社會公義：新興的發展議題

「民主、法制是社會和諧的基礎。如果一個社會的財富只集中在少數人手裏，那是不公道的，也是不會持久的，社會也不會穩定。要實現社會公義，就要把社會公義提到制度上來看待。」 說這話的不是一個社會運動街頭鬥士，而是在本月走訪日韓的溫家寶總理。

儘管香港與中國內地平均的經濟發展水平並不一致，但弔詭的是：在全球一體化格局下，我們同樣面對嚴峻的貧富差距和社會不公的問題。

更加弔詭的是：溫總理明確指出必須通過制度改革來解決社會公義的問題。曾特首卻在上月的特首辯論中語帶激憤地表示，突顯貧富不公等同宣揚階級鬥爭。除非你相信溫總理會跑到日韓宣揚階級鬥爭，否則只能懷疑曾特首的管治思維與國際思潮完全脫節。

單從反映貧富差距的堅尼係數來看﹙數字越高、差距越大﹚，香港是零點五二五，內地則稍高於零點四。香港的貧富懸殊遠甚於內地。

固然、判斷貧富差距不應該只以堅尼系數作為單一指標。但是、只要再檢視一些宏觀現象：低收入人口的比例持續上升，三份一的老年人口生活於貧窮線下，四份一的兒童生活於清貧家庭，甚至中產階層的收入也有向下流動的趨勢，我們便不能不憂心貧富懸殊對社會發展的影響。

其實、近年來很多社會上引起爭議的議題均牽涉到社會制度是否公平的根本課題。

例如、中小企業面對激烈競爭，生存空間愈趨狹窄，卻缺乏公平競爭法的保障，大企業的壟斷行為無所顧忌。缺乏公平競爭的市場環境，已經變成窒礙經濟發展的因素：個人創業的意欲減低，創意萎縮，消費者的權益卻得不到保障。長遠來說，只會使香港推行知識型經濟的願景變成一紙空談。

就連市民最貼身、往往牽涉一生積蓄的物業買賣，空談多年也未能就銷售面積落實保障買家的定義，發水樓層出不窮。消費者和地產商只能在一個不對稱的球場上對拼，公平制度又從何談起？

即使是空氣污染等環境問題，其實也是一個社會公義的議題。試想、個人健康最受空氣污染影響的是什麼人口？日夜在路邊擺賣、呼吸汽車廢氣的小販和推銷員；在工廠區邊緣的住宅人口；在一些偏遠的污染地區、例如元朗、天水圍和東涌的居民。每年香港因為空氣污染而提早死亡的人口約有一千六百名，難道弱勢社群和貧窮社區不是首當其衝嗎？

改變不公義的制度不是一場零和遊戲。弱勢社群得到更好的保障，享有更佳的發展機會，不但能促進社會和諧，更可以加快社會整體的可持續發展。我們倚靠自由市場的無形之手創造財富，但必須同時以政府的有形之手保障弱勢社群的最低生活水平，並維持一個公平的競爭體制。

不管是商業特權或政治特權，都是破壞社會公義的元兇。改革進步只會損害少數特權份子的免費午餐，這是階級鬥爭嗎？

溫總理要求把社會公義提到制度上來看待，特區的領導班子是否能夠不負所托？

 

 

Tripartite Partnership: Myth or reality?

一直以來，城市基礎設施項目均以追求“公眾利益”作為發展的理據。如今，隨著可持續發展的大趨勢，我們是否應該重新審視並定義“公眾利益”？利用傳統的投資評估工具，例如成本-效益分析，能否全面反映出基建專案需要考慮關於資源保育、社會公義和跨代公義等多層次領域的價值？這些問題的答案直接影響基建項目的認受性。建立一個透明的機制，讓公眾擁有獲取資訊及參與決策的管道是至為重要的。

不少人認為“公共-私營的夥伴關係”是利用更少公共資金建設更多基礎設施的捷徑。近期的經驗顯示，此種模式只有在特定的條件下才能取得成功。

兩個關鍵的條件包括建立獨立的機制以平衡公共和私營利益；和建立公眾參與機制，以便在項目計畫和運行中充份反映社會價值取向。一個成熟及擁有足夠資源的公民社會是建立一個有公信力及有效機制的必要條件。由於基建專案的生命週期較長，公共-私營夥伴關係是否穩定，往往取決於是否有一套完備的公共機制及高質素的公務人員。

Ever since the Rio Earth Summit in 1992, there has been a loud voice of concern in the international community. It concerns the gap between what the heads of state committed on paper in pursuit of sustainable development, and what actually happened around the world. The worsening trends of climate change, deforestation, biodiversity loss, desertification, resource depletion and poverty all pointed to a widening gap between vision and action.

