2004年2月26日 星期四

Hong Kong Declaration on Sustainable Development for Cities

1.                  We, the representatives of national and local governments, community groups, the scientific community, professional institutions, business, and the United Nations and other international agencies, having met at the Asia Leadership Forum on Sustainable Development for Cities, reaffirm our commitment to the goals, targets and recommendations contained in Agenda 21, the Programme for the Further Implementation of Agenda 21 and the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation.


2.                  We are keenly aware that close to one billion people in the world live in slum settlements, with 550 million of them in Asia .  We renew our commitment to achieving a significant improvement in the lives of at least 100 million slum dwellers in the world, a Millennium Development Goal reaffirmed at the World Summit on Sustainable Development.


3.                  We firmly believe that sustainable development is the key to the future of cities in the Asia-Pacific region and the world at large.  In the coming decades, population growth will occur largely in urban areas, especially in the Asia-Pacific region, which will be home to two-thirds of the world’s mega-cities.  We emphasise that national, regional and local governments, civil society groups, business and other stakeholders must redouble their efforts to meet the mounting environmental, social and economic challenges arising from the growing urbanisation trend.


4.                  In an era of accelerating globalisation, cities are confronted with both challenges and opportunities.  More than ever, cities represent the nexus of commerce, industry, finance, culture, transport and communication, possessing the potential for connecting all areas, rural and urban, and all segments of society, into a productive force conducive to a fair, equitable and sustainable globalisation and urbanisation.


5.                  We have heard inspiring examples of cities in the region playing a leadership role in securing the economic, social and environmental dimensions of sustainable development. We are convinced, therefore, of the need to enhance collaboration between cities, including capacity development initiatives, and to encourage the exchange of experiences and lessons learned between cities of the Asia-Pacific region. In this context, we underline the contribution to sustainable development of networks between cities, as well as the potential for new networking opportunities in the region.


6.                  By focusing on integrating sustainable development into city and regional planning and identifying new mechanisms for implementing sustainable development measures, we have agreed upon a range of policy measures and actions as set out below.  It is our shared belief that these measures and actions, implemented in a spirit of partnership, including partnerships among cities, and through a participatory approach, will take us forward in our common journey toward a sustainable future.


Leadership and urban governance


7.                  As centres of civilisation and engines of economic growth, cities often embody both the hub of human creativity and energy.  We call for the implementation of a long-term sustainable city vision that integrates the economic, social and environmental needs of cities and that puts the livelihood of citizens at the heart of urban development strategies.  In this context we underscore the crucial role of integrated urban and regional planning, drawing upon the best scientific knowledge and information available.


8.                  We underline the importance of community engagement and involvement in sustainable development at the local level. We realise that appropriate urban governance is essential to the quality of life in cities.  We recognise the need to find appropriate means to empower cities, within the context of each country’s circumstances, to deal with the sustainable development challenges facing them, including through capacity development. We believe that in order to meet sustainability challenges, local governments need to re-define their roles by providing an enabling local environment, promoting ethical conduct, transparency and accountability in city administration, fighting corruption and encouraging participation of citizens in policy discussion, decision-making and implementation, and raising awareness of sustainable development through education, taking into account the national and local circumstances. We underscore a functioning legal system as an essential component of effective urban governance and as a solid foundation for ensuring citizen participation.


9.                  We call for a renewed emphasis on local leadership in building sustainable cities, with a particular emphasis on empowering women and on increasing women’s role in local leadership. We also call on cities to place people at the heart of development and to involve youth and the elderly in sustainable development programmes and activities.


10.              Aware of the impact of SARS and avian bird flu on cities in the Asia-Pacific, we underline the importance of public health systems to the sustainable development of cities in the region. We emphasize the importance preparation of disaster management strategies to cope with both man-made and natural disasters. We also recognise that cities in the Asia-Pacific are vulnerable to the long-term effects of harmful climate change and call on the international community to support the development of regional and local adaptation and mitigation plans and strategies.


11.              Sustainable cities could establish procurement partnerships to create economies of scale for innovative technologies, such as hybrid and fuel cell buses, photovoltaic systems, and wastewater treatment systems.


