In 2020, Thai authorities announced that they would endeavour to make Thailand a regional electric vehicle (EV) hub in just five years. True enough, by 2025, Chinese EV manufacturing companies had made the country a solid base. This was epitomised by BYD opening a 948,000 sq m plant in Rayong in July 2024, boasting an annual production capacity of 150,000 vehicles. Other Chinese brands – including Great Wall Motor, SAIC Motor, and Changan Automobile – have all found a home for manufacturing in Thailand’s Eastern Economic Corridor.
Domestically, as part of Thailand’s aim to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050, authorities have set the “30@30” goal. This would see zero-emission vehicles make up 30% of all passenger car and pickup truck production by 2030, amounting to 725,000 units per year, as well as 675,000 electric motorcycles.
However, while EV development has continued apace, the solutions to repurposing or recycling batteries have lagged. To find out more, Dialogue Earth spoke to Katrin Luger who is chief of the transport research and policy section at the UN Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (Escap).
She discussed the hurdles the sector is facing, how policymakers can prepare, and how regional cooperation can support better EV recycling.
The interview has been lightly edited for clarity and length.
Dialogue Earth: As Thailand pursues its 30@30 target and EV use increases, what risks are emerging?
Katrin Luger: Thailand will accumulate hundreds of thousands of tonnes of spent EV batteries over the next decade – around 200,000 by 2033 and 2.5 million by 2043. This could pose significant environmental risks without proper end-of-life handling.
Spent batteries contain heavy metals such as lithium, cobalt, nickel and lead, as well as dangerous chemicals. If dismantled carelessly, these substances can leak into soil and water, damaging ecosystems and human health, as experts have warned.
Damaged or over-discharged lithium-ion batteries also pose a severe fire risk. Thermal runaway in an EV battery – when heat generation exceeds dissipation – can lead to uncontrollable fires. Inadequate storage or transport infrastructure raises the chance of fires in urban areas or ports.
Informal battery dismantling exposes workers to acids, dust and flames. Around the world, millions of often low-income waste workers face serious health threats from informal e-waste recycling, according to the World Health Organisation. Without protective gear or training, scaling EV battery recycling through the existing informal sector could multiply occupational diseases.
The lack of widespread formal recycling infrastructure could also lead to batteries accumulating in warehouses or dumps. In the absence of licensed collectors, this “grey zone” invites leaks, spills or unsafe handling.
How can Thailand position itself to get the most out of retired batteries?
As analysts from the Thailand Development Research Institute note, the nation should consider clear legislation on battery storage, reuse and recycling, and should require that EV and battery manufacturers finance end-of-life management via the Extended Producer Responsibility policy approach, which makes manufacturers responsible for their products through their entire lifecycle.
Thailand is drafting a Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Act that would explicitly cover batteries and mandate take-back and recycling for producers. Complementary policies like a “battery passport” for tracking cells, higher recycled-content requirements, and R&D on local recycling methods would help capture the high-value materials (lithium, cobalt, nickel, manganese) in spent batteries. Notably, life cycle assessment studies for Thailand show that repurposing EV batteries, for instance for grid or storage use, before recycling yields the greatest environmental benefit.
Informal workers play a big role in Southeast Asia’s e-waste recycling processes. How do policymakers ensure that scaling EV battery recycling doesn’t simply formalise the hazards they face at a greater scale?
Policymakers can take several measures to embed worker safety and inclusion at the centre of the EV-battery-recycling expansion.
Collection should be centralised, not improvised. Instead of informal dismantling with hammers or open burning, governments can establish official collection centres or producer-responsibility organisations. Informal collectors can be paid to bring intact batteries to these hubs, preserving livelihoods while eliminating unsafe backyard processing.
Any authorised recycler should be required to provide personal protective equipment, ventilation and safe recycling technology to all employees. Governments could offer training programmes or certifications for workers to transition from the informal sector into safer roles in battery testing, diagnostics, plant operation, logistics coordination or data management. Hiring quotas, minimum-wage guarantees and zero-child-labour enforcement can ensure marginalised groups benefit from the new green jobs and economy.
