The issue of waste sorting at source became a hot topic at a forum on "Green packaging: EPR journey leads to sustainable value", held on August 8 in HCM City, which aimed to promote Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) in the packaging sector.

Huynh Thi My, vice president of the Vietnam Plastics Association, said the Ministry of Agriculture and Environment (MAE) is considering how many trash bins should be required for each household. Initially, the ministry considered separating waste into three bins, a model similar to other countries, but this method faces difficulties in Vietnam.

The association recommended that households separate waste into two bins: one bin for food and organic waste, and one bin for recyclable waste. Recyclable waste includes plastic, aluminum, and other recyclable materials.

She said that 5-10 years ago some provinces and cities across the country implemented waste separation at source, but after sorting the collectors dumped everything in one place. 

Now things have changed, in some areas, post-collection waste is being separated effectively. Previously, after collecting plastic bags, no one knew where to sell them. But with the introduction of EPR regulations, companies have started purchasing plastic bags for recycling.

Nguyen Thanh Yen, from the Department of Environment (MAE), who has been involved in implementing waste separation at source in HCM City for over 20 years, argued that Vietnam has been following Japan's 30-year-old waste separation model, which is the wrong approach.

Only a few countries still carry out waste separation at source. With current waste-to-energy incineration technology, separation is not necessary. Because separating waste no longer provides enough thermal energy for waste-to-energy plants. China has abandoned it.

Europe is also no longer advocating household-level waste separation. Developed countries now apply a new way of waste separation at source. Under this model, the most challenging waste type - food waste, is required to be separated at production facilities, farms, markets, or supermarkets.

In other words, governments in some countries mandate these units to clean and wash food before selling to consumers. Consumers then buy food that needs no preliminary processing and can cook it directly. As a result, food waste at the household level no longer exists.

"I have advised authorities to amend related laws. Vietnam should no longer require households to separate waste, which has been done for the last 30 years without success,” he said.

“Waste separation at source must begin at food supply and distribution units," he added.

Thus, instead of a policy requiring 100 million citizens to comply, Vietnam now can focus on key food supply units. This makes it easier for authorities to supervise, provide guidance, and enforce penalties when necessary.

Hoang Trung Son, chair of the Vietnam Pulp and Paper Association, said that Vietnam’s waste separation policy started off on the wrong foot.

Son recalled that in 2012 when he and several Vietnamese businesses were invited by the Japan Paper Association to observe their waste sorting and recycling system, he was very impressed with three key aspects of how Japan handled waste.

First, environmental sanitation authorities divided waste into five main categories: metal, plastic, glass, paper (split into newspapers and cardboard), and food waste.

They collected waste five days a week. Each day was designated for a specific type of waste, so residents knew exactly what to leave outside their homes on a given day. Once collected, the waste was transported to a compression station, and then directly delivered to recycling factories.

Second, most Japanese people, after using paper cartons at home, would flatten them and wipe them dry. Then, they stacked the cartons neatly. When they went shopping at the supermarket, they brought the stacks and placed them in designated bins. When the bins got full, recycling companies would come to collect the waste and replace the bins with empty ones.

Therefore, paper cartons were always clean and dry, could be stored for long periods without degrading, and did not break down into unusable fibers. This ensured high-quality recyclable waste that didn’t harm the environment.

Tran Chung