East Asia and Pacific Region: MARINE PLASTICS SERIES Toward a National Single-use Plastics Roadmap in Vietnam: Strategic Options for Reducing Priority Single-use Plastics Administ r d b @2022 The World Bank 1818 H Street NW, Washington DC 20422 Telephone: 202-473-1000; Internet: www.worldbank.org This work is a product of the staff of The World Bank with external contributions. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this work do not necessarily reflect the views of The World Bank, its Board of Executive Directors, or the governments they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy, completeness, or currency of the data included in this work and does not assume responsibility for any errors, omissions, or discrepancies in the information, or liability with respect to the use of or failure to use the information, methods, processes, or conclusions set forth. The boundaries, colors, denominations, and other information shown on any map in this work do not imply any judgment on the part of The World Bank concerning the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. Nothing herein shall constitute or be construed or considered to be a limitation upon or waiver of the privileges and immunities of The World Bank, all of which are specifically reserved. Rights and Permissions The material in this work is subject to copyright. Because The World Bank encourages dissemination of its knowledge, this work may be reproduced, in whole or in part, for noncommercial purposes as long as full attribution to this work is given. All queries on rights and licenses should be addressed to the Publishing and Knowledge Division, The World Bank, 1818 H Street NW, Washington DC, 20433, USA, Fax: 202-522-2625; email: pubrights@worldbank.org. Cover photo: KOSOL PHUNJUI-shutterstock.com. Further permission required for reuse. Toward a National Single-use Plastics Roadmap in Vietnam: Strategic Options for Reducing Priority Single-use Plastics Administ r d b ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This report was prepared by a World Bank team led by Ashraf El-Arini, Thu Thi Le Nguyen, and David Adeyemi Aromokeye, and a core team comprised of Thuy Cam Duong and Klaus Sattler. Jan Philipp Grotmann-Hoefling and Özgül Calicioglu provided valuable contributions, as did the team that carried out the analysis for this report. The latter was led by Ms. Francesca Montevecchi (Environment Agency Austria), Mr. Michael Asenov (Environment Agency Austria), and Ms. Kim Thuy Ngoc (Institute of Strategy and Policy on Natural Resources and Environment, Vietnam). The team is grateful for the valuable advice and inputs provided by the World Bank peer reviewers (Anjali Acharya, Jiang Ru, Katelijn Van den Berg, and Frank Van Woerden); and by the external reviewers from the Centre for Supporting Green Development (GreenHub) (Trang Nguyen, Boris Fabres, and Tran Ngoc Diep). In addition, the team would like to thank officials in the Vietnam Administration of Seas and Islands (VASI) under the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment (MONRE) for their cooperation, and especially thank the former Director General, Dr. Ta Dinh Thi, and the Deputy Director, Mr. Luu Anh Duc. We are grateful as well to the officials working for the Vietnam Environment Administration and the Institute of Strategy and Policy on Natural Resources and Environment (ISPONRE), under MONRE, who took part in the discussion about this study, and provided important feedback. Finally, we would like to think our Program Assistant, Dinh Thuy Quyen; the editor, Ann Bishop; and the designer Ha Doan. This report is a product of the Environmental, Natural Resources, and Blue Economy Global Practice of the World Bank, and this work was conducted under the supervision of Carolyn Turk and Mona Sur. For preparation of this report, financing from the World Bank-administered PROBLUE multi-donor trust fund is gratefully acknowledged. 4 | Toward a National Single-use Plastics Roadmap in Vietnam: Strategic Options for Reducing Priority Single-use Plastics ABBREVIATIONS ASEAN Association of Southeast Asian Nations DARD Department of Agriculture and Rural Development DOCST Department of Culture, Sports, and Tourism DOIT  Department of Industry and Trade DONRE Department of Natural Resources and Environment EPR Extended Producer Responsibility  EPS Expanded Polystyrene EU European Union GHG Greenhouse Gas HDPE High-density Polyethylene LDPE Low-density Polyethylene  LLDPE Linear Low-density Polyethylene MOCST Ministry of Culture, Sports, and Tourism MOF Ministry of Finance  MOIT Ministry of Industry and Trade MONRE Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment  MU Multi-use NGO Non-governmental organization NPAP National Plastic Action Partnership NYC  New York City PC People’s Committee PE Polyethylene  PET  Polyethylene Terephthalate PLA Polylactic Acid PP Polypropylene  PPC Provincial People’s Committee PS Polystyrene SCPO Sustainable Consumption and Production Office  SUP Single-use plastic UK United Kingdom UNWTO United Nations World Tourism Organization US   United States $ United States dollar VAT Value-added Tax  VCCI Vietnam Chamber of Commerce and Industry VND Vietnamese dong  All dollar amounts are US dollars unless otherwise indicated. Abbreviations | 5 CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.........................................................................................4 ABBREVIATIONS ...................................................................................................5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.......................................................................................11 PLASTIC POLLUTION IS A PREVALENT CHALLENGE IN VIETNAM............................................ 12 GOVERNMENT OF VIETNAM TARGETS FOR REDUCING MARINE PLASTIC LITTER............ 12 RECOMMENDATIONS TO SUPPORT THE REDUCTION OF SINGLE-USE PLASTIC LEAKAGE IN VIETNAM’S ENVIRONMENT............................................................................................ 13 1. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................... 23 2. OBJECTIVES .................................................................................................... 27 3. PLASTIC POLLUTION IN VIETNAM AND THE CURRENT REGULATORY FRAMEWORK.......................................................................... 29 3.1. ANALYSIS OF TOP 10 PLASTIC WASTE ITEMS IDENTIFIED IN PLASTIC POLLUTION DIAGNOSTICS ............................................................................................................................................. 30 3.2. BENEFITS OF PHASING OUT SUPS.............................................................................................. 33 3.3. SUMMARY OF THE LEGAL, POLICY, AND INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK REVIEW AND GAP ANALYSIS................................................................................................................................... 35 4. POLICIES TO REDUCE AND PHASE OUT THE CONSUMPTION OF CERTAIN SUPS.....................................................................................................39 4.1. RESTRICTIONS ON THE DISTRIBUTION AND USE OF SUPS............................................... 42 4.1.1. International case studies and lessons learned.................................................................................43 4.1.2. Applicability in Vietnam.............................................................................................................................51 4.2. FEES CHARGED TO CONSUMERS FOR CERTAIN SUPS........................................................57 4.2.1. International case studies and lessons learned ..............................................................................59 4.2.2. Applicability in Vietnam...........................................................................................................................62 6 | Toward a National Single-use Plastics Roadmap in Vietnam: Strategic Options for Reducing Priority Single-use Plastics 4.3. BANS ON THE SALE, IMPORTING, AND PRODUCTION OF SUPS...................................... 65 4.3.1. International case studies and lessons learned ...............................................................................65 4.3.2. Applicability to Vietnam..........................................................................................................................69 4.4. INTEGRATION OF THE PROPOSED POLICIES IN VIETNAM’S CURRENT LEGAL AND POLICY FRAMEWORK...............................................................................................................................73 5. POLICY OPTIONS FOR VIETNAM...............................................................77 5.1. RESTRICTION POLICIES....................................................................................................................79 5.1.1. Restrictions on the distribution of SUP straws................................................................................. 79 5.1.2. Restriction of the use of certain SUPs for onsite consumption in food establishments (restaurants and cafeterias)............................................................................................................................. 80 5.1.3. Restrictions (voluntary agreement) on the provision of disposable plastic cutlery with online food orders.................................................................................................................................................. 81 5.1.4. Restrictions on the distribution of SUP toiletry products in hotels............................................ 81 5.1.5. Restrictions on the use of SUPs in tourist establishments and areas (SUP-free areas).....82 5.2. PRICING POLICIES.............................................................................................................................. 82 5.2.1. Fee charged to consumers who purchase non-degradable plastic bags..................................82 5.2.2. Fee charged to consumers who purchase coffee in disposable cups........................................83 5.3. BAN POLICIES..................................................................................................................................... 84 5.3.1. Market ban (through a ban on sales or production and imports) of plastic straws.........................................................................................................................................................84 5.3.2. Market ban (through a ban on sales or production and imports) of non-degradable plastic bags.............................................................................................................................84 5.3.3. Market ban (through a ban on sales or production and imports) of EPS food containers.............................................................................................................................................85 5.4. STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT, INSTITUTIONAL SET-UP, AND MONITORING MECHANISMS FOR SUP POLICIES....................................................................................................... 86 5.5. ROADMAP OF POLICY OPTIONS TO PHASE OUT SUPS IN VIETNAM.............................. 88 6. BIBLIOGRAPHY...............................................................................................93 ANNEX 1: CRITERIA USED TO DETERMINE THE SUITABILITY OF SUPS FOR REDUCTION POLICIES........................................................................................................................... 100 ANNEX 2: ALTERNATIVES TO THE TARGET SUPS AND THEIR AVAILABILITY FOR SUSTAINABLE USE.................................................................................................................................. 104 Contents | 7 ANNEX 3: LEGAL, POLICY, AND INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK REVIEW AND GAP ANALYSIS.................................................................................................................................................... 108 ANNEX 4: THE POLICY IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT PROCESS IN VIETNAM...................................................................................................................................................... 114 A.4.1. Political decision-making for the implementation of policy measures....................................114 A.4.2. Formulation of the legislative provision............................................................................................ 117 A.4.3. The stakeholder consultation process for different target groups and the identification of key institutions ............................................................................................................120 A.4.4. Targeted sectors and stakeholders....................................................................................................121 A.4.5. Public awareness, education, and citizen engagement............................................................... 123 A.4.6. Enforcement and monitoring.............................................................................................................. 123 8 | Toward a National Single-use Plastics Roadmap in Vietnam: Strategic Options for Reducing Priority Single-use Plastics BOXES Box 4.1. An international legally binding agreement to end plastic pollution.................................................. 41 Box 4.2. International case studies on reducing the distribution and use of certain SUPs........................ 45 Box 4.3. The tourism sector and plastic policies in Vietnam................................................................................ 55 Box 4.4. Cost-benefit analysis for implementing a charge on plastic bags in Vietnam ............................. 58 Box 4.5. International examples – Fees charged to consumers.......................................................................... 60 Box 4.6. International examples – Bans on SUPs.................................................................................................... 66 Box 4.7. Criteria and guidelines for biodegradable/environmentally friendly plastic alternatives.............71 FIGURES Figure 3.1. Locations of the 38 sites where field surveys were conducted in Vietnam ................................ 31 Figure 3.2. Top 10 plastic items, overall – by number..............................................................................................32 Figure 3.3. Top 10 plastic Items at river and coastal sites – standing stock...................................................32 Figure 3.4. Types of plastic waste found through the field and drone surveys.............................................. 33 Figure 3.5. Policy and regulatory landscape on SUPs............................................................................................ 36 Figure A.1.1. Decision tree for the suitability of SUP reduction policies............................................................ 101 Boxes & Figures | 9 TABLES Table E.1. Proposed roadmap of policy options.......................................................................................................... 16 Table 3.1. Summary of the benefits and costs of reducing marine plastic litter ........................................... 34 Table 3.2. Summary of the main gaps and recommendations from the inventory and gap analysis of Vietnam’s plastic policies that align with Pillar 1 in the ASEAN Regional Action Plan (Reduce Inputs into the System)....................................................................................................................................37 Table 3.3. The SUPs targeted for reduction in this report..................................................................................... 38 Table 4.1. Targeted items, key application mechanisms, factors contributing to success or failure, and extent of impact........................................................................................................................................................ 48 Table 4.2. Key implementation mechanisms, success (or failure) factors, and impact................................ 61 Table 4.3. Pros and cons of taxes versus fees paid by consumers..................................................................... 62 Table 4.4. Bans on the production, importing, and sale of certain SUPs......................................................... 68 Table 4.5. How the proposed policies fit into Vietnam’s current legal and policy framework, January 2022 ......................................................................................................................................................................74 Table 5.1. Institutional set-up for the proposed plastic policies...........................................................................87 Table 5.2. Proposed roadmap of policy options........................................................................................................ 89 Table A.1.1. Priority plastic items from the field surveys in Vietnam that are suitable for reduction policies.............................................................................................................................................................. 102 Table A.2.1. EPS food containers and their alternatives in Vietnam................................................................ 105 Table A.2.2. SUP straws and their alternatives in Vietnam................................................................................ 106 Table A.2.3. Non-degradable plastic bags and their alternatives in Vietnam................................................107 Table A.3.1. Targets in national strategies and action plans on plastic waste and plastic pollution in Vietnam.......................................................................................................................................... 108 Table A.3.2. The main gaps and recommendations from the inventory and gap analysis of Vietnam’s plastic policies that align with Pillar 1 in the ASEAN Regional Action Plan (Reduce Inputs into the System) .................................................................................................................................. 111 Table A.4.1. Institutional set-up in Vietnam for plastic waste management................................................. 114 Table A.4.2. Stages for the adoption of regulations on plastic waste management in Vietnam..............117 Table A.4.3. Overview of legislative documents relevant to plastic policies................................................... 118 Table A.4.4. Relevant stakeholders for Vietnam’s plastic policies......................................................................121 10 | Toward a National Single-use Plastics Roadmap in Vietnam: Strategic Options for Reducing Priority Single-use Plastics EXECUTIVE SUMMARY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Plastic Pollution is a Prevalent Challenge in Vietnam Globally, plastic litter is a widespread problem. Of the more than 8 million metric tons of plastic waste dumped in the world’s oceans, annually, an estimated 90 percent comes from just 10 rivers, eight of which are in Asia. In Vietnam, the estimated annual discharge of plastic waste into the ocean is between 0.28 to 0.73 million tons. Also in Vietnam, between 2.8 to 3.1 million tons of plastic waste are discharged on land every year (Jambeck et al. 2015), which makes the country one of the world’s major sources of plastic litter. The government of Vietnam is aware of the environmental threat posed by plastic litter, and the urgent need to take action to reduce plastic pollution. To explore the extent of pollution in Vietnam’s environment, a World Bank study was conducted between July 2020 and April 2021 on the different types of plastic waste that leak into rivers and the ocean, and the products on the market that could serve as suitable alternatives (World Bank 2022). The study, which included field surveys of riverbank and coastal sites, found that plastic waste accounted for most of the waste collected, of which single-use plastic (SUP) items comprised 62 percent of the total plastic waste (in number). Plastic bags and their fragments, Styrofoam food containers, and straws were identified as the most abundant SUPs in the environment, accounting for up to 38 percent of the plastic waste leakage at the surveyed locations. Government of Vietnam Targets for Reducing Marine Plastic Litter The government of Vietnam has set ambitious targets for reducing marine plastic litter. In its National Action Plan for Management of Marine Plastic Litter by 2030, Vietnam’s government committed to cutting marine plastic litter by 50 and 75 percent, respectively, by 2025 and 2030. To reach these targets, the government recently introduced a number of laws, circulars, and decrees to tackle SUPs, which are a major source plastic litter. Most recently, Decree 8/2022, which concerns the implementation of a selection of articles in the Law on Environmental Protection 2020, set targets for January 1, 2026 to stop the production for domestic consumption, as well as imports of non-biodegradable plastic bags that are smaller than 50cm x 50cm, and have a thickness of less than 50 µm. This decree also requires gradual reduction of the production and importing of other SUPs, until all are banned in 2031. In addition, the decree directs Provincial People’s Committees (PPCs) to restrict the distribution and use of SUPs in commercial centers, supermarkets, hotels, and tourism areas, starting in 2025. While these are important steps toward reducing plastic pollution in Vietnam, the rising tide of single-use plastic waste requires developing and implementing a roadmap of policy options to guide the country toward gradually phasing out SUPs, while also minimizing the negative impact on producers and consumers. This roadmap should help to ensure that the policies and, eventually, the bans can be implemented and enforced. Prior to conducting an analysis of potential policy options, a background study was carried out by the World Bank to compare the current policy framework for plastic waste management in Vietnam with international good practices, including those from the European Union, China, and countries in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). 12 | Toward a National Single-use Plastics Roadmap in Vietnam: Strategic Options for Reducing Priority Single-use Plastics Reducing plastics pollution requires a three-pillar The three most common SUPs that are targeted in this pathway that aligns with the 2021 ASEAN Regional report’s proposed roadmap are non-degradable plastic Action Plan for Combatting Marine Debris in the bags, expanded polystyrene (EPS) food containers, ASEAN Member States (2021–2025). Pillar 1 : and plastic straws. The other SUPs in the roadmap Reduce Inputs into the System focuses on upstream are those used in food take-away, catering, and measures such as reducing the use of single-use, tourism businesses. In summary, these SUPs were low-value plastics. Pillar 2: Enhance Collection chosen based on international good practices, and and Minimize Leakage focuses on improving solid the availability of single-use or multi-use alternatives waste management systems and putting extended at a reasonable cost. producer responsibility (EPR) policy reforms in place. Pillar 3: Create Value for Waste Reuse focuses on Recommendations to Support the the development of markets for plastics recycling Reduction of Single-use Plastic Leakage in and reuse. Vietnam’s Environment This report specifically focuses on Pillar 1: Reduce Inputs The objective of this report is to present short-term in the System, and provides policy options for how to policy options for Vietnam’s government to consider reduce SUPs. However, significant progress on all three implementing over the next five years (2022–2026) to pillars is needed to achieve the ambitious commitments achieve significant reduction in the use of single-use in Vietnam’s National Action Plan for Management of plastics. These policy options are meant to improve Marine Plastic Litter by 2030. Policies for Pillars 2 and Vietnam’s readiness to implement the SUP bans that 3 do not tackle reducing SUP consumption, directly; are listed in Decree 08/2022, and they are based on instead, they focus more on sustainable alternatives international good practices, they are applicable in and waste management. Relevant analysis and rec- Vietnam’s context, and they target the most prevalent ommendations for these two pillars are presented in SUPs in Vietnam’s environment. the publication, Market Study for Vietnam: Plastic This report summarizes a broad range of policies for Circularity Opportunities and Barriers (World Bank eliminating SUPs that include restricting the distribution Group 2021), or they have been supported by other of SUPs, charging fees when SUPs are used, and development partners. banning certain SUPs, and it includes a roadmap for how to implement the proposed policies. In order The SUP items for which the policy recommendations avoid disruptive economic impacts, the roadmap in this report were developed, are the top items that recommends reducing SUPs in phases, which begin were identified in the field surveys, which the World with restrictions and fees, and then gradually progress Bank carried out in Vietnam in 2020 and 2021. These toward total bans. were the criteria used to determine which SUPs to target with policies presented in this report: Restrictions and fees are intended to promote the adoption of environmentally friendly consumer behavior, 1. Does the SUP have a significant environmental and stimulate the market for environmentally friendly presence in Vietnam? alternatives, while a ban ensures that, ultimately, the target SUPs are removed from circulation. This report 2. Does the SUP have reasonably priced identifies the policies needed to complement SUP alternatives, and have these alternatives been management within the wider scope of a circular successfully used? economy. These include EPR, eco-friendly design and labeling schemes, and green (eco-friendly) public 3. Can the SUP be effectively addressed by procurement, but in line with Pillar 1 - Reduce Inputs reduction policies? into the System, the policies proposed in the report primarily target directly reducing the use of SUPs. Executive Summary | 13 In addition to an effective phased approach, the • Fees charged to consumers when they purchase roadmap recommends effective coordination among coffee-to-go cups the key stakeholders, including (i) the authorities Preliminary economic analysis shows that fees responsible for developing and adopting the policies; such as a charge on plastic bags could generate (ii) the stakeholders responsible for implementation and significant environmental benefits and have a ben- enforcement; and (iii) the other affected stakeholders efit-to-cost ratio greater than one. such as the groups that are impacted by, or contribute to, enforcement measures. 3. Bans The policy recommendations that are described in Several types of bans can be applied. A national detail in Chapter 5 of this report, are as follows: ban comprises banning the sale and distribution 1. Restrictions of certain SUPs, and banning their placement in the market, but not banning production and Restrictions are usually used in transitioning toward exports. A full ban on production, imports, sales, stricter bans, as restrictions are a gentler way of and distribution of SUPs is the strongest type of implementing the reduction policy. While production, legislation, and should eliminate the targeted SUPs, imports, and sales are still allowed, distribution completely. The policies proposed here are: at the point of sale is restricted, unless customers • A market ban (through a ban on sales or request the item. The policies proposed here are: production and imports) of plastic straws and drink stirrers • Restrictions on the distribution of SUP straws • A market ban (through a ban on sales or and drink stirrers production and imports) of non-degradable • Restrictions on the use of certain SUPs for onsite plastic bags consumption in food establishments • A market ban (through a ban on sales or • Restrictions (through voluntary agreement) on production and imports) of EPS food containers the use of plastic disposable cutlery by online A roadmap of policy options, which are designed to food delivery providers achieve sustainability, and limit economic disruptions • Restrictions on the distribution of SUP toiletry to producers and consumers, is presented below products in hotels in Table E1. This report aims to promote a phased approach to the bans and other measures to reduce • Restrictions on the use of certain SUPs in tourist SUPs that are listed in Decree 08/2022/ND-CP and establishments and/or areas in the commitments made in Vietnam’s National Action Plan for Management of Marine Plastic 2. Pricing Policies Litter by 2030. The draft National Plastic Action Partnership (NPAP) Action Roadmap for “Radically A pricing instrument such as charging fees aims to Reducing Plastic Leakage in Viet Nam” estimates raise consumers’ awareness about the impact that that by 2030, the reduction and substitution of a plastic item has on the environment and deter plastics through elimination, reuse, and new usage through economic means. This approach delivery models, as well as the substitution of differs from taxing producers, which has less impact plastics with suitable alternatives would lead to the on reducing consumption, as the cost of the tax replacement of 1.66 million tons of plastics. Based is included in the price that consumers pay for on 2018 levels, this would be a 22 percent reduction products, so they may not be aware of the policy, of plastic leaking into Vietnam’s waterways. If and why they should not request plastic products. implemented, the policy options recommended The policies proposed here are: in this report should contribute significantly to • Fees charged to consumers when they purchase reaching this goal. non-degradable plastic bags 14 | Toward a National Single-use Plastics Roadmap in Vietnam: Strategic Options for Reducing Priority Single-use Plastics Shutterstock: evgenii mitroshin The roadmap of policy options presented in this options proposed in this report require comparatively report is based on the principle that a smooth, gradual less administrative effort than the enforcement of a transition is required for Vietnam to achieve (or even total ban. This reflects the prioritization of measures bring forward) the 2031 ban on SUPs that is delineated that can be easily implemented, and all would be more in Decree 08/2022. The policy options proposed here, easily implemented than a total ban. Without such a and the timeline for their implementation are designed gradual transition over time to relatively more stringent to gradually mobilize administrative capacity, and measures, the obligated retailers and establishments increase funding for monitoring and enforcement so that would also not be pre-identified, and the ban would the relevant authorities are prepared to implement the be very difficult to implement. Where relevant, each of upcoming ban. Table E1 lists the proposed measures the policy options recommended in this report should in chronological order, starting with the measures that be implemented gradually, which could include initially will have the least impact on consumers, retailers, targeting larger establishments, initially excluding street and other stakeholders, and ending with the fees vendors, and also conducting pilots in selected provinces, and bans that will impact all of the market players. and especially in those provinces that have substantial tourism revenue. Such approaches should help increase A ban on SUPs is the strictest policy measure to the technical know-how of those implementing the implement, but Vietnam currently has no examples policies, and promote public awareness before the of banning any plastic product, entirely. All of the policy measures are scaled up. Executive Summary | 15 Table E.1. PROPOSED ROADMAP OF POLICY OPTIONS Policy Policy development steps Responsible Supporting Targeted sector Year Authority Authorities Restrict the Organize stakeholder MONRE MOIT Restaurants 2022 distribution of meeting(s) with the targeted and similar plastic straws actors establishments Formulate and adopt the 2022 legislation, identify exemptions, define the transition period for street vendors, and appoint 2022 local authorities to carry out inspections and impose fines Prepare a guidance document MOIT – MONRE, PPC/ 2022 to inform businesses (e.g., Department CPC, and their restaurants) about the regulation, of Energy supporting exemptions from the regulation, Efficiency unit (DOIT) and the penalties for failure to and comply Sustainable Development Allocate a budget for regular, PPC/CPC - 2023 random inspections by the and their appointed authority supporting unit (DOIT) Implement a mechanism for inspections, and impose fines Include street vendors and MOIT - Street vendors 2023 unlicensed actors and unlicensed activities 16 | Toward a National Single-use Plastics Roadmap in Vietnam: Strategic Options for Reducing Priority Single-use Plastics Policy Policy development steps Responsible Supporting Targeted sector Year Authority Authorities Restrict the Organize stakeholder meeting(s) MONRE MOIT Full-service, big 2022 use of certain with the targeted actors and medium-sized SUPs for restaurants consumption Formulate and adopt the 2022 in restaurants, legislation, identify exemptions, cafeterias, define the transition period for etc. smaller restaurants, and appoint local authorities to carry out inspections, and impose and collect fines Prepare a guidance document MOIT – MONRE, PPC/ 2022 to inform businesses (e.g., Department CPC, and restaurants) about the regulation, of Energy DOIT exemptions from the regulation, Efficiency and the penalties for failure to and comply Sustainable Development Allocate of a budget for regular, PPC/CPC 2023 random inspections by the and DOIT appointed authority, implement a mechanism for inspections (e.g., a registry of operating restaurants), and for imposing and collecting fines Include all licensed restaurants MONRE - All licensed, 2023 full-service restaurants Restrict the Seek a voluntary agreement with MONRE MOIT Online food 2022 provision of online food platforms platforms plastic cutlery Formulate a document to be with food signed and endorsed by the deliveries Restaurants platforms, including the type of (voluntary and similar commitment to be implemented agreement) establishments (opt-in or opt-out option) Self-monitor the adoption of the DOIT PPC/CPC Online food 2023 agreement, and voluntarily report platforms the results Executive Summary | 17 Policy Policy development steps Responsible Supporting Targeted sector Year Authority Authorities Restrict Organize at least two stakeholder MONRE Ministry of 4 and 5 star hotels 2022 hotels’ meetings with the targeted actors Culture, distribution Sports, and Formulate and adopt the required of detergent Tourism legislation and regulations and toiletry products in Identify the hotels that are subject SUP bottles to the regulation (e.g., based on their size) Prepare a guidance document for Ministry of PPC/CPC, 2022 the businesses that must apply Culture, and the the regulation, which includes the Sports, and Department exemptions, and the penalties for Tourism of Tourism, failure to comply Culture, and Sport Allocate a budget for inspections PPC/CPC 2023 by the appointed authority Department Implement a mechanism for of Tourism, regular, random inspections, and Culture, and imposing and collecting fines Sport Include all hotels Ministry of Remaining hotels 2023 Culture, Sports, and Tourism Restrict the Organize at least two stakeholder MONRE Ministry of Tourist areas 2023 use of certain meetings with the targeted actors Culture, SUPs in Sports, and Formulate and adopt the required tourist zones Tourism legislation and regulations Identify the tourist areas that are subject to the regulations Prepare a guidance document for Ministry of PPC/CPC – 2023 the businesses that must apply Culture, Department the regulation, which includes the Sports, and of Tourism, exemptions, and the penalties for Tourism Culture, and failure to comply Sport Allocate a budget for inspections PPC/CPC Vietnam 2024 by the appointed authority Department Forest Implement a mechanism for of Tourism, Rangers regular, random inspections, and Culture, and imposing and collecting fines Sport 18 | Toward a National Single-use Plastics Roadmap in Vietnam: Strategic Options for Reducing Priority Single-use Plastics Policy Policy development steps Responsible Supporting Targeted sector Year Authority Authorities Charge a Organize at least two meetings MOF MONRE Retailers 2022- fee for each with stakeholders in the retail 2023 plastic bag sector Formulate and adopt amendments to the respective legislation Make announcements in MOF Ministry of 2022- newspapers, radio, TV, and social Industry 2023 media about the fee, and how it and Trade, will be implemented Department of Domestic Markets Publish the regulations on 2022- application of the fee 2023 The system for charging and Ministry of PPC/CPC, 2023 monitoring the fees: Finance, DOF, and the General List the establishments that are Department Department required to impose the fee of Domestic of Taxation Markets Identify a system for charging consumers fees, and the penalties for failure to collect the fees Ensure cooperation and agreement among the authorities responsible for inspections and collecting the fees Organize awareness-raising PPC/CPC Department 2023- campaigns about alternatives to of Domestic 2025 SUP plastic bags Markets Executive Summary | 19 Policy Policy development steps Responsible Supporting Targeted sector Year Authority Authorities Charge fee Organize at least two stakeholder MOF MONRE Restaurants, 2025 for each meetings with the restaurant/ Coffee Shops plastic coffee cafeteria sector cup Formulate and adopt amendments to the respective legislation Announce the fee and how it will be implemented Publish the regulations on application of the fee Identify the system for monitoring MOF, DOF, PPC/ 2026 collection of the fee General CPC, Department Department Identify the establishments of Taxation of Domestic required to collect the fee Markets Identify the system for collection of 2026 the fees and imposing penalties Identify the establishments required to impose the fee Market ban of Organize of at least two MONRE MOIT Retailers, 2024 plastic straws stakeholder meetings with the Restaurants (through a targeted actors ban on sales or production Formulate and adopt the MOIT, PPC/CPC 2024 and imports) legislation and exemptions MONRE Prepare a guidance document for the businesses that must apply the regulation, which includes the exemptions, and the penalties for failure to comply Identify retailers and other MOIT/DOIT PPC/CPC 2025 establishments that provide plastic straws Organize market surveillance Allocate a budget for inspections and collecting fines 20 | Toward a National Single-use Plastics Roadmap in Vietnam: Strategic Options for Reducing Priority Single-use Plastics Policy Policy development steps Responsible Supporting Targeted sector Year Authority Authorities Market ban of Organize at least two stakeholder MONRE MOIT Retailers 2025 plastic bags meetings with the targeted actors (through a Formulate and adopt the ban on sales legislation and exemptions or production and imports) Prepare a guidance document for MOIT, PPC/CPC 2025 the businesses that must apply MONRE the regulation, which includes the exemptions, and the penalties for failure to comply Implement a system for monitoring MOIT, PPC/CPC, Retailers 2026 and collection of fines: MONRE DOIT Identify producers/ importers, retailers, and other establishments that provide plastic bags Organize market surveillance, inspections, and collection of fines Market ban Organize at least two stakeholder MONRE MOIT Restaurants, 2026 of EPS food meetings with the targeted actors Retailers containers • Formulate and adopt the (through a legislation and exemptions ban on sales or production • Prepare a guidance and imports) document for the businesses that must apply the regulation, which includes the exemptions, and the penalties for failure to comply Implement a system for monitoring MOIT, PPC/CPC, 2026 and collection of fines: MONRE DOIT • Identify producers/ importers, retailers, and other establishments that use EPS food containers (busi- ness-to-business) • Organize market surveillance, inspections, and the collection of fines Executive Summary | 21 Shutterstock: Kajanan Sanitkunpai 1. INTRODUCTION 1. INTRODUCTION G lobally, plastics are widespread, mismanaged, and pollute the air, land, and water. More than 8 million metric tons of plastic are dumped in the world’s oceans every year, and about 90 percent of global marine plastic pollution comes from just 10 rivers, eight of which are in Asia. Plastics-related pollution can cause negative health impacts such as cancer; neurotoxicity; and reproductive, immune, and genetic disorders. Vietnam is one of the major polluters of the world’s oceans. Annually, approximately 2.8 to 3.1 million tons of plastic waste are discharged on land in Vietnam, which makes the country a major plastic polluter. As a result of annually discharging an estimated 0.28 to 0.73 million tons of plastic waste into the ocean, Vietnam ranks as one of the world’s top five ocean polluters (Jambeck et al. 2015). Across Vietnam, local governments are struggling to collect, transport, treat, and dispose of their growing waste streams (van den Berg et al. 2018). This situation is expected to worsen as urbanization, together with strong economic and population growth, results in rapidly increasing volumes of domestic waste. By 2030, after fewer than 15 years, Vietnam’s waste generation is expected to double from 27 million to 54 million tons. The rapid rise of plastic imports, production, and use in Vietnam, as well as mismanaged waste, has resulted in a country-wide crisis of plastic pollution— something that 55 percent of consumers consider to be a serious problem (Quach and Milne 2019). The annual use of plastics has increased from 3.8 kg/ capita in 1990, to 33 kg/capita in 2010, 41 kg/capita in 2015 (MONRE 2020), and 81 kg/capita in 2019 (IUCN 2020). Since China enacted its “National Sword” policy in 2018, which banned imports of most waste plastics and other materials that developed countries were shipping to China for disposal, these wastes have been redirected to less-regulated countries in Southeast Asia, including Vietnam. After China announced its plan to stop waste imports in July 2017, by November 2017, plastic waste imports in Vietnam had surged from around 40,000 tons per month to a peak of 100,000 tons per month (Greenpeace 2019). In 2020, only 20 percent of plastic materials for industrial use (including primary and recycled materials) were locally produced in Vietnam, and the rest (80 percent of input materials for manufacturing [a total of 8 million tons]) were imported (IUCN 2020). Vietnam is committed to addressing its solid and plastic waste pollution challenges. Through the 2019 Bangkok Declaration on Combatting Marine Debris, ASEAN member states, including Vietnam, committed to reducing their high levels of marine plastic pollution. ASEAN members also stressed their common aspiration to conserve and sustainably use the oceans and seas, and their marine resources. Through Vietnam’s revised National Strategy on Solid Waste Management, the country has committed to collecting, transporting, and treating 100 percent of non-household waste by 2025, and 85 percent of urban household waste by 2025. This strategy also prioritizes developing large-scale treatment facilities that use modern technologies, with a substantial focus on recycling and upgrading landfills to 24 | Toward a National Single-use Plastics Roadmap in Vietnam: Strategic Options for Reducing Priority Single-use Plastics prevent negative environmental and health impacts (van plastic waste pollution in Vietnam, a phased-in policy den Berg et al. 2018). In October 2018, the 8th Plenary roadmap is needed to ensure that these targets can be Session of Vietnam’s Party Central Committee (12th achieved, while at the same time, minimizing potential tenure) adopted Resolution No. 36-NQ/TW (October negative consequences for producers and consumers. 