Content uploaded by Tomohiro Tasaki
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Tomohiro Tasaki on Jun 12, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
JPN210920081195
Experiences of Japanese Container and
Packaging Recycling Act
T. Tasaki
National Insitute for Environmental Studies, 16-2 Onogawa, Tsukuba 305-8506, Japan
Contact
Tomohiro Tasaki
Research Center for Material Cycles and Waste Management, National Insitute for Environmental Studies
16-2 Onogawa, Tsukuba 305-8506, Japan
Tel: +81-29-850-2988
Faximile: +81-29-850-2830
E-mail: tasaki.tomohiro@nies.go.jp
Executive Summary
Japan put into force its Container and Packaging Recycling Act1 in 1997 and revised it in 2006. This paper
summarizes the Japanese experiences of packaging recycling and the performance of the Recycling Act from the
perspective of a recycling model that includes material flows, monetary flows, and stakeholder behavior. First, the
scheme of the Recycling Act and its history were introduced with discussed points in the process of revising the
Recycling Act. Second, performance of the Recycling Act was described by showing quantitative data, which included
official data that government presented as well as data from our estimation and other studies.
Introduction
Describing and comparing experiences of various recycling schemes in different countries can provide
fundamental insights into which types of recycling systems are most effective. With this objective, Tasaki et al. (2007)
evaluated the Japanese WEEE (waste electrical and electronic equipment) Recycling Act. In this study, to meet the
same objective, the author summarized the Japanese experience of the Container and Packaging Recycling Act and its
performance in terms of material flows, monetary flows, and stakeholder behavior.
The Japanese Container and Packaging Recycling Act
History of the Recycling Act
1 There is no official English name for the Recycling Act. Japan’s Ministry of Environment (MoE) uses “Law for the
Promotion of Sorted Collection and Recycling Containers and Packaging” on its web site, but this study used the
“Container and Packaging Recycling Act” to be more concise.
The Japanese Container and Packaging Recycling Act was enacted in June 1995. At the time, the amount of
wastes had been steadily increasing and the shortage of landfill sites was a serious concern. Containers and packaging
accounted for 60% to 65% of the volume and 20% to 25% of the weight of total municipal solid waste. The Recycling
Act was put into force in April 1997, initially targeting glass bottles, aluminum cans, steel cans, and PET bottles. Plastic
packaging, paper packaging, and cardboard were added as the Act’s targets in April 2000. The appendix to the
Recycling Act stated that, after seven years of enforcement, discussions should be held about revising the Act.
Therefore, from 2004 through 2006, the Central Environment Council of the Ministry of Environment (CEC/MoE), the
Industrial Structure Council of the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (ISC/METI), and a consultation group on
packaging recycling of the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (CPR/MAFF) held discussions, reported on
issues concerning the current Recycling Act, and made proposals for its revision. The revised Recycling Act was
established in 2006 and partially put into force in April 2007, when a scheme for retailers to take packaging waste
prevention measures was introduced, and fully implemented in April 2008, when a mechanism to give economic
incentives to municipalities to perform high-quality separation of waste packaging was introduced.
Basic Scheme of the Recycling Act
A brief outline of the Recycling Act is presented below. For a more detailed description such as technical
instructions for packaging business entities, see an English brochure of the Act published by METI (2003).
A basic concept underlying the Recycling Act is “shared responsibility”. Under the Container and Packaging
Recycling Act, municipalities collect waste packaging and containers (hereafter, “waste packaging”) separately by type
of material, consumers follow the municipality’s separate collection rules, and producers of packaging and containers
and the business entities using them (hereafter, “packaging business entities”) reuse or recycle the waste packaging.
