Disclaimer: This is an independent report and does not reflect the views of the Royal Government of
COMBATTING PLASTIC FOAM USE IN CAMBODIA:
POLICY REPORT AND SUGGESTED REGULATIONS
PLASTIC FOAM PACKAGING AND ITS NEGATIVE IMPACTS
The technical term for what most people refer to as Styrofoam is Expanded Polystyrene (EPS). Styrofoam refers to a
type of foamed plastic that is mainly used in building insulation. EPS is used in most takeaway food packaging and is
what most lightweight protective packaging is made from.
EPS can take hundreds of years to decompose. It causes blockages in drainage systems and takes up space in landfills.
These products also break up very easily into microplastic. When EPS is burned, it can cause various negative health
effects, as it contains benzyne and styrene, two known carcinogens that can cause cancers.
GLOBAL REGULATION REVIEW
Twenty-one national and subnational regulations were reviewed for this report. They include regulations from six
continents, four stemming from Asia. Some of the most important insights and lessons learned include:
1) Banning the manufacture, import, sale, and use of the product in addition to enforcement throughout the supply
chain leads to the greatest impact in reduction.
2) A phased approach for bans that prohibit importation first, allowing businesses to sell out their stock and reducing
economic shock created less pushback from industry.
3) Common exemptions included hospitals, small businesses, specific industries important to the local economy, and
products that were packaged and sealed outside of the country.
4) Clear and consistent messaging, along with stakeholder engagement throughout the process, led to a greater
chance of successful implementation.
Regulating expanded polystyrene is not an easy task. With many stakeholders involved in its sale and use, challenges
facing Cambodia are large. Some of the most difficult barriers include:
1) Compostable and more environmentally friendly product alternatives are available in Cambodia, but they are not
2) A total ban will likely negatively impact poor communities and small businesses.
3) Additional steps will still need to be taken to get the full value of alternative products. For example, a municipal
composting program will increase the positive impact of switching to biodegradable takeaway containers.
4) Neighbouring countries will still be producing and using expanded polystyrene products.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CAMBODIA
There are three different suggestions for potentially regulating expanded polystyrene packaging.
• Option 1: Tax on EPS followed by a ban on its import, manufacture, and sale. Exemptions will be given to small
businesses limiting its economic shock but also limiting its environmental impact.
• Option 2: A total ban with limited exemptions such as hospitals. This option offers the greatest environmental
impact but may hurt poor communities.
• Option 3: A tax on EPS and a ban only on public school grounds. This option is small in scope but may influence
a larger lifestyle change.
Each option requires clear communication and consistent stakeholder engagement. All three options are explained further
in the report.
Cambodia faces immense challenges in terms of both waste generation and management.1 The economy
continues to grow at a strong pace, but with additional income comes additional consumption and waste
generation. This report focuses on plastic foam packaging called Expanded Polystyrene (EPS), colloquially
known as Styrofoam TM. This report explains its uses in Cambodia, reviews steps other governments have taken
to regulate it, and finally offers suggestions for policy in Cambodia.
WHAT IS PLASTIC “FOAM” PACKAGING
Polystyrene is categorized as plastic number six and can be found in several different forms. As a solid,
polystyrene (PS) is used in plastic cups, plastic cutlery, and CD cases, among other items.2 In the mid 20th
century, the Dow Chemical Company developed an extruded polystyrene foam (XPS) and trademarked the
name Styrofoam TM. This form of polystyrene is mainly used in building insulation.3
The polystyrene foam most commonly found amongst the waste piles in Cambodia, and what most people call
Styrofoam,TM is expanded polystyrene foam (EPS). This product is what food containers, packing peanuts, and
other lightweight packaging is made from.4 Although technical, it is important to understand the differences in
these forms of polystyrene to effectively develop policy.
Technical Terms for Reference
Polystyrene (PS) – a rigid transparent plastic categorized as plastic number 6. Used in cups,
cutlery, and CD cases.