22, 2018), The Strategy for Sustainable Development This will help ensure that the policies, and, eventually, of Vietnam’s Marine Economy to 2030, with a vision to the bans, are implementable and enforceable. 2045. This set the goals of “preventing, controlling, In response to a request from the government of and significantly reducing pollution of the marine Vietnam for help in addressing the country’s plastic environment”, and “becoming a regional leader in waste problems, the World Bank Group has been minimizing ocean plastic waste.” On December 4, providing advisory services and analytics to improve 2019, Vietnam’s Prime Minister approved Decision knowledge about plastic pollution and value chains, No. 1746/QD-TTg, which promulgated the National as well as identify policies, and potential public and Action Plan for Management of Marine Plastic Litter private sector investments. This advisory services and by 2030. This plan set targets for reducing marine analytics (ASA) engagement is funded by PROBLUE, a plastic waste by 50 percent by 2025, and by 75 percent World Bank multi-donor trust fund, and conducted in by 2030, as well as eliminating single-use plastics close collaboration with the Vietnam Administration of (SUPs) from coastal tourism destinations and marine Seas and Islands (VASI) and the Vietnam Environment protected areas by 2030. In response, Vietnam’s Ministry Administration (VEA), both of which are under MONRE, of Natural Resources and Environment (MONRE) is and with the relevant provincial authorities. This seeking to improve staff knowledge about plastic ASA engagement comprises three components: (1) waste problems so that the ministry can formulate supporting diagnostics on plastic waste; (2) identifying plastic management policies. In addition, the Law priority solid waste management and plastic pollution on Environmental Protection 2020, which became policies and investments; and (3) conducting value effective on January 1, 2022, has introduced “pay as chain diagnostics for plastics in Vietnam. This report you throw” policies; it requires the segregation of falls under Component 2. wastes; and it sets out the legal basis for extended producer responsibility (EPR) schemes. Reducing plastics pollution requires a three-pillar pathway consistent with the 2021 ASEAN Regional Vietnam has also set targets for phasing-out SUPs. Action Plan for Combatting Marine Debris in the Decree 8/2022 guides the implementation of a selection ASEAN Member States (2021–2025). Pillar 1 is Reduce of articles in the Law on Environmental Protection Inputs into the System, which comprises upstream 2020, and sets targets for banning SUPs. On January measures such as reducing single-use, low-value 1, 2026, production (for domestic consumption), as plastics. Pillar 2 is Enhance Collection and Minimize well as imports of non-biodegradable plastic bags1 Leakage, which comprises improvement of solid waste will be banned. The decree also requires gradually management systems and putting in place extended reducing the production and importing of other SUPs,2 producer responsibility (EPR) policy reforms. Pillar 3 until their ban begins in 2031. In addition, the decree is Create Value for Waste Reuse, which comprises directs Provincial People’s Committees (PPCs) to restrict the development of markets for plastics recycling the distribution and use of SUPs in shopping centers, and reuse. This report specifically focuses on the supermarkets, hotels, and tourism areas, starting in policy options concern reducing single-use plastics in 2025. While these are important steps toward reducing Vietnam under Pillar 1. However, significant progress on all three pillars is needed to achieve the ambitious 1 Those with dimensions smaller than 50cm x 50cm, and a thick- ness of less than 50 µm. commitments in Vietnam’s National Action Plan for 2 The decree defines single-use plastic products as trays, food Management of Marine Plastic Litter by 2030. containers, bowls, chopsticks, glasses, cups, knives, spoons, forks, straws, and other eating utensils with plastic components that are designed and marketed with the intention of a single use before they are discarded. While these items do constitute a large portion of the SUPs used in Vietnam, as will be discussed in this report, other common SUPs are not covered by the decree. 1. Introduction | 25 The plastic items prioritized in this report’s policy The roadmap of policy options provided in this report recommendations are the top SUP items that were is based on the principle that a gradual transition identified in the Vietnam field surveys, which the World is required for Vietnam to achieve (or even bring Bank supported in 2020 and 2021, and a survey of the forward) the 2031 ban on SUPs that is required in alternative products that are available in the Vietnamese Decree 08/2022. The policy options proposed and market (World Bank 2022). the timeline for their implementation are designed to gradually develop administrative capacity and increase A range of policy instruments, which were assessed the funding for monitoring and enforcement so that the for this report, address plastics waste reduction issues. authorities are adequately prepared to implement the Along with summarizing the results of this assessment, upcoming ban. In Table 5.2, the proposed measures this report provides a roadmap of policy actions that are listed in chronological order, starting with the details the policy implementation process. Ultimately, measures that will have the least negative impact this work aims to implement the measures listed in on consumers, retailers, and other stakeholders, and Decree 8/2022, which concerns the application of ending with fees and bans that will impact all market selected articles in Vietnam’s Law on Environmental players. Protection 2020, as well as the commitments in Vietnam’s National Action Plan for Management of A ban on SUPs is the strictest policy measure to Marine Plastic Litter by 2030. In particular, this report implement, and, currently, in Vietnam there are no is expected to guide MONRE in its preparation of examples of a total bans for any plastic products the Circulars and guidance documents required to or items. All of the policy options proposed in this implement Decree 8/2022. report require less government administrative effort than would be required to enforce a total ban. This This report should also guide provinces and cities in reflects the prioritization of measures that should be piloting the proposed SUP reduction measures prior easier to implement than total bans. Without such to their implementation at the national level. The a gradation of policy options, over time, toward goal of the pilots would be to determine whether the relatively more stringent measures, the retailers and proposed reduction measures will be successful in other establishments concerned would likely not agree achieving the bans put in place by Decree 8/22. The to implementing the measures, and bans would be draft National Plastics Action Partnership (NPAP) Action very difficult to enforce. Where relevant, each of the Roadmap for “Radically Reducing Plastic Leakage in policy options recommended in this report should be Viet Nam” estimates that by 2030, the reduction and implemented gradually, which could include initially substitution of plastics through elimination, reuse, targeting larger establishments, initially excluding and new delivery models, as well as substitution with street vendors, and also conducting pilots in selected suitable alternatives would replace approximately 1.66 provinces, and especially in those provinces that million tons of waste plastic (or a 22 percent reduction have substantial tourism revenue. Such approaches in 2018-level of plastic leakage into waterways). The should help increase the technical know-how of policies recommended in this report, if implemented, those implementing the policies, and promote public are expected to contribute significantly to this goal. awareness before the measures are scaled up. 26 | Toward a National Single-use Plastics Roadmap in Vietnam: Strategic Options for Reducing Priority Single-use Plastics 2. OBJECTIVES 2. OBJECTIVES T he objective of this report is to present short-term policy options that are implementable in Vietnam over the next five years (2022–2026), and should lead to a significant reduction of the single-use plastics polluting the environment in Vietnam. These policy options are based on international good practices, they should be applicable in Vietnam’s context, and they target the single-use plastic items that are most prevalent in polluting Vietnam’s environment. This report proposes a roadmap of policy actions to progressively phase out priority SUP items in Vietnam and, therefore, significantly reduce land-based, marine plastic pollution in Vietnam. The proposed roadmap builds on several World Bank-supported, Vietnam-specific analyses that comprised: (i) plastic pollution diagnostics, which aimed to identify the predominant plastic waste items in Vietnam’s environment; and (ii) a review and gap analysis of the legal and policy framework for plastic waste management. The diagnostic work described in the next section serves as a guide for the roadmap of recommendations, which is presented later in this report. The contents covered in the rest of this report are as follows: • Section 3: Identification and analysis of different SUPs and their suitability for different policy options. This section summarizes the: ºº results of the field surveys that were conducted in 2020 and 2021 to identify the most abundant SUPs in Vietnam’s environment. ºº results of a legislative and institutional framework review and gap analysis that was conducted in 2021 to highlight the need for certain plastic reduction policies. • Section 4: A summary of SUP reduction laws and regulations enacted in other countries, and a selection of the ones that could suit Vietnam’s context, including factors contributing to success or failure, and expected impact. • Section 5: Recommendations for policy options suited to the types of SUPs used in Vietnam; plastic waste types and sectors where phasing out SUPs would be feasible; the relevant institutional frameworks necessary for achieving positive outcomes; and a roadmap of actions for implementing the proposed policy options. • Annexes that present the criteria used in choosing which SUPs to reduce in Vietnam; an analysis of the SUP alternatives available in Vietnam; a review of Vietnam’s legal, policy, and institutional framework that concerns eliminating SUPs; and the process for implementing these policies, and enforcing them in Vietnam. 28 | Toward a National Single-use Plastics Roadmap in Vietnam: Strategic Options for Reducing Priority Single-use Plastics 3. PLASTIC POLLUTION IN VIETNAM AND THE CURRENT REGULATORY FRAMEWORK 3. PLASTIC POLLUTION IN VIETNAM AND THE CURRENT REGULATORY FRAMEWORK 3.1. Analysis of the Top 10 Plastic Waste Items Identified in Plastic Pollution T Diagnostics he World Bank (2022) supported surveys carried out between July 2020 to April 2021 to deepen knowledge about the different plastic waste types leaking into rivers and the ocean in Vietnam, and identify potential alternatives available in the market in Vietnam (see Figure 3.1). This included field surveys on riverbanks, and at coastal sites to determine the extent of plastic pollution, and the top 10 polluting items; remote sensing and net trawl surveys that monitored plastic waste in, and alongside, waterways that flow into the ocean; and a preliminary analysis of alternatives to Vietnam’s most-polluting plastic items. Plastic waste was by far the most abundant type of waste collected in the field surveys (around 94 percent of the total number of items of waste, and around 71 percent of the waste by weight). Take-away food packaging was the most abundant source of plastic waste found in the field surveys (44 percent of the total number of items), followed by fisheries-related waste3 (33 percent of the total number), and household-related waste (22 percent of the total number). The Clean Coast Index (CCI) measurement, which is a tool to assess relative coastal cleanliness, showed that 71 percent of the coastal sites surveyed in the field studies were extremely dirty (a CCI of more than 20), and 86 percent were extremely dirty or dirty (a CCI of more than 10). In number, the top 10 common plastic items accounted for over 81 percent of all the plastic items collected in river sites, and over 84 percent of the items found in coastal sites. The top five common plastic items accounted for over 50 percent, in number, at both river and coastal sites. SUP items accounted for 62 percent (in number) of the total plastic waste identified in the field surveys. Plastic bags and their fragments (around 26 percent of the items) were the most common single-use items in the survey locations. When both categories of waste were combined, they were the most prevalent in river locations, and the second most prevalent in coastal locations. Styrofoam food containers were among the top five items in both river and coastal locations. Fishing gear was very prevalent, too, accounting for around 30 percent of plastic waste (in number). 3 Note that while fisheries-related plastic waste was very abundant in the surveys, proposed policy recommendations for this type of waste were not presented in this report as a separate analysis of fisheries-related waste is being conducted to inform the proposed World Bank Sustainable Fisheries Development Project. 30 | Toward a National Single-use Plastics Roadmap in Vietnam: Strategic Options for Reducing Priority Single-use Plastics The top 10 plastic waste items, which the field surveys and their fragments, Styrofoam food containers, and identified at 38 river and coastal sites in Vietnam, straws. Together, these accounted for up to 38 percent are presented in Figure 3.2. These included SUPs, of the plastic waste leakage in the surveyed locations. as well as other plastic items. Of the SUPs identified Figure 3.3 shows these findings separately for the by the surveys, the most abundant were plastic bags river and coastal sites. Figure 3.1. LOCATIONS OF THE 38 SITES WHERE FIELD SURVEYS WERE CONDUCTED IN VIETNAM R = RIVER SITES; C = COASTAL SITES Source: World Bank 2022 3. Plastic Pollution in Vietnam and the Current Regulatory Framework | 31 Figure 3.2. TOP 10 PLASTIC ITEMS, OVERALL – BY NUMBER (WORLD BANK 2022) 20.0% 18.0% 17.4% 16.6% 16.0% 14.0% 13.0% 12.0% 10.0% 8.4% 8.0% 7.4% 6.1% 6.0% 4.6% 4.0% 3.2% 3.2% 3.1% 2.0% 0.0% Soft plastic Fishing Fishing Plastic bags Styrofoam Hard plastic Straws Other food Other Crisp/sweet fragments gear 1 gear 2 size 1 food fragments wrappers plastic packages containers Figure 3.3. TOP 10 PLASTIC ITEMS AT RIVER AND COASTAL SITES – STANDING STOCK (WORLD BANK 2022) River Sites Coastal Sites (Standing Stock) 4.5 25 16 80 18.5% 4 21.9% 18.1% 15% 14 70 19.1% 3.5 20 14% 12 60 16.2% 14.0% 3 11.7% 10 50 15 2.5 12.8% 8 40 gram.unit-1 gram.unit-1 item.unit-1 item.unit-1 11.4% 7.1% 2 10.8% 6.8% 10 6 30 8.8% 6.4% 6% 8.3% 1.5 4.9% 4 3.8% 20 4% 5.7% 4.7% 3.5% 5.8% 2.8% 2.8% 2.6% 1 3% 4.6% 5 1.0% 4% 4.1% 3% 2 0.8% 0.9% 10 0.7% 2% 2% 0.5 1% 0 0 Styrofoam food containers Hard plastic fragments Fishing gear 1: Fishing Plastic Plastic bags size 1 Straws Other plastic Crisp/Sweet packages Other food wrappers Soft plastic fragments Fishing gear 2: Polystyrenes-E 0 0 Plastic strings, cords, and ropes Plastic bags size 1 Styrofoam food containers Soft plastic fragments Food wrappers Crisp/Sweet packages Other plastic Hard plastic fragments Other wrappers Fishing gear 2 Density Weight 32 | Toward a National Single-use Plastics Roadmap in Vietnam: Strategic Options for Reducing Priority Single-use Plastics In addition to the field surveys, drone surveys were Although the drone surveys were limited to three carried out in three locations—Hai Phong (five sites), locations, and their results should be generalized Hai Duong (two sites), and Sa Pa (2 sites). The results with caution, their findings reflect some emerging from the drone surveys indicated that most of the plastic patterns. For example, take-away SUP waste items waste leakage comprised a small group of take-away were predominant in the environment, and should packaging items, many of which were single-use and be prioritized for policy measures. of low-value. These were: The results of the preliminary analysis of alternative • Polystyrene, including food containers (40 percent) products showed that for most of the identified priority SUPs, alternative products are readily • Cup lids, caps, and small plastic items such as available in the Vietnamese market. These alternatives plastic cutlery and drink stirrers (19 percent) are primarily for plastic bags and take-away food • Low-density polyethylene (LDPE) bags and wrappers, containers. However, when designing policy measures and polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottles (18 to replace the priority SUPs, along with considering percent) the availability of viable alternatives, their cost and their potential environmental impact should be considered The types of plastic waste found through the field and too. Therefore, to inform potential policies, along with drone surveys are presented in Figure 3.4. presenting information on the availability suitable alternatives, this report presents information on alternatives’ costs and environmental impact. Figure 3.4. TYPES OF PLASTIC WASTE FOUND THROUGH THE FIELD AND DRONE SURVEYS Soft plastic fragments Fishing gear 1 Fishing gear 2 Plastic bags (0-5kg) Styrofoam food containers Straws Other food wrappers Other plastic Hard plastic fragments Crisp/sweet packages Source: World Bank 2022 3. Plastic Pollution in Vietnam and the Current Regulatory Framework | 33 3.2. Benefits of Phasing Out SUPs overall costs and benefits, and shows that the benefits of SUP management policies were larger than the Overall, international examples show that the shift associated costs (See Table 3.1.) away from SUPs toward reusable items has more benefits than costs. A 2018 report by the European Efforts to raise consumers’ awareness about the Commission on the expected economic impact of the reasons why they should use alternatives to single-use European Union (EU) SUP Directive found that switching plastic bags and other SUP items, and promoting the to multi-use items led to savings for consumers as they use of reusable alternatives can achieve a substantial spent less on single-use items, and this was the case reduction in the use of SUPs. Policies that support even when the additional cost of washing reusable identifying and promoting environmentally sound items was taken into account (European Commission alternatives to SUPs should be considered, too, 2018). If these savings are spent elsewhere in the including adopting certifications and standards, and economy, they should offset the losses incurred by investing in, or providing financing for, the production SUP producers. However, the potential losses that of alternatives. While these are not the focus of this would be incurred by the producers of single-use items report, they are referenced (where relevant) in the highlight the need for a phased transition to mitigate recommended policy options that directly support the potential impacts of SUP reduction policies. The the reduction of SUPs. . 2018 European Commission report also presents the Table 3.1. SUMMARY OF THE BENEFITS AND COSTS OF REDUCING MARINE PLASTIC LITTER Reduction in litter removal costs for land and sea €11.1 billion (including externalities) Direct Benefits Increased savings for consumers through reduced expenditure on single-use items, and the switch to €6.5 billion multi-use items Fall in SUP producers’ turnover €3.2 billion Awareness-raising campaign costs €0.6 billion Costs Business compliance, commercial washing, and refill scheme €1.4 billion costs Increase in waste management costs due to the introduction €0.5 billion of EPR Overall +€11.9 billion Source: European Commission 2018 34 | Toward a National Single-use Plastics Roadmap in Vietnam: Strategic Options for Reducing Priority Single-use Plastics 3.3. Summary of the Legal, Policy, and • The obligation for MONRE to prepare a roadmap Institutional Framework Review and Gap that addresses reducing the consumption of Analysis certain SUPs and banning them (Directive No. 33/ CT-TTg, dated August 20, 2020 on Strengthening To inform this report, an inventory and gap analysis the Management, Reuse, Recycling, Treatment, was carried out to examine Vietnam’s legal, policy, and and Reduction of Plastic Waste);  institutional framework for plastic waste management. This review highlighted Vietnam’s commitment to • Distribution of the responsibility to address the address its solid and plastic waste management plastic waste problem across different ministries challenges through the adoption of national strategies (Directive No. 08/CT-BCT, dated July 15, 2019, and action plans. These include the: on strengthening measures to reduce plastic waste in the industry and trade sectors; Directive • National Strategy on Solid Waste Management No. 08/CT-BYT, dated July 29, 2019, on reducing to 2025, with a Vision towards 2050 (Decision plastic waste in the health sector; Decision No. No. 491/QD-TTg, dated May 7, 2018). 2395/QD-BTNMT, dated October 28, 2020, on • National Action Plan for Management of Marine reducing plastic waste in the natural resources Plastic Litter by 2030 (Decision N° 1746/QD-TTg, and environmental sector; and Decision No dated December 2019). 687/QDD-BNN-TCTS, dated February 5, 2021, on the National Action Plan for Marine Plastic • National Action Plan on Sustainable Production Litter from the Fisheries Sector, which was and Consumption for the Period 2021–2030 adopted by the Ministry of Agriculture and (Decision No. 889/QD-TTg, dated June 24, 2020). Rural Development). These government strategies and action plans stress The secondary legal and policy framework is being the urgent need to tackle Vietnam’s plastic pollution prepared to support the implementation and problem. They set specific targets to address waste enforcement of the primary legislation. This includes management, plastics pollution, and marine littering, Decree 8/2022, which guides the implementation of including wastes from specific sectors such as retail selected articles in the Law on Environmental Protection and tourism. They also set targets to address the need 2020, including Articles on EPR implementation, and for additional plastic-related policies that will foster phasing out the production, importing, and consumption reduction, and, as summarized in Annex 3 of this of SUPs. On July 22, 2021, the Prime Minister approved report, better design of plastic and plastic products, Decision 1316/QD-TTg on Strengthening Plastic Waste as well as eco-friendly designs. This review found that Management in Vietnam. The main objectives of this Vietnam has already adopted several regulations that Decision are to strengthen the management of plastic aim to address these challenges, including: waste by shifting it from the central to the local level, and contribute to building a circular economy in Vietnam, • Taxing of the producers of non-biodegradable with the goal of reducing the use of SUP products. A plastic bags (Law on Environmental Protection timeline for the policies the government has adopted Tax No. 57/2010/QH12, dated November 15, to help stem the use of SUPs is shown in Figure 3.5. 2010);   • Introduction of extended producer responsibility (EPR) instruments for producers of plastic packaging; a mandate to prepare a roadmap for reducing the production and importing of SUPs, and other non-biodegradable plastic packaging and products (Law on Environmental Protection 2020; and Decree 8/2022, which guides the implementation of selected articles in the Law on Environmental Protection 2020); 3. Plastic Pollution in Vietnam and the Current Regulatory Framework | 35 Figure 3.5. POLICY AND REGULATORY LANDSCAPE ON SUPS Law on Environmental Protection No. 72/2020/QH14: Expanded to regulate land and marine Circular No. Resolution No. plastic waste, and use of 159/2012/TT-BTC: 579/2018/UBTVQH14 on environmentally harmful non-biodegradable, taxable Environmental Taxes: goods plastic bags are character- Specifies tax rates for plastic National Action Plan on ized according to their bags Sustainable Production and composition National Strategy on Solid Consumption for 2021-2030 Circular No. Waste Management to has specific targets related 07/2012/TT-BTNMT: 2025 (with a vision to to plastic waste Decree Law on Environmental 2050): Targets full use of Directive No. 33/CT-TTG: MONRE details what 08/2022/NĐ-CP Protection Tax (LEPT) constitutes an environmen- environmentally friendly details the govt’s role in guides application No. 57/2010/QH12: tally friendly plastic bag, plastic bags in the retail strengthening management, of selected non-biodegradable and stipulates plastic bag sector, and ends production reuse, recycling, treatment articles in the Law plastic bags are among manufacturers’ full and imports of other plastic and reduction of plastic on Environmental the taxable items compliance with the LEP bags waste Protection 2020 2011 2014 2019 2021 2010 2012 2018 2020 2022 Decree No. Law on Environmental National Action Plan for Decision 67/2011/ND-CP details the Protection (LEP) No. Management of Marine No.1316/QD-TTG on tax, taxable items, and 55/2014/QH13: Includes Plastic Litter by 2030: Sets strengthening management payment procedures under regulations on producers targets for SUP and of plastic wastes in Vietnam the LEPT and importers of plastic non-biodegradable plastic Circular No. bags bag usage 152/2011/TT-BTC: Directive No. 08/CT-BCT: provides instructions for the Details the govt’s role in implementation of Decree reducing plastic waste in No. 67/2011/ND-CP the industry, trade, and healthcare sectors As indicated in Annex 3, the government has set With regard to the institutional set-up for plastic waste ambitious targets for addressing plastic pollution. This management, the Ministry of Natural Resources and includes: specific targets to reduce marine littering (75 Environment (MONRE) has been appointed as the percent by 2030); collect fishing gear waste (100 percent principal state management agency. This is to ensure by 2030); prevent the use of SUPs and non-biodegrad- unified management of solid waste, in general, and able plastic bags; clean up-campaigns; monitoring the plastic waste, in particular. Also, Directive No. 33 of country’s marine plastic debris, especially in tourist areas the Prime Minister clearly identified the units in each (100 percent of tourism locations are to be plastic-free ministry/branch, and each locality that are to serve by 2030); and implementing Decree 8/2022, which as the focal points for plastic waste management. guides the application of selected articles in the Law Municipal waste management and recycling are to on Environmental Protection 2020, which, starting on be carried out at the provincial and city level, with the January 1, 2026, will ban the production of non-bio- People’s Committees at each level playing the central degradable plastic bags for domestic consumption, role in implementing waste management activities.  as well as their imports.4 This decree also directs This study analyzed the regulatory framework for plastic the Provincial People’s Committees to restrict the waste management in Vietnam and benchmarked distribution and use of SUPs in commercial centers, this against international good practices, including supermarkets, hotels, and tourism areas after 2025; those of the European Union, China, and some and it prescribes gradual reduction of the production countries in ASEAN. A plastic policy gap analysis and importing of other SUPs, until their eventual ban was also conducted, which was based on a framework starts in 2031.  of potential plastic policies for Vietnam that align with the three pillars in the 2021 ASEAN Regional Action Plan for Combatting Marine Debris in the ASEAN 4 With dimensions smaller than 50cm x 50cm, and a thickness of less than 50 µm. Member States (2021–2025):  36 | Toward a National Single-use Plastics Roadmap in Vietnam: Strategic Options for Reducing Priority Single-use Plastics • Pillar 1 (Reduce Inputs into the System) focuses • Pillar 3 (Create Value for Waste Reuse) includes on policies that support the reduction of plastic measures such as eco-design, standards, and usage, including bans and restrictions on the labelling. These do not reduce the consumption sale of selected priority plastic and SUPs, and of SUPs, directly, but they do support transitions imposing fees and taxes on producers and away from SUPs—for example, through the importers. Given the targeting of SUPs in Pillar adoption of more sustainable alternatives. 1, this report focuses on policy options that While these measures will not be investigated address gaps in this policy area (see Table 3.2). in-depth in this report, they are examined within the broader policy landscape as measures that • Pillar 2 (Enhance Collection and Minimize support reduction policies. Leakage) typically includes extended producer responsibility (EPR) schemes, and waste management optimization measures. Table 3.2. SUMMARY OF THE MAIN GAPS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE INVENTORY AND GAP ANALYSIS OF VIETNAM’S PLASTIC POLICIES THAT ALIGN WITH PILLAR 1 IN THE ASEAN REGIONAL ACTION PLAN (REDUCE INPUTS INTO THE SYSTEM) Main gaps Recommendations to address gaps While Decree 8/2022 identified and defined SUPs Consider generalizing the definition of SUPs in the next within the legal framework, some of the polluting update of Decree 8/2022 to be more closely linked to SUPs that are found in the environment were not good international practices (for example, in the EU) that identified as needing reduction (for example, SUP define SUPs by their purpose rather than by product or toiletry products). type. This would then allow for the inclusion of items to target in the Circular to support implementation of the Decree. Other than the bans included in Decree 8/2022, Develop a roadmap to progressively phase out SUPs, policy instruments to reduce SUP consumption and and consider policies that facilitate the reduction of facilitate achievement of the bans have not been consumption, and especially consumption in the identified and included, yet, in any legislation. hospitality, tourism, and retail sectors, where most of the identified SUPs are consumed. On its own, the tax levied on the producers of Charge fees to the consumers of certain SUPs, such non-degradable plastic bags seems to be ineffective as non-degradable plastic bags. in reducing plastic bag consumption (see Section 4). Relevant analysis and recommendations for Pillars 2 proposed policies in this report will support and and 3 are either included in the World Bank Group’s reinforce implementation of the EPR regulation in publication Market Study for Vietnam: Plastic phasing-out certain SUPs that have been identified Circularity Opportunities and Barriers (World Bank as unsuitable for recycling; and they should help to Group 2021) or they have been supported, directly, pressure producers to move toward alternatives. As by other development partners (such as those for already noted, the focus of this roadmap report is extended producer responsibility schemes). An on Pillar 1, which directly deals with reducing the EPR regulation is included as part of Decree 8/2022, consumption of SUPs. A more detailed gap analysis, which guides the implementation of selected articles and recommendations for all three of the pillars was in the Law on Environmental Protection 2020. The prepared for this report (see Annex 3). 3. Plastic Pollution in Vietnam and the Current Regulatory Framework | 37 To determine the appropriate SUPs to target for because fishing gear is largely not single-use, and a the most positive impact on the environment, three forthcoming World Bank report will provide a detailed selection criteria were used (See Annex 1). These discussion on measures to address fisheries’ sector were: plastic pollution. 1. Does the SUP have a significant environmental Some SUPs did not appear among the top 10 plastic presence in Vietnam? items in the field surveys, but they could still contribute to marine litter. Some of these include plastic cutlery, 2. Does the SUP have reasonably priced alternatives, plastic cups and lids, and plastic drink stirrers. These and have these alternatives been successfully SUPs often have available alternatives, and in some used? 5 other countries, these have been successfully replaced 3. Can the SUP be effectively addressed by reduction by reasonably priced alternatives. The tourism sector, policies? and especially hotels and other accommodation Given these considerations, the three most common providers, should also be considered for phasing out SUPs that should be targeted, immediately, through SUPs, and using alternatives, as the SUP toiletry bottles reduction policies, are non-degradable plastic bags, and other products provided to guests comprise a EPS food containers, and plastic straws. As highlighted considerable amount of the SUPs that are polluting in the results of the field surveys, these items were the environment in Vietnam’s tourist areas (Hendrickx responsible for up to 38 percent of all waste leaking and Bajzelj 2021). into rivers and the ocean, and were consistently To sum up, the roadmap developed in subsequent the Top three SUPs in most survey locations. While sections of this report focuses primarily on the top these field surveys can only provide a snapshot, the three SUPs (non-degradable plastic bags, EPS food relevance of addressing these particular items was containers, and plastic straws), but it also considers notable, and targeting these items would significantly other SUPs that could be addressed with reduction reduce pollution in Vietnam’s environment. Fishing policies that are based on international good practices gear, which was also prevalent in the field surveys, (see Table 3.3). is not included in this report on plastic pollution, Table 3.3. THE SUPS TARGETED FOR REDUCTION IN THIS REPORT Rationale  SUPs targeted SUPs identified in the field surveys as the top polluting • EPS food containers  items • Straws   • Non-degradable plastic bags   SUPs that could be considered for reduction policies, • Plastic cutlery   based on international good practices; that have • Plastic cups   readily available single-use or multi-use alternatives; • Drink stirrers  and that are not deemed to be essential items. • Toiletry bottles (hotel consumption)  5 See Annex 2: Alternatives to the target SUPs, and their availability for sustainable use. 38 | Toward a National Single-use Plastics Roadmap in Vietnam: Strategic Options for Reducing Priority Single-use Plastics 4. POLICIES TO REDUCE AND PHASE OUT THE CONSUMPTION OF CERTAIN SUPS 4. POLICIES TO REDUCE AND PHASE OUT THE CONSUMPTION OF CERTAIN SUPS T his section identifies potential policy options, and analyzes these within the context of the existing legislative framework in Vietnam. This is intended to help Vietnam formulate policies, prepare a roadmap of actions for their adoption, and increase the effectiveness of policies once they have been implemented. As mentioned in Section 3.3., the proposed policies focus on Pillar 1 (Reduce Inputs into the System). These options includes bans, restrictions, or fees charged to the producers, importers, or users of certain SUPs. These measures have proven to be highly effective in achieving quick results, and especially so, when conditions are in place to support the transition, such as having readily available alternatives (Excell et al. 2020). The recommendations for SUP reduction policies focus on a phased approach, which means that measures are phased in to avoid having a negative impact on groups that may not have a voice in policy decision-making, or people who would lose their jobs as a result of policy changes. This approach requires developing policies that promote employment and business opportunities related to the alternatives to SUP products, supporting those whose livelihoods are highly dependent on SUP products, and including representatives from diverse sectors and backgrounds in the policymaking process (Excell et al. 2020). To date, regulations on SUPs have been introduced at the national level in more than 60 countries (Excell et al. 2020), and many more countries are following suit. A common targeted item is plastic bags. As of 2021, 127 out of 192 countries (66 percent) had adopted legislation to regulate plastic bags. The most common regulation is a ban on retailers’ free distribution of bags. At the 2022 United Nations Environment Assembly in Nairobi, 175 nations endorsed a resolution to forge an international legally binding agreement by 2024 that will end plastic pollution (See Box 4.1 for details). A key strategy to achieve significant plastic reduction by 2030 was minimizing the use of, and phasing out SUPs, including those other than bags and Styrofoam. By the end of 2021, 27 countries had enacted some form of legislation on the use of SUPs such as plastic plates, cups, and straws, although none had totally banned the use of these SUPs, which would have included banning their production, imports, sales, and distribution (Hendrickx and Bajzelj 2021). 40 | Toward a National Single-use Plastics Roadmap in Vietnam: Strategic Options for Reducing Priority Single-use Plastics BOX 4.1. AN INTERNATIONAL LEGALLY BINDING AGREEMENT TO END PLASTIC POLLUTION In the past few years, marine litter and plastic pollution have attracted a great deal of attention and commitments from both governments and the private sector. During the 5th United Nations Environment Assembly, the adoption of a resolution to establish an intergovernmental negotiating committee to create a legally binding global agreement by 2024 to end plastic pollution in the world’s rivers, oceans, and on land is a reflection of, and driver for, greater awareness and action on the issue, and this is backed by the private sector. The resolution addresses the full lifecycle of plastic, including its production, design, and disposal. The global instrument is expected to promote action at the national, regional, and global levels, and enable countries to develop implementation policies that suit their national circumstances, and apply a circular approach to plastics. The 2024 agreement to end plastic pollution is expected to make provisions for the development, implementation, and promotion of national action plans on the prevention, reduction, and elimination of plastic pollution. The agreement could also identify the need for standards as well as measurable goals; strengthen the monitoring of plastic pollution, including marine plastic pollution; and assess the impacts in all environments. This would enable the adjustment of measures, both at the national and regional levels. Vietnam could get a head start on this agreement by implementing the country’s existing plastic regulations, and formulating additional regulations and policies as recommend in this report’s policy roadmap, and developing a system for monitoring the implementation and effectiveness of these measures. Sources: European Commission 2022; UNEA 2022; UNEP 2022a; and UNEP 2022b. SUP bans, restrictions, and fees are applied through legislative requirements, which typically distinguish between: 1. Restrictions on the distribution of certain SUPs: This is a milder way of implementing the reduction policy. While production, imports, and sales are still allowed, distribution at the point of sale is restricted, unless customers request the items. This policy is usually used to transition toward stricter bans. 2. Fees for certain SUPs: Reducing consumption could be influenced by economic instruments in the form of taxes6 paid by the producers and importers of SUPs, or fees (also called pricing/financial contributions) that are paid by the consumers of SUPs (such as plastic bags), instead giving them SUPs for free. Taxes paid by producers have less of an impact on consumption as the amount paid in taxes can be included in the price of the product, so consumers may not be aware of the charge, and, consequently, business models and consumer preferences will not shift toward more sustainable alternatives. However, if consumers are charged a fee at the point sale for plastic items such cups, cutlery and bags, they will be encouraged not to request these. For example, if customers must pay for grocery bags, instead of getting these for free, they will be encouraged to bring their own bags. 3. Bans: Several types of bans can be applied in order to reduce the consumption of SUPs. In the case of a ban on the sales and distribution of certain SUPs, putting the SUP item on the market (business-to-business or business-to-consumers) is prohibited, but production and exports are still allowed. This is commonly referred to as a “national ban” on the sales. A (total) ban on the production, importing, sale, and distribution of certain SUPs is the most stringent form of legislation, and should achieve a 100 percent reduction in SUPs. While Decree 8/2022, which guides implementation of selected articles of the Law on Environmental Protection 2020, does not include bans on the sales of SUP products, it does include bans on importing and producing SUPs for domestic use, which will make it difficult to legally put the banned SUPs on the market in Vietnam. 