Heaps of stinky used bags outside an informal recycling facility in Thanh Hoa province. (Photo: VNA) Waste management in Vietnam involves waste collectors, whonormally rummage through household waste to collect tradable items such asplastic bottles and cardboard.
After going from street to street filling their bags, thecollectors bring their items to a collection point to do theirdaily trading. The point then consolidates waste from different sourcesand trades with recycling facilities, where the waste gets pre-processedand ready for recycling.
In 2022, about 3.27 million tonnes of plastic waste were disposedin landfills. As informal facilities often outbid formal onesfor items sold by collection points, the former obtained most ofthe waste for recycling whereas the latter had to import wasteto keep their operation running. Remarkably, the importedwaste has topped 3 million tonnes annually.
But the cost advantage does not meaninformal facilities provide an inexpensive solution to plasticpollution. In fact, the advantage comes directly from the environmentalcontrols that they dodge by taking shortcuts.
"Formal facilities are no match for informal facilitiescost-wise because the latter never spend a penny ongreen technologies," said Hoang Duong Tung, former Deputy Director ofthe Vietnam Environment Administration.
Huynh Thi My, Secretary-General of the Vietnam PlasticsAssociation, said the waste management industry has around 4,500 informalfacilities but all of them were recycling waste with substandard technologies.
In a World Bank's estimation, the ensuing inefficiency costs Vietnamnearly 3 billion USD per year and causes heavy damage to the environment.
The Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment is drawing upproposals for defining the reasonable and valid rate of recycling cost for aunit volume of waste (Fs), which is expected to lay the ground for recyclingcost calculation and foster the formal recycling sector.
The European Chamber of Commerce (EuroCham) in Vietnam has raisedconcerns about the proposed cost norms, which were believed to failto take into account the core principles of the circular economy.
The chamber suggested Fs be set at zero for highly-profitablerecyclable items such as aluminum-based products and cardboard. It isunreasonable to get producers to cover the recycling costs of those items,given the profits from recycling them come straight to recyclers' pockets.
In contrast, the Fs applicable to unprofitable items such asplastic bags and composite papers should be set to non-zero to support thefacilities which are recycling those items. More importantly, the Fs should notsurpass the global average norm.
EuroCham also suggested factoring out the administrativecosts of 3% from the Fs formula to ensure the rate is in line with Law onEnvironmental Protection./.
VNA
