EU Leadership: A Policy Framework for Plastic Recycling [Promoted content]

Plastic consumption has surged in recent years, mirroring global economic growth and serving needs in a variety of products and packaging. However, this generates 360 million tonnes of plastic waste per year, 71 percent of which is poorly managed and risks leaking into the environment. Plastic waste pollution is a global challenge that needs to be addressed in every region.

Martyn Tickner is Chief Advisor Circular Solutions at Alliance to End Plastic Waste.

In March 2022, 175 countries participating in the UN Environment Assembly in Nairobi collectively endorsed a resolution to combat plastic pollution. This landmark agreement signifies a unified, global commitment to address the plastic waste crisis. This will however require tailored strategies, consistent with the different levels of waste management maturity and capabilities of each individual country.

The recently launched Plastic Waste Management Framework, published by the Alliance to End Plastic Waste (the “Alliance”) with the support of Roland Berger, identifies six different categories of waste management maturity. They range from Category 1, “Undeveloped Systems”, in which waste management infrastructure and relevant policy are almost completely absent, to Category 6, “Developed Performing Systems”, where a handful of countries; namely Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, and the Republic of Korea are leading the way on the transition to a circular economy of plastics. 

An analysis of 192 countries identified that over 70 percent of nations classified as Category 5, “Advanced Systems with Challenges”, or Category 6 are EU member states, achieving a recycling rate for packaging waste above 40 or 50 percent respectively. In comparison, Asia recycles around 12 percent of plastic waste and North America just 5 percent.

Furthermore, plastic waste that is not recycled in those more advanced countries is disposed of in controlled landfills or waste-to-energy facilities. However, plastic waste in countries at an earlier stage of waste management maturity is often unmanaged and leaks into the environment or is littered in uncontrolled dump sites where open burning is common, resulting in high carbon and potentially toxic emissions.  

The different categories in the Framework serve to characterise those differences and to identify the most important areas of focus for the development of infrastructure, capacity and supporting policy. These are intended to help inform policymakers of pragmatic measures they can consider when developing National Action Plans to advance waste management systems and improve plastic circularity.

Category 1, “Undeveloped Systems”, refers to countries lacking basic waste management infrastructure. Hence, the primary objective is to keep plastic waste out of the environment, requiring legislation that establishes responsibilities for basic waste management. This will need to go hand in hand with building institutional capacity to be able to develop necessary waste management systems including the introduction of controlled waste disposal and managed landfills.

Category 2, “Incipient Systems”, are typically low-income economies in which a recycling economy is beginning to emerge, but leakage of waste into the environment remains a significant problem. Overall plastic waste recycling rates are likely to be below 8 percent, but higher value polymers are collected, mostly by an informal sector comprised of “waste pickers”, who pick and sort waste for a living, enabling recycling at rates of 30 to 40 percent either locally or by means of export. Countries in this category can achieve quick wins in urban and semi-urban areas through improved collection of waste from households and retail and food and beverage outlets. Basic legislative framework and the development of appropriate infrastructure will enable significant mid-term improvements in recycling rates. 

Category 3, “Developing Systems”, encompass a wide range of countries, from low-income countries to highly developed nations, such as the United States and Australia, who have yet to establish the right frameworks to drive packaging recycling rates above 15 percent. Low-income countries in this category are likely to be still struggling with leakage into the environment, whereas the higher-income countries rely on regulated landfills or waste-to-energy as an end-of-life solution. Recycling is driven by inherent market opportunity, lacking the necessary policy interventions to spur further improvement. They have the potential to significantly increase their recycling volumes by establishing requirements such as responsibilities and targets for collection and sorting and supporting the necessary investments for recycling infrastructure. 

Category 4, “Functional, Largely Unregulated Systems”, comprises developing or advanced economies with relatively mature waste infrastructure and policies and which have achieved packaging recycling rates of up to 25%. However, included in Category 4 are some lower-income countries for example; India, Brazil, Vietnam, Malaysia, and Argentina, which have surpassed countries such as the United States, Australia, Singapore and Russia in Category 3. These countries rely heavily on the involvement of the informal sector. This will be important to address as individual wealth improves and increasingly formalised waste management systems and policies emerge. The is used to describe the need for consideration of the future for such individuals, for example through integration either as informal workers or employees within formal waste management systems. “Just transition” is used to describe the need for consideration of the future for such individuals, for example through integration either as informal workers or employees within formal waste management systems. 

The Alliance has a global portfolio of over 50 projects, of which 8 projects across 10 countries incorporate the informal sector. For example, in Kenya, Alliance project partner, Taka Taka, brought together and trained 500 informal workers dependent on Nairobi’s Dandora landfill. Through this project, these workers were provided with protective clothing, including boots, as well as access to regular health check-ups. Similarly, in Johannesburg, Alliance project partner, the African Reclaimers Organisation (ARO), integrates and supports informal sector reclaimers to provide effective and efficient alternatives to the city’s existing separation-at-source programmes. ARO engages with residents to educate them about who the reclaimers are, what they do, and how they contribute to waste management systems. This helped to improve residents’ perception of reclaimers and acknowledge the value they bring to these communities. 

As mentioned, 23 of the EU member states are Category 5 countries and three in Category 6. Europe’s impressive progress in recycling, its improvements in innovation and technology, and leading policy frameworks, such as the draft Plastic and Packaging Waste Regulation and the Waste Framework Directive, can serve as guiding examples for all regions of the world. These may help less well-developed regions “leapfrog” part of the journey – but it should be acknowledged that waste management is a journey that will take decades to move from unmanaged waste to circularity and even then, this is subject to each country’s financial capabilities. 

Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) is an important case in point. Proven to be an effective way to bring funding needed to evolve the circular economy, it creates accountability for, and incentivises improvement, in cradle-to-grave design. There are significant expectations that EPR will feature strongly in the final outcome of the UNEA International Legally Binding Instrument. 

However, the research behind the Alliance’s Plastic Waste Management Waste Framework found that EPR frameworks are generally still at pilot or early implementation stage in Category 3 and 4 countries and only fully effective in Category 5 and 6. Hence it is important to further evaluate how EPR can be implemented in earlier-stage countries, and what support can be made available for countries that may otherwise struggle with the development and operation of complex compliance-oriented regulations. This is further illustrated by the fact there is no alignment on best practice between the multiple different configurations of EPR – for-profit, not-for-profit, or single versus multiple Producer Responsibility Organisations.

Countries in Categories 1 to 3 are likely still struggling with environmental leakage and unregulated, non-ecological landfills. As such, they are wrestling with the same regulatory and policy challenges that EU countries face at Category 5/6, while at the same time tackling societal issues, inadequate financing, and capability to drive towards the ideals of circular solutions. These types of unique experiences are why a one-size-fits-all approach to plastic pollution does not work, and why national roadmaps need to be crafted pragmatically and accordingly to each country’s specific needs. 

Plastic waste will continue to pose a critical environmental challenge for decades to come. The EU can play a pivotal role in addressing this challenge through a) providing support in areas where developing countries need assistance and b) in thought leadership on how to adapt European best practices to local realities. This requires finding a pragmatic balance between actions delivering quick impact whilst minimising the risk of stagnation, which will hinder continuous progression towards a future circular economy of plastics.