Fiasco over Hong Kong’s solid waste charging scheme highlights flaws in the way government works

The fiasco over Hong Kong’s solid waste charging scheme – the start of which has been further postponed, from April 1 to August 1 – highlights shortcomings in the way the government works and its failure to learn from the past.

Solid waste charging is an important policy to reduce the amount of waste going into landfills and is part of Hong Kong’s commitment to environmental sustainability.

The policy has been discussed or been on the books for many years, and seemingly endlessly postponed. The government claims that the public does not understand it and that more education and persuasion is necessary. This is only part of the story. 

First, our leaders appear not to have understood that the policy affects every resident. Its impact is wider than, say, the e-toll policy that mainly affected drivers and vehicle owners. Because of this, it needs a whole-of-government approach to its implementation.

We can easily see the many sectors and interests involved. They include the Social Welfare Department for residential care homes, the managers of which have expressed concerns about the cost; the Housing Department for public housing estates; the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department (FEHD), for cleaning contractors; the Home Affairs Department for district councils and community care teams; private property management companies; the Information Services Department for publicity and education; and probably many others.

Given the wide impact of the policy and the consequences of repeated failure for the reputation of the government, the chief secretary for administration could lead a task force bringing together these sectors and interests. Failing a whole-of-government approach, can we have confidence that the policy will be successfully implemented on August 1? The policy is not just a propaganda and education matter, nor is it – nor should it be – just the responsibility of the Environment and Ecology Bureau. Our leaders appear not to have realised this.

Second, the government has some resources that it apparently has so far failed to use. We have new-look district councils peopled with hundreds of councillors who we are told have deep connections to the communities they serve. If this is true, where are they? What has been their role in implementing the policy? They can visit every public and private housing estate to understand whether each has a solid waste charging scheme implementation plan, and if not, why not, and help them prepare one.

I do not mean asking District Offices to make few phone calls. District councillors themselves need to go into the community, working on this. Each housing estate, whether public or private, has its own problems. Some of these are common, but many are peculiar to the estate. These include how rubbish is currently collected (by rubbish chutes, manually by cleaners, manually by residents, for example); whether the FEHD or private contractors collect the rubbish; whether there is an owners’ corporation and if not, how to organise residents.

So far, I have seen little involvement from these people’s representatives. Mobilising district councils, not just to talk and attend meetings, requires the Home Affairs Bureau to step up and take responsibility. Where is it in all of this?

Third, the waste charging scheme policy requires the active participation of every resident in Hong Kong. The policy is co-produced by the government, business, civil society, and the public. Co-production requires careful attention to the incentives to reduce waste. The capacity of various sectors and individuals to comply with the policy varies.

These impacts need to be clearly understood and mitigated for effective implementation. The policy requires a change of culture in Hong Kong, from wastefulness to sustainability. In Hong Kong we waste many valuable resources, such as water, food, and packaging.

Changing culture is a difficult process that needs a targeted approach to Hong Kong’s various communities, focusing on incentives for sustainability, not just repeatedly explaining the policy. Authorities must address the varying impact on different sectors of society and social classes. Have they done this? Again, this requires a whole-of-government approach.

Fourth, the frequent postponing of this policy calls into question the government’s commitment to environmental sustainability. In its headlong rush to redevelop Hong Kong – see its Northern Metropolis or Kau Yi Chau Artificial Islands plans – the government has either ignored environmental groups speaking for sustainability or perceived that they must be placated.

If the government were committed to sustainability, authorities would work with civil society to achieve this common aim. The solid waste charging scheme fiasco reveals that the government at the top did not understand the importance of the policy or its wide impact.  

Taking these problems together we see in this episode deficiencies that have appeared in the governments’ work before. Lack of leadership, mixed and ineffective communication, and fundamental coordination problems also characterised the government’s approach to the Covid-19 vaccination programme, especially for the elderly and those living in residential care homes. A consequence was the highest death rate in the world from Covid-19.

This raises the question of how the government learns. Although the sectors were somewhat different, the implementation problems were the same. Had the authorities learned lessons from the past, the solid waste charging policy might be ready to go now. 

Support HKFP  |  Policies & Ethics  |  Error/typo?  |  Contact Us  |  Newsletter  | Transparency & Annual Report | Apps

Help safeguard press freedom & keep HKFP free for all readers by supporting our team

More HKFP OPINION:

Hong Kong’s worst ever riots? Read the history

Hong Kong 47: The Basic Law was drafted with care, making a ‘constitutional’ crisis most unlikely

Retired banker Stephen Roach is no prophet of Hong Kong

Whispering death: Hong Kong requires electric vehicles to be installed with an audible alert – why can’t we hear it?

HKFP has an impartial stance, transparent funding, and balanced coverage guided by an Ethics Code and Corrections Policy. 

Support press freedom & help us surpass 1,000 monthly Patrons: 100% independent, governed by an ethics code & not-for-profit.