Economic growth and job creation


12.              In the Asia-Pacific region, as in many other regions, cities are the nerve centres of national economies, as well as locations of wider economic disparity and concentrated poverty and unemployment.  We call for specific measures to promote growth in both formal and informal sectors and to implement employment strategies for the poor and vulnerable groups.


13.              The diverse and rich experiences in the Asia-Pacific region offer important lessons on how to stimulate urban economic growth.  We call for strengthened collaboration among local governments and local authorities in the region by sharing experience, best practices, and lessons learned and by identifying obstacles and constraints to progress.  We urge both national and local governments to work together by initiating and targeting policy reforms, as appropriate, at removing barriers to sustainable urban development. 


14.              We call upon national and local governments to undertake common endeavours, with international support, to improve the infrastructures required for sustained economic growth, in such areas as power, transport and communications, including information and communication technologies, as well as in financial and technical services and human resources.  In this regard, we highlight the potential contributions of inter-city cooperation and collaboration, especially in infrastructural projects of regional impact.


15.              We urge national and local governments to intensify efforts to develop, adapt and adopt advanced and appropriate technologies, including environment-friendly technologies that offer new opportunities for more efficient use of natural resources, more sustainable industrial practices and new sources of employment.


16.              We call upon the international community to promote and facilitate the transfer of environmentally sound technology and expertise in support of local governments in their implementation of sustainable urban development plans and strategies. We further urge the international community to provide financial support to developing countries, with a view, inter alia, to assist cities in these countries to achieve their sustainable development goals.


17.              We stress the importance of public-private partnerships in tapping the potentials of urban economy and in creating income-generating opportunities, and the importance of putting in place participatory processes for stakeholders so that community values and interests, inter alia, can be reflected in planning and implementation, taking into account national and local circumstances. We encourage local governments, in the context of specific local needs and conditions, to put in place policy frameworks for enhancing the competitiveness of the local economy and for facilitating investments and business expansion, including through the establishment of special economic zones, eco-science and industrial parks.


18.              We call for renewed efforts to promote small- and medium-sized enterprises by adopting appropriate and favourable fiscal and financial incentives and by providing technical support services that are currently beyond the reach of such enterprises. We urge local governments and local authorities to make consistent efforts to assist informal sector enterprises and to progressively integrate them into the formal economy.


Planning a better environment for urban housing and land use


19.              With urban population in the Asia-Pacific region totalling 1.4 billion and expected to rise to 2 billion by 2020, cities have to tackle the daunting challenge of providing adequate and affordable housing for all.  We reiterate that every human being has the right to adequate housing, which is essential to an adequate standard of living. We call upon national and local governments to provide for legal security of tenure, equal access to land and effective protection from forced evictions contrary to the law.


20.              We emphasise the need to integrate urban housing with economic, social, environmental, demographic and other relevant policies and for engaging the efforts of national and local governments, business sector, non-governmental organisations, community-based groups and other relevant stakeholders in achieving sustainable human settlements. We underline the importance of community involvement and discussion in the planning process.


21.              We call upon national and local governments to adopt measures aimed at ensuring that women, children, elderly people and other vulnerable groups be given special consideration and protection in housing policy.  We urge national and local governments to take specific steps at all levels to ensure that persons with disabilities have access to public buildings and facilities, public housing and public transport systems.


22.              We urge national and local governments to implement an integrated approach to land use, urban planning and management, taking into consideration housing needs, access to transport by the poor and vulnerable, employment opportunities, environmental conditions and community facilities.


Meeting basic social services


23.              Provision of basic social services, which include not only access to modern energy services, transportation, safe drinking water, sewerage coverage, but also health care, education and other essential services, is a fundamental responsibility of national and local governments.  We call upon governments at all levels, including local authorities, to adopt an integrated approach to provision of basic social services to all, taking into account the links between water, sanitation and health, between urban economic growth and environmental protection.


24.              We stress importance of access to basic education as a fundamental right. We recognise the critical role of education to achieve social and economic development, especially in the transition to a knowledge-based economy. At the same time, we emphasise the need to ensure social inclusiveness and a commitment to skills upgrading and continued learning.


