Waste Reduction and Recycling Law in Korea

Sang Don Lee
Dean and Professor of Law,
Chung-Ang University College of Law
Seoul, Korea

No Free Shopping Bags in Korea

When foreign visitors purchase something in Korea’s department stores, supermarkets or bakeries, they will be asked to undertake something that may be new to their experience. They will be asked to pay 100 Won for each paper shopping bag they use or 20 Won for each plastic shopping bag. (One Won worth approximately US $ 0.000831.) This payment will be required regardless of the expense of the article(s) they purchase. Additionally, when these visitors patronize fast-food establishments or ice cream parlors in Korea, they will be required to dispose of their used paper containers in designated recycling bins.

If Korean department stores, supermarkets, etc., provide customers with shopping bags free of charge, as is the practice in the United States, the owners of these establishments will be subject to fines of up to 3 million Won for each violation. When fast-food hamburger establishments or ice cream shops do not recycle more than 90 percent of their used paper containers, they are also subject to fines of up to 3 million Won for each violation.

There presently are not enough government inspectors to monitor business practices related to shopping bag fees and used paper container recycling. Therefore, non-governmental organization (NGO) representatives are filling gaps in government compliance assurance efforts. NGOs in Korea are currently pressuring the government to apply similar container recycling requirements to the fast-growing take-out coffee industry. However, Korea’s Ministry of Environment is slowly considering the benefits of such a requirement.

This article surveys these and other developments in the area of recycling and materials conservation policy and law in Korea.

Resource Conservation and Recycling Facilitation Act

The stiff penalties and related fee and recycling requirements set forth above are mandated by the Resource Conservation and Recycling Facilitation Act of 1992 (RCRFA), which was most recently amended in February 2002. The RCRFA introduced an advanced waste disposal fee system, in addition to the then-existing deposit system.

The RCRFA requires manufacturers and importers of beverages in metal cans, glass containers and polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottles to deposit a certain amount of money with the designated government agency to cover collection and recycling of these containers (manufacturers and importers of tires and lubricant oils are also subject to the deposit system).

When manufacturers and importers return their used cans and bottles to designated recycling facilities, they can recover the money that they deposited with the designated government agency. If a company belonging to a particular industry or an industry association runs its own waste recovery and recycling system, the deposit obligation imposed on the company or association can be waived. However, it is worth noting that the designated deposit amount is arguably too low to provide any real incentives to companies or associations to collect waste container materials. For example, the deposit fee for metal beverage cans is only 2 Won (roughly US $0.001662). Many firms simply pay the deposits and forego the recovery.

Korea’s recycling scheme has actually become more akin to an advance waste charge. While the deposit system is intended to encourage recycling, a waste-charge system’s aim is to discourage the use of certain products or materials. Products subject to the advance charge are diverse, and include certain pesticide containers, cosmetic containers and packaging, batteries, coolants, chewing gum, disposable diapers, synthetic fibers, and cigarettes.

Reasonable people may have questions about why such products and materials are included in Korea’s advance charge system. In fact, it has been argued that the Ministry of Environment has more of an interest in increasing its revenue than discouraging the use of such products. In reality, it is illogical at this point to discourage the use of automotive coolants, batteries, or synthetic fibers. Deposit and charge systems are more logically intended to facilitate recycling and promote waste minimization. However, it is doubtful whether these aims have been achieved in Korea. Frankly speaking, it may be that the intended purposes of such schemes in Korea are to increase government revenues.

Separation of Household Wastes

Because many manufacturers and importers simply elect to pay their deposits and foregoing recycling, the recycling rate of solid waste has not increased. Historically, the situation with household-level wastes was no different. There was simply no incentive for households to separate recyclables from non-recyclables, because Korea’s household waste collection fee was based on real estate value. This approach provided insufficient or inappropriate incentives for households to separate their recyclables or to reduce waste generation.

However, in 1994, the Ministry of Environment introduced a so-called “volume-based waste collection fee system.” After Jan. 1, 1995, all households and commercial building owners were required to purchase specially designed plastic bags for waste collection. Waste collection trucks only collect waste put in these bags. Under this system, people who generate more waste pay more. Another important aspect of the system is that the recyclables are collected separately. Further, the government does not require people to pay for “disposal” of separated recyclables. As long as people separate recyclable metal cans, glass bottles, plastic containers, and paper, they do not pay for disposal of such waste. As a result, many Korean people separate their recyclable waste just to save money that would otherwise be allocated to the purchase of additional waste collection bags. This system is widely perceived as being relatively easy to understand and follow. People simply separate the recyclables and the local governments’ curbside collection trucks take the recyclables away. However, it is worth noting that the local governments spend significant funds to collect the recyclables.

