FIRST, A LITTLE ABOUT THE METHODOLOGY
Geographic scope of modelling
Modelling was split into 9 distinct regions of similar characteristics:
Plastic Treaty Futures
Scenarios
9 Regions
⬤ AP4 (Australia, Japan, New Zealand & Republic of Korea)
⬤ China
⬤ Europe (Incl. Türkiye)
⬤ ESS Asia (Eurasia, South & Southeast Asia)
⬤ India
⬤ LAC (Latin America & Caribbean)
⬤ MENA (Middle East & North Africa)
⬤ North America (Canada & USA)
⬤ SSA (Sub-Saharan Africa)
For a full set of regional results, please refer to the Regional Analysis Tool.
Sector scope of modelling
9 Sectors
The model includes all main economic sectors and plastic applications.
Framework for modelling alternative scenarios
The goal of this analysis is to encapsulate the diverse perspectives and priorities of member states, offering a comprehensive analysis of possible paths forward in the negotiations. The modelling framework is organised along two critical axes based on fundamental differences in approaches espoused by member states in the negotiations thus far. These axes serve as the foundation for distinguishing between the scenarios modelled:
Scope of action
This axis ranges from comprehensive strategies across the full plastic lifecycle to those with a more focused approach, concentrating on downstream impacts. Both of these represent views that are advocated by a meaningful number of countries.
The full lifecycle perspective encompasses the entire plastics journey, from production and use to disposal and recycling, advocating for comprehensive measures that address the root causes of plastic pollution (eg, reduction and redesign). In contrast, the downstream focus targets the latter stages of the plastic lifecycle, emphasising waste management, recycling and reduction of plastic leakage into the environment.
Degree of coordination
This axis contrasts the level of international collaboration and agreement on legally binding global rules and ambitions with approaches that favour national action guided by non-binding targets and guidelines. Again, these represent different visions for the instrument voiced by negotiating member states.
At one end, consensus on global rules signifies a unified commitment to ambitious, legally binding targets and policies aimed at achieving significant reductions in plastic pollution on a global scale. At the other, a more decentralised approach favours national action based on non-binding targets, with countries setting their own goals within a framework of international guidelines – which allows for flexibility, but could also lead to varied levels of commitment and effectiveness.
By examining the interplay between these axes, our framework identifies four scenarios that reflect a range of potential outcomes for the instrument.
Framework for scenarios for the instrument
Policies under consideration
The policies under consideration for each scenario build on the comprehensive set of 15 policies outlined in the Global Rules Scenario (GRS) described in Towards Ending Plastic Pollution by 2040 (below). This is identical to the Global Full Lifecycle Scenario in this report – thus named to clearly distinguish it according to the two axes outlined above.
The Global Full Lifecycle Scenario, does not suggest binding global rules in every policy area or the need to sacrifice national sovereignty. Rather, the scenario describes consensus on a consistent and harmonised global approach, particularly in those policy areas where coordination is most critical. Countries will continue to set their own laws and national action plans, adopting regionally appropriate measures in line with agreed ambitions and approaches.
The Global Full Lifecycle Scenario involves 15 global policy interventions assumed to be legally binding, concurrent and implemented in all regions and across the full plastic lifecycle:
Policies included in the Global Full Lifecycle Scenario, as shown in the report ‘Towards Ending Plastic Pollution by 2040’
For a detailed description of the 15 policies modelled see “Towards Ending Plastic Pollution by 2040”
The two scenarios encompassing a full lifecycle approach cover all 15 policy areas. In contrast, the downstream-focused scenarios model the adoption of a specific subset of policies advocated by countries that support this approach.
Policies in scope for full lifecycle and waste management
scenarios
The impacts of these policies are estimated to vary based on the degree of coordination involved. Under the scenarios assuming global coordination, the estimated policy impacts are assumed to be equal to the ambition outlined in the Global Full Lifecycle Scenario. That scenario was designed to minimise the negative impacts of mismanaged plastics and plastic releases (including microplastics) into the environment by 2040. It assumed adoption across all geographies, while taking account of diverse regional contexts and different starting points and needs. The potential impact of these policies in each sector and region were based on estimates of the maximum feasible impact from academic literature, existing policies and validation with experts (see the Technical Annex ↗). The Global Waste Management Scenario in this report assumes a uniform global ambition level for relevant downstream policies.
