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​.sci​encemag​.org/​c​o​n​t​e​n​t​/​3​/​7​/​e​1​7​00782
2https://​sci​ence​.sci​encemag​.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