Vy Nguyen on waste management financing, building EPR from both ends in Zambia, and why going it alone is always slower.
This is the fifth in a series we are calling 10 Years. 10 Lessons where BFS team members share what they actually learned from their hardest projects.
- Vy Nguyen joined GreenForest Solutions, the sister company of BlackForest Solutions in 2024 as an R&D lead with a background in environmental engineering.
- She came into the field thinking the barrier to waste management was technology. She now believes the real barrier is financing.
- A UNEP estimate puts the cost of inaction on waste at $600 billion by 2050. Circular economy measures could instead generate over $100 billion in net profit through resource recovery and job creation.
- In Zambia, the EPR implementation runs in two directions simultaneously: upstream with producers, and downstream with waste operators, including especially informal waste pickers.
- The waste pickers’interest is not “what is EPR?” but “are you buying our materials?”
- Her takeaway: individual action is possible. Collective action is where the real power is.
|
$600Bn UNEP estimated cost of global inaction on waste management by 2050 if urgent action is not taken |
$100Bn+
Net profit potential from circular economy measures by 2050, through resource recovery and job creation |
2
EPR entities BFS/GFS operates in Zambia: AfriCycle (plastic packaging) and ElectroCycle (e-waste) |
| 2024
Year Vy Nguyen joined BFS bringing environmental engineering expertise and Zambia-focused EPR master’s research |
1kg
Symbolic unit of impact Vy describes: even just one additional kilogramme of waste collected proof that the work is real |
2-directional upstream producer engagement + downstream waste operators integration simultaneously |
Vy, you started your career in Environmental Engineering thinking technology was the core problem. What changed?
Growing up in Vietnam, having no one around me speaking about environmental solutions, the assumption I came in with was that we just did not have the tools yet. That with better technology, we could solve waste management. And the more I learned, the more I realised that is not actually the constraint.
What I keep coming back to is financing. Where does the money come from? We all want to live in a clean environment, but someone has to finance it. And in the markets where the problem is most acute, that question almost never has a clean answer.
That realization is what led me toward EPR. It is one of the most credible mechanisms we have for channeling financing into waste management systems in a structured, sustainable way. Producers finance the system. The system pays for collection and treatment. And ideally, recovered materials come back into the economy and generate value. That is the loop.
You write your thesis on Zambia and now work on EPR there. What does the ground reality look like?
The work runs in two directions at the same time.
On one side, we work upstream with producers. That means outreach campaigns, workshops, conversations about what EPR actually is and how EPR can be achieved at a reasonable cost without compromising environmental fairness. The key thing we learned early is that you cannot just arrive with a compliance checklist and expect producers to sign up. They need to understand what they are agreeing to, and they need to feel that the system is fair.
On the other side, we work downstream with waste operators, including both formal and informal sector . EPR needs to work hands-in-hands with waste management infrastructure. In Zambia, informal waste collectors are a core part of the actual collection infrastructure. If EPR is going to function, it has to reach them. So we have been engaging with informal pickers on ground.And here is what they tell us every time. Not “explain EPR to us.” Just: are you buying our materials? Do you pay fairly?
That is I think the core answer to every abstract question about sustainability at the bottom of the value chain. It comes down to channeling funding fairly and effectively.
You mentioned a UN figure that reframes this entirely. What was it?
The UNEP estimated that if we continue without urgent waste management action, the global cost of managing waste could reach $600 billion by 2050.
But if you implement circular economy measures, including EPR, the picture flips. Instead of a $600 billion cost, you could see over $100 billion in net profit. Because you are not just disposing of waste. You are recovering resources, creating jobs, and putting materials back into productive use.
That is the number I use when people ask whether sustainability makes business sense. Companies that are shifting toward sustainability are not doing it purely out of altruism. They are seeing the internal return on investment. And if your competitors are moving in that direction and you are not, you are not staying neutral. You are falling behind.
What has BFS given you personally that you could not have found elsewhere?
When I joined, I was an environmental engineer with a clear sense of the problem and a much less clear sense of what my role in solving it could look like. BFS through our sister company GreenForest Solutions (GFS) put me into an R&D role that I honestly would not have predicted for myself. Digital products, new tools, new entities, working across geographies that I had only studied in theory.
It was and still is challenging. That was the point.
What kept me going was seeing real impact. If I can see that my work can help even just one more kilogramme of waste to be collected , that is still something. It is still proof that the work is real, that impact is possible, that it is not just papers and frameworks.
My motivation is to make a real impact!
One last question: What should readers take away?
Stay collective!
That applies to the work itself. One organisation cannot solve all waste management issues. One country cannot model a circular economy for the rest. One waste picker registering on a platform does not move the needle on its own. But collectively, the power is immense.
The solution is not better technology. It is not even more money, in isolation. It is alignment. People, organisations, and systems pulling in the same direction at the same time.
” When funding is channelled correctly, waste management and environmental compliance stop being a cost. It becomes an opportunity. And Power in collective action!”
Vy Nguyen, R&D Lead, GreenForest Solutions
About the series:
BlackForest Solutions turned 10 in March 2026. Instead of a celebration, we asked 10 team members to share the hardest lesson from their projects. This is what a decade of doing the work actually looks like.
