National Recycling Rates, Plans and Targets

Ms Valerie Lee asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) whether the Ministry has an ideal yearly national recycling rate target for 2026 to 2030; (b) what lessons have been learnt from how Singapore's waste and recycling profile has changed over the past decade; and (c) what updated measures are being considered to improve recycling rates for (i) glass (ii) paper and cardboard and (iii) textiles.

Ms Lee Hui Ying asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) whether the Zero Waste Master Plan review will focus on reducing overall waste produced or circular economy outcomes rather than recycling rates, in view of the high contamination rates for recycling; and (b) whether the Ministry plans to implement nationwide clean-stream recycling bins that segregate recyclables and minimise cross-contamination at the source.

Ms Hany Soh asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) whether the Ministry tracks data on the overall recycling rate by region and globally; (b) if so, whether the Ministry has observed a declining trend in the overall recycling rate regionally and globally; and (c) how does Singapore’s overall recycling rate compare with other countries.

Sir, Singapore disposed of 3.36 million tonnes of waste in 2025, with 1.67 million tonnes from domestic sources and 1.69 million tonnes from non-domestic sources. A breakdown by the type of the amounts of waste generated, disposed of and recycled can be found on the National Environment Agency (NEA) website.

Sir, technological solutions are available to recycle most waste streams if properly separated and treated. However, even if recycling is technically possible, it may not always be practical or economical to do so. There are several economic, logistical and behavioural factors determining our recycling rates.

First, the business case for recycling has deteriorated due to rising logistics, freight, manpower and energy costs across the wider landscape. These rising costs make it less viable for recyclers to operate a sustainable business around collecting and recycling of material.

Second, export markets for recyclables have become increasingly stringent in their requirements. Singapore exports most of its recyclables for further processing. Tightening export requirements by the receiving countries could limit the quantity our local recyclers can sell.

And third, the contamination of recyclables remains a persistent challenge, limiting the volume of recyclables that can be recovered and processed.

These three challenges make the situation complex and contribute to the lower recycling rates we have seen in recent years.

The definitions of recycling rates also vary internationally, with no consensus on the definitions. Some countries report recycling rates across different waste streams, others use a broader definition of what counts as recycled, such as including energy recovery or repurposing of waste residues within their national recycling rate, which we do not. Comparing recycling rates across countries is therefore not always meaningful if the bases are different.

However, we do believe that we can and must do more to strengthen resource circularity in Singapore. This is why I had earlier announced that the Ministry of Sustainability and the Environment (MSE) and NEA will be reviewing the 2019 Zero Waste Masterplan to strengthen our approach to waste management.

Under the 2019 Masterplan, we had set a target of 70% recycling rate by 2030 and to reduce the waste sent to landfill per capita per day by 30% by 2030. While we are striving to achieve these targets, we will review them for relevance given the changing waste and recycling landscape.

For the targets to be meaningful, we will address the challenges associated with recycling of both domestic and non-domestic waste. We are studying how we can increase the yield of clean, segregated recyclables that are easier for recyclers to meet regulatory requirements. We will engage the waste generators to explore better ways to segregate waste upstream in the processes.

For households, the blue bin network under the National Recycling Programme remains the primary channel for recycling.

Today, blue bins are managed by our Public Waste Collectors (PWCs), who are required to provide one blue bin per HDB block and clear recyclables up to three times a week. To address higher recycling demand and overflowing bins in certain areas, PWCs have deployed additional bins at around 700 locations and increased the collection frequency at more than 1,100 locations. NEA and the Town Councils (TCs) also conduct joint site inspections to address estate-specific issues, such as bin placement and damaged bins, with straightforward issues typically resolved within two days.

To improve the quality and yield of paper and cardboard, NEA has also worked with all PWCs to offer dedicated collection of paper and cardboard in their respective zones since December 2025. Efforts introduced by the PWCs include implementing smart recycling bins, door-to-door collection services, Cash-for-Trash events,+--*- or partnering TCs to set up metal cages or points for bulk collection. Five TCs have come forward to partner the PWCs in dedicated collection, and we have seen encouraging results in collecting paper and cardboard with lower contamination rates. We encourage all TCs and community stakeholders to reach out and partner with their PWCs.

We have also introduced source-segregated recycling at the national level, such as via the Return Right – Beverage Container Return Scheme. By nudging consumers to make a small change in their lifestyle, we hope to increase the recycling of beverage containers and spark a change in our recycling habits.

Moving forward, we will explore more ways to enhance the National Recycling Programme to reduce contamination and improve the volume of clean recyclables recovered from households, building on ground-up recycling initiatives. This could include the use of source-segregated bins.

Recycling is important, but we must also reinforce the other "2Rs" – Reducing waste at the outset and Reusing where possible. We have seen some encouraging progress on this front. Domestic waste generated per capita has fallen by 21% over the past decade, and non-domestic waste generated per unit gross domestic product has dropped by more than 30% over the same period. We will explore how we can better support efforts to shape consumption patterns and the growth of more sustainable business models.

