The chapter underscores the strategic importance of Southeast and East Asia, particularly the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, Japan, Korea and China (referred to as ASEAN Plus Three) – a region that accounts for nearly one-third of global GDP and contributes to over one-third of global plastic leakage – in addressing the global issue of plastic pollution. The Outlook provides the first comprehensive analysis for the region, examining the implications of current and more ambitious policy packages on plastics use, waste and environmental impacts to 2050. The chapter first reviews existing literature on plastics and plastic pollution and identifies key knowledge gaps that the Outlook seeks to address to support evidence-based, region-specific policy pathways to end plastic leakage. The chapter also outlines the methodology used, including a stocktake of existing policies, the collection of country-level data for plastics and the modelling of the plastic lifecycle for both Baseline and policy scenarios to 2050. The chapter concludes by highlighting key findings and emphasising the importance of targeted, tailored policy solutions across ASEAN Plus Three countries.
Regional Plastics Outlook for Southeast and East Asia
Abstract
While plastics are beneficial to modern societies and are used in numerous applications, plastic pollution is an urgent global concern, presenting a significant challenge in the transition towards sustainable economies. Widespread presence of plastics on land, in rivers and in oceans, harms biodiversity and creates risks to human health and livelihoods. The lifecycle of plastics is also contributing to emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) responsible for climate change.
The Southeast and East Asia region is of strategic importance in the fight against plastic pollution. The 10 Member States of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN)1, together with Japan, Korea and China, are a core part of this region. Together, these 13 countries form the “ASEAN Plus Three” (APT) region which is the focus of this Outlook. The APT accounts for nearly one-third of global GDP (OECD, 2020[1]) and plays a key role in global manufacturing and trade. Reflecting its economic weight, the region plays an important role in global plastics value chains: it hosts some of the world’s largest producers and consumers of plastic polymers and products, as well as several recycling hubs. Plastics use in the APT region has multiplied nearly ninefold since 1990 (from 17 million tonnes (Mt) to 152 Mt in 2022), far outpacing the global average, and now accounting for about one-third of global plastics use. This is driven by a remarkable population boom (30% increase between 1990 and 2022, leading to a population of 2.3 billion in 2022), rapid urbanisation, rising incomes (180% increase in GDP per capita, reaching USD 19.1 thousand in 2022), and a growing industrial base that demands increasing amounts of plastic inputs across most sectors.
More than half of the plastics used in APT have a lifespan below five years, including 32% going into packaging, that generally becomes waste very quickly. These short-lived plastics account for nearly two-thirds of the plastic waste. Plastic waste has grown from 10 Mt in 1990 to 113 Mt in 2022 in the region, currently accounting for 29% of global plastic waste.
At the same time, the region is marked by significant diversity in terms of economic development, urban expansion, industrial structure, levels of plastics use and waste management capabilities. Yearly per capita use varies significantly, from 32 kg per capita in lower middle-income countries (LMIC) in ASEAN and 73 kg in China to exceeding 100 kg in many high- and upper middle-income countries (HIC & UMIC) in ASEAN, as well as Japan (102 kg) and Korea (106 kg). Similarly, plastic intensity (plastics use per unit of GDP output) ranges from 2.2 tonnes per million USD in Indonesia to 4.9 tonnes per million USD in Thailand. This diversity within the APT extends to manufacturing and trade flows, with some countries being major exporters of plastic products, while others are net importers.
Growth in plastics use and waste has been accompanied by uneven progress in waste management and other policy measures across the APT. Some APT countries (e.g. Japan, Korea, Singapore) have well-developed systems that manage over 95% of municipal solid waste in an environmentally safe manner. In contrast, in many ASEAN countries, the expansion of formal waste collection and treatment systems has not kept pace with the growth in plastics use and waste (driven by rapid economic growth, rising living standards and urbanisation). The disparity within the region reflects differences in infrastructure, access to finance, as well as the complexities of the ongoing formalisation and professionalisation of the informal waste sectors in several ASEAN countries.
The APT region has become a hotspot for plastic pollution, mainly due to escalating waste generation and insufficient, albeit accelerating, improvements in waste management. Currently, the APT region accounts for more than one-third of the mismanaged plastic waste (i.e. waste not formally collected or safely disposed of) globally. Mismanaged plastic waste poses serious risks to human health and is a key driver of plastic leakage and pollution. While improvements in waste management have helped to reduce the share of waste that is mismanaged over time in the APT (from 60% in 1990 to 29% in 2022), absolute amounts of mismanaged waste have been rapidly increasing (driven by growing waste generation), reaching 33 Mt in 2022 (from 6 Mt in 1990). Almost half of the mismanaged waste in the APT occurs in ASEAN countries, and the other half mostly in China. While this Outlook focuses on leakage as the main metric for plastic pollution, practices such as open burning and waste dumping contribute to a broader range of environmental impacts, as well as human health risks and economic damages.
The unique geographical features of the APT region amplify the speed and scale at which mismanaged plastic waste can reach (i.e. leak to) the environment, in particular rivers and oceans. Many countries in the region, such as the Philippines, Malaysia and Indonesia, have extensive coastlines, densely populated coastal cities and proximity to major river systems, which represent key conduits for plastics to the oceans (Lebreton and Andrady, 2019[2]). High levels of rainfall and frequent extreme weather events can also accelerate the dispersal of mismanaged plastic waste from land to the ocean.
Although estimates vary, the APT region accounts for a large share of the total plastic waste that reaches the ocean annually (roughly between one-third and one-half of global) (Meijer et al., 2021[3]; OECD, 2022[4]). Seven out of the top 10 countries considered as the major contributors to plastic leakage to marine environments are in the APT, and ASEAN countries specifically host almost two-thirds of the top 50 rivers transporting plastics into the oceans (Meijer et al., 2021[3]). Over time, 65 Mt of plastics had accumulated in the region’s ocean, riverine and lake environments in the APT as of 2022 (which represents roughly one-third of global stock of plastics accumulated in aquatic environments).
The growing volume of mismanaged plastic waste is an acute issue for the region. It can threaten coastal ecosystems, as well as the economic activities they sustain such as fisheries and tourism. Mismanaged plastic waste also poses transboundary challenges as plastics travel across borders. The coastlines of the APT countries border some of the richest ocean ecosystems in the world. The ASEAN region is a biodiversity hotspot, home to 18% of the world’s fauna and flora species, more than one-third of the world’s total mangrove forests and about one-third of coral reefs surface areas (ASEAN Biodiversity Centre, n.d.[5]; Blanton et al., 2024[6]; Burke, Selig and Spalding, 2002[7]).
Plastic pollution, especially in the marine environment, harms many countries in the APT region that rely on the ocean to support livelihoods. The ocean economy represents an important share of the GDP in several APT countries; for instance, it accounts for up to 28% of GDP in Indonesia (Asian Development Bank, 2021[8]; OECD, 2021[9]; OECD, 2025[10]). The economic costs of plastic pollution, not least marine litter, are already substantial. Plastic litter damage to marine economies in the Asia-Pacific region has increased eight-fold since 2008, reaching USD 10.8 billion per year in 2015 (McIlgorm et al., 2022[11]). This includes costs of damage in marine tourism, the fisheries and aquaculture, marine transport and shipping sectors. Impacts are particularly severe in riverine and coastal ASEAN countries, that face disproportionately high exposure to marine debris while having limited adaptive capacity. Plastics used in agriculture, such as mulch films and irrigation components, also contribute significantly to plastic pollution (FAO, 2021[12]); this is a relevant issue for the APT region where many economies are heavily reliant on agriculture.
In response to current trends, tackling plastic pollution through better waste management has become a policy priority across the APT, both at the regional and national levels. Nonetheless, plastic waste and environmental impacts are still projected to substantially increase in the coming decades, in the APT region as well as globally. Moreover, plastic pollution is inherently transboundary: rivers as well as ocean currents carry plastics across jurisdictions. This means that countries may suffer the economic and environmental impacts of leakage that originated in neighbouring areas, or outside the APT region. These dynamics underscore the need for international and regional co-ordination, in addition to stringent policies implemented at regional and national levels.
Plastic pollution has emerged as a defining environmental challenge of the 21st century. Over the past decade, a series of influential studies has significantly advanced the understanding of plastic flows and their consequences on the environment, economy and health, as well as policy responses for tackling plastic pollution. This section synthesises findings from existing literature that informed the preparation of this Outlook, including global studies on plastic pollution and specifically on plastic pollution in aquatic environments, modelling efforts with various geographical scope, and national and regional policy reviews.
1.2.1. Understanding and quantifying global plastic flows and pollution
Jambeck et al. (2015[13]) provided the first global quantification of mismanaged plastic waste and flows to the oceans. Leveraging data on national waste generation and coastal population density, the study linked waste performance and varying stages of economic development across countries. This study drew attention to Asia (including the APT region) as a hotspot for marine plastic pollution, due to the high amounts of plastic waste near coastal areas and limited waste management capacities (in line with the levels of economic development). In particular, China, Indonesia, the Philippines, Viet Nam and Thailand emerged among the top countries contributing to marine plastic debris globally. While there are uncertainties and limitations in the estimates, due to data gaps and methodological assumptions, this early study laid the groundwork for subsequent analysis.
Geyer, Jambeck and Law (2017[14]) offered a comprehensive model with an overview of historical estimates for plastic flows throughout the lifecycle, at the global level but also with information on selected regions, including the APT. Being the first study to comprehensively quantify global cumulative production by eight industrial use sectors, four geographies and the most critical resins and fibres, the study identified China as the largest producer of synthetic plastic fibres (68% of global production of polypropylene and acrylic fibre output in 2015) and as a major resin producer (28% of global resin production). Nonetheless, the information on the rest of the APT region is limited, since results are grouped with the rest of the world.
Subsequent studies have provided more granular insights across geographic regions and polymers. Ryberg et al. (2019[15]) expanded on Geyer et al.’s work by mapping plastic flows for 14 polymers and 13 applications across 11 regional groups. The study covers the plastic lifecycle to generate estimates for plastics use, waste and end-of-life fates. Japan and China are analysed individually, while the rest of the APT region is grouped with other Asian countries (excluding India and Central Asia). The material flow analysis reveals marked variation in plastic leakage among the APT countries: for instance, China ranks first globally when assessing plastic leakage (in Mt), exceeding the leakage in the rest of Asia combined (excluding India, Central Asia and Japan). However, the study provides a snapshot of current trends without future projections.