Participation of municipalities in the Recycling Act is not mandatory under the Recycling Act. Municipalities that
choose to participate are only obligated to create a five-year waste packaging separate collection plan and to conduct
separate collection of these items. Each municipality can chose the types of waste packaging to be recycled depending
on its specific circumstances. Identification marks are printed on the packaging materials so that consumers can
distinguish the materials and appropriately separate them. Because separation by consumers is often insufficient for
recycling purposes, municipalities also play a role in separating the materials to ensure that they are adequately
separated. Eight materials are covered by the Recycling Act: aluminum cans, steel cans, glass bottles (subdivided into
clear, brown, and other colors), PET bottles, paper cartons, cardboard, other plastic packages (“plastic packaging”), and
other paper packages (“paper packaging”). Glass bottles, PET bottles, plastic packaging, and paper packaging are
designated as materials that have to be collected separately and recycled. Recycling is not mandatory for the other four
materials because these materials are already routinely sold as secondary resources on the market. The Recycling Act
exempts waste packaging discarded from businesses and packaging used by service industries such as household
cleaning services. The Act targets packaging used for household products such as food and beverages. At first, PET
bottles were limited to those used for drinks, soy-sauce, and sake, but coverage was expanded in April 2008 to include
several other kinds of PET bottles that suit recycling purpose, such as those for soy-sauce soup, vinegar, and other
products.
The Recycling Act defines three recycling schemes, each of which applies to different packaging business entities
and circumstances. The self-collection scheme was designed to apply to refillable bottles. In this scheme, packaging
business entities, for instance, that sell products in refillable bottles, are responsible for the collection and
reuse/recycling of the bottles. The designated corporation scheme is the primary scheme used for other types of
containers and packaging. The designated corporation is the Japan Containers and Packaging Recycling Association
(JCPRA), and it coordinates recycling activities of packaging business entities and recyclers. The JCPRA is also
responsible for collecting recycling fees from packaging business entities and for commissioning selected recyclers. In
the third scheme, the independent scheme, packaging business entities are able to commission recyclers directly, but the
recycling route must be approved by the minister in charge of the Act. This scheme has never actually been used,
however, because the standards for approval are so strict. In the past few years, some municipalities have used another
recycling route that is not defined in the Recycling Act. They have sold collected waste PET bottles on the market,
resulting in an increase in the amount of waste PET bottles exported. In this case, the packaging business entities
recycling responsibility is not considered to be fulfilled, and the export of PET bottles may prevent effective recycling
of the Act. MoE notified municipalities not to use this recycling route in October 2006 (MoE 2006). But because the
price of waste PET bottles has risen and it has been profitable for municipalities to sell the bottles, as well as the fact
that it is not entirely clear whether this type of sale is against the Recycling Act, municipalities continue to use this
recycling route. Hereafter, this route is referred to as “municipalities’ independent recycling route.” Figure 1 presents a
summary of these schemes.
Sale of
products
Separate
discard
Sale
Municipalities
Designated
cooperation
Packaging business entities
Consumers
Sale of
products
Retailers
Take-back
Collection
Sale of
products Sale of
products
Separate
discard Separate
discard
Recyclers
Hand out
Commi-
ssion
Packaging business entities
Commission
Cont-
ract
Recyclers
Hand out
Recyclers
Commission
Self-
collection
scheme
Designated
cooperation
scheme
Independent
scheme
Municipalities’
independent
route
Figure 1 Three recycling schemes included in the Japanese Container and Packaging Recycling Act and the
municipalities' independent route, which is not included in the Act.
The Recycling Act approves mechanical and feedstock recycling only. Although energy recovery was not
included in the original Act, the revised Act approved the temporary use of refuse-derived fuels for recycling of waste
plastic packaging for special cases such as the amount of waste plastic packaging collected exceeds the recycling
capacity. It also temporarily approved energy recovery from waste paper packaging when the mechanical recycling of
paper packaging is difficult. The recycling Act sets the absolute amount of waste packaging that packaging business
entities must recycle and revises the amount each year.
Revision of the Recycling Act
Discussions about various issues concerning the revision of the Recycling Act were held from 2004 to 2006.