Health screenings for heavy metals and long-term medical support should be provided for workers in new battery recycling plants. This should be part of facility licensing requirements.
Involving local communities in planning recycling projects is crucial. Communities near recycling sites should have a say in safety measures, such as buffer zones or emergency plans, to prevent hazards from spreading.
What are the major regulatory hurdles that Thailand and countries in mainland Southeast Asia face when repurposing and recycling EV batteries?
Thailand currently has no specific legislation for EV battery waste. This creates ambiguity on whether spent EV batteries should be treated as industrial hazardous waste or just aggregated under general e-waste. Without clear rules, enforcement is weak. Other countries in Southeast Asia are at similarly early stages or have no specific battery laws.
The proposed Thai Industrial Waste Management Act would require private collectors and recyclers to be licensed, which is good for oversight but could slow down small-scale recyclers. Ensuring that new laws don’t inadvertently outlaw all informal collection without providing legal alternatives is a delicate balance. Also, it remains unclear which agency – industry, energy or environment – should lead the regulation of managing battery waste. Disjointed jurisdictional authority can hinder enforcement.
Neither Thailand nor many Southeast Asian countries have official guidelines on grading used EV batteries, making it challenging to integrate used batteries into grid projects. Furthermore, there are no mandated end-of-life standards, like minimum recycled content in new batteries, in most Southeast Asian countries’ laws.
Import and export control also poses a challenge. Currently, traders can ship used batteries across borders with little oversight, which could lead to illegal dumping or trafficking through grey channels. Clear enforcement of the Basel Convention – which regulates transboundary movement of hazardous waste – and bilateral agreements are needed.
Creating a legal framework, especially new battery laws or amendments and Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) mandates, is step one. Equally crucial is building institutional capacity to inspect, certify and penalise, which will require funding and training of regulators and customs agencies.
Several countries are moving toward EPR frameworks that make manufacturers financially responsible for end-of-life battery management. Can that be applied to Thailand, and if so, how?
EPR is widely seen as a best practice because manufacturers finance end-of-life management. Thailand and its neighbours can adopt this approach.
Thailand’s draft Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Act already envisions an EPR system for electronics and batteries. Once enacted, companies would be obliged to collect scrap batteries and fund certified recyclers. Importers could also be required to register and declare battery shipments.
In practice, a battery EPR scheme would set collection targets – X% of batteries recycled by year Y – require labelling for tracking, and levy fines for non-compliance. Policies could draw from the principles of the EU Battery Regulation: passports, recycled-content quotas, and mandatory return.
Overall, the EPR framework is applicable. It just needs tailoring to the Southeast Asian context. The key element will be enforcement and regional dialogue so that manufacturers selling across borders face consistent rules.
Could EV battery recycling be better dealt with through a concerted regional effort? If so, does UN Escap see a path toward a coordinated Southeast Asian framework?
Given the transboundary nature of EV waste, a regional approach makes sense. EV batteries could be sent to whichever countries from Asean (the Association of Southeast Asian nations) have capacity or lower recycling costs. The Asia-Pacific region needs synergistic collaboration, the integrating of policies and engaging all stakeholders, from governments and automakers to academia and civil society.
Escap is optimistic that, through policy integration and circularity principles, Asia and the Pacific can transform the EV battery challenge into an opportunity.
While there’s no formal Asean battery treaty in practice, the bloc should consider an Asean guideline on EV battery waste, or inclusion of batteries under Asean e-waste or green growth strategies.
Through Escap and Asean dialogues, Southeast Asian nations can pool resources and avoid going it alone, for example by jointly hosting a recycling plant in one country to serve the whole region. In short, a concerted regional effort is both logical and encouraged for policymakers. It is likely a key part of Southeast Asia sustainably managing the coming EV battery wave.
