This chapter presents a scenario-based assessment of how the ASEAN Plus Three (APT) region can reverse current trends. The central scenario, High Stringency, models the implementation of a stringent policy package by all APT countries targeting plastics throughout their lifecycle to eliminate plastic leakage in the APT by 2050. The chapter also develops additional scenarios to investigate the consequences of implementing (i) ambitious policies across the plastic lifecycle globally – to highlight that only global action can deal with global pollution – and (ii) levels of ambition that depend on income levels within the APT and on the lifecycle stage – to highlight that only High Stringency can eliminate leakage. The policy scenarios underscore the important role of the APT in global efforts to end plastic pollution.
Regional Plastics Outlook for Southeast and East Asia
Abstract
A coherent policy response in the APT, containing stringent policies to curb plastic production and demand, design for circularity, enhance recycling and close leakage pathways (High Stringency scenario), could nearly eliminate mismanaged plastic waste by 2050 and deliver large environmental benefits.
The High Stringency scenario is projected to reduce total plastics use by 28% in the APT compared to Baseline (280 Mt in 2050 in the Baseline vs. 201 Mt in the High Stringency scenario), although still above the 2022 level of 152 Mt. ASEAN lower middle-income countries (LMIC) achieve the largest percentage reduction (36%) from Baseline 2050 levels (41 Mt vs. 63 Mt), while in Japan and Korea the plastics use is projected to decline to below 2022 levels (jointly 27% below Baseline, 20 Mt vs. 14 Mt; when it was 18 Mt in 2022).
All growth in plastics use between 2022 and 2050 would be met with secondary plastics (which will grow from 11 Mt in 2022 to 84 Mt in 2050) in the High Stringency scenario, allowing primary plastics use in the APT to stabilise below 2022 levels (from 140 Mt in 2022 to 117 Mt in 2050).
Recycling would become the primary waste treatment option, covering more than half of all plastic waste. Mismanaged plastic waste would be reduced by 98% compared to Baseline (56 Mt vs. 1.5 Mt), and plastic leakage to the environment would be nearly eliminated, from 14.1 Mt in Baseline to less than 0.5 Mt in the High Stringency scenario. The largest reductions in plastic leakage are projected in China (from 7.0 Mt to 0.4 Mt) and ASEAN LMIC (from 6.1 Mt to 0.1 Mt). In the ASEAN LMIC, formal waste systems can displace open dumping and burning, while ambitious policies upstream help to slow down the growth in plastic waste generation.
The implementation of the High Stringency scenario is projected to result in modest costs in terms of the change in GDP for the APT as a whole in 2050 (-0.8% below Baseline). However, these costs are unevenly distributed: costs for the ASEAN (2.4%) are significantly larger than the costs for the Plus Three (-0.3%).
An alternative scenario that looks into the implications of different levels of ambitions across income levels and lifecycle stage within the APT region (Differentiated Stringency) suggests that it would lead to significantly higher plastics use (260 Mt vs. 201 Mt in the High Stringency scenario), plastic waste (227 Mt vs. 186 Mt in High Stringency), and mismanaged waste (18 Mt vs 1.5 Mt in High Stringency). A major consequence of the larger volumes of mismanaged waste is increased leakage of plastics to the environment: by 2050, in the Differentiated Stringency scenario 4.5 Mt is projected to leak to the environment – 2.6 Mt in ASEAN, 2.0 Mt in the Plus Three.
For the APT as a whole, the High Stringency scenario delivers better environmental outcomes at lower cost compared to Differentiated Stringency. However, the ASEAN countries have higher macroeconomic costs in the High Stringency scenario than in Differentiated Stringency, while the reverse is true for the Plus Three (due to competitiveness gains from ambitious ecodesign policies).
High policy stringency in the APT can nearly end plastic leakage to the environment regionally and deliver large regional benefits. However, regional action alone cannot entirely solve plastic pollution: globally ambitious policies (Global High Stringency) remain critical to comprehensively end plastic pollution and protect global commons such as the oceans.
This chapter presents policy scenarios outlining pathways for eliminating plastic leakage in the APT. Previous OECD (2024[1]) findings indicate that cost-effectively halting plastic leakage requires comprehensive policy packages. Accordingly, the policy scenarios in this chapter employ a set of ten policy instruments. These instruments fall into four broad levers targeting different parts of the plastic lifecycle (see Figure 6.1): 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 (i.e. minimise losses into the environment), by strengthening waste collection and treatment systems.
The choice of policy instruments is not intended to be prescriptive, but to serve as examples of potentially effective and cost-efficient measures, and to offer a benchmark against which countries can evaluate alternative or complementary policy options. Common instruments include, for instance: bans, standards, phaseouts, reuse systems, stimulating repair services, the removal of subsidies to primary plastic production, restrictions on problematic and hazardous chemicals, landfill and incineration taxes, deposit-refund systems, pay-as-you-throw schemes.
A fifth lever concerns clean up and remediation, i.e. the removal of plastic from the environment (e.g. via collection on beaches or the installation of river litter booms that capture plastics) and the mitigation of associated risks. The evaluation of this approach is not included in the policy scenarios used in this Outlook, which focus on the objective of preventing plastic leakage to the environment but is discussed qualitatively in Chapter 7. In addition, OECD (2022[2]) discusses the cost-effectiveness of possible actions in this lever.
Notes: The packaging tax could be interpreted as a shadow-price for alternative instruments to curb production and demand.
Source: Authors’ own elaboration.
Previous OECD work (2024[1]; 2022[3]) showed adopting comprehensive, stringent policies in all countries can effectively eliminate plastic leakage. This also holds true for the APT: a Global High Stringency scenario can eliminate mismanaged waste and plastic leakage in APT almost completely (mismanaged waste from 34 Mt in 2022 to 1.4 Mt in 2050; leakage from 8.4 Mt in 2022 to 0.47 Mt in 2050). A High Stringency scenario a regional level, where the APT act alone can deliver nearly identical environmental outcomes, reducing mismanaged waste in the APT to 1.5 Mt and leakage to 0.47 Mt in 2050. As detailed further in Section 6.5, this shows that – while global action would be ideal to mitigate total plastic leakage from within and outside the region – APT holds the ability to address plastic leakage in the region. Hence, the core scenario explored in this chapter is the High Stringency scenario which chart a pathway to ending plastic pollution in the APT. This scenario includes stringent policies across the four policy levers in all APT countries (Figure 6.1) aligned with the goal to eliminate plastic leakage to the environment by 2050.1 At the same time, the policy package strikes a balance with some differentiation in timelines and targets to take into consideration different starting points, particularly in waste management (see Table 6.1). Alternative scenarios, varying in the geographical scope, level of policy stringency across the countries within the APT region and what stages of the plastic lifecycle they cover, are then examined to explore the environmental and economic implications of implementing policies to tackle plastic pollution in the APT.
Notes:
1. Some targets are specified for an earlier date than 2050, as aligned to (OECD, 2022[2]); the recycling rate targets for 2050 are in line with the pathway to 2060 targets provided in (OECD, 2022[2]). PP stands for polypropylene.
2. The quantification of the policy instruments is based on a combination of similar policy scenarios in the Global Plastics Outlook (OECD, 2022[2]) and the Policy Scenarios for Eliminating Plastic Pollution by 2040 report (OECD, 2024[1]). Specifically, the Global High Stringency scenario is parallel to the Global Ambition scenario as modelled in the earlier reports, with a 2060 target date in the former, and with a 2040 target date for the latter. The current report takes an intermediate approach and targets 2050. This choice aims at striking a balance between the need for urgent action, while allowing sufficient time to build up policies, capacity and infrastructure, such as recycling systems at scale.
