Hazardous Waste (Control of Export, Import and Transit) (Amendment) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

5.10 pm

The Senior Minister of State for the Environment and Water Resources (Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan) (for the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, on behalf of the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time".

Singapore is a party to the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal. The Basel Convention is an international treaty governing the classification and transboundary movement of hazardous and other waste to protect human health and the environment.

The Basel Convention does not prohibit the transboundary movement of hazardous waste. Instead, it controls the movement of hazardous waste via the Prior Informed Consent or PIC procedure. This is in recognition of the legitimate transboundary movements of hazardous waste as defined under the Convention, such as for proper recycling or disposal. Besides controlling hazardous waste, the Convention also imposes the PIC procedure on some non-hazardous waste streams, namely household wastes and residues arising from the incineration of household wastes. These waste streams are defined as "other waste" under the Basel Convention.

Under the PIC procedure, exporting states that wish to export any waste stream that is covered by the Convention have to obtain prior consent from the countries receiving the waste, or the states of import, as well as the countries through which the waste transits, or the states of transit.

Amidst global concerns about the environmental impact of unregulated trade in plastic waste, parties to the Basel Convention agreed last year to expand the scope of the Convention to cover certain categories of plastic waste. This extends the PIC procedure to the export of certain non-hazardous plastic waste as well as plastic waste with hazardous characteristics. However, most clean and homogeneous plastic waste which has been sorted prior to export and is destined for recycling will not be subjected to the PIC procedure. These amendments to the Basel Convention will take effect on 1 January 2021.

Improper disposal of plastic waste has caused severe environmental pollution, adverse health effects and contributed to climate change. As a responsible global citizen, Singapore joins the international community in supporting the amendments to the Basel Convention which will strengthen control of the transboundary movement of plastic waste.

As a party to the Basel Convention, Singapore is required to implement domestic controls to regulate the transboundary movement of the covered categories of plastic waste. Singapore fulfils our obligations to the Basel Convention through the Hazardous Waste (Control of Export, Import and Transit) Act, or HWA for short. The HWA provides the legislative framework for the National Environment Agency (NEA) to ensure that Singapore complies with our obligations under the Basel Convention.

The Hazardous Waste (Control of Export, Import and Transit) (Amendment) Bill seeks to expand the scope of the HWA to cover the transboundary movement of certain categories of plastic waste. This will enable us to meet our obligations arising from the amendments to the Basel Convention. It also seeks to update NEA’s regulatory powers for more effective administration and enforcement of the HWA.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I will now like to highlight the key provisions of the Bill. I will start with the proposed amendments to include plastic waste within the scope of the Act.

Section 4 of the HWA defines "hazardous waste" and "other waste" in accordance with the Basel Convention. The definition of "other waste" is currently based on the categories of waste listed under Annex II of the Basel Convention. These are non-hazardous wastes that have to undergo the PIC procedure. The amendments to the Basel Convention will now expand Annex II to include certain categories of plastic waste which could impact the environment if not managed properly, such as mixed plastic waste. Clause 3 accordingly amends section 4 to define "other waste" as meaning waste belonging to any category under Annex II to the Basel Convention.

The Schedule of the HWA reproduces the texts and annexes of the Basel Convention. Clause 7 amends the Schedule to include the categories of plastic waste covered by the amendments to Basel Convention.

I will now highlight the amendments to facilitate the administration and enforcement of the HWA. The HWA is currently administered by the Director of Hazardous Waste, as appointed by the Minister. Clauses 2, 5 and 8 make various amendments to the HWA to make the Director-General of Environmental Protection, appointed under the Environmental Protection and Management Act (EPMA), responsible for the administration of the HWA instead. This is to align with the power of administration of other Acts under NEA, such as the EPMA. Consequential amendments will be made to the Second Schedule of the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018.

The Basel Convention allows parties to lodge with its Secretariat, the parties’ national definitions of "hazardous waste" and "other waste" beyond the scope of the Convention. These national definitions are published on the official Basel Convention website. Section 5 of the HWA allows the Minister, through notification in the Gazette, to extend the definition of “hazardous waste” or “other waste” in the Act to include these national definitions.

Clause 4 adds a new subsection (1A) to section 5 of the HWA to extend these definitions to include all the latest national definitions lodged by Parties and published on the Basel Convention website.

Section 30 of the HWA currently provides NEA with the power to control the movement of vessels or aircraft if there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that a vessel or aircraft is carrying hazardous or other waste that is to be exported from, imported into or transited through Singapore. Clause 6 amends section 30 to expand NEA's enforcement powers to cover vehicles suspected to be carrying hazardous or other waste into or out of Singapore via our land checkpoints.

