Jakarta, 13 February 2025: Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) is gaining momentum. While it has been implemented in various Global North countries, its adoption in Southeast Asian nations requires more than a simple copy-and-paste approach. It is important to adapt the implementation scheme to fit each country’s context and goals. This point was highlighted at the ‘EPR for Plastic and Packaging ASEAN Member States (AMS): Focal Point Workshop’, organised in Jakarta on 13 February.
The event opened with remarks from Mr Reo Kawamura, Director of the Regional Knowledge Centre for Marine Plastic Debris, who emphasised the importance of peer-to-peer knowledge exchange as a reference for formulating EPR policies in the region. He also expressed the Centre’s readiness to support member states in their EPR journey.
This workshop was co-organised by the Regional Knowledge Centre and GIZ under the 3RproMar Regional Knowledge Partnership for Marine Litter Prevention in ASEAN — an ASEAN-German Cooperation Project implemented by GIZ Indonesia & ASEAN in collaboration with The ASEAN Secretariat. Mr Piyush Dhawan, Principal Advisor at GIZ, said that this event offered an opportunity for AMS to discuss and share good practices in exploring, structuring, and implementing EPR systems.
Mr Michikazu Kojima, Senior Research Fellow on Environmental Issues at ERIA, set the stage by elaborating the hallmarks of EPR policies, specifically the types of collection mechanisms commonly used in EPR systems. He then outlined the history of EPR development in the region.
‘Countries like Indonesia, the Philippines, Singapore, and Viet Nam have already implemented EPR systems. Indonesia was the first in 2019, followed by Singapore in 2020, and the Philippines and Viet Nam in 2022,’ Mr Kojima said.
Other ASEAN nations are considering EPR. Malaysia plans to implement a mandatory scheme in 2026, with voluntary EPR already in place. Thailand aims for EPR implementation in 2027, with pilot schemes underway. Cambodia, Lao PDR, Myanmar, and Brunei Darussalam have yet to set dates but already support EPR in their action plans.
According to Dr Yasuhiko Hotta, Programme Director at the Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES), the growing interest in EPR policies goes hand in hand with the region’s economic development.
‘In 2010, we did a survey to Asia-Pacific countries on their priorities for 3R policies. Most countries prioritised environmentally sound waste management, and EPR emerged very low on the priority list. But fast forward to now, the trend has changed as countries continue to develop,’ he stated.
Dr Hotta added that the rise of EPR’s popularity has also been observed at the global stage, particularly in Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC) meetings for the international legally binding instrument on plastic pollution, or better known as the global plastics treaty.
‘Countries continue to negotiate on what they think is the most feasible provision for EPR under the treaty. This highlights critical gaps in national-level EPR policies and emphasised the need for tailored approaches that account for unique challenges for its implementation,’ he concluded.
Following the two presentations, AMS representatives engaged in one-on-one discussions. Countries with existing EPR shared lessons learned from policymaking, consultation, to implementation. Meanwhile, countries seeking to introduce EPR had the opportunity to enquire about the challenges they should anticipate.
A key takeaway from the discussions was that effective EPR hinges on a clear and robust legal framework. In establishing such framework, data plays a crucial role, as it enables policymakers to assess the market size, determine the criteria for obliged producers, and, more importantly, estimate the costs needed to achieve targets.
Equally essential is strengthening coordination with various stakeholders, especially producers. Governments often face pushbacks from the industry when announcing EPR adoption. It would require numerous briefings, outreach efforts, public consultations, and feedback exchanges to obtain the industry’s buy-in.
In consecutive focus group discussions, AMS participants delved deeper into the policy design, supporting measures, and local implementation of EPR for plastics.
There was a shared understanding amongst AMS that EPR’s objectives should primarily include sustainable waste reduction and management, as well as the shift of financial responsibility for waste management from the government to producers. EPR should address both the upstream and downstream stages of the plastic value chain – ensuring sound management of waste while maintaining a stable demand for recycled materials.
For EPR to achieve these goals, complementary measures – specifically those that target behaviour change – are necessary. These include pay-as-you-throw policies and deposit schemes that encourage the public to segregate their waste, which are expected to ease producers’ financial burden on waste collection.
AMS representatives also gained insights into the global challenges and experiences with EPR. According to Ms Jana Brinkmann, Business Unit Leader ‘International Projects’ at Germany-based company Cyclos, operational costs and funding for EPR schemes are common challenges worldwide.
In Germany’s case, Ms Brinkmann explained that the government initially underestimated waste volumes that producers would need to collect in a year. This miscalculation resulted in a financial strain on the first producer responsibility organisation (PRO) in the country. Over time, the government increased producer fees to cover the higher-than-expected collection and processing costs.
‘Early EPR systems often struggle with financial forecasting. But along the way, we can learn to get better at cost calculations and adjustments,’ she said.
Ms Ainun Asifa, Waste Management and Circular Economy Specialist at Indonesia-based Kibumi, shed light on the implementation of a deposit return system at the local level. In 2024, the startup organised a Digital Return Scheme named ‘balik.in’ in Bandung, West Java, in collaboration with beauty product manufacturers. By setting up collection points and a mobile app, they successfully retrieved more than 30% of the brand owners’ product waste.
‘Despite the success, we encountered several challenges, such as the limited implementation time, which reduced the time for dissemination and engagement with consumers,’ she said.
Nevertheless, this pilot project provided valuable lessons, including the importance of mandatory EPR in creating a level playing field for obligated producers.
