This chapter provides a detailed overview of plastics use, trade, waste generation and management, and environmental impacts in the ASEAN Plus Three (APT) region for 2022. Throughout production, use and disposal, the lifecycle of plastics is intertwined with the economy and the environment in a multitude of ways. Understanding these complex interactions is critical for identifying challenges and formulating effective policies. The chapter explores variations in plastics use patterns across APT countries and relevant sectors, emphasising the dominance of short-lived products like packaging in waste. It complements the quantitative analysis with a qualitative analysis of the performance of waste collection and treatment systems.
Regional Plastics Outlook for Southeast and East Asia
Abstract
Plastics use in Southeast and East Asia has soared in recent years. Specifically, for the ASEAN Plus Three (APT) countries plastics use increased from 17 million tonnes (Mt) in 1990 to 152 Mt in 2022, with a significant shift in regional dynamics over the last three decades, with fast growth in China and some of the lower middle-income ASEAN countries, and slower growth especially in Japan. China now accounts for nearly 70% of the region’s plastics use, and ASEAN for 19%.
Packaging and construction are the dominant applications for plastics across APT countries. However, patterns differ widely across countries, reflecting differences in economic development and industrial structure.
While the APT average plastics use per capita is 67 kg, this ranges from just 29 kg in Indonesia to over 100 kg in Japan and Korea.
Trade in plastics is a major feature of the APT region, with China as the leading global exporter and ASEAN countries increasingly reliant on imports to meet domestic demand.
Short-lived plastic products such as packaging and consumer goods constitute more than half of plastic waste generation in the APT region.
Inadequate waste management systems exacerbate plastic pollution in the region. While Japan, Korea and Singapore collect more than 95% of municipal solid waste collection, collection rates can go below 50% in parts of ASEAN LMIC, with gaps especially in rural and remote areas.
The average share of waste that is recycled in the APT (19% collected for recycling; 12% actually recycled) is substantially higher than the global average (16% collected; 10% recycled). Recycling systems are more mature in Japan and Korea while in China and the ASEAN plastic recycling relies on an active informal sector that collects and sort high-value materials.
Despite progress in recycling, mismanaged plastic waste remains widespread across the APT, especially in countries with limited formal waste infrastructure. Open dumping, informal burning and unregulated landfilling persist where viable alternatives are lacking. A large share of plastic waste is mismanaged in ASEAN (56% on average) and to some extent also in China (26%). Compared to the rest of the APT countries, Korea and Japan have higher levels of incinerated plastic waste.
Putting in place effective systems for safe waste management is a major environmental and health priority. Archipelagic states (e.g. Indonesia with a 72% mismanaged waste rate) face unique logistical and cost barriers to establishing waste management systems across remote islands and coastal communities.
Plastic waste net imports in ASEAN amount to 1.1 Mt in 2022. These import flows are small compared to the volumes of plastic waste.
In 2022, plastic leakage to the environment in APT countries reached 8.4 Mt, more than one-third of the global total. Freshwater ecosystems are key pollution hotspots, as well as key conduits to oceans. Marine plastic pollution threatens biodiversity and can generate losses for ocean-dependent sectors, with significant long-term implications.
While plastics are beneficial to modern societies and are used in numerous applications, plastic pollution is an urgent global concern, presenting a significant obstacle to the transition towards sustainable economies. The ASEAN Plus Three (APT) region is of strategic importance in the fight against plastic pollution: it accounts for nearly one-third of global GDP, plays a key role in global manufacturing and trade, and it hosts some of the world’s largest producers and consumers of plastic polymers and products, as well as several recycling hubs. This chapter provides a detailed overview of plastics use, trade, waste generation and management, and environmental impacts in the APT region in 2022, including to explore variations within countries in the region.
Plastics use per capita and plastic intensity relative to GDP vary greatly across APT countries. (Table 2.1). Plastics use per capita provides insights how much individuals rely on plastic products. Plastic intensity (plastics use per unit of GDP output, kg/USD) measures the dependence of the economy on plastic products used in final goods or as input to production.
The average plastics use per capita in 2022 was 67 kg for APT countries. Indonesia shows a low level of plastics use per capita: Indonesia uses on average 29 kg of plastics per person in 2022, while the average person in the Rest of ASEAN – HIC and UMIC (i.e., Brunei Darussalam, Malaysia, Singapore) uses more than four times that amount.
In the APT region, each thousand dollars of value added (i.e. GDP) embed around 3.5 kg of plastic products. The variation in plastic intensity of GDP across countries is more limited than that of plastics use per capita, ranging between 2.2 tonnes per million USD (t/M$) value added in Indonesia and 4.9 t/M$ in Thailand. The variation across countries reflects different economic and industrial contexts in the APT region.
Estimated for 2022.
Note: Rest of ASEAN – LMIC includes Cambodia, Lao PDR, Myanmar, Philippines, Viet Nam; Rest of ASEAN – HIC & UMIC includes Brunei Darussalam, Malaysia, Singapore.
Source: OECD ENV Linkages model.
Globally, plastic intensity and use per capita tend to increase as countries advance in economic development and while the APT region also follows this pattern, APT countries tend to be on the lower end in terms of plastic per capita use. Figure 2.1 presents plastic intensity and plastics use per capita. For instance, for a similar level of plastic intensity, a person in Indonesia on average uses 29 kg of plastics per year, while the OECD Oceania (Australia and New Zealand) average equals almost 150 kg of plastics per person per year.
Plastic intensity and per capita use also vary according to the specialisation patterns of the APT countries. For instance, Thailand and Indonesia are at a similar level of GDP per capita but show different patterns. Thailand shows a high plastic intensity, showing the importance of plastics-using sectors in the country, such as electronics and motor vehicles. In contrast, the reliance of Indonesia to plastics (both in terms of intensity and use per capita) is much lower as this country is less oriented to plastic-intensive sectors (around 5% of the output versus 33% for Thailand).
Plastic intensity vs. plastics use per capita, 2022.
Note: Rest of ASEAN – LMIC includes Cambodia, Lao PDR, Myanmar, Philippines, Viet Nam; Rest of ASEAN – HIC & UMIC includes Brunei Darussalam, Malaysia, Singapore.
Source: OECD ENV-Linkages model.
2.3.1. Plastics use is growing rapidly, with large heterogeneity among countries
Following the growing population and rising per capita incomes, plastics use in APT countries soared in recent decades, increasing from 17 Mt in 1990 to 152 Mt in 2022 (Figure 2.2). The region currently accounts for one-third of global plastics use (OECD, 2022[1]). While plastics use in the region declined in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic, it rebounded strongly in 2021.
