Extended producer responsibility (EPR) is for producers who design and market products for end-of-life treatment (Akenji et al., 2011), and is applied to products such as packaging materials, vehicles, and electrical and electronic equipment.
To apply EPR, policymakers use four instruments: product take-back requirements; economic and market-based instruments such as deposit refund schemes, advanced disposal fees, material taxes, and upstream combination taxes or subsidies which incentivise producers to comply with EPR; regulations and performance standards such as minimum recycled content; and accompanying information-based instruments such as raising public awareness (OECD, 2014).
Japan's Act on the Promotion of Sorted Collection and Recycling of Containers and Packaging (Act No. 112 of 16 June 1995) encourages manufacturers to voluntarily conform to design guidelines for the recycling of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottles. Green PET bottles, commonly used for green-tea packaging, have been replaced with transparent ones. Manufacturers have also started producing thinner bottles, thus reducing resin in production and consequently minimising bottle weight (Hosoda, 2004). EPR has also been set up for other plastic containers and packaging.
Municipalities are responsible for properly sorting and packaging waste containers before they are sent to recyclers. They are financially responsible for recycling their products, and may cooperate with producer responsibility organisations (PROs) such as the Japan Containers and Packaging Recycling Association, which outsources the recycling operations to registered recyclers selected through annual tenders under PRO criteria (Yamakawa, 2016). PROs are paid a recycling fee proportional to the quantity of waste multiplied by the full recycling cost of the product category. However, some municipalities undermine the system (Kurita, 2011). due to the high cost by bypassing PROs and contracting directly with independent recyclers.
The fee paid by municipalities is much higher than that paid by manufacturers. For example, in 2003 municipalities paid ¥423.5 billion (US$3.898 billion, as of 10 December 2019) for waste collection, sorting, and storing, which was 10 times the outlay of manufacturers (¥40 billion or US$0.368 billion, as of 10 December 2019) (Yamakawa, 2016). A challenge for Japan is determining the positive and negative environmental impact as a result of shifting under the law from heavy materials such as glass bottles and steel cans, to light materials such as PET bottles, aluminium cans, and paper cartons (Yamakawa, 2016).
The Republic of Korea has also established EPR by imposing the deposit–refund scheme and advanced deposit fee (ADF). The deposit–refund scheme obliges producers and importers to deposit money into a special account and then issue a refund based on the recovery rate (Lease, 2002).
This scheme was terminated in 2003 and a new deposit–refund scheme was enforced under the Act on Resource Recirculation of Electrical and End of Life Vehicles (henceforth, the Eco-Assurance Act) and the Act on the Promotion of Saving and Recycling of Resources (henceforth, the Recycling Act) (Heo and Jung, 2014). The Eco-Assurance Act This scheme was terminated in 2003 and a new deposit–refund scheme was enforced under the Recycling Act facilitates the new scheme by combining the deposit–refund scheme and the take-back system.
Article 15-2 enables producers and importers to include a certain amount (container deposit) in the product price to facilitate the recovery and reuse of containers, which are standardised based on certain specifications and marked as container deposit refundable and reusable. The producers refund the deposit to the person who returns the containers. The producers or importers also reimburse the handling fee incurred by wholesalers or retailers for storing and transporting empty containers. The returned containers and refunding are managed in distribution support centres established by the producers.
Beverage producers have been utilising the scheme with the deposit of about 40% of the cost of manufacturing a new bottle (Heo and Jung, 2014). ADF is charged to producers and importers of hard-to-recycle products, including hazardous chemicals; anti-freeze solutions; chewing gum; disposable diapers; cigarettes; and plastic products such as PVC pipes, toys, and kitchenware (OECD, 2014). Table 1 lists the ADF charged to products in Korea.
