Eleven days from now, Japan will usher in a new era of recycling. For the first time, consumers will have to foot the bill to recycle and dispose of four major home appliances -- refrigerators, televisions, washing machines and air conditioners.

Workers handle discarded refrigerators at a municipal facility handling large refuse in Tokyo's Katsushika Ward.

The government hopes the Home Appliances Recycling Law will prove a major step toward creating a more sustainable society by minimizing garbage while also squeezing the most out of limited landfill space.

But not everyone is upbeat. Some citizens groups, local governments and waste policy pundits fear that the new law will prove a dramatic leap backward.

Skeptics argue that the law is fundamentally flawed in that it places the monetary onus for recycling on consumers. They worry that instead of paying up to 10,000 yen to recycle an appliance, they will abandon it in the nearest empty lot.

Manufacturers are required to recycle up to 60 percent of each appliance delivered to them, but by placing the financial burden on the shoulders of consumers, the law is a poor precedent, says Hiroe Sakai, a longtime waste policy critic.

Sakai and others think the law will legitimize placing the recycling costs on consumers and predict it will be inked into future laws, such as an automobile recycling law currently under consideration.

"The initial idea behind this law, and the way it is implemented in other countries, is to have manufacturers internalize the costs of recycling and collecting their products. With this law, that is not going to happen," says Sakai, who heads a citizen group that specializes in waste issues.

When makers shoulder recycling costs, there is an incentive for them to push recycling to minimize waste and save money, she says. But under Japan's new system, there will be little, if any, reason for manufacturers to streamline their goods for recycling, Sakai points out.

One of the most skeptical waste policy watchers, Sakai is harshly critical of the law.

"There is nothing good about the law. The best thing that the government could do is revise the law as soon as possible."

Keiko Mishima of Consumers Union of Japan voices similar sentiments.

"In European countries, the money for recycling is figured into the price of the product. Only Japan is bucking the trend and putting the burden on consumers," she notes, adding she believes the onus on consumers "will lead to a jump in the illegal dumping of appliances."

Starting April 1, consumers will have to pay to have their discarded appliances recycled: 2,400 yen for a washing machine, 2,700 yen for a television, 3,500 yen for an air conditioner and 4,600 yen for a refrigerator. The fees are not affected by the size of the appliance.

"Regardless of whether you live alone and have a tiny television, or a hulking one, you have to pay the same 2,700 yen," says Mishima.

"During initial debate, there was a proposal to pay by weight, but makers said that wouldn't work."

In addition, consumers must pay shipping and transportation costs.

But appliance owners are in the dark about how much they will have to shell out in total, because retail shops and municipalities -- those that continue to collect the four appliances -- have yet to decide how much they will charge to collect and cart the goods to designated recycling sites.

In an effort to encourage consumers to use the retail store network, municipalities are setting their fees higher than the shops, and discarding appliances in some municipalities will cost over 10,000 yen per product.

Mishima also says the new system will undermine the idea of extended producer responsibility -- one of the fundamental concepts behind the new appliance recycling law and one that has been expounded by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and its member countries.

By tasking appliance makers with the physical recycling of products but laying the financial burden on consumers, some contend the concept has been distorted to suit manufacturers.

"The EPR concept as adopted in Japan has been severely twisted," says Kazuki Kumamoto, a professor at Meiji Gakuin University in Tokyo who has written books on the topic. "Because consumers, not manufacturers, will pay for the recycling, there is little incentive for makers to make products that are easier and cheaper to recycle."

Shozo Kajiyama, a lawyer specializing in waste and environment issues, concurs. He calls the law a disingenuous scheme to create a recycling industry upon the shoulders of consumers, while maintaining the status quo of mass consumption and disposal.

"The biggest flaw in this law is that makers are not being made to shoulder the cost of recycling," Kajiyama said.

In most European countries, including Norway, Denmark and Sweden, transportation and recycling fees are covered by manufacturers, he added.

But in Japan, historical inertia and the entrenched interests of industry maimed the law, Kajiyama contends.

Under the law, retail shops are obliged to accept products they have sold in the past or when a customer buys a new product from them. However, they are not obliged to simply accept appliances pro bono.

Local governments, which alone have been responsible for collecting and disposing of home appliances until now, are devising a variety of approaches to cope with appliances that slip through the cracks.

Some municipalities are taking advantage of the new law to wash their hands of collecting these four types of appliances altogether. Some local governments will continue to collect for certain clients, such as the elderly. Others will simply raise their rates.

Those that cease collection will generally establish an office to refer citizens to companies that will collect their appliances.

Nearly 65 percent of local governments said they plan to stop collecting the four appliances, according to a survey conducted by the Japan Waste Management Association, which counts more than 1,300 local governments as members.

"The way the law is written, it is easy to imagine instances in which appliances will be disposed of without being returned to retail shops, and burdening local governments," says Hajime Shoji of the association.

In addition, it is likely that local governments will need to spend tax money to prevent or pay for the recycling of illegally dumped appliances.

Toshihiro Kimura, who is charged with overseeing the appliance recycling issue for the Tokyo Metropolitan Government, agrees the law is flawed but says it has merits.

"What we think is really odd is that while retail stores have to accept products they sell, or in trade, they do not have to if the customer is not buying a new product," says Toshihiro Kimura, head of the metro waste division's planning section.

"Say someone is transferred from Tokyo to Yokohama or a child leaves home and they no longer need a television or a refrigerator, these flow to the municipalities," he says.

Historically, about 20 percent of the four types of appliances have been collected by local governments, and Kimura does not expect this number to change much.

Only now, municipalities will collect, or entrust private companies, to see that the appliances are collected and delivered to manufacturer-run recycling facilities.

However, Kimura disagrees with those who believe the law completely fails to expand responsibility for recycling to producers.

"Because makers will be performing the recycling, they will still strive to realize more efficient, cheaper processes that should result in easier to recycle goods," Kimura reckons. What bothers him is that the magnitude and implications of the new law have escaped notice, and eluded major public debate.

He laments that the media neglected to highlight that this is the first time that manufacturers will be responsible for recycling their products and citizens will be called upon to pay for the recycling of what they discard.

"Debate was all focused on how much it would cost consumers. And it did not thoroughly involve citizens, only experts, so in a sense, this law doesn't really belong to everyone."