6 If the revenue is raised for an environmental protection fund, and earmarked for environmental protection activities, the payment that producers make is considered a fee. However, taxes generate revenue that becomes part of the national budget, and can be spent for other purposes. 4. Policies to Reduce and Phase Out the Consumption of Certain SUPs | 41 Currently, not enough information is available to and labeling schemes, and green (eco-friendly) public draw robust conclusions about the environmental procurement. This report was not meant to encompass gains achieved by fees and bans on plastic bags. all waste management and circular economy issues, In about 50 percent of cases, worldwide, there is no but rather to make a specific contribution toward information on the impact of the bans. This is due both addressing SUPs. to the lack of monitoring and reporting systems, and In the following subsections, each of the policy types because many of the measures have been implemented identified above will be explored through examples of very recently. Therefore, there is no robust data on how each policy was implemented in other countries. impacts. However, within one year of a national ban These examples were analyzed to highlight the key or levy coming into force, approximately 30 percent of functioning mechanisms of implementation, crucial these efforts have reported dramatic drops in plastic factors for success (or failure), and the impact of the pollution, and in the consumption of plastic bags. The policy (where data is available). Finally, the applicability remaining 20 percent of countries reporting results and the feasibility of implementing the proposed have found little to no impact (Excell et al. 2020). policies in Vietnam is discussed. These findings imply that certain factors play a key role in determining the success or failure of policies. 4.1. Restrictions on the distribution and In countries that reported little to no impact from their use of SUPs national ban on plastic bags, the key issues were lack of enforcement, lack of appropriate pricing, and lack Placing restrictions on SUPs entails strongly discourages of affordable alternatives. The latter has led to cases their use and free giveaways to consumers. Restrictive of smuggling, and the development of black markets policies are typically used as a transitional measure for plastic bags, or to shifts toward the use of thicker to prepare stakeholders for the implementation of plastic bags, which are not regulated. This latter change stricter bans. In countries where restrictive policies has, in some cases, worsened environmental problems. have been implemented, restrictions have varied from voluntary ones, such as large international retailers, To prevent problems, a phased approach is necessary. hotels, and restaurants choosing to reduce plastic This approach starts with fees and restrictions, and usage in their premises, to mandatory ones enforced progresses gradually toward stricter bans. Fees and by government. Currently, in Vietnam, there are no restrictions are good “first steps” to initiate environ- specific restrictions on the use of SUPs, other than mentally friendly consumer behavior, and stimulate recommendations in cities such as Hanoi7 and Ho Chi the market for alternatives, especially in sectors that Minh City8 to stop using SUPs in homes, businesses, are more amenable to change. Sectors that do not and government offices (Vietnam News 2020). have the capacity to transition, or those that will be heavily affected by the policy, can be exempted Restrictions can be applied to target specific sectors, from the regulation, initially, and instead be given and over time these policies can be applied in stages a transition period. Once the first round of policies to the whole economy. Starting with sectors where has shown progress in reducing plastic waste, and alternatives are readily available will help to improve increasing the availability of alternatives, stricter bans the adoption of policies. For example, compared to on imports or sales can be introduced. Penalties for the retail sector, the restaurant and the hotel sectors defaulters should also be introduced, and imposed are more suitable for beginning the initial application by the monitoring and enforcing authority. of restrictions, as a smaller segment of society will be impacted. This report identifies the need for other policies to complement SUP management, but such policies One place where restricting SUPs should be considered are not proposed as separate policy options. This is onsite consumption in full-service restaurants. These is because plastic products and plastic-containing include restaurants, cafeterias, and food shops that products are only a small part of the products that fall offer dine-in services. The restrictions could tackle the within the scope of policies such as EPR, eco-design, use of SUP utensils, containers, cups, straws, stirrers, 7 Decision 232/KH-UBND of the Ha Noi People’s Committee, dated October 25, 2019, promulgating the plan for the prevention of plastic waste and plastic bags in Ha Noi city by 2020, with a vision to 2025. 8 Decision 1905/QĐ-UBND of the Ho Chi Minh City People’s Committee, dated May 24, 2021, promulgating the plan to increase plastic waste management, reuse, recycling, treatment, and waste minimization in HCMC. 42 | Toward a National Single-use Plastics Roadmap in Vietnam: Strategic Options for Reducing Priority Single-use Plastics drinking bottles, and other SUP items. Switching management due to their lack of space for waste to multi-use alternatives or high-value recyclables treatment, and potentially having to pay to ship the (such as using ceramic, aluminum, metal, and glass waste to the mainland. containers for food, beverages, and cutlery) can be Restrictions on the use of SUPs can be adjusted to made for a low or reasonable cost if the facility has a specifically target tourist areas. First, the use of SUPs kitchen where multi-use alternatives can be washed, can be regulated in hotels and accommodation sites. or if post-consumer packaging has a high scrap value Suitable measures include the substitution of single-use and can be easily collected, sorted, and recycled. bottles with refillable dispensers for toiletries (such as Restrictions on the use of certain SUPs can also be shampoo or shower gel) and for the drinking water considered for take-away and delivery food. Restrictions provided in common areas. Other measures include can be rolled out to reduce or prohibit the free provision the use of multi-use fabric bags, rather than plastic of certain SUPs by businesses that provide take-away bags for laundry service, and only providing personal and delivery food, as most of them use SUPs. Thus, care products such as toothbrushes, shower caps, and there is a need to explore multi-use alternatives such combs if guests request these. Second, for restaurants as food containers and boxes, or refillable mugs that and cafeterias, measures include replacing the SUP food can be used and returned by consumers. Currently, containers used for juices, spreads, salt, pepper, and some businesses are exploring these options through so on, with refillable containers. Lastly, is a ban on the subscription systems or deposit-refund systems. These use of SUPs in parks and nature reserves. This policy efforts should be piloted and then launched on a larger aims to reduce SUP consumption to protect sensitive scale. In the meantime, it is still possible to reduce areas, and at the same time, maintain cleanliness. This the unnecessary distribution of some SUPs. One measure can also stimulate the market for non-plastic prominent example is that of plastic straws and drink alternatives. stirrers, which are now restricted in many countries. In Vietnam, an initial regulation could require not making 4.1.1. International case studies and lessons straws available at the point of sale, and only providing learned them if customers ask. Thus, the use of straws would be discouraged. Another interesting approach concerns Legislative restrictions on the use of certain providing plastic cutlery with online food orders, which SUPs could be tackled by having an opt-in or opt-out option Restrictions on the use of SUPs for onsite consumption at the time of ordering, or requiring payment for the and take-away food have been implemented in several cutlery. In the latter case, cutlery is not provided by countries. In several states in the United States (US), default, and instead customers have the option to including California and Oregon, ordinances ban add cutlery to their order for a fee (also see Section automatically giving customers SUP straws. The city 4.2). This opt-in/opt-out measure has been applied, of Berkeley, in California, officially restricts the use voluntarily, by major online food delivery platforms of SUP containers, cutlery, and other SUPs for onsite in many countries, including in Vietnam. Also, many consumption. The United Kingdom (UK) has a “hybrid” countries ban the use of plastic straws (see Section 4.1.1). policy that restricts the use of straws in retailers (see Tourist areas are hotspots for the generation of SUP Box 4.2 for more details). Other countries such as waste, and especially so during the peak tourist season Thailand and Peru (for Machu Picchu),9 have recently (Hendrickx and Bajzelj 2021). Parks and nature reserves begun to restrict tourists from using certain SUPs in can be even more impacted by SUPs, since they might parks. However, there are still uncertainties about how be home to protected and endangered biodiversity, to implement these policies in parks because retailers and waste collection can be more problematic than and vendors within the area may continue providing in resort areas. Also, parks and nature sites have an SUPs. In the hotel sector, in California,10 as well as in intrinsic value associated with cleanliness that attracts New York State,11 after a transitional period, the use visitors. Islands may particularly struggle with waste of shampoo bottles and other single-use amenities for guests will be banned, starting in 2023. 9 Decreto Supremo que aprueba la reducción del plástico de un solo uso y promueve el consumo responsable del plástico en las entidades del Poder Ejecutivo DecReto SupRemo N° 013-2018-mINAm. 10 Chapter 6.1 of Part 3 of Division 30 of the Public Resources Code of California. 11 Senate Bill S543: Prohibits hotels from providing guests with small plastic bottles containing personal care products. 4. Policies to Reduce and Phase Out the Consumption of Certain SUPs | 43 Shutterstock: David Bokuchava 44 | Toward a National Single-use Plastics Roadmap in Vietnam: Strategic Options for Reducing Priority Single-use Plastics BOX 4.2. INTERNATIONAL CASE STUDIES ON REDUCING THE DISTRIBUTION AND USE OF CERTAIN SUPS This box presents some international examples of reducing the distribution and use of certain SUPs, including the implementation mechanisms and impact. Restrictions are intermediate measures that are usually seen in high-income countries, and, as such, the examples in this box are primarily from these countries. Middle-income countries tend to start directly with national bans and fees/taxes, which can be too jarring, and leave little opportunity for stakeholders to transition to alternatives. Restrictions on the distribution of plastic straws in the State of California (2019)12 Since 2019, a law in the State of California in the US restricts full-service restaurants (dine-in and takeaway) from giving out SUP straws unless customers request these. However, the law does not apply to fast food restaurants, convenience stores, or street vendors. Full-service restaurants can still automatically give paper or metal straws to customers. Violators face a fine of $25 per day after two warnings, up to an annual total of $300 for fines. Since this law was implemented in 2019, there is little evidence of its effectiveness. It is generally believed that the regulation cuts down on some plastic straw waste, but on its own, the regulation is insufficient because requiring consumers to request a straw is not going to change their behavior. Critics argue that the penalty is too low, too many facilities are exempt, and many of these are the largest contributors to plastic pollution. Since the law covers only a small percentage of food facilities, critics question the effectiveness of the law. Restrictions on the distribution of plastic straws in the State of Oregon (2020)13 In January 2020, the State of Oregon implemented a law that prohibits food and beverage providers, as well as convenience stores from giving out SUP straws, unless consumers request these. However, the law exempts some businesses. Violators face a $25 fine per day after two warnings, up to an annual total of $300. The legislation appears to have minimal financial impact on the state or local governments. Because this regulation was recently implemented, there was no evidence in early 2022 about whether this has reduced the consumption of plastic straws. Restrictions on single-use food ware to reduce litter in Berkeley, California14 This ordinance, which was implemented in Berkeley, California, in 2019, requires restaurants to provide reusable/multi-use food ware for dine-in guests, and to charge guests for each single-use cup or non-reusable food container they request. Dine-in guests can only get disposable food ware if they request it for a take away order or food leftover from their meal, or they take it from a self-service counter. All disposable food ware items must be certified as compostable, apart from paper napkins or wooden items (such as chop sticks, toothpicks, and stirrers). These restrictions in Berkeley have been implemented in phases to give businesses enough time and flexibility to successfully make the transition. Several studies conducted to assess the impact of the city’s restrictions have found that, overall, businesses have saved money (ReThink Disposable 2021). Prohibition of plastic straws, cotton buds, and drink stirrers in the United Kingdom (2020)15 The United Kingdom prohibits supplying SUP straws, cotton buds, and drink stirrers to end-users, nation-wide. The ban, which began on September 21, 2020, applies to all the businesses that supply these products, including manufacturers and retailers. Straws, cotton buds, and drink stirrers made from degradable materials, or which are reusable, can be provided. The exceptions to the prohibition include catering establishments (restaurants, canteens, clubs, public houses, and similar establishments, as well as food trucks and street stalls). These can still supply SUP straws for immediate consumption. However, operators must keep straws hidden, and only give them out on request. The other exceptions include pharmacies, care homes, and schools. Following a transition period that allowed businesses to use up their supply of SUP straws, penalties have been applied. Because the regulation only became effective in 2020, there is no evidence yet about its impact. 12 Assembly Bill No. 188 4 CHAPTER 576. An act to add Chapter 5.2 (commencing with Section 42270) to Part 3 of Division 30 of the Public Re- sources Code of California relating to food facilities. [Approved by the Governor on September 20, 2018, and filed with the Secretary of State on September 20, 2018]. 13 Senate Bill 90 AN ACT: Relates to a restriction on restaurants providing single-use plastic straws to consumers – Oregon Legislative Assembly, 2019. 14 Berkeley Single Use Foodware and Litter Reduction Ordinance – City of Berkeley, California. 15 Guidance from the UK Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs: Straws, cotton buds, and drink stirrers ban: rules for businesses in England. 4. Policies to Reduce and Phase Out the Consumption of Certain SUPs | 45 Thailand’s national park plastic restriction (2019) As part of a plan to tackle the problem of plastic waste in Thailand, the Department of National Parks has been conducting a campaign that asks tourists not to bring plastic containers, food packaging, plastic cutlery, water bottles with plastic caps, plastic straws, and plastic stirrers to national parks (Srisathit 2019). The campaign is being conducted in 154 national parks across the country, but it is unclear how restrictions on tourists’ use of SUPs will be implemented, and stores in the targeted areas still supply them. Thus, clarity about enforcing the restrictions is needed. SUP restrictions in Machu Picchu and other protected heritage sites and parks in Peru (2018)16 The use of SUPs of any kind have been prohibited since the end of 2018 in the Inca Sanctuary of Machu Picchu, the Paracas National Reserve, Manu National Park, and other protected biodiverse areas in Peru. A transitional period of 30 days was granted before the restriction came into force. Administrators and park rangers in the specified sites are empowered to ensure compliance with the ban. Every Machu Picchu entry ticket is printed with the message, “Carry drinks only in flasks or canteens.” Tour operators have been asked to refrain from providing lunches packed in disposable plastic. However, in June 2019, reports indicated that the regulation banning SUPs was not being enforced. Prohibition of single-use personal care products by New York accommodation providers (2021)17 A bill was introduced in January 2021 that requires hotels in the State of New York in the US to switch to refillable dispensers or environmentally friendly containers for all of the body wash and hair products they provide to guests. The bill identifies the types of bottles that need to be restricted and the types of accommodation providers that need to obey the restrictions (hotels, motels, apartment hotels, and other accommodation providers). Starting in 2024, after a one-year transition period, the bill will be enforced with larger hotels, and in 2025 with hotels with fewer than 50 rooms. After the first warning, a subsequent violation carries a $250 fine, and then a $500 fine is applied for each subsequent violation in the same year. The money collected from the fines will be deposited in the Environmental Protection Fund. An estimate shows that the state’s ban of hotel toiletry SUPs would cut the use of 27.4 million SUP bottles, per year. Miniature bathroom amenity bottle ban in California (2019)18 In October 2019, a bill was issued in California banning hotels from providing shampoo, hair conditioner, and bath soap in plastic bottles that are non-reusable, and have less than a six-ounce capacity. However, this legislation, which goes into effect in 2023, allows hotels to provide small, plastic amenity bottles to guests at no cost if they request this. Lodging establishments are encouraged, instead, to use bulk dispensers for personal care products. A local agency with the authority to inspect bedrooms in lodging establishments may issue a citation for a violation of the ban. Upon a second, or subsequent violation, the local agency may impose a penalty of $500, rising to a maximum of $2,000, annually. The California Hotel and Lodging Association estimated that switching to multi-use dispensers would cost about $70 for each of 500,000 hotel rooms in the state, but it would help to reduce an estimated 200 million tons of solid waste generated every year by the hospitality industry, of which a substantial portion comprises toiletry bottles (Hauser 2019). Voluntary initiatives to restrict and phase implemented, worldwide, by online food delivery out the use of SUPs and their distribution by services, fast-food restaurants, and hotel chains, show retailers promising results in terms of impact and applicability. Several case studies have been published on how Several fast-food chains have committed to reducing restrictions on the distribution of SUPs can be applied plastic waste. In 2018, Starbucks announced that in in a voluntary fashion by retailers, restaurants, and 2020 it would begin phasing out plastic straws, globally, fast-food chains. These examples are particularly in its more than 28,000 coffee shops (Starbucks 2018; relevant since they show the willingness of the private Goodwin 2020). Straws would be replaced with new sector to do more to tackle SUPs than what is legally recyclable strawless lids and alternative options for required. Many of these initiatives, which have been 16 Decreto Supremo que aprueba la reducción del plástico de un solo uso y promueve el consumo responsable del plástico en las entidades del Poder Ejecutivo DecReto SupRemo N° 013-2018-mINAm. 17 Senate Bill S543 Prohibits hotels from providing guests with small plastic bottles containing personal care products. 18 Chapter 6.1 of Part 3 of Division 30 of the Public Resources Code, California. 46 | Toward a National Single-use Plastics Roadmap in Vietnam: Strategic Options for Reducing Priority Single-use Plastics straws, which the company would develop with its $10 As part of this initiative, the hotel group also offers million commitment to create a fully recyclable and alternative straws upon request. According to the hotel compostable cup for worldwide use. Similarly, with chain’s managers, the largest problem has been getting the aim to eliminate about 400 tons of waste per year, suppliers to stop using plastic when they deliver items. McDonald´s China is implementing a company-wide According to the Akaryn Hotel Group’s chief executive policy to phase out plastic straws in nearly 1,000 officer, the measures have proven popular with guests, restaurants across the country. McDonalds also has and do not compromise the chain’s luxury ambiance. a global target to source 100 percent of its packaging The initiative has, in fact, created another revenue from renewable, recycled, or certified sources, and stream by attracting eco-conscious travelers, which to recycle packaging in all of its restaurants by 2025 proves that SUPs can be eliminated, while still offering (CGTN 2020). guests a luxurious and personalized experience. Both the Hilton (Mest 2018) and Marriott hotel chains have In the online food delivery sector, there have been recently adopted similar approaches. As of 2021, about several voluntary initiatives as well. In Southeast 1,000 of Marriott’s hotels across the world had made Asia, for example, since 2018, the online food delivery the switch, and received positive feedback from guests platform, Foodpanda, has given customers the choice (Marriott International 2019). In July 2019, Marriot to “opt out” of receiving plastic cutlery with their International met its worldwide goal of diverting orders. As a result, Foodpanda has seen an 85 percent one billion plastic straws from landfills. When fully reduction in the number of customers who request implemented across the globe, Marriott’s expanded plastic cutlery with their orders (Tun-atiruj 2018). In 2019, toiletry program is expected to prevent about 500 the three major food delivery platforms in Singapore— million tiny bottles from going into landfills, annually, Deliveroo, Foodpanda, and Grab—signed the PACT which amounts to 1.7 million pounds of plastic, and a food delivery pledge that requires customers to opt-in 30 percent annual reduction in the company’s plastic if they want cutlery with their order. This change has amenity usage. Marriot is one of the five key players reduced the use of approximately one million pieces in Vietnam’s hotel sector. of cutlery per week in Singapore (Beitien 2020). In the UK, Deliveroo has also implemented an opt-out In the hotel sector in Vietnam, some of the world’s option for cutlery, and has started a complementary largest hospitality companies have partnered with program to use environmentally friendly packaging local companies and brands to provide environ- (Deliveroo 2018). The opt-out option has resulted mentally friendly alternatives to SUPs, which can in a 90 percent reduction in the amount of plastic be introduced quickly. These brands include Cong cutlery used with UK Deliveroo orders. Indonesia’s Ty TNHH Lon Nuoc Giai Khat TBC-Ball Viet Nam and largest online food delivery service, Go-Food (Gojek), beWater, and the alternatives they promote have been has introduced a fee for disposable cutlery. Through quickly taken up by Vietnam’s hospitality industry, this, the company seeks to raise awareness about including Hyatt Hotels, and the Accor Hotel Group, sustainable practices, and appeal to eco-conscious InterContinental Hotel Group, Meliá Hotel Group, customers (Kong 2019). On a smaller scale, a Lebanese and Sailing Club Leisure Group. NGO started a pilot project with a local restaurant These initiatives, which are summarized in Table 4.1, in Beirut to use a verbal prompt during the ordering highlight the key mechanisms of implementation, the process, which gives customers the option to opt-out factors contributing to their success (or failure), and of getting plastic cutlery with their order (Nudge 2019). their impact (if data on impact were available). This led to a 77.9 percent reduction in customers’ demand for cutlery. In the hotel sector, the Akaryn Hotel Group in Thailand has banned the use of SUP products in their hotels by providing alternatives such as multi-use products, refillable water and toiletry product dispensers, and biodegradable bin bags (Akaryn Hotel Group 2018). 4. Policies to Reduce and Phase Out the Consumption of Certain SUPs | 47 Table 4.1. TARGETED ITEMS, KEY APPLICATION MECHANISMS, FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO SUCCESS OR FAILURE, AND EXTENT OF IMPACT Take-away, online Hotel sector Tourist areas (nature delivery, and onsite food reserves, parks, etc.) consumption Targeted • SUP plastic straws and • SUPs for food consumption • SUP packaging, items drink stirrers (for take in hotel restaurants and including plastic away) cafeterias food containers, plastic plates, plastic • Plastic cutlery (for online • Single-use bottles for toiletry bags, and water delivery) products such as shampoo and bottles soap • SUP plastic straws, drink stirrers, cutlery, and • Single-use amenities chopsticks, expanded (toothbrushes, combs, shower polystyrene (EPS) food caps, and so on) containers, cups, and • Plastic water bottles, and bags glasses (for onsite for laundry consumption) How the The policy imposes This policy imposes restrictions The policy restricts/ policy is restrictions on SUPs, on hotels and other bans bringing SUPs generally depending on the type of accommodation providers that to tourist destinations applied service (take-away, onsite offer guests toiletry products in such as nature reserves consumption, and online disposable plastic bottles. and parks, heritage delivery). sites, museums, and other protected areas, as well as resorts. 48 | Toward a National Single-use Plastics Roadmap in Vietnam: Strategic Options for Reducing Priority Single-use Plastics Take-away, online Hotel sector Tourist areas (nature delivery, and onsite food reserves, parks, etc.) consumption Factors • Enforcement of the • Enforcement is carried out • Guidance and contributing restrictions includes by a local agency with the supervision is to success monitoring application authority to inspect sleeping carried out by park or failure of the law through accommodation. authorities, and inspections by the other personnel • Warnings are given and designated authorities. such as park rangers, penalties are imposed for and staff in local • Penalties for violations. administrations, infringement to increase • The restrictions should be NGOs, and religious adherence rates. paired with other measures, institutions, as well • A transition period can such as providing multi-use as entrepreneurs be granted for adapting bottles and refillable (for example, to the change, but it dispensers for toiletries, using tour operators should be relatively biodegradable bin bags, and guides) short (one year). offering reusable shopping and traditional bags, installing self-service community leaders. • In some cases, the drinking water dispensers, regulation sets the • The experiences of stopping the use of plastic requirements for Thailand and Peru straws, and offering beverages alternative products, show that changing without straws. The legislation such as compostable the behavior of may also allow hotels to items. It also provides tourists cannot be continue to provide small, labels and color codes achieved at once, plastic amenity bottles upon to support the business and a period of request. with appropriate adaptation to the identification and • To ensure successful new rules is needed. marking on SUPs that implementation, it is crucial • Implementation recognize businesses’ to have backing from the measures include compliance with the hotel, hospitality, and tourism information legislation. association (as is the case in campaigns, as well New York State and California). as administrative • To make sure that the sanctions. transition is smooth, a period of adjustment starts with hotels above a certain size (for example, based on the number of rooms). 4. Policies to Reduce and Phase Out the Consumption of Certain SUPs | 49 Take-away, online Hotel sector Tourist areas (nature delivery, and onsite food reserves, parks, etc.) consumption Impact Voluntary initiatives As the law will not be applied Since these policies have shown substantial in New York until 2024, no data have only recently reduction in the use of are available on the impact. been implemented, SUPs, as seen with the However, when the ban was there is no evidence plastic cutlery policy for proposed in New York, it was yet about their impact. online food delivery, estimated that it would save 27.4 Implementation and the elimination of million SUP bottles, per year. difficulties have plastic straws. Overall, Voluntary adoption by the been reported in the results also show that Akaryn Hotel Group in Thailand Peru and Thailand, prompting food delivery highlights that the SUP-free including the lack of customers to make active goal is achievable, particularly in information provided choices helps to greatly luxury hotels. to tourists who end reduce the amount of up confused about cutlery dispensed. This, Hilton Hotels’ efforts show that the requirements, and coupled with customers’ removing plastic straws from an insufficiently long strong approval and all 650 of their hotels led to adaptation period. support for the initiative, eliminating 35 million straws, demonstrates that annually. Marriott International’s in certain contexts, expanded SUP toiletry reduction encouraging individuals program is expected to achieve to make active choices a 30 percent annual cut in its can overcome poorly amenity plastic usage. designed initiatives— especially, when people Regarding costs, the California agree with the proposed Hotel & Lodging Association changes. estimates that equipping hotel rooms with refillable dispensers The example from will cost about $70 per hotel Oregon shows that the room. negative fiscal impact of restricting the use of straws is minimal. 50 | Toward a National Single-use Plastics Roadmap in Vietnam: Strategic Options for Reducing Priority Single-use Plastics 4.1.2. Applicability in Vietnam • Consumers must be receptive to changing their behavior and using alternatives to SUP straws, Restrictions on the distribution of plastic so this should be promoted through education straws (such as at the point of sale) and awareness campaigns. Before introducing a total ban on plastic straws to • Inspections should take place to verify the reduce marine plastic pollution, as an initial step, proper application of the law in restaurants restrict their distribution. When they were surveyed and similar establishments. in Hanoi 2021 (Liu et al. 2021), a significant percentage respondents opposed or strongly opposed complete In Vietnam, alternatives to plastic straws are well bans of plastic bags (21 percent) and plastic takeout established, and sold in volumes which, although containers (17 percent). This indicates that there may smaller, are comparable to the volume of plastic straws. be some resistance to the complete removal of plastic This is due to customer acceptance, the availability of products from daily life, including straws. As plastic affordable raw materials for alternatives, and a large straws are a relatively small fraction of urban solid number of producers of substitute products (World waste (compared to other contributors), banning them Bank 2022). The alternatives include straws made of may encounter some resistance at the beginning. rice, grass, bamboo, or paper, which are single-use and, therefore, may be more suitable for take-away Based on the case studies above, restrictions on the consumption. About 680 million pieces are being distribution of SUPs seems to be the preferred option supplied, annually, in Vietnam, for costs that range for plastic straws. Also, single-use and multi-use from VND200 to VND1,000 per unit, depending on alternatives to plastic straws are readily available in the material. Other alternatives include multi-use Vietnam. In Vietnam, the distribution of straws could solutions such as glass and metal straws. These are be reduced by not displaying them at the point of more expensive than their single-use counterparts sale. Instead, plastic straws would only be provided (between VND4,000 and VND15,000 per unit), and they if requested, or the users are people in need such might be more suitable for onsite consumption where as hospital patients and care home residents. For they can be washed and reused by food establishments. the policy to be effective in Vietnam, some success Bamboo straws are particularly interesting since they factors need to be assured: have a high ratio of price to durability (VND600 to • So that all restaurants and similar establishments, VND1,000/unit) and can be used for three to six including fast food chains, cooperate, they months, making the end price 10 times less than that should take part in, and be informed about of polypropylene (PP) straws.19 However, materials the results of discussions and decision-mak- such as bamboo and paper can be a problem in a ing, regardless of whether restrictions will be country with high humidity and, thus, it might be worth introduced for them at the very beginning, or considering more suitable alternatives, such as rice during a subsequent phase. and vegetable straws. Alternatives, and especially those for onsite consumption, are affordable. It is • Given that street food vendors and small also important to note that any alternative products restaurants are often part of the informal economy that are promoted through legislation should first in Vietnam, grassroots efforts will be needed undergo a thorough impact assessment to determine to help ensure their support and readiness for their potential environmental impact. implementation. When considering the expected environmental impact • The cooperation of employees in restaurants of the policy, restrictions on the distribution, sale, or and similar establishments should be assured. giving away of SUP straws at the point of sale (unless • Alternatives to SUP straws (metal, bamboo, requested by the consumer) might not achieve a paper, and so on) should be available, market 100 percent reduction in the number of SUP straws ready, and affordable. produced and used in Vietnam. The European Union impact assessment for the development of the SUP 19 This was calculated by assuming that the minimum usage of a bamboo straw is once per day, for a minimum of three months, which would be the equivalent of saving 60 polypropylene straws, worth VND200 each, and total VND12,000. 4. Policies to Reduce and Phase Out the Consumption of Certain SUPs | 51 Directive (European Commission 2018) estimated that information campaigns for consumers to discourage restrictions on plastic straws could achieve reduction their use of SUP straws. However, the implementation rates of up to 25 percent. By applying this 25 percent strategy should also consider the financial impact on rate to the 2.76 billion SUP straws that are put on businesses, and especially the impact on micro and the market in Vietnam each year for immediate small businesses. Thus, a phased approach should be consumption (which excludes the U-shaped straws used that begins with targeting the businesses that for consuming dairy products), a restrictive policy have the capacity to adopt the new rules without a could prevent about 690 million plastic straws from significant impact on their revenues. becoming waste each year. Additionally, banning drink stirrers could be considered This measure would affect fast-food restaurants. for inclusion in this policy, as was the case with some According to a 2018 study, 36 percent of out-of-home of the examples presented above. food consumption in three major cities in Vietnam (Hanoi, Danang, and Ho Chi Minh City) happens in Restrictions on the use of SUPs for onsite quick service or fast-food restaurants (Decision Lab consumption in food establishments 2018). These are the major distributors of plastic straws, (restaurants, cafeterias, and so on) which are usually intended for consuming beverages To assess the applicability of this policy measure on-the-go. As seen in the examples above, some major in Vietnam, the food culture in Vietnam must be international fast-food chains (including some that considered. The out-of-home consumption of food are operating in Vietnam) have already embraced the and beverages in Vietnam was examined in a market effort to phase out plastic straws, which indicates that study that was conducted in Hanoi, Ho Chi Minh City, a certain momentum exists to phase out SUP straws and Da Nang in 201820 (Decision Lab 2018). The study in favor of alternatives. However, it is important to found that the main sectors for out-of-home food note that street food vendors and small restaurants, consumption were: which are often part of the informal economy, could be negatively impacted if they are included in the • Full-service restaurants (traditional sit-down regulations. restaurants for both fine dining and casual eating) (36 percent of total expenditure) While these restrictions would be beneficial, they would likely be insufficient. In order to target the • Quick service/fast-food restaurants (36 percent remaining 2,560 million U-shaped SUP straws (the ones of total expenditure) that are attached to beverage containers for chocolate • Street food (11 percent of total expenditure) milk, juice, and so on), Vietnam should consider a ban on the sale of these plastic straws. These straws • Convenience stores, canteens, bars, and clubs account for nearly half of the total number of straws (17 percent of total expenditure) that are on the market in Vietnam. The 2018 study also found that full-service restaurants A restriction policy should be regarded as a transition have become more popular in recent years, especially toward a ban of plastic straws, and it is needed with younger people, and white-collar workers, and to prepare the market and end-of-sale points to at the time of the study, this was the largest food increase their capacity to supply alternative products. service type in Vietnam. This underlines the importance This would also prepare consumers to change their of engaging with full-service restaurants to promote the consumption. benefits of using multi-use or non-plastic single-use alternatives. The state’s budget costs for implementing this legislation are low. They include, for example, the costs This policy can be regarded as a good “transition for the appointed authorities to perform inspections. policy” toward the complete ban of certain SUPs To limit the budget impact, the same authorities (food containers, plastic straws, plastic cutlery, plastic who carry out safety and hygiene inspections could cups, drink stirrers, and so on), and it would help carry out these inspections, too. Other costs include to reduce SUP usage for out-of-home consumption. 20 As the survey focused on three large cities, the results should be taken as representative of large cities, rather than non-urban and remote areas. 