While Comtrade data shows that the overall trade in plastic waste diminished by approximately 14% from 2020 to 2021, as has been noted in a recent study by the OECD, the reasons for this decline are not easy to discern. The OECD notes that several different factors associated with the COVID-19 pandemic may have affected trade patterns of plastic waste and scrap, including supply chain disruptions related to shipping container shortages, challenges with land-based transportation, port shutdowns, and labour shortages.

Thus, it is hard to attribute the decline to the Basel Plastic Waste amendments, particularly when we have little corroborating evidence, anecdotal or otherwise, that would indicate enforcement of the amendments has been rigorous with seizures and rejection of illegal shipments increasing in 2021 compared with 2020. We would welcome such evidence of rigorous implementation and enforcement. On the contrary, apart from some concerning increases in exports to Mexico and the rest of Latin America, mostly from the US, and the emergence of the Netherlands as a Europe-to-Asia transit hub, the big story is that we are witnessing far too much "business as usual," even when such business may now be illegal.

In the chart below we can see the top seven plastic waste exporting countries that continue to ship plastic waste to non-OECD countries, Turkey, and Mexico.

As we can see, Japan leads the world, followed by the US, Netherlands, Germany, the UK, Belgium and Australia as the top seven countries exporting plastic wastes to weaker economies. 

Malaysia is the global plastic waste destination of choice, followed by Turkey, Vietnam, Indonesia, Taiwan, Mexico, India, Thailand, Hong Kong and Bulgaria.  

As a result of this package (Y48, A3210, B3011) of new waste listings, the only plastic wastes exempted from Basel controls (Annex IX entry B3011) are paraphrased here as the following:

           Plastic wastes destined for environmentally-sound mechanical recycling            (Annex IV, R3) that are almost free from contamination and are:

           -      Mixes of polypropylene (PP), polyethylene (PE) and polyethylene            terephthalate (PET);

           -      Shipments of a single non-halogenated polymer;

           -      Previously exempted wastes of thermoset plastics (cured resins), as            well as five fluorinated polymers, although the fluorinated polymers            must not be post-consumer waste.

Trade data (e.g. Comtrade) does not usually contain the detailed descriptions of plastic waste necessary to determine whether they are Basel-listed wastes (A3210 or Y48). However, in one instance we can know this, and that is in the case of PVC plastic waste. As PVC plastic waste has its own HS code (39153) and because PVC is a halogenated polymer, it can be considered at a minimum to be covered by the Y48 listing. Thus, when data exists showing PVC waste moving from the EU to non-OECD countries (see chart below), it is clearly illegal because Y48 exports to non-OECD countries are prohibited in the EU.

Similarly, when any Basel party imports PVC waste from the non-Party United States (see chart below), this is clearly illegal due to the Party/non-Party trade prohibition found in the Convention. The only exception to this is US trade with Canada, as they have signed a bilateral arrangement that they assert is valid under Article 11.

From the charts below, we can see that the EU is in violation of their Basel obligations with respect to PVC exports. We can also see that those Basel Parties importing controlled wastes from the United States (a non-Party) are in violation of their Basel obligations. These include Malaysia, Mexico, India, Spain, Turkey, Vietnam, and Thailand. This illegal trade should not be difficult to uncover and prosecute as the records of the bills of lading, which reveal the exporters and consignees, are already in the hands of the NGOs like BAN and governments. This is low hanging fruit for customs and environmental agencies. There is a strict and obvious duty within the Convention to prosecute and punish illegal traffic (Article 9,5). Why is this not taking place? 

The matter of how much contamination is too much for the new Basel listings is important in this regard. So far, this has been left to individual Parties to determine based on the interpretation of the language provided in the new listings (i.e., "almost free from contamination and other types of wastes"). BAN has been following national developments in this regard and has created an in-progress table of allowed contamination levels by various countries. Most countries have set contamination levels between 0% and 5%. We know that much of the currently generated and traded plastic waste, in particular post-consumer waste, exceeds such levels.

Two months prior to the COP15 meeting, BAN sent a series of letters alerting the competent authorities of five major importing countries in an effort to assist in intelligence-led enforcement actions by the states concerned. We alerted the countries of Malaysia, Indonesia, Vietnam, Thailand, and India of en route exports of plastic wastes with a high likelihood of being illegal traffic from the United States to their ports and giving the authorities time to intercept the shipments and conduct inspections. These warnings came with information acquired by BAN via trade data subscription services including container numbers, ship name, port name, and estimated times of arrival. One would think such information would be seen as invaluable in assisting enforcement and would almost certainly provide some confidence in assuring compliance with Basel obligations. Yet to date, of the five countries contacted, we have only had confirmation from Thailand and Malaysia that they took the warning seriously, but we have yet to learn the outcome, while Vietnam acknowledged receipt of our information and nothing more, and India and Indonesia have failed to respond at all. Such lack of diligence following contraband warnings is concerning.