These issues included the following:
・ Weak measures for waste prevention
・ Limited number of municipalities conducting separate collection of waste plastic packaging and waste paper
packaging
・ High unit cost of recycling waste plastic packaging
・ Insufficient public awareness of the 3Rs (reduce, reuse, and recycle) of waste packaging
・ Shortage of landfill sites
・ Increased export of discarded PET bottles
Taking these issues into consideration, the Act was revised. The major revisions to the Act (1) enhanced measures
for reducing the use of plastics bags and other similar materials, (2) created a funding mechanism to provide economic
incentives to municipalities to perform higher levels of separation of waste packaging, and (3) strengthened
punishments and fines against packaging business entities that do not fulfill their obligations (i.e., that do not pay the
recycling fee).
The basic idea behind the funding mechanism is that high-quality separate collection allows for more
efficient recycling while simultaneously reducing recycling costs. Therefore, municipalities that conduct high-level
separation are paid half of the difference between expected costs without high-quality separation and the actual costs
with the separation (Figure 2). This mechanism came into force in April 2008, and the first payments will be made in
the middle of fiscal year (FY) 2009. It is estimated that approximately 6 to 8 billion yen will be paid out (MoE 2007c).
Figure 2 Funding mechanism for municipalities that conduct more efficient recycling (MoE 2007c).
Actual State of Performance of the Recycling Act
Data Collection Framework
Tasaki et al. (2007) stated that the objectives of an empirical evaluation of recycling legislation were to (1)
provide useful information about the outcomes and effects brought about by the Recycling Act, (2) understand the
mechanisms between issues and legislation as a resolution to the issues, (3) identify institutional issues that must be
considered in any future revision of the Act, and (4) advance a theory of recycling legislation. With the first objective,
the author collected data on the actual performance of the Container and Packaging Recycling Act. Data were selected
and collected based on a model of recycling that has three central aspects: material flows, monetary flows, and
stakeholder behavior (Figure 3; Tasaki et al. 2007). The data collected in this study are shown in Table 1. In the
following sections, the author describes separate collection, recycling, and the remaining 2Rs (reduce and reuse) using
collected data.
Recycling legislation
Changes in
monetary flows
Behavioral
changes of
stakeholders
Achievement
of sound
material flows
Payment
of cost
Obligation
Recycling rate,
etc.
• Resource conservation
• Reduction of
environmental loads
Figure 3 Model for recycling legislation (Tasaki et al. 2007).
Table 1 Data collected for depicting the Japanese Container and Packaging Recycling Act.
Material flows Monetary flows Stakeholder behavior
Separate
collection
Amount of wastes
collected separately
Collection and
separation cost
Municipalities: participation in separate
collection
Recycling Amount of collected
waste packaging
heading for recycling
Recycling cost Municipalities: export of discarded PET
bottles
Central government: conduct of life-cycle
assessment on package recycling technologies
2Rs (reduce
and reuse)
Effect of waste
prevention measures for
drink containers on
Reuse cost for refillable
bottles
Producers, retailers, consumers, and
municipalities: implementation of waste
prevention measures for refillable bottles and
material flows plastic bags
Separate Collection
The number of municipalities participating in recycling increased from 1997 to 2006. In FY 1997 (the 1st year of
enforcement), approximately 75% of municipalities conducted separate collection for steel and aluminum cans, and
approximately 50% collected the three types of glass bottles, approximately 30% collected paper cartons, and
approximately 20% collected PET bottles according to MoE. Every one of the categories increased to more than 90% in
FY 2006 except for paper cartons, which was approximately 75%. For packaging materials that began to be recycled in
April 2000, approximately 87% of municipalities collected cardboard, approximately 68% collected waste plastics
packaging, and approximately 33% collected waste paper packaging in FY 2006 (Table 2).
