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

Thought Partners

SUMMARY REPORTX

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/Shutterstock2

BREAKING THE PLASTIC WAVE

Table of contents

PREFACE

4

EXPERT PANEL

5

ENDORSEMENTS

6

TIME FOR A PLASTIC PARADIGM SHIFT8FAST FACTS: ‘BREAKING THE PLASTIC WAVE’ IN NUMBERS

12

ABOUT THIS PROJECT14TEN CRITICAL FINDINGS

16

1. Business-as-Usual will result in nearly three times more plastic leaking into the ocean in 2040

17

2. Current commitments are inadequate for the scale of the challenge

19

3. Single-solution strategies cannot stop plastic pollution

20

4. Existing solutions can solve about 80 per cent of the problem

22

5. Innovation is essential to a future with near-zero plastic pollution

39

6. The solution is economically viable, but a major redirection of capital investment is required40

7. The solution brings to life a new plastics economy, with opportunities—and risks—for industry

41

8. Solutions should be differentiated by geography and plastic category

42

9. System change offers co-benefits for the climate, health, jobs, and working conditions

43

10. An implementation delay of five years would result in an additional 80 million metric tons of plastic going into the ocean

45

ALL STAKEHOLDERS HAVE A ROLE

46

CONCLUSION48

ENDNOTES50ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

52

THOUGHT PARTNERS

54

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

X

Time for a plastic
paradigm shift

Plastic waste in Pattaya, Thailand
Leonid Danilov/Pexels

8

BREAKING THE PLASTIC WAVE

TIME FOR A PLASTIC PARADIGM SHIFT

Plastic pollution is getting worse, and fast. Solving this growing problem requires creating a plastics
economy that is smart, sustainable, and circular.
Plastic production, first developed in the 19th century,
soared during the 20th century, from 2 million metric tons in
19501 to 348 million metric tons in 2017,2 becoming a global
industry valued at US$522.6 billion,3 and it is expected to
double in capacity yet again by 2040.4 As plastic production
and use have surged, so too has plastic pollution, and withit the amount of plastic in the ocean,5 which could be about
150 million metric tons.6
And, yet, a coherent global strategy to solve this urgent
problem remains elusive. Very different responses have been
proposed, from eliminating plastic entirely to turning it into
fuels, and from developing biodegradable substitutes torecycling plastic back into usable products. Each solution
comes with advantages and drawbacks. Understanding
the effectiveness of different solutions, and the associatedeconomic, environmental, and social implications, is crucial
to making progress towards stopping ocean plastic pollution.
From coral reefs7 to deep sea trenches8 and from remoteislands9 to the poles,10 plastic alters habitats, harms wildlife,and can damage ecosystem function and services.11 Morethan 800 species are already known to be affected bymarine plastic pollution, including all sea turtle species,12more than 40 per cent of cetacean species, and 44 percent of marine bird species.13 Plastic has also been identified
as having human health impacts throughout its life cycle,
from the effects of raw material extraction and production
on neighbouring communities14 to the chemicals in foodpackaging15 and the health impacts of mismanaged waste.16
Plastic pollution is not only an environmental tragedy, it is also
economically imprudent—billions of dollars of economic value
are “thrown away” after a single, short use. It is a by-productof fundamental flaws in an essentially linear plastic system
in which 95 per cent of aggregate plastic packaging value—
US$80 billion to US$120 billion a year—is lost to the economy
following a short one-use cycle.17 Although the challenge isenormous, our report gives cause for optimism. It shows thata significant reduction in projected plastic leakage is possible—
without compromising social or economic benefits—if wetake urgent actions across the entire plastic system.
Ten critical findings emerge from our analysis, assummarized below. More details on each finding are
included in the next section.

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 for every metre of coastline worldwide.
This trend will have serious consequences for communities,
ecosystems, and businesses. Under the Business-as-Usual(BAU) Scenario, approximately 4 billion people are likely to
be without organized waste collection services by 2040,
contributing significantly to the mass of plastic leaking into
the ocean. The cost of inaction is high for all stakeholders;
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.

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 arelikely to reduce annual plastic leakage into the ocean by only
7 per cent (±1 per cent) relative to BAU. Our results indicate thata far greater scale of action at the system level will be required
to address the challenge of plastic pollution. Government
policies and leadership by consumer goods companies willbe critical in driving upstream action on reduction, reuse, andredesign. Governments and investors also should act fast to
curtail the planned expansion in plastic production capacity toprevent 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(post-consumer, such as recycling and disposal). Our analysis
shows that this is a false dichotomy. Modelled on their own,
none of the “single-solution” strategies reduce annual leakageof plastic into the ocean even below 2016 levels by 2040. An
ambitious recycling strategy, for example, with scale-up ofcollection, sorting, and recycling infrastructure, coupled withdesign for recycling, reduces 2040 leakage by 38 per cent (±7per cent) relative to BAU, which is 65 per cent (±15 per cent)above 2016 levels. An integrated approach with new ways todeliver the benefits of today’s plastic is required.

4
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 BAUlevels by 2040, while delivering on other societal, economic,
and environmental objectives. Under our 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 percent) is recycled, 23 per cent (range: 22 per cent-26 per cent)is disposed and 10 per cent (range: 9 per cent-12 per cent)remains mismanaged. It is not the lack of technical solutions
that is preventing us from addressing plastic pollution, butrather inadequate regulatory frameworks, business models,and funding mechanisms. The incentives are not always
in place to scale up changes fast enough. A reduction ofplastic 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 the highest
mitigation opportunity in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

A Comprehensive Assessment of Pathways Towards Stopping Ocean Plastic Pollution

9TIME FOR A PLASTIC PARADIGM SHIFT

5

8

Going beyond the System Change Scenario to tackle
the remaining 5 million metric tons per year (range: 4
million-7 million metric tons per year) of plastic leakage
demands significant innovation across the entire plastics
value chain. Achieving the vision of near-zero ocean
plastic pollution will require technological advances,
new business models, significant spending, and, most
crucially, accelerating upstream innovation. It will requirea focused, well-funded R&D agenda, including moon-shot
ambitions, to help middle-/low-income countries leapfrog
the unsustainable linear economy model of high-income
countries. Most crucial will be innovations that work in rural/
remote areas, that eliminate multilayer and multimaterial
plastics, and that lead to new tyre designs that minimize tyre
dust while maintaining safety standards.

A system change would require different implementation
priorities in different geographies and for different
plastic categories. High-income countries should prioritize
decreasing overall plastic consumption, eliminating
microplastic leakage, improving product design, andincreasing recycling rates. Middle-/low-income countries
should prioritize expanding formal collection, maximizing
reduction and substitution, investing in sorting and recycling
infrastructure, and cutting post-collection leakage. Globally,
the top priority is reducing avoidable plastic, of which there
will be 125 million metric tons (range: 110 million metrictons-142 million metric tons) globally by 2040 under BAU.
Similarly, we should prioritize solutions universally for thehighest-leakage plastic categories. Flexible packaging(bags, films, pouches, etc.) and multilayer and multimaterial
plastics (sachets, diapers, beverage cartons, etc.) accountfor a disproportionate share of plastic pollution comparedwith their production, making up 47 per cent (range: 34 percent–58 per cent) and 25 per cent (range: 17 per cent–34 percent) of the leakage mass, respectively.

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 a substantial shift of investment awayfrom the production and conversion of virgin plastic, which
are mature technologies perceived as “safe” investments, tothe production of new delivery models, plastic substitutes,
recycling facilities, and collection infrastructure, someof which are less mature technologies and perceived as
riskier. This shift will require government incentives andrisk-taking by industry and investors. The total global costto governments of managing plastic waste in the 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 to the US$670 billion (range:
US$450 billion-US$740 billion) cost to manage a highleakage 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. Today, plastic pollution presents a
unique risk for producers and users of virgin plastics given
regulatory changes and growing consumer outrage. But
it is also a unique opportunity for companies ahead of thecurve, ready to unlock value from a circular economy thatderives revenue from the circulation of materials rather thanthe extraction and conversion of fossil fuels. Large new value
pools can be created around better design, better materials,
better delivery models, improved sorting and recycling
technologies, and smart collection and supply chain
management systems. 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 thesystem as today, and 11 per cent (±1 per cent) lower levels of
virgin plastic production. This scenario essentially decouples
plastic growth from economic growth.

10

BREAKING THE PLASTIC WAVE

9
Addressing plastic leakage into the ocean under the
System Change Scenario has many co-benefits for climate,health, jobs, working conditions, and the environment,
thus contributing to many of the United Nations
Sustainable Development Goals. The scenario results in 25
per cent (±11 per cent) lower plastic-related GHG emissions
in 2040, although still an increase relative to today. Peak virginplastic production is reached by 2027. In addition, net direct
employment in the plastics value chain increases by 700,000
jobs (range: 541,000-795,000), almost all of them in middle-/
low-income countries. A rise in plastic material value throughdesign for recycling can also contribute to social justicefor the world’s 11 million waste pickers, who in 2016 were
responsible for 60 per cent (range: 56 per cent-65 per cent)of global plastic recycling, by increasing the retained value ofplastic and improving working conditions. Health hazards arealso reduced, including through the reduction of 109 million(range: 108 million-111 million) metric tons per year of open
burning of plastic waste.

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
the ocean by 2040. All elements of the System Change
Scenario exist today or are under development and near
adoption. Delays in implementing the eight interventions
would likely take the world off the path towards near-zeroleakage. The next two years are pivotal if key milestones areto be achieved by 2025, including halting the productionof avoidable plastic, incentivizing consumers around reuse,
improving labelling, and testing innovations such as newdelivery models. These steps will lay the groundwork for all
the systemic solutions required by 2040.

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
12

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 Pollution13About thisproject

A plastic bag floats underwater in France.
damedias/Adobe StockABOUT THIS PROJECTThis report presents a feasible and meaningful pathway towards collectively solving plastic pollution.
Prepared by The Pew Charitable Trusts and SYSTEMIQ, with a panel of 17 global experts, the Universityof Oxford, University of Leeds, 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, estimates
the quantity of ocean plastic pollution expected under six scenarios between 2016 and 2040 (see Box1), and assesses the economic, environmental, and social impacts of these scenarios. In undertaking
this analysis, we aim to provide a new evidence base for decision-makers as they navigate their
responses to this emerging global challenge, evaluate trade-offs, and implement solutions.
Of the 335 million metric tons of plastic produced globallyin 2016,18 215 million metric tons are within the scope of
our analysis (we focus on the plastic that is prone to leak).
This approach covers the vast majority of land-basedsources of plastic leakage into the ocean, including both
macroplastics (>5 mm) and four sources of microplastics (<5mm). Maritime sources of leakage are also considered, albeit
qualitatively given constraints on data availability.
Our project is designed to address seven strategic
questions that have not previously been answered:1.

Are we on track to end plastic pollution?

2.

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

3.

Do we have the technology to solve the problem?

4.

What is the way out?

5.

What will it cost and who will bear the burden?

6. Is the solution attractive for citizens, businesses,
governments, and ecosystems?
7.

Where do we start?

Our goal is that the direction and conclusions of this analysis
will inform the global discussion and planning around thisurgent challenge. We found that through an ambitious,
system-wide strategy, the international community can stem
the growing sources of plastic pollution and stop it fromreaching the ocean.
This distilled report provides an overview of the six scenarios,
highlights our ten critical findings, and outlines the key rolesof different stakeholder groups. All stochastic modelling
results are presented with 95 per cent confidence intervals
in the “Time for a plastic paradigm shift” section. For thedetails on uncertainty calculations, please see section 5in the technical appendix. The complete codebase, all
input files, and raw outputs for model runs are available athttps://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3929470. The technicalunderpinnings of the report were published in an article in
the peer-reviewed journal Science, “Evaluating Scenarios
Toward Zero Plastic Pollution” (https://dx.doi.org/10.1126/
science.aba9475). Additional information is available uponrequest. To access the full “Breaking the Plastic Wave”
report, please visit pewtrusts.org/breakingtheplasticwave orsystemiq.earth/breakingtheplasticwave.

Box 1. Scenarios modelled
Six possible scenarios for tackling ocean plastic pollution, each requiring a different combination—or lack—of systeminterventions, are analysed in this report:
1. Business-as-Usual
Assumes that no intervention is made in relation to current
plastic-related policy, economics, infrastructure, or materials,
and that cultural norms and consumer behaviours do notchange.
2. Current Commitments
Assumes that all major commitments already made by
the public and private sectors between 2016 and 2019 are
implemented and enforced. These commitments include
existing bans/levies on specific plastic products, and recycling
and recyclability targets.
3. Collect and Dispose
Assumes an ambitious global expansion of collection services
and increase in the global capacity of engineered andmanaged landfills and incineration facilities

4. Recycling
Assumes an ambitious expansion and investment intocollection, sorting, mechanical recycling, and plastic-to-plastic
chemical conversion infrastructure.
5. Reduce and Substitute
Assumes a dramatic reduction of plastic use throughelimination, ambitious introduction of reuse and new delivery
models, and investment in plastic substitutes. This approachrequires strong policy interventions to ban specific single-use
plastics and incentivize design for reuse and reduce.
6. System Change Scenario
Assumes that eight system interventions are applied
concurrently, and ambitiously, for both macroplastics andmicroplastics. This scenario benefits from the synergies
between upstream and downstream interventions, and is the
only one that includes both.

