Improving Vietnam's EPR law for sustainable growth

(PLPT) - The article finds that current Vietnamese law prescribes mandatory recycling rates and specifications, but that these rules still omit a great deal and do not match practice, hampering the effectiveness of EPR implementation. It concludes with proposals for a comprehensive reform of EPR law and institutions in Viet Nam, setting out detailed rules on the products and packaging subject to EPR, on how EPR is implemented by product group, and on streamlining the EPR management apparatus.

Abstract: With the goals of developing a circular economy and integrating internationally, Viet Nam has formally implemented EPR for five years, but not effectively. Against that background, this article assesses the state of Vietnamese EPR law, covering the rules on recycling responsibility for products and packaging; responsibility for waste collection and treatment; and the mechanisms for managing, monitoring and operating the national EPR system. The article finds that current Vietnamese law prescribes mandatory recycling rates and specifications, but that these rules still omit a great deal and do not match practice, hampering the effectiveness of EPR implementation. Finally, it makes proposals for a comprehensive reform of EPR law and institutions in Viet Nam through detailed rules on the products and packaging subject to EPR, on the method of implementing EPR by product group, and on streamlining the EPR management apparatus.

Keywords: environmental protection, solid waste, sustainable development, extended producer responsibility (EPR), waste collection and treatment

Abstract (original English text of the article): To develop a circular economy and international integration, Vietnam has officially implemented EPR for 5 years, but has not been effective. In that context, this article assesses Vietnam’s regulations on EPR, including regulations on product and packaging recycling responsibilities; waste collection and treatment responsibilities; and national EPR management, monitoring, and operation mechanisms. The article states that Vietnam’s current regulations have stipulated mandatory recycling rates and specifications; however, these regulations still lack many contents and are not suitable for practical implementation, which hinders the effectiveness of EPR implementation. Finally, the article makes recommendations to comprehensively reform Vietnam’s EPR regulations and institutions in the direction of detailed regulations on: products and packaging subject to EPR, methods of implementing EPR by product group, and streamlining the EPR management apparatus.

Keywords: environmental protection, solid waste, sustainable development, extended producer responsibility (EPR), waste collection and treatment

1. Framing the problem

As sustainable development has become a millennium goal, extended producer responsibility (EPR) has become essential to sustainable waste management, because EPR requires producers to take responsibility for the entire life cycle of a product, from manufacture through packaging collection to waste treatment[1]. Under the traditional approach to waste management, government carries most of the responsibility for collecting and treating municipal solid waste, including discarded products and packaging. Under EPR, the producer bears the primary responsibility for managing those products and packaging. EPR therefore encourages producers to design environmentally friendly products, produce more cleanly and treat waste sustainably by building recycling costs into the product price[2].

EPR comprises legal and technical measures such as take-back requirements, deposit-refund schemes, material taxes, advance disposal fees (ADF) and subsidies to encourage waste reduction and lower environmental impact[3]. EPR mechanisms allow producers to discharge this responsibility directly or through a third party (an authorised organisation). Internationally, the third party acting as intermediary is usually called a producer responsibility organisation (PRO).

EPR is an effective instrument for reducing waste and pollution and for reaching global sustainable development goals faster[4] at a time of resource depletion and rising waste volumes, and of particular pressure to address plastic pollution and electronic waste. By promoting recycling and reuse programmes, EPR supports the circular economy and reduces environmental harm. Since the first EPR system was implemented in Germany in the early 1990s, 63 countries (some 32% of the world) on every continent except Antarctica have introduced some form of EPR for packaging life-cycle management[5]. Compliance requirements differ widely between countries, however. European Union (EU) EPR rules, for instance, impose strict recycling targets for packaging and electronic equipment, with mandatory reporting and penalties for non-compliance. Countries such as Brazil and India, by contrast, have less stringent EPR rules that vary by state law[6]. Such differences can hold back the circular economy and investment, because they create cost differences between companies in complying with EPR. In countries where EPR is not mandatory, companies enjoy a production cost advantage because they do not have to pay for EPR. Multinationals therefore tend not to invest in countries with mandatory EPR. Equally, multinationals may have to adjust their waste management strategies to meet different rules in each country, while optimising resource use and minimising legal risk when investing and supplying products in many countries. Countries, Viet Nam among them, are therefore working to harmonise EPR standards and procedures in order to simplify compliance for multinationals.

Against that background, the global shift towards restricting and reducing plastic waste is driving changes in EPR law. Plastic is both a product and a form of packaging with high recyclability, yet it can persist and cause long-term environmental damage if not collected and treated. Government demands to restrict single-use plastic led to the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee tasked with drafting an international legally binding instrument on plastic pollution (the global plastics treaty)[7]. The UN Environment Programme adopted a report on integrating EPR into the global plastics treaty[8]. EPR has become central to the discussions on that treaty. After the fifth negotiating session in December 2024, EPR became a fixed commitment in the draft treaty. States have agreed to apply EPR, but the degree of application (voluntary or mandatory) remains under discussion[9].

Looking ahead, national EPR law will change considerably in response to climate change and the urgent requirements of sustainable development. Those changes may combine EPR with other environmental objectives, including stricter recycling targets, measures to promote sustainable production and incentives for environmentally friendly activity. EPR may also extend to new, less regulated product categories such as textiles, motor vehicles and electronics[10]. As consumer demand for sustainability grows, regulators may set EPR requirements specific to these sectors. The fashion industry, for instance, may face mandatory requirements on textile waste management, while the automotive industry may be required to run take-back programmes for end-of-life vehicles. This expansion reflects recognition of the need to address waste across all sectors and encourages innovation in product design to facilitate recycling.

