This chapter explores how the ASEAN Plus Three (APT) region can effectively implement the types of policies needed to end plastic pollution. The chapter first discusses notable policy gaps and implementation challenges that need to be bridged for countries to move from current policy trajectories to those compatible with the High Stringency policy scenario. It subsequently identifies priority areas to accelerate progress. Finally, the chapter considers the role of an enabling environment, including the provision of support for capacity building, access to investments, the integration of informal workers and the contribution of regional and international co-operation.
Regional Plastics Outlook for Southeast and East Asia
Abstract
Ending plastic pollution is achievable in the APT with ambitious policies across the lifecycle of plastics, but it requires major policy efforts and system-wide changes to bridge the gaps between current policy ambition and implementation.
The region’s diversity means no one-size-fits-all solution: policy design must be aligned with each country’s infrastructure readiness, institutional capacity, socio-economic and policy context.
Universal access to waste collection and environmentally safe waste treatment are of critical importance. A High Stringency scenario could eliminate mismanaged plastic waste, but in many countries (albeit not Japan and Korea) this would require very significant improvements compared to the current situation. Especially the ASEAN countries, many of which have the share of mismanaged plastic waste above 50% (37% in ASEAN HIC & UMIC and 70% in ASEAN LMIC on average), require significant improvements. Current gaps, particularly in rural and underserved areas, drive waste mismanagement (e.g. open dumping, burning) and plastic leakage, especially in Indonesia, Cambodia, Lao PDR, the Philippines, Viet Nam and Myanmar. Waste collection targets and EPR systems offer powerful policy options: although EPR adoption is growing in the region, many countries face challenges with enforcement, tracking and stakeholder engagement.
A High Stringency scenario projects that the average recycling rate in the region increases by more than 40 percentage-points by 2050. The increase in recycling rates needed in the APT countries ranges from 31%-points in Thailand (from 13% in 2022 to 44% in 2050) to 50%-points in Korea (from 10% to 60%). Scaling up recycling requires investments in sorting, cleaning and processing capacity, the integration of informal workers, improved waste segregation at source, better product design for recycling, and the development of domestic and international markets for recycled plastics. Achieving high recycling rates for all polymers may also require technological breakthroughs and reliable scrap material supply, all across the APT region.
Slowing down plastics use and plastic waste generation at the source is essential, especially as plastics use in the APT region is projected to grow under current policies (Baseline scenario) due to population and economic expansion. There are large untapped opportunities to scale up solutions to curb plastics demand and to promote eco-design across the region.
Local governments across the APT have led the way in the introduction of targeted policies such as bans on single-use plastics, but enforcement is weak, especially in informal markets, due to low awareness and lack of affordable alternatives. There are substantial benefits to be gained from better enforced bans and phase-outs, a stronger use of eco-design and chemical regulation, a scale-up of reuse systems, as well as the promotion of material and product innovation.
Policy momentum is growing in the APT, but success hinges on overcoming major cross-cutting implementation challenges, including weak monitoring and enforcement, limited local capacity, financing gaps and the need to integrate and professionalise informal waste workers. Multi-stakeholder engagement, capacity-building efforts, and regional and international co-operation offer opportunities to enhance policy design and implementation, bridge knowledge gaps, strengthen and align policy frameworks and standards.
Ending plastic pollution would deliver wide-ranging benefits in the APT region, particularly for ASEAN countries which face high levels of waste mismanagement, riverine and ocean pollution (originating domestically or abroad) and important ocean-based economic sectors. Plastics in the marine environment undermine key sectors like fisheries, aquaculture and tourism (McIlgorm et al., 2022[1]). Mismanaged plastic waste, still prevalent in the APT region, increases health risks, for example via air pollution from informal waste burning. The APT region is home to some of the areas most affected by plastic pollution but also to vibrant manufacturing hubs – ending plastic pollution is therefore an environmental and health imperative as well as a strategic opportunity for innovation and economic growth.
Most APT countries recognise the urgency and opportunities for mitigating plastic pollution, as reflected in national action plans and policies (Chapter 3). Rising amounts of mismanaged plastic waste, combined with the influx of some hard-to-recycle waste, have spurred calls for stronger policy action (Agnelli and Tortora, 2022[2]; Ng et al., 2023[3]). Many APT countries are introducing bans and restrictions on single-use plastics, targets and incentives for recycling, and various measures for pollution prevention. There are also a multitude of projects on the ground, including projects supported by bilateral and multilateral agencies. While the policy landscape remains diverse and uneven, there is evidence of high policy ambition in the region.
The projected consequences of current policies (Baseline scenario, Chapters 4 and 5) highlight the need for ambitious policy action to prevent a doubling of mismanaged plastic waste in the APT by 2050 (reaching 59 Mt) and stop plastic leakage to the environment.
Ending plastic leakage in the APT requires the implementation of stringent policies across the lifecycle of plastics (Chapter 6), but success hinges on countries moving well beyond current policies and overcoming implementation challenges. Substantial gaps exist between the existing policy landscape and the comprehensive policy packages required to end plastic leakage cost-effectively. For example, policies promoting reduction, reuse and eco-design remain largely underutilised, despite their essential role in decoupling economic activity from waste generation. Recycling policies are expanding, but structural challenges persist, such as cost and quality disadvantages of recycled materials and slow progress in increasing recycling rates (currently 12% on average in the APT).
Implementation capacity also varies widely across the APT. In countries like Cambodia, Lao PDR, Myanmar, and parts of Indonesia and the Philippines, environmental agencies often lack staffing, funding and tools to monitor compliance effectively. Even middle-income ASEAN countries, like Thailand, Viet Nam and Malaysia, may face issues of fragmented enforcement and inconsistent policy implementation, particularly in rural areas. Table 7.1 summarises the status of policy action on plastic pollution in the APT along with key opportunities for improvement.
Bridging this ambition gap will require supportive policy frameworks and effective implementation, including strong enforcement, market development and infrastructure investments. ASEAN countries, in particular, often face interrelated challenges that include (ASEAN, 2021[4]):
Escalating waste generation, especially in rapidly growing economies catching up with the levels of plastics use seen in high-income countries.
Limited access to finance for interventions across the lifecycle of plastics.
Gaps in infrastructure and technical capacity, especially in rural areas and within local governments.
Weak data systems, particularly around plastic flows, plastic waste generation, composition and leakage pathways. This hampers targeted interventions.
A prevalence of the informal sector in waste management, with limited pathways for formalisation and professionalisation.
Fragmented institutional responsibilities and limited co-ordination, creating inefficiencies, overlapping mandates and gaps in policy implementation.
Insufficient public awareness and limited private sector engagement, which are critical to behaviour change among households and businesses and for policy success.
Translating action plans into meaningful outcomes and preventing delays in effectively ending plastic pollution will require proactive steps to address these gaps. This chapter identifies opportunities to strengthen the current policy mix towards alignment with the High Stringency scenario (Section 7.2) and explores priorities tailored to the APT (Section 7.3).
Ending plastic pollution in the APT requires stringent, lifecycle-wide policy measures. To align with the ambition of a High Stringency scenario, a coherent mix of policy measures is required to:
Expand waste collection and treatment, to ensure the environmentally safe handling of waste,
Scale up recycling and accelerate the shift from primary to secondary plastics,
Slow down (primary) plastic production and demand,
Extend product lifespans, promote eco-design, and prevent waste generation,
Mitigate environmental risks, especially in pollution hotspots, through prevention and clean-up.
Figure 7.1 illustrates a range of policy instruments commonly used by countries to mitigate plastic pollution.
The specific policy mixes must be tailored to national and local conditions and priorities, reflecting differing socio-economic conditions, infrastructure capacities, policy frameworks, ease of access to finance and public awareness. For instance, while Japan, Korea and Singapore have already advanced frameworks and enforcement mechanisms for waste management in place, many others in the APT region are still developing systems for waste collection. In addition, the region’s varied geographies present additional structural challenges: archipelagic nations need to manage waste collection across thousands of islands, often in areas with limited transport infrastructure, while remote, mountainous or flood-prone regions in the APT face challenges to year-round service provision. Within countries, there can be large disparities between urban and rural or remote areas.