A Comprehensive Assessment of Pathways Towards Stopping Ocean Plastic Pollution

15

X

Ten criticalfindings

Plastic waste lines the shore of a lake.
Sergey/Adobe Stock16

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 ofshoreline. Among our findings, our analysis shows that a future with approximately 80 per centless annual plastic leakage into the ocean relative to Business-as-Usual is achievable by 2040
using existing technologies. Understanding the effectiveness of different solutions, and theirrelated economic, environmental, and social implications, is crucial to making progress towards
stopping ocean plastic pollution.
Here we lay out our report’s ten critical findings:

FINDING 1

Business-as-Usual will result in nearly three times
more plastic leaking into the ocean in 2040
We estimate that 11 million metric tons of plastic entered theocean from land in 2016, adding to the estimated 150 million
metric tons of plastic already there.19 Under the Businessas-Usual (BAU) Scenario, plastic flows into the ocean are
projected to nearly triple by 2040, to 29 million metric tons
per year. That is equivalent to 50 kg of plastic per metre ofcoastline worldwide. 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 ocean and human health.

Four compounding trends are driving the growth in plastic
pollution: continued population growth; rising per capita
plastic use, driven in part by the increasing productionof cheap virgin plastic; shifts to low-value/nonrecyclable
materials; and the growing share of plastic consumption
occurring in countries with low rates of collection. Under
BAU, total plastic waste generation could increase by a factorof two by 2040, and approximately 4 billion people are likely
to be without organized waste collection services. With waste
infrastructure unable to keep up with this exponential growth,plastic waste is expected to increase from 91 million metricFigure
1:
Fate
of
all
plastic
waste
underBusiness-as-Usual
Figure 1: Fate of all plastic waste under Business-as-Usualtons in 2016 to 239 million metric tons by 2040 (see Figure 1).

Mismanaged
plastic
waste
willwillgrowfrom
91 million
tons
inindesign2016
to 239milliontons
by 2040
forgrow
latesttitlesreportdoc
Mismanaged
plastic
waste
from
91 seemilliontons
inindesign
2016
to
239
milliontons
by 2040forlatesttitlesseereportdoc

Figure 1: 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
Millionmetrictonstonsof plastic
waste(macroplastic
andandmicroplastic)
Millionmetricof plastic
waste(macroplastic
microplastic)

430430
55

54

80

Total
managed:Totalmanaged:129
million129
millionmetrictons
metrictons(59(59percent)
per cent)

220220
31
69
28

Total
mismanaged:
Total
mismanaged:

9191
millionmillionmetrictons
metrictons(41(41
per
cent)
per
cent)

31
49
11

2
77

31

55

Recycled
Recycled
content
content

54

Landfill
Landfill80

Incineration
Incineration

2

Plastic to fuel (P2F)
Plastic to fuel (P2F)

77

Terrestrial leakage
Terrestrial leakage

31

133

1

133

49
11

2016
2016

191
million191
millionmetrictons
metric
tons
(44
per
cent)
(44 per cent)Totalmismanaged:
Total
mismanaged:

69
28
1

Total
managed:Totalmanaged:29

29

Open burningOpen burning

239
million239
millionmetrictons
metrictons(56(56percent)
per cent)

Ocean leakage
Ocean leakage

2040
2040
A Comprehensive Assessment of Pathways Towards Stopping Ocean Plastic Pollution

17

TEN CRITICAL FINDINGS

2: Business-as-Usual projections for critical plastic indicators
Figure 2: Business-as-Usualfor critical plastic indicators
latesttitlesin projections
designext 20 years,
plastic
waste
generation
willdoc
double,plastic leakage to the
In the next 20 years, plastic waste generation will
20 double, plastic leakage into the ocean will nearly
will nearly
triple, and plastic stock in the ocean will more than quadruple
triple, and plastic stock in the ocean will more than quadruple20

420

~2x

29

~3x

646

~4x

215
11
150

2016

2040

Macroplastic waste generation,
million metric tons per year

2016

Plastic leakage into ocean,million metric tons per year

The BAU Scenario presents multiple risks, and the cost ofinaction is high—to the marine environment, to humanhealth and communities, and to business. The direct
threats to marine wildlife, circulation of invasive species,and contamination of aquatic food chains caused byan additional 450 million metric tons of plastic stockin the ocean could reduce the productivity of fisheries
and aquaculture, and degrade the function of aquatic
ecosystems and the scientific and cultural services of marine
environments. Higher levels of plastic production andmismanaged waste are also a threat to human health. Someof the most harmful risks stem from open burning, which is
expected to nearly triple under BAU, from 49 million metrictons in 2016 to 133 million metric tons in 2040, increasing
the release of persistent toxic chemicals that can increase
the risk of heart disease, cancer, respiratory infections andasthma, reproductive health complications, and damage
to the central nervous system.21 In addition, studies haveidentified microplastics in foodstuffs, and microplastics also
have been reported in the tissues of terrestrial and marine
invertebrates, fish, and even humans.22 BAU would result inan expected 2.4-fold growth in primary microplastic leakage
into the ocean, the potential long-term consequences ofwhich are still being studied.

Under BAU, plastic-related emissions
would double to 2.1 GtCO2e by 2040,
accounting for 19 per cent of the total
annual emissions budget allowable if weare to limit global heating to 1.5oC.
18

BREAKING THE PLASTIC WAVE

2040

2016

2040

Plastic stock in the ocean,million metric tons

The current methods of (mis)handling end of life for theseproducts have large costs that are not reflected in the low
cost of virgin plastics. Socioeconomic impacts include
loss of land value due to proximity to plastic pollution andreduced quality of life for coastal communities. There arealso direct, physical risks from marine plastic pollution tobusinesses that rely on a clean ocean. Plastics pollution
is responsible for business costs to fisheries, tourism, andinfrastructure operators, among others, estimated at US$13
billion per year.23 Meanwhile, tightening regulations andpotential consumer backlashes pose a unique threat tobusinesses with plastic-intensive footprints, which risk losing
the social license to operate.24 Such businesses may suffer
financially under BAU, as they could be required to pay a
virgin plastic tax or extended producer responsibility fees tohelp cover the cost of collection and safe disposal—a total
financial risk of US$100 billion per year, equivalent to 25 percent of turnover in a low-margin business.25
Following the BAU trajectory would also further jeopardize
our ability to mitigate climate change and is incompatible
with the goals of the Paris Agreement. We estimate thatlife-cycle plastic-related emissions would double from 1.0
gigatons of equivalent carbon dioxide (GtCO2e) in 2016 to
2.1 GtCO2e by 2040, accounting for 19 per cent (comparedwith 3 per cent today) of the total annual emissions budget
allowable if we are to limit global heating to 1.5oC.26

TEN CRITICAL FINDINGSFINDING 2

Current commitments are inadequate forthe scale of the challenge
Mounting public pressure about marine plastic pollution
has led many governments and businesses to makecommitments ranging from banning certain plastics tosetting more ambitious recycling targets, introducing productstandards and extended producer responsibility, investing inrecycling infrastructure, and imposing trade restrictions onplastic waste. We estimate that the impact of this Current
Commitments Scenario adds up to a 19 million metric tons
per year reduction in plastic production and consumption
due to policy regulations by 2040, and 5.4 million metrictons per year increase in recycled content by 2025 due tocommitments expressed by more than 400 companies.

That means that even if current government and industry
commitments are fully implemented, plastic flows into theocean in 2040 would likely be only 7 per cent lower thanunder BAU (see Figure 3). 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, with global plastic production expected
to increase by 40 per cent over the next decade.27 Our
analysis shows that even if all current commitments are
implemented, virgin plastic will likely continue to be a cheap
commodity, contributing to continued high levels of usage.

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

rrent commitments from industry and government policies achieve only a 7 per cfor latest titles see report indesign doc
duction in plastic leaking into the ocean relative to Business-as-Usual
Figure 3: Land-based plastic leakage under BAU and Current Commitment scenarios

Plastic leakage into the ocean(million metric tons per year of plastic waste)

Current commitments from industry and government policies achieve only a 7 per centreduction in plastic leaking into the ocean relative to Business-as-Usual

30

25

BAU

20

+147%

Current Commitments
15

10

5

0
2016

2020

2025

Government aspirations are broad and, if implemented
fully, can have impact. However, most new regulations
focus on specific items rather than enacting system-wide
policies and setting system-wide standards, and do notaddress or significantly curb the projected growth in plastic
production. The collective impact of all current national andmunicipal legislation regarding items such as straws, bags,
stirrers, cups, cotton swabs, and bottles simply does not
add up to a significant reduction in the overall quantity ofplastic waste generated and leaked globally. To compound
this shortfall, there has been insufficient growth in waste
collection infrastructure over the past two decades relative

2030

2035

2040

to plastic waste generation, which we estimate has been
growing at a 4 per cent-7 per cent compound annual
growth rate. Governments should act now to curb thegrowth in plastic production; set system-wide standards,
targets and incentives to drive upstream reduction, reuse,appropriate substitution and design 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. In general, it is focusing
most visibly on recyclability, recycling targets, and other

A Comprehensive Assessment of Pathways Towards Stopping Ocean Plastic Pollution

19

TEN CRITICAL FINDINGS

downstream solutions, but significant efforts are also needed
on upstream solutions. Business signatories to the Global
Commitment have committed to 100 per cent reusable,
recyclable, or compostable packaging by 2025 and to takeaction to eliminate problematic or unnecessary plastic
packaging and move from single-use towards reuse models,
but have not yet committed to specific targets on elimination
or reuse. To achieve a more meaningful reduction in plastic

pollution, companies that have not made any commitments(they are still the vast majority), should do so and ensure theirimplementation. Industry should fundamentally redesignbusiness models, products, and materials at scale, and inways that explicitly decouple economic growth from plastic
growth, significantly scaling up their efforts on reduction,refill, and new delivery models.

FINDING 3

Single-solution strategies cannot stop plastic pollution
Many strategies have been proposed for reducing or eveneliminating plastic leakage into the ocean, but there isno single solution able to do so effectively by 2040. Ourmodelling shows that, by 2040, none of the single-solution
strategies can reduce leakage into 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 plastic pollution byfocusing only on waste management or only on reduction
and substitution may sound appealing but, at best, tell only
half the story.

Although scaling up recycling is criticallyimportant, stopping plastic pollution
by capturing all plastic materials in therecycling process is neither technicallynor financially feasible.
Upstream solutions that aim to reduce or substituteplastic use are critical but should 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 speedof infrastructure development. Their use should therefore beweighed against different trade-offs and carefully controlled.
To achieve the desired outcomes, we should combine
solutions from all the different pathways.
To analyse the potential of the most prominent singlesolution strategies, we modelled three such scenarios that
focus on ambitious implementation of either upstream or
downstream measures—the Collect and Dispose Scenario,
the Recycling Scenario, and the Reduce and Substitute
Scenario. To compare solutions with very different
environmental (pollution and GHG), economic, performance(health, safety, product protection) and consumer
acceptance dimensions, “red lines” were defined for thethree scenarios to reflect their maximum foreseeable growthand implementation limits. Our results show that, although
all three scenarios represent a significant reduction ofplastic leakage into the ocean by 2040 relative to the BAU or
Current Commitments scenarios, as Figure 4 shows, none ofthem offers a credible pathway to a near-zero leakage future.
20

BREAKING THE PLASTIC WAVE

Our analysis indicates that a strategy focused solely oncollection and disposal would likely still leave 13 million
metric tons of plastic leakage into the ocean per year by
2040, or 18 per cent more than 2016 levels. Our analysis
reveals insurmountable limitations to this approach, not leastthat it would cost governments US$130 billion more thanBAU in present value between 2021 and 2040. It is crucial toacknowledge that any attempt to solve the plastic pollution
challenge through waste management alone would requireclosing a huge collection gap. By 2040, the total numberof people needing to be connected to collection services is
expected to rise to approximately 4 billion, mostly locatedin middle-/low-income countries and/or rural areas. Closing
this collection gap would mean connecting approximately
500,000 people to collection services per day, every day,until 2040. Considering the growth of plastic production
and consumption projected under BAU, collecting allplastic will cost US$510 billion between 2021 and 2040. To
make matters more difficult, plastic cannot be collected
in isolation, so other waste streams would also need to becollected. As a result, the actual government cost for waste
management amounts to US$3.1 trillion. Any solution based
only on waste management is therefore highly unlikely to
succeed unless accompanied by a meaningful reduction ofwaste in the system.
A strategy focused solely on recycling—including ambitious
design for recycling alongside a scale-up of collection,sorting, mechanical recycling, and plastic-to-plastic
chemical conversion infrastructure—would result in 18
million metric tons of plastic flowing into the ocean eachyear by 2040, 65 per cent above 2016 levels, and would
cost governments US$140 billion more than BAU inpresent value between 2021 and 2040. Although scaling up
recycling is critically important, stopping plastic pollution
by capturing all plastic materials in the recycling process isneither technically nor financially feasible. We estimate that
54 per cent of plastics could be designed for economicalmechanical recycling (up from 21 per cent today), resulting
in mechanical recycling rates of 33 per cent (after losses andinfrastructure constraints). In addition, we estimate that 20
per cent of total macroplastics could be eligible for chemical
conversion, resulting in a plastic-to-plastic chemical
recycling rate of 6 per cent (after losses and infrastructure

TEN CRITICAL FINDINGS

Figure 4: Land-based plastic leakage under different scenarios
The System Change Scenario
wouldtitles
achieveabout an80 per centfor latest
see report
indesign
doc reduction in annual plastic
Figure 4: Land-based plastic leakage under different scenarios
leakage to the ocean relative to Business-as-Usual, exceeding all other modelled scenarios
The System Change Scenario would achieve about an 80 per cent reduction in annual plastic
leakage into 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. The graphic 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 to BAU, they do not reduce leakage below 2016
levels. Only the integrated upstream-and-downstream scenario (System Change Scenario) can significantly reduce leakage levels.

