Basel Parties Must Close the Plastic Waste Loopholes and Place Basel Controls on All Plastic Waste 

Support for the Norwegian Amendments and Control of the Hidden Plastics

In 2019, the Parties to the Basel Convention adopted three new waste listings now known as the Plastic Waste Amendments: A3210 - hazardous plastics; B3011 - non-hazardous plastics; and Y48 - plastics for special consideration.

These were intended to comprehensively address all plastic waste in three categories -- a hierarchy of concern. It was a major step forward. However, after 4 years of practice, we have seen serious problems revealed which must now be addressed. These problems include:

1. Hidden and forgotten plastics: not all plastic waste is being managed under the 3 listings. Plastic wastes that should be considered Y48 (problematic) or A3210 (hazardous) are instead found in Annex IX legacy listings. We must close those gaps.
   
2. Vague and confusing definitions: it is very difficult for practitioners, customs, and enforcement agents to distinguish between the 3 categories as the definitions are extremely complex, leading to poor implementation.
   
3. Physical harm and chemical toxicity ignored: the categories and the Parties largely ignore the hazardous additives in plastic as well as the harm that comes from microplastics, in particular following recycling.
   
4. Plastics recycling, even of B3011, causes more harm than previously thought: the more we learn about plastic and its ability to be recycled, the more we must face the fact that for many technical and economic reasons, plastic is not a circular material. Our policies must quickly move to reflect that reality.
   
5. Blanket unexamined exemptions in B3011 (i.e. unmixed polymers, cured resins, fluorinated compounds): the legacy exemptions found in B3011 and mirrored in Y48 are no longer fit for purpose. They must, as Norway agrees, be removed.
   

Unfortunately, in practice, the problems and loopholes noted above continue to allow massive quantities of plastic waste to be moved across the globe without proper controls, or in some case any controls whatsoever. We explore each of the highlighted concerns further below. 

Meanwhile, some countries are pointing the way 

Very significantly, on May 21, 2026, all 27 member states of the EU now require prior informed consent (PIC) for all plastic waste leaving the EU under their revised Waste Shipment Regulation, regardless of whether the waste is going to OECD or non-OECD countries, or whether they are hazardous or not. 

Top importers of plastic waste have also been compelled to strengthen their regulations due to the threat that plastic waste imports pose. Thailand has banned all imports of plastic waste. Malaysia requires Certificates of Approval for all plastic waste imports and will not accept any plastic waste, including B3011, from the United States. Vietnam has limited plastic waste imports only for use in plastics manufacturing processes. Indonesia has also announced a plastic waste import ban. 

During the Plastic Waste Amendments negotiations, China at Basel COP14 proposed that the Basel Convention control all plastic wastes, regardless of their destination or hazardousness. Now Norway is proposing the same.

PIC for all plastic wastes – support the Norwegian proposal!

The notion of controlling all plastic waste trade at a minimum by the PIC Procedure is an idea whose time has come.  After all, it is the same approach that has been taken for electronic waste recently with the e-waste Amendments. It would be justified for similar reasons -- many plastic wastes, alone and in mixtures, pose similar problems of dangerous recycling even when the waste itself might be considered non-hazardous. Further, controlling all wastes as one type prevents costly confusion at borders. 

The Application by the Government of Norway for Amendments to Annexes II, VIII, and IX of the Convention Relating to Plastic Waste Entries proposes the same and does so in a way that would largely resolve all of the issues noted above, except for hidden and forgotten plastics.  

Norway asked the Basel Secretariat for Basel OEWG-15 and for COP-18 to consider amending the plastics entries. They noted the lack of clarity in distinguishing the Plastic Waste Amendments entries, and in identifying what constitutes “almost free from contamination and other types of waste”, may lead to poor implementation, resulting in plastic pollution in the environment and risks to human health. 

Norway proposes amending Annexes II, VIII, and IX of the Convention by:

1. deleting the two entries that exempt certain plastics from PIC controls found in Annex IX -- B3011 and B3026; and 
2. amending Annex II (Y48) by deleting all bullet points beyond the first bullet. 

The proposal from Norway also highlights the need to control the export of shredded plastic materials currently exported as "products" rather than as waste, even when the material still meets the definition of waste, and export should be controlled. Refuse-Derived Fuel (RDF) is a clear example of this practice.

The unique problems of plastic waste

Below, we elaborate on the 5 key problems noted above with the Plastic Amendments.  

1. Hidden or forgotten plastics: the Plastic Waste Amendments meant to cover all plastics in existing listings and plastics found in materials yet to be listed. IPEN estimates that the plastic currently covered by Basel's A3210, Y48, and B3011, and reflected largely by HS code 3915, likely only accounts for about 1/2 of the traded plastic waste.
   
   The remainder is found in overlooked plastic waste streams such as textiles and used clothing, almost all of which should be classified as Y48, given that they are mixed, contaminated, and virtually always contain synthetic fibers. Plastics are also found in rubber and tyre wastes. They are found in paper waste, including laminates (often as much as 30%), in scrap vehicles, and in electronic and appliance waste. And, as Norway has pointed out, they are also found in RDF.
   