In conclusion, Singapore is committed to uphold our obligations under the Convention, and work with the international community to ensure that the global trade in plastic waste is carried out in an environmentally sustainable manner.

The Hazardous Waste (Control of Export, Import and Transit) (Amendment) Bill will allow us to enhance our domestic controls and enforcement powers to comply with the new obligations under the Convention.

At the same time, we recognise that the flow of clean and valuable recyclables can be legitimate, and help to support the adoption of a circular economy at the regional and global level. We will continue to work with the international and regional community to strike a balance between facilitating the legitimate flow of such resources, and safeguarding against the unregulated or illegal transboundary movement of waste. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

5.18 pm

Mr Christopher de Souza (Holland-Bukit Timah): Sir, researchers have discovered plastic debris at the deepest point on earth, the Marina Trench. On seemingly pristine ice floes near the Northwest Passage, scientists too have discovered plastic filaments and beads. In fact, in May 2019, United Nations estimated that 100 million tonnes of plastic have been dumped in the oceans thus far. Vivid and graphic pictures have become iconic symbols of the impact plastic has had on marine life and have rallied nations around the world to strengthen regulations relating to the global trade in plastic waste.

This Bill is based on the amendments made to the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal in 2019 to target plastic waste. This treaty was acceded to by Singapore in 1996 and was implemented in 1998 by the enactment of the Hazardous Waste (Control of Export, Import and Transit) Act. The amendment to the Convention classified plastic waste more clearly. Certain annexes of the convention require prior informed consent before importing such waste can be initiated. Annex IV does not require prior consent and previously classified only non-harmful plastic without specifying whether they were immediately recyclable. Following the changes to the Convention in 2019, two kinds of plastic waste are subject to prior informed consent: plastic waste mixed with hazardous materials, such as PET bottles containing pesticides, and plastic waste that can be recycled only after undergoing the cleaning process due to contamination of foreign materials. This is reflected in clause 7.

Additionally, clause 4 of the Bill allows our law to directly reference the prescribed website of the Secretariat of the Basel Convention as to what is considered hazardous waste. Previously, the Minister had to declare it so via notification on the Gazette.

Would the Minister explain how Singapore handles our plastic waste? Do we have the capacity and capabilities to deal with our plastic waste?

Besides tackling the way plastic waste is handled, we can also reduce the amount of plastic pollutants released into the environment. Although it has been said that "only a miniscule amount of microplastics is discharged into the sea," would the Ministry elaborate on what are the likely sources for the microplastics found on the Singapore beaches and what will be done to reduce it?

One commonly discussed source for microplastics is microbeads. Microbeads do not disappear even though they get flushed down the sink and out of sight. Plastic microbeads have been banned in personal care products and cosmetics in United States and United Kingdom. While plastic straws are needed by some for medical conditions, some personal care products and cosmetics have been able to substitute plastic microbeads with biodegradable microbeads or even natural alternatives. In 2016, it was reported in the Straits Times that National Parks was "currently looking into assessing the status and impact of marine debris and microplastics on Singapore's marine environment” and that "the National Environment Agency [was] monitoring international developments in legislation and domestic research on microplastics." Would the Minister kindly provide an update on the findings and whether any updated studies have been done since then to understand the impact of microplastic on Singapore’s marine environment?

Even though Singapore treats our used water such that a substantial portion of microbeads and microplastics are dealt with, would it not be better if there were less plastic to deal with by reducing the use and/or release of such plastics into the water? Instead of merely removing plastics, we should work towards reducing them. Firstly, this conserves resources used to make plastics. Secondly, this reduces the energy needed to process its waste. Thirdly, with less plastic in our used water, there would be less incinerated ash to be disposed of. Fourthly, there will be less microplastics potentially released into the environment. Fifthly, we would be encouraging responsible use of plastics and would also deter the thinking that someone else will clean up the consequences of our actions.

Taking into account these issues, what is the Minister's view on the question of whether we should ban the use of microplastics or microbeads in personal care products and cosmetics?

This Bill addresses one part of the problem related to plastic waste but the bigger question is how are we tackling this pollutant holistically? The effect of plastic contamination is felt across national borders. Plastics and toxic-contaminated plastic in the water can enter the food chain when marine life ingest it. Another possible way is via larvae of insects such as mosquitoes and then their being eaten by other creatures in the food chain and so on.

Research combining the results of more than 50 studies globally have estimated that an individual ingests about one credit card worth of plastic each week. As much of our food is imported from overseas, how does the Ministry monitor the level of plastic pollutant in our food and its impact? Is there a level beyond which the plastic pollution in the food is unacceptable? In other words, how is Singapore working towards food security and less dependency on other countries specifically in relation to seafood and other food products from the marine environment and ensuring the plastic contaminants in such food remains low or negligible?