Amidst the call for renewed efforts to tackle the mounting challenges, forging partnerships among the three major stakeholders – government, business and civil s oc iety, seems to offer a glimpse of hope. In the World Summit on Sustainable Development in 2002 – the first such event attended by both government and non-governmental delegations from Hong Kong , the concept of tripartite partnerships was given a seal of approval by the international community.

Whilst there have been many attempts to forge partnerships at the global level, for instance, the Marine Stewardship Council established as an operational partnership between World Wildlife Fund and Unilever in 1999, or the “Choose Positive Energy” Campaign launched as an awareness partnership between Greenpeace International and the Body Shop in 2001, let us today focus at the local level, and use Hong Kong as a case study to examine whether partnerships are making real impacts at the community.

Local Partnerships

Despite the adoption of Local Agenda 21 – an initiative to develop sustainable communities by means of broad-based public participation – by over 7000 cities around the world in over a decade, progress has been painfully slow in Hong Kong . Up to now only one out of 18 districts, namely the Central & Western District – with the help of our organizer today, Centre of Urban Planning and Environmental Management at the University of Hong Kong - has attempted to develop a comprehensive sustainable development strategy. And only three weeks ago did we witness another district – Wanchai, the district where we are located today – launch the first ever public process for Loc al Agenda 21.

On the other hand, in the last few years the Hong Kong government has been pumping resources into the community to encourage partnerships through public funds, the most notable of which include the Sustainable Development Fund and the Community Investment and Inclusion Fund. These funds are administered by government-appointed committees and open for applications by NGOs. Have they succeeded in nurturing partnerships in the community?

To answer this question we have to revisit a more fundamental question. What exactly are tripartite partnerships at the local level?

Partnerships are meant to fill a gap in the current system of governance. Within each of the key stakeholders there are institutional weaknesses which render each of them a deficient player in the pursuit for sustainable development. Governments are hampered by bureaucratic inefficiency and the low trust factor with people. The private sector is unable to deliver comprehensive solutions because of the structural problem of market failure and the void in corporate social responsibilities. The civil society, though ideals-driven, suffers from a lack of resources and the absence of policy-making authority.

To put it simply, improving governance is the overarching objective of partnerships which can be used to stimulate economic vibrancy, strengthen s oc ial cohesion and improve people’s quality of life. Partnerships, if carried out to its full potential, should improve the ways s oc iety collectively solves its problems and meets its needs – for this and for future generations.

Partnership Characteristics

It can be argued that genuine partnerships have two essential characteristics.

First, partnering is a horizontal relationship.

The essential feature of partnership is mutual dependence. Neither party can achieve the desired results by working alone. Even though the partners may be vastly unequal in some aspects of their relationship, at some level their core interests are linked. This gives them the right and duty to speak freely about issues of mutual concern and to make joint decisions. The degree to which the partners can discuss matters as equals is a litmus test for whether the relationship can be called a partnership.

Second, partnering builds synergy.

Partnership brings expertise to the table that the partners lack individually. By jointly harnessing their respective skills and experience, the partnership can accomplish more. By the same token, a partnership will fail unless it provides clear and compelling benefits for each party.

Partnering Principles

For partnerships to function effectively there are some key principles which must be observed:

1. Shared values

Partners have many things in common, but also many unique elements to their work. It is almost impossible that all of the partners' goals and values line up together; it is however important that there be significant common ground, a shared mission, for joint action. Partnerships need to articulate what are important to them, and understand where their shared purpose and interests lie.

2. Shared Governance

Despite the imbalance of power between partners, there must be a mechanism which enables each partner to have largely equal voice and appropriate representation in decision-making. This is the starting point for building trust, taking risks, showing care, honouring commitments and creating a culture of mutual support among partners.

