Policy Brief

SENATE ECONOMIC PLANNING OFFICE

April 2023 PB-23-01

Unpacking Policy Options to Reduce

Single-Use Plastics in the Philippines
The world is facing a Introduction
global plastics crisis.
The widespread and indiscriminate use of plastic, a marvel of the modern
Plastics have been
economy since its industrial production began in the 1950s, has led to a serious
accumulating in environmental problem of global proportion. About 79 percent of the plastics that
landfills or worse, have ever been produced end up either in landfills or the natural environment.
flowing into the Plastic pollution is adversely affecting marine life, ecosystems, fisheries, people’s
natural environment. livelihoods, health, and well-being, among other dimensions of sustainable
development. In 2016, it was estimated that 8 million tonnes,1 an equivalent of
Accordingly, the one garbage truck of plastic wastes every minute, leak into the world’s oceans
Philippines is the every year (WEF, 2016). If this trend continues, projections reveal that oceans will
third largest contributor have more plastic than fish by 2050. For this reason, in 2022, the United Nations
to global ocean plastic Environment Assembly, the world's highest-level decision-making body on the
environment, agreed to forge an international legally binding agreement by 2024
pollution. As global to end plastic pollution.
concerted action and
locally-led interventions To help reduce the staggering plastic pollution, the Philippine Congress
passed the Extended Producer Responsibility Act (EPRA) of 2022 or Republic Act
to address this crisis (RA) No. 11898 which lapsed into law in July 2022. This requires large enterprises
gain momentum, the to start recovering their plastic packaging wastes in December 2023. However, it
time is ripe for the appears that much more remains to be done in waste prevention or upstream
country to study other dimension of the plastic pollution problem. The right combination of policy
instruments could influence both producer and consumer behaviors and curb the
policy options on a
projected steady increase in single use plastic production and consumption in the
national scale to help imminent future, a task which no single policy may be able to sufficiently address.
stop plastic pollution The Philippines is the third largest contributor to global ocean plastic pollution
and safeguard the (Jambeck, et al., 2015). It produces 2.7 million tonnes of plastic waste each year,
of which half a million tonnes end up in oceans (McKinsey and Ocean Conservancy,
environment, health,
2015). In the 19th Congress, bills on nationwide ban on single-use plastics (SUPs)
and well-being of have been refiled both in the Senate and the House of Representatives (HRep). The
its people. Department of Finance (DOF) is likewise pushing for the imposition of excise tax
on SUP bags. The proposed excise tax on plastic bags was approved on Third
Reading by the HRep in November 2022 and sent to the Senate for concurrence.

In view of these developments, this Policy Brief presents a discussion of the

plastic waste landscape and offers an analysis of the policy options to address the
The SEPO Policy Brief, a problem of plastic pollution and reduce its wide-ranging and harmful impacts.
publication of the Senate
Economic Planning Office,
Reflecting on the documented experience of countries in implementing various
provides analysis and discussion policy instruments and learning from their successes and failures, this Policy Brief
on important socio-economic suggests key considerations in legislating an SUP regulation law and an SUP tax
issues as inputs to the work of measure that fit the local context.
Senators and Senate Officials. The
SEPO Policy Brief is also available
1
at www.senate.gov.ph. Tonne is the main unit of weight used in this Policy Brief. For consistency and comparability, figures
expressed in tons or metric tons as used in the references cited were converted into tonnes.
1| P a g e
1. Plastic waste landscape: Global to local perspective

Plastic is a persistent material used across various sectors such as packaging, building and construction, textiles,
consumer products, transportation, electronics, and industrial machinery. It is a low-cost, easily formable, high-
modulus,2 water resistant, bio-inert3 material used in a broad range of consumer products (Lebreton and Andrady,
2019). The durable, lightweight, and inexpensive attributes of plastics are the main reasons for their popularity and
increasing use among consumers. Plastic packaging is the largest application of plastic resins,4 accounting for 36
percent (158 million tonnes) of the world’s total plastic production by mass (Geyer, 2020). Since the 1950s, plastic
packaging has replaced paper, glass, metal and other reusable materials in the commercial, retail, household, tourism
and agricultural sectors. Plastic packaging results in less breakage during transportation and handling compared to
paper or glass packaging. The medical industry uses plastic packaging to ensure that equipment remains sterile and to
securely store medicines in plastic containers (WWF, 2020). Aside from its direct economic benefits, plastic packaging
can reduce food waste by extending shelf life and can lessen fuel consumption for transportation by bringing packaging
weight down (WEF, 2016).

What are single-use plastics?

Single-use plastics (SUPs) are often also referred to as disposable plastics. They are made primarily from fossil
fuel-based chemicals (petrochemicals). They are commonly used as plastic packaging including items intended to be
used only once before they are thrown away or recycled (e.g., grocery bags, food packaging, bottles, straws,
containers, cups, cutlery, etc.) (UNEP, 2018).

2. Plastic production and consumption in the Philippines

The Philippines is a net importer of plastics. In 2021, it imported a total of 1.98 million tonnes of plastic raw
materials, plastic products, and plastic packaging, and exported 393 k tonnes of the same to other countries. As of
2019, the total virgin resin5 production capacity of the country was 900 k tonnes and projected to increase by at least
360 k tonnes from 2021 onwards (World Bank, 2021). The World Wildlife Fund (2020) estimates that 2.15 million
tonnes of plastic materials were produced for local consumption in 2019.

Use of plastics in the country Figure 1. Annual Household Plastic Packaging

Consumption (in million tonnes)
The local plastic manufacturing, which converts plastic
resins to industrial and consumer finished products, serves as
an allied industry linked to automotive and transportation,
home appliances, food, drug, and cosmetics, soap and
detergent, fiber and textiles, electrical and electronics,
buildings and construction, and healthcare industries. Finished
products include flexible plastics, net, twine and sack, pipes
and fittings, plastic bags, Polyvinyl chloride (PVC)6 products,
recycled plastics, rigid plastics, styro products, tapes, and
others (PPIA, n.d.). Plastics are pervasive and ubiquitous in the
lives of Filipinos. The average plastic consumption per capita of
the country is estimated to be 20 kilograms (kg) per year, Source of data: WWF (2020)
around 40 percent to 50 percent of which are used for packaging (WWF, 2020). Moreover, the Philippines’ total
estimated annual household consumption of plastic packaging is 1.28 million tonnes, which is higher compared to
Malaysia, Thailand, and Vietnam (Figure 1). In addition, from 1999 to 2019, the market share of refillables in the
Philippines decreased by 27 percent, due to the thirteen-fold increase of single-use polyethylene terephthalate (PET)
bottle sales (Wilcox and Mackenzie, 2021). The World Bank (2021) projects that under a business-as-usual scenario,
plastic production and consumption in the Philippines will grow by more than 50 percent over the next 10 years and
by up to 230 percent by 2040. Moreover, the volume of plastic products that are difficult to recycle are also expected
to increase by more than 200 percent by 2040.

2 The higher the modulus, the stiffer the material (i.e., the greater the stress necessary to cause deformation).
3 Bio-inert materials do not interact, respond to, or promote a chemical reaction or other response with biological materials.
4 Resin is the core ingredient of all plastic products.
5 Virgin resin is manufactured from natural resources such as petrochemical feedstock, crude oil, natural gas, etc.
6 PVC is a commonly used polymer that finds applications in a variety of products (e.g., pipes, packaging foils, bottles, medical products).

2| P a g e
2.1 The sachet economy

The sachet economy promotes the consumption of small units of consumer products—such as detergent,
shampoo, soap, powdered milk, coffee, condiments, or cosmetics—in single-use packages. The products are packaged
in small, disposable plastic bags called sachets. Sachets have been aggressively marketed by the fast-moving consumer
goods (FMCG)7 industry in the 1990s to increase market penetration of products and influence consumer buying
behavior across income groups. Prior to the proliferation of the sachet economy, the “tingi” (buying in small amounts)
culture of Filipinos was defined by sustainable practices of refilling reusable containers. Non-recyclable sachets have
since replaced reusable materials due to their low-price points, perceived convenience, wide availability, portability,
and controlled dosage. Sachet products are sold almost everywhere in the country—from sari-sari and convenience
stores to supermarkets. Sachets comprise 52 percent of the plastic waste stream in the country. According to a 2019
Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA) study, the average Filipino consumes 591 sachets, 174 shopping
bags, and 163 labo8 bags in a year. About 57 million shopping bags, 45.2 million labo bags, 1.1 billion diapers, and 164
million sachets are estimated to be thrown away each day. Among socioeconomic classes, sachet consumption was
highest among those in Class E at 65 percent, followed by those in Class D at 61 percent, and Class ABC at 51 percent
(GAIA, 2019).