The amount of waste packaging collected totaled 1.2 million tonnes in FY 1997 and increased to 2.8 million
tonnes in FY 2006. The amount of waste steel cans collected decreased by 184,000 tonnes from FY 2000 because the
production of steel cans decreased. The amounts of each material collected in FY 2006 are shown in Table 2. The ratios
of waste packaging collected by municipalities to the amount of packaging used by households were calculated by using
government data (ISC/METI 2007) and industry statistics for FY 2003. The coverage rates were 97% for aluminum
cans, 86% for cardboard, 60% for PET bottles, 29% for glass bottles (when the voluntary local-community collection
rate of 53% is added, this figure rises to 82%), 13% for plastic packaging, 10% for paper cartons, and 6% for paper
packaging. The ratio for steel cans could not be calculated because the amount of steel cans for households was not
available. The overall recycling rate of steel cans in Japan was 88.1% in FY 2006 according to the Japan Steel Can
Recycling Association. Therefore, collection rates of drink containers and cardboard were high, but those of plastic and
paper packaging remained relatively low.
Municipalities are responsible for operating and financing separate collection. In the process of revising the
Recycling Act, MoE surveyed collection cost data for waste packaging (MoE 2005). As shown in Table 2, the total cost
was approximately 300 billion yen.
Table 2 Participation rates, collection amounts and costs, and recycled amounts for packaging waste in Japan.
Municipalities
participating
(%)
Separate
collection
(tonne)
Separate
collection cost
(million yen)
Recycled
amount (tonne)
Glass bottles (clear)
95
339,019
328,775
Glass bottles (brown)
95
292,323
281,799
Glass bottles (other color)
94
181,385
174,004
Paper packagiing
33
81,815
7,713
78,627
PET bottles
96
268,266
43,992
261,265
Plastic packaging
68
609,215
58,023
582,876
Steel cans
98
304,578
69,128
299,058
Aluminum cans
99
134,458
40,831
132,091
Cardboard
87
584,312
22,280
580,229
Paper cartons
74
15,921
5,122
15,735
Total
-
2,811,292
305,640
2,734,459
58,551
Note: The cost includes the cost of separation after collection. The recycled amount includes municipalities'
independent recycling. Figures are for FY 2006 (reported by MoE and JCPRA) except for collection costs, which are
for FY 2004 (MoE 2005).
Recycling of Containers and Packaging Wastes
Approximately 2.7 million tonnes of waste packaging was recycled in 2006 (Table 2). A breakdown of the
method of recycling for waste plastic packaging is shown in Figure 4. Mechanical recycling has been given a higher
priority as compared to feedstock recycling, resulting in an increasing proportion of mechanical recycling (34% in FY
2006). Similarly, 95% of waste paper packaging was recycled as a raw material or paper in FY 2006, whereas the
proportion was 44% in FY 2000. Most clear and brown bottles were recycled as raw material for glass bottles (98% and
91%, respectively), whereas the rate of other color bottles was only 21%, and the remaining 79% were recycled as other
raw materials. Bottle-to-bottle recycling of PET bottles was only 6% in FY 2006; PET bottles are predominantly
recycled as raw materials other than that for bottles.
Which recycling technologies are preferable in environmental terms has been a major question. The JCPRA
conducted a life-cycle assessment (LCA) on waste plastic packaging recycling in June 2007 (JCPRA 2007). However,
the CEC/MoE and ISC/METI concluded in 2007 that, although LCA was useful, further study was needed on LCA
methodologies such as setting system boundaries for assessment and ensuring the quality of data to accurately compare
environmental loads of different recycling technologies. MoE therefore conducted its own LCA on waste plastic
packaging recycling. They concluded (MoE 2008c) that, although further examination on the methodologies was still
required, the reduction in the total environmental load of waste packaging recycling was promising as compared to
incineration and energy recovery or landfilling of waste, landfill waste was reduced by 104,000 tonnes, and there was a
maximum reduction of approximately 3% of carbon dioxide emission from the waste management sector.
