灣仔繞道：尊重專業加快發展

(刋於明報2008年4月3日)

在二零零四年三月，終審庭完成審理兩埸維港填海的官司：保護海港協會在灣仔填海的司法覆核中勝訴，政府必須重新證明填海有「凌駕性公眾需要」始何開展；而政府則在中環填海的官司勝訴，工程得以繼續進行。但更重要的卻是終審庭法官的一番忠告：「法庭不是總城市規劃師」，設計理想維港海濱的工作不能倚賴法庭進行。

在二零零四年四月，由十六個組織（包括大學、環保團體和專業學會）所組成的「想創維港」聯盟在籌備了半年、組織了多次想創坊和公民聽證會等公眾參與維港設計活動後正式成立，旨在協助政府推動維港的可持續發展。我們非常焦急，催促政府成立一個持份者圓卓會的新機制，否則一日未能證明灣仔填海有凌駕性公眾需要，工程就多拖延一天。

官民共建新機制

「想創維港」的代表與當時主管規劃的常務秘書長林鄭月娥協商，結果大家同意成立「共建維港委員會」。雖然委員會只屬諮詢性質，但須明確由非官方成員出任主席，由關注團體委派代表，並正式肩負起推動公眾參與的職責，以符合法庭要求的「凌駕性公眾需要」測試。

很不幸，四年後的今天，政府又再輸掉官司，陷入另一次拖慢發展的危機當中。

其實從二零零五年初起，「共建維港委員會」就中環至灣仔繞道工程開始邀請公眾參與規劃。「想創維港」和多個團體的成員均不遺餘力，協助政府部門用既淺白又深入的方式向公眾解釋不同工程方案的利弊，邀請工程師為市民解碼，提供實物模型，召開多埸不同形式的公眾活動，協助社區制定一套「可持續發展指標」，用以系統地評價每一個方案的優劣。這是一套雖非十全十美，卻相當嚴謹的程序，以便最終的方案不但能取得大多數持份者的支持，更可以在公眾參與過程中累積了足夠的紀錄，以備在需要時向法庭證明本工程已經符合「凌駕性公眾需要」測試。

經過了兩年的努力，終於產生了一個大多數持份者都認同的最佳方案，同意繞道從灣仔會展至銅鑼灣避風塘的一段以隧道形式建成，因此將填海面積減低至約十三公頃。

心存僥倖拖慢工程

直至去年七月政府將工程刊憲，文件才披露原來需要額外「臨時」填海10.7公頃，其中包括並非興建隧道工程所必需的2.4公頃新防坡堤工程。法庭判定填海不能區分「永久」或「臨時」，均必須通過「凌駕性公眾需要」測試，因此政府敗訴。

其實，無論是政府工程部門或顧問公司，均早已有設計方案，明白隧道工程必會涉及臨時填海。只要在公眾參與過程中將資料充份披露，定會獲得持份者的理解和支持，官司亦根本不會發生。為甚麼決策局的高層官員拒絕尊重專業工程師的意見，心存僥倖，以至落得今天延誤發展的下埸，更浪費了無數專家學者和民間團體多年來協助政府推動公眾參與的心力？那一位官員應該問責？

尊重專業加快發展

當務之急，政府應該果斷採取三項措施：

一、宣佈放棄上訴，馬上利用「共建維港委員會」作為現成的平台向公眾解釋臨時填海的不同方案，務求在三至六個月內完成「凌駕性公眾需要」測試，使工程得以符合市民期望，儘快展開。

二、制定方案以平衡三條過海隧道的流量，並且提早落實港島北岸的電子道路收費計劃。正如可持續發展委員會最近的報告指出，大多數市民贊成實施電子道路收費以減低路邊空氣污染，因此毋須等待繞道完成後才實行。

三、加快建設由上環經銅鑼灣至北角的架空行人走道和海濱長廊，並探討如何採用行人運輸帶等新方式，使維港南岸成為步行之都，符合「低碳發展」的國際潮流。

尊重專業分析，謙卑聆聽民意。甚麼時候我們的政府才會學懂？

 

淨化維港加速發展決心何在﹖

(原載於 明報　2007-4-16  C12頁)