Extruded Polystyrene (XPS) –A type of foamed plastic mainly used in building insulation. The
Dow Chemical Company trademarked this process and called it Styrofoam TM.
Expanded Polystyrene (EPS) – A lightweight foamed plastic commonly found in Cambodia, as it
is used in food service takeaway containers and as protective packaging. Although many people
refer to EPS products as Styrofoam, this is technically incorrect.
• Expanded polystyrene can take hundreds of years to decompose.
• Although it does not decompose quickly, it easily breaks into smaller pieces making it more difficult to
• EPS causes blockages in drainage systems.
• EPS contains benzene and styrene, two known cancer-causing carcinogens.
• Burning EPS, which is common practice in Cambodia, can cause various adverse health effects.
• EPS food containers are not collected by informal waste collectors and in general are very difficult to
USES AND AVAILABILITY IN CAMBODIA
EPS has been widely used in Cambodia. EPS is 98 percent air,6 which makes it incredibly lightweight and
affordable. Transporting large quantities of EPS packaging can be done with relative ease compared to heavier
alternatives. When bought in bulk, (100 pieces) EPS food service containers can be priced as low as 60
Cambodian Riel (US$.015) for one container.7
Markets, food stalls, and many restaurants use EPS food containers every single day. EPS comes in a variety of
sizes and shapes and is used to hold rice, noodles, soups, sauces, and desserts. Most commonly EPS containers
are used for takeaway food, either from a street food vendor or from a local restaurant. In some cases, EPS
containers are used even when food is eaten at the food stall or restaurant, as using single-use containers
minimizes staffing needs for cleaning plates and bowls. EPS foam is also used in packaging and storage,
providing a lightweight way to protect materials during transport.
Most EPS is imported from neighboring countries, such as Thailand and Vietnam.8 EPS containers follow a
similar supply chain to plastic bags. They are imported in bulk from neighboring countries and distributed by
intermediaries to the supermarkets and local markets throughout the country. Most local markets have at least
one seller who specializes in plastics and
single-use containers. They sell EPS
containers of various sizes for low prices
making them easily accessible for food
There is a minimal recycling system in
Cambodia, and although EPS is technically
capable of being recycled, its light weight
and interaction with food make it
financially difficult and limit feasibility.
Currently EPS is not recycling in
Cambodia or exported abroad to be
In Phnom Penh specifically, a majority of
waste is collected,9 therefore most EPS
foam packaging ends up in landfills. For
the more than one-third of urban poor
communities without municipal waste An informal landfill in Phnom Penh containing a lot of EPS waste
management services,10 many of these
containers enter local waterways, take up
space in local informal landfills, or are burned releasing dangerous chemicals.
REGULATIONS FROM OTHER COUNTRIES
While much attention has been on plastic regulations regarding plastic bags and straws, several countries and
local governments are moving towards placing regulations on foamed polystyrene, mainly EPS in food service
containers and EPS packaging foam “packing peanuts.” For this report, 21 laws enacted by both local and
national governments were analysed. Please see Table 2 for a full list of laws and regulations. Note that some
governments provided specific steps and regulations, while others only established goals for the future.
Many countries in the Caribbean11 have taken steps towards EPS bans and regulations for a cleaner
environment. Only two countries from Africa have taken steps towards regulating EPS. Many cities in the
United States have developed EPS regulations, but only one state has enacted a ban.12
KEY INSIGHTS AND LESSONS LEARNED
• All laws are regulated through a ban; there were no countries that chose to regulate through a tax
• Many countries banned the import, manufacture, sale, and use of the item, which allowed enforcement
throughout the supply chain.
• A phased approach worked well, which banned importation first and then sales. This process allowed
businesses to sell out their stock and to reduce economic shock.
• Citizens in low and middle-income countries were impacted the most, as alternatives are not cost
• Exemptions for small businesses were more common in high income countries.
• Other exemptions ranged from specific industries, including hospitals and non-profit organisations.
Exemptions were also provided to seafood companies in Maine, USA as food is typically packaged in
• Consistent and clear messaging about the importance of plastic reduction led to increased support.