The Challenges of Mandatory Recycling

As a result of such recent efforts, the rate of waste recycling in Korea has increased dramatically. The Ministry of Environment is now reporting that more than 40 percent of household solid wastes are being “recycled.” Moreover, the Ministry ambitiously indicates that it wishes to increase this rate to 60 percent.

With the aspirations of the Korean Ministry of Environment in mind, it is noteworthy that many in Korea believe that the reported recycling rates are fictitious. Regardless of the actual situation, it is largely believed in Korea that many of the separated recyclables still are being sent to incinerators and landfills.

This perception presents a significant obstacle to effective promotion of the Korean government’s mandatory recycling regime. The Ministry of Environment’s ambitious program of making feed materials and fertilizers from food waste met with similar obstacles. Farms have refused to accept “recycled” fertilizers and feed materials, even though the government provides these items to farmers free of charge. As a result, many of the recycled fertilizers and feed materials end up in landfills. These obstacles highlight the challenges inherent in mandatory recycling regimes.

Take-Back System

Several Korean industries have decided to collect their product wastes and recycle or dispose of them properly on a voluntary basis. The Korean tire manufacturers’ association, for instance, collects discarded tires and sends them to cement kilns for incineration. Under Korean law, such disposal is regarded as “recycling” because the cement kilns “recover” the waste in the form of useful heat energy.

Major Korean electronics firms, such as Samsung and LG, face increasing public pressure to collect their used or obsolete products. The adoption in Germany of aggressive producer responsibility/take-back measures provided additional incentive to the Korean Ministry of Environment to formulate a similar regime for Korea. The RCRFA was completely revised in February 2002 in order to echo key measures in the German model in Korea’s own extended producer responsibility law reflecting significant product take-back requirements. The new act was scheduled to enter into effect in Korea on Jan. 1, 2003.

Korea’s take-back system will involve a number of key measures. For example, Manufacturers and importers of products and packages which can be returned and recycled or whose products and packages generate large quantities of waste will be required to recycle their product/packaging wastes, or to pay a recycling fee to the Recycling Co-op Association (Art. 16(1)) to cover take-back and recycling of the wastes. Manufacturers and importers, or recycling contractors, will be required to follow the recycling methods and standards set by the Ministry of Environment (Art. 16(3)). The Ministry will establish the volume of wastes to be recycled for each manufacturer and importer in consideration of the amount of the sale and the quantity of collected recyclables (Art. 17). The Ministry will appropriate the recycling fees from the manufacturer, importer, or the Recycling Co-op Association, when these entities do not recycle their wastes as required under the law (Art. 19).

That being said, manufacturers and importers of many products and containers in Korea will be required to collect and recycle certain waste products and containers beginning on Jan. 1, 2003. The Ministry of Environment will have the authority to decide which products and containers will be subject to this new regime. The current deposit system will be repealed as of Jan. 1, 2003. It is assumed that the products and packages which are subject to the deposit system will be initially covered by the Take-Back System. Many more items will be included in the new extended producer responsibility system.

Some Closing Recommendations

Korea’s recycling and waste reduction scheme is remarkable. However, the system has serious problems. Korea’s current recycling regime can be characterized as a “Recycle At Any Cost” approach. Sometimes, recycling wastes energy and generates even more pollutants than disposal. Therefore, mandatory recycling regimes can present more significant implementation challenges than other waste disposal approaches. The market in Korea is weak for recycled materials, largely because these materials are more expensive than raw materials. This method is hardly cost-effective, nor is it founded on sound science or sound economic analysis.

Korea’s waste minimization approach also faces substantial challenges. Mandating that fast food restaurants use reusable cups is a requirement that may appear more simple than is actually the fact. Reusable cups require extensive and expensive washing operations on site which use energy and generate waste water. Additionally, mandating recycling of paper cups/containers may not be the best approach in Korea, as there is already an overabundance of waste paper to be recycled. The waste minimization approach does not currently incorporate life-cycle analyses and could benefit from such studies.

In recent years, many American fast food chains have been cited in Korea for violating the recycling laws. So far, these firms have received only warnings. However, beginning Jan. 1, 2003, such firms will be fined up to 3 million Won for each violation. The greatest challenge to this system is that it does not appear to be grounded in reality. At present, it is extremely challenging, if not impossible, to consistently ensure compliance with the government’s planned requirement of 90 percent recycling/recovery. Without a significant infusion of good sense into this system, it will be difficult to further promote acceptance of the government’s extended producer responsibility agenda.