Rubbish Problems
A case study of environmental policy, promotions, and the ignored bits
If you have been paying attention to the environment in recent days, let alone weeks or months, things are not going well. From massive rainstorms and flooding in Guangdong, China; waterspouts in Hong Kong; and massive coral bleachings in the Great Barrier Reef. It is more important than ever that governments around the world need to push forward measures that combat climate change, but good intentions do not necessarily translate to good policy.
Which brings me to Hong Kong’s municipal solid waste (MSW) charging scheme. To be clear in case anyone gets the wrong idea, this is a pure critique of a government policy on the environment, NOT a piece inciting anyone to hate the Hong Kong government or doing anything stupid like overthrowing it (I know it sounds stupid, but at this environment, better safe than sorry).
For readers who are not in Hong Kong or are not aware of the issue, at the beginning of the year, the city’s government announced that a municipal waste charging scheme would be implemented on April 1 after years of delays. The scheme adopts the “polluter-pays” principle, which requires citizens to dispose of their domestic, commercial, and industrial waste in designated waste bags or else face legal punishment. It aims to reduce waste at landfills while encouraging people to do more on recycling and waste management.
However, after public confusion and criticism over logistical details, the scheme was delayed until August 1 for its implementation among the public. In the meantime, government offices have followed the April 1 timeline to implement a waste charging scheme trial, while also experimenting with different residencies by giving them free mandated waste bags. One fun sidenote: Because of the way rubbish was collected from its location in the Central Government Offices, Hong Kong’s Environment and Ecology Bureau is not participating in the trial.
The response? Less to be desired from the general public and in some circles inside the government. Polling and surveys have consistently shown throughout the year that people feel uncertain about the policy, and want it to either be scrapped or delayed In the latest surveys, a recent study by the think tank New Youth Forum reveals only 13% of 1032 interviewees support the scheme, 70% of interviewees are not confident of a successful roll-out, and more than 50% want the scheme to be delayed. As the scheme was trialed out in residencies and businesses, the take-up rate was as low as 20%. For context, it was only a week after residents accepted free approved green trash bags that were supposed to be paid as part of the scheme. Trial participants complained about easily broken waste bags damaged by leftover fish bone, insufficient number of bins for food scraps, limited operating hours, and the pretense of the bags being charged have dissuaded many from continuing their trial periods.
In recent weeks, pro-Beijing heavyweights like Lo Man Tuen, the vice-chairman of the All-China Federation of Returned Overseas Chinese, wrote in the local newspaper Ming Pao heavily criticizing the scheme. As translated from the HKFP.
A pro-Beijing heavyweight has urged the Hong Kong government to halt or postpone its already-delayed waste charging scheme, saying it was originally proposed by the “radical opposition” and calling it “mission impossible.”
“The controversial waste charging scheme was proposed by radical opposition factions (some of whom are even in jail), and it was a policy implemented by the government during the last term facing pressure in the highly politicalised environment. It was a mission impossible from the very beginning,” Lo wrote in Chinese. He did not mention who among the opposition camp raised the idea.
A brief comment on that, if the scheme was proposed by “radical opposition factions” who are now in jail, and is implemented under a government facing highly politicized pressures from society, you know you could just abandon the policy, right? Nobody is holding you at gunpoint forcing you to implement the policy any further…
As the trial run continued, even government officials like the Secretary for Environment and Ecology Tse Chin-wan admitted the policy was becoming a “nuisance” to the public. In public, the government notes they are still evaluating the scheme, and are not considering any changes to the implementing date in August. Meanwhile, the city’s Environmental Protection Department is expected to spend HK$581 million after already spending HK$197 million since 2020 for promoting and implementing the controversial scheme.
Before I continue with my criticisms and doubts about the policy, I want to be fair here and point out that the policy isn’t without merit. Reducing MSW in landfills is a laudable goal. Before the scheme’s introduction, the waste many people produce is directly disposed to the landfill, which can accumulate and store methane, a major greenhouse gas. In addition, waste from landfills can seep into the soil and water, further causing environmental damage to the surrounding ecosystems. Charging people to use designated waste bags through the polluter-pays principle is a good idea in theory, as it encourages people to reduce their trash production by giving a negative incentive: If you produce more waste, you have to pay to get it disposed of. However, as you are going to read below, the conduct of this principle is what gets me concerned.
