2003年11月19日 星期三

Let the people decide

(Originally published in South China Morning Post, 2003-11-19 )


For the last three months, the heated debate on harbour reclamation has had many twists and turns. Public rallies were held; signature campaigns were launched; court battles were fought; legislators' stands were questioned; even media heroes have come and gone. Yet one puzzle remains: the government has not made any serious attempt to respond to the rising public aspirations, except to say that it is listening.


Either the public's voice has not been loud enough, or the government's hearing aid is defective. Neither is good for Hong Kong ; even less so for a society that badly needs a consensus to move ahead.


Senior officials from the Planning Department should be commended for standing up in front of the public to explain their case for reclamation. Yet on closer examination, no official has put forward any serious data to justify their central argument for reclamation: the need for the Central-Wan Chai bypass. The silence of the Transport Department is particularly disconcerting.


The need for publishing new data is obvious. The government has promised to scrap all harbour reclamation plans except those in Central, Wan Chai and southeast Kowloon . It has also promised that no commercial development will be allowed on newly reclaimed land. This means original traffic projections, which included those generated by the now-abandoned Western district reclamation, and other commercial developments, will no longer be valid.


It is only common sense that in such a dramatically changed scenario, a new cost-benefit analysis must be conducted. After all, the last feasibility study for the bypass was undertaken in 1989. Can anyone guarantee that the socio-economic assumptions made 14 years ago are still valid today? Can anyone be so cavalier as to spend $15 billion of taxpayers' money without taking a closer look? Without pre-judging whether the need for the bypass can be proven or not, there is no doubt that the public deserves more detailed information from transport officials.


The government's inaction is indicative of a bigger flaw: the lack of public participation in environmental decision-making. Current controversies in harbour reclamation and the West Kowloon Cultural District development alike have shown that the existing public consultation process is grossly inadequate. Hong Kong people have said loud and clear that they do not wish to leave important decisions concerning their urban space entirely in the hands of bureaucrats.


If officials are serious about upholding Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa's commitment, in his 1999 policy speech, to sustainable development, they would do well to familiarise themselves with Principle 10 of the Rio Declaration, signed by China along with 177 countries at the 1992 Earth Summit. This is the famous access principle, applicable to environmental policymaking: every individual's right to have access to information, access to participation in decision-making and access to judicial proceedings for redress and remedy. Public consultation in its current form, coupled with a top-down approach in town planning, falls far short of the standard.


Getting people involved is not a purist's dream. International examples abound. Take, for instance, the other Victoria Harbour - on Vancouver Island in Canada . An independent, non-profit Harbour Authority was set up last year to own and manage harbour assets. The board of the authority is made up of representatives from governments, chambers of commerce and indigenous peoples. The Canadian public is not merely consulted; it is there to have its representatives make decisions, independent of the political process.


No doubt Hong Kong will develop its own model of governance when a Harbour Authority is set up, as is being demanded by many sectors. Yet a partnership approach engaging the private sector and civil society groups seems the only realistic chance for sustainable development.


For those of us who are wary of the divisive force that the recent controversy may inflict upon society, the best hope is to turn people's energy into a positive drive to develop and embrace a new and innovative mechanism for community-based urban design, public participation and consensus-building.


The People's Council for Sustainable Development, in partnership with four universities, three professional institutions and nine civil society groups, will launch a platform later this month for citizens to share their collective memories of the harbour, review the history of reclamation, examine constraints and opportunities, unleash their creative power and begin building a consensus through a public-hearing process.


In Hong Kong 's town planning history, this is an unprecedented attempt to empower people and foster participation through such a broad alliance in the third sector.


When provided with relevant information, Hong Kong people can be trusted to make wise decisions. It is, however, important that all planning constraints and potential opportunities are laid out for the public in a clear and coherent manner. Civil society has taken a lead to facilitate this process, but it is not too late for the government to play a constructive role by providing detailed information and participating in the process.


In the long run, whether reclamation is justified, whether reclaimed land should be used for road-building or for a waterfront promenade alone, and whether a statutory shoreline should be declared, will prove less important than establishing a process which truly reflects community value and allows the public to decide the future of its urban space.


A community-planning approach, with broad-based participation, has a much higher chance of success in building a consensus for the way forward than the current half-hearted persuasion by an embattled government. A successful consensus-building process will benefit everyone, including those for and against reclamation.


Albert Lai Kwong-tak is chairman of the Hong Kong People's Council for Sustainable Development.


 


 


2003年10月4日 星期六

The Missing Partner in West Kowloon

It is rare to see government officials embarking on world record-setting, brave new acts these days. Yet Hong Kong is lucky to have witnessed one on September  3.


The Chief Secretary announced on that day an invitation to the private sector to submit a single bid for the West Kowloon Cultural District. The development covers 40 hectares, equivalent to one-third of Kowloon Peninsular, and comprises four museums, three theatres, one amphi-theatre among millions of square feet of shopping, residential and commercial facilities. By all measures, it resembles a condensed new town in the heart of Hong Kong .


When announcing the scheme, Mr Donald Tsang, head of the government steering committee, was proud that the authorities had adopted the Norman Foster design to put 20 hectares of facilities under the world’s single largest canopy. For all its mind-boggling luxury the proposal looks like another grand, exciting plan for Hong Kong until one starts to examine what is missing.


The scheme adopts a Public-Private-Partnership approach, under which a single developer will be asked to finance, construct and operate the facilities for 30 years or more. This approach, first practised in the UK in 1980s, is not new. It has been applied to single-purpose infrastructure facilities such as toll roads, bridges, power plants, hospitals and even jails in some countries.  Yet the West Kowloon scheme sets two world records for PPP schemes: its sheer size of 40 hectares and its diverse mix of facilities under one scheme.


So we are sailing into uncharted territory where no city has attempted before. In essence, we are handing out a concession for a new town – designed as a special cultural icon for Hong Kong – to a single developer. Is this a blessing?


The essence of a PPP scheme is for a private sector developer to take up the risks of funding, building and operating public facilities with the promise that it is allowed to run the public facilities along commercial, private-sector principles. Note the interplay of the words public-private in the previous statement.