2. Vague and confusing definitions: it is very difficult for practitioners and enforcement agents to distinguish between the 3 different plastic categories. The listings are defined with pages of text and footnotes rather than 2-3 lines, as is the norm. They carry subjective qualifiers such as "almost free from contamination and other types of wastes,” which are left open to speculation and opinions.
   
   This leads to a global patchwork of different levels of allowable contamination. Leaving this uncertainty in place will lead to one country intentionally or inadvertently opening the doors to become the global dumping ground for certain plastic waste just because they settle on the weakest concentration limits allowed. Lack of legal clarity and a level playing field, creates pollution havens and waste freeways across the globe that traders will exploit, undermining the objectives of the Convention.
   
3. Physical harm and chemical toxicity ignored: the categories largely ignore the hazardous additives in plastic waste as well as its capacity to create microplastics throughout its life cycle,  especially during mechanical recycling. Plastic waste is far more likely to cause harm than was understood even a few years ago. Plastic products, and therefore plastic waste, are inherently toxic: more than 16,000 chemicals are used in their production, of which more than 4,200 are chemicals of concern, classified as persistent, bioaccumulative, mobile, or toxic.  The impact of chemical additives in the recycling workplace and nearby communities is largely unaddressed and remains a likely but unknown risk.
   
   These hazardous additives in practice, are also unregulated by Basel.  For example, every shipment of mixed plastic waste is extremely likely to contain hazardous additives. Thus, all of these loads should be designated as A3210 following a precautionary approach, yet this does not happen. Plastic releases harmful microplastics at every stage of its production, consumption, collection, storage, recycling, and disposal.  It is now established that plastic recycling systems accelerate microplastic pollution and lead to contamination of water and air. Very few recycling facilities are capable of mitigating this substantial risk.
   
4. Plastic recycling, even of B3011, causes more harm than previously thought: the closer we look at plastic recycling as practiced, we learn far more about its many challenges. Currently, we believe that the material cannot be truly considered circular. This is due to many reasons, both technical and economic. One of the largest concerns is that it is almost always a downcycling process, and thus is inferior to virgin plastic, which affects both the quality of products and their economic viability when the price of virgin plastic is low. Further, recycling plastic, which is toxic due to additives, reintroduces the toxicity into the market and creates more potential harm. There is insufficient control of appropriate additives for certain products, and thus harmful additives wind up in food products or children's toys.
   
   Almost all plastic recycling, especially of mixtures coming from post-consumer sources, is only partial, with large amounts of the load not being economic to recycle. Those fractions, once sorted out, are often dumped and burned with varying degrees of harm. Sometimes more than half of a load is not economically recyclable. Since they are not going to be recycled, there is often little incentive to address this material and ensure it does not harm local populations and the environment.  In reality, every export of mixed loads should be considered an export for both recycling and final disposal, as these are both the actual fate of the waste traded.
   
   Yet Basel Parties have not considered this in practice. Basel Parties do not realise that material destined for a recycling facility is also at the same time destined for final disposal, and oftentimes the unrecyclable fractions are swept "under the carpet". It’s also well known that B3011 cannot, according to the definition, be destined for final disposal, yet much is. This weighs strongly in favor of better control for all plastic waste.
   
   Finally, microplastics warrant serious attention. These particles are now found in virtually all life forms and are causing significant harm. Notably, current recycling processes do not capture microplastics but rather accelerate their release through shredding and washing. Yet the Basel Convention requires all waste movements to be managed in an environmentally sound manner (ESM). For the reasons outlined above, identifying facilities capable of ESM plastics recycling will prove extremely difficult.
   
5. Blanket unexamined exemptions in B3011 (i.e. unmixed polymers, cured resins, fluorinated compounds): the current listings Y48 and B3011 include far too many exemptions that are unsubstantiated relics from the very first listings of Annex VIII and IX. These exemptions ignore the inherent hazards of these waste streams and do not track current understandings of the harms of plastic. These listings were based on knowledge about how these plastics behave when manufactured and used — not as they behave when shredded, open-burned, or poorly incinerated in countries with no fluoropolymer waste standards, microfibers standards, or knowledge about hazardous additives.
   
   The fluoropolymer exemptions are especially concerning because some are PFAS and many of the others can break down into PFAS during or after processing. The footnote that limits these being exempted to non-post-consumer waste is not well conceived and is difficult to enforce. While this fluorinated compound list is exhaustive, the other two, which define polymers and cured resins, are not, and therefore there is no way to know that all in that class that we cannot read in the definition do not present hazards or problems during recycling. In sum, the "presumed non-hazardous" designations are not supportable.
   
   What is supportable is bringing these plastics under the Basel regime so that importing countries have transparency and assurances of ESM in the importing facility. 