While these studies provide the foundation for modelling efforts on plastics and plastic pollution, they are too coarse to fully account for the significant heterogeneity within the APT region as well as different polymers and stages of the plastic lifecycle. Conversely, the studies that try to achieve all three, for instance (Ryberg et al., 2019[15]), provide static analyses without future projections.
1.2.2. Studies on riverine transport and marine pollution
Several studies have focused on refining the understanding of aquatic plastic pollution and the role of rivers in transporting plastic waste to the ocean, both globally and in Asia (Lebreton et al., 2017[16]; Meijer et al., 2021[3]; Schmidt, Krauth and Wagner, 2017[17]). These analyses, ranging from regression-based estimations to high-resolution probabilistic approaches identify thousands of rivers globally as significant plastic leakage pathways, with APT countries emerging as consistent hotspots. Lebreton et al. (2017[16]) used a hydrological river routing model to trace mismanaged plastic waste transported from land to ocean, showing that thirteen of the top twenty polluting rivers are in the APT region. Similarly, at a country level, Meijer (2021[3]) further simulated leakage of macroplastics from over 100,000 river outlets, finding that six of the top ten countries with the most plastic-leaking rivers are in the APT region. Schmidt (2017[17]) used an empirical regression model based on river discharge and catchment-level mismanaged plastic waste, similarly finding that six of the ten most polluting river catchments are situated within the APT countries.
Lebreton and Andrady (2019[2]) extended the work of both Jambeck (2015[13]) and Lebreton (2017[16]) by integrating their methodologies into a single, spatially explicit, dynamic framework to make high-resolution estimates and projections to 2060 of mismanaged plastic waste using GDP and population as key drivers to assess the role of rivers in the transportation of litter to the ocean. The study identifies China as the largest source of mismanaged plastic waste, with the Philippines, Indonesia, Thailand, Viet Nam also contributing significantly. Meanwhile, the study suggests that Japan and Korea add marginally to mismanaged plastic waste, due to their highly developed waste management systems. Furthermore, they find that watersheds larger than 100 km2 transport 91% of total plastic into the ocean, suggesting that rivers are a major pathway for plastic to reach the ocean.
Many riverine models are spatially detailed, offering information on a variety of rivers that are in the APT region. However, since most of these studies emphasise physical transport pathways, they often have specific focus on the stages of riverine transport of plastics (i.e. before they reach the ocean). In addition, most analyses do not distinguish between polymer types in rivers and often only provide snapshots of current trends. The studies that do provide projections (Lebreton and Andrady, 2019[2]) do so mainly by including aggregate economic indicators (e.g. GDP) or limited policy scenarios. Thus, while these studies highlight APT countries as major contributors to plastic leakage, they do not account for several key details that play into the plastic leakage dynamics in the region.
1.2.3. Future projections and scenario-based policy analysis
More policy-focused studies have emerged in the following years with an increased emphasis on projections (UNEP, 2023[18]). Borrelle et al. (2020[19]) developed a comprehensive modelling framework to project future plastic pollution under business-as-usual and policy response scenarios, with long term predictions and country groupings based on income levels. The study found that the total amount of plastic waste that enters oceans could triple by 2040 (relative to 2016) without significant increases in policy stringency. While the study provides predictions with broad geographic coverage, countries are grouped based on income levels, making it difficult to apply the insights to the APT region. Lau et. al (2020[20]) employed similar country groupings by income level in their scenario-based policy assessment of global plastic pollution to 2040.
The OECD Global Plastics Outlook publications (2022[4]; 2022[21]) deploy multi-sectoral, multi-regional dynamic computable general equilibrium (CGE) modelling (using the ENV-Linkages), with 14 categories of polymers, endogenous policy interventions, full lifecycle tracking, trade-linked economic flows and 15 regions (including China). It provides an overview of the plastic lifecycle and environmental impacts, with projections and policy scenarios through to 2060. The two volumes of the OECD Global Plastics Outlook provide the first comprehensive global assessment of trends in plastics use, waste generation and leakage to the environment as well as policy levers to mitigate the environmental impacts of plastics and projections based on current trends and policy scenarios to 2060. A subsequent OECD report (2024[22]) discussed the environmental implications and economic consequences of policies in alternative scenarios that vary in which countries act, how stringent policies are and what stages of the plastic lifecycle they cover to end plastic pollution by 2040 globally. Due to the global scope, the previous OECD reports group 13 APT countries into different regions: “Other non-OECD Asia” (which includes the whole of ASEAN countries), “China” and “OECD Asia” (which consists of Japan and Korea).
Additional studies have produced models with regional or country-level specificity and granularity by polymers and plastic applications. The report "Breaking the Plastic Wave" by The Pew Charitable Trust and Systemiq (2020[23]) provides a comprehensive overview on the lifecycle of plastics, from production to end-of-life fates and environmental impacts. The underlying model integrates plastic material flow modelling and environmental impacts, with macro-regional granularity and policy scenarios. Later work by Systemiq (2023[24]; 2024[25]) extends the work of the original model by integrating 15 global policies across different sectors, polymer type and regions and incorporating a regional scenario explorer tool. These reports include details for specific regions (with countries grouped by geography or income levels), although extracting insights for the APT countries beyond China remains challenging.
Pottinger’s et al. (2024[26]) use a machine learning-based model within a Monte Carlo simulation based on historical mass flow data and key socio-economic indicators to forecast future trends in plastic production, use, and waste under various policy scenarios in four regions, one being China. By integrating both regional and polymer-level dynamics into the modelling framework, the study finds that China is projected to account for approximately 34% of global plastic waste generated by 2030, and 10% of total mismanaged plastic waste under the Business-as-Usual scenario. Other APT countries are grouped with the ‘Majority of the World’ making it difficult to identify pertinent findings for each country in the region.
Houssini et al. (2025[27]) present a trade-linked global material flow analysis for 2022. As with previous studies, the analysis divides the APT region into China, Japan and groups the rest of APT countries into “Other Asia” along with many other countries in the continent. The study finds that countries in “Other Asia” are the largest importers of plastic waste, globally. Within the region, Malaysia accounts for the highest share of plastic waste imports (24%), receiving a total of 0.35 Mt. It was followed by Viet Nam (21%), Indonesia (13%), and Thailand (12%). Their results on China and Japan are more granular, revealing that the former dominates the global plastics supply chain as the largest producer, consumer, and exporter of final plastic products, while the latter experiences modest results. Cottom et. al (2024[28]) conduct a dynamic material flow analysis and find that Southeast Asia ranks third and East Asia ranks fifth among world regions by highest per capita levels of leakage of macroplastics into the environment in 2020, distinguishing by leakage source (open burned plastics and debris) and by settlement type (e.g. rural or urban).
Although recent studies incorporate an expansive set of economic and environmental data as well as, policy scenarios, they often rely on archetypal groupings (e.g., income) which obscure country-level insights for the APT region. Studies that adopt a geographic lens tend to analyse China as an individual country, while aggregating the rest of the APT region with broader groups of countries. Consequently, modelling studies offering combined polymer-specific and country-level dynamic projections across the plastic lifecycle are typically limited in their granularity of insights beyond China, Japan, or a few other major economies.
1.2.4. Regional and country level studies in Southeast and East Asia
There are several studies that provide regional insights for selected APT countries or groupings such as the ASEAN. There are some studies exploring the topic of plastic pollution in the Southeast and East Asia, particularly in relation to marine pollution (Omeyer et al., 2022[29]; Hermawan and Astuti, 2021[30]) and microplastic pollution (Nakano et al., 2025[31]; Chen et al., 2021[32]). The ASEAN has also produced reports outlining the main challenges, present status and potential solutions to marine debris in the region (ASEAN Secretariat, 2021[33]) and plastics management (Akenji and Bengtsson, 2019[34]). Furthermore, the ASEAN has also published research in collaboration with the World Bank, focusing on topics such as comparable national and regional tracking systems (ASEAN, 2024[35]). In addition, a recent study provided a regional assessment of plastic circularity innovations and solid waste management systems in six ASEAN countries (World Bank, 2024[36]). Other regional studies have included a different set of APT countries, exploring marine microplastics (Isobe et al., 2015[37]), macroplastics (Walther et al., 2020[38]) and debris (Kako et al., 2014[39]). The limited number of studies that focus on (a subset of) the APT countries, have largely been qualitative, focusing on areas including policy responses to tackle plastic pollution (Akenji et al., 2020[40]) and identification of gaps in scientific research conducted in the region (Lyons et al., 2020[41]).
At the national level, Lyons et. al. (2020[41]) reviewed a total of 371 scientific research papers produced in APT countries, and found that the top countries by number of publications were China (129), followed by Korea (67) and Indonesia (64). Country-level plastic material flow analyses are emerging, focusing on a range of APT countries including China (Luan et al., 2021[42]; Luan et al., 2021[42]), Thailand (Kamsook et al., 2022[43]; Bureecam, Chaisomphob and Sungsomboon, 2018[44]), Indonesia (Amin, Strik and van Leeuwen, 2022[45]; Putri, Fujimori and Takaoka, 2018[46]), the Philippines (Martinico-Perez, Schandl and Tanikawa, 2018[47]) Viet Nam (Le Dinh, Fujiwara and Phu, 2025[48]), Korea (Lee et al., 2021[49]; Choi et al., 2024[50]) and Japan (Nakatani, Maruyama and Moriguchi, 2020[51]), with varying degrees of geographical and value-chain coverage, polymer-type granularity and dynamic future projections. Country-based assessments on Indonesia provided by SYSTEMIQ and the Pew Charitable Trusts (2020[23]) has been adapted by the World Bank to develop national projections and policy scenario analysis, for instance for the purpose of informing the drafting of Indonesia’s action plan on plastic pollution (2020[52]). The World Bank has also conducted country-level research on Viet Nam (2021[53]), Thailand (2021[54]), the Philippines (2021[55]), Malaysia (2021[56]), with all of them highlighting economic opportunities of better material recovery through improved recycling.