This context poses challenges for Viet Nam in improving its EPR law in order to attract investment, develop sustainably[11] and harmonise its EPR rules. Before 2020, producers and importers in Viet Nam had no mandatory obligation to take back and treat discarded products: participation was voluntary, they set up collection points themselves, and they were not bound by mandatory recycling rates or specifications[12]. In more than 15 years of rules on taking back discarded products, therefore, not a single discarded product was recovered. This was partly due to the voluntary nature of the take-back mechanism and partly because producers set high standards for accepting discarded products[13]. The EPR programme was only formally launched in Viet Nam in 2020[14], and there has been almost no comprehensive research on or assessment of the existing law. Moreover, on 16 August 2021 the Prime Minister issued Decision 1407/QD-TTg approving the scheme for Viet Nam to prepare proactively for and participate in developing the global agreement on marine plastic pollution. Viet Nam must therefore continue preparing for the global treaty negotiations while reviewing, amending and supplementing its EPR rules to align with international trends. Under current plans, Viet Nam will continue issuing instruments to implement EPR[15]. This is thus exactly the moment for research reviewing existing Vietnamese EPR law to answer two questions: which provisions of Vietnamese EPR law are making implementation difficult, and how should they be amended and supplemented so that they suit domestic conditions and international trends?

Using synthesis, analysis and comparison, this article assesses the state of Vietnamese EPR law, covering the rules on recycling responsibility for products and packaging; responsibility for waste collection and treatment; and the mechanisms for managing, monitoring and operating the national EPR system. The article finds that current law prescribes mandatory recycling rates and specifications, but that these rules still omit a great deal and lack coherence, so that their application throws up many problems. It then proposes directions and solutions for improving the law, including specific proposals on identifying producers, on identifying the products and packaging subject to collection, treatment and recycling, and on the role of the waste collection, treatment and recycling system.

2. The current Vietnamese legal framework for EPR

The current Vietnamese legal framework sets specific targets for the collection and recycling of products and packaging.

Incorporating EPR into the 2020 Law on Environmental Protection created a formal legal basis obliging producers and importers to manage the post-consumer waste arising from their products and packaging. To meet those targets, EPR applies not only to batteries and accumulators, electrical and electronic equipment, vehicles, lubricating oil and tyres, but also to products using food packaging. This shows the rigour of Vietnamese law on managing waste at source and is consistent with the “polluter pays” principle recognised in international law[25]. Requiring businesses to collect and recycle should significantly reduce the volume of waste (plastic, batteries, accumulators and so on) that is currently not properly treated in Viet Nam. The goal of EPR is to shift responsibility for collecting and treating post-use products and packaging, currently paid for by the State, to the private sector. EPR thus pushes producers to redesign products to be more environmentally friendly and to produce more cleanly in order to reduce their compliance costs, giving strong impetus to the circular economy[26].

Detailed guidance on implementing EPR is set out in Decree 08/2022/ND-CP of 10 January 2022 on a number of articles of the Law on Environmental Protection (Decree 08/2022/ND-CP). That decree has been amended and supplemented by Decree 05/2025/ND-CP of 6 January 2025 (Decree 05/2025/ND-CP) and by Circular 02/2022/QD-TT of 10 January 2022 of the Minister of Natural Resources and Environment detailing a number of articles of the 2020 Law on Environmental Protection, itself amended and supplemented by Circular 07/2025/TT-BTNMT of 28 February 2025. These instruments set the recycling rates, the mandatory recycling specifications, the recycling cost norm Fs and the mechanism for implementing EPR. Under them, producers and importers have two types of obligation: (i) to recycle products and packaging with recycling value at the mandatory recycling rate and specification, either by organising recycling themselves or by paying into the Viet Nam Environment Protection Fund[27]; and (ii) to fund waste treatment for products and packaging containing hazardous substances, that are difficult to recycle or that make collection and treatment difficult, by paying into the Viet Nam Environment Protection Fund[28].

3. Assessment of Vietnamese EPR law

3.1 Responsibility for recycling products and packaging

The products and packaging subject to collection and recycling are listed in Appendix XXII to Decree 08/2022/ND-CP (as amended by Decree 05/2025/ND-CP) in six groups: (1) packaging, (2) accumulators and batteries, (3) lubricating oil, (4) tyres and inner tubes, (5) electrical and electronic equipment, and (6) vehicles. The appendix also sets different recycling rates for the products in each group, based on the life cycle of the product or packaging[29]. The longer the life cycle, the lower the recycling rate: PET plastic packaging has a mandatory recycling rate of 22%, while passenger cars have a rate of 0.5%[30]. Vietnamese law sets different rates for different products and packaging, but applies the same recycling policy to all of them. This is intended to keep collection and recycling feasible, but it does not fit the specific characteristics of the products and packaging concerned, which differ enormously in how far and how easily they can be collected and recycled. Products with a long service life, for example, still have high value after use and are therefore very hard to collect for recycling because ownership is involved (vehicles, electrical and electronic equipment and so on), yet they are subject to an EPR policy similar to that applied to items discarded immediately after consumption, such as packaging. Flexible plastic packaging (sweet wrappers, for instance) is also subject to collection and recycling, although producers find it very hard to collect in practice. Transport packaging, meanwhile, is often reusable, but the law does not clearly define responsibility for its collection and recycling even though the volume is very large and growing fast. The law provides no suitable method, for example, to encourage reuse of Lavie's water containers above 17 litres or the glass bottles used by bottled drinks producers. Many products (batteries, accumulators, fluorescent lamps and so on) cannot be recycled in large volumes at this stage yet are still required to be recycled; some products that have appeared on the market recently and have long service lives (lithium batteries for vehicles, solar panels) cannot be collected for recycling in sufficient volume to meet the mandatory rate; and many products cannot be recycled at all — cement packaging, for instance, can only be used as an input to cement production. Because these products are hard to collect and recycle, producers and importers are forced to choose to pay money instead, even though the items are formally subject to collection and recycling. Rules that do not fit reality in this way make EPR implementation in Viet Nam difficult and ineffective. Representatives of businesses and business associations have also raised the question of how EPR should apply to products and packaging that the market already collects and recycles effectively[31]. EPR, however, is not merely an instrument for driving collection and recycling (increasing the volume of post-consumer products and packaging recovered): it is also an instrument for promoting cleaner production and environmentally friendly products. EPR can therefore apply to products and packaging that the market already collects and recycles, where its role is to raise the recycling rate, improve recycling efficiency and promote environmentally friendly production[32].