3. For non-APT countries, differentiated ambition levels are used: (i) high-income and upper middle-income non-APT countries adopt low stringency for policy levers to curb demand and design for circularity, and high stringency for levers to enhance recycling and close leakage pathways; (ii) lower middle-income non-APT countries adopt low stringency for levers to enhance recycling and close leakage pathways, and maintain current policies (Baseline) for the mid-and upstream policy levers. Low stringency targets are based on the Uncoordinated Action scenario in (OECD, 2022[2]), adapted to the 2050 horizon.
This chapter unfolds as follows. Section 6.2 demonstrates that a comprehensive policy response targeting the entirety of the lifecycle of plastics can eliminate plastic leakage in the APT by 2050. Section 6.3 shows the costs of the High Stringency scenario are modest, amounting to 0.8% of GDP in 2050 compared to Baseline. Section 6.4 discusses the consequences of the differentiated level of ambition within the APT and across the stages of the plastic lifecycle, providing evidence that lower stringency is more costly in selected APT countries and cannot eliminate plastic leakage. Section 6.5 shows that regional co-ordination and co-operation between ASEAN and the Plus Three countries is crucial to ending plastic leakage. Finally, while the High Stringency scenario explores a scenario where the APT acts alone to prevent the local problem of pollution, Section 6.5 shows that global High Stringency policies can bring further environmental benefits.
6.2.1. The High Stringency scenario can more than halve the growth of plastics use in the APT compared to Baseline
The implementation of stringent policies along the plastic lifecycle (High Stringency scenario, described in Table 6.1 above) can significantly limit the growth of plastics use in the APT region, from 280 Mt in 2050 in the Baseline to 201 Mt in the High Stringency scenario, although this remains significantly above the 2022 level (152 Mt). This corresponds to a reduction of 28% in plastics use relative to the Baseline in 2050 (Figure 6.2). Previous OECD reports discussed the importance of upstream and midstream policies to slow down plastics demand, waste generation and pollution; Box 6.1 outlines how demand reduction policies can play a critical role in plastic pollution mitigation, while highlighting the importance of unintended impacts and trade-offs through careful policy design.
Policies to curb demand, promote eco-design and foster substitution are the main policy levers driving reductions in plastics use. Increasing plastic taxes on packaging (to USD 1/kg by 2030) and non-packaging products (to USD 0.75/kg by 2030) and doubling further by 2050 and Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) schemes that are phased in until 2030 to facilitate a shift away from primary plastics towards recycled material, together provide financial incentives to curb plastics supply and demand in the policy scenario. The emphasis on policy action before 2030 with gradual increase in policy stringency thereafter implies that the plastics use declines more quickly until 2030, followed by a slower reduction from 2030 onwards. Circular eco-design policies introduced in the APT as part of this policy package also increase the lifespan of plastic products by 15%. A decrease of 10-20% in demand for durables by 2030 further contributes to moderating the growth in plastics use. Meanwhile, the gradual increase of substitutable inputs - replacing plastics with paper, metals and minerals, glass and wood – leads to a 17% reduction of plastics used as inputs to production by 2030.
The extent of reduction of plastics use in comparison to the Baseline scenario differs across APT countries. In ASEAN countries, ambitious policy package is projected to reduce plastics use in 2050 to 56 Mt (vs. 83 Mt in Baseline 2050), although still an increase relative to 29 Mt in 2022. The Plus Three countries jointly limit their use in the policy scenario to 146 Mt in 2050 (vs. 197 Mt in Baseline 2050 and 122 Mt in 2022), with all growth in plastics use coming from China.2 ASEAN LMIC are projected to achieve the largest reduction from the Baseline levels in 2050 (‑36%) while Korea will see the smallest (‑23%). Nonetheless, the fast growth in plastics use in the Baseline in the ASEAN LMIC implies a significant growth from 2022 levels (from 18 Mt in 2022 to 41 Mt in 2050 in the High Stringency scenario).
Plastics use reduction in the High Stringency scenario compared to the Baseline scenario.
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.
Plastic demand reduction is not an end in itself, but a critical lever for reducing plastic pollution. Containing the amounts of new plastics placed on the market can reduce plastic waste generation, and thus pressure on waste management systems and risks of leakage, while also mitigating upstream impacts linked to primary plastic production, including chemical pollution and plastic pellet losses. As highlighted in OECD (2024[1]), upstream and midstream measures such as reuse, eco-design and higher resource efficiency, are essential to limit the scale and costs of waste collection and treatment.
However, not all plastics reduction delivers the same environmental benefits. Problematic or avoidable plastics are generally considered a priority for reduction. These include for instance short-lived items that often escape formal waste systems and end up in the environment, as well as plastics containing chemicals of concern (Raubenheimer and Urho, 2024[4]). Reducing these is aligned with both pollution prevention and lifecycle impact reduction. Conversely, reducing plastics in some applications, such as in durable goods, transport or healthcare, may involve greater trade-offs along several dimensions (e.g. economic, social, environmental and related to health). In all cases, it is important that any material substitution be considered weighing economic, environmental and health impacts. The environmental footprint of plastics depends on the specific polymer, application and context, and, in some cases, alternatives may be more resource-intensive or result in higher greenhouse gas emissions along the lifecycle (Avery et al., 2025[5]). For instance, bio-based alternatives may reduce reliance on fossil fuels, but they can also raise concerns about land use change and deforestation if poorly sourced (OECD, 2022[3]).
To reduce the total negative environmental and health impacts across materials, shifting to new systems, such as moving from single-use to reuse delivery models, can lower environmental impacts provided that the recirculation of items is guaranteed (United Nations Environment Programme, 2021[6]). Lifecycle assessment studies demonstrate that the environmental footprint of a product depends not only on material type, but also on reuse rates, product design, supply chain emissions, and end-of-life treatment (Meng, Brandão and Cullen, 2024[7]). Where reduction leads to substitution, careful assessment of the full lifecycle effects and system-level trade-offs is needed, including impacts on emissions, biodiversity, human toxicity, circularity potential as well as affordability (United Nations Environment Programme, 2021[6]).
A wide range of policy instruments can support plastics demand and waste reduction. This report models a package including taxes on plastics, EPR schemes, recycled content requirements and eco-design policies. Other options include bans, phaseouts and standards targeting unnecessary or problematic plastics, incentives and mandates for product longevity (e.g. durability rules, right to repair, reuse requirements), shifts to service-based delivery models, other types of taxes on plastics, as well as structural reforms such as the removal of subsidies to fossil fuels and plastics production. Chapter 3 presented policy measures already in use in the APT, while Chapter 7 discusses in more details interventions that could be introduced or strengthened.
The reductions in plastics use by applications are closely linked to the sectoral use of plastics: the use of plastics for packaging, transportation and construction applications in particular would decline significantly (see also Box 6.2). Nearly 55 Mt of the reduction in plastics use by economic applications will come from the decrease in use for producing packaging (23.5 Mt), building & construction materials (16.3 Mt), and transportation (excluding tyres) (14.7 Mt) (Figure 6.3). China drives the trend for packaging and building and construction applications given the weight of its economy. ASEAN countries, LMIC in particular, contribute to the highest proportion of the reduction in plastics use for “transportation (excluding tyres)”, as the implementation of ambitious policies partially mutes the rise in demand for vehicles and associated plastics use driven by the region’s projected rapid GDP and population growth (see also Chapter 4) in the Baseline scenario.
