This chapter reviews the current policy landscape related to plastics and plastic pollution in the 13 ASEAN Plus Three (APT) countries. It highlights the growing political commitment to the issue, with most APT countries having adopted or drafted national action plans. The chapter provides an overview of the scope and effectiveness of existing policies across the plastic lifecycle, highlighting the variety of advancements and opportunities for improvement across countries and income groups. The analysis underscores opportunities to strengthen institutional capacity and access to finance, to enhance policy effectiveness.
Regional Plastics Outlook for Southeast and East Asia
Abstract
APT countries have acknowledged plastic pollution mitigation as a policy priority. National action plans or roadmaps are present in nine of the thirteen APT countries, and are under discussion in the remaining four. National frameworks outline envisioned policy measures and set quantitative targets, such as for reductions in marine litter or waste generation, and for improvements in recycling rates.
In the APT, significant progress has been made to improve waste management and recycling, as well as to ban certain single use plastics. However, gaps remain in the coverage and enforcement of policies. There are also wide differences across countries in the region in the status of policies and infrastructure.
Policies to enhance waste segregation at source and recycling vary widely in scope and depth across the region, but remain nascent in most ASEAN countries. Japan and Korea have well-established extended producer responsibility (EPR) schemes for several product groups and employ advanced instruments such as pay-as-you-throw schemes for household waste charges. Several ASEAN countries (Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Viet Nam) are rolling out EPR schemes for packaging. Nine APT countries have adopted certification and labelling schemes for plastic products and packaging, including for the presence of recycled content.
Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Thailand, China, Japan and Korea employ or are starting to employ policy measures to promote circular plastic design, with a focus on design for recyclability and the use of recycled materials. Most APT countries have some form of regulation on hazardous substances. Yet, the promotion of design for longer lifespans, reuse and repair remains rare.
Policy measures that curb (total or primary) plastics demand are diverse and vary in stringency across in the APT region. The most widespread measures are bans on single-use plastics and other reduction measures, sometimes introduced at the sub-national or municipal level. Incentives such as tax benefits are also being employed, mainly to incentivise businesses to produce or prefer plastic alternatives and secondary plastics.
Policies such as bans and those against illegal waste dumping can be more strictly enforced. Across the APT, enforcement strength often mirrors institutional capacity: it is robust in countries like Japan, Korea and Singapore, but uneven or weak in many other APT countries. Major bottlenecks include barriers related to local government capacity, financing and multi-level governance.
Previous OECD (2022[1]; 2024[2]) reports found that interventions across the plastic lifecycle are required to effectively mitigate plastic pollution. Figure 3.1 shows a high-level policy roadmap for countries to improve plastic circularity and end plastic pollution alongside selected commonly used policy measures, based on information collected for 50 countries (OECD, 2022[1]). Establishing basic waste management system is often a primary intervention. Several countries have also introduced Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) schemes for packaging, recycling targets and bans or mandatory charges on plastics particularly prone to polluting the environment (e.g. carrier bags, straws). More advanced measures are less common (especially in non-OECD countries), but include pay-as-you-throw systems for household waste charges, EPR schemes for durable products (e.g. electric and electronic equipment, batteries, textiles), interventions to promote eco-design for longer lifespans, and comprehensive regulation on hazardous substances and problematic plastics.
Notes: EPR = Extended Producer Responsibility, PAYT = pay-as-you-throw (systems for household waste charges).
The policy roadmap is informed by policies collected for 50 countries (covering 69% of the global population and 84% of global GDP).
Source: Adapted from the Global Plastics Outlook (OECD, 2022[1]).
Source: Authors’ own elaboration.
This chapter presents the review of existing policies across the lifecycle for the 13 APT countries. This is based on the policy inventory exercise developed for this Outlook (OECD, 2025[3]). The chapter reviews the current overall policy ambition and framework (Section 3.2), current policies across the plastic lifecycle (Sections 3.3 and 3.4) and the strength of policy enforcement (Section 3.5), as summarised in Figure 3.2. Chapter 2 already provided an overview of the current state of waste collection and treatment across the APT, and highlighted the scale of gaps that still need to be bridged. While estimates and projections were produced for the seven modelled entities (countries or country groupings, see the methodology in Chapter 1), this chapter provides information at the national level, for each APT country.
Despite thorough research, given the differences in definitions, classification systems and data collection and availability across APT countries, gaps in the analysis are possible. The information presented in this review should be interpreted with care. Furthermore, the analysis was performed until the end of 2023, any changes after that in national policy frameworks were not considered.
Most APT countries are pursuing objectives relating to waste management and prevention, that play an important role in mitigating plastic pollution. At the ASEAN regional level, for example, a framework for circular economy was adopted to achieve long-term goals of resilient economy, resource efficiency and sustainable and inclusive growth (ASEAN, 2021[4]). At the APT level, fostering the development of circular economy action plans and tackling marine plastic debris feature as core items for co-operation (ASEAN Plus Three, 2022[5]).
Nine out of thirteen APT countries have dedicated national action plans on waste management, waste prevention, plastic pollution or marine litter (Table 3.1). The remaining four are in the process of discussing or drafting action plans. All APT countries have set or are drafting targets relating to waste, as shown in Table 3.2 outlining selected national targets from national plans and roadmaps. These include targets to increase the coverage of waste collection, improve the recycling rate, improve access to waste treatment infrastructure and achieve the environmentally safe management of waste. In addition, several APT countries have national targets for reductions in waste generation.