2.2 Plastics as wastes

Most plastic packaging is disposed of after being used only once. As such, discarded packaging accounts for
about half (152 million tonnes) of total global annual plastic waste generation (Geyer, 2020). Plastic food wrappers
(chip bags, candy wrappers, drink pouches and similar packaging), cigarette butts (which contain plastic filters), plastic
beverage bottles, plastic bottle caps, and straws and stirrers were the top debris items collected during the 2019
International Coastal Clean-up (Ocean Conservancy, 2020). In Metro Manila’s informal settlements where waste
collection is more challenging, plastics and other wastes are thrown in waterways or on the streets, eventually blocking
drains and causing flooding. The GAIA study revealed that more than 50 percent of all unrecyclable residual waste in
the country is branded waste, and only 10 companies are responsible for 60 percent of branded waste in the study
sites. The results of the brand audit point to the need for manufacturers to take responsibility for their plastic wastes,
not only by collecting and recycling, but more so by reducing production of single-use plastic packaging.

Extent and impacts of plastic pollution

Model estimates by Lebreton and Andrady (2019) suggest that the Philippines generates 4.52 million tonnes of
plastic waste per year. This amount is more than 1.5 times the often cited 2.7 million tonnes of plastic waste per year
(McKinsey and Ocean Conservancy, 2015). Based on a 2021 market study by the World Bank, the Philippines only
recycled about 28 percent (292 k tonnes per year) of the key resins consumed in 2019. The remaining 72 percent of
unrecycled plastics end up either dumped in landfills or improperly disposed of, easily making their way to drainages,
canals, rivers, and out to sea. Studies suggest that plastic bags and polystyrene (Styrofoam) can take up to thousands
of years to decompose, contaminating soil and water (UNEP, 2018). External costs of plastics are present throughout
their production, consumption, and end-of-life phase when plastic products become waste. In low-income countries,
the cost of managing solid wastes is a large expenditure item, comprising nearly 20 percent of annual municipal
budgets (World Bank, 2018).

Plastics, environment, and health

Poor management of plastic waste through open dumping, open burning, and disposal in waterways cause its
unabated leakage to the environment. McKinsey and Ocean Conservancy (2015) found that about 74 percent of all
plastic leakage in the country comes from already collected waste. They estimated that over half of open dumpsites
in the country are located within a kilometer of a waterway and between 70 percent and 90 percent of the waste
dumped illegally ultimately ends up in waterways. A more recent study by Meijer et al. (2021) found the Philippines
contributed around one-third (36 percent) of plastic emissions from rivers that ended up in the world’s oceans. On a
per capita basis, the Philippines emits 3.5 kg of plastic per person to the ocean, while the average for Asia is 0.17 kg
per person (Ritchie, 2021).

7 FMCGs are products that are sold quickly and at relatively low cost.
8 Labo is a translucent plastic bag.
3| P a g e
 The abundance of plastic in the ecosystem negatively impacts coastal and marine species and habitats. Plastic
debris, from small fragments to plastic bags and bottles, pose considerable threat by choking and starving wildlife such
as sea birds, turtles, and other marine mammals (Barnes et al., 2009). Marine wildlife faces the threat of entanglement
causing restricted movement for such animals, which can lead to starvation, suffocation, laceration, subsequent
infection, and possible mortality. The seafood industry could also suffer long-term effects due to ingestion and
bioaccumulation,9 which can result in public health risks if contaminated fish are eaten (UNEP and NOAA, 2011). A
Department of Environment and Natural Resources-Ecosystems Research and Development Bureau (DENR-ERDB)
study confirmed the presence of microplastics10 in ten study areas nationwide.

The pandemic exacerbates the problem of plastic pollution. Chowdhury et al. (2021) found that annual plastic
waste generated from mismanaged face masks was 2.15 million tonnes in analyzed countries. The Philippines
contributed six percent of plastic generation (139.53 k tonnes of mismanaged waste annually and from 20.93 k tonnes
to 55.82 k tonnes of debris input into oceans from face masks only). As plastic particles propagate pathogens,11
indiscriminately disposed face masks in the environment could possibly act as a medium for disease outbreak (Fadare
and Okoffo, 2020).

Plastics and climate

By 2050, the cumulative greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from plastic could be responsible for 10 percent to 13
percent of the world’s remaining carbon budget12 (Center for International Environmental Law, 2019). Aside from the
emissions produced from oil and gas extraction and plastic production, landfilling, recycling, and incineration of plastic
wastes generate differing amounts of emissions. Incineration is the primary source of emissions from plastic waste
management.

3. Policy instruments adopted by countries and their effectiveness

The increasing adoption of laws and policies to control the production and use of SUPs globally started from the
early 2000s. By July 2018, at least 127 countries have passed some form of legislation regulating plastics (UNEP, 2020).
Policy instruments range from regulatory, economic, and informative or behavioral approaches. Regulatory
approaches include bans, prohibitions, standards, input thresholds, or limits. Bans and restrictions directly prohibit
the production, importation or exportation, distribution, sale, or use of one or more SUP products. Product standards,
certification and labelling requirements can be designed to target sustainable alternatives to SUPs or to mitigate the
harm caused by SUPs.

Meanwhile, economic instruments impose taxes to deter production or use of SUPs or offer tax breaks,
subsidies, or other fiscal incentives to encourage the production and use of alternatives to SUP products. Economic
instruments provide price incentives to firms and consumers to change behavior, use resources more efficiently, and
reduce the negative environmental impacts, but do not force firms and consumers to change behavior if it is too costly
(World Bank, 2022). Extended producer responsibility (EPR) requires companies to assume responsibility for their
products in every stage of their product’s life cycle. Deposit refund schemes motivate consumers via a full refund of a
small deposit to return the packaging back to the shop/collection point to ensure proper recycling and increase the
recycling rates.

Based on a 2018 United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) study, Africa is leading in the imposition of
total ban on plastic bags while a mix of bans and economic instruments are in place in Asia. According to a more recent
study by Desalegn and Tangl (2022), taxing plastic products is often observed in developed countries, while banning
plastic products is more common in developing countries. Meanwhile, a study by Karasik et al. (2020) found that
national governments primarily used regulatory instruments, having been implemented 3.5 times more frequently
than economic instruments and 3 times more frequently than information instruments (Figure 2).

9 Bioaccumulation describes the accumulation and enrichment of contaminants in organisms, relative to that in the environment.
10 Microplastics are plastic particles less than 5 millimeters (mm). Primary microplastics are those originally produced at the micro-size level for
applications such as cosmetics or industrial scrubbers; secondary microplastics are fragments at the micro-size level that have resulted from
the breakdown of larger plastic products. According to WWF (2020), while the prevailing view is that microplastics simply pass through a
human’s digestive system, there is new evidence that plastic particles may be accumulating in human organs and tissues.
11 A pathogen is an organism causing disease to its host.
12 The carbon budget is the estimated amount of GHG emissions the world can emit while still having a likely chance of limiting global

temperature rise to 2°C above pre-industrial levels.

4| P a g e
 Figure 2. Number of National Policies Using Each Policy Instrument to Manage Plastic Pollution

Source: Karasik et al. (2020)

In 2017, Kenya imposed what appears to be the most stringent ban on the production sale, and use of plastic
bags, with violators subject to imprisonment for up to four years or fines of up to US$40,000 (UNEP, n.d.).

In the European Union (EU), essential requirements must be met in order for packaging to be allowed entry into
the European market. A set of standards for implementation of the essential requirements apply to all EU member
states and have also been adopted by Iceland, Norway and Switzerland, and companies in Australia, the United States
of America (USA), Asia and the Middle East. The essential requirements cover the manufacture and composition,
reusable nature, and recoverable nature of packaging (UNEP, 2020).

Meanwhile, the plastic bag tax in Ireland is regarded as one of the most successful examples of an intervention
to reduce the consumption of plastic bags. In 2002, Ireland imposed a tax on the sale of plastic bags to customers
based on a survey of consumer willingness to pay for plastic bags. The levy was set six times higher, which may have
provided a strong deterrent effect. When the consumption of plastic bags began to rebound in the years following
introduction of the tax, the regulations were amended to raise the tax, increasing it to €0.22 in 2007, €0.44 in 2009,
with a ceiling of €0.70 for subsequent amendments (UNEP, 2020).

Almost all EU member States have adopted EPR schemes for plastic packaging waste. This contributed to the
significant increases in recycling rates in the EU, with the average plastic packaging recycling rate reaching 40 percent
in 2015, well above the 22.5 percent target (Leal Filho et al., 2019).

Deposit refund schemes that encourage the return of plastic containers for reuse and recycling are spreading
rapidly as these are adopted by countries as effective model for reducing plastic wastes (e.g., Australia, Canada, Chile,
EU countries, Turkey, United Kingdom, USA) (World Bank, 2022). According to a 2021 study by non-profit research
organization Reloop, in 2020, 291 million people lived in countries or territories which used deposits, and by the end
of 2023, this is expected to reach almost 500 million.

A combination of policy instruments allows regulators to target various types of consumer behavior, addresses
multiple points of the life cycle of SUPs, and combines long-term and short-term initiatives, thereby creating a more
comprehensive policy intervention (UNEP, 2020). The World Bank (2022) finds that none of the countries it analyzed
in its case studies relied on a single policy instrument to reduce plastic wastes. For example, a plastic ban in Rwanda
was complemented by government subsidies for manufacturers of alternative materials and products. In Bangladesh,
because of the lack of cost-effective alternative materials, the utilization of polyethylene bags was still widespread
despite the 2002 ban on plastic bags (Uddin et al., 2019). In response, the Bangladeshi government implemented the
Jute Packaging Act (2010) to provide a market for local jute-based substitutes to plastic packaging. Finland has adopted
and combined several interventions, including a beverage packaging tax, a voluntary deposit-refund scheme, and a
behavioral-change campaign. Such a combination of approaches has helped ensure high rates of return under the
deposit system. Producers who participated in the voluntary deposit-refund scheme were eligible for exemption from
the beverage packaging tax, creating an incentive to join the deposit-refund scheme (Ettlinger, 2016).

