No reason for hesitation in introducing waste-levy measures
Updated: 2013-10-18 08:37
By Qiu You(HK Edition)
|
|||||||
A practical solution to the city's rapidly-mounting rubbish problem finally seems in sight. In a long-awaited move, the Council for Sustainable Development recently launched a consultation paper setting out three household waste-charging proposals ranging from HK$30 to HK$74 per month, for a family of three.
This is commendable as, after years of talking, the authority is finally taking practical steps forward. The council will submit its report by the end of next year and if all goes as planned the waste disposal levy will be enforced by 2016. The government can proclaim during this time its ability to put words into action and tackle a thorny issue. With the city's three landfills reaching capacity in the next two to six years and their expansion plans being postponed, it is high time government speeds up any waste management measures if it does not want Hong Kong to become a trash-filled city. We need urgent action to ease this garbage crisis and source reduction will be one of the effective ways to delay its explosion.
Given the success stories of Taiwan and South Korea, where a waste reduction rate of more than 60 percent and 40 percent has been demonstrated since a respective waste levy was introduced, there is no reason for hesitation. In fact, mainstream public opinion decreed that a levy is necessary to achieve the best results. A public consultation by the Environmental Protection Department last year revealed more than 60 percent believed waste charging was the inevitable way forward. Furthermore, a recent green group survey said almost 60 percent of respondents were willing to pay HK$30 a month for waste disposal. The tide of public opinion is turning towards a "pay-as-you-throw" policy. Indeed, the proposed levy from HK$30 to HK$74 per month is fairly reasonable and affordable even to low-income earners who can be given waivers. The bigger challenge now is how to levy it and which method is more feasible and acceptable to the public.
Naturally among the three options, all have their own pros and cons. Option one contemplates a household-based model, whereby households are required to buy pre-paid rubbish bags to be disposed of at a designated place and time. Option two and three are building-based, requiring respectively a building to pay according to the weight or volume of waste produced by the entire building's occupants. The fees will be shared by occupants with property management firms collecting the waste and fees from their occupants. According to the consultation paper, about 94 percent of the city's 2.3 million households are served by management firms with the remaining 6 percent residing in single or tenement buildings in old districts. In other words, these households might need to employ the household-based model to pay for the waste they dump.
Obviously, the household-based levy is a fairer option that provides a better incentive to reduce waste. The problem is it will create administrative inconvenience as more staff and CCTV need to be deployed to monitor illegal dumping at refuse collection points. The cost of the administrative fees may outweigh the levy collected. Charging on a per-building basis under an equal-share system would be simpler and make enforcement easier, but it might not be conducive to waste reduction and recycling. Some households may question why they need to pay the same fee as others who dispose of more trash than them.
Since some buildings do not have management firms or even an owners' corporation, I agree with the hybrid proposal suggested by the council Chairman Bernard Chan. To impose a fairer and efficient system, those buildings with management firms should adopt the per-building model based on the volume of waste and be allowed to charge households according to the number of rubbish bags they use per month. For those buildings without management firms, they will simply adopt the household-based model at the designated refuse collection points.
The author is a current affairs commentator.
(HK Edition 10/18/2013 page9)