Effectiveness of the Environmental Levy Scheme

Effectiveness of the Environmental Levy Scheme Investigate the effectiveness of the Environmental Levy Scheme on Plastic Shopping Bags and Give suggestions on alternative solutions to saturating landfills within 5 years. I have chosen this topic on the basis that this scheme is the first measure in the Product Eco-Responsibility Scheme, thus by reviewing its effectiveness I can give suggestions regarding successful factors and areas for improvement on further schemes of similar nature. (Part 1) Also, as the controversy on construction bill for an incinerator in Hong Kong is hot these days, it has interested me to evaluate other alternatives to reduce waste production, using the analysis in Part 1. (Part 2) Date of submission: 1st July,2015. Table of contents Introduction Background Literature review Objectives and expected outcomes Focus questions Methodology Findings and analysis Effectiveness of the Levy Scheme on Plastic Shopping Bags Did the PSB scheme succeed in bringing down plastic bag waste production? To what extent? The pros of the PSB scheme and successful factors The cons of the PSB scheme and areas for improvement Implications of the effectiveness of the PSB scheme Recommendations on future waste reduction schemes from the experience of PSB What elements of the PSB scheme can be kept in further schemes of waste reduction? What are the problems in the PSB scheme that further schemes of waste reduction needs to tackle? The direction for future waste reduction schemes and feasible solutions Education and promotion Public attitude reflected from the PSB scheme Conclusion Reflection Bibliography Appendix Introduction 1.1 Background I am interested in the topic Investigate the effectiveness of the Environmental Levy Scheme on Plastic Shopping Bags and Give suggestions on alternative solutions to saturating landfills within 5 years as recently debates on the urgency and essentiality of building an incinerator in Hong Kong are boiling hot in Hong Kong. As an eco-friendly person, I am deeply concerned that all landfills in Hong Kong are estimated to meet saturation by 2019, calculating by the current waste production rate. [i] Coincidentally, the PSB scheme was entering the second phase on 1st April 2015 and is another hot eco topic this year. From analysis on Hong Kong Connection (TV programme produced by RTHK), it inspired me this PSB scheme may provide some insights into how waste reduction works and what the pros and cons are of utilizing financial disincentive. Based on evaluation of the PSB scheme, I can give suggestions on alternate solutions of waste reduction. Environmental Levy Scheme on Plastic Bags is the taxing of plastic bag of $0.5 per bag. It is the first scheme under the Producer Responsibility Scheme under the Environmental Protection Department. In the first phase 7 July 2009 – 31 March 2015, about 3000 retail outlets were covered. In the full implementation phase starting 1 April 2015, all retail outlets (more than 100,000 points of retail sales) in Hong Kong are covered.[ii] 1.3 Objectives and expected outcomes There are two main objectives in this study: 1. To evaluate the successful factors and areas for improvement of the PSB plan and 2. To give recommendations on future waste reduction schemes using the experience learnt from the PSB plan. By data collection and analysis, I expect to gain the following outcomes: the actual results of the PSB scheme, the reasons people support or boycott the scheme, governmental communication with the public regarding waste production, the criteria for a successful eco- scheme in the public’s eyes and the relation of education and promotion to effectiveness. 1.4 Focus Questions The focus questions regarding the topic include: -What is the current situation of Plastic Shopping Bag Levy? How effective is it in reducing plastic waste? -How do citizens evaluate the effectiveness of the PSB Levy? -What are the benefits of the PSB Levy to HK’s environment? -What damage or disharmony will PSB Levy bring to HK? -What can we conclude from the current situation on the effectiveness of the PSB Levy? What elements can thus be used to make future environmental policy more effective? 2. Methodology I have used the following data collection method for primary data: 3. Findings and Analysis 3.1 Effectiveness of the Levy Scheme on Plastic Shopping Bags 3.1.1 Did the PSB scheme succeed in bringing down plastic bag waste production? To what extent? The PSB scheme was to a large extent successful in bringing plastic bag waste production. The distribution of PSB in retail outlets has reduced by 90% since the launch of the PSB scheme in 2009.[iii] It was estimated that 84 million PSB was distributed in 2009, thus it has decreased to 8.4 million approximately uptil now. [iv] From the questionnaire survey, the majority of 80% respondents said they would not use PSB while only a minority of 20% said they would. It shows the effectiveness of the PSB scheme. From the field observation, the PSB distribution is a low 5% per hour.[v] The number of PSB distributed in supermarkets has decreased to 403, according to a survey conducted by Green Action. [vi]The government has attributed the change to the increasing public awareness of Bring Your Own Bag promoted by the PSB scheme. [vii] Therefore, the PSB scheme has succeeded to bring down PSB distribution and raise eco-awareness. 