Guest Comments by Civic Exchange

HONG KONG – Public-policy think-tank Civic Exchange notes that the recent Court of Appeal decision on the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macau Bridge, in overturning an earlier ruling and allowing construction to proceed, stressed that Hong Kong's director of environmental protection has a duty to ensure that project proponents must minimize environmental impacts.

In the Court's view, the director does not need a “stand alone” environmental-impact analysis (by which a project's impacts can be identified and distinguished from those of other projects already approved) to ensure they're kept to a minimum. So it allowed the director's appeal.

The High Court and Court of Appeal cases raise many process issues about the Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance, but they have not – and cannot – resolve some important issues:

-- If environmental-impact-assessment (EIA) reports are only required to predict the cumulative impact of many projects that all contribute to polluting the atmosphere, how can the director decide what difference that mitigation measures on a specific project will make to overall air quality and if mitigation measures should be required as a condition to grant an environmental permit?

-- What is the impact of air pollution from new infrastructure on public health?

-- Is Hong Kong's air quality so poor that it threatens future infrastructure development?

-- What are the implications of a lack of transparency in the assumptions used by project proponents' modeling to predict future air quality?

-- What potential exists for conflict-of-interest in merging the roles of director of environmental protection and permanent secretary for the environment? The director's role is to be an environmental professional while the permanent secretary has a political role.

“The net result is that future projects will face ever-greater public scrutiny until these fundamental concerns are resolved,” said Civic Exchange leader Christine Loh.

Air pollution, from motor vehicles especially, still worsens, despite many control measures the government has introduced. At the same time, a preliminary report from consultants for the Airport Authority warns that a third runway can operate at only 40-per-cent capacity if it is to meet the Environment Bureau's proposed (and much delayed) new air-quality regulations.

We note an urgent need for a transparent and structured public debate to solve these issues. Therefore, we call on the government and Legislative Council to work together to allow such discussions.

ARCHIVES