The municipal solid waste (MSW) charging program, which was previously slated for implementation on April 1, has been delayed again to Aug 1. 

In addition to harsh criticisms that Hong Kong is not prepared for the program, some offshore critics argue that the program is unfair because the “pay-as-you-throw” principle has allowed the interests of producers to dominate the policy agenda. 

As a result, producers are able to escape liability. Instead of attaching reasonable weight to producer responsibility, the program has placed a disproportionately onerous burden on residents. For example, they argue that the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region government should impose a tax on excessive packaging.

They also argue that the government should focus on measures to strengthen food waste management strategy. In 2020, about 3,255 metric tons of food waste was deposited at landfills, accounting for 30 percent of total MSW. If the success of the MSW charging program is measured by the outcome, the unverifiable benefits of changing the waste-disposal habits of residents must be weighed against the costs of distracting our attention from the more pressing problem of food waste management. 

Obviously, Hong Kong cannot bear such costs. There is also a risk that if property management companies want to ignore the problems of noncompliant waste bags, they will have no alternative but to increase management fees.

First of all, critics understand that fairness is regarded by the mainstream philosophical community as the most important principle to define the appropriate division of public resources and social advantages. It is easy to defame the Environmental Protection Department (EPD) and discredit the MSW charging program by playing the “fairness card” to interpret the program in the worst light. 

Contrary to the allegations of critics, the producer responsibility scheme (PRS) is a key policy tool in the waste management strategy of the city. The PRS concept requires stakeholders, including manufacturers, importers, wholesalers, retailers and consumers to share the responsibility for the collection, recycling, treatment and disposal of end-of-life products with a view to reducing the environmental impacts caused by such products at the post-consumer stage.

Concerning statutory control, the Product Eco-responsibility Ordinance was enacted in July 2008. It is a piece of umbrella legislation that provides the shared core elements of all PRSs and the fundamental regulatory requirements in respect of individual types of products, with operational details to be set out in the ordinance and its subsidiary legislation.

Consultations on the PRS on plastic beverage containers were launched in February 2021. 

District councilors of older districts may need to work harder because of the festering management problems in some old buildings in these districts. Moreover, property management companies must step up efforts to help residents familiarize themselves with the program

Local beverage manufacturers need to streamline the package design or provide a reverse vending machines program for plastic beverage containers. 

A one-year pilot program has been launched to assess the application of reverse vending machines to collect plastic beverage containers.

Beyond any doubt, the food waste problem has not been relegated to the shadow of official neglect in the city. It is one thing to say that more can be done to improve the food waste management strategy, but it is another to distort the facts and argue that the government has not brought such a strategy into focus. 

Should the government replace the MSW charging scheme with an all-out offensive against food wastage? The program, which was first proposed almost 20 years ago, cannot be delayed repeatedly. The longer the delay, the more serious the dumping problem will become. To prolong the lifespan of the city’s landfills, the program and food waste management strategy should be carried out simultaneously. If we wait until everything is perfect, we will never start the MSW charging program. Besides, we are lagging behind South Korea and Taiwan in relation to waste charges.

Concerning the foreseeable threat posed by noncompliant waste bags in housing estates, we urge property management companies to enforce the rules in a strict manner. Prior notice should be given to residents of the estates to remind them of the consequences of resisting the MSW charging program. 

Adopting an appeasement policy would defeat the main objective of the program. It would be unfair to pass extra costs to those residents who comply with the rules and use the designated bags properly. If there are any disputes between cleaners and residents over noncompliant waste bags, property management companies must stand firm and stick to the rules. Compromise is opening an invitation to more serious breaches of the rules.

In spite of the efforts of the EPD to promote the program and make necessary clarifications, we still believe that it is not realistic to eliminate confusion or resistance at the early stage of implementation. Perhaps district councilors may play a role in helping the EPD promote the program. 

District councilors of older districts may need to work harder because of the festering management problems in some old buildings in these districts. Moreover, property management companies must step up efforts to help residents familiarize themselves with the program. A longer grace period may also help residents familiarize themselves with the program. 

There is a real risk that overseas troublemakers on social media may step up their attacks on the program. Some residents may still object to the program because of the efforts of some offshore critics to maliciously defame the EPD and discredit the program. Some of them want to poison relations between the HKSAR government and Hong Kong residents. We hope our fact-based analysis will provide our readers with a rational lens to examine whether the allegations made by those critics are fair or not.

Lam Shun-wa is a senior executive chef, director of catering industry affairs of Chinese Dream Think Tank.

Kacee Ting Wong is a barrister, part-time researcher of Shenzhen University Hong Kong and Macao Basic Law Research Center, chairman of Chinese Dream Think Tank, and a district councilor.

The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.