollution.

As modelled in our integrated System Change Scenario,
annual land-based plastic leakage into the ocean can be
reduced by around 80 per cent (82 ±13 per cent) by 2040,
compared with BAU, through the concurrent, ambitious,and global implementation of multiple synergistic systeminterventions:

4

Substitute plastic with paper and compostable materials,
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
the ocean by about 80 per cent (82 ±13 per cent) below
projected BAU levels by 2040, while delivering on othersocietal, economic, and environmental objectives.
It is not the lack of technical solutions that is preventing
us from addressing the ocean plastic crisis, but rather
inadequate regulatory frameworks, business models, andfunding mechanisms. Although the technical solutions
exist, the incentives are not always in place to scale up thesechanges fast enough. A reduction of plastic production—
through elimination, the expansion of consumer reuse
options, or new delivery models—is the most attractive
solution from environmental, economic, and social
perspectives. It offers the biggest reduction in plastic
pollution, often represents a net savings, and provides thehighest mitigation opportunity in GHG emissions.

Reduce growth in plastic production and consumption to
avoid nearly one-third of projected plastic waste generation
through elimination, reuse, and new delivery models.

Design products and packaging for recycling to expand
the share of economically recyclable plastic from anestimated 21 per cent to 54 per cent.
Expand waste collection rates in the middle-/low-income
countries to 90 per cent in all urban areas and 50 per cent inrural areas and support the informal collection sector.
Double mechanical recycling capacity globally to 86
million metric tons per year.
Develop plastic-to-plastic conversion, potentially to a
global capacity of up to 13 million metric tons per year.
Build facilities to dispose of the 23 per cent of plastic thatcannot be recycled economically, as a transitional measure.
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
Latesttitle and reducenotes onplastic
reportleakage to the ocean but only if all
There is a credible path tosignificantly
Figure 1:are
Plastic
fate in theconcurrently,
System Change
Scenario:anda ‘wedges’
solutions
implemented
ambitiously,
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
Usu
ass
s
ine
Bus

400

Reduce:130 (30%)

Eliminate
Reuse (consumer)

Reuse (new delivery models)

350

RECYCLE

Paper

300

Substitute:71 (17%)

Coated paper
Compostables

250

Mechanical recycling–closed loop (CL)
Mechanical recycling–open loop (OL)
Chemical recycling–plastic to plastic (P2P)

200

Chemical conversion–plastic to fuel (P2F)

150

Recycle:84 (20%)

Dispose:101 (23%)

Landfill

100

Incineration

Open burning

50

0
2016

Mismanaged:
44 (10%)Terrestrial pollution
Ocean pollution

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.

10

BREAKING THE PLASTIC WAVETEN CRITICAL FINDINGS

Roll out known solutions for four microplastic (<5mm)sources—tyres, textiles, personal care products andproduction pellets—to reduce annual microplastic leakage tothe ocean by 1.8 million metric tons per year (from 3 million
metric tons to 1.2 million metric tons) by 2040.
Taken together, these system interventions describe acredible 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,
17 per cent (range: 15 per cent-18 per cent) is substituted,
20 per cent (range: 18 per cent-21 per cent) is recycled,
23 per cent (range: 22 per cent-26 per cent) is disposedof and 10 per cent (range: 9 per cent-12 per cent) remains
mismanaged, as shown in Figure 1.

5
Going beyond the System Change Scenario to tackle
the remaining 5 million metric tons per year (range: 4-7
million metric tons per year) of plastic leakage demands
significant innovation across the entire value chain.
In 20 years, we can break the seemingly unstoppable waveof plastic pollution, but the System Change Scenario still
does not go far enough. It leaves 5 million metric tons
(range: 4 million-7 million metric tons) of plastic flowing
into the ocean in 2040—which represents a 52 per cent (±8per cent) reduction from 2016 rates. Achieving the vision ofnear-zero ocean plastic pollution will require technologicaladvances, new business models, significant spending, and,most crucially, accelerating upstream innovation. Thismassive innovation scale-up requires a focused and wellfunded R&D agenda exceeding US$100 billion per year by
2040, including moon-shot ambitions, to help middle-/
low-income countries to leapfrog the unsustainable linear
economy model of high-income countries. Most crucial
will be solutions that focus upstream and can work in rural/
remote areas (where collection economics are challenging),that replace multilayer and multimaterial plastics (e.g., newdelivery 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 criticallyneeded in financing and policy. The alternative is to greatly
increase the ambition levels above the maximum foreseeablelevels modelled under the System Change Scenario.

6
The System Change Scenario is economically viable forgovernments and consumers, but a major redirection ofcapital investment is required.
The present value of global investments in the plastic
industry between 2021 and 2040 can be reduced from
US$2.5 trillion (±US$800 billion) to US$1.2 trillion (±US$300
billion), but the System Change Scenario will require asubstantial shift of investment away from the production andconversion of virgin plastic, which are mature technologies
perceived as “safe” investments, to the production of newdelivery models, plastic substitutes, recycling facilities, andcollection infrastructure, some of which are less maturetechnologies and perceived as riskier. This shift will require
government incentives and risk-taking by industry andinvestors. The total global cost to governments of managing
plastic waste in this low-leakage System Change Scenario
between 2021 and 2040 is estimated to be US$600 billion(range: US$410 billion-US$630 billion) in present value,compared with the US$670 billion (range: US$450 billionUS$740 billion) cost to manage a high-leakage system
under BAU.

7
Reducing approximately 80 per cent (82 ±13 per cent)of plastic leakage into the ocean will bring to life a newcircular plastics economy with major opportunities—andrisks—for industry.
Plastic pollution presents a unique risk for producers andusers of virgin plastics given regulatory changes and growing
consumer outrage. But it is also a unique opportunity forproviders of new and existing circular business models andmaterials. Embarking on the trajectory to get to about 80
per cent (82 ±13 per cent) leakage reduction will create
significant opportunities for companies ahead of thecurve, ready to embrace new business opportunities that
unlock value from a circular economy that derives revenue
from circulation of materials rather than one based on
the extraction and conversion of fossil fuels. Large newvalue pools can be created around better design, better
materials, better delivery models, improved sorting andrecycling technologies, and smart collection and supply
chain management systems. Our analysis shows thatthrough integrated application of upstream and downstream
interventions under the System Change Scenario, we could
fulfil the growing global demand for “plastic utility” in 2040
with roughly the same amount of plastic in the system astoday, and 11 per cent (±1 per cent) lower levels of virginplastic production, essentially decoupling plastic growth from
economic growth. However, in the meantime, hundredsof billions of dollars are being invested in virgin plastic
production plants, locking us deeper into a BAU trajectory
every day and making system change ever more urgent.

8
A system change would require different implementation
priorities in different geographies and for different plastic
categories.
Different regions of the world have fundamentally different
contexts and jumping-off points: different sources ofplastic leakage, waste composition, collection rates, policy
regimes, labour and capital costs, infrastructure, population
demographics, and consumer behaviour. Our model
highlights the most urgently needed interventions and theunique set of outcomes projected for different geographies
under the System Change Scenario. High-income countries
should prioritize addressing microplastic leakage (which
represents 62 per cent [range: 29 per cent-76 per cent]of leakage in high-income countries), technological andpolicy innovation to incentivize reduction and substitution,and further increasing recycling rates. Middle-/low-income
countries should prioritize expanding formal collection,
decreasing overall plastic consumption, investing in sorting
and recycling infrastructure, and reducing post-collection
leakage. However, universally, the top priority is reducing

A Comprehensive Assessment of Pathways Towards Stopping Ocean Plastic Pollution

11

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

avoidable plastic—of which we estimate there will be 125
million metric tons (range: 110 million metric tons-142
million metric tons) globally by 2040 under BAU. Similarly,
we should universally prioritize solutions for the highestleakage plastic categories. Flexible packaging (bags, films,
pouches, etc.), multilayer and multimaterial plastics (sachets,
diapers, beverage cartons, etc.), and the microplastics that
we modelled account for a disproportionate share of plastic
pollution compared with their production, making up 47 percent (range: 34 per cent-58 per cent), 25 per cent (range: 17
per cent-34 per cent) and 11 per cent (range: 6 per cent-17
per cent) of the leakage mass, respectively.

implementing the eight interventions would likely take theworld off the path towards near-zero leakage. The next two
years will be pivotal for breaking the trend and implementing
a first horizon of change that will allow key milestones to be
met by 2025, including stopping the production of avoidable
plastic, incentivizing consumers around reuse, improving
labelling, and testing innovations such as new delivery
models. This work will lay the groundwork for the second
and third horizons of change to take place by 2025 and2030, and enable the implementation of further systemic
solutions required in 2030-2040.

9
Addressing plastic leakage into the ocean under the
System Change Scenario has many co-benefits forclimate, health, jobs, working conditions, and theenvironment, thus contributing to many of the United
Nations Sustainable Development Goals.
Our analysis suggests that addressing the ocean plastic
pollution crisis helps reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
relative to BAU. The integrated System Change Scenario
results in 25 per cent (±11 per cent) lower plastic-related GHG
emissions in 2040; however, it still represents an increasein emissions relative to today. As such, it will be vital to scale
up measures offering the greatest GHG savings and further
decarbonize energy sources. In the System Change Scenario,
peak virgin plastic is reached by 2027. In addition, net direct
employment in the value chain (including manufacturing,collection, recycling, and new delivery models) increasesby 6 per cent (±1 per cent) relative to BAU by 2040. That’s
equivalent to 700,000 jobs (range: 541,000-795,000),
redistributed among sectors and geographies, with almost allof the job growth occurring in middle-/low-income countries.
The System Change Scenario also represents a positive social
vision for the global community of 11 million waste pickers,
who in 2016 were responsible for 60 per cent (range 56 per
cent-65 per cent) of global plastic recycling. To date, theircontribution to preventing ocean plastic pollution has largelygone unrecognized and typically underpaid. An increasein plastic material value through design for recycling cancontribute to social justice by increasing the retained value
for waste pickers and improving working conditions. Healthhazards are also significantly reduced under this scenario,
including the reduction relative to BAU of 109 million metrictons per year (range: 108-111 million metric tons per year)of open burning of plastic waste—a process that releases
airborne particulates, carcinogens, and other toxins.

10
The time is now: If we want to significantly reduce
plastic leakage, we have the solutions at our fingertips.
An implementation delay of five years would result in an
additional ~80 million metric tons of plastic going into theocean by 2040.
All elements of the System Change Scenario exist today or
are under development and near adoption. A system-wide
implementation delay of five years would result in ~80 million
metric tons more plastic stock in the ocean by 2040. That isequivalent to approximately half of today’s stock. Delays in
12

BREAKING THE PLASTIC WAVE

Achieving the outcomes modelled under the System
Change Scenario would require substantial changes inthe business models of firms producing and using plastics
and their substitutes; overhauls to the recycling and waste
disposal industries; transformation of the criteria used byinvestors; and modification of consumer behaviour.
Although these changes are feasible, they are unlikely tomaterialize unless governments create significant incentives
for more sustainable business models and remove the costadvantage that virgin plastic feedstock has over recycledmaterials. Policies that create a clear and stable set of
incentives and targets will make the conditions required
under the System Change Scenario possible.
Industry, at the same time, should stop placing avoidable,
single-use, and hard-to-recycle plastic on the market, invest
in material and business model innovations, and join withgovernments to help finance waste collection and sorting.
To achieve an approximately 80 per cent (82 ±13 per cent)reduction in annual plastics leakage into the ocean by 2040,
public-private collaborations will be required to set higher
standards on materials, formats, reuse, and recyclability.
Fortunately, there are promising existing efforts to build on.
The Ellen MacArthur Foundation’s New Plastics Economy
initiative, for example, has already united more than 400
organizations behind a vision for a circular economy
under a global commitment for plastic that is a good firststep towards pursuing the systemic changes identified
in this report. There are also early discussions regarding
strengthening an international agreement to prevent plastic
pollution that may help provide the global policy framework
for united government action.

Conclusion
Taken together, our findings on plastic pollution
substantiate catastrophic outlooks for the ocean if we
continue on the current trajectory. They also highlightthe economic exposure to the plastic industry in theabsence of resolute action. Yet our report gives us somecause for optimism: It shows that an approximately 80
per cent (82 ±13 per cent) reduction in projected plastic
leakage is possible—without compromising social or
economic benefits. Achieving the potential of such a
rapid and holistic pathway towards the goal of near-zeroocean plastic leakage is within reach, but it will require
enhanced ambitions.

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‘Breaking the
Plastic Wave’in numbers

Scale of the problem

FAST FACTS

11 million 29 million
metric tons

metric tonsof plastic leaked into
the ocean in 2016of plastic leakage into
the ocean in 2040

By 2040:

plastic
generation

The System Change Scenario reduces
80% of plastic pollution by 2040

plastic
leakage
into theocean

1through the immediate implementationof eight complementary systeminterventions across theplastics value chain
REDUCEWASTE
EXPORTS

US$10

2x 3x 4x

financial risk tounder BAU inplastic
stockin theocean

REDUCE
growth in plastic
consumption to avoid
nearly one-third of projected
plastic waste generation
by 2040

8

into countries withlow collection andhigh leakage rates
by 90% by 2040

DISPOSEsecurely the
23% of plastic
that still cannot
be economicallyrecycled

REDUCEMARITIME
SOURCES7
6of ocean plastic pollution
such as from fishingand shipping

Integrated systemchange achieves social,environmental, andeconomic benefits
14

BREAKING THE PLASTIC WAVE

DEVELO
PLASTICCONVER

potentially tocapacity of u
metric tons p

80%

US$70B

reduction in plastic
leakage into the ocean
by 2040 relative to BAU

saving for governments
over 20 years relative to BAU

40%

7%

500,000

11%of today’s global plastic
waste ends up in theenvironment

reduction of leakage if all
current government and industry
commitments were implemented by 2040

people need to be connected
every day until 2040 to closethe collection gapof leakage ismicroplastic in 2016

21%

19%

80%

of plastics are economicallyrecyclable (but only 15% areactually recycled) in 2016

share of carbon budget usedby plastic industry by 2040
under BAU to stay under 1.5°C

share of leakage fromflexible and multilayer
plastics in 201600B 45%industry2040

of today's leakage isfrom rural areas,
where collection
economics don’t work

2

SUBSTITUTE
plastic with paperand compostable materials,
switching one-sixth ofprojected plastic waste
generation by 2040

3

Tyre dust

TextilesPersonal care products

Pellets

DESIGNproducts andpackaging for recycling to
expand the share of
economically recyclable
plastic from an estimated
22% today to 54% by 2040

REDUCEMICROPLASTICLEAKAGEby 1.8 million metric tons per year by2040 through the rollout ofknown solutions for four
microplastic sourcesOP
C-TO-PLASTIC
RSION

o a global
up to 13 million
per year*

DOUBLEMECHANICALRECYCLING

5capacity globally to
86 million metric tons
per year by 2040

4SCALE UPCOLLECTION
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

700,000

25%

55%

jobs created by 2040
relative to BAU

reduction in annual
GHG emissions by 2040
relative to BAU

reduction in virginplastic demand by
2040 relative to BAU

195

millionmetrictons

reduction in other environmental
leakage (land and atmosphere)

A Comprehensive Assessment of Pathways Towards Stopping Ocean Plastic Pollution

15

Introduction
Plastic, the ocean, andthe 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
until the 20th century that plastic production soared, goingfrom 2 million metric tons in 19502 to 348 million metrictons in 2017,3 becoming a global industry valued at US$522.6
billion.4 Plastic’s low cost, light weight, convenience,
durability, and ability to be produced in different colours andshapes for marketing have driven this proliferation. It is now
used across thousands of applications and many sectors,
ranging from packaging to automotive and construction. By
2040, production is expected to double yet again.5

What are the major challenges whenanalysing solutions to plastic pollution?
•

A fundamentally systemic problem requires asystemic answer.
Plastic pollution arises from structural flaws in an
essentially linear plastic system— namely, that 95 percent of the aggregate value of plastic packaging is lostto the economy after a single use cycle and that many
plastic products are placed in markets that lack thecapacity to collect and treat them economically afteruse.23 The low and potentially decreasing cost of virginplastic production relative to the cost of post-consumer
collection poses a fundamental economic challenge
to managing the material at end of life. Today, only
71 per cent of plastic produced is formally collected,
and less than 15 per cent is actually recycled. To makea real difference, solutions should take a systemic
approach and not only target the plastic leaking
into the ocean, but also the much larger quantity ofmunicipal solid waste (MSW) plastic produced every
year. Effective systemic solutions require collaboration
and accountability across the value chain (e.g.,
petrochemical producers, resin makers, converters,
brand owners, retailers, consumers and waste
management); across borders (to set global standards
for materials, trade, and reporting); between the public
and private sectors (to reduce investment risk anddevelop infrastructure); and among the value chains ofdifferent material types, to ensure a holistic approach toresource efficiency and environmental sustainability.

•

Formal collection is underfunded, and expanding
informal collection entails economic limitations andundesired social consequences.
Collection of waste is chronically underfunded and,despite often being the single highest item in thebudgets of municipalities,24 formal collection coverageremains patchy. A significant share of plastic waste
collection is carried out by the informal recycling sector,
involving exposure to undignified labour conditions andsignificant health risks.

•

Design and packaging choices do not account for
local infrastructure.
Many plastic products are designed for a global market,
with marketing and sales rather than end-of-lifesustainability as primary drivers of product design. There
are thousands of plastic applications, requiring different
solution sets, with little harmonization from region
to region over what is placed on the market, what is
considered recyclable, and what is actually collected
for recycling. Globalized supply chains of consumer
goods fail to account for the realities of the local waste
management infrastructure available to deal with them,which can vary greatly from one municipality to another.
Fast innovation cycles in product design outpace

As plastic production and use have surged, so too has plastic
pollution, and with it the amount of plastic in the ocean,6
which could already be as high as 150 million metric tons.7
From coral reefs8 to deep sea trenches9 and from remoteislands10 to the poles,11 plastic alters habitats, harms wildlife,and can damage ecosystem function and services.12 Morethan 800 species are already known to be affected by marine
plastic pollution, including all sea turtle species,13 more than
40 per cent of cetacean species, and 44 per cent of marine
bird species.14
Plastic has also been identified as having human healthimpacts throughout its life cycle, from the impacts of
raw material extraction and production on neighbouringcommunities15 to the chemicals in food packaging16 and thehealth impacts of mismanaged waste.17 Plastic waste can block
rivers and drainage systems, causing flooding and trapping
stagnant water that exacerbates the spread of diseases in
impacted communities,18 while open burning transfers thepollution burden to air and water, emitting toxic chemicals andgreenhouse gases (GHGs). In 2016, open burning of plastic
waste released an estimated 1 gigaton of equivalent carbon
dioxide (GtCO2e) of GHGs, a figure expected to grow to 2.1
GtCO2e under our Business-as-Usual Scenario.
Recent analyses based on beach clean-up data haveidentified the predominant items contributing tomacroplastic pollution, namely single-use plastic items.19
Single-use plastic is defined as products and packaging
made wholly or partly from plastic that is not conceived,
designed, or placed on the market to accomplish—within its
life span—multiple trips or rotations by being returned to a
producer for refill or reused for the same purpose for which
it was originally conceived.20 Abandoned, lost or discarded
fishing gear, often known as “ghost gear,” is also a significant
source and poses an elevated risk of entanglement for
many marine species.21 Microplastic sources are varied andinclude both primary microplastic sources, such as tyre dust,
plastic pellets, and microfibres from synthetic textiles, andsecondary microplastics derived from the fragmentation oflarger, macroplastic items already in the environment.22
Plastic pollution is not only an environmental tragedy, it isalso economically imprudent— because billions of dollars of
economic value are “thrown away” after a single, short use—
as well as a social offence due to the health risks it creates.

A Comprehensive Assessment of Pathways Towards Stopping Ocean Plastic Pollution

17

INTRODUCTION

slow innovation downstream (waste infrastructure),
exacerbating the problem further.
••

A lack of incentives discourages the adoption of new
solutions.
Today’s markets are structured around the pervasive useof plastic, particularly in packaging. Reducing single-use
plastics would require, in many cases, not just simple
material substitutes but entirely new business models,
providing an opportunity to providers of innovative
solutions but also posing a risk to existing companies.
There are currently few policy incentives to encourage
the adoption of alternative materials, delivery models, or
end-of-life technologies.

The debate is data-poor.
Consistent definitions and conventions for plastic waste
data and metrics are lacking, and there is insufficienttransparency regarding the plastic being placed on
the global market (type, chemical additives, etc.), tradeflows, waste production, consumption, and postuse patterns. In addition, there is a lack of field datameasuring plastic stocks and flows throughout the value
chain, and many parameters have high uncertainty.
The result is a very data-poor debate, often led byopinions and preconceptions instead of facts. But there
is sufficient data to better inform decision-makers andstakeholders about the outcomes of current policies
and proposed solutions: That is the goal of this report.

About this project: A global stochastic modelThis report presents a feasible and meaningful pathway
towards collectively solving the ocean plastic pollution
crisis. Prepared by The Pew Charitable Trusts and SYSTEMIQ,
with a panel of 17 global experts, the University of Oxford,
the University of Leeds, the Ellen MacArthur Foundation,
and Common Seas, the report introduces a new model
designed to quantify key plastic flows and stocks in the
global plastic system, estimate the quantity of ocean
plastic pollution expected under six scenarios between
2016 and 2040, and assess the economic, environmental,
and social impacts of the principal known solutions andtechnologies. We estimate the capital expenditure (capex),
operating expenditure (opex), direct employment, and GHG
emissions associated with each future scenario at a greater
granularity than previous studies. The analysis incorporates
all major land-based sources of ocean plastic pollution,
including both macroplastics (>5mm) and four sources of
microplastics (<5mm), and highlights the factors contributing
most strongly to plastic leakage to the ocean. Although our
focus is on ocean plastic pollution, this problem is clearly
connected to pollution of terrestrial environments, andmitigation strategies should seek to address both.
In undertaking this analysis, we aim to provide a newevidence base for decision-makers across government,
business, civil society, and academia as they navigate their
responses to this emerging global challenge, evaluate tradeoffs, and implement solutions. Our goal is that the direction
and conclusions of this analysis will inform the global
discussion and planning around this urgent challenge. We
found that through an ambitious, system-wide strategy, theinternational community can stem the growing sources ofplastic pollution and stop it from reaching the ocean.
This study provides one of the most comprehensive global
fact bases and analyses available to date to quantify and offer
solutions to the ocean plastic pollution crisis. Specifically,
this project is designed to address seven strategic questions
that have not previously been answered:•

Are we on track to solve the plastic pollution crisis?

•

How bad will it get for the economy, for theenvironment, and for communities?

18

BREAKING THE PLASTIC WAVE•Do we have the technology to solve the problem?

•

What is the way out?

•

What will it cost and who will bear the burden?

•

Is the solution attractive for citizens, for businesses,
for governments, and for ecosystems?

•

Where do we start?

“Breaking the Plastic Wave” builds on a global body of workby scientists, researchers, and institutions whose findings anddetermination have served to raise plastic pollution to theforefront of global debates, including the vision presented
by the Ellen MacArthur Foundation’s New Plastics Economy.
And yet our project is unique in the following ways:•

Quantitative analysis of solutions: There are existing
analyses of BAU projections of ocean plastic pollution,25
but we provide one of the first in-depth quantitative
analyses of the main available solutions and theeconomic, environmental, and social implicationsof each. Our study assesses both upstream anddownstream solutions in great depth.

•

Criteria-based comparison of solutions: We develop
clear criteria designed to enable the comparison of very
different solutions along environmental (pollution and
GHG), economic, performance (health and safety), andconsumer acceptance dimensions.

•

Scientific rigour and diverse input: This analysis was
conducted with scientific rigour, in conjunction with apanel of 17 experts representing diverse geographies
and the full value chain, and involving more than 100
additional experts. All assumptions and methodologies
have been extensively peer-reviewed and are available ina detailed technical appendix and a paper in the journal
Science, available at https://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.
aba9475.

•

First-of-its-kind system-wide perspective: Modellingprovides us with a method by which to project future
trajectories of ocean plastic pollution under different
scenarios. The system map at the heart of this work

INTRODUCTION(see Appendix B), and the stochastic model wedeveloped together with Oxford University, allowed
us to better understand complex system dynamics
and the relationships and synergies among different
interventions in the system.
•

Broad scope: The analysis covers all geographies,
the entire value chain, and includes all municipal solid
plastic waste and four key sources of microplastics: tyreabrasion, textile losses, personal care products, and pellet
losses. Maritime sources of leakage are also considered,albeit qualitatively given constraints on data availability.

•

Highly granular: The project is global in nature, but
our analysis also distinguishes among eight different
geographic archetypes to understand their vastlydifferent characteristics and identify the most relevant
solutions. The archetypes are divided into four groups
depending on country income, according to WorldBank definitions: high-income (HI) economies; upper
middle-income (UMI) economies; lower middle-income(LMI) economies; and low-income (LI) economies;
as well as according to United Nations urban-ruralclassifications. Because the problem of plastic pollution
cannot be solved using a one-size-fits-all approach, themodel differentiates among three plastic categories,
due to their differing economics, applications andrecyclability: rigid monomaterials (such as bottles, tubs,
pots and trays), flexible monomaterials (such as bags orfilms), and multilayer/multimaterials (which combine
different polymers and/or nonplastic materials, such as
beverage cartons, sachets and diapers).

In undertaking this project, we followed three guiding
principles:•••

Focus on prevention of leakage: Our work iscentred on preventing plastic from leaking into theocean rather than cleaning up what is there already,although we estimate the volume of beach cleanups for completeness and to understand their relative
importance. Although new techniques to remove plastic
waste from waterways are positive developments,
strategies that rely predominantly on post-leakagecollection will not bring about the systemic change
needed. We focus on treating the problem at the source.
Balance environmental, economic, and social
outcomes: To understand the potential for unintended
consequences, we model GHG emissions, costs,
and jobs to quantify and balance key environmental,
economic, and social outcomes of the interventions.
Future analyses should build on this to also incorporate
other outcomes, such as land use requirements, wateruse, chemical pollution, and human health to help
ensure systemic and sustainable change.
Incorporate equity in health and safety standards:
When modelling solutions or infrastructuredevelopment, we assume that the same high levelof environmental, safety, and health standards fortechnologies should apply globally, so we model costs
for infrastructure that meet strict environmental, safety,
and operational standards.

Taking a “wedges” approach
In undertaking this analysis, we aim to provide a newevidence base for decision-makers across government,
business, civil society, and academia as they navigate their
responses to this emerging global challenge, evaluate tradeoffs, and implement solutions. Our goal is that the direction
and conclusions of this analysis will inform the global
discussion and planning around this urgent challenge. We
found that through an ambitious, system-wide strategy, theinternational community can stem the growing sources ofplastic pollution and stop it from reaching the ocean.

Box 1: Where can managed plastic
waste end up? The four “wedges”:
REDUCE
Reduction of plastic production and consumption
without substituting to other short-lived materials.
Sub-wedges include eliminating plastic (e.g., productredesigns, reduced overpackaging, and plastic bans),
consumer reuse models (i.e., switching from singleuse plastics to reusable items), and new productdelivery models (e.g., refill services, shifting products toservices, e-commerce, and dispensers).

SUBSTITUTE
Substitution with alternative materials that meetfunctional requirements for specific applications
but are more easily recyclable or compostable afteruse. Sub-wedges include paper, coated paper, andindustrially compostable or home-compostablematerials.

RECYCLE
Recycling of products or materials. Sub-wedges
include mechanical closed-loop recycling, mechanicalopen-loop recycling, and plastic-to-plastic chemical
conversion systems that produce new packaging,products, or feedstock.

DISPOSE
Controlled disposal of plastic waste in ways thatprevent leakage to the ocean. Sub-wedges include
sanitary landfills (but not dumpsites), incineration, andplastic-to-fuel technologies.
Any plastic waste that is not included in these four
wedges is considered mismanaged waste; thiscategory includes waste that is open burned, or either
dumped directly into or leaked to land or waterways.

A Comprehensive Assessment of Pathways Towards Stopping Ocean Plastic Pollution

19

INTRODUCTION

Scenarios modelledThis analysis defines eight system interventions andmodels the main economic, environmental, and social
implications of applying different combinations of thesechanges to the system, at different ambition levels, and indifferent geographic archetypes. Six possible scenarios fortackling ocean plastic pollution, each comprising a different
combination—or lack—of system interventions are analysedin this report:
1.

Business-as-Usual
Assumes no intervention is made in relation to current
plastic-related policy, economics, infrastructure, ormaterials, and that cultural norms and consumer
behaviours do not change.

2.

Current Commitments
Assumes all major commitments already made by the
public and private sectors between 2016 and 2019 are
implemented and enforced. These include existingbans/levies on specific plastic products, and recycling
and recyclability targets.

3.

Collect and Dispose
Assumes ambitious global expansion of collection services
and increases in the global capacity of engineered andmanaged landfills and incineration facilities.

4.

Recycling
Assumes ambitious expansion and investment intocollection, sorting, mechanical recycling, and plastic-toplastic chemical conversion infrastructure.

5.

Reduce and Substitute
Assumes dramatic reduction of plastic use throughelimination, ambitious introduction of reuse and newdelivery models, and ambitious introduction andinvestment in plastic substitutes. This intervention would
require strong policy interventions to ban specific singleuse plastics and incentivize design for reuse and reduce.

6.

System Change Scenario
Assumes that all eight system interventions are applied
concurrently and ambitiously for both macroplastics andmicroplastics. This scenario benefits from the synergies
among upstream and downstream interventions, as it is
the only one that includes both.

The specific macroplastic system interventions modelledin each scenario are shown in Figure 2. In addition, we
have modelled microplastic interventions for the integrated
System Change Scenario. Maritime sources of waste havebeen analysed qualitatively only.
Integral to our approach is that the interventions areconstructed to deliver the same utility to consumers, inwhich utility refers to the total satisfaction received fromconsuming a good or service. Plastic utility is defined as theservices (including protection, food preservation, etc.) thatare provided by plastic under a Business-as-Usual Scenario.
In alternative scenarios, the goods and services provided deliver
the same utility to consumers in other ways with less plastic.

Figure 2: System interventions
modelled under each scenario
for latest titles & captions see report indesign doc
Figure 2: System interventions modelled under each scenario

ReduceSubstituteRecycleDisposeBaseline
scenarios
Business-asUsual (BAU)

Downstream
scenarios
Current
CommitmentsCollect &DisposeRecycling

Upstream
scenarioIntergrated
scenario

Reduce &Substitute

SystemChangeSystem 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
commitment level

20

BREAKING THE PLASTIC WAVE

Maximum
foreseeable level

INTRODUCTION

Project scope
Our analysis quantifies leakage rates and solutions formunicipal solid waste plastic. This includes plastic packaging
and single-use products, diapers and sanitary waste, cigarettebutts, durable consumer products, household products,
and business-to-business packaging (see Figure 3). Excluded
from the project scope are medical waste; hazardous waste;electronics; textiles; furnishings; agricultural waste; andtransportation, construction, and other industrial waste asthese do not typically enter municipal solid waste. We alsomodelled four sources of microplastics (tyre abrasion, textile

losses, pellet losses, and personal care products). Other
sources of microplastics, for example, artificial turf, paint,
microplastics generated by abrasion in food packaging,26 andmicroplastic ingredients in other products such as fertilisers,
were excluded due to limited data availability. Of the 335 million
metric tons of plastic produced globally in 2016,27 215 million
metric tons was within the scope of our analysis, covering thevast majority of land-based sources of plastic leakage to theocean. Maritime sources of leakage were also considered,albeit qualitatively given constraints on data availability.

Figure 3: Project scope

Rigid monomaterial

The project scope covers 64 per cent of plastic production, which
represents the vast majority of plastic pollution to ecosystems

Flexible monomaterial
Multimaterial/multilayer
Out of scope

Pots, tubs, and trays

3%
Food service
disposables

Plastic bottles

6%
Building and construction

15%
Other rigid packaging

6%

Films

3%
B2B packaging

6%

14%

Carrier bags

Machinery 1% 5%

B2B films

Sachets and multilayer flexibles

5%

12%

Out of scope

Project macroplastic scope

Share of global plastic production:
36 per cent (120 million metric tons)

Share of global plastic production: 64 per cent (215 million metric tons)

Laminated paper
and aluminium <1%

Transportation

2%
Diapers and Householdhygiene 1% goods 1%

19%

Textiles2%

Householdgoods

Estimated leakage in 2016: 11 million metric tons

Leakage: Precise numbers unknown but estimated to bea 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
At the heart of our analysis is a conceptual model thathighlights the main flows and stocks of the global plastic
system for both macroplastics (Figure B.1) and microplastics(Figure B.2, Figure B.3, Figure B.4, Figure B.5). We collected
data to set parameters for the size of each box and arrowin the system map for each geographic archetype, foreach plastic category, and for each of the six scenarios.
Where data were unavailable, expert opinion was collected;

where expert opinion was unavailable, assumptions weretransparently made—the rationale for which is outlined in thetechnical appendix.
To quantify the system map, we designed a stochastic stockand flow model of coupled ordinary differential equations.
We used municipal solid waste data from the World Bank
“What a Waste v2.0” data set to estimate the total land-based
macroplastic input into the system with the potential to enter
the ocean as plastic pollution. We projected the growth in

A Comprehensive Assessment of Pathways Towards Stopping Ocean Plastic Pollution

21

INTRODUCTION

demand for plastic as a function of population size coupledwith per capita municipal solid waste generation derived
from country-level municipal solid waste generation data.
To set parameters for the potential scaling of the different
interventions, we estimated maximum foreseeable growthand implementation rates based on historical trends.
Economic costs calculated include operating and capital
expenditures (opex and capex) where relevant, but do notinclude taxes, subsidies, or externalities; all government
and private sector costs cited as outputs of scenarios arereported in 2016 US$.
Due to the differences in data availability, quality, anduncertainty of the data used in the analyses (e.g., plastic
flows across the system map, among geographic
archetypes, and plastic categories), we developed a data
pedigree scoring framework to standardize uncertainty
across all input variables. For each input variable, all data
sources were scored across four attributes: sample size,
uncertainty, accuracy and reliability, and date of publication(see the technical appendix). This uncertainty is propagatedthrough to the model outputs using a Monte Carlosimulation. The Monte Carlo simulation allows us to estimate
the variability in scenario outcomes, given the significant
uncertainty associated with many flows in the system maps
and the coupled nature of flow magnitudes. Using thisapproach, we ran 300 simulations of each scenario, for eacharchetype, over the years 2016-2040. In each simulation,
input values throughout the model were sampled at random
from a range of uncertainty defined by the data pedigree
framework. This stochastic approach to estimating stocks
and flows in the global plastic system produces a different
model result for each model run, which collectively forms
the range of potential outcomes for a given scenario.
By comparing the range of outcomes among scenarios,robust trends emerge across scenarios, allowing us to draw
conclusions about effective strategies and interventions for
reducing ocean plastic pollution. Because there is no data
set that is sufficiently detailed for validating the model, we
conducted sensitivity analyses to assess the influence of
key variables and assumptions on the results, as well as to
identify the key drivers in the system. The analytical engine
for the model is constructed in Matlab and the code can be
run using freely available software. The Matlab source code
and all data gathered for this project are publicly available.
This project is less about providing one definitive answer
than about a decision support tool for facilitating the debate
on appropriate and effective strategies.
Taken together, our model and findings can help decisionmakers understand some of the economic, environmental,
and social implications of settling for BAU, and some ofthe potential benefits and risks of key system intervention
strategies to reduce ocean plastic pollution. Moreover, ourmodel would allow stakeholders to evaluate these trends,
and benefits and risks, with their own data for their own
situation.

Model limitations
The quantity and global distribution of plastic pollution
depend on a complex set of human actions and systemcomponents that are constantly in flux and unlikely to be
22

BREAKING THE PLASTIC WAVE

measured—let alone modelled—with a high level of certainty.
Accordingly, we designed a series of scenarios to better
understand the extent to which near-term decisions affectfuture plastic pollution and the conditions likely to minimize
this pollution. The analyses we present in this report allow
for the evaluation of major differences in the global plastic
system through the assessment of alternative futures.
Although modelled scenarios were designed by an expert
panel representing all relevant disciplines, and we used
the best available information to inform mass flows andcosts, the model does not capture all the components andcomplexity of the global plastic system. Because gaps exist
in data on the generation, collection, recycling, disposal, andleakage of plastic waste, the model is unable to accurately
measure all feedbacks in the system. Model design andconstruction required expert judgment to fill data gaps andestimate current and potential rates of change for the systemcomponents, which were then used to generate scenarios.
As a result, the analyses include inherent assumptions andare unable to determine system sensitivities to important
external drivers, such as the price of oil. In addition, a
global model has, by definition, limited granularity, and ourconclusions need to be applied carefully to local contexts.
Despite these limitations, the model results are informative
as long as they are appropriately contextualized. Outputs
from the Monte Carlo modelling approach should be treatedas a range of potential values that could be observed, andindividual numerical results should be treated as approximate
and part of a range of possible outcomes. Despite somewide ranges, comparisons among scenarios can be robust,
particularly when the rank-order of scenario results is
consistent across Monte Carlo simulations. This means that,rather than providing specific directions for government andindustry decision-makers to pursue at individual locations,
outputs should be viewed as a system-level assessmentof potential futures based on a broad suite of actions andstakeholder priorities. By conducting a sensitivity analysis
to key assumptions, we found that the high-level findings
outlined in the report’s executive summary are robust. For
example, it is evident that the plastic pollution crisis canonly be solved with significant reduction and substitutionof plastic in the system. Similarly, the economic limitationsof recycling described in the report hold true even whendifferent assumptions are made for some data inputs.

Uncertainty
All stochastic modelling results presented in the Executive
Summary include 95 per cent confidence intervals. In therest of the report, results are presented without confidence
intervals. For the details on uncertainty calculations, pleasesee section 5 in the technical appendix.
Additional information is available upon request.
The complete codebase, all input files, and raw outputs
for model runs are available at https://dx.doi.org/10.5281/
zenodo.3929470.

INTRODUCTION

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

A Comprehensive Assessment of Pathways Towards Stopping Ocean Plastic Pollution

23

CHAPTER 1: AN UNTENABLE TRAJECTORY

An Untenable
Trajectory
The imperative to address theocean pollution plastic crisis

Plastic waste in Pattaya, Thailand
Leonid Danilov/Pexels

24

BREAKING THE PLASTIC WAVE

THE IMPERATIVE TO ADDRESS THE OCEAN POLLUTION PLASTIC CRISISThe 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 burningof 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 anddisposal in 2040 would account for 19 per cent of the total emissions budget allowable if we are tolimit 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
FigureFateof all plastic
underBusiness-as-Usual
Figurelicense
1: Fate1:toof
all plastic
wastewaste
underBusiness-as-Usual
operate,among
multipleotherrisks.30
Mismanaged
will
grow
from
91
milliontons
inindesign
2016
to
239
milliontons
2040
Mismanaged
plasticplastic
wastewaste
will growfrom91
milliontons
inindesign2016
to 239million
tons
by by
2040
for
latesttitlesseereportdoc
for latest titles see reportdoc

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

54

55

54

80

Incineration
Incineration

2

Plastic to fuel (P2F)
Plastic to fuel (P2F)
Terrestrial leakage
Terrestrial leakage

80

Total managed:
Total managed:
129 million

129 million
metric tons
metric(59tons
per cent)(59 per cent)Total mismanaged:
Total mismanaged:
91 million

metric tons
91 million(41tons
per cent)
metric(41 per cent)

220

220

2

31

77

31

Recycled
Recycled
content
content
Landfill
Landfill

77

28
31
49
11
2016

1

31

1

133

Open burningOpen burning

133

49
29

11
2016

191 million
191
millionmetrictons
metrictons(44 percent)(44 per cent)Total mismanaged:
Total
mismanaged:
239
million69

69
28

Total managed:
Total managed:

29 2040239
millionmetrictons
metrictons(56 percent)(56 per cent)

Ocean leakage

Ocean leakage

2040
A Comprehensive Assessment of Pathways Towards Stopping Ocean Plastic Pollution

25

CHAPTER 1: AN UNTENABLE TRAJECTORY

More mismanaged plastic means more
ocean plastic•

Our model shows that the global mass of mismanaged plastic
under BAU could grow from 91 million metric tons in 2016 to
239 million metric tons in 2040; plastic leakage to the ocean
could therefore grow from 11 million metric tons in 2016 to 29
million metric tons in 2040, as shown in Figure 4. As a result,an estimated 1.7 trillion-6.6 trillion (1012) pieces of macroplastic
waste and 3 million trillion (3x1018) pieces of microplastic
waste could be entering the ocean annually by 2040.
Total plastic waste generation could increase by a factor of
2 by 2040; with waste infrastructure not being able to keep
up with this exponential growth, plastic leakage to the ocean
will, without massive intervention, nearly triple. Under such a
scenario, the cumulative stock of plastic in the ocean is likely
to grow by a factor of more than 4 by 2040 (see Figure 5).

What is leaking into the ocean and where isit coming from?
Figure 6 provides a detailed overview of the sources ofplastic leakage into the ocean in 2016, based on our analysis,
showing that:•

Rural areas contribute 4.7 million metric tons (43 percent) of total annual plastic leakage to the ocean.

•

Flexible monomaterials (such as films, wraps, and bags)
make up 5 million metric tons (46 per cent) of leakage,and multilayer/multimaterial plastics (such as sachets,
diapers, and beverage cartons) make up 2.8 million
metric tons (26 per cent).

•

Microplastics contribute 1.3 million metric tons (11 percent) of total leakage.

Upper middle-income (UMI) and lower middle-income(LMI) countries collectively contribute 9.5 million metrictons (88 per cent) of total leakage.

Our analysis modelled the four main routes throughwhich land-based macroplastic waste enters the ocean,
as presented in Figure 7: 1) uncollected waste directly
dumped into water; 2) uncollected waste dumped on landthat makes its way to water; 3) collected waste depositedin dumpsites that moves via land and air into water and;4) collected waste dumped directly into the water bycollection trucks. Based on our analysis, 61 per cent of total
macroplastic leakage originates from uncollected waste,
and this share could grow to 70 per cent by 2040 in the
BAU Scenario as collection services fail to keep pace withmacroplastic waste generation.

The perfect storm behind Business-asUsual plastic leakage
Owing to four compounding trends—rapid population
growth, rising per capita plastic use, shifts to low-value/hardto-recycle materials, and disproportionate growth in markets
with low collection—plastic flows to the ocean are expected
to nearly triple by 2040.

Trend 1: A growing global population
The world’s population is expected to grow by 23 per cent,from 7.5 billion in 2016 to 9.2 billion in 2040.32 An estimated84 per cent of the global population lives in middle-/
low-income countries, where most countries don’t havesufficiently high levels of waste collection.

2: Business-as-Usual projections for critical plastic indicators
latesttitlesin projections
designext 20 years,
waste
generation
willdoc
double,plastic
leakageto theFigure plastic
5: Business-as-Usualfor criticalplastic
indicators
20
Thetriple,
next 20
years
will seeplastic
generation
double,to the ocean nearly triple,
will
moreplastic
than leakage
quadruple
will nearlyandplastic
stock
inwastethe oceanand plastic stock in the ocean more than quadruple31

420

~2x

29

~3x

646

~4x

215
11
150

2016

2040

Macroplastic waste generation,
million metric tons per year
26

BREAKING THE PLASTIC WAVE

2016

2040

Plastic leakage into ocean,million metric tons per year

2016

2040

Plastic stock in the ocean,million metric tons

THE IMPERATIVE TO ADDRESS THE OCEAN POLLUTION PLASTIC CRISIS

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

Share ofplastic
productionthat leaks

Million metric tons per year of waste

Million metric tons per year of waste

6.3

(57%)
0.3

4.7

2.3

(43%)
0.4
2.2

3.1
1.9

5.0

Lower-middle income countries(46%)

Upper-middle income countries

0.4

High-income countries

2.2

2.8

(26%)
0.2

1.9

(18%)
0.2
0.9

Low-income countries

1.2
2.4
1.3

0.8

1.3

(11%)
0.0
0.3
0.5

0.5

0.2

0.1

0.1

0.1

0.4

Urban

Rural

Rigid
monomaterials

Flexiblemonomaterials

Multilayermaterial

Microplastics

4%

8%

2%

7%

6%

N/A

Trend 2: Rising per capita plastic consumption
Our analysis suggests that average global per capita plastic
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
development in LI, LMI and UMI archetypes, where today’s
per capita consumption is much lower than the highincome (HI) average of 76 kg per year. It is also caused, atleast in part, by the continued rise in the production andsupply of cheap virgin plastic and the transition over the past
generation to businesses using large amounts of single-use
plastic in place of reusable alternatives or other materials orbusiness models.
Taking trends 1 and 2 together, plastic waste generation
nearly doubles over the next two decades, with the highest
rates of growth occurring in LI, UMI and LMI archetypes at
260 per cent, 133 per cent and 127 per cent, respectively.

Trend 3: Shift to low-value, hard-to-recycle plastics
Rising waste generation could be exacerbated by an
anticipated “race to the bottom,” with a shift towards lowcost/low-value, hard-to-recycle plastic materials. Because
low-value materials have significantly lower collection rates,
this would likely increase ocean plastic pollution.

Trend 4: Disproportionate growth in markets withlow collection
Our analysis indicates that the share of plastic waste
generated in middle-/low-income countries is expected
to grow from 58 per cent in 2016 to 71 per cent in 2040.
This is because these countries will experience the greatest
compounding effects from the first two trends. By 2040,

under BAU, we estimate that the mass of uncollected
macroplastic waste could triple, from 47 million metric tons
per year in 2016 to 143 million metric tons per year.

Microplastics
Another set of trends will contribute to greater levelsof microplastic pollution in the ocean. Four sources of
microplastic leakage are included in this analysis: tyre abrasion
from vehicle driving, plastic microfibres from synthetic textiles,
personal care products containing microplastic ingredients,
and pellet losses from plastic production and conversion
facilities. Leakage from these sources is less well understoodthan macroplastic, but it is expected to increase by between
1.3 and 2.5 times by 2040 under BAU, driven by population
growth, more vehicles per capita, increased consumption
and production of plastic-based textiles, growing usage of
personal care products containing microplastic ingredients,
and rising plastic pellet production.
Our study quantifies primary microplastic leakage, i.e.,
waste that enters the environment as microplastic particles.
However, the breakdown of macroplastic already in theenvironment into microplastic and nanoplastic particles isalso an important risk to address, as it is expected to increasesignificantly as the stock of ocean plastic pollution grows..33

The multiple risks and costs of inaction
Environmental risks
Adding 450 million metric tons of plastic stock in theocean would likely have severe impacts on biodiversity
and ecosystem services. More than 800 species are
already known to be affected by marine plastic pollution,

A Comprehensive Assessment of Pathways Towards Stopping Ocean Plastic Pollution

27

CHAPTER 1: AN UNTENABLE TRAJECTORY

7: Macroplastic
leakagethegloballyocean
globally
bydocleakageroute, 2016
Figure Figure
7: Macroplastic
leakage
into
the
ocean
byindesign
leakageroute, 2016
for latest
titles&into
captions
see report

In 2016, uncollected waste contributed 61 per cent of total leakage, while the remaining 39 per centwas waste that was mismanaged after collection

9.8
1.2

61%

Million metric tons of plastic waste

Uncollected
2.6

39%

4.0

Post-collection
mismanaged
2.0

Terrestrial leakage
to ocean

Direct discard
to water(uncollected)

Direct discard
to water (postcollection)

Leakage fromdumpsites

Total leakage(macroplastic
only)This graphic reflects our estimate of how much macroplastic enters the ocean through different routes (and excludes microplastics). These numbers have highuncertainty and are highly sensitive to model inputs.

including all sea turtle species,34 more than 40 per cent ofcetacean species and 44 per cent of marine bird species.35
Through ingestion or entanglement, macroplastics cancause mortality,36 injury, and sublethal impacts such as
malnutrition.37 These impacts would be expected to occur
at a greater frequency, affecting more individual animals
and a greater number of species, as levels of plastic in theocean rise. The uptake and trophic transfer of microplastics
has also been observed in aquatic food webs, and laboratory
studies have demonstrated dose-dependent impacts on
growth, health, fecundity, survival, and feeding in a range of
invertebrate and fish species.38 Potential impacts on ocean
carbon sequestration have also been postulated.39 Although
we still lack methods for measuring the harm caused by
microplastics and nanoplastics in the natural environment, if
microplastic emissions to the environment remain the sameor increase, risk assessments indicate that the ecologicalimpacts may be widespread within a century.40
Disturbances to the aquatic food web from plastic pollution
can also negatively impact the scientific and cultural valueof marine ecosystems and may degrade the function andproductivity of marine environments.41 Other studies showthat invasive species and diseases are being transported onplastic debris to new locations where they can cause harm
to local populations.42
New research suggests that the impacts from ocean plastic
meet two of the three essential conditions for compounds
to be considered a threat under the planetary boundary
framework for chemical pollution. The framework defines
boundaries for some manmade disturbances, set at levels
28

BREAKING THE PLASTIC WAVE

to avoid thresholds or shifts in the Earth’s functioning thatwould create increasing risks for the public. One review
found that plastic pollution in the ocean is irreversible andglobally pervasive, but that there is inconclusive evidence todetermine whether it has disrupted Earth-system processesor regulating capacities.43 Filling these knowledge gaps
could allow a better understanding of the tipping points andenvironmental thresholds for plastic pollution.
Following the BAU trajectory would also further jeopardize
our ability to mitigate climate change due to rising GHG
emissions arising from increased plastic production. The
goals of the Paris Agreement would be difficult to achieve,with life-cycle plastic-related emissions doubling from 1.0
GtCO2e in 2016 to 2.1 GtCO2e by 2040, accounting for 19
per cent (compared with 3 per cent today) of the total annual
emissions budget allowable if we are to limit global heating
to 1.5oC.44

Business risks
There are direct, physical risks from marine plastic pollution
to businesses that rely on a clean ocean. This pollution is
responsible for significant business costs to fisheries, tourism
and infrastructure operators, among others, estimated at
US$13 billion per year.45 Risks include physical damage
to ships and fishing assets, reduced fish catches from or
declining fish stocks, and reduced demand and higher
operating (i.e., clean-up) costs in the tourism industry. In
addition, there are indirect risks to businesses stemmingfrom the response to plastic pollution from regulators,
investors, consumers, employees, and the general public.

