(Translation) COUNCIL for SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

(Translation)

COUNCIL FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

Strategy Sub-committee

Digest of a Joint Meeting with Council for Sustainable Development and Support Group on Municipal Solid Waste Charging held on 27 June 2014, 4 p.m. - 6 p.m. at Committee Rooms I-III, 1/F, Queen Elizabeth Stadium, Hong Kong

Present:

Hon Bernard Chan (Chairman)

Members of the Strategy Sub-committee (“SSC”) Dr Ian Chan Mrs Miranda LEUNG Mr LEUNG Wing-mo Professor Bernard Lim (also member of the Support Group on Municipal Solid Waste Charging (“SG”)) Professor POON Chi-sun (also member of the SG) Professor Nora TAM (also Convenor of the SG) Professor Ray YEP (also member of the SG) Mr Nelson YIP Ms Margaret HSIA Principal Assistant Secretary for the (Secretary, Environment (Sustainable Development), SSC) Environment Bureau (“ENB”)

Members of the Council for Sustainable Development (“SDC”) Mrs Stella LAU (also member of the SG) Ms Lilian LAW Professor Joseph SUNG

Members of the SG Mr CHAN Kin-kan Mr Hahn CHU Ir Alkin KWONG Mr Michael LAI Mr LAU Yiu-shing Ms Katty LAW Mr LING Man-hoi

Mr LO Yiu-chuen Mr WONG Kit-lung Professor Jonathan WONG Dr Karen WOO Dr Mickey YAN Mr YIP Hing-kwok Mr Samson LAI Assistant Director (Waste Management Policy), Environmental Protection Department (“EPD”) Mr LEUNG Sai-chi Assistant Director (Estate Management)1, Housing Department Mr Franco KWOK Assistant Director (4), Home Affairs Department Mr SIN Kwok-hau Assistant Director (Operations)3, Food and Environmental Hygiene Department (“FEHD”)

In Attendance:

Programme Director for Public Engagement on Municipal Solid Waste (“MSW”) Charging Ir Kenny WONG Principal Consultant, Hong Kong Productivity Council (“HKPC”) Mr Tommy MARTIN Associate Consultant, HKPC Ms Karie CHAN Project Officer, HKPC

Independent Analysis and Reporting Agency (“IRA”) for Public Engagement on MSW Charging Professor John Bacon-Shone Director, Social Sciences Research Centre, The University of Hong Kong (“HKU”) Ms Linda CHO Centre Manager, Social Sciences Research Centre, HKU

Government Representatives Mr Andrew LAI Deputy Director of Environmental Protection (3), EPD Mr Jason LEUNG Senior Environmental Protection Officer (Waste Management Policy)1, EPD Mr Desmond CHENG Assistant Secretary for the Environment (Secretary, SG) (Sustainable Development)2, ENB Mr Edwin LAU Assistant Secretary for the Environment (Sustainable Development) Special Duties, ENB

Ms Erica WONG Senior Town Planner (Sustainable Development), ENB Mr Tom TAM Senior Environmental Protection Officer (Sustainable Development), ENB Ms Claudia CHEUNG Senior Executive Officer (Sustainable Development)1, ENB Ms Winnie YOUNG Executive Officer (Sustainable Development)1, ENB Mr Robin CHENG Executive Officer (Sustainable Development)2, ENB Ms Christine LAW Public Engagement Manager (Sustainable Development), ENB Mr YU Man-fung Senior Superintendent (Cleansing & Pest Control), FEHD

Absent with apologies:

Members of the SSC Mr CHAN Siu-hung Professor HO Kin-chung (also Member of the SG) Ms Betty HO Mr Benjamin HUNG Mr Victor LI Mr LO Sze-ping (also Member of the SG) Dr NG Cho-nam Professor Edward NG Ms Iris TAM

Members of the SDC Ms Sherry TSAI

Members of the SG Dr Vincent CHENG Mr HO Hei-wah Mr HUI Tak-leung Mr Mingo KWAN Mr LAW Sai-yan Ms WONG Fung-mui Ms Idy WONG Mr Simon WONG Mr Rico WONG Mr Henry YIP Ms Cora YUEN Mr YUNG Chi-ming

Item 1: Pilot Scheme on MSW Charging

Representatives of the EPD made a powerpoint presentation on the objectives, options, timetable and latest progress of the Pilot Scheme on MSW Charging (“the Pilot Scheme”). After the completion of the Pilot Scheme early next year, a detailed report would be prepared. An interim report would be submitted in late August or early September to facilitate the work of the SDC, the SSC and the SG.