3. Shared resources

Each party to the partnership brings a different set of resources. A truly effective partnership utilizes all of its collective resources based on the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities. For instance, governments and business may contribute the bulk of financial resources whereas NGOs may provide much-needed public trust and network. Withholding of resources is a common organizational phenomenon, so a positive climate must be built in which partners are encouraged to offer all that they bring to the larger whole.

4. Shared accountability

Partnership involves shared ownership of risks, benefits, and responsibility for outcomes. One of the great stumbling blocks in partnering is fear of being held accountable for the mistakes of others, or conversely not receiving recognition for success. In successful partnerships the partners clarify roles, make commitments, and devise ways to hold each other mutually accountable. Not only are partners accountable to each other, but they should also share the same commitment to make the partnership accountable to whom they mean to serve, and the community at large.

Rethinking Partnerships

If the above partnering principles are used as yardsticks, many of the projects which have grown out of the Sustainable Development Fund and the Community Investment and Inclusion Fund appear to have fallen short of the definition of tripartite partnerships in both spirit and substance. Whilst these projects are often worthwhile initiatives per se, they are more appropriately classified as an alternative mode of service delivery with largely government funding and sometimes a small dose of corporate philanthropy. They do however cover a wide scope ranging from elderly and child-care services, employment creation for disadvantaged groups, to environmental improvements in the urban or rural setting.

Although we can identify what qualifies as a tripartite partnership, when theory is put into practice, too often the outcome is distorted by each stakeholder’s perception of what one may gain potentially from the success of the partnership, as well as the opportunity costs of its failure. Good intentions of collaboration are often no match for die-hard habits of control and maneuvering towards one-sided outcomes.

Urban Renewal

Consider, for instance, the many cases of urban renewal now taking place in Hong Kong . Due to the level of resources needed in each project, government intervention is a norm. Stakes are high in every case as new funds are injected, new plans are produced and new opportunities are capable of being created in old districts. These are ideal opportunities for partnerships in which the government can fulfill its s oc ial objectives, the private sector can contribute its commercial expertise and local stakeholders can seize the chance to revitalize the neighbourhood. In fact, if managed well, urban renewal can give a much-needed push for a sustainable community.

Sadly, instead of becoming breeding grounds for innovative partnerships, local urban renewal projects, such as the H15 project involving the wedding card street in Wanchai, often end up in conflicts among developers who f oc us on their bottom-lines, residents who deplore the loss of community fabric, an urban renewal authority which seems to have been constrained by self-imposed business logic, and government policy-makers who are all too happy to stay out of the controversies despite the pr oc laimed s oc ial objectives.

Planning for Victoria Harbour

Another example is the ongoing debate on the conservation of Victoria harbour and the enhancement of the harbourfront areas. For those of you who come from overseas, I trust you would not disagree that the harbour is one of the most precious assets for Hong Kong . Yet for nearly a decade this natural asset, far from becoming a centre point for vision-building, has become a subject of much attrition among administrators, politicians, professionals, developers and green groups and the public at large.

The latest controversy surrounding the planning of the newly-reclaimed Central habourfront and the use of the Tamar site for government headquarters is a good illustration of the elusive nature of partnerships. Whilst all stakeholders seem to have agreed on a shared vision, there is no agreement on a structure for shared governance, let alone any willingness to consider shared resources among potential partners from the government, business and civil society. The statutory town planning process – considered by many as long overdue for reform, is incapable of building consensus or generating constructive partnerships.

The Chief Executive, putting emphasis on procedural correctness rather than good planning, is apparently on a personal crusade to build a new government headquarters on Tamar. The business sector is keeping its skepticism under wraps despite its unease about the proposal’s negative impact on the vibrancy of the Central District and certain developers’ fortunes. The civil society is aggrieved on the lack of a holistic view and a sacrifice of good urban design over administrative expediency.

Here is the irony: when the logic for partnership is strong, the will for partnership is weak. The ideal of tripartite partnership seems to be as elusive as ever.

New Trends

Can we ever nurture a set of healthy conditions under which the cool-headed calculation of self-interest by each stakeholder will strengthen, rather than weaken, tripartite partnerships?

Whilst there is no magic formula to fit all local conditions, perhaps there is one direction worthy of our collective effort. Lately there are emerging interests in developing international standards in collaborative partnerships. These standards offer several advantages to the development of cross-sector collaboration, such as greater sustainability, enhanced legitimacy, transparency, accountability and good governance. An example of this is the PGA Framework on partnership governance developed by an U.S. group, AccountAbility.