On recycling rates, under Article 78 of Decree 08/2022/ND-CP (as amended and supplemented by Decree 05/2025/ND-CP), producers and importers are responsible for recycling the products and packaging they place on the market at the mandatory recycling rate and specification[33]. Although the mandatory rate is to be adjusted every three years[34], Viet Nam has not announced the range of adjustment. This makes policy unclear, leaves management without direction, and prevents businesses from building their business strategy and planning their EPR obligations proactively over a strategic horizon of five to ten years. To avoid this, the Philippines set an increase of 10% a year from 2023 until the rate reaches 80%, at which point it is held constant[35]. This is a highly practical approach: it lets the State shape policy for successive phases while allowing businesses to discharge their obligations and build and implement their business strategy proactively — a crucial factor in business growth.

On the ways of discharging the EPR obligation, producers and importers may choose among several options[36]: (i) organising recycling themselves, where the producer or importer meets the conditions applying to a recycler and can therefore collect and recycle the products and packaging itself[37]; (ii) hiring a recycler; (iii) delegating to an intermediary organisation to arrange recycling (an authorised party — a PRO); or (iv) combining these methods. A producer or importer that does not organise recycling may pay into the Viet Nam Environment Protection Fund according to the recycling cost norm (Fs) for the volume of material (V) at the mandatory recycling rate (R) in order to discharge its recycling obligation. Providing several ways of discharging the obligation fits reality, since collection and recycling volumes in Viet Nam are still low and are handled mainly through the informal collection and recycling system.

Allowing producers to hire a recycler to discharge the obligation nonetheless creates difficulties in practice, above all in tracing the origin of input material. Because the collection system currently rests mainly on individual collectors (the scrap-buying network), there are no invoices or documents. Some 30% of recycled plastic waste in Viet Nam is collected through informal channels[38]. In addition, counting recyclers' existing output towards producers' obligations weakens the effect of EPR policy[39]. For the same reason, if a PRO sets up a system to collect material, transfer it and supervise recyclers, its costs will not be competitive against the price a recycler offers to discharge the obligation on the producer's or importer's behalf. The rule allowing producers and importers to hire recyclers will therefore not encourage PROs to organise collection. As PROs tend to become mere intermediaries, their effectiveness and role diminish[40]. Implementing EPR through a PRO is the optimal model because it saves total management costs when the PRO organises EPR for many producers and importers. A PRO carrying out collection and recycling brings professionalism and modern practice through a high degree of specialisation and division of labour. The successful and widespread EPR models in Europe and the Republic of Korea all require producers to implement EPR through PROs, not only to optimise costs and make compliance easier for small and medium-sized enterprises[41] but also as an instrument allowing the State to oversee EPR implementation consistently and effectively[42].

Furthermore, allowing producers and importers to choose among several ways of discharging their recycling obligation without setting specific conditions leads to fragmented recycling and fails to optimise the effect of EPR. That fragmentation is clear from five years of practice. Businesses in Viet Nam have hired recyclers directly rather than delegating to a third party to organise EPR, so implementation has been ineffective. Each business does its own thing and only collects the materials already being collected (PET plastic, aluminium), while much other waste — batteries, accumulators, vehicles, light bulbs — goes uncollected[43]. Collection outside a PRO also makes it much harder to trace the origin of input material[44], despite the rule that imported scrap may not be recycled and counted towards producers' and importers' obligations[45].

Implementing EPR outside a PRO reduces the State's ability to control the EPR system and makes dishonest reporting of recycling performance more likely. Taiwan experienced the same thing after it began implementing EPR in 1994. It responded by shifting from a privately operated EPR model to a state-operated one, in which a state-managed recycling fund plays the PRO role[46]. In the EPR systems common around the world, the PRO controls the collection and recycling of material through its own documentation systems and transfers material to recyclers, keeping it separate from other production input that recyclers gather themselves (which is not counted within EPR). A PRO-centred EPR system therefore allows effective data control by controlling the flow of material collected and sent for recycling. The PRO must also inspect and monitor recyclers' actual recycling of the material transferred. The State then has a full basis for oversight and for ensuring producers and importers are honest in implementing EPR. The EPR system should accordingly be designed around the PRO, so that all material flows are controlled by the PRO through organising collection and recycling, managing data and running the system — optimising producers' compliance costs and ensuring effective oversight. Conversely, allowing producers the additional option of hiring a recycler nullifies the PRO's role and turns it into an intermediary[47].

3.2 Responsibility for waste collection and treatment

The responsibility for waste collection and treatment requires producers to contribute financially to the Viet Nam Environment Protection Fund at rates set for each type of product and packaging. Producers have been discharging this obligation since 2022 under Appendix XXIII to Decree 08/2022/ND-CP (as amended by Decree 05/2025/ND-CP). According to the Viet Nam Environment Protection Fund, more than VND 400 billion was collected in 2023 from just over 50 producers paying for waste collection and treatment[48]. That is far less than a calculation based on the number of producers subject to EPR in Viet Nam would suggest[49]. To date, producers have not complained that the contribution rates are unreasonable. That suggests either that producers are willing to discharge their obligations or that they see a way of avoiding them and therefore say nothing — for the amount collected clearly comes from far too few businesses relative to reality. Unless steps are taken to require producers and importers to discharge this obligation in full, enforcement will be unfair. That in turn provokes a reaction from the businesses that take their recycling obligations seriously; they may even lose faith in the policy and stop implementing EPR, since non-compliance carries no consequences.