Two issues are most tricky in any PPP scheme: firstly, how to allocate equitably the risks between the public and the private sector and secondly, how to safeguard public interest when public facilities are controlled and run by private interests?


The first issue of risk allocation sounds like a mere technicality but it has a huge financial implication for either sides. One has to look only across the border: many PPP, or build-operate-transfer schemes as they are often called, such as power plants or toll roads in the mainland are re-negotiated after only a few years into operation because making long-term forecast, and hence allocating project risks in a changing environment is an enormously difficult task. This is difficult enough for a single-purpose facility; it is almost impossible for a new town like West Kowloon . When schemes become unstuck, concession contracts will be forced into re-negotiation and the side that has most at stake is often bullied into submission. Judging from past experience in Hong Kong , the public purse almost always loses out when confronted with hard-nosed private operators.


The second issue reveals a fatal flaw in the current scheme. Public interest in a PPP scheme can only be safeguarded by the participation of the third partner – the civil society.


A little dose of history here may help. The size of the first foreign concession in Shanghai was 55 hectares, only slightly larger than West Kowloon . It grew 60 times larger in a span of 70 years.


 


 


2003年10月3日 星期五

A sustainable solution

While many officials are worried about the erosion of government authority in the heated debate on harbour reclamation, the sea change in public opinion opens the way for a sustainable solution to protecting our harbour.


The Conservancy Association has been a long-time advocate of minimum harbour reclamation, ever since the Port and Airport Development Strategy and the Metroplan were first published in 1989. Over the years, numerous submissions were made to the authorities to urge that proposed reclamation work be scaled down.


Under the present system, uneasy compromises were the best solutions at the time. Nonetheless, the reclamation would have been much more destructive had the original plans gone ahead without amendments.


For instance, over the last five years, the Conservancy Association has been the lone voice protesting to the Highways Department, which kept pushing for the construction of a temporary road cutting across Edinburgh Square in front of City Hall. Without objections, both the square and the Queen's Pier - a historical monument bearing witness to the colonial era - would have disappeared long ago. Today, both are earmarked for demolition should phase three of the Central reclamation scheme go ahead.


The extent of harbour reclamation should ultimately be a reflection of public values. Does the public prefer a wider harbour to the benefits that another road link might bring?


Each of the proposed reclamation works must be assessed with regard to its specific context and the prevailing values of the community. The events in recent weeks showed clearly that the yardstick against which proposed reclamation should be measured has changed, for two reasons.


First, the courts have adopted a stricter interpretation of the Harbour Protection Ordinance. Second, the public now places a much higher value on the integrity of the harbour than the potential benefits associated with any reclamation.


Both the government and civil society have a duty to respond to these changes and apply the new yardstick. The fate of the harbour should not be beholden to any vested interest.


On closer examination, the real culprit of these controversies is an outdated mode of governance. The current institutions in the Transport Advisory Committee and the Town Planning Board are designed to help smooth the way for a pro-development administration, rather than allow full reflection of community values in public policies. Nearly all major reclamation proposals were justified by the need to build more roads to meet increasing traffic demand. Not surprisingly, when more reclaimed land is developed, more traffic demand will be generated. This is a self-fulfilling prophecy which has helped to shrink our harbour in the past few decades.


In the current standoff, we suggest a four-step process to handle the immediate crisis and to put in place a sustainable solution.


First, we support a temporary freeze on all harbour reclamation, regardless of the impending court ruling. After all, prevailing public values are the ultimate determinant for the future of our harbour.


Second, the government should appoint an independent panel of experts, to be chaired by a member of the judiciary, to review the scale and rationale of all proposed reclamation. Society should be given the chance to participate through public hearings.


Third, the government should begin setting up a Harbour Conservation Authority to take charge of the planning and execution of all projects in the harbour area. It should be endowed with a clear mandate to break the vicious circle. A new mode of governance should be adopted, using a roundtable concept, encompassing equal representation from the government, the private sector and civil society.


Fourth, the Town Planning Board should be reformed to give the public better access to decision-making. Its structure and membership-appointment system should be reviewed and the loophole that means transport infrastructure is subject to less stringent scrutiny should be plugged. Such a redesign should take place in the spirit of partnership, rather than under an administration-led system.


In public policymaking, goalposts do move with shifts in community values. Crying foul is never a solution. A wiser strategy is to embrace the new paradigm.


Albert Lai Kwong-tak is chairman of the Conservancy Association.


(Published on 3 October 2003, South China Morning Post)


 


 


A sustainable solution

(Originally published in South China Morning Post, 2003-10-3 )


While many officials are worried about the erosion of government authority in the heated debate on harbour reclamation, the sea change in public opinion opens the way for a sustainable solution to protecting our harbour.


The Conservancy Association has been a long-time advocate of minimum harbour reclamation, ever since the Port and Airport Development Strategy and the Metroplan were first published in 1989. Over the years, numerous submissions were made to the authorities to urge that proposed reclamation work be scaled down.


Under the present system, uneasy compromises were the best solutions at the time. Nonetheless, the reclamation would have been much more destructive had the original plans gone ahead without amendments.


For instance, over the last five years, the Conservancy Association has been the lone voice protesting to the Highways Department, which kept pushing for the construction of a temporary road cutting across Edinburgh Square in front of City Hall. Without objections, both the square and the Queen's Pier - a historical monument bearing witness to the colonial era - would have disappeared long ago. Today, both are earmarked for demolition should phase three of the Central reclamation scheme go ahead.


The extent of harbour reclamation should ultimately be a reflection of public values. Does the public prefer a wider harbour to the benefits that another road link might bring?


Each of the proposed reclamation works must be assessed with regard to its specific context and the prevailing values of the community. The events in recent weeks showed clearly that the yardstick against which proposed reclamation should be measured has changed, for two reasons.


First, the courts have adopted a stricter interpretation of the Harbour Protection Ordinance. Second, the public now places a much higher value on the integrity of the harbour than the potential benefits associated with any reclamation.


Both the government and civil society have a duty to respond to these changes and apply the new yardstick. The fate of the harbour should not be beholden to any vested interest.