廖秀冬局長在4 月12 日撰文，表示「海淨河清，指日可待」，政府決心改善維港目前令人難以接受的水質污染，使市民在2014 年可以開始再次進行渡海泳。政府若真心改變過往軟弱無力的取態，對付環境污染，固然值得慶幸。但是細看廖局長的立論，卻使人憂慮政府口不對心。

淨化海港計劃（前稱策略性污水排放計劃）早於1989 年展開，其間工程多番延誤，拖延達18 年之久，至今仍未完成。

政府在2000 年委任國際專家小組進行檢討。專家小組建議，香港應盡快與國際先進標準看齊，採用生物脫氮技術進行徹底處理。

政府目前建議落實的淨化海港計劃第二期甲工程，僅僅是收集維港一帶未經處理的污水，經化學強化一級污水處理，再加入氯氣消毒。至於是否按照專家小組的建議，採用生物污水處理技術（即第二期乙工程），政府表示須留待2010/11 年始行檢討。

廖局長的取態，有兩點令人大惑不解。

第一點是政府執意以環境惡化為籌碼脅迫立法會馬上增加排污費：若立法會不通過增加未來10 年的排污費，政府將押後申請撥款興建第二期甲工程，維港水質亦不會獲得改善。

廖局長取態令人大惑不解

這種取態是等於政府明知交通道路網不敷應用引起大塞車，卻向市民表示除非開徵電子道路收費，否則不會興建道路紓緩塞車。政府在處理交通問題時從不斤斤計較，但為什麼處理環境污染時非要把收費與投資綑綁在一起？

污染者付費的原則應當支持，但是第二期甲工程最快也只會在2014 年啟用，為何政府急於在今年起增加排污費？是否屈服於政府的脅迫而增加排污費已變成立法會各黨派的道德考驗：若立法會同意一次性增加未來10 年的排污費，但政府卻一如既往、拖慢工程投資，立法會屆時如何向市民交代？

第二點令人疑惑的是：政府不願意按照專家建議馬上進行第二期乙的生物處理工程，卻表示2014 年後維港水質可以舉行渡海泳。

根據環保署委託顧問進行的水質模型推算，若只落實第二期甲工程，維港及附近一帶水域的污染物，尤其是溶解氧和氨含量，將會在2013 年超出水質標準。政府現在只承諾於2010/11 年才檢討如何進行第二期乙工程，但這項工程規劃動輒需時再多7 年。換句話說，不論屆時維港污水量會否因人口增長放慢而減少，2013 年後維港水質仍有長時間超標的風險。渡海泳是否一張空頭支票？

落實生物污水處理是徹底改善維港水質的唯一辦法。生物處理不但能讓香港追上已經落後於澳門和內地城市的標準、肩負起應有的地區性環境責任，亦可以避免在第二期甲工程內使用大量的加氯消毒，減低破壞維港生態環境的風險。

政府單在今年已經坐擁551 億財政盈餘，如果同時落實第二期甲和第二期乙工程，亦只需為淨化海港計劃在未來10 年內每年投資約20 億。

政府顯然有足夠的資源和技術，一次過開展整項工程。為什麼仍然拖拖拉拉呢？

據悉、分階段開展工程的決定是行政會議在2003 年沙士事件後拍板的。當時政府由於財政緊絀，作出這樣的決定尚屬情有可原。事到如今，是否處事官員不敢向行政會議要求翻案，重新因應目前政府豐厚的財政狀和市民對環境質素的期望而加大投資？

曾特首能否兌現加快發展的承諾？這項有利環境、創造就業的基建便是最好的試金石。

 

VICTORIA HARBOUR It takes a team to build a new waterfront

 After months of silence, the controversy over harbour reclamation emerged again last month. Oddly, the issue this time is not reclamation itself, but whether the information issued for public consultation by the Harbourfront Enhancement Committee taskforce is merely another government attempt to push through its own agenda.

To assess whether this claim holds any water, it is first necessary to understand the make-up of the committee; a unique institution which straddles the government and the community at large.

In October 2003, when the reclamation controversy was at its peak, 16 civic organisations, including universities, professional bodies, environmental and community groups, got together under a new coalition - Citizen Envisioning @ Harbour. The coalition's preferred solution was to set up a harbour round table, whereby all stakeholders, including the government, business and civil society could gather on an equal footing, and set up an impartial platform for the public to develop a consensus for the way forward.