Plastic pollution mitigation has become a policy priority in the APT, both at the regional and national level. The ten ASEAN member states signed the Bangkok Declaration on Combating Marine Debris in ASEAN Region in 2019, and in 2021, the organisation published the ASEAN Regional Action Plan for Combating Marine Debris in the ASEAN Member States (2021-2025) (ASEAN, 2019[6]; ASEAN, 2019[7]; ASEAN, 2021[4]). The majority of APT countries are also part of the Osaka Blue Ocean Vision Implementation Framework for Actions on Marine Plastic Litter, which is in place at the G20 level (IGES, 2024[8]).
Source: Authors’ inventory.
National quantitative targets on plastic pollution are commonplace in the APT and reflect the heterogeneity across countries, as detailed in Table 3.2. Given the differences across these countries in their economic, political and legal systems (Korwatanasakul, 2020[18]), urbanisation rates (ASEAN, 2022[19]), waste composition, geography and development levels (United Nations Environment Programme, 2017[20]), local contexts and priorities vary significantly.
Several APT countries have set plastic-specific targets, that focus on diverse entry points along the lifecycle. Improving plastic waste collection and reducing the risk of leakage to oceans or, more broadly, to the environment is a focus of targets in several APT countries (e.g. Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Thailand, Viet Nam, China). Multiple policy documents include targets for the reduction of plastic waste generation (e.g. Indonesia) and for the phase out or reduction of single-use plastics (e.g. Indonesia, Viet Nam, Japan, Korea). For instance, Indonesia is targeting a 70% reduction of marine plastic debris by 2025 in accordance with its Plan of Action on Marine Plastic Debris 2018-2025 while Viet Nam has committed to eliminating single-use plastics from coastal tourism destinations and protected marine areas by 2030. The Philippines aims at closing plastic leakage pathways completely by 2040, while China aims at controlling plastic leakage to the environment by 2025 with no year-over-year growth. Improving plastic recycling and the use of recycled plastics in manufacturing is also a focus in selected action plans (e.g. Malaysia, Thailand, Viet Nam, Japan, Korea). For instance, Malaysia’s Roadmap Towards Zero Single-Use Plastics 2018-2030 and the Plastics Sustainability Roadmap 2021-2030 aim for 100% recyclability of plastic packaging by 2030.
Targets relating to plastics and plastic waste generation also appear in EPR legislation. Japan and Korea have well-established EPR schemes for plastic packaging (and other products) that include mandatory recycling rates. EPR for plastic packaging is in the early stages of implementation in 5 ASEAN countries (Indonesia, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Viet Nam), including with selected related targets.1
While targets vary in terms of focus across the lifecycle and level of stringency, they showcase the region’s ambition towards sustainable and circular plastics use, improving waste management and increasing material recovery, set out in national and regional policy documents.
Overview of key national targets in APT countries, as of end 2023
Notes: Additional targets relating to waste or plastics exist; only selected national targets are shown here.
In the rest of this Outlook, recycling rates are intended as the share of plastic waste that is effectively recycled at the end of life; however, it is possible that recycling rate targets mentioned in legislation refer to shares of plastic waste collected for recycling, rather than effectively recycled.
Greyed-out text is for legislation or action plans under discussion, at the time of writing. It is possible that countries have since published national plans, roadmaps or other policy documents with targets.
Ø stands for “no targets applicable”, either because the waste management system is advanced, or because the country does not yet have an EPR system at the time of writing.
MSW stands for municipal solid waste.
1. Japan's effective reutilisation rate includes recycling by mechanical and chemical methods, as well as waste-to-energy recovery. In 2021, the nation recovered 87% of its plastic waste (6.5 Mt): 62% via waste-to-energy recovery, 21% via mechanical recycling and 4% via chemical recycling (PWMI, 2022[21]).
Source: Authors’ inventories; see more information in the technical document (OECD, 2025[3]).
Several APT countries are working towards establishing and improving broad, effective formal systems for waste collection. Chapter 2 provided an overview of the current state of waste collection and treatment across the APT, and highlighted the diversity and scale of gaps that need to be bridged across the region. As discussed in Section 3.2, most APT countries have adopted waste management strategies and plastic pollution action plans, including targets for waste collection, recycling and marine litter reduction.
Beyond achieving basic waste collection and environmentally safe treatment, countries can aim to improve segregated waste collection and increase plastic recycling rates via targeted policy measures such as policies to incentivise households to sort at source and waste operators to favour recycling, as well as policies to create demand for recycled plastics. EPR schemes, landfill and incineration taxes, recycling targets (often implemented via EPR), certifications and labelling schemes, or recycled content mandates, can help to make recycling mandatory or the more economically attractive option for waste handlers or to promote recycled content in product manufacturing.
Overall, policies to promote waste sorting at source and recycling of plastic waste remain in the early implementation stages in most APT countries. The following sub-sections summarise the current policy framework, focusing on:
Measures to mandate and incentivise recycling: EPR schemes for plastic packaging, EPR schemes for durable products, landfill and incineration taxes, and national eco-labelling schemes (Section 3.3.1) and
Other measures to enhance sorting at source, including some that are considered more advanced and generally present only in more mature waste management systems: deposit refund systems (DRS), pay-as-you-throw (PAYT) household waste charges and mandatory waste sorting instruction labels on products (Section 3.3.2).
3.3.1. Measures to mandate and incentivise recycling are emerging
The review of the policy landscape reveals that the APT region has started implementing various measures to boost recycling in the region (Table 3.3).