On closer examination, the real culprit of these controversies is an outdated mode of governance. The current institutions in the Transport Advisory Committee and the Town Planning Board are designed to help smooth the way for a pro-development administration, rather than allow full reflection of community values in public policies. Nearly all major reclamation proposals were justified by the need to build more roads to meet increasing traffic demand. Not surprisingly, when more reclaimed land is developed, more traffic demand will be generated. This is a self-fulfilling prophecy which has helped to shrink our harbour in the past few decades.


In the current standoff, we suggest a four-step process to handle the immediate crisis and to put in place a sustainable solution.


First, we support a temporary freeze on all harbour reclamation, regardless of the impending court ruling. After all, prevailing public values are the ultimate determinant for the future of our harbour.


Second, the government should appoint an independent panel of experts, to be chaired by a member of the judiciary, to review the scale and rationale of all proposed reclamation. Society should be given the chance to participate through public hearings.


Third, the government should begin setting up a Harbour Conservation Authority to take charge of the planning and execution of all projects in the harbour area. It should be endowed with a clear mandate to break the vicious circle. A new mode of governance should be adopted, using a roundtable concept, encompassing equal representation from the government, the private sector and civil society.


Fourth, the Town Planning Board should be reformed to give the public better access to decision-making. Its structure and membership-appointment system should be reviewed and the loophole that means transport infrastructure is subject to less stringent scrutiny should be plugged. Such a redesign should take place in the spirit of partnership, rather than under an administration-led system.


In public policymaking, goalposts do move with shifts in community values. Crying foul is never a solution. A wiser strategy is to embrace the new paradigm.


Albert Lai Kwong-tak is chairman of the Conservancy Association.


 


 


2003年6月25日 星期三

長春社成立三十五週年

長 春 社 成 立 於 1  9 6 8 年 ,  由 最 初 單 純 的 志 願組 合,  演 變 成 現  今 一 個 全方 位 的 民 間 環 保 團 体  。相 信 當 年 創 辦 長 春 社 的 前 輩 們 也 很 難想 像 三 十 五 後 今 天 的 局 面 。


回 顧 過 去 ,長 春 社經 歷 了 不 少 動 蕩 的 歲 月 ,其 中 包 括 九 七 回 歸, 但  卻 能 生 存 至今, 無 疑 是 一 種 異 數 。 今 天 的 會 員 , 大 概 都 不 了 解  原 來 在 七十 年 代 ,長 春 社 曾 是 殖 民 地 政 府 的 監 視 對 象 之 一 , 在  秘 密 監視 團 体 名 單 中 榜 上 有 名。 八 十 年 代  ,長 春 社 又 曾 發 起 取 得 一百 萬 人 支 持 的「 反 對 建 大 亞 灣 核 電 廠 簽 名 運 動  」,卻 無 功 而 還。 從 七 十 到 八 十 年 代 ,長 春 社 在 幕 前 和 幕 後 做 了 大 量 的 游 說 工 作 , 催 生 香 港 政 府 成 立 了 環 境 保護 署 。


為 什 麼  長 春 社 在 動 蕩 的 歲 月 裏 仍 然 能 繼 續 生 存 壯 大 ? 答 案 可 能 只 有 一 個:  就 是 香 港 民 眾 都 認 同 長 春 社 存 在 的 價 值 , 需 要 它 來  協 助 磨 平 發 展 帶 來 的 稜 角 。 雖 然 這 些 稜 角 依 然 時 刻 存 在 , 但 只 要市 民 知 道 環 保 組 織 正 在 努 力 把 它 磨 平  , 大 部 份 人 還 是 稍 感安 心 的 。 至 於 這 些 努 力 是 否 白 費 , 還 是 帶 來 深 遠 的 社 會 影 響 , 就 得 看 長 春 社 如 何 堅 持 下 去 了。


然 而 ,長 春 社 背 後的 真 正 力 量 , 卻 是 來 自 社 群 ,就 正 如 我 們 所 有 的 會 員 , 都 是 關 心 環 境 的 社 會 份 子 。正 是 這 些 不安 於 本 港 環 境 現 狀 、不 斷 要 求 變 革 的 社 會 人 士 在 推 動 長 春 社 前 進 , 成 為 了 它 壯 大 的 動 力 


英 國 近 代 文 豪 王爾 德 曾 說 :「 我 們 對 歷 史 的 唯 一 責 任 ,就 是 把 它  改 寫 。」只 要大 家 看 到 長 春 社 的 會 員 和 員 工 對 環 保 信 念 的 堅 持 , 就 會 相 信 在 未 來 三 十 五 年 , 長 春 社 縱 然 未能 改 寫 香 港 環 保 運 動 的 歷 史 , 也 必 可 在 這 頁 歷 史 上 留 下 印 記


20036


 


 


2003年6月15日 星期日

From a Clean City to a Sustainable City

Whilst most agree that the SARS outbreak is a wake-up call to our long-ignored environmental hygiene problems, it will be an opportunity lost if we stop just at what the Chief Secretary’s Team Clean sets out to do. This opportunity was earned through the pains and tears of the loss of close to 300 lives and billions of dollars of GDP foregone. Each of us has a duty for some serious soul-searching - the more so for those who control public resources.


Beyond the medical lessons yet to be learnt there are at least four levels of social issues that warrant close scrutiny as a result of the SARS outbreak.


The first concerns environmental hygiene which is being tackled by the government through a concerted effort coordinated by Mr Donald Tsang’s Team Clean. Few would dispute the objectives of the campaign but many are worried about whether the announced measures, mostly relying on stringent enforcement, would have long-lasting effects. The prospect is unclear but the Team has at least identified some critical success factors in its interim report: full involvement of the community and the need for novel approaches to develop a sustainable system.


The second level relates to issues of urban management. This covers not only the management of streets and open urban spaces in public hands, but also the management of buildings and “private alleys” often neglected due to ambiguous ownership rights. In particular two of the most important government functions in urban management, the handling of solid waste and the treatment of sewage, have long been identified by environmental groups as areas in need of urgent reform.