Overall, the entire pay-as-you-throw waste charging scheme has been a massive policy fiasco for the city. For governments, environmentalists, and the general public around the world, there are many lessons to be learned from this mess of a policy.
Let’s first dive into the policy. Here is what the Hong Kong government wrote about how the policy could be implemented, and the prospective punishments if the rules were violated.
(i) Charging by designated bags/designated labels
For MSW collected by the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department (FEHD) through refuse collection vehicles (RCVs), refuse collection points (RCPs) and bin sites, as well as MSW collected by private waste collectors (PWCs) using RCVs with rear compactors, charging will be imposed through requiring the use of pre-paid designated bags. The MSW will have to be properly wrapped in the designated bags before disposal. The per-litre charge for designated bags is $0.11 for the first three years of implementation. The designated bags will be of nine different sizes from 3-litre up to 100-litre to cater for the need of different users.
For oversized waste that cannot be wrapped into a designated bag, members of the public are required to affix a designated label on each piece of oversized waste before disposal. A uniform rate of $11 per designated label will be charged.
Members of the public could purchase designated bags and designated labels at a few thousands of authorised retail outlets (e.g. supermarkets, convenience stores, pharmacies and online platforms, etc.).
(ii) Charging by weight through “gate-fee”
For MSW collected and disposed of by PWCs using RCVs without rear compactors, a “gate-fee” will be charged based on the weight of MSW disposed of at the waste disposal facilities, i.e. landfills or refuse transfer stations. Under charging by weight through “gate-fee”, members of the public are not required to use designated bags or designated labels for waste disposal.
A six-months phasing-in period will be put in place after the implementation of MSW charging when verbal warnings will be given as far as possible instead of taking enforcement actions. While publicity and education will be the focus in the phasing-in period, we will issue verbal warnings to non-compliant cases as far as possible, and enforcement actions will be taken in cases where the nature or magnitude of the offence calls for enforcement, e.g. if the offender repeatedly contravenes the law despite warnings given. After the phasing-in period, strict enforcement actions will be taken on a risk-based approach, with particular attention given to black spots. Fixed penalty tickets at $1,500 each will be issued to offenders intercepted on the spots, and prosecution by way of summons will also be taken against serious and repeated offenders. The frontline staff of FEHD and PWCs will also reject any waste that have not been properly wrapped in designated bags or affixed with designated labels. A dedicated hotline (2838 3111) has been set up by EPD to answer enquiries and to accept complaints and reports on non-compliance.
A few problems, starting with the complexity of the scheme. Based on information from the government website, the policy is endlessly perplexing. When I was reading the policy brief, I could only understand that people need to pay for designated bags, and if the bags aren’t big enough, people will have to buy stickers. If that is the case, what about waste like paper box packaging widely used by online retailers like Amazon? Do they have to be labeled with the $11 sticker, or can they “save money” by folding it inside the designated trash bags that many have complained are not strong enough to hold much waste? In addition, nobody knows much about how their garbage is sorted out. The government gave four scenarios based on how rubbish is disposed of by waste collection service, but that requires residents to know what service the property management company or cleansing contractor uses. Unless members of the public go and ask the responsible actors or government websites about the details of the scheme, they probably will have no idea how it works in the first place. Furthermore, given the punishments the scheme proposes like heavy fines and potential jail time, people are more worried about the feasibility of the scheme, while cleaners might feel extra burdens in their line of work given any misstep might land them and their employers responsible for legal repercussions. The policy is full of potential loopholes, accidental legislative booby-traps, and governmental contradictions that I don’t have time to write in full for you to read.
Secondly, the scheme’s aim of recycling is put into doubt. In perspective, Hong Kong’s record of recycling is not that good. In 2022, the city recycled 420,000 tonnes of MSW compared to about 280,000 tonnes in 2021. It sounds like a lot until you learn the city produced 4.06 million tonnes of waste that year, which means only 10.3% of waste is recycled. If you follow the scheme by the book, you might be less incentivized to recycle. Just for a thought experiment, some households like mine have three separate waste bins for general waste, plastic waste, and paper waste. If you have to pay for the bags that carry your waste, would you waste your money buying 3 bags to recycle your waste, or just throw all of your trash into one single rubbish bin with one designated waste bag? More than likely, most would choose the latter option.