Additionally, as the economic impact of plastic pollution on marine ecosystems is estimated by the UN Environment Program to be at least US$8 billion a year, it would make sense for nations including Singapore to work towards reducing plastic pollution, not just by reducing new entrants, but also looking into innovative possibilities to remove what has already entered the marine environment. How has Singapore contributed to innovative solutions to clean up the ocean? What is Singapore doing to encourage a global push to adopt a good plastic waste management system that reduces plastic pollution? This indirectly contributes to Singapore's food security if our food sources are threatened by other countries’ plastic pollution.

Looking at the facts, plastic pollution is a problem that we need to address. Even though half of all plastics ever manufactured have been made in the last 15 years, there are already around 100 million tonnes of plastic in the oceans, 80% to 90% from land. In 2019, it was reported in National Geographic that plastic production has increased exponentially, from 2.3 million tonnes in 1950 to 450 million tonnes or estimate by 2015 and that is expecting to double by 2050.

These facts bring to bear the importance of the Bill we are debating today. This Bill, when enacted, will help Singapore fulfil its obligations under the Basel Convention. It will bolster our commitment towards tackling the problem of plastic pollution and reducing the ill-effects of hazardous waste. Therefore, I stand in support of the Bill.

5.27 pm

Dr Chia Shi-Lu (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I speak in support of this Bill which will ensure Singapore’s compliance with the Basel amendments which will come into effect next January. The Basel amendments are part of the global efforts to combat pollution from plastic waste, one of the biggest environmental problems our world faces due to its sheer quantity as well as durability of plastics. The vast amounts of plastic waste polluting water and land ecosystems are not only threatening to us and other life forms on our planet, but also to future generations.

Singapore recycled a paltry 4% of about 950,000 tonnes of plastic waste in 2018, down from the recycling rate of 6% in 2017, and less than half the rate from five years ago. Most of this waste was exported for recycling. With these amendments, we hope to contribute to the efforts to regulate the international trade in contaminated plastic waste.

Hence, only limited types of plastics, such as resin products and specified fluorinated polymers that have been sorted and cleaned, will be exported without restrictions. Other categories of plastic waste will have to be approved by the destination countries before we can export them. I full-heartedly support this responsible practice.

Nonetheless, it is still very disturbing to note that 96% of the plastic waste we generated has not been recycled; and plastics form the largest category of waste by weight, way ahead of other categories such as food, paper and cardboard. Even worse, our plastic waste per capita has been increasing, by about 20% over the last 15 years. So, even as we today sharpen our policies regarding the import and export plastic waste, I would like to ask the Minister for more details of how we ourselves are disposing of our own plastic wastes.

First, for those plastics which are not recycled, how much is burned and how much is buried?

Second, is the capacity of our landfills sufficient to meet the growing amounts of plastic waste that is generated?

Third, for recycled plastics, how much is processed here and how much are we actually exporting?

Fourth, are we looking to step up our capability and capacity for recycling our own plastic waste?

Fifth, how developed is the plastic waste recycling infrastructure in Singapore?

Sixth, will there be resources to support the research and development of plastic waste treatment here?

Seventh, as the hon Member Mr Christopher de Souza has just asked, what is the treatment for special categories, such as micro plastics?

Ultimately, we must reduce the use of "short-term" plastics to cut down on plastic waste, such as minimising the use of single-use plastics, particularly in non-critical areas, perhaps versus critical niches, such as in healthcare settings where it may be more difficult to replace.

Take our F&B sector, for example. I am surprised that in some hawker centres and food courts, even for customers dining on site, disposable ware is still being used. The reasons, of course, include costs, convenience and, perhaps, hygiene. What is often not factored in is the cost we all pay for the long-term damage on our environment. I appeal to the Ministry to work more closely with F&B providers to come up with a viable and sustainable, nation-wide solution. Due to higher costs and manpower constraints, if left to the free forces of the market, food and drinks sellers and establishments will actually have very little incentive to opt for durable, washable utensils or participate in the use and collection of reusable ware for customers who do takeaways. I also hope the Ministry would take firmer, which may perhaps be unpopular, steps to ban or severely restrict the use of certain types of single-use plastics and the most common example would be straws.

As a small nation which imports most goods, our ability to negotiate with global manufacturers for more sustainable packaging may be limited. Nevertheless, we should still make brave attempts, persevere and work with neighbouring countries to exert pressure on big multinationals to repackage their products in environment-friendly materials.

