[3/6: What has been done?] SG's plastic use.

What has been done?

Singapore Packaging Agreement (SPA)

SPA is a joint initiative between industry players, non-governmental organizations and the government, with the aim of reducing packaging waste. Packaging waste, a form of single-use plastic, constitutes one-third of household waste in Singapore. SPA is made voluntary to give companies the flexibility to opt for the most cost-efficient method.

Packaging weight benchmarks have been designed for companies to assess their product packaging level with that of similar products from other companies. This allows them to review their packaging practices and cut packaging to a minimum.

However, there is more the SPA can do, notes Ashwin Subramaniam from Gone Adventurin. He wrote on Eco-business, a website that reports on environmental issues, that the decade-old agreement is but in its “infancy stage”, and “lacks quantitative goals in which signatories can work towards.” He cited the example of the European Union Packaging Directive which states clearer objectives: By 2008, at least 55 to 80 per cent by weight of packaging waste must be recycled. He also highlighted that Japan’s Container and Packaging Recycling Law requires all businesses to pay a “recycling fee” for the recycling of their packaging.20

A Straits Times report also showed how 80% empty parcels were sent to online shoppers. This emphasizes that the SPA can still be improved to include e-commerce packaging.

Recognizing the limitations of the Singapore Packaging Agreement, the Government has decided to step in to regulate more stringently the packaging industry through the new Resource Sustainability Act.

Resource Sustainability Act (for Packaging Waste)

From 2020, all companies must report on packaging data and all plans to reduce, reuse or recycle the packaging. This compulsory packaging reporting are expected to lay the groundwork for an Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) framework for managing packaging waste including plastics. The EPR framework will be implemented by 2025.

However, making companies responsible for the plastic packaging they produce has also been a controversial topic. At the World Economic Forum in January 2019, green groups like Greenpeace have criticized consumer products companies for their continued plastic packaging, for “expanding production of single-use plastic and are looking to grow in markets that can't take more plastic”. On the other hand, some consumer products companies have argued that they cannot be blamed for improper plastic waste management. Jim Fitterling of The Dow Chemical Company said, “The plastic waste got there through consumer behavior and people putting it out into the environment.”

National Recycling Programme (NRP)

This programme necessitates that all public waste collectors provide recycling bins and recycling services to all housing estates in Singapore. This includes a commingled recycling system (also known as single-stream recycling), where mixed recyclables are collected and sent to the Materials Recovery Facilities (MRF) for sorting. Then, the recyclables are sent to the recycling facilities for further processing.

The promotion of the #RecycleRight campaign and the 3Rs (Reduce, Reuse and Recycle) through community and school events help to improve environmental awareness, and thus boosts the effectiveness of this programme.

Proponents of the commingled recycling system say that this increases convenience, as people no longer need to separate their waste. A 2014 Sustainability Report by Waste Management (WM) showed that when Madison, Wisconsin switched from a dual-stream recycling to a single-stream one, the amount of recyclables collected soared by 40%.

However, critics say that the risk of contamination runs higher in these recycling systems. A study by WRAP UK found that:

“[There are] quality problems from three sources: householders putting the ‘wrong’ materials into the collection, compaction of the waste which breaks glass into small pieces and tends to bind materials together, and the technical and physical capacity of the MRF to separate materials in the volumes delivered to them.”

In the survey I conducted, many survey respondents also agreed that segregating recyclables would reduce contamination. In my interview with MP Mr Louis Ng, he lamented that the NRP had also left local “Karang guni”s, or Rag-And-Bone men struggling to make a living. Furthermore, their characteristic door-to-door collection meant low contamination and full convenience.

Bottle deposit scheme

A bottle deposit scheme involves consumers paying more for their drink as part of a ‘deposit fee’, but receive their money back when they recycle the bottle. It is currently in effect in 40 countries and 21 US states. Such a system can increase the recycling rate. It was reported that in South Australia, the scheme recycles 80% of cans and bottles - double that of normal roadside recycling.

The bottle deposit scheme will soon be officially in place islandwide in Singapore. In Singapore, ongoing is a “Reverse Vending Machine” initiative to trial this idea. Mr Tan Meng Dui, CEO of NEA, has also said that this scheme is part of a larger plan of “working towards implementing an extended producer responsibility scheme for packaging waste over the next few years”.

It should be noted however, that the scheme operates differently here. There has been no price hike of bottled drinks in Singapore, so the little monetary tokens Singaporeans receive can be regarded as the equivalent of free money. Furthermore, the fact that each vending machine costs over US$10,000 (S$13,500) may another loophole for financial losses.

Other cities have reaped financial benefits from such a scheme. New York, for example, earns US$100 million from its bottle bill yearly.

However, this move has also been criticized as costly and might even hurt recycling. Rick Hindley, executive director of the UK's Aluminium Packaging Recycling Organisation (Alupro) argued that such a system would increase consumer demand for plastics over aluminium cans. This would see a drop in aluminium can recycling rate, which are easier to recycle than plastics, resulting in a possible net increase in greenhouse gas emissions instead.

Some have also criticized that the scheme may leave people only willing to recycle if they are rewarded. This reverses the initial intention of the scheme to make recycling second nature, and instil a spirit of environmental consciousness. Unfortunately Singaporeans are a case in point. A Channel NewsAsia article recently noted that crowds near the reverse vending machine thinned out once the number of recyclables required for a 20cents discount increased from four to twenty.

Still, some Singaporeans have said convenience of use was more important to them than incentives.