25.              We fully recognise the urgent need for tackling worsening air and water pollution problems in the region and their implications for public health.  We commit ourselves to regional and global cooperation to effectively deal with any other emerging public health challenges. 


26.              We further emphasise the need for harmonizing land-use planning and housing policies, including slum upgrading policy, with water, sanitation, health care, environmental protection and education policies to ensure an integrated and coherent approach to adequate provision of basic social services to all, especially the poor and vulnerable groups.


27.              We encourage national and local governments to promote partnerships with civil society, community-based groups, business and other stakeholders to facilitate their contributions to the provision of reliable, affordable, economically viable basic social services, within the context of their national and local circumstances.


Increasing mobility


28.              Urban transportation is a major challenge facing local governments in the Asia-Pacific region.  The transportation sector has great impact on energy consumption, land use, pollution, economic growth, mobility, and quality of life.  We urge national and local governments in the region to implement integrated transport and land use policy that addresses transportation priorities in the overall context of urban and regional planning and economic activities, taking into account the potential for shortening travel distance and reducing travel demand.


29.              Sustainable urban transport must be implemented in a way that, first and foremost, addresses the social and economic marginalisation of the poor and vulnerable groups. We emphasize the importance of fully addressing the needs of people living in slum settlements and the special needs of women, children, the elderly and the handicapped persons.


30.              We encourage national and local governments to put in place a combination of modes of transport, including walking, cycling, mass transit systems and private automobiles, that reduces energy consumption and negative environmental impacts, while improving accessibility for all, through, inter alia, the development and adoption of environmentally sound technologies, supported by appropriate regulatory and incentive policies.


Tourism and cultural heritage


31.              With a rich cultural heritage, the Asia-Pacific region is a global tourist destination that is witnessing growing numbers of visitors.  Tourism has become an important business sector and revenue source for many cities.  We encourage national and local governments to promote sustainable tourism, protect the rich cultural heritage of this region, and enhance mutual understanding and friendship among the communities of nations through awareness-building activities among both local residents and tourists to highlight the historical significance of such heritage.


32.              We urge national and local governments to maintain and conserve the natural, historical, and cultural diversity and heritage of the region, including its intangible heritage.  We stress the urgent need of preserving historical urban settlement and landscape forms, through appropriate legal frameworks and financial and technical support aimed at conservation and rehabilitation activities.


33.              We call upon national and local governments to integrate heritage protection, conservation and rehabilitation into current and future urban development, at both the planning and implementation stages.  We emphasize that cultural identities of cities are not only a national asset with great cultural and economic significance; they are also an essential element of sustainable development at all levels.


34.              We call upon and support national and local governments to adopt a holistic approach to heritage protection by integrating conservation activities with urban development and tourism and by supporting public and private initiatives and action for rejuvenating and conserving historical neighbourhoods and sites while creating jobs and services and income-generating opportunities.


We express our gratitude to the Government of the People’s Republic of China and the United Nations for successfully convening the Forum and to the Government and people of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China for the hospitality and warm welcome extended to all participants.  Finally, we pledge to work in determined and concerted action to ensure that all cities in the Asia-Pacific region and across the world will have a sustainable future.


Adopted at the at the Asia and Pacific Leadership Forum on Sustainable Development for Cities, Hong Kong SAR, China , 26 February 2004


 


 


2004年2月13日 星期五

Re-defining Public Interest: Institution Building for PPPs

(Address in United Nations Asia Pacific Leadership Forum, Hong Kong SAR, 25-26 February 2004)


By Albert Lai , Chairman, Hong Kong People’s Council for Sustainable Development and Managing Director, The China Water Company Limited


 


Limitations of Traditional Approaches


 


Infrastructure projects require the deployment of public resource. Hence they are always promoted in the name of public interest. But what exactly is “public interest”? Typically governments deal with this question through either one of the two approaches, which sit on the opposite ends of a spectrum.