Product | Type and/or Size | Deposit | |
|---|---|---|---|
Pesticides, hazardous chemicals | Plastic container | ≤500 ml | 24.9/container |
>500 ml | 30.7/container | ||
Glass bottle | ≤500 ml | 56.2/bottle | |
>500 ml | 84.3/bottle | ||
Metal can | ≤500 ml | 53.9/can | |
>500 ml | 78.2/can | ||
Anti-freeze solution | - | 189.8/litre | |
Chewing gum | - | 1.8% of price | |
Disposable diapers | - | 5.5/diaper | |
Cigarettes | - | 7/pack | |
Plastic products | Construction plastic | 75/kg | |
Other plastics | 150/kg | ||
Note: â‚©1=US$0.00086 as of 20 January 2020.
Source: Heo and Jung (2014).
In Korea, the challenge is when the EPR product recycling rate target covers only 33% of the capacity of all available recycling facilities, at 4.3 million tonnes/year (Heo and Jung, 2014). The supply of recyclable products is still unstable and less value-added. An online market platform was developed to provide information on the nationwide supply and demand of recyclable products, to facilitate networking among waste collectors, recyclers, and consumers.
To enhance price competitiveness, Korea promotes competition between those who benefit from EPR schemes through PROs supported by governments. Six PROs are integrated into single PRO the Korea Package Recycling Association to reduce administrative costs. Korea increases supply stability and value-added to EPR products through these efforts.
Singapore has an ambitious initiative among ASEAN countries of targeting the implementation of the EPR framework for managing packaging waste, including plastics, no later than 2025. It follows the Singapore Packaging Agreement between the government, industries, and non-governmental organisations. To support this, Singapore, through the National Environment Agency, introduced mandatory packaging reporting and 3R plans for packaging for producers of packaged products and supermarkets in 2020, legislated under the Resource Sustainability Act 2019 (Act No. 29 of 2019) (NEA, 2019).
Table 2 shows the status of EPR implementation in ASEAN countries.
Country | Legal Framework | Stage of Implementation |
|---|---|---|
Brunei | No specific legal basis is in place | No EPR system is in place. |
Cambodia | No specific legal basis is in place | No EPR system is in place |
Indonesia | Minister of Environment and Forestry Regulation No P.75/MENLHK/SETJEN/KUM.1/10/2019 regarding Road Map to Waste Reduction by Producers | EPR is still at the preparation stage of a waste reduction plan document by producers. The Packaging and Recycling Association for Indonesia Sustainable Environment (PRAISE) also established the Indonesia Packaging Recovery Organisation (IPRO), to manage the supply of recyclables to contracted recyclers |
Lao PDR | No specific legal basis is in place | No EPR system is in place |
Malaysia | No specific legal basis is in place | No EPR system is in place. However, the Malaysian Plastics Manufactures Association (MPMPA) actively proposes to the government the EPR system for plastics packaging since the system still becomes a legislative concept without any legal framework for enforcement. |
Myanmar | No specific legal basis is in place | No EPR system is in place |
Thailand | Specific legal basis is still at the drafting stage. In general, plastic waste management refers to Thailand’s Roadmap on Plastic Waste Management 2018–2030 and Action Plan on Plastic Waste Management Phase I (2020-2022) | No EPR system is in place. However, the Thailand Institute of Packaging and Recycling Management for a Sustainable Environment (TIMPSE) has been commissioned to develop capacity building on the comprehensive management of used packaging and recycled materials. TIMPSE will become the centre for a database on used packaging |
The Philippines | No specific legal basis is in place | No EPR system is in place. However, private companies are conducting voluntary initiatives to foster recycling through the Philippine Alliance for Recycling and Material Sustainability (PARMS) |
Viet Nam | Decision No 16/2015/QÄ-TTg Providing Regulations on Recall and Treatment of Discarded Products | The implementation of EPR in Viet Nam faces some challenges, including lack of recycling capacity and supporting regulations, and benefits to maintaining the system. The Packaging Recycling Organisation (PRO) Viet Nam is expected to be a driver to foster an EPR system for packaging |
Source: ASEAN (2020), Johannes et al. (2021).