This diversity calls for a comprehensive, regionally co-ordinated but context-sensitive policy approaches, as also promoted in the ASEAN Regional Action Plan (2021[4]). Country-specific priorities might include: prioritising waste collection and segregation, especially in ASEAN LMIC, and in rural and remote areas, supporting informal sector integration, or targeting plastics particularly prone to causing harm, such as certain single-use plastics, or plastics containing harmful additives. Figure 7.1 shows examples of common policy instruments mitigate plastic pollution, typically used by countries at different levels of policy maturity.
Drawing from the review of the current policy landscape in APT countries (Chapter 3), the following sections identify key policy gaps that need to be bridged to move from current trajectories to a High Stringency scenario. It highlights both the scale of the challenge and the policy levers available, while underscoring implementation barriers to be overcome.
Source: Adapted from (OECD, 2022[5]; OECD, 2024[6]).
7.2.1. Curb demand and design for circularity
Reducing plastic waste and pollution at the source is critical (OECD, 2024[6]; ASEAN, 2021[4]; United Nations Environment Programme, 2023[7]). Under current policies (Baseline scenario), plastics use in the APT is expected to continue to rise, driven by population growth, growth of manufacturing and services, as well as continued rapid urbanisation, especially in mid-level sized cities. Relying only on waste management and recycling policies is not sufficient, and often costlier, than preventive lifecycle-wide strategies (including also action to curb demand for plastics and promote eco-design) (OECD, 2024[6]). In contrast, a shift to the High Stringency scenario would see a 23% reduction in plastic waste generated in the APT in 2050, relative to current policies (declining from 242 Mt in the Baseline scenario to 186 Mt), including a strong 17 Mt reduction in packaging waste alone. Table 7.2 shows examples of the improvements necessary to align with High Stringency in the APT, across different countries and income groups, including important reductions in plastic waste generation and plastic intensity compared to under current policies (Baseline scenario).
Percentage changes, High Stringency scenario
Notes: colour shading highlights the largest identified changes compared to Baseline. Plastic intensity is measured as plastics use per unit of GDP.
Source: OECD ENV-Linkages model.
Achieving these reductions will require far-reaching structural transformations in the use of plastics and the design of plastic products. In the modelling exercise presented in this Outlook, reductions in plastic production and use are primarily achieved through economic instruments, such as taxes on plastics use by industries and households. In practice, policymakers have a broader toolbox to achieve reductions in plastics demand. The following subsections discuss the potential of selected measures to curb demand and improve design for circularity. While this Outlook focuses on national and subnational measures, global commitments could emerge from negotiations on an international legally-binding treaty on plastic pollution, but these are beyond the scope of this Outlook.
Bans, restrictions and fiscal instruments to curb demand
Targeted policy interventions to reduce the use of avoidable and problematic plastics, especially single-use plastics, are essential to mitigating plastic pollution (OECD, 2024[6]). A range of policy instruments exist to curb demand, including: bans, standards, phaseouts, taxes on selected applications, virgin material taxes, as well as a reform of subsidies to primary plastic production.1
As discussed in Chapter 3, several APT countries have or are considering measures to slow down plastics use, including planned reductions, phase-outs and bans. These usually target plastic items with high littering or leakage potential, such as carrier bags, plastic straws and cutlery. In ASEAN countries, sub-national and local governments have often led the way: for example, urban centres in Indonesia and national parks in Thailand have banned single-use plastic bags (Napitupulu, Hamzah and Haniy, 2021[8]; World Bank, 2024[9]). Japan enforces mandatory charges for plastic bags and promotes alternatives, while Korea has adopted phased bans on specific single-use items.
However, implementation challenges persist. Enforcement of bans is often weak due to limited monitoring capacity, low public awareness and the absence of viable, affordable alternatives for consumers and retailers (ASEAN, 2021[4]). Enforcement challenges are particularly acute with informal markets and small-scale vendors, that often fall outside the scope of regulatory frameworks but remain significant users of single-use plastics. Limited capacity for monitoring and the absence of clear incentives or support mechanisms have made compliance difficult. In some cases, banned items are replaced with other single-use items, which may not yield better environmental outcomes (ASEAN, 2021[4]). Moreover, illicit trade in regulated plastic packaging can undermine policy effectiveness.
To maximise impact, bans and restrictions should be embedded in integrated policy frameworks that combine awareness campaigns, capacity-building for local governments tasked with enforcement, support for innovation, alongside regional and international co-ordination and co-operation to ensure coherence and market transformation.
There are also opportunities to broaden the scope of restrictions to tackle persistent sources of plastic pollution. Excessive use of plastic packaging or of problematic materials, and the prevalence of low-value and hard-to-recycle flexible packaging, remain major challenges (World Economic Forum, 2020[10]; Suwarno et al., 2025[11]). For instance, low-value plastic packaging represents as much as 61% of the plastic packaging units entering the Philippine market, posing a considerable challenge to achieving higher recycling rates (World Bank Group, 2021[12]; Suwarno et al., 2025[11]). Co-ordinated efforts, internationally and regionally, to identify unsafe plastic applications, polymers and additives, and to develop solutions that avoid possible unintended risks of substitution, could support evidence-based national policy action in this area (Raubenheimer and Urho, 2024[13]).
Eco-design criteria and standards for plastic products
Incorporating circularity considerations into product design is essential to prolong product lifespans and enable reuse, repairability and recycling. A fundamental component of circular design is the regulation of chemicals of concern in plastics, such as plasticisers, flame retardants and other additives, that may pose risks to human health and the environment. Chemicals regulations remain underdeveloped in the majority of APT countries. Limited co-ordination between environmental, health and industry authorities can also result in regulatory gaps or weak enforcement. Strengthening national legislation by drawing on international frameworks could enhance transparency and oversight on chemicals in plastic products.
Harmonised standards for plastic products and packaging across the APT region could help accelerate circularity, notably by facilitating recycling and enabling the safe use of recycled plastics, including in sensitive applications such as food contact materials (ASEAN, 2021[4]). At present, differing standards on recycled content and chemical additives hinder higher recycling rates (as discussed in Chapter 3). Standards for reuse could also be beneficial. Enhanced regional co-operation on standard-setting and mutual recognition of certifications could close these gaps, improve product quality, build market confidence in reusable packaging or products with recycled content, and boost recycling output and safety. This would also reduce trade frictions and improve material flows for recycling across borders.
Reuse systems
Reuse systems, such as refill stations and returnable packaging systems, represent one of the most effective pathways for reducing demand for single-use plastics and cutting waste at the source. Designed to enable multiple circulations of packaging, reuse systems diminish demand for new virgin plastics, while ensuring that consumers benefit from the service provided by the item (e.g. packaged meals, followed by the return of the packaging to the provider). As reusable packaging typically involves higher upfront material and energy inputs than single-use counterparts and dedicated infrastructure and maintenance is required (e.g. for washing), the certainty of multiple uses is essential to realising net environmental benefits.
Across the APT region, reuse initiatives exist and are gaining increasing ground, with some promising outcomes (Suwarno et al., 2025[11]). Examples include drinking water refill stations in Thailand and Indonesia, goods delivery platforms offering reusable packaging in Indonesia, and refill systems in traditional neighbourhood stores in the Philippines (Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives, 2024[14]). However, these initiatives remain largely localised and small-scale, due to limited policy support, inadequate infrastructure, lack of standardised design guidelines, financial constraints and entrenched consumption habits favouring convenience (Suwarno et al., 2025[11]). Reuse systems yield the greatest impacts when scaled, but this requires co-ordinated policy efforts, including financial incentives, public investment in reuse infrastructure, public education, as well as regulatory frameworks that promote standardisation or interoperability.
Innovation in material and product design
Innovation in material development and product design is a critical enabler for reductions in (primary) plastic production and use, offering pathways to more sustainable and circular alternatives. Governments can foster innovation through e.g. public-private partnerships, innovation hubs focused on circular product design, infrastructure investments, and development and harmonisation of technical standards and labelling schemes. For instance, policy action is needed to provide a clear framework for bio-based or compostable plastics (as detailed also in Box 7.1). Currently, a variety of plastic products and packaging available on markets in the APT region are labelled as biodegradable or compostable, leading to possible confusion among consumers or contamination in plastic waste streams (ASEAN, 2021[4]). Malaysia and Viet Nam have introduced standards and labels for compostable plastics and recycled content (see Chapter 3).
Infrastructure plays a key role in determining whether novel materials can actually deliver environmental benefits at end-of-life. For instance, gaps in composting or mechanical recycling currently mean that novel materials cannot always be managed sustainably at end-of-life. Government can also leverage public procurement to drive demand for products that meet eco-design criteria, such as recycled content, as well as supporting the adoption of new delivery systems that reduce consumption of single-use plastics (ASEAN, 2021[4]). Publishing environmental criteria for products and packaging can further signal policy direction and stimulate industry innovation.