The question at the top of most people's minds would also be what would this impact be on our economy and our business competitiveness? I would imagine that, in general, costs for some sectors would increase but I am sure that other sectors could benefit from this shift towards more environmentally-responsible practices. Could the Minister share with us his assessment of the economic impact from these amendments? Which sectors will be affected and could there be assistance schemes to help affected companies during the transition phase? How about the impact on our economy from the Ministry’s other initiatives to nudge companies to adopt environmentally-responsible practices as well as various measures towards a "zero waste" nation?

5.33 pm

Ms Anthea Ong (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, I just realised that my laptop is not charged. So, I am going to use my phone to read the speech.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I stand in support of this Bill. This Bill signals Singapore's intention and resolve to join the global community in ending the flows of plastic waste, and unsustainable consumption and disposal of plastic waste more generally. This is in line with Singapore’s commitment to being a responsible global citizen, especially in environmental sustainability.

However, in light of recent events, there are four issues relating to the transport of hazardous waste, including plastic waste, which I would like to address.

First, I would like to ask the Minister on our compliance with our obligations under the Basel Convention so that we can evaluate our progress with the handling of hazardous waste. What is the current status of Singapore’s Basel Convention obligations? How many permits are issued for import, export and transit respectively? What are the destination countries where our waste goes to? According to NEA, only 7% of the 40,700 tonnes of plastic trash that was recycled last year was processed locally and the rest was shipped overseas. It appears difficult to know what happens to the trash afterwards. How do we know they are recycled or dumped properly? A 2018 Business Times news article reported that "much of the plastic that is logged as recycled is shipped overseas – to China, Malaysia, Vietnam and Indonesia – where, if it cannot eventually be properly sorted and processed, it is incinerated or tipped into the sea."

Mr Deputy Speaker, can the Minister please enlighten the House on the measures that Singapore implements to ensure that hazardous waste, per the Basel Convention, which leaves Singapore are treated to internationally-recognised standards at their destination?

Second, I urge the Minister to consider implementing more stringent measures to stop the illegal traffic of waste from Singapore to other countries in the region. Treating other countries as a dumping ground without consideration for the necessary health and safety measures would be doing a great disservice to our neighbours. There have been reported cases of illegal traffic of waste linked to Singapore.

Virogreen, a Singapore-registered company, was reported by Eco-Business in March 2019 as being implicated in an "e-waste smuggling ring" in Thailand. It reportedly exported goods labelled as "second-hand electronic appliances" from Singapore to Thailand. In Thailand, however, it was disposed of as waste. The waste management plants which received the e-waste salvaged the precious metals and disposed of the rest. It is not known how they salvaged the metal, or how the rest of the e-waste was disposed. However, the fact that Virogreen was able to get away with declaring e-waste as functional second-hand goods is deeply concerning.

This is not the only case. In October 2019, Reuters reported that two Singaporeans imported 87 containers of plastic scrap without the correct permits. They are said to be a director and a commissioner of an Indonesian company respectively. To make matters worse, the plastic scrap was reportedly contaminated with "hazardous items, such as printed circuit boards, used remote controls and used batteries", all of which could pose health hazards.

These two cases have placed a black mark on Singapore's reputation as a responsible global citizen. The Government has been regarding adherence to international environmental standards as a focus of Singapore's much-lauded environmental governance, and rightly so. We must ensure that Singaporean directors and Singapore-registered companies are not infringing waste regulations in the region and globally. Increasing profit margins or reducing costs cannot be at the expense of our shared environment.

Singaporeans and Singapore companies, as ambassadors for Singapore, should uphold the same standards wherever they go. This is the same reason why Singapore prosecutes cases of corruption involving Singapore-registered companies under the Prevention of Corruption Act, regardless of where they happen.

As such, I would like to ask the Minister, what measures are in place to ensure that hazardous wastes are not exported under the guise of "second-hand" goods? What are the enforcement measures that can be used against Singaporeans and Singapore-registered entities who facilitate the contravention of the Basel Convention overseas? Are there any plans to create extraterritorial offences, such as those found in the Prevention of Corruption Act, to allow the prosecution of Singaporeans and Singapore-registered entities? If not, I would strongly urge the Minister to consider doing so.

Third, Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to seek the Minister's clarification on the Ban Amendment to the Basel Convention.

