South Korea Plans to Stop Counting Waste Burned for Energy as Recycling

A lower recycling rate, with a clearer measure of recovery

South Korea plans to remove the burning of plastic and other waste for energy from its recycling statistics, ending an accounting practice used since 1999. The Environment Ministry is reviewing legal definitions and statistical methods so that waste burned to generate electricity or heat will be recorded separately as energy recovery.

The change would reduce the country's headline recycling rate. In 2023, South Korea reported a household waste recycling rate of 58.7 percent, made up of 46.2 percent material recycling and 12.5 percent thermal recycling. Counting only material recovery would therefore put that rate at 46.2 percent, a decline of 12.5 percentage points.

As of October 23, 2025, the ministry's work builds on a statistical separation introduced in late 2024. Officials now want to put the distinction into law, consult industry and experts, and revise the financial support attached to recycling. Full implementation could take until around 2028, with legal revisions and funding criteria forming part of a phased transition.

The purpose is to restore confidence in national data, direct subsidies toward recovering materials, and bring South Korea closer to European Union and United States practice. A recycling rate would describe how much waste becomes material for new products, while a separate measure would record how much provides energy.

Factories and waste facilities would still have a role in producing power or heat from discarded materials. Cement kilns, for example, have used shredded plastic and tires alongside other fuels to replace some coal. Facilities that burn waste also supply electricity or district heating. The review would change how those activities are counted and supported, while allowing permitted operations to continue.

What separates recycling from energy recovery?

Material recycling keeps the substance of a discarded product in use. Mechanical recycling can involve grinding plastic and melting it into material for new goods. Chemical recycling can break plastic down into monomers, the smaller building blocks of polymers, or other feedstock used in manufacturing.

Energy recovery burns waste to obtain heat or electricity. It can replace some fossil fuel use, but the material itself is destroyed. Under the proposed accounting change, the energy produced would be recorded without increasing the amount counted as recycled.

The European Union's waste hierarchy places energy recovery below recycling, and United States agencies draw a similar distinction. A waste hierarchy is an order of preference for handling discarded products. Here, keeping materials available for another use ranks above burning them for their energy.

South Korea's review would end the inclusion of energy recovery in recycling figures, while incineration and the use of plastic as fuel in cement plants could continue under permits. The country would report those activities in their own category.

Chemical processes require a more detailed assessment because their outputs can have different destinations. Plastic converted into fuel is typically classified as energy recovery. Plastic converted into petrochemical feedstock, including substitutes for naphtha used to make new polymers, can qualify as recycling in some jurisdictions when strict tracking and quality requirements are met.

Clear definitions will matter to facilities investing in those technologies. Whether an output becomes another plastic product or a fuel determines where it belongs in the accounting system and which incentives it may receive.

How the household and plastic figures would change

The 2023 household figures show how much the accounting method matters. Material recycling contributed 46.2 percentage points to the reported 58.7 percent rate, while thermal recycling contributed 12.5 points. Removing the thermal component would lower the headline by more than 10 percentage points.

For all plastic waste, including waste from industrial sources, thermal recycling accounted for about 29.5 percent of what was counted as recycled. The expected reduction in the measured plastic recycling rate was described as roughly 30 percentage points. That plastic estimate concerns a different waste stream from the household waste total.

Household sorting presents another challenge: placing plastic in a recycling collection does not mean all of it becomes new plastic. Food residue, contamination, mixed materials and changing prices for recovered material reduce the amount that processors can use.

A joint 2023 analysis by Greenpeace and Chungnam National University found that only 16.4 percent of household plastic sorted for recycling in 2021 became new plastic. It reported that 32.6 percent was burned and 12.8 percent was landfilled. Other material was lost during processing or followed other routes rather than becoming new plastic.

The study's finding that less than one fifth became new plastic helps explain why environmental groups and researchers have challenged official recovery claims. The public sees waste being separated, while the final destinations depend on what sorting and processing facilities can recover.

Separating energy recovery from recycling would make those destinations more visible. Higher material recovery would still require cleaner collections, suitable packaging and viable markets for recycled material.

Industrial and commercial plastics also contribute heavily to waste volumes. Packaging film, pallets and process scrap enter these streams. When recovered resin prices weaken or material falls short of buyers' quality requirements, stockpiles can grow and loads can be diverted to incineration.

A long transition amid high plastic waste

South Korea generated 103.9 kilograms of plastic waste per person in 2022, more than twice the average across developed economies tracked by the OECD. The scale of that waste makes the choice of measurement consequential for national targets and investment.