Interest is growing across the region in non-plastic substitutes (i.e. natural materials with properties similar to those of fossil-fuel plastics) and plastic alternatives (i.e. bio-based plastics) that can offer similar functional benefits as conventional plastics with lower environmental impacts. Among these, interest in compostable plastics is growing, especially in response to single-use plastic bans. Compostable plastics, whether bio-based or fossil fuel-based, decompose in industrial composting facilities and, if sourced responsibly, may help reduce environmental impacts. For instance, compostable plastic bags can facilitate the collection of food waste and reduce contamination in organic waste streams.
However, the existence of well-functioning collection systems, with separate collection for organic waste, is essential to ensure that these materials are well-managed at the end-of-life. However, these benefits are dependent on the existence of a separate collection stream and treatment infrastructure for compostable waste, as well as on proper sorting behaviour by households. In no case should compostable (or biodegradable) plastics be considered a solution for littering or inappropriate waste management. The presence of clear product labelling is also critical, to prevent consumer confusion around “biodegradable” or “compostable” claims and ensure high-quality sorting at source.
Source: (ASEAN, 2021[4]; OECD, 2024[6]).
7.2.2. Improve waste management, enhance recycling and prevent pollution
Efficient waste collection and sorting are fundamental to ending plastic pollution, yet waste collection remains inadequate or non-existent in many APT countries, particularly in rural and underserved areas, and in countries that rely heavily on informal waste management practices (United Nations Environment Programme, 2017[15]). Improper disposal practices, such as open dumping and burning, remain widespread, exacerbating pollution and risks for human health. Recycling rates in ASEAN LMIC are generally below 10%, constrained by insufficient infrastructure, lack of market incentives and limited public awareness (World Economic Forum, 2020[10]; Ng et al., 2023[3]). As plastics use and waste generation rapidly increase in less-developed countries under current policies, the pressure on their waste systems will only intensify.
Table 7.3 shows examples of the improvements in waste management and recycling necessary to align with High Stringency in the APT, across different countries and income groups. Under a High Stringency scenario, mismanaged plastic waste would be nearly eliminated and recycling would cover 54% of waste generated in APT in 2050 (up from 12% in 2022). Achieving this recycling rate will require significant investments in waste management, as well as tailored national and local approaches across the APT countries. The next sub-sections discuss key policy measures to improve waste management, enhance recycling, as well as to strengthen other pollution prevention measures. Related global commitments or targets could emerge from negotiations on an international, legally-binding treaty on plastic pollution and further support progress, but these fall outside the scope of this analysis.
Share of waste that is mismanaged, and recycling rates, Baseline and High Stringency scenarios
Note: colour shading highlights the largest identified changes compared to Baseline.
Source: OECD ENV-Linkages model.
Establishing basic waste collection systems and disposal facilities
Strengthening waste management begins with clear policy frameworks (at national, sub-national and local level) to enable investments and improvements in collection, sorting and treatment. Proven approaches include Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) schemes and waste collection targets. EPR allocates the responsibility for the end-of-life management of products to producers, who typically contribute fees to support collection, sorting and processing (OECD, 2016[16]). Well-designed EPR schemes have contributed to boosting separate collection and recycling rates, reduced the financial burden on local governments, and secured dedicated funding for the management of covered waste (OECD, 2024[17]). EPR fees may also be used to initiate investment in recycling facilities.
As discussed in Chapter 3, EPR schemes are gaining traction across the APT region, but remain in the early stages of development and implementation in most ASEAN countries. Japan and Korea have mature EPR schemes for packaging and some durable products, while the Philippines, Viet Nam, Singapore, Thailand, Indonesia as well as Malaysia have introduced EPR legislation or are in the process of developing regulatory frameworks for mandatory EPR for (plastic) packaging. Common challenges include unclear definitions of producer obligations, limited administrative and enforcement capacity, limited tracking systems for waste flows and difficulty in engaging SMEs and key stakeholders. In the case of developing countries (within the APT and beyond), the design and implementation of EPR schemes should also effectively involve the informal sector (OECD, 2016[16]; International Alliance of Waste Pickers, 2023[18]). Tailored technical guidance, capacity-building for government agencies, and stakeholder engagement are critical to improve EPR design and implementation. At the regional level, sharing best practices and harmonised eco-design principles can help countries accelerate the development of effective EPR schemes (ASEAN, 2021[4]).
Promoting and enhancing recycling
The status of plastic recycling is very heterogenous across the region. While countries like Japan (14% plastic recycling rate), China (14%) and Korea (10%) have recycling rates above the global average (10%), plastic recycling remains limited in many ASEAN countries, and generally highly reliant on informal practices (Suwarno et al., 2025[11]). ASEAN LMIC have lower recycling rates, including Indonesia (6%) and other ASEAN countries (9% for HIC & UMIC and 6% for LMIC). Key challenges are inefficient and incomplete waste collection and sorting, particularly in rural areas. Mixed and contaminated waste streams undermine the quality of recycled plastics and lead to lost value. In addition, many plastic products are not designed for recycling, such as multi-layer packaging or plastics containing certain chemical additives. Market challenges further constrain recycling outcomes: virgin plastics are often cheaper and preferred by industry, due to perceived higher quality and higher reliability of supply (ASEAN, 2021[4]; Suwarno et al., 2025[11]; World Bank Group, 2021[12]).
Governments can pursue a mix of regulatory and economic policy interventions to both expand the supply of recycled plastics and to create demand for their use (OECD, 2018[19]). This dual approach of removing supply-side barriers while creating strong market incentives, will be key to unlocking higher recycling rates.
On the supply side, scaling up investments in the infrastructure for sorting, cleaning and processing of waste plastics is essential. The integration of informal waste pickers into formal value chains and setting mandatory recycling targets for municipalities and producers (e.g. through EPR) are also critical. Strengthening international markets for plastic scrap is important to ensure sufficient availability of scrap materials and enable the ambitious scale up of recycling envisioned in the High Stringency scenario. Technological innovation will be required to improve recycling methods for hard-to-recycle plastics and broaden the range of materials that can be effectively processed. Box 7.2 describes how China is transitioning from dependence on imported plastic waste to building a modern, integrated system for plastic recycling through policy reforms and industry developments that harmonise domestic collection, sorting and recycling practices and expand capacity nationwide.
On the demand side, ensuring a stable market for recycled materials is equally important to strengthen the business case for recycling. Support to recycling and recycled plastics could help change the relative prices in favour of secondary plastics. At the same time, demand-side approaches such as recycled content requirements can help level the playing field with primary plastics, by mandating the inclusion of a minimum percentage of recycled material in products like packaging, construction materials or textiles. They can be implemented as direct regulation or through instruments such as public procurement. Establishing quality and certification standards for recycled plastics, alongside investments in testing and traceability infrastructure, can address market concerns around safety and reliability, especially in sectors like food packaging and consumer goods (ASEAN, 2021[4]). At the regional level, the promotion of harmonised quality standards for recycled materials and for recycled content could also further strengthen markets for recycled materials and improve cross-border trade.
Finally, while the High Stringency scenario envisioned large improvements in recycling rates for plastics, this vision hinges on the assumption that high recycling rates can be attained for all waste streams and polymers, including those that are barely recycled at present, via mechanical recycling technologies.2 This assumption requires caution: some polymers and applications, such as multi-layer plastics or lightweight films, are inherently difficult or impossible to recycle currently, with existing technologies. Major technical and market shifts will need to occur to enable the large-scale switch from primary to secondary plastics for all polymers and achieve the consequential reductions in environmental impacts. The rapid recycling expansion envisioned in the High Stringency scenario also raises concerns regarding the availability of sufficient scrap materials and the functioning of international scrap markets to sustain this ambitious effort. Delays in infrastructure development, technical challenges or shortfalls in available scrap materials could slow progress and raise costs. Should such breakthroughs fail to materialise, meeting the ambitions of the policy package will require heightened ambition in other parts of the policy package, such as reductions in the use of hard-to-recycle polymers or deeper reductions in overall plastics demand.
