Calls for MEPS testing overhaul
Calls for MEPS testing overhaul
Thousands of local and foreign manufacturers/importers in Vietnam are suffering a major administrative burden regarding energy labeling and minimum energy proficiency standards certification.
Do Huu Hau, general director of German lighting manufacturer OSRAM Vietnam, told VIR that over the past few years his company had been “very concerned about the obstruction of energy labeling and minimum energy proficiency standards (MEPS) certification in Vietnam.”
“Such procedures are considered sub-licences, making it extremely difficult for enterprises to import goods into Vietnam,” Hau said, adding that “The process of granting an energy label is lengthy and quite costly.”
Before being marketed in Vietnam, thousands of product lines must be tested for MEPS and obtain an energy label, such as refrigerators, printers, scanners, light bulbs, steamers, electric cookers, fans, and washing machines.
Under the Ministry of Industry and Trade’s (MoIT) Circular No.07/2012/TT-BCT, enacted in April 2012, in order to certify energy labeling and MEPS, manufacturers/importers must have product samples tested at laboratories appointed by the MoIT.
However, in Vietnam there are only four laboratories, with two in the north and two in the south. The tests can take weeks or even months depending on the products and the workload in these labs.
According to AmCham Vietnam, in the context of limited quantity and capacity of laboratories, the requirement that samples must be taken from each shipment, with test results used for that shipment alone, has caused a significant delay in customs clearance.
“Thousands of products have been in storage for months awaiting test results, this is causing significant losses for related manufacturers and importers,” AmCham Vietnam stated in a document.
The burden is far heavier if the products are produced overseas. In this case the products must be examined in the country they are produced in. The MoT has stipulated that its own examiners must physically visit the country for product testing, with the trip’s expenses paid for by the enterprise itself.
“This is unfair to the enterprises. For example, if Dutch-backed Philip’s products are made in Thailand, experts must travel to Thailand for testing. However, overseas enterprises often don’t accept such costs, which are considered unofficial expenditure,” Nguyen Thu Ha, managing director of a US-backed investment consultancy firm in Hanoi, told VIR.
Echoing this view, Hau said that “OSRAM Group has 46 factories worldwide. So it would be very costly and time consuming for our company to meet these regulations.”
“The MoIT is providing energy labels for each product code. If we have new products, we have to go through the energy labeling process, even though the products have already met the high standards set in Europe and the US,” he said.
AmCham has recently sent the document to the government, the MoIT, and the Ministry of Justice, explaining this administrative burden.
AmCham have suggested that the MEPS testing at in-country accredited test labs should be waived for globally well-known brands or for advanced technologies. Most manufacturers of electronic products such as Apple, Dells, Canon, Sony, HP, and Samsung, already apply international standards of energy efficiency. Their products have been tested by internationally recognised laboratories, before they are circulated on the market.
“Therefore, the requirement that these products must be tested again for energy labeling is redundant and unnecessary, especially with the limited capacity and resources of the laboratories in Vietnam,” the document stated.
Furthermore, the test results, when required, should be accepted for all the consignments of the same product model. Electronic products are manufactured under well-controlled process and it is an accepted fact that there is no difference in product energy efficiency characteristics with products of the same model.
“Therefore, a sample test for every single consignment of the same product and the same model is unnecessary and causes a significant delay in custom clearance, consequently adding significant costs for importers and manufacturers,” the document said.