Overall, the available literature recognises the APT as a critical region for tackling plastic pollution, but there is not a comprehensive point of reference with data and insights tailored to the region. Available modelling efforts are largely focused on global or macro-regional levels and usually also do not consider country-specific information on the current status of policies. On the other hand, while there is a wealth of studies for the APT countries, these generally do not comprehensively cover the plastic lifecycle, differences across applications and sectors, environmental impacts, and cross-country impacts in the region. There is a notable gap in granular yet comprehensive analysis that offers tailored insights for the APT countries.
Southeast and East Asia, and the APT countries at the heart of it, is a critical geography for understanding and addressing plastic pollution. This Regional Plastics Outlook offers a comprehensive overview on the plastic lifecycle, its economic drivers and environmental impacts in the APT. It provides a set of coherent projections to 2050, as well as policy scenarios. This long-term perspective allows for the evaluation of the potential benefits and economic implications of policy action, taking into account the specific national circumstances and policies of countries in the region.
This Outlook contributes to the existing literature in several ways:
1. It presents current and granular estimates for the lifecycle of plastics, including use, waste, end-of-life fates and environmental impacts, reconciling many strands of published data sources for the APT region.
2. It provides qualitative reviews and evaluations of current policy status, implementation and effectiveness across all 13 APT countries.
3. It presents forward-looking projections to 2050, based on a dynamic modelling framework that links economic flows to plastic flows.
4. It applies tailored policy scenarios to the APT region to generate specific, regionally relevant policy insights.
By examining trends, policies and potential future pathways, this Outlook aims to guide both domestic and regional strategies to end plastic pollution. It can also support future discussions on implementation of an international legally-binding treaty on plastic pollution.
This Outlook provides an integrated assessment that combines quantitative modelling with qualitative policy analysis. The modelling approach builds on the comprehensive methodology developed for the OECD Global Plastics Outlook publications (2022[4]; 2022[21]) and refined in the subsequent report with alternative policy scenarios (OECD, 2024[22]). The modelling framework is summarised in Annex 1.A. Alongside quantitative modelling, this Outlook includes a policy inventory and assessment across the plastic lifecycle for all 13 APT countries.
1.4.1. Data compilation
This Outlook uses an extension of the existing OECD modelling framework to enable a more granular representation of the APT region. By comparison, previous OECD modelling efforts provide data and insights for 15 macro-regions. Despite significant progress in recent years, data gaps persist in the region and remain a source of uncertainty in the projections.
The database for this Outlook was developed through collection and reconciliation of national-level data for economic activity, plastics use, waste generation and end-of-life fates for all 13 APT countries, complemented by a review of the existing literature and expert input. The database spans the history of the large-scale industrial production of plastics from 1950 to the present day.
The added value of the database is the compilation of plastic indicators in a coherent framework. This information was then integrated in an economic model, which ensures that all data sources are integrated into a consistent framework and allows for analysis of the economic drivers and environmental effects of plastics. To this end, the OECD ENV-Linkages model (Chateau, Dellink and Lanzi, 2014[57]), based on the Global Trade Analysis Project (GTAP) database (Aguiar et al, 2019[58]), has been revised and expanded to link data on plastics in volumes to the economic flows in the model (as described in (Bibas et al., 2022[59])). ENV-Linkages splits plastic production into primary plastics and secondary plastics technologies and maps plastics use by polymer and application to the model sectors. The data, methodology and main assumptions used for each step and each country are summarised in Annex 1.B.
1.4.2. The quantitative modelling approach
Plastics are used in a wide range of applications, including packaging, construction, and transport. Polymers with different structural or chemical attributes are often combined or "compounded" with supplementary additives to improve function and utility for unique/diverse applications (OECD, 2022[4]). Modelling all the interactions between plastics and the economic system, as well as the environmental consequences, while taking this diversity into account, requires a detailed and consistent modelling framework. The modelling of economic flows, plastics use, plastic waste and environmental impacts involves several steps and tools. The full details of the modelling are provided in OECD (2022[60]). Key steps include:
Economic and plastic flows modelling: The OECD’s computable general equilibrium (CGE) model ENV-Linkages (Chateau, Dellink and Lanzi, 2014[57]) is used as the basis. In this model, sectoral and economic projections are used to project the evolution of plastic production and use over time. These are linked to waste generation, using average product lifespan data, and further broken down by end-of-life fate (i.e. recycled, incinerated, landfilled, mismanaged or littered). Calculation of waste treatment fates includes an assessment of recycling losses, i.e. plastics that are collected for recycling, but end up incinerated or landfilled. Trade in plastic products (in economic values) and trade in plastic waste (in physical volumes) are also taken into account.
Environmental impact projections: The model generates projections for environmental impacts including leakage of (macro)plastics to the environment and emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG). Specifically, plastic leakage is attributed to the region where it enters the environment and stems from three distinct sources: (i) leakage of mismanaged waste, (ii) leakage of littered items and (iii) leakage from marine activities. This Outlook does not provide detailed estimates and projections on microplastic leakage for the APT; these are discussed in Chapter 2, based on previous estimates available in (OECD, 2022[4]; OECD, 2022[21]).The model details leakage specifically going to aquatic environments, based on a probabilistic model developed by Lebreton (explained in the Global Plastics Outlook, adapted from (Borrelle et al., 2020[19]) and (Meijer et al., 2021[3])) that estimates the likelihood of mismanaged plastics entering freshwater and marine systems. This modelling was further enhanced to assess the international transport of plastic pollution in the marine environment (adapted from (Chassignet, Xu and Zavala-Romero, 2021[61])).
The APT regional modelling provides data and insights for 5 countries and two modelled groups of countries: Indonesia, Thailand, China, Japan and Korea, as well as two groups of ASEAN countries, as summarised in Table 1.1. In other words, two of the ten ASEAN countries are individually modelled, while the remaining eight are aggregated into two composite groupings due to modelling and data constraints. The grouping follows the World Bank income classification, with one group for three high- and upper middle-income countries and another for five lower middle-income countries (World Bank, 2024[62])). Estimates and projections are also provided for the rest of the world, grouped into ten macro regions and three major economies (USA, Canada and India; see Annex Table 1.A.3 for details). The time horizon for this Outlook is to 2050.
Notes: A full list of modelled regions is provided in Annex Table 1.A.3. In the visualisation of the results in this Outlook, countries and regions are sometimes further aggregated to improve readability of the information presented.
The modelling and analysis in this Outlook rest on a number of crucial assumptions and there are important limitations. These include the availability and quality of country-level data, limitations to the details of economic and plastic flows that can be captured in the modelling, including socioeconomic drivers, improvements in recycling and waste management systems, the need for international co-operation and finance. Many of these considerations and their implications for the interpretation of the results, have been discussed in previous OECD reports (2022[4]; 2022[21]; OECD, 2024[22]) and are not repeated here.
1.4.3. The qualitative policy analysis
The qualitative policy analysis aims at painting the policy landscape across the APT region, examining the current situation and policy plans for each country. Based on a policy inventory (OECD, 2025[63]), this Outlook summarises the current policy initiatives by country for four main policy levers (curb production and demand, design for circularity, enhance recycling and close leakage pathways, respectively). The analysis examines the presence of various policy instruments, the implementation status and the overall level of policy enforcement. The review of the status of current waste management systems and infrastructure in APT countries is outlined in Chapter 2. In total, the assessment provides insights into the policy landscape through 32 policy indicators across the 13 APT countries.
The inventory systematically assesses policy interventions based on national documents (plans, policies, legislation, press releases, reports, presentations, etc.); literature; independent policy assessments and reviews; media articles (investigations, press releases, etc.); conference documents (such as UNCRD's Regional 3R and Circular Economy Forum in Asia and the Pacific); international organisation documents and databases (World Bank, GIZ, etc.); and industrial and grey sources.3 Given the differences in definitions, scope and data availability across countries, potentially all the policies may not be exhaustively covered in this analysis.
The final step in the qualitative policy analysis was the review of the draft inventory and ensuing policy landscape assessment by reginal experts, including from government officials from the countries involved, as well as experts from the Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES) and the network from Economic Research Institute for ASEAN and East Asia (ERIA).
1.5.1. Policy action is accelerating in APT, but it remains uneven and significant challenges persist
Rising concerns on plastic pollution have led to a scale up of policy action across the region. The ASEAN Member States signed the ASEAN Framework of Action on Marine Debris and the Bangkok Declaration on Combating Marine Debris (ASEAN, 2019[64]; ASEAN, 2019[65]), and later launched the ASEAN Regional Action Plan for Combating Marine Debris in the ASEAN Member States (2021-2025) (ASEAN, 2021[66]). At the APT level, promoting the development of circular economy action plans, and addressing the issue of marine plastic debris both feature as items for co-operation in the ASEAN Plus Three Cooperation Work Plan 2023-2027 (ASEAN Plus Three, 2022[67]).
APT countries are adopting national plans, roadmaps and policy measures, laying the groundwork for systemic change. Nine out of thirteen APT countries have developed national plans on plastics or marine litter, while discussions are ongoing in the other four. Many of these plans contain explicit targets to reduce plastic leakage and pollution, including through increasing recycling, phasing out specific plastic products or slowing down waste generation, signalling a shift from fragmented interventions toward more structured approaches.
Positive trends are beginning to emerge and encouraging progress can be observed in several areas. Figure 1.1 shows a summary snapshot of the policy landscape in the APT region. The policy landscape shows that policies aimed at closing leakage pathways (i.e. improving waste collection, sorting and management) are present in most countries, although they could be more strictly enforced. Efforts to formalise the informal waste sector, which often forms the backbone of recycling in many ASEAN countries, are slowly advancing in places like Indonesia and Viet Nam. The share of plastic waste that is mismanaged has also been gradually declining, especially where collection systems have expanded more rapidly. As a result, plastic leakage rates (leakage as a share of the total plastic waste) into the environment have started to fall in some countries, indicating that policy measures are starting to have an impact, even if still limited in scope.
While policy action is growing in APT countries, the degree of policy maturity and implementation varies widely across the region, notably for waste management systems and capacities. Countries such as Japan, Korea and Singapore have well-developed systems that manage over 95% of municipal solid waste and where less than 1% is mismanaged. Meanwhile, despite the improvements in waste collection systems and environmentally safe waste management, 26% of waste in China is still mismanaged, suggesting there are still opportunities for further progress, particularly in rural and remote areas. Most ASEAN countries face severe challenges, with the share of mismanaged waste at 70% on average in ASEAN LMIC. Logistical and geographic challenges play a major role in limiting waste collection in rural and remote areas, especially in archipelagic countries like Indonesia and the Philippines. This disparity reflects differences in infrastructure, access to finance, as well as the complexities of the ongoing transition relating to the formalisation of informal waste sectors in several ASEAN countries.
