Home / Chroniques / Plastic waste: the need to act quickly before we are submerged
Garbage pile in trash dump or landfill. Pollution concept.
π Economics π Geopolitics π Industry π Planet

Plastic waste : the need to act quickly before we are submerged

Isabelle Méjean
Isabelle Méjean
Professor of Economics at Sciences Po
julien martin
Julien Martin
professor in the Department of Economics at the University of Quebec in Montréal (ESG-UQAM)

[This article is a sum­ma­ry of a note publi­shed by the Ins­ti­tut des poli­tiques publiques. To read the ori­gi­nal article click here]

In Janua­ry 2021, the Euro­pean Com­mis­sion ban­ned the export of dif­fi­cult-to-recycle waste to non-OECD coun­tries. We have exa­mi­ned the poten­tial impact of this new mea­sure for French expor­ters by com­pa­ring it to China’s abrupt deci­sion to ban plas­tic waste imports in 2017.

Plastic as a raw material

An esti­ma­ted 6.3 bil­lion tons of plas­tic waste were pro­du­ced world­wide bet­ween 1950 and 20151. Only about 20% of this waste was recy­cled or inci­ne­ra­ted. The rest has accu­mu­la­ted in land­fills or in the envi­ron­ment in gene­ral2

Plas­tic waste is now a tra­ded com­mo­di­ty sold by the tonne. In theo­ry, deve­lo­ping coun­tries (with low labour costs) should be able to pro­fit eco­no­mi­cal­ly by impor­ting this waste. In prac­tice, howe­ver, most do not have the infra­struc­tures to treat the waste cor­rect­ly. It the­re­fore just ends up on rub­bish heaps. 

Des­pite the Basel Conven­tion on the Control of Trans­boun­da­ry Move­ments of Hazar­dous Wastes and their Dis­po­sal, which was signed in 1989 to pro­tect these coun­tries from “envi­ron­men­tal dum­ping”, exports of hazar­dous waste have remai­ned high. To coun­ter this phe­no­me­non, some emer­ging coun­tries have adop­ted uni­la­te­ral mea­sures. The most radi­cal of these was the 2017 ban by Chi­na, who no lon­ger wan­ted to be the “world’s rub­bish-bin” (figure 1).

Until 2018, Chi­na was the world’s lar­gest impor­ter of plas­tic waste.

China’s deci­sion not only chan­ged the sta­tus quo of glo­bal plas­tic waste mana­ge­ment, it also dra­ma­ti­cal­ly revea­led many of its short­co­mings on a natio­nal level. So much so that the Euro­pean Com­mis­sion, for its part, adop­ted new regu­la­tions from 1 Janua­ry 2021, both for within the EU and bet­ween the EU and the rest of the world. Except for clean waste sent for recy­cling, the export of plas­tic waste from the EU to non-OECD coun­tries (that is, less indus­tria­li­sed nations) is now pro­hi­bi­ted. Exports to OECD coun­tries and within the EU are also more strict­ly regulated.

China’s ban as a comparison

France expor­ted 4 mil­lion metric tonnes (Mt) of plas­tic waste bet­ween 2010 and 2019. About a quar­ter of this waste was ship­ped most­ly to Chi­na and the rest sent main­ly to other EU coun­tries. To bet­ter pre­dict the impact of the new regu­la­to­ry changes intro­du­ced by the Euro­pean Com­mis­sion, we ana­ly­sed how French expor­ters had pre­vious­ly adap­ted to the Chi­nese ban – in terms of quan­ti­ties expor­ted, des­ti­na­tions and prices.

We used a data set pro­vi­ded by French cus­toms. This infor­ma­tion does not, howe­ver, take into account ille­gal trade, which is dif­fi­cult to esti­mate. We com­pa­red how the beha­viour of two groups of com­pa­nies chan­ged fol­lo­wing the 2017 deci­sion. The first, or “trea­ted”, group inclu­ded firms that were acti­ve­ly expor­ting to Chi­na in 2016 or 2017. The second, or “control”, group was not expor­ting to these destinations.

What does the study show ?

A col­lapse in glo­bal trade in plas­tic waste, which fell by a half by 2018. It also high­lights that half of the waste pre­vious­ly expor­ted to Chi­na has been real­lo­ca­ted to other coun­tries (figure 2). The pro­blem has thus lar­ge­ly been displaced.