2. The comments and enquiries made by Members were summarised as follows:

˙ Whether the Administration had deployed staff to patrol the buildings floor by floor so as to monitor the operation of the Pilot Scheme, remind households to follow the specified mechanism of waste disposal, and assess whether the volume of waste recycled had increased.

˙ The Administration should consider using a systematic approach to encourage residents to take part in the Pilot Scheme instead of relying solely on the efforts of enthusiastic residents.

˙ Members would like to know the operating costs of the Pilot Scheme and residents’ compliance with the specified waste disposal mechanism.

˙ As participation in the Pilot Scheme was entirely voluntary, the relevant data collected on waste reduction might not be reliable. The Administration should pay particular attention to whether residents had put more efforts in proper waste separation and enhanced recycling.

˙ The Administration should consider carrying out a pilot scheme in villages as well as “three-nil” residential buildings, i.e. buildings without property management, owners’ corporation or any form of residents’ organisations.

˙ Whether or not waste recycling was increased was of paramount importance. Therefore, the Government should strengthen facilities for recycling while implementing the Pilot Scheme.

˙ Members suggested the Administration should examine why some residents had not participated in the Pilot Scheme.

˙ The Administration should manage the expectation of the public on the waste charging scheme. Reference should be drawn to Taipei City which spent over ten years to achieve behaviour change among citizens for waste reduction. The waste charging scheme should provide economic incentive and supporting measures during the initial stage of implementation. The Administration should also consider, on the basis of legislating for waste charging, allowing owners’ corporations, residents and other stakeholders to use alternative arrangements with regard to their actual circumstances to enhance their incentive for waste reduction.

3. Members noted the response from the Administration as follows:

˙ Some participating estates had already launched the Pilot Scheme. However, given the short period of implementation, the data collected so far might not be representative.

˙ Taking one of the buildings that was conducting the Pilot Scheme using charging by household waste volume as an example, about 50% to 60% of the residents bought designated garbage bags on account basis. During the first month of the trial, about 20% to 30% of the residents used the designated garbage bags. The Administration had also enhanced the promotion of the Pilot Scheme through the assistance of owners’ corporations, property management companies and zealous households.

˙ The current Pilot Scheme covered neither “three-nil” residential buildings nor rural areas. The Administration would carefully examine and consider ways to implement waste charging in these types of residential premises.

˙ The Administration had initial discussion with Heung Yee Kuk, which supported in principle the implementation of a waste charging trial scheme. The trial would be carried out in one or two villages to facilitate studies on the implementation arrangements of waste charging in rural areas. The Administration would discuss the details with Heung Yee Kuk, including the mode of trial operation, likely by using pre-paid designated garbage bags.

Item 2: Public Engagement on MSW Charging – “Waste Reduction by Waste Charging．How to Implement?” (SSC Paper No. 03/14)

4. Members were briefed on the preliminary findings of the public engagement (“PE”) process on MSW Charging.

5. The questions raised by Members were summarised as follows:

˙ Whether public views were collected through proformas or questionnaires during the PE process.

˙ Whether mass e-mails or submissions with identical content had been received.

˙ The quantitative analysis in the draft report pointed out that, among the respondents living in buildings without property management, 60% found it somewhat acceptable or very acceptable to dispose of waste at a designated place within a prescribed period of time on each occasion. However, from the qualitative analysis, more respondents objected to that mode of waste disposal. Explanation would be appreciated.

˙ Whether the views and feedback on domestic waste charging and commercial & industrial (“C&I”) waste charging were set out separately in the analysis and findings of the report.

˙ It was noted that 37 submissions with organisation/company letterhead were received. Members would like to know the information and comments given.

˙ Members would like to know how the 174 submissions from the media were selected and the list of media organisations concerned.

˙ It was pointed out in SSC Paper No. 03/14 that a total of 16 320 comments, obtained from 5 300 view collection forms and about 300 written submissions from individuals and organisations, were received. However, the sources of some 10 000 comments were unknown.

˙ It was suggested that the views of respondents who returned their view collection forms on waste charging should be analysed with regard to their social and economic background.

˙ Whether detailed information could be provided on the views related to deficiencies/areas for improvement in the PE process.

˙ It was suggested that an executive summary be produced to briefly analyse the views of respondents according to their social and economic background as well as the types of residential building they dwelt in.

6. The response of the consultant (i.e. IRA) was as follows:

˙ The quantitative analysis provided statistics on the responses in terms of the options provided in the view collection form. The public could also provide other views in the view collection form.

˙ During the PE process, a petition in the form of a signature campaign and another one comprising nine emails had been received. After verification of the number, a total of 835 signatures had been collected in the signature campaign.

