TheJakartaPost
Please Update your browser
Your browser is out of date, and may not be compatible with our website. A list of the most popular web browsers can be found below.
Just click on the icons to get to the download page.
A new hope for non-recyclable plastic waste
The cost of RDF technology is becoming a bottleneck in solving the non-recyclable plastic waste problem.
Change Size
E
very day, Indonesia produces 175,000 tons of waste, of which 24,500 tons are plastics, according to 2018 World Bank data. Most plastic materials can be recycled and used repeatedly.
However, based on sampling research at Waste Bank Benua Hijau Tangerang, only 56.6 percent of plastics can be recycled. The remaining 43.4 percent of plastics cannot be recycled: either because of their material or low economic value (for example multilayered plastic and drinking bottle labels).
Among solutions that have been implemented to recycle non-recyclable waste in Indonesia is refuse-derived fuel (RDF) technology.
Through RDF technology, non-recyclable waste is transformed into RDF, which is used as a source of renewable energy for coprocessing in the cement industry. With this technology, not only is the waste recycled but it will become an energy source for the cement industry, similar to coal. Hence, the circularity of the materials continues as they become a source for another product.
This might be the best solution for now, but the thing is, the current use of RDF technology to process non-recyclable plastic waste is still limited and the cost is still higher than coal. So, when we want to process non-recyclable plastic waste in the cement industry, we need to prepare the fees.
The cost of RDF technology is becoming a bottleneck in solving the non-recyclable plastic waste problem. It requires financial intervention from all stakeholders: including the producer and the government.
Recent practice has shown that several producers in Indonesia such as Nestlé, Danone, and Unilever, are already providing financial incentives as solutions to the waste management issue, especially regarding plastic waste in Indonesia. There’s a chance that these producers would also agree to support RDF technology utilization to deal with the non-recyclable plastic waste problem.
Yet the financial support only for the technology fee is not enough. There’s also a problem in waste collection. Waste management players often avoid collecting non-recyclable plastic waste due to the low selling price. Producers had to collaborate with government and waste management companies to build an ecosystem of waste industry players that was ready to collect non-recyclable plastic waste.
Globally, such collaboration between producers and waste management companies to recycle non-recyclable waste is called waste credit, also known as plastic credit.
South Pole, a Swiss company, defines waste credit as “ a system that allows the trading of credits issued by waste recovery and recycling activities worldwide. It enables companies to go beyond internal actions and support projects in ‘plastic leakage hot spots’ that generate verifiable environmental and social benefits. Companies can buy credits to financially support and accelerate projects that recover and recycle plastics and packaging, thereby contributing to their circularity.”
The waste credit naming is inspired by the quite similar concept of carbon credit. This waste management model is starting to gain popularity globally, as more companies start to implement the waste credit model such as South Pole, rePurpose Global, Plastic Credit Exchange and Verra. The waste credit model that is used by those companies carries cost that varies from US$300 to $800 per ton of waste (plastic), depending on the project scope and context.
However, in Indonesia, another problem may emerge as most producers feel that they shouldn’t be the only ones responsible for non-recyclable plastic waste. For a certain amount of time, the waste credit model between producers and waste management companies could be successful. But without support and intervention from the government, waste credit won’t be a long-term sustainable model to solve the circularity of the non-recyclable plastic waste.
Ideally, the government should give concrete incentives to producers that provide a waste credit model for non-recyclable waste. One good example of a government incentive that could be applied to producers is Finance Ministerial Regulation No. 128/2019. This regulation supervises a 200 percent tax incentive plan for companies that support vocational education in the framework of coaching and developing human resources based on certain competencies. The regulation was born from a collaboration between the finance, industry and education ministries. A similar system could also be applied to support producers in handling non-recyclable plastic waste.
A collaboration between the Environment and Forest Ministry and the Finance Ministry in developing regulation for non-recyclable plastic waste will influence producers to create a more long-term and sustainable waste credit model. Furthermore, this model could help improve the livelihoods of middle-to low-income families because the financial support provided by the producers will also reach the waste bank communities. Producers could also get a certificate from the waste management company as proof of their participation in handling the waste.
Waste credit is a circular, collaborative model that requires full support from all five pillars of waste management, namely: communities, recyclers, waste management companies, producers and government. We could create a massive positive impact on the environment by managing non-recyclable waste together.
***
The writer is head of digital and partnership services at Waste4Change.