The current institutional set-up, involving multiple departments and fragmented responsibilities, not only breeds inefficiency, but also leads to increased health risks to the public because of reduced quality of service. The quality of urban management is clearly more than a health issue; it is about quality-of-life for Hongkongers.


The third level concerns the quality of urban infrastructure – a product of town planning, architecture, engineering, building standards, land allocation and development mechanisms. This is the hardware within which we live, work and relax. The SARS outbreak brought out many fundamental questions.


Why should we suffer from perhaps the most cramped living conditions among developed cities when there are over 20,000 unused public housing units, stretches of empty industrial buildings, widespread abuse of agricultural land and dozens of idle, unsold development sites? Are the building standards prescribed by the government, such as those adopted in Amoy Gardens, really designed for the benefit of administrators, developers or the ultimate buyers and users?


In short, are we getting good value-for-money from this city-home as we pay hard-earned dollars through tax, rental, mortgage and steep house prices?


It would be tempting but wrong to answer this in pure economic terms. A safe home, a friendly neighbourhood, an open breathing space and a green environment not too far from home are some of our most humble wishes if Hong Kong is ever worth its reputation as “Asia’s World City ”. Have the funds we collectively plough into the system been put into good use by the government, developers, bankers and professionals to achieve such modest goals? Are we short-changed by those who handle our resources in all these years?


The fourth level concerns our lifestyles. Are our lifestyles in harmony with nature and with nature’s assimilative capacities? These seemingly remote questions now come back to haunt us as we suddenly realise, for instance, that the habit of eating wildlife animals can be a suicidal act; that our insistence on live poultry markets is an effective way of increasing health risks; that our reluctance to pay for environmental costs embedded in meat prices ultimately adds to our bodily chemical intake as we rely more and more on the so-called modern livestock farming methods that encourage liberal use of chemicals.


If the lifestyles we choose contravene the principles of sustainable production and consumption, who are we to blame?


The Council for Sustainable Development recently proposed this much for Hong Kong: “Our vision is for Hong Kong to be a healthy, economically vibrant and just society that respects the natural environment and values its cultural heritage. By engaging the community in the process of building a strategy for sustainable development, we aim to ensure that Hong Kong will be a city for all to share and enjoy, for this and for future generations.”


The above vision points to one critical success factor in building a sustainable society: engagement of the community in a genuine participatory process. This is also where Team Clean’s mission looks most vulnerable.


Though recognising the importance of public participation, the measures adopted by Team Clean is entirely led by the administration - the public is encouraged to participate as passive actors. There is no mechanism to empower the community to make their own decisions with dedicated resources. At the district level all decisions on implementation are to be made by District Management Committees – a government organ, with the public allowed to only watch and shout on the sidelines.


One of the principles enshrined in the Rio Declaration, a United Nations document signed by governments in the 1992 Earth Summit, stipulates that environmental decisions are best made at the lowest level possible where community members share a common interest in the outcome of the decisions.


In Hong Kong ’s case a genuine public participation process cannot succeed without corresponding institutional reforms within the government.  The archaic structure in many portfolios has become an obstacle to any improvement in operational efficiency   and eco-efficiency. Team Clean’s apparent lack of mandate to carry out institutional reforms within the government is a major threat to the sustainability of its short-term achievements.


The multiple issues arising from the SARS outbreak made this much clear: a clean city cannot solve our problems; only a sustainable city can.


Albert Lai


Chairman, The Conservancy Association


15 June 2003


 


 


2003年5月13日 星期二

Drowning in a rising sea of waste

Governments like to have us believe they are always in control. It is, therefore, unusual for them to cry out for help. Yet when the Hong Kong government tried warning us in 1998 of a looming crisis - that we would be buried by our own waste by 2015 - Hongkongers were not listening.


In a natural ecosystem there is a balance, whereby the waste from one process becomes the resources for other processes. Nothing is wasted. In a consumer society, waste is an accepted part of life. Yet even for a high-income city like Hong Kong , the luxury of dumping our waste on other people's doorsteps does not exist. We have to bear the consequences of what we produce.


By any measure, Hong Kong is a wasteful society. In 2001, we produced more than 18 million tonnes of waste, including 3.4 million tonnes of municipal solid waste and 14.2 million tonnes of construction and demolition waste. If this trend continues, the equivalent of Sha Tin - 860 hectares - will be needed for waste disposal over the next 20 years. Other options of disposal, such as incineration, are unlikely to be acceptable to the public because of the potential health and environmental risks. This explains why the government took the unusual step of ringing alarm bells by drawing up a Waste Reduction Framework Plan in 1998.


Unfortunately, all is not well with the plan. Contrary to what was intended, Hong Kong produces more waste now than five years ago. For instance, per capita domestic waste requiring disposal increased by 10 per cent, from 1.02kg per day in 1998 to 1.13kg per day in 2001. Total quantities of solid waste requiring disposal at landfill sites and public fill areas have increased by 16.5 per cent.


What has gone wrong? Should each of us be blamed for being wasteful? We can hardly deny the blame since everyone produces waste. But a more fundamental answer lies in Hong Kong 's archaic institution, which was not designed to cope with the growing problems of urban modernity. The responsibility for waste management is split largely between the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department and the Environmental Protection Department. The former is responsible for refuse collection, the latter for policy development, planning, legislative enforcement and, rather oddly, management of private contractors operating waste transfer stations, treatment plants and landfill sites. Although waste is often a marketable resource, no government department has any clear mandate for resource conservation, waste reuse or the nurturing of a recycling industry - despite all the talk of job creation.


This institutional weakness costs us dearly. The three strategic landfills cost more than $14 billion in 1989 and yet their useful life will be cut short by five to 10 years because of the failure to contain the waste increase. The annual cost for handling domestic waste alone is about $1.75 billion. With Financial Secretary Antony Leung Kam-chung crying out for extreme measures to tackle the budget deficit, one would think that cost recovery based on the polluter pays principle must be at the top of the agenda. Yet a landfill charge scheme, or plans for a tipping fee, common in most developed countries, has yet to be decided, even though Legco adopted such a concept eight years ago.