• Providing viable options, requirements and incentives for alternatives led to greater success.
• Stakeholder engagement throughout the process of creating the regulation led to greater success.
• Strict enforcement is needed for any ban or regulation to be followed.
Countries where a regulation was reviewed are highlighted in blue
CASE STUDY: SUCCESS IN ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA
Through well planned and transparent regulation, Antigua and Barbuda managed to reduce the plastic
composition of landfill waste from 19.5 percent in 2006 to 4.4 percent in 2017.13 They passed these regulations
in five phases. The first two phases targeted plastic shopping bags. The third phase, which was announced 18
months after the first phase, banned polystyrene food service containers such as hinged food containers, bowls,
plates, and hot and cold beverage cups.
Main factors that contributed to success in Antigua and Barbuda:
• They engaged with all stakeholders throughout the process of creating each new regulation getting
different groups on board.
• They announced the first regulation on World Environment Day (June 5, 2016) and had clear messaging.
• They banned importation before banning sales, which eased business concerns and allowed time to find
CASE STUDY: NONCOMPLIANCE IN HAITI
Haiti announced an EPS ban twice, once in 2012 and then again in 2013.14 The first time it was announced there
was confusion as to what was being banned. Many people thought the plastic bags they use to transport drinking
water were being banned, which led to protests.
After each of the announced bans the government did little to enforce or promote alternatives. Most of the
population does not have enough money to afford reusable or compostable containers. The result was an
ineffective ban that was generally disregarded by the population.
Main factors that contributed to noncompliance Haiti:
• They did not communicate the regulation well, leading to confusion and protests.
• Minimal enforcement meant there was no risk to not follow the regulation.
COMPARATIVE CASE STUDY: NYC VS SF USA
New York City (NYC) and San Francisco (SF) are two of the wealthiest urban areas in the United States of
America. Both cities have enacted EPS bans with San Francisco’s being much more comprehensive and
New York City first tried to ban EPS for food service in 2013.15 The ban was delayed, as the courts ruled that
they first needed to prove it was not feasible to recycle EPS. The ban finally went into place in 2019 but they
did not promote alternatives. Many street vendors have started to use aluminum containers with polypropylene
tops.16 These containers take more resources to produce, and it is still not clear if they are being recycled at a
high rate since the food scraps on them may make it difficult.
On the other hand, San Francisco banned EPS food containers in 2017 and required that single use food
containers be compostable.17 San Francisco has a city-wide composting program. Meaning that single-use
containers can be thrown into the compost bin, even when covered in food scraps. This system fostered
successful program implementation and sustainability. By promoting alternative products, and having a city-
wide composting system in place, San Francisco developed an efficient and effective way to reduce waste in the
food service industry.
Main factors that contributed San Francisco’s success over New York City:
• San Francisco required a specific type of alternative, while NYC did not.
• San Francisco had a successful composting program to manage the required alternatives, while NYC did
not have any system in place to manage alternatives.
ALTERNATIVE PRODUCTS AVAILABLE IN CAMBODIA
There are several product alternatives to EPS already available in Cambodia. For a full list, see Table 3. Four
different companies (Only One Planet, Kambio, Siam Eco Pack, and Makro Market) import compostable food
service containers from abroad. These are certified to be composted at the industrial level. Their prices range by
products, but a 450ml closeable lunch box costs about $.08, whereas an EPS equivalent is about $.02. Reusable
and recyclable 470ml polypropylene (PP) containers cost about $.19. Therefore, the polypropylene boxes need
to be reused about 10 times to outweigh to cost of EPS single-use containers
Table 1: EPS and Alternative Packaging Available in Cambodia
EPS Only One Planet Makro Market Siam Eco Pack Kambio PP Reusable
$0.19 (470 ml)
450 ml $0.016 $0.086 $0.086 $0.09 n/a
600 ml $0.049 $0.11 $0.098 $0.11 $0.64
lunchbox (850 ml) n/a
500 ml bowl $0.021 $0.14 $0.082 $0.09 $0.19 n/a
$0.022 $0.04 $0.058 $0.08
6 inch plate n/a
EPS protective packaging can be replaced with
paper or other similar items. Outside of
Cambodia, biodegradable “packing peanuts” are
available. There are also opportunities for
“natural packaging,” such as banana leaf
packaging or palm leaf boxes. These products
have not yet been produced on a large scale, so
pricing is not currently available.
