China's plastic import ban increases prospects of environmental impact mitigation of plastic waste trade flow worldwide

Global plastic production has surged to more than 300 million tons annually, with only about 9% recycled, and much ending up in landfills, incineration, or mismanaged. Since the late 1990s, plastic waste has routinely been exported from high-income to low-income countries, raising environmental and health concerns, including the presence of hazardous substances. Although the Basel Convention sought to protect developing countries, its effectiveness for plastics was limited due to unclear definitions and non-participation by major exporters. China, historically the largest plastic producer and importer of plastic waste, imported up to 8.88 million tons per year, much of which was landfilled or mismanaged. On July 27, 2017, China announced the Prohibition of Foreign Garbage Imports, banning imports of 24 types of solid waste including plastics, triggering abrupt changes in global trade flows and national treatment systems. Prior studies largely discussed trade effects qualitatively or measured economic impacts, seldom accounting for technological differences among countries or heterogeneity across plastic types from a global sustainability perspective. This study quantifies how the China ban altered trade flows and treatment structures for six plastic types across 18 countries and assesses the resulting environmental impacts via LCA, both for the short-term (2018) and via prospective scenarios, to inform strategies for sustainable plastic waste management.

The paper situates its work within literature documenting rapid growth in plastic production, low global recycling rates, and widespread mismanagement. Research on transboundary waste trade highlights routine flows from developed to developing countries and limitations of the Basel Convention for regulating plastic waste. Empirical studies on China’s 2017 import ban have primarily analyzed trade volumes, network structure changes, and economic impacts, with qualitative discussions of downstream effects. Few studies integrate cross-country technical heterogeneity in treatment systems (landfill, incineration, recycling) and plastic-type-specific environmental burdens into a global assessment. The authors identify a gap in quantifying environmental impacts of trade flow changes with explicit attention to national technology mixes and six plastic categories, motivating their LCA-based approach and scenario analysis.

Data: Trade data were obtained from UN Comtrade. Eighteen samples were analyzed: China; Hong Kong; Japan; USA; Europe 7 (Germany, UK, Belgium, Spain, Italy, France, Netherlands); Southeast Asia 5 (Thailand, Indonesia, Vietnam, Malaysia, Philippines); Republic of Korea; Mexico; and other countries. To avoid distortions from the 2017 policy announcement, the Baseline Scenario used averages from 2013–2016 when trends were stable, or 2008–2016 averages when fluctuations were large; 2017 was excluded. The 2018 Scenario used reported 2018 data, estimating missing reports from monthly and mirror data when necessary. Export-based mirror statistics were used to maintain consistency. Life Cycle Assessment: Functional unit was 1 kg of plastic waste. Six plastic types were modeled: PE, PS, PVC, PET, PP, and Others. Three common end-of-life options were included: landfill (with mismanagement approximated by sanitary landfill), incineration (with energy recovery), and mechanical recycling. Country-specific shares of plastic types and treatment options for baseline and 2018 were compiled from reports and literature. Road transport was set at 100 km for domestic management and port-to-facility legs; ocean distances came from sea-distances.org. Electricity from incinerating 1 kg plastic was 0.9 kWh; recycling consumed 0.6 kWh per kg. Avoided product credit assumed 0.91 kg recycled plastic displacing virgin plastic of the same type. Unit process data and ReCiPe midpoint characterization factors were taken from SimaPro 8.5.2/Ecoinvent. System boundaries: End-of-life from collection transport to final treatment was included. For exports, lorry-to-port, ocean freight, and port-to-facility transport were modeled, followed by treatment in the importing country. For domestic management, refuse truck transport and treatment were modeled. Environmental Impact of Trade flow changes (EIT): For a trade flow from exporter i to importer j, EIT_ij was computed as the change in flow (Baseline minus 2018) multiplied by the difference between domestic treatment in i versus export-to-j treatment, plus transport impacts. EIT was decomposed into components from domestic management (DM), export-country treatment (Exp), and transport (tran). Country-by-country unit impacts for managing 1 kg of waste originating in i and treated in j were computed via matrix operations using each country’s technology mix and plastic type shares, then multiplied by trade flow changes. Indicators and aggregation: Five ReCiPe midpoints were assessed: global warming (GW, kg CO2-eq), fine particulate matter formation (FPMF, kg PM2.5-eq), freshwater ecotoxicity (FWE, kg 1,4-DCB-eq), human carcinogenic toxicity (HCT, kg 1,4-DCB-eq), and water consumption (WC, m3). Results were monetized using the Eco-cost method (2017 EUR), multiplying impacts by category-specific prevention cost factors to obtain a single aggregated eco-cost. Scenarios: Beyond the Baseline and 2018 Scenarios, three sets of prospective scenarios were constructed: (1) Exports Reduction Scenarios: Half of exports (all countries -50% vs 2018), Half of exports for developed countries, Half for developing countries, and Zero exports (all exports reduced to zero, all waste treated domestically). (2) Recycling Rate Promotion Scenarios: uniformly increase national recycling rates by +20%, +50%, or +100% of their 2018 levels while keeping incineration rates fixed (capped so incineration + recycling ≤ 100%). (3) Combination Scenarios: Half of exports plus +20% or +50% recycling rate increases. Sensitivity analyses examined parameter influences, highlighting the role of avoided virgin plastic production in GW outcomes.