The graphic shows expected levels of plastic leakage into the ocean over time across different scenarios. The graphic
shows that although upstream-focused pathways (Reduce & Substitute Scenario) and downstream-focused pathways(Collect & Dispose Scenario and Recycling Scenario) reduce annual leakage rates relative to BAU, they do not reduce
To quantify whatscenario
the cost of
two of thesescenarios
wouldconstraints
and not
includingconversionupstream-and-downstream
to fuel).
leakage below
2016
levels. disposal
Only theasintegrated(System
ChangeScenario)canbe if we “forced” them to achieve similar levels of plastic
This result is due to the efficiency of mechanical recycling
significantly reduce leakage levels.
for certain plastics, geographies where chemical recycling
is unlikely to be economical, and plastic types that are notviable for this technology and when limitations in how
quickly infrastructure can grow are also factored in.

Finally, a strategy focused solely on reduction andsubstitution would result in 14 million metric tons of plastic
leaking into the ocean per year by 2040, 28 per cent higher
than 2016 levels. Carried out in isolation, reduction andsubstitution are unlikely to succeed in eliminating plastic
leakage by 2040 because there are many plastic applications
that are difficult to reduce or substitute within social,political, environmental, and economic limitations and within
this timescale.

leakage into the ocean by 2040 as under the System Change
Scenario (5 million metric tons per year), we also modelled
the implications of overriding technical, environmental, or
social constraints. The results show that the present value
cost to governments of forcing the Collect and Dispose
Scenario and the Recycling Scenario are estimated at
US$820 billion and US$850 billion, respectively, compared
to a cost of US$600 billion for the integrated System Change
Scenario, which also produces slightly lower GHG emissions
by 2040 than either of the single-solution strategies.
The conclusion of this analysis is intuitive: A system-wide
problem demands system-wide change. To end plastic
pollution of our oceans, we need an integrated portfolioof both upstream and downstream solutions—or systeminterventions.

A strategy focused solely on recycling
would result in 18 million metric tons ofplastic flowing into the ocean each yearby 2040, 65 per cent above 2016 levels,
and would cost governments US$140
billion more than BAU in present value
between 2021 and 2040.

A Comprehensive Assessment of Pathways Towards Stopping Ocean Plastic Pollution

21

TEN CRITICAL FINDINGSFINDING 4

By applying existing upstream and downstream
solutions, we can solve 80 per cent of the problem
Dramatically reducing the mismanaged waste generated by
the plastic system is a complex system-level challenge that
requires system-level interventions. Our System Change
Scenario sets out a credible and attractive pathway towards
ending ocean plastic pollution by applying eight existing
system interventions (see Box 2) concurrently, ambitiously,
and starting immediately. To be successful, these systeminterventions should be applied together and to both
macroplastics and microplastics wherever possible, with astrong focus on avoidable, single-use plastics. By 2040, under
the System Change Scenario, 30 per cent of BAU plastic
demand is reduced, 17 per cent is substituted, 20 per cent isrecycled, 23 per cent is disposed in controlled facilities, and10 per cent remains mismanaged (see Figure 5).

pathway demonstrated by the System Change Scenario andachieve an approximately 80 per cent reduction of annual
plastic leakage into the ocean by 2040.
Prioritizing solutions discussed in this report
Under the System Change Scenario, the overall reductionin plastic leakage into the ocean depends on all systeminterventions being applied ambitiously and concurrently.
In practice, where funding and investment are limited,interventions may need to be prioritized. Some generalguidance on prioritization can be derived from our analysis:•

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

All the solutions presented under the System Change
Scenario already exist, and their implementation istechnically feasible, economically viable, and sociallyacceptable. It is not a lack of technical solutions that ispreventing us from addressing plastic pollution, but rather•
Mechanical recycling is more attractive than chemical
inadequate regulatory frameworks, business models,conversion or substitute materials from an economic,
incentives, and funding mechanisms. If we overcome theseclimate, and technology readiness point of view. To bechallenges,
we can realizeof theintegrated
plastic should
and can be designed for recycling
Figure5: Plastic
fate thein fullthepotential
SystemChangeScenario:viable,a ‘wedges’
analysis

Latesttitle and reducenotes onplastic
reportleakage to the ocean but only if all
There is a credible path tosignificantly
Figure 5: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 into the ocean but only if all solutions
are implemented concurrently, ambitiously, and starting immediately
Million metric tons per year
450

l
sua
s-U
a
ss
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 entersthe“wedges”
system hasfigurea singlefate, orthea single“wedge.”The numbers
includemacroplastic
and enters
microplastic.
This
shows
share
of treatment
options
for theplastic thatthe 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.

22

BREAKING THE PLASTIC WAVETEN CRITICAL FINDINGS

and, importantly, be mechanically recycled whereverthat is possible. 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. Where refill systems
are not possible, alternative materials may be very
effective for certain applications.

•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.

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, andsocial perspectives. It offers the biggest
reduction in plastic pollution, often
represents a net savings, and provides
the highest mitigation opportunity in
GHG emissions.

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, and 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 andevaluated, its expansion should be contingent on the
decarbonization of energy sources, and natural leadtimes and limitations of emerging technologies ought tobe recognized.

Box 2. The System Change Scenario
Concurrent, ambitious, and global implementation of multiple complementary system interventions to:•

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

•

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.

•

Substitute plastic with paper and compostablematerials, switching one-sixth of projected plastic
waste generation.

•

Build facilities to dispose of the 23 per cent of plastic
that cannot be recycled economically, as a transitional
measure.

•Design products and packaging for recycling to
expand the share of economically recyclable plastic
from an estimated 21 per cent to 54 per cent.

•

Reduce plastic waste exports by 90 per cent tocountries with low collection and high leakage rates.

•

Expand waste collection rates in the middle-/lowincome countries to 90 per cent in all urban areas and50 per cent in rural areas, and support the informal
collection sector.

•

Roll out known solutions for four microplastic(<5mm) sources—tyres, textiles, personal careproducts, and production pellets—to reduce annual
microplastic leakage into the ocean by 1.8 million
metric tons per year (from 3 million metric tons to 1.2
million metric tons) by 2040.

A Comprehensive Assessment of Pathways Towards Stopping Ocean Plastic Pollution

23

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

BILLION

GOVERNMENT COST

TRILLIONBILLION

GHG EMISSIONS(tCO2e)VIRGIN
PLASTIC PRODUCTION

11

400

MILLION JOBSMILLION METRIC TONSPLASTIC LEAKAGE

29

MILLION METRIC TONS

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

1.6
$8.7
$600
12
COST TO BUSINESSGOVERNMENT COST

TRILLIONBILLION

GHG EMISSIONS(tCO2e)BILLIONMILLION JOBSVIRGIN
PLASTIC PRODUCTION181

MILLION METRIC TONSPLASTIC LEAKAGE

5MILLION METRIC TONS

1 MILLION METRIC TONS MICROPLASTIC 4 MILLION METRIC TONS MACROPLASTICTEN CRITICAL FINDINGSFINDING 4 continued

System Change Scenario:
Macroplastic Interventions
SYSTEM INTERVENTION 1

Reduce growth in plastic production andconsumption to avoid nearly one-third of
projected plastic waste generation by 2040
We estimate that it is socially, technically, and economicallyfeasible to reduce plastic consumption by 30 per centby 2040 compared to BAU—avoiding 125 million metrictons of macroplastic waste—before considering switching
to single-use substitute materials. This means that global
plastic consumption per person remains approximately flat,compared with the 58 per cent increase expected under
BAU, and effectively decouples economic growth fromplastic growth.
The focus is on the transition away from plastics that havea short period of use, such as packaging and disposable
items, which are low-value applications and a key driver ofocean plastic pollution. This system intervention does notdemand a reduction in general consumption, but rather an
elimination of avoidable plastic and a shift towards products
and services based on reuse that deliver equivalent utility.
To calculate the maximum potential reduction achievable
by 2040, we analysed three Reduce levers: (a) eliminate, (b)reuse—consumer, and (c) reuse—new delivery models, as
laid out in Table 1. To estimate the potential of the levers to
reduce plastic waste, they were each scored against four

criteria—technology readiness, performance, convenience,and cost. The results show that the new delivery model lever,which is the most effort-intensive because it requires newservices and infrastructure to be rolled out, offers the largest
reduction potential, at 18 per cent, compared with 8 per centfor eliminate and 4 per cent for consumer reuse. Reducelevers are the most attractive from an economic perspective,
often representing a net-saving solution. Plastic elimination,for example, such as through regulation and reduction of
overpackaging, would save after a transition period thefull cost of 1 metric ton of plastic in the Business-as-Usualplastics value chain, i.e., US$2,241.
Our analysis suggests that huge reductions can be achievedby focusing on six plastic applications that are projected toaccount for 86 per cent of the total reduction achievablein 2040—multilayer/multimaterial flexibles, business-tobusiness packaging, films, bottles, carrier bags, and foodservice disposables (see Figure 6). However, current nationaland subnational product bans and regulations focus
overwhelmingly on carrier bags and food service items,28
two applications that together make up just 10 per cent of
the entire plastic waste stream and 16 per cent of potential
plastic reduction in our analysis. The other four applications
therefore represent a huge, untapped opportunity, withsachets and multilayer/multimaterial flexibles (such as
for shampoo and condiment portions, chips and sweets
packets) offering the highest reduction potential at 26 million
metric tons per year.
Beyond plastic product bans, it is possible to achieve
large waste reduction outcomes by scaling up attractive
solutions that produce radically less waste, particularly
using new delivery models. Products would be delivered
through services rather than increasing amounts of singleuse packaging, either leveraging traditional delivery routes

Table 1. Definition and examples of the three modelled Reduce levers

Eliminate

Definition

ExamplesPolicies, innovations, consumer
behaviour shifts, and incentives thatlead to reduced material demandor product redesign for low-utility
avoidable plastic, and do not requirea replacement

Redesign over-packaging 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

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, reusablebags) 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
capsules, take-back services with reverse logistics and washing,package-as-a-service models (e.g., shared ownership of takeaway containers)

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

A Comprehensive Assessment of Pathways Towards Stopping Ocean Plastic Pollution

25

TEN CRITICAL FINDINGS

Figure 6: Annual mass of plastic reduced compared to Business-as-Usual,and remaining
material
demandafter Reduce
intervention applied,forremaining
top six
Figure 6: Annual massof plastic
reducedcompared
to Business-as-Usual,andforlatesttitlessee reduced,
reportindesign
doc
applications
rankedbyabsolute
mass
2040
material demand after Reduce intervention applied, for top six applications ranked by
Six productapplications represent the vast majority of 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

110

120

130

44%
59%

2. B2B packaging

19%

3. Monomaterial films

43%

4. Bottles

45%

5. Carrier bags
6. Food service
disposables

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 in the System Change Scenario. The remaining material
the bars
perintervention
cent of BAU
plastic
inSystem
2040 Interventionof each productcategory
that
reducedin the (seeSystemChangeScenario.
demand, Numbers
in light blue,byis before
thereflect
Substituteis applied(see2) and before
designforis
recycling
is applied
SystemIntervention
4).