Following its 2017 ban on plastic waste imports and tightened quality standards for scrap, China has accelerated efforts to build a robust domestic recycling system (Yoshida, 2021[20]). Under the Action Plan for Plastic Pollution Control, the government is rolling a range of measures to modernise and expand recycling. Firstly, segregation-at-source has become mandatory in all cities at or above prefecture level (covering 65% of the population) by 2025 (CMS Legal, 2023[21]; NDRC China, 2021[22]).
Municipal authorities are also expected to enforce new national technical specifications, developed in 2022 and covering collection, transportation, sorting, storage, pre-treatment, recycling and disposal (MoEE China, 2022[23]). The government has also invested in the improved organisation of the recycling industry through standardisation and implementation of a modern information exchange system (by 2025) (CMS Legal, 2023[21]).
The government is also supporting infrastructure investments, including with the planned building of over 1 000 green sorting centres linked to an established recycling network system for waste and used materials, and support for chemical recycling, mainly via pollution prevention and control requirements and monitoring (MoEE China, 2022[24]). In addition, a preferential value-added tax (VAT) rate of 3% (in 2022) was introduced for enterprises that collect and recycle recyclable waste (Deloitte China, 2022[25]).
According to the China National Resources Recycling Association, as of 2023, large-scale plastics processing centres and recycled plastic trading markets have formed. The number of businesses entering the plastic recycling sector is growing annually. Recycling outlets are present all over the country and the industry is transforming from a “labour-intensive, random application, and loose industry to technology-intensive, standardised application, and industrial scale”. The association also expects the recycling industry to process 11% more waste plastics in 2023 compared to 2022, from 16.3 Mt to over 18 Mt (CMRA, 2023[26]).
Enhancing various other pollution prevention measures
Municipal litter management
In addition to improving waste collection and recycling, effective pollution prevention measures are also essential, including management of municipal litter (i.e. waste that escapes collection, either because it is littered by individuals or due to fly-tipping). The implementation of the ambitious policy package envisioned in the High Stringency scenario would nearly eliminate plastic leakage to the environment by 2050, including by reducing littered waste that requires additional collection interventions (2.2 Mt, compared to 2.6 Mt in Baseline in 2050).
Achieving this vision will also require a major increase in litter picking rates and street sweeping in all regions, beyond the improvements in this area already expected in the Baseline scenario. Large increases in municipal litter management are required especially in countries like Indonesia and Thailand, which in 2022 had litter collection rates of 65% and 70% respectively, and are expected to reach 85% by 2050 in the High Stringency scenario.
Prevention of plastic leakage from sea-based sources
The prevention of plastic leakage from sea-based sources, including fishing gear and shipping related sources, is also critical to mitigate plastic pollution. Policies to reduce pollution from abandoned, lost or otherwise discard fishing gear (ALDFG), include: improved design to require gear marking and to facilitate repair and recycling, requirements or incentives for the reporting of lost gear, support of efforts to retrieve lost gear, and the provision of adequate disposal facilities and the promotion of recycling (OECD, 2021[27]). The effective implementation of guidelines to address sea-based sources of pollution, such as the principles of the MARPOL Convention, is critical (ASEAN, 2021[4]).
Given the intensity of fishing activities in the ASEAN region and the significant environmental and socioeconomic impacts associated with ALDFG, a more comprehensive assessment of its occurrence, causes, consequences, and countermeasures is warranted. In addition, it is important to assess the environmental impacts of different fishing gear types and to strengthen data collection and monitoring, to support the development of evidence-based policies that help minimize the environmental footprint of fishing activities.
Clean-up and remediation interventions
Clean-up and remediation also form an important part of the policy mix to complement prevention efforts. As discussed in Chapter 6, legacy plastic pollution and additional contributions that would still be expected between 2020 and 2050 would lead to an amplification of plastic pollution. Stocks of plastics in rivers and oceans, often taken as a proxy for plastic pollution, would rise from 178 Mt in 2022 to 449 Mt in 2050 at the global level, and to from 65 Mt to 181 Mt in rivers and oceans specifically in the APT region. Furthermore, even High Stringency would not eliminate plastic pollution completely, and about 1.5 Mt of plastic waste would still be mismanaged in 2050 in the APT, largely due to littered waste that is difficult to collect via municipal litter collection.
Remediation interventions play an important role in mitigating risks for ecosystems, economies, human well-being and livelihoods, especially in developing countries most affected by plastic pollution. Plastic pollution in the marine environment can be particularly problematic and difficult to revert: prevention measures and interventions that can capture plastics (e.g. the 80% of floating plastics that stays close to land, see Chapter 2) can play an important role to prevent and mitigate marine plastic pollution. OECD (2022[28]) discusses the cost-effectiveness of possible clean-up measures. Targeted clean-up interventions, such as in pollution hotspots, may also help to gather data on environmental pollution and to inform policy efforts, especially if coordinated at the regional level (OECD, 2024[6]; ASEAN, 2021[4]). However, care is needed to ensure that clean-up interventions do not lead to unintended harm to ecosystems and that they are deployed efficiently (Falk-Andersson et al., 2023[29]).
This report does not investigate the impacts of plastic pollution on critical ecosystems in the APT region, such as coral reefs and mangrove forests. These ecosystems are essential for coastal protection, biodiversity and livelihoods, and are known to be vulnerable to pollutants such as plastics in the environment. Future studies and assessments should prioritize a deeper examination of how plastic pollution is affecting coral reef systems and mangrove forests across the region, to help inform policy responses and conservation efforts.
Mitigation of microplastic leakage and pollution
Microplastic pollution poses an emerging threat to the environment and human health. Due to data and information limitations, the High Stringency scenario includes only a limited set of policies targeting microplastic leakage. Reductions in microplastic leakage in this scenario (compared to Baseline) are largely indirect, e.g. stemming from reductions in overall plastics use, improvements in end-of-pipe capture (e.g. wastewater treatment), or less degradation of plastics polluting the environment. However, targeted policies on will also need to form an important part of the policy mix to ensure effectively mitigate microplastic pollution, globally and in the APT region (Ng et al., 2023[3]; OECD, 2022[28]). Crucially, improved monitoring, data collection and research are also needed to better estimate microplastic leakage and identify priority sources and pathways.
Policy measures span four key areas (OECD, 2021[30]):
Source-directed: sustainable product design and manufacturing (e.g. tyres, vehicles, textiles, paints) to minimise the likelihood of microplastic generation, as well as measures to prevent pellet losses during manufacturing and transport.
Use-oriented: best use practices (e.g. laundering parameters, eco-driving) and mitigation technologies (e.g. filters) to reduce preventable releases during the use phase.
End-of-life: improved waste management to prevent leakage to the environment and potential degradation to microplastics.
End-of-pipe: enhanced collection and treatment wastewater, stormwater and road runoff, to retain microplastics before they reach the environment.
Policy action on microplastic leakage is emerging globally and can provide helpful to inform policy efforts in the APT. In addition, while further research is needed to assess the cost-effectiveness of several mitigation options for microplastic leakage, significant progress can be made by focusing on no-regrets interventions and mitigation options that offer co-benefits s (OECD, 2021[30]). There are a range of measures that align with existing policy goals, such as improving air and water quality or reducing GHG emissions, while simultaneously reducing microplastic leakage (e.g. reductions in road transport volumes).
The review of the policy landscape (Chapter 3) revealed persistent, cross-cutting challenges hindering the effective implementation of policies to tackle plastic pollution in the APT. This section explores key barriers and opportunities and suggests priority actions to accelerate progress. Box 7.3 illustrates barriers for 2 ASEAN countries.
In Indonesia, the government aims to safely manage 100% of its MSW (see Chapter 3). Progress is being made, with MSW collection rates reaching 65% in 2021, although this remains well below the ambitious target of 98% set for 2021. The government highlighted that limited local budget remain a critical hurdle as well as burden for municipalities, that have around half of their total budget allocated to waste management on average. Strengthening financing mechanisms for municipalities will be key to sustaining progress and meeting future targets, in Indonesia as in other ASEAN countries.
In the Philippines, the Development Plan 2017-2022 set a MSW diversion target rate of 80% by 2022. This measure aimed to divert waste away from disposal facilities, such as landfills, through recycling, reuse, composting or other methods. As of 2021, only 39% of the local government units had material recovery facilities operational, and the nation reported the accomplished goal rate to be 54%. The Commission on Audit of the Republic of the Philippines’s 2023 report on waste management underscores uncertainties surrounding the reported 54% progress figure. It highlights several issues limiting the nation’s advance towards the waste diversion goal, including the incompleteness and unreliability of material recovery facilities data, the lack of data monitoring, the lack of local government unites consultation on the national target formulation, unavailability of funds, the lack of strong implementation support, slow progress on MSW plan submission and approval from central authorities, and the absence of rewards and incentives. Advancing towards national targets will require more coordinated, cross-sectoral action, stronger support for local governments, as well as improved data and incentive systems.