In addition, Appendix XXIII to Decree 08/2022/ND-CP (as amended and supplemented by Decree 05/2025/ND-CP) does not clearly cover certain products such as building materials, furniture and accessories. This makes it difficult to establish which products a business must make a financial contribution for. The contribution rate for products containing plastic, moreover, is set uniformly at VND 1,500/kg, which is inappropriate. For some products with a long service life, made of high-value plastics and with a large plastic content and heavy weight, multiplying by VND 1,500/kg accounts for a very large share of the product price. For lightweight products made of low-value plastics (single-use plastic items, non-biodegradable plastic bags), by contrast, VND 1,500/kg is very low. Such a rule will not change the behaviour of producers, importers or consumers. Some products subject to collection and treatment (batteries and accumulators, toys, single-use plastic products) had also been collected and recycled by businesses since 2016 through the Viet Nam Recycles programme for batteries, accumulators and electronic waste. When the EPR rules took effect, producers of these products had to contribute financially to the Viet Nam Environment Protection Fund[50], and the battery and accumulator collection programmes were discontinued[51]. In effect, therefore, the EPR policy on collection and treatment not only fails to encourage the collection and recycling of batteries, accumulators and electronic waste but also extinguishes business efforts to collect and recycle hazardous products that are hard to recycle.

3.3 Mechanisms for managing, monitoring and operating the national EPR system

An essential component of any EPR system is EPR information and data: registration data, reports on discharge of EPR obligations, information on collection and recycling activity, information on recycling support and so on. The information system must provide sufficient tools to monitor EPR implementation effectively and to ensure that support money for collection, treatment and recycling is used for the right purpose, in accordance with the rules, openly and transparently[52]. In the words of the Vice Chairman of the Viet Nam Recycling Association, the information system also requires that “the process be digitalised from the outset — from registration files and appraisal through to recycling activity, disbursement, inspection and monitoring: all of it needs to be published on the electronic portal. That not only improves control but also gives businesses confidence that the obligations they discharge are monitored fairly and effectively”[53]. Viet Nam's EPR information system, however, currently goes no further than declaration, registration and reporting on discharge of obligations. Viet Nam lacks the essential tools to identify proactively which producers must implement EPR. This is because the EPR system is not linked to or integrated with the business information systems managed by other ministries, particularly business registration data and companies' tax and customs data. In the current design of the EPR system, PROs have no role in building and managing data. A PRO today is merely an intermediary, and its reporting works the same way as that of producers and recyclers. So long as hiring a recycler remains an option, businesses will not choose a PRO, and data management will be fragmented between producers and recyclers. In effective EPR systems worldwide, the PRO must develop the collection and recycling data based on the volume of products and packaging collected and transferred to recyclers[54]. That information is essential for cross-checking against producers' information in order to establish producers' obligations fully and accurately.

To help the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment (now the Ministry of Agriculture and Environment) operate and manage the EPR system, Viet Nam established the National EPR Council and the office supporting it (the EPR Office)[55]. The way these two bodies work remains unclear, however, because neither their legal status nor their financing has been determined. The National EPR Council currently comprises representatives of the (former) Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment, the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Industry and Trade; representatives of producers and importers; representatives of recycling and waste treatment units; and representatives of relevant social and environmental organisations[56]. In practice, the Council's members are all department-level officials of ministries and members of association leadership; their numbers are uneven and do not represent all product streams adequately[57]. As for responsibility, EPR Council members participate in an advisory capacity and are not accountable for the Council's decisions. Council meetings have therefore not produced results that ensure the EPR system works effectively; they have even slowed the adoption of policy and of state management activity on EPR. Because the Council does not work effectively, the EPR Office, as its support body, has not been able to perform the function of operating the EPR system. Financially, over more than two years of EPR operation the EPR Office has worked entirely on a voluntary basis, with no funding for salaries or activities, because no financing mechanism has been determined for it[58].

4. Recommendations for improving Vietnamese EPR law in the service of sustainable development

The shortcomings set out above make the EPR programme in Viet Nam hard to enforce, because it lacks specific rules that fit reality. Viet Nam's EPR institutions are also organisationally cumbersome, with two management structures: on one side the state management agency, the Ministry of Agriculture and Environment; on the other the National EPR Council and the EPR Office, whose financing remains unclear. The system is complex in its implementation mechanism too, with many ways of discharging EPR obligations and without harnessing the role of business in implementing EPR. Businesses choose to contribute financially rather than organise EPR themselves, so EPR fails to deliver the intended increase in recycling rates and reduction in waste through changes in design and production. To fit the present stage better, Viet Nam needs to streamline the institutional apparatus, narrow the conditions for choosing how to discharge EPR obligations, and strengthen the role of PROs and of business in implementing EPR. These improvements can align EPR policy with reality in Viet Nam and harmonise it with EPR systems shaped over more than 30 years of development, providing a basis for managing transboundary waste, particularly plastic waste, now and in future. In terms of solutions, Viet Nam should amend and supplement the shortcomings above at the level of the decree guiding implementation of the 2020 Law on Environmental Protection, specifically as follows.

First, identify precisely and clearly the products and packaging subject to EPR, distinguishing between groups according to their characteristics: at present the law does not identify products by code, nor does it distinguish products by their collection and recycling characteristics for the purpose of applying EPR, so implementation is problematic. Businesses mainly choose to pay money to discharge the obligation. The law should therefore specify which packaging is recyclable, identifying its material and dimensions under the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System (HS codes). Likewise, the products subject to collection and recycling should be specified by HS code. These products need to be classified so that a suitable EPR mechanism can be applied; products with different characteristics should not all follow the same mechanism. Packaging with a short life cycle that is easy to collect and recycle and needs to be collected quickly to avoid contamination, for instance, could use a deposit-refund model. High-value vehicles need an appropriate dismantling, reuse, recycling and treatment system, and so on.

Second, identify clearly and precisely which producers and importers must implement EPR, and publish the names of those that have discharged their EPR obligations: current law sets a lower threshold for determining which producers and importers must implement EPR, which leads many businesses to look for ways of avoiding responsibility. To ensure EPR is implemented fairly and honestly, the law should require all producers and importers to register for EPR through an online EPR registration system managed by the Ministry of Agriculture and Environment. The system would select producers and importers from the largest downwards, to ensure that a given share of the material placed on the market is covered and that EPR is implemented as effectively as possible.