EPR schemes for plastic packaging are gradually being deployed across the APT region to help countries scale up recycling. By assigning the responsibility for the end-of-life management of products or packaging to producers, EPR systems can boost collection and recycling in the region. Japan and Korea have well-established EPR schemes for plastic packaging. Four ASEAN countries (Indonesia, Philippines, Singapore, Viet Nam) are in the early stages of implementation of plastic packaging EPR schemes, while one is discussing its introduction (Thailand)2. Effective EPR requires clear legal frameworks, well-functioning producer responsibility organizations (PROs), reliable data and reporting systems, and strong government oversight. In emerging economies, success also depends on capacity building, stakeholder engagement, and ensuring financial sustainability (OECD, 2024[22]).
The use of economic instruments such as landfill taxes (and incineration taxes) could help steer away plastic waste from landfilling (and incineration) and to encourage the shift to recycling in APT. Usually, landfill costs, constituted of gate fees plus any landfill taxes, remain low and insufficient to serve as a compelling incentive to divert waste from landfills or incineration facilities nationally. Taking Cambodia as an example, the absence of landfill taxes presents a missed opportunity to internalise environmental externalities of landfilling and influence the behaviour of waste handlers, but also to generate valuable revenue that could be used to upgrade and maintain waste management infrastructure (Perrin et al., 2018[23]; UNDP, 2021[24]). In Thailand too, the landfill gate fees remain low, thus discouraging investments in energy recovery and recycling (World Bank Group, 2021[25]). The introduction or reform of landfill (and incineration) taxes could help to strengthen price signals for economic actors in favour of recycling, provided that it goes hand-in-hand with the necessary improvements in segregated waste collection and recycling infrastructure.
Nine APT countries (Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Viet Nam, China, Japan and Korea) have eco-labelling schemes for plastic products and packaging currently in place. These aim at promoting sustainable production and consumption, supporting market recognition of environmentally friendly products and compliance with policy measures with material or product requirements (e.g. recycled content requirements) and providing information to consumers. Most of these schemes are national and government-regulated. For plastic products and packaging, schemes often set technical standards for the presence of recycled content, the ease of recyclability, the use of compostable materials, the adoption of resource-efficient production processes and a manufacturing free of hazardous substances. In most of these countries, certification and eco-labelling schemes support compliance with environmental criteria in green public procurement. However, these schemes are usually not harmonised across countries in the region.
Status of selected policies to enhance recycling in APT countries, as of end 2023
Note: 1: While not captured in this review exercise as of end 2023, Malaysia’s EPR system for plastic packaging is also under development and planned for implementation at the time of writing. China has started promoting EPR in 2016 and aims to implement EPR schemes, particularly focusing on packaging.
Source: Authors’ inventories; see more information in the technical document (OECD, 2025[3]).
3.3.2. Advanced policies to enhance sorting at source remain largely untapped
The use of more advanced policies to enhance sorting at source examined in this review, i.e. PAYT household waste fees, deposit refund systems and mandatory waste sorting instruction labels, remains largely untapped in most APT countries (Table 3.4).
Among APT countries, only Korea has a DRS in place, but this is planned for implementation in Singapore. A DRS requires consumers to pay a deposit on the item at the point of sale, which is refunded when the packaging is returned. As such, a DRS provides consumers with an economic incentive to return a product or product packaging in a high-quality condition to appropriate collection points. The introduction of DRS could be considered to improve the quantity and quality of collected recyclables such as plastic beverage containers, either for recycling or reuse. DRS are employed in several OECD and non-OECD countries to ensure high collection rates and the quality of specific end-of-life products, currently mostly for beverage packaging (Laubinger et al., 2022[26]).
Korea implemented a nation-wide DRS applying to four packaging materials (including plastic packaging) in 1992, which was abolished due to low effectiveness in driving recycling and replaced with a mandatory EPR framework in 2002 (Government of Korea, 2017[27]; ERIA, 2022[28]). Traditional DRS remains active for refillable glass bottles (e.g. alcoholic and soft drinks) with high return rates, but not plastic ones, even though collection rates remain high. Additionally, Korea introduced since 2022 a deposit programme for disposable (plastic) cups, that is being piloted in Sejong and Jeju for large franchise outlets with KRW 300 deposits (Ministry of Environment Korea, 2022[29]). Korea also announced in 2022 DRS for fishing gear that is being implemented. In this system, fishermen pay a deposit when purchasing gear and receive a refund upon return of used equipment, incentivizing recovery of abandoned, lost or discarded fishing gear and its safe disposal (G20MPL, 2024[30]).
PAYT is generally considered an advanced policy measure that bears significant upfront implementation costs and that requires an effective policy mix, citizen information campaigns and strong enforcement mechanisms to ensure effectiveness. PAYT systems are a scheme for household waste charges where fees are modulated according to the amount of residual waste generated, with the purpose of incentivising households to enhance separate waste collection and reduce the generation of mixed waste. The introduction of legislative frameworks for PAYT systems at the national level and the formulation of support for municipalities can enable the gradual implementation of PAYT, possibly starting from metropolitan areas with already effective systems in place for segregated waste collection. PAYT systems could enable a better implementation of the polluter pays principle, generate significant incentives to improve sorting at source for higher recycling, and ultimately also reduce local waste management costs (OECD, 2024[31]).