Challenges provide lessons from other ASEAN+3 countries. For example, the e-waste EPR scheme faces the difficulty of identifying producers. Most producers, especially in developing countries, are small unregistered manufacturers called free riders (Kojima et al., 2009). Over 60% of computers in Malaysia are assembled by small manufacturers, and miscellaneous manufacturers produce 35% of assembled air conditioners in Thailand. It is difficult to ask small manufacturers to be responsible for their products’ end-of-life. Anticipating smuggled and imitation products in the import of e-waste is a challenging issue. In Japan, consumers financially shoulder the recycling of orphan computers (those with no responsible producers) from small unidentified manufacturers and smuggled and imitation products (Kojima et al., 2009). Its packaging and container recycling system exempts small-scale producers from such responsibility.
It may be difficult to implement the EPR system if many unregistered small-scale traders import or if small industries produce or use packaging and containers.
L Akenji, Y Hotta, M. Bengtsson, and S Hayashi (2011), ‘EPR Policies for Electronics in Developing Asia: An Adapted Phase-in Approach’, Waste Management & Research, 29(9), pp919–30.
Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) (2020), Booklet 1: Baseline Information to Combat Marine Debris in ASEAN Member States. Yokohama: IDEA Consultants, Inc
Government of Japan (1995), Act on the Promotion of Sorted Collection and Recycling of Containers and Packaging (Act No 112 of June 16, 1995). http://extwprlegs1.fao.org/docs/pdf/jap82815.pdf (accessed 29 November 2019).
Government of Korea (2010), Act on Resource Recirculation of Electrical and End of Life Vehicles. http://extwprlegs1.fao.org/docs/pdf/kor169190.pdf (accessed 20 January 2019).
Government of Korea (2015), Act on the Promotion of Saving and Recycling of Resources. http://extwprlegs1.fao.org/docs/pdf/kor51892.pdf (accessed 20 January 2019).
Government of Singapore (2019), Resource Sustainability Act 2019 (Act No 29 of 2019). https://sso.agc.gov.sg/Acts-Supp/29-2019/Published/20191004?DocDate=20191004 (accessed 06 December 2019).
H Heo, and M Jung (2014), Case Study for OECD Project on Extended Producer Responsibility: Republic of Korea.. http://www.oecd.org/environment/waste/OECD_EPR_case_study_Korea_revised_140522.pdf (accessed 10 December 2019)
Hosoda (2004), Evaluation of EPR Programmes in Japan: A Survey. Paris: OECD Publishing.
H P Johannes, M Kojima, F Iwasaki, and E P Edita (2021), ‘Applying the extended producer responsibility towards plastic waste in Asian developing countries for reducing marine plastic debris’, Waste Management & Research, 39(5), pp1–13.
M Kojima, A Yoshida, and S Sasaki (2009), ‘Difficulties in Applying Extended Producer Responsibility Policies in Developing Countries: Case Studies in E-waste Recycling in China and Thailand’, Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management, 11(3), pp263–9.
I Kurita (2011), ‘Independent Disposal of Post-consumer PET Bottles’, Journal of the Japan Society of Waste Management Experts, 22(1), pp61–70.
K Lease (2002), Asian Countries Jump on the EPR Bandwagon. Washington: Institute for Local Self-Reliance. https://ilsr.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/ftao_41_Asia1.pdf (accessed 06 December 2019).
National Environment Agency (NEA) (2019), Zero Waste Masterplan: Singapore. MEWR. https://www.towardszerowaste.sg/images/zero-waste-masterplan.pdf (accessed 06 December 2019).
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2014), The State of Play on Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR): Opportunities and Challenges. https://www.oecd.org/environment/waste/Global%20Forum%20Tokyo%20Issues%20Paper%2030-5-2014.pdf (accessed 29 November 2019).
H Yamakawa (2016), ‘Annex I: The EPR for Packaging Waste in Japan’, Extended Producer Responsibility: Updated Guidance for Efficient Waste Management. Paris: OECD Publishing, pp269–76.