If local standards can be developed on the basis of these international initiatives, and if these local standards can gain formal recognition from key stakeholders in the government, business and civil society, local actors may feel compelled to use these standards for partnership building. There will thus be an enabling environment to facilitate genuine partnerships.

Yet these are two big “ifs”. Many have observed that partnerships are more common in societies where there is a balance of power among stakeholders. Perhaps the ultimate solution here lies with the partner embracing the most ideals but the least resource: civil society must work hard to increase its persuasive power so that partnerships will be seen as a necessity rather than a luxury.

“Hong Kong Air Challenge”

To conclude this speech and to test out Hong Kong’s commitment to partnerships, may I invite the keynote speakers today – from Hong Kong ’s environment regulator and the largest power company, to consider this tripartite partnership with the civil society: the “Hong Kong Air Challenge”.

Given the worsening air quality and the public outcry, we all have a shared vision for a Hong Kong where we can breathe freely without fear of SOx, NOx or involuntary particulates. This “Hong Kong Air Challenge” will be a “partnership beyond compliance” – working together to develop implementation plans to reduce Hong Kong ’s pollutant emissions beyond the announced 2010 air quality targets, and to continuously improve air quality beyond 2010. None of these has been attempted by any group before.

Civil society groups are ready to invest their expertise and credibility in this all-important partnership. Will the government be ready to invest its administrative resource and political capital in this partnership, and to adopt a structure of shared governance? Will the private sector be ready to invest with technical expertise and financial resource, and be accountable to its partners?

Let us keep our fingers crossed for the birth of a partnership that everyone in Hong Kong may benefit. Thank you.

 

 

人口質素還是生活質素？

可持續發展委員會上週發表了有关人口政策的文件，讓公眾参與制訂表長遠的人口發展策略。這份文件羅列出很多久被忽略、卻影响深遠的議題，值得社會各界深入討論。

香港正面臨人口結構的重大变化: 出生率下降與高齡人口的增加只是其中兩個表徵。究竟這些变化是香港未來發展的威脅還是机遇，卻取决於我們現在如何回應這些挑戰。

根據政府多番修訂後估計，香港人口將會從目前的690萬增加至2033年的840萬。高齡人口的比例將會從百份之12上升至百份之27。由於我们的生育率維持在一以下(即每名婦女平均生育少於一個孩子，遠低於自然補充所需的2.1個)，即使加入新移民，兒童所佔的人口比例將會從百份之15下降至百份之11。

單從這些數字看來，有些人很容易感染到「末日論」的惶恐而驚呼香港競爭力下降，從而馬上提出如何引入專才、如何節省未來供養退休人口的開支等等。其實，輕率地作出這些簡化的推論只會使我們喪失了認真思辨的机會。

根據全球眾多正在經歷人口老化的國家的經驗，沒有證據顯示人口老化會促使競爭力下降。事實上，香港2033年預計的總供養比率只會与七十年代初相約。而七十年代正是香港經濟穩步增長的時期。

究竟甚麽才是人口政策的主要目標？若果我们真正恪守「以人為本」的方向，主要目標應該是在人口結构不斷变化、在全球化趨勢加劇的格局中，持續地提升整体人口的生活質素。我們不能把人矮化成只為經濟服務的工具。

要持續地提升各階層市民的生活質素固然是相當大的挑戰。在眾多的議題中，相信有四項特別值得公眾深入討論。

其一、為了在急劇轉變的人口結構中充份運用所有的人力資源，我們必須培育一個多元化的就業市場。例如、為了照顧家庭需要，僱員是否有權向僱主要求將一份工作彈性分割、靈活調動？如何讓一些希望提早開展第二份事業的人士有更順利的轉職安排或創業環境？如何使將來擁有更佳健康、精力充沛的高齡人士有更多選擇、繼續貢獻他們的專長？回應這些挑戰必須企業的配合，政府應該制定甚麼政策加快促成這種市場轉變？

