The Hong Kong Special Administrative government is in the process of launching a producer responsibility program for plastic beverage containers and paper-boxed drinks waste. 

The plan is for suppliers to take charge of their own recycling by establishing a refund plan, and the proposed minimum refund for each container is 10 Hong Kong cents (1.3 US cents). This initiative aims to increase the recycling rate of plastic bottles and ease the burden on landfills. However, the proposed rebate is one of the lowest in the world and lacks appeal for the average citizen. The government should consider raising the economic incentive to boost recycling benefits.

Similar plastic bottle refund programs have been around for a while in other parts of the world, with most refund amounts between 50 cents and HK$1. For example, Singapore offers a refund of S$0.10 (58.70 HK cents) per bottle, and Germany’s refund stands at a significant 0.25 euro (HK$2.1). With the cost of living in Hong Kong among the highest in the world, it does not make sense for the refund for plastic bottle recycling to be the lowest in developed regions. This discrepancy raises questions about the government’s actual commitment to reducing waste.

In fact, the proposed “10 cents per bottle” seems unlikely to entice residents to give up their time to return bottles to retailers. A couple of years ago, the government installed 120 plastic bottle recycling machines across the city, offering a 1 cent refund per bottle. The program has collected 70 million bottles to date, which might seem impressive at first glance. However, this doesn’t even equate to 1 percent of the plastic bottles produced in Hong Kong annually. It’s believed that the main reason for the low recycling rate is the minimal incentive offered by the 1 cent refund. The government should learn from foreign experience and raise the plastic bottle refund to at least 50 cents to ensure the program’s effectiveness.

Furthermore, according to the government’s earlier suggestion, the recycling target for plastic bottles in the first year of the plan is only 40 percent, which will increase to 75 percent by the fifth year. This goal is certainly too low. To ensure the success of such programs, many countries have set a recycling target of 90 percent within five years. Our authorities should consider raising the recycling target and implementing an effective penalty system for noncompliance. If the target recycling rate is not met, beverage manufacturers and system operators should face proportional fines, encouraging them to establish more efficient recycling systems and making it easier for residents to participate in the plan. The government could also consider increasing the minimum refund amount the following year if the recycling target is not met.

Plastic waste has become a major source of global marine and environmental pollution. It severely damages the natural ecosystem, affects the human food chain, and threatens human health. Scientists in the Netherlands recently even found plastic particles in human blood for the first time. Tackling the plastic siege issue has become a matter of urgency. The government’s plan to implement a “market-led model” to push the producer responsibility program for plastic beverage containers and paper-boxed drinks should be optimized to enhance recycling rates and protect the environment.

Every detail of the recycling service (including establishing a refund point network, collecting plastic beverage containers and paper-boxed drinks, offering refunds, and arranging proper recycling) will be provided by market stakeholders. Refund points will be provided by beverage suppliers or plan operators. All these details affect recycling outcomes. The government should listen to more opinions, try to optimize the plan as much as possible, and further increase the recycling rate to reduce the generation of plastic waste and achieve environmental protection. Let’s step up our efforts and give our planet the respect it deserves.

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

The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.