It is not possible to empirically establish the impact of an uncoordinated approach on policy effectiveness compared to globally coordinated interventions. By extrapolating from the Paris Agreement’s nationally determined contribution (NDC) process, we estimate that the two scenarios emphasising national action without consensus on global rules might at best achieve 60% of the impact per policy intervention of the Global Full Lifecycle Scenario in general (see Annex B). This is an uncertain but critical assumption, which is why the Scenario Explorer tool allows users to adjust this assumption on a regional level.
It is worth noting that these assumptions are optimistic and are based on an ambitious implementation of each scenario. They assume the adoption of significant measures across the globe: for example, the National Full Lifecycle Scenario assumes that countries adopt EPR schemes and impose bans on single use plastics, design for recycling requirements, plastic reduction targets, reuse targets and more – all at 60% of the level assumed under the Global Full Lifecycle Scenario. This is an average level, which means either that all countries adopt the policies at the 60% level or that some countries adopt a lower level of ambition while others adopt a higher level.
Policies for which coordination is essential
Plastics are a ubiquitous and globally traded commodity. Consequently, coordinated action at the regional, national and subnational levels is critical to tackle plastic pollution in the most cost-effective manner and secure support from industry. For example, the Business Coalition for a Global Plastics Treaty calls for the adoption of harmonised EPR systems, product design criteria and measures to address chemicals and polymers of concern, as well as avoidable and problematic plastic products. This is because fragmented regulation increases compliance costs and reduces the ability and willingness of businesses to implement new solutions. While some degree of coordination is generally beneficial for all policies, the following classification aims to identify the areas in which such alignment is most critical, based on conversations with academics, practitioners and policymakers:
Tier 1
Global coordination is critical for the harmonisation of definitions and standards across global supply chains, to reduce the cost and complexity of implementation and secure support from industry:
- Bans or restrictions on avoidable single-use plastics and problematic plastics/applications;
- Chemicals of concern (eg, including alignment on criteria and definitions, simplification of polymers, transparency, disclosure and monitoring);
- Design for recycling, durability and repair requirements;
- EPR standards and eco-modulation criteria;
- Recycled content targets;
Restrictions on the plastic waste trade; and - Shared metrics and systems for monitoring plastic pollution.
Tier 2
Global coordination is beneficial to enhance the consistency of standards and target-setting methodologies and facilitate the sharing of learning and technologies, while also recognising that locally tailored targets and standards will be required to reflect local contexts:
- Collection and recycling rate targets;
- Primary plastic fees;
- Reduction targets;
- Reuse targets;
- Standards for controlled disposal; and
- Upstream policies to tackle microplastics.
Tier 3
Global coordination is less critical due to divergent socioeconomic contexts and the need for locally tailored approaches:
- Downstream policies to tackle microplastics;
- The just transition; and
- Mitigation programmes to tackle legacy pollution.
ANNEX A
Short definitions of scenarios
National Waste Management Scenario
Purpose
While there is widespread support for improving waste management, some countries remain opposed to binding rules or targets. This would leave countries the flexibility to determine the mix and intensity of policies they wish to pursue.
Approach
This scenario assumes the implementation of the same policies outlined for the Global Waste Management scenario but at a lower level, due to fewer countries taking action and (some countries adopting less ambitious measures. To simplify, the level of ambition has been scaled down to 60% of the Global Full Lifecycle Scenario (see Annex B).
Global Waste Management Scenario
Purpose
Some countries consider mismanaged plastic waste to be the critical issue that the instrument should address. They point to the need to improve waste management infrastructure – particularly in regions where it is currently lacking – in order to minimise leakage of plastic into the environment. There is widespread support for improving such infrastructure, even among the countries that are advocating for action across the plastic lifecycle – so this scenario assumes a global consensus on action.
Approach
The central policy in this scenario is the introduction of national EPR schemes that increase investment in waste management infrastructure, complemented by targets and standards on collection and disposal, as well as the elimination of the plastic waste trade. While other policies could also improve waste management (eg, primary plastic fees which are invested in waste management infrastructure), we have only included policies that are widely endorsed by the countries advocating for this scenario.
National Full Lifecycle Scenario
Purpose
While many countries recognise the need for solutions across the entire plastic lifecycle, some do not believe an agreement on binding rules or targets is desirable (restricting the flexibility to adopt a mix of solutions deemed locally appropriate) or practical (eg, for domestic or international political reasons).
Approach
This assumes the implementation of the same set of 15 policy interventions across the plastic lifecycle, with levels of policy ambition scaled down to 60% of the Global Full Lifecycle Scenario to reflect the risk that fewer countries will adopt these measures and some countries will have lower ambition levels. This is an estimate based on the experience of implementing the Paris Agreement (see Annex B), but it comes with significant uncertainty. The Scenario Explorer tool allows users to adjust this assumption on a regional level. In addition, the primary plastic fee was lowered to $50 per tonne (eg, a fee of $100 per tonne adopted by half of countries) to more accurately reflect the perspectives of member states.