其二、日益增加的工作壓力己經使很多香港人的生活質素直線下降。既然香港的人均產值高於全球九成的國家，克盡己職的港人卻被工作壓得透不過氣來，實在難言公平。若果能夠創造條件，使港人在生活與工作之間取得平衡，有可能消除不少家庭養兒育女的其中一項顧慮。但若果工作壓力源於全球化趨勢下的市場壓力，試問政府應該如何部署，整合商界與家庭的不同訴求？

其三、政府固然對於任何家庭在睡房內的决定不應過問，但若果社會能為每一名成員增加生活保障的安全感，對於成家育兒的决定自會有正面推動的作用。上週立法會通過了設立全民退休保障的議案，不但是「家庭友善」的建議，更能夠減輕政府將來照顧退休人口的財政壓力。

其四、無論是挽留人才或吸引人才均有賴於一個良好的居住環境。如何扭轉環境惡化的趨勢、保育「買少見少」的自然遺產和文化遺產，培育一個敢於為子孫後代作出承担的公民社會，己經是迫上眉梢的議題。

社會各界應該利用這個契機，從人口政策起步制定長遠可持續發展的策略。

 

*              *              *

黎廣德     香港可持續發展公民議會主席及策略發展委員會成員

 

 

為可持續發展、嚴控魚翅和髮菜貿易 倡議參與世貿會議人士不吃魚翅和髮菜

香港可持續發展公民議會認為自由貿易應以可持續發展為最重要的原則，一切令生態失衡、動植物絕種、地球氣候轉變和自然資源不能持續使用的貿易都要嚴格控制，甚至禁止進行。魚翅和髮菜的貿易就是這類活動，理應受嚴格控制和禁止。我們呼籲世貿部長級會議的與會人士不吃魚翅和髮菜，香港政府在世貿宴會上不供應魚翅和髮菜，用行動支持可持續的自由貿易原則。我們的理據如下： 

1.  根據東亞野生貿易研究委員會的調查，全球的鯊魚品種約有373種，《瀕危野生動植物國際貿易公約》列明有9種屬「極度瀕危」、19種屬「瀕危」、37種屬「易危」，但目前卻只有鯨鯊、姥鯊和大白鯊受貿易管制。

2.  據世界自然保護聯盟轄下的鯊魚專家小組曾追蹤出口魚翅到香港的70多個國家，統計出口的魚翅和捕捉的鯊魚數量，發現魚翅的數量遠超鯊魚的數量；統計結果顯示，有數以千萬條鯊魚「不見了」，反映「要鰭唔要鯊」的浪費情況的確存在。

3.  香港是全球最大的鯊魚貿易市場，港人每年食用1400噸魚翅，等於要屠殺大約14萬條鯊魚。而全球每年約1億條鯊魚被捕殺。鯊魚每1至2年才生育一次，每次生產不足10條。鯊魚被捕捉和獵殺的速度，遠比繁殖速度快。體型最大的鯨鯊和姥鯊，均因被過分捕捉而被列入瀕危物種，市場對魚翅的需求，將轉移到其他不受法例管制的鯊魚品種。

4.  採摘髮菜是中國沙漠化的一大原因，截至2004年，全國荒漠化土地為263.62萬平方公里，佔國土面積的27.46%。全國沙化土地面積為173.97萬平方公里，佔國土面積的18.12%。國家林業局提供的資料顯示，上世紀末，沙化土地每年以3,436平方公里的速度擴展，等如每5年就有一個北京市的國土面積因沙化而失去利用價值，全國受沙漠化影響的人口達1.7億。

5.  據統計，內蒙古全區在上世紀90年代後幾年間因為採摘髮菜而破壞的草原面積達1.95億畝，其中6000多畝已經沙化。

6.  對於髮菜，國務院已於2000年9月1日 發出禁止採集和銷售的禁令。禁止在沙漠邊緣地帶和林地、草原開墾耕地。2005年11月中經網報導，中國國務院關于進一步加強防沙治沙工作的決定，禁止采集髮菜，徹底取締髮菜及其制品的收購、加工和銷售。

7.  內蒙古自治區草原管理條例(2004年修訂)第六章第三十六條明文規定禁止採集、加工、收購和銷售髮菜，並要求行政區域內重點出入通道設置臨時檢查站，查堵外出或者進入草原地區採集髮菜的人員。第四十九條更規定違反條例第三十六條第一款、第三十七條第二款規定，採集、收購、加工、銷售髮菜，由有關部門依據職權責令其停止違法行為，沒收非法財物和違法所得，可以判處違法所得一倍以上五倍以下的罰款﹔沒有違法所得的，可以判處5萬元以下的罰款﹔給草原所有者或者使用者造成損失的，依法承擔賠償責任﹔構成犯罪的，依法追究刑事責任。