52 | Toward a National Single-use Plastics Roadmap in Vietnam: Strategic Options for Reducing Priority Single-use Plastics This transition policy would serve to stimulate the more than 80,000 food merchants to millions business sector to produce alternatives, and also help of customers in Vietnam). the restaurant sector to gradually adapt to change, Data in the case studies above suggest that adding including finding the most suitable and economically an opt-in/opt-out option for getting cutlery with an feasible alternatives. In addition, consumers would online food order has great potential to reduce plastic be eased into using the alternatives. waste. The impact can be estimated by applying The majority of the costs would be borne by full-service the reduction rates seen in the case studies (a 77 to restaurants, as they would need to adapt to the 90 percent reduction). Assuming that a minimum of regulations. These costs include buying multi-use one piece of plastic cutlery (for example, one spoon) alternatives and equipping the restaurant kitchen to is sent with every food delivery, the adoption of an wash the multi-use alternatives. However, these costs opt in/opt out policy by one delivery company could would be amortized over the long term by the cost prevent the consumption of between 80 and 100 million savings resulting from no longer buying SUPs. No plastic spoons in Vietnam. costs would be directly allocated to consumers. The Some online food platforms in Vietnam have already government would incur inspection costs, but these started implementing the opt-in/opt-out option for could be kept low by allocating responsibility for the cutlery, including GrabFood and ShopeeFood, as this inspections to an authority that is already carrying out measure is highly feasible to implement. GrabFood inspections in restaurants—for example, the provincial currently uses an automatic opt-out for cutlery so or city Department of Industry and Trade. that it is not delivered by default, while ShopeeFood requires customers to opt-out if they do not need Restrictions on the use of plastic cutlery by cutlery. The impact would be much larger if all online online food delivery and take-away businesses food platforms in Vietnam would adopt this policy. Although Vietnam’s food delivery market is still Even with these options, the delivery of the cutlery new, a number of these businesses have emerged still depends on the restaurants, and on the delivery in recent years. According to the market research firm, drivers, both of which sometimes provide unwanted Kantar TNS, Vietnam’s online food delivery market will cutlery. Awareness campaigns and environmental grow to about $449 million by 2023 (Kohli et al. 2021). education will play a key role in informing restaurants, This estimate is based on the pre-COVID-19 situation. delivery drivers, and consumers about the opt-in/ Since the pandemic began, the amount of e-commerce, opt-out option, and its environmental significance. worldwide, has significantly increased—rising from 14 Moving forward, this could also be applied to SUP percent in 2019 to 17 percent in 2020 (Sirimanne 2021). packaging. E-commerce is growing in Vietnam. According to The main actors that would be affected by this Vietnam Credit (2020), the country’s main food delivery measure are the food delivery platforms, restaurants, platforms are: SUP cutlery producers, and consumers: • Foody.vn: Data show that the Foody.vn platform • Food delivery platforms would have to add the had revenues of about VND441 billion in 2018 opt-in/opt-out option on their app or website (about $19.2 million) where customers place their orders. Other costs could arise from developing media to • Now.vn: In mid-2017, the Chief Executive Officer disseminate information to customers about of Foody stated that Now.vn had nearly 10,000 this change, and its environmental importance. orders per day. No other economic consequences are expected • Grabfood: In the first half of 2019, GrabFood if food delivery platforms adopt this policy. saw a 400 percent increase in transactions, and • Restaurants would have to educate their recorded an average of 300,000 of transactions employees to stop automatically providing per day. cutlery with take away orders. This could have • Gojek Vietnam: A subsidiary of the Indonesian a positive financial impact on restaurants since platform, GoJek, which has stated that it connects their cost for purchasing disposable cutlery would likely be less. 4. Policies to Reduce and Phase Out the Consumption of Certain SUPs | 53 Shutterstock: Al.geba • Consumers would not be affected, financially, Since there are not many food delivery platforms by the opt-in/opt-out option. They could still in Vietnam, it should be possible to contact all of receive the cutlery with their online delivery. them, and seek their agreement to stop automatically supplying cutlery. As discussed, below, in Section 4.1.1 • Unless they could switch to producing on voluntary initiatives to phase out the purchase and alternatives, SUP cutlery producers would distribution of SUPs by retailers, this has occurred in be affected, financially, by the decline in the Indonesia. consumption of SUP cutlery. 54 | Toward a National Single-use Plastics Roadmap in Vietnam: Strategic Options for Reducing Priority Single-use Plastics BOX 4.3. THE TOURISM SECTOR AND PLASTIC POLICIES IN VIETNAM The United Nations World Tourism Organization (UNWTO) ranked Vietnam as the third fastest-growing tourist destination in the world (MarketLine 2020). Between 2015 and 2019, Vietnam’s travel and tourism industry had an annual growth rate of 10.1 percent, and in 2019, the total revenue was $29 billion. Hotels and motels were the industry’s most lucrative segment in 2019, with total revenues of $9.2 billion (31.9 percent of the industry’s overall value). The hotel industry is still developing in Vietnam, and the majority of hotels are either independent or part of Vietnamese chains. Also, luxury hotels are on the rise. The five key domestic and international hotels chains in Vietnam are Vinpearl, Muong Thanh Hospitality, Accor Hotels, InterContinental Hotels Group, and Marriott International (Mordor Intelligence 2020). According to official government data, as of 2015, there were 82,325 three-to-five-star tourist accommodation rooms in Vietnam (MOCST 2019). The number of local and international tourists has risen, substantially, in Vietnam. Between 2008 and 2018, the number of domestic tourists grew from 20.5 million to 80 million. In 2018, Vietnam had 95.5 million tourists, and 15.5 million of these were international tourists (Mordor Intelligence 2020). However, the COVID-19 pandemic has had a severe impact on tourist flows in Vietnam (Euromonitor International 2020). The tourism sector is important when considering how to tackle plastic waste generation, as tourism not only generates a large part of plastic waste, but tourist destinations are negatively affected by plastic waste. More tourists generate more waste, and especially so during the high season. In certain popular tourist destinations in the European Union, for example, waste generation increases by up to 400 percent in the high season. This puts pressure on local waste management systems and may cause an increase in littering. The growth of waste in the environment can have a detrimental impact on tourism. For example, following a period of heavy rainfall on Geoje Island in South Korea, in July 2011, a large volume of marine debris was deposited on the island’s beaches. Consequently, visitor numbers fell by 63 percent, which resulted in a loss of revenue ranging from $29 million to $37 million (Hendrickx and Bajzelj 2021). With the tourism sector working to recover from the impact of COVID-19, this is a good time to adopt policies that promote sustainable practices. While voluntary initiatives within the travel and tourism sector tend to focus on the prohibition of SUP straws and SUP amenities such as shampoo bottles, improving consumer behavior also needs to be considered in any business strategy. A worldwide analysis of hotel operations (Hendrickx and Bajzelj 2021), showed that the breakdown of SUPs by weight was as follows: 32 percent was water bottles; 31 percent was toiletries; 15 percent was plastic bags and liners; 9 percent was food packaging; 3 percent was cups; 4 percent was cling film; 3 percent was other miscellaneous packaging; 1 percent was cutlery, stirrers, and straws; and 1 percent was small food products. This list indicates which SUPs should be eliminated, first, to reduce the largest amount of waste. Vietnam has recognized the importance of tackling plastic waste in the tourism sector. In the 2019 National Action Plan for Management of Marine Plastic Litter by 2030, targets were set to: • Prevent the use of SUPs and non-biodegradable plastic bags by 100 percent in tourist areas by 2030 • Ensure that marine protected areas are 80 percent free of plastic litter by 2025, and 100 percent free of plastic litter by 2030 However, the instruments that should be used to achieve these targets have not been specified. Moreover, the targets are ambitious and require transitional measures before implementing the policies that are needed to achieve 100 percent reduction. Decision No: 1316/QD-TTg, which was signed by the Prime Minister in July 2021, mandates government to: • Develop a plan to stop the use of SUP and non-biodegradable plastic bags, and apply it to tourist resorts, accommodation, and service establishments throughout the country, and especially those in coastal areas. • Authorize the Ministry of Culture, Sports, and Tourism (MOCST) to oversee the implementation of, and adherence to, the policy in tourist accommodations, and at cultural, sport, and tourist events, nationwide. 4. Policies to Reduce and Phase Out the Consumption of Certain SUPs | 55 Restrictions on the distribution of small SUP 82,325 rooms would be $5.76 million, though this toiletry bottles in hotels would likely be an overestimate for Vietnam. As the tourism sector begins its road to recovery, this is the time to consider improving hotels’ Restrictions on carrying certain SUPs to environmental sustainability. Starting, immediately, protected areas, natural parks, and tourist with a ban on the use of SUP items might be too sites disruptive in Vietnam. Instead, the initial measures In Vietnam, there are about 209 protected areas, should be limited to reducing specific items, and/or comprising 7.58 percent, and 0.56 percent of to specific locations, and to hotels that meet specific the country’s land and marine area, respectively criteria such as the number of rooms, the hotels’ “star” (UNEP-WCMC and IUCN 2021). About 70 percent ranking, and other criteria that stakeholders would of Vietnam’s rapid tourism growth is occurring in find acceptable. coastal areas, which have high and easily damaged Based on implementation in other countries, the biodiversity. In 2017, Vietnam’s national parks and initial measures should focus on encouraging the nature reserves had more than two million visitors, voluntary adoption of alternatives to SUPs. This could which was a 178 percent increase over visitor numbers be achieved through green (eco-friendly) tourism in 2016. The revenues generated from these visitors campaigns, through which more item-specific, or desti- was VND114 billion (Vietnam News 2018). nation-specific policies could be promoted. Examples Information campaigns by Vietnam’s Ministry of from some international hotel chains, some of which are Culture, Sports, and Tourism to promote green tourism, operating in Vietnam, show that voluntary initiatives to and impose restrictions for environmental protection reduce SUP usage are possible. To ensure successful began in 2019. As the first step toward partial or adoption, it crucial that Vietnam’s hotel, hospitality, full bans of SUP items, information campaigns could and tourism associations support this policy. include adding information to the tickets for tourist Following a transition period to allow businesses, attractions, which would explain the importance of tourists, and other end-users to acclimatize to plastic reduction, and ask tourists for their cooperation. voluntary reductions of the use of certain SUPs, greater Hotel, hospitality, and tourism associations in Vietnam restriction of some SUPs should be imposed in specific should be involved in efforts to educate tourism types of tourist establishments and destinations. businesses such as travel agencies and tour operators, The People’s Committees of provinces and centrally as well as tourists, about the restrictions on certain run cities, which are already authorized to carry out SUPs in parks (plastic bags, Styrofoam containers, and activities related to reducing plastic waste (Directive SUP drink bottles, including polyethylene terephthalate No. 33/CT-TTg, dated August 20, 2020), as well as bottles). This is especially important so that tourists local administrations with the authority to inspect know in advance to use alternatives for the food sleeping accommodations, could be empowered to and beverages they bring to parks and other tourist enforce the bans, starting with a warning for the first attractions. Travel agencies and tour operators could violation, and penalties after that. coordinate with hotels to provide guests with multi-use The impact of this potential policy can be estimated alternatives such as lunch boxes, cloth bags, and based on the voluntary measures already undertaken refillable bottles, which would be returned to the by some large hotel chains. If each tourist uses one hotel. Further, global online travel agencies, such as small toiletry bottle,21 this measure could prevent the Tui, Expedia, Travelocity, Booking.com, and Hotel.com use of about 100 million small toiletry bottles per year. are increasingly educating consumers and requiring With regard to cost, if the cost of providing each room hotels and resorts to meet specific sustainability in three-to-five-star hotels with refillable dispensers requirements before listing them on their platforms. is about $70,22 the cost of providing dispensers for This focuses on in-room amenities such as SUP plastic water bottles and toiletry products. 21 This is based on a conservative estimate of one bottle per tourist, regardless of the length of their stay. However, many hotels provide mul- tiple bottles for liquids (such as shampoo, shower gel, body lotion, and hair conditioner), and these bottles are replaced, daily. Hence, the number of bottles may be higher than this estimate. 22 See the example above on the restriction of miniature toiletry bottles instituted in California. 56 | Toward a National Single-use Plastics Roadmap in Vietnam: Strategic Options for Reducing Priority Single-use Plastics Shutterstock: Lindsay Jubeck It should be noted that while the restrictions on most are carrying, checking their bags, and having the right SUPs would not cause much inconvenience, restrictions to confiscate SUP items. Inspections should also be on plastic bottles could be problematic as drinking undertaken in parks to check if street vendors are water might not be accessible. Furthermore, street supplying SUPs. The Management Boards of National food vendors operating in tourist areas might sell Parks that currently manage and protect parks should drinks in plastic bottles or other SUPs. In Thailand, this be in charge of ensuring that no SUP violations occur contradiction confused tourists.23 Therefore, starting within parks. with SUP bags, the sale of SUPs, other than plastic bottles, might be easier to prohibit in parks and other 4.2. Fees charged to consumers for certain tourist sites, and this would align with national targets. SUPs The impact of these measures is difficult to estimate When consumers are charged a fee for SUP items as data from international examples are not available, such as plastic bags, measurable impact has been yet. However, if properly implemented, such restrictions shown after only a short period. Charging fees could contribute toward the achievement of Vietnam’s helps to reduce the number of SUPs purchased, and, national target of having 80 percent of marine protected consequently, reduces the generation of waste and areas free of litter by 2025. To achieve this, vendors inside littering. Charging consumers a fee has proven to be these protected areas must observe the restrictions, a suitable measure when alternatives to SUPs are not which would ban the sale of SUP items in these areas, readily available, and, hence, SUPs cannot be easily rather than in the whole country. banned. This measure is also a good transitional one Inspection should be implemented to increase as it can stimulate the market for alternative products, adherence to the ban. This could be done by the and encourage the actors involved to produce or security guards who check people’s tickets at the source alternatives. Box 4.4 details the cost-benefit entrance to a nature reserve. Inspection measures analysis, which was conducted in Vietnam to consider could include asking tourists to declare the SUPs they whether or not to charge consumers a fee for using plastic bags. 23 See the example for Thailand’s national parks’ plastic restriction in Section 3.1.1. 4. Policies to Reduce and Phase Out the Consumption of Certain SUPs | 57 BOX 4.4. COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS FOR IMPLEMENTING A CHARGE ON PLASTIC BAGS IN VIETNAM The World Bank conducted a preliminary analysis in Vietnam to evaluate the benefits and costs of imposing a charge on plastic bags (World Bank Vietnam CEA 2021). These calculations assumed a $0.03 charge per bag, and based on experience in China, the potential reduction in bags was 49 percent. The results, below, show the net benefits that the policy could achieve over a one-year and a five-year period, and demonstrate a greater benefit-to-cost ratio (BCR) for the five-year period. The fiscal benefits would be a reduction in the cost of environmental damage, and savings on the cost of bag production, while the cost would be a loss of consumer surplus. The revenue from the charges would also result in a fiscal gain. The expected net benefits from the policy are shown below: Item Units Amount in Yr. 1 Amount over Yrs. 1–5 Benefits Reduction in environmental costs $ million 109.8 532.8 Savings on bag production $ million 132.4 573.4 Total $ million 242.2 1,106.2 Costs Loss of consumer surplus $ million 220.7 501.1. Other Revenue from charges $ million 459.5 2,230.2 Net Benefits and BCR Net benefit at a 5 percent discount rate $ million 21.5 605.4 Benefit-to-cost ratio 1.1 2.2 This revenue from the charge could help finance environmental clean-ups, as well as information and education programs, which would multiply the expected environmental benefits. With respect to the social impact of the charge, the amount involved is quite small for most of the population. If the average reduction is calculated, the consumption of bags would decline from 307 bags per year, per capita, to 157 bags. For a household of 3.63 people (the national average), this would mean a payment of $17 per year, or 4.68 cents per day (VND1,077/day). According to the government poverty line for 2021–2025, the monthly per capita income of a poor household in a rural area is VND1.5 million ($65.2), or less; and in an urban area, it is VND2 million ($87), or less. If the income per day is $2.2 for a rural household living at the rural poverty line, and $2.9 for an urban household living at the urban poverty line, the charge would be about 2 percent of a rural poor household’s income, and 1.6 percent of an urban poor household’s income. Therefore this would necessitate education efforts to support the reduction of plastic bag usage among these populations. This preliminary analysis indicates that a charge on plastic bags of the type proposed, could generate significant environmental benefits, and have a benefit-to-cost ratio greater than one. 58 | Toward a National Single-use Plastics Roadmap in Vietnam: Strategic Options for Reducing Priority Single-use Plastics A fee could be applied to a plastic item at the point It is important to avoid creating inequality among of sale, which would prohibit the free distribution of retailers, restaurants, and other stakeholders by plastic items. If this measure is implemented, voluntarily, requiring some, and not others, to charge fees. If the commercial entities (retailers, restaurants, and so applied for a long period, this could lead to unfair on) that collect the fees would get the revenue. The competition, however small vendors will likely need process could also be implemented by the government time to adapt before they, too, must charge the fee. through legislation that imposes a mandatory fee (at the local level), and establishes a fee collection 4.2.1. International case studies and lessons mechanism. The revenue from the collection of the fee learned could then be used for administrative purposes such There are numerous examples, both globally and regionally, as improving the waste collection system, organizing of consumers being charged fees if they are provided awareness-raising campaigns, and providing education with single-use plastic products, and this is especially to targeted stakeholders and operators in the sector the case with plastic bags. However, applying such fees (see Box 4.5). There are international examples of the has had differing rates of success. Examples of less- revenue remaining with the retailers (for example, in than-ideal results include Hong Kong (EPD Hong Kong Cambodia), but there are no examples of the revenue 2020), various cities in Indonesia (BBC News Australia going into the general budget, and being spent for 2016), and Cambodia (UNDP 2019). In these cases, the purposes other than waste management. The impact reduction of plastic bags in the market has been below of the fee in reducing the use of SUPs depends on 50 percent because retailers have been unwilling to the amount of the fee collected per item. This fee enforce the regulations. Conversely, in Ireland, in the should not be too low as it would not deter consumers European Union, the introduction of a fee cut plastic bag (especially, those with middle to high incomes), but use by 90 percent. The city of Berkeley, in California, has the fee should not be too high as this could cause also successfully introduced a fee for coffee-to-go cups retailers and consumers to resist. (Brunhuber 2019). Other SUPs such as EPS and straws have been targeted, too. Some of these example are discussed in more detail in Box 4.5. 4. Policies to Reduce and Phase Out the Consumption of Certain SUPs | 59 BOX 4.5. INTERNATIONAL EXAMPLES – FEES CHARGED TO CONSUMERS Ireland (plastic bags): A levy on consumers who request plastic bags when they shop was implemented in Ireland, in 2002. Initially, the charge per bag was €0.15, and this increased to €0.22 per bag in 2007 (Revenue, Irish Tax, and Customs 2021). The retailers who supply plastic bags apply the charge at the point of sale. Results show that the application of this regulation has largely been successful; between 2002 to 2008, plastic bag consumption in Ireland declined by about 90 percent, and the cost of implementing the levy was low. Success factors include publicity campaigns to inform the public, and increase acceptance of the policy; earmarking the revenues for government so that retailers are not blamed for trying to increase their profits by charging the levy; ensuring that retailers’ implementation costs are kept low; systematic collection of the levy from retailers; and ensuring that retailers’ reporting on the amount they collect for levy is integrated into their reporting on value-added tax (VAT). The revenue from the levy goes into the Irish government’s Environmental Fund, which was created in 2002 to fund environmental initiatives in the country, and it also covers the cost of administering the levy. Thus far (2021), the revenue has been used to: finance environmental organizations and projects such as ones to prevent, reduce, or recover waste; research and development to improve waste management, and produce, distribute, and sell products deemed to be less harmful to the environment; implementation of waste management plans; projects conducted in collaboration with local authorities to improve the quality of the environment; public awareness campaigns; education and training to achieve campaign objectives; and initiatives by community groups and others to protect the environment. China (plastic bags): In 2008, the Chinese government introduced a fee24 for the provision of plastic bags. This policy requires all of the supermarkets and retailers across the county to charge consumers a fee for each plastic bag provided to them. A study in 2012 found that this policy had cut the use of plastic bags by 49 percent; that the charge was applied primarily in supermarkets, and less so in wet markets; the average use of new plastic bags per week, per person, had declined from 21 to 11; and the frequency of reusing plastic bags increased from 0.7 to 1.3 (He 2012). Cambodia (plastic bags): In 2019, Cambodia implemented a fee for plastic bags. Across the country, all supermarkets and commercial centers are required to charge consumers Cambodian riel 400 ($0.10) per plastic bag. Although the overall impact of the measure is unknown, interviews conducted with some supermarkets showed that two-thirds of them were implementing the measure, and the number of plastic bags they provided had declined by 50 percent. Problems in applying the policy included no reporting, no place for supermarkets to keep the fees they collect, and no requirement to record and provide information about implementation of the fee. Consumers were also not informed about the change in policy, and many were surprised when they were asked to pay a fee. There was no strong government enforcement, either, to ensure that the fee was being charged (UNDP 2019). Berkeley, California (coffee cups): 25 Berkeley’s policy on coffee cups is part of a larger package of policies (see Berkeley Single Use Foodware and Litter Reduction Ordinance). With regard to coffee cups, prepared food vendors are required to charge $0.25 for every disposable beverage cup they provide. This charge must be identified separately on the sales receipt provided to the customer, and the charge must be clearly identified on menus, ordering platforms, and menu boards. All records must be made available for inspection by the City Manager’s Office, which is responsible for enforcing all of the city’s rules and regulations. Prepared food vendors may obtain full or partial waivers for up to two years, if they are able to demonstrate their inability to comply due to space constraints, undue financial hardship, and/or other extraordinary, insurmountable circumstances (Department of Public Works, City of Berkeley 2019). Analysis of the case studies above, which was based on the information available, highlights the key mechanisms of implementation, success (or failure) factors, and impact (where data were available). See Table 4.2 for more details. 24 Ministry of Commerce, Development, and Reform Commission, State Administration for Industry and Commerce Order No. 8 (2008) "Admin- istrative Measures for the Compensated Use of Plastic Shopping Bags in Retail Places." 25 Ordinance No. 7,639-N.S. Adding Chapter 11.64 to the Berkeley Municipal Code to Adopt a Single-use Foodware and Litter Reduction Ordinance. 60 | Toward a National Single-use Plastics Roadmap in Vietnam: Strategic Options for Reducing Priority Single-use Plastics Table 4.2. KEY IMPLEMENTATION MECHANISMS, SUCCESS (OR FAILURE) FACTORS, AND IMPACT How the A fee charged for the provision of the SUP is applied at the point of sale, and the SUP policy is cannot be provided for free. Non-degradable plastic bags are the most commonly targeted applied SUP item. Success • The levy should be decided on by government, charged and accounted for by retailers, factors for and public authorities should collect the money. If revenue from the levy is reported implemen- by retailers, and this is collected by public authorities (as in Ireland), rather than leaving tation it to retailers to submit the fees to government (as in China and Cambodia), the price paid by consumers will remain standard, and fair competition among retailers will be guaranteed. Also, the entire system will be better supervised and controlled. • Fees should be shown on the invoice (as in Ireland and China). This acts as a financial record, raises customers’ awareness, and contributes to a significant reduction in plastic bag consumption. • All retailers, which are required to charge the levy, must be registered, and they are required to report regularly on how much they collect. This allows the authorities to track every retailer to ensure that the fees they collect are paid to the authorities. This is an essential surveillance and control mechanism (as in Ireland). • The responsibilities of the authorities must be clearly defined. In China, authorities’ responsibilities are clearly defined, but there are no functional mechanisms to ensure that the authorities perform their duty. In Cambodia, there is no monitoring mechanism to check on progress. Conversely, Ireland has a mechanism in place for monitoring whether retailers collect the required fee. • Earmarking revenues for use toward environmental programs is important. As Ireland’s experience shows, earmarking revenues for environmental programs helps to increase acceptability, and it also allays retailers’ concern that they will be criticized for charging a fee for plastic bags (as is the case in China) • Organizing information campaigns is crucial for winning public support. Awareness-rais- ing campaigns should be conducted for consumers and retailers on the importance of preventing the generation of SUP waste, the consequences of littering, the availability of environmentally sound alternatives, and use of the fees to fund environmental programs. Impact • Analysis of the case studies shows that, depending on which approach is taken, implementing consumer fees on plastic bags could lead to significant results in plastic bag reduction (up to 90 percent, as was the case in Ireland), or it could be ineffective (as in China’s example). Controlling enforcement of the policy is a crucial factor to ensure that it is correctly implemented, and that all retailers comply. 4. Policies to Reduce and Phase Out the Consumption of Certain SUPs | 61 4.2.2. Applicability in Vietnam This suggests that the tax has not been as effective, as In Vietnam, consumers currently pay no fee for SUPs. As planned, and it highlights the necessity for additional stipulated in the Law on Environmental Protection, Tax policies to reduce the consumption of plastic bags. The No. 57/2010/QH12, producers and importers currently results of taxing producers and importers of plastic bags pay a tax for non-degradable plastic bags that are suggests that stronger enforcement and monitoring sold on the market. However, evidence from the World might increase the effectiveness of these economic Bank field surveys in 2020 and 2021 suggests that instruments. Applying fees to consumers, as well, plastic bags are still among the top polluting items would contribute to achieving the ambitious plastic in Vietnam’s environment. Furthermore, the revenue bag reduction targets set out in Vietnam’s national received from the tax does not match the amount of strategies and legal documents. plastic produced and imported, which suggests that While the principle behind taxing and charging the tax is not strictly enforced, and that producers consumers a fee is the same (reducing the use of plastic and importers are not fully applying the tax on their bags and their negative impact on the environment), goods. Taxes on the production of non-degradable the mechanisms for implementation are different. A plastic bags are hard to collect and enforce, as many tax would be collected and managed at the national production facilities are in craft villages. level through the taxation system, and a fee would be managed at the local level. The pros and cons of each approach are summarized in Table 4.3, below. Table 4.3. PROS AND CONS OF TAXES VERSUS FEES PAID BY CONSUMERS Tax paid by consumers Fee paid by consumers Pros • Level playing field. The amount of tax is fixed through • Influence on consumer behavior. Using a fee national legislation, and it is the same in all provinces can influence consumer behavior, significantly, and cities. and reduce consumption by more than 90 percent (as in the example of Ireland) • Environmental impacts. Retail customers are charged a tax per bag, which leads to a reduction in the number • Environmental impacts. Retail customers of bags used, and the amount of non-degradable plastic are directly charged a fee per bag, which waste and litter in the environment. leads to a reduction in the number of bags used, and the amount of non-degradable plastic waste and litter in the environment. • Revenue spending. Experience in Ireland shows that it is feasible to collect the fee, locally, and deposit the money in a dedicated Environmental Protection Fund. However, in Vietnam, fully earmarking such revenue for waste management or environmental protection activities is not possible. Provincial/ local authorities cannot be obliged to spend all of the revenue gained from the fee for such purposes, and some of the revenue could be used in other ways. Nevertheless, some of the funds could be earmarked for waste management and environmental protection activities. 62 | Toward a National Single-use Plastics Roadmap in Vietnam: Strategic Options for Reducing Priority Single-use Plastics Tax paid by consumers Fee paid by consumers Cons • Feasibility (Implementability). The success of implementing • Feasibility (Implementability). As controlling the tax depends on the effectiveness of controlling retailers’ numerous stakeholders (retailers) is very sales to the end-users. The tax cannot be implemented by difficult, ensuring stakeholders’ and compulsory measures, only. Stakeholders and consumers consumers’ acceptance and willingness to must accept the tax, and be willing to participate. participate requires extensive consultation with stakeholders. • Cross-departmental collaboration is difficult. Implementation requires ensuring that various arms of government • Cross-departmental collaboration is difficult. collaborate, and also involve provincial/local authorities. Implementation requires ensuring that the various concerned arms of government • Difficulty in changing the tax rate. As tax rates are not collaborate and involve provincial/local set to cover specific services, any change in the tax rate authorities, too. requires strong justification and the amendment of primary legislation. On the other hand, taxes should be increased, • Unequal playing field. The amount charged periodically, to reflect rising prices, and create stronger for fees in Vietnam is determined by provincial behavioral incentives. and local authorities. Potentially, this could • Revenue spending. Earmarking of the tax’s revenue for result in lowering the amount of the fee waste management or environmental protection activities due to competition between provinces to is not possible as tax is levied for public expenditures attract investment by reducing investors’ that benefit the country, with no reference to any specific tax burden. A lower fee would also have services rendered by the state, or any specific benefits less impact on reducing consumption, solid to be conferred on taxpayers. Thus, revenue from the waste generation, and littering. tax cannot be earmarked for waste management or any other specific purpose. • Influence on consumer behavior. Compared to charging consumers fees, the impact that the tax could have on changing consumers’ behavior may be less. In Denmark, the introduction of a tax on SUP bags contributed to reducing their consumption by about 50 percent.26 Implementation of this tax varied, depending on the type of establishment. The tax had a remarkable effect on the use of re-usable plastic carrier bags in supermarkets if plastic carrier bags were available for customers to buy. In clothing and other retail shops, however, plastic carrier bags were offered for free to customers, who paid the tax themselves. In the latter case, the combined effect on consumption was halved. If the tax on consumers in Denmark is compared to the fee consumers pay in Ireland, it appears that Ireland’s better results in changing consumers’ behavior and reducing consumption, were due to: ºº Lack of a flexible mechanism for indexing the tax rate in Denmark ºº All retailers in Ireland are obliged to charge consumers if they want plastic bags ºº There is no doubt in Ireland that the real purpose of the fee is to protect the environment, and not to provide revenue for government. 26 The experience of implementing a tax on carrier bags in Denmark shows that after the introduction of the tax, the total use of plastic to make carrier bags fell from just under 18,750 tons in 1993, to around 7,750 tons in 1999. By 2009, use had crept back up to around 8,950 tons (BIO Intelligence Service 2011). 4. Policies to Reduce and Phase Out the Consumption of Certain SUPs | 63 Based on the lessons learned from other countries that Prior to introducing the fee, an effective have been summarized in this report, and the current communications campaign must explain the rationale framework conditions in Vietnam, a fee charged for behind the fee and potential alternatives for plastic plastic bags might be preferable to a tax. This fee bags. Retailers in Vietnam have requested alternatives could be implemented in the following manner: for SUPs at an acceptable price,27 so educating them about appropriate alternatives will help to achieve a • The fee for plastic bags provided to consumers smooth transition. An appropriate amount for the fee could be charged at the point of sale. According should also be determined. The experience gained to Decision No: 1316 /QD-TTg, Provincial People’s from implementing the tax on the production and Committees could oversee the introduction importing of non-biodegradable plastic bags could be of the fee for plastic bags. The collection of used to determine the right amount for the consumer revenues from the fee would then be managed fee; to make sure that the amount is affordable; and by the Department of Finance of the People’s that fee will not lead to an excessive price increase, Committee. Eventually the revenues could be while also maintaining its effectiveness in reducing earmarked and re-invested in environmental consumption. The amount of the fee should be flexible projects. Under the same Decision, the People’s so that the government can raise or lower the fee to Committee would monitor retailers to ensure adapt to changing economic conditions. that they abide by the policy. The analysis of existing alternatives suggests that a • While the People’s Committee would implement variety of alternatives to SUP bags are available in the fee at the local level, national coordination the market in Vietnam, including multi-use plastic would be under the Ministry of Finance, and bags, and that these alternatives should be promoted regulated by a policy from the Prime Minister. when applying the fee to consumers. However, Ideally, the policy would also set the minimum implementation of the fee might be difficult in amount of the fee. some contexts, such in wet markets. Thus, a phased • The Department of Domestic Markets, under approach would be useful, which would initially target the Ministry of Industry and Trade (MOIT), would supermarkets, retailers, and shopping malls, to normalize be responsible for preparing a plan to ensure the use of alternatives. Alternatively, the fee could be the reduction of non-biodegradable plastic applied, first, in some locations (such as tourist areas) bags in markets, supermarkets, and shopping through pilot projects that would provide an initial centers; and the Ministry of Culture, Sports view of the impact of this mechanism, and then the and Tourism (MOCST) would supervise plastic fee could be applied country wide. bag reduction in businesses, accommodation Concerning the potential impact of the policy, a providers, and service establishments in tourist well-designed approach for implementing the areas. The Department of Natural Resources and consumer fee could lead to significant results in Environment (DONRE), or the Department of cutting plastic bag consumption—up to as much as Industry and Trade (DOIT) would take the lead 90 percent, as was the case in Ireland. The costs for at the provincial level, with the participation consumers and retailers are expected to be lower (as of the Provincial People’s Committee. The was shown in the EU example above) when single-use fees could be collected and kept at the local plastic bags are replaced by reusable bags, rather than level for environmental purposes (for example, by more expensive, non-plastic, single-use alternatives. through VAT tax collection). The management The administrative costs of enforcing the ban could of the fee at the local level would give local be minimized if the existing tax authorities and local authorities more regulatory oversight over the authorities are involved in collecting the fees, as well retailers/shops. as supervision and enforcement. 27 Discussions with retailers during the consultation workshop for establishing the Retailer Alliance to Reduce SUP Consumption, which was held on March 31, 2021. 