On 5 December 2019, the Ban Amendment to the Basel Convention, a global prohibition on dumping hazardous waste, enters into force almost 25 years after its adoption and officially becomes international law. The Ban Amendment prohibits the world's wealthiest countries – OECD, EU member states, Liechtenstein – from exporting hazardous waste to non-OECD countries and forces them to internalise the costs of their own pollution. The ban addresses the challenges faced by developing countries in controlling the flood of hazardous waste imports, which strain their infrastructure and harm the environment and local communities. The countries that have ratified include our three closest neighbours Malaysia, Indonesia and Brunei. China has also adopted the Basel Ban.

Can the Minister please clarify on the following:

(a) Are there reasons why Singapore has not ratified the Basel Ban Amendment?

(b) Are there any entities in Singapore which import hazardous waste, per the Basel Convention, for treatment here?

Last but not least, is there a regional role that Singapore can play in waste recycling, given that our neighbours, such as Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines are sending back plastic waste to their places of origin?

Just last week, NEA clarified that three containers of plastic waste were sent back to Singapore as the Malaysian importer failed to get permits.

Could implementing a circular economy mitigate our and the region’s needs with the benefits of economies of scale? This could be both a regional responsibility and opportunity for Singapore, given the need for innovative waste management solutions. I ask this noting that the Zero Waste Master Plan issued by MEWR last year stated that the Ministry "hope[s] to promote innovative circular business models and position our companies to seize opportunities in the region for specialised waste treatment, recycling or re-manufacturing."

As I conclude, Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to quote former US Secretary of State John Kerry, at the Our Ocean Conference in Bali on 29 October 2018.

"In the 1950s and 1960s, what brought me into public life was the nuclear freeze and arms control, the issues of peace… But now, folks, we need to face up to the fact that we've got to treat the issue of the oceans, protection of the oceans, protection of the planet, with the same urgency that we treated arms control and nuclear weapons… we need a non-proliferation treaty for pollution in the oceans."

As a state party to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, we should take note of Article 207(4) of the Convention, which specifically requires states to “endeavour to establish global and regional rules, standards and recommended practices and procedures to prevent, reduce and control pollution of the marine environment from land-based sources”.

I would like to boldly suggest that just as we had the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1968 and the Southeast Asian Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone Treaty of 1995, we should take the lead in proposing a non-proliferation treaty for plastic pollution which originates on land and ends up in the sea. This would require manufacturers to transition from manufacturing virgin plastics to harvesting and reusing recycled plastics. A study published in the journal, Nature Climate Change, in May 2019, has estimated that by just converting all plastic manufacturing to fully recycled plastic, we can reduce global greenhouse gas emissions by at least 1.6 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide-equivalent by 2050. That would be the equivalent of Japan’s estimated annual greenhouse gas emissions today.

We should not miss the opportunity to propose this at the next UN Environment Assembly in 2021.

5.43 pm

Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, I stand in support of the Bill. Plastic pollution is a pressing global concern. Countries that bulk-import such waste bear much of the environmental and social costs, especially if they cannot manage the waste. Many of these countries are our close neighbours in Southeast Asia.

Aligning our laws to the changes in the Basel Convention is one of the ways that Singapore can help alleviate plastic pollution. I am encouraged by the amendments, which not only fulfill our international obligations but show our commitment to work with the international community to address pertinent global problems. Sir, I have three clarifications to raise.

First, the changes to the Basel Convention that will take effect on 1 January 2021 will make it harder for Singapore to export our plastic waste for recycling. Under the new rules, countries will have to consent to importing plastic waste from exporters that are contaminated or that are difficult to recycle. Many countries have already announced plans to ban or limit their import of plastic waste. Such countries include China, which will ban all plastic waste imports by 2020 and other countries that take in our plastic waste, such as Malaysia and Indonesia.

This situation creates a problem. With more plastic waste on our hands, the Semakau landfill could be filled even earlier than 2035, which is the projected end of its lifespan. Already, Singapore incinerates some of our recyclable waste because of our limited recycling capacity. Can the Minister share if the Ministry has reviewed its projection of the Semakau landfill's lifespan? If so, can the Minister share its updated figure on the lifespan of the Semakau landfill? If it has not done so, would the Ministry consider undertaking such a review? Can the Minister also clarify what percentage of plastic waste sent for recycling in 2019 ends up being recycled versus that which is incinerated?

Second, the amendment means that Singapore would need to boost its local plastic recycling capacity even more urgently. In 2018, only 7% of the plastic waste that Singapore recycled was processed locally. The rest was recycled overseas. Encouragingly, NEA said last year that it is planning to build up the country’s mechanical recycling capability for used plastics and explore options for chemical recycling. How much does the Ministry plan to invest into building up Singapore's plastic recycling capabilities? Furthermore, with Singapore's current recycling capacity, up to what percentage of our plastic waste and our overall waste, can be recycled locally respectively? Can the Minister clarify what percentage of plastic waste we plan to recycle locally by 2035 and include a breakdown of that timeline?