Four APT countries have PAYT legislation in place (Thailand, Japan, Korea) or in the early implementation stage (Viet Nam). Korea was the first country to adopt a nation-wide PAYT system in 1995, in the form of a volume-based scheme with pre-paid bags for residual waste and charges for the collection of bulky waste (Box 3.1) The scheme has contributed to an increase in packaging collected for recycling from 15% to 50% in the 1994-2004 period, a rate that later increased to 73% (OECD, 2006[32]; Lee, 2024[33]).
Status of selected policies to enhance recycling in APT countries, as of end 2023
Notes:
1. Singapore only charges volume-based fees to enterprises, not households (NEA Singapore, 2021[34]).
2. A national policy mandating all recyclable plastic products or packaging to carry a recycling mark is planned in Thailand, with regulations expected to be developed in 2023 and the national standard adoption promulgation in 2024 (PCD Thailand, 2023[13]).
3. In Korea, a long-standing deposit refund system was abolished and integrated into Extended Producer Responsibility schemes in 2002 for certain packaging types (Government of Korea, 2017[27]; ERIA, 2022[28]). Korea introduced in 2022 a DRS for disposable (plastic) cups, being piloted in Sejong and Jeju. The country also has a deposit refund system for fishing gear in place since 2025.
Source: Authors’ inventories; see more information in the technical document (OECD, 2025[3]).
Regulation on mandatory waste sorting instruction labels was identified in four APT countries (Indonesia, China, Japan and Korea). For instance, Indonesia’s legislation on this matter supports progress towards its waste sorting and recycling objectives set out in its EPR program. Current regulation mandates that all plastic food packaging must display a food-grade logo and a recycling code specifying the type of raw plastic material used (e.g. 01 PET, 02 PE-HD, 03 PVC) and indicating whether it is recyclable (MoI Indonesia, 2010[35]).3
Pay-as-you throw systems in Korea
Since 1995, Korea has implemented a PAYT system for municipal solid waste, to incentivise waste segregation at source. Households and businesses must pre-purchase government-collection scheme colour-coded garbage bags for residual waste. Recyclables are collected in separate bins, without additional charges. Depending on the population density, waste is collected via dedicated collection points or curbside pickup. Bulky items are disposed of separately. Municipalities enforce compliance through strict fines for improper disposal, and the system also encourages community monitoring, where residents can report violations (Belcher, 2022[36]).
This policy has been credited with a significant decrease in per capita solid waste generation (from 1.3 kg/day in 1994 to 0.97 kg/day in 2015), and the achievement of high rates of waste collected for recycling (above 80%) (SEA circular project, 2020[37]). However, the system faced a notable challenge in 2018 when a decline in the value of recyclable materials, coupled with China's ban on waste imports, led to a temporary crisis where recycling companies halted collection, resulting in waste accumulation in urban areas (Ko et al., 2020[38]).
While businesses bear the total cost of business-generated waste, for household waste the cost is shared between waste generators, local and regional governments, central government, and producers under the EPR scheme. Households either fully or partially pay the waste collection costs. The regional or central government supplement up to half of the capital costs of waste treatment facilities owned by local governments. Producers under the EPR are responsible for all expenses related to the disposal and recycling of their mandated waste. Local governments bear the rest of the costs (World Bank Group, 2022[39]).
Licensing and data reporting requirements for industrial waste in Singapore
In Singapore, only licensed General Waste Collectors are authorised to collect waste from commercial and industrial premises. To obtain and renew annual licences, they must comply with stringent reporting requirements set by the National Environmental Agency. General Waste Collectors are required to submit detailed data on their waste collection and disposal activities, including information such as collection frequencies, waste origin, types and weight per collection, disposal locations.
These reports are typically submitted quarterly through the Waste and Recycling Data Submission Services under the Waste & Resource Management System. Failure to comply with these reporting obligations can result in penalties, including fines and license revocation (NEA Singapore, 2020[40]).
Upstream and midstream measures are critical to slow down plastics demand, reduce waste generation and mitigate plastic pollution. They act via two main channels: i) limiting the demand for (primary) plastics and ii) improving the environmental-friendly design of plastic products and packaging. A mix of steering policies, e.g. legislation, infrastructure improvements and economic instruments, and of enabling policies, e.g. investments in technology, data and communication, or voluntary commitments, are being pursued to accomplish advanced plastics circularity goals. Among the policies examined, instruments such as bans, tax incentives, technological investments and voluntary standards are popular. The intensity and choice of these measures vary widely across APT countries.
The following sub-sections summarise the current policy framework relating to upstream and midstream measures for plastic pollution mitigation in APT countries, focusing on:
Measures to improve design for circularity, including design for recyclability, recycled content requirements, regulation of hazardous substances, product lifespan extensions, EPR schemes with fee modulation (Section 3.4.1);
Measures to curb plastics demand, including bans or taxes on single use plastics, excise taxes, regulation on cosmetic products containing microbeads, identification and removal of subsidies to fossil fuels and/or primary plastic production, promotion of repair and reuse of plastic products, incentives to promote secondary plastics, promotion of plastic alternatives (Section 3.4.2).
Opportunities to improve the policy framework to curb demand and promote eco-design are further explored in Chapter 7 of this Outlook.
3.4.1. Stronger policies can be adopted to promote design for circularity
Given the policy landscape for recycled content incorporation and design for recyclability, further policy in the APT can pave the way for a more circular lifecycle of plastics. Table 3.5 shows the region’s policies and efforts towards improving the eco-design of plastics and plastic products.