Packaging business entities basically pay the costs of recycling container and packaging wastes. The unit costs of
recycling in the designated corporation scheme are shown in Figure 5. With the exception of glass bottles, the unit costs
have been decreasing for each type of material in most of the years shown here. The decrease in the recycling cost of
PET bottles has been remarkable, and the unit cost actually has been negative since FY 2004 because discarded PET
bottles can be sold and exported.
MoE surveyed the export status of PET bottles collected by municipalities (MoE 2008b). Of the 1,376
municipalities (78.5% of all municipalities) that conduct separate collection of PET bottles, 49.7% planned to utilize the
designated cooperation scheme only, 34.3% planned to only sell the PET bottles on the market, and 16.0% planned to
use both ways in FY 2008. Approximately 41.5% of the collected PET bottles were transferred out of the designated
cooperation scheme in FY 2007. According to 49% of the respondents, the major reason for selling the bottles was
“Because they can be sold at a higher price compared to the price of the designated cooperation scheme”. When asked
about the final destination of the PET bottles, 59.3% of municipalities replied domestic recycling, 10.2% replied export,
and 22.0% replied that they “do not know the final destination”.
2Rs (Reduction and Reuse)
Packaging business entities have been trying to reduce the amount of the use of packaging by using thinner or
smaller packaging materials. In the discussions on the revision of the Recycling Act, ISC/METI (2004) revealed that
many actions had been taken to reduce the amount of packaging and that the average reduction of four types of
packaging materials ranged from 18% to 35% (Table 3). However, Tasaki and Moriguchi (2006) showed, by applying a
decomposition analysis to waste drink containers, that although the unit weight of beverage containers had decreased,
three factors, namely an increase in the consumption of beverages, a shift to different packaging materials, and an
increased weight of containers per content volume, had offset the effect of the waste reduction.
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
400,000
2000 2002 2004 2006
FY
recycled amount (tonnes)
Gasification (feedstock)
Chemical raw materials for
coke ovens (feedstock)
Reducing agent in blast
furnaces (feedstock)
Oilification (feedstock)
Mechanical
Figure 4 Breakdown of methods used to recycle waste plastic packaging.
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008
FY
unit cost of recycling (thousand yen/tonne)
Plastic packaging
(mechanical)
Plastic packaging
(feedstock)
Paper packaging
PET bottles
Glass bottles
(clear)
Glass bottles
(brown)
Glass bottles
(other color)
Figure 5 Unit cost of recycling waste packaging that is mandatory to recycle.
Table 3 Weight reduction of various containers and packaging materials.
Glass bottles
PET bottles
Plastic packaging
Paper packaging
Max.
33%
33%
100%
100%
Mean
18%
20%
35%
28%
Min.
5%
13%
5%
7%
SD
8%
8%
31%
28%
n
18
7
22
11
Note: Calculated from data in ISC/METI (2004). SD stands for standard deviation.
As in other countries, the share of refillable bottles has been decreasing in Japan. Although approximately 44% of
municipalities carried out separate collection of refillable bottles, targeting mainly 1.8-liter glass bottles and beer glass
bottles (MoE 2007b), reuse of glass bottles is fading. The structure of costs has been given as the reason. For example,
Takara shu-zou reported in 2002 that the costs for packaging business entities were 1 to 2 yen/kg for recycling and more
than 10 yen/kg for reuse because businesses have to collect the empty bottles in the case of reuse. There is no economic
incentive to use refillable bottles even if the use of refillable bottles is more environmentally friendly and is given
higher priority by law. Under these circumstances, MoE started examining the use of refillable PET bottles in 2008,
discussing the pros and cons and surveying the use in other countries such as Germany.