5| P a g e
 Meanwhile, for EPR to yield the expected benefits, it should be treated as a component of a wider policy mix.
For instance, coherence should be ensured between the objectives and implementation of EPR and other regulatory
and economic instruments such as recycling targets, bans, product/material and waste taxes, pay-as-you-throw
schemes, labelling, voluntary agreements, procurement policies, and information and awareness campaigns (Leal Filho
et al., 2019). To systematically quantify the multiple impacts of applying various policy instruments, World Bank piloted
a Plastic Policy Simulator (PPS) in Indonesia, promoting coherence and sustainability in upstream and downstream
policies (World Bank, 2022).

4. Benefits and implications of policy instruments on SUPs

While there is little evidence on how effective the policies to manage plastic pollution are, some studies on the
experience of several countries provide encouraging results:

a. Reduced consumption of SUPs – Some countries such as Bulgaria, Fiji, and Rwanda successfully used bans to
reduce the consumption of plastic bags and food packaging (World Bank, 2022). In Portugal, four months after
the tax was introduced in 2015, the consumption of lightweight plastic bags decreased by 74 percent, while that
of reusable plastic bags, exempted from the levy, increased by 61 percent (Martinho, Balaia, and Pires, 2017).
In the UK, usage of SUP bags fell by 85 percent after the introduction of a five pence per bag charge in 2015
(Smithers, 2016). In Ireland, within one year from the introduction of the tax, the use of plastic bags dropped by
more than 90 percent and the consumption per person fell from 328 plastic bags per year to 21 bags (UNEP,
2018). When Lithuania implemented a deposit refund system, the number of drink containers wasted per capita
fell sharply from 113 in 2015 to just 14 in 2017 (Wilcox and Mackenzie, 2021).
b. Increased production of sustainable alternatives – In Italy, a ban on plastic bags stimulated an increase in the
production of biodegradable and compostable bags. In Rwanda, government subsidies spurred the emergence
of small businesses offering alternatives, including paper bags, textile bags, and bags made of hemp, papyrus,
bamboo, or banana peel (World Bank, 2022).
c. Lowered waste management costs – EPR applications in Europe and the Republic of Korea have reduced
disposal rates, increased recycling rates, and lowered waste management costs by reducing the burden on
public budgets for municipal waste management and increasing the cost efficiency of collection and recycling
processes (Watkins et al., 2017).
d. Reduced plastic pollution – In Ireland, it has been estimated that plastic bags constituted 0.13 percent of litter
pollution nationally in 2014 compared to an estimated 5 percent in 2001 prior to the introduction of the levy
(Anastasio and Nix, 2016).
e. Increased government revenues – The Irish plastic tax also generated €200 million in 12 years, with the revenue
used to fund Ireland’s environmental protection agency, for environment remediation projects, awareness
raising, and similar objectives (Anastasio and Nix, 2016).

The reduction in SUPs following the introduction of policies has been mainly highlighted in the studies. However,
research related to environmental outcomes such as the positive impact on aquatic or marine environments is still
lacking (Xanthos and Walker, 2017). This knowledge gap tends to be underscored by critics, aside from arguing that
policies around SUPs are anti-poor and non-inclusive or they create other environmental problems.

4.1 Are policies against SUPs anti-poor and non-inclusive?

Plastic pollution already disproportionately affects vulnerable groups and communities who live near waste
disposal sites. It would be unfortunate if policies to address plastic wastes will further exacerbate the economic
disadvantage and social exclusion of the marginalized segments of the society. Therefore, a SUP ban or tax should
consider how policies will be experienced differently by stakeholders and what is at stake when policy instruments are
constructed without consulting marginalized populations. For example, if there are no affordable and suitable
alternatives to SUPs, a plastic ban or tax will cause a predicament for small vendors, unless certain exemptions are
provided to them. Other contentious aspects of plastic regulation are the resulting job and economic losses. For
example, the plastic bag retailers in Nairobi, Kenya claimed that the plastic ban had resulted in the loss of 60,000 direct
jobs. Another concern with the plastic ban, particularly on plastic straws, is the lack of regard for persons with
disabilities who need plastic straws to drink, eat, and take medications, among others. Access to alternative and more
expensive straw materials (e.g., metal, glass, and plastic reusable straws), and the ability to use them safely, is a
privilege many persons with disabilities cannot afford (Jenks and Obringer, 2019).

6| P a g e
4.2 Will plastic regulation help or hurt the environment?

The wider environmental impact of banning or taxing certain SUPs has been a subject of concern if consumers
replace them with more environmentally harmful substitutes. A study by Taylor (2019) found that SUP bag policies
have an adverse effect if carbon emissions were the only metric of success. Although it is known that plastic production
leads to carbon emissions, how plastic waste affects marine ecosystems is not well understood. This makes it hard to
evaluate the net positive environmental impacts of SUP bag policies. Moreover, life cycle assessments13 have
difficulties in quantifying the toxicity of materials and impacts on wildlife (Freinkel, 2011). Hence, the choice of policy
instruments on SUPs should be evaluated not only for their resulting carbon emissions but for their over-all
environmental, economic, and social impact, especially on vulnerable populations.

5. Current policy landscape in the Philippines, recent developments, and gaps

Ecological Solid Waste Management Act (ESWMA) of 2000

The ESWMA of 2000 (RA No. 9003) serves as the main legal framework on solid waste management in the
Philippines. It mandates the segregation of solid waste at source and prohibits the use of open dumps for solid waste.
As an alternative, sanitary landfill sites shall be developed and operated as a final disposal site for solid and, eventually,
residual wastes of a municipality or city, or a cluster of municipalities and/or cities. Pursuant to the Local Government
Code (LGC) of 1991 (RA No. 7160), the law provides that local government units (LGUs) are primarily responsible for
segregation, collection, and disposal of solid wastes within their respective jurisdictions. LGUs are mandated to
develop and implement solid waste management plans and divert at least 25 percent of all solid waste from waste
disposal facilities through re-use, recycling, and composting activities, and other resource recovery activities. Under
the law, Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) shall be established in every barangay or cluster of barangays to improve
resource recovery.

ESWMA of 2000 also directed the National Solid Waste Management Commission (NSWMC) to prepare a list of
non-environmentally acceptable products (NEAP), provided that NEAP shall not be prohibited unless the NSWMC first
finds that there are alternatives available to consumers at no more than ten percent greater cost than the disposable
product. In 2015, the NSWMC approved Resolution No. 238, adopting the Life Cycle Analysis Study which found that
non-woven reusable polypropylene bags, popularly known as eco-bags, have the least environmental impact
compared to SUPs or paper bags. In 2021, the NSWMC passed Resolution No. 1428, which identified SUP straws and
coffee stirrers as NEAP based on a rapid assessment by the Department of Science and Technology (DOST). More than
two years on, the guidelines for the phase-out of the two products have yet to be issued, reportedly due to industry
pushbacks. In addition, the NSWMC also passed Resolution No. 1363 in 2020 directing the DENR to prepare and
implement the banning of the use of unnecessary SUPs by national government agencies, local government offices
and offices of all other government-owned and -controlled corporations (GOCCs). The seven plastic products covered
by the ban are cups less than 0.2 millimeter in thickness, drinking straws, coffee stirrers, spoons, forks, knives, and
labo and thin-filmed sando14 bags lower than 15 microns. However, aside from a few government offices banning SUPs
by virtue of their respective memorandum orders or circulars (e.g., Supreme Court, Philippine Ports Authority,
Department of Health, Provincial and City Governments of Iloilo), government-wide implementation remains unclear.

Apart from the slow-paced implementation of the NEAP mandate, compliance to the more than 20-year-old law
is weak. Only 1,147 (67 percent) out of 1,716 LGUs in the Philippines have an approved 10-year solid waste
management plan as of February 2023. About 11,752 MRFs have been established serving 17,047 barangays, a mere
41 percent coverage of the 42,022 barangays in the country as of June 2022. There are 290 sanitary landfills that serve
590 LGUs or 36 percent of cities and municipalities as of December 2022. The LGUs’ lack of available financial resources
for engineered sanitary landfills and appropriate technologies, the NSWMC’s shortcomings as the facilitator to LGUs,
and weak waste reduction strategies are among the concerns that should be addressed to solve the country’s solid
waste management issues (PIDS, 2021). Despite the encompassing nature of RA No. 9003, the challenges of plastic
waste management are not adequately addressed. Households likewise do not fully comply with the law, which may
be partly attributed to lack of available infrastructure and consistent systems for waste segregation, collection, and

13 A life cycle assessment is a systematic analysis of environmental impact over the course of the entire life cycle of a product, material, process,
or other measurable activity.
14 A sando bag is a type of plastic packaging with handles for the purpose of carrying, holding, and/or transporting goods and other produce.