Although current EPR law requires publication of the receipt and use of financial contributions supporting producers' and importers' treatment and recycling activity through the Viet Nam Environment Protection Fund[59], the rule only requires publication of the total sum received from producers and importers for waste treatment obligations, so the public still cannot know which producers and importers have implemented EPR. The rule therefore fails to activate oversight of producers' EPR implementation, particularly mutual oversight among producers. Publishing the names of producers and importers that have implemented EPR would encourage businesses to comply voluntarily and give the state management agency a basis for inspection, examination and enforcement.

Third, set out how EPR is to be implemented by product group. To remedy the problems of applying a single mechanism to groups of products with different characteristics, the law should classify products and packaging into groups with a suitable implementation method for each, as follows:

(i) Reusable products (packaging that the producer places on the market and then takes back and repackages for the market again, where the rate of take-back and repackaging equals or exceeds the mandatory recycling rate in Column 4 of Appendix XXII to Decree 08/2022/ND-CP as amended and supplemented by Decree 05/2025/ND-CP): the law should require the producer to have a take-back and reuse system with traceable data to support registration, reporting, inspection and examination of the accuracy of the information on reuse of that packaging. Viet Nam could allow pilot development of a deposit-refund system as the basis for amending the Law on Environmental Protection so that there is a legal basis for rolling it out in practice.

(ii) Recyclable products and packaging: where the market already provides recycling capacity, the obligation should only be delegated to a PRO to organise collection for recycling, so as to optimise the EPR system in organising collection and recycling and in managing data. Where the market does not yet have sufficient collection and recycling capacity, the producer may delegate to a PRO to organise collection for recycling or pay into the Viet Nam Environment Protection Fund to discharge the recycling obligation.

(iii) Co-processed products, such as cement packaging: the producer may organise collection itself or delegate to a PRO for co-processing.

(iv) Products subject to collection and treatment (which cannot be collected and recycled): payment into the Viet Nam Environment Protection Fund, or conversion into an environmental protection tax paid into the State budget to increase spending on collecting and treating municipal solid waste.

Fourth, producer responsibility organisations (PROs), established by the businesses within a product or packaging group and operating for profit, must be the centre of the EPR system in organising collection for recycling and must provide the basis for controlling the system

PROs in Viet Nam today act only as intermediaries connecting producers with recyclers, so the PRO has been “deformed”: it not only fails to make the EPR system effective but adds an intermediary cost. In an effective EPR system, the PRO plays a crucial role in organising collection and transfer for recycling and acts as the State's “extended arm” in monitoring EPR compliance. On the basis of the analysis above, Viet Nam must ensure the PRO is the central unit of the EPR system. That ensures, on the one hand, that collection meets the minimum recycling rate and, on the other, that management of collection and recycling data is centralised, optimising the discharge of EPR obligations. Since it is ultimately the producer that bears the EPR obligation, PROs should be established by the producers within the same product or packaging group. That ensures accountability and trust between producers and the PRO. Within a product or packaging group there may be several PROs operating under the Law on Enterprises, and their scope may be divided by region. A PRO must, however, ensure collection in suburban, rural and remote areas; it must have the collection capacity to meet the mandatory recycling rate for its producers and importers; and it must have a recycling network meeting the mandatory recycling specifications. PROs must reach agreement with local collection and recycling units and with local authorities on receiving scrap once it has been separated from municipal solid waste. The PRO is a legal entity, manages businesses' EPR-related data, and receives and redistributes the support for collection, treatment and recycling drawn from producers' and importers' contributions to the Viet Nam Environment Protection Fund. With material flows controlled through the PRO in this way, collection and recycling data will be recorded and reported by the PRO as a basis for cross-checking against the reports of producers, importers and recyclers, and there will be enough data to reconcile with businesses' tax, customs and business registration data, as proposed in the sixth recommendation below.

In this system, the recycler is the unit contracted to recycle by the PRO and by producers, subject to conditions on recycling capacity meeting the mandatory specifications, an appropriate environmental licence and a recycling monitoring system. The recycler is responsible for declaring its recycling activity, and where it recycles more than the volume delegated by PROs it receives support from the Environment Protection Fund through the PRO. Collectors receive support directly from the PRO when they take part in the collection system the PRO organises. PROs may organise collection themselves or set up a collection network.

Fifth, on the EPR management structure

Viet Nam should reconsider whether the National EPR Council is appropriate, since it has only an advisory function and no authority to decide questions of EPR operation and management. As an intermediary body, the National EPR Council could be dissolved. One option is to reorganise the current EPR Office into a public service unit (a Viet Nam EPR Centre) under the Environment Department of the Ministry of Agriculture and Environment, financially autonomous for both recurrent and investment spending. The Viet Nam EPR Centre's revenue would come mainly from producers' and importers' contributions to the Viet Nam Environment Protection Fund and from lawful revenue for providing EPR services to businesses.

Sixth, require EPR information and databases to be integrated with tax, customs and business registration data.

Current EPR law requires producers and importers to act in good faith and to take responsibility for the accuracy of their declarations, their implementation and their reporting on the prescribed, digitalised forms. The law does not, however, provide for tools to verify those declarations, registrations and reports. Although there is a rule allowing the management agency to cross-check and reconcile the information producers and importers declare for EPR against tax, customs and business registration data[60], there is as yet no mechanism to ensure that information is integrated and shared in this way.

To cross-check producers' declarations against tax, customs and business registration data, the management agency needs to build a database integrated with the tax, customs and business registration databases. In the context of Viet Nam's green and digital transitions, building an EPR database is an inexpensive method that nonetheless allows easy retrieval and reconciliation of businesses' EPR declarations against tax, customs and business registration data on the volume of products and packaging placed on the market, thereby showing whether declarations are honest.