64 | Toward a National Single-use Plastics Roadmap in Vietnam: Strategic Options for Reducing Priority Single-use Plastics Finally, concerns might arise if two financial instruments 4.3.1. International case studies and lessons are used (a tax on producers and importers, as well as learned a fee charged to consumers). In general, international Concerning the ban on the sale of certain SUPs, several experience has shown that a tax on producers might states and cities in the US have started to ban EPS for be less effective in achieving a reduction in plastic packaging products (Valinsky 2019; Mezzofiore 2019), bag consumption, but it might stimulate producers while in China there are plans to ban plastic bags that are to shift to making alternatives. However, when the tax below 25 microns in thickness (Mathur 2020). Thailand paid by producers and importers is added to the price imposed a ban on SUP bags in major stores, starting that consumers pay for goods, consumers might not in 2021, as well as other types of plastic bags, straws, notice the slight increase in price, and they may not glasses, and foam food containers (Reuters 2020). On shift away from using SUP bags. A tax on producers the island of Bali, in Indonesia, a ban on SUPs began and importers has hardly any effect on the behavior on June 23, 2019, and now Styrofoam, plastic bags, of consumers. To ensure that enough single-use and and plastic straws are officially prohibited, island-wide multi-use alternatives are available on the market by (The Honeycombers 2019). In the Philippines, plastic end of 2025, when non-biodegradable plastic bags will bags are banned in many of the local government be phased out,28 transitional measures are needed. In units in Metropolitan Manila, and similar bans are in order to provide a smooth transition toward the ban, a effect in many other locations in the country. Both fee paid by consumers would have a significant impact China and the European Union target several SUPs by on plastic bag consumption, and it could be paired progressively banning their placement on the market. with the existing tax on producers and importers. Starting in 2020, the United Kingdom banned plastic The tax and the fee could reinforce each other, and straws, drink stirrers, and cotton buds (DEFRA 2020). increase the likelihood of success in reducing plastic See Box 4.6 for more examples. bag consumption. Adding fees to SUPs, other than plastic bags, such as coffee-to-go cups, might be considered for Vietnam in the mid-term. However, due to the current lack of robust and reliable data on the consumption of these cups in Vietnam, it is difficult to estimate the potential impact of a fee. Thus, further investigation is warranted as the consumer trend to consume coffee-to-go might quickly increase the use of this SUP. 4.3. Bans on the sale, importing, and production of SUPs Bans are typically imposed by legislation to prohibit the sale, production, importing, and exporting of certain products. This is a suitable measure where alternatives are readily available, and a ban on the SUP will not have disruptive effects. Typically, banned products are single-use, non-degradable plastic bags, plastic straws, and EPS foam food containers. As indicated below, some countries in Southeast Asia such as Indonesia, the Philippines, and Thailand are moving forward with bans on the sale of some of these plastic items. To avoid producers migrating from these countries to Vietnam, coherent action and regional cooperation are needed. 28 Decree 8/2022. 4. Policies to Reduce and Phase Out the Consumption of Certain SUPs | 65 BOX 4.6. INTERNATIONAL EXAMPLES – BANS ON SUPS Ban on EPS food containers in the US state of Maine29 • The national police require citizens to make a report whenever they see someone importing or selling Starting on July 1, 2021, food establishments in the state of plastic bags. Maine in the United States were prohibited from processing, preparing, selling, or providing food and beverages in, • Fines are used as economic instruments. or on, a disposable food service container that is made entirely, or in part, with polystyrene foam (for example, bowls, • Along with fines, penalties include imprisonment for plates, trays, cartons, cups, lids, sleeves, stirrers, and other up to one year. items designed to be used to contain, transport, serve, or • A few years after the ban was implemented, the consume prepared foods). Fines for violators cannot exceed information campaign focused more on penalties $100. The use of foam packaging is still allowed, such as rather than raising awareness. for processing or shipping seafood, or for carrying “raw proteins” such as meat and eggs (especially, in response • In recent years, implementation has focused more to the COVID-19 emergency). on inspection. Reports indicate that manufacturers have been raided, and travelers’ plastic bags have Ban on the sale, supply, and distribution of different SUPs, been seized at the airport when they are entering including expanded polystyrene takeaway food and beverage the country. containers in the Australian Capital Territory Imposition of the law has been accompanied by information On July 1, 2021, as the first step of implementation, the campaigns, and the promotion of alternatives to plastic Australian Capital Territory (ACT) prohibited the sale, supply, bags, such as paper bags, as well as tax incentives for or distribution of a number of SUP items, including expanded companies that are willing to invest in plastic recycling polystyrene takeaway food and beverage containers. Ideally, equipment, or in the manufacture of environmentally this will encourage businesses to avoid these single-use friendly bags. Despite these good intentions, investments items, entirely, by using reusable alternatives. If this is not in recycling technologies are still lacking, as are effective possible, the items can be replaced with acceptable single-use and low priced alternatives. As a result, people started alternatives. In the second and third phases in 2022 and 2023, smuggling in plastic bags from neighbouring countries, respectively, more plastic items will be banned, including and a lucrative black market emerged. Thus, this approach SUP straws, fruit and vegetable carrier bags, and coffee may not be generalizable to all contexts, and requires more cups and lids. Authorities have been appointed to enforce types of stimulation to encourage all actors to abide by the ban under specific provisions of the Fair Trading Unit, the restrictions (Danielsson 2017). and the public health office. In 2019, prior to adopting the regulation, the ACT government surveyed over 3,000 people Bans on the sale of EPS in the cities of New York and San as part of the consultation process to phase out SUPs, and Francisco in the United States over 90 percent of respondents rated the policy as “very important” or “important” (Library of Congress 2021). New York City (NYC) first tried to ban food services’ use of EPS in 2013. The ban was delayed, however, as the court ruled that the city first had to prove that it was not feasible Ban on the sale, manufacturing, and importing of plastic to recycle EPS. The ban was finally implemented in 2019, bags in Rwanda but NYC did not promote alternatives. Many street vendors started to use aluminum containers with polypropylene In 2008, Rwanda implemented a strict ban on the use, tops. These containers take more resources to produce, manufacturing, and importing of plastic bags, with penalties of and it is not clear if they are being recycled because food fines, or imprisonment up to one year. Strict legal instruments scraps in the containers make recycling difficult. were chosen over other alternative (stimulative) policy options: San Francisco banned EPS food containers in 2017, and • Rwandan law states that citizens who are physically due to the city-wide composting program, single-use food able to do so, must participate in community service containers had to be compostable. This approach fostered tasks such as cleaning the streets. Since the entry into successful program implementation and sustainability. By force of the ban, community service has focused on promoting alternative products, and having a citywide the elimination of plastic bags. Citizens’ participation composting system in place, San Francisco developed an is mandatory. efficient and effective way to reduce waste in its food service 29 Maine Statutes, Title 38, Chapter 15-A: DISPOSABLE FOOD SERVICE CONTAINERS (maine.gov). 66 | Toward a National Single-use Plastics Roadmap in Vietnam: Strategic Options for Reducing Priority Single-use Plastics industry. The main factors that contributed San Francisco’s assessment titled, The Commission Staff Working Document success over that of New York City were: Impact Assessment on Reducing Marine Litter: Action on Single Use Plastics and Fishing Gear (European Commission • San Francisco required a specific type of alternative, 2018). Based on this 2018 study, where multi-use alternatives while NYC did not. were available, and could be adopted by the whole market, it was expected that the bans would lead to a 100 percent • San Francisco had a successful composting program reduction in the consumption of SUP items. The fiscal impact to manage the required alternatives, while NYC did of the Directive is unknown, however, as implementation not have any system for managing the alternatives. by EU member states is still underway. However, during In a study on the effects of New York City’s EPS ban, for the development of the German “Ordinance banning the every $1 spent on EPS containers, businesses had to spend placing on the market of certain SUP products and products at least $1.94 for any of the alternative materials that were of oxo-degradable plastic,” a financial impact assessment was available (Kahoe 2013). carried out,30 and additional household expenses were not expected. It was assumed, however, that for administration Plastic bag ban at the retail level in Los Angeles, in the of the ban, an additional annual compliance cost would United States arise for the implementation of controls, as well as for the processing of offenses. Significant impact on individual Both the city and county of Los Angeles, California, have prices, on the price level, and particularly on consumer enacted plastic bag bans at the retail level (Bruch et al. price levels, was not expected. However, for items for which 2016). The ban applied, initially, to large stores, and later no reusable solutions are available, the replacement of was extended to convenience stores and other small stores. plastic by other materials is needed, and this could result The City of Los Angeles adopted a SUP carry-out bag ban in higher production costs. In the European Commission’s in June 2013, with a $0.10 fee per recyclable paper bag. impact assessment study (European Commission 2018), it This was required by large supermarkets in January 2014, was estimated that the impact on plastic straw producers’ and expanded to drug stores, convenience stores, and turnover would be medium. smaller food markets in July 2014. After Los Angeles County enacted an ordinance to ban bags, the county achieved a 95 Ban on plastic bags, polystyrene, and plastic straws in percent reduction of all single-use bags, and a 30 percent Bali, Indonesia31 reduction of single-use paper bags. In late 2018, the Balinese Governor announced a ban on The ordinance had a minimal financial impact on local plastic bags, polystyrene (Styrofoam), and plastic straws. The businesses. An economic analysis completed prior to adaptation period for the new regulation was six months. the county’s ban, estimated that the average cost per Producers, distributors and suppliers are prohibited from unincorporated resident would be $5.72/year (48 cents/ producing, distributing, and supplying SUPs (plastic bags, month). However, the actual impact appears to be less. Styrofoam, and plastic straws), and, at the same time, they After the ordinance went into effect, the State Board of are obliged to produce, distribute, and supply substitutes Equalization decided that paper bags sold to customers for SUP products. The public companies, as well as other would not be taxable items. By combining the effects of economic operators and traditional villages/Pakraman fewer paper bags used, and no sales tax being charged Villages are prohibited from using SUPs. The Governor on paper bags, the estimated impact was less than $4.00 provided guidance and supervision on implementation per resident, per year. of the ban and established a Monitoring and Evaluation Team that assesses implementation of the ban in Bali’s Ban on placing SUP straws and drink stirrers on the market regencies/cities. Traditional villages/Pakraman Villages that in the European Union have successfully implemented the ban get an award from the local government in the form of support for facilities In 2019, the European Union Council adopted measures and infrastructure, and funds for assistance. A successful proposed by the European Commission, which were designed awareness campaign, “Bye-bye Plastic Bags”,32 was organized to tackle the waste caused by SUPs (European Commission that involved local markets and volunteers who distribute 2018). The SUP Directive stated that by July 2021, EU member reusable bags to people shopping in local markets. Due states would be required to ban disposable plastic straws and to the success of this initiative, it has been piloted in more other products like plastic cotton buds, plastic stirrers, and markets on the island. SUP cutlery and plates. During the development of the SUP Directive, the European Commission prepared an impact 30 Verordnung über das Verbot des Inverkehrbringens von bestimmten Einwegkunststoffprodukten und von Produkten aus oxo-abbaubarem Kunststoff. 31 Governor’s Regulation (Pergub) No. 97/2018. 32 “Bye Bye Plastic Bags” is a public awareness initiative driven by youth to encourage people to say “No” to plastic bags. 4. Policies to Reduce and Phase Out the Consumption of Certain SUPs | 67 Based the information available in the case studies above, the key implementation mechanisms, success (or failure) factors, and impact, have been summarized in Table 4.4. Table 4.4. BANS ON THE PRODUCTION, IMPORTING, AND SALE OF CERTAIN SUPS Targeted SUPs EPS food containers, straws, drink stirrers, and plastic bags How the policies For all of the targeted SUPs, the ban could cover manufacturing and importing, or just the work sale of SUPs. • For EPS food containers, the ban could extend to the whole value chain that processes and prepares food, and even to manufacturing, selling, giving away, or otherwise providing polystyrene takeaway boxes. Exemptions could be granted for some food safety purposes after conducting a detailed comparative analysis of the economic, environmental, and human health impacts of the different EPS products, and of the alternatives that are available in the market in Vietnam. • Plastic straw bans could either be implemented by banning the distribution of plastic straws (see Section 4.1 on restrictions) or by banning their placement on the market (as in EU). However exceptions might need to be granted (for example, for persons with disabilities). • It is common to ban plastic bags, and many countries have also taken the necessary steps to ban their production and importing. For all of the targeted SUPs, bans on their sale seem to be more accepted and more successful, than bans on imports and production. Success factors for • Information campaigns on the regulations are important. Communicating the regulations implementation is necessary to decrease the risk of non-compliance, confusion, or protests. • Regulations released in tandem with environmental or anti-plastic waste/pollution campaigns are potentially more successful. • Ensuring the availability of alternative products is crucial for success, and especially so for EPS. The impact of alternative products (compostable, or reusable such as aluminum) should be considered. Without measures to gradually increase the availability of sustainable alternatives, implementing a plastic bag ban could fail completely. • Introducing monitoring mechanisms and assisting retailers to comply with the requirements will help to increase proper implementation. • Engaging existing authorities for inspections because they already visit the stores affected, will help to reduce implementation costs. • Providing a transition period before bringing the regulations into force can be crucial to ensure success. Impact Bans should be able to achieve a 100 percent reduction of the targeted item, but this depends on how the policy is implemented and enforced. In the European Union, for example, it is expected that plastic straws will be completely eliminated from the market. • There should be no additional costs for consumers, and the administrative costs are likely to be low, however, the impact on plastic straw producers will be high. • As discussed above, for the consumption of all single-use plastic bags, the reduction rate of 95 percent achieved in Los Angeles County is the highest rate achieved from implementing a ban. As shown in the county’s quarterly reports, the plastic bag bans have had a minimal fiscal impact on local businesses and consumers. • For EPS, data on the success of the ban is not known, yet. Financially, the ban might almost double the costs that consumers have to pay for alternatives (as is the case in New York City). 68 | Toward a National Single-use Plastics Roadmap in Vietnam: Strategic Options for Reducing Priority Single-use Plastics 4.3.2. Applicability to Vietnam The case studies analyzed for this report provide As the analysis of the case studies highlights, bans on little quantitative information on the effectiveness production, importing, and sales are primarily applied of bans on the sale of EPS. In general, the policies to EPS food containers, straws, drink stirrers, and seem to have gained interest only in recent times, and, plastic bags. therefore, not much information is available on their impact. Even though bans on the sale of EPS are not a widespread practice, these items cause significant Market ban (through a ban on sales or production and imports) of EPS food containers damage in the environment as they are lightweight, float, and can be easily blown by the wind. Also, due The analysis of the volume of EPS food containers to their wide dispersal in the environment, they are produced and imported into Vietnam demonstrates expensive to collect for recycling. The availability of that approximately 10 billion EPS food containers alternatives on the market makes EPS products suitable and trays are put on the market every year (see for the application of a ban, and banning the sale of Annex 2). Alternatives to EPS are available in Vietnam EPS might also achieve a substantial reduction rate, and, in some cases, with comparable prices (leaf and but that depends on how the ban is applied, and the bagasse trays), but the amounts produced each year extent of resistance by the actors involved. cannot satisfy the current market demand. Vietnam is also an exporter of EPS containers, and neighboring Giving businesses sufficient time to adapt, and for countries produce many EPS items, too. market prices to become competitive, will be crucial for the success of an EPS ban, but some people An immediate ban on the production and importing of might not be able to afford reusable alternatives. The EPS would hurt small businesses and poor communities, market for alternatives shows that some alternative food whereas a ban in the mid-term, could provide time containers such as leaf or bagasse trays can compete for the market to adapt. Small markets such as fast with the price of EPS containers, which could further food and street vendors, and other micro and small benefit producers if restrictions are imposed on EPS. enterprises might even be exempted from the ban Restricting full-service restaurants and takeaways in in the mid-term, or granted an additional transition high tourist areas from using EPS could pave the way period. Implementation of the ban should be supported for future bans on sales. through a series of transitional measures—for example, starting with restrictions on the use of EPS in certain Another aspect to consider is that if the market places, such as tourist areas, or in full-service restaurants. develops for alternative single-use solutions, the waste This would allow more time for alternatives to enter management system should be capable of responding the market and become competitive. to this. Bagasse and plant leaves, for example, are particularly easy to compost (Lu Zhang 2016). However, Concerning impact, whereas a ban on the production there is currently little industrial composting capacity and importing of EPS would ideally prevent 10 billion in Vietnam, which means, therefore, that this poses pieces/year of EPS boxes and trays from being a significant a risk of having to collect and send this generated, becoming waste, and potentially becoming biowaste to landfills, which would increase greenhouse litter, if 100 percent effectiveness is expected, this gas (GHG) emissions.33 measure might be too ambitious to succeed in the short term, and fail, as it has in other countries where the right pre-conditions were missing. 33 These results are based on lifecycle assessments (LCAs) conducted by the University of California, Berkeley, on four baseline EPS products and 17 alternative products. The LCAs identified the life-cycle GHG emissions associated with the extraction of raw materials, manufacturing, end-of-life treatment, and transportation for 21 types of food containers. 4. Policies to Reduce and Phase Out the Consumption of Certain SUPs | 69 Market ban (through a ban on sales or Heavy plastic-consuming businesses that use production and imports) of straws and drink straws, such as dairy product producers, should stirrers also be required to use straws made of alternative This study’s analysis of the use of plastic straws in materials. Alternatives for dairy product straws are Vietnam highlights that straws are a major polluting readily available, and especially alternatives made of item, which would be advisable to ban through a paper; these account for 680 million pieces/year. The phased approach. The market for straws in Vietnam prices for these straws are competitive, too, when is already responding with alternatives that are both compared to U-shaped plastic straws (VND400/unit single and multi-use. This means that a ban on straws versus VND100–300/unit). Alternatives could include would be particularly promising. eco-design requirements for the straws attached to dairy product packaging. Whereas a ban could potentially prevent 5.322 billion SUP straws from becoming waste (100 percent of the This indicates that a ban on the sale of plastic straws amount placed on the market [World Bank 2022]), would be a feasible measure for Vietnam. This ban plastic straws are required in some places such as has already been implemented in Hanoi, where hospitals and nursing homes, and a complete ban supermarkets are banned from selling SUP items would cause significant challenges for them. such as plastic straws and cutlery. Implementing a ban on plastic straws, nationwide, would be especially A market ban (on sales or production and imports) of feasible if the restrictions were introduced gradually plastic straws would be more realistic, and especially (for example, starting with barring the distribution and so in the mid-term. In this case it will be important to: use of straws in tourist areas). Announcing the ban at • Clearly specify to whom the measure applies (for least one year prior to its enforcement, and leading example, retailers, restaurants, and take-away up to it with progressive restrictions, would help shift food stalls) consumers’ preferences toward single-use and multi-use alternatives; allow businesses enough time to find • Clearly specify the exemptions (for example, suitable and adequate supplies of alternatives; and nursing homes and hospitals) and which suppliers would have enough time to meet greater businesses can still produce and sell plastic demand. straws (such as allowing business-to-business sales) During the implementation phase, this policy measure would benefit from using the already-established A success factor for the policy would be the availability institutional set-ups for market surveillance (the of affordable alternatives. In Vietnam, the data on same institutions that are responsible for taxing the alternatives to plastic straws suggest that there is production of plastic bags). Businesses should be fined, some capacity to produce competitively priced, al- too, which would vary depending on the violation. ternative-material straws, and especially single-use, In addition, significant fines should be imposed on degradable alternatives such as paper, grass, and the producers and importers that do not comply with bamboo straws. The current capacity to produce the ban. alternatives (with paper straws being the most prevalent) is about 1.580 billion pieces per year, and this could meet the entire demand for polypropylene (PP) straws. For drink stirrers, this study found international examples, which show that these can be easily included in policies to eliminate plastic straws. Vietnam could also explore this option when implementing a ban on plastic straws. 70 | Toward a National Single-use Plastics Roadmap in Vietnam: Strategic Options for Reducing Priority Single-use Plastics Market ban (through a ban on sales or reduction of non-biodegradable plastic bags in production and imports) of non-degradable markets, supermarkets, and shopping centers. In plastic bags tourist areas, the Ministry of Culture, Sports, and Vietnam has already put measures in place that target Tourism (MOCST) is supervising the reduction non-degradable plastic bags, and the following can of plastic bag use by businesses, tourist serve as transitional measures toward the adoption accommodations, and service providers; and of stricter bans: People’s Committees are carrying out campaigns to mobilize communities and individuals to limit, • Non-biodegradable plastic bags are targeted or entirely stop using disposable plastic products in several national strategies, and are taxable (including non-biodegradable plastic bags). according to the Law on Environmental Protection Tax No. 57/2010/QH12. Voluntary instruments, such as the Vietnam Green Label scheme have been implemented as well (see Box 4.7 for more details). These measures have increased the availability of suitable alternatives, and prepared BOX 4.7. businesses and consumers for stricter measures CRITERIA AND GUIDELINES FOR such as a ban. The government is also investing BIODEGRADABLE/ENVIRONMENTALLY in research to create environmentally friendly FRIENDLY PLASTIC ALTERNATIVES materials to replace single-use, non-degradable plastic bags, and providing training, public While not the focus of this report, to support and communications campaigns, and engaging encourage the use of environmentally friendly in international cooperation to improve the and approved alternatives to SUPs, sufficiently clear standards for these need to be in place. In country’s plastic waste management. particular, a policy is needed to clearly distinguish between biodegradable, bio-based, compostable • Step-by-step introduction of bans on plastic and oxo-degradable plastics. For example, currently, bags have been implemented in important “eco-friendly” plastic bags are awarded with a “Vietnam geographic locations such as Cu Lao Cham Green Label” and a “Certificate of Eco-friendly Plastic in the city of Hoi An,34 where non-degradable Bags” (in accordance with Circular No. 07/2012/ TT-BTNMT, dated July 4, 2012). However, the label plastic bags have been prohibited since the does not explicitly inform the consumer that the end of 2021. This aligns with meeting the plastic bags are biodegradable, and the label only ambitious target set by the National Action covers biodegradability, and not compostability. The recent Decree 08/2022 (Chapter X, Articles Plan for Management of Marine Plastic Litter 145–260) provides detailed guidance for updating by 2030, which is to impose a 100 percent ban the “Vietnam Green Label”. Namely, the Vietnam on disposable plastic products and non-biode- Environment Administration (VEA) has been assigned gradable plastic bags in coastal areas, tourist to develop technical guidelines and a replacement for Circular No. 07/2012/TT-BTNMT that will provide attractions, tourist accommodations, and other clear criteria for oxo-degradable plastics, bio-based establishments serving tourists (Tuoi Tre News plastics, and their thickness and size. The Decree 2021). also notes that the following are required to inform the update (i) adoption of internationally recognized • An appropriate institutional set-up has been standards; (ii) an independent body to evaluate the proposals of organizations and individuals applying established through the Department of Domestic for registration and recognition of environmental- Markets (under the Ministry of Industry and ly friendly or biodegradable plastics products; (iii) Trade), which is responsible for ensuring the definition of testing methods and pass/fail criteria; (iv) accreditation of laboratories; and (v) a quality assurance system. 34 Directive No. 1CT/TU on strengthening control and minimizing the use of single-use plastic products and non-degradable plas- tic bags, and continuing to implement the policy of classifying waste at source for environmental protection of the city. Issued by the Hoi An City People’s Committee. 4. Policies to Reduce and Phase Out the Consumption of Certain SUPs | 71 Due to the lack of monitoring mechanisms, the For the successful implementation of a ban on plastic results achieved in plastic bag reduction in Vietnam bags, more efforts are needed to gradually implement are unknown, and no information is available on stricter measures such as: whether there has been an increase in the availability • Stronger enforcement of the tax on producers of sustainable alternatives, or if any changes have that is required by the Law on the Environmental occurred in people’s behavior. Based on the field Protection Tax. However, due to the minimal surveys conducted in 2020 and 2021, plastic bags (0 to impact of this tax on the pollution associated 5 kg), and their fragments are the most polluting SUP with plastic bags, a review should be conducted, item in Vietnam, and this calls for immediate action. and especially a review of the mechanisms for Based on extrapolation from the field survey findings, implementation of the decree. phasing out plastic bags in Vietnam would reduce the volume of SUP items found in the environment by 8 • Introduction of restrictions in specific sectors to 30 percent. (such as hotels) and geographic locations (such as tourist destinations and coastal cities) to create This report’s analysis proposes a market ban (through a plastic free zones. ban of the sale or production and imports) of non-bio- degradable plastic bags in 2026. This is broadly in • Introduction of a fee paid by consumers who line with Decree 8/2022, which, in Article 64, requires purchase non-degradable plastic bags as an a ban, starting in 2026, on the production and imports intermediate measure before the implementing of non-biodegradable plastic bags with a size smaller the ban. than 50cm x 50cm, and a thickness of less than 50 µm (micrometer). Although the decree does not include Currently, single-use and multi-use alternatives exist for a ban on sales, this could potentially be added in a non-degradable plastic bags, but they are, in general, future revision of the decree. The Article also includes significantly more expensive than non-degradable the following policy targets relevant to plastic bags: plastic bags. Once sufficient alternatives are readily available in the market, in Vietnam, and the attitude of • Organizations and individuals that manufacture businesses and consumers is positive, efforts should and import single-use plastic products and then focus on establishing surveillance and monitoring non-biodegradable plastic packaging must mechanisms, as well as setting up adequate penalties be responsible for their recycling and handling. to assure the enforcement of a national ban. • Provincial People’s Committees (PPCs) are Judging by the results achieved in the previously to promulgate the regulations, organize the described international examples of good practices, implementation of plastic waste management if it ban is implemented well, it could lead to reducing activities, and ensure that after 2025, single-use the consumption of plastic bags by over 95 percent. plastic products, non-biodegradable plastic At the same time, a slight increase in the costs for packaging (including non-biodegradable consumers and retailers might initially be expected plastic bags, Styrofoam packaging boxes, and because alternatives are more expensive. However, food containers) are not circulated by, or used costs would decrease over time if consumers use their in commercial centers, supermarkets, hotels, reusable bags multiple times. This should offset the tourist resorts, with the exception of products initial higher costs of the bags in comparison with and goods with difficult-to-biodegrade plastic purchasing multiple SUP bags. The administrative packaging. The PPCs are also required to organize costs of enforcing the ban could be minimized if the the inspection and examination of units producing government staff already conducting inspections for single-use plastic products and non-biodegrad- other purposes are involved in control and monitoring able plastic packaging in their locality. related to the ban. 72 | Toward a National Single-use Plastics Roadmap in Vietnam: Strategic Options for Reducing Priority Single-use Plastics 4.4. Integration of the proposed policies in the context of Vietnam’s current regulations, which in Vietnam’s current legal and policy would include taking into account the current tax framework on the producers and importers of non-degradable plastic bags, as well as the national strategies for To get a more comprehensive picture of the envisaged addressing marine littering. legislative framework, it is important to consider the proposed policies in comparison with Vietnam’s Table 4.5 provides an overview of the existing legal existing policies. It is important to identify how requirements, how the proposed policies would support the proposed policies can support and accelerate their implementation, and how the proposed policies the implementation of Vietnam’s existing policies would fit into Vietnam’s current or proposed legal and strategies for plastic waste management. This framework. includes developing a roadmap to phase out SUPs Shutterstock: Lithiumphoto 4. Policies to Reduce and Phase Out the Consumption of Certain SUPs | 73 Table 4.5. HOW THE PROPOSED POLICIES FIT INTO VIETNAM’S CURRENT LEGAL AND POLICY FRAMEWORK, JANUARY 2022 Policy areas Current and foreseen actions in the Specific policy How the proposed policy for addressing legal and policy framework in Vietnam options supports actions in the SUP items current or foreseen legal and policy framework Restriction Increase the environmental tax on A fee charged to The proposed policy can of non- the production and importing of consumers who be seen as reinforcing the biodegradable non-degradable plastic bags and request a plastic bag environmental tax, which bags apply an environmental tax on SUP also puts the responsibility products.35 on consumers (so polluters pay). This Propose a roadmap to increase the would help reduce the environmental protection tax for use of non-degradable non-degradable plastic bags; an plastic bags since these additional environmental protection are currently the most tax for SUP products for domestic polluting SUP item in the purposes; and a roadmap to limit environment, despite the the production and imports of SUP existing tax on producers. products, and difficult-to-biodegrade plastic packaging.36 Restriction Gradually reduce the production and Bans and restrictions The proposed policies of the top imports of single-use plastic products, on EPS, straws, and target restricting the polluting SUPs non-biodegradable plastic packaging, non-degradable distribution, use, and sale and products and goods containing plastic bags of the top polluting SUPs. microplastics.37 Restriction of From January 1, 2026, stop the A fee on the The fee on plastic bags, the supply of manufacturing and imports of non- distribution of plastic and the subsequent ban plastic bags biodegradable plastic bags with bags on their sale, are good in the retail dimensions smaller than 50cm x 50cm "fair transition" policies. sector and a thickness of less than 50 µm.38 A ban on the sale or production/imports The recommendation Propose a roadmap to limit the of plastic bags is broadly in line with production and importing of difficult- Decree 8/2022’s ban to-biodegrade plastic packaging and on the importing products, and oversee the collection and manufacturing of the environmental protection tax of plastic bags. This on the production and consumption recommendation included SUP bags. The Ministry of Industry the option of also banning and Trade (MOIT) would plan how to the sales. transition retailers away from using non-degradable plastic bags. The Provincial/City People's Committees would oversee and enforce limits on the use, and the eventual ban, of non-degradable plastic bags in commercial centers, supermarkets, and wet markets, and ask these businesses to publicly list the price of a plastic bag.39 35 Directive No. 33/CT-TTg, dated August 20, 2020, on strengthening the management, reuse, recycling, treatment, and reduction of plastic waste, assigned this task to the Ministry of Finance. 36 Decision 1316 QD-TTg on Approving the Scheme for Strengthening Plastic Waste Management in Vietnam from July 22, 2021. 37 Decree 8/2022 guiding the implementation of selected articles in the Law on Environmental Protection 2020. 38 Ibid. 39 Decision 1316 QD-TTg on Approving the Scheme for Strengthening Plastic Waste Management in Vietnam from July 22, 2021. 74 | Toward a National Single-use Plastics Roadmap in Vietnam: Strategic Options for Reducing Priority Single-use Plastics Policy areas Current and foreseen actions in the Specific policy How the proposed policy for addressing legal and policy framework in Vietnam options supports actions in the SUP items current or foreseen legal and policy framework Ban on placing From January 1, 2026, stop the A ban on the sale or This recommendation non-degradable manufacturing and importing of production/imports is broadly in line with plastic bags non-biodegradable plastic bags with of plastic bags Decree 8/2022’s ban and SUPs on dimensions smaller than 50cm x 50cm on the importing the market and a thickness of less than 50 µm).40 and manufacturing of plastic bags. This recommendation included the option of also banning the sales. By 2030, restrict and stop the Bans, and restrictions Despite microplastics not production and importing of SUP on EPS, straws, and being the focus of this products, non-biodegradable plastic non-degradable roadmap, the policies to packaging, and products and goods plastic bags phase out certain SUPs containing microplastics.41 will contribute indirectly to decreasing microplastics. Provincial People’s Committees will develop a plan and roadmap to limit, and eventually ban, the use of non-degradable plastic bags in shopping centers, supermarkets, and wet markets.42 Restriction Provincial People's Committees Restrictions on Restrictions on the use on the use of will ensure that after 2025, SUP the use of certain of certain SUPs in food certain SUPs in products and non-biodegradable SUPs for onsite services, and in tourist food services plastic packaging will not be used in consumption in establishments or areas and in tourist commercial centers, supermarkets, food establishments (plastic-free areas) are destinations hotels, and tourist areas, and the PPCs (restaurants, transitional policies for help organize inspections.43 cafeterias, and so on) achieving the gradual transition to nation-wide Provincial People's Committees will Restrictions on bans. promulgate regulations and organize the use of certain the implementation of plastic waste SUPs in tourist management activities; and ensure that establishments or after 2025, single-use plastic products, areas in plastic-free non-biodegradable plastic packaging areas (including non-biodegradable plastic bags, Styrofoam packaging boxes, and Restrictions (a food containers) does not circulate voluntary agreement) and is not used in commercial centers, on the distribution supermarkets, hotels, and tourist of disposable plastic resorts.44 cutlery with online food orders The Ha Long Bay Management Unit has issued a document (No. 598/ BQLVHL-NVNC in 17/7/2019) that encourages the restriction of SUPs in tourist activities. 40 Decree 8/2022 guiding the implementation of selected articles in the Law on Environmental Protection 2020. 41 Ibid. 42 Decision 1316 QD-TTg on Approving the Scheme for Strengthening Plastic Waste Management in Vietnam from July 22, 2021. 43 ibid. 44 Decree 8/2022 guiding the implementation of selected articles in the Law on Environmental Protection 2020. 4. Policies to Reduce and Phase Out the Consumption of Certain SUPs | 75 Policy areas Current and foreseen actions in the Specific policy How the proposed policy for addressing legal and policy framework in Vietnam options supports actions in the SUP items current or foreseen legal and policy framework Other policies Before being supplied, according Not directly Microplastic is outside the for addressing to the provisions in Decree No. addressed by the scope of this roadmap. SUPs 43/2017/ND-CP, dated April 14, 2017, proposed policies products and goods that have non- (under Pillar 3) biodegradable plastic packaging, and that contain microplastics, must be labeled clearly in Vietnamese, stating that the plastic packaging is difficult to decompose and contains microplastics. Alternative products and packaging Not directly The proposed policies that replace SUPs will be granted the addressed by the focus on a priority right to use eco-labelling.45 proposed policies selection of plastic (under Pillar 3) products and SUPs, namely plastic bags, EPS, and plastic straws. This provides the opportunity to develop an integrated plastic policy framework that is not just focused on reduction policies for the selected items (Pillar 1), but also focuses on creating value for waste reuse (under Pillar 3). Suppliers and producers of alternative Not directly The proposed policies products and packaging that replace addressed by the will help to narrow the SUP will be given incentives.46 proposed policies selection of plastic (under Pillar 3) products and selected SUPs—namely plastic bags, EPS, and plastic straws. This provides the opportunity to develop an integrated plastic policy framework that also includes the promotion of alternative products. Develop regulations and pilot deposit Not directly Deposit-refund systems are and refund mechanisms for the addressed by the not considered in this report single-use packaging, plastic bottles, proposed policies since they belong under and SUPs used in the food and (under Pillar 2) Pillar 2 "Enhance Waste beverage sectors. Collection and Minimize Leakage" (under EPR). EPR Charge a fee for the treatment of Not directly The proposed bans and implementation certain SUP waste, including EPS and addressed by the fees will reinforce the foam containers, and straws. proposed policies phasing-out of those SUPs (under Pillar 2) that are difficult to collect and recycle, in comparison with foam containers and straws. 