7| P a g e
processing (DENR, 2021). In terms of waste-segregation-at source behavior, the Philippines is far behind Malaysia,
Thailand, and Vietnam and has 2-3 times the rate of littering (World Bank, 2021).

Extended Producer Responsibility Act (EPRA) of 2022

The EPRA of 2022 (RA No. 11898) has amended the ESWMA of 2000. It seeks to address the worsening problem
of plastic pollution in the Philippines through the proper and effective recovery and management of plastic packaging
wastes. It also mandates the development of a National Extended Producer Responsibility Framework for all product
wastes, which includes the establishment of waste management infrastructure such as commercial or industrial scale
recycling, composting, thermal treatment, and other waste diversion facilities for waste products.

EPR is a policy approach under which producers are given a significant responsibility for the end-of-life
management of their used (or post-consumer) products which includes collection, sorting, and treating these for their
recycling and recovery (EXPRA, 2016). The EPRA of 2022 is an application of the “polluter pays” principle,15 shifting the
burden of managing plastic wastes from taxpayers to obliged enterprises. Under the EPRA, obliged enterprises or large
enterprises with over PhP100 million in total assets that generate plastic packaging waste should establish or phase in
recovery programs for plastic packaging within six months from the effectivity of the law.16 They are required to
recover or offset 20 percent to 80 percent of their respective plastic packaging footprints beginning 2023 up to 2028
and beyond. Recovery programs may include redemption or buy-back schemes, recycling, clean-up of waste leaked to
coastal areas, public roads, and other sites, establishment of commercial or industrial scale recycling, composting, and
thermal treatment, and partnership with LGUs, communities, and informal waste sector. The National Ecology Center
(NEC) under the NSMWC is mandated to monitor and evaluate the compliance of obliged enterprises and producer
responsibility organizations17 with the registration of their EPR programs.

National Action Plans

Even with the intensified efforts to improve the compliance with the ESWMA of 2000, achieving the solid waste
management targets proved to be difficult due to the lack of available waste diversion technologies and infrastructure
and insufficient capacity to conduct compliance monitoring. The Philippine Development Plan (PDP) 2017-2022
targeted a national waste diversion rate of 75 percent and 80 percent by 2021 and 2022, respectively. In 2021,
accomplishment for LGUs within and outside Metro Manila increased to 54 percent and 72 percent, respectively, but
fell short of the 2021 target (NEDA, 2021). This means a significant share of wastes, including plastic wastes, still runs
the risk of being mismanaged, improperly disposed of, and leaked into the environment.

In 2021, the DENR adopted the National Plan of Action for the Prevention, Reduction and Management of
Marine Litter (NPOA-ML), which provides a blueprint to enhance the current efforts in resource and waste
management and address marine litter issues towards an overarching goal of “Zero Waste to Philippine Waters by
2040.” Strategies include the establishment of science- and evidence-based baseline information on marine litter,
mainstreaming circular economy18 and sustainable consumption and production19 initiatives, enhancing recovery and
recycling coverage and markets, preventing leakage from collected or disposed waste, and strengthening LGU
capacities and local level implementation of the NPOA-ML. Strategic actions towards increased circularity include the
following, among others:

15 “Polluter pays” principle is the commonly accepted practice that the polluter should bear the costs of managing the pollution to prevent
damage to human health or the environment.
16 Plastic packaging includes: (a) sachets, labels, laminates, and other flexible plastic packaging products; (b) rigid plastic packaging products

which include containers for beverages, food, home, personal care, and cosmetic products, including their coverings, caps, or lids, and other
necessities or promotional items such as cutlery, plates, drinking straws, or sticks, tarps, signage, or labels; (c) plastic bags, which include SUP
bags; and (d) polystyrene.
17 Under Section 44-H of the EPRA of 2022, obliged enterprises may voluntarily organize themselves to form or authorize a Producer

Responsibility Organization (PRO) for the purpose of establishing a viable platform to implement their EPR programs.
18 Circular economy or circularity refers to an economic model of creating value by extending product lifespan through improved design and

servicing, and relocating ways from the end of the supply chain to the beginning. This intends to efficiently utilize resources by its continual
use and aims to retain the highest utility and value of products, components, and materials at all times through sharing, leasing, reuse, repair,
refurbishment, and recycling in an almost closed loop.
19 Sustainable consumption and production refer to the use of services and related products that respond to the basic needs and bring a better

quality of life while minimizing the use of natural resources and toxic materials, as well as the emission of wastes and pollutants over the life
cycle of the service or product, so as not to jeopardize the needs of future generations.

8| P a g e
 a. Study, develop, and promote the use of sustainable packaging and other business models, which are
environmentally sound and economically viable, including alternative product delivery systems, e.g., refill
models;
b. Promote research and enhance product/packaging re-design for improved reusability and recyclability; and
c. Promote innovative and sustainable ways to a shift to avoid or reduce disposables consumption in
establishments and institutions, including hotels, restaurants, delivery services, and healthcare facilities.

The National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA) developed the Philippine Action Plan for Sustainable
Consumption and Production (PAP4SCP), which will guide and facilitate the implementation of sustainable
consumption and production across sectors in the country. To increase uptake of green products and services, the
PAP4SCP aims to strengthen the country’s National Ecolabeling20 Program. It also identified the need to study and
develop alternatives to SUPs to support phase-out. Strengthening green public procurement is also considered to
enhance compliance of procuring entities in integrating green criteria in procurement guidelines, bidding documents,
and technical specifications.

Local ordinances on SUPs Figure 3. Nature of Plastic-Related Local Ordinances

in the Philippines
Under Section 17 of the LGC of 1991, municipal
and city governments are responsible for the “solid
waste disposal system or environmental management
system and services or facilities related to general
hygiene and sanitation.” LGUs also have the primary
mandate in implementing the ESWMA of 2000. Thus,
several LGUs have taken the lead to address the
problem of plastic wastes. Based on NSWMC 2019 data,
489 LGUs or 30 percent of all cities and municipalities in
the country have a policy on SUPs. According to a
stocktaking report by the United Nations Development
Source of data: UNDP (2020)
Programme (UNDP), there are 168 recorded local
ordinances to regulate the use of plastics. Almost half (46 percent) of the local ordinances enforce a ban, 35 percent
implement a regulation, and the rest impose a combination of a ban of plastic bags and other non-biodegradable
materials for dry goods, and regulation for wet goods (Figure 3). Plastic bags and polystyrene are the most common
items banned or regulated. While a growing number of cities and municipalities are adopting SUP policies, UNDP
(2020) found that implementation and compliance varies considerably. GAIA (2019) points out that local ordinances
do not generally cover branded plastics that include sachets and other primary packaging used by food, personal care,
and household products. It further argues that the existence of a plastic bag regulation in a city or municipality does
not automatically equate to lower plastic bag use.

Despite the encouraging developments in plastic wastes management with the recent enactment of the EPRA
of 2022, the promulgation of national action plans, and the growing number of LGU-led efforts, the projected steady
increase in the production and consumption of SUPs in the foreseeable future remains to be addressed. National
policies mainly seek solutions in the downstream part of the plastic life cycle—after plastic products were used and
became wastes. The Philippines, therefore, needs to learn from global experience of extending policy interventions
towards upstream solutions—at the waste prevention at the design and production stages (World Bank, 2022).

6. Analysis of policy options

As of this writing, two major policy instruments are being proposed in the 19th Congress: 1) the SUPs Regulation
and Management Act21 under Senate Bill No. (SBN) 246 by Senators Loren Legarda and Joel Villanueva; and 2) the SUP
Bags Tax Act under SBNs 1449 and 1844 by Senators Villanueva and Raffy Tulfo, and House Bill No. (HBN) 4102 by
Representative Joey Sarte Salceda et al.

20 Ecolabeling is the practice of marking products with a distinctive label to show that their manufacture conforms to recognized environmental
standards. In the Philippines, the National Ecolabeling Program is a voluntary program that provides criteria for environmentally sound and
preferable products and services through life cycle consideration.
21 In the HRep, there are at least 18 similar measures on regulating single-use plastics as of April 2023, namely: HBNs 26, 507, 533, 1038, 1248,

2060, 2170, 2274, 2372, 2988, 3021, 3309, 4037, 4915, 6260, 6453, 6662, and 7365.
9| P a g e
6.1 SUPs Regulation and Management Bill

In the Senate, the SUPs Regulation and Management Bill under SBN 246 was referred to the Committee on
Environment, Natural Resources and Climate Change while its counterpart bills in the HRep were referred to the
Committee on Ecology. These Senate and House bills are all currently pending at the Committee level.