For each policy instrument, the share represents the number of countries (out of the 13 APT countries).
Source: Authors’ inventories; see more information in the technical document (OECD, 2025[63]).
Policies aimed at incentivising sorting at source and recycling, as well as outcomes in terms of recycling rates, also reflect wide heterogeneity across the region. Japan and Korea have well-established extended producer responsibility (EPR) schemes for several product groups and employ advanced instruments such as pay-as-you-throw schemes for household waste charges. Several ASEAN countries are rolling out EPR schemes for packaging, including Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Viet Nam. Nine APT countries have adopted certification and labelling schemes for plastic products and packaging, including for the presence of recycled content. Overall, the APT region collectively achieved the average recycling rate of 12% in 2022 – above the global average (10%). However, there are wide disparities across APT countries. Recycling output is expanding in ASEAN countries, but it is lagging behind other countries due to infrastructure limitations and geographic challenges that weaken the economic case for recycling. There are persisting challenges in ensuring the quality and safety of recycled plastics, as well as in increasing and sustaining the demand for recycled plastics. Countries with advanced policies such as Japan and Korea can still make significant progress in e.g. reducing recycling losses and improving recycling for hard-to-recycle polymers.
Policies aimed at curbing plastic production and demand, and designing for circularity are still in the early stages, with an heterogenous picture across the APT. Seven countries have announced or are planning bans on certain single-use plastics, sometimes also introduced at the sub-national or municipal level. Several APT countries including Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Thailand, China, Japan and Korea, employ (or are starting to employ) policy measures aimed at promoting design for circularity of plastics and plastic products, with a focus on design for recyclability and the use of recycled materials. Most APT countries have some form of regulation on hazardous substances. However, interventions to promote reduction, reuse or longer lifespans of plastic products remain largely untapped across the APT.
Overall, there is substantial scope for improving the effectiveness of policies. Key challenges across the APT include limited action on mid- and upstream measures such as eco-design and demand reduction. Several key challenges need to be overcome, including lack of institutional capacity and resources. While enforcement is robust in high-income countries like Japan, Korea and Singapore, it is weak or uneven in many other APT countries. In many ASEAN LMIC, there are issues of low coverage of waste collection in rural and peri-urban areas as well as underdeveloped support for the informal waste sector and poor enforcement capacity. Meanwhile, limitations in both data quality and availability remain cross-cutting barriers to effective policy implementation and monitoring across many APT countries.
1.5.2. Despite current policies, plastic pollution will substantially increase by 2050 in the Baseline scenario
Global plastic waste and leakage to the environment are projected to substantially increase in the coming decades unless ambitious policy action is taken (OECD, 2024[22]; OECD, 2022[21]). The APT region is not an exception. Despite policy progress, the outlook for plastics in the APT is alarming. Under current policies (Baseline scenario), plastics use, waste and pollution are projected to grow. Plastics use is projected to nearly double in the APT between 2022 and 2050, to reach 280 Mt (from 152 Mt in 2022; see Figure 1.2), driven by the continued rise in income and living standards, especially in ASEAN countries where economic development and urbanisation will accelerate. While population growth is expected to slow down across the APT region (albeit not in all ASEAN countries), economic convergence (i.e. faster income growth in ASEAN LMIC) and the expansion of middle-class consumption will sustain strong demand for plastic-intensive goods and services.
Mt for use, waste and leakage, percentage for recycling rate
Note: Percentages presented above the bars represent the share in the global value (for recycling, it reflects the amount of recycled plastics in APT over the global amount)
Source: OECD ENV-Linkages model.
The share of the ASEAN economies in plastics use in the APT is projected to increase (from 19% in 2022 to 30% in 2050), as their economies develop faster than those of the Plus Three. The fastest growth in plastics use is projected in ASEAN LMIC, where rising incomes and expanding urban populations are expected to drive surges in plastics use. In contrast, per capita plastics use in high-income countries such as Japan and Korea is expected to stabilise or even slightly decline. Nonetheless, total waste volumes will double across the region by 2050, driven not least by packaging (from 49 Mt in 2022 to 91 Mt in 2050).
Recycling is expected to continue to improve in several countries, notably Japan (from 14% to 26% between 2022 and 2050), Korea (from 10% to 22%), and China (from 14% to 21%), driven by current policies and rising demand for recycled materials. Current recycling rates are significantly lower in ASEAN LMIC than the rest of the APT, and they are projected to stay behind the APT average. However, even with improvements in recycling rates, the production of secondary plastics is projected to grow more slowly than primary plastics, meaning primary plastic production will continue to account for 88% of plastics demand in the APT in 2050 (compared to 92% in 2022), with modest circularity and environmental gains.
Under current policies, the volume of mismanaged plastic waste could increase over time, particularly in countries with weak waste management infrastructure and enforcement. In recent decades, improvements in waste management have helped to reduce the share of waste that is mismanaged in the APT (from 60% in 1990 to 29% in 2022), but absolute amounts of mismanaged waste have been rapidly increasing due to escalating waste generation levels. In the absence of more ambitious policies, these trends will continue (with mismanaged waste in the APT increasing from 33 Mt in 2022 to 56 Mt in 2050). Growing volume of mismanaged waste heightens environmental and economic risks, especially in lower middle-income countries and poses health threats to vulnerable communities exposed to openly burned waste.
Plastic leakage to the environment is also projected to rise significantly, from 8.4 Mt to 14.1 Mt annually by 2050. The region would account for 35% of global leakage in 2050. Importantly, continued plastic leakage suggests that the accumulation of plastics aquatic environments (rivers, lakes, and oceans) also continue to increase. By mid-century, the total stock of plastics in these environments within the APT region could reach 181 Mt (40% of global total), representing a major global environmental burden. Coastal and riverine areas, especially in ASEAN countries, may bear the disproportionate brunt of environmental and economic damages.
Plastics that leak into the environment persist and often cross borders, accumulating in (neighbouring) countries. ASEAN LMIC in particular frequently receive plastic waste from wealthier APT countries (while relatively little plastics flow in the opposite direction). This pattern is likely to continue through to 2050, highlighting the urgent need for collaborative action across the region.
These trends imply that the APT will remain a hotspot region for plastics: projected plastics use, waste and recycling are projected to grow as fast in the APT as the global average, and thus the share of APT is expected to remain roughly constant at around the third of the global total. For plastic leakage, the faster growth in low- and middle-income countries in the rest of the world, including in non-APT Asia and Africa, imply that the share of the APT in global leakage is projected to decline from 38% in 2022 to 35% in 2050.
1.5.3. Action throughout the plastic lifecycle in the APT in the High Stringency scenario can nearly eliminate plastic leakage in the region by 2050
Action across the lifecycle of plastics is required to mitigate plastic pollution (OECD, 2022[21]; OECD, 2024[22]). The ten instruments included in the policy analysis in this Outlook fall into four broad policy levers that represent entry points along the plastic lifecycle: (i) curb production and demand (hereafter curb demand), (ii) design for circularity of plastic products and packaging, (iii) enhance recycling, by improving the separate collection, sorting and recycling of plastic waste, and (iv) close leakage pathways (or, minimise losses into the environment), by strengthening waste collection, sorting and management.
A global approach to ending plastic pollution delivers the largest global benefits at minimal costs, while also reducing the transfer of plastics in aquatic environments from other regions (Global High Stringency scenario); it is also essential to address global plastic pollution beyond the APT region. However, even if efforts fall short of the ambition required to eliminate plastic leakage in the rest of the world, ambitious policy across the plastic lifecycle in the APT region (High Stringency scenario) can already deliver substantial regional benefits without compromising the region’s competitiveness.
An ambitious policy mix targeting all four policy levers can limit total plastics use in 2050 to 201 Mt in the APT region (compared to 280 Mt in the Baseline scenario). Perhaps more importantly, all the growth in plastics demand above 2022 levels can be met through secondary plastic production in this scenario, thereby preventing the environmental burdens associated with primary production from escalating further. As a direct result of the reduction in plastics use, plastic waste is projected to decrease to 186 Mt (compared to 242 Mt in the Baseline scenario).
As also outlined in previous OECD reports (2024[22]; 2022[21]), policies to slow down plastics demand and waste generation (including extending product lifespans through eco-design and reuse, and targeting the most problematic plastics via phaseouts, bans or taxes) are critical to mitigate plastic pollution and contain the costs of the transition. As these interventions may lead to material substitutions, careful analysis are useful to compare the environmental, health and economic impacts of substitutes and alternatives.
In the High Stringency scenario, recycling is projected to become the dominant waste treatment option, boosting the average recycling rate in the APT region to 54% (relative to 19% in the Baseline scenario). In line with the waste hierarchy, incineration volumes are not hugely affected, but landfilling volumes can be reduced as recycling rates are boosted. Furthermore, mismanaged waste in the APT region is reduced to near zero levels, 4 which is a prerequisite for eliminating plastic leakage (Figure 1.3).
Mt for use, waste and leakage
Note: Scales differ by panel.
Source: OECD ENV-Linkages model.
Comparing plastic leakage rates in the APT countries to the global, OECD and non-OECD averages clearly illustrates the position of the APT (Table 1.2). In the Baseline scenario, current policies bring down plastic leakage rates in ASEAN more rapidly (from 14.2% in 2022 to 10.9% in 2050) than global (from 5.6% to 5.1%) or non-OECD (from 9.5% to 7.6%) averages.5 Yet it is also indicative of the uneven progress and the persisting challenge in ending plastic leakage, especially in ASEAN LMIC (from 17.8% on average to 13.2%). In the High Stringency scenario, the differences in the leakage rate across APT countries are much smaller (ranging from 0.1% to 0.3% across countries), as all APT countries aim to eliminate plastic leakage.
Share of plastic waste that leaks to the environment.
Note: The reduction in volume shows the difference between the projected levels in the High Stringency and Baseline scenarios in 2050. Leakage rates are not assumed to be eliminated for countries outside the APT in this scenario; rather a moderate reduction is projected outside the APT.
Rest of ASEAN – LMIC includes Cambodia, Lao PDR, Myanmar, Philippines, Viet Nam; Rest of ASEAN – HIC & UMIC includes Brunei Darussalam, Malaysia, Singapore.