Seventh, on the use of contributions from the recycling obligation

Rules on using contributions from the recycling obligation have not yet been issued because of uncertainty about how recycling support should work. To remedy this, Viet Nam needs to build an EPR system centred on the PRO, particularly for data management and monitoring of EPR implementation as well as control over the use of producers' support contributions. On the basis of the PRO's certification of collected and recycled volumes, reconciled against the data in the EPR information system, the Viet Nam EPR Centre would complete the file for the Minister of Agriculture and Environment to approve support for collection, recycling and treatment for collectors, recyclers or local authorities. Besides direct financial support for collection and recycling, the Viet Nam EPR Centre would be assigned as investor to use producers' contributions for public–private partnership (PPP) investment in projects collecting and recycling products and packaging. These are feasible and effective ways to develop Viet Nam's very outdated collection and recycling system.

As for contributions from the treatment obligation, the Ministry of Agriculture and Environment would allocate them to provinces to promote municipal solid waste management and the collection and treatment of plant protection product packaging, easing the burden on local budgets. The money would also be used to support collection and treatment of waste in public areas and at unauthorised dumps. The Viet Nam EPR Centre would be assigned as investor under PPP arrangements, using producers' and importers' contributions to invest in developing systems for collecting and treating municipal solid waste and plant protection product packaging.

5. Conclusion

Viet Nam's EPR programme stands at a very good moment for reform to work more effectively, to achieve the goal of steadily raising collection and recycling rates, to promote the design, production and consumption of environmentally friendly products, and to contribute step by step to a circular economy in Viet Nam. This article has put forward proposals for comprehensive reform of EPR law and institutions in Viet Nam through detailed rules, with proposals to make the EPR system harmonised and effective: streamlining the EPR management apparatus, strengthening the role of PROs in organising implementation, encouraging producers to organise implementation proactively, and building a database integrating businesses' tax, customs and business registration data to strengthen oversight and ensure strict compliance with EPR rules.

REFERENCES

1. Anh Minh, Hoan thien Nghi dinh ve EPR: Tang minh bach, thuc day kinh te tuan hoan [Improving the EPR decree: greater transparency, promoting the circular economy], Moi truong (2025), accessed 21 May 2025.

2. Christopher M Inwang, Polluter pays principle; A jus cogen or customary international law, International Journal of Law, Volume 7; Issue 1; (2021).

3. Chu Manh Hung & Le Thi Anh Dao, Incorporating Informal Female Waste Pickers into Plastic Waste Management: An Analysis of Vietnam’s Policies and Regulations, Journal of Human Rights and Peace Studies, Vol. 10 Issue 2, 316–338 (2024), at https://so03.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/HRPS/article/view/278592/188588

4. Helena Dickinson, Extended Producer Responsibility: A Critical Component for the Global Plastics Pollution Treaty, UNSW https://www.unsw.edu.au/news/ 2024/11/extended-producer-responsibility-a-critical-component-for-the-global-plastics-pollution-treaty

5. Gia Nguyen, Vuong mac ve dinh muc chi phi tai che - Tiem an he luy gi cho doanh nghiep? [Problems with the recycling cost norm — what are the risks for business?] (2023) https://diendandoanhnghiep.vn/vuong-mac-ve-dinh-muc-chi-phi-tai-che-tiem-an-he-luy-gi-cho-doanh-nghiep-10079313.html>, accessed 21 May 2025.

6. Kuo-Shuh Fan, Chun-Hsu Lin & Tien-Chin Chang, Management and Performance of Taiwan’s Waste Recycling Fund, Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association, 55:5, 574-582 (2005), DOI: 10.1080/10473289.2005.10464647

7. Lindhqvist, Thomas, Extended Producer Responsibility in Cleaner Production: Policy Principle to Promote Environmental Improvements of Product Systems, The international institute for industrial environmental economics. J Clean Prod, 2(2), 119–120 (2000).

8. Nguyen Sy Linh, Thuc hien trach nhiem mo rong cua nha san xuat va Thoa thuan toan cau ve nhua: Tam quan trong cua luc luong phi chinh thuc o Viet Nam [Implementing EPR and the global plastics agreement: the importance of the informal sector in Viet Nam], Tap chi Moi truong, No. 3 (2024)

9. OECD, Extended Producer Responsibility: Updated Guidance for Efficient Waste Management”, (2016) https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/extended-producer-responsibility_9789264256385-en.html, accessed 2 March 2025.

10. OECD (2001), Extended Producer Responsibility a guidance manual for governments environment, at

11. OECD (2014), Case study for OECD project on extended producer responsibility Republic of Korea, at https://rkcmpd-eria.org/practical-measures/detail/extended-producer-responsibility, accessed 2 March 2025

12. Mallick P.K., Salling K.B., Pigosso D.C.A. et al., Designing and operationalising extended producer responsibility under the EU Green Deal, Environ Chall, 16, 100977 (2024).

13. Mitch Webster, Extended Producer Responsibility Laws for Packaging Around The World, https://packagingschool.com/lessons/extended-producer-responsibility-laws-for-packaging-around-the-world

14. Nguyen Hoang Phuong (2021), Danh gia hieu qua cua cac cong cu chinh sach duoc lua chon de giai quyet van de o nhiem rac thai nhua dai duong - Trach nhiem mo rong cua nha san xuat o Viet Nam [Assessing the effectiveness of selected policy instruments for marine plastic pollution — extended producer responsibility in Viet Nam].

15. Nguyen Thi, Hoan thien quy dinh va to chuc bo may quan ly thuc hien trach nhiem mo rong cua nha san xuat (EPR) [Improving the regulations and the management apparatus for EPR], Quan Ly Nha nuoc, (341), 48–51 (2024). https://doi.org/10.59394/qlnn.341.2024.877

16. Patrick Schröder and Jack Barrie, How the circular economy can revive the Sustainable Development Goals | 02 The circular economy and the SDGs – an interlinked agenda (2024), accessed 21 May 2025.

17. Rammaniya T. Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR): an Alternative Solution to Regulate the International Electronic Waste Trade.