 


The first approach is to apply traditional evaluation tools such as cost-benefit analysis, discounted cash flow analysis or internal rate of return estimates to assess whether a project is feasible. However in the context of sustainable development the limitations of these tools are obvious. For instance, how can these tools be applied to the impact on climate change? How much value should we place on conservation of water resource for future generations which may require certain sacrifice by this generation? How can we quantify the value of social equity or inequity a project may bring to the local population? Despite the hard work of many economists these traditional tools are still grossly inadequate to cope with the social and environmental dimensions that the pursuit of sustainable development now demands.


 


Hence some governments turn to the second approach: since there are so many intangibles involved in the evaluation of an infrastructure project, why not simply apply a political judgement to what the society needs? After all, many social costs and benefits are long-term, value-dependent and hard to quantify. Who can argue that politicians or governments are not in the best position to make those judgements? Indeed, this is not an uncommon approach adopted by many governments under the pretence of rational analysis. Last October the Chinese Minister of Construction Wang Guangtao, when speaking at the “Human habitat award” ceremony, warned against the huge wastage involved in so-called “Image Projects” undertaken by many local governments. His warning is a testimony to the potential pitfall of this “political judgement” approach to decision-making. Much too often it is a recipe for white elephants.


 


Let us now turn to two recent case studies.


 


Case Study 1: Water Infrastructure in Qitaihe City , China


 


Three years ago in Qitaihe, a medium-sized city in northeast China , the government was planning to upgrade its water supply system, including the construction of a new water treatment plant with a capacity of 100,000 cubic meters per day. Historically its water tariff had been set below the cost-recovery level and hence it badly needed external funding. Its challenge was how to attract sufficient investment of nearly RMB 200 million for the project. Yet no investor would put his money into the project were the water tariff not raised above at least the cost-recovery level, which would be 50% above the prevailing tariff.


 


For its urban population of around 440,000, less than one-third was connected to the central water supply system of the local water company. Half of the population was supplied by another system operated by the Coal Mining Bureau. Still around 80,000 residents living at the city fringes were not connected. They had to depend on expensive but unreliable water vendors, some of which still used donkeys to cart water in reminiscent of an age-old practice. These communities, though often much poorer, paid over RMB10 per tonne of water, about ten times what the connected residents paid to the water company.


 


It is clear that the public interests as perceived by the city centre community and the fringe community are markedly different. The wealthier community with existing water connections would prefer to enjoy continuously low water tariff, albeit with implicit government subsidy, whereas the fringe community would prefer the government to increase the water tariff charged by the local water company, so as to raise sufficient funds to invest in new pipeline network and hence connect them to the central water supply system. Since the city applied an unified water tariff system for all connected residents, the fringe communities, when connected, would be able to enjoy central water supply with more reliable service and a water tariff still seven times below what they were paying to the water vendors.


 


From the government’s perspective, its primary concern was political affordability – whether any increase in tariff would dent too much of its popularity. Its leadership was however also motivated by the political credos it might get by attracting foreign investors to the city. With regard to this infrastructure project there were at least three sets of ‘public interest’ demanding to be heard.


 


Case Study 2: Harbour Reclamation in Hong Kong


 


Now look at a current case in Hong Kong – the controversial harbour reclamation saga.


 


Hong Kong government planners traditionally see the harbour as a “plain of no resistance”. Unlike existing urban areas, once a portion of the harbour is reclaimed the government acquires automatic ownership, allowing it maximum freedom for urban planning and providing it with an immediate source of direct or indirect revenue. For public officials charged with the duty of solving traffic congestions building roads on newly reclaimed land is also the least-resistance solution. Faced with public demand for cost cutting the engineering work generated from the reclamation and other related infrastructure projects also provides an useful defence against job redundancy within many government departments.


 


From the business sector’s perspective its concerns range from contract opportunities, potential development profits, tourism attractions, to economic stimulus in general. Of course different businesses and different developers will enjoy or suffer from different cost-benefit profiles depending on the specific location and zoning of proposed reclamation.


 


On the other hand, civil society groups perceive another diverse set of public interest: protecting the environment, conserving the harbour area for future generations, improving water quality, providing opportunities to re-design the harbour front, enhancing public accessibility, increasing amenity value for disadvantaged communities, or finding sustainable solution to traffic congestions.