7.3.1. Multi-stakeholder engagement and public awareness
The transition to a more sustainable and circular plastics economy hinges on robust stakeholder coordination and inclusive policy design (Suwarno et al., 2025[11]). Engaging business, academia, local communities and civil society groups (including the informal sector) can ensure the development of feasible solutions with a broad buy-in. Mechanisms like multi-stakeholder forums at local, national and regional levels already facilitate knowledge sharing and coordination of efforts.
However, engagement levels remain uneven across the APT. In less-developed countries, institutional frameworks for stakeholder engagement remain weak or lacking (Suwarno et al., 2025[11]). Stakeholders playing a vital role in plastics value chains (such as local communities, SMEs or the informal sector) may remain excluded from policy formulation and implementation. Common obstacles include limited capacity in local governments, fragmented initiatives (often reliant on short-term funding) or weak coordination across different levels of government (see also Box 7.4).
Nonetheless, promising examples are emerging. Multi-stakeholder engagement is becoming more institutionalised in the APT countries that have adopted or are in the process of developing national plastic action plans, such as Indonesia, Thailand or Viet Nam. International efforts, such as the Global Plastic Action Partnership, are helping to create multi-stakeholder consultation mechanisms (in Indonesia, Viet Nam, Cambodia, the Philippines and Lao PDR) (World Economic Forum, 2022[34]).
Public engagement is equally critical for facilitating behavioural change. Consumers may help reduce plastics demand and waste directly, such as by avoiding packaging from shops or from online sales, and indirectly, such as via consumption choices for consumer products containing plastics (e.g. synthetic clothing). Households also contribute to recycling of plastic packaging and can drive industry shifts to a more circular modes of consumption. Interventions that promote behavioural change are most impactful when they integrate behavioural insights and consider gender roles and related consumption preferences (OECD, 2021[35]; OECD, 2017[36]).
Two examples, from Cambodia and Malaysia, highlight the importance of strong public engagement and institutional coordination in realising the full potential of policy measures targeting plastic pollution.
In 2017, Cambodia introduced a mandatory charge of USD 0.10 per plastic bag issued to customers, by supermarkets and retailers in malls and business centres (Sub-Decree 168 of 2017), with the aim of reducing single-use plastics. A 2022 field investigation revealed that, while a few major businesses in the capital city implemented this mandatory charge, the potential of the policy measure remained untapped (UNDP Cambodia, 2022[37]). Awareness of the policy among local government officials remained low, hindering its enforcement (UNDP Cambodia, 2022[37]).
Malaysia introduced a legal framework for mandatory waste separation at-source in 2015, applying across 6 states and 2 federal territories (covering an estimated 38% of the national population), with possibilities of fines in case of non-compliance (Daim and Radhi, 2023[38]). However, as recognised in the Plastics Sustainability Roadmap 2021-2030, low public awareness of sorting-at-source practices remained a key barrier to effective implementation and scaling up recycling (MoEW Malaysia, 2021[39]; Akenji et al., 2019[40]). In 2021, segregated-at-source recyclable waste comprised only 0.14% of Malaysia’s 2021 MSW (DoS Malaysia, 2022[41]). This highlights the need for integrated policy strategies and sustained public awareness campaigns to deliver meaningful progress.
7.3.2. Monitoring, enforcement and governance
Robust monitoring and enforcement capacities are essential to ensuring policies deliver impact. While several APT countries have banned selected single-use plastics, implementation is often hampered by weak enforcement (as well as low public awareness and a lack of affordable alternatives). The risk of sanctions for non-compliance, such as those against the illegal dumping of waste or illegal waste trafficking, remain weak especially in ASEAN LMIC (United Nations Environment Programme, 2017[15]; UNEP and UNODC, 2024[42]).
Enforcement challenges fall into three broad categories (Chapter 3):
Institutional and legal gaps: In countries such as Cambodia, Lao PDR, Myanmar, and parts of Indonesia and the Philippines, environmental agencies often lack staffing, funding and tools to monitor compliance effectively. Even middle-income ASEAN countries, such as Thailand, Viet Nam and Malaysia, may face issues of fragmented enforcement and inconsistent policy implementation, particularly in rural areas.
Informality and data deficits: The widespread presence of informal markets in food services, retail, and waste collection complicates regulation across the APT region, as many of these actors operate outside formal regulatory frameworks. Meanwhile, the absence of reliable data on plastic flows and pollution sources impedes monitoring of progress and the targeting of enforcement controls (ASEAN, 2021[4]).
Evolving compliance challenges: In high-income countries such as Japan and Korea, enforcement systems are well-established and advanced, but new policies like extended producer responsibility (EPR), eco-design standards and recycled content requirements, demand more sophisticated monitoring tools and greater information sharing across complex supply chains to ensure compliance. In Korea, for example, producers of packaging are required, under the EPR scheme, to evaluate and label the recyclability of their packaging materials based on a four-tier scale, with criteria covering material composition, label separability and other factors (Korea, 2017[43]). Supporting measures include certification schemes and labelling for recycled content.
Strengthening enforcement requires equipping regulatory agencies and local governments with adequate resources, trained personnel and legal authority to carry out inspections and issue fines. Existing guidelines on the collection and monitoring of data on plastic flows and pollution can support efforts to develop and strengthen local statistics and monitoring systems (UNEP, UNITAR, forthcoming[44]; GESAMP, 2019[45]). The next sections discuss strategies for capacity-building (7.3.3) and for developing plastic pollution inventories and data sharing mechanisms across the region (7.3.6).
Opportunities to improve policy effectiveness also lie in strengthening cross-sectoral coordination and multi-level governance. Fragmentation of institutional responsibilities related to waste management and plastic pollution among ministries and agencies, may slow down cohesive policy implementation (United Nations Environment Programme, 2023[7]). National steering committees or inter-ministerial task forces can help align policy goals, clarify roles and responsibilities, and facilitate coherent implementation from national to municipal levels.
7.3.3. Capacity-building
Effective policy intervention on plastic pollution hinges on the capacity of governments to design, implement, monitor and enforce policies. In ASEAN LMIC, capacity gaps remain a critical barrier to scaling up interventions. Municipalities, in particular, struggle with limited technical expertise, financial resources and institutional support (World Economic Forum, 2020[10]). Empowering subnational and municipal governments is vital, as they shoulder much of the responsibility for plastic waste management and the implementation on the ground of national strategies and policies. Building their financial planning skills and creditworthiness can unlock financing for infrastructure upgrades (ASEAN, 2021[4]).
Institutional capacity-building spans national coordination on plastics-related policies, skilling of public officials and enhanced data systems for tracking plastic flows. Support can take the form of targeted training, technical toolkits or peer-learning platforms. Beyond government agencies, it can also be beneficial to provide training and enhance information sharing for waste operators, SMEs, informal workers, as well as producers and brand owners. Support should be tailored to local conditions to maximise effectiveness.
Several initiatives are already bolstering capacity in the APT region. For instance, Indonesia’s National Plastic Action Partnership convenes ministries and local stakeholders to build knowledge, train actors along the value chain and co-design solutions. Development agencies and banks are providing technical assistance that helps local authorities strengthen governance and access financing for climate and circular economy projects. For instance, the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) supports the Reduce, Reuse, Recycle to Protect the Marine Environment and Coral Reefs (3RproMar) project in Indonesia, which builds institutional capacity and promotes source-separated waste collection (GIZ, 2023[46]).
APT countries could further accelerate capacity building by leveraging regional frameworks and political momentum. The ASEAN Regional Action Plan (2021[4]) calls for enhanced technical assistance, funding and knowledge-sharing. For instance, the Capacity Building Programme for Reducing Recycling Related Marine Plastic Pollution in ASEAN Cities provides training, mentoring and technical support to cities across ASEAN countries (ERIA, 2024[47]), helping them improve waste separation at source, recycling and marine litter prevention. Regional training hubs can draw on the experience of frontrunner countries and support cross-border knowledge transfer, while public-private partnerships can mobilise local expertise and expanding the reach of capacity-building programs.