Another problem under this institutional setup is a complete neglect of ecoefficiency. Waste is wasteful. This is a simple, yet difficult, concept to grasp in a consumption-based society like ours, despite the fact the assimilative capacity of our land has been stretched beyond limits. By contrast, Canberra , Australia 's capital, has set an objective of transforming itself to a waste-free society by 2010. Although ambitious, this is backed by a waste-management strategy and the rationale that waste goes against the principle of ecologically sustainable development.


To tackle these problems head on, we need a strong institution empowered to develop a waste strategy from the perspective of ecological sustainability, to deliver efficient service without departmental fragmentation, and to use financial instruments conducive to resource conservation and cost-effective operations.


The answer is a separate waste authority, which would take up all the waste management responsibilities of the Environmental Protection Department and the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department. Control and enforcement with regard to contamination of the environment by individuals, private contractors and the authority itself should, however, stay with the Environmental Protection Department, which should get rid of any role conflict by becoming an independent regulator.


While it is not essential for the waste authority to be self-financing at the outset, subsidies should be set out in detail - the first step in persuading the public that waste is costly. As soon as the full cost is understood, there will be more support for the polluter pays principle and a stronger political will to deal with vested interests.


User charges also allow the invisible hand of the market to work for a more efficient economy. When a waste-charging scheme was implemented in South Korea in 1995, there was a 30 per cent reduction in waste disposal in Seoul and 40 per cent in small municipalities. One major benefit of removing the hidden, perverse subsidies to waste producers is to give the recycling industry a chance to flourish.


As Hong Kong wakes up to the failure of its environmental hygiene system in the midst of the Sars outbreak, we ignore the institutional weakness of the waste-management system at our peril. Without an empowered waste authority, we are putting our future at risk. 


Albert Lai Kwong-tak is chairman of the Conservancy Association.


(Originally published in South China Morning Post, 2003-5-13 )


 


 


2003年2月23日 星期日

THE CASE FOR A WATER AUTHORITY

Claiming Hong Kong has a water crisis may sound too far-fetched for many. After all, the last water restriction Hong Kong people can recall was in 1981, thanks to the supply of fresh water from Dongjiang River in Guangdong since 1965.


Yet just north of Shenzhen River – a border getting more permeable by the day, water crisis is a reality for the 5 million Shenzhen residents who suffered from water stoppage as recent as last year. By Shenzhen government's estimate, the city will face in 2010 an annual water shortage of 690 million cubic meters, only 10% less than what Hong Kong now imports from Dongjiang. For water planners who know that Hong Kong and Shenzhen share largely the same raw water source, alarm bells have rung. If this has not been the public reaction of government officials, it is a sign of institutional flaw.


The concept of a water cycle is plain to schoolchildren: from the sea to clouds to rainfall to run-off to human use then back to the environment. Though a simplified picture, experts these days agree that the best approach to manage water is to take into account of all the components of the water cycle – an approach recognised as integrated water resource management.


In the SAR government the business of the water cycle is divided among three departments: the Water Supplies Department for potable and flushing water supply, the Drainage Services Department for stormwater drainage, sewerage and sewage treatment works, and the Environmental Protection Department for sewage planning and regulatory control.


There is a pressing need for the establishment of a Water Authority to integrate all functions relevant to the water cycle. This requires a consolidation of all functions of the above three departments under one roof except that EPD should take charge of the now-segregated regulatory functions concerning discharges to the environment and set itself up as an independent regulator. This set-up will benefit eco-efficiency in resource management, operational efficiency, and public access to information and participation in decision-making.


Eco-efficiency stems from the realisation that water is a precious resource. Not only should water be wisely and equitably used now, but it should also be conserved for our future generations. Dongjiang River , now supplying over 70% of our fresh water, is not guaranteed for life. Sewage discharge from surrounding developments degrades its quality day by day; cumulative demands from fast-growing cities such as Shenzhen will soon outstrip supplies. When crises loom large, the piece of paper on which our long-term supply contract with Guangdong authorities was signed may not offer much protection.


A Water Authority with comprehensive responsibilities can be empowered to assess and harness different types of water resources for different uses, be it seawater, treated sewage or stormwater run-off. The Singapore example of recycling urban drainage and tertiary-treated effluent can be reviewed as to its appropriateness for local applications.  It can also explore the viability of, for instance, a separate distribution system for high quality drinking water derived from the relatively clean raw water in local reservoirs whilst reserving the contaminated Dongjiang water to supply the bulk of other tap water uses.  At present the hands of departmental officials are tied by the fragmented set-up.


A full-fledged Water Authority will be able to deal more effectively with its counterpart across the border – a key to Hong Kong 's sustainability. Not only must the existing long-term water purchase contract be renegotiated with great care and foresight, but the government must also find itself a meaningful role in the holistic management of the Pearl River basin . Unless a resource conservation policy is implemented on a regional basis, the livelihood and the economic miracle created by the 50 million inhabitants in the Pearl River Delta – Hongkongers included, will be endangered.


By consolidating two and a half departments into one, there is plenty of scope to deliver improved services at lower costs. Operational efficiency can be achieved at two levels: by spending capital sums more wisely through integrated planning for the water cycle and by operating existing assets with consolidated inputs.


Public access to information, participation and justice related to the environment is fundamental to the concept of sustainable development. A new Water Authority should increase operational transparency and institutionalise consensus-building mechanisms, such as public hearing and multi-stakeholder dialogue in policymaking. One notable project that suffered from past institutional weakness was the Strategic Sewage Disposal Scheme. The exclusive bureaucratic process led to public distrust and ultimately the scheme's collapse two years ago.


Hong Kong will not be a pioneer for an integrated Water Authority. Both Singapore and Shenzhen have undergone similar exercises in the last three years. We only have to learn, improve and excel on the basis of an abundance of international experience.


The case for a Water Authority is clear. Will our officials have the political will for reform?





2003年2月13日 星期四

Time for a New Citizen Process

For the last three months the heated debate on harbour reclamation has had many twists and turns. Public rallies were held; signature campaigns were launched; court battles were fought; legislators’ stands were questioned; even media heroes have come and gone. Yet one puzzle remains: the government has not made any serious attempt to respond to the rising public aspirations except to say that it is listening.