The remaining material demand, in light blue, is before the Substitute intervention is applied (see System Intervention 2) and before
for latest captions see report indesign doc
design for recycling is applied (see System Intervention 4).

such as local markets, street vendors, and glass or plastic
bottle refill schemes, which already have wide market reach,or using new digitally enabled technology and services.
In middle-/low-income countries, this approach could
catalyse a leapfrogging to attractive, low-waste alternatives.
Our analysis suggests that better, affordable solutions canbe found for sachets, for example, a nonrecyclable plastic
packaging format used in many middle-/low-income
countries that currently has a very high probability of leaking
into the ecosystem.
Accelerating this intervention would require a host ofpolicy, economic, and innovation drivers. Standards
and requirements for plastic packaging would need tobe adopted that focus on the elimination of avoidable
packaging and regulating the uses of plastic that have ahigh likelihood of leakage. Multinational companies would
need to commit to long-term quantitative goals to reduce
plastic use, develop refillable packaging, and other innovative
business models. And government policies that shift theburden of waste generation onto producers and level theplaying field for new business models would be required.
After an initial transition period, this intervention offers
significant cost savings, both by cutting spending on singleuse packaging and by decreasing the burden on waste
management systems.
26

BREAKING THE PLASTIC WAVESYSTEM INTERVENTION 2

Substitute plastic with paper andcompostable materials, switching
one-sixth of projected plastic waste
generation by 2040
We estimate that 17 per cent of BAU plastic waste can besubstituted by 2040: 4.5 per cent to paper, 3.5 per cent tocoated paper, and 9 per cent to compostable materials.
That is equivalent to 71 million metric tons of plastic waste
avoided annually by 2040. These findings indicate that,after both the Reduce and Substitute system interventions
have been implemented, plastic waste generation could
be capped at approximately today’s global levels by 2040
without unacceptable compromises on cost, utility, or
performance, despite increasing populations and economic
development. This result equates to an absolute decrease inplastic waste in high-income countries (-27 per cent), but an
absolute increase in plastic waste from middle-/low-income
countries compared with today (average +26 per cent),
driven by population growth and assuming that per capita
plastic production and consumption remain at today’s levels.
The use of any substitute material will involve significant
economic costs in both production and end-of-life disposal,

TEN CRITICAL FINDINGS

as well as balancing environmental impacts and other tradeoffs. As substitutes have 1.7 to 2 times higher production
costs than virgin plastic per metric ton of plastic utility,
substitutes were selected only when they replace plastic thatcannot be reduced or mechanically recycled. In addition,
substitutions were made only towards materials expected
to be less likely to leak into the environment in 2040; forexample, compostable materials in middle-/low-income
countries should be fully compatible and certified for homeor decentralised composting infrastructure, which should bescaled up rapidly.
Ninety-five per cent of the potential substitution in thisintervention comes from six key product applications,for which known material alternatives already exist at
some level of scale: monomaterial films; sachets andmultilayer films; carrier bags; pots, tubs and trays; other rigid
monomaterial packaging; and food service disposables. The
three material substitutes modelled —paper, coated paper,and compostable materials—were selected because they
are the most prevalent substitutes currently available forreplacing problematic plastic films and multilayer flexibles.
They should not be considered predictions of change orrecommendations, but as indicative of the possible future
scaling of substitutes that already exist in the market.
If managed carefully, it is possible to meet the material
requirements of the Substitute intervention, but unintended
consequences need astute monitoring. All substitutions haveenvironmental impacts and need careful management attheir end of life. They each create opportunities, risks, andtrade-offs that should be managed and assessed on a caseby-case basis. Local authorities, brands, and manufacturers
should consider the local conditions and trade-offs of any
substitute materials before switching, such as by carryingout full life-cycle analysis. Local considerations include
the sustainability of sourcing raw materials; capacity forcollection, recycling, or safe and effective composting; GHG
footprint; and likelihood of materials leaking.
One of the primary risks is that the benefits of paper will be
negated if its rising use causes deforestation, highlighting
the importance of sustainable forest management. Sourcing
compostable materials could also trigger land use change if
not managed holistically. Possible solutions include the useof by-products and discards from the timber and agriculturalindustries, and alternative fibre sources from plants grown on
marginal land. Compostable plastic is already being createdfrom waste methane29 and food waste.30
The Substitute intervention could play an important rolein minimizing ocean plastic pollution and even reduceoverall GHG emissions compared with BAU by 2040,
driven by switching to recycled and sustainably sourced
paper. But accelerating substitution to the extent needed
will require economic incentives that help level the playing
field between plastic and other materials across the life
cycle, such as the removal of extraction subsidies for oil andgas, taxes on virgin plastic content, or extended producer
responsibility-type schemes with modulated fees fordifferent packaging formats. It will also require funding forinnovation in new materials, packaging designs, and barrier

coatings; certification of sustainable sourcing of biomass;and the adoption of strict criteria by brands and producers
to ensure that substitutes contain recycled content and aresourced responsibly.

Box 3. 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, overall have alower GHG footprint in the production and end-oflife disposal phase than plastic, which would create
emission savings. Therefore, adding 30 per cent50 per cent more weight by switching to paper orcompostable packaging should not significantly
increase overall emissions. For much heavier
substitutes, such as glass, managing emissions
trade-offs requires reducing transport distances,
decarbonizing transport, or switching to reusemodels.

•Do plastic alternatives have the same barrier
properties?
Plastic does have important barrier properties(important for food preservation), so we applied
substitutes to products that have long shelf lives,that can be produced locally, or with shorter supply
chains. Some substitute materials with adequate
barrier properties are already available or beingbrought to market.

•

Won’t food costs skyrocket without plastic?
Our analysis substitutes 17 per cent of packaging,making it theoretically possible to implement theentire Substitute intervention on only nonfood
packaging. However, where producers do choose
to substitute food packaging, it represents only asmall fraction of the overall product cost.

•

Would we be creating new streams of waste?
Paper collection and recycling are alreadywidespread. However, paper coatings may need
to be better optimized for recycling or recyclers
may need to adapt their practices. Compostable
packaging could introduce new formats of waste
and require scale-up of compatible composting
systems worldwide.

•

Are substitutes safe for food contact?
There are risks for both plastic and nonplastic
materials; food safety is an area that requires better
regulation and further research.

A Comprehensive Assessment of Pathways Towards Stopping Ocean Plastic Pollution

27

TEN CRITICAL FINDINGSSYSTEM INTERVENTION 3

recycling profitability, through five principal design forrecycling levers:

Design products and packaging for recycling
to expand the share of economicallyrecyclable plastic from an estimated 21 percent to 54 per cent by 2040
Many plastic items are currently designed in ways that makerecycling difficult, uneconomical, or even impossible. The
mix of polymers, additives, and dyes that make up low-value
plastic dilutes the quality of the recycled output and limits
its viability as recycled content. This problem is exacerbatedfurther by the centralized design and production ofmass consumption products for global markets, which isincompatible with the local waste management systems into
which these products are introduced after use. As a result,only 15 per cent of plastic is currently recycled, and thisfigure varies significantly by type.
Designing plastic for recycling increases this percentage
through two separate but synergistic benefits: (1) increasing
the share of recyclable plastic, and (2) improving the
economics (and hence likelihood) of recycling. Flexible
and multimaterial plastics currently make up 59 per centof plastic production but are responsible for 80 per centof macroplastic leakage (see Figure 7), highlighting theneed to target these formats through redesign. A shift frommultimaterials to monomaterials can play a fundamental rolein increasing material recyclability, while removing pigmentsfrom plastic can increase recyclate value by approximately 25
per cent. In addition, designing plastic for recycling in local
settings is an effective way to increase its inherent value andimprove the profitability of the mechanical recycling industry.

1.

Switching 50 per cent of multimaterial flexibles tomonomaterial flexibles by 2030 and 100 per cent by
2040.

2.

Switching 5 per cent of multimaterial rigid household
goods to monomaterial rigids by 2030 and 10 per centby 2040.

3.

Redesigning (or removing) dyes, plastic pigments, andadditives to help recyclate compete with virgin output
and create a circular loop between plastic and product.

4.

Increasing the homogeneity and cleanliness of recycling
inputs and eliminating problematic, hard-to-recycle
polymers and packaging formats that contaminate thewaste stream.

5.

Improving labelling to maximize recycling efforts
from consumers, pickers, and sorters, and recyclers
themselves.

Taken together, the five design for recycling levers could
significantly expand the share of plastic that is economicallyrecyclable mechanically. In high-income countries,
an estimated 54 per cent of plastic waste could be
economically recyclable within system restraints by 2040,
up from 21 per cent today. But strong policy interventions
that promote the use and increase the value of recycled
polymers, and require producers to design products forrecycling, are required. These include extended producer
responsibility schemes, design standards, recycling targets,minimum recycled content targets, taxes on the use ofvirgin plastic feedstock, and regulatory mandates on certain
pigments, polymers, and additives. Industry should develop
new packaging designs in coordination with recycling andsorting technology companies, with a focus on productsthat meet recycling specifications without sacrificing
product safety, stability, or purity.

Our model shows that this system intervention can increase
both the yield and value of recycled plastic, improving the
economics by US$120 per metric ton and virtually doubling

Figure 7: Global production, collection, and leakage rates by plastic category, Business-as-Usual, 2016
Figure7: Global production,collection, and represent
leakage rates
plastic
category,
Flexiblemonomaterials
and multilayer/multimaterials
59 perby
centof plastic
production but
Business-as-Usual,
2016 leakage to the ocean
contribute
80 per cent of plastic
Flexible monomaterials and multilayer/multimaterials represent 59 per cent of plastic production
but contribute 80 per cent of plastic leakage into the ocean
Multilayer/multimaterial
1%
23%

Flexible monomaterial

14%

Rigid monomaterial
29%
43%

59%

80%

36%
51%

86%
56%
41%

20%
Plastic
production

28

BREAKING THE PLASTIC WAVE

Formalcollected forrecycling

Informalcollected forrecycling

Leakage into
the oceanTEN CRITICAL FINDINGSSYSTEM INTERVENTION 4

Expand waste collection rates in middle-/
low-income countries to 90 per cent in
all urban areas and 50 per cent in rural
areas by 2040, and support the informal
collection sector
We estimate that 22 per cent (47 million metric tons) of
total annual plastic waste is currently left uncollected
and that this figure could grow to 34 per cent (143 million
metric tons) by 2040 under BAU. Approximately 4 billion
people will need to be connected to collection services
by 2040 (2 billion who lack it today31 and 1.7 billion
through population growth), which requires connecting
approximately 500,000 people to collection services perday, every single day until 2040, the vast majority of themin middle-/low-income countries. Closing this collection
gap is one of the most critical interventions needed tomeaningfully reduce ocean plastic pollution, and it willtake significant funding and innovation. However, theSystem Change Scenario could significantly increase 2040
collection rates relative to BAU (from 63 per cent to 82
per cent) without significantly increasing collection mass
thanks to the Reduce and Substitute system interventions.
Under the System Change Scenario, we assume thatcollection rates (formal and informal) could reach 90 per centin urban areas of middle-/low-income countries and 50 per
cent in rural areas. Achieving this rate will require tremendous
resources from governments and industry across the world.
High-income countries are probably equipped to absorb
these additional costs, but middle-/low-income countries will
have much more difficulty. It is important to note that rural
areas, where collection is challenging and costly, generate 28
per cent of waste globally, but account for a disproportionate
share of both uncollected waste (57 per cent) and plastic
entering the ocean (45 per cent). It is therefore critical that the
expansion of collection services is focused on rural as muchas urban communities.
Enhancing governance is an important tool for improving
the effectiveness of collection. For example, our model
estimates that 25 per cent of the macroplastic waste thatenters waterways every year is dumped there directly bycollection vehicles. We estimate that this direct dumpingof post-collected waste could be cut by 80 per cent by
combining existing technological innovation and stronger
regulatory oversight.
Worldwide, almost 60 per cent of all the plastic recycled
is collected by the informal sector. In 2016, it collected an
estimated 27 million metric tons of plastic that may haveotherwise leaked, thus playing a critical role in reducing
ocean pollution. But this contribution is largely unrecognized
and underpaid, while waste pickers frequently operate inunsafe and unhealthy conditions. Discouraging wastepicking on the grounds of poor working conditions deprives
entrepreneurs of vital income and loses the benefits of
their work. Conversely, encouraging the proliferation of
the informal recycling sector as a cost-effective waste

management service is to be complicit with sometimes
unacceptably hazardous working conditions. Rather
than propose either of these options, the System Change
Scenario assumes that the informal recycling sector willgrow at the same rate as the global urban population; thismeans a 60 per cent increase in both the number of waste
pickers and the macroplastic they collect by 2040.
Achieving the aspirational collection rates and scale-up
modelled in this system intervention will require innovationand technology, stronger governance, and investment. New
models for waste aggregation, enhancing communication
with waste producers, and better logistics for collectors
could all improve the microeconomic viability of waste
collection in less accessible areas. And, although dumping
waste in the natural environment is illegal in many countries,
progress is needed to increase compliance. However, themost significant limiting factor is that investment is often
most needed where monetary resources are least available.
The billions of dollars of investment in infrastructure andequipment, let alone the operating expenditure necessary
to keep collection systems running, are unlikely to become
available from taxation in middle-/low-income countries.
For market-driven collection to expand, the value ofmaterials needs to be higher than the cost of collection.
This requirement can be met by mandating the use ofrecycled content, designing more plastic for recycling (seeSystem Intervention 3), and creating and developing local
or regional markets to provide better access for the informal
recycling sector.