SUP phase-out within one year. The proposed SUPs Regulation and Management Act mandates the phase-out
of SUPs by all business enterprises to consumers and prohibits the importation of SUPs one year from the effectivity
of the Act. SUPs are defined under the measure as disposable plastics which are commonly used for plastic packaging
and include items intended to be used only once before they are thrown away or recycled. These include, but are not
limited to, items such as grocery bags, food packaging films and bags, manufacturing water bottles, straws, stirrers,
containers, styrofoam/styros, cups, sachets, and plastic cutlery. The measure stipulates that under the interim period
(within one year), the provision of SUPs by food establishments, markets, and retailers shall be strictly prohibited.
Consumers shall be encouraged/diverted to use reusable materials in substitution for SUPs. For each piece of SUPs
already manufactured and in circulation at the time, the retailers shall charge the consumer a minimum levy of five
pesos (PhP5.00), 20 percent of which shall be kept by the business enterprise to cover the cost of the said bags, while
80 percent shall be remitted to the Special Plastic Fund under the measure.

At the outset, a baseline assessment should inform any policy to curb the production and use of SUPs. Such
assessment should include an analysis of the plastic waste problem and the concerns of manufacturers, retailers, and
consumers. The immediate phase-out under similar proposed measures in the past has been met with resistance by
the local plastics industry, citing adverse impact on employment. A viable compromise is to set a tiered phase-out
schedule with a longer transition period. This would provide a reasonable timeframe for the industry to shift to the
production of alternative packaging. In the 18th Congress, the HRep Committee on Ecology in its Committee Report
No. 897 (HBN 9147) proposed the following phase-out schedule:

a. Within one year from the effectivity of the Act – drinking straws, stirrers, sticks for candy, balloon, and cotton
bud, buntings, confetti, and packaging or bags of less than 10 microns in thickness;
b. Within four years from the effectivity of the Act – plates and saucers, cups, bowls, and lids, cutlery like spoons,
forks, knives, and chopsticks, food and beverage containers made of expanded polystyrene, oxo-degradable
plastics, film wrap, packaging, or bags of less than 50 microns in thickness, and sachets and pouches that are
multi-layered with other materials; and
c. Within two years upon determination of the DENR – plastic bottles, packaging, or products that are multi-
layered with other materials, multi-layered tetra packs, election or advertising paraphernalia, streamers, and
other non-compostable SUP products not in the above list that are deemed either high in replaceability,22 low
in recyclability,23 or low in retrievability.24

Moreover, exemptions may have to be given in terms of SUP products that are needed for health, hygiene,
accessibility, and other equally important considerations. HBN 9147 explicitly provided that properly labelled flexible
disposable plastic drinking straws for persons with special medical conditions shall be allowed when no suitable
reusable or compostable alternatives are available. It should also be clarified how small retailers, street vendors, and
other workers in the informal sector will be affected by the measure as they oftentimes struggle to adapt to single use
plastic bans due to the higher cost of alternatives or because alternatives do not meet the practical needs of their
products. In China, markets selling fresh produce are exempted from the plastic bag ban until 2025. In Rwanda,
exporters of fruits and vegetables were exempted from the ban because there were no suitable alternative packaging
products.

Meanwhile, a provision should be introduced directing guidelines or standards on public procurement to shift
away from SUP products towards sustainable alternatives. As a large consumer of services that use plastics, the
government will be obliged to lead the transition, helping spur demand for reusables.

22 A condition wherein a plastic product is deemed non-acceptable, unnecessary, or can be replaced by a more efficient and eco-friendlier
alternative.
23 A condition wherein the value for recovery and reprocessing of a product is low, due to its design, composition, content, and density, among

other things.
24 A condition wherein after use of a product, a significant volume of its waste cannot be recovered, properly recycled, processed, or disposed

of, on account of its low value for recovery, recycling, or reprocessing.

10| P a g e
 On the five-peso levy on SUPs during the interim/transition period, while it allows externalities of SUPs to be
internalized by consumers, it may be worthwhile to conduct a survey on their willingness to pay. For example, a 2019
Social Weather Stations (SWS) survey showed encouraging results in support of reducing consumption of SUPs, with
seven out of ten Filipinos willing to buy food condiments in recyclable or refillable containers and four willing to do
the same for personal care items and household cleaning products. Support for regulations on SUPs and willingness
to use more sustainable packaging alternatives was found to be strongest among the lower socioeconomic brackets
(GAIA, 2020).

Development of alternatives. A successful nationwide phase-out requires the availability of suitable and
affordable alternative products that would cater to the needs of Filipino consumers. The proposed measure, therefore,
seeks to support research and development (R&D) in relation to alternatives to plastics and provide incentives to
encourage business enterprises to invest in R&D in relation to such alternatives.

Under the legislative proposal, the DOST and NSWMC shall include such thrust in their respective programs and
R&D Agenda, and consequently fund research on SUP packaging. The DOST, NSWMC, and the Department of Trade
and Industry (DTI), through the Bureau of Product Standards (BPS), shall develop the standards and include in the
Philippine National Standards (PNS) the products, items, or technologies from studies that were pilot tested.

In addition, business enterprises, individuals, cooperatives, partnerships, and corporations that engage in the
manufacture of identified alternatives to SUPs shall be given incentives provided for under the Philippine Cooperative
Code of 2008 (RA No. 9520), the Barangay Micro Business Enterprises Act (BMBEs) of 2002 (RA No. 9178), the Magna
Carta for Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs) (RA No. 9501), the Omnibus Investment Code of 1987
(Executive Order No. 226), or the Philippine Green Jobs Act of 2016 (RA No. 10771), where applicable.

Ramping up the production of alternatives entails considerable investments. Aside from these laws, the
government’s innovation fund and innovation development credit and financing program under the Philippine
Innovation Act of 2019 (RA No. 11293) and the start-up grant fund and start-up venture fund under the Innovative
Startup Act of 2019 (RA No. 11337) should be fully operationalized and tapped to support the development of
substitutes for SUPs.

Implementation and compliance. Under the legislative proposal, the NSWMC and DTI, in coordination with the
LGUs, and local law enforcement agencies, shall conduct regular inspection and monitoring of business enterprises
and facilities of manufacturers. Penalties will be imposed for non-compliance, ranging from PhP5,000 to PhP100,000
and permanent suspension of business permit for micro, small and medium enterprises and PhP50,000 to PhP500,000
and permanent suspension of business permit for value-added tax (VAT)-registered stores, establishments, and
enterprises, and for all plastic manufacturers found violating the Act.

Moreover, any citizen may file an appropriate civil, criminal, or administrative action in the proper courts/bodies
against any person who violates or fails to comply with the provisions of the law and its Implementing Rules and
Regulations (IRR), the relevant department or other implementing agencies concerning orders, and regulations issued
inconsistent with the Act, or any public officer who willfully or grossly neglects the performance of an act, abuses
authority, or improperly performs duties under the Act or its IRR.

As more than one agency and LGUs are named under the proposed legislation to handle inspection and
monitoring, the measure should clearly identify which agency or if it is the LGU that is primarily responsible for such
function and how it will work with other institutions. Proportionality of penalties to violations need a careful review,
especially those that will be applied to MSMEs. Ways on how to make the measure more facilitative rather than
punitive for MSMEs which may not have the capacity to shift immediately to alternatives should be explored.

Role of LGUs. The legislative proposal places LGUs at the frontline of implementation. LGUs shall have the
primary responsibility in the effort to decrease the percentage of plastic bag waste produced within their respective
jurisdictions. They shall also be primarily responsible for the enforcement of the prohibitions of the measure and the
monitoring of the collection of recyclable used plastic bags by manufacturers. The LGUs concerned, after the conduct
of a thorough examination and inspection, shall issue the necessary certificate to show whether business enterprises
or manufacturers in their jurisdiction are compliant with the measure. The LGU certification shall be a requirement for
the renewal of any local permits.

11| P a g e
 LGU ordinances imposing bans and prohibitions on the use of plastic bags, promulgated and enforced prior to
the effectivity of the Act, shall be considered as automatically amended while LGUs that do not have ordinances are
also encouraged to enact their respective ordinances in line with the provisions and mandates of the law. The
provisions, mandates, and directives of the measure shall serve as minimum standards and stipulations for LGU
ordinances. LGUs may impose stricter measures and standards than those provided for in the measure.

In view of the additional responsibilities of LGUs under the legislative proposal, they must be provided with the
means to implement the measure. While the Special Fund for SUPs Regulation is envisioned to be utilized for capacity
building of LGUs, this competes with the other uses of the fund. It may be recalled that LGUs’ lack of available financial
resources for engineered sanitary landfills and appropriate technologies has been identified as a foremost concern to
address the country’s solid waste management issues.

Role of the NSWMC. Pursuant to the ESWMA of 2000, the NSWMC shall be the lead agency for the
implementation of the Act. It shall prepare the national strategic SUP roadmap, lead the R&D agenda preparation,
conduct research and pilot testing of identified alternatives with the DOST, and review and monitor the
implementation of the Act, among other functions. The latter includes monitoring local-level enforcement through
the compilation of local-level ordinances on SUPs and conducting regular and routine inspections and monitoring of
business enterprises and facilities of manufacturers.

