As the plastic pollution conversation grows, an increasing number of initiatives have been put in motion to tackle the problem – many in the area of waste management. But there are those who argue that focusing heavily on downstream strategies such as reusing and recycling, is not enough to have a lasting impact. They believe in a more holistic approach throughout the plastic value chain, emphasising upstream measures by making sure that we do not produce any new plastic to be circulated back into the economy.
One such advocate of this holistic approach is Dr Sujitra Vassanadumrongdee, a senior researcher at the Environmental Research Institute of Chulalongkorn University, Thailand, with almost 20 years' experience in the field of environmental economics. She has conducted various research and written numerous articles on waste management, with the focus on electronic waste early in her career and then solid waste, including plastic, in recent years.
Born and raised in Bangkok, Dr Sujitrais actively engaged in promoting zero waste initiatives in her hometown. On campus, she invites faculties and students to take part in the zero-to-landfill movement Chula Zero Waste by bringing their own cloth bags and tumblers. On a community level, she is also involved in the Zero Waste Pak Lad programme, which works with community leaders and members in promoting waste reduction, segregation, and treatment.
She has also contributed to the waste management policy-making process for both the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration and the National Environmental Board of Thailand.
Our team spoke with her in Bangkok about plastic pollution in Thailand, and how the country is pushing toward plastic circularity to close the waste loop.
When it comes to plastic, we must acknowledge the economic and social importance it holds, especially in our day-to-day activities. However, what most people have ignored is the negative implications that plastic waste brings when it is not properly managed – which is the case in most developing countries, including Thailand.
In 2019, an orphaned dugong (sea cow) named Marium in Southern Thailand died from plastic ingestion that caused infections in her stomach. The news sparked awareness of marine plastic pollution and stimulated changes toward the reduction of single-use-plastics (SUP) among Thais. This shift was evident from how the Thai government and retailers agreed to impose a ban on plastic carrier bags at major stores at the start of the following year.
However, when the (COVID-19) pandemic hit, our efforts were inevitably undermined because of health concerns. People perceived that plastic packaging could protect them from being infected by the coronavirus, and they put off the agenda on plastic reduction.
Now, as we are entering a new phase of new normal, we start to see the plastic pollution issue is regaining attention and different stakeholders are kicking off their activities toward a plastic waste-free environment. Therefore, we should no longer use COVID-19 as an excuse and start taking stronger and more proactive actions from this point onwards.
There is a common misconception that recycling plastic at its end of life is sufficient to eliminate plastic leakage to the marine environment. When in fact, minimising the production of virgin plastic in the first place is the key.
This is what the concept of circular economy stems from – reducing the consumption of depleting natural resources by reducing the utilisation of virgin materials; designing plastic to be reusable, recyclable, or compostable; and circulating the materials back into the economy without creating pollution.
Also read: How Solid Waste Management and Social Issues are Intertwined
Yes, it is now in the drafting process, in which I am involved. Our team is reviewing circular economy frameworks adopted in other countries to learn from their experiences and try to configure a framework that best suits Thailand’s scenario.
Formulating a law for circular economy is a challenge in itself, asit would affect the economy and have ripple effects across different ministries and industries. However, this comprehensiveness is also the reason why I am advocating for circular economy to politicians and policy makers. Rethinking and reforming the legal structures on how we utilise our natural resources would be beneficial not just to the plastic pollution problem, but also to other environmental sustainability causes.
EPR is a policy approach that makes producers responsible for their products and packaging throughout the life cycle. This means that producers need to be responsible for the collection and management of the post-consumer products, either physically or financially.
Applying EPR would improve waste management in Thailand, which currently falls under the full responsibility of local governments. According to the law, local governments are responsible for managing municipal waste only through disposal at open dumping, sanitary landfills, or incinerators. This still leaves open the possibility of plastic leakage to the environment.
Furthermore, EPR can also encourage or incentivise producers to design their packaging to be more recyclable. This would boost the collection and recycling rate of plastics, not just those of a high value, but also of a lower value.
Yes, there have been several voluntary EPR schemes launched by different stakeholders in provinces such as Bangkok and Chonburi.
In 2018, the Thai government, the private sector, and NGOs came together to form the Thailand Public Private Partnership for Plastic and Waste Management, or Thailand PPP Plastic. The collaboration initiated the construction of drop-off points and material recovery facilities (MRFs) throughout Bangkok city. These infrastructures work by accepting recyclables from consumers at the designated drop-off points or from the separate collection system, and then transporting them to the MRFs for further processing.
In another project, stakeholders across the plastic value chain – including virgin material producers, packaging producers, retailers, waste collectors, and recyclers – joined forces to formulate the PackBack Project, which was implemented in three municipalities in Chonburi Province. Initiated by the Thailand Institute of Packaging and Recycling Management for Sustainable Development (TIPMSE) under the Federation of Thai Industries, this pilot project established a storage system, set up drop points for used packaging, and coordinated with the sorting hub to properly recycle the collected materials.
Right now, EPR is still voluntary. But the Pollution Control Department (PCD) under the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment has recently legitimised Thailand’s Roadmap on Plastic Waste Management Phase 2. This roadmap includes a plan on the enactment of the EPR law on packaging in 2027. The law would cover all types of packaging, not just plastic, to ensure the circularity of all resources.
The drafting of this EPR law has seen support from the private sector represented by TIPMSE. They believe that through this law, more companies would join forces in advocating for the establishment of MRFs with the local government, which would in turn minimise the transportation cost. By doing so, they hope to achieve the global target for a higher recycling rate and create greater impacts in alleviating marine plastic debris.