Three APT countries have started introducing policies to mandate or incentivise design for recyclability and recycled content in products. In Indonesia, the EPR implementation policy mandates that by 2030, industrial producers are to replace seven types of single-use plastics (SUPs) with products and packaging made from 100% recyclable materials and composed of a minimum of 50% recycled content of recycled packaging or products. The enforcement mechanism exists in the form that those SUPs will be banned from use in 2030, and non-compliant producers can be sanctioned (MoEF Indonesia, 2020[41]). In addition, there is a range of enabling policies already in place, such as technical standards and certification schemes for recyclability and recycled content (see certification schemes and eco-labelling in Section 3.3.1). Most APT countries rely on manufacturers’ voluntary adoption of green standards to enhance the design of new plastic products. One additional example of enabling interventions is the lifting of bans on the use of recycled materials for food-contact applications provided health and safety standards are met.
Regulation of hazardous substances in plastics is present in at least nine out of 13 APT countries. These regulations vary in scope and strength but generally aim to align with international efforts to reduce the presence of harmful chemicals in consumer products and packaging. Commonly regulated substances include some phthalates (often found in flexible plastic products like toys and food packaging), bisphenol A (limited in many jurisdictions, particularly in products for children), heavy metals and brominated flame retardants. However, many other substances used in plastics remain less consistently regulated, particularly for newer or less understood substances as well as intentionally added microplastics (the latter is also discussed in the next section).
Measures to promote product design for longer lifespans, repair or repairability, as well as more advanced measures such as EPR schemes with fees modulated on product design criteria, remain largely underutilised in the APT region. Only Korea uses EPR with fee modulation to enhance plastic recycling: the higher the recyclability rating of a product, the less the fee for a producer for disposal of that product – up to 50% less. This incentivises the import, production and use of recyclable plastic-containing products.
Status of selected policies to promote design for circularity in APT countries, as of end 2023
Source: Authors’ inventories; see more information in the technical document (OECD, 2025[3]).
3.4.2. Bans on single-use plastics and fiscal incentives are emerging
APT countries are pursuing policies relevant to their local context to curb plastics demand, but there are commonalities. Table 3.6 compares the countries’ measures towards this goal.
Status of selected policies to curb (primary) plastics demand in APT countries, as of end 2023
Notes:
1. Brunei Darussalam’s $5/kg excise duty applies to raw plastic materials covered under HS codes 39.01 to 39.14 and select plastic products under HS code 39.23. This excise duty has however been temporarily suspended (Global Plastics Policy Centre, 2024[42]).
2. Enforcement of bans remains an issue, for instance in the case Thailand’s ban on four SUPs.
Source: Authors’ inventories; see more information in the technical document (OECD, 2025[3]).
Eight APT countries have, have had, or are considering measures to curb plastics use, varying from planned reductions and phase-outs to a ban in place. Thailand has a ban on four types of single-use plastics in place, however there are enforcement gaps (Bangkok Post Editorial, 2022[43]). Viet Nam aims to entirely prohibit the production and import of single-use plastics and non-biodegradable plastic packaging by 2030 (Government of Viet Nam, 2022[44]). As listed in Table 3.2, Japan aims at achieving a cumulative 25% reduction in single-use plastics by 2030 with respect to the 2019 value (MoE Japan, 2019[45]). Brunei Darussalam employed a 5% excise duty on plastic items, including products in all primary forms, plastic bags and disposal food containers, to reduce plastic waste and pollution; however, the policy was temporarily suspended in 2023 due to insufficient evidence of effectiveness (Global Plastics Policy Centre, 2024[46]).
Some APT countries offer incentives measures to promote plastic substitutes and recycled plastics, mainly in the form of tax benefits. For example, Cambodia has a tax exemption in place for businesses importing or producing biodegradable or bio-based plastic bags and a tax incentive in place for SMEs producing recycled or bio-based plastic goods for the first 3-5 years of their operations (Seavmey, 2023[47]; Akenji et al., 2019[48]). Malaysia’s Investment Development Authority provides “Pioneer Status or Investment Tax Allowance”, a tax incentive, to businesses recycling wastes generated locally in Malaysia through high-value-added activities and green technology use (EPU Malaysia, 2021[49]). Thailand is providing duty exemption to businesses importing raw materials and machinery for producing eco-friendly polymers and products made from those polymers (PCD Thailand, 2023[13]).
Some APT governments are also promoting technological innovations to move away from virgin plastics. For example, Korea is investing in bioplastics technologies and has patents for production (MoTIE RoK, 2022[50]), Japan is investing in new resin development among other initiatives (Government of Japan, 2021[51]), and Thailand is researching compostable plastics made of polylactic acid (PCD Thailand, 2023[13]).
The rest of the reduction policies are not widespread in APT. Policies to promote repair and reuse remain rare in the APT region. Three countries (Thailand, China, Korea) have planned bans on microbeads in cosmetic products, to mitigate pollution from microplastics intentionally added to products. None of the APT countries with direct or indirect subsidies for virgin plastic manufacturers mentioned considering removing them in their national plastics action plans.
Policy enforcement and effective implementation are key concerns. This section provides an overview of the current status of enforcement of policies for plastic pollution mitigation, by examining the presence and enforcement of four measures critical to closing leakage pathways: regulation to end anti-waste dumping, measures for household waste segregation at source, bans or taxes on frequently littered plastic items, and controls on imports of plastic waste and scrap. These four policy measures are explained in Table 3.7.