THE IMPERATIVE TO ADDRESS THE OCEAN POLLUTION PLASTIC CRISISIn the event of a public backlash, businesses could facesignificant supply chain disruptions, reduced demand forplastic-intensive products, and reputational risk from brandassociation with plastic pollution.46
Our analysis suggests that the global cost of all MSW plastic
waste collection and management in 2040 will be US$100
billion under BAU, out of which governments will fund
US$60 billion, as shown in Figure 8. The remaining “fundinggap” of US$40 billion presents a risk to the plastic industry
in case it is required by government policy to fund that gap.
Moreover, the industry also risks being required to pay for
the US$60 billion funded by governments, through extended
producer responsibility or other schemes. Together, this risk
accounts for 25 per cent of the US$400 billion of the plastic
industry’s turnover.47

Socioeconomic risks
The use of virgin plastics is not as cheap as the market
suggests. In fact, the current methods of (mis)handling end oflife for these products have large costs that are not reflected
in markets. Socioeconomic impacts include loss of land value
due to proximity to plastic pollution and reduced quality oflife for coastal communities. One estimate suggests a loss of
US$1.5 trillion per year from the ocean due to the reduction
in seafood, genetic resources, oxygen, clean water, culturalvalue, and the reduced ability to regulate climate.48 Anotherstudy models the social and environmental impacts of marine
plastic even higher, at US$2.2 trillion per year.49 Althoughthese specific estimates are contested, the socioeconomic
risks of a polluted ocean are clearly significant.

organic compounds (VOCs, e.g., benzene, styrene andpropylene) and persistent bio-accumulative and toxic
pollutants (PBTs, e.g., lead, mercury and some polyaromatichydrocarbons [PAHs]).50 Long-term exposure in humanpopulations is believed to increase the risk of cancer andreproductive health complications.51 Plastic products
themselves could also pose health risks due to the presenceof PBTs and endocrine disrupting chemicals.52, 53
Mismanaged plastic waste can undermine the psychologicalbenefits from coastal environments; it can block rivers anddrainage systems, causing flooding and trapping stagnant
water that exacerbates the spread of diseases in impacted
communities.54 Some of the most harmful health risks result
from open burning, which based on our analysis is expected
to nearly triple under BAU, from 49 million metric tons
in 2016 to 133 million metric tons in 2040. In addition to
GHG emissions, open burning releases a host of pollutants
known to negatively affect human health.55 These pollutants
can increase the risk of heart disease, cancer, respiratory
infections and asthma, reproductive health complications,and damage to the central nervous system.56 The only real
remedy is to avoid open burning altogether. For more details
about the health implications of incinerating plastic waste,
see Box 14.

Microplastic leakage from land-based sources, which is
expected to increase by 2.4 times under BAU for the four
sources modelled, also has potential health impacts. Studies
have identified microplastics in foodstuffs, including inshellfish, in bottled water, and in the tissues of terrestrial andmarine invertebrates, fish and humans.57 However, this is arelatively new area of research, and microplastic exposurelevels 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 associatedwater, which calls for further assessment of the potential
Figure8: Industry
anannual $100
billion(USD)
with virginplastic production
are oftenfaces
caused byvolatile
impacts
on humanhealth.58financial risk if it is required

for latest titles & captions see report indesign doc
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

$60B

Risk if governments
pass full cost of plastic
waste management
to industry throughextended producer
responsibility$40B
2040 global costof full plastic waste
management

2040 BAU
government
spending on plastic
waste management

Risk if industry is
asked to cover for
funding gap only

Funding
gap

A Comprehensive Assessment of Pathways Towards Stopping Ocean Plastic Pollution

29

CHAPTER 1: AN UNTENABLE TRAJECTORY

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 theocean in 2040 would likely be only 7 per cent lower than under BAU. In the meantime, hundreds ofbillions 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
many governments and businesses to make commitments.
These range from banning certain plastics and setting more
ambitious recycling targets to introducing product standards
and schemes, investing in recycling infrastructure, andimposing trade restrictions on plastic waste. The estimatedimpact of this Current Commitments Scenario adds up to 19
million metric tons per year reduction in plastic production
and consumption due to policy regulations by 2040 and 5.4
million metric tons per year increase in recycled content by
2025 due to commitments expressed by more than 400
companies (see the technical appendix).

Good intentions
Although these current commitments represent very
welcome and vital first steps, and the potential beginning of
mutually reinforcing trends, our model indicates that even
if all major existing industry pledges and government plans,
targets and commitments—including the 2019 European

Union single-use plastics directive (which bans certain plastic
products and introduces consumption reduction measuresand collection targets for others),59 multiple national plastic
bag and straw bans—are implemented and enforced, leakage
to the ocean for the plastic categories modelled is still
expected to reach 27 million metric tons per year by 2040,
7 per cent less than the BAU projection for 2040, as shownin Figure 9.
Government aspirations are broad and, if fully implemented,
can have impact. However, most new regulations focus on
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.
This limited impact is further illustrated by the fact that, evenif legislation akin to the European Union single-use plastics
directive, one of the most ambitious regulatory initiatives
to date, was emulated by all countries and implemented
globally, it would still reduce plastic leakage to the ocean
by only 15 per cent compared with BAU by 2040. The

gure 3: Land-based plastic leakage under BAU and Current Commitment sce

rrent commitments from industry and government policies achieve only a 7 per ce
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 inplastic leaking into the ocean relative to Business-as-Usual

Plastic leakage into the ocean
Million metric tons per year of plastic waste

30

-7%

25

BAU

20

+147%

Current Commitments
15

10

5

0
2016

30

2020

BREAKING THE PLASTIC WAVE

2025

2030

2035

2040

THE IMPERATIVE TO ADDRESS THE OCEAN POLLUTION PLASTIC CRISIS

collective impact of all current national and municipal
legislation regarding items such as straws, bags, stirrers,
cups, cotton swabs, and bottles simply does not add up to asignificant reduction in the overall quantity of plastic waste
generated and leaked globally. To compound this shortfall,
there has been insufficient growth in waste collection
infrastructure over the past two decades relative to plastic
waste generation, which we estimate has been growing at a4-7 per cent compound annual growth rate. Governments
need to act now to curb the growth in plastic production;
set system-wide standards, targets, and incentives to drive
upstream reduction, reuse, appropriate substitution anddesign for recycling; and invest in downstream collection
and recycling infrastructure.
Industry has made commitments through the New Plastics
Economy Global Commitment, the Alliance to End Plastic
Waste, and other vehicles. It is focusing most visibly on
recyclability, recycling targets, and other downstream
solutions, but significant efforts are also needed on upstream
solutions. Business signatories to the Global Commitment
have pledged to adopt 100 per cent reusable, recyclable,or compostable packaging by 2025 and to take action toeliminate problematic or unnecessary plastic packaging andmove from single-use towards reuse models, but have notyet committed to specific targets on elimination or reuse.
Although these initiatives can have an impact, they also
do not add up to a significant reduction in the quantity ofplastic waste generated and leaked globally. To achieve ameaningful reduction in ocean plastic pollution, companies
that have not made any commitments (the vast majority),should do so and ensure their implementation. Industry willneed to fundamentally redesign business models, products,
and materials at scale, and in ways that explicitly decouple
economic growth from plastic growth, significantly scaling
up its efforts on reduction, refill, and new delivery models.
In the meantime, the status quo is being reinforced every
day, with global plastic production expected to increase by
40 per cent over the next decade.60 Capacity growth is being
driven by major petrochemical companies worldwide, whichhave announced large-scale investments in new refineries,
steam crackers and production plants. The United Stateschemical industry alone is forecast to spend more than
US$164 billion on 264 new plastic factories by 2023, with anadditional US$140 billion being spent on 15 large projects in
China, and more than US$100 billion earmarked for projects
in Saudi Arabia.61 Globally, the ethylene market—one of themain building blocks for plastic—is expected to grow at acompound annual rate of 8.7 per cent between 2019 and2026.62 In effect, plastic production is becoming the newengine of growth for a petrochemical industry potentiallyfacing declining demand for oil in transportation and energy,
raising concerns about the creation of a “plastic bubble”
whereby new investments risk becoming stranded assets.
Our analysis shows that even if all current commitments
are implemented, virgin plastic will likely continue to be acheap commodity, plastic production will remain high andgrowing, and our dependence on the highest leakage plastic
applications will persist. Avoiding the creation of a “plastic
bubble” requires redesigning the system—instead of tinkering
at the edges—and shifting ambitiously to circular solutions.

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
plastic pollution focuses on either upstream or downstream
solutions. Our analysis shows that this is a false dichotomy.
Upstream solutions that aim to reduce or substituteplastic use are critical but need to be scaled carefully tolimit unintended social or environmental consequences.
Downstream solutions are also essential but are restrictedby the limits of economic viability, their negative impacts onhuman health and the environment, and the realistic speed ofinfrastructure development—especially in the face of growing
plastic waste production in middle-/low-income countries—

and must be coupled with upstream efforts on reduction andreuse to maximize the efficient use of resources.
We modelled three single-solution scenarios that focused on
ambitious implementation of either upstream or downstream
measures—the Collect and Dispose Scenario, the Recycling
Scenario and the Reduce and Substitute Scenario. Each ofthese scenarios was modelled using two approaches. In thefirst approach, we defined economic, environmental andsocial “red lines” for each scenario that are reflected in theirmaximum foreseeable growth and implementation limits.

A Comprehensive Assessment of Pathways Towards Stopping Ocean Plastic Pollution

31

CHAPTER 1: AN UNTENABLE TRAJECTORY

To compare among solutions with very different environmental(pollution and GHG), economic, performance (health, safety,
product protection), and consumer acceptance dimensions,each potential solution was evaluated against four criteria,
and these informed the maximum foreseeable limitsmodelled for each potential solution:•

Technology Readiness Level: Is a solution available
today?

•

Performance: Does the intervention satisfy performanceand health requirements?

•

Convenience: Is the intervention acceptable for lifestyleand convenience?

•

Affordability: Are the cost implications of the alternative
acceptable?

In the second approach, we set the scenarios to achievea level of plastic leakage to the ocean similar to the
System Change Scenario, but without setting technical,
environmental or social limits. The difference between these
two approaches is described in Table 1.

Table 1: Description of the two scenario approaches
Approach 1:
Scenarios constrained by limiting factors

Approach 2:
Unconstrained scenarios, set to achieve System
Change Scenario leakage levels

Collect & Dispose Scenario constrained by maximum
foreseeable:

For each of the scenarios, we set the model to achieve similarleakage levels as the System Change Scenario by not constraining
collection and landfill levels to maximum foreseeable political,
economical, environmental, or social realities.

• Collection rates by archetype, split by urban and rural regions(Affordability & Performance limit)• Scaling up of controlled waste management (Affordability limit)
Recycling Scenario constrained by maximum foreseeable:• Collection rates by archetype, split by urban and rural regions(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)

Instead, we modelled that collection and landfill are scaled to theextent necessary to bridge the gap between the remaining leakage
in each scenario under Approach 1 and that of the System Change
Scenario.

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 withtechnical, social, and environmental limits
Although all three scenarios represent a significant reductionof plastic leakage to the ocean by 2040 relative to the BAU
or Current Commitments scenarios, as Figure 10 shows,none of them offers a credible pathway to a near-zeroleakage future by 2040. For full assumptions and results by
scenario, see the technical appendix.
It is important to acknowledge that attempting to solve
the ocean plastic challenge through waste management
alone would require closing a huge collection gap. Today,
2 billion people globally do not have waste collection
services.63 By 2040, the global population is expected to
grow by 1.7 billion (out of which 95 per cent are in middle-/
low-income countries), making the total number of people
who require being connected to collection services
approximately 4 billion by 2040. Closing this collection
32

BREAKING THE PLASTIC WAVE

gap would require connecting about 500,000 people tocollection services per day, every day, until 2040. Most
people without waste collection live in middle-/low-income
countries, where funding is less available, and/or in rural
areas, where collection is more logistically challenging andexpensive. Considering the growth of plastic production andconsumption projected under BAU, collecting all plastic,
including in all rural locations, would come at the very
high cost of US$510 billion from 2021 to 2040. To makematters more difficult, collection is a “bundled system”—inother words, plastics cannot be collected in isolation; otherwaste streams also need to be collected. As a result, theactual government cost for waste management amounts to
US$3.1 trillion in present value for all municipal solid waste
to be collected in this period (see Box 7). Any solution based
only on waste management is therefore highly unlikely to
succeed in curbing plastic pollution unless accompanied bya meaningful reduction of waste in the system.

THE IMPERATIVE TO ADDRESS THE OCEAN POLLUTION PLASTIC CRISIS

Figure 10: Land-based plastic leakage under different scenarios
Figure4: Land-based
plastic
leakageunder
different
scenarios
The
SystemChange Scenario
wouldachieveabout
an 80 percent reduction in annual plastic
The System
Scenario
wouldtitles
achieveabout
an
80 allpercent
reductionin annual plastic
for
see report
indesign
docmodelledleakageto theChange
ocean relative
to latest
Business-as-Usual,exceedingotherscenariosleakage to the ocean relative to Business-as-Usual, exceeding all other modelled scenarios

30

Business-as-UsualMillion metric tons of plastic leakage
into the ocean per year

Current Commitments
25

20

Recycling
15

Reduce and SubstituteCollect and Dispose

10

System Change

5

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 reduceleakageshowslevels.
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 reduceleakage below 2016 levels. Only the integrated upstream-and-downstream scenario (System Change Scenario) cansignificantly reduceleakagelevels. & Dispose
Implicationsof theCollect
pathway
A strategy focused solely on collection and disposal would
likely still leave 13 million metric tons of plastic leakage tothe ocean per year by 2040, 18 per cent above 2016 levels,
and would cost governments US$130 billion more thanBAU in present value between 2021 and 2040.
One option, in theory, for dealing with all mismanaged
plastic waste is to scale up collection systems globallyand develop sanitary landfills and/or incinerators to
dispose of the waste. Landfills have been presented as apotential panacea for their (perceived) affordability, easeof implementation and generation of tax revenue throughlandfill fees. Incineration with energy recovery has been
proposed as a scalable solution because it does not requireredesigning products or sorting waste; it makes plastic
waste “disappear,” generating electricity in the process.
Some countries, including China, are scaling up incineration
rapidly to reduce the need for landfills. Our analysis reveals
insurmountable limitations to this approach.
Economic implications: Attempting to address plastic
pollution through this scenario would cost governments
US$800 billion in present value between 2021 and 2040
for waste management (i.e., collection, sorting, and safe
disposal), relative to US$670 billion under BAU. The vast

majority of these costs would fall on middle-/low-income
countries. This pathway is very uneconomical (and very
unlikely) because landfilling is a net-cost solution thatgenerates no revenue (except for tipping fees, which are atax, not a revenue driven by economic value creation) and istherefore not scalable through market forces. Like landfills,
incineration with energy recovery is also a net-cost solution
once collection costs are factored in, although—based on
local market prices for electricity—it is more economical
than landfilling. Investing in incinerators would also lockus even further into carbon-intensive energy generation,
relying on a long-term, stable flow of plastic feedstock torecuperate the hundreds of millions of dollars in capital costs
required to build each plant. Moreover, the value of heat orenergy recovery is persistently below collection costs. If weaccounted for the cost of carbon, even at low carbon prices(e.g., US$50 per ton of CO2e), incinerators would no longer
have a business case.
Health and environmental implications: This scenario
would result in annual GHG emissions of 1.8 GtCO2e by
2040, making up 17 per cent of the total allowable annual
carbon budget if we are to limit global heating to 1.5oC.
Incineration emits 5.4 tons of carbon dioxide equivalent(tCO2e) per metric ton of plastic, making it the solution withthe highest level of GHG emissions among all solutions
analysed (see Figure 12), as well as generating significant
health risks, as outlined in Box 14.

A Comprehensive Assessment of Pathways Towards Stopping Ocean Plastic Pollution

33

CHAPTER 1: AN UNTENABLE TRAJECTORY

Implications of the Recycling pathway
A strategy focused solely on recycling—including
ambitious design for recycling coupled with an ambitious
scale-up of collection, sorting, mechanical recycling andplastic-to-plastic chemical conversion infrastructure—would still result in 18 million metric tons of plastic flowing
into the ocean each year by 2040, 65 per cent above 2016
levels, and would cost governments US$140 billion morethan BAU in present value between 2021 and 2040.

recycling loops before quality deteriorates. Although this is
not a technological limiting factor in chemical conversion,
an emerging recycling technology that returns plastics totheir more basic molecular building blocks, we estimatethat 20 per cent of plastic could be eligible for chemical
conversion, as shown in Figure 11, because of contamination
or limited feedstock due to collection limitations.

Many envision a system with a high-quality, economically
viable mechanical recycling component (powered by the
improved design of materials, products, and recycling
technologies; high demand for recycled content; and new
automated waste sorting and separation technologies)
coupled with emerging chemical conversion technologies
that convert low-value plastic waste into chemical
feedstocks for petrochemical products.

Even though this scenario includes ambitious design forrecycling and investment in infrastructure, unless recycling
economics can pay for collection, it will recycle plastic
that would have been collected anyway. In other words,
recycling feedstock would be made up of landfill-boundplastic, not ocean-bound plastic. Although diverting more
plastic from landfill to recycling is beneficial in terms ofresource efficiency, GHG emissions, and health implications,significant plastic pollution will still flow to the ocean under
the Recycling Scenario because not enough is done to
reduce the amount of unmanaged plastic waste.

Although scaling up recycling is critically needed, our study
finds that stopping plastic pollution by capturing all plastic
materials in the recycling process is neither technically nor
financially feasible. The utility of mechanically recycledplastic is limited by the quality requirements of food-grade
plastic and the fact that most plastic is limited to two or three

Economic implications: The total present value of the2021-2040 costs amount to US$810 billion for governments
globally (21 per cent above the US$670 billion under BAU).
As the left side of Figure 11 shows, we estimate that evenin HI countries, about half (54 per cent) of plastic could be
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 economicallywhile plastic-to-plastic
conversion
couldrecycling
deal
with
20
perdoccent
Figurechemical
11: Limitationsof mechanicalandindesign
chemicalconversion
for latest
titles & captions
see report
Financial feasibility of mechanical recycling,high-income (HI) countries only, 2040

Rigids (clear)

Net profit (US$/metric ton)

+500

0

0% 10%

20%

2.

Rigids(colour)
Flexibles(clear)30%

40%

50% 60% 70% 80%
Rigids and flex
(contamination)

90% 100%-500-1,000

Plastic waste feasible for plastic-to-plastic chemical
conversion, 2040

54%
Multi

Percentage of plastic waste

1.

42%

18%

20%

20%

-1,500
Economically viable

Not economical

Total
plastic

MechanicallyrecyledRuralineligibility

Contamination,
low feedstock
availability

Plasticto-plastic
chemicalconversion
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 ofuncontaminated 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 scalerequirements 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.

34

BREAKING THE PLASTIC WAVE

THE IMPERATIVE TO ADDRESS THE OCEAN POLLUTION PLASTIC CRISIS(compared with 21 per cent today). This assumes that therecycler does not cover the costs of collection and sorting,which in HI countries are often absorbed by governments
or can be paid by industry through extended producer
responsibility schemes.
Health and environmental implications: This scenario
would result in GHG emissions of 1.8 GtCO2e per year by
2040, making up 17 per cent of the total allowable annual
carbon budget if we are to limit global heating to 1.5oC,
largely driven by the fact that chemical conversion uses
high levels of energy, as described in Figure 20. Chemical
conversion with pyrolysis also releases several harmful
pollutants that increase risks for cancer, respiratory
infections, kidney damage and neurotoxicity.64 Moreinformation can be found in Box 11.

Although scaling up recycling is criticallyimportant, stopping plastic pollution
by capturing all plastic materials in therecycling process is neither technicallynor financially feasible.
Implications of the Reduce & Substitutepathway
A strategy focused solely on reduction and substitution
would result in 14 million metric tons of plastic leaking
into the ocean per year by 2040, 28 per cent higher than
2016 levels.
Some organizations, government bodies and citizens haveproposed a dramatic reduction of plastic use through bans,reuse and refill models, coupled with substitution of plastics
for other materials. Yet, while reduction and substitutionof plastic is critically needed, if carried out in isolation,these strategies are unlikely to succeed in eliminating
plastic leakage by 2040 because there are many plastic
applications that are difficult to reduce or substitute withinsocial, political, environmental, and economic limitations
and within this time scale. Considering these limitations (seeSystem Intervention 1 and technical appendix for the scoring
framework used to determine limiting factors), our analysis
estimates that 47 per cent of BAU plastic utility demand canbe met by plastic reduction and substitution measures by
2040. This is equivalent to capping global plastic production
and consumption at 2017 levels, while continuing to provide
the projected total utility demands and lifestyle expectationsof a growing population through new delivery models and/or alternative materials.
Reuse models can certainly reduce costs, and some reuse
solutions have already reached scale, such as soft drinks
and milk distributed in reused plastic or glass bottles, andreusable crates and pallets used in business-to-businesspackaging. However, expanding reuse to 100 per cent ofplastic may face significant barriers to consumer adoption incertain applications, and many refill projects are small scale
and too new to have proved their long-term viability.65

Substitute materials also have their own environmental
impacts—on land and water use, GHG emissions, pollution,
etc.—and require investment in end-of-life collection andprocessing infrastructure. Their use should therefore always
be considered with a holistic set of environmental indicatorsin mind. Our scenario includes substituting nonrecyclable
plastics with recyclable paper and coated paper, or withcertified compostable materials in situations where suitablehome- or industrial-scale composting infrastructure is rolled
out. Our global analysis does not include substituting to singleuse glass, metal or drinks cartons due to our assessment ofsocial, economic, and environmental trade-offs, although inspecific cases and geographies, these may be suitable (seesection on System Intervention 2 for further details).
Given existing market conditions and available solutions, it istherefore not likely to be feasible to reduce or substitute 100
per cent of plastic in use by 2040. A Reduce and Substitute
Scenario in isolation would reduce ocean leakage by 58
per cent compared with BAU in 2040. However, without acomprehensive set of downstream solutions being rolled out
at the same time, significant ocean leakage will still occur
because much of the plastic produced will fail to be collected
and managed, particularly in middle-/low-income countries.
Economic implications: The total present value of the2021-2040 costs amount to US$540 billion for governments
globally (20 per cent less than the US$670 billion under
BAU), driven by 90 million metric tons less waste needingcollection and processing. However, the cost to businesses
and consumers increases significantly, driven by the higher
production cost of paper and compostable packaging
compared with plastic. These extra costs of substitutematerials are to a large extent offset by the savings createdby reducing unnecessary plastics and moving towards reuseand new delivery models. It is possible to increase the extent
of substitution further than in this scenario by using othersubstitutes, such as glass or metal, but this could have further
negative impacts on product prices due to higher production,
recycling and/or shipping costs. Aluminium cans and glass
bottles are 33 per cent and 167 per cent more expensive thanPET (polyethylene terephthalate) bottles, respectively.66
Health and environmental implications: This scenario
would result in GHG emissions of 1.7 GtCO2e per year by
2040, making up 16 per cent of the total allowable annual
carbon budget if we are to limit global heating to 1.5oC.
Caution is required in sustainably sourcing the paper andcompostable materials, and ensuring that they are recycled
or composted at end of life. If levels of substitution weresignificantly higher than those modelled here, it would likely
exceed the availability of materials that could be sourced
and processed sustainably. The environmental footprint ofalternative materials depends on several factors, including
the length of supply chains, the rate of reuse and recycling,
and the availability of recycled content. For example, glass
has very high reuse rates in Latin America, and a lower GHG
footprint as a result,67 but it has a higher GHG footprintin single-use applications in regions where there is a low
glass recycling rate. If supply chains could be shortened,materials reused, or transport decarbonized, a variety of
substitute materials may perform well, but all options should

A Comprehensive Assessment of Pathways Towards Stopping Ocean Plastic Pollution

35

CHAPTER 1: AN UNTENABLE TRAJECTORY

be assessed on multiple criteria, including the likelihood ofleaking into the environment, water and land use, pollution,and health risks from the use of unregulated chemicals or
recycled content. For detailed GHG emissions of specificmaterial alternatives, refer to Figure 20.

Results of Approach 2: Releasing feasibility constraints
The scenarios modelled above are all limited by technical,
economic, environmental, and political constraints to what
is feasible. We also modelled the implications of overriding
these constraints to quantify what the cost of the Collectand Dispose and the Recycling scenarios would be if we“forced” them to achieve similar levels of plastic leakage tothe ocean by 2040 as under the System Change Scenario(5 million metric tons per year). The present value cost to
governments of forcing the Collect and Dispose Scenario
and the Recycling Scenario is estimated at US$820 billion
and US$850 billion, respectively, compared with a costof 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.

In either approach—with or without enforcing technicallimits—the System Change Scenario produces superior
results across economic, environmental, and social
dimensions. The conclusion of this analysis is that a systemwide problem demands system-wide change. Any of thesingle-solution strategy approaches hit technical, economic,
environmental, and/or social limits. To solve the open plastic
pollution problem, we need a portfolio of both upstream anddownstream solutions—or system interventions. The next
chapter describes what such an integrated pathway could
look like—one that matches available solutions to different
plastic categories and different geographies, and estimates
the relative share of the ocean plastic problem that eachsolution contributes towards reducing when they work insynergy. These estimates aim to provide an indication of therelative effort, investment and policy support to be allocatedto each system intervention to achieve the overall result of
the System Change Scenario.

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& captions
see report indesign doc
The System Change Scenario isfor
thelatest
mosttitles
affordable
for governments
Cost to governments, in US$ billions, 2021-2040 (net present value)

$820B

$850B

$670B
$600B

Businessas-Usual Scenario

Collect and Dispose
Scenario set to
System Change
Scenario levels ofleakage

Recycling Scenario
set to System
Change Scenario
levels of leakage

SystemChangeScenario

2040 plastic leakage,
million metric tons

29

5

5

5

2040 GHG, GtCO2e

2.1

1.8

1.7

1.6

36

BREAKING THE PLASTIC WAVE

Changing
the System
A strategy to reduce ocean
plastic pollution rates by
80 per centWaves 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 theocean 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

2.1

COST TO BUSINESS

$10.0
$670
GOVERNMENT COST

TRILLIONBILLIONBILLION

11

GHG EMISSIONS(tCO2e)VIRGIN
PLASTIC PRODUCTION400MILLION JOBSMILLION METRIC TONSPLASTIC LEAKAGE

29

MILLION METRIC TONS

3 MILLION METRIC TONS MICROPLASTIC 26 MILLION METRIC TONS MACROPLASTICSYSTEM CHANGE 2040

1.6

COST TO BUSINESS

$8.7
$600
12
GOVERNMENT COST

TRILLIONBILLION
GHG EMISSIONS(tCO2e)VIRGIN
PLASTIC PRODUCTION

181

BILLIONMILLION JOBSMILLION METRIC TONSPLASTIC LEAKAGE

5MILLION 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 forclimate, health, jobs, and the environment. To realize this transformation, the scenario applies eightsystem interventions concurrently, ambitiously, and starting immediately.
Some interventions rely on others to be effective; for
Figure 14 summarizes the upstream and downstream system
example, collection precedes recycling, landfilling andinterventions that define the System Change Scenario,
incineration; and design for recycling helps improveaccording to the plastic categories and geographies forthe economic viability and scalability of mechanicalwhich they are most relevant. To be successful, theserecycling. The synergistic impact of scaling all interventions
system interventions must be applied together and to bothconcurrently
macroplastics and microplastics where
possible.
for latest
titles see report indesign
docis shown in Figure 15.

Figure 15: System intervention relevance by geographic archetype andplastic 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 relevantHighly applicable

Most relevant
income groups

System intervention

Somewhat applicableNot applicable

Urban/
rural

Most relevant plastic categories

Main responsible
stakeholder

1

Reduce growth in plastic
consumption

HI

UMI

LMI

LI

U

R

Rigid

Flex

Multi

Microplastics

Consumer goods
brands; retailers

2

Substitute plastics withsuitable alternative
materials

HI

UMI

LMI

LI

U

R

Rigid

Flex

Multi

Microplastics

Consumer goods
brands; retailers

3

Design products andpackaging for recycling

HI

UMI

LMI

LI

U

R

Rigid

Flex

Multi

Microplastics

Consumer goods
brands4

Expand waste collection
rates in the Global South

HI

UMI

LMI

LI

U

R

Rigid

Flex

Multi

Microplastics

Local governments

5

Increase mechanicalrecycling capacity
globally

HI

UMI

LMI

LI

U

R

Rigid

Flex

Multi

Microplastics

Waste managementcompanies

6

Scale up global capacityof chemical conversion

HI

UMI

LMI

LI

U

R

Rigid

Flex

Multi

Microplastics

Waste managementcompanies;
petrochemical industry

7

Build safe waste disposal
facilities

HI

UMI

LMI

LI

U

R

Rigid

Flex

Multi

Microplastics

National governments

8

Reduce plastic waste
exports

HI

UMI

LMI

LI

U

R

Rigid

Flex

Multi

Microplastics

National governments

HI: High-income

LMI: Lower middle-income

UMI: Upper middle-income

LI: Low-income

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 andsubstitute 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.

A Comprehensive Assessment of Pathways Towards Stopping Ocean Plastic Pollution

39

CHAPTER 2: CHANGING THE SYSTEM

Figure 15: Plastic fate in Business-as-Usual versus System Change Scenario: a “wedges”
analysis
Figure 15: Where plasticwasteends up incould
BAU vs System
Change Scenario:
a “wedges”
Mismanaged
be reducedfrom
56 analysis
per cent under Business-as-Usual to 10 per centunder 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

Recycle400

400Managed:191 (44%)350

Dispose300

Reduce350
300
RECYCLE

250

250

200

200

150

150

Mismanaged 239 (56%)

100
50Reduced or
substituted:
201 (47%)

SubstituteRecycleManaged:185 (43%)100

Dispose

50

0
2016

2020

2030

2040

Total: 43002016

Mismanaged
2020

2030

44 (10%)Total: 430

2040

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, overtime. 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 samelevel 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
Latesttitle and reducenotes onplastic
reportleakage to the ocean but only if all
There
is a16:
credibletosignificantly
FigurePlasticpath
fate inthe
System Change
Scenario:a “wedges” analysis
solutionsareimplemented
concurrently,
ambitiously,
andimmediately
There is a credible path to significantly reduce plastic leakagestartingto the ocean,and it requires all
solutions to be implemented concurrently, ambitiously, and starting immediately
Million metric tons per year
450

ual
-Us
-as
s
s
ine
Bus

400

Reduce:130 (30%)

Eliminate
Reuse (consumer)

Reuse (new delivery models)

350

RECYCLE

Paper

300

Substitute:71 (17%)

Coated paper
Compostables

250

Mechanical recycling–closed loop (CL)
Mechanical recycling–open loop (OL)
Chemical recycling–plastic to plastic (P2P)

200
150

Chemical conversion–plastic to fuel (P2F)

100

Incineration

Recycle:84 (20%)

Dispose:101 (23%)

Landfill

Open burning

50

0
2016

Mismanaged:
44 (10%)Terrestrial pollution
Ocean pollution

2020

2030

2040

This
“wedges” figure
figure showsthetheshareof treatment
options
for the plastic
thatentersthat
the system
under
the time
SystemChangeplastic Scenario.
that entersThis“wedges”
shows
share
of treatment
options
for theplastic
entersoverthe time
systemover
under
theScenario.
SystemAny
ChangeLatest title
and notes onutility
reportthe system has a single fate, or a single “wedge.” The Reducethat has been fulfilled without using physical plastic. The SubstituteAnyplastic that enters the system has a single fate, or awedge
singlerepresents“wedge.”plastic
The numbers
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 thatis recycled in the system, either mechanically or chemically. The Dispose wedge includes plastic that cannot be reduced, substituted, or recycled but is managed ina way that ensures that it does not leak into the environment. All other plastic is considered Mismanaged. The numbers include macroplastic and microplastic.

40

BREAKING THE PLASTIC WAVE

A STRATEGY TO REDUCE OCEAN PLASTIC POLLUTION RATES BY 80 PER CENT

Chemical conversion is estimated to offer a savings only in
LMI countries due to the relatively lower cost of collection.
Dispose options (landfill and incineration) cost between
US$92 and US$259 per metric ton (including collection),
depending on the technology and geographic archetype, andalways incur net costs to the system. Finally, substitution is themost expensive option, not least because more than a metricton of paper is required to substitute a metric ton of plastic.
However, relative to the cost of the products themselves,
substitutes may be affordable for certain products and incertain geographies, and, within GHG emission budgets, they
have a role to play in addressing the global plastic pollution
challenge. Mismanaged plastic has not been costed, but wehave assumed it to be the least desirable outcome.

Figure 16 shows that there is a credible and appealing
pathway to deal with ocean plastic pollution. This strategy
involves scaling up Reduce levers to 130 million metric tons
(30 per cent of Business-as-Usual plastic waste) to replace
avoidable plastic, growing Substitute levers to 71 million
metric tons (17 per cent), expanding Recycle levers to 84
million metric tons (20 per cent) and Disposing 101 million
metric tons (23 per cent) of the remaining plastic waste incontrolled facilities.
As Figure 17 shows, Reduce levers are the most attractivefrom an economic perspective, often representing a netsaving solution. Plastic elimination, such as through bans andproduct redesign, is assumed to have zero cost; therefore,
each metric ton of eliminated plastic would save the fullcost of 1 metric ton of plastic in the Business-as-Usual (BAU)
plastics value chain, i.e., US$2,241. Mechanical recycling
offers a saving in low-income (LI), lower middle-income(LMI) and upper middle-income (UMI) archetypes, but acost in high-income (HI) countries due to higher labourcosts. Although recycling solutions represent a net cost
today, they could become much more economical in the
future with scale, technological improvements, and policy
support, and could even represent a net-saving solution forcertain plastic categories in certain geographies (especially
if oil prices do not fall, driving down the value of recyclates).

The systemic shifts in the global plastics value chain brought
about by the System Change Scenario interventions
would make a major contribution to the 2030 Agenda
for Sustainable Development adopted by United Nations
Member States in 2015.68 Reducing plastic production andcontrolling unmanaged waste streams will help towards
achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), with
the impact felt well beyond the specific target to preventand significantly reduce marine pollution, to include SDGs
related to poverty, health, employment, innovation, climatechange, 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 typicallymore expensive
ReduceSubstituteRecycleDispose1,945

Mismanaged

Paper

Total system cost in US$/metric ton of plastic

442
-240

43 87

-116

174

232 243 247

ed
ag

an

ism

te

as
w

ew

(n
l
de

ry
ive

se

u
Re
)

er

um

s
on
(c

-2,241420 million
metric tons

M

e
us
Re

-1,289

r
pe

LM

-516

Pa

M
U

-331

-184 -124

Plastic
waste

Not costed

s
le
ab
st
po
om
C
n
tio
ra
ne
ci
In
I–
l
H
fil
nd
La
I–
M
g
l
U
fil ion
lin
t
c
nd
a
y
c
La iner
n re
I–
g
io l
H Inc
in
rs ca
ll
e
fi
cl
ni
I–
v
M
nd n ha sion ecyUrr
La co cI– al me ve
al
c
n
i
g
I/L ic pnoniclLM hem-loo al c cha
g
cy
e n
ic
C n
lin
re
m io
I– e
H Op hem op ers
al
yc
ic
v
I–
ec
-lo onH I–Cangl r ing
M
ed c
lin
ca cl
ch
s
U
e
al
ni y
yc
o
c
l
a
m
ec
r
h
C i
ec
I– m
lr
op
ec al
H he
lo
m ic
ca
C
np an
ni
I–
h
o
pe
ha
lo ec
LM
O
ec
nm
I–
m
pe p
M
U
O o
op
I– -lolo
I/L ed
ds
e
LM lo
os
l
C
C
)
I–
I–
el
I/L
od
m

-76 -14

259

e
at

in

im
El

HI: High-income

UMI: Upper middle-income

LMI: Lower middle-income

LI: Low-income

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, mechanicalrecycling 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.
A Comprehensive Assessment of Pathways Towards Stopping Ocean Plastic Pollution

41

CHAPTER 2: CHANGING THE SYSTEM

Figure16: United
NationsNations
Sustainable
Development
Goals impacts
to 2040
under
SystemChangeFigure18: United
Sustainable
Development
Goals
impacts
bythe
2040
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
700,000 net newjobs in middle-/
low-income
countries by 2040

Reduced exposure
to chemicals andtoxins from 82%
lower levels ofopen burn by 2040

Larger shareof collection
and recycling
served by theformal sector

Development
of better plastic
alternatives
and recycling
technology

Reduction of 11%
in government
spending on
waste between
2021 and 2040

Decouplingof economic
growth fromplastic growth

Reduced leakageof plastic into theocean by 80%
by 2040

Reduced leakageof plastic to landby more than
80% by 2040

Better for society

Better for the environment
Reduced GHG
emissions by
25% by 2040

Better for the economy
Savings for governments
The total global cost to governments of managing plastic
waste in this low-leakage system between 2021 and 2040 isestimated to be US$600 billion in present value, comparedwith the US$670 billion cost to manage a high-leakage
system under BAU. In other words, governments can save
US$70 billion globally, while also reducing plastic pollution(although the cost in middle-/low-income countries will be
US$36 billion higher under the System Change Scenario,
spread over 20 years). Costs are higher under the Collect andDispose and Recycling scenarios than under BAU, given thatthose scenarios do not include a reduction in plastic mass.

Overall system cost and social welfare
The total system cost (for both the public and private sectors)
is comparable under the System Change Scenario relative
to BAU, making the new system economically feasible andaffordable for society. These similar costs, for equal plastic
utility, suggest that overall social welfare is comparable
between the System Change Scenario and BAU. However,this assessment excludes externalities such as health, climate,
and the biodiversity impacts of plastics, which we have notquantified. These externalities would likely make the System
Change Scenario substantially more economically and
42

BREAKING THE PLASTIC WAVE

socially attractive to communities than BAU. The shift towards
reusable, sustainable products will also save consumers
money if reuse systems are well-designed and reach scale,and if brands pass these cost savings on. On the other
hand, as shown in Figure 17, substitutes are more expensive
currently than plastic and these costs could be passed on
to the consumers for certain products. However, similarly,
the costs of using plastic could increase, such as throughextended producer responsibility schemes.
Although the total system costs under the System Change
Scenario (which include opex and capex and account forannualized depreciation) are similar to BAU, the present
value of global investments in the plastic industry between
2021 and 2040 (which includes capex only and indicatesthe cash flow required to acquire or upgrade fixed assets
such as technology or buildings) can be reduced from
US$2.5 trillion to US$1.2 trillion under the System Change
Scenario, with a substantial shift of investment away fromthe production and conversion of virgin plastic to the
production of new delivery models, plastic substitutes,
recycling facilities, and collection infrastructure.

Benefits and opportunities for industry
Plastic pollution presents a unique risk for producers and usersof virgin plastics given ongoing regulatory changes and risingconsumer outrage. But it also presents a unique opening forA STRATEGY TO REDUCE OCEAN PLASTIC POLLUTION RATES BY 80 PER CENT

providers of new and existing circular business models andmaterials. Embarking on a trajectory to achieve about an 80 per
cent reduction in plastic pollution rates will create opportunities
for companies ahead of the curve: Consumer goods companies
and retailers can connect with their consumers in new ways,
and other suppliers in the value chain can provide alternative
materials, business models, technologies, and solutions to help
accelerate the change to a circular plastics economy. Systemchange will generate new business opportunities to unlock
value from a circular economy that derives revenue from thecirculation of materials rather than one based primarily on theextraction of fossil fuels; large new value pools can becreated around better design, better delivery models, improved
recycling technologies, higher recycling demand, and smart
collection systems. Our analysis shows that through the
integrated application of upstream and downstream
interventions, we could fulfil the growing global demand forplastic utility in 2040 with roughly the same amount of plastic
in the system as today, and 11 per cent lower levels of virginplastic production, essentially decoupling plastic growth from
economic growth.

Better for society
Under the System Change Scenario, 700,000 net newformal jobs will be created by 2040 in middle-/low-income
countries to fulfil demand for plastic services, including
new delivery models and the production of compostables.
Crucially, the System Change Scenario represents a positivesocial vision for the global community of 11 million waste
pickers who are currently responsible for 60 per cent of
global plastic recycling. To date, the huge contribution of theinformal sector towards preventing ocean plastic pollution
has gone largely unrecognized and is often underpaid. An
increase in the material value of plastic through design forrecycling, as well as the implementation of new technologies

and proactive efforts to improve working conditions andintegrate informal workers into waste management systems
in sensitive and mutually beneficial ways, can significantly
improve the lives of waste pickers.
Health hazards would also be significantly lessened under
the System Change Scenario. Among the key health benefits
would be a large reduction in the open burning of plastic
waste, which releases carcinogens and other toxins, from 133
million metric tons per year in 2040 under BAU to 23 million
metric tons per year.

Better for the environment
Plastic pollution
Under the System Change Scenario, about an 80 per centreduction in annual leakage rates can be achieved by 2040
relative to BAU. This reduction will significantly lessen theimpacts on ecosystems, habitats, and biodiversity. However,
5 million metric tons of plastic waste will still flow into theocean in 2040 and a cumulative 248 million metric tons ofplastic will have entered the ocean between 2016 and 2040.
It is important that stakeholders strive to accelerate upstream
innovation and go beyond the maximum foreseeable levels
modelled under the System Change Scenario.

Climate change
The eight integrated System Change Scenario interventions
result in 14 per cent lower cumulative plastic-related
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions relative to BAU over 20212040 (and 25 per cent lower annual emissions in 2040), driven
by a reduction in both the production and conversion of virginplastic (together, currently responsible for 80 per cent oflife-cycle plastic emissions) as well as from decreases in open
burning. Different solutions have very different GHG profiles

osts removed as per ho ting email 17.04.20 17:05

Figure for
19:latest
Totaltitles
government
by income& captions costsee 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
Lower middle-income countries
Upper middle-income countries

53

$600B

4

184

241

67

12

199

High-income countries

278

429
322

Business-as-Usual

System Change Scenario

A Comprehensive Assessment of Pathways Towards Stopping Ocean Plastic Pollution

43

Figure 10: Greenhouse gas emissions of 1 metric ton of plastic utility
CHAPTER
2: CHANGINGTHE SYSTEM
for latestoptions
titles & captions
see report
indesign
doc
Different treatment
have vastlydifferent
greenhouse
impacts

Figure 20: Greenhouse gas emissions of 1 metric ton of plastic utility
Different treatment options have vastly different greenhouse impacts
30

Material production

Use phase

Disposal

Collection and sorting

Recycling

Repolymerization

25

6.9

tCO₂e/t

20

15

3.5

10

1.6

5

4.0

4.4

4.4

4.5

5.2

5.4

Compostables8

Incineration9

2.5

2.1

0

0

Eliminate

ReuseMechanicalconsumer1 recycling(100%
recycled
content)2

Paper3Mechanicalrecycling(25%
recycled
content)4

Landfill

Plastic-to- Plastic-to- Reuse-new
deliveryplastic (P2P) fuel (P2F)
models7chemicalchemicalconversion5 conversion6

Open
burn

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.

Production
anddisposalemissionsbased onhowless waste
would
beentails
produced(65% less).
in thisproportion
lever includes
all toend-ofValid1.for bothclosed-loop
andopen-loop
recycling.were
This assumes
100
per muchcent recycledcontent,
which
the collection
and “Disposal”
sorting of a largerof wasteaccount for losses.

3.

lifelife-cycle
emissions,
includingcollection,sorting,and recycling.
The average
emissionsof paperor coatedpaper packaging
per metric ton, multiplied by an average material weight increase from plastic to paper of 1.5. Emissions differ
dependingon howpaper
is sourced.and
Disposingincludesall end-of-lifeemissions 100
includingrecycling,which
we don’twhich
distinguish
forthethis collection
lever.
2.
Validfor thebothclosed-loop
open-loop
recycling.
This assumes
per cent
recycled
content,
entails
and sorting of a4.

larger
proportion
waste torecycling.
account Thisfor losses.
Valid for bothclosed-loop
andof
open-loop
assumes 25% recycled content, which entails the collection and sorting of a larger proportion of waste to account for losses.
The3.
remainingis fulfilledby virgin
plastic production.
The 75%averagelife-cycle
emissionsof paper or coated paper packaging per metric ton, multiplied by an average material weight increase from plastic

5.

Emissions toincludeof naphtha
as well onas thepyrolysis
process
itself. It should
be noted
that data
for GHG emissions
for thistechnology
are limited.
papertheofrepolymerization
1.5. Emissions differ
dependinghowthe paper
is sourced.
Disposingincludesall end-of-lifeemissions
includingrecycling,which we6.

don’t distinguish
forfrom
this lever.
Does not include
the emissions
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 thistechnology
are limited.
4.
Validfor both closed-loop and open-loop recycling. This assumes 25% recycled content, which entails the collection and sorting of a larger

7.

NDM=New
delivery models.
Production
and disposal
emissionswere basedon howmuchbylessvirginwasteplastic
would production.
be produced (88% less). “Disposal” in this lever includes all end-of-life
proportionof wasteto accountfor losses.
The remaining75%
is fulfilled
emissions, including collection, sorting, and recycling; use-phase emissions were assumed to be the same as traditional plastics, although in practice they could be much lower once
5.
Emissions include the repolymerization of naphtha as well as the pyrolysis process itself. It should be noted that data for GHG emissions for thisNDMs reach scale.

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 emissions.

for latest titles & captions see report indesign doc

technology are limited.

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 notedthat data for GHG emissions for this technology 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 with each pathway are calculated from the point at which plastic waste is generated to the production of 1 metric ton of plastic
in this lever includes all end-of-life emissions, including collection, sorting, and recycling; use-phase emissions were assumed to be the same as
utility. One metricton of plastics,
plastic utility
is definedas thematerial/services
to provide
the equivalentvalue to consumers as 1 metric ton of plastic.
traditional
althoughin practice
they
could be muchrequired
lower once
NDMs reachscale.
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

important to look beyond the interventions modelled in the(see Figure 20).
Eliminating low-utility avoidable plastic throughemissions.
scenario and identify ways to scale reduction and reuse beyondbans and incentives is assumed to emit zero emissions; reuse
the levels modelled to reap the potential CO2 savings; advancecreates only 1.6 tons of CO2e per metric ton of plastic utility;
The GHG emissions
associatedeachpathway
the point at whichwaste is generated
to the production
and compostables,
incineration
andwithopen
burnemitarethecalculated fromtechnologies
thatplastic
decarbonize
the productionof plastics and1 metric ton
plastic
utility.
metrictonofper
plastic
utility issee
definedas theindesignmaterial/services
required to provide
themodel;equivalentforlatesttitlesreportdoc
highestofquantities
at of
5.2,
5.4 and
6.9Onetons
of CO
substitutes
beyondtheassumptions
inourlimit theemetric2
value toutility,
consumers
as 1 metricton of plastic.
expansion of carbon-intensive end-of-life technologies, suchton of plastic
respectively,
althoughemissions fromas incineration and chemical conversion; and focus on broader
compostables could decrease significantly over time with thesystemic change, including reduced consumption, sourcing
correct sourcing and composting infrastructure.
locally, and decarbonizing transport. Analysing these potential
Although the System Change Scenario represents a
GHG emissions reduction solutions are outside the scope ofsignificant 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. Thisconsider 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 resourcesin 2040 compared with today, and a reduction in the annual
Our analysis shows that, by 2040, it is possible to fulfil acarbon budget allowable by 2040 under the Paris Agreement.
doubling of demand for the services that plastic provides
These increases are projected despite our assumption thatwith 11 per cent less virgin plastic than in 2016, throughthe energy used throughout the plastic life cycle (notably, in
reduction, substitution and switching to recycled plastic.
mechanical recycling and chemical conversion) would be
The composition of feedstock under the System Change
provided by a rapidly decarbonizing energy sector. For thisScenario would be transformed from the 95 per cent virgin
calculation, we followed the International Energy Agency
plastic we have today to only 43 per cent of plastic utilityoprojections for a 2 C global heating scenario based on afulfilled by virgin plastic in 2040; with 44 per cent of plastic
69
radical transformation of the global energy sector.
utility replaced by reduction and substitution and 8 per centby recycled feedstock. Under the System Change Scenario,
Given that the GHG emissions in 2040 under the Systempeak virgin plastic production would be reached by 2027.
Change Scenario are higher relative to today, it will be critically
44

BREAKING THE PLASTIC WAVE

A STRATEGY TO REDUCE OCEAN PLASTIC POLLUTION RATES BY 80 PER CENT

Prioritizing solutions discussed in this report
Under the System Change Scenario, the overall reduction inplastic leakage into the ocean depends on the condition that all
system interventions are applied ambitiously and concurrently;
deviation from the levels set for any modelled intervention
could yield a different outcome. In practice, where government
funding and investment dollars are limited, guidance onprioritization can be helpful. How the different solutions andsystem interventions could be prioritized depends on thedesired outcome, such as cost reduction, plastic pollution
reduction, GHG emission reductions, implementation speed,
technology readiness or feasibility, and the acceptable tradeoffs. Although the plastic system is complex, our model design,
coupled with a criteria- and evidence-based approach,allowed us to evaluate which solution applies to different
materials and geographies. And, in turn, we were able toderive some general guidance on prioritization:•

A reduction in plastic production—through elimination,
the expansion of consumer reuse options or new
delivery models—is the most attractive solution froman environmental, economic, and social perspective.
It offers the biggest reduction in plastic pollution, often
represents a net savings, and provides the highest
mitigation opportunity in GHG emissions.