Either the public’s voice has not been loud enough or the government’s hearing aid is defective. Neither is good for Hong Kong ; even less so for a society that badly needs a consensus to move ahead.


Senior officials from the Planning Department should be commended for standing up in front of the public to explain their case for reclamation. Yet on closer examination, no official has put forward any serious data to justify their central argument for reclamation: the need for the Central-Wanchai Bypass Road . The silence of the Transport Department is particularly disconcerting.


The need for publishing new data is obvious. The government has lately promised to scrap all harbour reclamation plans except those in Central, Wanchai and South-east Kowloon . It has also promised that no commercial development will be allowed on newly reclaimed land. All this means that original traffic projections, which included those generated by the now-abandoned Western district reclamation and other commercial developments elsewhere, will no longer be valid.


It is only common sense that in such a dramatically changed scenario, a new cost-benefit analysis must be conducted with updated figures and revised projections. After all, the last feasibility study for the bypass was undertaken in 1989. Can anyone guarantee that the socio-economic assumptions made 14 years ago are still valid today? Can anyone be so cavalier as to spend $ 15 billion of taxpayers’ money without taking a closer look?


Without pre-judging whether the need for the bypass can be proven or not, there is no doubt that the public deserves more detailed information from transport officials.


The current government inaction is indicative of a bigger flaw: the lack of public participation in environmental decision-making.


Current controversies in harbour reclamation and the West Kowloon Cultural District development alike have shown that the existing public consultation process is grossly inadequate. Hong Kong people have said clear and loud that they do not wish to leave important decisions concerning their urban space entirely in the hands of government bureaucrats.


If officials are serious about upholding Mr Tung’s commitment to sustainable development in his 1999 policy speech, they would do well to familiarise themselves with Principle 10 of the Rio Declaration signed by China along with 177 countries in the 1992 Earth Summit. This is the famous Access Principle applicable to environmental policy-making: every individual’s right to have access to information, access to participation in decision-making, and access to judicial proceedings for redress and remedy.


Public consultation in its current form, coupled with a top-down approach in town planning, falls far short of the standard called for in the Rio Declaration.


Getting people involved in deciding upon their urban space is not a purist’s dream.  International examples are abound. Take, for instance, the other Victoria Harbour in the world – the harbour on Vancouver Island at the west coast of Canada . An independent, non-profit Harbour Authority was set up last year to own and manage harbour assets. The board of the Authority was made up of representatives from governments, chambers of commerce and indigenous peoples.


The public in the other Victoria Harbour is not merely consulted; the public is there to have its representatives making decisions for their environment independent of the political process. The government still plays the important role of facilitating the public’s decision-making, but is no longer the sole decision-maker.


No doubt Hong Kong shall develop its own model of governance when a Harbour Authority is set up as now demanded by many sectors. Yet a partnership approach engaging the private sector and civil society groups seems to be the only realistic chance for sustainable development.


For those of us who are wary of the divisive force that the recent controversy may inflict upon the society, the best hope is to turn people’s energy into a positive drive to develop and embrace a new and innovative mechanism for community-based urban design, public participation and consensus building.


The People’s Council for Sustainable Development, in partnership with four universities, three professional institutions and eight civil society groups, will launch a platform later this month for Hong Kong citizens to share their collective memories on the harbour, review the history of reclamation, examine constraints and opportunities, unleash their creative power and begin building a consensus through a citizen hearing process.


In Hong Kong ’s town planning history, this is an unprecedented attempt to empower people and foster participation through such a broad alliance in the third sector.


When provided with relevant information, Hong Kong people can be trusted to make wise decisions for themselves and their future generations. It is however important that all planning constraints and potential opportunities are laid out for the public in a clear and coherent manner. Civil society has taken a lead to facilitate this process but it is not too late for the government to play a constructive role by providing detailed information and participating in the process.


In the long run, whether reclamation is justified or not, whether reclaimed land should be used for road-building or for waterfront promenade alone, whether a statutory shoreline should be declared or not, will prove less important than establishing a process which truly reflects community value and truly allows the public to decide the future of their urban space.


A community planning approach with broad-based participation has a much higher chance of success in building a consensus for the way forward than the current half-hearted persuasion by an embattled government.  A successful consensus-building process will benefit everyone, including those for and against reclamation.


Albert Lai Kwong Tak


Chairman


Hong Kong People’s Council for Sustainable Development


 


 


黎廣德﹕填海爭論 因管治模式過時

作 者 為 ﹕ 長 春 社 主 席


大 多 數 填 海 工 程 , 都 是 以 應 付 交 通 需 求 為 理 據 。 填 海 得 來 的 土 地 加以 發 展 後 , 又 製 造 新 的 交 通 需 求 。 這 樣 的 惡 性 循 環 , 正 好 解 釋 維 港 為 何 在 過 往 數 十 年 不 斷 縮小 。


近 日 維 港 填 海 工 程 引 發 了 熱 烈 的 爭 論 , 儘 管 有 官 員 憂 慮 政 府 的 權 威受 到 衝 擊 , 但 長 春 社 認 為 這 事 件 正 可 為 保 護 海 港 找 出 可 持 續 發 展 的 契 機 。


長 春 社 自 1989 年 的 港 口 與 機 場 發 展 策 略及 大 都 會 計 劃 公 布 後 , 便 一 直 倡 議 最 小 幅 度 的 填 海 , 多 次 向 政 府 提 交 建 議 。 但 在 現 行 體 制 下只 能 爭 取 到 一 些 妥 協 的 方 案 。 儘 管 如 此 , 若 環 保 團 體 不 提 出 反 對 , 原 有 計 劃 對 環 境 會 造 成 更大 的 破 壞 。


填 海 為 應 付 交 通 需 求


例 如 路 政 署 在 5 年 前 起 一 直 要 求 建 造 一條 臨 時 道 路 橫 跨 愛 丁 堡 廣 場 , 本 社 一 直 孤 軍 反 對 , 否 則 見 證 殖 民 地 時 代 的 愛 丁 堡 廣 場 及 皇 后碼 頭 , 早 已 從 市 民 眼 中 消 失 了 。 如 果 今 日 中 環 第 3 期 填 海 工 程 繼續 進 行 , 它 們 亦 將 難 逃 厄 運 。