The links between applications and production sectors are detailed in Chapter 2; in some cases there is a one-on-one correspondence, e.g. the building and construction application is linked to the construction sector, while in other cases multiple sectors are linked to the same application, e.g. in the case of packaging or transportation. Due to their high plastic intensity, four sectors (Food, Construction, Textiles and Motor Vehicles) contribute most to the plastics use reduction in the APT, and are responsible for reducing 57 Mt of plastics in 2050, compared to the Baseline scenario (see Annex Figure 6.B.1 in Annex 6.B), while still remaining associated with half of the remaining use in the policy scenario. The food sector will experience the largest reduction (-18 Mt) as plastics use for food packaging is large and the plastics packaging tax thus induces cost increases. Construction is another important sector that will see a reduction of 16.6 Mt of plastics use in the APT, of which 9.1 Mt in China alone. Textiles and motor vehicles – which are also plastic-intensive – will also see substantial reductions of 12.9 Mt and 10 Mt, respectively. The effect of material substitution policies (inducing a turn to non-metallic minerals, pulp and paper and iron and steel, mainly) also play a role in these sectoral shifts.
In ASEAN LMIC, these four sectors are projected to see their plastics use decline by 11.7 Mt (53% of total regional reduction); the corresponding number for the upper middle ASEAN countries is projected at 3.4 Mt (63% of total).
Comparing these trends in APT countries to the global plastics use shows how plastics profiles differ considerably across countries, although packaging is in the top 3 in all countries and all years, constituting the application with the largest projected reduction at global level, together with transportation (other). The results for the various applications drive the changes in plastics use by polymer (Annex Figure 6.B.2 in Annex 6.B). For example, the significant reductions in packaging affect PP more than most others.3 Changes in use of four “hard to collect or recycle” polymers – PS, PUR, PVC and Other plastics, which include thermosets, sealants, adhesives, marine coatings, and more – are relatively more modest.
Plastics use reduction by application in APT in Mt in the High Stringency scenario in 2050 compared to the Baseline scenario.
Note: Scales differ by panel.
Source: OECD ENV-Linkages model.
While total plastics use is still projected to increase relative to current levels, ambitious policies could ensure that all growth is met with secondary plastics. Primary plastics use in APT can fall below 2022 levels with the ambitious policies (117 Mt in the High Stringency scenario in 2050 vs. 140 M in 2022), thus reducing the environmental burden associated with primary production (Figure 6.4). The combination of high recycling rates, recycling content targets and substantial improvements in waste management would enable a substantial share of plastic waste to be collected and recycled. This will lead to the increased share of secondary plastics increasing within total production from 8% in 2022 to 42% in 2050. The 84 Mt of secondary plastics produced in the APT countries in 2050 will more than cover the projected growth in total plastics use in the region between 2022 and 2050 (which increases by 49 Mt in the High Stringency scenario). The stringent policies of the High Stringency scenario make this possible by curbing demand and improving recycling, waste management and plastics circularity in the APT. The increase in secondary plastics use is especially pronounced from 2030 onwards, as the policies which gradually increase in stringency to enhance recycling become more effective while the emphasis on curbing total demand in policies implemented before 2030 eases off and results in more sustained demand for secondary plastics (see above).
Primary vs secondary plastics use in APT in Mt.
Source: OECD ENV-Linkages model.
In all APT countries, the shares of secondary plastics in 2050 are projected to increase to more than 40% of total production and use (Annex Figure 6.B.3 in Annex 6.B) – this is directly driven by the recycled content targets (of 40%) to incentivise recycling and secondary production.4 For example, Indonesia, the country in the region that has the lowest share of secondary plastics in 2022, is projected to increase its secondary share from 3.3% in 2022 to 40% in the High Stringency scenario (x12). In contrast, the relative growth of secondary plastics in Japan is smaller, as it has the highest share of secondary plastics in 2022 in the region, but the share (43%) in 2050 is still projected to be among the largest in the APT region. The implications of these results for policy roadmaps in the APT are discussed in the next chapter (Chapter 7), particularly with regard to specific policy interventions that can help to reduce production and demand (e.g. bans, taxes, eco-design criteria and product standards, reuse schemes, material and product innovation) and to enhance the supply and demand for recycled plastics.
6.2.2. Total mismanaged plastic waste will be cut almost to zero in the High Stringency scenario
The High Stringency scenario lays out a pathway to reduce the total waste generated in the APT by 23% in 2050, compared to the Baseline (242 Mt in 2050 in the Baseline scenario vs.186 Mt in the High Stringency scenario). This decrease is projected across all applications, albeit to different degrees (Figure 6.5). The High Stringency scenario aims at decoupling plastics use from economic growth. Thus, the implementation of ambitious upstream policies, differentiated across the region, is projected to deliver a sizable reduction in plastic waste generated overall. There is a time lag before the effects of policies on waste become apparent, however, as several plastics applications have lifetimes that can be significant (especially for construction, which has an average lifetime of 35 years), as demonstrated in the reduction in plastic waste in construction (by 1 Mt) achieved only in later decades. Thus, the reduction in plastic waste generated in the APT region by 2050 is smaller than the reduction in plastics use over the same period (23% vs 28%). This also means that the evolution of (the reduction in) plastic waste through to 2030 is much smoother than the evolution of plastics use (compare the time profile of changes in use and waste in Figure 6.2 and Figure 6.5, respectively), as not all reductions in use immediately lead to reductions in waste.
The largest reduction in waste in absolute terms will come from the packaging sector, with a notable decrease of 17 Mt (or 19%) by 2050 compared to Baseline. This is mainly attributable to the effects of ambitious policies to curb demand, including the higher tax rate on packaging than on other applications, as well as to the policy lever of design for circularity.
The implementation of comprehensive Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) schemes in ASEAN countries and China in the High Stringency scenario, and the strengthening of such schemes in Japan and Korea, combined with policies to extend product lifespans and plastic taxes, would also result in substantial waste reductions in other key applications. One such example is transportation which is projected to see an almost 39% reduction in plastic waste by 2050 compared to the Baseline (corresponding to 12 Mt). Under the assumption that producers will transfer the cost of end-of-life waste collection on to consumers, the policy increases the costs of the products covered by the EPR system and thus dampens demand for these products.
Plastic waste for APT countries by application in Mt in deviation from Baseline scenario.
Source: OECD ENV-Linkages model.
The differences in effects of the policy package across countries on plastic waste generation are significant, and roughly in line with their effects on use, i.e. a significant reduction from the Baseline 2050 levels, but well above 2022 volumes. Compared to 2022 levels, plastic waste is projected to see a relatively modest increase in Japan (4%) and Thailand (18%). At the same time, a substantial increase in plastic waste is expected in the Rest of ASEAN LMIC (161% above 2022 levels) and Indonesia (+102%, i.e. doubling). Although the High Stringency scenario implies that all countries implement policies to contain the increase in waste, a faster increase in waste in ASEAN LMIC is projected in both the Baseline and High Stringency scenarios.
Implementing the ambitious policy package for the APT region also involves significantly improving the way plastic waste is treated. Recycling is set to play a significant role, as all APT countries take action to increase the recycling rates (Figure 6.6). The associated infrastructure needs would be addressed mainly through the ramp-up of mechanical recycling facilities, alongside the development of comprehensive and formalised separate waste collection systems for some ASEAN countries.5
The policy scenario projects that Japan and Korea will lead the way in helping to ramp up overall recycling rates in the region, as these countries already possess comprehensive and formalised separate waste collection systems, a good level of pre-existing recycling capacity, as well as the technological know-how. In contrast, ASEAN LMIC would need to improve waste management more comprehensively and take a gradual (but equally ambitious) approach, by developing the needed infrastructure to progressively ramp up recycling capacity. It is projected that the recycling rate for the APT region will rise to 54% in 2050 in the High Stringency scenario, compared to 12% in 2022 (Figure 6.6) – this implies that total recycled waste is projected to drastically increase from 14 Mt in 2022 to 100 Mt in 2050. Global technical co-operation – and potentially financial support – would be crucial to assist ASEAN LMIC in particular, in achieving these recycling targets (see Chapter 7).
Recycling rates for APT countries (%), High Stringency scenario.
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.