At that time, it proved too drastic a move for the government. Instead, it was agreed that the Harbourfront Enhancement Committee would be a compromise solution - an advisory committee within the government structure but with an independent chairman, a majority of nominated representatives from different concern groups, and relevant officials, all having equal status. It was an attempt, however imperfect, for a genuine tripartite partnership.

Over the past 10 months, members have worked hard to iron out their differences as they set about devising a model for public discussion. Integrated planning principles were debated for months, and an agreement is close. A fresh planning review for Kai Tak began four months ago. A harbourfront enhancement review for Wan Chai and its adjoining areas has just begun in earnest. More are in the pipeline.

The challenge should not be underestimated. Two committee members, Alvin Kwok Ngai-kuen and Ng Mee-kam, said the cultural gap was so wide that the officials had a different vocabulary from the other members: consultation versus engagement; top-down versus bottom-up; solution versus process; and clients versus stakeholders. The level of trust in the public also differs widely: officials prefer to stay within the safe haven of expert advice, whereas other members have more faith in the public to deliver innovative solutions.

With such a daunting challenge, can the committee fulfill its mission of engaging the public, building a consensus and delivering to Hong Kong a vibrant, accessible and sustainable harbour for all? As yet, no one has the answer. We do know, however, that the chances of success will be enhanced with practical changes in three areas.

First, the committee's internal working arrangements must be revamped to allow it to function as a co-ordinated body with equal contributions from all members. Essential measures would include giving all members independent secretariat support, equal access to information, and resources to undertake impartial research.

Second, it must empower the public with impartial, digestible and unfiltered information. In this regard, officials have an extra responsibility to ensure that their "wish list" and perceived "constraints list" are laid bare for the public to debate.

Last, the community should respond to the committee's call with a new mindset. Now that a platform is being set for genuine public engagement, it will be up to all stakeholders to not just participate in the process, but also to help improve it. The committee process is worth our support not because it is perfect, but because it may bring about significant community benefits if given the chance to succeed.

Albert Lai Kwong-tak is convenor of Citizen Envisioning @ Harbour.

 

 

 

Let the people decide

(Originally published in South China Morning Post, 2004-5-14 )

The inauguration of the Harbourfront Enhancement Committee last week is symbolic of Hong Kong at a crossroads. It can either withdraw into the old habit of closed-door trade-offs among vested interests, or embrace the new path of open and community-based partnerships. Nothing is certain at this stage and much is at stake.

On the face of it, the committee is no small triumph for the government. After more than a year of legal battles and a series of protests against the Central and Wan Chai reclamation, it has succeeded in persuading nearly all opposition groups and those concerned about the harbour to join after winning the latest court battle on the Central reclamation scheme.

Despite continuing, albeit dwindling, public protests against reclamation, many sceptics claim that the establishment of the committee signals the end of a civic movement because most of this energy will now be absorbed into a government institution which is only advisory in nature. Such cynicism is understandable, as it is an age-old government tactic to absorb opposition voices into its bureaucratic maze, but change nothing in the end.

However, optimists believe a new path will be taken this time, for two reasons. First, public hopes have been built up during the past year, so that institutional change is now a necessity, not an option. Second, a number of officials have begun to appreciate that embracing changes is the only way to a smoother administration and better governance. These two factors alone, however, are no guarantee of a more promising future.

In the first Harbourfront Enhancement Committee meeting last week, there were three seemingly small, but important, breakthroughs initiated by civil society members. The first was an expansion of the committee's terms of reference. Transport and infrastructure are now explicitly listed as areas that it may cover. Given the current pitfalls of transport-led planning and the sensitivity of who makes the decisions among policy bureaus, this is not an insignificant step. The second breakthrough is the adoption of sustainable development principles, while the third is an open and transparent mode of operation from the very first meeting.

The committee's most urgent task is to review transport and land-use planning along the harbourfront, from Central to Causeway Bay . The work is being carried out by the Territorial Development Department, with the help of engineering consultants. If past practice is any guide, the committee will only be invited to comment on the findings at the conclusion of each stage of the review. A final decision on any outcome of the review will be made by the government.

The legitimacy of the committee does not rest on the representativeness of its members, but on the undertaking that it will champion a broad-based public participatory process as an integral part of decision-making. This requires officials to work with the public, through the committee, in an honest, transparent and whole-hearted manner.