填 海 幅 度 如 何 , 最 終 應 取 決 於 社 會 大 眾 的 價 值 取 向 。 例 如 , 公 眾 是否 願 意 捨 棄 一 條 海 濱 公 路 所 帶 來 的 利 益 , 以 換 回 廣 闊 一 點 的 維 港 ﹖ 市 民 是 否 寧 要 承 受 高 一 點公 共 健 康 的 風 險 , 也 不 願 進 行 啟 德 明 渠 填 海 工 程 ﹖


每 項 填 海 工 程 進 行 與 否 , 都 應 因 應 該 項 計 劃 的 特 殊 性 及 當 時 社 會 大眾 價 值 取 向 。 最 近 的 爭 論 正 顯 示 出 用 以 衡 量 填 海 與 否 的 準 則 已 因 兩 個 因 素 發 生 重 大 轉 變 ﹕


一 、 法 院 對 保 護 海 港 條 例 的 詮 釋 較 政 府 過 往 的 理 解 遠 為 嚴 謹 ﹔


二 、 社 會 大 眾 願 意 為 保 持 海 港 完 整 付 出 更 高 的 代 價 。


政 府 及 公 民 社 會 都 有 責 任 , 採 用 新 的 準 則 以 衡 量 所 有 填 海 計 劃 。


歸 根 究 柢 , 今 次 爭 論 的 罪 魁 禍 首 是 過 時 的 管 治 模 式 。


目 前 交 通 諮 詢 委 員 會 及 城 市 規 劃 委 員 會 的 設 計 , 是 為 了 方 便 以 行 政主 導 模 式 施 政 , 多 於 讓 市 民 有 充 分 參 與 決 策 的 機 會 。 大 多 數 填 海 工 程 , 都 是 以 應 付 交 通 需 求為 理 據 。 填 海 得 來 的 土 地 加 以 發 展 後 , 又 製 造 新 的 交 通 需 求 。 這 樣 的 惡 性 循 環 , 正 好 解 釋 維港 為 何 在 過 往 數 十 年 不 斷 縮 小 。


填 海 又 製 造 新 交 通 需 求


為 了 解 決 當 前 的 爭 議 及 找 出 治 本 之 道 , 本 社 有 4 項 建 議 ﹕


一 、 不 論 法 院 作 出 任 何 裁 決 , 所 有 填 海 工 程 應 暫 時 全 面 凍 結 。 公 眾價 值 取 向 才 是 決 定 維 港 命 運 的 終 極 考 慮 。


二 、 政 府 應 委 任 一 個 由 法 官 任 主 席 的 獨 立 專 家 小 組 , 重 新 檢 討 所 有填 海 計 劃 及 其 理 據 。 整 個 檢 討 必 須 讓 公 眾 能 充 分 參 與 , 並 引 入 類 似 3 年前 策 略 性 排 污 計 劃 檢 討 所 採 用 的 公 聽 會 機 制 。


 


 


2003年1月8日 星期三

ENVIRONMENT AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT: INSTITUTIONAL REFORM NOW AN URGENT TASK

When the Conservancy Association was established thirty-five years ago, one of its early missions was to remove the serious trade waste from tanneries polluting River Indus in the northern New Territories .  After years of campaigning the government simply moved the tanneries to an industrial zone designated for polluting factories in Kwai Chung. Today the tanneries are long gone as a result of changing economics, many of them relocated across the border, and even the designated industrial zone has become part of the world’s busiest container terminal.


At the World Summit for Sustainable Development held in Johannesburg last autumn, world leaders and civic organisations alike affirmed that environmental problems should not be dealt with in isolation, but instead advocated an integrated approach taking into account of broader socio-economic needs and the well-being of future generations.


To put it simply, the remedial, problem-fixing approach of the past needs to be replaced by a forward-looking, resource management approach.


Using River Indus as an example, were the tanneries still exist it should no longer be seen as a wastewater treatment problem, but rather as an issue of water resource management How can factories use water wisely? Can wastewater be reused or recycled in a cost-effective manner? If the issue was put in the context of land resource management, the questions would be whether the economic gains of the tanneries compensate for the diminution in ecological value of the land and river and how the local communities could benefit from better land use.


Despite the fact that the framing and discussion of environmental issues is so different now from three decades ago, Hong Kong ’s institutional framework for dealing with ecology remains largely unchanged. By and large, the problems have changed and the philosophies used in tackling the problems have changed, but the problem-solvers have not.


The new perspective can be usefully applied to all environmental resources including water, air, solid waste, energy, land, biodiversity as well as other natural and cultural heritage. The number of government departments performing significant functions in this area are mind-boggling: Environmental Protection Department, Water Supplies Department, Drainage Services Department, Electrical and Mechanical Services Department, Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department, Planning Department, Lands Department and more.


For those familiar with the operation of the many government departments involved, there are other more urgent reasons to argue for major institutional reform.


The separation of functions among numerous departments often leads to confused lines of responsibility. For major projects such as the Harbour Area Treatment Scheme (previously termed Strategic Sewage Disposal Scheme), so many departments were involved during the decade-long process of feasibility study, planning, design, engineering, tendering, construction, operation and monitoring that, in the end, no single government unit took responsibility for the entire scheme. Responsible officials can often seek refuge in the bureaucratic maze when criticised. Consultants and contractors may easily take advantage of the confusion when substandard work is delivered.


A direct consequence of over-departmentalisation is inefficiency. Due to the separation of planning, implementation and execution functions, investment decisions and operational controls are often not optimised for the highest possible efficiency. This problem is evident in the management of the water cycle – artificially segregated into potable water supply, sewage treatment and drainage. Integrated water resource management, an internationally accepted approach, is simply not practicable under the current structure. This explains why wastewater reuse remained an alien concept until very recently. Given the many billions of dollars spent by these departments collectively every year, cost savings that may arise from potential efficiency gains can be substantial.