Total mismanaged plastic waste in APT is projected to be cut almost to zero (1.5 Mt) by 2050, compared to 2050 Baseline (56 Mt) and 2022 (33 Mt; see Figure 6.7). The sharp decline in shares of mismanaged plastic waste is driven by improvements in waste management in most ASEAN countries and China, owing to the introduction and strengthening of formal waste management systems in addition to policies that would discourage open dumping and burning of waste, as well as minimise losses in the waste collection and sorting process (including reducing the amount of plastic waste that is collected for recycling but not actually recycled). The most sizable reductions in mismanaged plastic waste are projected in China and Indonesia. Mismanaged plastic waste does not actually decline to zero in any of the APT countries, however, as some plastic streams evade waste collection.6
There are important synergies to be exploited between the policies to encourage recycling and the policies to minimise mismanaged plastic waste. One such avenue for the APT region is for policies to encourage the formalisation of the informal waste sector. Countries that rely heavily on the informal sector for waste collection and sorting risk informal waste pickers discarding, dumping or burning residual waste deemed to be of low economic value, hence triggering an exacerbation of the mismanaged waste problem (OECD, 2022[3]). Formalising the informal waste pickers and integrating them to national waste management systems would bring about positive changes for the natural environment and also alleviate the negative human health and social impacts from utilising improper (and likely hazardous) waste treatment options.
Mismanaged plastic waste in APT countries in Mt.
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.
Due to the different national contexts, the High Stringency scenario projects that waste management strategies will be context-dependent, varying according to country realities and priorities. The massive ramping up of recycling and elimination of mismanaged waste as outlined above also affects incineration and landfilling. In Korea and Japan, the share of waste incineration, currently the dominant waste management practice (see Chapters 2 and 4, and Annex Figure 6.B.6 in Annex 6.B), would go down. Strong upstream and midstream policies would also result in the minimisation of landfilling (the foreseen lack of adequate land providing a further incentive). In the case of China, incineration and landfilling are expected to play a significant role through 2050, as recycling alone is unable to absorb the increase in plastic waste generation. Further, China’s current investments in incineration capacity imply the continued use of this modality in the medium- to long-term (throughout their scheduled lifetimes). However, the relative importance of different types of waste management may vary across the country.
Strategies would diverge for the ASEAN countries: for these countries, although recycling rates do significantly rise across the board, sanitary landfilling is still foreseen to play a sizable role, on a par with recycling – the share of landfilling in waste management is set to remain constant in ASEAN HIC and UMIC while growing in the ASEAN LMIC, as landfilling is the cheaper option for eliminating mismanaged waste. International co-operation remains a critical factor for facilitating the APT countries achieve these improvements in waste management and to help address any challenges that may hinder effective implementation (see Chapter 7).
6.2.3. Plastic leakage will be nearly eliminated in the High Stringency scenario
Plastic leakage is projected to be reduced to less than 0.5 Mt in 2050 in the High Stringency scenario (0.4% of total waste). This is a reduction of more than 95% (Table 6.2) from 2022 (8.4 Mt, 7.4% of total waste) and Baseline levels in 2050 (14.1 Mt, 5.8% of total waste).
ASEAN countries are projected to reduce plastic leakage in 2050 from 7.1 Mt in the Baseline to 0.1 Mt in the High Stringency scenario, with the share of leakage in total plastic waste declining from 14.2% in 2022 to 0.2% in 2050. In particular, leakage rates in ASEAN LMIC7 are projected to decline substantially (from 17.8% in 2022 to 0.2% in 2050) as a result of the combined effects of income-driven improvements in waste management (foreseen even in the Baseline scenario) and effective policies in the High Stringency scenario.
In Japan and Korea, the difference between the leakage rates in 2022 and 2050 are much smaller (from 0.3% in 2022 to 0.2% in 2050), reflecting their already advanced waste management systems. China is projected to drastically cut its plastic leakage from 7 Mt in the Baseline to 0.35 Mt in the High Stringency scenario, representing a reduction in leakage rate from 6.4% in 2022 to 0.3% in 2050. However, the remaining plastic leakage in China is larger in absolute terms than in the other APT countries, because of the sheer size of the country. Even if litter collection rates in China are assumed to increase to the same level as other APT countries, this represents a larger volume of plastics that still leaks to the environment.
Comparing the average leakage rate in the APT to the averages outside the region clearly illustrates the position of the APT: in 2022 the leakage rate in the APT is higher than the global average, but lower than the non-OECD average, reflecting the mixture of countries with relatively high (e.g. Indonesia) and low (Japan and Korea) leakage rates within the region. Plastic leakage rates in ASEAN countries are clearly above the non-OECD average, which suggests that ASEAN countries are hotspots for plastic leakage. The Baseline development to 2050 illustrates how current policies in the APT, and especially in the ASEAN, already result in significant reductions: the leakage share comes down more rapidly in the ASEAN than in either global or non-OECD averages. Yet it also shows that existing policies are still insufficient to end plastic leakage by 2050, especially in ASEAN LMIC (13.2% of plastic leakage in Indonesia and the Rest of ASEAN LMIC together in the Baseline). The differences across APT countries in the High Stringency scenario are much smaller than in the Baseline scenario, as all APT countries aim to eliminate plastic leakage.8
Share of plastic waste that leaks to the environment and reduction in volume.
Note: The reduction in volume shows the difference between the projected levels in the High Stringency and Baseline scenarios in 2050.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.
The policy package in the High Stringency scenario affects economic activity and thus macroeconomic indicators such as GDP. 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 along the plastic lifecycle, including reduced adverse impacts for ecosystems, climate, human health and livelihoods. 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[3]; OECD, 2022[2]).
The implementation of the High Stringency scenario is projected to result in a modest GDP cost for APT in 2050 (-0.8%) when compared to Baseline projections (Figure 6.8). This impact should be seen in the context of continued economic growth between 2022 and 2050: average annual GDP growth in the APT region is projected at 2.38% in the High Stringency scenario, compared to 2.41% in Baseline projections. However, variations within the APT are significant. The macroeconomic impacts are projected to be smaller in the Plus Three countries than in ASEAN. Within the Plus Three, Korea is projected to experience -0.6% reduction in GDP, while Japan is projected to experience a -0.2% reduction. This disparity arises from a range of interacting factors, including the economy’s openness, structure (especially the size of sectors producing plastics and their substitutes), diversification as well as the impacts on production costs in the plastics sector, textiles and chemicals. In China, for instance, macroeconomic impacts of ambitious policies (-0.2%) are mitigated since the policy package boosts sectors that produce substitutes for plastics, alleviating the impact of the losses in the plastics sector (see (OECD, 2024[1]) for a more detailed discussion). The ASEAN LMIC, including Indonesia, are projected to face more significant economic impacts, as they require a larger overhaul of their economic system across the plastic lifecycle than high- and upper middle-income countries, resulting in a projected GDP loss of 2.8% relative to the Baseline. The cost for the ASEAN as a whole is also significantly larger than the APT average, at -2.4% (versus ‑0.8% for the APT).
Trade dynamics, particularly in the plastic and manufacturing sectors, significantly influence the region's economic response to the High Stringency scenario policies. Changes in global trade patterns can either worsen or alleviate the economic consequences of reduced plastic production, and what drives trade results is not the absolute impact of the policy on sectoral production costs, but how such impacts compare to the impacts on foreign competitors. The country-specific reliance on the plastics sector or on sectors that produce substitutes for plastics plays a crucial role. This level of dependency shapes the depth and speed of economic repercussions from the policy scenario, contributing to regional variations in the economic impact.