CHALLENGES FOR CAMBODIA
With no formal composting or recycling Banana leaf used as a replacement for EPS plate
program and an insufficient municipal waste
management system, finding the correct balance
for policy is a challenge.
More than one third of urban poor communities do not receive waste management services in Phnom Penh, and
these communities would be hardest hit by an outright ban. Banning EPS food service containers and replacing
them with compostable ones would only increase the amount and type of waste entering local landfills and
streets in these communities. In addition, urban poor communities would likely see an increase in price from the
vendors who are using the more expensive compostable containers. The eventual goal should be for these
containers to be composted, but they still provide a small benefit if they aren’t composted by replacing EPS, as
they won’t release any carcinogens or break down into microplastics.
Many medium and large companies might be able to bear the increased costs of compostable containers. On
average, these cost four-to-five times more than their EPS alternative. There are several businesses throughout
Cambodia that are already making this change. Small businesses may not be able to handle such a large increase
in packaging costs. For vendors selling product at a cost less than $2, an increase in packaging costs from $.02
to $.08 may be unsustainable without increasing the price of their product.
Reusable containers are an alternative to single-use compostable or EPS containers. However, these are more
expensive and require a lifestyle change. Vendors can charge a 1,000 Riel takeaway fee to offset the additional
cost, and to encourage customers to bring their own reusable packaging. If these products are eventually thrown
away and not recycled, the environmental impact may be worse than EPS due to the additional resource cost of
For regulating imports, both hard polystyrene and foamed polystyrene are categorized as plastic #6. Customs
agents will need to be well informed on the differences.
SUGGESTIONS FOR REGULATION
Below are three different suggestions for regulations to manage and reduce the amount of expanded polystyrene
waste created in Cambodia. They each take a slightly different approach towards regulating expanded
polystyrene and each have their own strengths and weaknesses. The table below provides a summary.
Option One: Key Points Strengths Challenges
Phased Phases Include: - Small business exemption - Many businesses will be
Approach fits into already defined tax exempt and still create a lot of
1) Tax on all EPS products categories waste
Tax first and entering Cambodia
move to Ban - Small businesses and poor - Many exemptions mean it
with 2) Six months later ban the communities who own and may be confusing to enforce
exemptions manufacture and import of EPS buy products from them will
products be exempt limiting their - Many exemptions create
economic burden loopholes that may be
3) Six more months later ban the exploited
sale of EPS products - Tax increase may reduce
EPS use everywhere
- Small businesses, hospitals, and
products packed and sealed outside - Phased approach will allow
Cambodia are exempt from the ban more time for alternatives to
enter the market
- A limited number of import licenses
will be given out to meet demand of
companies who qualify for exemption
Option Two: - First ban the manufacture and - Easy to understand -Product alternatives are not
Ban with few import of EPS and then six months price competitive
later ban the sale and use of EPS - Enforcement along the
exemptions products supply chain means very few -Poor communities might be
people should be using EPS the hardest hit by the law
- Exemptions will only be given to
hospitals and products packed and -Opportunity for large social -No large scale solution to
sealed outside Cambodia and environmental benefit deal with alternative products
after they are used
- Larger fines should be enforced for -Delayed ban on sale and use
import and manufacture ($100-$1000) will allow businesses to sell -Neighboring countries will
than sale and use ($25-$50) out of EPS still be producing a lot of EPS
-Product alternatives do not
require lifestyle change
Option - First tax EPS and then only ban EPS - Less of an economic shock -EPS will still be cheaper than
Three: Tax products on public school grounds than a total ban compostable alternatives
Ban only on - The revenue from taxes could -Focus on schools can be -EPS products will still be
schools potentially go to offsetting the cost incorporated with other easily accessible
for schools to purchase alternative green projects
products -Minimal environmental and
EPS has various negative impacts on public health, infrastructure, and the environment. It is also very cheap and
useful, making its elimination a big challenge. This report reviewed 21 different EPS regulations. The more
successful regulations applied a phased approach with a ban at six-month intervals, allowing businesses to make
changes reducing their economic shock. Good communication and strong enforcement led to greater success.