Plastics use in Mt, 1980-2022, and annual growth rates in percentages over the same time period.
Note: Rest of ASEAN – LMIC includes Cambodia, Lao PDR, Myanmar, Philippines, Viet Nam; Rest of ASEAN – HIC & UMIC includes Brunei Darussalam, Malaysia, Singapore.
Source: OECD ENV-Linkages model.
Within the APT region, China represents 69% of plastics use in 2022, the ASEAN countries 19%, and Japan and Korea 12% (Figure 2.2). The relative contribution of individual countries has changed over time. China’s share of plastics use in the APT region has steadily increased from 49% of in 1990 to 69% in 2022, while Japan and Korea’s shares have declined from 33% in 1990 to 12% in 2022, while the ASEAN countries moved from 18% to 19% over the same period.
2.3.2. Country specificities determine sectoral composition
In APT countries, packaging and construction account for 32% and 17% of total plastics use, respectively (Figure 2.3); the dominance of packaging is in line with global numbers (OECD, 2022[1]) Other important applications of plastics use include textiles, transportation, household consumer products, electronics and machinery. In terms of polymers, polyethylene polymers (LLDPE, LDPE, HDPE, PET) together comprise 29% of the total. The other main polymers used include PP, Fibres and PVC. Packaging uses mainly PE and PP polymers (72%; numbers not shown in the figure), construction uses mainly PVC polymer (45%) while textiles use mainly fibres (99%).
Share of plastics based on weight by application (average lifetimes indicated in brackets) and by polymer, 2022.
Note: In panel A, the years corresponds to the average lifetime of plastics in each application.
HDPE = high-density polyethylene, PET = polyethylene terephthalate, PVC = polyvinyl chloride, LDPE = low-density polyethylene, LLDPE = linear low-density polyethylene, PP = polypropylene, PS = polystyrene, PUR = polyurethane.
Source: OECD ENV-Linkages model.
Plastics use across sectors varies by country. In Japan and Korea, packaging (30% in Korea and 27% in Japan) and construction (31% in Korea and 35% in Japan) are important users of plastics. (Table 2.2). While plastics play an important role in construction everywhere, building materials demand a larger share of plastics use in Japan and Korea than in other APT countries. The critical role of plastics in this sector presents a challenge in substituting plastics with alternative materials such as metals, wood or glass. China, with its 33% share in packaging, also indicates a substantial use of plastics in consumer goods. However, beyond packaging, plastics use is more evenly distributed across different industries in China, than in e.g. Japan and Korea. In the ASEAN region, high- and upper middle-income countries use plastics predominantly in packaging (43%), reflecting a focus on consumer goods, with less emphasis on industries like construction. Conversely, in lower middle-income ASEAN countries, plastics use is more heavily utilised in the infrastructure and transportation sectors, indicating different developmental priorities.
Share of plastics use by application
Source: OECD ENV-Linkages model.
Plastics use by production sector is closely linked to plastics use by application; in some cases, the correspondence is one-on-one (e.g. construction), while in other cases there are multiple sectors associated with the same applications (e.g. packaging). Across most APT countries, manufacturing sectors – associated with a range of different applications and including Electronics, Motor Vehicles, Other Manufacturing – emerge as a prominent consumer of plastics (Figure 2.4). In the ASEAN countries, most of the plastics go to services and manufacturing sectors. In Korea, the electronics sector is the largest consumer of plastics (20%) followed by motor vehicles (18%). The use of plastics in the chemicals sector is mainly driven by China (11% of plastics use in the country); the other APT countries use much less plastics in this sector. Indonesia is exceptional in that it uses a lot of plastics in the plastics sector itself, i.e. transforming polymers for further inputs.
Share of sectors in total demand for plastics as production inputs, 2017
Note: Demand for plastics includes both primary and secondary plastics. Demand for plastics for final consumption is relatively small (about 4% on average in APT) and excluded from the figure. ‘Other manufacturing’ contains a variety of smaller sectors, including e.g. food products and metals production.
Rest of ASEAN – LMIC includes Cambodia, Lao PDR, Myanmar, Philippines, Viet Nam; Rest of ASEAN – HIC & UMIC includes Brunei Darussalam, Malaysia, Singapore.
Source: Global Trade Analysis Project (GTAP).
The plastic production sector itself uses a range of different inputs, and these vary across countries as producers use different production methods and produce different varieties of plastics (Figure 2.5). For instance, in China, Japan, and Korea chemicals play a significant role in plastic production – this includes monomers and additives used for polymer production. Thailand and Rest of ASEAN – HIC & UMIC have more capital-intensive production, emphasising advanced production capabilities and substantial investments in plastic production. In contrast, Indonesia shows a larger reliance on labour inputs, while Rest of ASEAN – LMIC show a notable reliance on inputs from manufacturing and agriculture, which indicates the potential of agricultural bioproducts in plastic production.
Share of sectoral expenditures to produce plastics by region
Note: The data includes expenditures for both primary and secondary production. Ordered from left to right by sector importance.
Rest of ASEAN – LMIC includes Cambodia, Lao PDR, Myanmar, Philippines, Viet Nam; Rest of ASEAN – HIC & UMIC includes Brunei Darussalam, Malaysia, Singapore.
Source: Global Trade Analysis Project (GTAP).
2.3.3. Trade in plastics is significant in the APT region
Trade in plastic products is relevant for APT countries for several reasons. First, most of these countries are very open towards international trade. Second, interregional trade is very important for plastics. Third, as plastics may cross borders several times during its lifecycle, a full tracking of plastics that may end up in the environment is complex.
Table 2.3 shows bilateral trade flows to and from APT countries, reconciled for 2017. The trade flows within the APT region reflect the importance of Thailand, Malaysia (part of Rest of ASEAN – HIC & UMIC) and Viet Nam (part of Rest of ASEAN – LMIC), as well as of China. China stands out as a major player in global plastics trade, exporting and importing substantial amounts of plastics from all regions– it exports around USD 10 billion (bln) to other APT countries and USD 42.5 bln to the rest of the world. This is reflective of its important role as both a producer and consumer of plastics in the region. Japan and Korea have notable bilateral plastic trade between each other (USD 673 million and USD 2.7 bln, respectively). The ASEAN countries import more than USD 12 bln from outside ASEAN (and another USD 5 bln from intra-ASEAN trade), while they export a little less than USD 11 bln to countries outside ASEAN (and another USD 5 bln within ASEAN). These flows underscore their dependence on plastic trade, especially imports from China to satisfy domestic demand, especially in the Rest of ASEAN – LMIC, and the importance of intra-ASEAN trade for the plastic value chains. Thailand and the Rest of ASEAN – HIC & UMIC as well as the Plus Three countries appear as net exporter of plastics, while Indonesia and the Rest of ASEAN – LMIC are net importers.