Source: OECD ENV-Linkages model.
1.5.4. The costs of the High Stringency scenario are modest overall, but represent a higher share of GDP for ASEAN LMIC
The macroeconomic costs of the High Stringency scenario remain modest at 0.8% of GDP in 2050 for the APT region as a whole (Figure 1.4).6 However, these costs are unequally borne: ASEAN LMIC are confronted with a loss in GDP of almost 3% of Baseline GDP in 2050. These countries require a more extensive and larger overhaul of their economic system and plastic lifecycle than ASEAN HIC & UMIC. These losses should, however, be seen in the context of relatively fast Baseline GDP growth, and exclude a valuation of the benefits of policy action in the form of reduced damages from plastic pollution. Such benefits are especially strong in the more vulnerable, developing countries (Agnelli and Tortora, 2022[68]).
Eliminating plastic leakage in the APT will require significant investments in waste management amounting to around USD 1.1 trillion between 2022 and 2050. For the APT as a whole, these investments are very similar in the High Stringency and Baseline scenarios, as additional costs for recycling are almost fully compensated by reduced costs for the other treatment categories. Specifically, the costs of collection are lower in the policy scenario as less waste is generated, while costs for landfilling and incineration are reduced as a larger share of waste is recycled. In other words, the policy scenario induces a shift in costs between treatment categories rather than a mere expansion. A strategic realignment of investments into waste management is required, prioritising recycling over other management options, and eliminating mismanaged waste by increasing waste collection, sorting and litter collection. Only in the countries with currently relatively low collection rates and high mismanaged waste shares do the costs of collection increase beyond the Baseline. This is because in these regions a much larger share of a smaller total waste stream will be collected and sorted.
Percentage change from Baseline 2050 for GDP, USD bln for waste management costs
Note: Rest of ASEAN – LMIC includes Cambodia, Lao PDR, Myanmar, Philippines, Viet Nam; Rest of ASEAN – HIC & UMIC includes Brunei Darussalam, Malaysia, Singapore.
Source: OECD ENV-Linkages model.
At the sectoral level in APT, plastics-intensive sectors, including chemicals, textiles and motor vehicles are most severely affected by ambitious policies, as they are confronted with significant cost increases due to e.g. the plastic tax that is imposed to curb plastics demand (Figure 1.5). The effect on plastic production itself is limited in the absence of explicit policies in the instrument mix to limit plastic production; and further diminished by the possibility for producers to turn to the global market to maintain production levels. The main effect on plastic production is a shift from primary production to secondary production (not shown in this chart). The substitution away from plastic products in the High Stringency scenario benefits alternative material sectors, including the pulp, paper, and publishing sector, the non-metallic minerals sector and iron and steel manufacturing. These substitute-providing sectors stand to benefit from shifts in demand driven by the policy lever on designing for circularity.
Furthermore, changes in international trade patterns can either worsen or alleviate the economic consequences of reduced plastic production, and what drives trade results is how the impacts of the policy package compare to the impacts on foreign competitors. The country-specific reliance on the plastics sector or on sectors that produce substitutes for plastics is therefore one of the important determinants of the macroeconomic impacts.
Sectoral output change in 2050 in the APT region in the High Stringency scenario with respect to Baseline
Source: OECD ENV-Linkages model.
1.5.5. The Differentiated Ambition scenario delivers worse environmental outcomes and leads to higher waste management costs
An alternative scenario, Differentiated Ambition, assumes that high- and upper middle-income countries in the region (Brunei Darussalam, Malaysia and Singapore, Thailand, and Japan, Korea and China) implement more stringent policies than the lower middle-income countries (Indonesia, Cambodia, Lao PDR, Myanmar, the Philippines and Viet Nam). In addition, this scenario assumes more stringent policies downstream in the lifecycle (i.e. to enhance recycling and close leakage pathways) than mid- and upstream (i.e. to curb demand and design for circularity). The scenario thus explores the environmental and economic implications of less ambitious policies in the APT region than what is assumed in the High Stringency scenario. In the Differentiated Ambition scenario, high- and upper middle-income APT countries adopt (i) low stringency for policy levers to curb demand and design for circularity, and (ii) high stringency for levers to enhance recycling and close leakage pathways. In contrast, lower middle-income APT countries (i) adopt low stringency for levers to enhance recycling and close leakage pathways, and (ii) maintain current policies (Baseline) for the other two policy levers.
In the Differentiated Ambition scenario, plastics use in the APT region is substantially above 2022 levels, and only moderately below Baseline 2050 levels, leading to levels of plastics use of 260 Mt in 2050. This figure is significantly above the 201 Mt projected under the High Stringency scenario, with the gap widening over time as lower ambition policies prove insufficient to curb demand. On average, plastics use in 2050 is about 7% lower than the Baseline, with country-level reductions ranging from 5.5% in Indonesia to 12% in Japan. Generally, high- and upper middle-income countries achieve greater reductions than lower middle-income countries, as the former adopt additional policies to curb demand while the latter maintain current policies.
A key bottleneck to eliminating plastic pollution in this scenario is the continued increase in total plastic waste (229 Mt in 2050, versus 186 Mt for the High Stringency scenario), which makes it harder to adequately collect, sort and treat all plastic waste. Although both High Stringency and Differentiated Ambition scenarios result in significant improvements in the average recycling rates in the APT region (54% and 49%, respectively), the amount of mismanaged waste diverges, with mismanaged waste projected to amount to 18 Mt by 2050 in the APT region in the Differentiated Ambition scenario (vs. 1.5 Mt in the High Stringency scenario and 33 Mt in 2022), despite the emphasis on downstream policies. The biggest contributions come from countries with large waste volumes and significant shares of mismanaged waste, notably China (low mismanaged waste share but very high volumes of waste) and the lower middle-income ASEAN countries (which have significant mismanaged waste shares).
Unlike in the High Stringency scenario in which plastic leakage is almost eliminated, annual plastic leakage in the APT region amounts to 4.6 Mt by 2050 in the Differentiated Ambition scenario, i.e. a stream of plastics continues to flow into the environment, a significant portion of which ends up in rivers, lakes and oceans, resulting in worse environmental and human health outcomes within the region.
The macroeconomic costs of the Differentiated Ambition scenario in the APT region are somewhat higher than in the High Stringency scenario. Thus, choosing a high ambition level for action to end plastic pollution does not only make environmental sense, but is also economically more efficient. At the country levels, the picture is more nuanced, however. Specifically, it is costly for the ASEAN LMIC with high Baseline mismanaged waste shares to achieve high recycling rates (as in the High Stringency scenario), and lower ambition levels in the Differentiated Ambition scenario imply smaller and thus less costly adjustments. In contrast, the Plus Three countries can benefit from improvements in their competitive position under the more stringent policy scenario, driven not least by the positive economic effects of the eco-design policies. For the APT as a whole, the more balanced policy package across the plastic lifecycle in the High Stringency scenario protects the competitive position of regional producers better than the Differentiated Ambition policy scenario.
The differentiated costs of ambitious policies in the APT region point to a need for regional and international co-operation to support the countries facing the difficulty in financing, which also bear the biggest environmental burdens. Nonetheless, competitiveness concerns should not deter the APT region from increasing their domestic ambition on plastics policies, as long as they adopt a whole-of-lifecycle approach to tackling plastic pollution.
Deviation from Baseline in 2050
Source: OECD ENV-Linkages model.
1.5.6. A High Stringency scenario in the APT can end plastic leakage regionally, but a Global High Stringency scenario is essential to protect shared global commons
A key insight from the scenarios presented above is that the APT holds the ability to reduce plastic pollution generated within the region. In the High Stringency scenario, APT countries can virtually eliminate mismanaged plastic waste and plastic leakage to the environment, achieving large regional benefits.
Moreover, variations in policy ambition outside the APT have limited economic impacts on the APT. Stringent policies to tackle plastic pollution implemented in countries outside the APT result in a negative impact on their economies compared to the scenarios with laxer policies. This also reduces demand for goods and services from the APT region, affecting the Plus Three countries in particular. However, as the macroeconomic differences are rather small, the analysis of different policy scenarios suggests that a “go-high-alone” strategy in the APT region in the High Stringency scenario can deliver large environmental gains at economic costs that are as modest as in the other scenarios. This hinges especially on the balancing of downstream policies with equally stringent mid- and upstream policies to ensure that both waste volumes are reduced and the remaining volumes properly managed.
At the same time, global ambition is preferrable as it would deliver the largest environmental benefits, in the APT and globally. While regional action can already go a long way, policies in the rest of the world are needed to protect the global commons. One example is ocean pollution and transboundary flows of plastics in aquatic environments. Freshwater systems and oceans are interconnected, meaning that aquatic plastic pollution originating in one country can contribute to the environmental burden of neighbouring ones. The Global High Stringency scenario reduces both regional and non-APT sources of leakage to aquatic environments in the APT, leading to the smallest increase between 2022 and 2050 across all scenarios. Yet, even in the Global High Stringency scenario, the stock of plastics accumulated in aquatic environments in the APT increases through to 2050 from 65 Mt in 2022 to 120 Mt in the APT region (slightly less than 121 Mt in the High Stringency scenario and significantly lower than 181 Mt in the Baseline). In broader terms, these transboundary dynamics underscore the interconnected nature of marine and freshwater ecosystems and the need for global cooperation to fully protect aquatic ecosystems that underpin biodiversity, food security and climate regulation.
Overall, global ambition is needed to end plastic pollution comprehensively, especially for the protection of global shared commons like the oceans and a clean and healthy environment. However, the APT region does not have to wait: adverse economic impacts from having higher policy ambition relative to the rest of the world would be modest, while delivering significant environmental gains.
1.5.7. Effective policy to end plastic pollution requires tailored but comprehensive policy roadmaps, regional and international co-operation, and strengthening data, capacity and enforcement systems
The APT region is at a crossroads for ending plastic pollution. Plastics pollute the environment, damage key ocean-based sectors and contribute to health hazards. The region, rich in innovation and manufacturing potential, can seize the opportunity to lead in circular economy solutions. A transition to a high-ambition, whole-of-lifecycle policy approach offers a path towards nearly eliminating plastic leakage, while delivering broad socio-economic and environmental benefits. While there is already policy momentum, eliminating plastic leakage requires major policy efforts to overcome the persisting gaps between ambition and implementation. There is no one-size-fits-all solution given the diversity of the countries in the APT region: policy design must be attuned to infrastructure readiness, institutional capacity, socio-economic and policy context of each country.