The NSWMC is a multi-agency body, with the DENR Secretary and a private sector representative serving as
chair and vice-chair, respectively. It bears stressing that the NSWMC’s shortcoming as facilitator to LGUs has been
identified as one of the reasons for the poor implementation of the ESWMA of 2000 (PIDS, 2021). Moreover, the
NSWMC has failed to act on its mandate to formulate and update the list of Non-Environmentally Acceptable Products
and Packaging (NEAPP), as only plastic straws and stirrers have been included by the NSWMC two decades since the
enactment of the ESWMA of 2000. Still, such a list with only two SUP items has yet to be officially released. Hence,
assigning additional responsibilities to the NSWMC should therefore be matched with strengthened competence,
capacities, and financial resources.

It may be noted that EPRA of 2022 amended the composition of the NSWMC, reducing the government
members from 14 to eight, and increasing the private sector members from three to five wherein three of these seats
are for representatives from nongovernment organizations (NGOs) with a track record on solid waste management or
waste reduction, recycling, and resource recovery. Further policy changes should consider providing the lead
implementing agency with sufficient financial and human resources to fulfil its additional mandates and enhancing
institutional cooperation.

Special Fund for SUPs Regulation. Under the proposed measure, a Special Fund for SUPs Regulation, to be
administered by the NSWMC, will be created. The Fund shall be composed of tariffs, levies, and fees collected pursuant
to the implementation and enforcement of the Act. It shall be used for strengthening the operations of the NSWMC,
improving the capacity of LGUs and local law enforcement agencies, establishing recycling centers or remodeled
business enterprises that exhibit best practices (as no single-use zones) in each region or province, conducting impact
evaluation studies, conducting information and education campaigns, providing assistance and provision of incentives
for manufacturers and community-based incentives for the production of SUPs, as well as for NGOs and civil society
organizations (CSOs) promoting proper solid waste management, and allocating additional provisions for the Solid
Waste Management Fund under the ESWMA of 2000.

The Special Fund is envisioned to support a wide range of activities for the implementation of the Act. However,
the regular conduct of impact evaluation studies should be embedded in the measure, given a dedicated budget under
the NSWMC, and should not be subject to availability of resources under the Special Fund.

Public information and education campaign. The legislative proposal mandates the DENR, in coordination with
the LGUs, Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG), Department of Education (DepEd), Commission
on Higher Education (CHED), Presidential Communications Office (PCO), and Philippine Information Agency (PIA), to
conduct a continuing information campaign on the proper regulation of SUPs in the country.

Such a campaign shall be incorporated in and shall be in addition to the public information and education
campaign under Section 55 of the ESWMA of 2000. As it is the DTI that oversees consumer education, it should also
be mandated to implement information dissemination programs on the SUPs regulation.
12| P a g e
 Policy evaluation. It is proposed that within six months upon the effectivity of the Act, the DTI, Technical
Education and Skills Development Authority (TESDA), Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE), and the PCO, in
coordination with plastic manufacturers/industries, NGOs, CSOs, and other concerned stakeholders shall determine
the impact of the measures on affected plastic industry workers. They shall likewise, together with the DOST and the
NEC, develop a capacity-building program for alternative livelihood opportunities for the affected employees and
workers in areas such as recycling of used plastic products and cottage industries, among others.

It must be noted that while the conduct of an impact evaluation is a welcome provision, it should be undertaken
when it is likely to be able to produce useful findings for its intended use. Hence, several impact evaluation studies
may be conducted not only to determine the measure’s impact on the affected plastic industry workers, but also the
effect on the consumption of SUPs, development of alternatives, and plastic pollution, among other study areas that
require scrutiny. Moreover, process evaluations (What can be learned from how interventions were delivered?) and
value-for-money evaluations (Are the interventions a good use of resources?) should likewise be mandated to inform
policy implementation and future policy revisions.

Unintended consequences. UNEP (2020) mapped several unintended impacts that emerge from SUP bans. First,
a ban may lead to an inadvertent increase in consumption of other, unregulated plastic bag products. Producers and
consumers may simply shift from one type of plastic product to another, without a significant reduction in the total
number of bags used. Second, alternative materials may have a higher carbon footprint. Without life cycle
assessments, policymakers risk trading one environmental problem for another. Third, a ban tends to spawn a black
market for SUP products. In Bangladesh, market vendors defy the ban due to the shortage of cost-effective alternatives
for handling perishable food. This concern stresses the importance of identifying the plastic products that are essential
for the livelihoods of the low-income segments of the population and ensuring that viable alternatives are available
before the institution of a ban. Fourth, bans are usually met with resistance from plastic manufacturers and
associations. Lastly, some bans have had very little impact due to enforcement challenges.

6.2 SUP Bags Tax Bill

In the HRep, the SUP Bags Tax Bill under HBN 4102 was approved on Third Reading in November 2022. It was
subsequently sent to the Senate for concurrence and referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, which shall also
consider the counterpart measures filed in the Senate, namely SBNs 1449 and 1844.

Rate of tax. The proposed SUP Bags Tax Act imposes an excise tax in the amount ranging from PhP20 to PhP100
for every kilogram of SUP bag removed from the place of production or released from the custody of the Bureau of
Customs (BOC). The rate of tax shall be increased by four percent every year effective on January 1, 2026. SUP bags
are defined in the proposed measure as secondary level plastics made of synthetic or semi-synthetic organic polymer,
commonly known as labo or sando bags, with or without handle, used as packaging for goods or products. Non-
payment of the excise tax shall be subject to the imposition of corresponding fines, surcharges, penalties, and
imprisonment or closure of business under Titles VIII and X of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) of 1997 (RA
No. 8424), as amended.

Lessons from the experience of other countries show that stakeholder acceptance of the plastic bag tax is a
critical factor in the success of the policy. In the Irish model, the government consulted manufacturers, retailers and
consumer groups and conducted plastic bag tax awareness campaigns to educate all stakeholders on the benefits of
the tax. This led to a broader acceptance, and smooth implementation and enforcement of the plastic bag tax.
However, in South Africa, studies pointed out that consultation was not comprehensively conducted and was only
limited to advocacy campaigns, resulting in resistance from manufacturers which led to the reduction of the tax in
2008. Moreover, in order to set an optimum amount of tax with a prohibitive effect, the elasticity of plastic bag
demand should be evaluated. An understanding of elasticity of demand allows policymakers to set a plastic bag tax
amount that has a restraining effect (Muposhi et al., 2021).

The proposed excise tax of PhP100 per kilogram of plastic bag in the Philippines is slightly lower than the rates
in its regional peers Indonesia and Vietnam. It is much higher compared to the UK and Italy but much lower than
Denmark’s (Figure 4). The excise tax does not distinguish between substantially recycled plastic and virgin plastic, as
opposed to UK’s approach wherein the tax applies to plastic packaging manufactured in or imported into the UK that
contains less than 30 percent recycled plastic. This incentivizes businesses that use recycled content, which is more
expensive than virgin plastic, and stimulates recycling.
13| P a g e
 Figure 4. Tax per One Kilogram of Plastic Bag (in US$)

Source: Author’s computation based on various data sources

Use of revenues. Under the proposed measure, the incremental revenues from the imposition of the excise tax
on SUP bags shall be allocated to programs of the DENR for the implementation of the ESWMA of 2000 in
municipalities. Representative Salceda, Chair of the HRep Committee on Ways and Means, said the imposition of at
least PhP20 per kilogram excise tax will provide an additional PhP4.8-billion annual revenue to the government.
Meanwhile, the DOF estimates that the excise tax will raise an additional annual revenue of PhP1 billion.

Transparency and full disclosure of the revenue generated from the plastic bag tax is also key to the acceptability
of the tax. The utilization of tax proceeds for solid waste management at the local level should be transparent to gain
and sustain public support.

Industry position. The Philippine Plastics Industry Association Inc. (PPIA) asserts that the plastic bag tax will hurt
and eventually “kill” the industry. According to the PPIA, most micro and small plastic firms are engaged in the
production of plastic packaging such as plastic bags and laminates (WWF, 2020). Based on 2021 Philippine Statistics
Authority (PSA) data, 868 establishments in the country manufacture various plastic products, of which 93 percent
(809) are MSMEs. The industry employs 51,130 workers, of which 63 percent (32,002) are in MSMEs and 54 percent
(27,709) are in the manufacture of plastic articles for packing goods (e.g., boxes, bags, sacks, etc.).

The PPIA argues that the tax will severely affect not just plastics manufacturers but the entire domestic retail
and micro-businesses on the use of plastic carrier bags, including over 1.3 million sari-sari stores. The PPIA instead
urges the government to harness the PhP55 billion potential revenue from plastics recycling in the country.
Meanwhile, the Philippine Amalgamated Supermarkets Association (PAGASA) warns that prices of basic goods may
also spike further amid the rising inflation. The added costs due to the tax would eventually be passed on to consumers.

Challenges and unintended consequences. UNEP (2021) advises legislators to take account of the challenges
and unintended impacts of taxing SUPs. First, uncertainty over broader environmental impacts of plastic bag levies
still remains. Second, taxes on plastic bags may disproportionately burden low-income households who cannot easily
absorb the cost of adapting their behavior (Schnurr et al., 2018). Similarly, smaller businesses could not quickly adapt
to SUP taxes owing to the lack of affordable and suitable alternatives. Third, if cheap alternatives are not available, the
tax will create a black market for SUPs. Fourth, a tax on producers will be effective only if the tax is passed on to
retailers in full. Fifth, long-term results may be difficult to sustain as consumers become used to the tax, eroding its
restraining effect on the use of plastic bags. An example is the Irish case where the tax rate was raised twice when
plastic consumption rebounded. This highlights the importance of continuously reviewing the tax to maintain its
deterrent effect. Finally, the unwise use of revenues may undermine public policy goals and affect public support for
the tax.