While many APT countries have introduced policies to tackle plastic pollution, such as bans and controls, their enforcement varies significantly. Weak policy enforcement is a common issue in the ASEAN, particularly in LMIC. In China too, despite robust national policies, enforcement at the local level faces several hurdles, including due to issues such as insufficient professional knowledge among implementers, lack of public awareness and overlapping responsibilities among government departments (Ren and Zuo, 2024[52]). Table 3.8 provides a review of the current state of policy enforcement in APT for four selected measures. Singapore, Japan and Korea show relatively strong enforcement across multiple dimensions, with clear bans and controls (as well as functioning EPR schemes) in place. On the other hand, several ASEAN countries have policies in place but show gaps in enforcement (often marked as NSE, Not Sufficiently Enforced). This reflects challenges such as limited capacity, lack of monitoring systems or weak regulatory compliance.
For instance, in Lao PDR, plastic waste import is permitted under the conditions that it is clean, classified as non-hazardous, at least 80% recyclable as a product, and in the form of plastic sheets, bars or bags (MoE Japan, 2022[53]). However, given the insufficient resources to effectively enforce waste quality laws at the border (JICA, 2021[54]), after the implementation of the plastic waste import ban in China, exports to Lao PDR have surged, from 7,8 kt in 2018 to 100 kt in 2019 alone. The unknown quality of this waste is a key concern, as are the possible environmental and health risks resulting from processing or mismanagement. In response, the government suspended the creation of new recycling plants in the country. The import of this waste into Lao PDR is however still projected to grow (World Bank, 2022[55]). Such enforcement challenges limit the region’s ability to move towards circularity for plastics.
The information presented in the table underscores the need for strengthened institutional capacity, clearer mandates for enforcement bodies and public accountability mechanisms to ensure that existing policies translate into real reductions in plastic pollution. Policy coherence across ministries and improved monitoring frameworks will be essential to support long-term implementation.
Status of selected national policies, as of end 2023
Notes: 1. Brunei Darussalam’s $5/kg excise duty applies to raw plastic materials covered under HS codes 39.01 to 39.14 and select plastic products under HS code 39.23. This excise duty has however been temporarily suspended (Global Plastics Policy Centre, 2024[46]).
1. Plastic waste import is administratively prohibited in Brunei Darussalam; legislation is under discussion (MoE Japan, 2022[53]).
2. Mandatory food waste separation started in 2024, but a policy mandating the segregation of other wastes is not in place (MoEWR Singapore, 2019[56]).
3. The disposable carrier bag charge covers two-thirds of supermarkets; other stores are exempt (NEA Singapore, 2023[57]).
Source: Authors’ inventories; see more information in the technical document (OECD, 2025[3])
Overall, the policy review carried out for this Outlook builds a case for strengthening the region’s policy framework related to plastics on several fronts, by addressing: waste management infrastructure, data collection, sustainable financing, legislative framework, multi-level government coordination, national enforcement capabilities and capacity. The policy review also sheds light on the need to implement enabling policies in combination with steering policy interventions to effectively accomplish targets set out in national plans, and ultimately mitigate environmental impacts from plastics. Opportunities to improve policy frameworks and policy implementation, including monitoring and enforcement, are discussed in more details in Chapter 7.
References
[48] 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.
[19] ASEAN (2022), ASEAN Sustainable Urbanisation Report, Association of Southeast Asian Nations, https://connectivity.asean.org/resource/asean-sustainable-urbanisation-report/.
[4] ASEAN (2021), Framework for Circular Economy for the ASEAN Economic Community, Jakarta, https://asean.org/wpcontent/uploads/2021/10/Brochure-Circular-Economy-Final.pdf.
[6] 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.
[7] 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.
[5] ASEAN Plus Three (2022), ASEAN Plus Three Cooperation Work Plan 2023-207, https://aseanplusthree.asean.org/asean-plus-three-cooperation-work-plan-2023-2027/.
[43] Bangkok Post Editorial (2022), “Enforce the plastic ban”, Bangkok Post, Bangkok Post Public Company Limited, https://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/opinion/2241559/enforce-the-plastic-ban.
[36] Belcher (2022), “In South Korea, an Emphasis on Recycling Yields Results”, The New York Times, https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/21/business/south-korea-recycling.html.
[11] DENR Philippines (2021), The National Plan of Action for the Prevention, Reduction and Management of Marine Litter, The Department of Environment and Natural Resources of the Republic of the Philippines, https://seaknowledgebank.net/sites/default/files/2024-04/Jan%202022%20Final%20Philippines%20NPOA-ML%20(1).pdf.
[49] EPU Malaysia (2021), Twelfth Malaysia Plan 2021-2025, Economic Planning Unit, Ministry of Economy, https://nicholasinstitute.duke.edu/sites/default/files/plastics-policies/14003_N_2021_Twelfth_Malaysia_Plan.pdf (accessed on 25 August 2023).
[28] ERIA (2022), Extended Producer Responsibility, https://rkcmpd-eria.org/practical-measures/detail/extended-producer-responsibility (accessed on 15 July 2025).
[17] ERIA (2021), Regional Knowledge Centre for Marine Plastic Debris. Republic of Korea - Laws and Regulations, https://rkcmpd-eria.org/index.php/south-korea/action-plans-and-roadmaps (accessed on 16 May 2025).
[30] G20MPL (2024), “Towards Osaka Blue Ocean Vision. G20 Implementation Framework for Actions on Marine Plastic Litter.”, The Republic of Korea, https://g20mpl.org/partners/republicofkorea.
[46] Global Plastics Policy Centre (2024), Global Plastics Policy Review, March A., Salam, S., Evans, T., Hilton, J., Fletcher, S. (editors). Revolution Plastics Institute, University of Portsmouth.
