The 14 associations, including 13 domestic professional associations and AmCham, have lodged a petition to Dang Quoc Khanh, Minister of Natural Resources and the Environment (MONRE), and eight other ministers in charge of related business fields.

The associations have asked the ministers to reconsider the draft decision on the recycling cost per unit of products and packages (Fs) when applying the extended producer responsibility (EPR).

The associations pointed out that the Fs that MONRE submitted to the PM on July 27 are unreasonably high which will cause difficulties for business, and therefore, need adjustments.

Experts agree that some Fs suggested by MONRE are even higher than the average Fs of 14 Western European countries, developed countries with high costs. The Fs of aluminum in the draft is 1.26 times higher than the average Fs in the countries, while the Fs of glass is 2.12 times higher. 

Meanwhile, the recycling costs in Vietnam are just half or one third of the countries.

The associations estimated that the recycling fees for three types of packages, including paper, plastics and metals alone, are VND6.127 trillion per annum. Of this, more than 50 percent of the recycling fee (VND3.064 trillion) is used to support the recycling of valuable packages such as metal and cartons, while recyclers make big profits even if they don’t get support. 

As for aluminum can recycling, recyclers are estimated to make a profit of VND700-1.3 trillion a year. The recycling of iron and paper packages also brings high profits. It will be extremely unreasonable to request enterprises and consumers to pay trillions of dong to support recyclers who are making big profits.

Associations have called on state management agencies to set more reasonable Fs.

They want to apply the coefficient 0.1 for materials which have a recalled value higher than recycling fee, such as aluminum, iron and paper (in the draft, the coefficient 0.2 is applied to aluminum and paper packages, 0.4 for iron). The materials need adjustment because recyclers can make trillions of dong in profit without EPR.

In addition, the associations have also proposed removing obstacles for implementing EPR in Vietnam. Instead of advancing EPR at the beginning of the year, it would be better to pay the real amount of EPR at the end of the year. 

Also, it would be better to allow enterprises to both recycle products themselves and pay EPR money in the same year for the same types of packages, instead of having to choose one of the two forms.

Tran Chung