SYSTEM INTERVENTION 5

Double mechanical recycling capacity
globally to 86 million metric tons per yearby 2040
Today’s plastic recycling system is failing us: Twenty per centof plastic enters recycling systems and, after accounting
for sorting and recycling losses, only 15 per cent of global
plastic waste is actually being recycled. We estimate thatmechanical recycling capacity could scale up globally toaddress 86 million metric tons per year of plastic waste by
2040, and that 33 per cent of total plastic municipal solid
waste could be mechanically recycled (after the Reduceand Substitute wedges have been applied). Achieving thiscapacity will require opening 107 recycling plants of 20,000
metric tons per year capacity globally every year from 2021
until 2040. Each metric ton of recycled feedstock offsets
48 per cent in GHG emissions (1.9 tCO2e per metric ton)relative to virgin plastic production.
The resulting increase in recycling could allow 14 per centof virgin plastic demand to be offset by 2040 relative to
BAU, equivalent to a reduction of 59 million tons of CO2
emissions annually. However, even in this aspirational
scenario, 67 per cent of plastic waste remains unrecycled(mechanically) due to limitations on expanding collection,
limits on what materials and products can be profitably

A Comprehensive Assessment of Pathways Towards Stopping Ocean Plastic Pollution

29

Figure 8: Development of net system
loss/profit
FINDINGS per technology, 2016-2040
for latest titlesTEN& CRITICAL
captions
see report indesign doc
Closed-loop mechanical recycling could be net-profitable in all regions without subsidies

Figure 8: 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 lower middle-income (LMI) and high-income (HI) countries, while disposal (incineration/landfill)
will always be net-cost. Net profit/loss includes full life-cycle costs, including the cost of collection and sorting. The revenue is based on a blended price of highvalue plastics (PET, HDPE, and PP). No taxes/subsidies or landfill gate fees are included. The material losses throughout the life cycle have been incorporated byrepresenting the net profit/loss as a function of a metric ton of collected plastic. Mechanical recycling in LMI assumes informal collection while HI is calculated
Mechanicalrecycling
net-profitablein bothand HI,
while
disposal(incineration/landfill)
will
using formal collection
costs. Disposal
costs could
increasebe
overtime to account overfor thetime
increasing
cost LMI
per metricton ofcollection
with increasing
coverage.

always be net-cost. Net profit/loss includes full life-cycle costs, including the cost of collection and sorting. The
revenue is based on a blended price of high-value plastics (PET, HDPE, and PP). No taxes/subsidies or landfill gate
for latest
titles & captions
seee.g.,reportdoc with highrecycled, and technical limits on material losses.
In otherproduct types,
small, indesign
lightweight items
fees are included. The material losses throughout the life cycle have been incorporated by representing the net
words, we cannot simply recycle our way out of our plastic
collection and separation costs.
profit/loss as a function of a ton of collected plastic. Mechanical recycling in LMI assumes informal collection while
pollution problem.
the limitationsof mechanicalit has ancost
HI is calculated using formal collection costs. DisposalDespite
costs increaseover timeto account recycling,
for the increasing
Recycling today
islesseconomical
thanlandfill
orimportant
role
to
play.
When
it
operatesataprofit,recycling
per ton of collection with increasing coverage.
incineration, but it has the potential to be US$350-US$540
can provide a financial incentive for stakeholders to fundper metric ton more profitable in the future across all
additional material recovery. In addition, recycling has a GHG
economic archetypes (see Figure 8) because, unlike landfill
emissions benefit compared with landfills or incineration by
and incineration, it generates revenue. Recycling has theoffsetting the need for virgin plastic production and reducing
potential to break even, and even become net-profitable
the need for extraction. Landfill capacity is limited and underacross all archetypes, if design for recycling is implemented,
high pressure in many places, creating a disincentive forcollection systems are improved and expanded, andincreasing waste collection rates; recycling can counter thistechnology improves.
trend by taking landfill-bound waste out of the waste stream.
Improving recycling economics can drive increased material
recovery, but if recycling is to contribute to reducing leakage
into the ocean, it is important to build a profitable recycling
and sorting industry that can cover the cost of collection andbe implemented at scale in the places that contribute mostto plastic leakage into the ocean.
For something to be deemed recyclable, a system should
be in place for it to be collected, sorted, reprocessed,
and manufactured back into a new product—at scale andeconomically.32 Each reprocessing cycle degrades thematerial, so that even a product designed for recycling isonly kept out of disposal pathways for a limited amountof time. Contamination also prevents materials fromcontinuously staying in play. In addition, some plastic is
not economically recyclable within reasonable systemconstraints due to the additional costs required for certain

30

BREAKING THE PLASTIC WAVE

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 volatileand low prices for recycled plastic, lack of consistent quality,
and low disposal costs. Improving recycling economics isthe key to accelerating this system intervention. One way is
to boost demand for recycled plastic, such as by ensuringthat fast-moving consumer goods meet voluntary public
commitments and policy requirements in terms of recycledcontent. Recycling can also be made more financiallycompetitive if virgin plastic and landfill/incineration become
more expensive via taxation.33 Legislation aimed at driving
demand, long-term agreements with both the private andpublic sectors to guarantee demand for recycled polymers
and mitigate investment risks, and incentives and policies
aimed at improving collection systems can all play a role.

Plastic moves through a recycling facility.
Albert Karimov/ShutterstockTEN CRITICAL FINDINGSSYSTEM INTERVENTION 6

energy requirements and GHG emissions, and accurate
assumptions about its impacts and contributions cannot
yet be made. Multiple concerns about chemical conversion
need to be considered. However, our analysis shows thatchemical conversion could play a role in stemming plastic
leakage into the ocean because it can create an economic
sink for certain low-value plastic types that make up ahigh proportion of plastic pollution and cannot be readily
reduced, substituted, or mechanically recycled. It expands
feedstock options beyond what mechanical recycling
tolerates and, unlike mechanical recycling, in pyrolysis-based
plastic-to-plastic technologies the polymer is broken down
rather than preserved, allowing for infinite reprocessing
cycles. Chemical conversion through pyrolysis is synergistic
to mechanical recycling because each handles different
feedstocks. When used together, the economics of both are
improved. However, for the time being, chemical conversion
has not been proved at scale. Although its viability at scale
should be developed and evaluated, its expansion should becontingent on the decarbonization of energy sources, andnatural lead times and limitations of emerging technologies
should be recognized.

Develop plastic-to-plastic conversion,
potentially to a global capacity of up to
13 million metric tons per year
Due to the limitations of mechanical recycling for someplastic types, new recycling technologies are being
advanced that can handle lower-value plastic, such as film
and multimaterials, and plastic that has been contaminated.
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. We estimatethat chemical conversion could achieve a global capacity of
26 million metric tons per year by 2040, up from 1.4 million
metric tons today, about half of which will be converted backinto plastic (the other half is turned to fuel). Expanding theplastic-to-plastic component to 13 million metric tons per
year (6 per cent of total plastic waste) is equivalent to opening
roughly 32 plastic-to-plastic plants (of 20,000 metric tons per
year capacity each) every year from 2021 until 2040.

The growth of plastic-to-plastic chemical conversion atscale is only likely to commence in 2030, with the growthof plastic-to-fuel creating a pathway for achieving it.
Although the technologies to convert to fuel and plastic aresimilar, plastic-to-plastic chemical conversion has a more
focused offtake market that requires a large scale. If plasticto-fuel does not lead to a transition to plastic-to-plastic
chemical conversion, then we would risk being locked
into a technology with high GHG emissions, that would
perpetuate the linear, fossil-fuel economy, without thebenefits of plastic-to-plastic conversion. It is important thatenabling policies are focused on plastic-to-plastic chemical
conversion to advance the circular economy; these policies
could include R&D and infrastructure funding, legislation
to drive higher demand for recycled content, sophisticatedofftake agreements to make investments less risky, andtraceability mechanisms to certify recycled content.

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 in2016 and 2040. In high-income countries, this technology iscurrently profitable only because collection and sorting arebeing subsidized by governments, and additional revenues
from tipping fees are collected. Crucially, for chemical
conversion to help stop plastic entering the environment,
it needs to be profitable enough to cover collection costs;
otherwise, feedstock will come from plastic that is alreadycollected for landfills, not from unmanaged waste boundfor the ocean. Chemical conversion technology should only
ever use feedstock that cannot be reduced, substituted, or
mechanically recycled (see Figure 9).
Chemical conversion is a controversial technology
because it is still in its early stage of development, has highFigure 9: Feedstock tolerance comparison for mechanical recycling versus pyrolysis
Chemical conversion expands feedstock tolerance

Figure 9: Feedstock tolerance comparison for mechanical recycling versus pyrolysis
Chemical conversion expands feedstock tolerance
Value of plastic

High

PET

Clean/sorted
waste

Contaminated
waste

Low

HDPE

PP

LDPE +
LLDPE

PVC

PS

Multilayers

Mechanicalrecycling
Pyrolysis

Mechanicalrecycling

Technicallyfeasible
Feasible under somecircumstances
Technically not
feasible

Pyrolysis

Mechanical recycling includes both open- and closed-loop recycling capabilities. Contamination is defined as contamination by other waste (i.e., organics) or inks,
additives, and mixed polymers. Mechanical recycling of LDPE/LLDPE is mostly open-loop recycling.

Mechanical recycling includes both open- and closed-loop recycling capabilities. Contamination is defined as contamination by other waste
or inks,
and mixed polymers. Mechanical recycling of LDPE/LLDPE is mostly open-loop recycling.
BREAKING
THE additives,
PLASTIC WAVE
32 (i.e., organics)

TEN CRITICAL FINDINGSSYSTEM INTERVENTION 7

SYSTEM INTERVENTION 8

As a transitional measure, build facilities
to dispose of the 23 per cent of plastic thatcannot be recycled economically

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

Landfills, incinerators, and plastic-to-fuel chemical conversion
should be used only as last resorts—after the Reduce,
Substitute and Recycle wedges have all been exploited totheir fullest potential—especially because they have significant
health and environmental risk. However, it is probably
unrealistic to assume that end-of-life disposal of plastic waste
will no longer be necessary in 2040. Our model indicatesthat 39 per cent of land-based macroplastics entering theocean comes from waste that has been collected andsubsequently mismanaged, accounting for 3.8 million metrictons of macroplastic leakage into the ocean in 2016. Building
some disposal capacity to close these leakage points may berequired as a bridge solution.

Exports of plastic waste from high-income countries to
middle-/low-income countries amounted to 3.5 million
metric tons in 2016. The exact impact of these exports onplastic pollution in the ocean is hard to quantify because
there is little evidence on the fate of the plastic exported.
Anecdotal evidence suggests that 5 per cent-20 per centof the scrap plastic exported has little value and is often
mismanaged through open burning or illegal dumping.36
A portion of this total is certainly leaking into the ocean.

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 million metric tons per
year by 2040. Reducing the number of open dumpsites in
the world is a core ambition of many governments, not only
because dumpsites lead to significant plastic pollution, butalso because of their GHG emissions and negative healthconsequences. The System Change Scenario projects a
reduction in the proportion of plastic deposited in dumpsites
from 23 per cent in 2016 to 10 per cent in 2040.
Using historical trends, we also project the volume of residual
plastic waste going to disposal, and show that by 2040 thisfigure could be reduced from 54 million metric tons per year
to landfills and 80 million metric tons per year to incineration
under BAU to 50 million metric tons per year and 39 million
metric tons per year, respectively, under the System Change
Scenario. The System Change Scenario shows that global
landfill expansion can peak by 2030 at 73 million metric tons
per year of new landfill capacity built. Both these methods ofdisposal have their pros and cons. Landfill is cost-effective,
but if not managed effectively with daily and intermediate
cover, plastic waste may be just as likely to leak into theenvironment as in an open dumpsite, while microplastics canpass through landfill liners and contaminate groundwater.
Incinerators are effective at stabilizing biological material andreducing both volume (by 90 per cent) and mass (by 80 percent),34 but they release GHGs into the atmosphere, alongwith some nonfossil emissions from biogenic wastes (“skyfill”)
and require continuous feedstock to stay alight. Because their
lifetime is about 25 years (or longer), incinerators also createa “lock-in” effect that can block newer technologies or act ascompetition for recycling feedstock.35

Crucially, the losses or residues from sorting and recycling
in middle-/low-income countries are not reported by
the high-income countries of origin. Therefore, 100 per
cent of the plastic exported for recycling is erroneously
added to recycling rates in the country of origin. Thisadministrative discrepancy creates a misleading impressionof high resource efficiency in high-income countries when
there is evidence that some of this material is polluting
destination countries to the detriment of local people andthe environment.
Building a circular economy closer to the point of waste
generation will help create a sustainable sink for material andfree up infrastructure in countries that previously imported
large amounts of plastic, enabling them to process theirown waste. Therefore, despite the sparse data available toquantify its impacts, this system intervention is critical toreducing the amount of plastic entering the ocean in thelong term. We estimate that 90 per cent of plastic waste
exports could be reduced by 2040 if the right policies are
implemented and if infrastructure is built to deal with thisplastic locally or regionally.

Building a circular economy closer tothe point of waste generation will help
create a sustainable sink for material
and free up infrastructure in countries
that previously imported large
amounts of plastic, enabling themto process their own waste.

Although incinerators generate some revenue, landfills
generate nothing, and they are both a net cost to
governments. As there are few market incentives to ensurethat these facilities are well managed, both forms of disposal
require strong public governance to minimize harm to theenvironment and communities.
A Comprehensive Assessment of Pathways Towards Stopping Ocean Plastic Pollution

33

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.

TEN CRITICAL FINDINGSGreenhouse gas emissions of the System Change
Scenario interventions
The eight integrated System Change Scenario interventions
result in 14 per cent lower cumulative plastic-related GHG
emissions relative to BAU over 2021-2040 (and 25 per centlower annual emissions in 2040). Different solutions havevery different GHG profiles (see Figure 10), with eliminationof low-utility avoidable plastic through bans and incentives
assumed to emit zero emissions, reuse creating only 1.6 tonsof CO2e per metric ton of plastic utility, and compostables,
incineration, and open burn emitting the highest quantities at
5.2, 5.4 and 6.9 tons of CO2e per metric ton of plastic utility,
respectively, although emissions from compostables could
decrease significantly over time with the correct sourcing
and composting infrastructure.