These macroeconomic impacts are the result of a wide range of underlying changes in costs, including (i) changes in waste treatment costs (see below), (ii) changes in production costs for specific sectors associated with the specific policy instruments (see (OECD, 2022[3]) for a more detailed discussion on how the different policy instruments affect the macro economy) and (iii) induced economic effects, such as changes in competitive position of specific sectors that drive changes in demand and trade patterns (as relative prices start to shift). Importantly, these GDP impacts do not include the monetary benefits of policy action through the benefits of reduced plastic pollution. Such benefits are especially strong in the more vulnerable, developing countries (Agnelli and Tortora, 2022[8]). Reducing plastic pollution would generate important benefits especially in developing countries, by alleviating the burden of pollution on socioeconomic outcomes. These benefits of policy action are very hard to express in monetary terms and are excluded from the modelling analysis. The GDP impacts therefore reflect a gross cost of policy action, that needs to be evaluated in the context of a wide range of benefits.
Variation of GDP in 2050 in deviation from Baseline scenario.
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.
While the macroeconomic impacts are negative in all APT countries, some sectors are worse off, while others stand to benefit from the implemented policies (Figure 6.9). The plastics sector is projected to show similar output levels as the Baseline projections, hiding a large shift from primary production to secondary production. However, in the absence of explicit policies in the instrument mix to limit plastic production the effect is limited; and may be further diminished by the possibility for producers to turn to the global market to maintain production levels. Chemicals, which serve as inputs for the plastics industry, are projected to decrease by almost 8% in output levels, reflecting a combination of lower plastic production and the transition to secondary plastics. Other sectors closely tied to the use of plastics (cf. Chapter 2), including textiles, motor vehicles, and electronics, are also anticipated to experience reductions ranging from 7% to 2%.
Meanwhile, the substitution away from plastic products in the High Stringency scenario benefit alternative material sectors which will see their outputs increase relative to the Baseline scenario. These include the pulp, paper, and publishing sector (+9%), the non-metallic minerals sector (+3.3%) and iron and steel manufacturing (+1.5%). These shifts illustrate a policy-driven realignment in the market, where sectors that offer alternatives to plastics gain economic traction in response to the policies to end plastic leakage.9
Sectoral output change in the APT region in the High Stringency scenario in deviation from Baseline scenario.
Source: OECD ENV-Linkages model.
To eliminate plastic leakage by 2050, a strategic realignment of investments into waste management is required, prioritising recycling over other waste management options, and eliminating mismanaged waste by increasing waste collection and sorting, as well as litter collection (Figure 6.10). Even with current policies (i.e. in the Baseline scenario), significant cumulative investments in waste treatment are required between 2022 and 2050. These amount to more than USD 1.1 trillion for the APT as a whole, of which ASEAN countries need a modest share (USD 178 billion (bln)) while by far the largest share is required in China (almost USD 800 bln). For the High Stringency scenario, there are two related dynamics at play that determine how much investments into waste management are required for different end-of-life categories. On the one hand, additional investments are required to ensure waste is treated with the least environmental burden, with most of these investments moving towards the recycling sector in the High Stringency scenario. On the other hand, the implementation of the High Stringency scenario results in lower waste generation, leading to reduced volumes of waste that need to be collected and sorted, thus lowering investment requirements in comparison to the Baseline scenario for these end-of-life categories. In most APT countries, the overall investments into waste management required in the High Stringency scenario are similar or even less than that in the Baseline (and USD 1.1 trillion for the APT as a whole in both scenarios).
Specifically, cumulative waste management costs over the period between 2022 and 2050 are slightly lower in the High Stringency scenario than in the Baseline in Japan (USD 4 bln) and Korea (USD 2 bln), as increased expenditures on recycling are more than compensated by lower costs for collection and sorting, as well as lower costs for incineration. As discussed above, the main effect of the policies in these countries is a shift from incineration to recycling; the incremental costs of such shift are fairly limited. Moreover, the Baseline collection and sorting rates in Japan and Korea are already very high, so the additional costs of increasing these rates are very low and far outweighed by the reduction in costs due to reduced waste volumes. The transition to cleaner waste management in these countries can therefore be considered as financially neutral.
In China, similar mechanisms are at play, but the magnitudes are substantially larger, and the cost savings mostly concern landfilling rather than incineration. As the cost of landfilling one kg of plastic are estimated to be lower than the cost of incineration (OECD, 2022[2]) this implies lower savings from avoided plastic waste. On balance, the cumulative waste management costs are USD 12 bln lower than it would be in the Baseline as a result of the policy package. Thailand follows a similar pattern, with significant net savings amounting to USD 1 bln over the period between 2022 and 2050; compared to Baseline investments needed in the country amounting to USD 42 bln.
The other ASEAN countries stand to benefit less from the savings from reduced waste volumes, as, at least in ASEAN LMIC, mismanaged waste shares are high and waste collection rates are relatively low. In particular, significant additional investments are required in Indonesia to increase waste collection and sorting, recycling, and even landfilling, reflecting the unique challenges the country faces. Given the very high Baseline mismanaged waste shares, the volume of landfilled waste increases in the High Stringency scenario, accounting for a larger share of smaller volume of waste in 2050. The Baseline cumulative waste management costs of USD 32 bln in Indonesia between 2022 and 2050 will therefore increase to USD 51 bln in the High Stringency scenario. The additional investments for collection and sorting are substantially smaller in the other ASEAN LMIC, leading to cumulative waste management costs increasing from USD 58 bln in the Baseline to USD 70 bln under High Stringency.
Cumulative waste management costs for 2022-2050 in deviation from Baseline scenario in the APT region, USD bln.
Note: Scales are different by panel.
Source: OECD ENV-Linkages model.
The High Stringency scenario investigated assumes that there is a common ambition all across the APT (with aligned stringency of policies as outlined in Table 6.1). However, given the different contexts in which the APT countries operate, it is conceivable for high- and upper middle-income countries in the region to implement more stringent policies than the lower middle-income countries. Furthermore, countries may not agree on shared goals throughout the plastic lifecycle, and could opt for 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). It can therefore be relevant to investigate an alternative scenario that looks into the implications of different ambitions across income levels and lifecycle stage.
The Differentiated Stringency scenario does exactly that; it explores the environmental and economic implications of less ambitious policies in the APT region than what is assumed in the High Stringency scenario. In particular, it assumes that (see also Annex 6.A):10
High-income and upper middle-income APT countries11 adopt low stringency for policy levers to curb demand and design for circularity, and high stringency for levers to enhance recycling and close leakage pathways.
lower middle-income APT countries12 adopt low stringency for levers to enhance recycling and close leakage pathways, and maintain current policies (Baseline) for the other two policy levers.13
6.4.1. The Differentiated Stringency scenario implies higher mismanaged plastic waste and worse environmental outcomes than the High Stringency scenario
In the Differentiated Stringency 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 (Figure 6.11). This is significantly above the projections for the High Stringency scenario (201 Mt), with the difference becoming increasingly significant over time as the lower ambition policies fail to curb demand. The extent to which the plastics use is reduced is varied across APT regions. In the Differentiated Stringency scenario, reductions in plastics use in 2050 in the APT countries are around 7% from Baseline on average. The range across the APT countries is significant: from 5.5% in Indonesia to 12% in Japan. In general, the plastics use is reduced more in high- and upper middle-income countries than in lower middle-income countries, as the former implement low stringency policies to curb demand while the latter maintain current policies on the policy lever. Nonetheless, plastics use declines below Baseline levels in all countries in response to the policies to enhance recycling, which disincentivise primary plastic production and use.
Plastics use in 2050 in Mt.
Note: More detailed results are presented in Annex Figure 6.B.4 in Annex 6.B.
Source: OECD ENV-Linkages model.
With the implementation of policies to enhance recycling, the share of secondary plastics out of total use is growing rapidly to 37% in the Differentiated Stringency scenario. As total use of plastics is higher, secondary production in the APT region is projected to amount to 97 Mt in 2050 in the Differentiated Stringency scenario, versus 84 Mt under High Stringency (Annex Figure 6.B.5 in Annex 6.B). Yet secondary markets cannot fulfil the entire growth in use of plastics, and thus primary plastic production continues to expand over time.