18. UNEP (2022). Integrate Extended Producer Responsibility within the International plastics Treaty (Common position Paper — November 2022) https://apps1.unep.org/resolutions/uploads/integrate_epr_within_the_international_treaty_on_plastics_pollution_1.pdf>, accessed 13 March 2025.

19. Van Rossem, C., Tojo, N., & Lindhqvist, T., Extended Producer Responsibility: An examination of its impact on innovation and greening products, Greenpeace International (2006) http://www.greenpeace.org/international/press/reports/epr, accessed 21 May 2025

20. World Bank (2022), The Role of Extended Producer Responsibility Scheme for Packaging towards Circular Economies in APEC. Washington DC.

* MA, Senior Lecturer Nguyen Thi — University of Natural Resources and Environment. Approved for publication 27 January 2025. Email: Nthi@outlook.com

** Assoc. Prof. Dr Le Thi Anh Dao — Faculty of International Law, Hanoi Law University. Email: anhdaole.hlu@gmail.com

[1] EPR is understood and defined in various ways; this article uses the definition adopted at the Conference of the Parties to the Basel Convention on 20 February 2019. Viet Nam has been a party to the Basel Convention since 1995. OECD, Extended Producer Responsibility: Updated Guidance for Efficient Waste Management”, 2016, at https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/extended-producer-responsibility_9789264256385-en.html.

[2] Lindhqvist, Thomas (2000). Extended Producer Responsibility in Cleaner Production: Policy Principle to Promote Environmental Improvements of Product Systems. The international institute for industrial environmental economics. J Clean Prod, 2(2), 119–120.

[3] Mallick P.K., Salling K.B., Pigosso D.C.A. et al. (2024). Designing and operationalising extended producer responsibility under the EU Green Deal. Environ Chall, 16, 100977.

[4] Patrick Schröder and Jack Barrie (2024). How the circular economy can revive the Sustainable Development Goals | 02 The circular economy and the SDGs – an interlinked agenda, accessed 21 May 2025.

[5] Mitch Webster, Extended Producer Responsibility Laws for Packaging Around The World,

https://packagingschool.com/lessons/extended-producer-responsibility-laws-for-packaging-around-the-world

[6] World Bank, The Role of Extended Producer Responsibility Scheme for Packaging towards Circular Economies in APEC. Washington DC; Helena Dickinson, Extended Producer Responsibility: A Critical Component for the Global Plastics Pollution Treaty (2022) https://www.unsw.edu.au/news/2024/11/extended-producer-responsibility-a-critical-component-for-the-global-plastics-pollution-treaty

[7] In March 2022, at the fifth session of the UN Environment Assembly (UNEA-5.2), a historic resolution was adopted to develop an international legally binding instrument on plastic pollution, including in the marine environment. The most recent negotiating session (INC5) was held in November 2024 in Busan, Republic of Korea, with delegates from 175 countries including Viet Nam, at https://www.unep.org/inc-plastic-pollution.

[8] https://apps1.unep.org/resolutions/uploads/integrate_epr_within_the_international_treaty_on_plastics_pollution_1.pdf

[9] Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee to develop an international legally binding instrument on plastic pollution, including in the marine environment https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/46710/Chairs_Text.pdf

[10] Rammaniya T. 2010. Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR): an Alternative Solution to Regulate the International Electronic Waste Trade. Theses and Dissertations. 21. https://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/theses/21

[11] Politburo Resolution 41-NQ/TW of 15 November 2004 on environmental protection during the period of accelerated industrialisation and modernisation

[12] Article 67 of the 2005 Law on Environmental Protection and Article 87 of the 2014 Law on Environmental Protection listed the products subject to take-back and treatment and assigned the Government to provide details. The Government, however, did not set a mandatory mechanism, providing only that establishing a product take-back point discharged the obligation.

[13] Nguyen Hoang Phuong (2021), Assessing the effectiveness of selected policy instruments for marine plastic pollution — extended producer responsibility in Viet Nam.

[14] 2020 Law on Environmental Protection, Articles 54 and 55.

[15] Prime Minister's Decision 150/QD-TTg of 16 January 2025 issuing the Government's 2025 work programme

[16] https://tulieuvankien.dangcongsan.vn/he-thong-van-ban/van-ban-cua-dang/nghi-quyet-so-36-nqtw-ngay-22102018-hoi-nghi-lan-thu-tam-ban-chap-hanh-trung-uong-dang-khoa-xii-ve-chien-luoc-phat-trien-ben-4810

[17] ASEAN issues 19-point joint communiqué on the environment, Tai nguyen va moi truong (10 October 2019)

https://tainguyenmoitruong.gov.vn/tin-tuc-su-kien/201910/asean-ra-thong-cao-chung-19-diem-ve-moi-truong-367D99C/

[18] Law on Environmental Protection No. 72/2020/QH14

[19] Law on Environmental Protection No. 72/2020/QH14, Articles 72 and 80

[20] Hoang Ha, Van Toan, Trung Hung, COP26 va dau an Viet Nam [COP26 and Viet Nam's mark], Nhan dan (21 November 2021) https://special.nhandan.vn/COP26_Vietnam/index.html

[21] Decision 1746/QD-TTg issuing the National Action Plan on marine plastic waste management to 2030

[22] Decision 2149/QD-TTg approving the National Strategy on integrated solid waste management

to 2025, with a vision to 2050

[23] Decision 491/QD-TTg approving the revised National Strategy on integrated solid waste management to 2025, with a vision to 2050

[24] Decision 1658/QD-TTg approving the National Green Growth Strategy for 2021–2030, with a vision to 2050

[25] Christopher M Inwang, Polluter pays principle; A jus cogen or customary international law, International Journal of Law, Volume 7; Issue 1; Page No. 132-136 (2021)

[26] Lindhqvist, Thomas (2000), op. cit., p. 119.