Our proposed Basel plastic waste reforms

• Support the Norwegian proposal -- remove the Annex IX B3011 listing entirely.  All plastics would be considered as Y48 or A3210.

• Transparency and national control would be guaranteed through the PIC procedure. If there is reason to believe that the waste contains hazardous chemical additives or polymers, then the listing should be A3210. This is precisely the policy formula the Parties followed for e-waste, and it is warranted with plastics too. Not having to make the determination between B3011 and Y48 in every container will be vastly less resource intensive. It will all be controlled at a minimum by PIC and all of the accompanying obligations of the Basel Convention. 

• Parties should immediately interpret the following listed wastes as being of the listing Y48 or A3210 for waste streams that contain significant amounts of plastic (greater than 2% by weight). 

• This much needed reform is not directly called for by the Norwegian proposal. However, its prudent to address it now rather than later. When plastic is found at levels above 2% by weight in a legacy plastic listing (see below), that listing should be retired, with Y48 at a minimum being the more legitimate description and that fact being so noted in Y48. Should there be reason to believe they may contain hazardous constituents (Annex I) possessing hazardous characteristics (Annex III), they should be managed as A3210.

• B3040 - rubber wastes
• B3080 - Waste parings and scraps of rubber
• B3140 - Waste pneumatic tyres, excluding those destined for Annex IVA operations
• B3030 - Textile wastes
• B3035 - Waste textile floor coverings, carpets
• B3020 - Paper, paperboard and paper product wastes
• B3026 - Waste from the pretreatment of composite packaging
• B3027 - Self-adhesive label laminate waste
• B1250 - Waste end-of-life motor vehicles, containing neither liquids nor other hazardous components

• Textiles and used clothing: textile listings B3030 and B3050 should be retired. Pure, clean, natural waste fibers should replace the retired B3030 or B3050 (with a new number) on Annex IX.  Non-hazardous textile waste should be listed as new Annex II - Y50. If the textiles are hazardous due to the presence of toxic additives, dyes, or microbial contamination, they should be listed under a new A listing.

• Other: as noted above, B3040, B3080, and B3140 should be retired. These listings should be placed into the new Y48 definition (unless they contain less than 2% plastic by weight of plastic). A new A listing for hazardous rubber and tyre products should be created.
  
  Revise current B3020, B3026, and B3027 to only include paper shipments that contain less than 2% plastic by weight.  Revise current B1250 to only include end-of-life vehicles that have less than 2% plastic by weight. Add to the definition of Y48 any post-consumer waste that contains plastics at greater than 2% plastic. 

• Add to the Y48 definition Refused-Derived Fuel (RDF) and remove all exemptions in Y48 except for A3210 hazardous plastic waste.
  
• Add similar waste materials (Process Engineered Fuel, Solid Recovered Fuel, Waste Derived Fuel), regardless of how it’s presented or encapsulated, unless it contains less than 2% plastics and does not contain any hazardous substances listed on Annex I. Notes should be included to clarify that Y48 will encompass former B-listed wastes containing hidden and forgotten plastics.

• Develop an Annex III hazard characteristic and an Annex I constituent to address large quantities of microplastic generation and environmental persistence. 
  
• Microplastics are persistent, bioavailable, and capable of transboundary dispersion across all environments, harming all biodiversity. The absence of a dedicated constituent listing for existing microplastic content as well as a hazard characteristic addressing the propensity to create microplastics.  Without this the Convention will ignore one of the most obvious developments in the science of harm.  

Conclusion

For importing countries to properly protect their population’s health and their environment, they require the transparency and assurances of environmentally sound management that the Basel Convention controls are designed to provide. Just as the Parties have done with e-waste, we should now require PIC as a minimum control procedure for all plastic waste under the Basel Convention, followed by further amendments to close the gaping loopholes that allow hidden and forgotten plastic wastes to escape the scope of the Basel Convention. We need to aim for both of these goals to be accomplished by COP18 in Panama. 

What is needed at OEWG-15

→ 1. Support, as a matter of immediate priority, the Application by the Government of Norway for amendments to Annexes II, VIII, and IX of the Convention relating to plastic waste entries.

→ 2. Attend the side event on the subject: a side event, “The Case for Basel Controls on all Plastic Wastes: Local Realities of the Global Waste Trade”, by BAN and IPEN will take place on 23 June at 18:30–19:30 in Room 4, CICG.

→ 3. Ensure your regional group's position supports the strengthening of the Basel Plastic Waste Amendments by supporting the Norwegian proposal in a way that can assure its adoption at COP18.

→ 4. Speak out in Plenary: it would be very useful for all Parties concerned about the harms of plastic waste to voice support for the Norwegian Proposal and closure of the hidden plastics loopholes.  

→ 5. Speak out at contact group: if this issue is assigned to a contact group, make sure your country is represented and takes the position described in this delegate alert.  

We thank you. 

Stockpiles of imported plastic waste in a yard in Kedah, north of West Malaysia. Photo credit: Basel Action Network, June 2026

END