Slowing down plastics use and plastic waste generation at the source is essential, especially as plastics use in the APT region is projected to grow due to population and economic expansion under current policies. The High Stringency scenario entails cutting plastic waste by 23% in the APT region relative to Baseline in 2050, ranging from about a 30% reduction compared to Baseline in ASEAN LMIC (Indonesia, Cambodia, Lao PDR, the Philippines, Viet Nam, Myanmar) to a 15-16% reduction in Japan and Korea.
While the scale and depth of implementation challenges vary across the APT, all countries can explore untapped opportunities to curb plastics demand and promote eco-design. Targeted interventions such as bans, taxes for problematic plastic applications, as well as eco-design standards are essential. While local governments have taken the lead in many ASEAN countries, enforcement of bans remains weak due to low awareness, insufficient monitoring capacity, and limited access to affordable alternatives. Reuse systems offer an impactful strategy for cutting waste from single-use plastics and reducing the need for virgin plastics, but these systems remain small-scale in the APT region due to limited infrastructure, policy support and consumer readiness. Awareness campaigns, infrastructure development, regulatory frameworks that promote standardisation (e.g. for reuse) and international coordination can all help to maximise effectiveness of these interventions. Moreover, regulating chemicals in plastics is also vital for ensuring safe circularity: strengthening national legislation can help ensure that plastics can be safely reused, recycled or phased out. All these interventions require close coordination between national and local governments for effective design and monitoring, as well as the engagement of scientific and technical institutions.
Improvements in waste management are integral to ending plastic pollution. Although the High Stringency scenario could nearly eliminate mismanaged plastic waste, it would require significant improvements, particularly in ASEAN LMIC (in which on average 70% of plastic waste is currently mismanaged). Gaps in infrastructure, especially in rural and underserved areas, are filled by unsafe practices such as open dumping and burning, especially in ASEAN LMIC. Waste collection targets and EPR systems offer powerful policy options. EPR can help to fund and expand infrastructure: although countries in the APT region increasingly adopt EPR schemes, challenges with enforcement, tracking and stakeholder engagement can hinder their effectiveness.
A High Stringency scenario hinges on increasing recycling rates to 54% by 2050, ranging from 42-44% in ASEAN to 57% in China and above 60% in Japan and Korea. Currently, recycling rates in ASEAN countries remain below 13% (with an average of 8%), constrained by limited infrastructure, weak incentives and low public awareness. Continued increase in plastics use (and thus plastic waste) will exert intensified pressures on waste management systems. Scaling up recycling requires parallel investments in sorting, cleaning and processing capacity, integration of informal workers, and development of domestic or regional markets for recycled plastics. Achieving high recycling rates for all polymers, as expected in the High Stringency scenario, may also require technological breakthroughs and reliable scrap material supply, across the APT region.
Policy momentum is already growing in the APT, but success hinges on overcoming cross-cutting implementation and enforcement challenges. These include weak monitoring and enforcement, insufficient data collection for tracking progress, limited local capacity, financing gaps and the need to integrate and professionalise informal workers. Strengthening collaboration between national governments, local authorities, academic institutions and stakeholders is essential for building a harmonized and evidence-based monitoring and reporting system to monitor progress on national action plans and targets. Regional co-operation plays a key role in supporting capacity-building through training, knowledge exchange and the development of shared monitoring tools, as well as to align national frameworks with regional and international best practices.
The roadmap below describes the flow of this Outlook. Part I aims to fill the gaps in data availability, analyses the current situation and understanding the lifecycle and maps current policy landscape in the APT region. Part II quantifies the evolution of the plastics flows across the lifecycle to 2050 in APT countries in the absence of new policies, including projected plastics use, their socioeconomic drivers, end-of-life fates, socioeconomic and environmental consequences. Part III then charts different pathways for tackling plastic leakage in the APT region. It first focuses on analysing the environmental and economic impacts of a High Stringency policy scenario, as well as of alternative scenarios varying in the geographical scope and policy stringency and stages of the plastic lifecycle they cover. The Outlook concludes with a roadmap for turning ambition into action by identifying key barriers that must be overcome to accelerate the policy momentum in the APT region.
The core of the analysis is based on simulations using the OECD’s multi-sectoral, multi-regional dynamic computable general equilibrium (CGE) model ENV-Linkages (Chateau, Dellink and Lanzi, 2014[57]). For this Outlook, ENV-Linkages has been extended to include plastics for 14 polymer categories as well as both primary and secondary (recycled) plastic production explained a technical document (Bibas et al., 2022[59]).
A strength of CGE models such as ENV-Linkages is that they embed the drivers of sectoral and regional plastics use, such as demand patterns, production modes (including recycling activities) and trade specialisation, into a consistent framework. Projections of plastics use already exist in the published literature but in these studies the projected volumes of plastics follow aggregate economic growth and/or population growth trends, without considering sectoral details. In contrast, the modelling approach used in this Outlook, based on a CGE model, provides a more accurate link between plastics use and economic activities as well as a more detailed understanding of the consequences of policy action. It considers plastics not only as a final good for consumption, but, above all, as a production input for each sector, thereby taking into account the complexity of the interactions across sectors and regions and along the plastic lifecycle (Annex Table 1.A.1).
The ENV-Linkages modelling framework is also used to calculate plastic waste flows. The generation of waste is strongly related to the use of plastics and depends on the average lifespan of each plastic product. The lifespan can be very short, as for packaging, or can span several decades, as for products used in construction (Geyer, Jambeck and Law, 2017[14]). International trade in plastic waste is also modelled, i.e., where plastic waste produced in one country is treated in another.
The ENV-Linkages model has also been enhanced to distinguish the end-of-life fates of plastics, which heavily depend on the waste management capacities and regulations of the location where plastic waste is generated and handled. Four end-of-life fates are modelled: waste can be recycled, incinerated, landfilled (in sanitary landfilling), or mismanaged (which includes uncollected litter). Specifically:
Recycled: waste that is collected for recycling, processed, and used for the production of secondary plastics. This waste stream excludes the residues from recycling processes that are disposed of using the other waste management categories.
Incinerated: waste that is incinerated in a state-of-the art industrial facility, either with or without energy recovery.
Landfilled: waste that is disposed of on the land, in a controlled way and according to state-of-the art sanitary, environmental and safety requirements.
Mismanaged: all other waste. This category includes waste that is collected and subsequently burned in open pits, dumped in water or disposed of in dumpsites and unsanitary landfills. It also includes waste that is not captured by waste collection, including e.g. road markings. This category also includes uncollected litter, i.e. waste that results from littering by individuals or from fly-tipping, and that is not collected via street sweepings or other clean-up actions. It does not include collected litter that is disposed of through one of the other categories.
Note: ABS = acrylonitrile butadiene styrene; ASA = acrylonitrile styrene acrylate; HDPE = high-density polyethylene; LDPE = low-density polyethylene; LLDPE = linear low-density polyethylene; PET = polyethylene terephthalate; PP = polypropylene; PS = polystyrene; PUR = polyurethane; PVC = polyvinyl chloride; SAN = styrene acrylonitrile.
Source: OECD ENV-Linkages model.
Regional leakage of macroplastics to the environment is calculated using the methodology described in (OECD, 2022[60]). Specifically, macroplastic leakage stems from three distinct sources: (i) leakage of mismanaged waste, (ii) leakage of littered items and (iii) leakage from marine activities. The former two sources of leakage respond to changes in waste management systems, while the latter is proportional to marine economic activities (and is thus similar across scenarios). Thus, leakage is attributed to the region where it enters the environment; the final destination may be different as leaked plastics are transported over land and especially through rivers and oceans. Finally, note that providing projections of microplastic leakage and projections of the regional production of plastics extend beyond the scope of the current analysis, although the modelling framework does account for global projections of plastic production.
The sectoral and regional aggregations are presented in Annex Table 1.A.2 and Annex Table 1.A.3.
Source: Own elaboration.
The projections on the leakage of waste plastics to aquatic environments are made by L. Lebreton, employing a methodology that estimates the amount of plastic waste entering aquatic environments (by region). As explained in more detail in (OECD, 2022[21]), the methodology employs results from a previous study by Borrelle et al. (2020[19]) which estimated leakage of mismanaged plastic waste into rivers, lakes, and the ocean at a global scale. The model computes the probability of releases of plastics (from mismanaged plastic waste produced in a certain region or country) to reach an aquatic environment (rivers, lakes, and oceans).
The model also assesses the mobility of plastics in aquatic environments as well as degradation. The whole-ocean plastic mass budget model presented in (Lebreton and Andrady, 2019[2]) is expanded to a simplified representation of the global aquatic environment. The model differentiates between annual inputs in freshwater and the ocean, allowing floating plastic waste to circulate from one compartment to the other over time. The model also differentiates inputs by polymer types using the OECD ENV-Linkages model estimates and waste projections presented in this Outlook. The likely fate of emitted plastics is determined depending on their density. Additionally, the degradation rates vary across polymers based on laboratory results (Gerritse et al., 2020[69]). The general model framework is presented in Annex Figure 1.A.1. The methodology is explained in more detail in (OECD, 2022[21]).
Note: Mass inputs by modelled region, characterised by polymer types, are accumulated from 1951 to 2060 into the plastic fate model. Plastics with a density higher than water sink and accumulate in riverbed, lakebed and seabed. Floating plastics (density lower than water) are transported between different aquatic compartments and are allowed to degrade into microplastics over time from contact with sunlight. The region-specific parameter ‘i’ is the ratio between plastics remaining in freshwater and the plastics entering the marine environment. The parameters ‘s’ and ‘r’ represent the fraction of stranding and release from the global shoreline. The parameter ‘t’ is the fraction of floating plastic circulating from the coastal to the offshore ocean. Finally, ‘d’ is the mass fraction degrading into microplastics annually and varies with polymer types.
Source: (OECD, 2022[21]).
The literature on plastic production and use is limited at the national level. A key gap is the limited information on the disaggregation by polymer and by application and on flows of secondary plastics. Moreover, the scope and volumes covered by the various studies differ. For example, most of the studies only consider plastics resin and only four polymers: LDPE/LLDPE, HDPE, PET and PP.
