(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 1 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 2 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 3 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. 4 ˙ 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. 5 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. 6 ˙ 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