8.  寧夏回族自治區九屆人大常委會第十九次會議( 2005 年11月14 日至16日)審議通過了《寧夏回族自治區草原管理條例》，條例明確規定，禁止採集、加工、收購和銷售髮菜。違反規定在草原上採集髮菜、濫挖固沙野生植物或者從事破壞草原植被的其他活動的，由縣級以上人民政府草原行政主管部門責令停止違法行為，沒收非法財物和違法所得，判處以違法所得1倍以上5倍以下的罰款。

9.  雖然全國已禁髮菜，但因髮菜同“發財”諧音，中國人尤其是廣東人仍然大量吃髮菜，節日的消耗更甚。香港的酒樓十居其九都有“發財好市”的供應。這樣的消耗直接鼓勵非法採摘髮菜的活動，令全國禁髮菜”的規定失效，與國家控制沙漠化的政策措施背道而馳。

因此，香港可持續發展公民議會要求香港政府在世貿談判中採納以下明確立場：

1.         在世貿組織的貿易與環境委員會中，提出限制魚翅貿易的議題，使世貿規則符合保護瀕危動物的原則。

2.         在世貿的框架上，從速訂立禁止輸入髮菜的本地法例。

 

 

成立長春社文化古蹟資源中心

長春社文化古蹟資源中心的成立，標誌着長春社自七十年代起一直致力文物古蹟保育的一個新里程。

長春社為自然環境的保育努力不懈，是為了使我們這一代和子孫后代擁有一個能夠健康發展的生態系統；同樣地、長春社為保育文化遺產付出的心血，是為了使我們這一代和子孫后代不要在高速發展中失卻了文化和歷史的傳承。兩者努力的方向有異，但保育的精神卻是一致的。

在一個高度物質崇拜的社會，追求數字式經濟增長的發展邏輯，使文化保育成為一步一血淚的艱辛過程。可喜的是、近年來香港市民已經越來越清晰地表達了對於尊重社會公義、尊重文化歷史的可持續發展的訴求。這亦是今天資源中心成立的原因。

我們希望這個中心能夠得到各方面的支持，搭建成兩個互相補足的平台 – 一個是資訊的平台，另一個是人的平台。資訊的平台是要整合學者專家的研究成果，與社區民間的動態訊息，提升香港整體對文化遺產的認識與重視。人的平台是為了凝聚各方持份者的力量，使文化古蹟的保育成為公共政策、商界决策、公民社會、以至公私營跨界別合作的主要議題和發展目標。

今天長春社文化古蹟資源中心是一個初生的婴兒，能否快高長大完全倚賴各方的喂哺、特別是市民大眾的支持。在上一世紀七十年代，曾經有一個與長春社共用一家辧公室的「香港文物協會」掙扎了幾年后無疾而終。但是我深信，在二十一世紀、可持續發展的理念己經成為國策與港策的今天，資源中心的預期壽命，將不亞於我們身處的這幢歴史建築，而能夠與香港的文化古蹟保育事業一起成長。

長春社文化古蹟資源中心主席

黎廣德

2005年12月10日

 

 

世貿成敗的道德危機

還有五天、香港有史以來舉辧最大型的國際會議便要舉行了。當政府引導傳媒的焦点在示威、衝突、以及「我哋有乜着數」的時侯，总該是我們冷靜下來想一想、究竟在这場被吹噓成「世紀大衝突」的盛會背后、縕藏着什麽道德危機？

 

首先、我們必須認清「自由貿易」究竟意味着甚麽？

 

只要想一想：為甚麽沒有國家追求毒品、核子武器的自由貿易？便知道自由貿易不可被神聖化成為終極目標，而只可以被視為追求国际社會一致認可的目標的工具。那麽、作為一个推動多邊貿易談判的機構，世貿組織究竟追求甚麽目標？

 