Another strategy that we are embarking on is the strengthening of the reuse of waste residue and treated toxic industrial waste before and after they are landfilled. The recently launched Towards Resource Efficiency And Sustainability for URban EnvironmentS (TREASURES) Centre will focus on building the technologies and the risk assessment frameworks for this purpose. It will work with industry partners to reduce the risk and uncertainty of commercial use of waste residue and allow us to close our resource loops.

I thank Members for their interest in the Zero Waste Masterplan review, and for their questions on how we can better strengthen recycling and resource circularity in Singapore. The work on this is still ongoing. We will engage the public and industry as part of the review process and share more details in due course.

Thank you, Speaker, and I thank the Senior Minister of State Janil. I have two supplementary questions.

The first one, will NEA consider adjusting gate fees for industrial and commercial waste collection to shift behaviour of businesses towards higher recycling rates, especially for food waste which accounts for about 11% of total waste but has a very low recycling rate of only 18%?

My second supplementary question pertains to the blue bins. The Senior Minister of State mentioned there is a high contamination rate, which renders the recycled or collected items non-recyclable. Will there be any plans for NEA to consider a national recycling campaign to reduce blue bin waste contamination?

Sir, I thank Ms Poh for her questions. Indeed, we do have to shift behaviours. The incentives and disincentives around recycling and waste disposal are an important part of it. We will consider her suggestion on looking at the fees.

The issue of blue bin contamination continues to be something that we have to engage in terms of public education and shifting behaviours. It will certainly form an important part of the review of the Zero Waste Masterplan. I thank her for her suggestion.

Thank you, Speaker. I have two supplementary questions. Beyond recycling rates, can the Ministry consider complementary indicators and targets such as waste reduction, material circularity or recycling contamination rates to better measure progress towards a circular economy?

The second supplementary question will be: how will the Ministry assess whether public education campaigns are working, translating into sustained improvements in recycling behaviour rather than short-term participation?

Sir, I thank Ms Lee for her two supplementary questions, which address what are our targets and what is it that we measure.

Indeed, the issue of how we should think about recycling and waste disposal will be at the heart of our review of our Zero Waste Masterplan.

The issue that she brought up in her first supplementary question: should we focus purely on the recycling rate? Should we think about waste production? Should we think about waste disposal? The reality is, today, we look at all of these things. The study and the review will address whether we should introduce new indicators or whether we should change the emphasis between the indicators that we currently track, measure and target.

She is right to then highlight that public education campaigns should look at what the outcomes are. We do not only look at, for example, participation in public education campaigns or awareness. We do track the waste production recycling rates and many other outcome indicators, and we will continue to do so.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Senior Minister of State for his reply.

Our waste generation per capita has fallen from 1.06 kilogrammes in 2015 to 0.83 kilogrammes today. This suggests that Singaporeans are ready to try and reduce waste and also, then the real progress lies upstream in waste prevention. So, I have two supplementary questions.

What are the measures MSE will take to help Singaporeans realise this? I have a few suggestions. We can draw reference from the European Union's (EU's) Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation that minimises the amount of packaging generated. Or even radio-frequency identification (RFID)-based food waste sorting systems.

My second supplementary question: businesses can be required to accept reusable containers, supplying repairable products or refills. What are the policy thresholds that MSE considers to disincentivise single-use packaging or restrict aggressive promotional tactics which may put more products into the market?

Sir, I thank Ms Lee for her questions and also for her highlighting that waste generation is falling. I think this is a marker of the awareness from the various campaigns and the engagement that Singaporeans have with the importance of this issue. It gives us the foundation to think about how we might take the next steps in terms of our Zero Waste Masterplan and achieve the very important outcomes around reducing waste that is diverted towards Semakau Landfill.

The suggestions that she has made around the EU's packaging regulations and potentially RFID-based sorting of food waste, these are all things that we can look at and we can consider. We actually have a number of pilots, studies and stakeholders that are looking at many of these measures. We are looking for tools and mechanisms to improve the outcomes, to reduce the amount of waste that we generate and to increase the recycling of the ways that we do generate.

What we have to do is to keep our focus on the outcomes – whether it is about mechanisms such as packaging regulation, technologies such as RFID or the policy thresholds for disincentives. We have to look at the outcomes in terms of waste generation and recycling rates. In some cases, some of these tools may end up diverting behaviour to an alternative waste stream and alternative packaging, which potentially may be harder to recycle or may have other consequences for the environment. So, we do have to look at it holistically, whether it is about a policy threshold for a disincentive, technology implementation or regulation that we impose on businesses, what is the outcome around waste generated.

Thank you, Speaker. Just one supplementary question on whether there are any recycling plans in the pipeline for collaborations with our partners in the region or globally, or for a start, coming up with a common framework in terms of recycling across our Association of Southeast Asian Nations region?

Sir, about half of our recycling material is exported. It is processed overseas. There are business arrangements between businesses here in Singapore and businesses in the region or overseas, to be able to handle the recycling of waste and recycling of material, whether domestic or non-domestic, already today.

Those arrangements allow for businesses to address a larger market, potentially reap economies of scale and become sustainable as a commercial interest, which gives us the opportunity to then have the capacity to further recycle. We will continue to work with stakeholders and partners on making sure that this is a viable process.