In order to make strategic decisions that reflect community values, there is only one legitimate decision-maker: the public, via a widely accepted, broad-based participatory process. The government's rightful role is, therefore, to assist the public in making an informed decision. If a partnership between the government, the Harbourfront Enhancement Committee and civil society cannot be established, Hong Kong will miss the chance to build a long-overdue institution for public policymaking.

Albert Lai Kwong-tak is chairman of Hong Kong People's Council for Sustainable Development and a member of Citizen Envisioning @ Harbour.

 

 

Stop fighting, start talking

(Originally published in South China Morning Post, 2004-3-27 )

Have Hong Kong people lost the most important legal battle over environmental protection since green groups fought to save Sha Lo Tung valley, more than a decade ago, and Long Valley in 2000? This was the question on many people's mind when two weeks ago the courts allowed the government to proceed with the third phase of the Central reclamation project.

On close examination, some important lessons have been learned from the controversy, and Hong Kong can only win if the people's energy from the anti-reclamation campaign can be channelled into a pro-harbour institution-building process.

Three developments have become apparent. First, thanks to years of relentless efforts by green groups to put environmental protection on the mainstream agenda, and the heated debate in the media in recent months, the public has a much-heightened awareness of the importance of Victoria Harbour as a precious asset for this and future generations.

Second, the court battle launched by the Society for Protection of the Harbour has succeeded in extracting a more stringent interpretation of the Harbour Protection Ordinance. The Court of Final Appeal now requires that an overriding public needs test must be satisfied before any future reclamation work can proceed.

Third, a diverse coalition, Citizen Envisioning @ Harbour, comprising 16 organisations from universities, professional bodies, environmental, social service and community groups has been formed. Valuable social capital was built through this coalition after it launched an innovative public participatory process involving exhibitions, hearings and round-table meetings in October.

However, to benefit fully from these positive developments, we must be realistic about what constraints we are facing - the first of which is the limitation of the courts.

A court can clarify certain ground rules, but it cannot help us design a world-class harbour, nor can it put in place a plan for sustainable development. Court battles also use a lot of public resources. Therefore, we must ask: given the urgency to find the best solution for our harbour, is a further court battle the best way to use public resources and public energy? A level-headed observer will conclude that the costs far outweigh the potential benefits.

This is not to say that the mission to protect the harbour has been accomplished. Far from it, this is just the beginning; a chance to make some fundamental changes, including setting up new institutions, implementing sustainable development principles, amending the Town Planning Ordinance, and reviewing the chief executive's role in the ordinance. The most productive way to achieve this is for all stakeholders to embark on a consensus-building process and collectively improve the system.

A new institution is needed to take the momentum forward. The best option is to set up a multi-stakeholder Harbour Round Table, comprising equal numbers from the government, business sector and civil society.

It should have two clear missions. First, it should champion an integrated approach to the sustainable development of the harbour district, taking into account the principles enshrined in Agenda 21, the United Nations document endorsed by China , with 177 other countries, at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992.

Second, it should champion an impartial public participatory process for planning and developing the harbour, with particular reference to Principle 10 of the Rio Declaration, which emphasises the public's access to information, and participation in decision making.

It should operate in parallel with the statutory planning process, providing public input and reflecting community value in all zoning plans considered by the Town Planning Board. To succeed, there must be active participation from all relevant government bureaus and departments, in particular the Environment, Transport and Works departments. Although without executive power, the Harbour Round Table would serve one important function: to satisfy the overriding public needs test.

The government has announced its intention to set up a Harbour Front Advancement Advisory Committee. But given the traditional model of advisory committees, this is a grossly inadequate response. More innovation, greater independence and a broader mandate are needed.

For Hong Kong to achieve sustainable development, the only choice is for government, business and the public to work together. Of course, there are big differences among the various sectors. But the experiences from the more than 6,400 cities which adopted Agenda 21 programmes have shown that society can move towards sustainable development, provided there is an institution which allows open, inclusive public participation and encourages a wide perspective in decision-making. The movement started by Citizen Envisioning @ Harbour six months ago has demonstrated that a solution is possible.

Instead of using our precious harbour as a centre of dispute, why not focus on putting in place a world-class planning process for a world-class harbour?

Albert Lai Kwong-tak is chairman of Hong Kong People's Council for Sustainable Development and spokesman of Citizen Envisioning @ Harbour.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

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.

 

 

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 。