Finally, ongoing negotiations for an international legally-binding instrument on plastic pollution may result in further capacity-building and technical assistance opportunities for developing countries.
7.3.4. Access to funding and investments
Securing adequate funding for capital and operational expenses is paramount to delivering interventions envisioned in national action plans, particularly those targeting waste management. The High Stringency scenario reduces overall waste management investment needs in the APT region compared to Baseline (particularly, for waste collection; see Chapter 6)3. However, a major scale-up of funding is still needed relative to current investment levels, especially in countries with currently low waste collection rates and heavy reliance on informal waste management practices.
While ambitious policy packages lead to modest GDP losses in the APT region (0.8% in 2050 for the High Stringency scenario) compared to the Baseline, the projected macroeconomic costs are significantly higher in ASEAN than in the Plus Three countries (see Chapter 6). These costs exclude the economic benefits resulting from reduced pressures on the environment, climate and human health along the plastic lifecycle.
ASEAN LMIC face particularly acute infrastructure deficits, needing considerable investments in municipal solid waste collection, sorting, recycling and disposal systems. In 2022, the APT region saw investments of USD 22 billion in plastic waste management annually (this is projected to rise further to 53.2 billion in 2050 under Baseline). Achieving near-zero mismanaged waste (as envisioned in the High Stringency scenario) will demand further scaling up, to:
Expand waste collection and treatment systems. Indonesia requires an additional USD 9 billion until 2050 (on top of Baseline levels) to expand waste collection and sorting systems, while other ASEAN LMIC will need an additional USD 2 billion until 2050 (on top of Baseline levels).
Scaling recycling improvements across the APT region. Scaling up recycling will require USD 130 billion cumulatively by 2050 (on top of Baseline levels). In ASEAN HIC & UMIC, this represent a reorientation of waste management activities towards recycling, while in most ASEAN LMIC additional investments are needed (i.e. USD 9.7 billion in Indonesia and USD 11.9 billion on top of Baseline levels for the rest of the ASEAN LMIC) to finance recycling improvements.
The waste management sector offers long-term investment opportunities, but this requires governments to establish clear policy frameworks that build market confidence. Countries like Japan and Korea show that comprehensive policy frameworks in place, with e.g. household waste management fees and EPR schemes, can ensure the financial sustainability of waste collection, sorting and recycling. Strengthening local government capacities and financing mechanisms across the APT can enable more countries to achieve effective plastic waste management (World Economic Forum, 2020[10]).
Private-sector investments are growing globally, but remain unevenly distributed geographically and along the plastics value chain. Only 8% of the USD 160 billion invested into “plastics circularity solutions” globally between 2018 and 2023, flowed to Asia (The Circulate Initiative, 2023[48]). In ASEAN countries, investments in plastic recycling are growing, but tend to prioritise the recovery of PET and some PP, due to their higher recyclability and greater market value (ASEAN, 2021[4]). In addition, current investments are concentrated on the end-of-life stage, leaving significant untapped potential to promote investments towards e.g. reuse schemes, eco-design and innovation (The Circulate Initiative, 2023[48]).4
Donor funding and public-private partnerships already support infrastructure development, but improving access to financing for SMEs and in rural areas will be key to unlocking further progress (ASEAN, 2021[4]). Targeted financial instruments can help overcome current challenges in bankability, scale and risk perception, particularly for startups pioneering innovative solutions and for rural or remote areas where logistical challenges and weak economies of scale deter private investment. A just transition for informal workers will also require dedicated resources (International Alliance of Waste Pickers, 2023[18]).
Mobilising finance for scalable, investment-ready solutions requires a combination of three levers: policy clarity and certainty to create market confidence, de-risking instruments to reduce investor exposure, and institutional support to crowd in both public and private capital. Blended finance and other risk-sharing instruments present opportunities to mobilise resources across the lifecycle of plastics. Multilateral funds, such as the Global Environment Facility (GEF) and the Green Climate Fund (GCF), can co-finance large-scale programmes, although developing countries may need capacity support to access such funds. Development finance institutions offer concessional loans and risk-sharing instruments to crowd in private capital, de-risking early-stage and innovative solutions (OECD, 2025[49]). National development banks and public investment agencies can offer concessional financing and green lending mandates to stimulate broader market shifts. Successful models from outside the region, such as green bonds in Brazil and Chile, can offer useful references (UN Environment Programme Finance Initiative, 2023[50]). An example of blended finance in action is Circulate Capital’s Ocean Fund, that provides early-stage venture debt and equity for recycling, waste management as well as innovation such as new delivery models and innovative materials, in South and Southeast Asia (World Economic Forum, 2022[51]).
Private capital is also beginning to flow into circular economy initiatives through corporate social responsibility funds, impact investing and sustainability-linked loans. Institutional investors can be encouraged to finance plastics-reduction projects via the creation of green taxonomies that define eligible activities, or via ESG disclosure rules mandating greater transparency on plastics flows (UN Environment Programme Finance Initiative, 2023[52]). Various countries are exploring sustainability bond frameworks that could include plastics-related or circularity targets. For instance, Natura & Co.’s sustainability bonds in South America committed the company to reducing GHG emissions and increasing the use of recycled plastic packaging (World Economic Forum, 2022[51]).
Public policy remains the cornerstone for unlocking investments. Measures such as household waste fees, EPR schemes or taxes can mobilise capital and create stable revenue streams. Fiscal incentives and regulation can further mobilise financial flows, such as via green procurement mandates and plastic taxes or charges. Governments can also offer guarantees or insurance schemes to reduce investment risks for early movers in reuse or reverse logistics infrastructure. Incubators, innovation grants and co-investment platforms can help circular business models to scale. Public policy can also support the deployment of community-led initiatives such as waste banks in Indonesia can contribute to improving waste sorting and recycling, although limitations persist, as described in Box 7.5. Financing strategies must also be socially just, ensuring affordability for low-income communities and supporting livelihood transitions for informal workers. Beyond resource mobilisation, aligning all financial flows with sustainability and circular economy principles will be critical to delivering a comprehensive transition across the plastic lifecycle (OECD, 2024[6]).
Indonesia’s waste banks are a decentralised community waste management program, aimed at improving waste collection in rural and remote areas, where municipal services often fall short. Waste banks treat waste as a resource, by enabling individuals to deposit sorted recyclable or reusable materials and products in exchange for credits, that vary based on waste type and weight. Credits can be redeemed for cash or in-kind benefits, such as language or activity classes. Waste banks sell the collected waste to intermediaries.
The waste bank program contributes to 2.7% of reductions in solid waste. The current system handles 1-2% of recyclable waste, considerably lower than the 10-15% recovered by informal collectors. Additionally, a study on 13 waste banks in Batu, Indonesia, found that the average resource recovery rate of waste in that community averaged 15.2%, compared to a potential resource recovery rate of 39.5%.
Waste banks have potential for scalable, locally-managed collection and recycling programmes, but the model currently faces a range of limitations and challenges, including limited household and community participation. Researchers have emphasised the need for greater community engagement, sustainable mechanisms for operational costs, and integration with broader waste management strategies.
7.3.5. Formalisation and professionalisation of informal workers
Informal waste pickers are essential contributors to plastic waste management and recycling in the APT region (World Economic Forum, 2020[10]). They collect and sort materials that would otherwise end up in landfills or pollute the environment. Yet, they often operate under precarious conditions: without adequate social protection and recognition while facing stigma and unsafe work environments (UNEP, COBSEA and Stockholm Environment Institute, 2019[56]). Formalisation, professionalisation and empowerment of this workforce is not only a matter of social equity, but also a powerful lever for expanding plastic waste collection and improving recycling output (The Circulate Initiative, 2023[57]).
Effective formalisation and professionalisation strategies include: registering waste pickers and recognising their role in national waste management frameworks, providing equipment and access to social protections, offering training, and integrating them into Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) schemes as service providers or subcontractors (World Economic Forum, 2020[10]; Suwarno et al., 2025[11]; International Alliance of Waste Pickers, 2023[18]). Improving price transparency along the recycled plastics supply chain can benefit all stakeholders, including helping to ensure fairer compensation for informal workers (The Circulate Initiative, 2023[57]). Successful integration models are emerging. For instance, Viet Nam, Indonesia and the Philippines piloted initiatives for the organisation of informal workers into co-operatives or community-based enterprises that contract with local governments or private waste management companies.