•

Mechanical recycling is more attractive than chemical
conversion or substitute materials from an economic,
climate, technology readiness and regulatory point ofview. To be viable, plastic should and can be designed
for recycling and, importantly, be mechanicallyrecycled wherever that is possible (see details in System
Interventions 3 and 5). Each metric ton of mechanicallyrecycled feedstock offsets 48 per cent in GHG

emissions relative to virgin plastic production, reduces
the need for the extraction of virgin materials, and helps
achieve a circular economy.
•

Substitution of plastic with alternative materials shouldbe evaluated on a case-by-case basis depending on
the desired application and geography. Substitutes are
typically more expensive than plastics and their carbon
impact could be better or worse depending on thespecific material/geography in question. Designing
products for reuse is preferable to simple substitution
with another single-use material. Yet, where this is notpossible, certain materials may be very effective forcertain applications (see details in System Intervention 2).

•

Plastic-to-plastic chemical conversion allows feedstock
to be reintroduced into the petrochemical process
to produce virgin-like plastic, reducing the need forextraction of virgin materials, which helps achievea circular economy. Furthermore, it could create
an economic sink for low-value plastic where othersolutions do not work. However, for the time being,chemical conversion has not been proved at scale.
Compared with mechanical recycling, it has higher costs,
energy requirements and GHG emissions. Although its
viability at scale should be developed and evaluated, its
expansion should be contingent on the decarbonizationof energy sources, and natural lead times and limitationsof emerging technologies must be recognized.

•

Controlled disposal (e.g., landfill, incineration andplastic-to-fuel) should be a last resort given that it is nota circular solution and hence has a high resource andlong-term environmental footprint. Its economic costs
are also high if full system costs, e.g., collection, andexternalities, e.g., land-use change and emissions, areproperly accounted for.

Figure21: Feedstock
sources
fortitles
plastic
utility overtimeindesign
inand
the the
SystemChangeScenario
Figure 21:
Virginplastic demand
underBusiness
asreport
Usual
ChangeScenariofor latest& captions
see
docSystem

By 2040, virgin plastic demand could fall by 11 per cent relative to 2016 under the System Change Scenario
400

Million metric tons of virgin plastic

350
300
250

-11%

400

200
150
100

205

181

50
0
Virginplastic
demand,2016

Businessas-Usual
growthin virgin
plastic
demandVirginplastic
demand,2040 BAU

ReduceSubstitute

Increasedrecycled
feedstock

Virginplastic
demand,2040 SCS

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 tothe significant reduction by Reduce and Substitute as well as an increase in recycled feedstock. This calculation includes only plastic in Municipal Solid Waste (MSW).
A Comprehensive Assessment of Pathways Towards Stopping Ocean Plastic Pollution

45

System change and the future of plastic products
Changing the plastic system would secure a world in which many of the single-use plastic
products we know and use today would be eliminated or replaced by reusable items andnew delivery models. Nonrecyclable and hard-to-recycle plastics could be substituted topaper or compostable materials, with the remaining plastic waste being recycled at muchhigher rates, resulting in much less plastic polluting the environment.

% of Business-as-Usual demand of the following products:
ReducedRECYCLE

Substituted

Mismanaged

Disposed

Recycled

Five producttypes/applications
contribute to 85% of allplastic leaking into theocean today. Taking action
across the global plastics
system would lead tomany of these plastic
product types/applications
being removed,
substituted or recycled
by 2040.

Monomaterial films (e.g., cling film, flow wrap, pallet wraps)

25%

33%

12%

20%

10%

58% of monomaterial films
can be avoided throughreduction measures andsubstitution to paper andcompostable alternatives.

Carrier bags (e.g., grocery bags, shopping bags)
10%
45%

13%

12%

45% of bags can be avoided
through bans, incentives, andreuse models.

20%

Bottles (e.g., water bottles, drinks, cleaning products)

43%

19%

31%

The recycling rate of rigid
monomaterial plastic would
double compared with today.

7%

Sachets and multilayer films (e.g., condiment and shampoo single-portion
sachets; coffee, chips, and sweets packets)

44%

7%

14%

23%

12%

In 2016, 48% of these plastic
products were mismanaged.
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)

10%

34%

54%

3%

The recycling rate of household
goods nearly quadruples
compared with today.

A STRATEGY TO REDUCE OCEAN PLASTIC POLLUTION RATES BY 80 PER CENT

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 canbreak 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 technicalsolutions that is preventing us from addressing the ocean plastic crisis, but rather inadequate
regulatory frameworks, business models, incentives, and funding mechanisms. If we overcome thesechallenges, 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
system interventions for land-based sources of plastic leakage
across both macroplastics and microplastics. For severalof the system interventions, the analysis is divided between
various “levers,” specific methods with different assumptions
related to feasibility, costs, emissions, and jobs. We alsopresent a qualitative framework for addressing maritime
sources of plastic pollution, as this can be a significant
source of ocean plastic pollution, but the current lack of dataprecluded a quantitative analysis. Qualitative insights on how
to reduce maritime sources of plastic are presented.

Upstream and downstream solutions have very different
basic requirements. The former will require more responsible
use of plastic and is about valuing plastic as a resource,
using plastic strategically, and putting less and higher-value
plastic waste into the system; the latter will require more
responsible management of plastic waste and is about
linking up the entire plastic life cycle from design to disposal
and increasing the capacity of waste management systems.

A Comprehensive Assessment of Pathways Towards Stopping Ocean Plastic Pollution

47

CHAPTER 2: CHANGING THE SYSTEM

Macroplastic system interventions

SYSTEM INTERVENTION 1
Reduce growth in plastic production andconsumption to avoid one-third of projected
plastic waste generation by 2040

INTERVENTION SUMMARY
It is socially, technically, and economically feasible toreduce BAU plastic consumption by 30 per cent by
2040—reducing 125 million metric tons per year of
avoidable macroplastic waste—before consideringswitching to single-use substitute materials.

•

This proposal decouples economic growth fromplastic growth, so that global plastic consumption
per person remains approximately flat, rather than
the 60 per cent increase expected under BAU. Global
demand for plastic still increases overall nevertheless,driven by a 23 per cent increase in population.

•

•

•

48

Reductions include eliminating unnecessary items
and over-packaging (an 8 per cent reduction inplastic); expanding reuse options that can replace
the utility currently provided by plastic, including
products intended for consumers to reuse (4 percent reduction); and new delivery models such as
refill systems (18 per cent reduction). See definitionsin Table 2.
Focusing on six key applications—multilayer/
multimaterial flexibles, business-to-businesspackaging, films, bottles, carrier bags, and foodservice 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
that appeal to consumers, reduce costs, and avoid
exacerbating their already overburdened waste
infrastructure.

BREAKING THE PLASTIC WAVE

Highly applicable

Somewhat applicableNot applicable

Most relevant geographic archetypes
HI
Urban

UMI
Urban

LMI
Urban

LI
Urban

HI
Rural

UMI
Rural

LMI
Rural

LI
Rural

HI: High-income
LMI: Lower middle-income
UMI: Upper middle-income LI: Low-income

Most relevant plastic categories
Rigid

Flex

Multi

Main responsible stakeholders• Consumer goods brands• Retailers

kyrychukvitaliy/Adobe Stock•A STRATEGY TO REDUCE OCEAN PLASTIC POLLUTION RATES BY 80 PER CENTThe first system intervention is dedicated to reducing theamount of plastic waste generated (substituting plastic withalternative materials is covered in System Intervention 2).
The focus is on the transition away from plastics that have
only a short period of use, such as packaging and disposable
items, which are low-value applications and a key driver ofocean plastic pollution. Our analysis is constrained by design
to deliver the same or equivalent utility as BAU, meaningthat any solutions must adequately replace the services
currently provided by plastic, such as food preservation andprotection. This intervention does not demand a reduction in

general consumption, but rather an elimination of avoidable
plastic and a shift towards products and services based onreuse. After an initial transition period, this intervention offers
significant cost savings across the board, both by cutting
spending on single-use packaging and by decreasing theburden on waste management systems.
To calculate the maximum potential reduction achievable by2040, we analysed three Reduce levers, i.e., solution options:(a) eliminate; (b) reuse-consumer; and (c) reuse-new delivery
models, as laid out in Table 2.

Table 2: Definition and examples of the three modelled Reduce levers
Definition

ExamplesPolicy interventions, innovations,consumer behaviour shifts andincentives that lead to reduced
material demand or product redesignfor low-utility avoidable plastic, andthat do not require a replacement.

Redesign overpackaging such as double-wrapping plastic film andexcess “headspace,” develop packaging-free products, decrease
consumption and production of avoidable bags and films, increase
utility per package, extend life of household goods. (Note: Does
not include light-weighting or shifting from rigids to flexibles as
this commonly reduces the end-of-life value and can increase thelikelihood of plastic leakage in middle- and low-income countries).

Reuse (consumer) Replacement of single-use products
and packages with reusable items
owned and managed by the user.

Reusables owned by consumers (e.g., water bottles, bags for life),
or owned by institutions (e.g., cutlery, crockery, plastic pallets).

Reuse (newdelivery models)Refill from dispensers (e.g., bottles, multilayer/multimaterial
flexibles and sachets), subscription services, concentrated
product capsules, take-back services with reverse logistics andwashing, package-as-a-service models (e.g., shared ownershipof takeaway containers).

Eliminate

Services and businesses providing
utility previously furnished bysingle-use plastics in new ways, with
reduced material demand.

Figure 22:in
Utilitydemandin 2016
andhow
2040,
howby
it is
met
by thethree Reduce
Figure 22: Utility demand
2016
and
2040,
and
it andis metthethreeReducelevers infor latest titles & captions see report indesign doc
levers in the System Change Scenario
the System Change Scenario

Avoidable plastic accounts for 30 per cent of total plastic waste generation in 2040 under Business-as-Usual
450

34

Million metric tons of plastic utility

400

15

350

76

300
250

420

200
150
100

294
215

50
0
2016
plastic utility
demand2040 plastic
utility demand

Eliminate

Reuseconsumer

Reusenew delivery
modelsRemaining plastic
utility demandThis 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 metrictons or 30 per cent of projected 2040 utility demand.
A Comprehensive Assessment of Pathways Towards Stopping Ocean Plastic Pollution

49

CHAPTER 2: CHANGING THE SYSTEM

Figure 23:
four-criteria
framework was used to determine the maximum feasible uptake of
Figure23:A Fourcriteria
each Reduce solution
A

B

C

D

Technology

Performance

Convenience

Affordability

Is a solution
available
today?

Does theintervention
satisfy
performanceand healthrequirements?

Is theintervention
acceptable forlifestyle andconvenience?

Are the cost
implications of
the alternative
acceptable?

Overallscore

2030
marketpenetration

2040
marketpenetration

Yes: Technology
Readiness Level(TRL) 9, available
in multiple
locations

Yes

Yes

Yes

4

50%

80%

3

20%

50%

Only at pilot:
TRL 5-8

Only in labs:
TRL 1-4

No alternative
available(net savings oracceptable cost)

MostlyMostlyMostly(but not for all
applications)(somechallenges)(but not for all
applications)

Partially

Partially

Partially(limited
applications only)(nicheconsumers)(nicheconsumers)

2

1%

10%

No

No

No

1

0%

0%

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 technicalappendix). 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
the waste stream into 15 plastic application subcategories
and assessed the applicability of each reduction lever toeach subcategory based on existing businesses, policies,
available technologies, environmental trade-offs, andconsumer trends. Each combination of plastic applicationsubcategory and Reduce lever was scored against four
criteria laid out in Figure 23—technology readiness level,
performance, convenience, and cost—with the lowest
score determining this combination’s “limiting factor” andmaximum foreseeable uptake rate over time.

Second, we analysed how much of the remaining plastic
could be reused by consumers, such as with reusable bags
(which accounted for 53 per cent of the waste reduction
under this lever), water bottles, and crockery for sit-inrestaurants. This lever delivers system cost savings of 40 per
cent compared with disposables, as multiuse products are
initially more expensive but generally deliver cost savings
over time. Key barriers to this lever are consumer andbusiness convenience, which are not quantified but could
be significant if reuse systems are poorly designed or haveinsufficient policy and financial incentives.

We applied the three Reduce levers in order of priority interms of costs and environmental impact, with each leverresulting in reductions as laid out in Figure 22. First, for eachplastic application subcategory, we assessed how much
avoidable plastic could be eliminated, through redesign,
policy, and consumer incentives. The eliminate lever avoids
the need for producing materials in the first place and isassumed to offer 100 per cent cost savings on eliminatedplastic without unacceptably reducing utility.

Finally, we applied the reuse-new delivery model lever,which is the most effort-intensive of the three levers, as it
requires new services and infrastructure to be rolled out
and sometimes water resources for washing, but offers thelargest reduction potential. This lever is responsible for morethan half of all avoided waste under the Reduce intervention.
It delivers 23 per cent cost savings compared with single-use
plastic when new delivery models reach scale, including thecost of purchasing reusable packaging and operating reverse
logistics and washing.

50

BREAKING THE PLASTIC WAVE

A STRATEGY TO REDUCE OCEAN PLASTIC POLLUTION RATES BY 80 PER CENT

An increased focus is needed on reduction
strategies for avoidable sachets andmultilayer flexibles, business-to-businesspackaging, monomaterial films, and bottles

Scoring was conducted separately for the HI archetype andthe other archetypes to reflect differing constraints, suchas access to clean water in LI, LMI, and UMI countries. We
recognize that differences in transportation systems, foodsystems, cultural practices, and more will affect the portfolioof solutions that are most suitable for rural areas. However,there are many cases in which Reduce levers work very
effectively in rural settings. For example, there are glass
bottle refill schemes that have operated economically evenin the most remote locations, and many essential products
are already refilled or sold without packaging in local village
markets.

Many plastic reductions implemented to date have focusedon the Eliminate lever, largely by light-weighting packaging,
and regulating bags, straws, and other small-mass items. Our
analysis suggests that greater reductions could be achievedby focusing on the six plastic applications projected toaccount for 86 per cent of the total reduction achievablein 2040 (see Figure 25). In terms of the absolute mass ofplastic avoided, sachets and multilayer/multimaterial flexibles(such as for shampoo and condiment portions, chips,
and sweets packets) have the highest reduction potential
at 26 million metric tons per year plastic waste avoided,
followed by business-to-business packaging such as crates
and pallet wrap, monomaterial films, bottles, carrier bags,
and food service items. Currently, national and subnational
product bans and regulations overwhelmingly focus on
carrier bags and food service items,70 two applications thatIn HI countries, because per capita plastic consumption isalready high and the expected further growth in demand forplastic utility is slower than in the rest of the world, our analysis
suggests that plastic waste per capita could be decreased
through the Reduce intervention alone, bringing plastic waste
generation per person down from 76 kg in 2016 to 68 kg in
2040. In contrast, average per capita plastic across the LI,
LMI, and UMI archetypes grows from 20 kg to 26 kg per year
despite ambitious reductions in key items (see Figure 24).

Figure 24: Change in total plastic waste generation and plastic bag consumption
for latest titles &captions seeand
reportafter
indesign
doc
per capita in the Business-as-Usual
Scenario
Reduceinterventions 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-/low-income
countries
Average per person
waste for UMI/LMI/LI
archetypes as a whole

High-income
countries
Average per person
waste for HI archetype

Plastic waste
per person
per year

20

38

26

… including
single-use
plastic bags

1.5

3.0
kg

0.5

Plastic waste
per person
per year

76
kg

95

68

… including
single-use
plastic bags

3.1

4.0

0.4

kg

kg

kg

kg

kg

kg

kg

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.
A Comprehensive Assessment of Pathways Towards Stopping Ocean Plastic Pollution

51

CHAPTER 2: CHANGING THE SYSTEM

together make up just 10 per cent of the entire plastic waste
stream and 16 per cent of potential reductions from thisintervention. The other four applications represent a huge,
untapped opportunity.
Sachet packaging is an iconic single-use, multilayer/
multimaterial waste item in LI, LMI, and UMI countries; it makes
up approximately 10 per cent of plastic waste in the Philippines,
for example.71 After consumption, these low-value plastic
materials are often not collected and are a major source of
ocean pollution. In some countries, such as India, our market
observations suggest that full-size bottles are currently more
expensive per use for consumers than buying sachets, but
regulations such as extended producer responsibility with full
end-of-life cost recovery could make recyclable rigid plastic
packaging less expensive than sachets in the future. Our
analysis suggests that new delivery models could also offer abetter alternative for delivering products to consumers in thesecountries; 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 lesswaste and plastic flow to the ocean per use (see Figure 26).

A reduction of plastic production—
through elimination, the expansionof consumer reuse options, or
new delivery models—is themost attractive solution fromenvironmental, economic, and social
perspectives. It offers the biggest
reduction in plastic pollution,
often represents a net savings, andprovides the highest mitigation
opportunity in GHG emissions.

Figure 6: Annual mass of plastic reduced compared to Business-as-Usual,and remaining
material
demandafter Reduce
intervention applied,
top six
Figure 25: Annual
mass of plastic
reducedcomparedwith Business-as-Usual,andforremainingforlatesttitlesseereportindesign
doc
applications
rankedby absolute
mass reduced,
2040
material demand
after Reduce
intervention
applied,for top six
applications ranked by
Six
product
applications
representthevastmajorityof avoidable plastic
absolute mass reduced, 2040
Six product applications represent the vast majority of avoidable plastic
Million metric tons of plastic waste
0

10

20

30

40

50

1. Sachets andmultilayer flexibles

60

70

80

90

100

120

130

44%
59%

2. B2B packaging

19%

3. Monomaterial films

43%

4. Bottles

45%

5. Carrier bags
6. Food service
disposables

110

55%
14%

7. Other

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
Numbersby the bars
reflectincludes
per centof BAUin 2040of eachthatis reducedin theChange Scena
4). Business-to-businesspackagingboth flexible
andplastic
rigid packaging;bottles
includeproductwater, food,category
and nonfoodbottles;other includes
pots,Systemtubs, and trays;
householdgoods; otherrigid monomaterial
packaging;laminated
cartons theand aluminium;
andintervention
diapers and hygiene
products.(see System Intervention 2) and beforeTheremainingmaterial
demand, inlight blue,
is before
Substituteis applied

for latest captions see report indesign doc

design for recycling is applied (see System Intervention 4).
52

BREAKING THE PLASTIC WAVE

A STRATEGY TO REDUCE OCEAN PLASTIC POLLUTION RATES BY 80 PER CENT

Figure26: Implicationsof differentpackaging
packaging options
to toconsumers
and theenvironment
Figure 26:
Implicationsof different
options
consumers
andthe environment

New delivery models can generate less plastic waste, cost consumers less, and bring less leakage tothe ocean
Average plastic waste

Average cost to consumer in
middle-/low-income countries

Average plastic leakage to the ocean
in middle-/low-income countries

Grams per 1,000 uses

US$ per use

Grams of plastic leakage to the ocean
per 1,000 uses

SachetBottleNew
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 peruse compared with sachets or bottles. Due to small sample sizes, this analysis should be considered illustrative only. Primary data on the consumer cost and massof 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
for latest titles & captions see report indesign doc
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 areavailable 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
top up household cleaners,asoapsb and soda fountainc

8 a.m.

Pack reusable water bottle andbag

7 p.m.

9 a.m.

7 a.m.

Fresh food delivery, in
returnable box and containers.
Leave refillable packaging on
the doorstep for collection,d anddiapers for centralised washinge

Coffee in a returnable coffee
cuph

Fast food served on real
crockery for a quick sit-down
mealk

8 p.m.

4 p.m.

Refill at soda fountain dispenseri

5 p.m.

Return reusable to collection
point

Top up the pantry with somebasics bought from bulk
dispensersl and fresh produce
from the plastic-free aisle, allplaced in a reused bag

6 p.m.

At the gym, top up on sports
drink in an edible seaweed“bubble”j

8 a.m.

Tooth brushing using
concentrated toothpaste tabsf
and hair washing witha 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.
A Comprehensive Assessment of Pathways Towards Stopping Ocean Plastic Pollution

53

CHAPTER 2: CHANGING THE SYSTEM

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 bothmodels 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 andperformance. 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 isused 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 withpackaging 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 byeliminating 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 andhealth is complex. In most cases, fresh produce either has a peel or skin providing a natural barrier to contamination or that canbe 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 thatreuse and refill systems satisfy food safety standards and reassure consumers.

Design and scaling innovations can enable
substantial reductions in material demand,and catalyse a leapfrogging to attractive
low-waste alternatives
Beyond plastic product bans, it is possible to achieve
large waste reduction outcomes by scaling up attractive
alternatives that produce radically less waste, particularly
through the new delivery models lever. In middle-/lowincome countries, in particular, there is an opportunity toleapfrog directly to a low-plastic-waste system, reducing
both environmental pollution and the massive burden on
waste management systems without constraining lifestyleaspirations. Products would increasingly be delivered
through services rather than increasing amounts of singleuse packaging, either leveraging traditional delivery routes
such as local markets, street vendors, and glass or plastic
bottle refill schemes, which already have large market reach,or using new digitally enabled technology and services (seeFigure 27). As HI countries are starting from higher plastic
consumption levels, they can make even greater reductions
per capita using the types of models emerging today, as
shown in Figure 27.

54

BREAKING THE PLASTIC WAVE

Enabling conditions
Policy, economic, and innovation drivers required toaccelerate this intervention include:•

Adoption of standards or regulatory requirements forplastic packaging that focus on elimination of avoidable
packaging and product redesign, alongside regulation
on uses of plastic with a high likelihood of leakage.

•

Global uptake by multinationals of innovative models
and commitments to long-term quantitative goals toeliminate and reuse packaging; companies leveraging
their global reach and R&D budgets to facilitate change
across geographic archetypes.

•

Regulatory and/or voluntary standards, consumer
education, and reusable packaging targets to facilitate
reuse and address hygiene concerns regarding foodcontact materials.

•

Policies that shift the burden of waste generation onto
producers and so “level the playing field” for new businessmodels and zero-packaging solutions, for example,
extended producer responsibility schemes, a tax on
single-use plastics, and landfill or incineration fees.

•

Innovation in system design, such as seasonal food,shortening supply chains, e-commerce, digital trackers,
and choice editing (reducing the need for packaging todifferentiate products).

A STRATEGY TO REDUCE OCEAN PLASTIC POLLUTION RATES BY 80 PER CENT

Macroplastic system interventions

SYSTEM INTERVENTION 2
Substitute plastic with paper and compostablematerials, switching one-sixth of projected
plastic waste generation by 2040

INTERVENTION SUMMARY•••

kyrychukvitaliy/Adobe Stock•

In the System Change Scenario, paper, coatedpaper, and compostable materials can substitute17 per cent of plastic waste generated by
2040, equivalent to 71 million metric tons ofplastic, without fundamentally decreasing
the performance, affordability, or social andenvironmental acceptability of packaging andsingle-use items.
Ninety-five per cent of this potential substitution
comes from six key product applications for which
known material alternatives already exist at somelevel of scale: monomaterial films; other rigid
monomaterial packaging; sachets and multilayer
films; carrier bags; pots, tubs, and trays; and foodservice disposables.
All substitutions need careful management at endof life and have varied environmental impacts.
They create opportunities, risks, and trade-offs
that must be carefully managed and assessed on acase-by-case basis.
The Substitute system intervention has 1.7-2
times higher production costs than virgin plastic
per metric ton of plastic utility, so substitutes
were selected only when they replace plastic thatcannot be reduced or mechanically recycled. Theintervention plays an important role in minimizing
ocean plastic pollution and could help reduceoverall GHG emissions.

Highly applicable

Somewhat applicableNot applicable

Most relevant geographic archetypes
HI
Urban

UMI
Urban

LMI
Urban

LI
Urban

HI
Rural

UMI
Rural

LMI
Rural

LI
Rural

HI: High-income
LMI: Lower middle-income
UMI: Upper middle-income LI: Low-income

Most relevant plastic categories
Rigid

Flex

Multi

Main responsible stakeholders• Consumer goods brands• Retailers

A Comprehensive Assessment of Pathways Towards Stopping Ocean Plastic Pollution

55

CHAPTER 2: CHANGING THE SYSTEM

After implementing both the Reduce and Substitute systeminterventions, our analysis indicates that plastic waste
generation could be capped at approximately today’s global
levels by 2040 without unacceptable compromises on cost,utility, or performance (see Figure 22), despite increasing
populations and economic development. This equates toan absolute decrease in plastic waste in HI countries (-27 percent) and an absolute increase in plastic waste from middle-/
low-income countries compared with today (average +26
per cent), driven by population growth as per capita plastic
production and consumption remain at today’s levels. We
estimate that 17 per cent of plastic waste can be substituted
in 2040, relative to BAU: 4.5 per cent to paper, 3.5 per centto coated paper and 9 per cent to compostable materials(see Figure 28). That is equivalent to 71 million metric tonsof plastic waste avoided annually.
The use of any substitute material will involve significant
economic costs in both production and end-of-life disposal,
as well as environmental impacts and other trade-offs tobalance. The Substitute intervention is therefore applied
only to the plastic in each of the 15 plastic subcategories
that remain after the three Reduce levers have been applied.
Substitutions were made only with materials expected tobe less likely to leak into the environment in 2040, focusing
on substituting nonrecyclable items, monomaterial flexible
plastic, and multilayer plastic, which have high leakage rates.

The analysis of this system intervention is based on
three selected substitution material levers: (a) paper; (b)coated paper with a maximum 5 per cent by weight ofplastic coating, which is acceptable to recyclers;79 and (c)certified and appropriate compostable materials, including
compostable plastic and nonplastic materials (see Table 3).
Compostable materials make up the largest proportion ofsubstituted plastic (see Figure 28).
The three material substitutes were selected because they
are the most prevalent ones available today for replacing
problematic plastic films and multilayer flexibles, whichhave low recycling rates and high leakage rates, particularly
in LI and LMI countries. We also analysed glass, aluminium,
and aseptic containers as possible substitutes for rigid
monomaterial plastics, such as bottles, but these alternatives
were not selected for modelling for two reasons: first,
because rigid monomaterial plastics are less problematicthan flexible plastic as they have comparatively highcollection and recycling rates and, second, because singleuse glass, aluminium, and aseptic cartons were found tohave potential negative trade-offs in costs, GHG emissions,and recycling rates compared with rigid monomaterial
plastics. For example, aluminium cans and glass bottles
are 33 per cent and 167 per cent more expensive than PET
bottles, respectively,91 although they may be suitable for

Figure 28: Utility demand in 2016 and 2040, and how it is met by the Substitutefor latest titles & captions see report indesign doc
in theSystemFigure 28: Utility demand inlevers2016 and2040,
andChange
how it isScenario
met by the Substitute levers in the
System Change Scenario
The System Change Scenario shows 17 per cent of plastic production substituted with alternatives
by 2040
ReduceSubstitute

450

Million metric tons of plastic utility

400
125

350

18

300

14

250

39
420

200
150
100

224

215

50
0
2016
plastic utility
demand2040
plastic utility
demandReduceintervention

Paper

Coatedpaper

Compostables

This figure shows plastic utility demand in 2016, 2040, and in 2040 after the Reduce and Substitute levers are applied.

56

BREAKING THE PLASTIC WAVE

Remaining
plastic
waste
generated

A STRATEGY TO REDUCE OCEAN PLASTIC POLLUTION RATES BY 80 PER CENT

Table 3: Substitute material levers selected, and examples of substitutions modelled
Substitutematerial lever

Definition and rationale

Examples of plastic productswith available substitutes

Paper

Substitute with recyclable paper, or other pulp-based or fibre-basedmaterial, ensuring that it is sustainably sourced. Paper recycling is
widespread globally; for example, 85 per cent of paper and cardboard
packaging is recycled in the European Union compared with just 42
per cent of plastic packaging.80 Paper substitutes are undergoing rapid
innovation, leading to improved barrier properties and cost/weight
performance. For nonfood applications, high recycled content ispossible in current market conditions.

Plastic fruit and vegetable
punnets, display trays, shrink
wraps on drinks,81 paper
substitutes for polystyrene
foams,82 paper food service
items (plates, cutlery, straws),
paper wet-wipes

Coated paper

Substitute with paper lined with a plastic coating acceptable to paper
recyclers. Coatings improve the barrier properties of paper, making
paper substitutes relevant to a wider packaging segment, particularly
food applications. Plastic coatings of a maximum 5 per cent of weightare 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 bymass to today’s global paper production of 409 million metric tons,84
which we assume would be tolerable to recyclers, but further researchis 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.

Confectionery wrappers, e.g.,
recyclable paper packaging
for snack bars85 and sachetsfor powdered drinks86

Compostables

Existing materials and new formats under development (including
nonplastic compostable materials—cellulosics, alginates, banana leaves,edible and ephemeral packaging as well as compostable plastics) thatare approved to meet relevant local compostability standards (forexample, industrial composting standard EN 13432 where industrialequivalent composting is available and effective). These materials
should be capable of disintegrating into natural elements in a home orindustrial composting environment, within a specified number of weeks,leaving no toxicity in the soil. Compostables are most relevant wherecomposting infrastructure exists or will be built, and for substituting thinplastic films and small formats. Substitution with compostable materials
is most appropriate for products with low plastic recycling rates andhigh rates of food contamination, making co-processing with organic
waste a viable option.

Banana leaves fortakeaway food, fibre-based
compostable-ready mealtrays,87 seaweed pouches,88
compostable chips packets89
and tea bags90

reusable packaging. For these reasons, no clear picture
emerged to indicate that these other substitutes would
decrease the amount of material leaked to the ocean
globally without creating unacceptable economic, social, or
environmental outcomes.
The three substitutes modelled should not be considered
predictions of change or recommendations, but as indicativeof the possible future scaling of substitutes that already exist
in the market. The potential mass of plastic substitution
estimated in the System Change Scenario could be considered

conservative, as further plastic replacement options could bederived from other materials, either already existing or thanks
to new innovations. In a globalized system of food production
and consumption, the GHG emission savings offered bylightweight plastic materials are important. However, if supply
chains are shortened, transport is decarbonized, or reuse andrecycling rates are high, other substitute materials, such as
glass and metals, may perform well.
To avoid unintended consequences, local authorities,
brands, and manufacturers should consider the local

A Comprehensive Assessment of Pathways Towards Stopping Ocean Plastic Pollution

57

CHAPTER 2: CHANGING THE SYSTEM

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
metric tons

9%; 10 million
metric tons

25.5%; 28 million
metric tons

Paper/coated paper where water
barrier properties not necessary;compostable plastic, cellulosics,
or alginates where transparency isessential or food contamination risk
is high18.5%; 7.5 million
metric tons

0%4.5%; 2 million
metric tons

Subcategory does not require foodcontact; paper and compostable
substitutes readily available for
expanded polystyrene and otherprotective packaging

2%; 1 million
metric tons

3%; 2 million
metric tons

2%; 1 million
metric tons

Coated paper and compostable
alternatives available today withadequate performance for dry or
short-life goods

3%; 1 million
metric tons

0%10%; 3 million
metric tons

Compostable bags where water
resistance required (for meat, fish,etc.); paper bags widespread today

5.5%; 1 million
metric tons

6.5%; 2 million
metric tons

0%Paper punnets for fresh produce;
coated paper for other

4%; 0.5 million
metric tons

4%; 0.5 million
metric tons

9%; 1 million
metric tons

Widely available alternatives, e.g.,bamboo cutlery, paper/coated paper
clamshells and cups, banana leaf
wraps

18.5 million
metric tons
(out of a total
19 million metricton paper
potential)

14 million
metric tons
(out of a total
14 million metricton coated paper
potential)

35 million
metric tons
(out of a total
38 million metricton compostables
potential)

41%; 45 million
metric tons

2. Other rigid
monomaterial
packaging
23%; 9.5 million
metric tons
3. Sachets andmultilayer films
7%; 4 million
metric tons
4. Carrier bags
13%; 4 million
metric tons
5. Pots, tubs, and trays
12%; 3 million
metric tons
6. Food service
disposables
17%; 2 million
metric tons
Column total

Columns may not sum to column total due to rounding of decimals.

conditions and trade-offs of any substitute materials before
making any switches, such as by using full life-cycle analysis
conducted by neutral bodies to recognized standards. Local
considerations include the sustainability of sourcing raw
materials; capacity for collection, recycling or composting;
GHG footprint; and likelihood of the materials leaking either
now or in the future.
Quantifying the potential for plastic substitution followed
a similar method as the Reduce intervention, scoringeach solution for each product application according totechnology readiness, performance, convenience, andcost (see Figure 23). Our analysis shows that 95 per cent of
the potential material substitutes for plastic are for just six
plastic subcategories (see Table 4). The largest subcategory
is monomaterial plastic films, an estimated 41 per cent of
which could be substituted by 2040 without sacrificing
58

BREAKING THE PLASTIC WAVE

performance. This is a significant finding because plastic
films contribute more than half of the plastic entering theocean today.

In the System Change Scenario, paper,
coated 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 theperformance, affordability, or socialand environmental acceptability of
packaging and single-use items.

A STRATEGY TO REDUCE OCEAN PLASTIC POLLUTION RATES BY 80 PER CENTBox 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 thanplastic, which would create emission savings. Therefore, adding 30-50 per cent more weight by switching to paperor 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 toreuse models. Ultimately, more localized supply chains and seasonal consumption could drive down emissions andpackaging 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 productsthat 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 apeel-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 foodpackaging, 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 peruse, 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 andrequire 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 andfurther research.

If managed carefully, it is possible tomeet the material requirements of the
Substitute intervention, but unintended
consequences need astute monitoring
In selecting any substitute material, it is important thata broad range of environmental and health impacts areassessed holistically—from land and water use to GHG
emissions and pollution—and that any life-cycle assessment
also takes into account human health and end-of-life
impacts on biodiversity.
A key concern when switching to paper is whether the
additional material requirements can be met sustainably.
On average, 1 metric ton of plastic packaging needs to be
replaced with 1.5 metric tons of paper,94 meaning that the
Substitute intervention requires 45 million metric tons ofpaper per year by 2040. Globally, this represents an 11 percent increase above 2016-17 paper production.95

The primary risk is that the benefits of paper would be
negated if this increase causes deforestation, highlighting theimportance of sustainable forest management, especiallyin specific middle-/low-income countries where paper
demand is a driver of deforestation today.96 To minimize therisk of deforestation, our analysis indicates that a strong effort
in paper recycling makes it possible to meet the additional
paper needed for the Substitute intervention globally without
expanding virgin paper input. This step requires increasing
paper’s global average recycled content from today’s 56 percent97 to 60 per cent. Southeast Asia already surpasses thislevel of recycled content;98 other regions must follow suit.
Avoiding deforestation will also require careful selection of
the applications where virgin paper is absolutely necessary
for food contact safety to avoid chemical migration into
food from recycled sources,99 increasing recycled content
in all other paper applications where possible, and tacklinginefficiencies in paper recycling.100

A Comprehensive Assessment of Pathways Towards Stopping Ocean Plastic Pollution

59

CHAPTER 2: CHANGING THE SYSTEM

Sourcing compostable materials could also trigger land usechange if not managed holistically. Today, approximately
2 million metric tons of bio-based plastic (plastics madein whole or partially from renewable biological resources)
is produced using less than 0.01 per cent of arable land.101
Our model requires 52 million metric tons of compostablematerial substitutes per year, be they compostable plastic(sourced from fossil fuels or from biomass) or nonplastics
such as fibre- or leaf-based packaging. However, options exist
to expand biomass availability without unsustainable landuse. These include the use of by-products and discards fromthe timber and agricultural industries, and alternative fibre
sources from plants grown on marginal land. For example,
compostable plastic is already being created from waste
methane102 and food waste.103 Table 5 summarizes otherconsiderations when expanding compostable packaging.

Substitute materials come with higher
costs, but could have lower emissions
On average, substitute materials come with higher
production costs (up to two times more for compostables),but different stakeholders bear the costs and garner thesavings. Some of the cost differential is due to government
subsidies or perverse incentives, such as extraction subsidies
on fossil fuels, that drive down the price of plastic. There isa net increase in end-of-life collection and disposal costs
because of the heavier mass of substitute materials. But the
Substitute intervention could produce an overall reduction
in GHG emissions compared with BAU by 2040, driven
by switching to sustainably sourced paper (see Box 5).
Emissions will vary depending on location, and substitutes
should be assessed on a case-by-case basis, considering the
likelihood of recycling and composting and trade-offs suchas 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, forexample, by sourcing from waste or recycled content andexpanding composting. For estimates of GHG implicationsof 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
option to return nutrients and food waste to thesystem. Compostables could be suitable wherea plastic application is unlikely to be recycled orcollected.

•

Lack of definitions, standards, and consumer
confusion around the term “bioplastics” and“biodegradable,” which includes noncompostable
plastic.106••

Where high food contamination is likely to make foodpackaging nonrecyclable, compostables provide asolution and could boost the diversion of organic
waste away from residual waste.

Compostable materials should meet strict national
standards according to the end-of-life processing
technologies that exist in the country, and safe,
effective standards need refinement, for example, toensure soil fertility.

•

In some HI countries, incentives towards separateorganic waste treatment means access to compostingis increasing and is cheaper than landfill.104••

Composting could bring cost savings in middle-/lowincome countries via decentralized community-based
composting that avoids collection costs, making it
particularly suitable for rural and remote locations
with high plastic leakage rates. A directional estimate
suggests that this could be done for US$20 per metricton, which is cheaper than landfill. Substituting 9 percent of plastic with compostable packaging would
contribute only 6 per cent to the organic waste stream
globally, which should not damage key performanceindicators of the composting processes, which havebeen tested with levels up to 25 per cent compostable
packaging.105

Considerable investment and policies are needed
to expand organic waste collection and processing
facilities that can accommodate and safely processcompostable packaging, particularly in middle-/lowincome countries.

•

There is a risk that compostable plastic could beperceived as acceptable to litter107 and that it could
contaminate conventional mechanical recycling,108
making distinctive labelling, consumer education, andappropriate collection and composting infrastructure
essential.

•

In high-leakage archetypes, leakage risks should
be considered. Some compostable plastic may notbiodegrade under certain environmental conditions,109
so nonplastic alternatives are lower risk. As industrial
composting is not typically available in low- andmiddle-income archetypes, home-compostablematerials suitable for decentralized composting are
required; industrially compostable materials (such as
PLA [polylactic acid]) would not be suitable.

60

BREAKING THE PLASTIC WAVE

A STRATEGY TO REDUCE OCEAN PLASTIC POLLUTION RATES BY 80 PER CENTBox 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 morethan plastic, driving up transport emissions. However, the lower weight substitutes we have modelled minimize thiseffect 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 allplastic bags towards paper. Our approach suggests that making carefully considered plastic substitutions with paperor 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 fuelbased 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 withplastic if the optimum end-of-life treatments were used.113

Enabling conditions
Policy, economic, and innovation drivers required toaccelerate this intervention include:•

Economic incentives that help level the playing field
between plastic and other materials across the life
cycle, such as the removal of extraction subsidies foroil and gas, taxes on virgin plastic content, or extended
producer responsibility-type schemes with modulated
fees for different packaging formats.

•

Funding for innovation in new materials, packaging
designs, and barrier coatings.

•

Policies and voluntary commitments to accelerate theexpansion of paper collection and recycling, increase

recycled content in paper, reduce contamination, andscale separate organic waste treatment that can accept
compostable packaging.
•Standard-setting that defines acceptable compostablematerials according to locally available waste
infrastructure and provides clarity around definitions ofterms such as “biodegradable.”•

Certification of sustainable sourcing of biomass, and theadoption of strict criteria by brands and producers toensure that substitutes contain recycled content and aresourced responsibly.

•

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 indyes.115 Coated paper, in which the coating is plastic, poses the same chemical migration concerns for health as anyother 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 foodsafety of new materials, additives, and coatings.118 New materials should be thoroughly assessed to ensure that theirintroduction does not generate more serious environmental and health problems.

A Comprehensive Assessment of Pathways Towards Stopping Ocean Plastic Pollution

61

CHAPTER 2: CHANGING THE SYSTEM

Macroplastic system interventions

SYSTEM INTERVENTION 3
Design products and packaging for recycling
to expand the share of economically recyclable
plastic from an estimated 21 per cent to 54 percent by 2040

INTERVENTION SUMMARY

•

•

•

Flexible and multimaterial plastics currently makeup 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.
Only 15 per cent of plastic is currently recycled—
and this figure varies significantly by type;designing plastic for recycling can help increase
this percentage through two separate but
synergistic benefits: 1) increase the share ofrecyclable plastic; and 2) improve the economics(and hence likelihood) of recycling.
Design for recycling interventions can increase
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
recyclability.
Removing pigments from plastic can increase theirrecyclate value by approximately 25 per cent.

Highly applicable

Somewhat applicableNot applicable

Most relevant geographic archetypes
HI
Urban

UMI
Urban

LMI
Urban

LI
Urban

HI
Rural

UMI
Rural

LMI
Rural

LI
Rural

HI: High-income
LMI: Lower middle-income
UMI: Upper middle-income LI: Low-income

Most relevant plastic categories
Rigid

Flex

Multi

Main responsible stakeholders• Consumer goods brands

62

BREAKING THE PLASTIC WAVE

kyrychukvitaliy/Adobe Stock•A STRATEGY TO REDUCE OCEAN PLASTIC POLLUTION RATES BY 80 PER CENT

Many plastic items are designed in ways that make recycling
difficult, uneconomical, or even impossible. This problem
is exacerbated by the centralized design and production ofmass consumption products for all global markets, which isincompatible with the local waste management systems into
which these products are introduced after use.
Design for recycling can increase recycling rates worldwide
by raising the yield and value of recycled plastic, thereby
improving the profitability of the mechanical recycling
industry. Only 21 per cent of today’s plastic is economicallyrecyclable, and therefore of higher value, and current
industry trends show that, going forward, this share is
expected to decrease under BAU.119 Both the formal andinformal recycling sectors target plastic with the highest
market value, often leaving the low-value materials to go
uncollected or be mismanaged if collected.

Low-value flexible and multilayer plastic currently contribute a
disproportionate amount of leakage to the ocean: They makeup 59 per cent of production but constitute 80 per cent ofmacroplastic leakage (see Figure 29). This finding highlights
the urgent need to target these formats through redesign.
The inherent design of many plastic products makes
recycling difficult and costly, but streamlined changes
to improve the quality of the output will strengthen thesecondary market while reducing costs in the recycling
process. For materials for which recycling economics are
already almost profitable, design for recycling can help makethem profitable through a combination of levers.
We identified five principal design for recycling levers toachieve this goal:

The low value of discarded items is dictated by theirinherent lack of recyclability, their degradation duringuse, and the limited demand for their reuse. The mix ofpolymers, additives, and dyes that make up low-value
plastic dilute the quality of the recycled output and limit
its viability as recycled content in many applications.
Designing plastic for recycling in local settings is the easiest
way to increase its inherent value while improving the
profitability of the mechanical recycling industry. Boosting
the uptake and quality of recycled content also reduces
the need for virgin plastic input and thereby cuts GHG
emissions from virgin plastic production.

1) Switch 50 per cent of multimaterial flexibles tomonomaterial flexibles by 2030 and 100 per cent by 2040
Multimaterial flexibles often exist to meet the toughest
packaging requirements but are not mechanically recycled
due to poor economics. Reduction and substitution
solutions are available for some of this packaging type in the
System Change Scenario, but for the remaining multimaterial
flexibles that cannot be reduced or substituted, we haveapplied an ambitious design for recycling intervention.
Research is already gathering speed in this area, with one
industry expert reporting that technical monomaterial
solutions are in development that could meet 100 per centof barrier property requirements of multimaterial flexibles as

Figureproduction,
29: Global production,collection,
leakageratescategory,by plasticBusiness-as-Usual,
category, Businessgure 7: Global
collection, andleakageandrates
by plastic
2016
as-Usual,
2016exible monomaterials and multilayer/multimaterials represent 59 per cent of plastic production but
and multilayer/multimaterials represent 59 per cent of plastic production
ontributeFlexible
80 per monomaterials
cent of plastic leakage
to the ocean
but contribute 80 per cent of plastic leakage to the ocean

Multilayer/multimaterial
1%
23%

Flexible monomaterial

14%

Rigid monomaterial
29%
43%

59%

80%

36%
51%

86%
56%
41%

20%
Plastic
production

Formalcollected forrecycling

Informalcollected forrecycling

Leakage into
the ocean

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 iscollected for recycling by both the formal and informal sectors is predominantly rigid.
A Comprehensive Assessment of Pathways Towards Stopping Ocean Plastic Pollution

63

CHAPTER 2: CHANGING THE SYSTEM

soon as 2030.120 We therefore assume that it is possible toswitch 100 per cent of the multimaterial flexibles that remain,which will increase the proportion of recyclable plastic waste
and its value, driving higher recovery and recycling rates. We
have not modelled replacing single-use flexibles with singleuse rigid packaging as this would increase packaging weights
significantly, but this could be suitable in some instances
after holistically assessing cost and environmental trade-offs.
A switch towards monomaterial flexibles must go hand inhand with an expansion in their collection.
Example: One brand owner has
developed a resealable monomaterial
pouch that could be recycled
alongside polyethylene (PE) films
once collection and sorting has
scaled. Currently it is recyclable
through store take-back.121

2) Switch 5 per cent of multimaterial rigid household
goods to monomaterial rigids by 2030 and 10 per cent by
2040
Shifting multimaterial household goods to monomaterials is
more challenging due to the unique performance properties
required. Switching 10 per cent of rigid household goods
from multimaterial to monomaterial will further increase
the proportion of recyclable plastic waste, driving higher
recovery and recycling rates.
Example: Household items such asbrushes, combs, brooms, cases, andspatulas could transition towards
recyclable monomaterials such as
PP if the switch would not decrease
the longevity of products. Some
items require multiple material
components, which could bedesigned for disassembly.

sales value than coloured), while other improvements tostreamlining will reduce the cost of closed-loop recycling assorting losses decrease.
Example: A soft drinks company
operating in Latin America is using
one clear bottle design for its fullrange of multibranded products anddistinguishing among them using
paper labels. Bottling facilities areequipped to take back bottles, wash
off paper labels, then clean, refill, andrebrand bottles with fresh labels.122

4) Increase homogeneity and cleanliness of recycling inputs
and eliminate problematic polymers and packaging formats
There are currently thousands of different plastic types(even under a single-polymer name) and multiple formats,which inhibits the quality guarantee of the recyclate. By
eliminating hard-to-recycle polymers that would otherwise
contaminate the rest of the plastic waste stream (such as
PVC, PS, EPS) and by reducing the number of polymers
used, both the sorting and recycling of plastic will be
improved. These changes will decrease the complexityof sorting (for both consumers and sorters) and simplify
recycling processes, ultimately increasing recycling yields
and reducing costs.
The type of plastic is a key factor in determining what is
economically recyclable, but specific format types and thescale at which they are placed on the market and collected
are also important for any mechanical recycling. Certain
packaging formats are particularly problematic and should
either be fundamentally redesigned to allow them to beeconomically collected and recycled at scale, or eliminatedthrough reduction and substitution mechanisms. Examples
include small format packaging such as sachets, which also
have a high propensity to leak into the environment and are
difficult to economically collect at scale.

3) Redesign (or remove) dyes, plastic pigments, andadditives
This is a vital transition as it represents one of the biggest
barriers preventing recyclers from creating recycled qualitythat 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 cancontaminate plastic or make it unsafe or unusable in new
products. Colour is typically used for marketing purposes,
but this results in two conflicting problems. First, the postconsumer plastic available for recycling is made up of
many colours, creating a complex mix that is impossible
to separate into single colours. Second, the demand is forrecycled plastic in neutral colours (similar to virgin plastic). To
create a circular loop between plastic and products, many
more items need to be made from unpigmented plastic
and new marketing approaches need to be developed,
such as using recyclable inks and labels. Through design forrecycling, more plastic material can be profitable to recycle(for example, clear PET recyclate has a 25 per cent higher

64

BREAKING THE PLASTIC WAVE

Example: With all components madeof the same plastic type, not onlyis this design made of 100 per centrecycled plastic, but it is also 100 per
cent recyclable.123

5) Improve labelling
The purpose of labelling is to help both the consumer
and the sorter to place products into the correct recycling
stream. Labelling should therefore conform to clear national
or international standards that take the practical recyclabilityof the materials into account. The packaging industry should
also ensure that “labelling for recycling” is intuitive, especiallywhen multiple polymers are used, to maximize recycling
efforts from consumers, pickers, and sorters, as well as fromrecyclers themselves. For example, a box made of highdensity polyethylene (HDPE) with a lid made of low-density

A STRATEGY TO REDUCE OCEAN PLASTIC POLLUTION RATES BY 80 PER CENT

covered by extended producer responsibility schemes, as is
usually the case in HI countries).

polyethylene (LDPE) should have each component labelled
separately, as opposed to the current practice in which, forthe sake of aesthetics, HDPE and LDPE are both mentionedon the bottom of the box.

The five design for recycling levers also improve theeconomics of recycling by US$120 per metric ton,124 virtually
doubling recycling profitability (see Figure 31).

By improving labelling practices, the complexity of sorting
and recycling processes will decrease, which will ultimately
increase the share of waste collected for recycling, increase
recycling yields, and reduce costs during sorting and recycling.