Trade flows from countries (rows) to countries (columns) in million USD in 2017.
Note: the colours show the intensity in the trade and are split by block (green for intra-ASEAN trade, blue for trade from non-ASEAN countries to ASEAN and red for the trade from ASEAN to non-ASEAN countries).
Rest of ASEAN – LMIC includes Cambodia, Lao PDR, Myanmar, Philippines, Viet Nam; Rest of ASEAN – HIC & UMIC includes Brunei Darussalam, Malaysia, Singapore.
Source: GTAP Circular Economy (CE) database.
The APT region generated 113 Mt of plastic waste in 2022, with a large share from applications with short lifetimes. Almost 90% of plastics in municipal solid waste (MSW) in APT countries comes from applications with lifespans of less than five years. Packaging (44% of total MSW) has an average lifetime of months and consumer products (12% of total MSW) has an average lifetime of 3 years.
As most plastics are short-lived, the distribution of plastics use across polymers (see Section 2.2) is reflected in the composition of plastic waste: predominant polymers are PE (LLDPE, LDPE, HDPE and PET), PP and PVC. The shares of these polymers become even greater in the end-of-life stage and in use, as – with the exception of PVC – they are often used for applications with short lifetimes (Figure 2.6).1
Plastic waste by application and polymer in the APT region, 2022
Note: HDPE = high-density polyethylene, PET = polyethylene terephthalate, PVC = polyvinyl chloride, LDPE = low-density polyethylene, LLDPE = linear low-density polyethylene, PP = polypropylene, PS = polystyrene, PUR = polyurethane. Other includes elastomers (tyres), bioplastics, acrylonitrile butadiene styrene, acrylonitrile styrene acrylate, styrene acrylonitrile, road marking coatings.
Sources: OECD ENV-Linkages model.
Countries with high per capita plastics use levels tend to also show high levels of per capita plastic waste generation (Table 2.4). Plastic waste per person is especially high in ASEAN – HIC & UMIC. For instance, in Rest of ASEAN – HIC & UMIC, with the largest per capita use of plastics, each person produced on average 128 kg of plastic waste in 2022. Comparatively, in Indonesia and the Rest of ASEAN - LMIC, with significantly lower per capita plastics use, each person produces on average 24 kg and 26 kg of plastic waste respectively. However, depending on the lifetimes of the different applications used in each region, high plastics use per capita does not always correlate with high plastic waste per capita. In Japan and Korea, plastics use is relatively high, compared to other countries in the region, but their plastic waste per capita falls in the middle of the range. This reflects the effect of policies in place addressing the use of plastic products with short lifetimes, leading to a longer total average delay between plastics use and plastic waste (see also the significant share of construction in these countries in Table 2.2.
Note: Rest of ASEAN – LMIC includes Cambodia, Lao PDR, Myanmar, Philippines, Viet Nam; Rest of ASEAN – HIC & UMIC includes Brunei Darussalam, Malaysia, Singapore.
Sources: See Chapter 1 for a detailed list of sources.
2.5.1. Despite significant recycling in the APT, mismanaged plastic waste remains high
The performance of plastic waste management systems depends strongly on local country contexts. Figure 2.7 shows end-of-life fates for plastics across modelled countries and region, and Figure 2.8 gives an overview of the recycling performance, both in terms of the share of waste that is effectively recycled and the recycling outputs in absolute values. Box 2.1 explains how mismanaged waste and recycled plastics are defined in the context of this report, as well as how and why estimates may vary across different data sources and studies.
Effective recycling rates range from 6% to 14% (cf. a global average of 10%), but there are important differences. Of the 113 Mt of plastic waste generated in the APT region in 2022, 19% were collected for recycling, and 12% effectively recycled.2 The average APT recycling rate has grown quickly from 5% in 2000, surpassing the global average in 2013. The highest recycling rates (i.e., share of waste that is effectively recycled) were achieved in China, Japan and Thailand. Policy drivers of recycling are discussed in the following sections but include extensive separate waste collection systems and extended producer responsibility schemes. In many APT countries, and in particular in ASEAN LMIC, recycling depends on informal waste collection and separation. In addition, it is important to note that there are also significant challenges to plastics recycling currently: not all plastic waste is technically or economically recyclable under current technologies. A significant share of plastics is not designed for recycling, e.g. due to multi-layer compositions, problematic additives or lack of recycling technologies, which limits the theoretical maximum recycling rate to well below 100%.
Despite growing recycling yields, more plastic waste is mismanaged than recycled in all APT countries, except in Japan and Korea. Mismanaged waste includes all waste that is not handled in an environmentally safe manner, including uncollected waste as well as waste that is collected but later handled improperly for instance via open burning, unsanitary landfilling or disposal in dumpsites, or dispersal in the environment. Landfill volumes are high in several APT countries, in particular, sanitary landfilling account for the largest share of end-of-life fates in Thailand (3 Mt or 52% of total waste generated) and in China (28 Mt or 37%). On the other hand, in Japan and Korea sanitary landfilling plays a minor role, while incineration rates are higher than 75%, well above the region average.
The next sections explore drivers of waste management performance in the APT, with information for each of the 13 APT countries on the status of waste collection systems (Section 2.5.2) and waste treatment performance and end-of-life gates (Section 2.5.3). The chapter also discusses the role of informal waste workers (Section 2.5.4) and trends in trade in plastic waste (Section 2.5.5) in the region. Opportunities to improve the policy mix and the effectiveness of policy implementation are only discussed later in this Outlook, in Chapter 7.
Share of plastic waste treated by category in 2022.
Note: Rest of ASEAN – LMIC includes Cambodia, Lao PDR, Myanmar, Philippines, Viet Nam; Rest of ASEAN – HIC & UMIC includes Brunei Darussalam, Malaysia, Singapore.
Source: OECD ENV-Linkages model.
Recycling rates and amounts of plastics effectively recycled in APT region, 2022.
Notes: The recycling rate is computed as Rest of ASEAN – LMIC includes Cambodia, Lao PDR, Myanmar, Philippines, Viet Nam; Rest of ASEAN – HIC & UMIC includes Brunei Darussalam, Malaysia, Singapore.
Source: OECD ENV-Linkages model.
The term mismanaged waste is used in different ways across studies. Typically, plastic waste “mismanagement” encompasses several waste management outcomes, including uncontrolled landfills, waste dumping, open burning, littering and eventual leakage into the environment (Edelson, Håbesland and Traldi, 2021[2]). Common to most definitions is the idea that mismanaged plastics are those not handled through an environmentally safe manner. However, there may be differences in whether the term focuses strictly on waste that escapes formal systems (littering and open dumping) or also collection inefficiencies and disposal in non-sanitary landfills.