Also read: Plastic Waste in Myanmar: How Poverty (Paradoxically) Can Drive Circularity
Senior Researcher at the Environmental Research Institute, Chulalongkorn University
As the plastic pollution conversation grows, an increasing number of initiatives have been put in motion to tackle the problem – many in the area of waste management. But there are those who argue that focusing heavily on downstream strategies such as reusing and recycling, is not enough to have a lasting impact. They believe in a more holistic approach throughout the plastic value chain, emphasising upstream measures by making sure that we do not produce any new plastic to be circulated back into the economy.
One such advocate of this holistic approach is Dr Sujitra Vassanadumrongdee, a senior researcher at the Environmental Research Institute of Chulalongkorn University, Thailand, with almost 20 years' experience in the field of environmental economics. She has conducted various research and written numerous articles on waste management, with the focus on electronic waste early in her career and then solid waste, including plastic, in recent years.
Born and raised in Bangkok, Dr Sujitrais actively engaged in promoting zero waste initiatives in her hometown. On campus, she invites faculties and students to take part in the zero-to-landfill movement Chula Zero Waste by bringing their own cloth bags and tumblers. On a community level, she is also involved in the Zero Waste Pak Lad programme, which works with community leaders and members in promoting waste reduction, segregation, and treatment.
She has also contributed to the waste management policy-making process for both the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration and the National Environmental Board of Thailand.
Our team spoke with her in Bangkok about plastic pollution in Thailand, and how the country is pushing toward plastic circularity to close the waste loop.
When it comes to plastic, we must acknowledge the economic and social importance it holds, especially in our day-to-day activities. However, what most people have ignored is the negative implications that plastic waste brings when it is not properly managed – which is the case in most developing countries, including Thailand.
In 2019, an orphaned dugong (sea cow) named Marium in Southern Thailand died from plastic ingestion that caused infections in her stomach. The news sparked awareness of marine plastic pollution and stimulated changes toward the reduction of single-use-plastics (SUP) among Thais. This shift was evident from how the Thai government and retailers agreed to impose a ban on plastic carrier bags at major stores at the start of the following year.
However, when the (COVID-19) pandemic hit, our efforts were inevitably undermined because of health concerns. People perceived that plastic packaging could protect them from being infected by the coronavirus, and they put off the agenda on plastic reduction.
Now, as we are entering a new phase of new normal, we start to see the plastic pollution issue is regaining attention and different stakeholders are kicking off their activities toward a plastic waste-free environment. Therefore, we should no longer use COVID-19 as an excuse and start taking stronger and more proactive actions from this point onwards.
There is a common misconception that recycling plastic at its end of life is sufficient to eliminate plastic leakage to the marine environment. When in fact, minimising the production of virgin plastic in the first place is the key.
This is what the concept of circular economy stems from – reducing the consumption of depleting natural resources by reducing the utilisation of virgin materials; designing plastic to be reusable, recyclable, or compostable; and circulating the materials back into the economy without creating pollution.
Also read: How Solid Waste Management and Social Issues are Intertwined
Yes, it is now in the drafting process, in which I am involved. Our team is reviewing circular economy frameworks adopted in other countries to learn from their experiences and try to configure a framework that best suits Thailand’s scenario.
Formulating a law for circular economy is a challenge in itself, asit would affect the economy and have ripple effects across different ministries and industries. However, this comprehensiveness is also the reason why I am advocating for circular economy to politicians and policy makers. Rethinking and reforming the legal structures on how we utilise our natural resources would be beneficial not just to the plastic pollution problem, but also to other environmental sustainability causes.
EPR is a policy approach that makes producers responsible for their products and packaging throughout the life cycle. This means that producers need to be responsible for the collection and management of the post-consumer products, either physically or financially.
Applying EPR would improve waste management in Thailand, which currently falls under the full responsibility of local governments. According to the law, local governments are responsible for managing municipal waste only through disposal at open dumping, sanitary landfills, or incinerators. This still leaves open the possibility of plastic leakage to the environment.
Furthermore, EPR can also encourage or incentivise producers to design their packaging to be more recyclable. This would boost the collection and recycling rate of plastics, not just those of a high value, but also of a lower value.
Yes, there have been several voluntary EPR schemes launched by different stakeholders in provinces such as Bangkok and Chonburi.
In 2018, the Thai government, the private sector, and NGOs came together to form the Thailand Public Private Partnership for Plastic and Waste Management, or Thailand PPP Plastic. The collaboration initiated the construction of drop-off points and material recovery facilities (MRFs) throughout Bangkok city. These infrastructures work by accepting recyclables from consumers at the designated drop-off points or from the separate collection system, and then transporting them to the MRFs for further processing.
In another project, stakeholders across the plastic value chain – including virgin material producers, packaging producers, retailers, waste collectors, and recyclers – joined forces to formulate the PackBack Project, which was implemented in three municipalities in Chonburi Province. Initiated by the Thailand Institute of Packaging and Recycling Management for Sustainable Development (TIPMSE) under the Federation of Thai Industries, this pilot project established a storage system, set up drop points for used packaging, and coordinated with the sorting hub to properly recycle the collected materials.
Right now, EPR is still voluntary. But the Pollution Control Department (PCD) under the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment has recently legitimised Thailand’s Roadmap on Plastic Waste Management Phase 2. This roadmap includes a plan on the enactment of the EPR law on packaging in 2027. The law would cover all types of packaging, not just plastic, to ensure the circularity of all resources.
The drafting of this EPR law has seen support from the private sector represented by TIPMSE. They believe that through this law, more companies would join forces in advocating for the establishment of MRFs with the local government, which would in turn minimise the transportation cost. By doing so, they hope to achieve the global target for a higher recycling rate and create greater impacts in alleviating marine plastic debris.
Also read: Plastic Waste in Myanmar: How Poverty (Paradoxically) Can Drive Circularity
Senior Researcher at the Environmental Research Institute, Chulalongkorn University