The policy has developed over several decades, with changes to accounting now following earlier efforts to improve packaging and producer responsibility:

• 1999: Thermal recycling began contributing to South Korea's national recycling rate.
• 2003: The extended producer responsibility system began operating.
• 2021: Household plastic flows later examined by Greenpeace and Chungnam National University showed limited recovery into new plastic.
• 2022: Plastic waste generation reached 103.9 kilograms per person.
• 2023: The household waste recycling rate was reported at 58.7 percent, including thermal recycling.
• Late 2024: The Environment Ministry introduced a statistical separation between material recycling and energy recovery.
• October 2025: Legal definitions, statistical methods and related support arrangements are under review.
• Around 2028: Full implementation could follow revisions to laws and subsidy frameworks.

High living density, rapid retail turnover, and a strong culture of gifting and presentation have helped create a marketplace that uses large amounts of packaging. During the pandemic, greater reliance on home delivery of food and goods added disposable packaging even as households continued separating waste.

South Korea's established sorting culture provides a collection system, but processors still receive materials that are unsuitable for applications requiring high quality. Volatile global markets for recycled resin add another constraint. Resetting the measure is intended to create a clearer starting point for a circular economy, in which materials remain in use for as long as possible.

Delivery packaging shows why prevention matters

A 2020 assessment found that online food delivery in South Korea used about 72.93 kilotons of plastic packaging. Polypropylene and polyethylene terephthalate, or PET, dominated that packaging. The bulk of its environmental impact occurred during production of the raw materials.

The study concluded that containers designed for repeated use could reduce impacts by roughly 46 to 83 percent compared with disposable containers. Some toxicity indicators could increase, however, creating risks that would need management within reuse systems.

Those findings put packaging choices near the beginning of the problem. Reducing the need for new disposable containers and designing practical reuse systems can bring larger gains than relying entirely on treatment after disposal.

Food delivery and electronic commerce have become part of daily life, while their associated packaging has outpaced improvements in disposal capacity. The growing volume places pressure on collection, sorting and processing systems.

Cheap virgin plastic, made from new raw materials, also makes recycled resin harder to sell competitively. That price gap weakens the business case for collecting, sorting and washing waste, especially flexible films, colored containers and items made from mixed materials.

Public procurement and rules requiring recycled content can support demand when commodity prices change. Clear recycling definitions would give those policies a more precise target: material that can return to manufacturing rather than waste used as fuel.

Packaging rules and producer responsibility remain central

South Korea's extended producer responsibility system, known as EPR, has operated since 2003. It makes producers financially responsible for managing waste from their products and packaging, with higher fees for packaging that is harder to recycle.

Recent updates require producers to grade the recyclability of packaging and display the grade. Simplified labels aim to discourage materials that contaminate recycling streams. Clear PET bottles are rewarded, while PVC labels are being phased out.

Shipping packaging is covered by the same design principles. Attachments such as straws and decorative additions are discouraged because they make sorting more difficult. Packaging that separates cleanly gives processors a better chance of obtaining usable material.

Other rules push recycled content in products and encourage local governments to buy goods made with recovered materials. Those measures connect waste collection with demand for the material produced by recycling facilities.

A planned deposit return system for disposable cups aimed to improve the collection quality of food service items. Legal and operational challenges slowed the policy, reflecting the tension between convenient consumption and waste reduction. Restrictions on items including plastic straws and stirring sticks have also nudged habits without severely disrupting daily routines.

National goals have long included cutting plastic waste and raising the share recycled. The revised definition would give those goals a clearer meaning. Progress would depend on how much material actually becomes usable again, alongside efforts to prevent waste.

What cities, companies and waste facilities would face

Waste classified as recycled can currently qualify for exemptions from landfill fees and improve performance scores for local governments and companies. Those scores influence grants and subsidies, giving the definition of recycling a direct financial effect.

Once energy recovery has its own category, incineration and the use of waste as fuel in cement plants would receive fewer of the benefits tied to recycling. Municipal budgets, waste contracts and corporate environmental reporting would need to adjust.

The ministry expects a phased transition, including changes to legal provisions and funding criteria through the middle of this decade, with full implementation potentially around 2028. Consultations with industry and experts would form part of the rulemaking.

Performance measures would place greater weight on material recovery. Landfill and incineration fees are likely to carry more weight in decisions about items that are difficult to recycle, while municipalities may change collection requirements to improve quality.

Stricter separation of clear bottles, films and colored plastics could help produce cleaner streams for processors. Companies can expect tighter criteria for environmental labels and scoring, with rewards directed toward packaging designed for recycling, standardized formats and recycled content from products consumers have used.

Procurement agencies could help stabilize demand by favoring goods made with locally recovered resin. For recycling businesses, a dependable buyer can make collection and processing more viable when prices fluctuate.