Differences in definitions, assumptions, as well as data sources and categorisations, can lead to substantial differences in mismanaged waste. A comparative analysis by Edelson et al. (2021[2]) finds that estimates for the same country can diverge by more than 25–75 percentage points across studies, highlighting the importance of clear methodologies when comparing mismanaged waste figures. In the literature reviewed for this report, estimated mismanagement in China varies from 26% in 2016 (Borrelle et al., 2020[3]) to 70% in 2015 (Lebreton and Andrady, 2019[4]) and 76% in 2010 (Jambeck et al., 2015[5]). For Indonesia, estimates vary significantly, including: 25% in 2015 (Lebreton and Andrady, 2019[4]), 44% in 2023 (SWITCH-Asia, 2025[6]), 55% in 2016 (Borrelle et al., 2020[3]), 63% (World Bank, 2021[7]), 70% (World Economic Forum, 2020[8]) and over 90% based on (Ramadan and Sembiring, 2023[9]) of plastic waste generated.
Similarly, differences in plastic recycling rates also arise from varying definitions, data sources and methodologies. Some studies and national statistics report the amount of plastics collected for recycling relative to total waste generated, while others use output-based rates that measure the share of plastics processed and effectively recycled into secondary materials (i.e., after accounting for recycling losses). Additional discrepancies may stem from how informal recycling is accounted for, whether energy recovery is included, and the treatment of exported waste. These factors cause substantial variability in reported rates, making careful attention to these definitional and methodological differences critical when interpreting data and comparing performance across countries and studies.
For the purposes of this Outlook, only plastics that are effectively recycled are counted in the recycled end-of-life category. However, there may be inconsistencies where the Outlook references national statistics or targets, e.g. recycling rates that often refer to plastics collected for recycling rather than those effectively recycled.
2.5.2. Expanding the coverage of waste collection is a priority
The data shown in the previous section suggests that APT countries vary widely in their current capacities in ensuring safe plastic waste management, a key factor in reducing plastic leakage and pollution. The Plus Three countries and Singapore are largely at, or moving towards, an advanced stage of waste management, with high rates of municipal and non-municipal waste collection, as well as environmentally safe treatment and substantial plastics recycling rates. On the other hand, in most other APT countries, notably most ASEAN countries but also China, insufficient coverage of waste collection and inadequate waste treatment infrastructure exacerbate plastic leakage. Notable efforts have been made alongside economic development in several APT countries in recent years. Further improvements are needed especially in contexts of rapid growth in waste generation.
Waste management performance and infrastructure can be assessed along two dimensions: collection and end-of-life fates. This section details current performance in the APT for ensuring solid waste collection. Table 2.5 compares the current waste management infrastructure and performance in the APT for two main indicators: the shares of waste that is collected for MSW and for non-MSW (i.e. industrial as well as agricultural waste).
Status of waste collection systems in APT countries, as of end 2023
Note: Achieving high waste collection rates is paramount to reducing pollution, but by itself it does not guarantee environmentally sound waste management. Without adequate treatment or disposal infrastructure, collected waste may still be mismanaged (i.e. dumped, burned, or leaked into the environment).
Source: Authors’ inventories; see more information in the technical document (OECD, 2025[10]).
The incomplete coverage of MSW and non-MSW collection represents a significant gap in the APT region. A broad and effective waste collection system is a foundational first step to preventing plastic leakage to the environment. Where waste is not collected (or when it is collected but there is no access to treatment options), it usually ends up in the environment through littering or dumping onto land or in waterways or may be open burned, contributing to air pollution (OECD, 2022[1]).
There is a large untapped potential to strengthen municipal solid waste (MSW) collection. There is a wide disparity in MSW collection rates across APT countries. Only five (Malaysia, Singapore, China, Japan, Korea) out of the 13 APT countries currently have waste collection systems that serve more than 90% of the population, while Brunei, Thailand and Viet Nam have solid waste collection systems serving more than 70% of the population. On the other hand, waste collection in Indonesia, Myanmar and the Philippines can be markedly improved (current coverage of 50-70% of the population), while in Cambodia and Lao PDR more than half of the population is not covered by any system of solid waste collection.
Waste collection in rural and remote areas remains an important challenge in many APT countries. Establishing effective waste collection requires adapting to highly diverse local contexts, including population density across urban and rural areas, the heterogeneity of household, commercial and industrial waste streams, and the management of specialised waste such as hazardous and medical waste. The region’s varied geographies present additional structural challenges: archipelagic countries like Indonesia and the Philippines need to manage 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. These physical constraints compound institutional and financial challenges and must be taken into account in policy design.
Similarly, non-municipal solid waste (non-MSW) collection can also be enhanced. Only Singapore, Japan and Korea operate comprehensive systems for non-MSW collection, while Malaysia and China are developing them. Other APT countries either lack wide-scale formal systems for non-MSW collection, or they have started to implement them but the data on their performance is not available. As non-MSW streams are often substantial in volume and can include hazardous or hard-to-recycle materials, their effective management is critical for reducing pollution and advancing circular economy goals.
2.5.3. Policies and infrastructure for waste treatment remain largely inadequate in many APT countries
This section details current performance in the APT for core areas of intervention to promote waste recycling as a disposal option, provide treatment options for non-recyclable waste (incineration and sanitary landfills), implement pollution prevention measures, as well as improve wastewater treatment. Table 2.6 compares the current waste treatment infrastructure and performance in the APT.
End-of-life fates and waste treatment infrastructure status in APT countries, as of end 2023
Source: Authors’ inventories; see more information in the technical document (OECD, 2025[10]).
There are large opportunities to improve national policies and infrastructure to reduce levels of mismanaged waste. In most ASEAN countries, sanitary landfills remain the exception rather than the norm. Among the APT countries, only five currently have an advanced system where more than 90% of the country’s waste destined for landfills is disposed of in sanitary landfills (Brunei, Singapore, China, Japan, Korea). Open dumps, residual containment units and controlled dumping are common alternatives in the region (OECD, 2025[10]). Yet, sanitary landfilling is an important element of environmentally sound waste management, as it can mitigate pollution and soil or groundwater contamination, assuming appropriate maintenance (Box 2.2). In countries with currently high levels of waste mismanagement, such as due to disposal in dumpsites or burning in open pits, sanitary landfills can play an important role to safely dispose of plastic waste that cannot be recycled (OECD, 2022[1]; Velis and Cook, 2021[11]).