[27] Article 54 of the 2020 Law on Environmental Protection

[28] Article 55 of the 2020 Law on Environmental Protection

[29] Article 78(1) of Decree 08/2022/ND-CP as amended and supplemented by Decree 05/2025/ND-CP

[30] Appendix XXII to Decree 08/2022/ND-CP as amended and supplemented by Decree 05/2025/ND-CP

[31] Gia Nguyen (2023), Vuong mac ve dinh muc chi phi tai che - Tiem an he luy gi cho doanh nghiep? https://diendandoanhnghiep.vn/vuong-mac-ve-dinh-muc-chi-phi-tai-che-tiem-an-he-luy-gi-cho-doanh-nghiep-10079313.html> (27 August 2023), accessed 21 May 2025.

[32] Van Rossem, C., Tojo, N., & Lindhqvist, T. (2006). Extended Producer Responsibility: An examination of its impact on innovation and greening products. Greenpeace International. http://www.greenpeace.org/international/press/reports/epr, accessed 21 May 2025

[33] Article 78 of Decree 08/2022/ND-CP as amended and supplemented by Decree 05/2025/ND-CP

[34] Article 78(2) of Decree 08/2022/ND-CP as amended and supplemented by Decree 05/2025/ND-CP

[35] The Republic Act (RA) No. 11898 (the Extended Producer Responsibility Act of 2022)

[36] Article 79 of Decree 08/2022/ND-CP as amended and supplemented by Decree 05/2025/ND-CP

[37] Producers and importers that recycle themselves must meet the environmental protection requirements of the law, and may not recycle themselves where they do not meet those requirements (Article 79(3) of Decree 08/2022/ND-CP as amended and supplemented by Decree 05/2025/ND-CP)

[38] Nguyen Sy Linh, Implementing EPR and the global plastics agreement: the importance of the informal sector in Viet Nam, Tap chi Moi truong, No. 3, p. 1 (2024); Chu Manh Hung & Le Thi Anh Dao. 2024. Incorporating Informal Female Waste Pickers into Plastic Waste Management: An Analysis of Vietnam's Policies and Regulations, Journal of Human Rights and Peace Studies, Vol. 10 Issue 2, 316–338, at https://so03.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/HRPS/article/view/278592/188588

[39] Dr Ho Quoc Thong. 2024. Promoting recycling: considerations and policy suggestions. https://tapchimoitruong.vn/chuyen-muc-3/thuc-day-hoat-dong-tai-che-can-nhac-va-goi-y-chinh-sach-29919

[40] Remarks by Dr Fritz Flanderka, Managing Director of Reclay Group, at the workshop of 21 February 2025 at the United Nations headquarters in Viet Nam: Shaping the Direction for Advancing Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) framework in Viet Nam

[41] OECD. (2021). Extended Producer Responsibility: A Guidance Manual for Governments | READ online. oecd-ilibrary.org, accessed 26 November 2024.

[42] OECD. (2016). Extended Producer Responsibility: Updated Guidance for Efficient Waste Management”, https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/extended-producer-responsibility_9789264256385-en.html, accessed 2 March 2025.

[43] Survey of recyclers and of producers and importers.

[44] Chu Manh Hung & Le Thi Anh Dao. 2024, op. cit., pp. 319–320

[45] Article 78(3) of Decree 08/2022/ND-CP (as amended and supplemented by Decree 05/2025/ND-CP)

[46] Kuo-Shuh Fan, Chun-Hsu Lin & Tien-Chin Chang (2005) Management and Performance of Taiwan's Waste Recycling Fund, Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association, 55:5, 574-582, DOI: 10.1080/10473289.2005.10464647

[47] Remarks by Dr Fritz Flanderka, Managing Director of Reclay Group, at the workshop of 21 February 2025 at the United Nations headquarters in Viet Nam: Shaping the Direction for Advancing Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) framework in Viet Nam

[48] Information on producers' and importers' 2023 contributions supporting waste treatment, accessed 8 March 2025.

[49] There are currently 7,000 textile and garment businesses (40% foreign-invested, 80% small and medium-sized) https://vneconomy.vn/so-hoa-de-det-may-tao-loi-the-canh-tranh-moi.htm — and more than 96 plant protection product companies https://baochinhphu.vn/thuc-day-san-xuat-thuoc-bao-ve-thuc-vat-ben-vung-102240724165008605.htm

[50] Article 83 of Decree 08/2022/ND-CP as amended and supplemented by Decree 05/2025/ND-CP

[51] https://vietnamrecycles.com/cho-doanh-nghiep

[52] Article 82(2) and Article 85(1) of Decree 08/2022/ND-CP (as amended and supplemented by Decree 05/2025/ND-CP)

[53] Anh Minh (2026). Improving the EPR decree: greater transparency, promoting the circular economy, accessed 21 May 2025.

[54] OECD. (2021). Extended Producer Responsibility: A Guidance Manual for Governments | READ online. oecd-ilibrary.org, accessed 26 November 2024. OECD. (2014). Case study for OECD project on extended producer responsibility Republic of Korea.

[55] Decision 252/QD-BTNMT of 14 February 2023 of the Minister of Natural Resources and Environment establishing the National EPR Council, and Decision 1090/QD-BTNMT of 4 May 2023 of the Minister of Natural Resources and Environment on the functions, tasks, powers and organisational structure of the Office of the National EPR Council

[56] Article 88 of Decree 08/2022/ND-CP and Decree 05/2025/ND-CP

[57] Decision 252/QD-BTNMT of 14 February 2023 of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment establishing the National EPR Council

[58] Nguyen Thi. (2024). Improving the regulations and the management apparatus for extended producer responsibility (EPR). Quan Ly Nha nuoc, (341), 48–51. https://doi.org/10.59394/qlnn.341.2024.877

[59] Articles 82 and 85 of Decree 08/2022/ND-CP (as amended and supplemented by Decree 05/2025/ND-CP)

[60] Article 86(2) of Decree 08/2022/ND-CP (as amended and supplemented by Decree 05/2025/ND-CP)

Improving Vietnamese Law on Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) for Sustainable Development