About Vy Nguyen:
Vy Nguyen is R&D Lead at GreenForest Solutions GmbH, where she leads digital product development and field implementation for AfriCycle and ElectroCycle, two EPR entities operating in Zambia. Her academic background is in environmental engineering, with a master’s thesis focused on EPR systems in Zambia. Her work spans producer engagement, informal sector integration, and the design of financing mechanisms for waste management in low and middle income markets.
Project at a Glance
| AfriCycle / ElectroCycle | Project Snapshot |
| Geography | Zambia |
| Focus | EPR for plastic packaging (AfriCycle) and e-waste (ElectroCycle) |
| Approach | Two-directional: upstream producer engagement + downstream waste picker integration |
| Key challenge | Registering informal waste pickers onto a digital platform while proving subsidy flows |
| Financial case | UN estimate: $600B cost of inaction vs $100B+ net profit with circular economy by 2050 |
| Vy’s tenure at GFS | 2 years (joined 2024) |
EPR — Extended Producer Responsibility; a policy framework making producers responsible for the end-of-life management of products they place on the market.
AfriCycle — GFS Group’s EPR compliance entity for plastic packaging waste in Zambia.
ElectroCycle — GFS Group’s EPR entity for e-waste in Zambia.
Informal waste pickers — Individuals who collect recyclable materials from waste streams outside formal collection systems. A significant part of the collection infrastructure in many low and middle income countries.
FAQs: Waste Management Financing, EPR in Zambia, and the Role of Informal Waste Pickers
Q1. Why is financing – not technology – the biggest barrier to solving waste management in developing countries?
We already have the technical knowledge and equipment to manage most waste streams effectively – the gap is not innovation but investment. In markets where the problem is most acute, waste management competes poorly for public budgets and private capital because the returns are diffuse, long-term, and difficult to attribute. EPR directly addresses this by making producers – who have both the incentive and the ability to invest — financially responsible for the systems that handle their products at end of life.
Q2. What is AfriCycle and what does it do in Zambia?
AfriCycle is GreenForest Solutions’ EPR compliance entity for plastic packaging waste in Zambia – it enables producers and importers of plastic packaging to fulfil their obligations under Zambia’s EPR Regulation No. 65 of 2018. The entity works upstream to register and engage producers, and downstream to build collection infrastructure that reaches informal waste pickers in cities like Lusaka. AfriCycle is the operational mechanism that turns the regulatory obligation into a functioning material recovery system.
Q3. What is ElectroCycle and how does it complement AfriCycle in Zambia?
ElectroCycle is GreenForest Solutions’ EPR entity for electronic waste (e-waste) in Zambia – covering the collection, treatment, and responsible recycling of discarded electrical and electronic equipment. Where AfriCycle addresses plastic packaging, ElectroCycle targets the e-waste stream, which in Zambia includes everything from mobile phones to large household appliances. Both entities operate on the same two-directional model: upstream producer engagement and downstream collection system development.
Q4. How are informal waste pickers integrated into the AfriCycle EPR system in Zambia?
GFS is actively registering informal waste collectors in Lusaka onto a digital platform that enables them to participate formally in the EPR collection system – tracking materials collected, processing subsidy payments, and giving them visibility inside a scheme that was previously inaccessible to them. The practical challenge is trust: waste pickers are not asking abstract questions about EPR policy. They want to know whether the platform pays fairly and promptly for the materials they collect.
Q5. What is the UN’s financial case for circular economy investment and waste management action?
UN environment estimates put the cost of continuing without urgent waste management action at $600 billion globally by 2050. The alternative – implementing circular economy measures including EPR – could instead generate over $100 billion in net profit by 2050 through resource recovery, job creation, and the return of materials into productive use. This is not a value argument. It is a financial one: the companies and governments that invest in circular systems now are converting a future liability into a near-term revenue opportunity.
Q6. Why does EPR work as a financing mechanism for waste management in low and middle income countries?
EPR works because it reassigns the financial obligation for waste management from governments – who are budget-constrained – to producers, who have revenue streams and regulatory exposure. Producers financing the system have incentives to make collection efficient, because their fees are tied to volumes placed on the market. And when the system generates quality recovered materials, those materials have market value that helps offset collection costs. In low and middle income countries, this creates a self-reinforcing economic logic that public budgets alone cannot replicate.
Q7. What does ‘collective action’ mean in practice for waste management and EPR?
No single organisation, producer, or waste picker can move the needle on waste management outcomes alone – the system requires simultaneous movement from producers who finance it, governments who regulate it, operators who run it, and collectors who supply it. Collective action in practice means all of these actors registering, paying, collecting, and reporting inside the same framework at the same time. It is the reason EPR entities like AfriCycle and ElectroCycle exist – to create the shared infrastructure that makes collective participation possible and financially viable.
Also Read in This “10 Years. 10 Lessons Nobody Warned Us About” Series
Beatrice Vanek’s article on “How to Overcome Challenges of EPR Systems in Emerging Markets”