Recycling Rate

The recycling rate is commonly used as an indicator of the progress of national waste recycling. However, two factors cause uncertainty and confusion, which interfere in evidence-based policy-making processes.

First, the recycling rate is potentially underestimated because it isthe informal sector, whose recycling activities are mostly unrecorded (Hotta et al., 2016), which engages in waste-picking, the sale of recyclables from households or offices to junk buyers and small-junk shops, and back-yard recycling (Hotta et al, 2014). The inclusion of such informal activities increases the accuracy and validity of the recycling rate.

Second, the recycling rate is defined in a number of ways depending on national policy goals (Hotta et al., 2014). Therefore, a specific national recycling rate will not be valid for regional or international comparability. The rate measurement covers four different aspects of policy: recycled content (ratio of recycled materials in a product), the ratio of materials recovered from end-of-life product life cycle (resource recovery efficiency of existing recycling systems or facilities), the ratio of collected used materials for recycling (collection rate), and the waste diversion rate (the percentage of a potentially recyclable material diverted from the waste disposal stream and therefore not landfilled). Inter-country comparisons based on one aspect are not fair. A standardised measurement is urgently needed to harmonise this (Hotta et al., 2016).

The United States Environmental Protection Agency has developed guideline to standardise recycling measurements to help US state and local agencies measure municipal solid waste recycling activities. The guidelines provide survey forms and worksheets with instructions.

The European Environment Agency (EEA) has also published a report including a model for gathering the recycling rates of European countries. Although these countries do not experience uncertainty due to the absence of an informal sector, their recycling rates were calculated in a clearly defined way: as a percentage of municipal waste recycled and composted or digested relative to the total municipal waste generated.

Using this recycling rate data, the EEA analysed and concluded that most European countries would still have to make an extraordinary effort to achieve the 50% recycling target by 2020. Such analysis is important not only in monitoring progress, but also in enhancing good competition among countries to achieve the legally binding recycling target.

However, the report underlines the need to harmonise national reporting methodologies, especially on waste fractions to be included when reporting on municipal waste. Some countries excluded or included only a minimum amount of packaging recycling due to varying definitions of municipal waste. The report also says that adopting the correct combination of national and regional policy instruments could be the key to increasing the recycling rate in the region, especially toward achieving a 65% recycling rate by 2030, as targeted by the European Commission’s Circular Economy Package.

Some ASEAN countries have been striving to increase their recycling rates. Regional waste management schemes (intermunicipal cooperation and public and private partnerships –PPP) are among the effective measures. The Philippines enhanced local government compliance with the Republic Act No. 9003, which mandates they manage their own waste by installing material recovery facilities. The promotion of local collaboration through clustering is also optimised through the provision of technical and financial assistance from the national or provincial government (Atienza, 2020).Thailand is promoting its Public–Private Partnership for Plastic and Waste Management (PPP Plastic), established by plastic alliances in June 2018 to reduce marine plastic debris by at least 50% by 2027, in line with the nation’s Roadmap on Plastic Waste Management 2018–2030.

Indonesia has also strengthenedits waste bank role through Minister of Environment and Forestry Decree No. 14/2021 on Waste Management in Waste Bank, which includes waste bank functions such as education and behavioural change in the media toward circular economy implementation. It also covers incentives for waste banks through rewards, good performance exposure, recommendations for waste management financing support, and training.

However, a comparison of countries' recycling rates is required to validate such good practices, and harmonised measurement needs to be designed by the region through government bodies such as ASEAN. By adopting this harmonised measurement, apple-to-apple comparisons can be made. The countries should also share lessons and establish healthy competition toward achieving jointly mandated regional recycling targets. Such synergic collaboration will strongly support the adoption of the ASEAN Regional Action Plan for Combating Marine Debris in the ASEAN Member States (2021–2025).