Brunei's municipal solid waste (MSW) management has evolved significantly over the past decade. While landfilling remains the primary disposal method, the country has made strides in modernising its infrastructure. Historically, Brunei’s MSW was disposed of in sites lacking leachate treatment and gas collection systems, leading to environmental concerns such as the release of toxic gases (Shams, Guo and Juani, 2014[12]) and potential soil and groundwater contamination. In response, the government commissioned the Sungai Paku Engineered Landfill in 2014, spanning 104-hectares. Today, this sanitary landfill facility receives more than 90% of the nation’s MSW. However, the landfill is projected to reach its capacity by 2030, underscoring the need for new solutions and a shift to more circular approaches (Akenji et al., 2019[13]). Brunei plans to build a waste-to-energy incineration facility and to make efforts to reduce per capita waste generation (VietnamPlus, 2023[14]; Akenji et al., 2019[13]).
Waste-to-energy (WtE) incineration may need to be considered to treat non-recoverable waste; however, waste-to-energy infrastructure remains largely in its infancy in all ASEAN countries except in Singapore. High capital and operating costs, the high-moisture content of MSW and limited private investment are cited as key obstacles (OECD, 2025[10]). A considerable volume of plastic waste is still incinerated without energy recovery in the ASEAN, often in low-efficiency facilities (or through open burning), contributing to air pollution and GHG emissions without delivering energy benefits. In contrast, the Plus Three use WtE extensively. In Japan, close to 80% of MSW is incinerated, mostly with energy recovery. Korea also operates WtE plants integrated with district heating networks and employs advanced waste segregation policies to reserve incineration for non-recyclable fractions. China has seen rapid WtE expansions in recent years, particularly in urban centres to reduce dependence on landfilling, although there are concerns over generated GHG emissions and pollution (Liu et al., 2024[15]).
Modern WtE plants with advanced air pollution control measures and appropriate siting away from the dense populations can help countries shrink landfill amounts and generate energy. However, such infrastructure must be introduced carefully to minimise environmental and health concerns and prevent lock-in effects in the long term. Cost-benefit analyses can prove useful to determine appropriate WtE investments in each local context, accounting for environmental, economic, social and health dimensions. Crucially, WtE development should proceed in parallel with waste reduction policies and the rollout of segregated waste collection for recyclables and organic waste, to ensure that WtE only focuses on non-recyclable waste with high calorific value.
In parallel, Refuse‑Derived Fuel (RDF) is gaining ground in APT countries, as a flexible alternative to traditional incineration.3 RDF processes non‑recyclable, high‑calorific waste (including mixed plastics): it involves shredding, drying and pelletizing municipal solid waste so it can be co‑fired in industrial boilers or cement kilns. The Asia‑Pacific region is expected to dominate the RDF market due to rapid urbanization, increasing waste generation and government support (Data Insights Market, 2025[16]). Within ASEAN, early-stage RDF projects are underway in countries like Thailand, Indonesia and the Philippines. This rapid adoption is driven by its lower capital intensity compared to full‑scale WtE plants and compatibility with existing industrial facilities. However, there are important concerns that RDF streams rich in plastic waste may contain persistent organic pollutants or toxic additives, raising health and environmental concerns (International Pollutants Elimination Network, 2022[17]).
The current landscape on recycling policies and performance in the APT region is heterogenous, with large discrepancies between countries with more advanced waste management systems (Japan, Korea) and most ASEAN countries. In APT countries with advanced plastic waste recycling, government-coordinated recycling systems form an integral part of waste management infrastructure. Through segregated collection, material recovery facilities, co-ordination and standardisation, and widespread recycling hubs with sufficient capacity and innovative technologies, these countries can capture and recycle a substantial amount of plastic waste. This is reflected in the recycling rates for plastics achieved by Japan (14%), China (14%) and Thailand (13%) above the global average (10%). In most other APT countries, plastic recycling is growing but is severely hindered by challenges such as limited, small-scale infrastructure, lack of government coordination to maximise the recyclability of domestic plastic waste, as well as an important reliance of the informal waste sector.4
Overall, this review of the current policy landscape and infrastructure in the APT shows that waste management remains dominated by low-tech, environmentally damaging methods, highlighting the urgent need for investments in formal and safe infrastructure that can help to minimise the environmental footprint of residual waste streams. The establishment of effective legal frameworks and capacity to enforce policies to address waste mismanagement is also critical. Recycling systems and infrastructure remain under-developed in most APT countries; the next section reviews the current landscape relating to policies to promote recycling and demand for recycled plastics.
In addition to solid waste management, the development of wastewater collection and treatment infrastructure is also important to reduce pollution from a range of pollutants, including microplastics (see also Section 2.6). Uncollected and untreated wastewater, as well as stormwater and road runoff, are the main pathways to the environment for microplastics coming from road transport, paints or synthetic clothing (OECD, 2021[18]). Nine out of thirteen APT countries do not have wastewater collection and treatment systems serving at least 60% of the population. In these countries, establishing systems for safe sanitation is a major human health and environmental priority, which can also indirectly help to close one pathway of plastic leakage to the environment. In APT countries at a more advanced level of development, there may be opportunities to prioritise the development of sewerage networks linked to wastewater treatment plants with modern treatment capabilities, or decentralised wastewater treatment systems to serve remote areas (see Box 2.3 for the case example of Japan’s Johkasou), to help close one of the leakage pathways for microplastics and other micropollutants in the APT.
Johkasou is an advanced, decentralised wastewater treatment system designed to treat both black waters (human waste) and grey waters (domestic wastewater), enabling the safe discharge of treated wastewater into the environment. It plays a critical role in Japan’s sanitation strategy for non-sewered areas, where extending centralised sewerage networks would be expensive and technically challenging to construct and maintain. A Johkasou system offers a cost-effective alternative, with lower per capita investment costs than public sewer systems (about USD 8,000 for the installation of a household system) (Japan Water Forum, 2021[19]). In Japan, it is now mandatory to install a Johkasou system at new or under renovation construction outside of areas served by centralised sewerage systems (ADB, 2021[20]). The national government and local municipalities provide subsidies to homeowners for the installation (covering 40% or up to 90% of the costs), while owners (households) are responsible for ongoing operation and maintenance (Government of Japan, n.d.[21]). To ensure effectiveness and environmental compliance, annual inspections are required by law.
Source: (Endo and Koga, 2021[22]).
2.5.4. Informal waste workers are prevalent in many ASEAN countries and China
Informal recycling refers to waste recovery activities that are not supported or recognised by the public sector’s waste management authorities. Activities range from waste collection and separation (i.e. “waste picking”), to more “downstream” recycling and processing. At least 15 million people worldwide work in the informal waste sector, collecting and recovering recyclable waste materials (Medina, 2008[23]).
