What the draft does, and what it leaves open
In early October 2026, Indonesia's Deputy Environment Minister reportedly said the government is open to industry input on its draft extended producer responsibility (EPR) regulation. The draft would make producers and importers answerable for the waste their products create. It would replace Environment and Forestry Ministry Regulation 75/2019, the producer waste-reduction roadmap, and would route obligations through Packaging Recovery Organizations (PROs). That October date comes from a headline and I could not confirm it independently. Whether the draft covers electronics, repair or spare parts is also unconfirmed.
The public record points to packaging. At a 7 September 2026 hearing with the House of Representatives' Commission XII, the Environment Ministry's waste deputy described a PRO as "a nonprofit body formed by producers to coordinate packaging waste management and recovery". She said importers would also carry responsibility for products and packaging they bring into the country, which she called a new feature (Antara). In July, Environment Minister Jumhur Hidayat said the rule would require around 10,000 large manufacturers to fund waste management, replacing the current voluntary approach (The Star/Jakarta Post). Nothing in these reports mentions devices.
The strongest case for the regulation
Regulators have a serious argument. Indonesia generates 144,562 tons of waste daily, only about 25 percent is managed, and 70 percent of its 522 landfills still use open dumping, according to the same Antara report. A voluntary roadmap regime has not changed that. Mandatory producer financing moves disposal costs from municipalities to the firms that design the products. Done well, it also rewards design that lasts.
Electronics make the case sharper. The ITU's country page says Indonesia was the largest e-waste generator in Southeast Asia in 2022, at 1,886 million kilograms. It also records no EPR for e-waste and no collection or recycling targets, and says "there are limited provisions on the roles and responsibilities of EEE producers" (ITU). The ITU has been running consultations in Jakarta, with UK FCDO support, to draft a high-level EPR roadmap for electrical and electronic equipment (ITU). Bappenas's circular-economy roadmap for 2025 to 2045 lists national e-waste rules and EPR for electronics in its first phase, 2025 to 2029.
Why repair is the missing piece
EPR and repair work together, but only by design. A fee-based PRO system pays for collection and recycling. A repair economy needs three further things: access to spare parts, access to diagnostic and service information, and no legal barrier to independent repairers. A PRO fee gives none of these.
Indonesian law is thin here. A 2025 law-firm analysis concludes that Indonesia "does not recognize an explicit 'right to repair'". It lists Consumer Protection Law 8/1999, which requires repair, replacement or compensation for defective goods. It also cites Trade Minister Regulation 38/2019 on after-sales service and spare-part availability during the warranty period, and Industry Minister Regulation 34/2020 on repair-related standards. In its words, these "do not guarantee consumers' independent right to repair their own products or ensure long-term access to spare parts and repair manuals" (Ambadar). That is a secondary reading and I did not check the regulation texts. If it is right, a consumer's repair options end when the warranty does, which is exactly when the economics of repair versus replacement matter most.
Where a poorly scoped EPR rule goes wrong
The risk is that EPR becomes a disposal tax with no repair incentive. If fees are flat per unit, a manufacturer pays the same whether a phone lasts two years or six. Eco-modulated fees, which charge more for products that are hard to recycle, can fix this. The packaging debate already uses that logic: the director for waste reduction said, "The harder a package is to recycle, the more producers will have to pay." Applying it to devices means pricing repairability, such as parts availability and non-destructive disassembly, rather than just recyclability.
The opposite error is also real. A mandate to stock every part for every model for a decade would hit small importers and local assemblers hardest, and would push compliance costs into consumer prices. An open-internet, pro-innovation approach should avoid both.
What proportionate looks like
Indonesia can get most of the benefit with a narrow set of measures:
- Scope electronics explicitly, in phases. Start with phones, laptops and chargers, where the ITU consultation work already exists, rather than folding devices into a packaging-shaped rule.
- Make parts and information available on fair terms. Require manufacturers and importers to sell parts and repair information to independent repairers at reasonable prices for a stated period after sale. Do not mandate stocking every part for every model.
- Modulate PRO fees on repairability. Reward measurable durability and serviceability instead of charging flat per-unit fees.
- Protect repairers from liability traps. The Ambadar analysis raises the tension with intellectual-property law. Parts and manual access should be written so that independent repair does not infringe.
- Count repair toward targets. Repaired and refurbished devices that stay in use should count toward obligations, so that PROs do not have a financial interest in more waste.
The deputy minister's invitation for industry input is useful, but industry is not the only constituency. Independent repair shops, refurbishers and consumer groups are the people who would use these provisions, and they should be at the table too.
The bottom line
Indonesia is right to replace voluntary EPR with a mandatory scheme. The open question is whether the rule treats devices as more than another waste stream. If the final text stays silent on electronics and parts access, Indonesians gain a cleaner disposal system and no better ability to keep their devices working.