14| P a g e
7. Conclusion and policy recommendations

As the world wakes up to the dire consequences of plastic waste on the environment, climate, and human
health, the move to curb plastic pollution has seen breakthroughs on global, national, and local levels in the past years.
Current national and local policies to tackle plastic waste have either achieved limited success or have yet to be
enforced. The implementation of the Ecological Solid Waste Management Act of 2000 was mainly concerned in
managing the downstream challenges of the plastic life cycle—after plastic products were used and became waste.
Hence, the upstream dimension of the plastic pollution problem—waste prevention at the design and production
stages—remains to be addressed.

The Philippines, the third largest contributor of global ocean plastic pollution, should develop policies on SUP
reduction that are integrated and coherent, informed by the best available evidence, and guided by a transparent and
consultative process with key stakeholders. The experience of developed and developing countries alike in
implementing plastic management policies suggests that there is no single policy instrument to reduce plastic waste.
A policy mix can be made more effective by implementing complementary policy instruments simultaneously (World
Bank, 2022). The right combination of policies should reward innovation, relieve pressure on local budgets for waste
management, improve resource efficiency, enhance environmental quality, and gain public support. A regulatory
measure, the proposed Single-Use Plastics Regulation and Management Act, and an economic measure, the proposed
Single-Use Plastics Bags Tax Act, are important starting points in moving upstream policy interventions forward. These
proposed measures could complement the Extended Producer Responsibility Act of 2022, which links the upstream
and downstream segments of the plastic value chain by making producers responsible for their products throughout
their life cycle. While a ban and a tax could be effective ways of reducing SUP consumption, the best approach depends
on the result of a baseline assessment. A baseline assessment will identify the most problematic SUP products, obtain
information on the environmental harm they cause, and assess market realities, consumer attitudes, and the potential
social and environmental impacts of the proposed legislation. A baseline assessment would also facilitate the
monitoring of results and effectiveness of the proposed measure (UNEP, 2020). The availability of suitable and
affordable alternative packaging products that would meet the needs of consumers, especially of low-income
households and small businesses, is crucial to the success of a ban or a tax. Conversely, a ban or a tax, coupled with
support for R&D, changes in consumer preferences, and public information campaign, can drive a flow of investment
in finding viable substitutes.

Implementation challenges and unintended consequences of the proposed measures should also be considered.
These include increase in consumption of unregulated plastic bag products, higher carbon footprint of alternative
products, creation of a black market, resistance from plastic manufacturers, challenges in enforcement, difficulty in
sustaining long-term results, and unwise use of tax revenues that will undermine public support for the policy. These
highlight the value of policy evaluation, which could guide program implementation and future policy revision. The
World Bank’s Plastic Policy Simulator (PPS) piloted in Indonesia offers policymakers an evidence-based approach of
understanding the likely impacts of various policy instruments and their interactions before they are implemented and
may be a useful tool to explore. The PPS may be applied in the Philippines to determine how best to combine policy
instruments in a comprehensive and coherent way, including how to prioritize and sequence their implementation.

Congress, in exercise of its oversight function, should closely monitor the implementation of the ESWMA of
2000, especially the promulgation by the National Solid Waste Management Commission of the list of Non-
Environmentally Acceptable Products and Packaging pursuant to the law. The EPRA of 2022 reiterated this mandate,
tasking the National Ecology Center under the NSWMC to identify products and packaging materials that shall be
phased out, especially those that are highly unnecessary or replaceable, or cannot be efficiently reused, recovered, or
recycled, one year from the effectivity of the law.

On a final note, government institutions leading by example will send a clear signal that implementing a single-
use plastic ban is necessary, urgent, and doable. In August 2022, Senator Pia Cayetano delivered a privilege speech
urging the Senate to look inward and reflect on what can be done within the institution to reduce plastic wastes and
other wastes. She called for a ban on the use of PET bottles and sachets in the Senate and encouraged the Secretariat
to study and recommend ways for the Senate to work more sustainably. In September 2022, House Resolution No.
338 was filed by Representative Eduardo Villanueva mandating the ban of SUPs in all retail and service establishments
within the premises of the HRep. As consideration of the proposed plastic regulation measures progresses,
stakeholders may be looking to the Congress if it is serious about setting an example for the country to follow.