這個問題可以從1994年成立世貿組織的馬拉喀什協議找到答案。這个協議清楚表明，世界貿易組織的目的是「提高生活質素、創造全民就業、增加實際收入、刺激多元需求，促進製造、貿易及服務業的增長，同時又保護環境及加強那些在不同程度的經濟發展下，能合乎各方不同切身需要及期望的措施」。簡而言之、世貿就是要通过貿易自由化的手段追求能夠整合經濟繁榮、社會公義、環境保護三者的可持續發展。

 

以這項目標作為尺度，世貿現在的表現是令人十分失望的。

 

對世界上很多國家，尤其是發展中國家而言，本來貿易自由化可有效地使經濟增長，最終使貧窮問題及生活水平得以改善。在特定條件下，貿易自由化能對勞工及環境帶來一些正面影響: 如通過提高資源利用效益及生產力的改善，帶動社會發展及工資增長。它亦可刺激經濟增長及內部投資，創造更多資源投入在環境保護及消減貧窮。可是這些正面影響都不是自然而生的，它受到貿易機制的設計、個別國家的貿易政策、企業的商業策略及消費者的選擇等因素所制約。

 

事實清楚表明，並不是所有自由貿易均能帶來經濟增長，又不是所有經濟增長都能導向可持續發展。事實上，在貿易自由化的進程中，對貿易政策及以貿易帶動增長的負面影響視而不見，是可持續發展的大敵 – 往往使弱勢社群及生態環境成為了犧牲品。地球上每一個人平均需要2.3公頃 的土地來製造每年需耗用的資源及棄置產出的廢物。這總需求其實己經超出可持續基數百份之四十。如果不經調節的自由貿易不斷擴展，世界其他地方都像發達國家般消費，那麼我們便需要多4個地球才能應付。

 

現行世界貿易組織所採用的貿易機制己被清楚證明不能帶來可持續發展。現時國際貿易帶來的大部分利益都分配不均，讓發達國家及新興工業經濟體系不公平地予取予携。富國每年動用三千五百億美元補貼農業，不單阻碍窮國的農民利用其勞動力增加收入，亦更使貧困情況惡化。因為現行貿易體制的設計中缺乏考慮生態環境的可持續性，使現今動植物的滅絕率因為人類活動而比正常情況高出1,000倍，這將只會禍延我們自己及下一代。

 

但貿易自由化是可以被改造成有利可持續發展的工具的。世貿最近一輪的談判，即「多哈回合」被國際社會公認為「發展回合」，因它特別集中在發展中國家的發展需要上。香港的第六屆部長級會議實在帶來一個改變局勢，有利可持續發展的難得機會。會議的成果將會影響數以億計地球人的生活。全球在香港下了極大的注碼。

 

我們在下星期正要面對這樣的一个道德危機：若果世貿談判在富國大國的压力下達成協議，發展中國家的滅貧目標將難以實現、環境質素惡化的風險將大增。但若果世貿談判失敗，現行不公平的貿易規則將延續下去，得益的只是欧美大国。更有甚者，若果多邊談判的機制瓦解，国與國之間的貿易以雙邊談判取而代之，弱勢小國          將陷於孤立無援的劣勢。

 

能否以公民社會的道德壓力，促使自由貿易返回促進可持續發展的正軌? 這戲碼即將在香港會展中心上演驚心動魄的一幕。

 

黎廣德

香港可持續發展公民議會主席

 

WTO: Why should Hong Kong care?

To a casual observer reading only news dispatches from the government, one would wonder why Hong Kong is lifting stones only to drop at his own feet by inviting the World Trade Organisation to meet here in December.

 

1.                              Hong Kong will be hosting the Sixth Ministerial Conference (MC6) of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) in December 2005. Substantial resources, to the tune of over HK$200 million, will be devoted by the Hong Kong people to this event. At the same time, enormous expectations are placed on the outcome of the event by countries and peoples all over the world.

 

2.                              It is both the right and responsibility for Hong Kong’s civil society to articulate its views on MC6, and to make the Hong Kong public aware of the potential impact of MC6. It is not enough for Hong Kong to be only a good host to provide the venue and the hospitality, but it is essential for Hong Kong – government, business and civil society alike – to be a responsible host who is prepared to use every means within its control to achieve the most important goal of MC6: make trade work for sustainable development.