When APT countries implement Differentiated Stringency, the policies to improve waste management are not as effective as when combined with stringent policies to curb demand and promote design for circularity (as in High Stringency). Shares of mismanaged waste remain significant in the APT (18 Mt in 2050, 8% of total waste), despite the emphasis of the Differentiated Stringency scenario on downstream policies (see Figure 6.12; more detailed results are presented in Annex Figure 6.B.6 in Annex 6.B). This is influenced by two mechanisms: (i) ASEAN LMIC only halve their share of mismanaged waste, and (ii) even in the rest of the APT countries, high stringency policy to eliminate mismanaged waste is not fully effective, as total waste volumes are much larger than in the High Stringency. Thus, the policy lever to close leakage pathways leads to a decline in the share of mismanaged waste to 6% of total waste (i.e. 1.0 Mt) in 2050 in ASEAN – HIC & UMIC in the Differentiated Stringency scenario, but this goes down to 1% (0.1 Mt) if combined with stringent action on levers across all stages of the plastic lifecycle (High Stringency). For the ASEAN LMIC, the difference is even more stark: the policies in the Differentiated Stringency scenarios can slightly reduce the volume of mismanaged waste over time (from 9.8 Mt in 2022 to 9.3 Mt in 2050), bringing down the share of mismanaged waste from 70% in 2022 to 21%. The considerable remaining leakage in this region in the Differentiated Stringency scenario stems from large waste volumes (44 Mt in 2050 vs 14 Mt in 2022) and limited effectiveness of the downstream policies to close leakage pathways.
Waste in Mt.
Source: OECD ENV-Linkages model.
A major consequence of the larger volumes of mismanaged waste in the Differentiated Stringency scenario is the increased leakage of plastics to the environment: by 2050, 4.6 Mt is projected to leak to the environment – 2.6 Mt in ASEAN, 2.0 Mt in the Plus Three (Figure 6.13). The biggest contributions come from countries that have 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 (they have significant mismanaged waste shares). This is still substantially below the Baseline projection (of 14.1 Mt), but implies that every year the stocks of plastic in the environment continue to accumulate, and plastic pollution in the APT region cannot be eliminated.
Plastic leakage to the environment in Mt.
Source: OECD ENV-Linkages model.
6.4.2. The Differentiated Stringency scenario has lower costs for ASEAN countries, but not for the APT as a whole
A priori, less ambitious policies to mitigate plastic leakage may seem appropriate from a narrow policy cost perspective.14 This is true to some extent in the ASEAN countries, where the Differentiated Stringency policies can lower some of the macroeconomic costs from implementing policies to end plastic leakage (Figure 6.14). Specifically, it can be costly for ASEAN LMIC with high Baseline share of mismanaged waste to achieve the high recycling rates in the High Stringency scenario, and the lower ambition levels for lower middle-income countries in the Differentiated Stringency scenario imply smaller and thus less costly adjustments. The opposite holds, however, for the Plus Three countries as they can benefit from improvements in their competitive position, driven not least by the positive economic effects of the eco-design policies (as these make production of plastic substitutes and repair services cheaper). Overall, the macroeconomic impacts for the APT are worse in the Differentiated Stringency scenario than in the High Stringency scenario. These results point to the need for an equitable sharing of the burden to end plastic pollution, and potentially for financial or technical support for ASEAN LMIC to contribute to the regional and global efforts to eliminate plastic leakage (see Chapter 7 for a further discussion).
Deviation from Baseline scenario in 2050.
Source: OECD ENV-Linkages model.
In terms of (cumulative) waste treatment costs, (OECD, 2024[1]) already clearly showed that the focusing only on downstream policies are less cost-effective than implementing policies throughout the plastic lifecycle. Comparing the High Stringency and Differentiated Stringency scenarios illustrates that this is also the case for the APT region (Figure 6.15). While the High Stringency scenario primarily revolves around a re-orientation of investments into waste management, the larger volumes of waste in the Differentiated Stringency scenario imply higher costs for collection and sorting (USD 29 bln above Baseline in Differentiated Stringency vs. USD 58 bln below Baseline in High Stringency), as well as higher costs for recycling (USD 178 bln above Baseline in Differentiated Stringency vs. USD 130 bln above Baseline in High Stringency). Furthermore, the cost savings from lower shares of incineration and landfilling are smaller (USD -40 bln and USD -57 bln, respectively), as larger volumes have to be treated. Thus, total cumulative waste treatment costs in the Differentiated Stringency scenario amount to USD 167 bln above Baseline, versus USD 15 bln in High Stringency, a difference of USD 153 bln.
Cumulative waste management costs for 2022-2050 in deviation from Baseline scenario, USD bln.
Source: OECD ENV-Linkages model.
The composition of this additional cumulative cost of USD 153 bln in total differs significantly across countries (panel B in Figure 6.15): in the high- and upper middle-income countries, i.e. ASEAN HIC & UMIC and the Plus Three, the additional costs are concentrated in recycling, as waste collection and sorting already take place for almost all generated waste in the Baseline. Furthermore, the reduction in waste volumes translates into cost savings for collection, sorting and incineration (or landfilling, depending on the country) compared to the Baseline; the latter effect remains strong in Japan and Korea in the Differentiated Stringency scenario (USD 18 bln below Baseline), although still weaker than in High Stringency. China is an intermediate case, where the waste collection savings are not very significant (also in comparison to the savings in High Stringency), but there is a shift in costs from landfilling to recycling.
The ASEAN LMIC are in a different situation, given the significant amount of mismanaged waste in the Baseline: more waste needs to be collected and sorted and then either landfilled or recycled in the Differentiated Stringency scenario than in High Stringency. These all lead to additional costs, and there are almost no savings from reduced waste volumes, which decrease from 46 Mt in 2050 in the Baseline to 44 Mt in the Differentiated Stringency scenario (and 33 Mt in High Stringency).
While this Outlook focuses on policy action in the APT, global policy ambition and strengthened co-operation are critical to ending plastic leakage globally, as emphasised by previous OECD analyses (OECD, 2022[3]; OECD, 2024[1]). The core scenario discussed in this chapter (High Stringency) explores a pathway to ending plastic leakage, focusing on the APT region. The scenario assumes that the countries outside the APT implement policies with differentiated ambitions.15 This section complements the analysis by discussing how policies in the rest of the world can influence outcomes of policy action to end plastic leakage, in the APT and globally.
While the APT region can nearly eliminate its own plastic leakage through ambitious and regionally co-ordinated domestic policies, the effective protection of shared global commons requires ambitious policies also at the global level. The ocean is home to rich biodiversity that underpin indispensable and often irreplaceable ecosystem services that benefit all countries, including support for livelihoods for billions of people, climate regulation, carbon sequestration and oxygen generation. Oceans are also interconnected systems. Plastic leakage is transboundary, meaning that leaked plastic originating outside the APT contributes to the region’s environmental burden, and equally, plastic leakage in the APT region can also affect the environment in the rest of the world.
This section explores the implications of high policy ambition in the rest of the world. It evaluates the implications in terms of environmental benefits for the APT region and globally, by looking in particular at the transboundary movements of leaked plastics from neighbouring regions to the APT region, which contribute to pollution in aquatic environments. It also assesses the economic implications of policy action in the APT on i) the comparative advantage of the APT economies and ii) changes in demand for APT goods and services to explore whether there would be significant economic implications for the APT in taking ambitious policy action independent of the level of ambition in the rest of the world. Implications for financing and needs for capacity-building are discussed separately, and in more detail, in Chapter 7.