15| P a g e
Bibliography

Anastasio, M. and Nix, J. (2016). Plastic Bag Levy in Ireland. Institute for European Environmental Policy.
https://ieep.eu/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/IE-Plastic-Bag-Levy-final-1-1.pdf.
Barnes, D.K.A., Galgani, F., Thompson, R.C., Barlaz, M. (2009). Accumulation and fragmentation of plastic debris in
global environments. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society.
Cayetano, Pia. (2022). Privilege speech calling for the promotion of sustainability practices in the Senate. Senate of the
Philippines.
Center for International Environmental Law. (2019). Plastics & Climate: The Hidden Costs of a Plastic Planet.
Chowdhury, H., Chowdhury, T., and Sait, S. (2021). Estimating marine plastic pollution from COVID-19 face masks in
coastal regions. Public Health Emergency Collection.
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). (2021). National Plan of Action for the Prevention,
Reduction, and Management of Marine Litter.
DENR. (2021, July 6). DENR Cites Solid Waste Management Achievements Under Cimatu's Leadership.
https://www.denr.gov.ph/index.php/news-events/press-releases/2978-denr-cites-solid-waste-management-
achievements-under-cimatu-s-leadership#:~:text=So%20far%2C%2011%2C546%20MRFs%20have,sanitary%20
landfills%20have%20been%20established.
Desalegn, G. and Tangl, A. (2022). Banning Vs Taxing, Reviewing the Potential Opportunities and Challenges of Plastic
Products. Sustainability.
De Vera, B. (2022, July 10). Tax on plastics, online transactions gets new push. Inquirer.net.
https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/1624944/tax-on-plastics-online-transactions-gets-new-push#ixzz7kd1lSydF.
Domingo S. and Manejar A. (2021). An analysis of regulatory policies on solid waste management in the Philippines:
Ways forward. Philippine Institute for Development Studies.
Enano, J. (2022, October 12). A year on, proposed ban on straws, stirrers at standstill. Rappler.
https://www.rappler.com/environment/proposed-ban-straws-stirrers-standstill-national-solid-waste-manage
ment-commission-2022/.
Engel, H., Stuchtey, M., and Vanthournout. H. (2016). Managing Waste in Emerging Markets. McKinsey & Company.
Ettlinger, S. (2016). Deposit refund system (and packaging tax) in Finland. Institute for European Environmental Policy.
Extended Producer Responsibility Alliance (EXPRA). (2016). Extended Producer Responsibility at a Glance.
Fadare, O. and Okoffo, E. (2020). Covid-19 face masks: A potential source of microplastic fibers in the environment.
Sci Total Environ.
Freinkel, S. (2011). Plastic: A Toxic Love Story. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
Geyer, R. (2020). Production, Chapter 2- Production, Use and Fate of Synthetic Polymers in Plastic Waste and Recycling.
Letcher, T.M. (ed.). Academic Press. Cambridge, MA.
Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA). (2019). Plastics Exposed: How Waste Assessments and Brand Audits
are Helping Philippine Cities Fight Plastic Pollution.
House Bill No. 4102. Single-Use Plastic Bags Tax. 19th Congress. https://legacy.senate.gov.ph/lisdata/
3986736178!.pdf.
House Bill No. 9147. Single-Use Plastic Products Regulation Act. 18th Congress. https://legacy.senate.gov.ph/lisdata/
3580632276!.pdf.
House Resolution No. 338. A Resolution Mandating Ban on the Usage of Single-Use Plastics in All Retail and Service
Establishments Within the Premises of House of Representatives. 19th Congress. https://hrep-website.s3.ap-
southeast-1.amazonaws.com/legisdocs/basic_19/HR00338.pdf.
House of Representatives. https://www.congress.gov.ph/.
Hent. (2021, December 27). DOH issues rules on use of single-use plastics. HeraldExpress. https://baguioherald
expressonline.com/doh-issues-rules-on-use-of-single-use-plastics/.
International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD). (2019, April 2). European Parliament Passes Single-Use
Plastic Ban. https://sdg.iisd.org/news/european-parliament-passes-single-use-plastic-ban/.
Jambeck, J., Geyer, R., Wilcox, C., Siegler, T., Perryman, M., Andrady, A., Narayan, R., and Law, K. (2015). Plastic waste
inputs from land into the ocean. Science.
Jenks, A. and Obringer, K. (2019). The poverty of plastics bans: Environmentalism’s win is a loss for disabled people.
Critical Social Policy.
Karasik, R., Vegh, T., Diana, Z., Bering, J., Caldas, J., Pickle, A., Rittschof, D., and Virdin, J. (2020). 20 Years of Government
Responses to the Global Plastic Pollution Problem: The Plastics Policy Inventory. Durham, NC: Nicholas Institute
for Environmental Policy Solutions, Duke University.
16| P a g e
Klynveld Peat Marwick Goerdeler (KPMG). (n.d.). Plastic Tax. https://kpmg.com/xx/en/home/insights/2021/09/
plastic-tax.html.
Leal Filho, W., Saari, U., Fedoruk, M., Iital, A., Moora, H., Kloga, M., and Voronova, V. (2019). An overview of the
problems posed by plastic products and the role of extended producer responsibility in Europe. Journal of
Cleaner Production.
Lebreton, L. and Andrady, A. (2019). Future scenarios of global plastic waste generation and disposal. Palgrave
Communications.
Liamzon, C., Benosa, S., Alino, M., and Baconguis, B. (2020). Sachet Economy: Big Problems in Small Packets. Global
Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives.
Malaya (2021, June 10). Recycling, not tax, solution to plastic woes. Malaya. https://malaya.com.ph/
news_business/recycling-not-tax-solution-to-plastic-woes/.
Martinho, G., Balaia, N., and Pires A. (2017). The Portuguese plastic carrier bag tax: The effect on consumers’ behavior.
Waste Management.
McKinsey Center for Business and Environment and Ocean Conservancy. (2015). Stemming the tide: Land-based
strategies for a plastic- free ocean.
Meijer, L., van Emmerick, T., Lebreton, L., and Schmidt, C. (2019). Over 1000 rivers accountable for 80% of global
riverine plastic emissions into the ocean. ResearchGate.
Muposhi, A., Mpinganjira, M., and Wait, M. (2021). Efficacy of plastic shopping bag tax as a governance tool: Lessons
for South Africa from Irish and Danish success stories. Acta Commercii. https://doi.org/10.4102/ac.v21i1.8914.
National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA). (2017). Philippine Action Plan for Sustainable Consumption
and Production. https://sdg.neda.gov.ph/philippine-action-plan-for-sustainable-consumption-and-production-
pap4scp/.
NEDA. (2020). Philippine Development Plan 2017-2022.
NEDA. (2021). 2021 Socioeconomic Report.
Ocean Conservancy. (2020). Food Wrappers Top List of Items Found on Beaches, Waterways Worldwide for First Time
in More than Three Decades, Ocean Conservancy Report Reveals.
Panay News (2020, March 5). Plastic Pollution: Single-use plastics banned from city hall, public parks. Panay News.
https://www.panaynews.net/plastic-pollution-single-use-plastics-banned-from-city-hall-public-parks/.
Pascual, J. (2022, July 15). Sachet prices likely to go up due to proposed tax on single-use plastics. ABS-CBN News.
https://news.abs-cbn.com/business/07/15/22/sachet-prices-likely-to-rise-due-to-proposed-tax-on-single-use-
plastics.
Philippine News Agency. (2019, November 22). Province-wide regulation of single-use plastic up in Iloilo. Philippine
News Agency. https://www.pna.gov.ph/articles/1086789.
Philippine News Agency. (2023, February 16). EMB eyes approval of all solid waste management plans in 2023.
Philippine News Agency. https://www.pna.gov.ph/articles/1195405.
Philippine Plastics Industry Association. (n.d.) Industry
Background. https://www.philippineplastic.com/about%20us.html.
Philippine Ports Authority. (2021). PPA Memorandum Circular No. 11-2021: Ban on the Use of Unnecessary Single-Use
Plastic Products. https://www.ppa.com.ph/sites/default/files/issuances_docs/PPA%20MC%20NO.%2011-
2021%20%281%29.pdf.
Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA). (2022, November 10). Number of Establishments Engaged in the Manufacture of
Plastics Products by Industry Sub-class and Employment Groupings (MSMEs), Philippines: 2021 List of
Establishments.
Reality check team, BBC News. (2019, August 28). Has Kenya's plastic bag ban worked? BBC News. https://www.bbc.
com/news/world-africa-49421885.
Ritchie, H. (2021, May 1). Where does the plastic in our oceans come from? Our World in Data. https://ourworldin
data.org/ocean-plastics.
Sadan, Z. and De Kock, L. (2020). Plastics: Facts and Futures: Moving beyond pollution management towards a circular
plastics economy in South Africa. WWF South Africa. Cape Town, South Africa.
Senate Bill No. 246. Single-Use Plastics Regulation and Management Act of 2022. 19th Congress.
https://legacy.senate.gov.ph/lisdata/3796534408!.pdf.
Senate Bill No. 1449. Plastic Bags Tax Act. 19th Congress. https://legacy.senate.gov.ph/lisdata/3976736275!.pdf.
Senate Bill No. 1844. Single-Use Plastic Bags Tax Act. 19th Congress. https://legacy.senate.gov.ph/lisdata/
4067037064!.pdf.
Senate of the Philippines. https://legacy.senate.gov.ph/.
17| P a g e
Schnurr, R. E. J. et al. (2018). Reducing marine pollution from single-use plastics (SUPs): A review. Marine Pollution
Bulletin. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/327989798_Reducing_marine_pollution_from_singleuse_
plastics_SUPs_A_review.
Smithers, R. (2016, July 30). England's plastic bag usage drops 85% since 5p charge introduced. The Guardian.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jul/30/england-plastic-bag-usage-drops-85-per-cent-since-
5p-charged-introduced.
Supreme Court of the Philippines. (2020, March 2). Supreme Court Bans Single-Use Plastics in its Offices. Supreme
Court. https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/10872/.
Taylor, R. (2019). Bag leakage: The effect of disposable carryout bag regulations on unregulated bags. Journal of
Environmental Economic and Management.
The Tower Post. (2017, August 30). Factories Shut Down after Plastic Ban. The Tower Post.
https://thetowerpost.com/2017/08/30/factories-shut-down-after-plastic-ban/.
Uddin, M., Khan, B., and Hossen, S. (2019). People perceptions about using polythene bag and its impact on
environment at Mymensingh in Bangladesh. ResearchGate.
United Nations. (2022). Resolution adopted by the United Nations Environment Assembly on March 2, 2022.
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). (2018). Single-Use Plastics: A Roadmap for Sustainability. Nairobi.
UNEP. (2020). Tackling Plastic Pollution: Legislative Guide for the Regulation of Single-Use Plastic Products. Nairobi.
UNEP. (2021). From Pollution to Solution: A Global Assessment of Marine Litter and Plastic Pollution. Nairobi.
UNEP. (2021). Neglected: Environmental Justice Impacts of Marine Litter and Plastic Pollution. Nairobi.
UNEP. (n.d.). Plastic Pollution in Kenya. https://leap.unep.org/countries/ke/case-studies/kenya.
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) Philippines. (2020). Circular Economy and Waste Management in
the Philippines: A Stocktaking Report.
UNDP Philippines. (2021). Circular Economy in the City: A Rapid Ethnographic Research on Circular Economy in a
Philippine Urban Setting.
Watkins, E., Gionfra, S., Schweitzer, J., Pantzar, M., Janssens, C., and Brink, P. (2017). EPR in the EU Plastics Strategy
and the Circular Economy: A Focus on Plastic Packaging. Institute for European Environmental Policy. Brussels.
Wilcox, J. and Mackenzie, J. (2021). What We Waste. Reloop. Brussels.
World Bank Group. (2018). What a Waste 2.0. A Global Snapshot of Solid Waste Management to 2050.
World Bank Group. (2021). Assessment of Policies and Regulations to Guide Country Dialogue at National Levels and
Facilitate Actions at Local Levels to Reduce Plastic Waste in the Philippines (Draft Report).
World Bank Group. (2021). Market Study for the Philippines: Plastics Circularity Opportunities and Barriers. Marine
Plastics Series, East Asia and Pacific Region. Washington DC.
World Bank Group. (2022). Reducing Plastic Waste in the Philippines: An Assessment of Policies and Regulations to
Guide Country Dialogue and Facilitate Action.
World Bank Group. (2022). Where is the Value Chain? Pathways Out of Plastic Pollution. Washington DC.
World Economic Forum (WEF). (2016). The New Plastics Economy: Rethinking the future of plastics.
World Wildlife Fund (WWF). (2020). EPR Scheme Assessment for Plastic Packaging Waste in the Philippines. WWF-
Philippines.
WWF. (2020). Plastic Packaging in Southeast Asia and China.
WTS Global. (n.d.). Plastic Taxation in Europe. https://wts.com/wts.com/publications/climate-protection-green-tax-
energy/2022/wtsglobal-plastic-taxation-in-europe.pdf.
Xanthos, D. and Walker, T. (2017). International policies to reduce plastic marine pollution from single-use plastics
(plastic bags and microbeads): A review. Marine Pollution Bulletin.

This Policy Brief was principally prepared by Social Development Sector Head Maria Victoria M.
Evangelista, under the supervision of the SEPO Directors and the overall guidance of its Director
General. The views and opinions expressed herein are those of the SEPO and do not necessarily
reflect those of the Senate, of its leadership, or of its individual members. For comments and
suggestions, please e-mail us at [email protected].

18| P a g e