[51] Government of Japan (2021), Roadmap for Bioplastics Introduction, Government of Japan, https://www.env.go.jp/recycle/mat21030210_1.pdf.
[16] Government of Japan (2019), National Action Plan for Marine Plastic Litter, https://www.cas.go.jp/jp/seisaku/kaiyo_plastic/dai1/plan.pdf.
[27] Government of Korea (2017), “Act on the Promotion of Saving and Recycling of Resources (Resource Circulation Act), Act No. 15101 (Nov. 28 2017)”.
[44] Government of Viet Nam (2022), Law on Environmental Protection and Decree No. 08/2022/ND-CP, https://winrock.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/LuatBVMT-Eng_20230203.pdf.
[8] IGES (2024), Towards Osaka Blue Ocean Vision - G20 Implementation Framework for Actions on Marine Plastic Litter, Institute for Global Environmental Strategies, https://g20mpl.org/.
[54] JICA (2021), Data Collection Survey on Waste Management Sector in the Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Japan International Cooperation Agency, https://openjicareport.jica.go.jp/pdf/12345914.pdf.
[18] Korwatanasakul, U. (2020), Time to Look East: Lessons from Revisiting Asian Economic Integration, Asian Development Bank Institute, https://www.adb.org/publications/time-look-east-lessons-revisiting-asian-economic-integration.
[38] Ko, S. et al. (2020), “The economic value of sustainable recycling and waste management policies: The case of a waste management crisis in South Korea”, Waste Management, Vol. 104, pp. 220-227, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2020.01.020.
[26] Laubinger, F. et al. (2022), Deposit-refund systems and the interplay with additional mandatory extended producer responsibility policies, Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD), https://doi.org/10.1787/a80f4b26-en.
[33] Lee, J. (2024), South Korea’s mountain of plastic waste shows limits of recycling, https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/south-koreas-mountain-plastic-waste-shows-limits-recycling-2024-11-22/.
[42] March A., S. (ed.) (2024), Global Plastics Policy Review. Revolution Plastics Institute, University of Portsmouth., https://plasticspolicy.port.ac.uk/policy-reviews/brunei-darussalam-tariff-and-trade-classification-amendment-2023/.
[10] MESTECC Malaysia (2018), Malaysia’s Roadmap Towards Zero Single-Use Plastics 2018-2030, Ministry of Energy, Science, Technology, Ministry of Energy, Science, Technology, https://nicholasinstitute.duke.edu/sites/default/files/plasticspolicies/5006_N_2008_Roadmap_Towards_Zero.pdf.
[29] Ministry of Environment Korea (2022), The Ministry of Environment to make thorough preparation for collecting disposable cups, https://www.korea.net/Government/Briefing-Room/Press-Releases/view?articleId=1565330&type=N&insttCode=A260112 (accessed on 15 July 2025).
[12] Ministry of Sustainability and the Environment Singapore (2022), National Action Strategy Addressing Marine Litter in Singapore, https://isomer-user-content.by.gov.sg/23/063f4f3e-aa82-4ef2-a359-76fb9bd1ad40/nasml.pdf.
[53] MoE Japan (2022), “Summary of Import Regulation of Plastic Waste in Asian Countries (As of November 2022)”, Asian Network for Prevention of Illegal Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Wastes, https://www.env.go.jp/en/recycle/asian_net/Annual_Workshops/2022_PDF/Summary_of_Import_Regulation_of_Plastic_Waste_in_Asian_Countries_1.pdf (accessed on 4 October 2023).
[45] MoE Japan (2019), Annual Report on the Environment in Japan 2019, Ministry of the Environment of the Government of Japan, https://www.env.go.jp/en/wpaper/2019/index.html (accessed on 2021 August 2023).
[41] MoEF Indonesia (2020), National Plastic Waste Reduction Strategic Actions for Indonesia, Ministry of Environment and Forestry of the Republic of Indonesia, https://nicholasinstitute.duke.edu/sites/default/files/plastics-policies/15011_N_2020_National_Plastic_Waste_Reduction.pdf.
[58] MoEF Indonesia (2019), Road Map of Waste Reduction by Produers, Ministry of the Environment and Forestry of the Republic of Indonesia, https://nicholasinstitute.duke.edu/sites/default/files/plastics-policies/112021_N_2019_The_minister_of_environment.pdf (accessed on 15 August 2023).
[56] MoEWR Singapore (2019), Zero Waste Masterplan Singapore, Ministry of the Environment and Water Resources of the Republic of Singapore, https://www.towardszerowaste.gov.sg/files/zero-waste-masterplan-brochure.pdf.
[35] MoI Indonesia (2010), Regulation of RI Minister of Industry No. 24/M-IND/PER/2/2010 on the inclusion of food tare logo and recycle code on food package made of plastic., https://leap.unep.org/countries/id/national-legislation/regulation-ri-minister-industry-no-24m-indper22010-inclusion-food (accessed on 17 August 2023).
[14] MoNRE Viet Nam (2020), National Action Plan for Management of Marine Plastic Litter by 2030, The Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment of the Government of the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam, https://nicholasinstitute.duke.edu/sites/default/files/plasticspolicies/8046_N_2020_National_Action_Plan.pdf.
[50] MoTIE RoK (2022), Korea and EU hold 10th Goods Trade Committee, Ministry of Trade, Industry, and Energy, https://english.motie.go.kr/en/tp/ftaeconomiccooperration/bbs/bbsView.do?bbs_seq_n=953&bbs_cd_n=2&view_type_v=TOPIC&¤tPage=1&search_key_n=&search_val_v=&cate_n=4 (accessed on 4 August 2023).