You should also know that the government does have another way of encouraging recycling, and that is through the EPD's community recycling network GREEN@COMMUNITY and delivering the sorted recyclables to these recycling points. However, a few things. One, the government is not heavily promoting this initiative among the public, so there is a likely chance many locals do not understand where to recycle unless they check government websites. Two, late last year, some recycling spots were overfilled with garbage during the Christmas and New Year holidays because there was no staff working there at the time, which gives extra burdens to society as the rubbish piles onto the streets. Three, there aren’t enough recycling spots in the city. If you want to encourage citywide recycling, they should be placed near every residential estate around the city. Lastly, even if you increase promotion, put recycling stations everywhere, increase staff at recycling centers, and extend opening hours at these locations. If the recycled waste must be placed under designated bags, there is still a root problem discouraging many from recycling.
Thirdly, when people consider the logistics of the scheme, it just doesn’t work out! Hong Kongers are famously, and pardon the term, “very cheap.” What I meant by that is, if we can save a couple of bucks by eating chicken nuggets at McDonalds instead of a cha siu rice meal at Cafe De Coral (A local restaurant chain), we would do it! The MSW charging scheme, in essence, is trying to influence people’s behaviors. Setting aside, for better or worse, how the policy changes the behavior of citizens, the policy is set up in a gloomy era for Hong Kong’s economy. Stores closing down, a poor-performing stock market, massive crowds of Hong Kongers rather choosing to shop in Shenzhen, and the government spending much time and effort on a half-baked proposal for conservation?
Not only might the policy further burden low-income households and communities, but the government is essentially “taxing” people for producing waste, something humans couldn’t help themselves from producing. Who might be most affected by such policies? Businesses. Like the recently enforced plastics ban, these policies only add up costs for restaurant owners or small shops. The result is either more shops closing down because they couldn’t afford the extra costs, or the price being passed down to consumers already disgruntled with rising prices caused by inflation. In the end, the richer percentage of the populous might not have second thoughts on waste management as they have the economic ability to produce more waste, while the less fortunate members of society might be extra burdened by the costs.
There is also a hygiene problem at hand. Some might expect the rubbish bags to be thrown out once they are full, which can make sure their purchased bags are to their money’s worth. However, as many locals might know, you don’t clean your waste before you sleep, the next morning awaits you a cockroach buffet in progress. So reasonably, people would rather purchase smaller bags to be purchased than throw them out. However, given people produce waste in irregular amounts, they might be throwing out waste bags and less mindful of reducing waste management.
One fun fact you need to know at the end, these designated waste bags are non-biodegradable, which is a big slap-in-the-face for a policy and product designed to be eco-friendly in the first place!
Another big criticism lies with government promotion. Many aspects that I have criticized above stem from policy issues, but many are technicalities that could have been solved with better explanations and clarifications. The government’s promotional effort has been weak at best, suddenly introducing an intense promotional campaign in January to many citizens unaware of the policy in the first place. That was logically followed by mass confusion and criticism of the scheme before it was postponed. One of the reasons the government postponed the policy is for more promotion, but since February, there have been minimal promotional efforts further explaining to citizens how the scheme works. I understand that some of the time and expense is being used to conduct trial runs and pinpoint problems that haven’t been considered before, but what the lack of promotion might also create is a redo of January 2024, in which the government struggles to explain the policy to a public still unclear about everything in short notice, causing more public discontent and uncertainty.
What could be done from here? For one, the government could spend time right after the trial run ends to consider reforming certain terms and punishments that do not burden the less fortunate in society and the cleaning workers who might feel burdened by the new laws. On the other hand, the government could scrap the entire controversial policy into the recycling bin, start everything from scratch, and adopt a better policy that encourages recycling, instead of punishing people for producing waste in the first place.
For the international community, as governments push forward with enacting policies that would help the environment, they also need to consider the practicality, logistics, and feasibility for their citizens to adapt to these new policies. Solving climate change is an effort that everyone needs to participate in, and so are the policies that support that endgame.