Chemical recycling and sorting need precise rules

Pyrolysis is one of the processes being developed to handle plastics that are difficult to recycle. It can convert waste plastic into oil for fuel or into petrochemical feedstock. Costs remain high, and the climate benefits depend on the specific route used.

Fuel production and production of material for new polymers would receive different treatment under a clearer accounting system. Some jurisdictions accept the latter as recycling when strict quality and mass balance rules apply. Mass balance accounting tracks material entering a process and how the resulting outputs are allocated.

South Korea's definitions would need to reflect those destinations so that financial support reaches processes that regenerate material. Carbon impacts also vary with the process and the energy source used to operate it.

Cement kilns using waste plastic alongside other fuels would still replace some coal, while their energy recovery would be recorded separately from recycling. The proposed system would direct more attention toward waste prevention, reuse and reprocessing that produces material of sufficient quality for new goods.

Sorting technology offers another route to better recovery. Startups and facility operators are deploying optical sorters, robots and image recognition systems to separate materials more precisely. Cleaner separation can improve the yield of material that buyers can use.

Deposit return for beverage bottles continues to support flows of PET of high quality. Refill and take back models can also reduce waste where reuse is practical, with the possibility of lower costs over time once collection and return networks are established.

Global plastics talks put a premium on credible data

South Korea's review comes while governments are negotiating a global plastics agreement. Countries supporting production limits want measures across the full life cycle, from design and materials to disposal. Others put greater weight on waste management and recycling.

Despite those differences, there is broad acceptance that energy recovery and recycling are separate activities. European Union reporting rules distinguish them, as do United States guidelines. Common definitions make comparisons between countries more reliable and make environmental claims easier to check.

The OECD has warned that without ambitious policy, plastic use and waste in East and Southeast Asia are set to nearly double by mid century. Millions of tonnes could leak into rivers and seas. Transparent reporting gives governments a firmer basis for deciding where action is needed.

Luis Vayas Valdivieso of Ecuador, chair of the United Nations committee leading the plastics talks, urged delegates to pursue workable solutions while acknowledging the slow pace of building agreement:

The reality is that we must be pragmatic. Progress is possible, but our work is far from complete.

Delegations from Africa, Latin America and many island states have argued that credible data and strong measures are necessary to protect people and ecosystems. Juliet Kabera, Rwanda's lead negotiator, urged delegates to match public expectations with firm commitments:

Stand up for ambition. The treaty must be fit for purpose and not built to fail.

Common treaty reporting rules would give South Korea another reason to align its accounting. Domestic policy would also gain clearer measures and more targeted funding if negotiations stalled. Separating the categories can reduce greenwashing by making claims about material recovery easier to verify.

Reducing waste while preserving convenience

Companies can make packaging easier to recover by using one material, avoiding dark colors and choosing labels that peel away cleanly. Standardizing bottle shapes, caps and resins can help packaging fit existing sorting systems.

Retailers and delivery platforms can test containers designed for repeated use for popular menu items and provide convenient return points. Municipalities can support washing and reuse hubs and offer fee discounts for clean recyclables that have been properly separated.

Policymakers are also considering plastic credits, which let companies offset packaging footprints by paying for waste collection elsewhere. Researchers caution that credits can hide actual impacts when they finance incineration or fail to demonstrate additional collection. They can also shift waste burdens to places with weaker infrastructure.

EPR, recycled content requirements, design standards and clear reporting have stronger track records. Companies can publish data for each material, set reuse targets and work with suppliers to secure dependable supplies of recycled resin.

Energy recovery would continue handling residues that are not feasible to recycle. Reducing the quantity reaching that stage remains the priority. A clearer definition would give South Korea a more credible measure of progress and direct attention toward better design, practical reuse and investment in recovering material.

At a Glance

• South Korea plans to report energy recovery separately from recycling, aligning its accounting with EU and United States practice.
• Thermal recycling has contributed to national recycling statistics since 1999; a statistical separation began in late 2024.
• The 2023 household waste rate was 58.7 percent, including 46.2 percent material recycling and 12.5 percent thermal recycling.
• Thermal recovery represented about 29.5 percent of what was counted as recycled across all plastic waste; the expected plastic rate reduction was described as roughly 30 percentage points.
• Plastic waste generation reached 103.9 kilograms per person in 2022, more than twice the OECD comparison average.
• A 2023 analysis found that 16.4 percent of household plastic sorted for recycling in 2021 became new plastic.
• Legal revisions, consultations and subsidy changes could lead to full implementation around 2028.
• Permitted energy recovery would continue, while incentives would place greater weight on material recovery.
• Packaging design, producer responsibility, recycled content, better sorting and reuse remain central to reducing waste.