Although the System Change Scenario represents asignificant improvement over BAU, it still uses 15 per cent of
the 2040 carbon budget, compared with the plastics value
chain contributing 3 per cent of global emissions today.
It will therefore be critically important to look beyond theinterventions modelled in the scenario and identify ways
to scale reduction and reuse beyond the levels modelled
to reap the potential CO2 savings; advance technologies
that decarbonize the production of plastics and substitutes
beyond the assumptions in our model; limit the expansionof carbon-intensive end-of-life technologies, such as
incineration and chemical conversion; and focus on broader
systemic change, including reduced consumption, sourcing
locally, and decarbonizing transport.
The adjacent infographic shows the combined impact of
implementing all macroplastic system interventions on fiveproduct types/applications under the System Change Scenario.

Figure 10: Greenhouse gas emissions of 1 metric ton of plastic utility
Different treatment options have vastly different greenhouse impacts

Figure 10: 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

2.1

4.0

4.4

4.4

4.5

5.2

5.4

Compostables8

Incineration9

2.5

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)
models7chemicalchemical5
6conversion conversion

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-oflife emissions, including collection, sorting, and recycling.

2.

Valid for both closed-loop and open-loop recycling. This assumes 100 per cent recycled content, which entails the collection and sorting of alarger proportion of waste to account for losses.

3.

The average life-cycle emissions of paper or coated paper packaging per metric ton, multiplied by an average material weight increase from plastic
to paper of 1.5. Emissions differ depending on how the paper is sourced. Disposing includes all end-of-life emissions including recycling, which we
don’t distinguish for this lever.

4.

Valid for both closed-loop and open-loop recycling. This assumes 25% recycled content, which entails the collection and sorting of a larger
proportion of waste to account for losses. The remaining 75% is fulfilled by virgin plastic production.

5.

Emissions include the repolymerization of naphtha as well as the pyrolysis process itself. It should be noted that data for GHG emissions for thistechnology 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”
in this lever includes all end-of-life 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 NDMs 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.

The GHGTheemissionsassociatedassociatedwith each pathway
arepathway
calculatedfromthe pointfrom
at which
plasticatwaste
is generated
to theproduction toof the1 metric
ton of plastic
GHG emissions
with eacharecalculated
the pointwhich
plastic waste
is generated
production
utility. One metric ton of plastic utility is defined as the material/services required to provide the equivalent value to consumers as 1 metric ton of plastic.

of 1 metric ton of plastic utility. One metric ton
plastic titles
utility issee
definedas theindesignmaterial/services
foroflatest
reportdoc required to provide the equivalentvalue to consumers as 1 metric ton of plastic.

A Comprehensive Assessment of Pathways Towards Stopping Ocean Plastic Pollution

35

TEN CRITICAL FINDINGS

Microplastic systeminterventions
Roll out all known solutions for four
microplastic (<5mm) sources—tyres,textiles, personal care products, andproduction pellets—to reduce annual
microplastic leakage into the ocean by
1.8 million metric tons per year by 2040
Eleven per cent (1.3 million metric tons) of total plastic
entering the ocean in 2016 comes from the four key sourcesof microplastics we selected to model: tyre abrasion/dust,
pellet loss, textile microfibres, and microplastic ingredients inpersonal care products. Under the System Change Scenario,
where we implement all significant, known microplastic
solutions at scale (integrating all relevant system interventions),
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 cent reduction compared to BAU.
Microplastics are defined in our report as pieces of plastic
between 1 micrometre (μm) and 5 mm in size that enter
the environment as microsized particles—widely called
primary microplastic.37 We do not include secondary
microplastics, created through the breakdown ofmismanaged macroplastic waste, because this mass isalready accounted for in our analysis of macroplastics. Outof the ~20 potential sources of primary microplastic, the four
sources we modelled represent an estimated 75-85 per centof total microplastic leakage. Among these four, the largest
contributor, by mass, to 2016 microplastic leakage into theocean was tyre dust, contributing 78 per cent of the leakage
mass modelled; pellets contribute 18 per cent; and textiles
and personal care products contribute 4 per cent combined.
There is a different pattern in terms of the number ofmicroplastic particles entering the ocean, with tyres andtextiles being the main sources of leakage.
We estimate that microplastic leakage from the four sources
could grow from 1.3 million metric tons in 2016 to 3.0 million
metric tons by 2040 under BAU. We estimate that 26 percent of all microplastics released (during production or use,
onto roads, into wastewater drains, or into the environment)
end up leaking into the ocean. An additional 63 per cent of
releases leak into other environments, including soil and air.
Eleven per cent of total microplastics released in 2016 were
estimated to have been captured from wastewater treatment
and sent to sanitary landfills or incineration.
High-income countries accounted for about one-third (34per cent) of all microplastic emissions in 2016 and, on a
per capita basis, microplastic emissions into the ocean in
high-income countries are 3.4 times higher than in the restof the world, mainly driven by higher driving rates, plastic
consumption, and textile washing. In fact, microplastics
represent 61 per cent of leakage in high-income countries,
making solving this challenge a priority for this archetype.
36

BREAKING THE PLASTIC WAVE

Solutions should focus on reducing microplastics at theirsource because this is more cost-efficient and feasible
than collection of microplastic particles already in theenvironment. This approach could be done throughinnovation in tyres and textiles design, a revolution intransportation to decrease the total distance driven by cars,
decreasing plastic production, regulatory and corporate
measures to prevent pellet leakage, and bans on using
microplastic ingredients in personal care products. By
implementing relevant regulations, and monitoring andenforcing prevention measures across the supply chain,pellet loss could be readily addressed by 2040. Similarly,
textile leakage has a high potential to be improved byswitching to yarns with lower shedding rates. Microplastic
ingredients in personal care products can be banned, as has
already occurred in several countries, without societal risks.
By contrast, additional innovation will be required tosignificantly reduce leakage from tyres, which areresponsible for 93 per cent of the remaining microplastics
entering the ocean in 2040 after all system interventions
have been applied. The most effective interventions are
reducing kilometres driven and decreasing tyre loss rates.
Existing tyres show high ranges of durability, so by choosing
less abrading types and brands, together with promoting
eco-driving habits, we could significantly cut microplastic
pollution from tyres.
However, even with all known solutions rolled out ambitiously,
microplastic emissions in 2040 are similar to the 2016 leakage
rate. Under the System Change Scenario, microplastics are
expected to be a significant part of the remaining total plastic
entering the ocean in 2040, as high as 23 per cent. This
result is because there are fewer known solutions for certain
sources of microplastics compared with macroplastics.
New solutions will be required to reduce leakage further
than modelled under this scenario, especially for tyres, andto address the additional sources of microplastic emissions
not modelled here. More research on microplastic emissions
and pathways is needed to obtain a complete picture of the
microplastic pollution problem.

Solutions should focus on reducing
microplastics at their source because
this is more cost-efficient and feasible
than collection of microplastic particles
already in the environment. This approach
could be done through innovation intyres and textiles design, a revolution
in transportation to decrease the total
distance driven by cars, decreasing plastic
production, regulatory and corporate
measures to prevent pellet leakage, andbans on using microplastic ingredients inpersonal care products.

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

TEN CRITICAL FINDINGS

Maritime sources of leakage
Uncertainty exists about exactly how much plastic leaks
into the ocean from maritime sources, but it is estimatedto be between 10 per cent and 30 per cent of total
macroplastic leakage.38 Maritime sources of ocean plastic
pollution, defined in this report as all plastic that enters theenvironment from seagoing vessels (including fishing gearand shipping litter), are some of the most visible and harmful
contributors to ocean plastic pollution.39 Although the lackof robust estimates of different maritime sources of leakage
prevents the inclusion of this category in our quantitative
analysis, addressing this pollution is of utmost urgency.
Abandoned, lost or otherwise discarded fishing gear (ALDFG)
ranks among the most damaging to marine ecosystems
among all sources of ocean plastic pollution.40 Multiple
sources have tried to quantify the annual leakage rates, withestimates ranging from 640,000 metric tons to 1.15 million
metric tons, and it is expected to increase as a result ofgrowth in fishing effort and aquaculture.41 It is estimated that
29 per cent of fishing lines are lost each year, 8.6 per cent of
all traps and pots, and 5.7 per cent of nets.42 A more specificassessment of fishing nets finds that gillnets are at highest
risk of being lost, while bottom trawls are considered low
risk, and purse seines and midwater trawls are in the lowestrisk category.43
There are two main categories of intervention levers to
reduce the presence of ALDFG in the marine environment:
preventive and remedial. The preventive levers (e.g.,

Fish are tangled in abandoned commercial fishing nets.
Josephine Julian/Adobe Stock38

BREAKING THE PLASTIC WAVE

extended producer responsibility for fishing gear, port
reception fee structures that incentivize return of waste,
gear marking systems, and stronger and better-enforced
regulations to combat illegal, unreported, and unregulated
fishing) are expected to have significant impact but needwidescale implementation to be effective. Remedial levers(e.g., incentives to report and retrieve ALDFG, programmesfor ALDFG detection and reporting, and initiatives to reduceabandoned fishing nets that continue to entangle species,
known as “ghost fishing”) are also necessary.
Shipping litter, the deliberate dumping of general plastic
waste from seagoing vessels, is illegal under internationallaw, 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 with the growth in commercial shipping.44 The mostcomprehensive research to date estimates that shipping
litter constitutes between 54,000 and 67,000 metric tonsof plastic annually in the European Union,45 or 35 per centof total maritime sources. Measures available to combat
shipping litter can be divided between land-based (e.g.,
reducing consumption, replacing plastic with materials that
decompose at sea) and maritime-based levers (e.g., targeted
inspections in port and on vessels, refunds for delivering
waste at port, harmonizing waste information, and enforcing
MARPOL Annex V). Improved data collection at ports andon vessels, and increased international cooperation, is
desperately needed to allow better understanding of thisglobal problem.

TEN CRITICAL FINDINGSFINDING 5

Innovation is essential to a future withnear-zero plastic pollution
The System Change Scenario describes a viable pathway todramatically reduce ocean plastic pollution, but the ultimate
goal is to achieve near-zero plastic entering the ocean.
Realizing this vision requires closing the innovation gap,
with a focused, well-funded R&D agenda complemented byinspirational moon-shot ambitions.
Even if all significant known system interventions are applied
concurrently, we estimate that 5 million metric tons of plastic
would still be leaking into the ocean every year by 2040,
and annual GHG emissions would still be 54 per cent higher
than 2016 levels, while the cumulative amount of plastic
that will enter the ocean between 2016 and 2040 amounts
to 248 million metric tons. Bridging the remaining gap tonear-zero leakage will require additional R&D investment
and innovations that go beyond today’s known solutions,furthering smart policies, alternative business models, newmaterial substitutes and refill systems, and more effective
and faster scaling-up of reduction, collection and recycling,
composting, and controlled disposal systems, especially inthe middle-/low-income countries. There should be a strong

focus on helping middle-/low-income countries leapfrog
the unsustainable linear economy model of high-income
countries. Spending on R&D might exceed US$100 billion
per year, more than quadrupling today’s annual spending of
US$22 billion.46
To better understand the areas where innovation can bemost effective, Figure 11 shows the remaining sources ofleakage after all System Change Scenario interventions havebeen implemented. New solutions should be developedthat focus specifically on: 1) collection, especially for ruraland remote areas; 2) flexible plastic and multimaterials (62per cent of remaining leakage), with a focus on alternative
delivery systems and materials, and enhancing the valueof existing materials; and 3) tyre microplastic leakage (21per cent of remaining leakage). Other missing elements totarget include further ways to scale the Reduce, Substitute,and Recycling solutions; methods to achieve 100 per
cent collection; green chemistry breakthroughs; and newtechnological, behavioural, and business solutions.

Figure 11: 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 category

2.7

2.7

2.9

Lower-income countries (LI)

(50%)

(50%)

(54%)

Lower middle-income (LMI)

Million metric tons per year of plastic waste

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

1.2
(23%)

0.8
(15%)

0.4
(8%)

Urban

Rural

Rigid
Flexible Multilayer
monomonomaterialmaterials materials

Microplastics

A Comprehensive Assessment of Pathways Towards Stopping Ocean Plastic Pollution

39

Figure 12: Presebetween 2021 a
fo
The System Cha
Business-as-Usu

TEN CRITICAL FINDINGSFINDING 6

The solution is economically viable, but a major
redirection of capital investment is required
Virgin production

The total cost to governments of managing plastic waste
The System Change Scenario is economically viable forin the low-leakage System Change Scenario between 2021
governments and consumers, but a major redirection ofand 2040 is estimated to be US$600 billion in present value,
capital investment is needed. Although the present value ofcompared with the US$670 billion cost to manage a high- US$ billions
global investments in the plastic industry between 2021 andleakage system under BAU. Globally, governments can save
2040 can be reduced from US$2.5 trillion to US$1.2 trillion,
US$70 billion while also reducing plastic pollution (although
the System Change Scenario also requires a substantial shift
the cost in middle-/low-income countries is US$36 billionof investment away from the production and conversion
higher than under BAU, spread over 20 years).
of virgin plastic, which are mature technologies perceived
as “safe” investments, into the deployment of new delivery
Business-as-Usualmodels, substitute materials, recycling and collection
infrastructure, which are often less mature/financially viable
The System Change Scenario requires
technologies. (See Figure 12). This transition will only bea substantial shift of investment away
possible with government incentives and risk-taking byfrom the production and conversion
industry and investors. The current petrochemical industryof virgin plastic, into the deployment
also benefits from global fossil fuel subsidies, estimated at
System Change Scenario
47
US$53 billion in 2017; eliminating such subsidies will likelyof new delivery models, substitutebe key to the transition. Although investments under BAU arematerials, recycling and collection
perceived to be less risky, our analysis indicates that the risks
Figure 12: Present value of global capital investmentsinfrastructure,requiredwhich are often lessmay be significantly higher
than
isand
currently
bybetween
2021
2040 inunderstooddifferent scenarios
forlatesttitlesseereportindesign
docmature/financially
viable technologies.
financial markets as policies,
technologies,
brandowners,The System
Change Scenario
requiresless capital investment thanBusiness-as-Usual,buttheinvestmentsareriskierand consumer behaviour all transition towards a morecircular plastics economy.