 

3.                              The stated aim of WTO is the promotion of trade liberalization. For countries around the world, especially for developing countries, trade liberalization can be a powerful tool for economic growth – a necessary condition for poverty alleviation and for enhancing quality of life. Under certain conditions, trade liberalization can have a positive impact on labour and environmental conditions through a more efficient allocation of resources and increases in productivity, leading to social development and higher wages. It can also contribute towards higher economic growth and inward investment, and create resources which can be used for environmental protection and poverty alleviation. However, none of these impacts are automatic; they depend on the design of the trade regime, the trade policies of individual states, the behaviour of the corporate sector and the choices of consumers.

 

4.                              In the Marrakech Agreement that leads to the establishment of the WTO, it is given a mandate firmly grounded on the principles of sustainable development. In no unambiguous terms, WTO’s mandate is “to raise the living standards, create employment for all and a high and growing income level in real terms, generate effective demand, growth of production, trade and services, while protecting and conserving the environment and to reinforcing the means so to do in a way that is compatible with the parties’ respective needs and concerns at the different levels of economic development’.

'

5.                              Yet not all trade liberalization will lead to economic growth and not all economic growth will lead to sustainable development. Indeed, in the pursuit of trade liberalization, the disregard of the harmful effects of trade policies and trade-generated growth often works against sustainable development – worsening the plight of the poor and the disadvantaged, as well as damaging the environment and the eco-system. The average world citizen requires 2.3 global hectares to produce what he consumes every year and then to have a place to dump what’s left over. That is 40% more than is sustainable. If, through the spread of unmitigated trade liberalization, the rest of the world were to consume like the developed world, we would need the equivalent of 4 extra Earths.

 

6.                              The current trade regime adopted by the WTO has clearly failed to deliver sustainable development. The benefits of current international trade are unevenly distributed with large gains for rich countries and newly industrialized economies. Rich countries spend US$350 billion per annum on agricultural subsidy which not only prevents farmers in poor countries to increase their incomes through their own labor, but also often aggravates their poverty . Because of the noted absence of environmental sustainability in the design of the current trade regime, the current rate of extinction of plant and animal species, already 1000 times more than the background rate because of human activities, will only accelerate to the detriment of this and future generations.

 

7.                              Trade liberalization can however be re-shaped into a tool for sustainable development. The current phase of negotiation in the WTO, the Doha Round, is recognized by the international community as a “development round” with special focus on the developmental needs of developing countries. The MC 6 in Hong Kong thus presents a unique opportunity to turn the tide in favour of sustainable development. The outcome of MC6 – whether successful or not, will affect the lives of billions of people. The stakes are high in Hong Kong .

 

8.                              In its capacity as the host for MC6, the Hong Kong government has a duty not only to ensure the smooth running of the conference, but also use everything within its sphere of influence to encourage and persuade WTO members to make trade work for sustainable development. The fulfillment of the promises of this development round, including the installment of a fair trade regime and the promotion of responsible trade practices, is the single largest contribution that Hong Kong can make in the WTO negotiations, potentially for the benefit of billions of people who at present are either unable to enjoy the benefits of trade liberalization, or are suffering from its harmful effects.

 

9.                              For the business sector in Hong Kong , MC6 presents a valuable opportunity to review, rethink and re-adjust its trade practices in the context of sustainable development and corporate social responsibility. Hong Kong’s private sector, especially those in key positions of  global supply chains, should embrace the concept and the practice of responsible trade – trade practices that support international human rights, uphold dignified labour conditions, respect local culture, promote environmental responsibilities, and manage natural resources in a sustainable manner.  The leaders of the Hong Kong business community should take this chance to affirm their commitment to responsible trade.

 

10.                          Hong Kong’s civil society can play an important role by raising public awareness on the role of WTO, the inadequacies of the current trade regime, the significance of the development round, and the possibilities that may open up in MC6. Not only is it important for civil society organizations to position themselves as a constructive force in respect of the official outcome of MC6,  but it is of equal importance to promote in the local community the practice of sustainable consumption that supports responsible trade practices and a fair trade regime.

 

11.                          We call on all stakeholders alike – government, business and NGOs – to seize the opportunity of MC6 to make trade work for sustainable development. This is a rare chance for Hong Kong to live up to its claim of Asia’s world city, and for the Hong Kong public to stand up proud as global citizens.