45 Decree 8/2022 guiding the implementation of selected articles in the Law on Environmental Protection 2020. 46 Decision 1316 QD-TTg on Approving the Scheme for Strengthening Plastic Waste Management in Vietnam from July 22, 2021 (Chapter II, Article 1, item b, third bullet point). 76 | Toward a National Single-use Plastics Roadmap in Vietnam: Strategic Options for Reducing Priority Single-use Plastics 5. POLICY OPTIONS FOR VIETNAM 5. POLICY OPTIONS FOR VIETNAM I n the sections above, the steps already taken in Vietnam to address the problem of plastic waste have been explained. To achieve the goals set out in Vietnam’s strategic documents and national legislation, the government should consider implementing additional measures to reduce the use of the SUP products that are discussed in this section. To contribute to significant SUP reduction, and in some cases eliminate the consumption of certain SUP items, it is necessary to implement measures that introduce new business models, and also change consumers’ attitudes so that they prefer more sustainable alternatives. Both of these can be achieved through awareness raising campaigns; voluntary actions by producers, distributors and retailers; and policy measures that require legislation. However, the current measures such as quality standards, extended produce responsibility (EPR) and labelling schemes, “Green” public procurement, eco-design regulations, and eco-label award schemes do not specifically target SUPs. The roadmap presented in Table 5.2 in this section recommends policy options that are specifically focused on SUP management, and it focuses on the most polluting items that were identified in the World Bank field surveys, which were conducted in Vietnam in 2020 and 2021. Measures to restrict sales in certain sectors or geographic areas, consumption levies, and bans on sales are described in detail below. The feasibility of implementing each measure depends on: whether it is essential, it will be convenient for consumers, and single-use and multi-use alternatives are available; the desired reduction impact (the ambitiousness of the targets); and the availability and effectiveness of downstream instruments such as extended producer responsibility (EPR) and municipal waste management systems (Figure A.1.1). For example, bans are suitable for straws and stirrers, as suitable alternatives are readily available, but not for the increasingly popular coffee-to-go cups that have no suitable alternatives. The roadmap of policy options is rooted in the principle that a smooth transition is required for Vietnam to achieve (or even bring forward) the forthcoming ban of SUPs. The policy options proposed in this report, and the timeline for their implementation are designed to gradually mobilize administrative capacity and increase funding for monitoring and enforcement so that authorities are ready to implement the ban. In Table 5.2, the proposed measures are listed in chronological order, starting with the measures that will have the least impact on consumers, retailers, and other stakeholders, and ending with fees and bans that concern all market players. A ban on SUPs is the strictest policy measure to implement and, currently, Vietnam has no examples of complete bans of any plastic product or item. 78 | Toward a National Single-use Plastics Roadmap in Vietnam: Strategic Options for Reducing Priority Single-use Plastics All of the policy options proposed in this report 5.1. Restriction policies require less administrative effort by government than would be the case with enforcement of a ban. This 5.1.1. Restrictions on the distribution of SUP reflects the prioritization of measures based on their straws of “ease of implementation”, and all of the measures Restrictions on distribution is applicable to SUP straws, proposed here are more easily implemented than a as well as other items such as plastic drink stirrers. To ban. Without such a gradual shift to relatively more reduce the adverse impact of such SUP products in the stringent measures over time, the obligated retailers environment, Vietnam could restrict the unprompted and establishments would not be fully identified for give-away, distribution, and sale of SUP straws, as well control purposes, and the ban would be very difficult as the provision of straws in selected establishments to implement. such as restaurants and similar businesses (for example, Each policy option has a different effect in reducing cafeterias and fast-food restaurants). A transitional SUP consumption. Bans and the fees paid by consumers period (for example, six months) could be granted can achieve a 90 to 100 percent reduction, or even the for businesses to adapt to the new regulation. elimination of the SUP item’s consumption. However, Certain types of restaurants/catering businesses these instruments require an abrupt shift to the use of might be excluded from the policy, such as: SUP alternatives, which may lead to strong resistance by end-users and businesses, and complete failure • Street vendors/unlicensed actors (with an in implementing the measure. Bans must always be exemption phase of at least one year before preceded by transitional measures that achieve gradual their inclusion, and a recommended roadmap change in consumption patterns, and allow enough time for including them) for consumers to adapt to using alternatives, and for • SUP straws for medical facilities and care homes businesses to adopt new business models. Examples of transitional measures are restrictions, which are not • Provision only if the straw is explicitly requested complete bans, but are prohibitions that limit the sale by the customer or use of SUP items in certain sectors (such as hotels) or certain areas (such as tourist destinations); and The following implementation and enforcement legally binding requirements such as the obligation measures will be needed: to provide consumers with environmentally friendly • Adoption of the legislation, including: alternatives. Transitional measures, as well as long-term policy options for addressing SUP consumption, are ºº Appointment of local authorities (for example, presented below. the Department of Industry and Trade of the Provincial People´s Committee) to conduct Within each of the policy options, where relevant, this inspections and apply penalties in cases of report recommends phased implementation, including infringement of the law by potentially targeting larger establishments first, and initially excluding street vendors, or by carrying ºº Allocation of a budget for control and out pilots and demonstration projects in selected inspection provinces, and especially those with high tourism revenue. This will help increase the confidence and ºº Promotion of the adoption of alternative technical know-how of the designated government materials for SUP straws (for example, straws staff, and promote public awareness before scaling up. made of paper, bamboo, grass, or rice) • Informing restaurants and similar establishments not to give away or sell SUP straws 5. Policy Options for Vietnam | 79 Other desirable measures might include: • Transitional period (one year): The regulation would apply to all large- and medium-sized, • Educating employees of restaurants and shops full-service restaurants not to give away or sell SUP straws • After one year, the regulation would be extended • Informing consumers about the policy, raising to small full-service restaurants their awareness about the policy’s relevance in preserving Vietnam’s natural environment, and In order not to burden small traders, and to ensure discouraging them from requesting SUP straws the smooth introduction of the regulation, the following exemption could be implemented over For the successful implementation of this policy option, a transitional period: broader consultation and prior agreement with food establishments is needed, as well as encouraging • Full-service restaurants would be able to give out the cooperation of their employees. The availability SUPs when they provide take-away service and of single-use and multi-use alternatives will enable food delivery. However, for onsite consumption, starting to implement this measure in the short term, full-service restaurants would have to stop using as soon as a decision is made on its implementation SUPs (for example, starting in 2023). • Quick-service/fast food restaurants would be The implementation of this policy is an important excluded, initially transition measure toward a proposed ban on sales (as • Food vendors in streets and markets who do recommended in this roadmap), which, according to not have a fixed location would be excluded Decree 8/2022’s ban on the production and import of straws (along with SUPs) is supposed to start in 2031. • Non-plastic, washable items would have to be To progressively roll out this policy, coastal cities and used when food and beverages are consumed provinces with high tourism revenue could be targeted at a table first, such as Quang Ninh, Da Nang, Quang Nam, Khanh Hoa, and Ba-Ria-Vung Tau, as well as marine The following implementation and enforcement protected areas. Given the pressures already faced by measures would be needed: the tourism industry, pilots or demonstration projects • Adoption of the legislation could be carried out to increase the confidence and technical know-how of the appointed government staff • Appointment of local authorities (the Provincial/ so that they understand how to implement the measures City People´s Committee) to conduct inspections, before the measures are scaled up, nationwide. and apply penalties when the law is broken • Allocation of a budget for conducting inspections 5.1.2. Restriction of the use of certain SUPs for onsite consumption in food establishments • Provision of Information to restaurants and (restaurants and cafeterias) similar establishments on the new regulation, The government of Vietnam should consider adopting and how to comply with it a legal measure to restrict the use of certain SUP items Providing full-service restaurants and their employees for onsite consumption in full-service restaurants. This with training so that they understand the regulation policy would target EPS food containers, straws, and and agree to apply it, is of the utmost importance. other items such as plastic bottles, cups, glasses, Following the adoption of the required legislation in and cutlery, and promote the adoption of multi-use 2022, the restriction of SUPs in full-service restaurants alternatives (such as metal, ceramic, or glass). could start in 2023, because multi-use tableware and Non-plastic, single-use alternatives (such as wood cutlery is already widely used by these establishments. or bamboo) should be allowed with no restriction. Similar to the previous policy option, this policy A transitional period could be granted in the following could be progressively rolled out with pilots and manner: demonstration projects, beginning in coastal cities and provinces with high tourism revenue, as well as in marine protected areas. 80 | Toward a National Single-use Plastics Roadmap in Vietnam: Strategic Options for Reducing Priority Single-use Plastics 5.1.3. Restrictions (voluntary agreement) on • New business approaches and innovations to the provision of disposable plastic cutlery with introduce alternatives (eco-friendly materials online food orders for producing disposable cutlery, or cutlery To implement restriction of the provision of disposable reuse schemes) plastic cutlery by online food delivery platforms, The following stakeholders should be engaged in the voluntary agreement is needed between the government decision-making and implementation of the measure: and the major online platforms so that these platforms introduce an opt-in/opt-out option for plastic cutlery • Online food delivery platforms. on their ordering pages. Opt-out options should be given priority as they are more effective in reducing • Participating restaurants and their employees the use of SUPs. The availability of multi-use alternatives for food The policy to restrict disposable cutlery is considered consumption in households indicates that this measure highly achievable in Vietnam, and should be could be implemented in the near term, as soon as a implemented with the following steps: decision is made on its implementation (for example, in 2023). • Hold dialogues with the major online food delivery platforms so that they voluntarily agree In the future, this voluntary agreement could be to implement an opt-out option as the default expanded to include SUP packaging. These online on their menus. food platforms are, in fact, well positioned to implement sustainable policies within a relatively short time. • Design and implement awareness-raising They can negotiate with manufacturers of sustainable campaigns such as banners on the opening packaging materials on behalf of their business partners webpage of a platform that informs consumers (restaurants and similar establishments), which could about the “no cutlery” option and its drastically decrease the cost of procuring sustainable environmental benefits. Environmental education packaging materials. Online platforms could also is also needed to inform platform business provide incentives to encourage restaurants to use partners (restaurants and similar establishments, sustainable packaging materials, and devise an and their delivery drivers), about the option, innovative operational framework that would lead as well as consumers. to the hygienic reuse of multi-use food containers within their restaurant network. • Explore potential incentives to encourage customers to “opt out”. 5.1.4. Restrictions on the distribution of SUP • Monitor restaurants’ adherence to the policy. toiletry products in hotels Restaurants will have to enforce the policy by not Restrictions on the use of small plastic bottles containing including cutlery in deliveries unless customers personal care products such as shampoo and hair request it. Consumers could play a key role in conditioner could be applied in accommodation monitoring by notifying the restaurant if the facilities. This policy option proposes prohibiting opt-out option is not properly observed. hotels and other accommodation establishments The following enabling conditions and transitional from offering personal care products in disposable measures would be needed to ensure successful plastic bottles. The measure would target large implementation of the policy: hotels first (for example, based on the hotel’s size, or a specified number of rooms). A transition period • Cooperation of online food delivery platforms of one year would be provided for smaller hotels. As these SUP toiletry products are not currently defined • Cooperation of individual restaurants and their as “single-use plastics” in Decree 8/2022, they could employees be included in the next revision of the Decree (Note: • Encouraging consumers to change their behavior Table 3.2 recommends generalizing the definition of with regard to the new approach SUPs which would facilitate their inclusion). 5. Policy Options for Vietnam | 81 The following implementation and enforcement • Adoption of legislation and penalties measures would be needed: • Identification of the tourist areas where the • Adoption of legislation and penalties restriction would be enforced • Identification of the types of accommodation • Provision of exemptions, transitional measures, facilities where the restriction would be enforced information and education campaigns, and warnings for violations • Provision of exemptions, transitional measures, information and education campaigns, and • Allocation of a budget for control and inspection warnings for violations • Designation of government authorities (for • Allocation of a budget for control and inspection example, park rangers, and the local authorities who issue retail permits to hotels, restaurants, • Designation of the government authorities who cafeterias, travel agencies, and tour guides) would be responsible for control (such as the local authorities who issue retail permits to • Undertaking market surveillance and inspections hotels and other accommodation providers) Prior consent and willingness to participate should be • Undertaking inspections to issue warnings and obtained from the operators of tourist establishments, impose penalties distributors, suppliers, and retailers, as the establishment of SUP-free zones could make services less convenient Managers of hotels and other accommodation for tourists. Also, as the tourism sector is important establishments should be engaged in decision-making for the economy, longer preparatory work and about the measure, as well as its implementation. implementation of transitional measures would be Implementation of restrictions on the distribution of needed before introducing these restrictions in tourist single-use toiletries in hotels could start in the short areas. Thus, it should be feasible to implement this term, in 2023 (after adoption of the legislation in 2022), measure in 2024 if the required legislation is adopted because the practice of providing multi-use toiletry in 2023. dispensers is already underway in many hotels. Similar to some of the policy options above, this could This policy option could also be implemented in a initially target coastal provinces and cities with the phased approach, starting with four- and five-star high tourism revenue. These could carry out pilots hotels, and then moving on to the rest of Vietnam’s or demonstration projects before application of the accommodation providers. As already discussed, measure is scaled up across the whole country. another approach would be to target the coastal provinces and cities that have the highest tourism revenue. These could conduct pilots and demonstration 5.2. Pricing policies projects before scaling up the restriction across the rest of the country. 5.2.1. Fee charged to consumers who purchase non-degradable plastic bags 5.1.5. Restrictions on the use of SUPs in tourist A fee could be applied to non-biodegradable plastic establishments and areas (SUP-free areas) bags, with the exception of the lightweight bags of less Restrictions in tourist establishments and tourist areas than 15 microns that are required for hygienic reasons could be applied to all SUP items such as non-degradable (primarily as packaging for loose food, which helps plastic bags, EPS plastic food containers, straws, and to prevent food waste). Another exception would be other items such as SUP packaging, and plastic plates reusable plastic bags that are thicker than 50 microns. and cups. To implement this measure, legislation would This policy option proposes that vendors charge bar people from entering selected tourist destinations customers for every non-biodegradable plastic bag if they are carrying, selling, or providing SUPs. that is provided to them. This should begin with a The following implementation and enforcement one-year transition period, when vendors would charge measures would be needed: the fee voluntarily, after which charging the fee would become mandatory. 82 | Toward a National Single-use Plastics Roadmap in Vietnam: Strategic Options for Reducing Priority Single-use Plastics The following implementation and enforcement 5.2.2. Fee charged to consumers who purchase measures would be needed: coffee in disposable cups As disposable cups for coffee that can be consumed • Determine which establishments would be on or off vendors’ premises are very convenient for required to apply the fee, the amount of the consumers, banning them would likely meet strong fee, penalties for not charging the fee, and resistance. Thus, economic instruments are a more the interest to be charged if the fee is not paid suitable way for vendors to reduce consumption. to the government authorities responsible for This means charging customers for every disposable collecting the money beverage cup they get. • Undertake information campaigns to educate The following implementation and enforcement manufacturers, retailers, and other establishments measures would be needed: • Allocate a budget for monitoring and inspection • Determine which establishments would be • Appoint the government authorities who will required to apply the fee, the amount of the be responsible for collecting the fees from fee, penalties for not charging the fee, and businesses the interest to be charged if the fee is not paid to the government authorities responsible for • Implement market surveillance and inspections, collecting the money including checks of accounting records. Retailers will be required to report the amount of fees • Develop and conduct information campaigns they collect to the local authority (such as the to educate manufacturers, retailers, and other Department of Finance of the Provincial/City relevant establishments People´s Committee), which will verify that • Allocate a budget for control and inspection retailers’ invoices and the amount of fees they have collected are the same • Appoint the authorities responsible for collecting the fees • Use a phased approach that introduces the fee in selected areas first, such as tourist areas • Implement market surveillance and inspections, including checking vendors’ accounting records The following actors would have obligations under this policy option, so their consent and participation For the successful implementation of this measure, is important: the following stakeholders must understand the policy and cooperate: • Retailers • Bakeries, cafeterias, drive-ins, food product • Businesses that sell plastic bags to end users stores, food service establishments, drugstores, such as food producers (places where food theaters, bars, and similar establishments that products are manufactured, processed, packed, sell prepared food that is consumed on or off and sold), eating establishments, and markets the vendor’s premises • Organizations that promote the protection of Coffee-to-go cups are highly convenient for consumers, consumers’ rights, and other non-government and the implementation of this measure should start organizations after other transitional measures have been applied, Charging consumers a fee for each plastic bag they such as restriction of onsite consumption, and SUP-free use is a transitional mechanism intended to strengthen zones. The fee should be introduced as a long-term the impact of the existing environmental tax. To be measure in 2026, after one year of preparatory work, effective, the fee should be applied for a few years, and adoption of the legislation. and, thus, it should be introduced as soon as possible (for example, in 2023, after a year of preparatory work, and the adoption of legislation). 5. Policy Options for Vietnam | 83 5.3. Ban policies and packagers), eating establishments, and markets. 5.3.1. Market ban (through a ban on sales or • Persons who provide plastic straws to end users production and imports) of plastic straws (for example, at temples, fairs, and community Due to the availability of single-use and multi-use events) alternatives, plastic straws (apart from those needed by people with disabilities, hospital patients, and care Single-use and multi-use alternatives to plastic facility residents) are suitable for regulation that prohibits straws are already widely available, and one year their sale to end users. after implementing transitional measures to restrict distribution in the selected establishments, it should The following implementation and enforcement be possible to proceed with a ban on the sale of SUP measures would be needed: straws (for example, in 2025). This is also in line with the requirement in Decree 8/2022 that PPCs promulgate • Consultations that identify the people who would regulations to ensure that single-use plastic products be exempted from the ban on straws (such as are not sold at commercial centers, supermarkets, people with disabilities, hospital patients, and hotels, and tourist resorts after 2025. care home residents) Similar to the restriction policy on plastics straws, • Identification of the requirements for the raw this could first be targeted at coastal provinces and materials to be used in the manufacture of cities with the highest tourism revenue, which could alternative straws (for example, whether the carry out pilots and demonstration projects before the materials should be biodegradable) restriction is scaled up across the rest of the country. • Adoption of legislation and penalties, including the technical standards to be used to define 5.3.2. Market ban (through a ban on sales or the requirements for alternative materials (for production and imports) of non-degradable example, defining “biodegradable”) plastic bags • Identification of producers, importers, retailers, This measure proposes to introduce a ban on the and other establishments that provide EPS items sale/provision or production and import of non-bio- degradable plastic bags to end-users. As Decree • Provision of information campaigns to educate 8/2022 already includes a ban on the production and manufacturers, retailers, and other relevant import of plastic bags, this ban could start without establishments any need of further legislation, other than guidelines to support the implementation and monitoring of • Allocation of a budget for control and inspection the ban. This report recommends considering more • Appointment and involvement of the authorities exemptions than those currently listed in the decree, responsible for control (for example, customs including exemptions for very lightweight bags (of authorities and those who issue retailers’ permits) less than 15 microns), which are required for hygienic purposes such as the packaging of loose food to help • Undertaking market surveillance and inspections prevent food waste. The Decree currently includes The following actors should be targeted through an exemption for plastic bags that are more than 50 this measure: microns in thickness, as these are considered reusable plastic bags. While additional legislation may not • Retailers be needed to implement a ban on production and imports, if a ban on sales or other amendments are • Producers and importers of plastic straws (those proposed, they would need to be added in the next who put plastic straws on the market in Vietnam; revision of the Decree. however, producers of plastic straws for export should be excluded) The following implementation and enforcement measures would be needed: • Businesses that sell plastic straws to end users such as food producers (manufacturers, processors, 84 | Toward a National Single-use Plastics Roadmap in Vietnam: Strategic Options for Reducing Priority Single-use Plastics • Adoption of legislation and penalties (if needed, Decree 8/2022 already requires PPCs to promulgate as discussed above) regulations to ensure that EPS food containers are not circulated or used in commercial centers, supermarkets, • Identification of producers/importers, hotels, and tourist resorts after 2026. The Decree also distributors, and retailers bans the production and import of EPS food containers • Provision of information campaigns to educate by 2031. As a transition measure until the 2031 ban manufacturers, retailers, and other establishments becomes effective, this report recommends expanding the 2026 regulation to other retailers and establishments. • Allocation of a budget for control and inspection To implement this proposed measure, it would have to be included in a future revision of the legislation. • Appointment and involvement of local control To sum up, this would comprise prohibition of all authorities (such as customs officers, and the importing, producing, selling, or otherwise providing authorities who issue retail permits) EPS food containers to end-users. • Undertaking market surveillance and inspections The following implementation and enforcement Before the ban is implemented, involvement of measures would be needed: following stakeholders is crucial so that they • Adoption of the legislation and penalties understand why they must comply with the ban: • Identification of producers/importers, retailers, • The business-to-consumers (B2C) and other establishments that provide EPS items sector, including retailers, shops, food establishments, and markets • Information campaigns to educate manufacturers, retailers, and other establishments • Businesses that sell plastic bags to end users such as food producers (where food products • Allocation of a budget for control and inspection are manufactured, processed, packed, and sold), eating establishments, and markets • Appointment and involvement of government authorities (such as customs officers and the • Entities that provide plastic bags to end users authorities who issue retail permits) (for example, at temples, fairs, and community events) • Undertaking market surveillance and inspections • Organizations that protect consumers’ rights For implementation of the ban, the following actors and other NGOs should be targeted: The reduction of plastic bags is currently targeted • Producers or importers of EPS items that place through an environmental tax on producers, and a new them in the Vietnamese market (excluding transitional measure is recommended, which would producers for export) charge consumers a fee for each plastic bag they • Businesses that sell EPS items to end users such take. A ban on the production/imports or sales of as food establishments (where food products plastic bags could start after a few years of transitional are manufactured, processed, or packed), eating measures that would lead to a reduction in plastic establishments, and markets bag consumption. EPS food containers are currently widely used, and the 5.3.3. Market ban (through a ban on sales or demand for these is high. Thus, these bans should only production and imports) of EPS food containers start after transitional measures have been implemented, such as restrictions in food service establishments Banning the sales or production/imports of the and tourist areas. It should be feasible to introduce following items made from EPS is a suitable approach: full-scale bans on the sale of EPS containers in the • Single-use food containers made of EPS long term (by 2026). In the near-term, this could be piloted in coastal cities with high tourism revenues • Single-use beverage containers made of EPS as well as other large cities including Hanoi and Ho • Beverage cups made of EPS Chi Minh City. 5. Policy Options for Vietnam | 85 5.4. Stakeholder engagement, For policies that require cross-sectoral coordination, institutional set-up, and monitoring cross-ministerial consultations are regular practice in mechanisms for SUP policies Vietnam. To ensure ownership and successful upstream dialogue on these policy options, early consultation A structured stakeholder engagement plan for is important, and especially for those options that each of the policy options should be developed cover multiple sectors. For each specific policy, Table and implemented that would include (i) consultations 5.1 provides both the ministries with designated with representatives from relevant ministries and local authority for the policy, as well as the ministries and government; and (ii) consultations with businesses in authorities that support implementation. Annex 4.3 the key sectors that could be impacted by the policies provides details on the recommended stakeholder (both individual companies and sector representa- engagement process for different target groups, and tives). Broader public-private sector consultations Annex 4.4 includes relevant information for the targeted could be implemented, too, through the National sectors, including the stakeholders that need to be Plastics Action Partnership (NPAP),47 which is a recent- invited to any discussions on these policies. ly-launched public-private platform coordinated by MONRE and the World Economic Forum. NPAP could Moving forward, while waiting for a package of priority serve as an important forum for policy dialogue with the policy options for reducing SUPs to be approved by private sector as it includes both the Vietnam Plastics the government, a monitoring program should be Association and the Packaging Association, which would developed to track and assess progress, which would help to bring in the views of producers, aggregators, become part of the broader monitoring conducted and recyclers, as well as the informal sector. Also, it for the National Action Plan for Management of is important to consult with the Packaging Recycling Marine Plastic Litter by 2030. This would comprise Organization Vietnam (PRO Vietnam), which is a new the designation of SUP-specific SMART49 indicators, recycling partnership formed by nine major consumer the frequency of data collection, data and information goods and packaging companies in Vietnam.48 collection methodology and plan with sampling strategies and protocols, and the strategic analysis of data, consultations, and procedures for communication, reviewing data, and reporting concerns. Ideally, this would also include institutional mechanisms to track and assess implementation as indicated in the proposed monitoring program and a budget for data collection and analysis. 47 NPAP is chaired by MONRE and brings together: relevant ministries, including the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA), Ministry of Planning and Investment (MPI), Ministry of Finance (MOF), Ministry of Industry and Trade (MOIT), Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST), Ministry of Education and Training (MOET), Ministry of Information and Communication (MIC), Ministry of Culture, Sports, and Tourism (MOCST), and Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MARD); relevant departments within MONRE; representatives of relevant associations, including the Vietnam Plastics Association, Vietnam Packaging Association, and Vietnam Chamber of Commerce and Industry (VCCI); and representatives of research organizations, NGOs, diplomatic missions, and development partners. 48 This currently includes Coca-Cola Vietnam, Friesland Campina, La Vie, Nestlé Vietnam, Nuti Food, Suntory PepsiCo Vietnam, Tetra Pak Viet- nam, TH Group, and URC Vietnam. 49 SMART indicators are Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, and Time-bound. 86 | Toward a National Single-use Plastics Roadmap in Vietnam: Strategic Options for Reducing Priority Single-use Plastics Table 5.1. INSTITUTIONAL SET-UP FOR THE PROPOSED PLASTIC POLICIES50 Policy measure Ministry with the Implementing authorities Inspection and collection of designated authority penalties and fees Restrictions on the One of the authorities The Provincial People’s distribution of SUP responsible for Committee and its straws implementation is MOIT, supporting unit (the and, in particular, its provincial Department of Restrictions on the Sustainable Consumption Industry and Trade) should use of certain SUPs for and Production Office control establishments such onsite consumption in (SCPO). This is the focal as restaurants, other food food establishments point for implementing providers, and retailers. (restaurants, cafeterias, the national program on and so on) The provincial Department sustainable production of Industry and Trade Restrictions (voluntary and consumption. communicates with the agreement) on the The Department of Department of Energy distribution of plastic Domestic Markets Efficiency and Sustainable disposable cutlery by in MOIT should Development, and the online food delivery be responsible for Department of Domestic businesses implementation of Markets (the implementing Market ban (through the ban on the sale of authority). DONRE should be a ban on sales or non-degradable bags in responsible for monitoring production and imports) retail chains. and reporting on the of plastic straws implementation of the The implementing measures because DONRE Market ban (through MONRE should authorities will carry is the focal organization a ban on sales or have the overall out tasks such as: to implement the plastic production and imports) responsibility for budget allocation for reduction program at the of non-degradable plastic policies, and control and inspection, provincial level. plastic bags propose, develop, identification of and issue the legal relevant establishments, Market ban (through document. In the reporting of results, and a ban on sales or legal document, the communication with production and imports) roles and responsibil- the local inspection of EPS food containers ities of each ministry authorities. should be defined Restrictions on the and specified The Ministry of Culture, The Department of Tourism, distribution of SUP (common for all Sports, and Tourism Culture, and Sport of toiletry products in policies) should be involved as it is the Provincial People's hotels the ministry responsible Committee should support for hotels and similar the inspection of hotels establishments (according and other accommodation to Directive No. 33/ providers. CT-TTg, dated August 20, Restrictions on the 2020, on strengthening The Department of Tourism, use of SUPs in tourist the management, reuse, Culture, and Sport of establishments or tourist recycling, treatment, the Provincial People's areas (SUP-free areas) and reduction of plastic Committee should support waste). the inspection and collection of fines for non-compliance in the selected tourist areas. Via a Provincial People’s Committee-level decision, the Management Board of National Parks should support the inspection and collection of fines for non-compliance in nature parks and reserves. 50 Alternatively, for restriction policies and the ban on the sale of EPS food containers, these could be implemented at the provincial/city level in lieu of a policy at the national level (as per Decree 8/2022). 5. Policy Options for Vietnam | 87 Policy measure Ministry with the Implementing authorities Inspection and collection of designated authority penalties and fees Fee charged to MONRE will define The Provincial People’s Retailers should report to the consumers who purchase the goals and the Committees should local authority (for example, a non-degradable plastic results that should oversee the introduction the Department of Finance/ bag be achieved, and of pricing on plastic bags. DOIT at the Provincial propose the legal The collection of the People´s Committee) so the Fee charged to documents or revenues from the fee authority can verify whether consumers who strategy for the would then be managed retailers’ invoices and the purchase a SUP coffee fee(s). by the Department of amount they have collected cup Finance at the People’s from customers are the The Ministry of Committee. The revenues same. Finance should should be earmarked approve the fee for re-investment in and include it in the environmental activities. legislation, such The Provincial People’s as by initiating the Committees should also government proposal monitor and ensure that to amend the retailers abide by the primary legislation policy. to introduce fees charged to The Ministry of Industry consumers. and Trade’s Department of Domestic Markets should provide support for implementing a plan to reduce non-biodegrad- able plastic bags and SUP products in supermarkets, and shopping centers. The department should also prepare a plan for how to target the SUPs in retailers and supermarkets. In addition, the Department of Domestic Markets should support the promotion of alternatives, raise awareness about these, and develop the implementation plan for the elimination of SUPs in supermarkets and shopping centers. 5.5. Roadmap of policy options to phase that are easy to implement, such as restriction policies out SUPs in Vietnam and fees charged to consumers. This would provide the time needed for an adequate market for alternatives The policy options elaborated in this report have been to develop. As highlighted in previous sections, these summarized in a roadmap to phase out the use SUPs in measures would be good gradual transitions toward Vietnam (see Table 5.2 below). To minimize the impact stricter measures, such as complete bans, which have on the economy, the implementation of these policies been proposed in order to achieve greater impact could begin with the short- to medium-term measures through the reduction of SUP consumption. 