Ultimately, integrating informal waste pickers into formal value chains can increase the volume of feedstock reaching recycling markets. The process of integration should be inclusive, with the participation of informal workers, civil society and local authorities.
7.3.6. Regional and international co-operation
Regional and international co-operation are essential to scaling up efforts action against plastic pollution in the APT region. While many challenges in APT countries are rooted in domestic systems, cross-border collaboration can amplify national efforts. Existing initiatives such as the Bangkok Declaration on Combating Marine Debris in the ASEAN Region, the related framework and regional action plan (ASEAN, 2019[58]; ASEAN, 2019[59]; ASEAN, 2021[4]), the Osaka Blue Ocean Vision (IGES, 2024[60]) and UNEA Resolution 5/14 and the resulting negotiations for an international legally-binding treaty on plastic pollution (UN Environment Assembly, 2022[61]), provide momentum for collective action.
Sharing best practices and data
Regional platforms play a pivotal role in policy alignment, knowledge sharing, peer learning and capacity-building. Key knowledge-sharing initiatives and platforms are shown in Annex Table 7.A.1. In addition, platforms such as the ASEAN Working Group on Coastal and Marine Environment and the SEA circular initiative by UNEP and COBSEA offer valuable spaces for sharing good practices and tracking progress. Regional cooperation also strengthens institutional capacity through joint training, technical exchanges and coordinated research programmes. Countries with more advanced policy frameworks can support peer learning and accelerate knowledge transfer.
Regional coordination also plays a critical role in enabling data collection and sharing. Common monitoring frameworks and open-data platforms, such as the ASEAN Regional Knowledge Hub on Marine Debris, enable countries to better understand plastic leakage pathways, identify priority hotspots and track progress. This enhances transparency, reduces duplication of efforts and supports evidence-based decision-making. Despite regional initiatives and progress, there is still a lack of a harmonised monitoring and reporting framework for plastic pollution, which hampers data sharing, regional benchmarking and coordinated enforcement of transboundary issues. Developing common indicators, reporting systems and compliance mechanisms would significantly enhance governance in the region. Regional policy action in this area can also bolster cross-ministerial coordination domestically, as well as create stronger accountability and regular monitoring of progress.
Scaling circular solutions
Cross-border collaboration is key to developing strong circular economies for plastics. Harmonised product standards, labelling and certifications schemes can enable economies of scale in circular plastics, such as those with recycled content or reusable packaging, making them more cost-effective and widely available (Suwarno et al., 2025[11]; Ng et al., 2023[3]; ASEAN, 2021[4]). Regional forums also facilitate multi-stakeholder engagement, where governments, industry, civil society and academia co-create solutions, test new technologies and mobilise resources more effectively within coordinated frameworks (Suwarno et al., 2025[11]). Co-operation at this level can also support the design of tailored financing strategies in the region and foster investments in circular value chains.
Enhancing international co-operation and coordination on waste trade
Given the transboundary nature of plastic pollution and the uneven distribution of costs of policy action, global co-operation is essential for effective and equitable solutions (OECD, 2024[6]). For instance, strengthening coordination around the enforcement of maritime conventions, such as the MARPOL Convention, the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal, can help reduce plastic pollution and marine debris (ASEAN, 2021[4]).
Regional and international co-operation are also key to coordinating efforts on plastic waste trade, particularly to facilitate trade for material recovery and support viable investment projects for recycling, provided mechanisms to ensure appropriate quality levels are in place (ASEAN, 2021[4]). International instruments also aim to regulate the trade of plastic waste. The Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal governs the transboundary movement of hazardous waste to prevent the transfer of hazardous waste from developed to less developed countries. Since its recent amendments, only certain types of clean, sorted recyclable plastic waste can be freely traded; all other types of plastic waste require prior informed consent from importing countries. This regulatory shift empowers countries to curb unwanted plastic imports and reinforces the need for robust domestic waste management.
Note: In addition, there are also ongoing regional projects and activities such as the ASEAN-Norway Cooperation Project on Local Capacity Building for Reducing Plastic Pollution in the ASEAN Region (ASEANO) project, launched in 2019.
Source: (Suwarno et al., 2025[11]).
References
[2] Agnelli, A. and P. Tortora (2022), “The role of development co-operation in tackling plastic pollution: Key trends, instruments, and opportunities to scale up action”, OECD Environment Working Papers, No. 207, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/721355cb-en.
[40] Akenji, L. et al. (2019), Circular Economy and Plastics: A Gap-Analysis in ASEAN Member States, Brussels: European Commission Directorate General for Environment and Directorate General for International Cooperation and Development, Jakarta: Association of Southeast Asian Nat, https://www.iges.or.jp/en/publication_documents/pub/policyreport/en/10382/FINAL_CE+and+Plastics+-+A+gap+analysis+in+ASEAN+Member+States_1004.pdf.
[4] ASEAN (2021), ASEAN Regional Action Plan for Combating Marine Debris in the ASEAN Member States (2021-2025), The Association of Southeast Asian Nations, https://asean.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/FINAL_210524-ASEAN-Regional-Action-Plan_Ready-to-Publish_v2.pdf.
[58] ASEAN (2019), ASEAN Framework of Action on Marine Debris, https://asean.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/3.-ASEAN-Framework-of-Action-on-Marine-Debris-FINAL.pdf.
[59] ASEAN (2019), Bangkok Declaration on Combating Marine Debris in ASEAN Region, https://asean.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/2.-Bangkok-Declaration-on-Combating-Marine-Debris-in-ASEAN-Region-FINAL-1.pdf.
[26] CMRA (2023), China Renewable Resources Recycling Industry Development Report, China Materials Recycling Agency, http://118.244.199.214/detail/11758.
[21] CMS Legal (2023), “Plastics and Packaging Laws in China”, CMS Legal, https://cms.law/en/int/expert-guides/plastics-and-packaging-laws/china.
[33] COA Philippines (2023), Performance Audit Report: Solid Waste Management Program, Commission on Audit of the Republic of the Philippines, https://www.coa.gov.ph/wpfd_file/solid-waste-management-program-pao-2023-01/.
[38] Daim, N. and N. Radhi (2023), “Separating waste at source to boost recycling rate”, New Straits Times, New Straits Times Press, https://www.nst.com.my/news/nation/2023/03/888284/separating-waste-source-boost-recycling-rate.
[25] Deloitte China (2022), “New VAT policies to promote recycling announced”, Deloitte tax@hand, https://www.taxathand.com/article/22826/China/2022/New-VAT-policies-to-promote-recycling-announced.
[41] DoS Malaysia (2022), Compendium of Environment Statistics 2022, Department of Statistics of Malaysia.
[47] ERIA (2024), Capacity Building Programme for Reducing Recycling Related Marine Plastic Pollution in ASEAN Cities (CaRMPAC), https://rkcmpd-eria.org/our-project/capacity-building-programme-for-reducing-recycling-related-marine-plastic-pollution-in-asean-cities-carmpac (accessed on 25 April 2025).
[29] Falk-Andersson, J. et al. (2023), “Cleaning Up without Messing Up: Maximizing the Benefits of Plastic Clean-Up Technologies through New Regulatory Approaches”, Environmental Science & Technology, doi: 10.1021/acs.est.3c01885, pp. 13304-13312, https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.3c01885.
[45] GESAMP (2019), Guidelines for the Monitoring and Assessment of Plastic Litter in the Ocean.
[46] GIZ (2023), 3RproMar: Protecting the marine environment and coral reefs, https://www.giz.de/en/worldwide/129342.html (accessed on 25 April 2025).
[14] Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (2024), Unpacking Reuse in Asia: A brief report featuring select case studies on reuse systems for packaging.
[60] IGES (2024), Towards Osaka Blue Ocean Vision - G20 Implementation Framework for Actions on Marine Plastic Litter, Institute for Global Environmental Strategies, https://g20mpl.org/.
[18] International Alliance of Waste Pickers (2023), IAWP’s VIsion for a Just Transition for Waste PIckers under the UN Plastics Treaty.
[43] Korea (2017), “Act on the Promotion of Saving and Recycling of Resources (Resource Circulation Act), Act No. 15101 (Nov. 28 2017).”.
[1] McIlgorm, A. et al. (2022), “The cost of marine litter damage to the global marine economy: Insights from the Asia-Pacific into prevention and the cost of inaction”, Marine Pollution Bulletin, Vol. 174, p. 113167, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.MARPOLBUL.2021.113167.