Perhaps even worse than ignoring the enforcement of the new Basel plastic waste trade rules are the actions taken by some exporting countries to intentionally and illegally refuse to accept the new listings and requirements. In this regard, we can sadly report that collectively the European Union and its Member States and the tandem of the United States and Canada have claimed that they can use Article 11 of the Convention to unilaterally ignore the new rules entirely for trade amongst themselves. After the adoption of the amendments in 2019, the US and Canada hastily forged what they call an "arrangement" supposedly faithful to Article 11 of the Convention. Likewise, the European Union asserted that they too were not going to adopt the new listings for trade between their 27 member states. Why? Because they promised their waste industry they would not do so.e

Unfortunately, however, as has been called out by the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), both of these unilateral actions are a clear derogation from Article 11 and are thus illegal. Article 11 requires these side agreements to be "not less environmentally sound than those provided for by this Convention." Ignoring new obligations made to protect the environment is obviously less environmentally sound than abiding by them. Such maneuvers should be called out for what they are: a cynical self-serving attack on the integrity of the Convention and an attack on global governance.  

1. EU Parliamentarians Propose Full Plastic Waste Export Ban and Reform EU Failure to Accept Plastic Waste Amendments

Parliamentarians from the Party groupings of the Greens, RENEW Europe, and the Socialists and Democrats have called for a total ban on all exports of plastic waste of all kinds (B3011, A3210, and Y48) from the European Union. Also, in the mix of amendments is a proposal to ensure that the EU does not provide themselves with a unilateral exemption on full notification and consent requirements of the Basel Convention for internal EU trade in mixed and contaminated plastics. Further amendments are proposed to ensure that "refuse derived fuels" are categorized as wastes to be controlled. If the EU agrees to these reforms, they can truly be said to be global leaders in projecting an ethical circular economy where the export of externalities and harm are no longer permitted.

Home to Port Klang, Malaysia’s largest port, and surrounding the capital city of Kuala Lumpur, the Malaysian state of Selangor has banned the import of plastic waste and will be limiting consideration and approval of new licenses for plastic waste recycling plants. This action is bringing renewed calls by Malaysian NGOs to ensure that the entire country follows suit. Despite Malaysia’s current requirements of 0% non-recyclable contaminants for plastic waste imports, the country now leads the world as a the largest target for Plastic waste traders after Chinese businessmen migrated to Southeast Asia following China's National Sword import ban, and it is very clear that not all of it is being recycled or recycled properly.

3. Shipping Giant CMA-CGM Voluntarily Refuses to Ship Plastic Waste

As of June 1 of this year, CMA-CGM will no longer allow their ships to carry plastic waste. This remarkable decision followed the launch of a shipping lines campaign in February of 2021. In a statement released following the One Ocean Summit organized by French President Emmanuel Macron, the shipping giant with 566 ships in its fleet said the decision was made "heeding the urgent calls made by certain NGOs" and "will prevent this type of waste from being exported to destinations where sorting, recycling or recovery cannot be assured."

Conclusion / COP15 Recommendations

The world applauded when the Basel Convention Parties adopted by consensus the package of plastic waste amendments first proposed by Norway in 2019. At that time, we had much to celebrate and truly believed we had placed a cornerstone in a new edifice that would begin controlling and rolling back the international plastic waste crisis. We all presumed diligent implementation and enforcement would follow. Sadly, since that time, efforts by Basel Parties have not been commensurate with our promise to address the crisis identified. Passing rules and then ignoring or refusing to implement them is lazy at best and cynical and corrupt at worst. We must do better. And in particular, the countries singled out by the data above showing them to be leaders in the global plastic waste trade we all sought to curtail, must do better. 

➡ Parties must vow to work in their own country to increase and improve enforcement efforts. Customs and environment agencies must cooperate to conduct port inspections and impose high penalties for violators. Parties must respond to alerts from NGOs, and others regarding shipments of plastic wastes entering their territories. They must monitor the imports and exports from brokers and recyclers in their jurisdictions.

➡ Work should continue to improve the existing Guideline but it cannot be seen as complete at COP15. If it is adopted at COP15, it should only be adopted on an interim basis, with gaps identified and work of the SIWG made ongoing and added at a later date. 

Increasingly, it has become clear that the primary reason plastic waste moves across borders is due to the fact that most plastic waste cannot be economically collected, separated, and safely recycled in the countries that generate such waste. Plastic waste has little value, is not able to be recycled more than one or two cycles, requires constant additions of virgin plastic derived from fossil fuel, and is laden with a plethora of toxic additives making safe recycling and reuse impossible. In short, plastic is not an inherently circular product. A recently released OECD report, Global Plastics Outlook: Economic Drivers, Environmental Impacts, and Policy Options, indicates that only about 9% of plastic today is recycled, and this is some 50 years after plastics recycling has been highly promoted. Further, we would argue that this figure is inflated given that much of the waste that has been exported for recycling is only partially recycled. And even that fraction of the 9% that is recycled remains guilty of perpetuating a circle of poison due to the recycling or reshuffling of toxic additives into new post-consumer markets.

Waste trade controls are critical, but as the Basel Convention’s Preamble duly recognizes, “the most effective way of protecting human health and the environment from the dangers posed by such wastes is the reduction of their generation to a minimum in terms of quantity and/or hazard potential.” That should be the theme for the new Treaty.

➡ Basel Parties, both within Basel and in the Plastic Treaty negotiations must support a global treaty that emphasizes reduction of the generation of plastic wastes in terms of quantity and hazard potential.