Alternatives to EPS are available in Cambodia, but they are four-to-five times more expensive than similar EPS
products. A total ban on EPS will hurt small businesses and poor communities the most. Several options for
regulations have been suggested, but a phased approach with exemptions for small business might be the most
impactful regulation, without causing economic harm to Cambodia’s most vulnerable.
TABLE 2: REGULATIONS REVIEWED
Place and What is Banned or Regulated How is it Taxe
“food service establishments, stores, mobile
USA (New food commissaries and manufacturers may not $250 for first vio
York City) possess, sell, or offer for use single-service $500 for second v
2019 Expanded Polystyrene (EPS) foam food service within 12 months
articles or loose fill packaging.”18 $1000 for each su
violation within 1
USA (San “As of January 1, 2017, the law bans the sale or Initial warning
Francisco) distribution of the following products made, in Later fines can ra
2017 whole or in part, from polystyrene foam (so $100 - $500
called StyrofoamTM and expanded, extruded or
• Food ware including cups, plates,
clamshells, and other containers
• Meat and fish trays (as of July 1, 2017),
and egg cartons
• Packing materials* including peanuts and
shipping containers, and their use to pack within
San Francisco products sold
• Coolers, ice chests or similar containers*
• Pool or beach toys*
• Dock floats, mooring buoys, or anchor or
navigational marker” 19
Disposable food ware must be compostable in
San Francisco collection program
Seattle (USA) First, EPS food service ware was banned
2009 without a requirement for alternatives. 18
months later all single use food service ware was
required to be compostable or recyclable.20
ed or Exemptions Challenges or Lessons
olation Small businesses with less than Ban was originally overturned
violation $500,000 in gross income and non because NYC did not prove
s profits can apply for hardship sufficiently how EPS could not
ubsequent exemptions be recycled well.
EPS containers for prepackaged Aluminum alternatives may be
ange from foods filled before they were worse for the environment due
acquired by the business to the additional resource use.
Mostly minority business
EPS containers used to store raw owners affected
meat, pork, fish, seafood
Vendors complained about
Foam blocks used as protective alternatives being different
packaging is not covered in this law sizes
Waivers allowed if: Local government had a strong
outreach component and met
-If no reasonably feasible alternative with every business affected
exists for a product or product over four years
Required the alternative to be
-If a business has less than $500,000 compostable and had the
annual income and there is no means to compost it
reasonably affordable alternative
In 2011, over 95 percent of
businesses were in compliance,
with only six establishments
Maine (USA) “Beginning January 1, 2021, a covered A violation of thi
2021 establishment may not process, prepare, sell or a civil violation f
provide food or beverages in or on a disposable fine of not more t
food service container that is composed in whole may be adjudged
or in part of polystyrene foam.” 21
Haiti 2012 EPS foam for single use food purposes such as Arrival of packag
and 2013 trays bottles and plates is banned for containing prohib
manufacture, import, and use. (2012) 22 articles are confis
customs and the o
Ban on EPS was emphasized again in 2013 sanctioned.
Jamaica 2019 As of January 1, 2019 the Government will
impose a ban on single use plastic bags, straws
and polystyrene. The ban covers the importation,
manufacture and distribution of the materials.
The polystyrene ban applies to those that are
used as food and beverage containers 23
Antigua and In January 2016 the importation and
Barbuda manufacturing of plastic bags was banned, later
2016-2018 in the year the distribution was banned. This
success led to more bans.
