“A suspension is a pragmatic and reasonable approach,” the insider said. “As for whether a new [launch] date needs to be set, it is difficult to predict for the time being.

“It is unclear when there will be sufficient recycling facilities … We ought not to impose a certain implementation date.”

The pay-as-you-throw scheme, first proposed by authorities as early as 2004, has been met with a backlash from politicians, residents and rubbish collectors, despite its passage through Legco with almost unanimous support in August 2021.

People must place their garbage in designated bags available in nine sizes, priced from 30 HK cents (3 US cents) to HK$11, while a special label priced at HK$11 is available for large or oddly shaped items.

Authorities launched a trial run on April 1 at 14 sites to gauge public acceptance of the bags, but a government document submitted to the legislature last week showed the reception for the scheme “varied significantly”, with some places reporting that only 20 per cent of residents were using the bags.

“Many residents have reflected that the refuse collection charge is a nuisance to the public and some have said that the fee is too expensive, adding to their financial burden,” the document stated.

At Lin Tsui Estate in Chai Wan, one of the spots taking part in the trial run, frontline workers have been struggling to adapt to the increased workload and longer working hours, according to Creative Property Services Consultants, the property management company.

“Frontline cleaners said their workload doubled because now they had to handle trash wrapped in designated bags and regular bags separately – they were working longer hours and got less time to rest,” managing director Stephen Poon Kin-leung said.

More than 90 per cent of residents took the designated bags, but only 20 per cent used them and the volume of waste did not go down either, he added.

“If the government chose to suspend the scheme, it would be the right thing to do, because the people are not quite ready for it unless they become largely aware of the amount of waste they generated and know where to recycle their trash,” he said.

It would be necessary to either increase staffing levels or wages, Poon argued, but added residents and property management companies would have to reach a consensus on who should bear the extra cost, especially in private buildings.

Odi Chan Fung-yee, the manager of Hsin Kuang Banquet Hall in San Po Kong, welcomed the potential suspension because workers “needed a break”.

“They complained a lot recently – they have had to do more tasks in the past two months, but they do not get the point of doing so,” she said. “We may stop sending food waste for recycling too. It’s not complicated, but we do not always have the manpower to handle it.”

Leung Tsz-yan of the Cleaning Workers Union said the government should make use of the suspension to educate frontline cleaning workers, who were largely “left in the dark” throughout the process.

“Some were considering quitting their job due to the strain it could put on manpower and workload,” she said. “Has the government or contractors ever thought about allocating more resources to hire more cleaners?”

Lawmaker Edward Lau Kwok-fan, chairman of Legco’s environmental affairs panel, said the scheme should only go ahead once the economy improved and more recycling facilities became available.

“With the heated discussion on waste charging among residents over the past few months, we should take the chance to strengthen publicity and education, and add more recycling facilities in the community,” he said.

Lawmaker Starry Lee Wai-king, also the city’s sole delegate to the National People’s Congress Standing Committee, the country’s top legislative body, said she “sincerely hoped” that authorities would understand popular sentiment and the implementation problems.

“I hope the government can come up with a pragmatic and feasible road map for promoting recycling continuously,” she said.

But Edwin Lau Che-feng, founder and executive director of environmental group The Green Earth, said he was disappointed by the latest delay to the scheme.

“It is impossible for a law to have no effective date. It has been passed as a law,” he said. “It is mind-boggling how it still can’t be introduced properly even after 20 years.”

Lau added that further delays were also detrimental to the government’s long-term waste reduction targets.

“I don’t see how authorities can attain their 2035 goal, which is to cut the per capita municipal solid waste disposal rate by up to half,” he said.

The Green Earth and five other groups – Civic Exchange, Green Power, Greenpeace, Greeners Action and the ADM Capital Foundation – issued an open letter on Sunday night urging the city’s leader not to delay the scheme.

“If the government can take the August 1 opportunity as the first step, we believe this crisis will turn into an opportunity and showcase its determination to reduce waste and protect the environment,” they said.

The government had initially planned to implement the scheme by the end of 2023 but postponed it to April 1 after the waste-collection sector raised concerns about the workforce being stretched thin during the Christmas and Lunar New Year holidays.

Secretary for Environment and Ecology Tse Chin-wan told lawmakers last July that the new launch date was “definite” and would “not be extended”.

The postponement to August 1 was announced in January, but speculation continued there would be further delay.