Figure 12: Present value of global capital investments required between 2021 and 2040
in different scenarios
The System Change Scenario requires less capital investment than Business-as-Usual, but theVirgin production
Plastic conversion
Substitute-paper
Substitute-compostables
Waste management
Recycling
investments are riskier
Maturetechnologies

Values in this figure2021 and 2040.

New technologies that
may require subsidy
Virgin production

US$ billions

Plastic conversion$2,280Substitute-paper
Substitute-compostables
Waste management
Recycling

Business-as-Usual$2,470$190

System Change Scenario$1,180$720$460

Values in this figure represent the present value of all capital investments needed per scenario between 2021 and 2040.
Values in this figure represent the present value of all capital investments needed per scenario between

40

and 2040.
BREAKING THE2021
PLASTICWAVETEN CRITICAL FINDINGSFINDING 7

The solution brings to life a new plastics economy,
with opportunities—and risks—for industry
for plastic utility in 2040 with roughly the same amount ofplastic in the system as today, and 11 per cent lower levelsof virgin plastic production, essentially decoupling plastic
growth from economic growth. This is good news but, in themeantime, hundreds of billions of dollars are being invested
in virgin plastic production plants, locking us deeper intoa high-waste, high-emissions trajectory every day. Plastic
production is becoming the new engine of growth for the
petrochemical industry, raising concerns about the creationof a “plastic bubble” whereby new investments risk becoming
stranded assets. Investors should seek out opportunities in
the new plastics economy and urgently address potential risk
exposure related to existing assets.

Plastic pollution presents a unique risk for producers
and users of virgin plastics due to regulatory changes
and growing consumer concern. But it is also a unique
opportunity for companies ahead of the curve, ready toembrace new methods, models, and materials. Embarking
on the system change trajectory to achieve an approximately
80 per cent leakage reduction will bring to life a circular
plastics economy, and a chance for businesses to unlock
value that derives from the circulation of materials rather
than 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. For example, under the System
Change Scenario, demand for recycled content is expected
to grow by 2.7 times, creating an immense business
opportunity for the waste management industry.

As Figure 13 indicates, reduce levers are the most attractivefrom an economic perspective, often representing a netsaving solution. Recycling solutions may also represent a
net savings by 2040, with supporting policies, design, scale,and technological improvements. Substitution is the mostexpensive option, not least because more than a metric tonof paper is required to substitute a metric ton of plastic.

Our analysis shows that, through integrated application of
upstream and downstream interventions under the System
Change Scenario, we could fulfil the growing global demand

Figure 13: Costs and masses per treatment type in the System Change Scenario, 2040
Reduce levers are often the most economical to implement while plastic substitutes are
typically more expensive
ReduceSubstituteRecycleDisposeMismanaged

ReduceSubstituteRecycleDisposeMismanaged

Total system cost in US$/metric ton of plastic

1,945

1,945

442
-240

232 243 247

442

Plastic
waste
Plastic
Not costed
420 million
waste
metric tons
420 million
metric tons

Not costed

259

te

as
te w
as ed
w ag
ed an
ag m
anMis
ism

ew

ew

(n

liv

de

se

u
Re

(n

El
in
im

-2,241

87

174

M

e

)
)
er
er
m
um
su
ns
on (co
(c
e
e
us
us
Re
Re

-2,241

174

259

r
pe
r a
P
pe
s
Pa
le
s b
le sta
ab o
st mp
po o
C
n
om
io
C
n rat
tio e
ra cin
ne n
ci –I
I
l
In H
fil
I–
l d
H
fil an
nd –L
La I
ll
n
I– M
ng
M U ll ndnfi atiog cli
Ufi a io r
lin y
c
c
e
nd –Lat ne
coyn l rgi
La I er ci
inll n rres ca
I– Hin In
H Inc I– ll drfisio cavle ani n ling yclc
io c
I– M fi avne noi n h
M Uand I–oLn hl ac seicon eres cy al re
U
ca
v
r
r
L
c
m
g
I– Ia/Ll meic pve onal nic
inlg
I/L LMic pem looon al cnic ha
in ycgLM hem-–loCoh ena-l c iccha ec on ycl ec
lin
C nI pic m e n m i c l r gem iop rs re a lin yc
I– eH OH Op Ih–em –Cohp erlos o nvecal niccyc rec g
i
a
g
l n
I
vI– H
H I–C M -lo ned co an ch l re ngca cli glin
M Used l cloos ical ch me ica ycalini cyclin ycUen c h re yeclo caCC iI– em m op ha re c al c l r
I– mH h p o c l e ic re a
H he C o -l e ca m n al nic
C I– -lo n m ni p a ic
I– LM en peop h-aloo echan cha
p –O lo ecn m ch
e
LM
I
O
m
I– M n mpe p e
M U pe o–pO loop m op
U
O Io
I– -lIo/L d-loo d-le
I/L edM sedo
s
e
l
os
l
LM lo L C s
C
I– Clo I–C
l)
)
I–
L
I–
el ode/M UM
U
I/L MIodLm ry mLMyer live
de

us
Re

-516

-1,28943 87-14 43-240-116-76-184 -124-331-76 -14-184 -124
-331

-516

-1,289-116

232 243 247

Paper
Paper

Total system cost in US$/metric ton of plastic

e
at

in
im

El

e
at

The X axis of this chart shows the mass 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 operating expenses and capital expenses, 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 saving to the system relative to BAU while positive costs reflect a
net cost to the system for this treatment type. Costs near 0 mean their implementation is near “cost neutral” to the system. Subsidies, taxes, or other “artificial” costs
have been excluded; this reflects the techno-economic cost of each activity. The costs shown do not necessarily reflect today’s costs, but costs that could beachieved after the system interventions are implemented, including design for recycling and other efficiency measures.
A Comprehensive Assessment of Pathways Towards Stopping Ocean Plastic Pollution

41

TEN CRITICAL FINDINGSFINDING 8

Solutions should be differentiated bygeography and plastic category
The top priority everywhere is reducing avoidable plastic—
Our model results indicate, unsurprisingly, that systemof which we estimate there will be 125 million metricchange depends on different implementation priorities
tons by 2040 under BAU—and all regions should prioritize
and solution sets for different geographic archetypes andsolutions for their highest-leakage plastic categories.
plastic categories. This finding stems from the fundamentally
Flexible packaging (bags, films, pouches, etc.), multilayer
varied context and jumping-off points that different regions
and multimaterial plastics (sachets, diapers, cartons, etc.),of the world are starting with, including different waste
and microplastics all account for a disproportionate sharecomposition, policy regimes, labour and capital costs,of global plastic pollution compared with their production,
infrastructure, population demographics, and consumer
making up 47 per cent, 25 per cent and 11 per cent of
behaviour. Figure 14 highlights the most urgently needed
leakage, respectively. However, certain system interventions
solutions required to achieve the outcomes modelled in theare more geographic
highly applicablearchetypes
for certain income groups, urban
System Change Scenario
in
each
of
three
broadersetsofFigure 14: Priority solutions for different
or rural settings, and plastic categories, as summarized inarchetypes.
Figure 15.

Figure 14: Priority solutions for different geographic archetypes

1
High-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•

Significant reduce and substitute

Reduce export to low-income
countries

Design for recycling: Increase
share of high-value plastic

•

•

•

Reduce post-collection leakage•

Address maritime sources ofleakage•

Reduce post-collection leakage•

Ban plastic waste imports

Flexible packaging, and multilayer and multimaterial plastics account for adisproportionate share of global plastic pollution compared with their production,
making up 47 per cent and 25 per cent of leakage, respectively.

42

BREAKING THE PLASTIC WAVETEN CRITICAL FINDINGS
Figure 15: System intervention relevanceby geographic archetype andfor latest titles see report indesign doc
plastic category

Figure 15: System intervention relevance by geographic archetype and plastic category
Highly 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

FINDING 9

System change offers co-benefits for the climate,health, jobs, and working conditions
An integrated, circular strategy can offer better economic,
environmental, and social outcomes than BAU. The
systemic shifts in the plastics value chain brought about
by the System Change Scenario interventions would makea major contribution to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable
Development adopted by United Nations Member States in
2015, with the impact felt well beyond the specific target—toprevent and reduce marine pollution—to include Sustainable
Development Goals related to poverty, health, employment,
innovation, climate change, and more, as shown in Figure 16.
The System Change Scenario is better for communities
because it creates 700,000 net formal jobs by 2040 inmiddle-/low-income countries to fulfil demand for new
plastic services. It also represents a positive social vision for
the global community of 11 million waste pickers currently
responsible for 60 per cent of global plastic recycling,
whose huge contribution towards preventing ocean plastic
pollution is largely unrecognized and underpaid. An increasein the material value of plastic through design for recycling,
as well as new technologies and proactive efforts to improve
working conditions and integrate informal workers into
waste management systems in mutually beneficial ways,
can significantly improve the lives of waste pickers. Healthhazards are also reduced compared with BAU by 2040,
including 109 million metric tons per year less open burningof plastic waste, and therefore less airborne particulates,
carcinogens, and toxins.
The System Change Scenario is better for the economy
because it can save governments US$70 billion globally
while also reducing plastic pollution (as outlined under
Finding 6) and unleashing opportunities across the value
chain for companies and other providers ready to accelerate
the change to a circular plastics economy (as outlined under
Finding 7).

A Comprehensive Assessment of Pathways Towards Stopping Ocean Plastic Pollution

43

TEN CRITICAL FINDINGSThe System Change Scenario is also better for theenvironment. It will significantly reduce harmful impacts
on ecosystems, habitats, and wildlife. Under the System
Change Scenario, we can fulfil a doubling of demand forthe services that plastic provides with 11 per cent less virginplastic than in 2016, through reduction, substitution, andswitching to recycled plastic. The composition of feedstock
would transform from the 95 per cent virgin plastic we have
today to 43 per cent of plastic utility fulfilled by virgin plastic
in 2040. The eight integrated System Change Scenariointerventions result in 14 per cent lower cumulative plastic-

related GHG emissions relative to BAU from 2021 to 2040
(and 25 per cent lower annual emissions in 2040). However,this would still be 15 per cent of the 2040 carbon budget,compared with plastic contributing 3 per cent of global
emissions today. It is therefore critically important to lookbeyond the interventions modelled and identify ways toscale up reduction and reuse, advance technologies thatfurther decarbonize substitute materials, limit the expansionof carbon-intensive end-of-life technologies, and focus on
broader systemic change, including reduced consumption,
sourcing locally, and decarbonizing transport.

Figure 16: United Nations Sustainable Development Goals impacts to 2040 under the

Figure16: United
Nations
Sustainable Development Goals impacts to 2040 under the System Change Scenario
SystemChangeScenario
The System Change Scenario is better than BAU for society, for the economy, and for the environment
The System Change Scenario is better than BAU for society, for the economy, and for theenvironment
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

Under the System Change Scenario, we can fulfil a doubling of demand for the services
that plastic provides with 11 per cent less virgin plastic than in 2016, through reduction,
substitution, and switching to recycled plastic.

44

BREAKING THE PLASTIC WAVETEN CRITICAL FINDINGSFINDING 10

An implementation delay of five years would result in an
additional 80 million metric tons of plastic going into the ocean
All elements modelled under the System Change Scenario
exist or are under development today and should be scaled
fast. An implementation delay of five years could result in 80
million metric tons more plastic stock in the ocean by 2040.
Moreover, delays in implementing the system interventions
could take the world off its critical path towards—ultimately—
near-zero leakage.
The next two years are pivotal for implementing a firsthorizon 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. These steps will lay the groundwork for the second
and third horizons of change to take place by 2025 and2030, and enable the implementation of the catalytic andbreakthrough systemic solutions required in 2030-2040,
as outlined in Figure 17.
It is not the lack of technical solutions that is preventing us
from addressing the plastic pollution, but rather inadequate
regulatory frameworks, business models, and funding
mechanisms. We have the solutions at our fingertips: If wewant to significantly reduce plastics in our oceans, the timeto act is now.

Figure 49: Three time forhorizons,
illustrating the actions that could belatest titles & captions see report indesign doc
taken in stages to achieve the System Change Scenario

Figure 17: Three time horizons, illustrating 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.

