Bangkok, 23 November 2022: ERIA, in collaboration with the Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES) co-hosted hybrid seminar The Implementation of Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) in the Asian Context: Challenges and Lessons Learned.
This seminar was a back-to-back side event of the 16th Asia Pacific Roundtable on Sustainable Consumption and Production (APRSCP) held in Bangkok, Thailand. The event's objectives were to discuss EPR in the Asian context, and to share reflections, challenges, and lessons learned from EPR implementation in Asian countries, as well as to exchange thoughts and experiences on the main challenges and key takeaways for countries preparing to introduce EPR.
In his opening remarks, Mr Michikazu Kojima, ERIA Senior Advisor, said it was fundamental to learn from countries with years of EPR experience. Discussions on the specific challenges faced by developing Asian countries were necessary so those countries could save time and resources in EPR implementation.
‘I hope our discussion today will suggest some positive ways forward for relevant stakeholders working on the implementation and introduction of the EPR,’ said Mr Kojima.
EPR was first introduced in four states in the United States and a state in Canada back in the 1970s, said Mr Kojima. Since 1990s, some East Asian countries have followed suit, and Southeast and East Asian countries are planning to apply similar schemes as a means of waste management. Singapore put into play the Resource Sustainability Act, applying EPR to e-waste and packaging waste. Viet Nam also introduced the scheme earlier in 2013 through the Regulation on Recovery and Disposal of Waste Product Removal, which was revised in 2015 as its implementation was not effective.
Dr Yasuhiko Hotta, Vice President of the Asia Pacific Roundtable for Sustainable Consumption and Production (APRSCP) and Programme Director of Sustainable Consumption and Production Area at the Institute for Global and Environmental Strategies (IGES), identified six challenges for adopting EPR: interpretation of EPR, the difficulty of identifying producers, the infeasibility of the take-back scheme, competition with the informal waste management sector, waste collection and treatment infrastructure, and the import and export of recyclables.
He spoke of Japan's Home Appliance Recycling Act, which targets air conditioners, TV sets, refrigerators, freezers, and washing machines. Under this mechanism, consumers pay the collection, transportation, and recycling fees when disposing of those appliances. The collection and transportation fees are set by the retailers, and the recycling fees by the manufacturers.
‘Japanese companies invest in recycling facilities. Before making their products, they usually send their product designers to go to the recycling facility so that they can learn how to make their products easy to be recycled,’ said Dr Hotta.
Dr Hotta highlighted how the act's implementation came with a great degree of manufacturer association help. Before the act took effect, the association established a voluntary agreement for the collection of used appliances in collaboration with municipalities. The government also optimised existing commercial habits to make the take-back scheme most effective, whereby retailers take back used appliances from customers when they deliver new products. These two actions were key to EPR implementation in Japan.
Mr Pranshu Sambhav, Founder and Director of Karo Sambhav, an e-waste company in India, said the pathway of EPR implementation in India started back in 2012 when the E-Waste Management Rules took effect. However, there was no effective implementation due to a lack of enforcement. Similarly, the Plastic Management Rules introduced in 2016 and in 2018 were revised to make them more operational.
The EPR system developed over time in India, and the government issued the Battery Waste Management Rules and Waste Tyre Rules in 2022. But EPR implementation still faces many challenges. Mr Sambhav drew attention to how the fees paid and collected by the producers under the EPR scheme need to be calibrated carefully. The country also lags in effective law enforcement, the establishment of digital monitoring systems and the availability of responsible recycling infrastructure.
‘There is a misunderstanding that EPR is only about the producers. All actors in the value chain should be involved to enforce the scheme,’ concluded Mr Sambhav.
Ms Pauline Goh, General Manager of the Malaysian Recycling Alliance (MAREA), said the EPR scheme targeting consumer packaging waste is still in the voluntary stage. Malaysia has several policies related to EPR, including the Twelfth Malaysia Plan and Malaysia Plastics Sustainability Roadmap 2021-2030. To propel the industry’s recycling efforts forward within the current legislative environment, MAREA is working on three waste value chains: collection, separation, and recycling. MAREA is expected to help the country to reach a recycling rate of 25% by 2025.
Dr Panate Manomaivibool, Head of the Circular Economy for Waste-free Thailand (CEWT) Research Centre, Mae Fah Luang University, spoke of the progress of EPR implementation in Thailand. He said the country still has limited voluntary initiatives operational on the ground.
‘One of the interpretations of EPR is that the companies implement it as part of corporate social responsibility (CSR). The electronic industries have already tried it out within this framework, but the take-back scheme they applied was not effective since the capacity of the waste collection was less than expected,’ Dr Manomaivibool said.
He added that the new drivers fostering EPR implementation in Thailand are marine debris prevention and the bio circular green (BCG) economy.
Mr Federico Tempestilli, Circular Economy Consultant at the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) Cambodia, said the country plans to start with voluntary EPR and move toward making it mandatory. In the voluntary stage, the country is targeting low-hanging fruit products such as PET bottles, for which EPR application is easier and faster. This stage also comprises banning non-essential products, such as straws, cups, cutlery, and expanded polystyrene.
For the mandatory stage, the country will set the roles of the government, private sector, and informal waste sector, enforce regulations related to EPR, and develop guidelines for eco-labelling and certification for environmentally friendly products.
The problematic narrow definition of the term producer in the EPR context was pointed out during the Q&A session. In developing countries, actual plastic producers are relatively limited in number and most of the plastic is injected into society by plastic importers. This causes the importers to not feel responsible for post-consumer waste, as they are not directly involved in the production process.
‘In some countries, including Japan, the importers are rightfully considered as producers,’ said Mr Kojima.
Providing a different perspective, Mr Tempestilli said the interpretation of the term producer in EPR can differ from country to country. As such, he cited an example from Indonesia where the term producer was gradually switched to stakeholder, in order to include a wider range of actors to share the responsibilities. He also said terminologies surrounding EPR in Cambodia are still not clearly defined. However, after much dialogue on EPR, the term producers will likely include importers.
Another topic of discussion revolved around the idea that EPR should not only focus on waste management such as waste collection and recycling, but it should also be applied to the entire product value chain. As such, the way forward for the Asian countries preparing to introduce the EPR is to consider this policy tool as a more holistic approach, rather than a mere means of downstream waste management.
Dr Hotta closed the seminar by saying ERIA and IGES would continue with EPR dialogue, and plan to develop EPR knowledge products in emerging economies.