Informal waste workers play a central role in waste collection and recycling in many APT countries. Recycling plastics requires multiple steps, whose organisation varies across countries. While in most high-income countries there are extensive formal waste collection systems with capital-intensive processing for collected waste, this is not the case in many in lower- and middle-income countries, including in the APT region. Informal waste workers form the backbone of plastic waste collection and sorting, particularly for high-value materials such as PET. These workers operate outside government-supported waste management frameworks and typically perform labour-intensive activities such as collecting, separating and transporting recyclable materials.
Informal systems are prevalent across most APT countries, especially lower- and middle-income countries where economic incentives drive the recovery of valuable plastics. By targeting high-value waste directly at the point of disposal, informal workers can achieve low process losses. This is different to formal systems, that often collect contaminated or mixed waste streams that need to be removed (these are known as recycling losses). As such, despite limited resources, informal recyclers can make a significant contribution to plastic recovery rates: in informal waste systems, waste pickers selectively target high-value plastics at the point of collection, reducing the recycling losses later in the process. Figure 2.9 uses information from earlier studies to show amounts of plastic waste collected for recycling and recycling losses for various aggregated regions.
Volume of plastic waste collected for recycling in Mt, 2019
Note: Data for individual APT countries is not available, nor an aggregate for ASEAN, which is included in “Asia excl. China & India”.
Source: Adapted from OECD Global Plastics Outlook Database (OECD, 2022[1]); (Cottom, Cook and Velis, 2020[24]).
The benefits of the activities of the informal waste sector are accompanied by substantial environmental, social and health concerns. Downstream operations such as the recycling and treatment of waste often use crude and unsafe processes. These may include burning products (such as e-waste) to recover valuable metals, unsafe handling of hazardous waste, and uncontrolled disposal of waste of low value. Such methods, such as discarding, dumping or burning, lead to emissions of toxic substances, environmental pollution, and elevated risks for workers and surrounding communities (see also Box 2.4).
Informal waste workers are also among the most vulnerable populations. Many come from marginalised or vulnerable groups, including migrants, women, the unemployed, children, and people with disabilities. Their work is often poorly paid, precarious and conducted in unsafe conditions, sometimes both working and living directly on dumpsites (Medina, 2008[23]). Health impacts include exposure to hazardous emissions from open burning (Velis and Cook, 2021[11]). The occupation is particularly socially precarious as workers are rarely covered by social protection or health insurance. Without legal recognition or social protection, informal workers are exposed to exploitation, lack access to healthcare or worker protections, and face frequent discrimination.
Integrating and professionalising the informal sector into formal waste management systems remains a major policy challenge for many APT countries. This is later discussed in chapter 7 of this Outlook.
The open burning of MSW, that contains plastics, is common in the APT and is a significant contributor to pollution and health impacts. This practice is particularly widespread in rural and remote areas lacking regular waste collection services and in countries where formal waste treatment infrastructure is limited or non-existent. The open burning of waste typically takes place at the source, near households or business venues, or at non-sanitary landfills, either intentionally or unintentionally. Households often resort to burning as a low-cost method to reduce waste volume or to generate heat, typically without awareness of the associated environmental or health risks (Velis and Cook, 2021[11]; United Nations Environment Programme, 2024[25]).
In 2019, an estimated 21% of global MSW, equivalent to 565 Mt, was openly burned, with the bulk of this occurring in the Global South, including across many APT countries (Wiedinmyer, Yokelson and Gullett, 2014[26]). Mixed plastic waste is a significant contributor to harmful emissions during this process. The combustion of plastics releases a complex mixture of pollutants, including black carbon, a short-lived climate pollutant with high global warming potential. It also emits carbon dioxide, persistent organic pollutants such as polychlorinated dibenzodioxins and dibenzofurans, and heavy metals (Gullett et al., 2009[27]; Wiedinmyer, Yokelson and Gullett, 2014[26]).
These pollutants not only contribute to regional climate change and air quality degradation, but also present serious occupational and public health risks. Numerous studies have documented respiratory and cardiovascular impacts, as well as increased cancer risk, among populations exposed to burning sites (Velis and Cook, 2021[11]; Wiedinmyer, Yokelson and Gullett, 2014[26]). Vulnerable groups face the greatest risks, including women, children and informal waste workers. The emissions are carried cross-border through the atmosphere and marine channels. Open burning is also a gendered issue because, in many households, particularly in low-income and rural areas, women are primarily responsible for domestic waste management. This places them at disproportionate risk of long-term exposure to harmful emissions, compounding existing gender-based health and social vulnerabilities.
Despite the scale of the issue, public awareness around the risks of open burning remains low, and regulatory responses are inconsistent. Addressing these impacts will require an integrated approach that improves formal waste collection, strengthens environmental enforcement, and ensures inclusive, gender-sensitive public education on safe waste practices.
2.5.5. Trade in plastic waste is significant in some APT countries
The regulatory environments that govern markets for secondary plastics have undergone important transformations (OECD, 2022[1]). Since 2013, China has imposed several drastic restrictions on imported plastic waste to increase quality, reduce leakage of plastic waste and promote the recycling of domestically collected waste.5 The “Green Fence” policy began in 2013 and banned imports of mixed plastic waste that contained more than 1.5% contamination with non-recyclables. Since 2017, the “National Sword” policy has tightened this restriction to 0.5% contamination (Wang et al., 2020[28]; Brooks, Wang and Jambeck, 2018[29]). As these new levels are challenging to meet, the policy effectively banned most waste imports in China, resulting in a decline from an estimated 11.2 Mt in 2012 to 0.35 Mt in 2020. These and subsequent import restrictions have shifted trade away from China to new markets, while simultaneously decreasing international plastic waste trade volumes and increasing the need for domestic recycling capacities. Between 2014 and 2020, the global share of plastic waste exported declined by an estimated 58%, from 15.5 Mt in 2014 to 6.5 Mt in 2020 (Brown, Laubinger and Börkey, 2025[30]).
Modifications in international law, such as the amendments to the Basel Convention and the OECD Decision on Transboundary Movements of Waste, are expected to reinforce these trends and lead to further onshoring of waste plastic recycling in advanced economies. (Brown, Laubinger and Börkey, 2025[30]) show evidence that while the introduction of additional controls on traded plastic waste and scrap seems to have contributed to reducing the trade volume, some OECD countries continue to export most of their plastic waste and scrap to non-OECD countries, particularly to several Southeast Asian countries. Malaysia was the largest export destination (0.6 Mt), and Viet Nam and Indonesia each received more than 0.2 Mt in 2023. These values however remain small compared to the overall domestic production of waste (and scrap for recycling).
