Vietnam's Ministry of Agriculture and Environment has set out a policy of removing "establishing a cooperative" from the conditions for obtaining a growing-area code (ma so vung trong) for export. Reported by Nong nghiep Moi truong (the Agriculture and Environment newspaper) on July 23 as a statement by Deputy Minister Nguyen Hoang Hiep, it reorganizes the conventional framework in which administrative procedure held the entry to farmer linkage into a form where market demand prompts linkage. From a pre-inspection (tien kiem) center to a post-shipment-inspection (hau kiem)-led approach—this shift is, for those in Kyoto sourcing Vietnamese produce and processed raw materials, a change in the design of the foundation for verifying origin and residues.
Not making cooperative establishment a precondition for the growing-area code
A growing-area code is an identification number by which the government registers and manages what was grown in which field, and it is the entry to exporting to Japan, China and the EU. Until now, forming a cooperative or producer organization was in effect a precondition for obtaining this number. Deputy Minister Hiep said, "Cooperative establishment must not be made a precondition for obtaining a growing-area code," loosening it to a form in which farmers can apply directly. His position is that linkage should arise naturally when it becomes clear that it pays in exports, not for the sake of subsidies or paperwork. At the same time, the authorities pull personnel and budget up from pre-shipment inspection and redirect them to database building, market forecasting, technical guidance, and post-shipment audit (hau kiem). It is a reorganization that, in exchange for loosening the paper gate at the entry, thickens post-distribution tracking and sampling verification.
481 codes, a 47% cut in processing time—behind which export warnings have risen by 56
| Indicator | Value (as of mid-July 2026) |
|---|---|
| Growing-area codes issued | 481 |
| Registered packing-facility codes | 349 |
| Reduction in administrative processing time | 47% cut |
| Reduction in compliance costs | 34% cut |
| Additional warnings on export farm products (year on year, first half) | Up by 56 |
| Growth in agricultural production value in the first half | +2.7% (about 3% in the second quarter) |
The 47% cut in processing time and 34% cut in costs are figures the authorities cite as the effect of lightening procedures. On the other hand, the 56 additional warnings from export destinations in half a year is not light. The fact that warnings have risen by 56 shows the structure in which, having loosened the entry, failing to guarantee quality through actual cultivation management and inspection lets notifications pile up against the EU and China.
Both the deputy minister and the director-in-charge agree on "not ending with issuance"
Deputy Minister Nguyen Hoang Hiep sought a design in which market value draws out linkage rather than forcing it. Huynh Tan Dat, director of the Department of Crop Production and Plant Protection (Cuc Trong trot va Bao ve thuc vat), which oversees operations, shows an approach of redirecting the department's resources from pre-inspection to database and post-shipment audit. The department's deputy director Nguyen Quoc Manh also takes the position of not "ending with issuance" of the growing-area code but continuing to pursue quality through post-shipment tracking. In lightening the administrative gate while shifting responsibility to the operator side and to post-verification, the three are in agreement.
The code ceases to be a guarantee of a producer organization; the weight of verifying by records rises
For Japanese buyers, the growing-area code has long functioned as reassurance that "this field is managed by an organized producer." When the cooperative requirement is removed, that premise collapses. The mere existence of a code no longer guarantees that a producer organization lies behind it. Rather than the presence or absence of the number, the weight rises on the sourcing side confirming with its own eyes who manages pesticide residues in that field and how, and what records remain.
The shift to post-shipment inspection is double-edged. Speed to shipment rises and a growing region's startup becomes faster, but problems tend to be found after shipment, leaving the risk that the Japanese side carries the seeds of a notification or recall at the stage of receipt. In Vietnam, a positive-list system is in place for pesticide residues, and the residue of pesticides not on the law's list is not permitted. The lighter the entry screening, the more the confirmation of whether the field is keeping to this standard must be guaranteed not by the code but by audit records and inspection results. Already The move in which Vietnamese growing regions got ahead of Japan's 7 new quarantine regulations has been tracked, but now that the growing-area-code system is loosening, it is the Japanese side's verification design that makes the difference. Whether pesticide-use records by lot, harvest dates and inspection result certificates can be traced as one continuous thread—a growing region where these do not line up carries the risk of being screened out in post-shipment inspection even with a number. Conversely, individual farmers with records in order get chosen even without forming a cooperative.
Cooperative-less individual farmers step into the ring, and transparency of records makes the difference
This reorganization may broaden the base of code issuance all at once. If application can be made at the farmer level without forming a cooperative, small-scale growing regions previously left outside the system step into the export ring. For buyers, options increase, but a mix of good and bad also advances. Organized growing regions and individual farmers that merely obtained a number will line up under the same code. What makes the difference is how transparently one can show the records from post-shipment inspection. The example of Ca Mau's low-emission shrimp building trust through 42 months of verification by the EU and an NGO reflects a flow in which records outside the code decide value. In field-level residue management too, like a Ha Tinh citrus orchard that designed the order of reducing pesticides from the soil up, growing regions that can show their procedures as records are strong in the age of post-shipment inspection.
Before contracting, ask "cooperative-based or individual-farmer-based," and put inspection results into the clauses
If those with Vietnamese procurement are to act this summer, there are three moves. First, ask whether a trading partner's growing-area code is "cooperative-based" or "individual-farmer-based," and for the latter additionally require records of residue management. Second, insert a clause at the contract stage requiring submission of the inspection results for lots subject to post-shipment inspection (hau kiem). Third, grasp the items and growing regions targeted by the 56 additional export warnings in the first half, and match them against one's own sourcing list. Now that the system has moved from "making them comply before issuance" to "verifying after shipment," the initiative in verification also shifts to the buyer side.