Third, under the amended Convention, plastic that is clean, sorted and uncontaminated can be freely traded. In Singapore, contamination is a key reason why we recycle only 4% of our plastic waste. In recent years, MEWR and NEA have attempted to address the problem by fitting houses with a separate recycling chute and improving the information labels on blue recycling bins. Can the Ministry share data on the effectiveness of these efforts to combat plastic waste contamination? If the data is not yet available, when will it be and will the Ministry publish it once it is available? Sir, notwithstanding these clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.

5.47 pm

Mr Gan Thiam Poh (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I fully support the Bill which will contribute to greater accountability and more responsible plastic waste disposal globally.

We have all seen reports from neighbouring countries that have discovered toxic wastes illegally exported to their countries. Our compliance with the Basel Amendments aims to put a stop to such irresponsible practices. Going forward, only approved categories of plastic waste can be traded without restriction, while particular categories can only be exported with the permission of the importing countries.

For Singapore and most countries, plastic waste is the biggest category of waste. Unfortunately, the amount we generate is increasing year by year. NEA's latest statistics showed that we only managed to recycle 4% of our plastic waste, compared to 99% for metals, 56% for paper and cardboard. Four percent is really pathetic and we should make much more effort to reduce the amount of plastic we use, particularly in consumable products.

Many Singaporeans are supportive of the Government's efforts to be environmentally responsible but the reality is that so many of our items are packaged in plastics. Consumers are in a bind because we do not have much of a choice. What can we do if your shampoo or beverage comes in a plastic bottle? I think it is important that we go upstream for solutions. The responsibility is on the manufacturers to pack their products in sustainable materials. How should we encourage the manufacturers to improve on their products so that potential issues and concerns are addressed from the production stage to ensure that they are environmentally-friendly? Perhaps, the Ministry can consider using both the carrot and the stick to bring about improvements. For example, we could impose environmental levies on products packaged in plastics and providing incentives for other materials better for our environment.

In addition, I think we should also introduce stronger measures to make sure that our people do their part to cut down on wastage, be responsible in recycling correctly and avoid polluting our environment. Reducing, recycling and caring for our environment should be a mind-set inculcated through our education system as well as consistent public education and outreach. These efforts should be on-going even when it becomes part of our Singapore culture so that our younger generations will continue to uphold this value. For higher effectiveness, I would like to request that the Ministry consider deploying more resources to its enforcement units.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Senior Minister of State Dr Amy Khor.

5.50 pm

Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I thank Members for their comments and support of the Bill. I will now address the four broad areas brought up. First, the measures Singapore undertakes to meet our obligations under the Basel Convention. Second, the effects of the amendments on the industry. Third, our plans to develop our local recycling industry, particularly relating to plastics. Fourth, our plans to reduce excessive consumption of plastics and to close the plastic loop.

Ms Anthea Ong asked about our progress in implementing the Basel Convention. Since 1996, when we became a Party to the Convention, we have issued an average of 150 Basel permits a year for the transboundary movement of wastes. In 2018, NEA issued 36 import permits, 50 export permits and 70 transit permits. The main destinations for Basel exports were Korea, Japan, France and Thailand, with most of these shipments containing e-waste intended for recycling.

Ms Anthea Ong also asked how we ensure hazardous waste exported under the Basel Convention is properly treated. This is covered under the Prior Informed Consent or PIC procedure, which is well established under the Basel Convention.

When companies apply to NEA for a Basel export permit, they are required to provide information on the treatment facility which the shipment is destined for. This information is forwarded to the relevant authorities in the State of Import. NEA will not issue a Basel export permit to the company until the State of Import evaluates the proposal and consents to accept the shipment.

We take our obligations under the Basel Convention seriously and have taken action against companies for violations. Under the Hazardous Waste (Control of Export, Import and Transit) Act (HWA), companies that falsely declare such wastes, or export such wastes without a valid Basel export permit, can be fined up to $300,000. Individuals who commit such offences can be fined up to $100,000, or imprisoned for up to two years, or both.

NEA works closely with Singapore Customs and the Immigration & Checkpoints Authority to enforce these regulations at our checkpoints. We also enjoy a close working relationship with international counterparts and cooperate with them to investigate any suspected illegal export of waste from Singapore.

NEA had, in fact, investigated the case of Virogreen, which Ms Anthea Ong raised. In this instance, the company had correctly declared the contents of the shipment as e-waste for recycling. The PIC procedure had been followed and NEA had received consent from the relevant authority in Thailand for the import. These clarifications were carried in the same Eco-Business article.