88 | Toward a National Single-use Plastics Roadmap in Vietnam: Strategic Options for Reducing Priority Single-use Plastics Table 5.2. PROPOSED ROADMAP OF POLICY OPTIONS51 Policy Policy development steps Responsible Supporting Targeted Year Authority Authorities sector Restrict the Organize stakeholder meeting(s) MONRE MOIT Restaurants 2022 distribution with the targeted actors and similar of plastic establishments straws Formulate and adopt the 2022 legislation, identify exemptions, define the transition period for street vendors, and appoint local authorities to carry out inspections 2022 and impose fines Prepare a guidance document to MOIT – MONRE, 2022 inform businesses (e.g., restaurants) Department PPC/CPC, about the regulation, exemptions of Energy and their from the regulation, and the Efficiency and supporting penalties for failure to comply Sustainable unit (DOIT) Development Allocate a budget for regular, PPC/CPC - 2023 random inspections by the and their appointed authority supporting unit (DOIT) Implement a mechanism for inspections, and impose fines Include street vendors and MOIT - Street 2023 unlicensed actors vendors and unlicensed activities Restrict Organize stakeholder meeting(s) MONRE MOIT Full-service, 2022 the use with the targeted actors big and of certain medium-sized SUPs for Formulate and adopt the legislation, restaurants 2022 consumption identify exemptions, define the in transition period for smaller restaurants, restaurants, and appoint local cafeterias, authorities to carry out inspections, etc. and impose and collect fines Prepare a guidance document to MOIT – MONRE, PPC/ 2022 inform businesses (e.g., restaurants) Department CPC, and about the regulation, exemptions of Energy DOIT from the regulation, and the Efficiency and penalties for failure to comply Sustainable Development Allocate of a budget for regular, PPC/CPC and 2023 random inspections by the DOIT appointed authority, implement a mechanism for inspections (e.g., a registry of operating restaurants), and for imposing and collecting fines Include all licensed restaurants MONRE - All licensed, 2023 full-service restaurants 51 Alternatively, for restriction policies and the market bans on EPS food containers, these could be implemented at the provincial/city level in lieu of a policy at the national level (as per Decree 8/2022) 5. Policy Options for Vietnam | 89 Policy Policy development steps Responsible Supporting Targeted Year Authority Authorities sector Restrict the Seek a voluntary agreement with MONRE MOIT Online food 2022 provision online food platforms platforms of plastic Formulate a document to be cutlery signed and endorsed by the with food Restaurants platforms, including the type of deliveries and similar commitment to be implemented (voluntary establishments (opt-in or opt-out option) agreement) Self-monitor the adoption of the DOIT PPC/CPC Online food 2023 agreement, and voluntarily report platforms the results Restrict Organize at least two stakeholder MONRE Ministry of 4 and 5 star 2022 hotels’ meetings with the targeted actors Culture, hotels distribution Sports, and Formulate and adopt the required of Tourism legislation and regulations detergent and toiletry Identify the hotels that are subject products in to the regulation (e.g., based on SUP bottles their size) Prepare a guidance document for Ministry of PPC/CPC, 2022 the businesses that must apply Culture, and the the regulation, which includes the Sports, and Department exemptions, and the penalties for Tourism of Tourism, failure to comply Culture, and Sport Allocate a budget for inspections PPC/CPC 2023 by the appointed authority Department Implement a mechanism for of Tourism, regular, random inspections, and Culture, and imposing and collecting fines Sport Include all hotels Ministry of Remaining 2023 Culture, hotels Sports, and Tourism Restrict Organize at least two stakeholder MONRE Ministry of Tourist areas 2023 the use of meetings with the targeted actors Culture, certain SUPs Sports, and Formulate and adopt the required in tourist Tourism legislation and regulations zones Identify the tourist areas that are subject to the regulations Prepare a guidance document for Ministry of PPC/CPC – 2023 the businesses that must apply Culture, Department the regulation, which includes the Sports, and of Tourism, exemptions, and the penalties for Tourism Culture, and failure to comply Sport Allocate a budget for inspections PPC/CPC Vietnam 2024 by the appointed authority Department Forest Implement a mechanism for of Tourism, Rangers regular, random inspections, and Culture, and imposing and collecting fines Sport 90 | Toward a National Single-use Plastics Roadmap in Vietnam: Strategic Options for Reducing Priority Single-use Plastics Policy Policy development steps Responsible Supporting Targeted Year Authority Authorities sector Charge a Organize at least two meetings with MOF MONRE Retailers 2022- fee for each stakeholders in the retail sector 2023 plastic bag Formulate and adopt amendments to the respective legislation Make announcements in MOF Ministry of 2022- newspapers, radio, TV, and social Industry 2023 media about the fee, and how it will and Trade, be implemented Department of Domestic Publish the regulations on Markets 2022- application of the fee 2023 The system for charging and Ministry of PPC/CPC, 2023 monitoring the fees: Finance, DOF, and the General List the establishments that are Department Department required to impose the fee of Domestic of Taxation Markets Identify a system for charging consumers fees, and the penalties for failure to collect the fees Ensure cooperation and agreement among the authorities responsible for inspections and collecting the fees Organize awareness-raising PPC/CPC Department 2023- campaigns about alternatives to of Domestic 2025 SUP plastic bags Markets Charge fee Organize at least two stakeholder MOF MONRE Restaurants, 2025 for each meetings with the restaurant/ Coffee Shops plastic cafeteria sector coffee cup Formulate and adopt amendments to the respective legislation Announce the fee and how it will be implemented Publish the regulations on application of the fee Identify the system for monitoring MOF, DOF, PPC/ 2026 collection of the fee General CPC, Department Department Identify the establishments of Taxation of Domestic required to collect the fee Markets Identify the system for collection of 2026 the fees and imposing penalties Identify the establishments required to impose the fee 5. Policy Options for Vietnam | 91 Policy Policy development steps Responsible Supporting Targeted Year Authority Authorities sector Market ban Organize of at least two MONRE MOIT Retailers, 2024 of plastic stakeholder meetings with the Restaurants straws targeted actors (through a ban on Formulate and adopt the MOIT, PPC/CPC 2024 sales or legislation and exemptions MONRE production Prepare a guidance document for and imports) the businesses that must apply the regulation, which includes the exemptions, and the penalties for failure to comply Identify retailers and other MOIT/DOIT PPC/CPC 2025 establishments that provide plastic straws Organize market surveillance Allocate a budget for inspections and collecting fines Market Organize at least two stakeholder MONRE MOIT Retailers 2025 ban of meetings with the targeted actors plastic bags Formulate and adopt the (through legislation and exemptions a ban on sales or Prepare a guidance document for MOIT, PPC/CPC 2025 production the businesses that must apply MONRE and imports) the regulation, which includes the exemptions, and the penalties for failure to comply Implement a system for monitoring MOIT, PPC/CPC, Retailers 2026 and collection of fines: MONRE DOIT Identify producers/importers, retailers, and other establishments that provide plastic bags Organize market surveillance, inspections, and collection of fines Market ban Organize at least two stakeholder MONRE MOIT Restaurants, 2026 of EPS food meetings with the targeted actors Retailers containers Formulate and adopt the (through legislation and exemptions a ban on Prepare a guidance document for sales or the businesses that must apply production the regulation, which includes the and imports) exemptions, and the penalties for failure to comply Implement a system for monitoring MOIT, PPC/CPC, 2026 and collection of fines: MONRE DOIT Identify producers/importers, retailers, and other establishments that use EPS food containers (busi- ness-to-business) Organize market surveillance, inspections, and the collection of fines 92 | Toward a National Single-use Plastics Roadmap in Vietnam: Strategic Options for Reducing Priority Single-use Plastics 6. BIBLIOGRAPHY 6. BIBLIOGRAPHY • Akaryn Hotel Group. 2018. “First No Single-Use Plastic Hotel Launch in Asia”. Akaryn Hotel Group (blog). February 2018. https://www.theakyra.com/blog/first-no-single-use-plastic-hotel-launch-asia/ • BBC News Australia. 2016. “Pulling the Plug on Plastic Bags in Indonesia”. BBC News. February 23, 2016. https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-australia-35638106 • Beitien, Stefanie. 2020. “How to Engage Food Delivery Companies in a Voluntary Agreement”. Reducing Single-Use Plastics in Food Delivery and Takeaway, with Experiences and Best Practices from Europe and East and Southeast Asia (webinar), July 30, 2020. Bonn: Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) and Expertise France. • Berners-Lee, Mike. 2010. How Bad Are Bananas? The Carbon Footprint of Everything. London: Profile Books Ltd. • Bruch, Carl, Kathryn Mengerink, Elana Harrison, Davonne Flanagan, Isabel Carey, Thomas Casey, Meggan Davis, Elizabeth Hessami, Joyce Lombardi, Norka Michelen, Colin Parts, Lucas Rhodes, Nikita West, and Sofia Yazykova. 2016. Marine Litter Legislation - A Toolkit for Policymakers. United Nations Environment Programme and the Environmental Law Institute. https://wedocs.unep.org/ handle/20.500.11822/8630 • Brunhuber, Kim. 2019. “It’s a good start: Berkeley Takes the Lead in Charging Fee for Single Use Cups”. CBC News, December 27, 2019. https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/berkeley-businesses-sin - gle-use-to-go-coffee-cups-fee-1.5395807 • CGTN (China Global Television Network). 2020. “McDonald’s in China Will Phase Out Plastic Straws”. CGTN, June 30, 2020. https://news.cgtn.com/news/2020-06-30/McDonald-s-in-China-will-phase- out-plastic-straws-RKgi6XLUyI/index.html • Excell, Carole, Celine Salcedo-La Vina, and Laura Notess. 2020. Tackling Plastic Pollution: Legislative Guide for the Regulation of Single-Use Plastic Products. Nairobi: United Nations Environment Programme. • Danielsson, Michaela. 2017. The Plastic Bag Ban in Rwanda: Local Procedures and Successful Outcomes – A Case Study on how Rwanda Implemented a Nation-wide Ban on Plastic Bags. Department of Government Master Thesis. January 2017. Uppsala: Uppsala University. http://www. diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1067480/FULLTEXT01.pdf • Decision Lab. 2018. “Foodservice Industry Seminar 2018”. Decision Lab. Montreal. https://www. decisionlab.co/library/vietnams-foodservice-industry-in-2018?hsCtaTracking=00707d7f-a82d-4b2a- a721-3e096c42a262%7C0b1b9094-7746-4564-9a75-b261b04e368f • DEFRA (Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs). 2020. Straws, Cotton Buds and Drink Stirrers Ban: Rules for Businesses in England. Government of the United Kingdom (website). https:// www.gov.uk/guidance/straws-cotton-buds-and-drink-stirrers-ban-rules-for-businesses-in-england • Deliveroo. 2018. “Deliveroo Set to Dramatically Reduce Plastic Use In UK”. Deliveroo Newsroom. March 1, 2018. http://uk.deliveroo.news/news/deliveroo-is-to-make-plastic-cutlery-an-opt-in-for- all-uk-customers-which-will-help-dramatically-reduce-wasted-plastic-cutlery.html • Department of Public Works City of Berkeley. 2019. Berkeley Single Use Foodware and Litter Reduction Ordinance. Berkeley: Department of Public Works, City of Berkeley. https://www.cityofberkeley.info/ Public_Works/Zero_Waste/Berkeley_Single_Use_Foodware_and_Litter_Reduction_Ordinance.aspx 94 | Toward a National Single-use Plastics Roadmap in Vietnam: Strategic Options for Reducing Priority Single-use Plastics • EPD Hong Kong (Environmental Protection Department). 2020. “Full Implementation of the Plastic Shopping Bag Charging”. Government of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (website). https://www.epd. gov.hk/epd/psb_charging/en/faqs/ • Euromonitor International. 2020. Tourism Flows in Vietnam. Dublin: Euromonitor International Marketing Reports. October 2020. https://www.marketresearch.com/Euromonitor-International-v746/Tourism-Flows-Viet- nam-13716877/ • European Commission. 2018. “Reducing Marine Litter: Action on Single Use Plastics and Fishing Gear” Accompanying the document: “Proposal for a Directive on the Reduction of the Impact of Certain Plastic Products on the Environment”. Commission Staff Working Document Impact Assessment. May 28, 2018. Brussels: European Commission. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52018SC0254 • European Commission. 2022. “EU helps launch negotiations on landmark global agreement on plastic pollution.” Press Release. March 2, 2022. Brussels: European Commission. https://ec.europa.eu/commission/ presscorner/detail/en/IP_22_1466 • Goodwin, Jazmin. 2020. “Starbucks Has Officially Abandoned Straws in Favor of Sippy Cup Lids… Well, Mostly”. CNN Business. September 10, 2020. https://edition.cnn.com/2020/09/10/business/star- bucks-straw-free-lids-plastic-straws-sustainability/index.html • Greenpeace. 2019. Data from the Global Plastics Waste Trade 2016–2018 and the Offshore Impact to China’s Foreign Waste Import Ban. Hong Kong: Greenpeace East Asia. https://www.greenpeace.org/static/ planet4-eastasia-stateless/2020/06/9858a41c-gpea-plastic-waste-trade-research-briefing-v2.pdf • Hauser, Christine. 2019. “Those Tiny Hotel Toiletry Bottles Are on Their Way Out”. New York Times, June 4, 2019. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/04/travel/plastic-bottles-hotels.html • He, Haoran. 2012. “Effects of Environmental Policy on Consumption: Lessons from the Chinese Plastic Bag Regulation”. Environment and Development Economics, 17(4): 407–431. • Hendrickx, Jo, and Bojana Bajzelj. 2021. Rethinking Single-Use Plastic Products in Travel & Tourism - Impacts, Management Practices and Recommendations. Nairobi: United Nations Environment Programme and World Travel & Tourism Council. https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/36324/RSUP.pdf • IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature). 2020. National Guidance for Plastic Pollution Hotspotting and Shaping Action, Country Report Vietnam. Bangkok: International Union for the Conservation of Nature. https://plastichotspotting.lifecycleinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Vietnam_Final- report_2020_10_22.pdf • Jambeck, Jenna R., Roland Geyer, Chris Wilcox, Theodore R. Siegler, Miriam Perryman, Anthony Andrady, Ramani Narayan and Kara Lavender Law. 2015. “Plastic Waste Inputs from Land into the Ocean”. Science 347(6223): 768–771. https://science.sciencemag.org/ content/347/6223/768 • Kahoe, Michael A. 2013. Fiscal & Economic Impacts of a Ban on Plastic Foam Foodservice and Drink Containers in New York City. Technical paper. Sacramento: Mark Bogetich (MB) Public Affairs Inc. https:// www.plasticfoodservicefacts.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/NYC-Foodservice-Impact-Study.pdf • Kershaw, Peter John. 2015. Biodegradable Plastics and Marine Litter. Misconceptions, Concerns and Impacts on Marine Environments. Nairobi: United Nations Environment Programme. https://wedocs.unep. org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/7468/-Biodegradable_Plastics_and_Marine_Litter_Misconceptions,_ concerns_and_impacts_on_marine_environments-2015BiodegradablePlasticsAndMarineLitter.pdf.pdf?se- quence=3&%3BisAllowed= 6. Bibliography | 95 • Kohli, Sajal, Björn Timelin, Victor Fabius, and Sofia Moulvad Veranen. 2021. “How COVID-19 is Changing Consumer Behavior – Now and Forever”. McKinsey and Company. https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/ McKinsey/Industries/Retail/Our%20Insights/How%20COVID%2019%20is%20changing%20consumer%20 behavior%20now%20and%20forever/How-COVID-19-is-changing-consumer-behaviornow-and-forever.pdf • Kong, Ying Xuan. 2019. “Gojek Leads the Charge on Disposable Cutlery for Online Deliveries in Indonesia”. Eco-Business. July 24, 2019. https://www.eco-business.com/news/gojek-leads-the-charge-on-disposable-cut- lery-for-online-deliveries-in-indonesia/ • Library of Congress. 2021. “Australia: Ban on Single-Use Plastic Products Enacted in Australian Capital Territory”. Library of Congress, May 10, 2021. https://www.loc.gov/item/global-legal-monitor/2021-05-10/ australia-ban-on-single-use-plastic-products-enacted-in-australian-capital-territory/ • Liu, Chen, Trung Thang Nguyen, Yujiro Ishimura. 2021. “Current Situation and Key Challenges on the Use of Single-use Plastic in Hanoi”. Waste Management (121): 422-431. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/S0956053X20307297 • Lu Zhang, Xiangyang Sun. 2016. “Improving Green Waste Composting by Addition of Sugarcane Bagasse and Exhausted Grape Marc”. Bioresource Technology, Vol 218, October 2016:335–343. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. biortech.2016.06.097. • MarketLine. 2020. “Travel and Tourism in Vietnam”. marketresearch.com. https://www.marketresearch. com/MarketLine-v3883/Travel-Tourism-Vietnam-14193628/ • Marriott International. 2019. “Marriott International to Eliminate Single-Use Shower Toiletry Bottles from Properties Worldwide, Expanding Successful 2018 Initiative”. Marriott International News Center. August 28, 2019. https://news.marriott.com/news/2019/08/28/marriott-international-to-eliminate-single-use-show - er-toiletry-bottles-from-properties-worldwide-expanding-successful-2018-initiative • Mathur, Barkha. 2020. “Plastic Crisis: China Plans to Eliminate Single-Use Plastic Bag and Other Items By 2025”. Banega Swasth India, New Delhi TV. January 23, 2020. https://swachhindia.ndtv.com/plastic-crisis- china-plans-to-eliminate-single-use-plastic-bag-and-other-items-by-2025-41832/ • Mest, Elliott. 2018. “Hilton Aims to Cut Environmental Impact in Half by 2030”. Hotel Management, May 23, 2018. https://www.hotelmanagement.net/operate/hilton-to-cut-environmental-impact-half-by-2030 • Mezzofiore, Gianluca. 2019. “Maine Becomes the First State to Ban Styrofoam”. Cable News Network (CNN), May 1, 2019. https://edition.cnn.com/2019/05/01/us/maine-ban-styrofoam-trnd/index.html • MOCST (Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism Vietnam). 2019. Tourist Accommodation Establishments (2000-2018). Hanoi: Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism. https://www.vietnamtourism.gov.vn/english/ index.php/items/10262 • MONRE (Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment Vietnam). 2018. Vietnam: Fifth National Report to the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity. Hanoi: Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment. http://vietnamabs.gov.vn/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Market-bao-cao-lan-5_29.9.pdf • MONRE (Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment Vietnam). 2020. National State of Environment Report 2019 on Solid Waste. December 9, 2020. Hanoi: Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment. https://www.vd-office.org/en/national-state-of-environment-report-2019-on-solid-waste-released/ • Mordor Intelligence. 2020. “Hospitality Industry in Vietnam – Growth, Trends, Covid-19 Impact, and Forecasts (2021 - 2026)”. Mordor Intelligence (website report). https://www.mordorintelligence.com/industry-reports/ hospitality-industry-in-vietnam 96 | Toward a National Single-use Plastics Roadmap in Vietnam: Strategic Options for Reducing Priority Single-use Plastics • MTDT. 2020. “Garbage encroaching on the living environment”. December 8, 2020. https://www.moi- truongvadothi.vn/rac-thai-xam-lan-moi-truong-song-a79176.html • NPAP (National Plastic Action Partnership) Vietnam. n.d. “Radically Reducing Plastic Leakage in Vietnam: Action Roadmap.” Under development. For more information contact: National Plastic Action Partnership Vietnam – vietnam@globalplasticaction.org. • Nudge. 2019. “Reducing Demand for Plastic Cutlery with Delivery Orders”. Nudge Lebanon, Feb 20, 2019. https://nudgelebanon.org/2019/02/20/reducing-demand-for-plastic-cutlery-with-delivery-orders/ • Quach, Phong, and Gordon Milne. 2019. “Plastics a Growing Concern – Vietnam Perspective”. Independent Polling System of Society (IPSOS) Presentation, Eurocham, September 4, 2019. Ho Chi Minh City. https:// www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/2019-09/vn_plastic_waste_deck_-_final_-_eurocham_-_en.pdf • Ravishankara, A. R., Johan C.I. Kuylenstierna, Eleni Michalopoulou, Lena HöglundIsaksson, Yuqiang Zhang, Karl Seltzer, Muye Ru, Rithik Castelino, Greg Faluvegi, Vaishali Naik, Larry Horowitz, Jian He, Jean-Francois Lamarque, Kengo Sudo, William J. Collins, Chris Malley, Mathijs Harmsen, Krista Stark, Jared Junkin, Gray Li, Alex Glick, and Nathan Borgford-Parnell. 2021. Global Methane Assessment - Benefits and Costs of Mitigating Methane Emissions. Nairobi, Kenya: United Nations Environment Programme and Climate and Clean Air Coalition. https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/35913/GMA.pdf • ReThink Disposable. 2021. ReThink Disposable - a program of Clean Water Action and Clean Water Fund. Oakland: ReThink. http://www.rethinkdisposable.org/businesses • Reuters. 2020. “Thailand Kicks Off 2020 With Plastic Bag Ban”. The Straits Times, January 1, 2020. https:// www.straitstimes.com/asia/se-asia/thailand-kicks-off-2020-with-plastic-bag-ban • Revenue, Irish Tax and Customs. 2021. Plastic Bag Environmental Levy. Revenue Irish Tax and Customs. December 20, 2021. https://www.revenue.ie/en/companies-and-charities/plastic-bag-environmental-levy/ index.aspx • Sirimanne, Shamika N. 2021. “COVID-19 and E-commerce: A Global Review”. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), March 11, 2021. https://unctad.org/webflyer/covid-19-and-e- commerce-global-review • Srisathit, Thitinan. 2019. “Plastic Diary: Is It Time for the National Park to Strictly Control the Bringing of Single-use Plastic?”. The Momentum, December 11, 2019. https://themomentum.co/plastic-diary-ep8/ • Starbucks. 2018. “Starbucks to Eliminate Plastic Straws Globally by 2020”. Starbucks Stories & News. July 9, 2018. https://stories.starbucks.com/press/2018/starbucks-to-eliminate-plastic-straws-globally-by-2020/ • The Honeycombers. 2019. “Bali Has Finally Instated the Ban on Single-use Plastic!”. The Honeycombers, June 24, 2019. https://thehoneycombers.com/bali/bali-plastic-bag-ban-2019/ • Tun-atiruj, Choltanut Kun. 2018. “Foodpanda Now Lets You “Opt Out” of Plastic Cutlery”. BK Magazine. June 5, 2018. https://bk.asia-city.com/city-living/news/foodpanda-to-give-you-option-to-opt-out-plastic-cutlery • Tuoi Tre News. 2021. “Ho Chi Minh City to Get Rid of Plastic Bags in Supermarkets in 2021: Master Plan”. Tuoi Tre News. June 2, 2021. https://tuoitrenews.vn/news/society/20210602/ho-chi-minh-city-to-get- rid-of-plastic-bags-in-supermarkets-in-2021-leaders/61272.html#:~:text=The%20city%20aims%20to%20 eliminate,to%20the%20minimum%20by%202030. • UNDP (United Nations Development Programme). 2019. Combating plastic bag use in Cambodia: Policy Report and Suggested Regulation. December 12, 2019. Cambodia: United Nations Development Programme, https://online.anyflip.com/hralr/auuu/mobile/index.html. 6. Bibliography | 97 • UNEA (United Nations Environment Assembly). 2022. “End Plastic Pollution: Towards an international legally binding instrument.” Draft resolution United Nations Environment Assembly of the United Nations Environment Programme, Fifth Session, March 2, 2022. Nairobi: United Nations Environment Programme. https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/38522/k2200647_-_unep-ea-5-l-23-rev-1_-_advance. pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y • UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme). 2022a. “Historic day in the campaign to beat plastic pollution: Nations commit to develop a legally binding agreement.” Press Release. March 2, 2022. Nairobi: United Nations Environment Programme. https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/press-release/histor- ic-day-campaign-beat-plastic-pollution-nations-commit-develop • UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme). 2022b. Global Plastic Pollution Agreement: A historic moment. YouTube Video. March 2, 2022. Nairobi: United Nations Environment Programme. https://www. unep.org/news-and-stories/video/global-plastic-pollution-agreement-historic-moment • UNEP-WCMC and IUCN (United Nations Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Center and International Union for Conservation of Nature). 2021. “Vietnam”. Protected Planet: The World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA) and World Database on Other Effective Area-based Conservation Measures (WD-OECM). Cambridge, UK: UNEP-WCMC and IUCN. https://www.protectedplanet.net/country/VNM. • Valinsky, Jordan. 2019. “New York Will Start Enforcing Its Styrofoam Ban Today. Here’s Where Else It’s Banned”. CNN Business, July 1, 2019. https://edition.cnn.com/2019/07/01/business/new-york-styrofoam- ban-trnd/index.html. • van den Berg, Katelijn, Duong Cam Thuy, Joan Maj Nielsen, Carsten Skov, Gerard Simonis, Nguyen Thi, Kim Thai, Mr. Leu Tho Bach, and Bui Quynh Nga. 2018. “Solid and Industrial Hazardous Waste Management Assessment: Options and Action Area to Implement the National Strategy”. Washington, DC: World Bank. https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/352371563196189492/pdf/Solid-and-industrial-haz- ardous-waste-management-assessment-options-and-actions-areas.pdf. • Vietnam Credit. 2020. “Overview of Vietnam’s Food Delivery Market”. Vietnam Credit, December 3, 2020. https://vietnamcredit.com.vn/news/overview-of-vietnams-food-delivery-market_13686 • Vietnam.Net. 2019. “Gojek, Grab seek to expand services in Vietnam”. Vietnam.Net. October 31, 2019. https://vietnamnet.vn/en/business/gojek-grab-seek-to-expand-services-in-vietnam-583853.html • Vietnam News. 2018. “National Parks Focus on Eco-tourism Development”. Vietnam News, July 27, 2018. https://vietnamnews.vn/society/462283/national-parks-focus-on-eco-tourism-development.html • Vietnam News. 2020. “Government Aims to Set an Example in Reducing Plastic Waste”. Vietnam News, September 6, 2020.https://vietnamnews.vn/environment/772030/government-aims-to-set-an-example-in- reducing-plastic-waste.html • World Bank Group. 2021. “Market Study for Vietnam: Plastics Circularity Opportunities and Barriers.” Marine Plastics Series, East Asia and Pacific Region. Washington DC: World Bank Group. https://openknowledge. worldbank.org/handle/10986/36313 • World Bank. 2022. “Vietnam: Plastic Pollution Diagnostics.” Marine Plastics Series, East Asia and Pacific Region. Washington, DC: World Bank. Forthcoming. • World Bank Vietnam CEA. 2021. “Introducing a Tax on Plastic Carrier Bags in Vietnam: A Preliminary Analysis”. (Internal document, available on request). 98 | Toward a National Single-use Plastics Roadmap in Vietnam: Strategic Options for Reducing Priority Single-use Plastics Shutterstock: Vietnam Stock Images 6. Bibliography | 99 ANNEX 1: CRITERIA USED TO DETERMINE THE SUITABILITY OF SUPS FOR REDUCTION POLICIES G lobally, SUPs are being increasingly phased-out because more environmentally friendly and affordable alternatives have emerged. However, while considering alternatives, environmental and economic cost-benefit analyses need to be carried out to ensure that the solution to the affordability problem does not create environmental, economic, or socially more significant problems. Therefore, given the significant contribution of SUPs to littering in Vietnam, to recommend appropriate policy instruments, a deeper analysis characterizing the SUPs, the frequency of their consumption and distribution, the collection process, and recycling approaches, is required, together with recommendations for potential alternatives. The following section uses three selection criteria to identify appropriate SUPs to achieve the most positive impact for the environment. The first selection criterion considers the most polluting SUPs, based on the top items identified in the plastics pollution diagnostic surveys conducted in Vietnam. As revealed by the field surveys (World Bank 2022), certain SUPs are frequently used as food take-away items (44 percent of all plastic items and SUPs in the environment). These include expanded polystyrene (EPS) and other polystyrene (PS) food containers, take-away utensils, SUP straws, and plastic bags, and their fragments. The prevalence of these items in the environment is further exacerbated by unsustainable consumption habits and trends, lack of waste collection and recycling, and lack of viable alternatives. The second criterion considers whether the SUP has available alternatives that have been successfully used at a reasonable cost, and are based on international good practices. This will include considering alternatives to prioritize in developing policies for the other SUPs used in the take-away food consumption industry, including plastic cutlery, cups, drink stirrers, and food wraps. Given consumption habits, and consumer’s increasing preferences for take-away food, the waste generated by these items will only continue to grow if left unchecked. Therefore, the second criterion is crucial to mitigate the impact from increasing consumption, and the use of SUPs in the take-away and online food ordering industry. The third criterion focuses on SUPs that can be effectively addressed by reduction policies (Pillar 1) such as bans, restrictions, or fees. Such reduction policies are practical and convenient where alternatives are available, affordable, and sustainably and competitively priced in the market. For some items, in the absence of alternatives, a ban is not considered a feasible option (Excell et al. 2020). Examples of these items include food packaging where manufacturers have not yet scaled up alternatives, as is the case with crisps and sweet packaging, and other types of food wrappers. However, where bans are not feasible, other 100 | Toward a National Single-use Plastics Roadmap in Vietnam: Strategic Options for Reducing Priority Single-use Plastics instruments such as extended producer responsibility  extra cost would likely not be noticed by consumers. (EPR) are preferable alternatives. Improving solid The suitability of reduction policy options (bans and waste management, including collection, is also fees for consumers or producers)  depend on the important for addressing these waste items. Charging specific conditions, such as if the item is essential consumers fees might not be applicable in some cases or if alternatives exist. A decision tree (A.1.1) was (for example, charging consumers a fee for buying developed and followed for each item to inform crisps packaging). In such cases, the insignificant this roadmap. Figure A.1.1. DECISION TREE FOR THE SUITABILITY OF SUP REDUCTION POLICIES52 Are the single use alternatives available at scale, environmentally friendly and not overly expensive? Yes No Are there multi-use alternatives available at scale? Yes No Is it essential (non-luxury)? No Yes Is it extremely convenient (e.g. on-the-go)? No Yes Are there barriers that limit a Is there EPR for packing waste? large shift to reusable item? No Yes No Yes Is there a market for recylable material, Can large impacts only be or are there modulated tariffs? achieved at higher costs? Yes No No Yes Can large impacts only be achieved at higher costs? No Yes Is it countable? Yes No Can large impacts only be achieved at higher costs? Yes No Ban Fee for Fee for EPR for EPR for WM producers consumers recycling clean-up Improvement 52 Modulated tariffs are fees paid by the producers fulfilling their EPR obligation, and differentiated according to the product’s environmental impact. Annex 1: Criteria Used to Determine the Suitability of SUPs for Reduction Policies | 101 Table A.1.1. summarizes potential priority SUPs for reduction. This table is based on the decision tree and the top polluting items identified in the field surveys. Table A.1.1. PRIORITY PLASTIC ITEMS FROM THE FIELD SURVEYS IN VIETNAM THAT ARE SUITABLE FOR REDUCTION POLICIES Top 10 plastic items % (by Suitability Suitability SUP/Product Type number) as SUP for Categories for Alternatives’ (Y/N) reduction Analysis policies such as consumer levies Fishing gear 1:  rope, net pieces, lures, lines, and hard plastic 16.9 N  N  -  floats (PE & PP)  Soft plastic fragments (LDPE)  Yes – mostly Non-degradable plastic 17.4 from Y  bags plastic bags     Fishing gear 2: Polystyrenes-ESP, 13.0 N  N  -  buoys, floats (PS & EPS)  Plastic bags size 1 (0-5kg)  8.5 Y  Y  Non-degradable plastic bags  Styrofoam food containers (PS)  7.2 Y  Y  Styrofoam food containers  Hard plastic fragments (HDPE)  No (mostly 6.2 unidentified No  -  objects)   Straws (mainly PP)  4.7 Y  Y  Straws   Other food wrappers  3.1 N -  No – More suitable for Crisp/Sweet packages (PP & PS)  EPR53 3.1 N  -  Other plastic (plastic slippers, diapers, etc.)  3.0 N  -  53 For these plastic items, there are no available alternatives, and, therefore, bans would not be implementable, and fees would only increase the burden on consumers, without meaningful reduction of consumption. Due to these reasons, EPR would be the most suitable policy so that producers are incentivized to redesign their products. 102 | Toward a National Single-use Plastics Roadmap in Vietnam: Strategic Options for Reducing Priority Single-use Plastics Given the considerations presented in Table A.1.1, the other countries. Given that the tourism sector, and three most common SUPs to target as soon as possible especially hotels and other accommodation providers, through reduction policies, are non-degradable plastic contributes to the consumption of a considerable bags, EPS food containers, and plastic straws. As amount and variety of SUPs, the sector should be highlighted in the results of the survey, targeting these targeted for phasing out SUPs, and using alternatives items could reduce up to 38 percent of the top 10 (Hendrickx and Bajzelj 2021). plastic items in Vietnam’s environment. Therefore, the roadmap presented in subsequent There are SUPs that did not appear among the top sections of this report focuses primarily on the top 10 items in the field surveys, but they could still three SUPs (non-degradable plastic bags, EPS food contribute to marine litter. Some of these include containers, and plastic straws), but the roadmap also plastic cutlery, plastic cups and cup lids, and plastic considers other SUPs that could be addressed with drink stirrers. These SUPs often have available, reduction policies that are based on international reasonably priced alternatives, and have been good practices. successfully replaced by these alternatives in some Shutterstock: Karol Ciesluk Annex 1: Criteria Used to Determine the Suitability of SUPs for Reduction Policies | 103 ANNEX 2: ALTERNATIVES TO THE TARGET SUPS AND THEIR AVAILABILITY FOR SUSTAINABLE USE A lternatives for SUPs, and the extent of their availability, are an important concern for achieving a sustainable transition. Therefore, it is important to compare SUP items with their alternatives, both with regard to price and affordability. Based on findings in the Vietnam plastic pollution diagnostic report (World Bank 2022), extensive information on consumption and alternatives is available for non-degradable plastic bags, straws, and EPS containers. This includes information on production, imports, and consumption in Vietnam, materials’ recyclability, and suitable alternatives. A summary of alternative materials for EPS food containers, straws, and non-degradable plastic bags, and their availability, is presented in Table A.2.1, Table A.2.2, and Table A.2.3. Although the waste generated from SUP littering is harmful to the environment, caution must be taken while adopting alternatives. Given that alternatives can be single-use materials, they can also become problematic in the environment if they are not properly collected and treated. For example, if biodegradable and compostable items are not properly collected, and then become mixed with plastic, they can hamper the efficiency and quality of the recycling process. Alternatives are made from materials with differing characteristics, which although biodegradable under industrial conditions, may not degrade in the natural environment. Thus, alternatives could significantly contribute to littering if they are not properly collected. Biodegradable alternatives such as paper and other natural materials (leaves from bananas or other trees, grass, rice, and so on), if not properly separated, can end up in landfills and contribute to the generation of greenhouse gas emissions54 (Ravishankara et al. 2021). A functioning waste management system is, therefore, pivotal to avoid an unwanted waste burden from the choice of alternatives. Also, if compostable and biodegradable alternatives are preferred, then waste treatment infrastructure should be planned accordingly— for example, through investments in composting plants and greater composting capacity. Finally, people’s perception that biodegradable and compostable products are “environmentally friendly” is also a concern if this results in people paying less attention to their waste consumption and/or littering (Kershaw 2015). The environmental costs of alternatives from the beginning to end of their lifecycle, including their production, must be considered as well. The production of paper bags, for example, might be environmentally worse than the production of plastic bags. The paper industry is more water and energy-intensive and, overall, paper bags end up having a larger environmental footprint than their plastic counterparts. The same applies to fabric bags, which require more material during production to increase their durability. For these bags to have a lower carbon footprint than plastic bags, they must be used at least five times before they are discarded (Berners-Lee 2010). 54 US EPA has identified landfills as the single largest source of methane emissions in the US, and the decomposition of paper is the largest contributor to the methane being generated. 104 | Toward a National Single-use Plastics Roadmap in Vietnam: Strategic Options for Reducing Priority Single-use Plastics Table A.2.1. EPS FOOD CONTAINERS AND THEIR ALTERNATIVES IN VIETNAM Styrofoam (EPS, PS) food containers (World Bank 2022) Production, imports, and Material and recyclability consumption in Vietnam EPS and PS items are highly harmful to the environment as they blow in Highly economical and convenient, the wind and float in water, they are costly to collect and transport due EPS food containers are used for food to their low density, and they are difficult to recycle. Also, they quickly consumption at home, on the go, and fragment into small pieces that are almost impossible to collect. in establishments, but as indicated in the field surveys, they are among Suitable alternatives in Vietnam the top 10 most polluting items in • Single-use alternatives made of more recyclable plastics (such as Vietnam (7.4 percent by quantity). polypropylene [PP]), plant-based materials (such as bagasse boxes They come in a variety of sizes, and and trays, and leaf trays), or biodegradable plastics (such as polylactide are produced and imported by several [PLA] trays) are starting to be introduced in Vietnam. Approximately companies, which often do not source 100 million food containers made from alternative materials are put on alternative products. Around 10.5 the market, yearly, which is about 1 percent of the total for EPS food billion EPS food containers are sold containers (10.5 billion pieces). Bagasse box and leaf trays comprise in Vietnam per year, half of which the largest share of this market. However, single-use bagasse boxes include trays (pictured below, on the cost, on average, 10 times more than the EPS boxes (about VND3,000 right) that cost between VND470 and per unit for bagasse boxes, versus VND150 to 500 per unit for small 550 per unit, and half of which are sticky rice boxes). Leaf and bagasse trays have comparable prices to food and sticky-rice boxes (pictured EPS trays (around VND1,000 to 2,000 per unit). below, on the left) that cost between VND150 and 500 per unit. • Multi-use (MU) alternatives such as aluminum, glass, or stainless trays exist. These have a smaller market share and cost more than single-use boxes. However, since they are multi-use, fewer quantities are needed. For example, crockery is a clear MU alternative for eating food in restaurants and cafeterias, and reusable containers (washable tiffins [lunchboxes] or multi-compartment trays), are alternatives for food take-away. Shutterstock: iveta kulhava Annex 2: Alternatives to the Target SUPs and Their Availability for Sustainable Use | 105 Table A.2.2. SUP STRAWS AND THEIR ALTERNATIVES IN VIETNAM Straws (World Bank 2022) Production, imports and Material and recyclability consumption in Vietnam Straws are made of either polypropylene (PP) or polystyrene (PS), but PP has Plastic straws are non-essential become more popular. Stirrers, on the other hand, are made of PS. Both materials items, except in situations are difficult to recycle, but PS requires more energy to recycle than PP. such as hospitals and care facilities. Yet, they ranked Suitable alternatives in Vietnam among the top 10 most Many alternatives for plastic straws exist, and are being supplied in Vietnam. polluting items in Vietnam Several producers and importers have already shifted their focus to alternatives (4.6 percent by quantity), and such as bamboo, paper, grass, and rice straws (See Table A.4.4 on stakeholders were especially common in in Vietnam). coastal tourism areas. Around 5.3 billion straws are put • Single-use alternatives, such as paper straws are common and available, with on the market per year in prices that are equal or less than plastic straws (VND200 to 500 per unit). Rice Vietnam. Half of these are and vegetable straws (VND300 to 800 per unit) are also a cheap, and readily straight (VND200 to 1,000 available solution. The current capacity for alternatives is estimated to be per unit) or corrugated PP 1.58 billion pieces per year (of which most are paper straws). This is more straws (VND1,200 to 1,500 than the number of PP straight straws that are put on the market each year. per unit), and the other half are U-shaped straws for dairy • Reusable alternatives made from bamboo, wood, glass, or metal are also products that cost about available. Bamboo straws have a high ratio of price to durability (VND600 to VND200 to 1,500 per unit. 1,000 per unit), and they can be used for three to six months. • Alternatives to straws for dairy products also exist (mostly made from paper), with a yearly output of 680 million pieces. The price of alternatives such as paper straws in Vietnam is comparable to that of PP straws. This alternative would be affordable, even for street vendors. However, the market analysis on alternatives highlighted that straws made of paper and bamboo have issues with moisture and humidity. Local climatic conditions exacerbate this, and these straws are reported to be a problem, as they tend to collapse once they are wet. Furthermore, paper or other straws made from biodegradable materials could be environmentally problematic in the medium and long term, as highlighted previously. Rice and vegetable straws are a better solution, and their price is comparable to straight PP straws. 