Stage 1: July 1st to December 31st, 2017 Ban on
importation and use of food service EPS. After a
depletion of stock businesses will be monitored.
Stage 2: January 1st to June 30th, 2018 Ban on
importation and use of plastic utensils, straws,
and egg cartons. After a depletion of stock
businesses will be monitored.
Stage 3: July 1st, 2018 to January 1st, 2019 Ban
on importation and use of "naked" Styrofoam
is chapter is Hospitals, Meals-on-Wheels
for which a providers and seafood dealers would
than $100 be exempt from the ban.
A consumer may bring their own
If an establishment bought food
prepackaged at wholesale they may
sell it in its original foam packaging
ges Originally sparked protests
bited because people thought the ban
scated by included the plastic bags they
owners are use to transport drinking water
Has generally been considered
a failure due to minimal
The use of polystyrene for the
packaging of food items such as raw
meats will be exempt, and producers
who utilize such packaging must
apply to NEPA for limited
Airline Carriers, Private Charters First banning importation and
and large Cruise Liners will be then later banning sales was
exempted from the ban until further considered a success
The messaging was clear that
this was part of protecting the
environmental and the people
Continued interaction with all
Consumers were provided with
Plastic at landfill declined from
19.5% in 2006 to 4.4% in
Dominica effective 1st January 2019 Styrofoam cups and Six months in pri
2019 containers are banned 25 ten thousand doll
Marshall Import, manufacture, and sale of “Styrofoam”
Island cups and plates is banned 26
Seychelles Manufacturing, importation, distribution of Fine not to excee
2017 polystyrene boxes is prohibited 27 SCR20,000 ($1,4
one year in prison
Saint Vincent Ban the manufacture, import, and sale of People found in v
and The expanded polystyrene food service products 28 the ban will be w
Grenadines they still do not c
2017 Ban on the Importation, manufacture, and sale of are fined $5,000
Vanuatu plastic foam, XPS, and polystyrene board stock
Fines no less than
Ban on the Importation, manufacture, and sale of
EPS. Ban on the use of EPS containers by food
service establishments. 30
Costa Rica June 5th 2017 the President announced a strategy
2017 to phase out all forms of single use plastics
including EPS 31
Government announcement with the plan to
Sri Lanka phase out most if not all “Styrofoam” containers
The import of disposable polystyrene boxes are
Ban on “Styrofoam” in restaurants, vendors, and
major food manufactures. 34
Taxes on alternatives are
potentially going to zero
ison and/or Exemptions for hospitals
ed Allowed 9 months of transition
467) and or after the law was passed
Medical or health related
exemptions are given
n $5,000 If an establishment bought food Law encourages the use of
prepackaged at wholesale they may biodegradable and recyclable
sell it in its original foam packaging containers.
One ministry has looked into
Announcement on World
Environment Day had extra
emphasis and showed clear
One national company was
inspired by the local ban and
moved away from Styrofoam
for their noodle cups
Muntinlupa Business establishments and/or individuals are First Offense – P
(Philippines) prohibited from Selling and providing ($10)
2010 “Styrofoam” as a container 35 Second Offense –
Third Offense – P
500.00 ($30) and
than six month
China Originally banned Styrofoam takeaway
1999 containers in 1999 but the ban was lifted in
Zimbabwe The manufacture, distribution, use, and import Fee between $30
of polystyrene is prohibited 37
France All disposable tableware to be made from 50%
biologically-sourced materials that can be
composted at home by January of 2020. 38
PhP 500.00 Ban was not strictly enforced.