Plastic bags are symbolic of packaging waste in Japan. The revised Recycling Act promotes waste prevention
measures against waste plastic bags, etc. The plastic bags are provided free of charge by retailers as a service to their
customers. According to a questionnaire survey (MoE 2007a), 55% of consumers received 5 or more plastic bags per
week. Charging for the plastic bags is considered to be an effective measure for reducing waste: 46.4% of consumers
supported the idea of charging for plastic bags and 28.9% opposed it. The primary reason given by 90.6% of consumers
supporting the policy was “because it reduces resource consumption”. The primary reason given by 90.8% of
consumers who opposed it was that they are “necessary for reuse” (e.g., the bags can be reused for garbage disposal).
According to a survey of retailers in March 2007 (MoE 2007a), current waste prevention measures for plastic bags
taken by retailers include a stamp service (i.e., a given number of stamps can be used as a voucher at the retailer; 70.7%),
distributing “my-bags” (reusable bags that owned by consumers) (42.7%), asking the customer whether they would like
a bag before using one (34.3%), charging a fee (9.4%), and others (14.1%). Recently, municipalities have supported and
promoted such actions, as shown in Table 4. In these cases, stronger measures such as charging a fee for the bags have
also been introduced.
Table 4 Current waste prevention measures taken by municipalities and businesses for plastic bags (MoE 2008a).
Strong Weak
Pricing type Pricing
based on bylaw
1
Pricing based on voluntary
agreements between
business and municipalities
25
Pricing
based on requests from
municipalities
2
Non-pricing
type
Introducing
local eco-money
1
Introducing
local points
(exchangeable for
products, etc.)
11
Promotion of voluntary
measures urged by
voluntary agreements
5
Note: Number of municipalities that have applied the measure.
Involvement of municipalities
References
JCPRA (2007) Examination of environmental loads of recycling of waste plastic packaging. June 19, 2007,
http://www.jcpra.or.jp/00oshirase/pdf/lca_gaiyou.pdf (in Japanese).
ISC/METI (2004) The 7th meeting of ISC packaging recycling working group, handouts, August 4, 2004.
ISC/METI (2007) The 15th meeting of ISC packaging recycling working group, handouts, February 28, 2007.
METI (2003) Containers and Packaging Recycling Law- Make the most of our "resources!" Available from the JCPRA
home page, http://www.jcpra.or.jp/eng/jcpra__eng05.html.
MoE (2005) A mid-term report on the evaluation of effective performance (regarding the cost of separate collection and
additional separation paid by municipalities). March 2005 (in Japanese).
MoE (2006) A notification of promotion for recycling PET bottles collected by separate collection. October 17, 2006
(in Japanese).
MoE (2007a) Results of a survey on the use of plastic bags and “my bags” toward entry of the revised the Waste
Containers and Packaging Recycling Act, May 30, 2007, http://www.env.go.jp/press/press.php?serial=8423 (in
Japanese).
MoE (2007b) Results of a fact-finding survey on the promotion of reusing waste containers and packaging., July 17,
2007, http://www.env.go.jp/en/headline/headline.php?serial=490.
MoE (2007c) Mechanism to fund local governments to contribute to more efficient recycling. September 7, 2007,
http://www.env.go.jp/en/headline/headline.php?serial=753.
MoE (2008a) Waste prevention measures for plastic bags taken by municipalities and retailers. April 30, 2008 (in
Japanese).
MoE (2008b) The results of a survey on municipalities’ independent treatment of discarded PET bottles. June 26, 2008
(in Japanese).
MoE (2008c) Effect of environmental load reduction by recycling of waste plastic packaging. August 8, 2008 (in
Japanese).
Tasaki T., Moriguchi Y (2006) Decomposition analysis of factors in the generation of beverage container wastes,
Journal of the Japan Society of Waste Management Experts, 17 (1), pp. 31-41 (in Japanese with English abstract,
figures, and tables).
Tasaki T., Terazono A., Moriguchi Y. (2007) An evaluation of the first five years after enactment of the Japanese
WEEE Recycling Act and the current state. Sardinia 2007, 11th International Waste Management and Landfill
Symposium Proceedings, pp. 25-26.