˙ While the quantitative analysis reflected that 60% of the respondents supported the proposal of charging by household using designated garbage bags for disposal at a designated place during a prescribed period of time, qualitative analysis showed that more respondents objected to that proposal. The results of quantitative analysis usually reflected the general views and qualitative analysis reflected respondents’ views after some discussions.

˙ Statistics on the views and feedback of domestic waste charging and C&I waste charging were analysed and reported separately in the quantitative analysis. The same applied to qualitative analysis unless the respondents had not specified the type of waste charging being referred to. The consultant believed that a majority of such views referred to domestic waste charging.

˙ All of the 37 submissions which came from organisations/companies were produced with their letterheads. However, the submissions might not represent the position of their organisation/company. The Report would list out their names unless they disagreed.

˙ Analysis of views found in the mass media was confined to media reports which quoted views of members of the public. Mere factual reports were not included. For views from online media, analysis was mainly based on those covered by WiseNews.

˙ A “submission” referred to the views submitted by a person or an organisation on waste charging. “View(s)” referred to the opinion given by one or more persons/organisations on a particular issue.

˙ In the Report, analysis was made on the household income and household size of domestic waste producers who submitted the view collection forms. The extract of the draft Report also included a comparison of the degree of support by various income groups on different waste charging levels and thresholds for domestic waste disposal.

˙ 105 views were about the PE process. About 45 of them considered the information provided by the SDC inadequate, 20 believed all stakeholders should be engaged, and 7 requested more engagement processes be organised. This information would be included in the final Report.

˙ The extract of the Report mainly explained the results of the analysis rather than serving as an executive summary. The SDC would publish the Report on the PE with recommendations on MSW charging and the IRA report in parallel.

7. Members were briefed on the proposed discussion points relating to the SDC’s current PE process. In-depth discussions on details would be reserved for subsequent working sessions.

8. The views of Members were set out below:

Overall Strategy

˙ The introduction of waste charging involved lots of technical and operational issues. The Administration should give careful consideration and formulate specific operational arrangements. The main tasks of the SDC were to put forward policy directions and strategies for implementation.

˙ To facilitate the implementation of waste charging, transitional arrangements should be considered so that the public could adapt to changes and that households and property management companies, etc. would be allowed time and opportunities to discuss implementation details.

˙ To facilitate Members’ discussion, different mechanisms should be drawn up and analysed with regard to aspects involved in MSW charging, including implementation, legal consideration, resources, etc.

Charging mechanism

˙ No single mechanism of waste charging could apply to both the domestic and C&I sectors. The waste charging mechanism should take into account the circumstances of different stakeholders and suit Hong Kong’s environment. It should be feasible.

˙ The Government should consider how to draft the relevant legislation, including the legal issues involved in implementing waste charging in public housing estates.

˙ The operational arrangements for waste charging would affect administration fees, costs and resource requirements in implementation. Issues such as manpower implications, costs and liabilities were also matters of concern to the property management sector.

˙ The ultimate goal was to implement charging by household to achieve effective waste reduction. However, currently the recycling practices and the level of waste reduction varied greatly among households in Hong Kong. Therefore, the ultimate goal could not be achieved with a single step. Some were of the view that flexibility should be allowed for owners to discuss arrangements among themselves, such as the administrative arrangements for the use of designated garbage bags, etc. so as to maximise the incentive for waste reduction. There were also concerns that charging by the total volume of waste of the building could not provide adequate incentive for waste reduction and recycling.

˙ To facilitate Members’ discussion, the Administration should provide an analysis of the pros and cons of the proposed threshold level below which no charge shall be levied.

Coverage of Charging Mechanism

˙ It was suggested that as the C&I sector generated a large volume of MSW, MSW charging should first be implemented in this sector and then the domestic sector. This would be similar to the implementation of the Construction Waste Disposal Charging Scheme and allow MSW charging to start off from the easier end.

˙ However, some were of the view that, as shown by the IRA’s findings, stakeholders and members of the public tended to support the implementation of waste charging in all sectors in one go. Implementation in one go would help reduce enforcement problems and the resistance from the C&I sector.

Recycling

˙ It was hoped that the Government would enhance the incentive for recycling to encourage and help the public in waste reduction. Otherwise the aim of waste charging could not be achieved.

Others

˙ The views of the property management industry, cleaning companies and recycling industry would be collected to gauge the effects of different waste charging mechanisms on their operations.

˙ It was hoped that the report of the IRA would be available as soon as possible to facilitate the discussion on recommendations in the SDC’s Report in due course.

˙ Some Members advised that they would express their views in writing before the next meeting.

Item 3: Any other business

9. There was no other business for discussion.

Item 4: Date of next meeting

10. The Secretariat would confirm the date of the next meeting in due course.

Secretariat Council for Sustainable Development