In addition to economically benefiting the recycling
system, this intervention is expected to deliver social andenvironmental 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
benefit relates to lower levels of air and water pollution from
Taken together, the five design for recycling levers outlined
unknown chemical compounds as a result of increased
above could significantly expand the share of plastic thatstandardization of additive and polymer use. Moreover,is economically recyclable mechanically. In high-income
increasing recycling and offsetting the use of virgin plastic
countries, an estimated 54 per cent of plastic waste could
reduces GHG emissions by 48 per cent relative to depositing
be economically recyclable within system restraints byplastic in landfills (and even more relative to incineration),
2040, up from 21 per cent today, as shown in Figure 30 (thisis equivalent
to a reductionof 1.9 tCO2e per metricassumesthatcollection
andsorting
costs
are
not
paid
for
by
Figure 30: Mechanical recycling economics for different whichmaterial
types, 2016
versus 2040
for latest titles&authority
captions seereportdoc
ton ofplastic recycled (see Figure 20 for details).
the recycler but by the government,
local
taxes,or indesign

Figure 30: Mechanical recycling economies for different material types in high-income
countries, 2016 versus 2040
Economically
The share of plastics that is economically recyclable mechanically could grow from21 perviable
cent in
Almost economically viable2016 to 54 per cent in 2040
Not economical

Rigids(clear)Rigids(no end market)

Rigids and flexibles(contamination)

Multilayer material

0

Rigids(colour)

Cost ofcollection
and sorting

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

55%

60%

65%

70%

75%

80%

85%

90%

95%

100%

-500

0%

-1,000Figure 30: MechanicalFlexibles
recycling economics for different material types, 2016 versus 2040
for latest titles & captions see report indesign doc(clear)21%-1,500Net profit (US$/ metric ton)

500

2016

Economically viable
Almost economically viable
Not economical

2040 System Change Scenario
2016 Rigids
Rigids(clear)RigidsRigids (colour)

Rigids(colour)

Flexibles
flexibles(clear)Rigids andRigids
and flexibles(contamination)(contamination)

Multilayermaterial
Multilayermaterial00(no end market)

Cost of
Cost ofcollection
collection
and sortingand sorting

-500
-500

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%
0%0% 5%5% 10%10% 15%15% 20%

Flexibles(clear)21%-1,500 -1,000-1,500 -1,000

Net profit (US$/ metric ton)
Net profit (US$/ metric ton)

500
500

(clear)54%

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 tonof 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 percent) 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 ofuncontaminated waste is higherRigids
than in middle-/low-income countries. “No end market” includes PVC, PS and EPS. Commodity prices are assumed to remain stable.
(clear)Cost of
Rigids
Flexibles
collection(colour)(clear)Rigidsandflexibles
A Comprehensive Assessment of Pathways Towards Stopping Ocean Plastic Pollution and sorting
65
Multilayer material(contamination)
0

tric ton)

500

2040 System Change Scenario

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

55%

60%

65%

70%

75%

80%

85%

90%

95%

100%

CHAPTER 2: CHANGING THE SYSTEM

Enabling conditions•

Several enabling conditions can help accelerate the designfor-recycling system intervention and help achieve its fullpotential. These include:

Shifting consumer preferences driving higher demand
for recycled content and higher recyclability of plastic
products.

•

Voluntary commitments by producers and retailers toincrease recyclability and integrate recycled content inplastic products.

•

•

•

Strong policy interventions that promote the use andincrease the value of recycled polymers and incentivize
producers to develop products with end-of-use
considerations. Examples include fee modulation basedon recyclability in extended producer responsibility
schemes; design for recycling standards; recycling targets;minimum recycled content targets; taxes on the use ofvirgin plastic feedstock; regulatory mandates on certain
pigments, polymers and additives; disclosure mandates;
and the regulation of recycling labelling practices.

Limiting factors
There are also barriers to scaling up design-for-recycling
solutions that need to be considered and overcome, forexample:•Product differentiation is often established throughmultiple levels of packaging and labelling. New productbranding devices will be needed.

•

Some applications need multilayers because they
currently have no technical alternatives, although thisrepresents a small proportion.

•

Some consumers may prefer smaller format packaging
due to limited space or because they can only afford
smaller volume products. For such products that are
unlikely to ever cross the barrier to becoming collectedat scale and profitable to recycle, solutions may lie in
new delivery models, at an equivalent or lower cost,rather than design for recycling.

•

Barriers and additives in plastic are often important forfood and drug preservation and extended shelf life.
Innovation and research are needed to design morerecyclable alternatives that avoid spoilage.

•

Plastics can be contaminated by the substancesthat they held, which can lead to the accumulationof hazardous chemicals in recycled material. Better
separation of food contact and nonfood contact
packaging would help reduce contamination.

Greater industry collaboration and engagement, including:–

Development of new polymer production andpackaging designs in coordination with recycling
and sorting technology companies.

–

Collaboration with ink manufacturers over thedevelopment of re-extrudable inks and new printing
processes to enable brand differentiation without
the contamination associated with inks, additives,and mixed polymer use.

–

Harmonization of materials and packaging formats
across companies. Coordination to improve andstandardize recycling bin designs.

Increased public- and private-sector R&D investment
into design for recycling and associated technology,
including:–Investments in products that meet recycling
specifications without sacrificing product safety,
stability, or purity.

–

Support for further innovation in sorting technologies
Figure 31: Recycling economics
ton of input,
high-income
latest titlesper& captions
see report
indesign docarchetype, 2016 USD
to address pigments, additives, inks, andforlabels.

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$583

US$/metric ton of collected plastic

$711

+94%
$120

$248

Design for recycling
improvements

Net profit after
design for recycling$128

Revenue

Cost of recycling
operation

Net profit

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.

66

BREAKING THE PLASTIC WAVE

A STRATEGY TO REDUCE OCEAN PLASTIC POLLUTION RATES BY 80 PER CENT

Macroplastic system interventions

SYSTEM INTERVENTION 4
Expand waste collection rates in middle- andlow-income countries to 90 per cent in all urban
areas and 50 per cent in rural areas by 2040, andsupport the informal collection sector

INTERVENTION SUMMARY•

We estimate that 22 per cent of global plastic
waste is left uncollected; this figure could grow to
34 per cent by 2040 under BAU.

Highly applicable•

By 2040, approximately 4 billion people need tobe connected to collection services (2 billion wholack it today125 and 1.7 billion population growth).
Closing this gap would require connecting
approximately 500,000 people to collection
services per day, every single day,until 2040.

Most relevant geographic archetypes•

kyrychukvitaliy/Adobe Stock•

Although rural areas make up 28 per cent ofwaste generation, they represent 57 per cent of
uncollected waste, as collection is more difficultand 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 haveotherwise leaked. About 59 per cent of all plastic
recycled globally is collected by the informal
sector.

Somewhat applicableNot applicable

HI
Urban

UMI
Urban

LMI
Urban

LI
Urban

HI
Rural

UMI
Rural

LMI
Rural

LI
Rural

HI: High-income
LMI: Lower middle-income
UMI: Upper middle-income LI: Low-income

Most relevant plastic categories
Rigid

Flex

Multi

Main responsible stakeholders• Local governments

A Comprehensive Assessment of Pathways Towards Stopping Ocean Plastic Pollution

67

CHAPTER 2: CHANGING THE SYSTEM

Collection under Business-as-Usual
By 2040, under BAU, we estimate that the mass of
uncollected macroplastic waste will grow from 47 million
metric tons per year (22 per cent of total plastic waste)
to 143 million metric tons per year (34 per cent of total
plastic waste)—the vast majority in middle-/low-income
countries—with profound implications for communities
and ecosystems. Closing this collection gap is one of themost critical interventions needed to achieve a meaningful
reduction in ocean plastic pollution. Expanding plastic waste
collection to the extent modelled in the System Change
Scenario will take significant funding and innovation.
As populations and wealth increase across middle-/
low-income countries, it is reasonable to assume, basedon historical trends, that the amount of macroplastic
waste generated will increase faster than the ability of
governments to plan waste management systems anddevelop infrastructure. The proportion of collected waste
will therefore likely stall or decrease as governments
struggle to keep pace. This explains why the mass of
uncollected waste, and the leakage to the ocean that flows
from it, is expected to grow so rapidly. In our BAU Scenario,
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

Collection under the System Change
ScenarioIn the System Change Scenario, we assume that LI, LMI,
and UMI countries will achieve a similar collection rate to
HI countries when they reach the same per capita GDP
level. Effectively, this means that we assume collection rates(formal and informal) will reach 90 per cent in urban areas ofmiddle-/low-income countries and 50 per cent in rural areas.
We assume that informal collection will grow at the samerate as under BAU, and hence that most growth in collection
will be through the formal sector.
Achieving these aspirational collection rates will require
tremendous resources from governments and industry
throughout the world. HI countries are probably equipped
to absorb these additional costs, but middle-/low-income
countries will have much more difficulty.
Rural areas generate a disproportionate share of plastic
entering the ocean, accounting for 45 per cent of leakage in2016, but 28 per cent of total waste generated; it is therefore
critical that the expansion of collection services is focusedon rural as much as urban communities.

Box 7: The economics of formal and informal macroplastic waste collection
Collection can be classified into service-driven collection andmarket-driven collection.

Method 1: Allocated cost of plastic collection (throughformal sector)

Service-driven collection is usually carried out by the formal
sector, at the behest of municipal authorities who provide
waste management as a service to their citizens. Servicedriven collection is strongest in HI countries and the urban
centres of LMI, UMI, and LI countries. Most plastic waste iscollected mixed with other waste streams (mainly organics),
but some can be separated at source for recycling andcollected separately (usually with other dry recyclables).

Macroplastic waste has a low bulk density, which means
it occupies significant space on waste collection vehicles
compared with other, denser materials. Although the lightness
and high ductility of plastic products is beneficial during theuse phase, its impact on waste collection costs is profound. In
this method, we estimate the cost of plastic collection to be
between US$54 and US$156 per metric ton across LI, LMI, and
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
materials from household waste, either at the kerbsidefrom waste bins or from dumpsites and landfills. Although
increasing service-driven collection rates requires funding
from governments, increasing market-driven collection rates
can be achieved by raising the value of materials. A material’svalue is the key driver of its collection rate. The result of thischerry-picking is that lower value and lighter items of plastic
waste (mainly flexible monomaterials such as bags and films,
and multimaterial or multilayer items such as sachets andbeverage cartons) are more likely to remain uncollected andultimately are burned openly or leaked into the environment.
Focusing system interventions on these materials is therefore a
top priority for reducing the negative environmental impacts ofwaste plastics globally.
There are three reasonable methods to estimate the costof collecting plastic per metric ton in middle-/low-income
countries.

68

BREAKING THE PLASTIC WAVE

Method 2: Full cost of waste collection (through formal
sector)In most cases, plastic is mixed with other waste streams andcannot be collected in isolation (in other words, collection is a“bundled system”). To collect 1 metric ton of plastic, one must
therefore effectively also collect 9 metric tons of nonplastic
waste, which costs US$43-US$123 per metric ton (collecting
mixed waste is cheaper per metric ton than plastic in isolation).
The cost of collecting 1 metric ton of plastic as MSW therefore
actually costs on average US$770 per metric ton acrossmiddle-/low-income countries. This method more accuratelyreflects the real costs for governments to collect a metric tonof plastic.
Method 3: Collection through informal sector
Another option is to collect waste through the informal sector.
We estimate this cost at US$315 per metric ton. This method
does not need to account for other waste streams because
waste collectors can choose what they collect.

A STRATEGY TO REDUCE OCEAN PLASTIC POLLUTION RATES BY 80 PER CENT

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
for latest titles & captions see report indesign doc
interventions
Scenario in middle-/low-income countries
Business-as-Usual Scenario

X% Collected rate
Reduce & Substitute

System Change Scenario

Uncollected waste

320

320

300

300

280

280

260

260

Plastic mass, million metric tons

Plastic mass, million metric tons

Collected waste

240
220
200
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40

240
220
200
180
160
140
120
100
80
60

63%

52%

40

20
0
2016

82%

63%

20
2030

2040

The System Change Scenario could significantly increase
2040 collection rates relative to BAU (from 66 per cent to87 per cent) without increasing collection mass significantly
thanks to the Reduce and Substitute system interventions.
Although substitutions (e.g., paper) also require collection(and this cost has been accounted for in our model), thesematerials have significantly higher collection rates relative toplastic because of paper’s higher recyclability.

Improving effectiveness of collection
through better governanceOur model estimates that 25 per cent of the macroplastic
that enters waterways every year is dumped there directly bycollection vehicles whose operators want to avoid landfill taxes
and/or the cost and time of travelling to controlled treatment
or disposal facilities (or because no facility is available). Evidence
to support the underlying assumptions behind this estimate isscant and anecdotal at best127 because the activity is generally
illegal and participants are understandably reluctant to share
information. However, it is a phenomenon that can easily beobserved in many areas in the middle-/low-income countries.
In the System Change Scenario, we ambitiously estimatethat direct dumping of post-collected waste could be
reduced by 80 per cent by combining existing technologicalinnovation and stronger regulatory oversight. For instance, themovement of waste collection vehicles could be monitoredwith the help of new developments in telemetry that allow
the cost-effective tracking of vehicles. This technology is
becoming cheaper and has already been employed in somecities in middle-/low-income countries.128

0
2016

2030

2040

Informal recycling sector participants are exposed tounacceptably high levels of risk from hazards, such as airborne
particulate matter from open burning, contaminated medical
sharps, nonmedical sharp objects, and bio-aerosols, to namea few.133 Furthermore, waste pickers are often stigmatizedand even criminalized for their work, which is mostly
unrecognized by other agents.134 Discouraging waste-picking
on the grounds of poor working conditions would deprive
entrepreneurs of vital income. Conversely, encouraging
the proliferation of the informal recycling sector as a costeffective waste management service is to be complicit withsometimes unacceptably hazardous working conditions.
Rather than propose either of these opposing options,
our System Change Scenario assumes that the informal
recycling sector will grow at the same rate as the global urban
population; this means a 58 per cent increase in both thenumber of waste pickers and the macroplastic they collect by2040.
For the expansion of the informal sector to become asocially just solution to plastic pollution, its participants
need to be remunerated fairly and their working conditions
improved. In many areas, waste pickers have been shown
to reduce municipal spending on waste management. Ifeven a proportion of these savings could be allocated totheir direct remuneration and improving working conditions,
there would be potential for the sector to develop, reducerisk, and professionalize its activities. Improving the situation
for waste pickers will help solve a host of chronic social andeconomic problems and contribute towards meeting several
Sustainable Development Goals.

A Comprehensive Assessment of Pathways Towards Stopping Ocean Plastic Pollution

69

CHAPTER 2: CHANGING THE SYSTEM

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 contributionof 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 newtechnologies, 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 notsponsored, 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 otherparts 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 paucityof reliable data, make it very difficult to report on the sector with sufficient accuracy. We estimate the numberof (full-time equivalent) participants worldwide to be 11 million in 2016, collecting a total of 27 million metrictons 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
for latest titles & captions see report indesign doc

Figure 33: Global collection by type, 2016

Globally, the informal sector collects more plastic for recycling than the formal sector

131
Million metric tons of plastic collected

(73%)

(15%)

(12%)

Collected for recycling by theformal sector
1

70

27

22

Collected for recycling by the
informal sector1

Includes collection from households, streets, and dumpsites.

BREAKING THE PLASTIC WAVE

Collected for disposal

A STRATEGY TO REDUCE OCEAN PLASTIC POLLUTION RATES BY 80 PER CENT•Box 9: Health and environmental risksof open burning
There are many significant risks associated with
uncollected waste, many of which stem from the open
burning of plastic waste. Our model shows that, in 2016,
49 million metric tons of uncollected macroplastic
waste was burned openly, either as fuel or as a meansof disposal in the absence of a waste management
provision. By 2040, our model anticipates that this figure
could increase to 133 million metric tons under BAU.
Combustion is rarely complete in open burning,leading to the formation of fine particulate matter,coated in oily materials such as tars and polyaromatichydrocarbons (PAH). Particulate matter, particularly PM
2.5 PAH, is both mutagenic and carcinogenic, causingdevelopmental and immunological impairments
as well as reproductive abnormalities. Air pollution
is responsible for as many as 3.7 million deaths per
year135 and open burning is believed to be a significant
contributor. Plastic waste combustion also contributes
to climate change because plastic is almost entirely
made from fossil carbon. The partial combustion ofplastic releases black carbon aerosols, which may haveas much as 5,000 times the global warming potentialof CO2.136 The negative impacts on health and thewider environment make open burning an entirely
unacceptable disposal option.

•

Governance, quality of collection, and planning
Dumping waste in the natural environment is illegal
in many countries, but progress is needed to increase
compliance with regulations, combat corruption, andboost the enforcement capacity of governments. Resultsbased financing, including contract instruments suchas capping fees and performance-based remuneration,
may be effective both in improving the quality of waste
collection and in preventing illegal dumping.

Mandating the use of recycled content to increasedemand for secondary materials.

–

Designing more plastic for recycling (see System
Intervention 3).

–

Reducing the variety of polymers to lessen theneed for sorting.

–

Creating and developing local or regional markets
to provide better access for the informal recycling
sector.

Several limiting factors also need to be addressed:•

Funding
Waste collection is already a significant cost burden formunicipal authorities throughout the world, typicallyaccounting for 19 per cent of municipal budgets in LI
countries, 11 per cent in LMI and UMI countries, and 4
per cent in HI countries.137 Central governments shoulder
much of the burden of investment in treatment, disposal,
storage, and collection infrastructure. Plus, investment
is often most needed where monetary resources areleast available. The billions of dollars of investment incollection and storage equipment, let alone the operating
expenditure necessary to keep collection systems
running, are unlikely to become available from taxationin middle-/low-income countries over the next 20 years.
Governments will need to source funds elsewhere. One
option is to increase industry funding through extended
producer responsibility, a virgin plastic tax, or othermechanisms.

•

Chronic lack of collection in rural areas, unlawful
settlements, and slums
Rural and remote areas have significantly lower
collection rates and higher collection costs, while somesettlements may have no waste collection services at
all,138 meaning that residents have to manage their waste
informally. Similar issues affect many of the lowestincome and slum areas. Extending and expanding
collection in these areas is critical to reducing plastic
pollution, but will rely on funding, policy, and innovation.

•

Addressing organic waste
Although this report focuses on plastic, it is important toacknowledge that formal collection services target all
waste streams, not plastic alone. The solutions available(or not) for other waste streams, and particularly organic
matter, will have a fundamental impact on the valueof plastic because mixing organic and plastic waste inbins is one of the leading causes of plastic value loss
due to contamination. Crucially, the need to collectorganics is also the largest cost driver when expanding
collection coverage because organics are the largest
waste stream, often making up more than 50 per cent ofmunicipal waste.139

Several enabling conditions can help accelerate the scale-up
of collection and help this system intervention achieve its fullpotential. These include:
Innovation and technology
Innovations in waste collection can help solve a rangeof challenges. New models for the aggregation of waste(including decentralized management and deposit
schemes), enhancing communication with waste
producers, and better logistics for collectors could all
improve the microeconomic viability of waste collectionin less accessible areas. Decentralized waste storage,
processing, and treatment can empower local people
while diverting resources away from disposal andreducing the chance of mismanagement. New businessmodels can also play a role. Companies are piloting
business models that incentivize consumers to collectand separate at source by sharing the value of collected
products. Advances in telemetry to monitor collection
vehicles, in combination with regulatory enforcement,
can be used to reduce the direct dumping of collected
waste into waterways.

–

Limiting factors

Enabling conditions•

Increasing the value of materials
For market-driven collection to expand, the value ofmaterials must be higher than the cost of collection.
Examples of ways to increase the material value of
waste include:

A Comprehensive Assessment of Pathways Towards Stopping Ocean Plastic Pollution

71CHAPTER 2: CHANGING THE SYSTEM

Macroplastic system interventions

SYSTEM INTERVENTION 5
Double mechanical recycling capacity globallyto 86 million metric tons per year by 2040

INTERVENTION SUMMARY
Today’s plastic recycling system is failing us: Only
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$350US$540 per metric ton more profitable in the
future across all archetypes because, unlike landfill
and incineration, it generates revenue.

•

•

•

72

Mechanical recycling capacity can scale up
to address 86 million metric tons per year ofplastic waste by 2040, equivalent to opening 107
recycling plants of 20,000 metric tons per year
capacity globally every year from 2021 until 2040.
By 2040, 33 per cent of total plastic MSW would
be mechanically recycled (after Reduce andSubstitute interventions). Even in this aspirational
scenario, 67 per cent of plastic waste remains
unrecycled due to limitations on expanding
collection, on what can be profitably recycled, andon material losses.
Each reprocessing cycle degrades the material,
which means that even a product designed forrecycling 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 inplay.
Each metric ton of recycled feedstock offsets 48
per cent in GHG emissions (1.9 tCO2e/t) relative to
virgin plastic production.

BREAKING THE PLASTIC WAVE

Highly applicable

Somewhat applicableNot applicable

Most relevant geographic archetypes
HI
Urban

UMI
Urban

LMI
Urban

LI
Urban

HI
Rural

UMI
Rural

LMI
Rural

LI
Rural

HI: High-income
LMI: Lower middle-income
UMI: Upper middle-income LI: Low-income

Most relevant plastic categories

Rigid

Flex

Multi

Main responsible stakeholders• Waste management companies

kyrychukvitaliy/Adobe Stock•A STRATEGY TO REDUCE OCEAN PLASTIC POLLUTION RATES BY 80 PER CENTThis system intervention quantifies how far mechanicalrecycling can go towards managing the plastic wastethat remains after the upstream Reduce and Substituteinterventions have been applied and after design forrecycling has been ambitiously applied. The analysis clearly
illustrates that, although we cannot recycle ourselves outof the plastic pollution problem, mechanical recycling is an
important part of the integrated solution.
Today, many industry efforts and commitments are being
directed towards recyclability, but mechanical recycling has
historically struggled due to a combination of factors, mostnotably fragile economics. This fragility is driven by threeimportant factors:
Volatile and low prices for recycled plastic, linked to
low global commodity prices for oil and virgin plastic:
Recycled plastic prices have been volatile, and this has
limited investments in collection and recycling capacity,
reducing raw recyclate material and restricting growth.

•

Consistency and grade: Recycled plastic has
traditionally not matched the consistency and grade ofvirgin plastic and is usually traded at lower prices, which
limits the value generated from the recycling supply
chain.

•

Low disposal costs: Landfill and incineration options
have historically been attractively inexpensive, stiflingthe demand for alternative methods of treating waste.

•

Today’s recycling system has failed to cope with current
volumes and types of plastic waste, resulting in 15 per centof global plastic waste being recycled. Moreover, this figure
is probably an overestimation because reported figures forplastic recycling include exported waste, which is assumed
to be fully recycled, although anecdotal evidence indicatesthat this is not always the case.140 Even when plastic is
recycled, open-loop recycling makes up an estimated twothirds of global capacity, highlighting the lack of circularity
in the system. Materials need to be recycled to the highest
standard and level of purity to be able to be used for a wide
variety of products and for recyclates to become a valuablecommodity.
There is an intrinsic limitation on how much of the plastic
waste stream can currently be recycled. For something to bedeemed recyclable, the system must be in place for it to becollected, sorted, reprocessed, and manufactured back into
a new product or packaging—at scale and economically.141
There are currently four factors that limit how much of theplastic waste can therefore be defined as recyclable:
1.

Many product designs are technically problematicfor mechanical recycling, for example, composite or
multilayer designs made up of different materials or
polymer types.

2.

Local infrastructure and technology to collect, sort,and recycle the product after use is often lacking.

3.

Plastic often becomes contaminated with other waste,making recycling unviable because it can become too
costly to clean and separate the plastic fractions.

4.

Some plastic is not economically recyclable withinreasonable system constraints due to the additionalcosts required for certain product types, e.g., small,lightweight items with high collection and separation
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 reduceleakage 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 thewaste 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., forlandfills 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.

A Comprehensive Assessment of Pathways Towards Stopping Ocean Plastic Pollution73CHAPTER 2: CHANGING THE SYSTEM

Material losses inherent in the system mean that there is afurther important distinction between what is collected forrecycling and how much is actually recycled. These sorting
and recycling losses collectively lead to a 42 per cent loss
in material in high-income countries. The prevalence of theinformal sector and manual sorting in middle-/low-income
countries results in a lower cumulative loss rate of 31 per
cent, because the sorted plastic waste is generally of ahigher quality.
Even if we could significantly increase recycling rates, thiswould not automatically translate into lower leakage to theocean. If we increase recycling rates in areas that alreadyhave secure disposal of waste—as in most high-income
countries—ocean plastic pollution will barely be impacted
because the feedstock is landfill-bound (or incineratorbound) plastic, not ocean-bound plastic. This is notnecessarily the case for plastic that is exported, and as such it
is important for high-income countries to increase their own
local recycling infrastructure (see System Intervention 8).
There are many other reasons why recycling plastic is better
than landfilling or incinerating it, even in situations where it
does not directly reduce plastic pollution, including reducing
GHG emissions and natural resource extraction.
If recycling is to contribute to reducing leakage, it isimportant to build a profitable recycling and sorting industry
that can cover the cost of plastic collection and implement it
at scale in the places that contribute the most to leakage.

Not accounting for landfill tipping fees, the recycling ofmany plastic types is currently less economical than landfill
or incineration, which means they are recycled only wheneither:a) Collection and/or sorting are subsidized by thegovernment or funded through extended producer
responsibility schemes; orb) Informal and private-sector collectors target the plastic
types with highest value for recycling and build private
collection systems and supply chains—often “piggy-backed”
onto formal waste systems where materials have alreadybeen aggregated in waste transport vehicles, transfer
stations, or dumpsites.
Currently, mechanical recycling could generate a net systemprofit in LMI countries of US$51 per metric ton of collected
plastic, while recycling in HI countries would result in a lossof US$293 per metric ton of collected plastic, if collection
and sorting is included (see Figure 34).
Landfilling and incineration are always likely to incur a net
cost because they do not generate sufficient revenue, but
recycling has the potential to break even and even become
net profitable across all archetypes if design for recycling
is implemented, collection systems are improved andexpanded, and technology improves (see Figure 35).

Figure 34: End-to-end closed-loop recycling economics in high-income (HI) andformiddle-income
latest titles & captions
report indesign
lower(LMI)seecountries,
2016 doc

Figure 34: End-to-end closed-loop recycling economics in high-income and lower middleincome countries, 2016
Mechanical recycling is not profitable in high-income countries if the cost of collection and sortingis accounted forHigh-income countries

Lower middle-income countries
Recycling
Collection & sorting$760
US$/metric ton of collected plastic$583

US$/metric ton of collected plastic

$711

$421

Net profit/loss

$394

$315

$51
Sale price ofrecycling

Cost ofrecycling

Cost ofcollection
and sorting

Net profit/
loss

$-293
Sale price ofrecycling

Cost ofrecycling

Cost ofcollection
and sorting

Net profit/
loss

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 arecalculated 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 ofcollected 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.

74

BREAKING THE PLASTIC WAVE

Figure 8: Development of net system loss/profit per technology, 2016-2040
latesttitlesOCEAN& captions
see report
Afor
STRATEGY
TO REDUCE
PLASTIC POLLUTIONRATES 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

Net profit/loss(US$/metric ton of collected plastic)

Closed-loop mechanical recycling could be net profitable in all regions without subsidies

350

LMI-Disposal

300

LMI-Closed-loop
mechanical recycling
HI-Disposal

250
200

HI-Closed-loop
mechanical recycling

150
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 fulllife-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
Mechanicalrecycling
could
bethroughout
net-profitable
over
time
both LMIbyandHI, while(incineration/landfill)or landfill gate
fees are included.
The material
lossesthe life cycle
havebeeninincorporated
representing
the disposal
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 overalways 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
for latest titles & captions see report indesign doc
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
the System
Scenario
conditions
HI isusing Change
formal collection
costs. DisposalEnablingcosts increaseover time to account for the increasing cost
perthatton inofthecollection
with increasing
We estimate
System Change
Scenario,coverage.
Several enabling conditions can help accelerate this systemmechanical recycling capacity could scale up globally toaddress 86 million metric tons per year of plastic waste
by 2040, equivalent to 38 per cent of total plastic MSW
worldwide (after the Reduce and Substitute wedges havebeen applied). This is an increase from the 43 million metrictons, or 20 per cent of total plastic waste, in 2016, and will
require opening 107 recycling plants of 20,000 metric tons
per year capacity globally every year from 2021 until 2040.

intervention and allow it to achieve its full potential.
•

The resulting increase in recycling could allow 14 per centof virgin plastic demand to be offset by 2040, equivalent to a
59 million tons CO2e reduction in GHG emissions annually.
However, even in this aspirational scenario, 67 per cent ofplastic waste remains unrecycled (mechanically) due tolimitations on expanding collection, limits on what can be
profitably recycled, and technical limits on material losses.
In other words, we cannot simply recycle our way out of ourplastic problem.

•

Improved recycling economics:–

Increased demand for recycled plastic, such as theneed for fast-moving consumer goods (FMCGs)
to meet voluntary public commitments and policy
requirements in terms of recycled content. This
would lead to higher prices paid for recycledcontent.

–

Machinery for mechanical recycling coming downin cost due to the commoditization of recycling
technology.

–

Virgin plastic and landfill/incineration gradually being
made more expensive via taxation to the degree
that recycling is more financially competitive.142
It is important that this taxation be paired withgood enforcement to avoid open dumping/illegal
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 reachedcommercial viability, including improved technology

A Comprehensive Assessment of Pathways Towards Stopping Ocean Plastic Pollution75

CHAPTER 2: CHANGING THE SYSTEM

to reduce sorting and recycling losses, to address
capacity restraints and to create higher quality
output able to meet food-grade standards.
–•

Higher demand for recycled content:––

Legislation and effective enforcement aimed atdriving demand (e.g., recent announcements on
recycled content taxes in the United Kingdom andFrance, virgin feedstock tax, minimum recycledcontent requirements under European Union
legislation, potential eco-modulation of extended
producer responsibility schemes according torecycled content).
Public procurement policies, which can leveragevolume to create increased demand for recycledcontent/recyclable products.

–

Industry commitments by plastic producers andretailers (e.g., New Plastics Economy Global
Commitment by consumer goods companies andretailers).

–

Long-term agreements with both the private andpublic sectors to guarantee demand for recycled
polymers and mitigate investment risks.

–•More investment in infrastructure capacity acrossarchetypes to accommodate increasing waste.

Enhanced matchmaking mechanisms to enablesecondary markets for recycled materials.

Incentives and policies aimed at improving collection
systems:–

Optimizing convenience and quality of collection
services (e.g., one drop-off centre in a town
captures notably less material than curbside
collection).

–

Developing country-specific extended producer
responsibility schemes to provide price support
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.

Limiting factors
It is important to recognize that mechanical recycling has
several limiting factors:•

Volatile prices linked to commodity prices for oil andvirgin plastic.

•

Losses of material (to a landfill or to incineration) in thesorting and recycling chain.

•

Losses in material properties during mechanicalrecycling, which limits most plastic to two or threerecycling loops before quality deteriorates.

•

Quality of mechanically recycled plastic often
inadequate for current packaging standards, thus
limiting its potential utility (two-thirds of all recycled
packaging is estimated to be food-grade).

•

Recycled materials can contain hazardous chemicals
from diffuse or unknown sources, including chemical
additives used in plastic products. Recycling cantherefore lead to increased human exposure tohazardous chemicals. This is a major concern andbarrier for circularity, especially for food packaging, andrequires work to improve transparency regarding thechemical composition of products.

Due to all these limiting factors, mechanical recycling
cannot process all plastic within reasonable systemconstraints, even under the System Change Scenario,
because:•Even in countries with a developed collection system
subsidized by the government, recycling economics
vary massively by material and contamination level.

•

Anticipated growth in new plastic types and designs(e.g., compostable plastic or compostables thataesthetically look like plastic) could drive up costs due toadditional sorting technology requirements and could
dilute the quality of the recyclate stream.

Plastic moves through a recycling facility.
Albert Karimov/Shutterstock76

BREAKING THE PLASTIC WAVE

A STRATEGY TO REDUCE OCEAN PLASTIC POLLUTION RATES BY 80 PER CENT

Macroplastic system interventions

SYSTEM INTERVENTION 6
Develop plastic-to-plastic conversion, potentially to a
global capacity of up to 13 million metric tons per year

INTERVENTION SUMMARY•••

kyrychukvitaliy/Adobe Stock••We estimate that chemical conversion could achievea global capacity of 26 million metric tons per yearby 2040, up from 1.4 million metric tons today, about
half of which will be converted back into plastic (andthe other half turned to fuel). Expanding the plasticto-plastic component to 13 million metric tons per
year is equivalent to opening roughly 32 plasticto-plastic plants (of 20,000 metric tons per year
capacity each) every year from 2021 until 2040.
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
in HI countries it is economically viable only ifgovernments or industry subsidize collection andsorting.
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 theenvironment, it needs to be profitable enough tocover collection costs; otherwise, the feedstock
will come from plastic that is already collected for
landfilling, not from the unmanaged waste bound forthe 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,
substituted, or mechanically recycled.
The GHG emissions generated to produce 1 metricton of feedstock through plastic-to-plastic is 19 percent lower than a metric ton of virgin plastic destinedfor incineration and 9 per cent higher than 1 metricton of virgin plastic destined for a landfill.

Highly applicable

Somewhat applicableNot applicable

Most relevant geographic archetypes
HI
Urban

UMI
Urban

LMI
Urban

LI
Urban

HI
Rural

UMI
Rural

LMI
Rural

LI
Rural

HI: High-income
LMI: Lower middle-income
UMI: Upper middle-income LI: Low-income

Most relevant plastic categories
Rigid

Flex

Multi

Main responsible stakeholders• Waste management companies• Petrochemical industry

A Comprehensive Assessment of Pathways Towards Stopping Ocean Plastic Pollution77CHAPTER 2: CHANGING THE SYSTEM

The term chemical conversion refers to any reprocessing
technology that uses chemical agents or processes to break
down plastic into basic chemical building blocks that can beused to make new plastic or other materials. This contrasts
with mechanical recycling, which uses physical methods tore-form plastic pellets for plastic manufacturing. Due to thelimitations of mechanical recycling for some plastic types,
new recycling technologies are being advanced that canhandle lower-value plastic, such as film and multimaterials,
and plastic that has been contaminated.
Several chemical conversion technologies are being
developed that can chemically treat waste plastic back into
petrochemical compounds that can then be reintroduced
into the petrochemical process to produce plastic feedstockwith the same properties as virgin plastic—a route known
as plastic-to-plastic chemical conversion and considered atype of recycling. These feedstocks can also be refined into
alternative fuels, such as diesel—a route known as plastic-tofuel and that we consider to be a type of disposal as it does
not allow carbon to be utilized for additional anthropogenic
loops (see System Intervention 7).
Many companies are actively considering plastic-to-plastic
chemical conversion, for several reasons:•

It expands feedstock options beyond what mechanicalrecycling tolerates, including mixed polymers, low-value
and contaminated plastic, and pigments. It is important
to note that chemical conversion still has limitations on
feedstock, as shown in Figure 36.

•

In contrast to mechanical recycling, in pyrolysis-based
technologies, the polymer is broken down rather thanpreserved, which allows for infinite reprocessing cycles.

•

It creates a new revenue stream and the potential
to charge a price premium for plastic derived fromrecycled content, while still meeting regulatory
requirements for recycled content.

•

For many food companies, plastic-to-plastic chemical
conversion currently represents the only way toincorporate recycled content into their packaging
because there is no food contact-approved
mechanically recycled content apart from PET and
minimal HDPE. Chemical conversion therefore provides
a pathway to meet the growing demand for virginquality, food-grade recycled plastic.

•

It partially “de-risks” the petrochemical industry, which isseeking ways to source plastic feedstock in a 1.5oC world.

For the time being, however, chemical conversion has
not been proved at scale. Compared with mechanicalrecycling, it has higher costs, energy requirements, and GHG
emissions. Although its viability at scale should be developedand evaluated, its expansion should be contingent on the
decarbonization of energy sources, and natural lead times andlimitations of emerging technologies must be recognized.

Chemical and mechanical recycling synergies
Mechanical recycling and chemical conversion arecomplementary—not competing—technologies as theyhandle different feedstock. For low-value or contaminated78

BREAKING THE PLASTIC WAVE

plastic not suitable for mechanical recycling, chemical
conversion has the potential to provide a method of
reintroducing the plastic polymers back into the systemand closing the loop. However, for chemical conversion tocontribute to the reduction of plastic leakage to the ocean,its economics must account for the cost of collection;otherwise, the waste plastic feedstock will likely comefrom plastics that are bound for landfills, rather than thosedestined to leak into the environment.
Deploying mechanical and chemical recycling technologies
together creates many synergies as feedstock acceptability
expands and the economics improve due to higher recycling
yields and lower transportation costs. Synergies may be
maximized when mechanical recycling and chemical
conversion are co-located because, together, they candeal with almost the entire plastic waste stream. Recent
modelling of this kind of co-location arrangement estimatesthat a combined facility could increase revenue by 25 percent compared with a best-in-class mechanical recycling
plant on its own.144 Chemical conversion could act as an
end market for many materials that cannot be mechanicallyrecycled profitably. However, if there is a mechanicalrecycling end market for the same material that pays better,material would be expected to flow there instead.

Chemical conversion technologies
Many chemical recycling technologies exist, but there arethree main types, and they differ significantly in how theywork and the outputs they produce:•

Solvent-based purification is a process in which plastic
is dissolved in a solvent and a series of purification
steps are undertaken to separate the polymer fromadditives and contaminants. The resulting output is theprecipitated polymer, which remains unaffected by theprocess and can be reformulated into plastics. Solventbased purification does not change the constitutionof the polymer itself, so there are ongoing discussions
as to whether this technology should be defined asmechanical rather than chemical recycling, or as aseparate class (see also ISO 15270:2008).

•

Chemical depolymerization yields either single
monomer molecules or shorter fragments often called
oligomers. This can provide recycled content for PET.

•

Thermal depolymerization is any thermal process thatconverts polymers into simpler molecules. The twomain processes for this are pyrolysis and gasification.
The products of pyrolysis or gasification can easily
integrate into existing chemical processing supply chains.
Feedstock recycling can provide recycled content for all
our polypropylene (PP) and polyethylene (PE) packaging.

For the purpose of this system intervention, we modelled
the economics of pyrolysis because this technology is themost mature and therefore has the most reliable data. It canhandle feedstock made up of mixed plastics that cannot be
reduced, substituted, or recycled, and there is no limit to thenumber of times plastic can be reprocessed as the polymer
is not degraded. The output can be used to deliver foodsafe recycled content. The plants can be modular, which
increases the potential for global scale-up by allowing the
supply chain economics to work.

A STRATEGY TO REDUCE OCEAN PLASTIC POLLUTION RATES BY 80 PER CENT

Figure 36: Feedstock tolerance comparison for mechanical recycling versus pyrolysis
Figure 9: conversion
Feedstock expands
tolerancecomparison
for mechanical recycling versus pyrolysis
Chemicalfeedstock
tolerance
Chemical conversion expands feedstock tolerance

Value of plastic

High

PET

Clean/sorted
waste

Contaminated
waste

Low

HDPE

PP

LDPE +LLDPE

Mechanicalrecycling

PVC

PS

Multilayers

Technicallyfeasible

Pyrolysis

Feasible under somecircumstances
Technically not
feasible

Mechanicalrecycling
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)
or inks,
additives,and mixed
polymers.
Mechanicalofare
LDPE/LLDPE
is mostlyinopen-loop
recycling.
LDPE/LLDPE
is mostly
open-loop
recycling.
All polymers
containing
oxygenrecyclingor nitrogenconsidered impurities
pyrolysis; thesepolymers 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
cent higher than mechanical recycling, and 9 per centhigher than landfilling—albeit 19 per cent lower thanthat of plastic that is incinerated (see Figure 37). This ispredominantly because the feedstock is reintroduced
into the same plastic production process as virginplastic. However, it should be noted that data for the
GHG emissions of these technologies is severely limited
and that further transparency and monitoring is needed
to improve assessments. Currently, chemically recycledplastic could have a higher level of embedded carbon
than virgin plastic. Furthermore, if decarbonization ofelectricity requirements does not occur in line with
International Energy Agency projections, the emissions
from this technology would be considerably higher.
As such, its expansion should be contingent on the
decarbonization of energy sources.

•

Plastic-to-plastic chemical conversion could risk
diverting research and development financing awayfrom better, more efficient solutions. Several chemicalcompanies are funding the R&D of plastic products thatcan be mechanically recycled more easily.147 Promoting
pyrolysis could eliminate the incentives for these R&D
efforts. Likewise, it risks diverting corporate attention
and investments away from more sustainable reuse
solutions.

Chemical conversion is a controversial technology because
it is still in its early stage of development, has high energy
requirements, and accurate assumptions about its impacts
and contributions cannot yet be made. Critics fear that it isbeing positioned by some advocates as a panacea; however,
our analysis illustrates that, despite having an importantrole to play for low-value plastic, plastic-to-plastic chemical
recycling can only tackle 6 per cent of plastic waste by 2040
and certainly cannot solve the crisis on its own. Concerns
about the technology include:•

Chemical conversion investments could generatepotential “lock-in effects” and “path dependency,” whichmeans that cities that buy into the model then have tostick with it for many years because large amounts ofcapital have been deployed and contracts to provide
certain quantities of waste have been agreed. This could
even lead to perverse incentives for governments not todecrease plastic waste generation, particularly if they arelocked into “deliver or pay” contracts. This was observedin Oregon, where the presence of a pyrolysis plant wasused to argue against a partial ban on polystyrene.145
Likewise, lock-in scenarios can mean other innovativeand potentially better systems have less chance todevelop. This situation was observed in Scandinavia
and Germany, where heavy investment in incineration
plants 20 years ago prohibited further development
in alternative waste management until recently, whenplants were reaching the end of their lives.146

A Comprehensive Assessment of Pathways Towards Stopping Ocean Plastic Pollution

79CHAPTER 2: CHANGING THE SYSTEM

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

5.0

5.4

-19%

tCO₂e/t of plastic treated

4.4
4.0

4.0

+9%

4.4

+110%

3.0

2.1
2.0

1.0

0.0
Plastic-to-plastic(P2P) chemical
conversion1

Mechanicalrecycling (100%recycled content)2

Landfill

Plastic-to-fuel(P2F) chemical
conversion3

Incineration4

The GHG1.emissions
associatedpathway are ofcalculatedtheat whichprocess
plastic waste
generatedto the that
fulfilmentof GHG
1 metric
ton of plastic
Emissions
includewith
the each
repolymerization
naphtha fromas wellaspoint
the pyrolysis
itself. is
It should
be noted
data foremissionsfor thisutility.
One metric tonof plastic utility
is defined as the material/services required to provide the equivalent value as 1 metric ton of plastic.
technology
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 ofthat 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
Although it has limitations, chemical conversion could
have a role to play in stemming ocean plastic pollution
because of its ability to create an economic sink for certain
low-value plastic items that represent a high proportion ofplastic leakage and cannot be readily reduced, substituted,
or mechanically recycled. In fact, chemical conversion
may be the only path able to contribute to paying for theircollection. We estimate that global chemical conversion
capacity today is 1.4 million metric tons per year, of which
we calculate that the vast majority is plastic-to-fuel. Under
the System Change Scenario, we project that chemical
conversion could grow to 26 million metric tons per yearby 2040, of which 13 million metric tons per year will beplastic-to-plastic chemical conversion. This is equivalent to
opening about 32 plastic-to-plastic chemical conversion
plants (of 20,000 metric tons per year capacity each) every
year from 2021 until 2040. This rate of growth is based on ahigh compound annual growth rate of 16.5 per cent, a rate
seen for technologies that were similarly capital expenditureintensive and aggressively pushed by governments (see thetechnical appendix).
The growth of plastic-to-plastic chemical conversion atscale is only likely to commence from 2030 onward, withthe growth of plastic-to-fuel creating a pathway to achieving
it. Although the technologies to convert to fuel and plastic
80

BREAKING THE PLASTIC WAVE

are similar, plastic-to-plastic chemical conversion has amore focused offtake market that requires a large scale. The
infrastructure will require significant capital investment todevelop and, as such, plastic-to-plastic chemical conversion
needs a longer time horizon to both attract the funding
and build the infrastructure for its typically large plant size
requirement. Based on our estimates, plastic-to-plastic
chemical conversion has the potential to offset 5 per centof virgin plastic demand by 2040, addressing waste thatwould otherwise go to landfills or incineration. In middle-/
low-income countries, plastic-to-plastic chemical conversion
could eventually reduce ocean plastic pollution, but only if
supply chains are put in place to take ocean-bound plastic andprices for collected plastic are sufficient to fund collection.
The end-to-end economics of plastic-to-plastic chemical
conversion using pyrolysis indicate that only lower middleincome (LMI) countries could generate a net system profit
in 2016 and 2040 (see Figure 38). In high-income countries,
this technology is currently profitable only because
collection and sorting are being subsidized by governments,
and additional revenues from tipping fees are collected.
By 2040, both operational expenditure and capital expenditure
costs are estimated to have decreased over time to accountfor efficiency improvements, technological innovation, andscale. With less material lost owing to an increasing yieldover time, the price per metric ton of collected plastic for theA STRATEGY TO REDUCE OCEAN PLASTIC POLLUTION RATES BY 80 PER CENT

Figure 38: End-to-end
chemicalconversion(plastic-to-plastic)
economics through formal
Figure 38:
End-to-end
chemicalconversion (plastic-to-plastic)
for latest titles & captions see report indesign doc
collection, 2016-2040
economics through formal collection, 2016-2040
Chemical conversion economics can significantly improve globally by 2040 with scale andinnovation

Recycling
Collection and sorting
Net profit/loss

High-income countries
US$/metric ton

278

US$/metric ton

2016

378

Lower middle-income countries

421

Sale priceof recycling

Cost ofrecycling

525

205

Cost ofcollection
and sorting

392

Cost ofrecycling

Cost ofcollection
and sorting

198-9
Sale priceof recycling

Cost ofrecycling

522

146

Net profit/loss

Cost ofcollection
and sorting

Net profit/loss

247
130
Sale priceof recycling-72
Sale priceof recycling188

Net profit/loss

US$/metric ton

US$/metric ton

2040

-321

377

Cost ofrecycling

Cost ofcollection
and sorting

Net profit/loss

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 andsorting. 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,chemical conversion could generate a net system profit in LMI
countries of US$130 per metric ton of collected plastic. This
could create an opportunity to reduce plastic pollution further
by using this revenue to fund the collection and sorting of theremaining uncollected and mismanaged waste.

in the United Kingdom and France, and virgin plastic
taxes) and industry commitments (e.g., New Plastics
Economy Global Commitment). This is especially
important for food-grade applications because thesupply of recyclate that meets these quality standards
through mechanical recycling alone is limited. Demand
signals from customers, such as offtake agreements ofa certain volume and price point, will be an importantmechanism to trigger the growth of plastic-to-plastic
chemical conversion.

Enabling conditions
Several enabling conditions can accelerate this systemintervention and help achieve its full potential, including:•

Increasing flows of R&D funding and blended capital tofinance and take on the risk of infrastructure build-up,
especially until the technology reaches commercial
viability.

•

Mechanisms to verify and trace output so that theoutput can be marketed as recycled content, which will
strengthen demand.

•

Legislation to drive higher demand for recycled content(e.g., recent announcements on recycled content taxes•

Reaching sufficient scale to penetrate the market fornaphtha (which requires high volumes). The biggest
barrier is therefore the scale rather than the economics,
as formal collection systems need to be set up first to
guarantee sustained supply. The informal sector is an
important part of the solution, with chemical conversion
having the potential to boost the demand for including
the informal sector in waste collection.

•

Collaboration between suppliers and end-customers toshare the risk through both feedstock agreements andoil price contracts.

A Comprehensive Assessment of Pathways Towards Stopping Ocean Plastic Pollution81CHAPTER 2: CHANGING THE SYSTEM

Limiting factors
It is important to recognize that plastic-to-plastic chemical
conversion cannot entirely plug the gap as a solution for
low-value plastics due to a combination of limiting factors. In
addition to the significant problems outlined above relating
to lock-in effects, high GHG emissions, pollution, and steep
infrastructure costs, there are additional limitations that need
to be considered:•This technology is in its infancy and therefore we cannot
yet make accurate assumptions about its impacts,
economics, and contributions. The GHG emissions,water and energy consumption, and health implications
all need to be fully understood prior to its scale-up.

•

Growth is restricted to urban areas due to the high densityof feedstock required to make collection economical.

•

The sales price of the output will be vulnerable toswings in commodity prices, specifically, the price ofoil. Excluding the costs of collection and sorting, ouranalysis shows that a 27 per cent reduction in naphtha
prices would eliminate a pyrolysis plant’s profitability.

•

Given the scale requirements for plastic-to-plastic
chemical conversion, it is likely that plastic-to-fuel willcontinue to be the preferred solution for low-value
plastic in the short term. However, as the scale of plasticto-plastic chemical conversion infrastructure matures,the capacity is eventually expected to attract plastic-toplastic off-take customers. It is important to address thefactors that could jeopardize the transition from plasticto-fuel to plastic-to-plastic chemical conversion:
1.

Plastic-to-plastic chemical conversion requiresa sustained and consistent amount of quality
feedstock to function effectively. In areas ofmiddle-/low-income countries without a formal
collection system, the volume of plastic feedstock
available through cost-effective channels is more
limited and unorganized, and inadequate supply
chains and lack of synergies among different actors
are significant problems. Although the informal
sector plugs this gap for mechanical recycling, thesmall formats and flexibles destined for plastic-toplastic conversion are more time-consuming andrelatively more expensive to collect and sort, so
the informal sector alone cannot guarantee thefeedstock required at this scale.

2.

Plastic-to-fuel is more flexible and, in countries
where demand for oil is high and no ethylene
cracker plants exist, it is often preferred because theoutput can be more readily utilized—whether forfuel or for chemicals such as ethanol/methanol.
3.

In land-locked areas, transportation to shipping
ports could become cost-prohibitive for the plasticto-plastic value chain.

If plastic-to-fuel does not lead to a transition to plastic-toplastic chemical conversion, then it risks locking us into atechnology with high GHG emissions that would lead to theloss of material and perpetuate the linear, fossil-fuel economy,
without the benefits of plastic-to-plastic conversion. Thereis significant R&D investment underway in this space.
Some of the investment directly targets accelerating thescaling of plastic-to-plastic facilities or modifying large-scale
cracker plants to accept smaller quantities. However, otherinvestments seek to stimulate large-scale plastic-to-fuelfacility construction. Because plastic-to-fuel allows for only
one additional use of the initial plastic—as opposed to thecompletely circular solution offered by plastic-to-plastic
chemical conversion—it is important that enabling policies befocused on plastic-to-plastic chemical conversion to advancethe circular economy.