[57] NEA Singapore (2023), “Disposable Carrier Bag Charge”, National Environment Agency, National Environment Agency of the Republic of Singapore, https://www.nea.gov.sg/our-services/waste-management/disposable-carrier-bag-charge.
[34] NEA Singapore (2021), “Frequently Asked Questions on Revised Refuse Collection Fees for Households”, National Environment Agency, National Environment Agency of the Republic of Singapore, https://www.nea.gov.sg/docs/default-source/wcd/faqs-on-revised-refuse-collection-fees-for-households_30-november-20218056a1daf2be4dd3b79f3a7bad1dc2ef.pdf (accessed on 4 October 2023).
[40] NEA Singapore (2020), Code of Practice for Licensed General Waste Collectors, National Environment Agency of the Republic of Singapore, https://www.nea.gov.sg/docs/default-source/wcd/1-_cop-for-gwcs_v4_final_-15-dec-202087fbab3ae8df40a1993d69bea04a6975.pdf.
[3] OECD (2025), Inventory of the plastic policy landscape in ASEAN Plus Three Countries.
[31] OECD (2024), Economic Instruments for the Circular Economy in Italy: Opportunities for Reform, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/33e11c28-en.
[22] 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.
[2] OECD (2024), Policy Scenarios for Eliminating Plastic Pollution by 2040, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/76400890-en.
[1] OECD (2022), Global Plastics Outlook: Economic Drivers, Environmental Impacts and Policy Options, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/de747aef-en.
[32] OECD (2006), Impacts of Unit-based Waste Collection Charges, https://doi.org/10.1787/16812328 (accessed on 30 June 2022).
[13] PCD Thailand (2023), Action Plan on Plastic Waste Management Phase II (2023 - 2027), Pollution Control Department of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment of the Kingdom of Thailand, https://www.pcd.go.th/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/pcdnew-2023-06-15_08-07-42_392659.pdf.
[23] Perrin, D. et al. (2018), Report on Solid Waste Management in Cambodia - Nationwide Context, United Nations Development Programme, https://static1.squarespace.com/static/6099f7ed4070c43737b65774/t/60b9ac6b7e5cca6e0f222dd6/1622781062416/UNDP.2018.Report+on+Solid+Waste+Management+in+Cambodia+-+Final.pdf (accessed on 25 July 2023).
[21] PWMI (2022), An Introduction to Plastic Recycling, Plastic Waste Management Institute, https://www.pwmi.or.jp/ei/plastic_recycling_2022.pdf (accessed on 2023 August 2023).
[52] Ren, Z. and G. Zuo (2024), “Challenges of Implementing Municipal Solid Waste Separation Policy in China”, Sustainability, Vol. 16/18, p. 8081, https://doi.org/10.3390/su16188081.
[37] SEA circular project (2020), Country profile South Korea, https://www.sea-circular.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/SEA-circular-Country-Profile_SOUTH-KOREA.pdf (accessed on 16 May 2025).
[47] Seavmey, M. (2023), “Bioplastics Step Up for a Cleaner Environment”, Cambodianess, Cambodian Media Broadcasting Corporation, https://cambodianess.com/article/bioplastics-step-up-for-a-cleaner-environment (accessed on 4 August 2023).
[9] The Government of the Republic of Indonesia (2018), Indonesia’s Plan of Action on Marine Plastic Debris 2017-2025, https://maritim.go.id/konten/unggahan/2018/03/NAP_Marine_Plastic_Debris_Indonesia_Summary.pdf.
[15] The State Council The People’s Republic of China (2021), Circular of the National Development and Reform Commission of the Ministry of Ecology and the Environment on the issuance of the ‘14th Five-Year Plan’ action programme on plastic pollution control, https://www.gov.cn/zhengce/zhengceku/2021-09/16/content_5637606.htm.
[24] UNDP (2021), National Circular Economy Strategy and Action Plan (2021), United Nations Development Programme, https://www.undp.org/sites/g/files/zskgke326/files/2022-06/Circular%20Economy%20Strategy%20and%20Action%20Plan%202021%20%282%29.pdf (accessed on 25 July 2023).
[20] 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] World Bank (2022), Get CLEAN and GREEN - Solid and Plastic Waste Management in Lao PDR: Findings and Actions for Change (English), World Bank Group, http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/099100002182296296/P17101101230c40bc096bf0a757bd16eb65.
[39] World Bank Group (2022), “Solid Waste Management (SWM) in Korea Learning 1: SWM Policy, Governance and Financing Structures, and Green Growth”, Open Learning Campus, https://www.worldbank.org/en/olc/course/58375.
[25] World Bank Group (2021), Market Study for Thailand: Plastics Circularity Opportunities and Barriers, The World Bank Group, https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/973801612513854507/pdf/Market-Study-for-Thailand-Plastics-Circularity-Opportunities-and-Barriers.pdf.
← 2. 2 Malaysia is also gradually introducing mandatory EPR systems for plastic packaging, following a voluntary EPR phase from 2023 to 2025. However, this was not captured in the inventory produced for this Outlook, that concluded in end of 2023.
← 3. 3 In addition, Indonesia’s Roadmap to Waste Reduction by Producers, aiming for a 30% reduction in waste by 2029, obliges producers to use packaging with labels showing that they can be composted, recycled or reused, and to develop waste reduction plans (MoEF Indonesia, 2019[58]).