The impact of the Chi­nese ban on French plas­tic waste exports to China.

France, for its part, increa­sed exports to Malay­sia and other East Asian coun­tries, but not to the EU, implying that this lat­ter mar­ket was alrea­dy satu­ra­ted. Ove­rall, exports fell by 30,000 tonnes in 2018, sug­ges­ting that more plas­tic waste had to be pro­ces­sed domes­ti­cal­ly. Trea­ted French com­pa­nies were also 15% more like­ly to export to the EU in 2018 and 22% more like­ly in 2019. The figures are higher for exports to out­side the EU with an addi­tio­nal increase of 39% in 2018 and 37% in 2019.

We did find, howe­ver, that the situa­tion was very dif­ferent for the two sets of des­ti­na­tions : affec­ted com­pa­nies reac­ted imme­dia­te­ly by redi­rec­ting their exports to other coun­tries out­side the EU, but they also star­ted to redi­rect these exports to Euro­pean part­ner coun­tries from 2018 onwards – and increa­sin­gly so in 2019. A lon­ger time per­iod would be nee­ded to confirm these trends.

The quality of French exports and prices

The Chi­nese ban also affec­ted the type of plas­tic waste expor­ted by France to other coun­tries. The data shows that Malay­sia has repla­ced Chi­na for when it comes to low qua­li­ty waste, which is sold on ave­rage 60% chea­per than the ave­rage price of exports to the Nether­lands (an impor­tant tra­ding part­ner for France) for the same pro­duct categories.

What is more, the dif­ferent Euro­pean mem­ber states seem to have reor­ga­ni­sed their plas­tic waste mana­ge­ment and a form of spe­cia­li­sa­tion has appea­red. Bel­gium has become a plat­form, for example, while Ger­ma­ny and the Nether­lands import the chea­pest waste and burn it to pro­duce ener­gy from recy­cled mate­rials. Cer­tain coun­tries, such as Ita­ly and Spain, are focu­sing on pro­ces­sing higher qua­li­ty, more expen­sive waste.

Conclusions

The way in which the 2017 Chi­nese ban affec­ted French exports both within the Euro­pean mar­ket and to the rest of the world can pro­vide valuable infor­ma­tion on how France will adapt to the new 2021 EU regu­la­tions. One impor­tant conse­quence is that much of the country’s dif­fi­cult-to-recycle waste will now have to be trea­ted at home. In the short term, this will require mas­sive invest­ment in modern and effi­cient sor­ting and recy­cling infra­struc­tures. Any delay in set­ting up these sys­tems could encou­rage an increase in ille­gal trade in this lucra­tive sec­tor. This is some­thing that hap­pens in gene­ral when poli­cies are tigh­te­ned and state invest­ment is lacking. 

Our stu­dy pro­vides gui­de­lines for quick action by making use of ini­tia­tives such as the Green Pact for Europe, which aims to recycle 50% of the plas­tic waste gene­ra­ted by the EU by 2030. Concer­ted efforts by mem­ber states could allow the trade in plas­tic waste to become a source of eco­no­mic gain for Europe by 2030, while being bene­fi­cial for the environment.

Summary by Isabelle Dumé 
1https://​advances​.scien​ce​mag​.org/​c​o​n​t​e​n​t​/​3​/​7​/​e​1​7​00782
2https://​science​.scien​ce​mag​.org/​c​o​n​t​e​n​t​/​3​4​7​/​6​2​2​3/768

Contributors

Isabelle Méjean

Isabelle Méjean

Professor of Economics at Sciences Po

Isabelle Méjean is a professor of economics at Sciences Po. A member of CEPR since 2017, she has also been a scientific advisor at CEPII and a member of the CESifo research network since January 2025. She was a full professor at Ecole Polytechnique (IP Paris) from 2017 to 2021.

julien martin

Julien Martin

professor in the Department of Economics at the University of Quebec in Montréal (ESG-UQAM)

Julien Martin's research interests relate to international trade, urban economics and macroeconomics. A member of the Centre d’Etudes sur l’Intégration et la Mondialisation (CEIM), he holds the UQAM Strategic Research Chair on the local impact of multinational firms since 2019.

Support accurate information rooted in the scientific method.

Donate