Similarly, in the case reported by Reuters, which Ms Anthea Ong cited, none of the containers had been exported from or transited through Singapore. No Singapore companies had contravened the Basel Convention in any way and the two Singaporeans had not violated the HWA. The case is currently under investigation by the Indonesian authorities.

There are currently no plans to introduce extraterritorial offences in the HWA. The Basel Convention has nearly universal membership with 187 Parties and all our neighbouring countries are members. Singaporeans or Singapore-registered entities who contravene the Basel Convention can be prosecuted in their country of offence.

Mr Louis Ng and Dr Chia Shi-Lu asked about the impact of the amendments on our companies. NEA had consulted the industry prior to the introduction of these amendments. Our companies understood the need for the new measures and for Singapore to comply with our international obligations.

We do not expect these amendments to disrupt the operations of our plastic recyclers and traders. There will not be additional regulations on the movement of most clean and homogenous plastic recyclables as these are not subjected to PIC under the Basel Convention. Mixed plastic recyclables can also continue to be exported, as long as PIC is obtained from the State of Import. To help companies comply with the requirements, NEA will guide companies through the Basel permit application procedures, particularly in the initial period after the new regulations come into effect.

In fact, we hope that the local recycling industry will benefit from economic opportunities as clearer regulations on the flow of recyclables develop. This will facilitate the legitimate flow of recyclables and open up new markets for our local companies. As Dr Chia Shi-Lu and Ms Anthea Ong have pointed out, there are opportunities to promote a regional circular economy, in line with the vision of our Zero Waste Masterplan.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I will now speak on the local plastic waste management landscape and our plans to develop local recycling capability and capacity, which Dr Chia Shi-Lu, Mr Christopher de Souza and Mr Louis Ng asked about.

Plastic waste in Singapore is either recycled or incinerated. Such wastes are not landfilled. All general waste and recyclables must be collected by licensed collectors. Plastic recyclables that are segregated at source is sorted and sent for recycling either locally or overseas. On the other hand, plastic waste which is not source-segregated for recycling is incinerated with other general waste at our Waste-to-Energy plants.

In 2018, approximately 949,000 tonnes of plastic waste were generated in Singapore, which was about 12% of the total waste generated. Four percent of the plastic waste generated was recycled. Of this, 7% was recycled locally, while the rest was sorted and exported for recycling. The plastics that are recycled are mainly post-industrial plastics that are clean and homogenous, or recyclables from households that have been sorted and baled at our Material Recovery Facilities. As we can see, packaging waste, including plastics, is generated in large quantities with a low recycling rate. As such, we have made packaging waste a priority waste stream in both the Zero Waste Masterplan and the Resource Sustainability Act.

As Mr Louis Ng has highlighted, we hope to further build up our local recycling capabilities to better extract resources from plastic waste. However, I would like to clarify that we are doing this not because we contribute to the global ocean plastics problem but because we want to reduce the amount of plastics that we incinerate. Singapore does not contribute in any significant way to the ocean plastics problem. We do not landfill our plastic waste but incinerate them at our Waste-to-Energy plants. Most of Singapore is a water catchment, meaning that our waterways are dammed up and plastics are removed from the waterways before they reach our reservoirs. We have been building up our waste management resilience, which is in line with the global movement towards proper treatment and management of waste.

As a small country, in the face of carbon and resource constraints, we also want to enhance Singapore's resource resilience by re-using resources for as long as possible. Hence, our vision is to close the plastic waste loop locally where feasible and allow our plastic wastes to be recovered and converted into useful resources again.

At the same time, investing in new recycling technology and developing the industry will create economic opportunities and good jobs for Singaporeans. For example, McKinsey estimates a potential fourfold increase in plastics reuse and recycling by 2030, worth an estimated US$60 billion.

We are studying both mechanical and chemical recycling options. Mechanical recycling uses well established technology to turn waste plastics into plastic pellets. We already have mechanical recycling plants in Singapore which treat our industrial plastic waste. These are operated by companies such as A~Star Plastics, Plaspulp Union and Ravago. Chemical recycling can potentially complement mechanical recycling. Waste plastics that are not suitable for mechanical recycling, such as used plastic bags, can be recycled into chemical feedstock through chemical recycling. We will share more on our plans to close the plastics loop at the upcoming Committee of Supply debate.

Based on our consultations with industry players, the main impediments to greater recycling locally are the lack of economies of scale and low global demand. We will require further consultations with the local industry and economic agencies, to determine the appropriate industry size and structure to suit the Singapore market.

