We sent these anonymous comments to three Government bodies (ACE, AFD and EPD), highlighting problems of particular relevance to their respective roles. The following are the responses from Peter Wong (ACE), K.W. Cheung (AFD) and Elvis Au (EPD).
ADVISORY COUNCIL ON THE ENVIRONMENT
The whole EIA process is new and is constantly evolving (I hope for the better by learning from our own and others' mistakes). I welcome constructive criticism, specially from academics but my own experience has been that many academics are reluctant to put their full criticism in print for fear that funding for their research could be jeopardised. I challenge those behind Porcupine! to show us how we can do a better job.
ACE lives in the real world where we have to take decisions based on incomplete and sometimes inconclusive and even contradictory evidence, sometimes even mis-information. We have no wish to stop the world without good cause. You only have to consider the universal wish to provide more public housing and infrastructure and realise the pressure put on those looking at the ElAs.
I believe that SPEL (in consultation with me) have come up with a well balanced team in ACE. We do have ecological expertise and a great deal of pressure is put on those few to respond to ecological concerns. There are also experts on other areas and they also have their own pressures. I am satisfied that we have sufficient expertise in the ACE team to review and see that sufficient work has been done on the ecological side. What we do not have is the time or resources to arrive at scientific proof that there is no alternative answer or better answer.
Of course, we would like to have a lot more time to go through the EIA papers and probe and test assumptions. As a layman, I am often left with the fear that the fundamental assumptions made are wrong because they are based on evidence elsewhere and there have been no precedents in Hong Kong.
We are under great time pressure to go through ElAs and sometimes we need to go through the Full Reports before we can get at the root of the problem. Remember that we all have full-time jobs doing other things.
In fact the timings under the EIA Ordinance should give ACE-EIA Subcommittee more time than it is given now to go through the papers. I would like to see all submissions to be in both printed and electronic form (CD-ROM) so that this information can be very quickly despatched to members and can be searched very quickly for pertinent details. The real challenge is for EPD to go through the EIA reports and decide whether to follow ACE's advice.
Remember that Ace's role is ADVISORY, the buck stops with the Director of Environmental Protection.
PETER H.Y. WONG
Chairman, Advisory Council on the Environment (ACE)
AGRICULTURE & FISHERIES DEPARTMENT
As far as ecological components of ElAs are concerned, this Department has been given additional staff to cope with the increasing number and complexity of ElAs. We are also able to recruit graduates from local universities with a strong background on local ecology to assist in the examination of ElAs. In addition, the Department also provides relevant on-the-job training to our staff involved in the EIA process.
The above special feature of Porcupine! highlighted some of the problems and inadequacies of the existing EIA practice. With the introduction of the EIA Ordinance, it will certainly bring improvements to some aspects such as public consultation, clear guidelines and standards and monitoring the implementation of recommended mitigation measures.
K.W. CHEUNG
for Director of Agriculture & Fisheries
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DEPARTMENT
1. Is there adequate check on the qualifications of those conducting the EIA (particularly the ecological component)?
EIA is multidisciplinary and involves a wide range of professional expertise, depending on the case. The same applies to ecological assessment. Experiences overseas and in Hong Kong suggest that it would be extremely difficult to have a credible, reliable system of regulating the qualifications of those conducting EIA, including the ecological component.
From a government point of view, the fundamental objective should be ensuring a reliable, objective and credible environmental impact assessment. Most advanced countries with well established EIA systems do not impose a rigid system of regulating or checking the qualifications of personnel involved in EIA. Rather, the focus is on controlling the process and outcome of EIA, by ensuring that there is a proper, independent vetting and review mechanism and that there is a consultative process involving stakeholders.
The quality control of the process and outcomes of environmental impact assessment in Hong Kong is exercised through:
(a) the issue of an EIA study brief which prescribes the study requirements, including the scope of ecological issues that need to be addressed;
(b) an inter-departmental study management group chaired by a representative of the Director of Environmental Protection, with members from relevant government departments with authority and expertise in different areas, to independently vet and approve EIA reports. On the ecological matters, the study management group would take advice from Agriculture and Fisheries Department. Any unacceptable EIA will be rejected;
(c) the consultation with the Advisory Council on the Environment (ACE) and its dedicated EIA sub-committee. The ACE consists of members from key environmental organisations, academics, industrial representatives and other members of the community. The ACE and its EIA subcommittee provide an external, independent check on the quality, reliability and acceptability of the EIA findings, including ecological issues;
(d) the transparency of the existing EIA process. All government-owned EIA reports are to be made available to the public and the private sector is also following the same approach. Making information available to the public enhances accountability and quality control.The above four mechanisms provide an effective check and safeguard of the quality of environmental impact assessment. Any poorly conducted assessments would be rejected. A recently completed international study has indicated that the quality control of EIA processes in Hong Kong is on a par with other advanced countries such as Netherlands, Western Australia and USA. We would keep in view the international developments in quality control policy for EIA, having regard to the actual operational experience of the EIA Ordinance.
2. How can implementation of mitigation measures be ensured?
Under the present system, the mitigation measures are implemented through commitments made by project proponents at the time of approval of the EIA reports and during their funding requests, through the proponents' contract conditions, and through any conditions that may be imposed in the leases or as part of other government approvals. There are limitations in the existing system on this aspect, hence the need for the Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance which was enacted by the Legislative Council on 29 January 1997.
3. To what extent will the new EIA Ordinance address the concerns expressed?
The enactment of the Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance, together with the recently gazetted Technical Memorandum on Environmental Impact Assessment, is a major step forward in improving the existing EIA system and addresses many of the concerns expressed. The key improvements are:
(a) it will be mandatory for designated projects listed under the EIA Ordinance to comply with the statutory EIA requirements;
(b) the Ordinance recognises, from the outset, the importance of the ecological dimension, as can be seen from the definitions of the terms "environment", "environmental impact" and "mitigation";
(c) the Ordinance promotes an early attention to environmental issues and requires EIA to be conducted at the planning stage of the designated projects and, for major developments, at the feasibility study stage;
(d) the Technical Memorandum, which has gone through a wide public consultation and has recently been strongly supported by the Advisory Council on the Environment, has laid down clearly defined guidelines, criteria and procedures for conducting EIA. There are dedicated sections and annexes setting out by far the most comprehensive guidelines on ecological assessment;
(e) the Ordinance provides for early inputs by academics, professionals and other members of the public to the formulation of the EIA study brief and to the EIA reports. This will greatly enhance the credibility and reliability of the scope of the EIA study, and the EIA findings;
(f) under the Technical Memorandum, there will be a set of comprehensive guidelines for reviewing EIA reports. This will greatly tighten the quality control;
(g) the EIA findings and recommendations will become enforceable through the imposition of conditions, including off-site compensation measures if necessary, in the environmental permits issued under the EIA Ordinance; and
(h) the EIA process under the Ordinance will be very transparent. All the key documents and decisions will be made available for public inspection through the public register.Both the EIA Ordinance and the Technical Memorandum can now be seen from EPD's homepage ( http://www.info.gov.hk/epd) on the Internet.
ELVIS W.K. AU
Principal Environmental Protection
Officer, Environmental Protection DepartmentP.30-31
Back to EIA index
Back to Contents
Back to Porcupine Homepage
Go to Departmental Homepage