– Also China was a manufacturer
0) and exporter of the product
PhP1, during the ban. This could have
d/or made enforcement difficult
hs Those who use polystyrene to
protect goods in packaging or use
0 and $500 polystyrene in construction shall
take responsibility for its recycling
TABLE 2: POLYSTYRENE AND ALTERNATIVE PRODUCTS AVAILABLE IN CAMBODIA
Supplier Available in Product Description Material Price Per Unit
KH (Excluding VAT)
Makro Market Rice Foam Box (450 ml Expanded
and many Yes $.016
Makro Market Yes approx.) Polystyrene Foam
others Yes Rice Foam Box big Expanded $.049
Makro Market (600 ml approx.)
and many Yes Polystyrene Foam
Makro Market Yes Foam Bowls Big (500 Expanded $.021
others ml approx.) Polystyrene Foam
Planetxl Foam Plate (6 inch Expanded $.022
450 ml single Natural Plant $.09
compostable “lunch Product
600ml single (Sugarcane Fiber)
Only One Yes compostable “lunch Natural Plant $.11
Planet box” container
6 inch diameter Product
500 ml compostable
Only One Yes Bowl Natural Plant $.04
Planet Yes Product $.14
Yes 500 g compostable (Sugarcane Fiber) $.85
Only One container
Planet Natural Plant
Kambio (Sugarcane Fiber)
Kambio Yes 850 ml lunch box Sugarcane fiber $.64
Kambio Yes 7 cm bowl with lid Areca Leaf $.20
Makro Market Yes Gracz compostable Combination of $.058
(Imported Yes Round Plate 6" bagasse and $.086
from Gracz) Yes bamboo fibers $.082
Makro Market compartment 450ml Combination of
(Imported compostable container bagasse and
from Gracz) bamboo fibers
Makro Market Bowl 500ml Combination of
(Imported bagasse and
from Gracz) bamboo fibers
Makro Market Yes Gracz Single Combination of $.098
(Imported compartment 600ml bagasse and $.08
from Gracz) compostable container bamboo fibers $.09
Siam Eco Pack Yes Gracz Oval plate 6.5 Combination of $.19
(Imported inches bagasse and Expensive
from Gracz)xli bamboo fibers Competitive
Siam Eco Pack Yes Gracz compostable Combination of
(Imported Bowl 500ml bagasse and
from Gracz) bamboo fibers
Siam Eco Pack Yes Gracz Single Combination of
(Imported compartment 450ml bagasse and
from Gracz) compostable container bamboo fibers
Siam Eco Pack Yes Gracz Single Combination of
(Imported compartment 600ml bagasse and
from Gracz) compostable container bamboo fibers
Makro Market Yes Reusable Plastic Box Polypropylene
with Lid 470 ml
Various Yes Banana
Be Green Banana Leaves Natural Fibers
Packaging xlii No
Various (USA) Custom compostable
Avani Eco xliii No Peanuts
1 Singh, R. K., Premakumara, D. G., Yagasa, R., & Onogawa, K. (2018). State of Waste Management in Phnom Penh, Cambodia.
2 Rogers, T. (2015, November 5). Everything You Need To Know About Polystyrene (PS). Retrieved from Creative Mechanisms:
4 Heverly, S., Lu, J., Middleton, A., & Ghai, S. (2017). Recommendations for Reducing or Banning Foam Food Service Containers.
5 United National Environment Programme. (2018). Report on the Status of Styrofoam and Plastic Bag Bans in the Wider
Caribbean Region. Panama City: UNEP.
6 Genpak. (2012). Foam Packaging Facts. Retrieved from Genpak: https://www.genpak.com/Literature/Foamfacts.pdf
7 Makro Market. (2019, June). Price List. Siem Reap.
8 Quicksand. (2015). Cambodia's Plastic Bag Ecosystem and Usage. Fondazione ACRA.
9 Singh, R. K., Premakumara, D. G., Yagasa, R., & Onogawa, K. (2018). State of Waste Management in Phnom Penh, Cambodia.
10 Sahmakum Teang Tnaut. (2019). Urban Governance: Waste Management in Phnom Penh. Phnom Penh: Sahmakum Teang
11 United National Environment Programme. (2018). Report on the Status of Styrofoam and Plastic Bag Bans in the Wider
Caribbean Region. Panama City: UNEP.
