2003年2月23日 星期日


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


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 。