Our intent to build up local recycling capability is also a key reason why Singapore has not ratified the Ban Amendment, which Ms Anthea Ong asked about. The Amendment was first introduced in 1995 to protect developing countries from the ill-effects of hazardous waste exported by developed countries. The Amendment bans all exports from developed to developing countries, hence its name.

We believe that the legitimate movement of useful waste material does not just present economic opportunities for our companies, but allows Singapore to play our part in the safe handling of hazardous material in the region. For example, e-waste recycling companies in Singapore import e-waste from countries such as Japan, South Korea and New Zealand, and treat them at our licensed facilities in an environmentally-sound manner. This would be curtailed if we ratified the Ban Amendment. In fact, many OECD countries have not ratified the Ban Amendment yet, including countries with strong recycling industries such as Japan and South Korea.

We are also investing in research and development to develop local recycling solutions, as Dr Chia Shi-Lu and Mr Louis Ng spoke about.

The S$45 million Closing the Waste Loop R&D Initiative supports research into new circular economy solutions. For example, it has funded a research project that is studying how plastic-embedded multi-layer films, such as potato chip packaging, can be recycled. This involves developing a chemical recycling method that can separate and individually recycle the different layers from the multi-layer film.

As Mr Christopher de Souza and Mr Gan Thiam Poh have highlighted, it is key to reduce the generation of plastic waste in the first place. Last year, we introduced the Resource Sustainability Act, a landmark legislation to give effect to a regulatory framework to promote resource sustainability and support the management of our priority waste streams. This year, new regulations on the mandatory reporting of packaging data and 3R plans for packaging will take effect. As Mr Gan Thiam Poh highlighted, such regulations will force companies to be more conscious of the amount of packaging used in their products, and encourage them to identify ways to optimise packaging.

The mandatory reporting framework will also lay the foundation for an EPR framework for packaging waste management. The EPR framework ensures that producers are responsible for the collection and recycling of the materials they use to package their products.

This will send economic signals to companies to take into account the cost of environmental externalities of their products. It will also encourage the redesigning of products so that less materials are used or the products can be more easily recycled.

However, tackling the consumption of plastics cannot be done by the Government alone. We are working closely with various stakeholders to reduce our consumption of disposables, including plastics. For example, NEA's "Say YES to Waste Less" campaign has partnered 1,600 premises to encourage consumers to reduce the use of disposables.

We also want to partner Singaporeans to co-create other solutions to reduce the excessive consumption of plastics. A Citizens' Workgroup for Singaporeans from diverse backgrounds will be formed to work on measures to tackle the issue of excessive consumption of disposables in Singapore. We will announce further details on this later this year.

Dr Chia Shi-Lu and Mr Christopher de Souza raised the issue of micro-plastics and micro-beads. We have in place comprehensive measures to address micro-plastics. For example, the Singapore Food Agency routinely takes samples of locally available food, including seafood, for testing to ensure compliance with our food safety standards. These standards are aligned with international standards.

At the same time, we recognise that the World Health Organisation, European Food Safety Authority and Food Agriculture Organisation have assessed that micro-plastics either posed a low risk to human health, or that more scientific evidence was required to assess the impact of ingesting plastic in food.

PUB also treats all used water at our water reclamation plants to internationally recognised discharge standards using the latest technology. This includes the removal of most micro-plastics. NEA has therefore assessed that no further measures are needed at this point to manage the entry of micro-beads into our waste water and into our environment, until further scientific evidence emerges.

While we have no plans to ban micro-beads in cosmetics, we encourage businesses to reduce the use of micro-beads in their products. I am heartened that multinational corporations, such as Johnson & Johnson and Unilever, as well as own local retailers, like Guardian Singapore and Watsons, have phased out micro-beads in their products. We will continue to monitor international developments on micro-plastics, including micro-beads in cosmetics.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, let me conclude. Plastic waste is a waste stream of concern for us, and we are tackling it through regulations under the Resource Sustainability Act, as well as other plans to reduce plastic consumption and promote plastics recycling under the Zero Waste Masterplan.

In addition, as a responsible member of the international community, Singapore remains committed to upholding our obligations under the Basel Convention. The Hazardous Waste (Control of Export, Import and Transit) (Amendment) Bill will enable Singapore to comply with the new controls on the transboundary movement of certain categories of plastic waste under the Basel Convention. The Bill will also allow for a more effective administration and enforcement of the Convention.

The amendments to the Basel Convention will provide greater clarity on plastic waste standards and better regulate its transboundary movement. In doing so, we hope that new economic opportunities will be created that the local recycling industry will seize, which will create good jobs for Singaporeans. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan].

Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.