Mechanical recycling and chemical
conversion are complementary—not
competing—technologies as theyhandle different feedstock. For lowvalue or contaminated plastic notsuitable for mechanical recycling,chemical conversion has the potential
to provide a method of reintroducing
the plastic polymers back into thesystem and closing the loop. However,for chemical conversion to contributeto the reduction of plastic leakage tothe ocean, its economics must accountfor the cost of collection; otherwise,
the waste plastic feedstock will likely
come from plastics that are bound for
landfills, rather than those destined toleak 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 ofthe 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 pollutantsin the combustion process.151 The validity of such research should be further investigated to understand the full health
implications of chemical conversion.

82

BREAKING THE PLASTIC WAVE

A STRATEGY TO REDUCE OCEAN PLASTIC POLLUTION RATES BY 80 PER CENT

Macroplastic system interventions

SYSTEM INTERVENTION 7
Build facilities to securely dispose of the23 per cent of plastic that still cannot be recycled

INTERVENTION SUMMARY•••

Landfills, incinerators, and plastic-to-fuelchemical conversion should be used only as a lastresort, after the Reduce, Substitute and Recycle
wedges have all been exploited to their fullest
potential, particularly because incinerators andchemical conversion plants have significant healthrisks. However, it is probably unrealistic to assume
that end-of-life disposal of plastic waste will nolonger be necessary in 2040.
A significant amount of plastic entering the oceanis plastic that has been collected but mismanaged;building some disposal capacity to close leakage
points may be required as a bridge solution.
The System Change Scenario shows that global
landfill expansion can peak by 2030 at 73 million
metric tons per year of new landfill capacity.

Highly applicable

Somewhat applicableNot applicable

Most relevant geographic archetypes
HI
Urban

UMI
Urban

LMI
Urban

LI
Urban

HI
Rural

UMI
Rural

LMI
Rural

LI
Rural

HI: High-income
LMI: Lower middle-income
UMI: Upper middle-income LI: Low-income

Most relevant plastic categories

kyrychukvitaliy/Adobe Stock

Rigid

Flex

Multi

Main responsible stakeholder• National governments

A Comprehensive Assessment of Pathways Towards Stopping Ocean Plastic Pollution83CHAPTER 2: CHANGING THE SYSTEM

Our model indicates that 39 per cent of land-based
macroplastics entering the ocean comes from waste that has
been collected and subsequently mismanaged (see Figure7), accounting for 3.8 million metric tons of macroplastic
leakage into the ocean in 2016. Of this mass, about one-third,
or 1.2 million metric tons per year, is macroplastics that movefrom dumpsites to the ocean through the wind or water.
This system intervention focuses on the infrastructure thatneeds to be built to mitigate this risk and provide a secure
disposal route for the plastic waste that remains after the
implementation of the upstream and recycling interventions.
The International Solid Waste Association defines a dumpsite
as “a land disposal site where the indiscriminate depositof solid waste takes place with either no, or at best very
limited, measures to control the operation and protect
the surrounding environment.”152 In our model, we extend
this definition to include facilities described as “unsanitary
landfills,” where the waste is not prevented from escaping
by using either daily and intermediate covers to reduce thelikelihood of leakage to the environment.
Our BAU Scenario suggests that the amount of macroplastic
waste being deposited in dumpsites or unsanitary landfills
in 2016 was 49 million metric tons, or 23 per cent of all
macroplastic waste generated, and that without intervention
this figure is expected to grow to 100 metric million tons

per year by 2040. The majority of this waste is deposited in
middle-/low-income countries, where even when landfills are
lined and access is restricted, daily cover is rarely implemented,
allowing waste to travel into the surrounding environment
either via surface water or through the air, as shown in Table 6.
Reducing the number of open dumpsites in the world isa core ambition of many governments, not only because
dumpsites lead to significant plastic pollution, but also
because of their GHG emissions and negative healthconsequences, including a significant number of reported
deaths.153 Our System Change Scenario projects a reductionin the mass of plastic deposited in dumpsites from 23 percent in 2016 to 10 per cent in 2040 (see Table 6).
In the System Change Scenario model, we assume that the
Dispose wedge—including sanitary landfills and incineration
as well as plastics-to-fuel chemical conversion—is a last resort
to be used only after the Reduce, Substitute and Recycle
wedges have all been implemented to their maximum
potential. We use historic trends to project the proportion ofresidual plastic waste going to landfills and to incineration,and show that this volume could be reduced from 54 million
metric tons to landfills per year and 80 million metric tons toincineration per year under BAU to 50 million metric tons per
year and 39 million metric tons per year, respectively, under
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 theenvironment 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.

84

BREAKING THE PLASTIC WAVE

A STRATEGY TO REDUCE OCEAN PLASTIC POLLUTION RATES BY 80 PER CENTBox 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 bothvolume (by 90 per cent) and mass (by 80 per cent).157 Modern incinerators also produce electricity and heat, which can beused as an alternative to purely fossil-based sources, although its effectiveness at electricity generation is well below othermethods, at approximately 20-35 per cent efficiency, compared with up to 50 per cent for coal.158 Many drawbacks withincineration are recognized, including:•

Plastic incineration releases CO2 and other GHGs into the atmosphere, along with some nonfossil emissions frombiogenic 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 (orlonger), 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 formof 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 aromatichydrocarbons (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
Lack of financial resources is the main limiting factor
underpinning the inadequacy of both incineration andlandfill capacity in middle-/low-income countries, butparticularly for incineration, which is cost-prohibitive formost economies. Although incinerators generate somerevenue, landfills generate nothing (except for methane
capture systems, which are broadly irrelevant for plastic
waste), and they are both a net cost to governments. Under
the System Change Scenario, the present value of global
government spending on landfill and incineration from 2021
to 2040 is estimated at US$44 billion.
Because there are few market incentives to ensure thatthese facilities are well-managed, both forms of treatment
require strong public governance to ensure that they are

effective at their respective functions while minimizing harmto the environment. This oversight is particularly relevantin middle-/low-income countries, which may have limited
capacity to enforce environmental legislation.165 Poor
administrative capacity and accountability is likely to be
an ongoing barrier to implementing more formal national
regulatory frameworks.
Public perception also plays a big role. Understandably,
dumpsites are unwelcome in most communities, while
incinerators also have a poor reputation, and landfill sites areunpopular in areas of high population density due to odor,
space, and land use concerns. Furthermore, both accesscontrolled landfills and incinerators have attracted criticism
because they block the informal recycling sector fromaccessing materials that people rely on for income.

A Comprehensive Assessment of Pathways Towards Stopping Ocean Plastic Pollution

85

CHAPTER 2: CHANGING THE SYSTEM

Macroplastic system interventions

SYSTEM INTERVENTION 8Reduce plastic waste exports into countries
with low collection and high leakage rates
by 90 per cent by 2040

INTERVENTION SUMMARY••

Current exports of plastic waste from HI countries
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, witha portion of it leaking into the ocean.
We estimate that 90 per cent of this mass could
be reduced by 2040 if the right policies are
implemented and if infrastructure is built to deal
with this plastic locally or regionally.

Highly applicable

Somewhat applicableNot applicable

Most relevant geographic archetypes
HI
Urban

UMI
Urban

LMI
Urban

LI
Urban

HI
Rural

UMI
Rural

LMI
Rural

LI
Rural

HI: High-income
LMI: Lower middle-income
UMI: Upper middle-income LI: Low-income

Most relevant plastic categories
Flex

Multi

Main responsible stakeholder• National governments

86

BREAKING THE PLASTIC WAVE

kyrychukvitaliy/Adobe Stock

Rigid

A STRATEGY TO REDUCE OCEAN PLASTIC POLLUTION RATES BY 80 PER CENT

The international trade in waste plastic has been ongoingfor the past three decades, characterized by exports ofoften unsorted mixed plastic from high-income countries tocountries in Asia. In recent years, however, there have been
growing concerns that the residues from sorting and recyclingof these materials are being handled under uncontrolled
conditions, with poor working conditions, and that they
are leaking into the environment. There are also fears thatcriminal and legal vulnerabilities within extended producer
responsibility schemes could lead to the illegal dumping ofplastic by HI countries in middle-/low-income countries.166
The exact impact of exports on plastic pollution in the ocean
is hard to quantify because there is little evidence on the fateof the estimated 3.5 million metric tons per year of plastic
exported from HI countries to UMI, LMI, and LI countries
every year. Anecdotal evidence suggests that 5-20 per cent of
the scrap plastic exported has little market value and is often
mismanaged through open burning or illegal dumping.167
Crucially, the losses or residues from sorting and recycling
in middle-/low-income countries are not reported by the HI
countries of origin. This means that 100 per cent of plastic
exported for recycling is erroneously added to recycling
rates in the country of origin. This administrative discrepancy
creates a misleading impression of high resource efficiency
in HI countries when, in fact, there is evidence that some ofthis material is actually polluting destination countries, to thedetriment of local people and the environment.

The China import ban
For the past 30 years, the international market for waste plastic
has been dominated by China,168 which has imported 45 percent of all internationally traded plastic waste since the early
1990s.169 In January 2018, however, China ceased trading,banning imports of post-consumer plastic almost entirely. Thisdecision by the most important global trader in waste plastic
has had huge repercussions, particularly for high-income
countries that had previously had a large export market forplastic that was expensive to sort and recycle domestically.
Businesses in India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Taiwan, Thailand,
Turkey and Vietnam were quick to respond to the Chineseban, viewing it as an opportunity to attract high-grade
material.170 However, some of these alternative destinations
have also implemented restrictions, temporary freezes,
or bans on material imports over fears that their waste
management systems may become overwhelmed by
the additional mass entering the country. They are also
increasingly returning containers of “illegal” plastic waste that
does not meet standards.171
In 2019, governments agreed to amendments to the Basel
Convention that introduced stricter requirements for tradein plastic waste (see Box 15). A reduction in trade may result
from these amendments; we do not, however, model theimpact of these under the Current Commitments Scenario
because it is not possible to predict whether countries will
reduce exports significantly, obtain prior informed consent tocontinue exporting mixed plastic waste, or choose to better
sort plastic wastes prior to export. For the System Change
Scenario, we model a 70 per cent and 90 per cent reduction
in exports from HI to UMI, LMI, and LI countries by 2030 and
2040, respectively. The result is shown in Figure 39.
There are good arguments for restricting the trade in plastic
waste, given that it predominantly flows from HI countries
to those with higher rates of waste mismanagement andinadequate enforcement capacity. There is also a need for
greater transparency and better monitoring of plastic waste
trade flows. However, the recent bans and restrictions
imposed in many middle-/low-income countries have also
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 newrequirements 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 theConvention. Similarly, halogenated plastic, including PVC, will be added to Annex II. This change meansthat the exporter will need to obtain consent from the government of the recipient country for exports ofthese 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 forconsent 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 torecycling (no final disposal, no energy recovery); and are free of nontarget contaminants (e.g., paper ormetal). Due to additional European Union legislation, all exports of Annex II listed plastic (e.g., mixed orcontaminated 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.

A Comprehensive Assessment of Pathways Towards Stopping Ocean Plastic Pollution

87CHAPTER 2: CHANGING THE SYSTEM

Figure 39: International exports of plastic waste between geographic archetypes
for latest titles & captions see report indesign doc

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

5.6

3.9

-90%

0.6

2016

2040
Business-as-Usual

which have reportedly had to incinerate some waste or
direct it to landfills because they could not find a market
overseas.173 Another unintended consequence of restricting
the international trade in waste plastic may be a switch tovirgin 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 thiswould otherwise not be possible.
Ultimately, building a circular economy closer to the pointof waste generation will help create a sustainable sinkfor material and free up infrastructure in countries that
previously imported large amounts of plastic, enabling themto process their own domestic waste. Therefore, despite
the sparse data available to quantify its impacts, we believethat this system intervention is critical to reduce the amountof plastic entering the ocean in the long term, despite its

Recycled plastic waste pressed into bales.
alexanderuhrin/Adobe Stock88

BREAKING THE PLASTIC WAVE

2040
System Change
Scenario

short-term risks. Future research should also examine thetrade in plastic raw materials, products, and packaging, andhow upstream trade policy interventions can play a role inpreventing plastic pollution.174

Building a circular economy closer
to the point of waste generation will
help create a sustainable sink formaterial and free up infrastructure incountries that previously imported
large amounts of plastic, enablingthem to process their own waste.

A STRATEGY TO REDUCE OCEAN PLASTIC POLLUTION RATES BY 80 PER CENT

Microplastic system interventions
ROLL OUT KNOWN SOLUTIONS FOR FOUR MICROPLASTIC (<5MM) SOURCES—TYRES, TEXTILES,PERSONAL CARE PRODUCTS, AND PRODUCTION PELLETS—TO REDUCE ANNUAL MICROPLASTICLEAKAGE 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 in2016 comes from the four key sources of microplastics
we selected to model (tyre dust, pellets, textile microfibres, and microplastics in personal care products).

•

The largest contributor to 2016 microplastic leakage
into the ocean is tyre dust, contributing 78 per cent of
the leakage mass; pellets contribute 18 per cent; andtextiles and personal care products (PCP) contribute
4 per cent combined.

•

There is a different pattern in terms of the number ofmicroplastic particles entering the ocean, with tyres
and textiles being the main sources of leakage.

•

In the System Change Scenario, where we implement
all significant, known microplastic solutions at scale,microplastic leakage can be reduced by 1.8 million
metric tons per year (from 3 million metric tons to
1.2 million metric tons) by 2040, a 59 per centreduction compared with BAU.

•

Solutions should focus on reducing microplastics
at source because this is more cost efficient andfeasible than collection of microplastic particles
in the environment. This should be done throughinnovation in tyres and textiles design, a revolution
in transportation, decreasing plastic production,
regulatory and corporate measures to prevent pellet
leakage, and bans on using microplastic ingredientsin PCPs.

•

New solutions will be required to reduce leakage
further than modelled under this scenario, especiallyfor tyres, and to address the other sources of
microplastic emissions not modelled here.

•

Microplastics represent 60 per cent of leakage in
HI countries, and hence should be a top priority
in this geographic archetype.

Microplastic sources

Leakage mass

Feasibility of leakage reduction

Modelled uncertainty

Tyre dust

High

Low

High

Pellets

MediumHigh

MediumTextile microfibres

Low-medium

MediumMediumMicroplastic in PCPs

Low

High

Medium-highMicroplastics are defined in our report as pieces of plastic
between 1 micrometre and 5 mm in size that enter theenvironment as microsized particles—widely called primary
microplastic.175 We do not include secondary microplastics,
created through the breakdown of mismanaged
macroplastic waste, as its mass is already accounted forin the system interventions on macroplastics. Neither
do we quantify nanoplastics, defined as particles smaller
than 1 micrometre created through the breakdown of
microplastics, due to data limitations.
Of the ~20 potential sources of primary microplastic, we
modelled four sources, representing an estimated 75-85
per cent of microplastic leakage: tyre abrasion/dust, pellet
loss, textile microfibres, and microplastic ingredients in
PCPs (including the full size range of PCP ingredients).176
We selected these four sources based on existing research,
the relative leakage mass, and the ease and understandingof potential solutions for each source. The results of ourmodel relate to the four modelled sources only, and do not
represent total microplastic emissions.
To model flows of the four microplastic sources, individual
system maps were developed (see the technical appendix)
showing where releases from each of the modelled
sources occur during the use and/or production phase,from which they are distributed to different pathways (e.g.,combined sewers and drainage systems for tyres and pellets,
wastewater treatment for textiles and PCPs) and then on
to their final destinations, either controlled disposal (e.g.,
engineered landfills, incineration) or mismanaged (e.g.,
dumpsites, terrestrial pollution through land applicationof sewage sludge, and leakage to the ocean). For detailed
system maps illustrating our methodology for each of thefour sources, see the technical appendix.

A Comprehensive Assessment of Pathways Towards Stopping Ocean Plastic Pollution89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.

18%

2016

78%

Tyre dust
contributesof microplastic leakage
by mass

Pellets
contributeof microplastic leakage
by mass~1,200,000 TRILLION PARTICLES~10 TRILLION PARTICLES

4%

Textiles & personal careproducts contributeof microplastic leakage
by mass combined~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
countries leakMiddle-/low-income
countries leak

365 grams

109 gramsof microplastic
per capita

of microplastic
per capita

2040 System Change Scenario

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
orcompared to Business-as-Usual.
Solutions include:

Better designed
tyres and textiles

Modal shifts intransportation to reduce
mileage driven per capita

Decreased plastic
production

Additional innovationis necessary to reduce
the remaining 41% of plastic
leakage, particularly intyre design.
Regulatory andcorporate measures toprevent pellet leakage

Extend wastewater
treatment

Bans on using microplastic
ingredients in personalcare products

A STRATEGY TO REDUCE OCEAN PLASTIC POLLUTION RATES BY 80 PER CENT

Microplastic emissions under aBusiness-as-Usual Scenario

the ocean. An additional 63 per cent of releases end up
leaking into other environments, including soil and air. Thismismanaged terrestrial leakage includes the direct releasesof tyre particles into soil near roads; microplastics captured
in road runoff or wastewater facilities that leak to soil orthat re-enter the terrestrial environment through the land
application of sewage sludge;177 and the direct disposalof wastewater to farmlands due to water scarcity.178 As
illustrated in Figure 40, the managed microplastics captured
from wastewater treatment and sent to sanitary landfills or
incineration only amounted to 0.5 million metric tons per
year (±0.1 million metric tons per year), or 11 per cent of total
microplastics released from all sources modelled in 2016.

We estimate that microplastic leakage from the fourmodelled sources could grow from 1.3 million metric tons in2016 to 3.0 million metric tons by 2040 under BAU, a growthof 2.4 times, largely driven by increased transportation,
plastic production, and synthetic textile use in the middle-/
low-income countries. This means that microplastics would
contribute 11 per cent, by mass, of the total annual global
leakage of plastic to the ocean by 2040.
We estimate that 26 per cent of all microplastics released(during production or use, onto roads, into wastewaterdrains, or into the environment) ends up as leakage to

Figurepollution
40: Microplastic
pollution in the Business-as-Usual
Scenario
Figure 40: Microplastic
in theBusiness-as-Usualfor latest
titles& captions see reportScenario
indesign doc

Mismanaged microplastics could grow from 4.4 million metric tons in 2016 to 10 million metric tons
by 2040
Total managed:

10.7
Incineration

0.5

Million metric tons of microplastic

Engineered landfills

0.2

Terrestrial pollution
Ocean pollution

0.7 million
metric tons
(7%)

7.0

Total managed:

0.5 million
metric tons
(11%)
Total mismanaged:

4.4 million
metric tons
(89%)

Total mismanaged:

10 million
metric tons
(93%)

4.9
0.4

0.1

3.1
3.0
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 throughinnovation 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
Incineration
Engineered landfills
Terrestrial pollution

0.5

0.2

Total
managed:

0.7 million tons
91
(7%)

A Comprehensive Assessment of Pathways Towards Stopping Ocean Plastic Pollution

CHAPTER 2: CHANGING THE SYSTEM

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 theirdistribution and pathways in the environment.179 Key areas of uncertainty vary for each source. Tyre wear is a wellestablished fact, but where the particles end up is highly uncertain (they could settle in soils, leak to waterways, betransported by rivers to the ocean, etc.).180 On the other hand, the state of knowledge about pellet loss rates shows highuncertainty, 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 andpathways of both microfibres and microplastic ingredients in PCPs appear to be better documented, at least in highincome countries, where a large share of the population is connected to wastewater treatment.182 The fate of these twosources 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 fortyres (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
to microplastic leakage into the ocean and waterways
in 2016 is tyre abrasion, which contributes 78 per centof the leakage mass; pellets contribute 18 per cent of
the leakage mass; and textiles and PCP contribute 4 percent of leakage mass combined (Figure 41). However, theestimated contribution of microplastic particles to ocean
plastic pollution may potentially represent a different
pattern, with tyres leaking about 1,200,000 trillion particles,
textiles about 140,000 trillion particles, PCPs about 4,000
trillion particles, and pellets about 10 trillion particles in2016. The relative contribution of different sources, andthe magnitude of leakage to the ocean, could change if wemodelled additional distribution pathways. For example,

transfer through air of microfibres released from textiles
during the production and use phases may be a significant
component of environmental leakage184 as microfibres arefound worldwide, including in remote places such as theHigh Arctic, proving that they can be transported over long
distances.185 Notably, our estimates of microfibre release
rates are much smaller than some other studies because themost recent data on fibre loss during washing shows much
lower release rates—on average, 108 milligrams per kilogram(mg/kg) textile washed (see the technical appendix), while
the rates used in some previous studies were as high as
900 mg/kg.186 More research on microplastic emissions
and pathways is needed to obtain a complete picture of the
microplastic pollution problem.187

Figure 41: Microplastic leakage to the ocean by source and geographic
for latest titlesarchetype& captionsin
see2016report 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 bygeographic archetype
510 kilotons% of microplastic emissions, 2016100%
430 kilotons
80%

980 kilotons

34%

78%

300 kilotons

24%

60%
40%
220 kilotons

20%

18%

40 kilotons

20 kilotons

20 kilotons

3%

1%

2%

TextilesPersonal careproducts

0%
Tyres

92

40%

Pellets

BREAKING THE PLASTIC WAVE

HI

UMI

LMI

LI

A STRATEGY TO REDUCE OCEAN PLASTIC POLLUTION RATES BY 80 PER CENT

Microplastic solutions—System Change
Scenario

We estimate that the majority of the microplastic entering
the ocean in 2016—0.8 million metric tons or 66 per cent—originates in the middle-/low-income countries, and that81 per cent of the growth of microplastic leakage by 2040
could also come from these regions under BAU. The main
drivers responsible for this in our model are population
growth (slower for HI than the rest of the world), theprojected increase in vehicle driving (expected to triple
in UMI and LMI), and the growth of plastic production(expected to nearly triple in UMI, LMI, and LI). The otherfactors are related to the limited improvements indownstream solutions for capturing microplastic in middle-/
low-income countries, for example, by installing roadrunoff treatment systems that safely remove and dispose of
captured microplastic.

In the System Change Scenario, where we implement
all significant, known microplastic solutions at scale, weestimate that microplastic leakage can be reduced by
1.8 million metric tons per year—or approximately, witha conservative estimate, 1,600,000 trillion microplastic
particles—by 2040 compared with BAU (see Figure 42 andTable 7). However, notably, even with all known solutions,microplastic emissions in 2040 are similar to the 2016
leakage rate. This result means that, under the System
Change Scenario, microplastic could be a significant part of
the remaining total plastic entering the ocean in 2040, at 23
per cent. This is because there are fewer known solutions forcertain 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
basis, microplastic emissions to the ocean in HI countries are
3.4 times higher than the rest of the world today (an averageof 365 grams in HI in 2016 compared with 109 grams inother archetypes), mainly driven by higher driving rates,
plastic consumption, and textile washing in HI countries.
In fact, microplastics represent 60 per cent of leakage in HI
countries, and therefore solving this challenge should be apriority for this archetype.

Implementing all known solutions for microplastic
could potentially reduce 59 per cent of annual modelled
microplastic leakage to the ocean, with the highest
reduction potential for pellets (86 per cent reduction),
followed by textiles (77 per cent), PCPs (77 per cent) andtyres (54 per cent); see Figure 42 and Table 7.

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
reduction potential for four sources under the System Change Scenario in 2040

Microplastic solutions are relatively
wellunderstoodmostsources,
for latest
titles& captions seefor
reportindesign
doc but not for tyres

Million metric tons per yearof microplastic leakage

Tyres
3.0
2.5

Pellets

Textiles + PCPs

2.5
0.7

2.0

0.5

1.5

1.3

1.0

0.5

0.2

0.2

0.5

0.1

0.1

0.1

0.02

0.02

Unsolvedleakage(requires
innovation)

BAU

TextilesPersonal
care
products

Unsolvedleakage(requires
innovation)

0.0
BAU

ReducemileagedrivenReduceloss
rate

Unsolvedleakage(requires
innovation)

BAU

Reduceplastic
production

Three of the modelled sources have more readily
implementable solutions with low societal impacts. For
example, by implementing relevant regulations, and with
monitoring and enforcement of prevention measures acrossthe supply chain, pellet loss could be readily addressed by
2040. Similarly, textile leakage, which is the third-largest
source of microplastic pollution in terms of mass, has highpotential to be improved by switching to already existingtextiles, for example, natural or synthetic yarns with lower
shedding rates. Third, even though microplastic ingredientsfrom PCPs cause the lowest leakage of the four sources
modelled, they can be banned, as has already occurred inseveral countries, without societal risks.

Reducepelletloss
rate

By contrast, additional innovation will be required tofurther reduce leakage from tyres, which are responsiblefor 93 per cent of the remaining microplastic entering theocean in 2040 after all system interventions have been
applied. To further reduce microplastic pollution, the tyreindustry, supported by government research programmes,
should invest in innovation and redesign, for example, on
biodegradability, while maintaining the tyre properties thatare essential for safety (e.g., rolling resistance, slip resistance,
and wear resistance).188

A Comprehensive Assessment of Pathways Towards Stopping Ocean Plastic Pollution93

for latest titlesarchetype& captionsin
see2016report indesign doc
CHAPTER 2: CHANGING THE SYSTEM

2016 microplastic leakage to the ocean by source% of microplastic emissions, 2016

100%

2016 microplastic leakage to the ocean bygeographic archetype
Table 7: Microplastic leakage to the ocean
under Business-as-Usual and System Changekilotons
scenarios with reduction potential rates and 510
leversrequired to reach estimated reduction rates
430 kilotons

80%
60%

980 kilotons

Microplastic
78%
sourceBAU leakage,
millionmetric tons
per year40%

220 kilotons

20%

40 kilotons

18%

3%

0%
Tyres

Pellets

Tyres

Textiles2016:
1.0 (±0.2)

SCS leakage
2040, million
metric tons
per year(per centreductionto
20 relative
kilotons
BAU)
1%
Personal careproducts

2040:
2.4 (±0.5)34%Interventions required to reach estimatedreduction rates

300 kilotons

24%

20 kilotons

2%
HI

2040:
1.1 (±0.3)(54%decrease)

40%

UMI

LMI

LI

An ambitious programme to reduce microplastic emissions from tyre particle
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,
including tyre, vehicle, and road surface characteristics (tyre size, profile,vehicle weight, road roughness, etc.) and “eco-driving” behaviour (speed,
acceleration, tyre pressure).189 The most effective solutions are the reductionof kilometres driven and decreasing tyre loss rate. Significant reductions inkilometres driven per capita can be achieved by modal shifts in transportation,for example, using automated, shared, or public transport;190 rail or bargetransport;191 airborne transportation,192 etc. Existing tyres show high ranges ofdurability, so by choosing the less abrading types and brands, together withpromoting 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.

Interventions
modelled include:
Figure 41: Microplastic leakage to the ocean by source andgeographic
for latest titlesarchetype& captionsin
see2016report indesign doc•
Substitution of tyre material to improve durability: Assumes 50 per
cent of countries legislate that, by 2040, new tyres must have 36 percent 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 centgeographic archetype

per capita by 2040 (e.g., for passenger cars, from 11,921 km/capita under
BAU to 5,960 km/capita under the System Change Scenario); middle-/
40%
low-income countries reduce by 20 per cent per capita by 2040 (e.g.,
for passenger cars, from 2,553 km/capita under BAU to 2,042 km/capita
300 kilotons
under the System Change Scenario).

510 kilotons
430 kilotons
980 kilotons

34%

78%

24%

220 kilotons

18%
Tyres

Pellets

Pellets

40 kilotons

Eco-driving adds 6 per cent reduction to tyre loss rates.

•

Controlled disposal of sedimentation in drainage systems in urban
20 kilotons
areas in the middle-/low-income
countries reaches similar levels as high2%
income urban areas.

20 kilotons

3%

1%

TextilesPersonal careproducts

HI

2016:
0.2 (±0.02)2040:
0.5 (±0.05)

94•

BREAKING THE PLASTIC WAVE

UMI

LMI

LI

Solutions for reducing the leakage of plastic pellets to the ocean have thepotential to reduce 0.4 million metric tons (±0.05 million metric tons):

2040:
0.07 (±0.006)(86%
decrease)•

Nearly half of pellet leakage can be remedied by reducing the loss ofpellets at every stage of the supply chain via the implementation of bestpractices, mandated by regulation. We model a conservative 70 c before
departing a facility; monitoring emissions within and near factories, andin waste effluents from drains; and using bags that prevent leakage andsecuring 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
for latest titlesarchetype& captionsin
see2016report indesign doc
A STRATEGY TO REDUCE OCEAN PLASTIC POLLUTION RATES BY 80 PER CENT

ge to the ocean by source

2016 microplastic leakage to the ocean bygeographic archetype
510 kilotons
430 kilotons

Microplastic
source220 kilotons

18%
Pellets

40 kilotons

3%
TextilesTextiles34%
BAU leakage,
millionmetric tons
per year

20 kilotons

1%
Personal careproducts 2016:40%

Interventions required to reach estimated
SCS leakage
300 kilotons
2040, million reduction rates
metric tons 24%
per year(per centreduction
relative to
20 kilotons
BAU)
2%

HI

UMI

LMI

0.04 (±0.003)
2040:
0.07 (±0.005)

2040:
0.02 (±0.001)(77%
decrease)

There areLIfour levers driving reduction in leakage of microfibres to the oceanthat could reduce annual microfibre emissions by 0.05 million metric tons(±0.005 million metric tons) under the System Change Scenario:•

Decrease microfibre loss rate from textiles through redesign andshifting to textiles with lower loss rates or through use of natural
fibres, cutting to avoid raw edges, woven construction, filament yarns,
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
model that 95 per cent of countries mandate that all factories must use
on-site treatment equivalent to tertiary treatment by 2040.

•

Installing machine washing filters in households; Household washingmachine filters can capture 88.5 per cent of microfibres,197 however,
the effectiveness of this lever largely depends on manufacturers being
obliged to install filters, retrofitting filters to existing machines, andconsumer behaviour. We model that 95 per cent of countries legislatethat new washing machines must have filters capturing 88.5 per centof microfibres by 2040, and assume that 50 per cent of consumers use
these correctly.

•

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
all archetypes meet the Sustainable Development Goal of halving
untreated wastewater by 2030.

croplastic leakage to the ocean by source and geographic
for latest titlesarchetype& captionsin
see2016report indesign doc

by source

2016 microplastic leakage to the ocean bygeographic archetype
510 kilotons
430 kilotons

40%

34%

300 kilotons

24%

0 kilotons

20 kilotons

20 kilotons

3%

1%

2%

TextilesPersonal carePCPs
products

HI

UMI

2016:
0.2 (±0.002)

2040:
0.03 (±0.003)

LMI

LI

2040:
0.006 (±0.001)(77% decrease)

PCP microplastic leakage is the lowest of the four sources modelled, but
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
metric tons) of total leakage:•

A ban on the use of microplastic ingredients and substitution withnatural 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 banningsome 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, somecompanies have replaced these microbeads with unverified polymersof concern of unknown size.200 There should be concerted action tocompletely remove all microplastic ingredients from all PCPs to achievenear-zero leakage from this source, as they are also known to passthrough wastewater treatment. 201•

Extending wastewater treatment according to the Sustainable
Development Goals.

A Comprehensive Assessment of Pathways Towards Stopping Ocean Plastic Pollution95

CHAPTER 2: CHANGING THE SYSTEM

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

Maritime sources of leakage
Key takeaways••

High uncertainty exists about exactly how muchplastic leaks into the ocean from maritime sources,
preventing the inclusion of this category in ourquantitative analysis, but it is estimated to be between
10 per cent and 30 per cent of total macroplastic
leakage.202
Abandoned, Lost, or otherwise Discarded Fishing Gear
(ALDFG) ranks among the most damaging to marine
ecosystems among all sources of ocean plastic
pollution and is, by definition, usually lost in areas withthe highest concentration of fish.203

Maritime sources of ocean plastic pollution, defined inthis report as all plastic that enters the environment fromseagoing vessels (including from fishing activities), are someof the most visible contributors to ocean plastic pollution.204
Although the lack of robust estimates of different maritime
sources of leakage prevents the inclusion of this category in
our quantitative analysis, addressing this source of pollution
is of utmost urgency. There is sufficient data available toindicate the relative magnitude of this source of leakage, themain solution areas, and where more research is needed.
Existing estimates of maritime sources of ocean plastic
pollution vary between 0.3 million metric tons and 5.91
million metric tons per year.205 These are based on two
different approaches. On the one hand, some estimatesestablish the relative share of different maritime sources as apercentage of the total plastic collected in coastal clean-ups,
arriving at an estimate of 10-30 per cent of total ocean plastic
pollution.206 Doing this for some fishing gear is relatively
straightforward, but not for all fishing gear (such as buoy lines
and ropes), and estimating other plastic pollution originatingfrom vessels is difficult, as they are hard to distinguishfrom land-based sources. On the other hand, global
extrapolation of estimated leakage as a share of total waste
generated at sea annually in the European Union showsthat between 1.3 million metric tons and 1.8 million metric96

BREAKING THE PLASTIC WAVE•

Known levers that reduce maritime sources of leakage
could be very effective but are difficult to enforce andrequire strong stakeholder cooperation.

•

The most important areas for further research andmonitoring are the annual production and loss rate
per gear type, as well as the volume of waste returned
to port.

tons of plastic waste per year is generated at sea.207 Thisapproach addresses the issues of relative contributions andsource attribution, but does not offer information on how
European Union leakage rates compare to the rest of theworld. Combining recent estimates by other organizations(midpoint estimate for at-sea sources: 1.75 million metrictons)208 with our estimates for total municipal solid plastic
waste leakage from land (9.8 million metric tons) indicatesthat maritime sources could be responsible for about 15 percent of total ocean plastic pollution today, but it should be
noted that this estimate is highly uncertain.

Abandoned, lost or otherwise discarded
fishing gear (ALDFG)
Of all the sources of ocean plastic pollution, ALDFG—also
known as “ghost gear”—ranks among the most damaging tomarine ecosystems.209 ALDFG’s damaging properties, such as
high entanglement risk, are the direct result of their original
design to trap and kill fish and other marine species. On top ofthis, ALDFG is—by definition—most intensely leaked in areas
with high densities of marine wildlife, as this is where fishingis concentrated. Multiple sources have tried to quantify theannual leakage rates, with estimates ranging from 640,000 to
1,150,000 metric tons, and this value is expected to increase
as a result of growth in fishing effort and aquaculture.210

A STRATEGY TO REDUCE OCEAN PLASTIC POLLUTION RATES BY 80 PER CENT

It should be noted that ALDFG is not the only plastic waste toenter the marine environment from fishing vessels; the othertypes are covered under the section on shipping litter.
It is crucial to note that multiple types of fishing gear exist thatare very different in their respective likelihood of loss, ubiquity
of usage, and potential impacts on wildlife when lost.211 The
likelihood of loss can depend on a complex interactionof factors, including spatial and operational pressures thatlead to gear conflicts, poor weather conditions, economic
pressures that disincentivize onshore disposal, and thepresence of illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU)
fishing.212 It has been estimated that 29 per cent of lines arelost each year, 8.6 per cent of all traps and pots, and 5.7 percent of nets.213 A more specific assessment of fishing nets
finds gillnets to have the highest risk of being lost, while
bottom trawls are considered low risk, and purse seines andmidwater trawls are in the lowest risk category.214 However,
although we have some information on the loss rates ofdifferent fishing gear, no comparable data exist on how muchof each gear type is produced or used each year. Landed
catch per gear type is one possible proxy because global
data is available, and combining this data with the likelihoodof loss would suggest that the two highest priority gear types
for research and prevention of ocean plastic leakage aregillnets and bottom trawls.215 However, given the differences
in catch rate per unit of effort across different gear types,
this approach also has its limitations. Better information on
production and usage rates per gear type, and the volumes
returned to port as waste, is needed to better quantify thecontribution of different gear types to ocean plastic pollution.

ALDFG reduction levers
There are two main categories of intervention levers to reduce
the presence of ALDFG in the marine environment: preventive
and remedial. A comprehensive assessment of levers canbe found in the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of
the United Nations ALDFG report and the Global Ghost Gear
Initiative (GGGI) Best Practice Framework for the Managementof Fishing Gear.216 We also include enabling conditions thatwould facilitate their respective implementation.217 The
preventive levers are expected to have significant impact but
need wide-scale implementation to be effective. Remedial
levers, on the other hand, are necessary but will be morelabour and capital intensive than preventive levers.
Preventive levers•

Economic incentives to help prevent gear loss andincrease proper disposal of unwanted gear. These may
include accessible and no-special-fee port reception
facilities, extended producer responsibility for fishinggear, or disincentives for fishers to generate ALDFG bycharging a fee for gear that cannot be accounted for.

•

Adoption of gear-marking systems (local or global) thatprovide information on ownership and location as wellas increased surface gear visibility.

•

Design of gear and employment of technology that
reduces the risk of gear loss, entanglement, andunwanted contact with the seabed.

•

Regulation of gear used, location of gear use and gearuse methods, as well as return-to-port and recycling
targets.

•

Stronger enforcement of existing regulations against
IUU fishing, including the Port State Measures
Agreement (PSMA). The PSMA, which enteredinto force in 2016, is the first binding international
agreement to take aim at many facets of IUU fishingby denying port access to illegal fishing vessels andpreventing illegal catches from being landed. By
limiting capacity for IUU fishing, the PSMA canreduce intentional gear abandonment.218

Fish are tangled in abandoned commercial fishing nets.
Josephine Julian/Adobe Stock

A Comprehensive Assessment of Pathways Towards Stopping Ocean Plastic Pollution

97

CHAPTER 2: CHANGING THE SYSTEM•

Increased awareness among stakeholders of bestpractices, existing rules and regulations and (economic)
damage inflicted by ALDFG, for example, throughtraining programmes.

Remedial levers•

Stronger incentives to report, retrieve, and deliver
ALDFG encountered at sea, in combination with abovementioned gear-marking technology.

•

Increased awareness among stakeholders of how toreport, retrieve, and deliver ALDFG encountered at sea,
as well as on the benefits of these efforts.

•

Development of targeted programmes for ALDFG
detection, reporting, and safe retrieval.

•

Establishment of programmes to reduce the ghost
fishing of ALDFG, for example, by making gear
biodegradable.

The magnitude of impact of the above levers is difficult toquantify, but two of them have undergone particularly close
scrutiny as a result of associated legislative proposals in theEuropean Union. Recent estimates for the effect of extended
producer responsibility in conjunction with a deposit
scheme for fishing gear in the European Union found that it
could result in a reduction of ALDFG from 12 per cent of total
production today to 2 per cent, at a cost of 150-200 euros
per metric ton.219

The most comprehensive research conducted to date,including not only an overview of the existing literature
but also providing estimates of shipping litter in European
Union waters, estimates that shipping litter accounts for
between 54,000 and 67,000 metric tons of plastic annuallyin the European Union, or 35 per cent of total maritime
sources. This estimate does not include waste from offshore
platforms; the other 65 per cent is ALDFG.223

Shipping litter reduction levers
The measures available to combat shipping litter can bedivided between land-based and maritime-based levers. The
former includes levers that are part of wider efforts to reduce
plastic pollution, while the latter focuses on specific levers
for shipping litter.224
Land-based levers•

Reduction of plastic consumption through innovation inpackaging, new delivery models, or improved resource
efficiency.

•

Substitution of plastic with materials that decompose atsea, such as paper.

Maritime-based levers•

Current best practices of regulation, based on EU
Directive 2018/12/EC, include:–

Targeted and increased inspection regime in ports
and on vessels, including, for example, by fisheries
observers already monitoring at-sea activities.

–

Mechanisms that ensure free disposal of waste
at ports, funded through indirect fees on all ships
depending on their expected waste generation.

–

Administrative fee systems, in which ships pay fordocking and the amount of waste delivered, but
get a refund on the docking fee when waste isdelivered.

–

Digital reporting of waste notification and waste
receipt information, harmonized and shared
among governments.

Enabling conditions•

More research into ALDFG, as outlined above,
combined with understanding the effectiveness andfeasibility of different measures.

•

Increased international cooperation on ALDFG among
governments, international organizations, and otherregulators, for example, through the harmonizationof reporting gear production and losses, codes ofpractices, and communication protocols, such as
the newly adopted FAO guidelines in the PSMA andvoluntary guidelines on the marking of fishing gear.220•

Inclusion of gear loss in sustainability criteria by fisherycertification bodies.

•

Shipping litter
Shipping litter, the deliberate dumping of plastic frommaritime vessels, defined as all plastic leakage generated asa result of human activity on seagoing vessels, is illegal underinternational law, with some exemptions (MARPOL Annex
V). Nevertheless, the practice is believed to be widespread,and there is evidence that it has increased over the past 50
years in tandem with the growth in commercial shipping.221
Shipping litter includes general plastic waste generated
and accidentally or intentionally disposed overboard on
shipping, fishing, and recreational vessels and cruise ships.
Shipping waste can contain about double the share ofplastic compared with our estimates of land-based MSW.222
Combined with the fact that it is generated at sea, this could
result in significantly higher leakage rates, although this is
hard to confirm due to lack of on-vessel monitoring.

98

BREAKING THE PLASTIC WAVE

Enforcement of MARPOL Annex V to ensure appropriate
capacity and quality of waste disposal facilities at ports,
standardized reporting by ships and ports, and theinclusion of adequate waste storage facility on vessels.

Enabling conditions•

Improved data collection at ports and on vessels
around the world is desperately needed to allow better
understanding of the global extent of the problem.
Existing efforts are already underway in Europe andshould be supported and extended to other regions
to address the global challenge of shipping litter more
effectively.

•

In parallel, increased international cooperation on
shipping litter among governments, internationalorganizations and other regulators is required, forexample, through the harmonization of reporting waste,codes of practices, and communication protocols, as
outlined in MARPOL Annex V.

INNOVATION IS ESSENTIAL TO A FUTURE WITH NEAR-ZERO PLASTIC POLLUTION

Bridging
the gap
Innovation is essential for a futurewith near-zero plastic pollution

Daisuke Kurashim/Shutterstock

A Comprehensive Assessment of Pathways Towards Stopping Ocean Plastic Pollution99

CHAPTER 3: BRIDGING THE GAP

Alternative worlds: sensitivities and design choices forpollution 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 andSubstitute intervention rates (in other words, the amountof plastic removed from the system relative to Business-asUsual 2040) and collection rates (the share of plastic wastethat is collected by either the formal or informal sector). This
analysis was undertaken to assess what the implications
would be if there were less ambitious reductions in plastic
production and consumption than those modelled under
the System Change Scenario. To test this idea, we fixed theplastic leakage rate at the System Change Scenario level andmodeled the collection rates that would be required to offset
smaller plastic reductions.
To maintain the same level of plastic leakage reduction
achievable under the System Change Scenario, but with theReduce and Substitute interventions contributing only 9 percent to leakage reduction (compared with 47 per cent under
the System Change Scenario), collection rates would need toincrease significantly across the archetypes in this alternate
scenario. In the lower middle-income (LMI) rural archetype,for example, collection rates would need to increase to 80
per cent from the maximally foreseen assessment level of
50 per cent and from 33 per cent in 2016. Reaching 80 per
cent collection in rural areas of LMI countries may be a very
challenging, if not impossible, task given the pressure on
government budgets and high collection costs in rural areas.
To achieve this level of collection by 2040, an additional
US$22 billion in cost per year would be required—which theplastics industry would probably need to pay for—and 40 per
cent more GHG emissions would be generated relative to
the System Change Scenario. Similarly, in the upper middleincome (UMI) rural archetype, collection rates would haveto increase to 80 per cent relative to 45 per cent in 2016 andthe maximally foreseeable rate of 50 per cent. Like the LMI
rural areas, reaching this level of collection in the rural areasof UMI countries is a daunting task and would require an
additional US$18 billion in cost per year by 2040 and would
also emit 40 per cent more GHG.

100

BREAKING THE PLASTIC WAVE

Similarly, we tested how increasing design for recycling
rates and making them even more ambitious than our
System Change Scenario assumption would influence theReduce and Substitute targets needed. In the LMI urban
archetype, for example, recyclability of multimaterials would
need to grow from 25 per cent under the System Change
Scenario to 100 per cent to enable a reduction of Reduceand Substitute from 47 per cent to 40 per cent. This target
would require making all multimaterial products recyclable,
including laminated cartons, diapers, and household goods.
Based on our alternate scenario assessments, increasing thepercentage of either collection or design for recycling incurs
greater costs financially and from a climate perspective thanemploying Reduce and Substitute interventions at higher
rates. The most practical solution may be to implement
the Reduce and Substitute levels assumed in the System
Change Scenario through eliminating unnecessary plastics,
enhancing reuse and new delivery models, and substituting
plastic for other materials.
None of the alternative pathways we analysed can achieve aplastic leakage reduction comparable to the System Change
Scenario without hitting extremely high costs, rising GHG
emissions, or other undesirable outcomes.
We constrained our analysis to modelling solutions thatare available today, or under development, and assessing
maximum foreseeable future targets. However, alternative
worlds could become possible as new technologies andsolutions emerge and allow positive disruptions to theplastics value chain. For example, breakthroughs in newservice models tailored for packaging and household goods,
compostable packaging and deployment of appropriate
collection and composting infrastructure, other alternative
materials, and improvements to the life-cycle emissions ofexisting substitutes, could all be game-changing. Transportand delivery automation and vehicle electrification, forexample, could radically reduce the emissions of newdelivery models, as well as collection costs and theirassociated emissions.

INNOVATION IS ESSENTIAL TO A FUTURE WITH NEAR-ZERO PLASTIC POLLUTION

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 torealize 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 andwell-funded R&D agenda alongside inspirational moonshot ambitions.
Taken together, the eight system interventions described in
Chapter 2 can have a massive impact on the global plastic
system, not only by significantly reducing leakage to theocean, but also by reducing GHG emissions and costs,
and increasing employment relative to BAU. And yet, even
if all significant known system interventions are applied
concurrently, we estimate that 5 million metric tons ofplastic would still be leaking into the ocean every year by
2040, and annual GHG emissions would be 54 per centhigher than 2016 levels, while the cumulative amount ofplastic that will enter the ocean between 2016 and 2040
amounts to 248 million metric tons. Getting to near-zeroleakage will require a concerted innovation thrust backed bya focused and well-funded research and development (R&D)
agenda, a quadrupling or more of today’s annual spending of
US$22 billion on R&D.225

Plastic manufacturing is currently classified as a “medium R&D
intensity” industry (spending 4 per cent of gross value added,
GVA),226 and the waste management sector is classified as “lowR&D intensity” (spending 0.4 per cent of GVA). The System
Change Scenario depicts a future in which these industries
transition towards more competitive market dynamics,
innovating rapidly to stay in business as markets evolve. For
example, if the plastic manufacturing industry were to increase
its R&D spending to the level currently spent by the machineryindustry, this would mean R&D spending of US$95 billion
per year by 2040—more than double the percentage of GVA
invested under the BAU Scenario, if GVA doubles in line with
BAU plastic production. This spending could go towards
improving existing manufacturing and design, advancing
recycling technologies, as well as investing in the developmentof new substitute materials and packaging services.

Figure 43: Remaining 2040 leakage by geographic archetype and plastic category under the
System Change Scenario
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
by geographic type
Plastic leakage into the ocean
by geographic type

2.7

2.7

Plastic leakage into the ocean
by category
Plastic leakage into the ocean
by category(50%)
Million metric tons per year of plastic waste

Million metric tons per year of plastic waste(50%) 2.7(50%) 2.7

2.9

Lower-income countries (LI)(54%) 2.9

Lower Lower-income
middle-incomecountries
(LMI)
(LI)

(54%)

Upper Lower
middle-income(UMI) (LMI)
middle-income(50%)

High-income(HI)
Upper middle-income(UMI)
High-income (HI)

1.2
(23%) 1.2

0.8(15%) 0.8
(15%)

(23%)

0.4
(8%) 0.4
(8%)

Urban
Urban

Rural
Rural

Rigid
Flexible Multilayer
Micromonomonomaterial
plastics
Rigid
Flexible Multilayer
Micromaterials
materials
monomonomaterial
plastics
materials materials

A Comprehensive Assessment of Pathways Towards Stopping Ocean Plastic Pollution

101

CHAPTER 3: BRIDGING THE GAP

Bridging the remaining gap to near-zero leakage will require
additional R&D investment and innovations that go beyond
today’s known solutions, furthering smart policies, alternative
business models, new material substitutes, and more
effective and faster scaling-up of reduction, collection andrecycling, composting, and controlled disposal systems,
especially in the middle-/low-income countries. Spending on
R&D might be expected to exceed US$100 billion per year.
This R&D would need to come not only from the plastic
manufacturing industry, but also from waste management,
recycling, logistics companies, and new service providers. The
scale of innovation required can be compared with what wehave seen during the internet revolution of the past twenty
years: We need a proliferation of hundreds of innovations
competing with each other to achieve the best possible
outcomes financially, socially, and for the environment.
To better understand the areas where innovation can bemost effective, Figure 43 shows the remaining sourcesof leakage after all System Change Scenario systeminterventions have been implemented. New solutions
must be developed that focus specifically on: 1) collection,

especially for rural and remote areas; 2) flexible plastic andmultimaterials (62 per cent of remaining leakage), with afocus on alternative delivery systems and materials andenhancing the material value of existing materials; and 3)
tyre microplastic leakage (21 per cent of remaining leakage).
Other missing pieces may include: further ways to scale theReduce, Substitute and Recycling solutions; ability to achieve
100 per cent collection; green chemistry breakthroughs; andnew technological, behavioural and business solutions. For afull list of innovation priorities, see Table 8.

The System Change Scenario requires
a substantial shift of investment awayfrom the production and conversionof virgin plastic, into the deploymentof new delivery models, substitutematerials, recycling and collection
infrastructure, which are often lessmature/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 aservice, and new delivery models.

•

Systemic approaches such as shorter supply chains, eliminating the need for packaging.

•

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.

•

Reaching 100 per cent collection in low-income areas (especially rural, remote, and other lowdensity areas) for which current technologies have prohibitive costs.

•

Improving profitability, productivity, and working conditions for the informal sector throughtechnology, tools, and aggregation markets.

•

Enhanced barrier properties for monomaterials.

•

Design for recycling solutions for multimaterials, such as paper and aluminium laminations.

