President, I was a member of the delegation on this occasion. It was really an eye-opener to have the opportunity to visit South Korea and observe the waste management there. Not only can an advanced and well-developed mode of waste management be found there, vigorous efforts are also put into the development of the recycling industry, so the habit of environmental protection has been fostered among citizens there and we were very impressed. However, at the same time, the successful experience of South Korea makes me think about that of Hong Kong, wondering why the development in this regard in Hong Kong has lagged so far behind other people.
The achievements of South Korea in waste management were not attained overnight and a great deal of resistance was encountered in the process. In 1995, a four-pronged management approach was introduced in South Korea and it consisted of waste reduction, promotion of the reuse of goods, recycling and waste-to-energy conversion. As a result, the national waste disposal rate dropped by 46% in a matter of just a few years. In fact, in many ways, the policies adopted by South Korea back then share many similarities with the waste reduction concept in Hong Kong nowadays, so it is most worthwhile for us to make reference to the experience of this country. I believe the most inspiring lesson for Hong Kong is the way South Korea overcame the resistance in society to successfully implement its policies, attain the goal of waste reduction and develop the recycling industry vigorously, thus making it one of the places with the highest municipal waste recycling rate worldwide.
At present, on such issues as the development of incineration facilities and landfills in Hong Kong, many voices of opposition have been encountered. In fact, when South Korea initially introduced its policies, it also encountered quite a lot of resistance, for example, residents opposed the construction of incineration facilities in their districts and even some municipal governments opposed the extension of the operation period of the landfills in their jurisdictions. In the end, the South Korean Government succeeded in solving the problems. Often, it owed its success to the endeavours made by officials, who did a good job of consultation and lobbying.
Let me cite an example. Before the construction of incineration facilities, the South Korean Government had maintained in-depth communication with residents throughout the pre-implementation phase, invited opinion leaders to visit the most advanced incineration facilities overseas and arranged for credible experts also to talk to the local residents. Also, the design of the incineration facilities was aesthetically pleasing and an open-access design enabling the public to observe their operation also helped remove the previous negative image of incineration facilities. Lastly, the local government also provided the affected residents with financial incentives, including paying the apartment management fees and heating costs of the affected residents. It also established a resident assistance fund, which was funded partly by the profits made by the facilities, to improve the living environment.
It can thus be seen that so long as the Government can summon up the resolve to discuss with residents in earnest, find ways to address the misgivings of the residents concerned, minimize the impact and offer reasonable compensation, it should be able to win residents over. At present, the SAR Government plans to build an incinerator on Shek Kwu Chau but it is opposed by residents on Cheung Chau. Although the Government has had discussions with the Islands District Council, obviously, officials need better lobbying skills. In the long run, the Government should send officials overseas to such countries as South Korea to learn how to carrying out lobbying in the local communities. In addition, measures to implement waste charging are being planned currently. Since many technical or implementation issues are involved but we lack the relevant experience, officials should also be sent to South Korea or Taiwan to learn from the local experience.
I wish to mention in passing that the incineration facilities used in South Korea are very advanced. The emissions from them can be treated thoroughly and have been proved to have minimal impact on the environment. In the future, if similar or even more advanced incinerators are brought into Hong Kong, I believe society as a whole would also feel more at ease. In addition, South Korea regards waste incineration as the conversion of waste into energy and this is a highly positive perspective. I believe it is very worthwhile for us to learn from this approach of recovering energy from waste and letting local residents benefit from the energy so produced.
Another area that is very worthwhile for us to learn from is the operation of the recycling industry. At present, the waste recycling rate in South Korea is one of the highest in the world. Of the municipal waste generated in Seoul, 63% is recycled, 25% is incinerated and 12% is landfilled. These figures point to the booming trade done by the recycling industry in South Korea. The South Korean Government vigorously promotes the development of the recycling industry. Apart from providing long-term low-interest loans to small recycling businesses for the development of recycling facilities and technologies, recently, the South Korean Government also decided to expedite the development of the recycling industry in order to reduce the use of landfills. Civil organizations there hope that in this way, the recycling rate can be boosted to 80%.
In contrast, although the waste recovery rate in Hong Kong has risen to 48%, 52% of the waste still has to be landfilled. At present, the SAR Government is also promoting the development of the recycling industry by such measures as establishing the EcoPark, providing sites on short-term leases to recycling operators and promoting the separation of waste at source but still, one has the impression that the Government is not working vigorously enough and the measures do not appear to be effective. If we want to achieve the goal set by the Government, that is, to raise the recovery rate to 55% by 2022, we should make reference to the approach in South Korea and take more active and vigorous measures to foster the development of the recycling industry directly through the provision of resources and technical assistance.
There are so many areas in South Korea that are worth learning from, but I also found that they possess some advantages that would be very difficult for us to emulate, namely, the unity and patriotism of South Koreans. They are prepared to make sacrifices for their country. No matter how much trouble waste reduction would bring to the public, they are still prepared to do so for the sake of their country and it is also easier for the Government to persuade its citizens. In contrast, in recent years, there has been constant internal attrition in Hong Kong, so inevitably, the Government can only get half the result with twice the effort in taking forward policies. However, I hope that in future waste reduction efforts, we can display greater unity and strive together for a good environment.
I so submit.