A speech at Singapore’s local weather rally final month delivered by an activist has re-ignited hypothesis that there’s a purpose why a “polluter-pays” scheme that might make producers liable for the complete lifecycle of their merchandise is taking so lengthy to return to fruition: {industry} lobbying.
The concept corporations should pay for managing the waste created after shoppers have used their merchandise – an idea often known as Prolonged Producer Accountability (EPR) – was mooted in Singapore near 20 years in the past, however questions are nonetheless being requested about why it has been delayed. The method at present solely applies to e-waste producers and can be prolonged to cowl aluminium drink cans and plastic bottles within the type of a beverage container return scheme in April 2025.
Civil society representatives that Eco-Enterprise spoke to say that, over time, there was an absence of accountability to stakeholders past {industry}, which has led to pointless hypothesis. The Singapore Manufacturing Federation (SMF), which represents the pursuits of the island’s manufacturing {industry}, together with the packaging sector by way of the Packaging Council of Singapore informed Eco-Enterprise it’s “not concerned with the delay of the EPR scheme”.
In its reply, SMF stated that the council is in alignment with the instructions set forth by the Nationwide Atmosphere Company (NEA), the formal authority that consults with {industry} on the EPR framework. “Because the affiliation for the packaging {industry}, we proactively advocate for our members to embrace sustainable practices and optimise the supplies used of their packaging,” stated Might Yap, chairman of the packaging council.
In its response to Eco-Enterprise, Singapore’s surroundings company didn’t affirm or refute the claims made on the local weather rally however stated that in creating insurance policies to handle packaging waste, it “research what is finished in different jurisdictions, consults {industry} and adopts sensible measures which can be suited to the native scenario.”
Voluntary settlement for producers ‘ineffective’: activist
The prices in opposition to the packaging {industry} have been made in a speech on the local weather rally final month by co-founder of environmental marketing campaign group LepakInSG Ho Xiang Tian. Ho stated that when NEA first stated it was contemplating the EPR scheme in 2005 as an answer to the nation’s waste burden, the packaging {industry} had “blocked” that and proposed a voluntary initiative referred to as the Singapore Packaging Settlement (SPA).
Ho described this programme, which has attracted criticism from {industry} observers up to now for missing “enamel”, as “ineffective”, saying that “it decreased lower than one per cent of packaging waste in Singapore over the 13 years it was energetic”.
At SG Local weather Rally 2023, co-founder of environmental marketing campaign group LepakInSG Ho Xiang Tian (proper) stated in his speech that the packaging {industry} had blocked the Prolonged Producer Accountability Scheme when the nation’s surroundings company stated about 20 years in the past that it was contemplating the method. Picture: Firdaus Firlany
Referring to Singapore’s one and solely landfill that’s anticipated to be full by 2035, he stated: “Within the meantime, Semakau landfill is working out of area. And when a brand new landfill must be constructed for our waste, it’s the taxpayers that may pay for it, not the packaging {industry} which has been profiting off this.”
There are at present no plans to construct new landfills in Singapore, however the authorities of the land-scarce metropolis state have been trying into prolonging Semakau’s lifespan.
EPR schemes exist in different developed nations comparable to Sweden, the place the idea was born in 1990, in addition to in Germany, Japan, Taiwan and South Korea. Recycling charges have elevated in each nation the place EPR insurance policies have been launched. For a developed nation, Singapore’s home recycling price is low – and reached a 10-year low final 12 months.
Packaging waste accounts for about one-third of Singapore’s home waste stream. Greater than half (55 per cent) of Singapore’s packaging waste is made out of plastics, simply 6 per cent of which was recycled in 2022. The remainder is incinerated.
Singapore’s lengthy highway to EPR
2005: The federal government means that Singapore ought to undertake the EPR precept to scale back waste throughout a overview of its Singapore Inexperienced Plan.
2007: A voluntary joint initiative often known as the Singapore Packaging Settlement (SPA) was launched as an alternative, with a rise in prices that might finally be handed on to shoppers reportedly cited as the principle barrier to an EPR coverage.