•Household goods made from recyclable monomaterials, or modular products designed fordisassembly and recycling.

•

New models for sorting and aggregation of waste (e.g., digital watermarking), including automatedsorting in markets without manual sorting.

•

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.

•

Technology or financing solutions to reach widespread collection of low-value plastic in remote andlow-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.

SubstituteCollection

Design forrecycling

Sorting andmechanicalrecycling

Chemicalconversion

102

BREAKING THE PLASTIC WAVEINNOVATION IS ESSENTIAL TO A FUTURE WITH NEAR-ZERO PLASTIC POLLUTION

The role of innovation
Innovation is a key enabler across all system interventions
modelled in this report, in all archetypes and for all plastic
categories. Although the System Change Scenario is basedon known solutions, innovation is still required to make thesesolutions more affordable, more scalable, more convenient for
consumers, and to further reduce environmental and healthimpacts. Our model already takes into account assumptions
about how average costs of technological solutions decreaseover time as a result of increased experience. We assumed a
7 per cent average learning rate (the relative cost decrease ofa year-on-year doubling of output) for capital expenditures
for formal sorting, and closed- and open-loop mechanicalrecycling. For relatively new technologies, we assumed a 7
per cent average learning rate for both operational and capital
expenditures (see the technical appendix for details). Thisestimate applies to both plastic-to-plastic and plastic-to-fuelchemical conversion, and to substituting with compostablematerials. Additional breakthroughs could improve these costs
further and faster than we have modelled.

The enablers of innovation
The enablers of innovation span economic, regulatory, legal,
and financing enablers for systemic change, and will requirebuilding partnerships and coalitions for innovation, as well as
an overall mindset shift over how the problem of packaging
is seen.
•

Economic incentives could be realigned to drive
market demand for innovations or increase the financial
incentives for incumbents to innovate (e.g., credits,

subsidies, extended producer responsibility fees,
corporate and government procurement commitments,
tax breaks on impact investing), or increasing thepenalties for not innovating (e.g., plastic taxes or fees
and levies that incentivize waste reduction or help
sustainable solutions compete on a cost basis).
•

Regulatory drivers could include creating or refining
the “essential requirements” on the types of chemicals,
plastic, and formats put on the market; mandating
minimum recycled content; creating elimination, reuse,
and recycling targets; incentivizing behaviour change,etc.

•

Efficient funding and financing require coordinateddirection and active innovator support. Thousandsof innovations in green chemistry, new materials andchemicals exist at the level of basic scientific research,
but transferring them into workable solutions requires
infrastructure support, guidance on what the highpriority areas are, and access to capital.

•

Channelling funds towards the “valley of death” stage(the gap between developing innovations and theircommercial application in the marketplace) offers aparticular opportunity to rapidly transfer technology
and ideas out of labs and universities to reach earlycommercialization/implementation. These higher-risk
investments require early-stage philanthropy, seedfunds, impact investing, government grants, patient
capital, nondiluted financing (i.e., grant and impact
investing), and blended finance.

Notpla sachets are made from seaweed and plants, and are 100% naturally biodegradable.
NotplaA Comprehensive Assessment of Pathways Towards Stopping Ocean Plastic Pollution

103

CHAPTER 4: THE TIME IS NOW

The time
is now
Success requires all players to takerapid 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

104

BREAKING THE PLASTIC WAVE

SUCCESS REQUIRES ALL PLAYERS TO TAKE RAPID AND CONCERTED ACTION

A substantial transition: Investments in the new system aresignificant, 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 inthe 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
FigurePresent
value ofglobalcapitalinvestments
required This change will be possible
infrastructure, whichare12:often
riskierandlessmaturetechnologies.
between 2021 and 2040 in different scenarios
only with government
incentives
andtitles
risk-taking
industry
for latest
see reportby
indesign
doc and investors.
The System Change Scenario requires less capital investment thanBusiness-as-Usual, but the investments are riskier

Figure 44: Present value of global capital investments required between 2021 and 2040 indifferent scenarios
The System Change Scenario requires less capital investment than Business-as-Usual, but theinvestments are riskier
Virgin production

Plastic conversion

Substitute-paper

Substitute-compostables

Maturetechnologies

US$ billions

Waste management

Recycling

New technologies that
may require subsidy$2,280Business-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 theinvestment portfolio of the plastic ecosystem is that manytechnologies are less financially viable or commerciallyproven than virgin plastic production, so the shift will not
happen naturally. The current petrochemical industry also
benefits from global fossil fuel subsidies, estimated at US$53
228
billion in Virgin
2017,production
increasing the challenge of the transition.

Table 9 details the capital investment requirements under
the System Change Scenario by activity, technologicalmaturity, and the type of stakeholder who typically funds theinvestment. All costs are global, in present value terms, andrefer to the period of 2021-2040.

Plastic conversion
Substitute-paper
Substitute-compostables

A Comprehensive Assessment of Pathways Towards Stopping Ocean Plastic Pollution

105

CHAPTER 4: THE TIME IS NOW

Table 9: Total capital investments required under the System Change Scenario according tofinancial viability

System Change Scenario

2021-2040
investment
in billions

Technological maturity

Who pays

Virgin plastic production

US$307B

MaturePetrochemical industry

Plastic conversion

US$236B

MaturePetrochemical industry

Formal collection & sorting

US$54B

Mature, yet requires subsidy

Governments

Recycling (mechanical)

US$32B

Somewhat mature

Recycling industry

Recycling (chemical)

US$35BNot 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 wascalculated 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. Technologicalmaturity 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 thevalue 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 toincrease recycled content levels; recyclers depend on design and clear labelling to increase quantityand quality of feedstock; and investors depend on access to affordable capital. In other words, thesuccess of each organization—and therefore of the system as a whole—depends on the actions ofothers. 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
The changes required under the System Change Scenario
are enormous and require massive shifts in the businessmodels of firms creating plastics and their substitutes, largechanges in purchasing behaviour and business delivery
models of consumer goods companies that utilize plastic
as an input to the services and products they provide,significant changes to the recycling and waste disposal
industries, and changes in the behaviour of consumers.
Although these changes are feasible, they are unlikely to106

BREAKING THE PLASTIC WAVE

materialize unless governments create significant incentives
for more sustainable business models and level the playing
field in which currently virgin plastic feedstock has a costadvantage over recycled materials. Although all players
have a role, policies that create a clear and stable set of
incentives, targets, and definitions are the lynchpin that will
make the conditions required under the System Change
Scenario possible.
Given the ubiquity of plastics in all aspects of our economic
system, and the complexity of the problem, it is difficult

SUCCESS REQUIRES ALL PLAYERS TO TAKE RAPID AND CONCERTED ACTION

to see how the voluntary actions of consumers andcompanies alone can achieve anything like the System
Change Scenario. Governments at all levels play a key role increating the policy framework for social and environmental
protection and legal accountability, as well as incentivizing
innovation and investment. Regulatory action is essential todrive system shifts across all archetypes, and national andsubnational 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
to address this issue at the urgency and scale needed; and
3) improving regulatory governance and investing in policy
enforcement and compliance.
One of the most crucial roles that governments (andinvestors) can play in the coming years will be acting to curb
the planned expansion of plastic production. Without this,the supply of large quantities of cheap virgin plastic to themarket may undermine reduction and substitution efforts
and threaten the economic viability of recycling, while
making it even harder to close the collection gap. Table 10
includes illustrative examples of policy instruments that are

being used to address plastic pollution around the world. A
uniform mix of solutions will not apply across geographies,
and the applicability of each solution should be consideredwithin the context of local markets and governance systems.
Maritime sources of waste will require a separate set ofpolicies that are not included here, although indicative
examples are given in Chapter 2.

Although these changes arefeasible, they are unlikely tomaterialize unless governments
create significant incentives
for more sustainable businessmodels and level the playing field
in which currently virgin plastic
feedstock has a cost advantage
over recycled materials.

Flags fly outside U.N. headquarters in New York.
Alex Kazmierski/Adobe Stock

A Comprehensive Assessment of Pathways Towards Stopping Ocean Plastic Pollution107

CHAPTER 4: THE TIME IS NOW

Table 10: Illustrative examples of policy instruments
Interventions by policy group
Producer accountability
Extended producer responsibility 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 productdesigns (D4R, PVC/PS ban, pigments,
additives)
Design & labelling requirements (recycledcontent, durability, reuse, repairability,
recyclability, textile/tyre design for
microplastic avoidance)
Statutory targets (e.g., landfill, collection,
reuse, recycling, recycled content)
Regulatory supply chain standards forprevention 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 orsuitable 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

108

BREAKING THE PLASTIC WAVE

Reduce &SubstituteCollection

RecycleDisposeMicroplastic

SUCCESS REQUIRES ALL PLAYERS TO TAKE RAPID AND CONCERTED ACTION

To be effective, policy solutions need to be appropriately
enforced, and their outcomes amplified through better
integration across government departments. Governments
also have a critical role to play in developing the funding
mechanisms to support adequate waste management
infrastructure—especially collection, sorting, and disposal—as
shown in Figure 44.

Our model also shows that under the System Change
Scenario, we would hit peak virgin plastic production by
2027. Such a rapid global transition could leave significant
petrochemical assets stranded, many of which are expected
to come online by the mid-2020s. Resin producers andconverters could therefore:•

The role of businessBusinesses have a critical role to play in achieving the System
Change Scenario. The specific actions required by business
depend on where they exist across the supply chain, andwhether they are in high-income or the middle-/lowincome economies. Although there are considerable risks
to businesses across all sectors, there are also commercial
opportunities waiting for those ready to embrace change
and position themselves as leaders in the new materials,
products, and delivery systems that will thrive in a world withnear-zero plastic pollution.

Understanding the risks
Businesses that do not act risk reductions in the value of theirassets. Some of the key drivers of these risks, particularly tosingle-use plastics, are detailed in Figure 45.

•

Resin producers and converters
Figure 46 shows how feedstock for plastic services will
be sourced over time if the System Change Scenario is
implemented. It illustrates the dramatic shift from a world inwhich 95 per cent of plastic utility is made from virgin plastic
to a world in which, by 2040, 43 per cent is sourced fromvirgin plastic. This represents an 11 per cent net reduction in
the absolute metric tonnage of virgin plastic relative to 2016.

Embrace the new system by preparing for a lowvirgin-plastic world by:–

Reducing investment in virgin plastic production
plants—which are likely to become stranded—now.

–

Entering new value pools, such as recycling, moreaggressively.

–

Working with chemical and mechanical recycling
companies to incorporate recycled content into
processes.

–

Designing out excess material and weight andeliminating avoidable packaging.

–

Being early movers and advancing certification andregulation on recycled content, food safety, andrecycling definitions.

Radically innovate for more recyclable and recycledplastic by:–

Developing new materials, barrier coatings, andrecycled content tracking systems.

–

Proactively producing products that meet recycling
specifications without sacrificing product safety
to pre-empt the risk of expected regulatory shifts
against nonrecyclable plastic.

Figure 45: Potential future trends and challenges for single-use plastic and plastic packaging
Attitudes and policies

Waste and recycling system
Growing system challenges:

Societal trends continue:•

Consumer concern grows, increasing demand for“plastic free” solutions (following Europe)•

NGO activism grows and targets major brands andplastics producers•

Government regulation spreads on extended
producer responsibility and single-use plastics bans(following European Union, Africa, Chile, India,
California)•

Domestic recycling struggles on capacity andeconomics; sorted recyclables go to landfill or
incineration•

Recycled content demand is frustrated by supply,
quality, and approval challenges•

Scepticism on 100% recyclability claims as recycling
systems do not keep up••

Health effects of microplastics in food chain and air
is becoming a focus for research and activism

Landfill access limited and taxed highly; landfill costs
and externalities seen as a subsidy for poor design••

Waste exports further limited by unilateral action(following China, India) or policy (Basel convention)

Incineration increasingly opposed on cost, air quality,
climate impact, low energy yield, lock-in•

Higher cost of waste management is passed on tocompanies (following United Kingdom, European
Union) and differentiated on recovery/recycling costflexible and multimaterial penalized

A Comprehensive Assessment of Pathways Towards Stopping Ocean Plastic Pollution

109

CHAPTER 4: THE TIME IS NOW

Figure 46: Virgin forplastic
BAU
theindesign
Systemdoc
Change Scenario
latestneeds
titles &undercaptions
seeandreportFigure 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

Million metric tons of virgin plastic

350
300
250

-11%

400

200
150
100

205

181

50
0
Virginplastic
demand,2016

Businessas-Usual
growth invirgin plastic
demandVirginplastic
demand,2040 BAU

ReduceSubstitute

Increasedrecycled
feedstock

Virginplastic
demand,2040 SCS

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 thesignificant 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 theenvironment to lessen their business risk by:–

Reaching 100 per cent collection and ensuring that
products do not end up as plastic pollution.

–

Voluntarily paying for collection in geographies
where producer responsibility is not mandated.

–

Operating Packaging Recovery Organizations(PRO) and enhance monitoring and control ofpellet spillage throughout the supply chain.

•

Brand owners, fast-moving consumer goods (FMCG)
companies, and retailers
Brands are under mounting international scrutiny to address
the plastic pollution crisis. There are huge opportunities forcompanies that can translate today’s costs into tomorrow’s
new markets. But seizing these opportunities, many of which
require new business models, may require a significant
shift in mindsets and leadership. Brand owners, FMCGs andretailers could:•

Lead the transition to new delivery models by:
–

–

–

110

•

–

Advancing the global uptake of innovative models
by leveraging global reach and R&D budgets tofacilitate change across geographic archetypes andindustry sectors.

–

Working across supply chains on sustainablesourcing, effective end-of-life recycling, andcomposting of substitutes.

Reduce and redesign for packaging-free products,
maximum recycled content, and recyclability by:–

Redesigning products and packaging to more
ambitiously reduce and substitute away from plastic.

–

Restricting small formats, avoiding pigments oradditives, and limiting production to high-value
monomaterials, with intuitive labelling linked to
local recycling capabilities.

Facilitate consumer action and provide accessible,
cost-effective alternatives by:–

Creating products that are 100 per cent reusable,
recyclable or compostable.

–

Committing to reduce one-third of plastic demandthrough elimination, reuse, and new delivery
models by embracing product redesign and supply
chain innovations.

Facilitating new delivery models and integratingthese in-store or through home deliveries for reuse.

–

Signalling a shift in demand towards new delivery
models, refill and alternative packaging materials to
disrupt and catalyse investments across the entire
value chain.

Incentivizing shifts in consumer behaviour andconsumption patterns by aligning marketing efforts
towards more circular solutions, leveraging productplacement, and improving labelling for recycling.

–

Leveraging the transition to online shopping by
utilizing reverse logistics, and—particularly forfood retailers—investing in food preservation
technology and removing packaging where shelflife requirements decrease.

Enhancing disclosure to enable better tracking ofmaterials and units produced, used, and sold.
BREAKING THE PLASTIC WAVE

SUCCESS REQUIRES ALL PLAYERS TO TAKE RAPID AND CONCERTED ACTION–

Harmonize and simplify recycling labelling and help
educate consumers on what and how to recycle.
To be effective, this step will require competitors tocollaborate and agree on industry-wide standards.

In the face of rising consumer pressure and policy action,some businesses are already showing that they cancommit to plastic reduction targets and successfully
deploy alternative delivery models.229 Businesses shouldlook to adopt more granular decision-making tools
when choosing the appropriate material for a particularapplication and country, using tools that analyse not only
GHG emissions, but also the other environmental andhealth impacts of a particular material choice. It is vital thatthey carefully consider what packaging material is the rightchoice for a particular product and region, whether there
are alternative delivery mechanisms better suited to the
product application, the collection/recycling rate and risk ofleakage to the environment, and how the business model
can incentivize collection, reuse, and recycling. With more
careful assessments of delivery mechanisms and materials
on a case-by-case basis, businesses, with the support ofpolicy measures, could play the deciding role in reducing
plastic entering the environment.

•

•

•

Waste management (collectors, sorters, and recyclers)
Under the System Change Scenario, demand for recycledcontent is expected to grow by 2.7 times (see Chapter 2,
System Interventions 3-6), creating an immense business
opportunity for the entire waste management industry. With
space for landfills increasingly limited, rising opposition
against incineration, and growing demand for circularsystems, the recycling industry is optimally positioned toplug the gap. With increases in capacity, recycling has thepotential to double the volume of plastic waste it handles
compared with today. To maximize this opportunity, therecycling industry can:••Scale up and improve collection to reduce plastic
pollution and secure feedstock for recycling by:–––

Working with the public sector to rapidly improve
efficiency and convenience in collection, scale
up at-source waste separation, and improve thelogistics and economic viability of waste collection
in difficult-to-reach areas.
Developing and integrating new matchmaking
tools among waste producer, (formal and informal)collector, recycler, and end user, creating targeted
secondary markets for recycled materials andincentivizing more demand-driven collection.
Employing new business models to drive up
collection rates, including new models for
aggregation and decentralized managementof waste. Forward-looking companies are
already piloting business models that incentivize
consumers to collect and separate at source by
providing them with a share of the value of thecollected product.

•

Facilitate source separation in collection systems by:–

Using incentives and improved standards aimed
at decreasing contamination and maximizing
recycling yields.

–

Collaborating with producers/retailers to create
standardized labelling in line with local recycling
capabilities to maximize consumer participation.

–

Integrating waste workers in waste collection(particularly in low middle-income and low-income
countries).

Reduce the risk of direct discarding of plastic waste
into waterways by:–

Combining existing technological innovation andregulatory oversight to reduce deliberate dumping.

–

Using new developments in telemetry to allow
tracking of waste collection vehicles.

Scale up and expand recycling systems by:–

Adapting their practices to accommodate andcapitalize on the massive material shifts in the
supply chain.

–

Expanding their separate organic waste treatment
capacity and ensuring that it accepts compostable
packaging, as well as building paper recycling
capacities that accept coated paper.

–

Expanding infrastructure capacity to enable therecycling of waste locally or regionally.

Improve efficiencies in the new waste system throughtechnological improvements by:–

Improving sorting and separation technologies
that reduce losses and create a higher-quality, safer
output.

–Developing and scaling up chemical conversion
technologies to meet the growing demand forrecycled content in food-grade applications.

–

Advancing certification and regulation of recycledcontent.

Scale up and improve wastewater management inhouseholds and textile production and road runoff
treatment:–

Establishing mandatory treatment protocols for
textile production wastewater to tackle microplastic
removal and safe disposal.

–

Expanding connection of households towastewater treatment systems.

–

Expanding and improving road runoff systems tosafely capture and dispose of microplastic released
from tyre wear.

A Comprehensive Assessment of Pathways Towards Stopping Ocean Plastic Pollution

111

CHAPTER 4: THE TIME IS NOWPaper and compostable material manufacturers•

Focusing on developing a robust investment pipeline
Arguably there is sufficient capital to fund proventechnologies and business models (at least in the highincome economies). The challenge is to find investors
prepared to nurture and develop projects from the earlyideas stage. The common refrain is that there is a “lackof pipeline” and that the new business ventures arepremature and not ready for commercial finance. But
the pipeline will not appear overnight. Many promising
startups get stuck at the entrance to the “valley ofdeath,” the no man’s land between developing an idea
and actually getting it on the market. Seed funding in
the form of grants, technical assistance, introduction
to industry players, and guidance on which markets/
solutions to prioritize should help scale innovation.

•

Developing specific investment vehicles
The type of investment vehicle will depend on the typeof assets targeted (e.g., early stage technology withventure capital, or waste management infrastructurewith institutional or development capital). The amountof capital required will depend on the strategy.
Vehicles can combine blended/concessional capital(by development agencies, donors, climate funds, orphilanthropy) to mitigate investor risk or to develop
pipelines through project preparation facilities andtechnical assistance grants.

•

Analysing the commercial feasibility of various
business models
A thorough review of credit profile, new technologies,
and commercial market potential would help
demonstrate the attractiveness of the solutions
proposed under the System Change Scenario comparedwith traditional products and infrastructure.

•

Incorporating “plastic risk” in financial and environmental, social, and governance (ESG) assessments
As we have shown in this report, the valuation of current
plastic assets does not account for the fact that the
expected industry growth is not aligned with the clean
ocean agenda, commitment to a 1.5oC world, emerging
societal and consumer trends, or changing government
policies—all of which may have significant implications
for financial performance. It is time for analysts
and investors to account for these sector-specificdevelopments—or “plastic risks”—in their company
valuations. Investment banks, sustainability indices, andcredit/ESG rating agencies could all play a role here. For
example, there are already examples of credit ratings
being punitive towards plastic packaging companies on
the basis of increasing demand for recycled over virginmaterial and possible clean-up costs.230 A longer-term
and more holistic approach to risk and impact trade-offs
could be used, ensuring that plastic risk is not replacedby other risks, such as emissions and land use change.

In the System Change Scenario, we estimate that paper,
coated paper and compostable materials could meet 17 percent (or 71 million metric tons) of the plastic utility demandby 2040. This scenario offers a significant opportunity for
manufacturers to:••

Capitalize on growing business opportunities bydeveloping alternative formats and materials that canmeet the requirements of the plastic they would be
replacing. Innovations in product design and material
need to be thoroughly studied and tested so that the
introduction of any new product or material to themarket works in circular systems and does not generate
new environmental and health problems. These newmaterials must meet national certifications according to
the end-of-life processing technologies that exist in the
country, and labelling should be clear for the consumer.
Improve resource efficiency and paper recycling
capacity to meet the growing demand in this sector. It
is important that the materials are sustainably sourced,
and—where possible and safe—sourced exclusively
from recycled content or, in the case of compostablematerials, waste by-products. Suppliers need to workwith certifiers and roll out recycled input wherever
possible to prevent material substitutes for packaging
becoming a driver of deforestation or land use change.

The role of investors and financial
institutions
Investors should seek out opportunities in the new plastic
economy and urgently address potential risk exposure
related to assets in the “old” plastics economy. Otherwise,
if policies, technologies, brand owners, and consumer
behaviour continue to shift rapidly towards new delivery
models and new materials, investors run the risk of being
exposed to overvalued or stranded assets.
As shown in Figure 44, we estimate that the total investment
requirements from 2021 to 2040 under the System Change
Scenario are about half those required under BAU, but theportfolio of investments is completely different. Although
it may appear that investments under BAU (primarily virginplastic production and conversion plants) are less risky, as
they are directed at mature technologies, supportive policies,and established markets, analysis in this report shows that therisks may be significantly higher than is currently understoodby financial markets as policies, technologies, brand owners,
and consumer behaviour all continue to shift towards a
new, more circular plastics economy. But it is important toacknowledge that many of the new investments required
under the System Change Scenario—mainly, alternative
materials and new delivery models—have risks associatedwith them, namely market, technology, and regulatory risks.
Investment into the new value chain could come with manyco-benefits, including cost savings for governments andconsumers, health improvements, GHG emission cuts, andincreased job creation relative to BAU. So why is attracting
finance for this space often challenging? One reason is thepaucity of investable projects and perceived poor risk/return
profiles. Investors can seek to overcome this challenge by:
112

BREAKING THE PLASTIC WAVEAs highlighted in the previous section, investments in
the System Change Scenario need to cover formal newdelivery models, substitute materials, collection and sorting,recycling (mechanical and chemical), incineration, andlandfilling. These different types of plastic assets are all at
various stages of development (e.g., R&D or growth stage)—and each requires different forms of financing (e.g., venture
capital, growth equity, corporate debt, project finance or
grant support). The table below provides an overview andexamples of the different types of investors and sources offunding with roles to play.

SUCCESS REQUIRES ALL PLAYERS TO TAKE RAPID AND CONCERTED ACTION

Table 11: Various types of investors and sources of fundingType

PublicDescription
Government funding

National or subnational/municipal (through public budgets)

Donor capitalThrough ministries or development agencies (through official
development assistance)

Development banks

Typically provide commercial rate lending or equity finance (multilateralor bilateral)

Climate facilities

Typically provide grants and technical assistance (often in the form oftrust 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

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)

PrivateThe role of civil society
Civil society can play several important roles, including
acting as watchdog to hold governments, business, andinstitutions to account; conducting advocacy, setting
agendas, raising awareness, and lobbying for stronger
regulation; and coordinating research and citizen science.
In the context of plastic pollution, different factionsof civil society are occupying all of these roles and, inparticular, helping direct the focus of governments andcorporations towards upstream action. Civil society will
be vital in achieving each of the eight system interventions
documented in this report and facilitating the transition to a
System Change Scenario, including through the following
actions:••

Research and monitoring
Academic scientists and citizen science programmes
are essential for building the evidence base for policy
and corporate action through assessment of the
distribution, scale, and impacts of plastic production
and pollution. Research and monitoring should beharmonized across countries and regions to better
identify trends, leakage routes to the ocean, and theimpacts of plastic use and pollution on biodiversity
and health. Microplastics, contaminants, and maritime
sources are all areas that should be prioritized for further
research.
Incubation and acceleration of new solutions
Civil society campaigns have helped prompt retailers
and brands to adopt new reduction and recycling
targets and spurred trials of new delivery models. Scaling
action on reduction, substitution where appropriate, anddesign for recycling will be essential to implementing
the System Change Scenario interventions. Academia
and civil society can act as expert and technicalpartners, conducting the necessary research andadvocacy to support corporations and entrepreneurs inrolling out new solutions.
•

Communication campaigns
Civil society, academia, and media have led theway in making plastic pollution a high-profile issue
for policymakers and businesses alike. Sustained
communication campaigns would help build evenstronger, more informed consumer engagement ona practical level and support the shifts necessary totransition to the System Change Scenario.

•

Grass-roots community action
Flagship zero-waste communities and cities have not
only directly reduced the production of plastic waste
and leakage to the environment, but they also serve asmodels for other regions. They can also help mobilize
assistance and resources for communities impacted byplastic pollution. Inspirational early adopters provide aplatform to share and disseminate best practices andwill be vital, particularly in rural areas, in helping support
the rolling out of community waste reduction andmanagement schemes.

The transition to a low-plastic future is impossible without
civil society; it is the key to both embracing deep reductions
in plastic use and supporting governments and businesses inachieving a circular economy.

The role of consumers
The changes modelled under the System Change Scenarioentail significant changes to consumer habits and behaviour.
The scenario shift towards less single-use plastic, morereuse, and more separate collection of recyclables requires
consumer acceptance and participation. Facilitating andenabling such consumer behaviour change, in turn, needs

A Comprehensive Assessment of Pathways Towards Stopping Ocean Plastic Pollution

113

CHAPTER 4: THE TIME IS NOW

coordinated government policy, education, and industry
provision of accessible new products and services. For
example, policies should be in place to drive reductions
in avoidable plastic across the board and ensure full andeasy access to low-waste products, business models andwaste services, rather than placing the burden on consumer
choice.
Incentive structures are likely to be crucial drivers if therequired behaviour changes are to reach mass scale. These
incentives could include “pay-as-you-throw” measures,deposit-return schemes, regulatory changes to makebehaviour such as waste separation mandatory, or changes
in product pricing structures (e.g., plastic bag charges andsingle-use packaging fees, taxation, or subsidies) so thatlower-waste and more circular solutions are also cheaperfor customers. To make the transitions faster and smoother,businesses and governments should work together toensure that new systems are designed with usability,
convenience, and affordability in mind.

Consumer demand has played and should continue to playa catalytic role in accelerating the change. For example,
consumers expressing preferences for more sustainableproducts or services helps build the business case forscaling plastic reductions and increasing recycling, and cancatalyse businesses to go above and beyond their legal andregulatory responsibilities in addressing the plastic crisis.
There are already strong signs of high consumer demandfor products with less plastic packaging,231 more recycledcontent,232 and sustainably branded products,233 which could
translate into more buying choices.
Education, incentives, and clear labelling will be key
to delivering the outcomes modelled in the systeminterventions, both so that consumers are guided more
often to do the right thing in terms of their purchasing andrecycling behaviours, and so that consumer pressure—alongside advocacy from civil society groups—continues tocatalyse change by businesses and policymakers.

Regional priorities: applying different solutions for different
geographies
Our model results suggest, unsurprisingly, that different
archetypes require different solution sets. This finding stems
from the fundamentally different context and jumpingoff points that different regions of the world are starting
with, specifically, different waste composition, policy
regimes, labour and capital costs, infrastructure, population
demographics, and consumer behaviour.
For the purpose of this section, we have grouped the eightgeographic archetypes into three groups and have identified
the priority system interventions that each of them should
implement if they are to achieve the outcomes modelled in
the System Change Scenario. Figure 47 highlights the mosturgently needed interventions in each group of archetypes,
based on our model.

Upper middle-income countries
The most relevant system interventions for upper middleincome (UMI) countries include:•

Significantly reduce and substitute plastic
We estimate that UMI countries have the potential tocut 30 per cent of their plastic consumption by 2040
(relative to BAU) by reducing avoidable plastics andshifting to reuse and other new delivery models (detailed
in System Intervention 1) and to substitute 17 per cent of
their plastic consumption (relative to BAU) with paper,compostable materials, or other substitutes (detailed in
System Intervention 2).

•

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
50 per cent (detailed in System Intervention 4).

•

Invest in sorting and recycling infrastructure
Grow mechanical recycling output by 2.5 times (from10 million metric tons per year to 25 million metrictons per year) by 2040 (detailed in System Intervention5), which will require significantly increasing the shareof separation at source and collection for recycling. A
growth in plastic-to-plastic chemical conversion fromtrivial amounts today to 4.3 million metric tons per yearby 2040 would facilitate the processing of residual
low-value plastic waste that has not been eliminated or
substituted (detailed in System Intervention 6).

•

Restrict plastic waste imports
Reduce plastic waste imports by 70 per cent by
2030 and 90 per cent by 2040 to ensure that local
infrastructure is used to handle local waste.

High-income countries
The most relevant system interventions for high-income
countries include:•

Deal with microplastic pollution
In high-income countries, microplastics are the leading
driver of leakage; therefore, microplastic emissions
should be a top priority when looking for solutions.

•

Lead innovation and policy on reducing andsubstituting plastic and minimizing microplastic
emissions•

Increase separation at source and recycling•

Reduce exports to the middle-/low-income countries
and deal with plastic waste locally (or regionally)•

Address maritime sources of leakage

114

BREAKING THE PLASTIC WAVE

SUCCESS REQUIRES ALL PLAYERS TO TAKE RAPID AND CONCERTED ACTION

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

1High-income
economy234Upper-middle
incomeLower-middle
income

Low-income
economyU
4

Urban areas

Archetype 1U

2U

3U

4U

R

Rural areas

1R

2R

3R

4R

Top solutions for high-income
countries:

Top solutions for urban archetypes in
middle-/low-income countries:

Top solutions for rural archetypes in
middle-/low-income countries:•

Address microplastic leakage•

Invest in formal collection•

Heavily invest in collection•

Lead innovation and policy on
reduce and substitute•

Invest in sorting and recycling
infrastructure••

Increase separation at source
and recycling•

Significant reduce and substituteSupport informal sector bydesigning more value intomaterial•

Design for recycling: Increase
share of high-value plastic•

Significant reduce and substitute•

Reduce post-collection leakage••

Reduce export to low-income
countries
Address maritime sources ofleakage•

Reduce post-collection leakage•

Ban plastic waste imports

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 thesignificant 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
can grow its recycled output from 8.9 million metrictons per year in 2016 to 17.6 million metric tons per yearby 2040. In addition, a new plastic-to-plastic chemical
conversion industry could be scaled to produce 3.4
million metric tons per year of recyclate by 2040.

The most relevant system interventions for lower middleincome (LMI) countries include:•••

Significantly reduce and substitute plastic
The scale of waste infrastructure is insufficient to deal
with the large volumes of waste, and this problem is
expected to become worse as plastic waste continues
to grow faster than the ability to expand waste
infrastructure. Reducing the amount of waste in thesystem and, where appropriate, substituting plastic withother materials that are easier to deal with is essential.
We estimate that 30 per cent of plastic can be reduced
and 17 per cent can be substituted in LMI countries by
2040, compared with BAU
Invest in formal collection
Collection rates in this archetype are relatively low,
and raising them is a critical component in addressing
plastic pollution. According to the World Bank, averagecollection rates in urban areas are 71 per cent and inrural areas 33 per cent. Following a similar path thathigh-income countries have followed during theirdevelopment can yield collection rates of 90 per centand 50 per cent in urban and rural areas, respectively, by2040.
Invest in sorting and recycling infrastructure
Today, almost the entire recycling industry relies on
the informal sector and there is very little separation
at source. Under the System Change Scenario,•

Reduce post-collection leakage
According to World Bank data, only 4 per cent ofcollected plastic in this income group is managed ina way that it does not leak. Increasing this share to 50
per cent by 2040, largely by replacing dumpsites withmanaged landfills, can reduce vast amounts of plastic
leakage to the ocean.

•

Restrict plastic waste imports
By limiting plastic waste imports from other regions, LMI
countries can ensure that their waste infrastructure isdirected towards handling local waste.

Low-income countries
The most relevant system interventions for low-income (LI)countries to achieve a System Change Scenario include:•

Massively expand collection
Our System Change Scenario model estimates thatcollection in LI countries could grow in urban areasfrom 48 per cent to 90 per cent and in rural areas from
26 per cent to 50 per cent by 2040.

A Comprehensive Assessment of Pathways Towards Stopping Ocean Plastic Pollution

115

CHAPTER 4: THE TIME IS NOW•

Support the informal sector by choosing materials
that have higher inherent value
The majority of plastic in LI countries has very low
inherent value and is hard to recycle. By shifting tomaterials with higher inherent value, the large informal
sector can be supported to help reduce ocean plastic
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 toreduce 30 per cent of plastic by 2040 (relative to BAU) andto substitute 17 per cent of plastic by 2040 (relative to BAU).
Details can be found in System Interventions 1 and 2.

•

Reduce post-collection leakage
According to World Bank data, only 3 per cent ofcollected plastic in this income group is managed ina way that it does not leak. Increasing this share to 50
per cent by 2040, largely by replacing dumpsites withmanaged landfills, is essential to reducing leakage.

The cost of waiting: Delaying implementation of the systeminterventions from 2020 to 2025 would add 80 million metrictons 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 thencarried 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 byachieving 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
from addressing the ocean plastic pollution crisis, but rather
inadequate regulatory frameworks, business models, andfunding mechanisms. Achieving the level of ambition laidout in the System Change Scenario requires triggering key
changes in 2020-2022, through regulatory frameworks, newbusiness models, massive infrastructure investments andfunding mechanisms, and innovation.
To be on track to achieve about an 80 per cent reduced
leakage by 2040, key milestones for the next five years
should be established and monitored for attainment.
Potential milestones for 2025, identified in the System
Change Scenario, are presented in Table 12.
There is a logical staging, or order of actions, that shouldbe achieved before other intervention solutions can be
implemented. Catalysing this scale of change requires
pursuing “no regrets” actions in the next two years, which
we call Horizon 1 (see Figure 49). These measures include
stopping the production of avoidable plastic, educating or

116

BREAKING THE PLASTIC WAVE

incentivizing consumers about reuse, improving labelling,
and testing innovations such as new delivery models. This
period is also critical for sending clear policy and market
demand signals that will determine the future direction of
travel, such as voluntary or regulatory commitments on
reducing plastic, increased collection coverage, 100 per
cent recyclable packaging, and minimum recycled content
goals. Now is also the time to set up large-scale funding andinvestment initiatives, ready to scale up new delivery models,waste collection services, recycling infrastructure, andinnovations such as new packaging materials and tyres that
produce less microplastics.
Assertive action in “no regrets” Horizon 1 will set the stagefor Horizon 2, to “catalyse” changes by 2025, including
large-scale financing and implementation of current
solutions, and scaling of innovative alternatives. By 2030, the“breakthrough” Horizon 3 could then be reached, in which
all incentives in the system are aligned towards radicallyreduced leakage, and the next phase of innovative solutions
is being rolled out.

SUCCESSREQUIRES ALL
TO TAKE RAPID AND
CONCERTEDACTION
Figure 48: Implicationsof delaying
thePLAYERS
implementation
startdate of the
System Change Scenario
for latestfor
titles&captionsseereportindesign
docplastic leakage to the ocean

Figure 48: Implications of delaying the implementation of the System Change Scenario forplastic 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
Million metric tons of plastic leakage into the ocean per year

30

Business-as-Usual25

20

Additional leakage caused by delayed action

80 million metric tons

15

10

SCS (if implementation
started in 2025)
SCS (if implementation
started in 2020)

5

40

39

20

38

20

37

20

36

35

20

20

34

33

20

20

31

32

20

20

30

20

29

20

28

20

27

20

26

20

20

23

24
20
25

20

21

22

20

20

20

20

19

20

18

20

17

20

20

20

16

0

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 andsubstitute10 per cent reductions and substitutions achieved, capping plastic waste generated at 259 million metrictons 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 metrictons 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 forrecycling

Switch 25 per cent of multimaterial sachets/multilayer plastics and 2.5 per cent of household goods tomonomaterials by 2025.

Collect and sortCollection service roll-out in middle-/low-income countries increased to 69 per cent, comparedwith today’s 63 per cent, including through the integration of waste pickers into the municipal waste
management systems.

Mechanicalrecycling

Growth of recycled content to at least 30 per cent in plastic products.

Chemicalconversion

Chemical conversion capacity grows 2.4 times to reach the scale required by plastic-to-plastic chemical
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 throughmeasures such as installing improved machinery and drain filters.

A Comprehensive Assessment of Pathways Towards Stopping Ocean Plastic Pollution

117

CHAPTER 4: THE TIME IS NOW

Figure 49: Three time forhorizons,
illustrating the actions that could belatest titles & captions see report indesign doc
taken49:
in Threestagestohorizons,achieveillustrating
the System
ChangeScenario
Figuretime
the actions
that
could be taken in stages toachieve the System Change Scenario

12

2020-2022: Horizon 1“No Regrets”

2025: Horizon 2“Catalyse”

3•Eliminate overpackaging andavoidable plastic use, e.g.,
product bans, voluntary corporate
commitments.

•

Ensure convergence andcollaboration among government
and industry leaders to overcome•

Curb further expansion of virginplastic production.

•

Rapidly scale up system innovations•
including new delivery models(reuse-refill), reverse logistics,
incentives for packaging recovery.

•

Enable consumer behaviourchange through improved labelling,
economic incentives, and customer
communications.

•

Test delivery innovations, e.g.,reuse-refill and new delivery models.

•

Design current packaging andproducts for recycling andintroduce standards, extended
producer responsibility, andminimum recycled content
commitments.

•

•

•

•

•

Innovate to find new or improved
materials and technology toincrease value after use or expand
frontiers of compostable and biobenign materials.
Secure large-scale investment for
waste and recycling systems tocatalyse improvements and ramp up
implementation.

•

Invest in collection infrastructureand establish policy incentives, e.g.,
deposit-return schemes, statutory
targets.

Increase statutory targets to drive
continued progress (e.g., collection,
reuse, recycling, recycled content
targets).

•

Commit to financing the transition,
signalling a business opportunity forinnovators.

Streamline polymer types andproduct designs to facilitate reuse
and recycling.

•

Innovate in textile and tyre design.

•

118

Expand system innovations
globally (e.g., reuse, new delivery
models, bio-benign substitutes,
measures to minimize microplastic
emissions).
Achieve a value-driven system
for recovery and recycling of
packaging and use of plastic waste
as feedstock-based on enhanced
material value and policy innovation.

•

Align commercial benefits forcompanies that navigate the circular
economy opportunity with new
business models based on reuse.

•

Provide packaging as a service
based on reuse, with innovative
financing and material leasing
models.

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 snowballeffects for other parts of the system could occur due to codependency effects. Examples of co-dependencies between
interventions include:••2030: Horizon 3“Breakthrough”

Delaying making plastic reductions and substitutions until
2025 places extra annual burden onto waste infrastructure
to 2040. This could mean businesses and consumers
become accustomed to higher plastic use rather thanleapfrogging towards a lower-waste world, with increased
effort required to bring production and consumption backdown, and greater risk of stranded assets. It also meansthat there is more mass to be collected, redesigned forrecycling, and processed each year after that.
Delaying design for recycling measures would create
more losses from mechanical recycling by 2040, withan associated drop in recycling profitability in 2040 per
metric ton collected. This outcome, in turn, decreases
the financial incentives behind both informal and formal
sector collection for recycling and could slow the paceof building recycling capacity.

BREAKING THE PLASTIC WAVE•

Delays to expanding collection means additional
uncollected waste annually to 2040, which is notavailable as feedstock for recycling plants and which
either leaks to the environment or is burned illegally,
driving up GHG emissions and other toxins.

There are also hard limits on how fast change can happen,
for policy, scaling new infrastructure, and consumer
behaviour. Examples of time lag effects include:•

Pioneer countries and regions adopting and testing
new policies today so that late adopter countries canfollow suit.

•

Implementation timelines, between passing a policy andentering into force, or investing in infrastructure, andthat infrastructure coming online.

•

Lags between when new products become available
and when they replace the stock of plastic currently
in use, such as selling more reusable and recyclable
packaging, more durable tyres, or clothing with lower
microplastic shedding rates.

SUCCESS REQUIRES ALL PLAYERS TO TAKE RAPID AND CONCERTED ACTION

•

•

•

Early-stage reuse and new delivery models that needpiloting and refinement now so that the best models
emerge by 2025, then have time to reach the mass
market.
Limits to how fast consumer paradigms can be shiftedfrom first adopters to mass uptake in how we use
packaging, consume and shop, and segregate waste.
Improving technologies today—for better-performing
substitute materials, more recyclable plastic products,
improved sorting, etc.—to avoid retrofitting andstranded assets and so that new sustainable supply
chains can be built.
•

The “lock-in” effect means the longer that society
continues on the BAU path, the harder it is to implement
disruptive innovations.

These time factors highlight both the urgency, and theopportunity, of acting early to scale all system interventions,and avoid delays, higher costs, and increased ocean plastic
pollution later.

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 criticallyneeded 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 atthe 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 comparedwith 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 theamount of plastic entering the ocean. The mounting challengeof plastic pollution threatens the health of our ocean, uponwhich so many lives and livelihoods depend. And like theresponse required to tackle any global threat, effectively
stopping plastic from leaking into the ocean requires vast
coordination, increased resources, and close collaboration
among governments and industry, as well as the ongoing
vigilance and engagement of citizens and communities.
Achieving the ambitious changes envisioned under the
System Change Scenario would require governments toincentivize more sustainable business models based on
the reuse of materials, and realign incentives that currently
give virgin plastic feedstock an advantage over recycled
secondary materials. They would also need to enact
ambitious policy measures across the plastics value chain tofoster innovation. Industry would need to remove avoidable,
single-use and hard-to-recycle plastic from the market,
invest in material and business model innovation, and joinwith governments to help finance waste collection andsorting. Public-private collaborations would be required to
set standards on materials, formats, reuse, and recyclability.
And the management of this progress would be critical.
Unless the plastics value chain is transformed in the next
two decades, the compounding risks for marine species
and ecosystems, our climate, our economy, and ourcommunities will become unmanageable. But alongsidethese risks are unique opportunities for governments,

businesses, and innovators ready to lead the transition to amore sustainable world, with circular business models andnew sustainable materials.
Breaking the wave of ocean plastic pollution is a challengethat respects no boundary: It affects communities,businesses, and ecosystems in both the high-income andmiddle-/low-income geographies. Businesses, governments,
investors, and civil society should aspire to a shared nearzero leakage vision and commit to ambitious, concrete steps
towards achieving this critical objective.

Unless the plastics value chain istransformed in the next two decades,
the compounding risks for marine
species and ecosystems, our climate,
our economy, and our communities will
become unmanageable. But alongsidethese risks are unique opportunities
for governments, businesses, andinnovators ready to lead the transition
to a more sustainable world, withcircular business models and newsustainable materials.

A Comprehensive Assessment of Pathways Towards Stopping Ocean Plastic Pollution

119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 ofbuilding 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. Allassumptions 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 bycountry 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

Urban

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 middleincome (UMI)

53.3

104.7

143.7

4.22%

Lower middleincome (LMI)

25.5

48.8

70.6

4.33%

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%

LMI

19.4

27.6

31.4

2.04%

LI

4.2

8.1

10.9

4.18%

215.0

330.4

419.7

2.83%

Rural

GlobalTable A.2: Waste composition by plastic categories by income group

Plastic category

Income group
HI

UMI/LMI/LI

Rigid monomaterial

53%

33%

Flexible monomaterial

24%

45%

Lower middle-income (LMI)

23%

22%

The proportion of municipal solid waste allocated to eachplastic category was done by analysing available full data
sets on waste composition from representative countries in
the high-income archetype and combined middle-income
and low-income archetypes, due to scarcity of data (seetechnical appendix Section 8). The results are shown in Table
A.2. We assumed that the trajectory observed from 2014
to 2019 for these proportions would continue to 2040: anannual decrease in the share of rigid monomaterials of -0.22
per cent and an annual increase in the share of flexibles of
0.11 per cent across all archetypes.236

A Comprehensive Assessment of Pathways Towards Stopping Ocean Plastic Pollution

121

APPENDIX A

Table A.3: Estimated populations living inproximity to rivers or coastal waters
Archetype

Proportion of population living inproximity to water

HI-urban

<1 km

>1 km

43.5%

56.5%

HI-rural

41.1%

58.9%

UMI-urban

43.6%

56.4%

UMI-rural

40.9%

59.1%

LMI-urban

46.2%

53.8%

LMI-rural

42.0%

58.0%

LI-urban

40.2%

59.8%

LI-rural

36.4%

63.6%

We assumed that waste generated near coastal waters
and rivers has a greater likelihood of reaching water andtherefore proportioned the population living within 1 km of ariver or coastal water using GIS modelling, as shown in Table
A.3, and assigned transfer ratios of mismanaged waste tothe ocean accordingly (see “Transfer to waterways” section
below and technical appendix Section 14).

Business-as-Usual: Mass
Collection
Collection rates for each archetype are taken from the World
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
budgets spent on waste management would remain
constant. Consequently, we assume gross domestic product(GDP) growth is a proxy for the average annual growth ofgovernment budgets, and therefore an estimate for growthin waste management spending. The expansion in thevolume of collected plastic waste is therefore constrained by
global GDP growth at an average of 3 per cent per year.238
The number of waste pickers in each income group isestimated based on Linzner and Lange, 2013.240 We assume
that the informal sector will grow at the same rate as theoverall population, such that their relative proportion remains
the same as in 2016.

Table A.4: Baseline conditions of plastic waste collection rates by archetype for base year
2016239
ArchetypeHI urban

HI rural

UMI urban

UMI rural

LMI urban

LMI rural

LI urbanLI 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 inurban population

Number of waste pickers(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

122

BREAKING THE PLASTIC WAVE

KEY ASSUMPTIONS AND DATA SOURCESManaged waste

Disposal

The share of managed waste in each archetype is based on
World Bank data.241 Similar to collection rates, the growthof waste management infrastructure is constrained not
to exceed GDP growth averaged at 3 per cent per year.
Moreover, to estimate the amount of mismanaged waste inurban and rural areas, we assume it to be proportional to theamount of uncollected waste in urban and rural areas. The
resulting proportions of managed waste in each archetypeare shown in Table A.6. We assume that these proportions
remain constant to 2040 under BAU.

The share of managed waste directed to landfill versus
incineration is based on existing trends in each archetype, as
shown in Table A.7.

Mechanical recycling
In the BAU Scenario, all recycling between 2016 and2040 is assumed to be mechanical recycling, and only ofmonomaterials. We assume that recycling rates will increaseover time in HI countries (driven by regulation) and that all
recycling in UMI, LMI and LI countries is enabled, in some
way or another, by the informal sector.

Chemical conversion
We model pyrolysis-based chemical conversion in urban
areas of HI, UMI and LMI countries only. We assume that
all feedstock for this technology is flexible plastic (bothmonomaterials and multimaterials). To approximate the total
mass input for the BAU Scenario, we quantify the current
total installed capacity and project this forward to 2040 using
a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 2 per cent, which
has been observed between 2014 and 2019. Moreover,because plastic-to-plastic chemical conversion technologies
are all currently virtually at pilot scale, we assume that nocommercial development of plastic-to-plastic chemical
conversion will occur under the BAU Scenario.

Table A.6: Proportion of managed plastic
waste (as share of disposal) reported by
Kaza et al., 2018242

Import and export of plastic waste
The increase in global trade is assumed to match thegrowth rate in plastic waste generation in high-income
countries because these countries represent a large shareof the plastic waste export market. We base our analysis
on total plastic waste mass data obtained from the United
Nations Comtrade database for 2018250 after the significant
disruptions to trade in plastic waste following the Chinese
import ban in January 2018.

Open burning
The percentage of collected plastic waste that is burned
openly in dumpsites and the rate of uncollected plastic
waste that is burned openly in residential settings is based on
general municipal solid waste data reported by Wiedinmyer
et al., 2014, for middle income and low income countries.251
Because of a lack of data, high-income countries are
assumed to have the same rates. As a result, the open
burning of collected plastic waste in dumpsites is assumed
at 13 per cent and the open burning of uncollected waste inresidential areas is assumed at 60 per cent, globally.

Transfer to waterways
The precise transfer rates of plastic waste in each route are
not well understood. Table A.8 shows the rates assumed
based on expert panel consensus, informed by publishedresearch and survey data, where such data exist.252 The
highest uncertainty band of 50 per cent is assigned to thisparameter due to the lack of empirical data. Transfer rates
are distinguished by distance to water.