- Trade flow shifts: Global plastic waste trade fell 45.5% in 2018 relative to Baseline; China’s imports dropped by 95.4%. The decrease in world trade volume (6.50 million tons) was comparable in magnitude to China’s import reduction (7.60 million tons). Hong Kong’s export role diminished sharply. Imports by Southeast Asia 5 rose to 3.62 times their Baseline level, mainly supplied by Japan (25.8%), USA (19.4%), Germany (11.7%), Hong Kong (10.3%), and UK (9.8%). Preliminary 2019 data suggest a 32% decline in exports to Southeast Asia 5 relative to 2018. - Exporter vulnerability: A strong negative correlation existed between a country’s export flow change rate and its baseline export dependence on the Chinese market (R = -0.677, p = 0.003), indicating higher reliance led to larger post-ban declines. - Environmental impacts (2018 Scenario vs Baseline): Reduced trade flows decreased transport-related impacts, notably for GW and FPMF. Overall, GW increased (i.e., net negative environmental performance on GW), while FPMF, FWE, HCT, and WC improved (net beneficial). Developed countries’ higher incineration shares increased GW when waste was retained domestically, whereas higher incineration reduced WC via avoided water consumption from electricity generation. Countries with higher incineration rates showed higher unit GW impacts; unit GW impacts for domestic treatment correlated with per capita GDP (R = 0.772, p < 0.001). - Country contributions: Changes in China’s imports dominated total EIT; China’s import changes drove impacts in the same direction as totals across all indicators, with GW effects from China’s import changes about 8.3 times the total EIT value. Malaysia’s import increases also significantly affected overall EIT. Major exporters (Japan, USA, Hong Kong, Germany) accounted for large shares of impacts. - Eco-costs: Aggregated eco-cost savings were about €2.35 billion/year (range €2.17–€2.52 billion) after the ban, approximately 56% of the 2017 global plastic waste trade value (converted to EUR). WC contributed the largest share of eco-cost savings due to higher incineration in developed countries and associated avoided water consumption in power generation. - Scenario analysis: Reducing exports by 50% (all or only developed countries) or to zero generally worsened GW impacts relative to 2018 but improved FPMF, FWE, and WC by 128–197% and increased eco-cost savings to €3.17–€4.05 billion. Increasing recycling rates was more effective for mitigating GW: +20% recycling reduced GW to about 11% of the 2018 level; +50% yielded a net beneficial GW (about -45% relative to 2018); +100% gave about -34% relative to 2018, with small changes in other indicators. Combining measures balanced trade and technology effects; “Half of exports +20% increase recycling rate” achieved the best overall performance across indicators and eco-costs, outperforming the +50% combination for FWE, HCT, WC, and total eco-cost, indicating diminishing returns and higher water use in recycling processes.

The China ban precipitated a sharp contraction in global plastic waste trade and forced adjustments in national treatment systems. Countries with higher dependence on China experienced the largest export declines, while Southeast Asia became a short-term alternative destination before tightening policies reduced flows again. In the short term, retaining waste in developed countries with higher incineration shares increased GW but improved particulate formation, ecotoxicity, carcinogenic toxicity, and water consumption, yielding sizable eco-cost savings. The analysis shows that transport reductions contributed beneficially, but treatment mix and technology differences dominated outcomes. Long-term sustainability hinges on reducing exports, improving domestic management, and especially raising recycling rates and recycling technology performance, which can reverse the GW penalty. Scenario results indicate that moderate increases in recycling rates combined with export reductions yield the most balanced environmental benefits, with “Half of exports +20% increase recycling rate” identified as a practical, effective pathway.

This study quantifies the environmental consequences of China’s 2017 plastic waste import ban by integrating observed trade flow changes with country-specific treatment mixes for six plastic types using LCA and eco-cost aggregation. In 2018, global trade fell by 45.5% and China’s imports by 95.4%; the resulting treatment shifts increased GW but improved FPMF, FWE, HCT, and WC, delivering about €2.35 billion/year in eco-cost savings. Scenario analysis demonstrates that while further export reductions generally improve non-climate indicators, increasing recycling rates is pivotal to mitigating GW, with the combined scenario of halving exports and raising recycling by 20% offering the best overall environmental performance. The findings support policies prioritizing domestic waste management capacity, recycling infrastructure and technology upgrades, reduced reliance on exports, and upstream measures to curb plastic consumption. Future research should refine LCA inventories for mismanagement, regionalize recycling and energy data, expand indicator coverage, and assess social and economic co-impacts to guide comprehensive plastic waste policy design.

- Mismanagement was approximated by sanitary landfill due to limited impact data, potentially understating environmental burdens from open dumping or open burning. - Uniform assumptions for recycling electricity use (0.6 kWh/kg), incineration electricity generation (0.9 kWh/kg), and avoided product credit (0.91 kg/kg) were applied across plastic types and countries, introducing uncertainty where regional technology performance differs. - Only five ReCiPe midpoint indicators were analyzed; other relevant impacts (e.g., marine litter, land use) were not included. - Some 2018 trade data were estimated from monthly and mirror statistics; reporting delays and asymmetries may affect accuracy. - Transport distances were simplified (100 km for road segments; modeled ocean distances), which may not capture intra-country variability. - Scenario assumptions (uniform export cuts and recycling rate increases) may not reflect country-specific policy trajectories or capacity constraints.