3.1.2 The pros of the PSB scheme and successful factors The PSB scheme is successful in bringing down PSB usage and raising eco-awareness, as mentioned in 3.1.1. According to the questionnaire survey, 57% and 39% of respondents said they choose not to claim PSB because they don’t want to pay the $0.5 charge and that they are eco-friendly. This shows that one of the successful factors of the scheme is the financial disincentive, as Hong Kong people are money-conscious. [viii] This also shows that the PSB scheme has raised public awareness towards their eco attitude. The elements that made the PSB scheme successful can give reference to future waste reduction schemes. Firstly, financial disincentive is effective in discouraging waste production, thus this element should be kept. Also, another successful factor is promoting positive value such as Bring Your Own Bag, as public awareness has been raised in the PSB scheme.[ix] The cons of the PSB scheme and areas for improvement Despite the obvious effectiveness, there is still room for improvements for the PSB scheme. The cons of the PSB scheme include the small amount of levy not being threatening enough and the difficulty in supervision. According to the questionnaire survey, 70% of respondents said they would use PSB as it is convenient and 65% said the levy is affordable. [x] Thus, we see that maybe the levy should be increased to be more effective. Also, according to the field observation, some customers tend to buy prepackaged goods or take many storage bags with no hand-hold to avoid the levy.[xi] Therefore, this shows that ineffective supervision would negatively affect the effectiveness of the measure. The major problem of the PSB scheme right now, concluded from the above, is the deep-rooted public attitude. Hong Kong people are often money-minded and cynical, which may cause them to disregard the PSB scheme for their personal interest, such as avoiding the levy but still using other plastic bags or misusing recycling bags. [xii] The main issue to tackle in order to better future waste production schemes is how to change the public attitude and promote correct values in the long run. Implications of the effectiveness of the PSB scheme The PSB scheme is the first scheme under the Producer Responsibility Scheme, thus is the water tester that indicates whether financial disincentive is effective to reduce waste production. Its success reflected that Hong Kong people are very conscious when something affects their personal interest directly, such as additional financial burden, therefore future waste reduction scheme should still be focused on this weakness of Hong Kong people (financial disincentive). [xiii] One supporting evidence is found in the questionnaire survey. When asked to rank what are the priorities that urge them to support a waste reduction scheme, most respondents ranked economical factor first, then personal factor. Remarkably, they least value environmental factor and sustainability, showing Hong Kong people are generally more money-minded than eco-conscious.[xiv] The implications of this phenomenon are that financial disincentive is most suitable for waste reduction in Hong Kong as financial concern is the greatest motivational power for Hongkongers to change living habits, also that future schemes should focus on delivering positive values such as the importance of eco-protection and sustainability in promotion and public education.[xv] Recommendations on future waste reduction schemes from the experience of PSB 3.2.1 What elements of the PSB scheme can be kept in further schemes of waste reduction? As discussed in 3.1.2, the main elements to be kept in further schemes of waste reduction are financial disincentive and effort to change public attitude in changing lifestyles, also their approaches to waste. [xvi] Based on the questionnaire findings, most respondents are supportive to the PSB scheme and regard it a political and social success. [xvii] This also showed that transparency of government measures and effective downward communication and public consultation is important, and should be continued in future waste reduction schemes.[xviii] 3.2.2 What are the problems in the PSB scheme that further schemes of waste reduction needs to tackle? As discussed in 3.1.3, the main problems of the PSB scheme are the hard-to-change public attitude and thus their living habits, also non-threatening amount of levy and insufficient supervision. Furthermore, most respondents think the crux of the waste production problem are inadequate environmental education, lack of promotion of government eco-schemes and the buy-and-throw habit of the prosperous metropolis.[xix] These are problems that future waste production scheme most urgently face. The direction for future waste reduction schemes and feasible solutions In response to 3.2.2, hereby I would recommend important points for improvement with regard to the above problems. Firstly, when implementing waste reduction schemes, powerful financial disincentive should be enforced to respond to Hong Kong people’s money-conscious mindset and relatively smaller concern for the environment. [xx] It is the only way to receive biggest response from the public and see changes in their daily living. Secondly, to tackle the supervision difficulty, a report system by hotline can be opened to the public to report violation of the policy by either shops or the general public.