There is also a lack of information on the management of waste across the world, and especially the management of individual waste streams such as plastics. Definitions, available data, measurement methodologies and framework conditions differ widely between countries. Most of the studies focus on municipal plastic waste only. Recycling can also refer to different concepts: quantities that are collected for recycling, material sent for reprocessing, or material ultimately available for use as a secondary plastic. Furthermore, reported recycling rates may give an overly optimistic view of the current status as they focus on polymers such as PET and applications such as packaging, for which recycling is already established, while not taking into account the other polymers. As an example, recycling rates of hard-to-recycle plastics such as fibres are rarely reported. Countries with poor waste management infrastructure also have the weakest published data, making it challenging to assess the amount of mismanaged waste. This results in an incomplete view of the current management of plastic waste for these APT countries.
In line with the Global Plastics Outlook (OECD, 2022[4]; OECD, 2022[21]), the Regional Plastics Outlook aims at understanding the drivers of plastics use and the impacts on the environment for these 13 Asian countries to find the best way to reduce the environmental pressures of plastic production, waste generation and management. The goal is to provide a comprehensive overview of the entire lifecycle of plastics. The database collects and reconciles data for the full lifecycle of plastics across 13 Asian countries: production, use, waste generation and waste management, including waste that is mismanaged or leaked to the environment.
The waste generated is further broken down by waste treatment, i.e. collected for recycling, incinerated, landfilled, mismanaged and littered, and uncounted waste.
The sources of end-of-life fate shares vary from 2004 to 2020 across countries (Annex Table 1.B.2). In this analysis, mismanaged waste includes open dumping and unaccounted waste treatments for all income levels apart from low- and lower middle-income countries, for which also unspecified landfilling, waterway treatment and other categories are included based on country level data for MSW.
Source: World Bank, What a Waste Global Database for all countries except China, OECD Global Plastics Outlook Database for China. https://datacatalog.worldbank.org/search/dataset/0039597, https://doi.org/10.1787/c0821f81-en.
Finally, data sources on plastics supply (and demand) are given in Annex Table 1.B.3.
References
[68] Agnelli, A. and P. Tortora (2022), “The role of development co-operation in tackling plastic pollution: Key trends, instruments, and opportunities to scale up action”, OECD Environment Working Papers, No. 207, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/721355cb-en.
[58] Aguiar et al (2019), “The GTAP Data Base: Version 10”, Journal of Global Economic Analysis, Vol. 4/1, pp. 1-27, https://doi.org/10.21642/jgea.040101af.
[34] Akenji, L. and M. Bengtsson (2019), Circular Economy and Plastics: a gap-analysis in ASEAN member states, Mission of the European Union to ASEAN and ASEAN Secretariat, Jakarta.
[40] Akenji, L. et al. (2020), “Policy responses to plastic pollution in Asia”, in Plastic Waste and Recycling, Elsevier, https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-817880-5.00021-9.
[81] Akenji, L. et al. (2019), Circular Economy and Plastics: A Gap-Analysis in ASEAN Member States, Brussels: European Commission Directorate General for Environment and Directorate General for International Cooperation and Development, Jakarta: Association of Southeast Asian Nat, https://www.iges.or.jp/en/publication_documents/pub/policyreport/en/10382/FINAL_CE+and+Plastics+-+A+gap+analysis+in+ASEAN+Member+States_1004.pdf.
[45] Amin, S., D. Strik and J. van Leeuwen (2022), “A multi-method approach to circular strategy design: Assessing extended producer responsibility scenarios through material flow analysis of PET plastic in Jakarta, Indonesia”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 367, p. 132884, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.132884.
[35] ASEAN (2024), “Southeast Asia Regional Program on Combating Marine Plastics (SeA-MaP)”, Recommendations for a Plastic Pollution Indicator Framework for ASEAN, https://seamap-asean.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/Synthesis-Report_Regional-Baseline-Study_endorsed_for-posting_V2.pdf (accessed on 25 April 2025).
[66] ASEAN (2021), ASEAN Regional Action Plan for Combating Marine Debris in the ASEAN Member States (2021-2025), The Association of Southeast Asian Nations, https://asean.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/FINAL_210524-ASEAN-Regional-Action-Plan_Ready-to-Publish_v2.pdf.
[64] ASEAN (2019), ASEAN Framework of Action on Marine Debris, https://asean.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/3.-ASEAN-Framework-of-Action-on-Marine-Debris-FINAL.pdf.
[65] ASEAN (2019), Bangkok Declaration on Combating Marine Debris in ASEAN Region, https://asean.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/2.-Bangkok-Declaration-on-Combating-Marine-Debris-in-ASEAN-Region-FINAL-1.pdf.
[5] ASEAN Biodiversity Centre (n.d.), ASEAN Region: small in size but globally significant, https://www.aseanbiodiversity.org/asean-biodiversity/.
[67] ASEAN Plus Three (2022), ASEAN Plus Three Cooperation Work Plan 2023-207, https://aseanplusthree.asean.org/asean-plus-three-cooperation-work-plan-2023-2027/.
[33] ASEAN Secretariat (2021), ASEAN Regional Action Plan for Combating Marine Debris in the ASEAN Member States (2021 – 2025), ASEAN Secretariat, Jakarta.
[8] Asian Development Bank (2021), Financing the Ocean Back to Health in Southeast Asia:, Asian Development Bank, Manila, Philippines, https://doi.org/10.22617/tcs210453-2.
[59] Bibas, R. et al. (2022), “Modelling plastics in ENV-Linkages: A novel approach to projecting future plastics use and waste”, OECD published, p. 41, https://www.oecd.org/environment/plastics/Technical-Report-Modelling-plastics-in-ENV-Linkages.pdf.
[6] Blanton, A. et al. (2024), “Ecotourism and mangrove conservation in Southeast Asia: Current trends and perspectives”, Journal of Environmental Management, Vol. 365, p. 121529, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2024.121529.
[19] Borrelle, S. et al. (2020), “Predicted growth in plastic waste exceeds efforts to mitigate plastic pollution”, Science, Vol. 369/6510, pp. 1515-1518, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aba3656.
[44] Bureecam, C., T. Chaisomphob and P. Sungsomboon (2018), “Material flows analysis of plastic in Thailand”, Thermal Science, Vol. 22/6 Part A, pp. 2379-2388, https://doi.org/10.2298/tsci160525005b.
[7] Burke, L., E. Selig and M. Spalding (2002), “Reefs at risk in Southeast Asia.”, World Resources Institute, Washington.
[78] Cady.K, Ong.I (2021), Accelerating Singapore’s Next Generation Plastic Recycling Value Chain.
[61] Chassignet, E., X. Xu and O. Zavala-Romero (2021), “Tracking Marine Litter With a Global Ocean Model: Where Does It Go? Where Does It Come From?”, Frontiers in Marine Science, Vol. 8, https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2021.667591.
[57] Chateau, J., R. Dellink and E. Lanzi (2014), “An Overview of the OECD ENV-Linkages Model: Version 3”, OECD Environment Working Papers, No. 65, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/5jz2qck2b2vd-en.
[32] Chen, H. et al. (2021), “Microplastic pollution in freshwater systems in Southeast Asia: contamination levels, sources, and ecological impacts”, Environmental Science and Pollution Research, Vol. 28/39, pp. 54222-54237, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-15826-x.
[50] Choi, H. et al. (2024), “Applying Material Flow Analysis for Sustainable Waste Management of Single-Use Plastics and Packaging Materials in the Republic of Korea”, Sustainability, Vol. 16/16, p. 6926, https://doi.org/10.3390/su16166926.
[80] Chulalongkorn University (2022), Plastic Material Flow and Value Chain Analysis (Thailand)., https://wedocs.unep.org/20.500.11822/41046.
[28] Cottom, J., E. Cook and C. Velis (2024), “A local-to-global emissions inventory of macroplastic pollution”, Nature, Vol. 633/8028, pp. 101-108, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-07758-6.
[12] FAO (2021), Assessment of agricultural plastics and their sustainability. A call for action. Rome., https://doi.org/10.4060/cb7856en.
[69] Gerritse, J. et al. (2020), “Fragmentation of plastic objects in a laboratory seawater microcosm”, Scientific Reports, Vol. 10/1, p. 10945, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-67927-1.
[14] Geyer, R., J. Jambeck and K. Law (2017), “Production, use, and fate of all plastics ever made”, Science Advances, Vol. 3/7, p. e1700782, https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1700782.
[30] Hermawan, S. and W. Astuti (2021), “Analysing several ASEAN countries’ policy for combating marine plastic litter”, Environmental Law Review, Vol. 23/1, pp. 9-22, https://doi.org/10.1177/1461452921991731.
[27] Houssini, K., J. Li and Q. Tan (2025), “Complexities of the global plastics supply chain revealed in a trade-linked material flow analysis”, Communications Earth and Environment, Vol. 6/1, https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-025-02169-5.
[72] Ikbal Alexander, Maria Marghareta Widhia Putri (2022), Plastic and Recycling Industry Outlook in Indonesia: An Assessment on Capacity and Capability, https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA00ZPZ4.pdf.
[37] Isobe, A. et al. (2015), “East Asian seas: A hot spot of pelagic microplastics”, Marine Pollution Bulletin, Vol. 101/2, pp. 618-623, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2015.10.042.
[13] Jambeck, J. et al. (2015), “Plastic waste inputs from land into the ocean”, Science, Vol. 347/6223, pp. 768-771, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1260352.
[39] Kako, S. et al. (2014), “A decadal prediction of the quantity of plastic marine debris littered on beaches of the East Asian marginal seas”, Marine Pollution Bulletin, Vol. 81/1, pp. 174-184, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2014.01.057.
[43] Kamsook, S. et al. (2022), “Investigation of plastic waste management in Thailand using material flow analysis”, Waste Management & Research: The Journal for a Sustainable Circular Economy, Vol. 41/4, pp. 924-935, https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242x221126376.
[84] Khawanah Research Institute (n.d.), https://www.krinstitute.org/Views-@-Plastic-;_An_Undegradable_Problem.aspx.
[73] KWR (2021), Material flow analysis & City Blueprint Framework of Singapore.
[20] Lau, W. et al. (2020), “Evaluating scenarios toward zero plastic pollution”, Science, Vol. 369/6510, pp. 1455-1461, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aba9475.