6.5.1. The High Stringency scenario nearly eliminates mismanaged plastic waste in the APT
If the rest of the world aligns with the APT to implement High Stringency policies (Global High Stringency scenario), plastics use in the APT region declines slightly more by 2050 to 194 Mt (vs 201 Mt in High Stringency). The reason for this is an indirect knock-on effect of policies implemented outside the APT region. Specifically, the stringent policies outside the APT – which are aligned with the stringency in the APT region and more stringent than in the High Stringency scenario – result in less demand for plastic products from the APT region. Thus, producers in the region can export less plastics, thereby reducing production and use of plastics in the APT region by 4% compared to the High Stringency scenario (see Annex Figure 6.B.5 in Annex 6.A for results on effects for specific sectors).
As all APT countries export less plastics in the Global High Stringency scenario; net exports from the APT region decrease by 16% compared to the High Stringency scenario.16 These changes depend crucially on the competitive position of the plastics sector: the domestic production prices of primary and secondary plastics shift, and these shifts are not homogeneous across countries. Thus, there are comparative advantages to be exploited by revising trade flows. In terms of plastics applications, this trade effect mostly affects packaging plastics (see Annex Figure 6.B.4 in Annex 6.A).
As in the other scenarios, regional waste streams largely follow the patterns of plastics use, with a time lag depending on the application; the effect of plastic waste trade flows remains limited.17 Thus, total waste in the APT region in 2050 is projected to be slightly lower (4%) in the Global High Stringency scenario (178 Mt vs. 186 Mt in the High Stringency scenario; see Figure 6.16). As expected, the effects of policies outside the APT on the ways in which waste is treated are minimal, despite some minor differences in plastic waste trade volumes (the projections assume imported waste is handled together with domestically produced waste).
Plastic waste in Mt in 2050.
Source: OECD ENV-Linkages model.
6.5.2. Regional policy action alone cannot solve plastic pollution entirely
While plastic leakage from land-based sources in a given country is primarily determined by domestic activities, policies and waste management infrastructure, plastic pollution is a global issue, both in its causes and its consequences (Annex Figure 6.B.7 in Annex 6.B shows how ambitious policy outside the APT region affects plastic leakage). Ambitious regional policy action in the APT countries alone suffices to nearly eliminate plastic leakage originating from the region.18 However, plastic pollution, including that in shared aquatic environments, cannot be fully addressed through regional action alone. Furthermore, as highlighted above, the main benefit of the Global High Stringency scenario is that it protects the planet and its oceans from plastic pollution, rather than only protecting the environment in the APT.
Even if the APT countries eliminate their own plastic leakage, they remain vulnerable to plastic leakage originating elsewhere. By 2022, the volume of leaked plastics originating outside the APT but stranded in aquatic environments in the APT region is estimated at 1.3 Mt (Table 6.3), while 1.1 Mt has transferred from the APT to the rest of the world. Furthermore, the Plus Three countries are the origin of 1.1 Mt of plastics accumulated in the ASEAN aquatic environments; the opposite transfer, from ASEAN to Plus Three, is much smaller at 0.2 Mt, reflecting the geography of the region as well as historic volumes of plastic leakage (see Chapter 2). Larger amounts are transferred among ASEAN countries (2.2 Mt) albeit not much between the Plus Three (0.2 Mt), highlighting that while plastics flow across borders, the effects decline with distance.19
While these numbers are smaller than the domestic plastic leakage in the APT (for comparison, 65 Mt of plastic has accumulated in the APT aquatic environment in 2022), it highlights that no country can fully insulate itself from global environmental problems. Over time, amounts of plastics stranded in APT aquatic environments grow steadily. By 2050, under current policies (Baseline scenario), the annual “inflow” of plastics from outside the APT amounts to 0.2 Mt (Annex Figure 6.B.8 in Annex 6.B), particularly affecting ASEAN LMIC (82% of inflows), and less so ASEAN HIC & UMIC and the Plus Three. By 2050, 4.3 Mt of plastics leaked outside the APT is projected to be stranded in ASEAN, and another 0.6 Mt in the Plus Three. Cross-border transfers among countries in the APT region lead to a projected 11.8 Mt of plastics stranded in a different APT country than where it originated. Flows from the APT to the rest of the world rise less rapidly, amounting to 3.9 Mt of APT-originated plastic stranded outside the APT.
The High Stringency scenario, which assumes High Stringency within the APT but not globally, projects a slowdown of these cross-border flows of plastic, but still steady increase in plastic leakage to rivers, lakes and oceans in the APT region. The accumulation of plastics from outside the region is limited to 4.5 Mt (i.e. 0.4 Mt below Baseline, and 3.2 Mt above 2022 values). But APT-originated leaked plastic stranded outside the region declines from 3.9 Mt to 2.6 Mt as a result of the APT policies.
In the Global High Stringency scenario, the stronger policy action outside the APT mitigates the amounts of plastics stranded in the APT to 3.7 Mt by 2050, 0.8 Mt less than the High Stringency scenario. The leakage from APT countries stranded outside the region remains the same across the two policy scenarios (2.6 Mt). There are also some differences between the High Stringency and Global High Stringency scenarios in leakage that flows among the Plus Three countries and to ASEAN, with the global scenario leading to lower transfers of leaked plastics. This is in line with the differences in total and mismanaged waste in the Plus Three countries described above: lower domestic leakage also means lower transfer of leaked plastic to other countries.
While changes across scenarios in inflows of plastics to aquatic environments in the APT do not seem very large on an annual basis, the build-up over time is significant. The shares of the different destinations do not alter significantly across scenarios (Annex Figure 6.B.7 in Annex 6.B presents the associated regional flows in more detail). However, cumulative values underscore the importance of global ambition to comprehensively end plastic pollution. Plastics still leaking into the environment between now and 2050, and flowing between different aquatic environments for decades to come continue to accrue. Thus, stocks of plastics in the APT aquatic environment continue to rise until 2050, even in the most ambitious global scenario, ranging from 181 Mt in the Baseline to 121 Mt in the High Stringency scenario and 120 Mt in the Global High Stringency scenario (compared to 65 Mt in 2022). Moreover, interventions such as clean-up measures and remediation interventions could be envisioned as part of a high ambitious scenario implemented globally, however these are not modelled as part of the Global High Stringency scenario and the possible benefits in reducing transboundary flows of plastic leakage are not quantified.
Ultimately, the case for global High Stringency extends beyond regional flows of aquatic plastic leakage. Oceans and freshwater ecosystems provide critical ecosystem services, including carbon sequestration, biodiversity preservation and livelihoods and food security. Their health depends on action that transcends national borders. The APT can control its own contribution to plastic leakage, however securing long-term environmental benefits requires shared global responsibility and ambitious global policy action.
Accumulation of non-domestically leaked plastics in regional aquatic (shoreline) environment by origin and destination, and by scenario
Source: Adapted from (Borrelle et al., 2020[9]), (Meijer et al., 2021[10]) and (Chassignet, Xu and Zavala-Romero, 2021[11]), based on OECD ENV-Linkages model.
6.5.3. Cost and competitiveness implications are limited for APT countries, even without global ambition
In both High Stringency and Differentiated Stringency scenarios for the APT, the average cost of the policy package in terms of GDP loss from Baseline are slightly higher when countries outside the APT implement High Stringency policies, but similar overall (Figure 6.17). When countries outside the APT increase their ambition, their economies contract compared to the scenarios with laxer policies; this then also reduces demand for goods and services from the APT region.20 Nonetheless, the differences are small, especially in the countries with the largest economic impact, i.e. ASEAN LMIC. Importantly, this implies that the APT region does not lose significant competitive position vis-à-vis their competitors when they do not align their policy stringency to other countries.
Of all four scenarios, the one where APT countries implement High Stringency policies while the rest of the world have differentiated ambitions, leads to the lowest aggregated macroeconomic impact. In other words, a ”go high alone” strategy where APT countries adopt high stringency policies throughout the lifecycle is not more costly than global high stringency action – competitiveness concerns should not deter the APT region from increasing their domestic ambition on plastics-related policies (as long as they adopt a balanced set of policies tackling the entire lifecycle). Nonetheless, global technical co-operation and finance, which are not explicitly modelled in these scenarios, could potentially affect these results significantly (see Chapter 7).