12 Government of Maine (2019). An Act To Prohibit the Use of Certain Disposable Food Service Containers
13 United National Environment Programme. (2018). Report on the Status of Styrofoam and Plastic Bag Bans in the Wider
Caribbean Region. Panama City: UNEP.
15 Government of the City of New York (2013). A Local Law No. 142 To amend the administrative code of the city of New York, in
relation to restrictions on the sale or use of certain expanded polystyrene items.
16 Fenton, R., & Algar, S. (2019, January 1). NYC's Styrofoam ban won't be enforced until July. New York Post.
17 SF Environment. (2017). Polystyrene Foam and the Food Service and Packaging Waste Reduction Ordinance. Retrieved from
18 Government of the City of New York (2013). A Local Law No. 142 To amend the administrative code of the city of New York, in
relation to restrictions on the sale or use of certain expanded polystyrene items.
19 SF Environment. (2017). Polystyrene Foam and the Food Service and Packaging Waste Reduction Ordinance. Retrieved from
20 The Government of Seattle (2019). Food Service Packaging Requirements. Retrieved from Seattle Public Utilities:
21 Government of Maine (2019). An Act To Prohibit the Use of Certain Disposable Food Service Containers
22 Government of Haiti (2012). Presidential order in favor of the protection of the environment
23 Smith, A. (2018, September 18). Gov’t Bans Single-Use Plastic Bags, Plastic Straws and Polystyrene. Retrieved from Jamaica
Information Service: https://jis.gov.jm/govt-bans-single-use-plastic-bags-plastic-straws-and-polystyrene/
24 Antigua Nice. (2017, September 27). Stages and Implementation of Styrofoam Ban. Retrieved from Antigua Nice:
25 Government of Dominica (2018). The National Budget Of The Commonwealth of Dominica Fiscal Year 2018 – 2019
26 Government of The Republic of the Marshall Islands (2016). Styrofoam and Plastic Products Prohibition Act
27 Government of Seychelles (2016). Environment Protection Act
28 Government of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines (2016). Environmental Health (Expanded Polystyrene Ban) Regulations
29 Government of The Republic of Vanuatu (2010). Ozone Layer Protection Act
30 Government of Guyana (2015). Regulations Made Under The Environmental Protection Act
31 Wonderstruck Traveler. (2019, January 17). The Costa Rican Parliament Discusses a Set of Proposals for Reducing the Use of
Plastics in 2019. Retrieved from Wonderstruck Traveler Guide: https://wonderstrucktraveler.com/the-costa-rican-parliament-
32 Government of Belize (2018). Phasing Out of Single-use Plastic Bags and Styrofoam and Plastic food Utensils. Retrieved from:
33 United Nations Environment Programme. (2018). Legal Limits on Single-Use Plastics and Microplastics: A Global Review of
National Laws and Regulations. United Nations Environment Programme.
34 Hong, T. H. (2016, November 2). Bandung bans Styrofoam, Pop Mie to switch to paper packaging. Retrieved from Mini Me
35 Government of The City of Muntinlupa (2010). Ordinance 10-109 on Plastic
36 Yeping, Y (2013, March 13). Govt lifts polystyrene box ban Retrieved from Global Times:
37 Government of Zimbabwe (2010). The Environmental Management (Plastic and Plastic Bottles) Regulations.
38 Eastaugh, S. (2016, September 20). France becomes first country to ban plastic cups and plates. Retrieved from CNN:
xxxix Makro Market. (2019, June). Price List. Siem Reap.
xl Only One Planet. (2019). Eco-Friendly Food Packaging. Retrieved from Only One Planet: https://onlyoneplanetkh.com/food-
xli Siam Eco Pack. (2019, May). Siam Eco Pack Catalog-May. Siam Eco Pack
xlii Be Green Packaging. (2019). Consumer Packaged Goods. Retrieved from Be Green Packaging:
xliii Avani Eco. (2019). Our Products. Retrieved from Avani Eco: https://www.avanieco.com/products/