[xxi] This can make supervision more all-rounded. Thirdly, education and promotion to indoctrinate correct and positive values is also important. As shown in the questionnaire findings, the public value economical concern over environmental concern, which is unhealthy and detrimental to eco-protection. Thus, education and promotion is essential. In order to find out the most supported waste reduction schemes, I have asked respondents to rank policies that they regard as most effective in reducing waste. The survey results show that policies involving separation, recycling and levy are seen as most effective, with the top being Source Separation of Domestic Waste, scoring 1580 in sums.[xxii] This shows that the public would support waste reduction schemes that only require little alterations in daily living, such as household waste separation, or recycling and financial disincentive. This match with the fact that their top concern is economical factor and second is personal factor when responding to a waste reduction scheme.[xxiii] In contrary, public opinion do not support policies involving new landfills and incinerators, the bottom being opening up new landfill in current country parks, scoring only 882 in total.[xxiv] This shows that the public is least likely to support waste reduction scheme that might be detrimental to their living environment and health, or those that may use a large amount of government reserves as it violates economic efficiency. This match with their priority list as they most value economical factor (efficiency, personal burden) and personal factor (impact to living environment and health). This ranking gives us important and clear insights into which directions to go and also how best to suit public concerns and gain public support in waste reduction schemes. Education and promotion à ¥Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã‚ ·Ãƒ ©Ã‚ «Ã¢â‚¬  à ©Ã¢â‚¬ ¡Ã‚ Ãƒ ©Ã‚  Ã‚ ­Ãƒ ¦Ã‹â€ Ã‚ ²***** With reference to 3.2.3, we have gained some insights into what values are to be changed for future waste reduction schemes to go smoothly (money over environment) , and also what are most motivational to the general public. 3.2.5 Public attitude reflected from the PSB scheme à ¦Ã…  Ã¢â‚¬Å¾ 4. Conclusion 5.Reflections 6. Bibliography 7.Appendix [i] Environment minister Wong Kam-sing, 2003, Hong Kong issues dire warning on landfills amid protests by residents, South China Morning Post, http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1246229/city-could-drown-trash-environment-minister-warns [ii]Environmental Levy Scheme on Plastic Bags, Environmental Protection Department, http://www.epd.gov.hk/epd/english/environmentinhk/waste/pro_responsibility/env_levy.html [iii] Press Release, 28 Mar 2015, Environmental Protection Department, http://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/201503/28/P201503270921.htm [iv] Will Hong Kongs city-wide levy on plastic bags really change behaviour?, Time Out Hong Kong, http://www.timeout.com.hk/big-smog/features/71898/will-hong-kongs-city-wide-levy-on-plastic-bags-really-change-behaviour.html [v] Field observation, appendix 3 [vi] Environmental Levy on Plastic Shopping Bags What are the problems?, CSR Asia, http://csr-asia.com/csr-asia-weekly-news-detail.php?id=11753 [vii] Press Release, 28 Mar 2015, Environmental Protection Department, http://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/201503/28/P201503270921.htm [viii] Plastic society rethinks bags, Macau Business, 26th May 2015, http://www.macaubusiness.com/news/plastic-society-rethinks-bags.html [ix] Press Release, 28 Mar 2015, Environmental Protection Department, http://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/201503/28/P201503270921.htm [x] Questionnaire survey, Q3, appendix2 [xi] Field observation, appendix 3 [xii] Values Education in Hong Kong – Problems and Possibilities, The Hong Kong Institute of Education, http://www.acsa.edu.au/pages/images/99_fok_values_ed.pdf [xiii] Values Education in Hong Kong – Problems and Possibilities, The Hong Kong Institute of Education, http://www.acsa.edu.au/pages/images/99_fok_values_ed.pdf [xiv] Questionnaire survey, Q8, appendix2 [xv] Values Education in Hong Kong – Problems and Possibilities, The Hong Kong Institute of Education, http://www.acsa.edu.au/pages/images/99_fok_values_ed.pdf [xvi] Waste Reduction Framework Plan, Environmental Protection Department, http://www.epd.gov.hk/epd/english/environmentinhk/waste/prob_solutions/wrfp_summary.html [xvii] Questionnaire survey, Q5 and Q6, appendix2 [xviii] Public Consultation Report on the Proposal on An Environmental Levy on Plastic Shopping Bags , http://www.epd.gov.hk/epd/english/environmentinhk/waste/prob_solutions/files/Consultation_Report_Levy_Eng.pdf. [xix] Questionnaire survey, Q9 , appendix2 [xx] Values Education in Hong Kong – Problems and Possibilities, The Hong Kong Institute of Education, http://www.acsa.edu.au/pages/images/99_fok_values_ed.pdf [xxi] Environmental Levy Scheme on Plastic Shopping Bags, Environmental Protection Scheme, http://www.epd.gov.hk/epd/english/environmentinhk/waste/pro_responsibility/env_levy.html [xxii] Questionnaire survey, Q7 , appendix2 [xxiii] Questionnaire survey, Q8 , appendix2 [xxiv] Questionnaire survey, Q7 , appendix2