ArchetypeHI urban

HI rural

UMI urban

UMI rural

LMI urban

LMI rural

LI urbanLI ruralManaged plastic waste,
2016

96%

94%

53%

28%

4%

2%

3%

2%

Table A.7: Disposal rates by income group (as per cent of managed waste)
2016

BAU 2040

Engineered landfill

Incineration with energy
recoveryEngineered landfill

Incineration with energy
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 andJi et al., 2016;248 c = Kumar et al., 2019;249 d = expert panel consensus
A Comprehensive Assessment of Pathways Towards Stopping Ocean Plastic Pollution

123

APPENDIX A

Table A.8: Estimated transfer rates of mismanaged waste
Rigid
Pathway

System map arrow

Flexible

Multi

Denominator
<1km

>1 km

<1km

>1 km

<1km

>1 km

Direct to water(resident)

Arrow Q3

Q: Uncollected

20%

0.1%

20%

0.1%

20%

0.1%

Leakage to waterfrom terrestrial
dumping

Arrow T1

T: Diffuse terrestrial
dumping

10%

3%

35%

8%

35%

8%

Direct to water(collection
vehicle)Arrow R1

R: Post-collection
mismanaged

5%

5%

5%

5%

5%

5%

Dumpsite leakage
to waterArrow V3

V: Dumpsites/unsanitary
landfills

1%

0.5%

8%

3%

8%

3%

Business-as-Usual: Costs

Collection and sorting costs

Both operating and capital expenditures are assumed to
improve at a fixed rate for every doubling of capacity, which
varies based on activity. All cost data and estimates arereported in 2016 US$.

The collection and sorting costs are prorated for plastics
such that the costs within the modelled system account for
only the costs attributable to plastic waste and are therefore
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)

Incomegroup

Averagecost for all
waste253

HI

Weighted average—urban

Weighted average—rural

Operatingexpenditure

Capitalexpenditure

Total

Operatingexpenditure

Capitalexpenditure

Total

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)256124

Income archetype

Operating expenditure

Capital expenditure

Total

HI

156

52

208

UMI

117

39

156

LMI

88

29

117

LI

66

22

88

BREAKING THE PLASTIC WAVE

KEY ASSUMPTIONS AND DATA SOURCES

Recycling costs

Sale prices

Both capital and operating expenditures for closed-loop
and open-loop mechanical recycling plants are basedon the experience and knowledge of our expert panel
and confirmed through interviews. Similar to mechanicalrecycling, costs for plastic-to-fuel and plastic-to-plastic
chemical conversion plants are based on consultation
with chemical conversion companies. These are nascenttechnologies with limited cost data available.

The sale prices for different recyclates are based on acomposition of high-value plastics (PET, HDPE, and PP) as
shown in Table A.12. We assume that these prices remain
constant to 2040.

Table A.11: Closed- and open-loop mechanical recycling costs (US$ per metric ton of input)
Operating expenditure

Capital expenditure

Incomegroup

Closed-loop
mechanicalrecycling

Open-loopmechanicalrecycling

Chemicalconversion

Closed-loop
mechanicalrecycling

Open-loopmechanicalrecycling

Chemicalconversion

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, bOpen 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

A Comprehensive Assessment of Pathways Towards Stopping Ocean Plastic Pollution

125

APPENDIX A

Disposal costs
Total landfills costs are calculated based on World Bank
data and Eunomia data, as shown in Table A.13. The split
between operating and capital expenditures is done throughexpert panel consensus. The costs reflect the capital
expenditures and annualized operating expenditures ofengineered landfills. Incineration costs are based on expert

panel consensus based on data from actual plants. The
costs reflect the same operating, safety, and environment
standards across all archetypes.
Incineration revenues account for the sale price of theenergy generated, as shown in Table A.14. We assume theseprices remain constant to 2040.

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
The Current Commitments Scenario accounts for the
impact of major government policies as well as the
reduction committed by industry through the New Plastics
Economy Global Commitments.262 This scenario includes
all commitments made between Jan. 1, 2016, and June 30,
2019.

New Plastics Economy Global Commitments
The New Plastics Economy Global Commitments areevaluated to quantify the potential plastic reduction of its
signatories resulting from the commitments in three ways:
1.

Increase in recycled content.

2.

Reduction in plastic resulting from the commitment
to “take action to eliminate problematic or
unnecessary plastic packaging by 2025.”

3.

Innovation where 100 per cent of plastic packaging isreusable, recyclable, or compostable by 2025.

Government bans and levies
This element quantifies the anticipated reduction in plastic
due to government bans/levies that have been passed into
legislation. Where countries introduced bans on specificitems (e.g., plastic bags), we estimate that it will lead to
100 per cent elimination of that item. The European Union
single-use plastics directive263 is analysed separately todetermine its plastic reduction impact.

126

BREAKING THE PLASTIC WAVE

Costs and sale prices for this scenario were assumed to be
the same as for the BAU Scenario.

KEY ASSUMPTIONS AND DATA SOURCES

System Change Scenario: Mass
Reduce and Substitute interventions
The methodology used for Reduce and Substitute is
described under System Intervention 1 and System
Intervention 2 (for details, see technical appendix Section 15).

Collection and sorting
Table A.15 shows the target collection rates for eacharchetype under the System Change Scenario. These rates
are determined based on our expert panel consensus ofwhat ambitious but realistic targets for each archetype would
be, and while comparing to what best-in-class countries
have achieved in each archetype.

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 increasein the proportion of plastic that is technically recyclable asenabled by improvements in design for recycling, sortingat source, labelling for recycling, and recycling technology.
For the informal sector, the sorting losses are assumed to beless than the formal sector because waste pickers generally“cherry pick” the most valuable recyclable plastic waste atsource. A loss rate of 5 per cent across all plastic categories
is modelled, which is assumed to remain stable over time.

Table A.15: 2040 targets of plastic waste collection rates by archetype under System
Change Scenario
ArchetypeHI urban

HI rural

UMI urban

UMI rural

LMI urban

LMI rural

LI urbanLI ruralCollection rate forplastic waste

100%

100%

95%

50%

95%

50%

95%

50%

Recycling
The share of rigid plastics going to closed-loop mechanicalrecycling is assumed to increase by 2040 as regulatory
requirements for recycled content increase and as recycled
technologies improve, as shown in Table A.16.
In the System Change Scenario, we assume that there will bea growth in chemical conversion capacity, both plastic-tofuel and plastic-to-plastic. We base the maximum foreseen
growth rate for chemical conversion on the compoundedannual growth rate (CAGR) of ethanol production in Brazil
between 1975 and 1995, a time in which the Brazilian
government assertively drove the development of ethanol
production and incentivized it accordingly.264 We consider
the historical ethanol production trajectory in Brazil to be agood proxy because of the similar capex-intensive nature
as well as interest by public and private sectors to develop

the industry. The Brazilian ethanol CAGR of 16.5 per cent isused to project the maximum capacity growth of chemical
conversion (for both plastic-to-fuel and plastic-to-plastic).
In addition, the maximum mass flowing to chemical
conversion is constrained to a maximum of 50 per cent of allcollected flexible monomaterial and multilayer/multimaterial
plastic waste in any given year. We further assume thatplastic-to-plastic chemical conversion begins in 2030, andthat a 50:50 split with plastic-to-fuel is achieved by 2040.

Post-collection mismanaged plastic waste
Table A.17 shows the target rate of managed plastic waste asa proportion of all plastic waste for each archetype under the
System Change Scenario. This rate is based on expert panel
consensus of what is achievable in an ambitious scenario.

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
Incomegroup

2040—after intervention

Going to closed
loop

Going to open
loop

Lost in sorting
process

Going to closed
loop

Going to open
loop

Lost in sorting
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%

A Comprehensive Assessment of Pathways Towards Stopping Ocean Plastic Pollution

127

APPENDIX A

b. Informal:
2016
Incomegroup

2040—after intervention

Going to closed
loop

Going to open
loop

Lost in sorting
process

Going to closed
loop

Going to open
loop

Lost in sorting
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
ArchetypeHI urban

HI rural

UMI urban

UMI rural

LMI urban

LMI rural

LI urbanLI ruralManaged plastic waste;
2040 (as per cent ofdisposal)

100%

100%

90%

75%

50%

50%

50%

50%

System Change Scenario: Costs
End-of-life costs

Recycling prices

The end-of-life costs per metric ton of plastic substituted
include the collection, disposal, and recycling/composting
costs of substitute material. These costs are multiplied byan average weighted factor increase of replacing a plastic
packaging unit with a substitute package (1.5 for paper orcoated paper265 and 1.3 for compostable materials).266 Thismethod 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 ensurethat 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.

In the System Change and Recycling scenarios, we model anincrease in recyclate prices, driven primarily by an increased
demand for recycled content as well as a higher quality ofrecyclates due to design for recycling.

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
128

BREAKING THE PLASTIC WAVE

Appendix B
System maps

Simon Clayton/Pexels

APPENDIX B

Figure B.1: Global macroplastic system map

for latest titles & macroplastic
captions see report indesign doc
Figure B.1: Global
The macroplastic system map depicts the five major
components of the global plastic system: production andconsumption; collection and sorting; recycling; disposal;
and mismanaged. The boxes labelled with letters (A to W)
represent mass aggregation points in the model, and thearrows represent mass flows. Boxes outlined in solid lines
represent places where plastic mass leaves the system,
including where it leaks into the ocean (see Box W). The
boxes to the left of Box A reflect plastic demand. See
Appendix A and the technical appendix for details on themodelling methodology and parameters used.

Production & consumption
Separate system map

Plastic
reduction

Mechanicallyrecycled plastics

I1

Plastic
substitution
Demandfor plastic
utilityA

Total
plastic
waste

Recycled plastic
polymers

A1

Virgin plastic
Recycled monomers& hydrocarbons
Uncollected/littering

K1

A2

Recycled monoand hydrocarb

Mismanaged waste
Q

Q1

T

R

Uncollected

Pos

Q2

R1

U

Terrestrial
pollution
T1

S

Open burning> Exhibits - Yoni / PAGE 26

130

BREAKING THE PLASTIC WAVE

Q3

W

Direct discard
to water
U1

Ocean poll

FEEDBACK PENDING (portrait vers

APPENDIX B

c system map
Collection & sorting

RecyclingG

H

Exported waste

Imported waste

F4

H1

I
B

C

Collected
plastic

Collected for recycling

Formalcollection
B1

C2

E

F
C1

E3

Open-loopmechanicalrecycling

J1

Chemicalconversion tomonomers andhydrocarbons

K3

F2

J

F3
E2

I2

D1

E1

Mixed
collection
D

F1

Formal sorting(material
recoverySorting Losses
facility)

Closed-loop
mechanicalrecycling

D2

L
Sorting Losses

B2

Informalcollection& sortingUnsorted
waste

D4

K

D3

V1

omers
bons
Reprocessing losses

Dumpsite recovery
Post-collection
mismanaged

lution

L2

Post-leakage collection

st-collection mismanaged

R2

V

Dumpsites/
unsanitary landfill
V3

Post-collection disposal

Disposal

V2

L1

M

Unsorted managed waste

M2

M1

N

O

Engineered
landfills

Incineration

K2

P

Fuels fraction
from chemical
conversion

W1

Legend:Plastic flow

Pre-consumer

Points of mass accumulation

sion with CAPTION text also supplied / see next page)

A Comprehensive Assessment of Pathways Towards Stopping Ocean Plastic Pollution

131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
are detailed in this subsystem map. The
numbered boxes depict the flows of utility
demand and supply (green boxes), plastic
mass demand and supply (blue boxes),
and substitute material mass (pink boxes;
not modelled). Business-as-Usual (BAU)
demand for plastic mass that accumulates
in the system is estimated in Boxes 0.5 and0.7 such that utility in boxes 0.5, 0.7, and
0.8 adds up to the sum of Box 0. Arrow
0.6 is a dotted arrow because it represents
a partial flow as only multiuse packaging
for nonfood applications was modelled
as plastic. The three Reduce levers are
depicted in Boxes 0.1, 0.2, and 0.3. See
Appendix A and the technical appendix for
details on the modelling methodology andparameters used.

Utility

Service provision

Material requirements
0.1a

0.1:
Eliminate

0.2a

0.5:
Total plastic reduction

0.7a

0.3a

0.7b

0.2:

0.9:
Paper
0.12:

0.10:

Total mass of
substitutes

Coated paper

Reuse-consumer
0.2b

Box 0:

0.6:

Demand forplastic utility

Multiuse packaging

0.3b

0.7c
0.6a

0.11:
Compostables

0.3:
Reuse-new delivery
models

0.13:
0.7:
0.4a

0.4:
Remaining utility
demand-no solution

0.4b

Virgin plastic

Substitution to singleuse nonplastic materials

0.14:

Box A:

Recycled plastic polymers

Plastic waste generated(enters main system map)

0.8:

0.15:

Remaining plastic
demandRecycled monomers &hydrocarbons

Utility demandand supply

The subsystem map indicates flows of utility demand and supply (green boxes), plastic mass demand and supply (blue boxes), and substitutematerial mass (pink boxes; not modelled). Outlined boxes (0.5 and 0.7) indicate where Business-as-Usual (BAU) demand for plastic massaccumulates 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

132

0.13
Nonplastic waste
generated(requires management)

costs, is presented
in the technical
BREAKING
THE PLASTICWAVE appendix.

Plastic massflow

Substitutematerial mass

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
with a spectrum of airborne (>10µm) tocoarse fraction (>1mm) released throughmechanical abrasion of tyres, with chemicalcomposition depending on rubber type.
The major pathways are depicted in thissystem map, but because of a lack of data,
only the blue boxes and the associatedarrows are modelled. The grey boxes
are outside the scope of this study. Box
MTA, “Losses on roads,” represents TWP
generated by vehicles on urban and ruralroads and motorways. Box MTB, “Losses
on runways,” represents TWP generated byairplanes during takeoffs and landings. Box
MTE, “Distributed to soil and air,” represents
TWP distributed directly or via air to nearroad/runway soils. Box MTF, “Runoff tolocal waterway,” represents TWP distributed
directly to near road/runway waterways.
Box MTG, “Captured in combined sewage,”
represents TWP distributed and removed
by combined wastewater treatment plants.
Box MTH, “Captured in sustainable drainage
system,” represents TWP distributed to nearroads/runways, sumps, and filter systems.
Box T, “Terrestrial pollution,” includes
both the application of sewage sludge to
agricultural land and microplastics captured
locally in sustainable drainage systems thatare not safely disposed. Box V, “Dumpsite/
unsanitary landfill,” represents captured
but unsafely disposed microplastics. See
Appendix A and the technical appendix for
details on the modelling methodology andparameters used.

133

BREAKING THE PLASTIC WAVE

Production

Use phase

Recycling
Tyre recycling?

Losses from tyre chips?

Tyre production
MTA: Losses on roads

MTB: Losses on runways

Losses from manufacturing

Road runoff pathway

?

MTA1

Unmanaged

MTB1

MTA2

MTE: Distributed tosoil and air

MTB2

MTF: Runoff to local
waterway

MTA3

MTA4

MTB3

MTG: Captured in
combined sewage

MTB4

MTH: Captured insustainable drainage
systemMTH2

W: Ocean pollution
MTF1

?

MTG1

MTE1

MTH1

Disposal

T: Terrestial pollution*
MA4Land application of sewage sludge

MA1

O: Incineration

MA: Microplastic
removals
V: Dumpsite/unsanitary
landfill**

MA3* Includes both the application of sewage sludge to agricultural land and microplastics captured locally in “sustainable drainage systems”** Includes captured but unsafely disposed microplastic pollution

MA2

N: Engineered
landfills?

In scope formodelling
Out of scope formodelling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 inthe shape of a cylinder or a disk, produced
as a raw material (also from plastic
recycling) used in the manufacture ofplastic products. Because of a lack of data,
blue boxes represent the masses and flowsthat are included in our analysis, while
grey boxes are outside the scope of thisstudy. Box MNA, “Losses from producers,intermediary facilities and processors,”
represents pellet loss across the plastic
supply chain. Box MNB, “Losses fromshipping,” includes pellet loss during sea
transport (loss of containers). Box MNC,
“Losses from recycling,” includes pellet loss
during the plastic recycling process. Box
MND, “Losses entering drains,” represents
lost pellets distributed to indoor andoutdoor drains. Box MNE, “Runoff to local
waterways,” represents pellets distributed
directly to the sea. Box MNF, “Captured in
combined sewage treatment,” representspellets distributed and removed by
combined wastewater treatment plants.
Box T, “Terrestrial pollution,” includes
both the application 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 andparameters used.

134

BREAKING THE PLASTIC WAVE

Production

Recycling

MNA: Losses from producers, intermediaryfacilities, and processors

MNB: Losses from shipping

Losses from road transport

MNC: Losses from recycling

MNB1

MNA1

MNC1

Wastewater pathway

MND: Losses entering drains
MND3

Unmanaged

MND1

W: Ocean pollution

MNE1

MND2

MNE: Runoff to local
waterway

MNF: Captured in
combined sewage

?

MNF1

MNH: Captured insustainable drainage
systemDisposal

MNH1

T: Terrestial pollution*
MA4Land application of sewage sludge

MA1

O: Incineration

MA: Microplastic
removals
V: Dumpsite/unsanitary
landfill**

MA3* Includes both the application of sewage sludge to agricultural land and microplastics captured locally in “sustainable drainage systems”** Includes captured but unsafely disposed microplastic pollution

MA2

N: Engineered
landfills?

In scope formodelling
Out of scope formodelling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
via shedding to air, water, or wastewater
during production or use. Because of a lackof data, blue boxes represent the masses
and flows included in our analysis, while greyboxes are outside the scope of this study. Box
MSA, “Waterborne losses from production,”
represents microfibres released during textile
production. Box MSB, “Hand-washing losses,”
represents microfibres released during handwashing of clothes within households. Box
MSC, “Machine washing losses (households+ commercial),” represents microfibres
released during household machine washingof clothes or commercial laundromats.
Box MSD, “Direct to waterway,” represents
microfibres distributed directly to waterways
via hand-washing in rivers or wastewater
without treatment. Box MSE, “Treatment of
production effluent,” represents microfibres
distributed to wastewater treatments of textile
producers. Box MD, “Collected for wastewater
treatment,” represents microfibres distributed
to wastewater treatment facilities. Box MSD,
“Stormwater overflow,” represents microfibres
released from wastewater treatment facilities
via overflows. Boxes MF, MG, and MH “1ary,”“2ary,” and “3ary,” represent different stagesof wastewater treatment: primary, secondary,and tertiary, respectively. Box T, “Terrestrial
pollution,” includes both the applicationof sewage sludge to agricultural land andmicroplastics captured locally in sustainabledrainage systems. Box V, “Dumpsite/unsanitary
landfill,” includes captured but unsafely
disposed microplastics. See Appendix A and thetechnical appendix for details on the modelling
methodology and parameters used.

135

BREAKING THE PLASTIC WAVE

Production

Recycling

Use phase

Airborne losses fromproduction

MSA: Waterborne
losses from production

MSA2

?

Airborne losses from wear?

Dry cleaning

?

MSA1

MSB3

MSB: Hand-washing losses

MSC1

MSC: Machine washing losses(household + commercial)

MSB1

Textile recycling
processing losses?

Life-cycle losses fromrecycled content in
new textiles

?

MSB2

Wastewater pathway
MSE: Treatmentof production
effluent

Unmanaged
MSE1

W: Ocean pollution

MSC2

MD: Collected for wastewater treatment

MD1

MD2

MD3

MD4

ME: Stormwater
overflowMF:
Primary

MG:
SecondaryMH:
Tertiary

MF1

MG1

MH1

MSD1

?

MSD: Direct
to waterway

ME1

MF2

MG2

Disposal

MH2

T: Terrestial pollution*
MA1

O: Incineration

MA2

N: Engineered
landfills

MSE2

V: Dumpsite/unsanitary
landfill**

MA4Land application of sewage sludge

MA: Microplastic removals

MA3* Includes both the application of sewage sludge to agricultural land and microplastics captured locally in “sustainable drainage systems”** Includes captured but unsafely disposed microplastic pollution?

In scope formodelling
Out of scope formodellingAPPENDIX B

Figure B.6: Personal care products (PCP) system map
Figure B6: Microplastics system map-personal care products (PCP)
Microplastics generated from personal careproducts (PCP) are microplastic ingredients
added to PCPs intentionally by producers
for a range of functions. Because of a lack ofdata, blue boxes represent the masses andflows included in our analysis, while greyboxes are outside the scope of this study. Box
MPA, “‘Wash-off’ PCP production,” represents
wash-off PCPs (e.g., shampoos) production
rate. Box MPB, “‘Stay-on’ PCP production,”
represents stay-on PCPs (e.g., makeup)
production rate. Box MPC, “PCP consumption:
wash-off,” represents wash-off PCP usage by
consumers. Box MPD, “PCP consumption:
stay-on,” represents stay-on PCP usage by
consumers. Box MPE, “Direct to waterway,”
represents microplastic ingredients from PCPs
directly released to waterways via untreatedwastewaters. Box MPF, “Solid waste disposal,”
represents microplastic ingredients in stay-on
PCPs, removed by absorbent materials anddisposed to solid waste. Box MD, “Collected for
wastewater treatment,” represents microfibres
distributed to wastewater treatment facilities.
Box ME, “Stormwater overflow,” represents
microfibres released from wastewater
treatment facilities via overflows. Boxes MF,
MG, and MH “1ary,” “2ary,” and “3ary,” represent
different stages of wastewater treatment:
primary, secondary and tertiary, respectively.
Box T, “Terrestrial pollution,” includes
both the application 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 andparameters used.

136

BREAKING THE PLASTIC WAVE

Production

Use phase
MPB1

MPB: “Stay-on” PCP production
MPC: PCP consumption:
wash-off

MPD: PCP consumption:
stay-on

MPC1

MPD1

MPA: “Wash-off” PCP production
MPA1
MPC2

MPD2

MPD3

Losses from manufacturing

Wastewater pathway?

Disposal
MPF: Solid waste
disposal

MD: Collected for wastewater treatment

Unmanaged

MD1

W: Ocean pollution

MD2

MD3

MD4
MPF1

MPE1

MPE: Direct towaterway?

ME: Stormwater
overflow
ME1

MF:
Primary

MTG1
Secondary

MF1

MG1

MF2

MG:

MG2

MPF2

MH:
Tertiary

MH1

MH2

MA1

O: Incineration

MA2

N: Engineered
landfills

T: Terrestial pollution*
MA4

MA: Microplastic removals

V: Dumpsite/unsanitary landfill**
MA3* Includes both the application of sewage sludge to agricultural land and microplastics captured locally in “sustainable drainage systems”** Includes captured but unsafely disposed microplastic pollution

MPF3

Land application of sewage sludge?
In scope formodelling
Out of scope formodellingGLOSSARY

Glossary

Downstream solutions
Solutions applied post-consumer. This includes collection,sorting, recycling, chemical conversion and disposal.

Additives
Plastic is usually made from polymer mixed with a complex blendof materials known as additives. These additives, which include
flame retardants, plasticizers, pigments, fillers, and stabilizers,
are used to improve the different properties of the plastic or to
reduce its cost.267

Dumpsites
Places where collected waste has been deposited in a central
location and where the waste is not controlled through daily,intermediate or final cover, thus leaving the top layer free toescape into the natural environment through wind and surface
water.

Business-as-Usual (BAU) Scenario
See definition under “Scenarios.”

Economic costs
Techno-economic costs of a process or technology. Includes
operating and capital expenditures (opex and capex) where
relevant, but does not include taxes, subsidies or externalities.
All government and private-sector costs cited as outputs of
scenarios are reported in US$ and are calculated as present value
using a 3.5 per cent discount rate.

Bio-based (materials)
A material wholly or partly derived from biomass.
Bio-benign (materials)
A material harmless to natural systems in case it unintentionallyescapes collection and recovery systems.
Biodegradable (materials)
A material that can, with the help of microorganisms, break down
into natural components (e.g., water, carbon dioxide, biomass)under certain conditions.
Capex (capital expenditures)
Funds used by an organisation to acquire or upgrade assets suchas property, buildings, technology, or equipment.
Chemical conversion
Process that breaks down polymers into individual monomers
or other hydrocarbon products that can then serve as building
blocks or feedstock to produce polymers again.268
Circular economy
A circular economy is one that is restorative and regenerative by
design. It looks beyond the take-make-waste extractive industrial
model, and aims to redefine growth, focusing on positive
society-wide benefits.269 It is based on three principles: design
out waste and pollution; keep products and materials in use; andregenerate natural systems.
Closed-loop recycling
Closed-loop recycling is the recycling of plastic into any new
application that will eventually be found in municipal solid waste,essentially replacing virgin feedstock in “Box A” of the system
map (i.e., plastic bottle, pen, etc.)

End-of-Life (EOL)
End-of-life is a generalized term to describe the part of the life
cycle following the use phase.
Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR)
Schemes that enable producers to contribute to the end-of-life
costs of products they place on the market.
Feedstock
Any bulk raw material that is the principal input for an industrial
production process.270
Flexible monomaterial plastics
See definition under “Plastic categories.”
Formal waste sector
Antonym of “informal waste sector.”
Geographic archetype
Geographic archetypes are parts of the world with similar
characteristics when it comes to plastic waste. The archetypes
are divided into four groups depending on country income,according to World Bank definitions: high-income (HI)economies; upper middle-income (UMI) economies; lower
middle-income (LMI) economies; and low-income (LI)
economies. The rural and urban settings for each of the fourincome groups are also analysed separately to create the eightgeographic archetypes.
Incineration
Destruction and transformation of material to energy by
combustion.

Collect and Dispose Scenario
See definition under “Scenarios.”
Compostable (materials)
Materials, including compostable plastic and nonplastic
materials, that are approved to meet local compostability
standards (for example, industrial composting standard EN
13432, where industrial-equivalent composting is available).
Current Commitments Scenario
See definition under “Scenarios.”
Design for recycling
The process by which companies design their products andpackaging to be recyclable.

Informal waste sector
Individuals or enterprises who are involved in private-sector
recycling and waste management activities that are notsponsored, financed, recognized, supported, organized or
acknowledged by the formal solid waste authorities.
Leakage
Materials that do not follow an intended pathway and “escape” orare otherwise lost to the system. Litter is an example of systemleakage.271

A Comprehensive Assessment of Pathways Towards Stopping Ocean Plastic Pollution

137

GLOSSARY

Lever
A specific solution modelled within a system intervention (e.g.,
within the Reduce intervention, three levers are pulled: eliminate;reuse [consumer]; and reuse [new delivery model]).
Managed landfill
A place where collected waste has been deposited in a central
location and where the waste is controlled through daily,intermediate and final cover, thus preventing the top layer fromescaping into the natural environment through wind and surface
water.
Maritime sources
All plastics that enter the environment from seagoing vessels(including from fishing activities).
Mechanical recycling
Operations that collect after-use plastics via mechanicalprocesses (grinding, washing, separating, drying, regranulating,compounding) without significantly changing the chemical
structure of the material.272

Open-loop recycling
Process by which polymers are kept intact, but the degraded
quality and/or material properties of the recycled material is used
in applications that might otherwise not be using plastic (i.e.,benches, asphalt).
Opex (operating expenses)
Expenses incurred during the course of regular business, suchas general and administrative costs, sales and marketing, or
research and development.
Pathway
A course of action that combines system interventions acrossgeographic archetypes to achieve a desired system outcome.
Pellets
Microsize (≤ 5mm) granules usually with a shape of cylinder or adisk, produced as a raw material (also from plastic recycling) andused in the manufacture of plastic products.

Microfibres
Microsize fragments (>1mm) released via textiles shedding to air,water or wastewater during production or use.

Plastic categories
Three plastic material categories that we have modelled as
flowing separately through the system map: rigid monomaterial
plastics, flexible monomaterial plastics, multilayer plastics andmultimaterials.

Microplastics–primary and secondary
Primary microplastics are those originally produced or directly
released into the environment as microsize particles (<5mm size).

Rigid monomaterial plastics
An item made from a single plastic polymer that holds its
shape, such as a bottle or tub.

Secondary microplastics are microsize fragments originatingfrom the degradation of large plastic waste into smaller plastic
fragments once exposed to the marine environment.

Flexible monomaterial plastics
An item made from a single plastic polymer that is thin,such as plastic wraps and bags.

Mismanaged waste
Collected waste that has been released or deposited in aplace from where it can move into the natural environment(intentionally or otherwise). This includes dumpsites and landfills
that are not managed by applying daily cover to prevent waste
interacting with the air and surface water. Uncollected waste iscategorized as unmanaged.

Multilayer plastics
An item, usually packaging, made of multiple plastic
polymers that cannot be easily and mechanicallyseparated.

Monomaterials
See definition under “Plastic categories.”.
Multimaterials
See definition under “Plastic categories.”
Multilayer plastics
See definition under “Plastic categories.”
Municipal Solid Waste (MSW)
Includes all residential and commercial waste but excludes
industrial waste.
New delivery models
Services and businesses providing utility previously furnished bysingle-use plastics in new ways, with reduced material demand.
Open burning
Waste that is combusted without emissions cleaning.

138

BREAKING THE PLASTIC WAVE

Multimaterials
An item, usually packaging, made of plastic and nonplastic
materials (such as thin metal foils or cardboard layers) thatcannot be easily and mechanically separated.
Plastic-to-Fuel (P2F)
Process by which the output material of chemical conversion
plants is refined into alternative fuels such as diesel.
Plastic-to-Plastic (P2P)
Several chemical conversion technologies are being developedthat can produce petrochemical feedstock that can bereintroduced into the petrochemical process to produce virginlike plastic—a route that we define as “Plastic-to-Plastic” (P2P).
Plastic utility
The valuable services (including protection, food preservation,etc.) that are provided by plastic under a Business-As-Usual
Scenario. In alternative scenarios, services of equivalent value
could be provided in other ways with less plastic.

GLOSSARY

Polymers
PET - Polyethylene terephthalate
HDPE - High-density polyethylene
LDPE - Low-density polyethylene
LLDPE - Linear low-density polyethylene
PP - Polypropylene
PVC - Polyvinyl chloride
EPS – Expanded polystyrene
PS - Polystyrene
Product application
Fifteen categories of plastic waste of similar functions andformats (e.g., “water bottles,” “other food-grade bottles,” etc.), into
which we subdivided the waste stream for certain calculations.
Recyclable
For something to be deemed recyclable, the system must
be in place for it to be collected, sorted, reprocessed, andmanufactured back into a new product or packaging—at scaleand economically.273 Recyclable is used here as a short-handfor “mechanically recyclable.”274 See “mechanical recycling”
definition.
Recyclate
Waste material that has been collected or has the potential to becollected for recycling.

–

Reduce and Substitute Scenario: Assumes ambitious
reduction and substitution of plastic globally relative to
BAU scenario.

–

System Change Scenario: Assumes all systeminterventions are applied concurrently, ambitiously,
and immediately; includes the benefits of Collect andDispose Scenario, Recycling Scenario, and Reduce andSubstitute Scenario.

For detailed assumptions on each scenario, see the technicalappendix.
Single-use plastic
A product that is made wholly or partly from plastic and that is
not conceived, designed or placed on the market to accomplish,
within its life span, multiple trips or rotations by being returned toa producer for refill or reused for the same purpose for which it
was conceived.
Social welfare
Social welfare measures the overall well-being of people in theeconomy; it is the summation of all individual welfare in a society,where individual welfare is the sum of satisfactions obtained fromthe use of goods and services.

Recycling Scenario
See definition under “Scenarios.”

Stochastic model
A tool for estimating probability distributions of potential
outcomes by allowing for random variation in inputs over time.

Reduce and Substitute Scenario
See definition under “Scenarios.”

System Change Scenario
See definition under “Scenarios.”Resin
A natural or synthetic solid or viscous organic polymer used as
the basis of plastic, adhesives, varnishes, or other products.

System map
A visual illustration of the main flows and stocks of the global
plastic system. System maps can be found in Appendix B. For
the purposes of this project, we have collected, calculated, or
estimated values for each of the arrows and boxes in each of thesystem maps on a global level, per geographic archetype, andper plastic category.

Rigid plastics
See definition under “Plastic categories.”
Rural (vs. Urban)
See definition under “Urban vs. Rural.”
Scenarios
For the purpose of our modelling, we have defined six scenarios:––

Business-as-Usual (BAU) Scenario: Defined as “nointervention” scenario; in other words, assumes that thecurrent policy framework, market dynamics, cultural
norms, and consumer behaviours do not change.
Current Commitments Scenario: BAU scenario while
incorporating key governmental commitments on
reducing plastic waste.

–Collect and Dispose Scenario: Assumes that the
majority of efforts focus on ambitiously expanding
collection and controlled disposal of waste in middle-/
low-income countries.

–

Recycling Scenario: Assumes that the majority of efforts
focus on ambitiously expanding collection in middle-/
low-income countries and recycling of waste globally;
includes design for recycling (D4R) levers.

Tyre dust
Tyre dust consists of microsize particles with a spectrum fromairborne (>10µm) to coarse fraction (>1mm) released throughmechanical abrasion of tyres, with chemical composition
depending on rubber type.
Upstream solutions
Solutions applied pre-consumer. This includes design forrecycling (D4R); “Reduce” levers such as eliminate, reuse(consumer), reuse (new delivery model); and “Substitute” levers
such as paper, coated paper, and compostable plastic.
Urban vs. Rural
Our classification of urban versus rural is in alignment with theUnited Nations Statistics Division, which allows countries to use
their own approaches for distinguishing urban and rural areas
according to their individual circumstances.275
WedgesFour places in our model where a molecule of plastic can “endup”: “Reduce,” “Substitute,” “Recycle,” or “Dispose.” The wedges
are mutually exclusive, and each includes several sub-wedges.
For details, see Chapter 1.

A Comprehensive Assessment of Pathways Towards Stopping Ocean Plastic Pollution

139

ENDNOTES

Endnotes
1
World Economic Forum, Ellen MacArthur Foundation,and McKinsey & Co., “The New Plastics Economy:
Rethinking the Future of Plastics” (2016), https://www.
ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/publications/the-newplastics-economy-rethinking-the-future-of-plastics.

R. Geyer, J.R. Jambeck, and K.L. Law, “Production, Use, andFate of All Plastics Ever Made,” Science Advances 3, no. 7(2017): e1700782, https://dx.doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1700782.
2

Association of Plastics Manufacturers in Europe andEuropean Association of Plastics Recycling and Recovery
Organisations, “Plastics—the Facts 2018: An Analysis ofEuropean Plastics Production, Demand and Waste Data”(2018), https://www.plasticseurope.org/application/
files/6315/4510/9658/Plastics_the_facts_2018_AF_web.pdf.

3Grand View Research, “Plastics Market Size, Share andTrends Analysis Report by Product (PE, PP, PU, PVC, PET,
Polystyrene, ABS, PBT, PPO, Epoxy Polymers, LCP, PC,
Polyamide), by Application, and Segment Forecasts, 20192025” (2019), https://www.researchandmarkets.com/
reports/4751797/plastics-market-size-share-and-trendsanalysis.
45World Economic Forum, Ellen MacArthur Foundation, andMcKinsey & Co., “The New Plastics Economy.”

C. Ostle et al., “The Rise in Ocean Plastics Evidenced Froma 60-Year Time Series,” Nature Communications 10 (2019),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-09506-1.

6

Ocean Conservancy, “Stemming the Tide: Land-Based
Strategies for a Plastic-Free Ocean” (2015), https://act.
oceanconservancy.org/news/stemming-the-tide.
7

J.B. Lamb et al., “Plastic Waste Associated With Disease on
Coral Reefs,” Science 359, no. 6374 (2018): 460-62, http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.aar3320.

8

S. Chiba et al., “Human Footprint in the Abyss: 30 Year
Records of Deep-Sea Plastic Debris,” Marine Policy 96 (2018):
204-12, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2018.03.022.

“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.
D. Azoulay et al., “Plastic and Health: The Hidden Costs ofa Plastic Planet” (Center for International Environmental Law,2019), https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/
Plastic-and-Health-The-Hidden-Costs-of-a-Plastic-PlanetFebruary-2019.pdf.
15

16
B. Geueke, K. Groh, and J. Muncke, “Food Packaging
in the Circular Economy: Overview of Chemical Safety
Aspects for Commonly Used Materials,” Journal of Cleaner
Production 193 (2018): 491-505, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2018.05.005; K.J. Groh et al., “Overview of Known
Plastic Packaging-Associated Chemicals and Their Hazards,”
Science of the Total Environment 651 (2019): 3253-68,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.10.015.

R. Verma et al., “Toxic Pollutants From Plastic Waste—a
Review,” Procedia Environmental Sciences 35 (2016): 701-08,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.proenv.2016.07.069; M. Williams
et al., “No Time to Waste: Tackling the Plastic Pollution Crisis
Before It’s Too Late” (Tearfund, Fauna & Flora International,
WasteAid, and The Institute of Development Studies, 2019),
https://learn.tearfund.org/~/media/files/tilz/circular_
economy/2019-tearfund-consortium-no-time-to-waste-en.
pdf?la=en.

17

E. Boelee et al., “Water and Health: From Environmental
Pressures to Integrated Responses,” Acta Tropica 193 (2019):
217-26, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actatropica.2019.03.011.

18

19
Ocean Conservancy, “The Beach and Beyond”(2019), https://oceanconservancy.org/wp-content/
uploads/2019/09/Final-2019-ICC-Report.pdf.

European Parliament and European Council, Directive (EU)2019/904 of the European Parliament and of the Councilof 5 June 2019 on the Reduction of the Impact of Certain
Plastic Products on the Environment (2019), https://eur-lex.
europa.eu/eli/dir/2019/904/oj.

20

9

J.L. Lavers and A.L. Bond, “Exceptional and Rapid
Accumulation of Anthropogenic Debris on One of theWorld’s Most Remote and Pristine Islands,” Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences 114, no. 23 (2017): 605255, http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1619818114.

10

R.W. Obbard et al., “Global Warming Releases Microplastic
Legacy Frozen in Arctic Sea Ice,” Earth’s Future 2, no. 6(2014): 315-20, http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/2014ef000240.

11

N.J. Beaumont et al., “Global Ecological, Social andEconomic Impacts of Marine Plastic,” Marine Pollution
Bulletin 142 (2019): 189-95, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
marpolbul.2019.03.022.

C. Wilcox et al., “Using Expert Elicitation to Estimate the
Impacts of Plastic Pollution on Marine Wildlife,” Marine
Policy 65 (2016): 107-14, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
marpol.2015.10.014.

21

R.C. Thompson, “Microplastics in the Marine Environment:
Sources, Consequences and Solutions,” in Marine
Anthropogenic Litter, eds. M. Bergmann, L. Gutow, and M.
Klages (Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing,2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16510-3_7.

22World Economic Forum, Ellen MacArthur Foundation, andMcKinsey & Co., “The New Plastics Economy.”
23

12

E.M. Duncan et al., “Microplastic Ingestion Ubiquitous in
Marine Turtles,” Global Change Biology 25, no. 2 (2019): 74452, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14519.
13

14

140

Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity,

BREAKING THE PLASTIC WAVE24
S. Kaza et al., “What a Waste 2.0: A Global Snapshotof Solid Waste Management to 2050” (International
Bank for Reconstruction and Development, The World
Bank, 2018), https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/
handle/10986/30317.

J.R. Jambeck et al., “Plastic Waste Inputs From Land Intothe Ocean,” Science 347, no. 6223 (2015): 768-71, http://dx.doi. org/10.1126/science.1260352.
25

ENDNOTES

26
A. Winkler et al., “Does Mechanical Stress Cause
Microplastic Release From Plastic Water Bottles?” Water
Research 166 (2019): 115082, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
watres.2019.115082.

Association of Plastics Manufacturers in Europe andEuropean Association of Plastics Recycling and Recovery
Organisations, “Plastics—the Facts 2018.”

27

28

Ocean Conservancy, “Stemming the Tide.”

Association of Plastics Manufacturers in Europe andEuropean Association of Plastics Recycling and Recovery
Organisations, “Plastics—the Facts 2019: An Analysis ofEuropean Plastics Production, Demand and Waste Data”(2019), https://www.plasticseurope.org/application/
files/9715/7129/9584/FINAL_web_version_Plastics_the_facts2019_14102019.pdf.
29

Science Advice for Policy by European Academies(SAPEA), “A Scientific Perspective on Microplastics in Natureand Society” (2019), https://www.sapea.info/wp-content/
uploads/report.pdf; F. Wang et al., “Interaction of Toxic
Chemicals With Microplastics: A Critical Review,” Water
Research 139 (2018): 208-19, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
watres.2018.04.003.

40

41
Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity,“Impacts of Marine Debris on Biodiversity: Current Status
and Potential Solutions” (2012), https://www.cbd.int/doc/
publications/cbd-ts-67-en.pdf.

P. Villarrubia-Gómez, S.E. Cornell, and J. Fabres, “Marine
Plastic Pollution as a Planetary Boundary Threat—the Drifting
Piece in the Sustainability Puzzle,” Marine Policy 96 (2018):
213-20, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2017.11.035.
42

43

ClientEarth, “Risk Unwrapped: Plastic Pollution as aMaterial Business Risk” (2018), https://www.documents.
clientearth.org/wp-content/uploads/library/2018-07-24-riskunwrapped-plastic-pollution-as-a-material-business-risk-ceen.pdf.
30

31

Ocean Conservancy, “Stemming the Tide.”32
United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs
Population Division, 2018 Revision of World Urbanization
Prospects, accessed Feb. 13, 2020, https://population.
un.org/wup.

G. Everaert et al., “Risk Assessment of Microplastics in
the Ocean: Modelling Approach and First Conclusions,”
Environmental Pollution 242, Part B (2018): 1930-38, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2018.07.069.

33

Duncan et al., “Microplastic Ingestion Ubiquitous in Marine
Turtles.”34

Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity,“Marine Debris: Understanding, Preventing and Mitigating.”

35

J.P. Barreiros and V.S. Raykov, “Lethal Lesions andAmputation Caused by Plastic Debris and Fishing Gear on
the Loggerhead Turtle Caretta Caretta (Linnaeus, 1758):
Three Case Reports From Terceira Island, Azores (NEAtlantic),” Marine Pollution Bulletin 86, no. 1-2 (2014): 518-22,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2014.07.020.

36

J.L. Lavers, I. Hutton, and A.L. Bond, “Clinical Pathologyof Plastic Ingestion in Marine Birds and Relationships With
Blood Chemistry,” Environmental Science & Technology
53, no. 15 (2019): 9224-31, http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.
est.9b02098.
37

GESAMP, “Sources, Fate and Effects of Microplastics in the
Marine Environment: Part 2 of a Global Assessment” (2016),
http://www.gesamp.org/site/assets/files/1275/sources-fateand-effects-of-microplastics-in-the-marine-environmentpart-2-of-a-global-assessment-en.pdf.
38

M. Shen et al., “Can Microplastics Pose a Threat to Ocean
Carbon Sequestration?” Marine Pollution Bulletin 150 (2020):
110712, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2019.110712.

39

Ibid.

J. Rogelj et al., “Scenarios Towards Limiting Global Mean
Temperature Increase Below 1.5 °C,” Nature Climate Change
8, no. 4 (2018): 325-32, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-0180091-3.
44

45
United Nations Environment Programme, “Valuing Plastic:
The Business Case for Measuring, Managing and Disclosing
Plastic Use in the Consumer Goods Industry” (2014), http://
wedocs.unep.org/handle/20.500.11822/9238.
46

ClientEarth, “Risk Unwrapped.”

Association of Plastics Manufacturers in Europe andEuropean Association of Plastics Recycling and Recovery
Organisations, “Plastics—the Facts 2017: An Analysis ofEuropean Plastics Production, Demand and Waste Data”(2018), https://www.plasticseurope.org/application/
files/5715/1717/4180/Plastics_the_facts_2017_FINAL_for_website_one_page.pdf.

47

Beaumont et al., “Global Ecological, Social and Economic
Impacts.”48

A. Forrest et al., “Eliminating Plastic Pollution: How a
Voluntary Contribution From Industry Will Drive the Circular
Plastics Economy,” Frontiers in Marine Science 6 (2019),
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2019.00627.
49

50

Azoulay et al., “Plastic and Health.”

51

Ibid.

R.U. Halden, “Plastics and Health Risks,” Annual Review of
Public Health 31 (2010): 179-94, http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/
annurev.publhealth.012809.103714.
52

Groh et al., “Overview of Known Plastic PackagingAssociated Chemicals.”53

54

Boelee et al., “Water and Health.”

55

Williams et al., “No Time to Waste.”

56

Azoulay et al., “Plastic and Health.”

A Comprehensive Assessment of Pathways Towards Stopping Ocean Plastic Pollution141

ENDNOTES

57
GESAMP, “Sources, Fate and Effects of Microplastics in the
Marine Environment: A Global Assessment” (2015), http://
www.gesamp.org/site/assets/files/1272/reports-and-studiesno-90-en.pdf; World Health Organization, “Microplastics
in Drinking-Water” (2019), https://www.who.int/water_
sanitation_health/publications/microplastics-in-drinkingwater/en.

World Health Organization, “Microplastics in DrinkingWater.”

58

European Parliament and European Council, Directive (EU)2019/904.

59

60
M. Taylor, “US$180bn Investment in Plastic Factories
Feeds Global Packaging Binge,” The Guardian, Dec. 26,
2017, https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/dec/26/180bn-investment-in-plastic-factories-feeds-globalpackaging-binge.

A. Dipaola, “Saudi Looks to Petrochemicals for Its Next
Big Projects,” Bloomberg, Oct. 10, 2018, https://www.
bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-10/saudis-look-pastcrude-with-100-billion-in-downstream-projects; L. Haigh, “‘A
Who’s Who of Companies Investing in Plastic Production’:Is the Alliance to End Plastic Waste Hypocritical?” Packaging
Insights, Jan. 23, 2019, https://www.packaginginsights.
com/news/a-whos-who-of-companies-investing-in-plasticproduction-is-the-alliance-to-end-plastic-waste-hypocritical.
html.
61

MarketWatch, “Global Ethylene Market to Surpass
US$ 246.90 Billion by 2026, Owing to High Demand for
Ethylene Derivatives in Numerous End-Use Industries andfor the Production of Polyethylene,” news release, Jan.
23, 2019, https://www.marketwatch.com/press-release/global-ethylene-market-to-surpass-us-24690-billion-by2026-owing-to-high-demand-for-ethylene-derivatives-innumerous-end-use-industries-and-for-the-production-ofpolyethylene-2019-01-23.
62

United Nations Environment Programme and International
Solid Waste Association, “Global Waste Management
Outlook” (2015), https://www.unenvironment.org/resources/
report/global-waste-management-outlook.

63

64
Azoulay et al., “Plastic and Health”; M. Kampa andE. Castanas, “Human Health Effects of Air Pollution,”
Environmental Pollution 151, no. 2 (2008): 362-67, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2007.06.012.

Ellen MacArthur Foundation, “Reuse—Rethinking
Packaging” (2019), https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.
org/publications/reuse.

65

D. Kang, “Rethinking Single-Use Plastics: Responding
to a Sea Change in Consumer Behavior” (Citi GPS: Global
Perspectives & Solutions, 2018), https://www.citibank.com/
commercialbank/insights/assets/docs/2018/rethinkingsingle-use-plastics.pdf.

66

67

Ibid.

United Nations, “United Nations Sustainable Development
Goals Knowledge Platform,” accessed March 11, 2020,
https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/?menu=1300.
68

142

BREAKING THE PLASTIC WAVEInternational Energy Agency, “Energy Technology
Perspectives” (2017), http://www.iea.org/etp2017.

69

United Nations Environment Programme and World
Resources Institute, “Legal Limits on Single-Use Plastics
and Microplastics: A Global Review of National Laws andRegulations” (2018), https://www.unenvironment.org/
resources/publication/legal-limits-single-use-plastics-andmicroplastics-global-review-national.

70

Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives, “Plastics
Exposed: How Waste Assessments and Brand Audits
Are Helping Philippine Cities Fight Plastic Pollution”(2019), https://www.no-burn.org/wp-content/uploads/
PlasticsExposed-3.pdf.

71

B. Bauer (sustainability manager, Algramo), interview with
Systemiq, March 17, 2019.

72

A. Bagla, Sistema Asia Capital, pers. comm. to Systemiq,
Sept. 24, 2019.
73

A. Kremer, associate, Systemiq, pers. comm. to Systemiq,
Aug. 28, 2019.

74

B. Bauer, sustainability manager, Algramo, email to
Systemiq, March 29, 2019.
75

76
Based on analysis of UK grocery packaging data from
WRAP, “Plasticflow 2025: Plastic Packaging Flow Data
Report” (2018), https://www.wrap.org.uk/sites/files/wrap/
PlasticFlow%202025%20Plastic%20Packaging%20Flow%20
Data%20Report_0.pdf.

A. Parry, K. James, and S. LeRoux, “Strategies to Achieve
Economic and Environmental Gains by Reducing Food
Waste” (WRAP, 2015), https://newclimateeconomy.report/
workingpapers/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2016/04/WRAPNCE_Economic-environmental-gains-food-waste.pdf.

77

78
Groh et al., “Overview of Known Plastic PackagingAssociated Chemicals.”
79
Confederation of Paper Industries, “Paper and Board
Packaging Recyclability Guidelines” (2019), https://paper.
org.uk/PDF/Public/Publications/Guidance%20Documents/
CPI%20Recyclability%20Guidelines%20Revision%201_
Jan2020.pdf.

Eurostat, Packaging Waste by Waste Management
Operations and Waste Flow, 1997-2017, accessed Feb. 13,
2020, https://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.
do?dataset=env_waspac&lang=en.

80

C. Quinault, “‘Replace Plastics With Fibre,’ Says DS Smith,”
LetsRecycle.com, May 24, 2019, https://www.letsrecycle.
com/news/latest-news/replace-plastics-with-fibre-says-dssmith.

81

L. Stine, “TemperPack Closes US$22.5M Series B for
Sustainable Packaging to Replace Styrofoam With No
Competition, Slow Incumbents,” AgFunderNews, Jan. 17,
2019, https://agfundernews.com/temperpack-closes22-5m-series-b-for-sustainable-packaging-to-replacestyrofoam.html.

82

Confederation of Paper Industries, “Paper and Board
Packaging Recyclability.”83

ENDNOTES

U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization, “Global Forest
Products—Facts and Figures 2016” (2017), http://www.fao.
org/3/i7034en/i7034en.pdf.

84

P. Chadwick, “Nestlé Claims Breakthrough for Recyclable
Wrappers,” Packaging News, July 3, 2019, https://www.
packagingnews.co.uk/news/nestle-claims-breakthroughrecyclable-wrappers-03-07-2019.

