EPR mechanism for post-consumer pesticide packaging disposal

A major bottleneck: lack of disposal facilities

According to Mr. Nguyen Ngoc Trai, a representative of Proton Fusion Co., Ltd., as a company operating in the agricultural sector, the firm highly values the role of the Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) mechanism in waste collection and treatment, particularly for pesticide and fertilizer packaging at the local level.

“Agriculture should not only aim for economic goals but must also be associated with environmental responsibility. Therefore, it is essential to fully consider the product ‘life cycle,’ from production to post-use collection and treatment,” Mr. Trai emphasized.

Based on field observations in various localities such as Dak Lak, the Central Highlands, and the Mekong Delta, business representatives noted that most agricultural waste, particularly pesticide packaging, is still discharged directly into canals and drainage systems or collected and then burned. This situation not only pollutes soil and water but also directly affects the health of farmers and surrounding communities. According to Mr. Trai, the root cause lies in the lack of collection points: many farmers are willing to collect waste but do not know where to take it, resulting in it being left in the environment.

Sharing the same view from a producer’s perspective, Mr. Nguyen Huu Chien, Director of Tan Thuan Dong Agricultural Service Cooperative, said that policies on collecting and treating pesticide packaging are appropriate and necessary; however, the disposal stage remains a major bottleneck that has yet to be resolved in practice.

Mr. Nguyen Huu Chien noted that farmers and cooperatives are fully capable of organizing collection and have even proactively prepared the necessary means and equipment. However, after collection, the biggest issue is the lack of receiving and treatment facilities, leading to the situation of “collecting waste but not knowing where to take it.” Even when agricultural input dealers take on the responsibility of purchasing back packaging, the large volume generated can accumulate to hundreds of kilograms within just a few days, raising concerns about storage responsibility and subsequent treatment.

According to the cooperative representative, the absence of a disposal stage means that uncoordinated collection efforts can be counterproductive, potentially causing even more severe pollution. In practice, some collection tanks become overloaded within days, turning into pollution hotspots rather than solving the problem. Therefore, Mr. Chien stressed that priority must be given to resolving the treatment and disposal stage first, followed by organizing systematic collection; otherwise, collection efforts will be unsustainable and may lead to further negative consequences.

EPR mechanism provides financial resources for treatment

From an organizational perspective, Ms. Dao Thu Vinh, Executive Director of CropLife Vietnam, stated that corporate responsibility does not end with delivering products to farmers and providing guidance on effective use, but extends to post-use collection and treatment to ensure that products do not negatively impact the environment.

Based on implementation experience in various localities, CropLife has found that effective financial mobilization mechanisms are essential for the collection and treatment of pesticide packaging. The lack of such resources has made it difficult for many areas to build and sustain efficient and long-term collection and treatment systems.

In this context, the EPR mechanism is considered a key solution to address these challenges. Under current regulations, for each product placed on the market, enterprises are required to make a mandatory financial contribution. When aggregated across the entire market, these contributions form a sufficiently large fund to support localities in implementing collection, transportation, and treatment of post-use packaging.

According to Ms. Dao Thu Vinh, this mandatory and stable financial mechanism provides a solid foundation for establishing a long-term management system for pesticide packaging waste, rather than relying on limited public budgets as in the past, thereby ensuring sustainability in agricultural environmental protection.

Addressing the issue of “collecting pesticide packaging but not knowing where to take it,” Mr. Nguyen Thanh Yen, Deputy Head of the Policy and Legal Division (Department of Environment, Ministry of Agriculture and Environment), said that the ministry has licensed more than 100 waste treatment enterprises. For hazardous waste such as pesticide packaging, inter-provincial transportation for treatment is entirely feasible, meaning it is not necessary to have treatment facilities in every locality; where incinerators or treatment plants are unavailable, waste can be transferred to provinces with adequate capacity.

According to Mr. Yen, in principle, treatment solutions already exist; the main challenge lies in the cost of implementation. He also clarified that if enterprises proactively establish effective collection and take-back systems under a deposit-refund scheme, they may fall outside the scope of EPR obligations. In such cases, enterprises could be exempted from financial contributions or equivalent responsibilities under EPR, as they have already fulfilled their obligations independently.