These policy changes also affect several other countries importing plastic waste, including in the APT region. In response to the growing pressures from imported plastic waste on customs offices and domestic treatment, several emerging export destinations have set their own restrictions and bans. Viet Nam, Malaysia, and Thailand all implemented import restrictions over the course of 2018 as imports substantially rose from early 2017 to mid-2018, respectively by 203%, 440%, and even 1141%. This led to decreases in exports to these countries in the second half of 2018 (Wang et al., 2020[28]). Exports to Malaysia and Viet Nam continued to rise again in 2019, representing an estimated overall increase of 500% and 221%, respectively, between 2016 and end of 2019.6
In 2022, the APT region imported about 890 kt of plastic waste (Table 2.7). The ASEAN net imports are even higher at 1,138 kt. For some countries plastic waste imports represent a significant share of total domestically held plastic waste. Within the APT region, this share is highest for Rest of ASEAN – HIC & UMIC, where imports equal 15% of the plastic waste generated domestically (777 kt vs 5.2 Mt).
Note: Rest of ASEAN – LMIC includes Cambodia, Lao PDR, Myanmar, Philippines, Viet Nam; Rest of ASEAN – HIC & UMIC includes Brunei Darussalam, Malaysia, Singapore.
Sources: See Chapter 1 for a detailed list of sources.
Plastic pollution is a pervasive issue, globally as in the APT. This Outlook focuses on the quantification of the leakage of macroplastics, i.e. recognisable items such as littered products and packaging, including from marine activities such as lost fishing gear. In 2022, plastic leakage to the environment in APT countries reached 8.4 Mt, equivalent to more than one-third of global, which is estimated at 22.1 Mt.
While not discussed in detail in this Regional Outlook, microplastic leakage is also an important part of plastic pollution, in the APT and globally. Microplastics are generally smaller than 5 mm in diameter (OECD, 2021[18]). It is estimated that APT countries contribute to one-third of total microplastic leakage occurring annually (2.7 Mt in 2019). However, estimates of microplastic leakage remain imprecise due to data limitations. Important contributors are the fragmentation of larger plastics during use (e.g. from tyres and road transport, paint wear, the abrasion of shoe soles, losses from construction and demolition activities, textile abrasion, losses from artificial turfs, fishing nets and fishing gear), losses of primary plastic pellets during production or handling, and microbeads intentionally added to products. The size of the plastic items or particles can influence, among other elements, their transport in the environment, where they are deposited and their deposition rates.
Plastics have been accumulating in the aquatic environments since the start of mass industrial production of plastics in the 1950s. As of 2022, 65 Mt of plastics had accumulated in aquatic environments (48 Mt in river and lakes and 16 Mt in oceans) in the APT. The APT accounts for 38% of total leakage to rivers, lakes and oceans globally. Figure 2.10 summarises flows of plastics into and within aquatic environments.
In APT countries, freshwaters are key pollution hotspots. Over 90% of plastics entering aquatic environments in the APT goes into rivers and lakes, and while direct inputs from marine coastal areas only account for 8% of total annual aquatic leakage. Nearly 50% of plastics entering rivers and lakes is denser than water and tends to sink rapidly, while the remainder floats (e.g. packaging with lightweight polymers, or heavier polymers in less dense plastic products that can trap air) and can drift downstream (43% of the total plastic leaked to aquatic environments).
At the same time, marine plastic pollution is a key issue in the APT, due to a combination of factors. Firstly, the region is rich in riverine systems, which are known as key conduits for plastics to reach marine environment, globally. Secondly, the region’s dense populations, vast coastlines and frequent extreme weather events can accelerate the movements of mismanaged plastics from land and rivers to oceans. While only 8% of plastics entering aquatic environments in the APT arrive from the coast (compared to the global average of 5%), this figure reaches 14% when excluding China, Japan and Korea, emphasising a more pressing issue of coastal pollution and higher likelihood dispersal in marine environment in Southeast Asia specifically.
Marine plastic pollution threatens biodiversity and leads to economic damages, with significant long-term implications. The slow rate at which plastics move through rivers means that plastics that leak to rivers today will keep on flowing towards the ocean, even decades after the initial leakage. Moreover, part of the stock is slowly broken down to microplastics, which are more likely to be ingested by aquatic species and are more difficult to recover. Marine plastic debris threatens coastal ecosystems, fisheries and tourism in the APT, and poses transboundary challenges as plastics travel across borders. Coastlines in the APT border some of the richest ocean ecosystems in the world. The ASEAN is a biodiversity hotspot, home to 18% of the world’s fauna and flora species, more than one-third of the world’s total mangrove forests and about one-third of coral reefs surface areas (ASEAN Biodiversity Centre, n.d.[31]; Blanton et al., 2024[32]; Burke, Selig and Spalding, 2002[33]). Plastic pollution, especially in the marine environment, harms the many communities and companies in the APT that rely on the ocean for livelihoods and production.
The economic impact of plastic pollution is already significant, including losses in sectors such as marine tourism, fisheries and aquaculture, as well as marine transportation and shipping. The ocean economy plays a crucial role in several APT countries’ GDP, contributing as much as 28% in nations like Indonesia (Asian Development Bank, 2021[34]; OECD, 2021[35]). The damage caused by marine litter to marine economies in the Asia-Pacific region has increased eightfold since 2008 and reached USD 10.8 billion annually by 2015 (McIlgorm et al., 2022[36]). The effects are particularly harsh on riverine and coastal ASEAN nations, which face a disproportionately high vulnerability to marine debris alongside limited capacity to adapt.
Notes: Limited data and current understanding of flows makes it challenging to model the overall picture, so there are possibilities of imprecisions in the numbers presented.
Source: OECD Global Plastics Outlook Database, https://doi.org/10.1787/c0821f81-en.
References
[20] ADB (2021), “Spotlight on Japan’s “Johkasou” Sanitation System: A Model for Asia”, Asian Development Bank, https://www.adb.org/news/videos/spotlight-japan-johkasou-sanitation-system.
[13] 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.
[31] ASEAN Biodiversity Centre (n.d.), ASEAN Region: small in size but globally significant, https://www.aseanbiodiversity.org/asean-biodiversity/.
[34] Asian Development Bank (2021), Financing the Ocean Back to Health in Southeast Asia:, Asian Development Bank, Manila, Philippines, https://doi.org/10.22617/tcs210453-2.
[32] Blanton, A. et al. (2024), “Ecotourism and mangrove conservation in Southeast Asia: Current trends and perspectives”, Journal of Environmental Management, Vol. 365, p. 121529, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2024.121529.