[48] Le Dinh, C., T. Fujiwara and S. Phu (2025), “Plastic Leakage Pattern and Municipal Solid Waste Management Toward Circular Economy”, Process Integration and Optimization for Sustainability, Vol. 9/2, pp. 593-603, https://doi.org/10.1007/s41660-025-00485-z.
[2] Lebreton, L. and A. Andrady (2019), “Future scenarios of global plastic waste generation and disposal”, Palgrave Communications, Vol. 5/1, https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-018-0212-7.
[16] Lebreton, L. et al. (2017), “River plastic emissions to the world’s oceans”, Nature Communications, Vol. 8/1, https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms15611.
[49] Lee, M. et al. (2021), “Application of material flow analysis for plastic waste management in the Republic of Korea”, Journal of Environmental Management, Vol. 299, p. 113625, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.113625.
[42] Luan, X. et al. (2021), “Dynamic material flow analysis of plastics in China from 1950 to 2050”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 327, p. 129492, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.129492.
[41] Lyons, Y. et al. (2020), Status of Research, Legal and Policy Efforts on Marine Plastics in ASEAN +3, NUS and COBSEA.
[47] Martinico-Perez, M., H. Schandl and H. Tanikawa (2018), “Sustainability indicators from resource flow trends in the Philippines”, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, Vol. 138, pp. 74-86, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.07.003.
[11] McIlgorm, A. et al. (2022), “The cost of marine litter damage to the global marine economy: Insights from the Asia-Pacific into prevention and the cost of inaction”, Marine Pollution Bulletin, Vol. 174, p. 113167, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.MARPOLBUL.2021.113167.
[3] Meijer, L. et al. (2021), “More than 1000 rivers account for 80% of global riverine plastic emissions into the ocean”, Science Advances, Vol. 7/18, p. eaaz5803, https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aaz5803.
[85] Ministry of Environment & Water (KASA) (n.d.), Malaysia plastics sustainibility roadmap 2021-2030, https://www.kasa.gov.my/resources/ebook/MALAYSIA_PLASTICS_SUSTAINABILITY_ROADMAP_2021-2030.pdf.
[71] Ministry of Environment and Forestry (n.d.), National Plastic Waste Reduction Strategic Actions for Indonesia, https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/32898/NPWRSI.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y.
[31] Nakano, H. et al. (2025), “Aquatic microplastics research in the ASEAN region: Analysis of challenges and priorities”, Marine Pollution Bulletin, Vol. 210, p. 117342, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2024.117342.
[51] Nakatani, J., T. Maruyama and Y. Moriguchi (2020), “Revealing the intersectoral material flow of plastic containers and packaging in Japan”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 117/33, pp. 19844-19853, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2001379117.
[24] Nordic Council of Ministers and Systemiq (2023), Towards Ending Plastic Pollution by 2040.
[63] OECD (2025), Inventory of the plastic policy landscape in ASEAN Plus Three Countries.
[10] OECD (2025), The Ocean Economy to 2050, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/a9096fb1-en.
[22] OECD (2024), Policy Scenarios for Eliminating Plastic Pollution by 2040, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/76400890-en.
[4] OECD (2022), Global Plastics Outlook: Economic Drivers, Environmental Impacts and Policy Options, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/de747aef-en.
[21] OECD (2022), Global Plastics Outlook: Policy Scenarios to 2060, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/aa1edf33-en.
[79] OECD (2022), Marine plastics pollution in Viet Nam, https://www.oecd.org/ocean/topics/ocean-pollution/marine-plastics-pollution-Viet-Nam.pdf.
[60] OECD (2022), Modelling plastics in ENV-Linkages: A novel approach to projecting future plastics use and waste, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/59b639f7-en.
[9] OECD (2021), “Sustainable Ocean Economy Country Diagnostics of Indonesia”, OECD Development Perspectives, No. 5, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9bc36234-en.
[1] OECD (2020), OECD Economic Outlook, Volume 2020 Issue 2, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/39a88ab1-en.
[29] Omeyer, L. et al. (2022), “Priorities to inform research on marine plastic pollution in Southeast Asia”, Science of The Total Environment, Vol. 841, p. 156704, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.156704.
[26] Pottinger, A. et al. (2024), “Pathways to reduce global plastic waste mismanagement and greenhouse gas emissions by 2050”, Science, Vol. 386/6726, pp. 1168-1173, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adr3837.
[46] Putri, A., T. Fujimori and M. Takaoka (2018), “Plastic waste management in Jakarta, Indonesia: evaluation of material flow and recycling scheme”, Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management, Vol. 20/4, pp. 2140-2149, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10163-018-0753-2.
[70] Regional Knowledge Centre for Marine Plastic Debris (n.d.), https://rkcmpd-eria.org/scientific-knowledge/material-flow-analysis-for-plastics/.
[15] Ryberg, M. et al. (2019), “Global environmental losses of plastics across their value chains”, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, Vol. 151, p. 104459, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.104459.
[17] Schmidt, C., T. Krauth and S. Wagner (2017), “Export of Plastic Debris by Rivers into the Sea”, Environmental Science & Technology, Vol. 51/21, pp. 12246-12253, https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.7b02368.
[25] Systemiq (2024), Plastic Treaty Futures.
[23] SYSTEMIQ and the Pew Charitable Trusts (2020), Breaking the Plastic Wave, https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/articles/2020/07/23/breaking-the-plastic-wave-top-findings#:~:text=%22Breaking%20the%20Plastic%20Wave%2C%22%20a%20global%20analysis%20using,20%20years%20by%20applying%20existing%20solutions%20and%20technologies. (accessed on 20 May 2025).
[83] UN (2017), “World Population Prospects: key findings and advance tables”, https://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/publications/Files/WPP2017_KeyFindings.pdf (accessed on 18 May 2018).
[18] UNEP (2023), Turning off the Tap. How the world can end plastic pollution and create a circular economy, https://www.unep.org/resources/turning-off-tap-end-plastic-pollution-create-circular-economy (accessed on 26 May 2025).
[82] Vicheanteab, Juckrit & Thushari, Indika (2020), Material Flow Analysis and Life Cycle Assessment of Solid Waste Management in Chulalongkorn University Centenary Park, Bangkok, Thailand.
[38] Walther, B. et al. (2020), “Plastic Pollution in East Asia: Macroplastics and Microplastics in the Aquatic Environment and Mitigation Efforts by Various Actors”, in The Handbook of Environmental Chemistry, Plastics in the Aquatic Environment - Part I, Springer International Publishing, Cham, https://doi.org/10.1007/698_2020_508.
[36] World Bank (2024), Scaling Innovations for Plastic Circularity with Investment in ASEAN, https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/entities/publication/f0ab59d3-63d6-40a9-b556-619503db0031 (accessed on 22 May 2025).
[62] World Bank (2024), World Bank Development Indicators, https://datahelpdesk.worldbank.org/knowledgebase/articles/378834-how-does-the-world-bank-classify-countries.
[77] World Bank (2021), Appendices: Market Study for Malaysia: Plastics Circularity Opportunities and Barriers, https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/2d980389-5df8-51d8-9e69-f3c02025748a/content.
[76] World Bank (2021), Appendices: Market Study for The Philippines: Plastics Circularity Opportunities and Barriers, https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/3a736f30-de90-517a-8d29-56a5dc4d813c/content.
[75] World Bank (2021), Appendices: Market Study for Vietnam: Plastics Circularity Opportunities and Barriers, https://www.ifc.org/wps/wcm/connect/7610d60f-eb79-4dca-9592-d1853048792b/Market+Study-Vietnam+Plastic+Circularity-Appendices.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&CVID=nMRr8PX.
[56] World Bank (2021), Market Study for Malaysia: Plastics Circularity Opportunities and Barriers, https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/entities/publication/ee17e37f-9927-5b73-b48f-7cbf5df696b0.
[74] World Bank (2021), Market Study for Thailand: Plastics Circularity Opportunities and Barriers, http://hdl.handle.net/10986/35114.
[54] World Bank (2021), Market Study for Thailand: Plastics Circularity Opportunities and Barriers, https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/3c36951c-2d3e-5a7f-8d11-ff8d2b47dda4/content.
[55] World Bank (2021), Market Study for the Philippines: Plastics Circularity Opportunities and Barriers, https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/35295.
[53] World Bank (2021), Market Study for Vietnam: Plastics Circularity Opportunities and Barriers, https://www.worldbank.org/en/country/vietnam/publication/market-study-for-vietnam-plastics-circularity-opportunities-and-barriers.
[52] World Economic Forum (2020), Radically Reducing Plastic Pollution in Indonesia: A Multistakeholder Action Plan National Plastic Action Partnership, World Economic Forum, Geneva.
← 1. The ASEAN Member States are Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Indonesia, Lao PDR, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Viet Nam.
← 2. In the underlying economic database used for the analysis, Myanmar is grouped with Timor-Leste. It was not possible to exclude Timor-Leste, but the size of its economy (measured as GDP) represents 3% of the size of Myanmar (https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.CD?locations=MM-TL, World Bank national accounts data and OECD National Accounts data files), so the distortion is very limited.
← 3. Further information on plans, roadmaps and policy instruments deployed by the ten ASEAN member states is also available in the OECD Country Notes on marine plastic pollution: https://www.oecd.org/ocean/topics/ocean-pollution/.
← 4. The amount does not fall to zero as some plastic waste streams, e.g. uncollected litter, evade collection systems.
← 5. For comparison, in 2022, the APT had a higher leakage rate (7.7%) than the global average (5.7%), but smaller than the non-OECD average (9.7%), reflecting that the APT contains a mixture of countries with relatively high (e.g. Indonesia) and countries with relatively low (Japan and Korea) leakage shares. The ASEAN countries (15.5%), and especially Indonesia (23.3%) are clearly above the average of non-OECD countries, illustrating that it is a hotspot for plastic leakage.
← 6. For a proper cost-benefit analysis, these macroeconomic costs would have to be compared with the environmental benefits that result from the reduced pressures on the environment. However, as not all these benefits can be valued and made comparable to the economic costs, the analysis here presents the gross economic cost, i.e. the change in GDP, without correcting for environmental benefits. Nonetheless, the environmental benefits are likely to outweigh these costs (OECD, 2022[21]; OECD, 2022[4]).