The third problem concerns role conflict. The different roles of an executing agency that plans and implements a project and a regulator that specifies performance requirements and monitors project outcomes are often merged in one department. In particular the traditional function of Environmental Protection Department as a regulator is eroded because, after many years of expansion, it now plays multiple roles in planning and execution. This happens in the areas of waste control and oversight of waste disposal contractors. The department will need exceptional courage to prosecute contractors under its own guidance and supervision when such contractors breach statutory requirements. No doubt the current arrangement is an inducement to lax control and poor execution.


Resource conservation is another victim under the existing institutional framework. Except for a partial portfolio under Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department, no department is given a clear mandate for conservation of resources such as water, waste and energy. Conservation efforts are often an after-thought in policy formulation. Lack of coordination among departments, which share fragmented responsibilities, makes matters worse. Since the Planning Department and Lands Department come under another bureau separate from the Environment, Transport and Works Bureau, which has the responsibility for nature conservation policy, any sensible conservation effort that involves changes in planning and lands policy faces an insurmountable obstacle.


One of the basic principles of sustainable development concerns public access to information and participation in policy making. The current institutional design has not allowed for the level of transparency, public accountability and consensus building necessary for sustainable development. One notable project suffering from such institutional weakness is the Strategic Sewage Disposal Scheme. Public distrust of the government’s decision-making process led to a loss of confidence and ultimately the collapse of the scheme two years ago. A high level of scepticism towards environmental policy making is also doing a disservice to the government: it finds hard to persuade the public of the merits of some worthy causes, such as the removal of perverse subsidies, the application of polluters-pay-principle or the adoption of desirable trade-offs for nature conservation.


There is one obvious answer to all these problems: a major institutional reform in the environment and resource management portfolio.


The reform should be structured on the basis of three pillars: eco-efficiency in resource management, operational efficiency in delivery and access to participation for the public. In future articles the Conservancy Association will argue for the establishment of three separate authorities: a Water Authority, a Waste Authority and a Conservation Authority, in addition to a reformed Environmental Protection Department that can act as an independent regulator.


Albert Lai Kwong Tak


Chairman, The Conservancy Association


 


 


2003年1月2日 星期四

Hong Kong can be an environmental role model for China

Sustainable development is now accepted by many as the only viable alternative to the Washington consensus - a blend of market fundamentalism fiercely promoted by the US Treasury, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank in the developing world.


In this alternative, it is recognised that the market cannot function beyond the constraints of the natural environment, and prosperity cannot be sustained without due regard for social equity and the well-being of future generations.


The question is, can Hong Kong become a role model for this next big wave?


A world city must have a global view. Being an active member of the World Trade Organisation, Hong Kong 's view of economic relations and trade is global enough. But trade is only part of the ideal - expressed at the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg in August - which can be summed up as ''People, Planet and Prosperity''.


Sustainable development stands for social cohesion and harmony - the attributes of society which seem to have eluded the SAR for the past few years. It involves a wide range of issues, from pollution and conservation to poverty, social equity, energy policy and economic growth.


The challenge is to find a way to combine these different and wide-ranging efforts.


In a policy address submission presented by the Conservancy Association to Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa, we urged the government to put sustainable development at the forefront of its policy. We believe the key lies in ''Agenda 21'', an integrated plan inspired by the Rio Earth Summit in 1992. Now that the Johannesburg conference has provided another impetus for discussing sustainable development, it is high time to engage all sectors to formulate a strategy through a local ''Agenda 21'' plan for Hong Kong .


As Hong Kong is starting late, there is no shortage of experience from other jurisdictions. Typically, ''Agenda 21'' plans include the following features: a participatory process with local citizens; a consensus on the vision of a sustainable future; plans to address economic, social and ecological needs together; the establishment of a roundtable, stakeholder group, forum or equivalent multi-sectional community group to oversee the process; an action plan with concrete long-term targets; the establishment of indicators to monitor progress; and a monitoring and reporting framework.


Partnership is the key word in the process: green groups, the government, the business sector and the local community will all have to play a part. And the key to such partnership is commitment.


In a co-operative relationship across sectors, there may be a natural inclination to expect resource-rich sectors (government and business) to provide funding to the poorer sections (green groups and the community).


While this should remain important, it should not be the only - or major - role for government and business, especially in the present economic climate.


In addition to funding, therefore, the government should agree to devote resources to effect community-building, as well as to improving public governance by making substantial institutional changes.


For the business sector, there is already a growing realisation that corporate citizenship is more than corporate giving.


One of the first steps should be a campaign to encourage the business sector to report to the public not just on its financial performance, but also on how its activities affect the environment and the community.


This way, the public - investors included - can begin to reward socially responsible companies and encourage those performing less well to change.


With a commitment to partnership, we believe many of the solutions to our problems will not be difficult to find, even though they may be unglamorous local measures.


An example from Johannesburg is the 4,000 hectare Rietvlei Nature Reserve, a wetland rehabilitation experiment combined with an ecotourism project, which served an additional function of providing employment to the underprivileged and vulnerable groups. On our part, the Conservancy Association is, among other things, developing a pilot sustainable development project in Long Valley in co-operation with local farmers. Local innovation, multi-stakeholder dialogue and an open mind are what we need to create small successes, step by step.


Within Hong Kong , the community is facing many challenges, not least the growing gap between rich and poor. The local ''Agenda 21'' process could be used to turn these challenges into opportunities and to rally the community to address our shared concerns.


What we seek from the government is not to provide all the resources or solutions, but to be a partner to provide the inspiration for the Hong Kong community to move towards the goal of a world-class model of sustainable development.


This cannot be achieved without a change of mindset: a global view of world trends, a historical perspective of our place in China and a local commitment to social equity.


With the rapid urbanisation process taking place in the mainland, it is almost certain that dozens more cities along the coast will become as big as, or larger than, Hong Kong in the next few decades. Whatever lessons Hong Kong can offer - in particular its success or failure in sustainable development, may have a profound impact on China.


Can Hong Kong catch this next big wave and leave another mark on Chinese history?


Albert Lai Kwong-tak is chairman of the Conservancy Association.


(Originally published in South China Morning Post, 2003-1-2 )