-Beneath the voluntary programme, the {industry} would work with the nation’s surroundings company to scale back packaging over a 5-year interval.
2018: Singapapore Parliament discusses the EPR scheme.
2019: Singapore’s inaugural Zero Waste Masterplan, which mentions regulatory approaches, together with the EPR scheme for packaging waste, is launched.
2020: SPA concludes.
– Beneath the voluntary initiative, NEA says greater than 200 organisations had cumulatively saved round 62,000 tonnes of packaging waste, amounting to S$150 million (US$110 million) in prices.
2021: The Obligatory Packaging Reporting (MPR) scheme and an industry-led Packaging Partnership Programme (PPP) are launched. An EPR scheme for e-waste formally kicks in.
2023: A disposable provider bag cost is carried out throughout two-thirds of grocery store shops islandwide.
2025: The EPR can be prolonged to beverage containers. NEA says it’s learning the feasibility of making use of the method to broader packaging waste sorts.
In its reply, NEA listed out an in depth timeline of the way it regularly prolonged the EPR scheme, whereas explaining that the SPA was “a primary step to construct up {industry} consciousness and capabilities in decreasing packaging waste”.
Statistics it cited point out that greater than 200 organisations had cumulatively saved round 62,000 tonnes of packaging waste, amounting to S$150 million (US$110) in prices. That is greater than 10 per cent of home packaging waste thrown out in Singapore, in line with Eco-Enterprise’ calculations.
SPA concluded in 2020 and was changed in 2021 by a scheme that mandated packaging reporting, and in the identical 12 months the industry-led Packaging Partnership Programme (PPP) launched to encourage companies to scale back waste.
Within the order of occasions it cited, NEA highlighted how the introduction of a value on plastic luggage in two-thirds of supermarkets on the island in July this 12 months serves as a “behavioural nudge” on the buyer entrance. It stated that past beverage containers, it’s learning the feasibility of making use of the EPR scheme to broader packaging waste sorts, and emphasised that this can be accomplished so with an method much like what it has taken to this point – with consideration of Singapore’s native context by way of session with related stakeholders.
“Such correct planning helps to attain desired outcomes in a simpler and sustainable method,” stated the company.
Client buy-in
Sources Eco-Enterprise spoke to for this story stated that the {industry} has beforehand voiced concern over the standard of recyclables they might be required to make use of of their merchandise from an EPR scheme.
Excessive contamination charges of packaging disposed of in Singapore’s recycling bins – round 40 per cent of recyclables are unrecyclable as a result of they’re too soiled or moist, in line with NEA information – and the dearth of recycling infrastructure within the land scarce nation have been amongst issues raised.
However, the beverage container return scheme, initially slated for launch in 2022, has confronted quite a few delays, reportedly attributable to {industry} requests for extra time to arrange.
One of the crucial outspoken voices on EPR in Singapore, in line with sources aware of the method, has been Coca-Cola, an organization that has opposed beverage return schemes in different jurisdictions together with Australia, Europe and the US up to now.
In a press release to Eco-Enterprise, the comfortable drinks model stated it supported the introduction of a “well-designed” beverage container return scheme in Singapore.
Such a scheme needs to be “consumer-focused and guarantee environmental, social, and financial viability, which would require robust cooperation from a variety of stakeholders, together with the federal government, {industry}, retailers, and shoppers,” the corporate stated.
Huileng Tan, govt director of waste discount non-profit Zero Waste SG, stated that the idea of a deposit refund scheme was mooted in 2019, and even after the scheme was introduced to start out in 2022, there was little progress.
“The go-live date was pushed again to 2023, 2024 and now 2025, with out a lot purpose given,” she stated, including that it has been tough to search out public info on the anticipated timeline that the authorities had beforehand introduced.
“Extra constant and thorough engagement on the subject would increase the accountability to stakeholders past {industry}, scale back hypothesis that extra simply comes with the lack of understanding, and maybe do higher justice to any preparation work that’s going down within the lead as much as 2025,” she stated.