•2030: Horizon 3“Breakthrough”

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.

A Comprehensive Assessment of Pathways Towards Stopping Ocean Plastic Pollution

45

All stakeholders
have a role

Waves roll ashore in Cape Town, South Africa.
Dan Grinwis/Unsplash

ALL STAKEHOLDERS HAVE A ROLE

Implementing all eight system interventions and transforming the plastics value chain in 20 years
will not be easy. To realize the full benefits that could be reaped from the new plastics economy,
resolute and collaborative action is needed: across the value chain, between public and private
actors, between levels of governments, and across borders.
This collaboration is critical because many organizations
are willing to act, but only if others act, too. For example,
a consumer goods company depends on the availabilityof recycled plastic to increase recycled content, recyclers
depend on design and clear labelling, and investors dependon access to affordable capital. The success of each actor—
and the system as a whole—depends on the actions ofothers. We focus on the role of five key stakeholder groups
in enabling and accelerating this transition: governments,
business, investors and financial institutions, civil society, andconsumers.

The role of governments
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 usedby investors, 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. Although all players have a role, policies that createa clear and stable set of incentives, targets, and definitions
will make the conditions required under the System Change
Scenario possible. Policy instruments to incentivize systemicchange can be categorized into four types:
1.

Increasing producer accountability, including
extended producer responsibility, environmental
pollution liability, and minimum warranty periods.

2.

Direct control regulations, including bans on singleuse plastic and microplastic ingredients, regulationof polymer types, design and labelling requirements,
statutory and regulatory targets, and waste or recycling
trade regulations.

3.

Market-based instruments, including taxes on virginplastic or hard-to-recycle items, higher landfill tipping
fees, deposit-return schemes, and recycling credit
schemes.

4.

Government support initiatives, including subsidized
waste recovery, funding for consumer educationand training, public procurement of reusable
items, developing and funding the necessary waste
management infrastructure, funding for plastic
alternatives, and mechanisms to cut capital costs andmake investments less risky.

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.

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 middle-/low-income
economies. Commercial opportunities await those readyto embrace change and position themselves as leaders in anear-zero plastic pollution world, for example:
1.

Plastic manufacturers and converters should prepare
for a low-virgin-plastic world by entering new value
pools more aggressively, radically innovating for morerecyclable and recycled plastic, and mitigating the risk of
products leaking into the environment by reaching 100
per cent collection and voluntarily paying for collection
in geographies where producer responsibility is notmandated.

2.

Brand owners, fast-moving consumer goods
companies and retailers should lead the transition
by committing to reduce at least one-third of plastic
demand through elimination, reuse, and new delivery
models; embracing product redesign and supply
chain innovations; working across supply chains onsustainable sourcing, effective end-of-life recycling,
and composting substitutes; and ensuring maximum
recycled content and recyclability by creatingproducts that are 100 per cent reusable, recyclable, orcompostable.

3.

Waste management (collectors, sorters, andrecyclers) should scale up and improve collection
to reduce plastic leakage and secure feedstock forrecycling, facilitate source separation in collection
systems using incentives and improved standards,
reduce the risk of direct discarding of plastic waste into
waterways, scale up and expand recycling systems,
and improve efficiencies through technologicalimprovements.

4.

Paper and compostable material manufacturers
should act fast to capitalize on opportunities to develop
alternative formats and materials, and improve resource
efficiency and paper recycling capacity.

A Comprehensive Assessment of Pathways Towards Stopping Ocean Plastic Pollution

47

ALL STAKEHOLDERS HAVE A ROLE

The role of investors andfinancial institutions
As policies, technologies, brand owners, and consumer
behaviour shift towards a new plastics economy, investors,
unless they act fast, run the risk of being exposed to
overvalued or stranded assets. On the other hand,investment into the new value chain comes with manyco-benefits, including cost savings for governments andconsumers, health improvements, GHG emission cuts,
and increased job creation. So why is attracting finance forthis space often challenging? One reason is the paucity ofinvestable projects and perceived poor risk/return profiles.
Investors can act to overcome this problem by:
1.

Focusing on developing a robust investment pipeline
by being prepared to nurture and develop emerging
projects from the early ideas stage, and preventing
promising start-ups from getting stuck at the entrance tothe “valley of death.”2.

Developing specific investment vehicles to suit thetype of assets targeted (e.g., early stage technology withventure capital or waste management infrastructurewith institutional or development capital).

3.

Analysing commercial feasibility of new businessmodels to demonstrate the attractiveness and market
potential of the solutions proposed under systemchange compared with traditional products andinfrastructure.

4.

Incorporating “plastic risk” in financial andenvironmental, social, and governance assessments
to account for the fact that expected industry
growth is not aligned with the clean ocean agenda,
commitments to a 1.5oC world, emerging consumer
trends, and government policies—all of which may have
implications for financial performance.

The role of civil society
Civil society can play several important roles, including
acting as a watchdog to hold governments, businesses,
and institutions to account; conducting advocacy, raisingawareness and lobbying for stronger regulation; andcoordinating research and citizen science. In the context
of plastic pollution, different factions of civil society areoccupying all these roles, including through:1.

Research and monitoring to build the evidence basefor policy and corporate action through assessment of
the scale and impacts of plastic pollution, leakage routes
into the ocean, and priority issues such as microplastics
and maritime sources.

2.

Incubation and acceleration of new solutions toprompt retailers and brands to adopt new reduction andrecycling targets and spur trials of new delivery models.

3.

Communication campaigns to lead the way in making
plastic pollution a high-profile issue for policymakers
and businesses and mobilize stronger consumer
engagement.

48

BREAKING THE PLASTIC WAVE

4.

Grassroots community action to mobilize assistanceand resources for communities impacted by plastic
pollution and showcase inspirational early adopters toshare and disseminate best practices.

The role of consumers
The changes modelled under the System Change Scenarioentail significant shifts to consumer habits and behaviour.
Consumer demand has played and will continue to play acatalytic role in accelerating these changes. For example,
consumers expressing preferences for more sustainableproducts or services help build the business case forscaling plastic reductions and increasing recycling, and canmotivate businesses to go above and beyond their legal andregulatory responsibilities in addressing plastic pollution.
There are already strong signs of high consumer demandfor products with less plastic packaging,48 more recycledcontent,49 and sustainable brands,50 all of which could
translate into more buying choices.

Conclusion“Breaking the Plastic Wave” is not about fighting plastic, it isabout fighting plastic pollution. Taken together, our findings
on plastic pollution substantiate dire outlooks for the ocean
if we follow the current trajectory. They also highlight theeconomic exposure to the plastic industry in the absenceof resolute action. Yet our report also gives us great cause
for optimism: It shows that in 2040, about an 80 per centreduction in projected annual plastic leakage is possible
relative to Business-as-Usual—without compromising social
or economic benefits. But this pathway requires immediate
and collective global action. Achieving our vision of nearzero plastic leakage into the ocean is within reach if we allraise our ambitions.
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 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.

CONCLUSION

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

Endnotes
1
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

Association of Plastics Manufacturers in Europe and European
Association of Plastics Recycling and Recovery Organisations,“Plastics—the Facts 2018: An Analysis of European Plastics
Production, Demand and Waste Data” (2018), https://www.
plasticseurope.org/application/files/6315/4510/9658/Plastics_
the_facts_2018_AF_web.pdf
2

Grand View Research, “Plastics Market Size, Share and Trends
Analysis Report by Product (Pe, Pp, Pu, Pvc, Pet, Polystyrene,
Abs, Pbt, Ppo, Epoxy Polymers, Lcp, PC, Polyamide), by
Application, and Segment Forecasts, 2019-2025” (2019), https://www.researchandmarkets.com/reports/4751797/plasticsmarket-size-share-and-trends-analysis

3World Economic Forum, Ellen MacArthur Foundation,and McKinsey & Co., “The New Plastics Economy:
Rethinking the Future of Plastics” (2016), https://www.
ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/publications/the-new-plasticseconomy-rethinking-the-future-of-plastics
4

C. Ostle et al., “The Rise in Ocean Plastics Evidenced From a
60-Year Time Series,” Nature Communications 10 (2019), http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-09506-1
5

Ocean Conservancy, “Stemming the Tide: Land-Based
Strategies for a Plastic-Free Ocean” (2015), https://act.
oceanconservancy.org/news/stemming-the-tide.

6

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
7

S. Chiba et al., “Human Footprint in the Abyss: 30 Year Recordsof Deep-Sea Plastic Debris,” Marine Policy 96 (2018): 204-12,https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2018.03.022

8

J.L. Lavers and A.L. Bond, “Exceptional and Rapid Accumulationof Anthropogenic Debris on One of the World’s Most Remoteand Pristine Islands,” Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences 114, no. 23 (2017): 6052-55, http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/
pnas.1619818114

9R.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

10

N.J. Beaumont et al., “Global Ecological, Social and Economic
Impacts of Marine Plastic,” Marine Pollution Bulletin 142 (2019):
189-95, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2019.03.022

11

E.M. Duncan et al., “Microplastic Ingestion Ubiquitous in
Marine Turtles,” Global Change Biology 25, no. 2 (2019): 744-52,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14519

1250

BREAKING THE PLASTIC WAVE

13
Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, “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

14

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 PackagingAssociated Chemicals and Their Hazards,” Science of the Total
Environment 651 (2019): 3253-68, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
scitotenv.2018.10.015
15

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 etal., “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/2019tearfund-consortium-no-time-to-waste-en.pdf?la=en
16

World Economic Forum, Ellen MacArthur Foundation, andMcKinsey & Co., “The New Plastics Economy.”

17

Association of Plastics Manufacturers in Europe and European
Association of Plastics Recycling and Recovery Organisations,“Plastics—the Facts 2018.”

18

19

Ocean Conservancy, “Stemming the Tide.”

20

Ibid.

21

Azoulay et al., “Plastic and Health.”

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-studies-no-90en.pdf; World Health Organization, “Microplastics in DrinkingWater” (2019), https://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/publications/microplastics-in-drinking-water/en/

22

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
23

ENDNOTESClientEarth, “Risk Unwrapped: Plastic Pollution as a Material
Business Risk” (2018), https://www.documents.clientearth.org/
wp-content/uploads/library/2018-07-24-risk-unwrapped-plasticpollution-as-a-material-business-risk-ce-en.pdf
24

Association of Plastics Manufacturers in Europe and European
Association of Plastics Recycling and Recovery Organisations,“Plastics—the Facts 2019: An Analysis of European Plastics
Production, Demand and Waste Data” (2019), https://www.
plasticseurope.org/application/files/9715/7129/9584/FINAL_
web_version_Plastics_the_facts2019_14102019.pdf
25

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/s41558-018-0091-3
26

M. Taylor, “$180bn Investment in Plastic Factories Feeds
Global Packaging Binge,” The Guardian, Dec. 26, 2017, https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/dec/26/180bninvestment-in-plastic-factories-feeds-global-packaging-binge

37

GESAMP, “Sources, Fate and Effects of Microplastics.”

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-combat-arange-of-marine-litter-sources/
38

L. Lebreton et al., “Evidence That the Great Pacific Garbage
Patch Is Rapidly Accumulating Plastic,” Scientific Reports 8, no. 1(2018): 4666, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-22939-w

39

G. Macfadyen, T. Huntington, and R. Cappell, “Abandoned,
Lost or Otherwise Discarded Fishing Gear” (FAO Fisheries andAquaculture, 2009), http://www.fao.org/3/i0620e/i0620e00.
htm

40

27

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-and-microplasticsglobal-review-national28

29
Mango Materials, “Applications,” accessed 02/07/2020, http://mangomaterials.com/applications/

Full Cycle Bioplastics, “Full Cycle Bioplastics,” accessed March
11, 2020, http://fullcyclebioplastics.com/
30

United Nations Environment Programme and International
Solid Waste Association, “Global Waste Management Outlook”(2015), https://www.unenvironment.org/resources/report/
global-waste-management-outlook
31

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-Recyclability-Guidance.pdf
32European Commission, The Role of Waste-to-Energy in the
Circular Economy, (2017), https://ec.europa.eu/environment/
waste/waste-to-energy.pdf

41
Ibid.; Sherrington et al., “The Development of Measures to
Combat a Range of Marine Litter Sources.”
42
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

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-20171023-web.pdf
43

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
44

Sherrington et al., “The Development of Measures to Combat
a Range of Marine Litter Sources.”
45

Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development,
Business Enterprise R&D Expenditure by Industry, 2008-2017,
accessed Feb. 11, 2020, https://stats.oecd.org/viewhtml.
aspx?datasetcode=BERD_INDU&lang=en#
46

33

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

Based on global energy subsidies of $5.3T in 2017 according
to the IMF with petroleum & natural gas making up 51% andassuming 2% of those is used for petrochemicals = $53B

47

34

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

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/most-britssupport-ban-harmful-plastic-packaging

48

35

GRID-Arendal, “Controlling Transboundary Trade in Plastic
Waste (Grid-Arendal Policy Brief)” (2019), https://www.grida.no/
publications/443

49
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---/36

50
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

A Comprehensive Assessment of Pathways Towards Stopping Ocean Plastic Pollution

51

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

52

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

53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.

54

BREAKING THE PLASTIC WAVE

Caption
Ocean swells in Bali, Indonesia.
CREDIT
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