Research Associate
Jakarta, 13 February 2025: Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) is gaining momentum. While it has been implemented in various Global North countries, its adoption in Southeast Asian nations requires more than a simple copy-and-paste approach. It is important to adapt the implementation scheme to fit each country’s context and goals. This point was highlighted at the ‘EPR for Plastic and Packaging ASEAN Member States (AMS): Focal Point Workshop’, organised in Jakarta on 13 February.
The event opened with remarks from Mr Reo Kawamura, Director of the Regional Knowledge Centre for Marine Plastic Debris, who emphasised the importance of peer-to-peer knowledge exchange as a reference for formulating EPR policies in the region. He also expressed the Centre’s readiness to support member states in their EPR journey.
This workshop was co-organised by the Regional Knowledge Centre and GIZ under the 3RproMar Regional Knowledge Partnership for Marine Litter Prevention in ASEAN — an ASEAN-German Cooperation Project implemented by GIZ Indonesia & ASEAN in collaboration with The ASEAN Secretariat. Mr Piyush Dhawan, Principal Advisor at GIZ, said that this event offered an opportunity for AMS to discuss and share good practices in exploring, structuring, and implementing EPR systems.
Mr Michikazu Kojima, Senior Research Fellow on Environmental Issues at ERIA, set the stage by elaborating the hallmarks of EPR policies, specifically the types of collection mechanisms commonly used in EPR systems. He then outlined the history of EPR development in the region.
‘Countries like Indonesia, the Philippines, Singapore, and Viet Nam have already implemented EPR systems. Indonesia was the first in 2019, followed by Singapore in 2020, and the Philippines and Viet Nam in 2022,’ Mr Kojima said.
Other ASEAN nations are considering EPR. Malaysia plans to implement a mandatory scheme in 2026, with voluntary EPR already in place. Thailand aims for EPR implementation in 2027, with pilot schemes underway. Cambodia, Lao PDR, Myanmar, and Brunei Darussalam have yet to set dates but already support EPR in their action plans.
According to Dr Yasuhiko Hotta, Programme Director at the Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES), the growing interest in EPR policies goes hand in hand with the region’s economic development.
‘In 2010, we did a survey to Asia-Pacific countries on their priorities for 3R policies. Most countries prioritised environmentally sound waste management, and EPR emerged very low on the priority list. But fast forward to now, the trend has changed as countries continue to develop,’ he stated.
Dr Hotta added that the rise of EPR’s popularity has also been observed at the global stage, particularly in Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC) meetings for the international legally binding instrument on plastic pollution, or better known as the global plastics treaty.
‘Countries continue to negotiate on what they think is the most feasible provision for EPR under the treaty. This highlights critical gaps in national-level EPR policies and emphasised the need for tailored approaches that account for unique challenges for its implementation,’ he concluded.
Following the two presentations, AMS representatives engaged in one-on-one discussions. Countries with existing EPR shared lessons learned from policymaking, consultation, to implementation. Meanwhile, countries seeking to introduce EPR had the opportunity to enquire about the challenges they should anticipate.
A key takeaway from the discussions was that effective EPR hinges on a clear and robust legal framework. In establishing such framework, data plays a crucial role, as it enables policymakers to assess the market size, determine the criteria for obliged producers, and, more importantly, estimate the costs needed to achieve targets.
Equally essential is strengthening coordination with various stakeholders, especially producers. Governments often face pushbacks from the industry when announcing EPR adoption. It would require numerous briefings, outreach efforts, public consultations, and feedback exchanges to obtain the industry’s buy-in.
In consecutive focus group discussions, AMS participants delved deeper into the policy design, supporting measures, and local implementation of EPR for plastics.
There was a shared understanding amongst AMS that EPR’s objectives should primarily include sustainable waste reduction and management, as well as the shift of financial responsibility for waste management from the government to producers. EPR should address both the upstream and downstream stages of the plastic value chain – ensuring sound management of waste while maintaining a stable demand for recycled materials.
For EPR to achieve these goals, complementary measures – specifically those that target behaviour change – are necessary. These include pay-as-you-throw policies and deposit schemes that encourage the public to segregate their waste, which are expected to ease producers’ financial burden on waste collection.
AMS representatives also gained insights into the global challenges and experiences with EPR. According to Ms Jana Brinkmann, Business Unit Leader ‘International Projects’ at Germany-based company Cyclos, operational costs and funding for EPR schemes are common challenges worldwide.
In Germany’s case, Ms Brinkmann explained that the government initially underestimated waste volumes that producers would need to collect in a year. This miscalculation resulted in a financial strain on the first producer responsibility organisation (PRO) in the country. Over time, the government increased producer fees to cover the higher-than-expected collection and processing costs.
‘Early EPR systems often struggle with financial forecasting. But along the way, we can learn to get better at cost calculations and adjustments,’ she said.
Ms Ainun Asifa, Waste Management and Circular Economy Specialist at Indonesia-based Kibumi, shed light on the implementation of a deposit return system at the local level. In 2024, the startup organised a Digital Return Scheme named ‘balik.in’ in Bandung, West Java, in collaboration with beauty product manufacturers. By setting up collection points and a mobile app, they successfully retrieved more than 30% of the brand owners’ product waste.
‘Despite the success, we encountered several challenges, such as the limited implementation time, which reduced the time for dissemination and engagement with consumers,’ she said.
Nevertheless, this pilot project provided valuable lessons, including the importance of mandatory EPR in creating a level playing field for obligated producers.
Research Associate