 


Public Interest is Public Process


 


The lessons from both cases are evident. Whilst each stakeholder can lay claim to a subset of public interest, no stakeholder, governments included, can monopolise public interest in its entirety. Neither the first “economic analysis” approach, nor the second “political judgement” approach is able to fully determine the complexity of public interest behind a project.


 


The answer is to put in place a public participatory process, backed by professional analysis, to determine the genuine public interest behind any infrastructure project. Public interest is none other than the informed consensus emerged from a legitimate, widely accepted process by all stakeholders. In short, public interest is public process.


 


The ‘public interest’ justification is only as valid as the quality of the public process per se. A poor process, or the lack of a legitimate process, demolishes the ‘public interest’ argument behind any allocation of public resource.


 


Over the last decade many cities around the world have applied sustainable development principles to their decision-making processes in strategic development. In all over 6400 cities have developed Local Agenda 21. It is now time to apply this pool of experience to the decision-making processes of major infrastructure works. The most optimal process for any particular community will of course vary from country to country, from city to city. However, a set of best practice distilled from worldwide experience has been well established and they contain some common principles related to participation, legitimacy, accountability, ownership, flexibility, equity, transparency, effectiveness, good governance and a host of other values. Learning to apply these principles will likely improve the quality of infrastructure projects, and ultimately lead to better quality of life for city-dwellers.


 


Nature of Public Private Partnership


 


Public-private partnerships (‘PPP’) are viewed by many as a means to delivering more infrastructures with less public funds. Recent experience has shown that this model can only succeed under a specific set of conditions. To understand its limitations we must first understand the nature of PPP.


 


Despite the glossy label, PPP is in essence a contractual arrangement between a government and a business enterprise. In an era of globalisation where all governments compete with each other for market-friendliness, this government-business relationship can sometimes be too cosy for comfort.


 


The other feature of PPP is that the contractual arrangement invariably extends over a long time span involving significant resources of the community. As external social or market conditions are bound to change, few contractual arrangements can stand the test of time without re-negotiation or re-structuring prior to the end of the project cycle.


 


The third notable feature in PPP is the unusual change of the government’s role from an umpire to a player, as it becomes a party to the contract, rather than a rule-setter or regulator in most other areas of governance. Most governments and government officials are not used to such change, as it requires a different mindset and a different skillset.


 


Applying SD Principles to PPP


 


Sustainable development will not succeed without the integrated effort of government, business and civil society. It is easy to note that there is a missing partner in PPP – the public as represented by civil society institutions. Just as we have seen in the previous analysis a missing partner will not only distort the representation of public interest but will also make the arrangements inherently unstable because of the lack of legitimacy.


 


From experience worldwide two remedial measures have been proven to work. The first is to establish a platform for civil society groups to participate as partners from project planning to contract negotiation. This way community values can be reflected in the contractual arrangements between government and business. Not only is public interest safeguarded, wider public acceptance will also ensure smoother project execution.


 


The other measure is to set up an independent, ongoing institution to adjudicate between public interest and commercial interest. As external conditions change, the need for an umpire is inevitable. It is neither fair nor conducive to business confidence for the government to suddenly switch back from a player to an umpire role when circumstances require. In the water industry, the Office of Water Services in the U.K. and a similar regulator in Chile are good examples of such institutions. In China the mandatory use of public hearing processes in setting water tariff is also a step in the same direction.


 


From the private sector perspective, in particular for companies conscious of corporate social responsibility, the key to any PPP is not to make profit in one-off cosy deals, but to profit from efficiency gains in a stable environment. Public participatory processes at the planning stage and an ongoing, independent institution capable of taking longer-term perspective than governments normally do will certainly be conducive to a stable environment.


 


 


 Concluding Remark


 


To quote Principle 7 of the Melbourne Principles for Sustainable Cities: Empower people and foster participation.


 


“The journey towards sustainability requires broadly based support. Empowering people mobilises local knowledge and resources and enlists the support and active participation of all who need to be involved in all stages, from long-term planning to implementation of sustainable solutions.”


 


In order for city-dwellers to enjoy better quality of life, let us not be shy to put this into practice in all major infrastructure works.