No details were offered on when the scheme would make a comeback.

Some residents at Oi Man Estate in Ho Man Tin, one of Hong Kong’s oldest public housing estates, said they were sceptical about the government’s mitigation measures.

Housewife Mary Wong, 69, called the distribution useless, adding that she would use the designated bags instead of her own to save money.

“I will have to use rubbish bags to throw my trash, if they give me some, it will mean that I will use less of my own, the most important thing is that they are free,” she said.

Wong also said the elderly were already buying less than young people and that receiving bags would not suddenly force her to purchase or consume less.

Murphy Law, an estate resident for more than 40 years, stressed he had no objections to the government distributing bags, but said he believed the plan’s efficacy would be limited since it would not change the elderly’s ingrained habits.

“I think if they educate residents on the idea of recycling and reducing waste early, it will be the best way to solve the issue,” he said.

Under the mitigation measures, authorities would also dish out free bags to private residential buildings which sign a charter pledging to provide recycling facilities and handle the recyclables properly.

Edwin Lau Che-feng, executive director of The Green Earth, said the government should at least put in place some requirements for using the bags to avoid the squandering of public resources.

“It appears that the government, which has given out tenders for large orders of designated bags, now wants to clear the stock,” Lau told a radio programme, arguing the bags could be kept for two to three years and be given out by the time when the scheme was relaunched.

“But if they were to be given out now, it must be clearly thought out as to whether they are aimed at achieving any positive results.”

Lau said authorities should request monthly updates from the buildings in return for an uptick in their recycling rates and the reduction of waste discharge with the provision of bags, rather than giving them out for free with no strings attached.

“If they cannot achieve desirable results after a few months, it means that the public resources given out become futile. To avoid the abuse of resources, they should not be given the bags any more,” he said.

A better way to bring about change was for all publicly-owned premises to take the lead by starting with the waste-charging scheme as scheduled on August 1 to set an example for Hongkongers, Lau said, adding that the success of the government’s efforts could assure residents.

“The government is not doing it now. Are they concerned that they can’t do it themselves? I hope they can have the confidence and determination to do so, especially since it’s a piece of legislation advocated for,” he said.

Dr Chung Shan-shan, a senior biology lecturer at Baptist University specialising in waste management, agreed with Lau that the effectiveness of the measures would take a hit without the backing of the waste-charging scheme. However, she said she believed that even with the scheme, residents might be unwilling to comply.

Chung suggested the government tackle the problem at its source by pushing for a producer responsibility scheme for manufacturers and green product designs, which would negate the need for people to change their habits as these would reduce unnecessary waste.

The government earlier said it had cost around HK$74 million (US$9.5 million) to produce 170 million designated bags, which now remained in stock.

Under the now-suspended scheme, people would have to buy government-approved bags available in nine sizes, priced from 30 HK cents to HK$11.

But speaking on the same radio show, environment minister Tse Chin-wan defended the move to give out plastic bags, saying it was for Hong Kong residents to experience and learn about recycling and waste reduction, and enhance their understanding.

“The goal is to let everyone experience it, together with more promotion and how to put this to practice,” he said.

Tse said 20 bags would be provided each month together with educational materials on how to recycle. He added that the move was to encourage participants to see if they could use the bags for the 30 days of the month and potentially reduce waste.

Christine Loh Kung-wai, who served as undersecretary for the environment between 2012 and 2017, said at an Asia Society Hong Kong event on Tuesday that the city should “push forward” with improving its waste management despite shelving the scheme.

Loh, who is now chief development strategist at the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology’s Institute for the Environment, noted that projects such as O.Park would soon be able to process as much as 500 tonnes of food waste a day, while collection rates stood at around 260 tonnes.

“Collection is clearly the problem for all kinds of recyclables, so [the government] needs to come back and really tell us how they’re going to just deal with that in light of the infrastructure that is already there,” she said.

Loh also said that while there were challenges with implementing waste management schemes in buildings without maintenance companies, owners’ corporations or residents’ organisations to manage them, most of Hong Kong could handle them.

“We must not also let the 20 per cent – the most difficult cases – stop the other 80 per cent,” she said.

Lau said the efficacy of the government’s other initiatives beyond the distribution of plastic bags would be undermined without the backing of the charging scheme.

He added the authorities should provide a detailed work plan to the legislature listing their intended goals, relevant metrics and timeline as soon as one month or as late as six months.

“Once they have this work plan and they have submitted it to the legislative council, where the public is informed, only then could we see the effectiveness of their mitigation measures,” he said.

“They are stating these measures verbally now, but I hope they have a black-and-white workplan with a timeline, which could be made public.”