85

Nestlé, “Nesquik Launches All Natural Cocoa Powder in
Recyclable Paper Packaging,” news release, March 4, 2019,https://www.nestle.com/media/news/nesquik-launches-allnatural-cocoa-powder-in-recyclable-paper-packaging.
86

87
W. Qureshi, “Waitrose Launches ‘World First’ Home
Compostable Ready Meal Packaging,” Packaging News,May 24, 2019, https://www.packagingnews.co.uk/top-story/
waitrose-launches-world-first-home-compostable-readymeal-packaging-24-05-2019.

Notpla, “Ooho! Edible and Biodegradable. The Alternative
to Plastic,” accessed Feb. 6, 2020, https://www.notpla.com/
products-2.

101
Institute for Bioplastics and Biocomposites, “Biopolymers
Facts and Statistics 2016” (2016), https://www.ifbb-hannover.
de/files/IfBB/downloads/faltblaetter_broschueren/
Biopolymers-Facts-Statistics_2016.pdf.

Mango Materials, “Applications,” accessed Feb. 7, 2020,
http://mangomaterials.com/applications.

102

Full Cycle Bioplastics, “Full Cycle Bioplastics,” accessed
March 11, 2020, http://fullcyclebioplastics.com.

103

S. Burnley, “The Impact of the European Landfill
Directive on Waste Management in the United Kingdom,”Resources, Conservation and Recycling 32, no. 3 (2001):
349-58, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
S092134490100074X.

104

Compost Manufacturing Alliance LLC, “Field Study:
Foodservice Packaging as Compost Facility Feedstock”(2018), https://tinyurl.com/compostableFSPtrial.

105

88

89
J. Scully, “Two Farmers Crisp Line Launches With 100%
Compostable Packet,” FoodBev Media, Oct. 10, 2018,https://www.foodbev.com/news/two-farmers-crisp-linelaunches-with-100-compostable-packet.

E. Henderson, “12 Best Plastic Free Tea Bags to Make
Your Brew Better for the Planet,” The Independent, Dec.
20, 2019, https://www.independent.co.uk/extras/indybest/
food-drink/best-plastic-free-tea-bags-clipper-t2-pukkatwinings-a8982626.html.
90

91

Kang, “Rethinking Single-Use Plastics.”

92

Ibid.

Two Sides Europe, “Paper & Cardboard Packaging Comes
Out on Top in New Consumer Survey,” accessed Feb. 11,
2020, https://www.twosides.info/UK/paper-and-cardboardpackaging-survey.

93

A. Krieger, “Are Bioplastics Really Better for theEnvironment? Read the Fine Print,” Ensia, July 16, 2019,https://ensia.com/features/bioplastics-bio-basedbiodegradable-environment/; United Nations Environment
Programme, “Exploring the Potential for Adopting Alternative
Materials to Reduce Marine Plastic Litter” (2017), https://www.unenvironment.org/resources/report/exploringpotential-adopting-alternative-materials-reduce-marineplastic-litter.

106

Packaging News, “Study: ‘Eco-Littering’ Could Blightthe UK Due to Confusion,” Nov. 7, 2019, https://www.
packagingnews.co.uk/news/environment/biodegradablecompostable/study-eco-littering-blight-uk-dueconfusion-07-11-2019.
107

108
L. Alaerts, M. Augustinus, and K. Van Acker, “Impact
of Bio-Based Plastics on Current Recycling of Plastics,”
Sustainability 10, no. 5 (2018): 1487, https://www.mdpi.
com/2071-1050/10/5/1487.

95

I.E. Napper and R.C. Thompson, “Environmental
Deterioration of Biodegradable, Oxo-Biodegradable,
Compostable, and Conventional Plastic Carrier Bags in theSea, Soil, and Open-Air Over a 3-Year Period,” Environmental
Science & Technology 53, no. 9 (2019): 4775-83, https://doi.
org/10.1021/acs.est.8b06984.

D.L.A. Gaveau et al., “Rise and Fall of Forest Loss andIndustrial Plantations in Borneo (2000-2017),” Conservation
Letters 12, no. 3 (2018): e12622, https://doi.org/10.1111/
conl.12622.

110
Confederation of European Paper Industries, “Global
Forest and Paper Industry Releases Policy Statement on
Paper Recycling,” news release, May 8, 2015, http://www.
cepi.org/news/global-forest-and-paper-industry-releasespolicy-statement-paper-recycling.

94
Material Economics, “Sustainable Packaging—the Role ofMaterials Substitution” (2018), https://materialeconomics.
com/publications/sustainable-packaging.

U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization, “Global Forest
Products.”

96

U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization, “Global Forest
Products.”
97

98

Ibid.

Geueke, Groh, and Muncke, “Food Packaging in the
Circular Economy.”

99

100
Environmental Paper Network, “The State of the
Global Paper Industry—Shifting Seas: New Challenges
and Opportunities for Forests, People and the Climate”(2018), https://environmentalpaper.org/wp-content/
uploads/2018/04/StateOfTheGlobalPaperIndustry2018_
FullReport-Final-1.pdf.

109

E.T.H. Vink et al., “The Eco-Profiles for Current andNear-Future Natureworks Polylactide (PLA) Production,”
Industrial Biotechnology 3, no. 1 (2007): 58-81, https://www.
liebertpub.com/doi/10.1089/ind.2007.3.058.

111

I.D. Posen, P. Jaramillo, and W.M. Griffin, “Uncertainty
in the Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions From
U.S. Production of Three Biobased Polymer Families,”
Environmental Science & Technology 50, no. 6 (2016): 284658, https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b05589.
112

A Comprehensive Assessment of Pathways Towards Stopping Ocean Plastic Pollution

143

ENDNOTES113
COWI A/S, Directorate-General for Research andInnovation (European Commission), and University of
Utrecht, “Environmental Impact Assessments of Innovative
Bio-Based Product” (2019), https://op.europa.eu/en/
publication-detail/-/publication/15bb40e3-3979-11e9-8d0401aa75ed71a1.

Environmental Paper Network, “The State of the Global
Paper Industry.”114

M. Biedermann, Y. Uematsu, and K. Grob, “Mineral Oil
Contents in Paper and Board Recycled to Paperboard forFood Packaging,” Packaging Technology and Science 24, no.
2 (2011): 61-73, https://doi.org/10.1002/pts.914.

115

J. Boucher, “Denmark to Ban PFAS in Paper & Board in
2020,” Food Packaging Forum, Sept. 3, 2019, https://www.
foodpackagingforum.org/news/denmark-to-ban-pfas-inpaper-board-in-2020.

116

J. Vendries et al., “The Significance of Environmental
Attributes as Indicators of the Life Cycle Environmental
Impacts of Packaging and Food Service Ware: Final
Report” (State of Oregon Department of Environmental
Quality, 2018), https://www.oregon.gov/deq/FilterDocs/
MaterialAttributes.pdf.
117

L. Zimmermann et al., “Benchmarking the in Vitro Toxicity
and Chemical Composition of Plastic Consumer Products,”
Environmental Science & Technology 53 (2019): 11467-77,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.9b02293.
118

Grand View Research, “Plastic Packaging Market Size,
Share and Trends Analysis Report by Product (Bottles, Bags,
Wraps and Films), by Type (Rigid, Flexible), by Application(Food and Beverages, Industrial), and Segment Forecasts,
2018-2025” (2018), https://www.grandviewresearch.com/
industry-analysis/plastic-packaging-market.

119

G. Smith, head of product sustainability, flexible packaging
and engineered materials, Mondi Group, pers. comm. to
Systemiq, June 27, 2019.

120

J. Paben, “Brand owner adopts recyclable PE pouchfor granola,” Resource Recycling, Jan. 29, 2020, https://resource-recycling.com/plastics/2020/01/29/brand-owneradopts-recyclable-pe-pouch-for-granola.

121

Ellen MacArthur Foundation, “Reuse—Rethinking
Packaging.”

122

123
Seventh Generation, “Citrus Washing Up Liquid 500ml,”
accessed Feb. 13, 2020, https://www.seventhgeneration.
co.uk/products/dishwashing/washing-up-liquid-citrus.html.

World Economic Forum, Ellen MacArthur Foundation, andMcKinsey & Co., “The New Plastics Economy.”

124

United Nations Environment Programme and International
Solid Waste Association, “Global Waste Management
Outlook.”125

The World Bank, GDP Growth (Annual %), 1961-2018,
accessed Feb. 6, 2020, https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/
NY.GDP.MKTP.KD.ZG.

127
M. Hutchinson, “Plastic Rubbish Been Dump in the
Amazon River,” accessed Feb. 6, 2020, https://www.youtube.
com/watch?v=wVnMBGXVVUI; Ocean Conservancy,“Stemming the Tide.”

D. Roy, “Indian Smart City Going Geospatial Way,”
Geospatial World (blog), May 19, 2017, https://www.
geospatialworld.net/blogs/indian-smart-city-goinggeospatial-way/; United Nations Environment Programme
and International Solid Waste Association, “Global Waste
Management Outlook.”
128

129
R. Linzner and U. Lange, “Role and Size of Informal Sectorin Waste Management—a Review,” Resources, Conservation
and Recycling 166, no. 2 (2013): 69-83, https://www.
icevirtuallibrary.com/doi/abs/10.1680/warm.12.00012.

C.A. Velis et al., “An Analytical Framework and Tool(‘InteRa’) for Integrating the Informal Recycling Sector in
Waste and Resource Management Systems in Developing
Countries,” Waste Management Research 30, no. 9_
suppl (2012): 43-66, https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/
abs/10.1177/0734242X12454934.

130

131
D.C. Wilson, C. Velis, and C. Cheeseman, “Role of Informal
Sector Recycling in Waste Management in Developing
Countries,” Habitat International 30, no. 4 (2006): 797808, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
S0197397505000482.

J. Gutberlet, “More Inclusive and Cleaner Cities With
Waste Management Co-Production: Insights From
Participatory Epistemologies and Methods,” Habitat
International 46 (2015): 234-43, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
habitatint.2014.10.004.
132

133
S. Nyathi, J.O. Olowoyo, and A. Oludare, “Perception of
Scavengers and Occupational Health Hazards AssociatedWith Scavenging From a Waste Dumpsite in Pretoria, South
Africa,” Journal of Environmental and Public Health 2018(2018): 7, http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2018/9458156; C.J.
Schenck et al., “Exploring the Potential Health Risks Faced byWaste Pickers on Landfills in South Africa: A Socio-Ecological
Perspective,” International Journal of Environmental
Research and Public Health 16 (2019): 2059, http://dx.doi.
org/10.3390/ijerph16112059.

S.M. Dias, “Waste Pickers and Cities,” Environment and
Urbanization 28 (2016): 375-90; Velis et al., “An Analytical
Framework and Tool”; R. White, Global Environmental Harm:
Criminological Perspectives (CRC Press, 2013).
134

135

Williams et al., “No Time to Waste.”N. Reyna-Bensusan, D.C. Wilson, and S.R. Smith,“Uncontrolled Burning of Solid Waste by Households in
Mexico Is a Significant Contributor to Climate Change in
the Country,” Environmental Research 163 (2018): 280-88,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2018.01.042.
136

137

Kaza et al., “What a Waste 2.0.”

126

United Nations Environment Programme andInternational Solid Waste Association, “Global Waste
Management Outlook.”

138

139

144

BREAKING THE PLASTIC WAVE

Kaza et al., “What a Waste 2.0.”

ENDNOTES

140
O. Franklin-Wallis, “‘Plastic Recycling Is a Myth’: What
Really Happens to Your Rubbish?” The Guardian, Aug. 17,
2019, https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/
aug/17/plastic-recycling-myth-what-really-happens-yourrubbish.

WRAP, “Defining What’s Recyclable and Best in Class
Polymer Choices for Packaging” (2019), http://www.wrap.
org.uk/sites/files/wrap/Polymer-Choice-and-RecyclabilityGuidance.pdf.

141

European Commission, The Role of Waste-to-Energy
in the Circular Economy (2017), https://ec.europa.eu/
environment/waste/waste-to-energy.pdf.

142

155
K. Spokas et al., “Methane Mass Balance at Three Landfill
Sites: What Is the Efficiency of Capture by Gas Collection
Systems?” Waste Management 26, no. 5 (2006): 516-25,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2005.07.021.

Eurostat, Packaging Waste by Waste Management
Operations and Waste Flow.
156

O. Hjelmar, A. Johnson, and R. Comans, “Incineration:
Solid Residues,” in Solid Waste Technology & Management,
ed. T.H. Christensen (Chichester: Wiley, 2011), http://dx.doi.
org/10.1002/9780470666883.ch29.

157

143

Association of Plastics Manufacturers in Europe andEuropean Association of Plastics Recycling and Recovery
Organisations, “Plastics—the Facts 2018.”

T. Hulgaard and J. Vehlow, “Incineration: Process andTechnology,” in Solid Waste Technology & Management,
ed. T.H. Christensen (Chichester: Wiley, 2011), https://
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/9780470666883.
ch26.

144

Ellen MacArthur Foundation, “Lodestar: A Case Study for
Plastics Recycling” (2019), https://recyclingtechnologies.
co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/RT-Lodestar-A-casestudy-for-plastic-recycling-2018-Report.pdf.

S. Dalager and D.O. Reimann, “Incineration: Mass
Balances,” in Solid Waste Technology & Management, ed.
T.H. Christensen (Chichester: Wiley, 2011), http://dx.doi.
org/10.1002/9780470666883.ch28.

D. VanderHart, “On Earth Day, Oregon House Shoots
Down Proposed Plastic Foam Ban,” Oregon Public
Broadcasting, April 22, 2019, https://www.opb.org/news/
article/oregon-plastic-foam-ban-fails-styrofoam-polystyrene.

160

145

K. Burton, “Up in Smoke: The Pros and Cons of Burning
Rubbish,” Geographical Magazine, Oct. 15, 2018, https://
geographical.co.uk/nature/energy/item/2969-incinerationtax.

146

H. Rubel et al., “A Circular Solution to Plastic Waste”(Boston Consulting Group, 2019), https://www.bcg.com/
publications/2019/plastic-waste-circular-solution.aspx.
147

Azoulay et al., “Plastic and Health”; Y. Younan, M.W.M. van
Goethem, and G.D. Stefanidis, “A Particle Scale Model for
Municipal Solid Waste and Refuse-Derived Fuels Pyrolysis,”
Computers and Chemical Engineering 86 (2016): 148-59.
148

Azoulay et al., “Plastic and Health”; Kampa and Castanas,“Human Health Effects of Air Pollution.”

149

150

Ibid.

A. Nandan et al., “Hazards Associated to Synthesis Gas and
Its Mitigation Measures,” Research Journal of Engineeringand Technology 5, no. 3 (2014), http://ijersonline.org/
HTMLPaper.aspx?Journal=Research%20Journal%20of%20
Engineering%20and%20Technology;PID=2014-5-3-6.

151

International Solid Waste Association, “A Roadmap for
Closing Waste Dumpsites, the World’s Most Polluted Places”(2016), https://www.iswa.org/fileadmin/galleries/About
ISWA/ISWA_Roadmap_Report.pdf.

152

153

Ibid.

H. Scharff and O. Hjelmar, “Landfilling: Concepts andChallenges,” in Solid Waste Technology & Management,
ed. T.H. Christensen (Chichester: Wiley, 2011), https://
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/9780470666883.
ch44.

154

158

159

H. Corvellec, M.J. Zapata Campos, and P. Zapata,“Infrastructures, Lock-In, and Sustainable Urban
Development: The Case of Waste Incineration in the
Göteborg Metropolitan Area,” Journal of Cleaner
Production 50 (2013): 32-39, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2012.12.009.
Azoulay et al., “Plastic and Health”; L. Giusti, “A Review ofWaste Management Practices and Their Impact on Human
Health,” Waste Management 29 (2009): 2227-39.

161

D. Carrington, “Air Pollution Particles Found in Mothers’
Placentas,” The Guardian, Sept. 16, 2018, https://www.
theguardian.com/environment/2018/sep/16/air-pollutionparticles-found-in-mothers-placentas; Verma et al., “Toxic
Pollutants From Plastic Waste.”
162

163
L. Canopoli et al., “Physico-Chemical Properties of
Excavated Plastic From Landfill Mining and Current Recycling
Routes,” Waste Management 76 (2018): 55-67, http://doi.
org/10.1016/j.wasman.2018.03.043; National ResearchCouncil, Waste Incineration and Public Health (Washington:
National Academies Press, 2000), https://www.nap.edu/
catalog/5803/waste-incineration-and-public-health.
164

Hulgaard and Vehlow, “Incineration.”

165
International Solid Waste Association, “A Roadmap for
Closing Waste Dumpsites.”
166
Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs,“Consultation on Reforming the UK Packaging Producer
Responsibility System” (2019), https://consult.defra.gov.
uk/environmental-quality/consultation-on-reformingthe-uk-packaging-produce/supporting_documents/
packagingeprconsultdoc.pdf; A. Morse, “The Packaging
Recycling Obligations” (Department for Environment, Food
& Rural Affairs and Environment Agency, 2018), https://www.
nao.org.uk/report/the-packaging-recycling-obligations.

GRID-Arendal, “Controlling Transboundary Trade in Plastic
Waste (GRID-Arendal Policy Brief)” (2019), https://www.grida.
no/publications/443.
167

A Comprehensive Assessment of Pathways Towards Stopping Ocean Plastic Pollution

145

ENDNOTES

C.A. Velis and International Solid Waste Association,“Global Recycling Markets: Plastic Waste: A Story for One
Player—China” (ISWA Task Force on Globalisation and Waste
Management, 2014), https://www.iswa.org/fileadmin/galleries/Task_Forces/TFGWM_Report_GRM_Plastic_
China_LR.pdf.

168

A.L. Brooks, S. Wang, and J.R. Jambeck, “The Chinese
Import Ban and Its Impact on Global Plastic Waste Trade,”
Science Advances 4, no. 6 (2018): eaat0131, https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/advances/4/6/eaat0131.
full.pdf.
169

170
Resource Futures and Nextek, “Eliminating Avoidable
Plastic Waste by 2042: A Use-Based Approach to Decision
and Policy Making” (Resourcing the Future Partnership,2018), https://www.resourcefutures.co.uk/wp-content/
uploads/2019/07/Eliminating-avoidable-plastic-waste-by2042-A-use-based-approach.pdf.

APL, “Vietnam—Waste Export Update,” 2018, https://www.
apl.com/news/426/vietnam-waste-export-update; CMA
CGM (Japan), letter to CMA CGM (Japan), Aug. 22, 2018,“Ban of Plastic Scrap/Waste Paper to Taiwan”; Cotecna
Inspection Inc., “Change in Inspection Requirements for
Non-Toxic and Non-Hazardous Waste to Indonesia”; K.
Das, “Vietnam to Restrict Surging Scrap Imports,” Vietnam
Briefing, Aug. 22, 2018, https://www.vietnam-briefing.
com/news/vietnam-to-restrict-surging-scrap-imports.
html/; Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries, “Indian
Government Modifies Ban of Importation of Plastic Scrap,”
July 19, 2016, https://www.isri.org/news-publications/news-details/2016/07/19/indian-government-modifies-banof-importation-of-plastic-scrap; Plastics Recycling Update,“From Green Fence to Red Alert: A China Timeline,” lastmodified Jan. 22, 2020, https://resource-recycling.com/
plastics/2018/02/14/green-fence-red-alert-china-timeline/;
C. Staub, “India Confirms Scrap Plastic Ban Will Be Delayed,”
Plastics Recycling Update, March 20, 2019, https://resourcerecycling.com/plastics/2019/03/20/india-confirmsscrap-plastic-ban-will-be-delayed/; C. Staub, “Malaysia
Outlines New Plastic Import Criteria,” Plastics Recycling
Update, Oct. 31, 2018, https://resource-recycling.com/
plastics/2018/10/31/malaysia-outlines-new-plastic-importcriteria.
171

Basel Action Network, “The Norwegian Amendments:
Implications for Recyclers” (2019), http://wiki.ban.org/
images/3/3e/Norwegian_Implications.pdf.
172

C. Staub, “China Ban Causes Programs to Cut Plastics
Collection,” Plastics Recycling Update, Oct. 25, 2017, https://resource-recycling.com/plastics/2017/10/25/china-bancauses-programs-cut-plastics-collection.

173

C.D. Birkbeck, “Strengthening International Cooperation
to Tackle Plastic Pollution: Options for the WTO” (2020),
https://www.plasticpolitics.solutions/research-1/2020/1/9/
policy-brief-strengthening-international-cooperation-totackle-plastic-pollution-options-for-the-wto.

174

175

GESAMP, “Sources, Fate and Effects of Microplastics.”

J. Boucher and D. Friot, “Primary Microplastics in the
Oceans: A Global Evaluation of Sources” (International Union
for Conservation of Nature, 2017), https://portals.iucn.org/
library/sites/library/files/documents/2017-002-En.pdf; S.
Hann et al., “Investigating Options for Reducing Releases in
the Aquatic Environment of Microplastics Emitted by (but
Not Intentionally Added in) Products” (Eunomia and ICF,
2018), https://bmbf-plastik.de/sites/default/files/2018-04/
microplastics_final_report_v5_full.pdf.

176

177
P. Simpson, senior scientific officer, European
Chemicals Agency, “REACH Restriction on Intentional
Uses of Microplastics,” (presentation, MICRO2018,
Nov. 22, 2018), https://echa.europa.eu/documen
ts/10162/23668985/20181122_presentation_simpson.
pdf/6f9d4b7c-afe7-f868-bf48-92907b0f3a5d.

United Nations World Water Assessment Programme,“The United Nations World Water Development Report
2017: Wastewater: The Untapped Resource” (2017), https://
unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000247153.
178

GESAMP, “Sources, Fate and Effects of Microplastics in the
Marine Environment: Part 2.”

179

180
M. Jekel, “Scientific Report on Tyre and Road Wear
Particles, TRWP, in the Aquatic Environment” (European Tyre
and Rubber Manufacturers Association, 2019), https://www.
tyreandroadwear.com/news/scientific-report-on-tyre-androad-wear-particles-trwp-in-the-aquatic-environment.

C. Lassen et al., “Microplastics: Occurrence, Effects andSources of Releases to the Environment in Denmark” (Danish
Environmental Protection Agency, 2015), https://orbit.dtu.
dk/files/118180844/Lassen_et_al._2015.pdf.
181

182
United Nations World Water Assessment Programme,“Wastewater: The Untapped Resource.”
183

Ibid.

184
R. Dris et al., “Synthetic Fibers in Atmospheric Fallout:
A Source of Microplastics in the Environment?” Marine
Pollution Bulletin 104, no. 1-2 (2016): 290-93, http://www.
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0025326X16300066.

M. Bergmann et al., “White and Wonderful? Microplastics
Prevail in Snow From the Alps to the Arctic,” Science
Advances 5, no. 8 (2019): eaax1157, https://advances.
sciencemag.org/content/advances/5/8/eaax1157.full.pdf.

185

186

Boucher and Friot, “Primary Microplastics in the Oceans.”

187
T. Backhaus and M. Wagner, “Microplastics in theEnvironment: Much Ado About Nothing? A Debate,” Global
Challenges (2019): 1900022, http://doi.org/10.1002/
gch2.201900022.

P.J. Kole et al., “Wear and Tear of Tyres: A Stealthy Sourceof Microplastics in the Environment,” International Journalof Environmental Research and Public Health 14, no. 10(2017): 1265, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/
PMC5664766.

188

S. Wagner et al., “Tire Wear Particles in the Aquatic
Environment—a Review on Generation, Analysis,
Occurrence, Fate and Effects,” Water Research 139 (2018):
83-100, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2018.03.051.

189

146

BREAKING THE PLASTIC WAVE

ENDNOTES

A. Stocker and S. Shaheen, “Shared Automated Vehicles:
Review of Business Models” (working paper, Interntional
Transport Forum, 2017), https://www.itf-oecd.org/sites/
default/files/docs/shared-automated-vehicles-businessmodels.pdf.

190

Greenmodal Transport, “What Is the Modal Shift?”
accessed Feb. 11, 2020, http://www.greenmodal.eu/en/
content/what-modal-shift.

191

192
International Transport Forum & Organisation for
Economic Co-operation and Development, “(Un)Certain
Skies? Drones in the World of Tomorrow” (2018), https://www.itf-oecd.org/sites/default/files/docs/uncertain-skiesdrones.pdf.

Operation Clean Sweep, “Operation Clean Sweep
Program Manual” (2017), https://www.opcleansweep.org/
wp-content/uploads/OCS-Manual-2.pdf.

203
G. Macfadyen, T. Huntington, and R. Cappell, “Abandoned,
Lost or Otherwise Discarded Fishing Gear” (FAO Fisheries
and Aquaculture, 2009), http://www.fao.org/3/i0620e/
i0620e00.htm.

L. Lebreton et al., “Evidence That the Great PacificGarbage Patch Is Rapidly Accumulating Plastic,” Scientific
Reports 8, no. 1 (2018): 4666, https://doi.org/10.1038/
s41598-018-22939-w.

204

C. Sherrington, “Plastics in the Marine Environment”(Eunomia, 2016), https://www.eunomia.co.uk/reports-tools/
plastics-in-the-marine-environment.

205

Sherrington et al., “The Development of Measures to
Combat a Range of Marine Litter Sources.”

206

193

194

Ibid.

207

Ibid.

208

Sherrington, “Plastics in the Marine Environment.”

Macfadyen, Huntington, and Cappell, “Abandoned, Lost or
Otherwise Discarded Fishing Gear.”

209

Fauna and Flora International, “Marine Pollution From
Microplastic Fibers” (2018); United Nations Environment
Programme, “Exploring the Potential for Adopting Alternative
Materials”; K. Vassilenko et al., “Me, My Clothes and the
Ocean: The Role of Textiles in Microfiber Pollution” (Ocean
Wise Conservation Association, 2019), https://assets.
ctfassets.net/fsquhe7zbn68/4MQ9y89yx4KeyHv9Svyn
yq/8434de64585e9d2cfbcd3c46627c7a4a/Research_
MicrofibersReport_191004-e.pdf.
195

M. Brodin et al., “Microplastics From Industrial
Laundries—a Laboratory Study of Laundry Effluents” (Swedish
Environmental Protection Agency, 2018), http://www.
swedishepa.se/upload/miljoarbete-i-samhallet/miljoarbetei-sverige/plast/1003-10-report-microplastics-from-industriallaundries.pdf.
196

Ibid.; Sherrington et al., “The Development of Measures to
Combat a Range of Marine Litter Sources.”

210

T. Huntington, “Development of a Best Practice
Framework for the Management of Fishing Gear—Part 1:
Overview and Current Status” (2016), https://www.ghostgear.
org/s/wap_gear_bp_framework_part_1_mm_lk-20171023web.pdf.

211

212

213
K. Richardson, B.D. Hardesty, and C. Wilcox, “Estimates ofFishing Gear Loss Rates at a Global Scale: A Literature Review
and Meta-Analysis,” Fish & Fisheries 20, no. 6 (2019): 1218-31,
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/faf.12407.

Huntington, “Development of a Best Practice Framework
for the Management of Fishing Gear—Part 1.”

197

Hann et al., “Investigating Options for Reducing Releases
in the Aquatic Environment.”214

J. Sun et al., “Microplastics in Wastewater Treatment
Plants: Detection, Occurrence and Removal,” Water
Research 152 (2019): 21-37, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
watres.2018.12.050.

215

198

Fauna and Flora International, “Removing or Restricting
Microplastic Ingredients or ‘Microbeads’ From Consumer
and Industrial Products” (2017), https://cms.fauna-flora.org/
wp-content/uploads/2017/11/FFI_201701_MicrobeadsGuidance-Document.pdf.
199

200

Ibid.

European Chemicals Agency, “Annex XV
Restriction Report 2019” (2019), https://echa.europa.
eu/documents/10162/05bd96e3-b969-0a7cc6d0-441182893720.

201

C. Sherrington et al., “Study to Support the Developmentof Measures to Combat a Range of Marine Litter Sources”(Eunomia, 2016), https://www.eunomia.co.uk/reports-tools/
study-to-support-the-development-of-measures-to-combata-range-of-marine-litter-sources.

202

Ibid.

T. Cashion et al., “A Global Fishing Gear Dataset for
Integration Into the Sea Around Us Global Fisheries
Databases” (Fisheries Centre Research Reports, 2018),
https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/legacy.seaaroundus/
researcher/dpauly/PDF/2018/Reports/Global-Gear-UseFCRR_261-final.pdf.

216
E. Gilman et al., “Abandoned, Lost and Discarded Gillnets
and Trammel Nets: Methods to Estimate Ghost Fishing
Mortality, and the Status of Regional Monitoring andManagement” (Food and Agriculture Organization of theUnited Nations, 2016), http://www.fao.org/3/a-i5051e.pdf;
T. Huntington, “Development of a Best Practice Framework
for the Management of Fishing Gear—Part 2: Best Practice
Framework for the Management of Fishing Gear” (2016),
https://www.ghostgear.org/s/wap_gear_bp_framework_
part_2_mm_lk-20171023.pdf.
217
Gilman et al., “Abandoned, Lost or Otherwise Discarded
Gillnets and Trammel Nets.”

U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization, Agreement on
Port State Measures to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal,
Unreported and Unregulated Fishing (2009), http://www.fao.
org/fileadmin/user_upload/legal/docs/037t-e.pdf.
218

A Comprehensive Assessment of Pathways Towards Stopping Ocean Plastic Pollution

147

ENDNOTES

219
V. Viool et al., “Study to Support Impact Assessment
for Options to Reduce the Level of ALDFG” (European
Commission, 2018), https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/
maritimeforum/en/system/files/Final%20Report%20
Plastics%20from%20Fishing%20Gear%20Delivered.pdf.

230

U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization, Agreement on
Port State Measures.

V. Waldersee, “Most Brits Support Ban on Harmful Plastic
Packaging,” YouGov.co.uk, April 19, 2019, https://yougov.
co.uk/topics/consumer/articles-reports/2019/04/19/mostbrits-support-ban-harmful-plastic-packaging.

220

P.G. Ryan et al., “Rapid Increase in Asian Bottles in theSouth Atlantic Ocean Indicates Major Debris Inputs From
Ships,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
116, no. 42 (2019): 20892-97, https://www.pnas.org/
content/pnas/116/42/20892.full.pdf.

221

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

222

Sherrington et al., “The Development of Measures to
Combat a Range of Marine Litter Sources.”
223

Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament andof the Council on Port Reception Facilities for the Deliveryof Waste From Ships, Repealing Directive 2000/59/EC andAmending Directive 2009/16/EC and Directive 2010/65/
EU, 2018/0012/COD, European Parliament and European
Council (2018), https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/
TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52018PC0033.

224

Organization for Economic Co-operation andDevelopment, Business Enterprise R&D Expenditure by
Industry, 2008-2017, accessed Feb. 11, 2020, https://stats.oecd.org/viewhtml.aspx?datasetcode=BERD_
INDU&lang=en#.

225

226
F. Galindo-Ruedai and F. Verger, “OECD Taxonomy of
Economic Activities Based on R&D Intensity” (working
paper, OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working
Papers, OECD Publishing, Paris, 2016), http://dx.doi.
org/10.1787/5jlv73sqqp8r-en.
227

Ibid.

Based on global energy subsidies of US$5.3 trillion in2017, according to the International Monetary Fund, withpetroleum and natural gas making up 51 per cent andassuming 2 per cent of that sum is used for petrochemicals,
for a total of US$53 billion; D. Coady et al., “Global Fossil
Fuel Subsidies Remain Large: An Update Based on CountryLevel Estimates” (working paper, International Monetary
Fund, 2019), https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/
Issues/2019/05/02/Global-Fossil-Fuel-Subsidies-RemainLarge-An-Update-Based-on-Country-Level-Estimates-46509;
J. Donev, “In a Barrel of Oil,” Energy Education, Unviersity ofCalgary, accessed Feb. 12, 2020, https://energyeducation.
ca/encyclopedia/In_a_barrel_of_oil.
228229
P. Chadwick, “Sainsbury’s Targets 50% Plastic Reduction
by 2025,” Packaging News, September 2019, https://www.
packagingnews.co.uk/news/sainsburys-targets-50-plasticreduction-20125-13-09-2019; Ellen MacArthur Foundation,“Plastics Pact,” accessed Feb. 11, 2020, https://www.
newplasticseconomy.org/projects/plastics-pact; Ellen
MacArthur Foundation, “Reuse—Rethinking Packaging.”

148

BREAKING THE PLASTIC WAVE

Moody’s, “European Packaging Firms’ Credit Quality
Under Threat as Calls to Cut Plastic Waste Intensify,” news
release, March 4, 2019, https://www.moodys.com/research/
Moodys-European-packaging-firms-credit-quality-underthreat-as-calls--PBC_1163991.

231

232
S. George, “Report: Consumer Demand for Recycled
Packaging Outpacing Corporate Action,” Edie Newsroom,
September 2018, https://www.edie.net/news/5/Report-consumer-demand-for-recycled-packaging-outpacingcorporate-action---.

T. Whelan and R. Kronthal-Sacco, “Research: Actually,
Consumers Do Buy Sustainable Products,” Harvard Business
Review, June 19, 2019, https://hbr.org/2019/06/researchactually-consumers-do-buy-sustainable-products.

233

234
S. Kaza et al., “What a Waste 2.0: A Global Snapshotof Solid Waste Management to 2050” (International
Bank for Reconstruction and Development, The World
Bank, 2018), https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/
handle/10986/30317.

Material Economics, “The Circular Economy—A
Powerful Force for Climate Mitigation” (2018), https://materialeconomics.com/material-economics-the-circulareconomy.pdf?cms_fileid=340952bea9e68d9013461c92fb
c23cae.
235

Grand View Research, “Plastic Packaging Market Size,
Share and Trends Analysis Report by Product (Bottles, Bags,
Wraps and Films), by Type (Rigid, Flexible), by Application(Food and Beverages, Industrial), and Segment Forecasts,
2018-2025” (2018), https://www.grandviewresearch.com/
industry-analysis/plastic-packaging-market.

236

237

Kaza et al., “What a Waste 2.0.”

The World Bank, GDP Growth (Annual %), 1961-2018,
accessed Feb. 6, 2020, https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/
NY.GDP.MKTP.KD.ZG.

238

239

Kaza et al., “What a Waste 2.0.”

R. Linzner and U. Lange, “Role and Size of Informal Sectorin Waste Management—A Review,” Resources, Conservation
and Recycling 166, no. 2 (2013): 69-83, https://www.
icevirtuallibrary.com/doi/abs/10.1680/warm.12.00012.

240

241

Kaza et al., “What a Waste 2.0.”

242

Ibid.

243

Ibid.

244
M. Fernandez, “Waste-to-Energy in China: Perspectives,”
BioEnergy Consult, Feb. 23, 2020, https://www.
bioenergyconsult.com/waste-to-energy-china/.

H. Hu et al., “A Critical Evaluation of Waste Incineration
Plants in Wuhan (China) Based on Site Selection,
Environmental Influence, Public Health and Public
Participation,” 12, no. 7 (2015): 7593-614, https://www.mdpi.
com/1660-4601/12/7/7593.
245

ENDNOTES

246
Y. Hu, H. Cheng, and S. Tao, “The Growing Importanceof Waste-to-Energy (WTE) Incineration in China’s
Anthropogenic Mercury Emissions: Emission Inventories andReduction Strategies,” Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Reviews 97 (2018): 119-37, http://www.sciencedirect.com/
science/article/pii/S1364032118306117.

National Bureau of Statistics of China, “China Statistical
Yearbook 2018” (China Statistics Press, 2019), http://www.
stats.gov.cn/tjsj/ndsj/2018/indexeh.htm.

247

L. Ji et al., “Municipal Solid Waste Incineration in China
and the Issue of Acidification: A Review,” Waste Management& Research 34, no. 4 (2016): 280-97.

248

Plastics Information Europe, “Pet Recyclate Prices”(2019), https://pieweb.plasteurope.com/default.
aspx?pageid=21002.

258

259

Kaza et al., “What a Waste 2.0.”260

Hogg, “Costs for Municipal Waste Management in the EU.”

261

Kaza et al., “What a Waste 2.0.”

Ellen MacArthur Foundation, “The New Plastics Economy
Global Commitment 2019 Progress Report” (2019), https://www.newplasticseconomy.org/about/publications/globalcommitment-2019-progress-report.
262

European Parliament and European Council, Directive(EU) 2019/904 of the European Parliament and of theCouncil of 5 June 2019 on the Reduction of the Impact of
Certain Plastic Products on the Environment (2019), https://
eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2019/904/oj.

263

C.R.K.J. Paulraj et al., “Sustainable Waste Management
Through Waste to Energy Technologies in India—
Opportunities and Environmental Impacts,” International
Journal of Renewable Energy Research 9, no. 1 (2019): 30942.
249

A. Hira and L.G. de Oliveira, “No Substitute for Oil? How
Brazil Developed Its Ethanol Industry,” Energy Policy 37, no.
6 (2009): 2450-56, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/
article/pii/S0301421509001219; UNICA (Brazilian Sugarcane
Industry Association), UNICA Data for Total Ethanol
Production, 1980-2019, accessed March 16, 2020, http://
www.unicadata.com.br/historico-de-producao-e-moagem.
php?idMn=31&tipoHistorico=2&acao=visualizar&idTabela=2
335&produto=etanol_total&safraIni=1980%2F1981&safraFim=2018%2F2019&estado=RS%2CSC%2CPR%2CSP%2CRJ%2
CMG%2CES%2CMS%2CMT%2CGO%2CDF%2CBA%2CSE%2
CAL%2CPE%2CPB%2CRN%2CCE%2CPI%2CMA%2CTO%2CP
A%2CAP%2CRO%2CAM%2CAC%2CRR.
264

United Nations Statistics Division, “UN Comtrade
Database,” accessed March 16, 2020, https://comtrade.
un.org/.

250

C. Wiedinmyer, R.J. Yokelson, and B.K. Gullett, “Global
Emissions of Trace Gases, Particulate Matter, and Hazardous
Air Pollutants from Open Burning of Domestic Waste,”
Environmental Science & Technology 48, no. 16 (2014):
9523-30.

251

J. Boucher et al., “(Micro) Plastic Fluxes and Stocks in
Lake Geneva Basin,” Trends in Analytical Chemistry (2019);
L.C. Lebreton et al., “River Plastic Emissions to the World’s
Oceans,” Nature Communications 8 (2017): 15611; M.
Ryberg, A. Laurent, and M. Hauschild, “Mapping of Global
Plastics Value Chain and Plastics Losses to the Environment(With a Particular Focus on Marine Environment)” (United
Nations Environment Programme, 2018), http://wedocs.
unep.org/handle/20.500.11822/26745; C. Schmidt, T.
Krauth, and S. Wagner, “Export of Plastic Debris by Rivers into
the Sea,” Environmental Science & Technology 51, no. 21(2017): 12246-53; Statistics Indonesia (Badan Pusat Statistik),“Environmental Care Behavior Indicators 2014” (2015),
https://www.bps.go.id/publication/2015/12/23/2cdc2ef0
8c706d6f205c69fc/indikator-perilaku-peduli-lingkunganhidup-2014.html.

252

Non-allocated cost, mid-estimate from Kaza et al., “Whata Waste 2.0.”
253

254

Ibid.

Material Economics, “Sustainable Packaging—The Roleof Materials Substitution” (2018), https://materialeconomics.
com/publications/sustainable-packaging.
265

B. Choi, S. Yoo, and S. Park, “Carbon Footprint of
Packaging Films Made From LDPE, PLA, and PLA/PBAT
Blends in South Korea,” 10, no. 7 (2018): 2369, https://www.
mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/7/2369.

266

World Economic Forum, Ellen MacArthur Foundation, andMcKinsey & Co., “The New Plastics Economy.”

267

268

Ibid.

Ellen MacArthur Foundation, “What Is a Circular
Economy?” accessed March 11, 2020, https://www.
ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/circular-economy/concept.

269World Economic Forum, Ellen MacArthur Foundation, andMcKinsey & Co., “The New Plastics Economy.”270

D. Hogg, “Costs for Municipal Waste Management in
the EU—Final Report to Directorate General Environment,
European Commission” (Eunomia Research and Consulting,2002), https://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/studies/
pdf/eucostwaste.pdf.
255

M. Hestin, T. Faninger, and L. Milios, “Increased EU Plastics
Recycling Targets: Environmental, Economic and Social
Impact Assessment” (Deloitte, 2015), https://743c838022c6-4457-9895-11872f2a708a.filesusr.com/ugd/0af79c_d3
c616e926e24896a8b82b833332242e.pdf.
256

257

Ibid.

271

Ibid.

272

Ibid.

273

WRAP, “Defining What’s Recyclable.”

World Economic Forum, Ellen MacArthur Foundation, andMcKinsey & Co., “The New Plastics Economy.”

274

United Nations Statistics Division, “Population Densityand Urbanization,” accessed March 11, 2020, https://
unstats.un.org/unsd/demographic/sconcerns/densurb/
densurbmethods.htm.
275

A Comprehensive Assessment of Pathways Towards Stopping Ocean Plastic Pollution

149

Acknowledgements
SYSTEMIQ core team

The Pew Charitable Trusts core teamMartin Stuchtey, managing partner and co-founder; projectprincipal

Tom Dillon, vice president and head of environment

Yoni Shiran, project director
Julia Koskella, workstream lead: reduce and substituteElizabeth Wilson, senior director, international policy
Simon Reddy, director, environment

Laura Koerselman, workstream lead: recycling and disposal

Winnie Lau, senior officer, preventing ocean plastics; projecttechnical lead and program coordination

Ben Dixon, partner; content expert on circular economy andplastics

Jim Palardy, project director, conservation science; research
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
Milan Petit, workstream lead: maritime sources; economic
analystSarah Baulch, senior associate, preventing ocean plastics
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 (Universityof Leeds)
Sun Oh, communications lead
Tugce Balik, communications associate
Benedicte Chung, communications associatePeter Edwards, officer, conservation science; peer review
manager
Laura Margison, director, communications
Brandon MacGillis, officer, communications

Ahsan Syed, data analyst
Carmela Gonzales, data analyst
Nikhil Raj, data analyst

Additional contributions on behalf of SYSTEMIQJoi Danielson, Jason Hale, William Handjaja, Bertram
Kloss, Luke Mann, Andreas Merkl, Arthur Neeteson, Dinda
Anissa Nurdiani, Toby Pilditch (University of Oxford), Janez
Potočnik, Jessica Stewart, Mirja Wagner

Additional contributions on behalf of
The Pew Charitable Trusts
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,
George Kroner, Michael Latimer, Matt Mahoney, Jessie
Mandirola, Matthew M. Moser, Laura Mudge, Graham
Murphy, Stephanie Niave, Sally O’Brien, Nathan Pollard, Jen
Sirko, Joanna Smith, Sonny Sutton, Chris Thomson, Orian
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

150

BREAKING THE PLASTIC WAVE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
who provided feedback during the consultation phases:

Other contributors:

Joshua Abbot
Arizona State University

Delphine Arri
World Bank

Stina Klingvall
Material Economics

Gregory Keoleian
University of Michigan

David Azoulay
Center for International
Environmental Law

Andrej Krzan
Planet Care

Nicholas Mallos
Ocean Conservancy

Petr Baca
MIWA

Dilyana Mihaylova
Plastic Oceans UK

Priyanka Bakaya
Renewlogy

Jane Muncke
Food Packaging Forum

Brian Bauer
Algramo

Rob Opsomer
Ellen MacArthur Foundation

Ricardo Bayon
Encourage Capital

Libby Peake
Green Alliance

Joel Baziuk
Global Ghost Gear Initiative

Emma Priestland
Break Free From Plastic

Mark V. Bernhofen
University of Leeds

Jo Royle
Common Seas

Amy Brook
TELONOSTIX LTD.

Daniel Schwaab
TOMRA Systems ASA

Gev Eduljee
SITA Suez

David Newman
Bio-Based and Biodegradable
Industries Association

Neil Tangri
Global Alliance for Incinerator
Alternatives

Axel Elmqvist
Material Economics

Jens Peter Ohlenschlager
Port Environment

Ton Emans
Plastic Recyclers Europe

Jane Patton
Center for International
Environmental Law

Phan Bai
VeoliaDustin Benton
Green AllianceDavid Clark
Amcor Ltd.
Sander Defruyt
Ellen MacArthur Foundation
Ralph DetschSiegwerk
Sonia M.Dias
Women in Informal Employment:
Globalizing and Organizing
WIEGO
Louise Edge
Greenpeace UK
Trisia Farrelly
Massey University Political
Ecology Research Centre
Graham Forbes
Greenpeace USA
Tamara Galloway
University of Exeter
Sokhna Gueye
Nestlé
Von Hernandez
Break Free From Plastic
Mathieu Hestin
Institute for European
Environmental Policy
Ibrahim Issifu
University of British Columbia
Ben Jack
Common Seas
Sue Jennings
Trash Hero

Christie Keith
Global Alliance for Incinerator
Alternatives

Julia Vol
TIPA Compostable Packaging
Elisabeth Whitebread
Cambridge Institute for
Sustainability Leadership
Sara Wingstrand
Ellen MacArthur Foundation
Kate Wylie
Mars Inc.

Doyne Farmer
University of Oxford
Jason Foster
Replenish
Eric Gilman
Pelagic Ecosystems ResearchGroup LLC
Rachel GoldsteinMars Inc.
Richard Gower
Tearfund
Froilan Grate
Global Alliance for Incinerator
Alternatives

Vicky Lam
University of British Columbia
Kara Lavender Law
Sea Education Association
Peter Levi
International Energy Agency
Simon Lowden
PepsiCo
Jeff Meyers
The Recycling Partnership
José Manuel Moller
AlgramoMolly Morse
Mango Materials

Coen Peel
Dutch Ministry of Maritime
Affairs
Grzegorz Peszko
World Bank
Safia Qureshi
CupClub
Julia Schifter
TIPA Compostable Packaging
Ralph Schneider
World Plastic Council
Graeme Smith
Mondi Group

Michael Hahl
(formerly at) Huhtamaki Flexible
Packaging

Petri Suuronen
Natural Resources Institute
Finland

Denise Hardesty
CSIRO

Nelson A. Switzer
Loop Industries

Keefe Harrison
The Recycling Partnership

Rupert Way
University of Oxford

Cameron Hepburn
University of Oxford

Adrian Whyle
Plastics Europe

Tim Huntington
Poseidon

Xiao Zhaotan
RWDC Industries

Silpa KazaWorld Bank Group

Consumer Goods Forum

Laurent Kimman
BioPack Packaging
Per Klevnäs
Material Economics

Participants of the 2019
Klosters Forum
World Economic Forum

A Comprehensive Assessment of Pathways Towards Stopping Ocean Plastic Pollution

151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 world and is widely known for research excellence andimpact across the arts, humanities, and sciences. Richard
Bailey is professor of environmental systems at the Schoolof Geography and the Environment, and co-director of
the Oxford Martin School Programme on Sustainable
Oceans. He and his multidisciplinary research group(CoHESyS) develop computer simulations of large coupledhuman-environmental systems, addressing questions ofsustainability and resilience in the face of global and local
scale change. Bailey’s main responsibility in this project was
to build the numerical model of the various plastic flows andassociated economic impacts, running the simulations, andgenerating the data summaries used in the report. He also
helped design aspects of the empirical data analysis andapproaches to data handling.

The Ellen MacArthur Foundation was launched in 2010
with the aim of accelerating the transition to a circular
economy. Since its creation, the charity has emerged asa global thought leader, putting circular economy on theagenda of decision-makers around the world. It has been
driving momentum towards a circular economy for plastic
since 2014. Its New Plastics Economy Global Commitment,
launched in 2018 in collaboration with the United Nations
Environment Programme, unites more than 450 businesses,
governments, and other organisations behind a common
vision and targets to address plastic waste and pollution atsource. As a thought partner of this report, the foundation
has contributed its expertise on the circular economy andthe plastics value chain.

University of Leeds, UK is renowned for its interdisciplinary
approach to innovation for global challenges, featuring
university-wide collaboration platforms. Being among the
50 most international universities worldwide, global thinking
and expertise is distilled into tangible efforts to tackle themost important challenges for our society and collective
future, aligned with attaining the United Nations Sustainable
Development Goals. Costas Velis’ research team at the
School of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering andPhysical Sciences, focuses on recovering resources fromsolid waste while preventing plastics pollution. Universityof Leeds led efforts on quantifying plastics pollution fromsolid waste and was an integral part of the core team.
It contributed to core aspects of the model, includingcollection, sorting, energy recovery, disposal, and all formsof leakage (open burning, diffuse terrestrial dumping, andmarine litter).

Common Seas is a non-profit enterprise with one
goal: healthy seas for all. Its global team works acrossgovernment, business and civil society, developing provenand rapidly scalable solutions to reduce the amount ofplastic waste polluting our planet. As thought partners,
Common Seas drew from its pioneering policy modelling
toolkit, Plastic Drawdown, designed to enable governments
to understand their country’s plastic waste flows and takeeffective mitigation action. Commons Seas shared its
model, as well as datasets and key insights from Indonesia,
Greece, the Maldives, and across the CommonwealthCountries, where Plastic Drawdown has been used to shapepolicymaking and practical grassroots initiatives to reducethe most pervasive forms of plastic waste.

152

BREAKING THE PLASTIC WAVE

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 isan evidence-based roadmap that describes how to radicallyreduce ocean plastic pollution by 2040 and that shows there is acomprehensive, 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 theplastic pollution problem, with broad geographical representation.
The technical underpinnings of the report were publishedin an article in the peer-reviewed journal Science,“Evaluating Scenarios Toward Zero Plastic Pollution”(https://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.aba9475).
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:
The Pew Charitable Trusts: PreventingOceanPlastics@pewtrusts.org   
SYSTEMIQ: OceanPlastics@systemiq.earth
Copyright © 2020 The Pew Charitable Trusts. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CCBY-NC 4.0). Readers may reproduce material for their own publications, as long as it is not sold commercially and is given appropriate attribution.

Editor’s note: This white paper was updated on Oct. 23, 2020, to include a more comprehensive list of contributors and sources, and to add a link to therecently published article in the journal Science.

Thought Partners