Variation compared to the Baseline scenario in 2050.
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.
Notes: White cells represent Baseline assumptions; light-blue cells low stringency; dark blue cells high stringency (see (OECD, 2024[1]) for more details).
HUMIC = High- and upper middle-income countries; LLMIC = Low and lower middle-income countries; regional allocation is an approximation by model region, not by country: the model HUMIC regions include all OECD regions, China, Non-OECD EU, OECD and non-OECD Latin America, Eurasia as well as Thailand and Rest of ASEAN - HIC and UMIC (Brunei Darussalam, Malaysia, Singapore).
Sectoral plastics use reduction in the APT region in Mt in the High Stringency scenario in 2050 compared to Baseline.
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.
Reduction in plastics use by polymer types in APT in Mt in the High Stringency scenario in 2050, relative to Baseline.
Note: “PVC,” “Other”, “PS” and “PUR” are the “hard to collect or recycle” polymer types referenced. Scales differ by panel. 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.
Share of secondary plastics in total production in the High Stringency scenario.
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.
Note: In some cases, the amounts of plastics for specific applications are too small to report changes across scenarios. 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.
Total plastics use in million tonnes (Mt), and shares of primary and secondary
Source: OECD ENV-Linkages model.
Mt
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.
Plastic leakage to the environment in Mt in 2050.
Source: Adapted from (Borrelle et al., 2020[9]; Meijer et al., 2021[10]), based on OECD ENV-Linkages model.
Aquatic leakage from rest of the world reaching the APT aquatic (shoreline) environment in 2050 per scenario, Mt.
Note: Rest of ASEAN – LMIC includes Cambodia, Lao PDR, Myanmar, Philippines, Viet Nam; Rest of ASEAN – HIC & UMIC includes Brunei Darussalam, Malaysia, Singapore.
Source: Adapted from (Borrelle et al., 2020[9]), (Meijer et al., 2021[10]) and (Chassignet, Xu and Zavala-Romero, 2021[11]), based on OECD ENV-Linkages model.
Plastic leakage traveling between regions in million tonnes (Mt) in 2050 (flows coloured by country of origin)
Note: Excludes intra-regional flows. Rest of ASEAN – LMIC includes Cambodia, Lao PDR, Myanmar, Philippines, Viet Nam; Rest of ASEAN – HIC & UMIC includes Brunei Darussalam, Malaysia, Singapore.
Source: Adapted from (Borrelle et al., 2020[9]), (Meijer et al., 2021[10]) and (Chassignet, Xu and Zavala-Romero, 2021[11]), based on OECD ENV-Linkages model.
References
[8] 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.
[5] Avery, E. et al. (2025), “Polyethylene packaging and alternative materials in the United States: A life cycle assessment”, Science of The Total Environment, Vol. 961, p. 178359, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.178359.
[9] 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.
[11] 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.
[10] 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.
[7] Meng, F., M. Brandão and J. Cullen (2024), “Replacing Plastics with Alternatives Is Worse for Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Most Cases”, Environmental Science & Technology, Vol. 58/6, pp. 2716-2727, https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.3c05191.
[1] OECD (2024), Policy Scenarios for Eliminating Plastic Pollution by 2040, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/76400890-en.
[12] OECD (2023), Towards Eliminating Plastic Pollution by 2040: A Policy Scenario Analysis - Interim Findings, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, https://www.oecd.org/environment/plastics/Interim-Findings-Towards-Eliminating-Plastic-Pollution-by-2040-Policy-Scenario-Analysis.pdf.
[2] OECD (2022), Global Plastics Outlook: Economic Drivers, Environmental Impacts and Policy Options, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/de747aef-en.
[3] OECD (2022), Global Plastics Outlook: Policy Scenarios to 2060, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/aa1edf33-en.
[4] Raubenheimer, K. and N. Urho (2024), Global criteria to address problematic, unnecessary and avoidable plastic products, https://doi.org/10.6027/temanord2024-508.
[6] United Nations Environment Programme (2021), Addressing Single-use Plastic Products Pollution Using a Life Cycle Approach. Nairobi.
← 1. The policy scenario analysis focuses on the elimination of mismanaged plastic waste and of the leakage to the environment of macroplastics, i.e. recognisable plastic items and litter. Microplastic leakage projections are beyond the scope of this Outlook.
← 2. In contrast, plastics use in the policy scenario is below 2022 levels in Korea and Japan.
← 3. The ban on selected single-use plastic products also affects PP specifically.
← 4. These shares of secondary plastics in production and use do not transpose proportionately to the different sectors, applications and polymers. Secondary plastics are easier to implement in certain application and polymers than others, and in countries with low shares of secondary in the Baseline, the transition will be slower, affecting especially long-lived applications and the corresponding sectors (not least construction). These results hinge crucially on overcoming technical barriers to increase recycling of all polymers and reducing recycling losses, as discussed in (OECD, 2022[3]).
← 5. Due to concerns with the feasibility and the environmental impacts of chemical recycling, the scenario analysis assumes that mechanical recycling technologies are the primary type of recycling technology adopted by countries (OECD, 2023[12]).
← 6. The policy scenario assumes improvements in litter collection rates, especially in the lower middle-income ASEAN countries. Such improvements will bring these countries up to the global best practice, but cannot avoid all littered plastic from leaking to the environment.
← 7. Cambodia, Indonesia, Lao PDR, Myanmar, Philippines and Viet Nam.
← 8. The policy scenario does not assume high stringency global policies, but rather differentiated ambitions outside of APT (see Annex 6.A). The consequences of policy action in the rest of the world are explored in Section 6.5.
← 9. Whether these alternatives have a better environmental profile is still subject of discussion, and depends among others on how often products are reused (see e.g. (Meng, Brandão and Cullen, 2024[7]) for a discussion on climate effects and (Avery et al., 2025[5]) for a discussion of packaging alternatives). Box 6.1 discussed some of the considerations to keep in mind when designing reduction or lifespan extension policies, as well as risks for unintended effects.
← 10. This effectively aligns the ambitions in the APT to the ones outside the region.
← 11. Plus Three (China, Korea and Japan), and ASEAN HIC & UMIC (Thailand, Brunei Darussalam, Malaysia and Singapore).
← 12. ASEAN LMIC (Indonesia, Cambodia, Lao PDR, Myanmar, the Philippines and Viet Nam).
← 13. Low stringency implies that new policies are implemented beyond the Baseline (and thus go beyond current policies), but with lower stringency that in High Stringency.
← 14. Narrow in the sense of looking only at the cost of action, and ignoring the cost of inaction, i.e. the full welfare cost associated with environmental impacts.
← 15. Annex 6.A details the modelling set-up for the scenarios and Annex 6.B provides detailed results by scenario.
← 16. This regional result reflects an arbitrage in the model calculations between producers across countries, and depends on the specific model and policy assumptions. Different policy instrument choice could for example affect this outcome significantly.
← 17. The modelling scenarios do not include scenario-specific assumptions on the evolution of waste trade; one could imagine that a specific regional policy package for the APT countries would include specific policies related to waste imports or exports, but that is beyond the scope of the current analysis. (OECD, 2022[3]) has shown that the impact of the assumptions on plastic waste trade is limited.
← 18. Some leakage would remain in the absence of specific solutions for uncollected litter, road markings, etc.
← 19. This reflects only transfers between countries and excludes domestic leakage that strands within the country.
← 20. The full story is more complicated, as all relative prices start to shift in response to the policy shocks and thus competitive positions of all industries in all countries change at the margin. But the trade effect tends to dominate.