Global Full Lifecycle Scenario
Purpose
UNEA Resolution 5/14 champions the goal of ‘ending plastic pollution’. With that goal in mind, this scenario was designed to assess the level of ambition required to minimise the negative impacts of mismanaged plastics (including microplastics) and plastic releases into the environment by 2040. We recognise that some member states define ‘plastic pollution’ to include all risks from plastics, not just mismanaged plastic waste. We have focused on mismanaged plastic waste as an important indicator that is more easily modelled, without ignoring other impacts such as GHG emissions, impacts on ecosystems, biodiversity, health and the just transition.
Approach
This assumes the implementation of 15 far-reaching policy interventions across the plastic lifecycle, adopted across all geographies, while taking account of diverse regional contexts and different starting points and needs. This does not suggest binding global rules in every policy area, but rather a consistent, harmonised approach, particularly in areas in which coordination is most critical (see Box 2). National action plans and the adoption of regionally appropriate approaches will still be important.
ANNEX B
Estimating the policy impact
of the scenarios
The Global Full Lifecycle Scenario was designed to minimise the negative impacts of mismanaged plastics (including microplastics) and plastic releases into the environment by 2040. It assumes adoption across all geographies, while taking account of diverse regional contexts and different starting points and needs. The potential impact of these policies in each sector and region were based on estimates of the maximum feasible impact from academic literature, existing policies and validation with experts (see the Technical Annex). The Global Waste Management Scenario assumes the global adoption of the same ambition level for relevant downstream policies.
To estimate the policy impact of the scenarios focused on nationally determined action, we look to the Paris Agreement’s NDC process as a benchmark. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change’s 2023 NDC Synthesis Report56 indicates a projected reduction in emissions to 48 GtCO₂e by 2030 in the best-case scenario, marking a 20% decrease from the 60 GtCO₂e initially forecasted when the Paris Agreement was signed in 2015. This would represent approximately 54% of the reduction needed to keep global warming likely below 2°C, which requires a drop to 38 GtCO₂e by 2030. This would fall to 24% or 39% for the worst and mid-case scenarios respectively, accounting for the fact that the actual implementation and impact of national action may fall short of the stated ambition. The most optimistic projection implies that all conditional elements of the NDCs are implemented, which depends mostly on access to enhanced financial resources, technology transfer and technical cooperation, and capacity-building support; the availability of market-based mechanisms; and the absorptive capacity of forests and other ecosystems.
Paris NDC process is expected to deliver between 24% and 54% of the required emission reductions to keep warming likely below 2°C1 by 2030
1. Over 67% likelihood of keeping warming below 2°C.
2. Emissions to 2030 rather than 2050 were used as fewer than half of countries have submitted NDCs with details to 2050 or beyond. The pathway to 2030 is also critical as many emission reductions require investment and policy changes that have long lead-times (eg, infrastructure construction and lock-in effects).
Advocates of this approach argue that lessons from the Paris Agreement could be applied to the instrument to improve the effectiveness of the process – for example, by clearly defining substantive obligations that countries have to report on in national action plans.
The target of minimising plastic pollution by 2040 and the pathways implied under the Global Full Lifecycle Scenario do not yet have the same robustness as the scientifically determined and adopted target of limiting global warming set under the Paris Agreement. However, by using the Paris NDC process as a proxy, we estimate that the National Full Lifecycle Scenario and the National Waste Management Scenario – absent consensus on global rules – might at best achieve 60% of the impact per policy intervention compared to the Global Full Lifecycle Scenario. For example, under the National Full Lifecycle Scenario, the effectiveness of policies banning avoidable single-use plastics would be reduced to 60% of what could be achieved under the Global Full Lifecycle Scenario, taking into account regional and sectoral differences inherent in policy impact assumptions. This is an uncertain but critical assumption, which is why the Scenario Explorer tool allows users to adjust this assumption at a regional level.
There is one exception to the 60% effectiveness assumption for the nationally focused scenarios: following consultation with experts and review of country positions, the assumption for the adoption of national/regional fees on the primary production of polymers was reduced to more accurately reflect the perspectives of member states. The scenario assumes the adoption of a $50 per ton fee by 2040 globally – which in practice could mean that some countries adopt a lower or no fee, while others adopt a higher fee.
Note- A full list of references are available in the main report PDF