[23] MoEE China (2022), Technical specification for pollution control of plastic waste, Ministry of Ecology and Environment of the People’s Republic of China, https://www.mee.gov.cn/ywgz/fgbz/bz/bzwb/gthw/qtxgbz/202206/t20220607_984652.shtml.
[24] MoEE China (2022), “The relevant person in charge of the Solid Waste and Chemicals Department of the Ministry of Ecology and Environment answered reporters’ questions on the “Technical Specifications for the Control of Waste Plastic Pollution””, Ministry of Ecology and Environment of the People’s Republic of China, https://www.mee.gov.cn/ywdt/zbft/202206/t20220615_985675.shtml.
[31] MoEF Indonesia (2023), Circular Economy on Solid Waste Management in Indonesia, https://uncrd.un.org/sites/uncrd.un.org//files/11th3r_cp_indonesia.pdf.
[39] MoEW Malaysia (2021), Malaysia Plastics Sustainability Roadmap 2021-2030, Ministry of Environment and Water of Malaysia, https://www.nrecc.gov.my/ms-my/teras/alamsekitar/Documents/MALAYSIA-PLASTICS-SUSTAINABILITY-ROADMAP-2021-2030.pdf.
[53] Muktiningsih, S. et al. (2023), “Material Flow and Waste Recovery in a Community-Based Waste Management System in Batu, Indonesia”, IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, Vol. 1165/1, p. 012005, https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/1165/1/012005.
[8] Napitupulu, L., H. Hamzah and S. Haniy (2021), “3 Key Interventions to Support the Ban on Single-Use Plastic”, WRI Indonesia, https://wri-indonesia.org/en/insights/3-key-interventions-support-ban-single-use-plastic (accessed on 25 April 2025).
[22] NDRC China (2021), “The Ministry of Ecology and Environment of the National Development and Reform Commission issued the “14th Five-Year Plan” Notice of Action Plan for Plastic Pollution Control”, National Development and Reform Comission of the People’s Republic of China, https://www.ndrc.gov.cn/xxgk/zcfb/tz/202109/t20210915_1296580.html?code=&state=123.
[32] NEDA Philippines (2023), Philippine Development Plan 2023-2028, National Economic and Development Authority of the Republic of the Philippines, https://pdp.neda.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/PDP-2023-2028.pdf.
[3] Ng, C. et al. (2023), “Plastic waste and microplastic issues in Southeast Asia”, Frontiers in Environmental Science, Vol. 11, p. 1142071, https://doi.org/10.3389/FENVS.2023.1142071/BIBTEX.
[49] OECD (2025), Development co-operation and the elimination of plastic pollution.
[17] OECD (2024), “Extended Producer Responsibility: Basic facts and key principles”, OECD Environment Policy Papers, No. 41, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/67587b0b-en.
[6] OECD (2024), Policy Scenarios for Eliminating Plastic Pollution by 2040, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/76400890-en.
[5] OECD (2022), Global Plastics Outlook: Economic Drivers, Environmental Impacts and Policy Options, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/de747aef-en.
[28] OECD (2022), Global Plastics Outlook: Policy Scenarios to 2060, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/aa1edf33-en.
[35] OECD (2021), Gender and the Environment: Building Evidence and Policies to Achieve the SDGs, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/3d32ca39-en.
[30] OECD (2021), Policies to Reduce Microplastics Pollution in Water: Focus on Textiles and Tyres, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/7ec7e5ef-en.
[27] OECD (2021), “Towards G7 action to combat ghost fishing gear: A background report prepared for the 2021 G7 Presidency of the United Kingdom”, OECD Environment Policy Papers, No. 25, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/a4c86e42-en.
[19] OECD (2018), Improving Markets for Recycled Plastics: Trends, Prospects and Policy Responses, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264301016-en.
[36] OECD (2017), Behavioural Insights and Public Policy: Lessons from Around the World, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264270480-en.
[16] OECD (2016), Extended Producer Responsibility: Updated Guidance for Efficient Waste Management, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264256385-en.
[13] Raubenheimer, K. and N. Urho (2024), Global criteria to address problematic, unnecessary and avoidable plastic products, https://doi.org/10.6027/temanord2024-508.
[54] Septyanun, N. et al. (2022), “The Implementation of Regional Waste Policies and the Improvement of Public Health”, Open Access Macedonian Journal of Medical Sciences, Vol. 10/E, pp. 406-410, https://doi.org/10.3889/oamjms.2022.8143.
[11] Suwarno, A. et al. (2025), ASEAN Conference on Combating Plastic Pollution: Recommendations, ERIA Event Reports.
[48] The Circulate Initiative (2023), Key findings from the global edition of the Plastics Circularity Investment Tracker, https://www.thecirculateinitiative.org/_files/ugd/77554d_cf7f3eb1f4d1460baffbde23dc0f5db4.pdf?index=true.
[57] The Circulate Initiative (2023), Pricing Transparency in the Recycled Plastics Supply Chain in India, Indonesia, Thailand and Viet Nam.
[61] UN Environment Assembly (2022), Resolution 5/14 entitled “End Plastic Pollution: Towards an International Legally Binding Instrument”.
[52] UN Environment Programme Finance Initiative (2023), Redirecting Financial Flows to end Plastic Pollution.
[50] UN Environment Programme Finance Initiative (2023), Unlocking Circular Economy Finance in Latin America and the Carribean: The Catalyst for a Positive Change - Findings and recommendations for Policymakers and the Financial Sector. Nairobi.
[37] UNDP Cambodia (2022), Combatting Marine Plastic Litter in Cambodia [01-January-2022 – 30-June-2022], United Nations Development Programme Cambodia, https://info.undp.org/docs/pdc/Documents/KHM/Q2%202022%20Report_Marine%20Plastic.pdf.
[42] UNEP and UNODC (2024), Legal Frameworks to Address Waste Trafficking in the ASEAN Region – Review and Gap Analysis.
[56] UNEP, COBSEA and Stockholm Environment Institute (2019), Marine plastic litter in East Asian Seas: Gender, human rights and economic dimensions.
[44] UNEP, UNITAR (forthcoming), Statistical Guideline for Measuring Flows of Plastic throughout the Life Cycle.
[7] United Nations Environment Programme (2023), Turning off the Tap: How the world can end plastic pollution and create a circular economy. Nairobi.
[15] United Nations Environment Programme (2017), Waste Management in ASEAN Countries, United Nations Environment Programme, https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/21134/waste_mgt_asean_summary.pdf?sequence=1&%3BisAllowed=.
[55] Wang, Y. and R. Karasik (2022), Plastic Pollution Policy Country Profile: Indonesia, https://nicholasinstitute.duke.edu/sites/default/files/projects/Plastic-Pollution-Policy-Country-Profile-Indonesia.pdf.
[9] World Bank (2024), “Southeast Asia Regional Program on Combating Marine Plastics (SeA-MaP)”, Recommendations for a Plastic Pollution Indicator Framework for ASEAN.
[12] World Bank Group (2021), Market Study for the Philippines: Plastics Circularity Opportunities and Barriers. Marine Plastics Series, East Asia and the Pacific Region. Washington DC.
[34] World Economic Forum (2022), Turning Plastic Pollution commitments into action. Annual Report 2022, https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GPAP_Annual_Report_2022.pdf.
[51] World Economic Forum (2022), Unlocking the Plastics Circular Economy: Case Studies on Investment.
[10] World Economic Forum (2020), Radically Reducing Plastic Pollution in Indonesia: A Multistakeholder Action Plan. National Plastic Action Partnership.
[20] Yoshida, A. (2021), “China’s ban of imported recyclable waste and its impact on the waste plastic recycling industry in China and Taiwan”, Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management, Vol. 24/1, pp. 73-82, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10163-021-01297-2.
← 1. Direct controls on virgin plastic production, such as limits on specific polymers, could potentially also reduce environmental impacts in the upstream segments of the plastic lifecycle, as well as curb plastics use. However, care must be taken to avoid unintended consequences, such as shifting demand to alternative materials with greater environmental impacts.
← 2. Due to concerns with the feasibility and the environmental impacts of chemical recycling, the scenario analysis assumes that mechanical recycling technologies are the primary type of recycling technology adopted by countries.
← 3. This is achieved thanks to stringent policies to curb demand and promote eco-design, that together help contain waste generation.
← 4. These interventions are essential to mitigate environmental impacts, but also to contain the investment needs into waste management, especially in rapidly growing developing countries (OECD, 2024[6]).