[3] Borrelle, S. et al. (2020), “Predicted growth in plastic waste exceeds efforts to mitigate plastic pollution”, Science, Vol. 369/6510, pp. 1515-1518, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aba3656.
[29] Brooks, A., S. Wang and J. Jambeck (2018), “The Chinese import ban and its impact on global plastic waste trade”, Science Advances, Vol. 4/6, https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aat0131.
[30] Brown, A., F. Laubinger and P. Börkey (2025), “Monitoring trade in plastic waste and scrap 2025”, OECD Environment Working Papers, No. 259, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/3ac3688c-en.
[33] Burke, L., E. Selig and M. Spalding (2002), “Reefs at risk in Southeast Asia.”, World Resources Institute, Washington.
[24] Cottom, J., E. Cook and C. Velis (2020), “Spatio-temporal quantification of plastic pollution”, University of Leeds, UK, https://plasticpollution.leeds.ac.uk/toolkits/spot/.
[16] Data Insights Market (2025), Refuse-Derived Fuel (RDF) Industry’s Growth Dynamics and Insights, https://www.datainsightsmarket.com/reports/refuse-derived-fuel-rdf-97299#.
[2] Edelson, M., D. Håbesland and R. Traldi (2021), “Uncertainties in global estimates of plastic waste highlight the need for monitoring frameworks”, Marine Pollution Bulletin, Vol. 171, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2021.112720.
[22] Endo, S. and S. Koga (2021), Johkasou – Wastewater Management in a Local Municipality in Japan, Asian Development Bank Institute, https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/publication/743241/adbi-cs2021-04.pdf.
[21] Government of Japan (n.d.), Subsidy Programs for Johkasou Installation, https://www.env.go.jp/recycle/jokaso/en/pamph/pdf/wts_14.pdf.
[27] Gullett, B. et al. (2009), “PCDD/F, PBDD/F, and PBDE Emissions from Open Burning of a Residential Waste Dump”, Environmental Science & Technology, Vol. 44/1, pp. 394-399, https://doi.org/10.1021/es902676w.
[17] International Pollutants Elimination Network (2022), Plastic Waste Fuels: Serious implications across South East Asia, as Australia kicks the “waste” can down the road, https://ipen.org/sites/default/files/documents/ipen-plastic-waste-fuels-v1_1aw-en.pdf (accessed on 15 July 2025).
[5] Jambeck, J. et al. (2015), “Plastic waste inputs from land into the ocean”, Science, Vol. 347/6223, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1260352.
[19] Japan Water Forum (2021), The Outcomes of the 3rd JWF Webinar, https://www.waterforum.jp/en/news/18331 (accessed on 16 May 2025).
[4] Lebreton, L. and A. Andrady (2019), “Future scenarios of global plastic waste generation and disposal”, Palgrave Communications, Vol. 5/1, p. 6, https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-018-0212-7.
[15] Liu, B. et al. (2024), “Refocusing on effectiveness over expansion in urban waste–energy–carbon development in China”, Nature Energy, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-024-01683-8.
[36] 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] Medina, M. (2008), “The informal recycling sector in developing countries : organizing waste pickers to enhance their impact”, World Bank Group, http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/227581468156575228/The-informal-recycling-sector-in-developing-countries-organizing-waste-pickers-to-enhance-their-impact.
[10] OECD (2025), Inventory of the plastic policy landscape in ASEAN Plus Three Countries.
[1] OECD (2022), Global Plastics Outlook: Economic Drivers, Environmental Impacts and Policy Options, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/de747aef-en.
[18] OECD (2021), Policies to Reduce Microplastics Pollution in Water: Focus on Textiles and Tyres, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/7ec7e5ef-en.
[35] OECD (2021), “Sustainable Ocean Economy Country Diagnostics of Indonesia”, OECD Development Perspectives, No. 5, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9bc36234-en.
[9] Ramadan, A. and E. Sembiring (2023), “Potential of Plastic Waste Leakage to Environment in Indonesian Final Disposal”, IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, Vol. 1257/1, p. 012001, https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/1257/1/012001.
[12] Shams, S., Z. Guo and R. Juani (2014), “Integrated and sustainable solid waste management for Brunei Darussalam”, 5th Brunei International Conference on Engineering and Technology (BICET 2014), https://doi.org/10.1049/cp.2014.1066.
[6] SWITCH-Asia (2025), Plastic Policies Indonesia. Country Profile., https://www.switch-asia.eu/site/assets/files/4409/plastic_policies_id.pdf.
[25] United Nations Environment Programme (2024), Global Waste Management Outlook 2024: Beyond an age of waste - Turning rubbish into a resource, Nairobi, https://wedocs.unep.org/20.500.11822/44939.
[11] Velis, C. and E. Cook (2021), “Mismanagement of Plastic Waste through Open Burning with Emphasis on the Global South: A Systematic Review of Risks to Occupational and Public Health”, Environmental Science & Technology, Vol. 55/11, pp. 7186-7207, https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.0c08536.
[14] VietnamPlus (2023), “Brunei plans to build waste-to-electricity incinerator plant”, VietnamPlus, Vietnam News Agency, https://en.vietnamplus.vn/brunei-plans-to-build-wastetoelectricity-incinerator-plant/250137.vnp.
[28] Wang, C. et al. (2020), “Structure of the global plastic waste trade network and the impact of China’s import Ban”, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, Vol. 153, p. 104591, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.104591.
[26] Wiedinmyer, C., R. Yokelson and B. Gullett (2014), “Global Emissions of Trace Gases, Particulate Matter, and Hazardous Air Pollutants from Open Burning of Domestic Waste”, Environmental Science & Technology, Vol. 48/16, pp. 9523-9530, https://doi.org/10.1021/es502250z.
[7] World Bank (2021), Plastic Waste Discharges from Rivers and Coastlines in Indonesia.
[8] World Economic Forum (2020), Radically Reducing Plastic Pollution in Indonesia: A Multistakeholder Action Plan. National Plastic Action Partnership.
← 1. PET, mainly used for packaging, will become waste rapidly after its initial use. By contrast, PVC is mainly used for applications with long lifetimes.
← 2. The difference between both numbers are recycling losses, which are significant in all countries; this can be driven by e.g. poor quality of the waste that is offered for recycling, or by capacity constraints in recycling plants (OECD, 2022[1]).
← 3. In this report, refuse-derived fuel is considered part of waste incineration.
← 4. Chapter 7 discusses options to scale up recycling as well as to formalise and professionalise informal waste workers.
← 5. As shown above, China remains a significant trader of plastics products.
← 6. Exports to Türkiye also increased significantly.