106 | Toward a National Single-use Plastics Roadmap in Vietnam: Strategic Options for Reducing Priority Single-use Plastics Table A.2.3. NON-DEGRADABLE PLASTIC BAGS AND THEIR ALTERNATIVES IN VIETNAM Non-degradable plastic bags of various size (World Bank 2022) Production, imports and consumption in Material and recyclability Vietnam SUP bags are usually made of HDPE (which is highly recyclable), SUP bags are used to carry goods and are while reusable plastics are made of LDPE or PP. They can also be distributed in supermarkets, wet markets, made of bio-based materials (biodegradable or non-biodegradable and other retailers. like polylactic acid [PLA]). In Vietnam, the rate of sorting waste at the source is very low. Plastic bag wastes are either collected by In Vietnam, about 800,000 tons of plastic waste trucks or disposed of directly in the environment. As these bags are used, annually. PE and HDPE plastic bags are small and difficult to collect, most are burned, or plastic bags of various sizes account for buried in a landfill. about 80 percent of the plastic bags put on the market each year, and cost between Alternatives in Vietnam VND30,000 and 48,000 per kilogram. There are several producers of alternatives to plastic bags in Vietnam, The remaining 20 percent of plastic bags including paper, canvas, nonwoven bags, and alternative products are smaller plastic bags such as those for such as plastic baskets. However, these alternatives, while largely fruits and fresh food, and milk teacup-bags. known, are unpopular and rarely used. After fishing gear, plastic bags (and especially Firstly, current production levels are very low. Producers currently those with a carrying capacity of 0 to 5 kg) supply only about 1,438 tons of single or multi-use alternatives. were the most polluting items identified in These include compostable plastic bags, PP-woven multi-use bags, the field surveys (25.8 percent, by quantity). and ivory paper bags. Secondly, prices are significantly higher than the SUP non-degradable bags. For instance, single-use compostable bags cost about four times more than non-degradable plastic bags (VND160,000 per kg versus VND30,000 to 40,000 per kg). Multi-use alternatives cost significantly more (VND8,000 to 30,000 per piece for non-woven bags and VND19,000 to 25,000 per piece for PP woven bags), however, these multi-use alternatives have longer life spans (1–3 years compared to 1–3 times for the single-use bags). The low price and high availability of plastic bags makes it unfeasible to fully replace plastic bags with compostable and biodegradable bags, immediately. There are also environmental concerns regarding the lack of capacity for composting in Vietnam. The market capacity for alternatives needs to be strengthened before bans can be implemented. Annex 2: Alternatives to the Target SUPs and Their Availability for Sustainable Use | 107 ANNEX 3: LEGAL, POLICY, AND INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK REVIEW AND GAP ANALYSIS T he Government of Vietnam has set targets for plastic policies that foster reduction, and the better design of plastic, and plastic products, as well as eco-design. These are summarized in Table A.3.1. below. Table A.3.1. TARGETS IN NATIONAL STRATEGIES AND ACTION PLANS ON PLASTIC WASTE AND PLASTIC POLLUTION IN VIETNAM Legislative Targets   Document  Decision No. 491/ Waste management targets:  QD-TTg, dated • By 2025, collect, transport, and treat 100 percent May 7, 2018, of non-household hazardous waste, and 90 percent approving of domestic solid waste in urban areas  adjustment to the National Targets to minimize the use of non-biodegradable plastic Strategy bags: for integrated solid • From 2026, limit, and proceed to end, waste management to importing, manufacturing, and supplying of non-en- 2025, with a vision vironmentally friendly plastic bags towards 2050.  The 2025 targets for the collection, treatment, and recycling of solid and hazardous waste are set in this document as well. 108 | Toward a National Single-use Plastics Roadmap in Vietnam: Strategic Options for Reducing Priority Single-use Plastics Legislative Document  Targets   Decision No. 1746/ The following measures relevant to plastic waste were introduced:  QD-TTg of the Prime Targets:  Minister, dated December 2019, • Reduce marine plastic litter by 50 percent (by 2025), and 75 percent (by 2030)  on the National • Collect 50 percent (by 2025), and 100 percent (by 2030) of abandoned, lost, or Action Plan for the discarded fishing gear  Management of Marine Plastic Litter • Prevent the use of SUPs and non-biodegradable plastic bags in tourism areas by 2030  by 80 percent (by 2025), and 100 percent (by 2030)   • Ensure that 80 percent (by 2025), and 100 percent (by 2030) of marine protected areas are free of plastic litter  • Ensure that nationwide beach cleanup campaigns are carried out at least twice a year  • Monitor marine plastic litter, annually, and assess marine plastic litter every five years at several estuaries in major drainage basins (five by 2025, and 11 by 2030)  Key tasks:   • Educate and change people’s behavior pertaining to plastics and marine plastic litter • Collect, segregate, store, transfer, and process plastic waste from coastal and ocean-based activities • Control plastic litter at the source • Promote international cooperation, scientific research, and the application, development, and transfer of marine plastic litter processing technologies  • Conduct consistent and effective investigations, surveys, reviews, research, and the formulation of mechanisms for marine plastic litter management  This also defines the responsibilities of different ministries to undertake the specified tasks. Decision No. 889/ Specific targets for the 2021–2025 period related to plastic waste:  QD-TTg, dated June • Target is 85 percent (by 2025), and 100 percent (by 2030) of the retail sector replaces 24, 2020, approving single-use, non-biodegradable plastic packaging  the National Action Plan on Sustainable Develop legal policies on sustainable production and consumption including:  Production and • Regulations and technical standards on eco-design  Consumption for the Period 2021–2030  • Technical regulations and standards on eco-labels   • Standards for sustainable tourism   • Standards for environmentally friendly materials and products, and for recycled products   • Minimum of 10 technical guides on sustainable production and consumption • Policies to promote the production, distribution, and consumption of eco-friendly packaging products to replace non-biodegradable, SUP products; and develop regulations on “green” public procurement. Annex 3: Legal, Policy, and Institutional Framework Review and Gap Analysis | 109 Legislative Document  Targets   Decision 1316/ Specific targets by 2025: QD-TTg on Approving • Use 100 percent environmentally friendly packaging bags in trade centers and the Scheme for supermarkets catering to domestic needs Strengthening Plastic Waste Management in • Ensure the collection, reuse, recycling, and treatment of 85 percent of the generated Vietnam plastic waste • Reduce 50 percent of the plastic waste in Vietnam’s seas and oceans • 100 percent of tourist resorts, tourist hotels, and other accommodation providers stop using non-degradable plastic bags and SUP products • Gradually reduce the production and use of non-degradable plastic bags and disposable plastic products in daily life Develop legal policies on sustainable production and consumption to: • promote the development of a circular economy for producers and consumers of plastic products • propose a roadmap to limit the production and imports of SUP products, dif- ficult-to-biodegrade plastic packaging and products, and goods containing microplastics • incentivize and support the production of environmentally friendly products, and substitutes for disposable plastic products and non-degradable plastic bags • propose a roadmap to increase the environmental protection tax for non-degradable plastic bags, and an additional environmental protection tax for SUP products used for domestic purposes • authorize the local authority to undertake inspections and supervise the collection of the environmental protection tax, and ensure the correct collection of the environmental protection tax • develop a plan and implement campaigns and other activities to stop the use non-biodegradable plastic bags and SUP products in tourist resorts, hotels, and other tourist accommodation • develop a plan and roadmap to limit, and eventually ban, the use of non-degradable plastic bags in commercial centers, supermarkets, and other markets • ask supermarkets, trade centers, and convenience stores to prominently list the selling price of the plastic bags provided to customers • institute measures to monitor and stop commercial centers, supermarkets, and convenience stores from providing free plastic bags to customers 110 | Toward a National Single-use Plastics Roadmap in Vietnam: Strategic Options for Reducing Priority Single-use Plastics Legislative Document  Targets   Decree 8/2022 • From January 1, 2026, stop manufacturing and importing non-biodegradable guiding application of plastic bags with dimensions smaller than 50cm x 50cm and a film thickness of selected articles of the less than 50 µm, except for production for export Law on Environmental • Provincial People's Committees promulgate regulations and organize the Protection 2020 implementation of plastic waste management activities; ensure that after 2025, single-use plastic products, non-biodegradable plastic packaging (including non-bio- degradable plastic bags, Styrofoam packaging boxes, and food containers) are not circulated or used at commercial centers, supermarkets, hotels, tourist resorts, except for products and goods with difficult-to-biodegradable plastic packaging; organize the inspection and examination of units producing single-use plastic products and non-biodegradable plastic packaging in the locality • After December 31, 2030, stop the production and import of single-use plastic products (except for products certified with Vietnam's eco-label), non-biodegrad- able plastic packaging (including non-biodegradable plastic bags). biodegradable plastic containers, Styrofoam plastic containers for packaging and food storage) and products and goods containing microplastics, except for the case of production for export and the production and import of difficult-to-biodegradable plastic packaging for packaging products, goods sold to the market By comparing Vietnam’s regulatory framework for plastic waste management against international good practices, including those from the European Union, China, and other countries in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, the following gap analysis and recommendations were formulated (see Table A.3.2). Table A.3.2. THE MAIN GAPS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE INVENTORY AND GAP ANALYSIS OF VIETNAM’S PLASTIC POLICIES THAT ALIGN WITH PILLAR 1 IN THE ASEAN REGIONAL ACTION PLAN (REDUCE INPUTS INTO THE SYSTEM) Main gaps Recommendations to address gaps Reducing inputs SUPs are recognized in national strategies as highly Consider generalizing the definition of SUPs in the next polluting items for which reduction policies are needed. update of Decree 8/2022 to more closely align with While Decree 8/2022 has identified and defined SUPs good international practices (for example, in the EU) within the legal framework, there are some polluting that define SUPs by their purpose rather than by product SUPs found in the environment that are not included or type. This would then allow for the inclusion of items (for example, SUP toiletry products). to target in the Circular to support implementation of the Decree. Other than the bans included in Decree 8/2022, policy Develop a roadmap to progressively phase out SUPs, instruments to reduce SUP consumption to facilitate and consider policies that facilitate the reduction the bans’ achievement have not been identified and of consumption, and especially consumption in the included in legislation yet. hospitality, tourism, and retail sectors, where most of the identified SUPs are consumed. Annex 3: Legal, Policy, and Institutional Framework Review and Gap Analysis | 111 Main gaps Recommendations to address gaps On its own, the tax levied on the producers of Charge fees to the consumers of certain SUPs, such non-degradable plastic bags seems to be ineffective as non-degradable plastic bags. (see Section 4). Enhancing collection, recycling of plastic, and minimizing its leakage There is a lack of an effective mechanism for regular Consider mechanisms to monitor recycling performance monitoring/ verification of recycling performance (such to support implementation of extended producer as monthly inspections). responsibility (EPR) in Decree 8/2022 and any subsequent regulatory Circular. Mechanisms for controlling “free riders” in EPR schemes Consider how to tackle free-riders and put penalties are missing. in to support implementation of extended producer responsibility (EPR) in Decree 8/2022 and any subsequent regulatory Circular. The obligations imposed for the collection of fishing Consider including fishing gear in the items covered gear are not backed-up by primary legislation; fishing by EPR (in the next phase). gear is not included in EPR. EPR for clean-up of littering has not been considered. Consider including clean-up of littering in EPR (in the These mechanisms should ensure that the producers next phase). finance the collection and treatment of non-recyclable products (such as cigarette butts and wet wipes). Creating value for waste reuse Marking obligations for plastic packaging to enhance Introduce mandatory requirements such as recycling separation and proper disposal are not adopted in codes for plastic packaging. Vietnam in a mandatory fashion Items to be prioritized for eco-design have not been Prioritize plastic items for eco-design (such as plastic identified yet. bottles, and their minimum recycling content). Eco-design is regulated under Circular 41/2013/ Develop a roadmap for implementing eco-design TT-BTNMT, but no specific eco-design requirements measures, including priority items and their requirements. are specified in the legislation. 112 | Toward a National Single-use Plastics Roadmap in Vietnam: Strategic Options for Reducing Priority Single-use Plastics Shutterstock: Lina Mo Annex 3: Legal, Policy, and Institutional Framework Review and Gap Analysis | 113 ANNEX 4: THE POLICY IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT PROCESS IN VIETNAM The different steps necessary for the adoption and enforcement of policy measures are described below. A.4.1. Political decision-making for the implementation of policy measures In the initial phase of the process, political decisions must be made by the initiating authority, which include: the selection of the specific measure to be implemented; identification and selection of the plastic items to be covered; identification of the target groups that will be affected; and selection of the institutions that will be responsible, and will have roles in implementing the policy measure. In parallel, stakeholder consultations must be initiated with the interested parties, including the different ministries where responsibilities will be allocated (for example, MONRE, MOIT, MOCST, and MOF). This will be crucial to ensure the success and effectiveness of the policy measure. MONRE is responsible for plastic waste management, and will take the lead in dialogues on the policy measures, in collaboration with line ministries, provincial authorities, and other stakeholders. The relevant institutional set-up for plastic waste management in Vietnam, and the main responsibilities of each assigned ministry or unit are summarized in Table A.4.1. Table A.4.1. INSTITUTIONAL SET-UP IN VIETNAM FOR PLASTIC WASTE MANAGEMENT Responsible Main roles and responsibilities in plastic waste institutions management The Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment is the government agency responsible for the management of functions in the environmental field, including waste Ministry of management and plastic. Through Directive No. 33/CT-TTg, Natural Resources dated August 20, 2020, MONRE is the focal point for the and Environment management of plastic and waste, and takes the lead in implementing, conducting research on, and monitoring adherence to policies, and their impact. Through Directive No. 33/CT-TTg, dated August 20, 2020, the Ministry of Finance is assigned to be the focal point in amending and supplementing the Law on Environmental Ministry of Protection Tax, and directs the increase in taxable objects, Finance increases the tax rate on plastic bags, and ensures support for environmentally friendly plastic bags, and overseeing the collection of the tax. 114 | Toward a National Single-use Plastics Roadmap in Vietnam: Strategic Options for Reducing Priority Single-use Plastics Responsible Main roles and responsibilities in plastic waste management institutions Through Directive No. 33/CT-TTg, dated August 20, 2020, the Ministry of Industry and Ministry of Trade is assigned to be the focal point for the implementation of activities related to Industry and plastic waste in the sector. The ministry oversees the production and consumption of Trade sustainable alternatives to SUPs by encouraging their production, and helping to develop consumers’ demand for these alternatives. Department of The department and the Sustainable Consumption and Production Office (SCPO), in Energy Efficiency particular, is the focal point for implementing the national program on sustainable and Sustainable production and consumption. Development Department of This department is the focal point in implementing the reduction of non-biodegradable Domestic Markets plastic bags and SUP products in markets, supermarkets, and shopping centers. Ministry of Through Directive No. 33/CT-TTg, dated August 20, 2020, the ministry is assigned to be Agriculture the focal point in rural areas for the implementation of activities related to plastic waste & Rural in the agriculture and the fisheries sectors. Development Through Directive No. 33/CT-TTg, dated August 20, 2020, the ministry is assigned to be the focal point for the implementation of activities related to plastic waste in the healthcare Ministry of Health sector, such as considering the health impacts of waste; regulating the quality of recycled plastics; and implementing procedures to reduce, reuse, and recycle at medical facilities, and pharmaceutical production facilities. Ministry of The Ministry of Education and Training develops and implements plans for waste classification Education and and plastic waste reduction in schools, educational institutions, and training establishments. Training Ministry of The Ministry of Science and Technology promotes innovation, creativity, research, and Science and the transfer of technologies to produce environmentally friendly materials to replace Technology plastics in production and businesses. The Ministry of Culture, Sports, and Tourism promotes standards to reduce the use Ministry of of disposable plastic products and non-degradable plastic bags in businesses, tourist Culture, Sports accommodation, and service establishments, as well as in cultural, sports, and tourist and Tourism events. The Ministry of Information and Communications, Vietnam Television, Voice of Vietnam Radio, and the Vietnam News Agency have prime responsibility for coordinating with the Ministry of agencies, organizations, and individuals involved in developing information campaigns to Information and raise awareness about the impacts of SUPs and about the regulations; and to disseminate Communications information on plastic waste reduction, sorting, collection, and recycling, as well as the treatment of plastic waste. Annex 4: The Policy Implementation and Enforcement Process in Vietnam | 115 Responsible Main roles and responsibilities in plastic waste management institutions To protect the environment, the Provincial/City People’s Committees: raise community awareness about plastic waste minimization; and mobilize people and communities to limit, or not use disposable plastic products (including non-degradable plastic bags; Styrofoam containers; and plastic food packages, bottles, straws, cups, and tableware). People’s At the provincial level, line departments such as the Department of Natural Resources Committees of and Environment (DONRE), Department of Industry and Trade (DOIT), Department of provinces and Agriculture and Rural Development (DARD), and Department of Culture, Sports, and Tourism centrally run are the operational organizations supporting the Provincial/City People’s Committees cities: in different sectors. For all the departments at the central level (for example, at the ministry level), a local unit has been established at the level of the People´s Committee, which is then in charge of operationalizing initiatives at the local level. Vietnam follows a specific process for the development (Table A.4.2) summarizes the legislative development and enforcement of legislation, including wide process for the adoption of regulations, and the respon- stakeholder consultations, legislative improvement, and sibilities allocated to Vietnam’s different ministries . peer review by the Ministry of Justice. The table below Shutterstock: hecke61 116 | Toward a National Single-use Plastics Roadmap in Vietnam: Strategic Options for Reducing Priority Single-use Plastics Table A.4.2. STAGES FOR THE ADOPTION OF REGULATIONS ON PLASTIC WASTE MANAGEMENT IN VIETNAM Policy development stages Responsibility Legislation development Assigned line ministries (MONRE, MOIT) Consultation with a wide range of stakeholders Representatives from the business sector, NGOs, universities, and so on Legislation improvement/finalization Assigned line ministries (MONRE, MOIT) Peer review Ministry of Justice Legislation finalization Assigned line ministries (MONRE, MOIT) Promulgation By nominated government bodies Implementation By nominated government bodies A.4.2. Formulation of the legislative • Specification of the roles of different institutions, provision where relevant (for example, for the collection of fees and revenue, for monitoring and For a proposed policy measure, a regulation needs enforcement, and so on) to be formulated, refined, and finally adopted. The legal provisions must be presented, discussed, and • Promotion of the adoption of SUP alternatives agreed to during stakeholder consultations, as described • Specification of administrative sanctions, below. The legal provisions should include: penalties, and fines • Clear definition of the plastic items to be covered Another major decision concerns the selection of a • Identification of target groups and exclusions suitable policy document to adopt the regulations. for business activities that are affected by the Vietnamese legislation on plastic includes primary measure and secondary legislation. An overview is provided in Table A.4.3. • Transition periods for enforcement of the law with the targeted business activities Annex 4: The Policy Implementation and Enforcement Process in Vietnam | 117 Table A.4.3. OVERVIEW OF LEGISLATIVE DOCUMENTS RELEVANT TO PLASTIC POLICIES Legislative document Relevance to plastic waste management Primary legislation Law on Environmental Protection No. 55/2014/QH13, This document regulates the management of wastes and its reviewed version (passed by the national and other pollutants; the reduction, reuse, recycling, and assembly in 2020 and became effective on January treatment of plastic waste; the prevention and control 1, 2022) of marine plastic litter and pollution (Art 73); and EPR schemes (Articles 54 and 55). Law on environmental protection tax No. 57/2010/ This identifies non-biodegradable plastic bags as taxable QH12 with updated tariffs in Resolution No. 579/2018/ items (Article 3). Ubtvqh14 Decrees and Circulars supporting the primary law Decree No. 67/2011/ND-CP, dated August 8, 2011 This details and guides the implementation of several articles in the Law on Environmental Protection Tax, it lists the items that are subject to tax (including plastic bags), and the procedures for tax declarations, payments, and refunds. Circular 159/2012/ TT-BTC, dated September 28, 2012, This identifies non-biodegradable, taxable plastic bags amending and supplementing Circular 152/2011/ according to their type of plastic (HDPE, LDPE, and LLDPE), TT-BTC, dated November 11, 2011, and guiding the and it requires producers and importers to pay a tax of implementation of Decree 67/2011/ND-CP VND50,000 per kilo. Circular No. 07/2012/TT-BTNMT, dated July 4, 2012, This provides the criteria and procedures for the recognition by MONRE of environmentally friendly plastic bags; and it requires plastic bag manufacturers to fully comply with the provisions of the law on environmental protection. Decree No.8/2022/ND-CP, dated January 10, 2022 This includes articles to guide implementation of extended producer responsibility (EPR), and restricting the importing, production, and use of SUPs. Decisions Decision No. 491/QD-TTG, dated May 7, 2018, on This set targets, including using 100 percent environmen- approving adjustment to the National Strategy for tally friendly plastic bags in the retail sector (shopping Integrated Solid Waste Management, to 2025, with malls, supermarkets, shops, and so on), and it limits, and a Vision Towards 2050. ends the importing, manufacturing, and supplying of non-environmentally friendly plastic bags by 2026. 118 | Toward a National Single-use Plastics Roadmap in Vietnam: Strategic Options for Reducing Priority Single-use Plastics Legislative document Relevance to plastic waste management Decision No. 1746/QD-TTG by the Prime Minister on This sets the targets for reducing marine plastic litter by the National Action Plan for Management of Marine 50 percent (by 2025), and 75 percent (by 2030); preventing Plastic Litter by 2030 the use of SUPs and non-biodegradable plastic bags in tourism areas by 80 percent (by 2025), and 100 percent (by 2030); and making marine protected areas free of plastic litter by 80 percent (by 2025), and 100 percent (by 2030). It also defines the responsibilities of the specific ministries to undertake these tasks. Decision No. 889/QD-TTG, dated June 24, 2020, This sets specific targets for the 2021–2025 period related Approving the National Action Plan on Sustainable to plastic waste, including the retail sector, for replacing Production and Consumption, for the Period 2021–2030 single-use, non-biodegradable plastic packaging by 85 percent (by 2025), and 100 percent (by 2030); and developing legal policies on sustainable production and consumption, including standards on eco-design, eco-labels, and standards for sustainable tourism. Decision No. 2395/QD-BTNMT, dated October 28, This assigns MONRE and specific units to carry out tasks 2020 to implement the National Action Plan for Management of Marine Plastic Litter by 2030. Decision No.1316/QD-TTG, dated July 22, 2021, on This aims to support the implementation of the National approving the scheme to strengthen plastic waste Strategy for Integrated Solid Waste Management to 2025, management in Vietnam with a vision towards 2050. Directives Directive No. 08/CT-BCT, dated July 15, 2019, on This defines the responsibilities of the units in MOIT to strengthening measures to reduce plastic waste in reduce plastic waste in the industry and trade sectors. the industry and trade sectors Directive No. 08/CT-BYT, dated July 29, 2019, on This assigns the Departments of Health in centrally run reducing plastic waste in the health sector provinces and cities to push for the implementation of plastic waste reduction in the health sector. Directive No. 33/CT-TTG, dated August 20, 2020, on This assigns roles and responsibilities to different ministries strengthening the management, reuse, recycling, and departments to manage and reduce plastic waste, treatment, and reduction of plastic waste and collaborate with the People's Committees of centrally run provinces and cities in carrying out activities related to locally reducing plastic waste. Annex 4: The Policy Implementation and Enforcement Process in Vietnam | 119 The choice of which legislative documents to adapt organizations, non-governmental organizations, with new regulations depends on the type of policy consumer organizations, researchers, and proposed. The two main laws regulating plastic in academics. Vietnam are the Law on Environmental Protection • The stakeholder consultation process should 2020, and the Environmental Taxation Law. The first occur before legislative amendments are law regulates the prevention, recycling, and collection adopted. All relevant national and local of plastic waste, and the second law applies a tax authorities, and stakeholders/target groups to non-degradable plastic bags. The introduction of should participate in stakeholder consultations regulations for the reduction of plastic inputs could to discuss and agree on the proposed legislative build on these two primary laws. For example, charging amendments. The consultations could begin consumers a fee for plastic bags could build on the with one or more roundtable meetings with Environmental Taxation Law and its implementing all the relevant authorities, and then several directives. Policies for the reduction of consumption stakeholder meetings should be organized. might be included in separate implementing Circulars under Decree 8 or be adopted at the provincial/city The first stakeholders’ consultation meeting would level. The main provisions adopted in the primary provide information on the policy options, and get legislation should remain unchanged for the long stakeholders’ feedback on the different options. These term. This comprises the assignment of competent meetings would stress the importance of measures to authorities, and the obligations of retailers, while the fight plastic pollution to prevent and reverse damage provisions that require frequent changes should remain to the environment, and discuss the points that are in secondary legislation so that the implementing relevant for formulating the legislation, including the authorities have the flexibility to quickly adapt the polluting items to be covered, the types of hotels, legislation if implementation reveals the need for restaurants, and other businesses to be included in corrective measures. the bans and restrictions, the exemptions, the type and price of penalties, and the implementation period. A.4.3. The stakeholder consultation In this regard, a dialogue with the target groups process for different target groups and the should enhance their willingness and cooperation to identification of key institutions enforce the proposed measures, test target groups’ Relevant stakeholders need to be involved in the level of acceptance of the policy, and allow further design and implementation of the policy measure dialogue and adjustment of the measures so that to ensure its success and effectiveness. Therefore, a these can be effectively implemented. After the first stakeholder consultation process needs to be initiated meeting, further meetings should be organized to at the very beginning of policy development. discuss the legislative draft, and negotiate the terms until preparation of the final proposed legislation. The First, the different groups of stakeholders that need resulting agreed on points need to be inserted in the to be involved are: legislative text. A final meeting with the stakeholders should also be organized to: present the updated • National ministers and local authorities: These will legislative proposal to the target groups, and have steer the process and make political decisions, them validate the final draft of the legislative proposal and formulate, and adopt the legislative before its approval and adoption in the legislation. amendments, and carry out monitoring. The new policy should also be officially announced • The target groups: These are representatives from shortly before its approval and adoption as a legislative the different sectors (for example, restaurants, amendment. This announcement should occur through hotels, and retailers) that will be directly affected press conferences with national and local newspapers, by the policy or responsible for implementing it. radio, and television, and be publicized on social • Other stakeholder groups: These will be directly media. This must achieve broad outreach, and inform or indirectly affected by the policy measure or all consumers about the adopted change, how they might contribute to its implementation, and will be affected by it, and what they will need to do. they include trade associations, civil society 120 | Toward a National Single-use Plastics Roadmap in Vietnam: Strategic Options for Reducing Priority Single-use Plastics A.4.4. Targeted sectors and stakeholders and its upcoming implementing policies, which cover a large number of SUP items, including cigarettes; The sectors that will be targeted by the reduction products and packaging that use plastic as a raw policies proposed in this document include: material, including plastic cutlery (knives, forks, and • The restaurant sector, including fast-food, spoons), chopsticks, cups, boxes, single-use food wrap, cafeterias, and similar establishments for onsite and straws; as well as balloons, diapers, tampons, and take-away consumption and single-use wet towels. The proposed policies in this report will promote EPR schemes, as they will • The tourist sector, including the hotel sector encourage the producers and importers of certain SUPs to start rethinking their business model, and • The retail sector, including shops and shopping switch to alternative products and materials. This will malls facilitate the transition toward more ambitious mid- • Consumers or long-term policies to completely ban the sale of certain SUPs. The producers of plastic products must also be indirectly targeted by these measures, as they will To facilitate fruitful discussions, representatives from need to respond to the phasing-out of certain SUPs, the targeted sectors must be invited to take part and adopt alternative materials or products. The in stakeholder consultations, along with represen- producers must comply with the regulations adopted tatives from NGOs, academia, and civil society. The for extended producer responsibility (EPR). This is stakeholder groups that should be included in policy required by the Law on Environmental Protection 2020, discussion are listed in Table A.4.4. Table A.4.4. RELEVANT STAKEHOLDERS FOR VIETNAM’S PLASTIC POLICIES Sector Name Trade associations, and Vietnam Tourism Association, Viet Nam Hotel Association especially those in the restaurant sector, and the tourist/hotel sectors Trade associations in the Vietnam Retail Association, Supermarket Associations, retail sector Businesses Vietnam Chamber of Commerce and Industry (VCCI), PRO Vietnam NGOs WWF Vietnam, IUCN Viet Nam, Green Hub, Vietnam Zero Waste Alliance Platforms for public and Viet Nam National Plastic Action Partnership (NPAP), Alliance of Retailers to private actors Reduce Single-use Plastic Bags Recycling companies Tetra Pak, Thanh Cong Plastic Company, Hop Thanh Company Annex 4: The Policy Implementation and Enforcement Process in Vietnam | 121 Sector Name Local and international DNP Viet Nam, Tan Phu Plastics Company SUP producers Viet Phuoc Ltd., An Minh Polymer Company, SUP food container producers: KKP Foam Trays, Dong Sai Gon plastic Co. Ltd., Vinam Pack, Doanh Thuong Phat, Song Minh Packaging Trading, Hapobe Packaging, An Phat Holdings Plastic bag producers: Bing Minh Packaging Production Trading Service, Giang Thanh Industry, Hoang Thinh Packaging Company, Khang Loi Packaging Company, Nam Khanh Packaging, Nhat Viet Paper and Plastic Packaging One Member Co., Quoc Thai Service Trading Production Company, Ltd., Thanh Cong Vina Trading Investment and Production, JSC EPS producers: Bac Viet Eps Plastic Trading Production Co. Ltd., EPS Vietnam Packaging Investment JSC, Minh Phu Plastics, Tan Huy Hoang, Tin Thanh EPS Food packaging producers: Pham Gia Packaging, Binh Minh Packaging Joint Stock Company, Hanoi Packaging Production and Import-Export Company, Hoai Anh Plastic, Hop Phat Metal Packaging Joint Stock Company, Phat Thanh Plastic Packaging, Royal Packing Solution Joint Stock Company, Tan Gia, Phu Paper Packaging Production Trading Private Enterprise, Tan Hiep Loi Packaging Production Trading Joint Stock Company, Vinapackink Co. Ltd. Drinking straw producers: An Phat Holdings, Hoa Viet Uc Co. Ltd, Ningbo Changya Plastic Vietnam Co. Ltd., Ongtre Vietnam Co. Ltd., Sao Khue Production & Commercial Co. Ltd., STD JSC plastic food, Thien Minh Production and Trading Technology Consumer associations Vietnam Standards and Consumers Association Plastic substitute Hop Phat Metal Packaging Joint Stock Company, An Phat Holdings (with Aneco product manufacturers brands), Hanoi Packaging Production and Import-Export Company, Ltd. and importers Plastic bag alternatives producers and importers: • An Phat Holdings JSC (Aneco Branch) for compostable plastic bags • Phuoc Thinh Production Investment Co. Ltd. for canvas bags • Bao Tin Dat One Member Co. Ltd. for canvas bags • CMYK Manufacturing-Trading-Services Ltd. for canvas bags • Canavi Investment and Production JSC for nonwoven bags • Song Long Plastic for plastic baskets • Producers/importers of alternatives to plastic food containers: • Daily Care Import & Export Trading Co. Ltd. • Queen Pack Co. Ltd. • Hapobe Packaging Co. Ltd. • Joy Food and Beverage, Ltd. • RVC Co. Ltd Producers/importers of alternatives to Styrofoam: • Importers: • Vinafishing Store • Docauonline.com • Cuong KL fishing tackle store • Vietnam Fishing • Producers: • Phat Thanh Industry and Production Co. Ltd. • Hoang Phong Development and Investment Co. Ltd. 122 | Toward a National Single-use Plastics Roadmap in Vietnam: Strategic Options for Reducing Priority Single-use Plastics A.4.5. Public awareness, education, and Monitoring can involve novel approaches such as citizen engagement use of the internet, social media, and smartphones to report on infringements of the law. This would As the policy options require changing consumers´ apply to retailers, restaurants, and hotels where behavior, and an increase in prices, the changes customers can see illegal behavior, and report on it. should be explained to consumers to increase their Line departments at the provincial/city level (such as acceptance and willingness to cooperate. The aware- DOIT and DOCST) should oversee monitoring in the ness-raising campaign should be focused on: targeted sectors. • The benefits resulting from the policy measure An information campaign to inform citizens should be such as the prevention of street littering, and initiated. It is important that influential NGOs support the reduction of marine litter containing plastic, the awareness-raising process, and encourage people as well as the general reduction of the negative to cooperate in reporting bad practices. This approach environmental impact caused by SUPs should help to mitigate any budgetary constraints • Informing the public about the future availability that result from monitoring. of re-usable alternatives and re-use systems, the Concerning fees, to increase their credibility and waste management options that will be provided, acceptance, it is crucial to establish a mechanism and the bad disposal practices that will stop for their collection that ensures that the revenue • Monthly or weekly clean-up campaigns in city will be used for environmental purposes. With help parks and/or bi-annual clean-ups at beaches from the line departments, the Department of Finance and waterways should oversee collecting the fees, and then submit the revenue to the state/provincial budget. The funds All stakeholders affected by the proposed policy, in the budget would then be spent only on waste including NGOs, and the public should be informed management and collection activities. Ideally, the about it. The awareness-raising measures should entity responsible for collecting the fees should be promote public support for the planned legislation, specified in the law, and the fees should be earmarked and counter the expected resistance of SUP producers/ as only for environmental protection activities, including importers, retailers, and consumers, which will be due waste management. to their new obligations. Information campaigns would allow decision-makers to receive feedback, not only Finally, to discourage non-compliant behavior, from the stakeholders involved in the process, but monitoring must be complemented by penalties. The also from the general public, and monitor reactions amount of the penalty should be enough to discourage so that corrective measures can be taken. bad practices, but at the same time, it should be comparable to the infringement. It should be clear to everyone that the penalty is not intended to raise A.4.6. Enforcement and monitoring funds, or to harm businesses; rather it is intended to The proposed policy options and legislative stop bad practices. In addition, the penalty should amendments need to be properly enforced and be implemented in a way that does not incentivize monitored to ensure their success. The ministry corruption. All of these aspects must be raised, and get responsible for coordinating and monitoring agreement from stakeholders during the consultation enforcement of the amendments to the legislation process. on plastic waste is the Ministry of Natural Resources Considerations in designing penalties include: and Environment (MONRE). • Establishing the appropriate penalty level, Enforcement and monitoring mechanisms will vary, including variations for different stakeholders depending on the policy instrument. For bans, (for example, one that is based on the size of restrictions, and fees charged to consumers, it is the business). important to inspect and monitor restaurants and retailers to check if they are following the regulations. • The progressive increase of the penalty (for The respective People´s Committee should oversee example, after the third infringement the inspections and monitoring of policies’ implementation. business’s license will be revoked). Annex 4: The Policy Implementation and Enforcement Process in Vietnam | 123 APRIL 2022 Administ r d b