On April 1, Hong Kong embarked on a controversial trial to impose a waste levy at 14 locations. The initiative aimed to encourage waste reduction, aligning with international environmental conservation norms. However, the pilot program has not lived up to expectations, revealing practical shortcomings and spawning additional issues, much to the frustration of residents.

The concept of a waste levy was initially proposed by the more radical faction of the then-opposition as a means to politicize environmental efforts. Under considerable pressure, the previous administration of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region hastily established this policy, which was doomed from the outset. As Lo Man-tuen, former vice-chairman of the All-China Federation of Returned Overseas Chinese, pointed out in a recent article, it might be prudent to reconsider, delay, or even halt the implementation of this policy.

During the pilot program, journalists from various media outlets visited different types of buildings, including tenements known as “three-nil” buildings (meaning they lack an owners’ corporation, residents’ group or a property management agent), public housing estates, private residential buildings, shopping malls, and government complexes.

They reported widespread confusion and oversight. Many residents did not use designated garbage bags, opting instead for regular garbage bags. Sanitation workers expressed concerns about increased workloads and the risk of legal repercussions should they inadvertently damage the bags. The participation rates varied significantly across different types of residences, with only about 10 percent involvement in “three-nil” buildings and about 50 percent in private buildings.

Public sentiment mirrors these operational challenges. Recent surveys indicate that nearly 70 percent of respondents lack confidence in the smooth implementation of the waste charge, with skepticism climbing to 80 percent among residents of standalone private buildings. Over half of those surveyed believe the initiative should be shelved for the time being.

Only through such a balanced strategy can the city hope to achieve its environmental goals without adding undue burden on its residents

The most pressing issue with Hong Kong’s approach to waste fees is its focus on the fee itself, rather than on providing adequate support infrastructure. For instance, while there are about 900 waste collection facilities across the city, only 700 in public housing estates and 300 in private estates are equipped with bins for organic waste, which is starkly insufficient given the over 42,000 private residential buildings in Hong Kong.

Moreover, the financial burden of the waste levy on lower-income residents cannot be overlooked. A survey found that one-in-four subdivided-flat residents might resort to disposing of kitchen waste in toilets to save on designated garbage bags, potentially causing significant plumbing and hygiene issues, thereby increasing maintenance costs for buildings. For the already struggling food and beverage industry, this fee could be the straw that breaks the camel’s back.

Given these challenges, the government should seize on this trial-and-test opportunity to thoroughly analyze what improvements are necessary, particularly in enhancing waste recycling infrastructure. Hong Kong’s unique situation — characterized by its densely populated residential areas and a significant number of “three-nil” buildings — means that simply copying foreign models of waste charging may not be effective. Rome wasn’t built in a day, and changing the waste disposal habits of 7 million people is no small feat.

Therefore, before rushing into full implementation, it is crucial to ensure that the timing and conditions are ripe. There is a considerable public desire for putting the plan on hold. If the Hong Kong SAR government responds to this public sentiment, it is unlikely to undermine its authority. Instead, it could bolster its credibility by demonstrating responsiveness and adaptability in governance.

As Hong Kong grapples with the complexities of implementing a waste levy, it is clear that a more considered, inclusive approach, one that addresses both infrastructural needs and public concerns, is essential. Only through such a balanced strategy can the city hope to achieve its environmental goals without adding undue burden on its residents.

The author is the convener at China Retold, a Legislative Councilor, and a member of the Central Committee of the New People’s Party.

The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.