The recent Sustainable Development Strategy Summit titled “Making Choices for our Future” held on December 13, has set out priority areas and principles.It appears that the Council for Sustainable Development (CSD) is trying to fast track a consensus on “choices” prepared by the CSD and Strategy Convenors.There is no clear definition of “principles”, no clear justification on how they were selected and no indication of how they were to be applied.What is worrying is the over-simplification of “selecting choices and principles” without full costing and need assessment.

The other worrying aspect is that the Summit has degenerated into a one-way process.There was no indication of initial feedback from policy secretaries on the principles presented.There was no indication of initial feedback from the CSD Members.It was rather disappointing that Policy Secretaries were not at the Summit to listen and offer feedbacks.

The third aspect of concern is that the Summit “principles” did not go far enough to address the root cause of today’s social inequity, environmental degradation, maladministration and corporate negligence.The principles failed to question and address market dominance, monopolies, taxation disincentives, perverse subsidies, externalities, repeated environmental offence, the Small House Policy, the N.T. Blackspots and the wholesale “trading” of cultural and green heritage.

The fourth aspect of concern is the format of consultation.The CSD has advocated a bottom-up approach.Yet the various public consultation forums and workshops were held either in 5 star hotel ballrooms or “club class” venues.How can CSD claim to adopt a bottom-up approach?Who decides the format, venue and budget?Who pays for it?Will the CSD conduct an audit to calculate the amount of money, paper, food, time and energy needed to host “classy” consultations? There is the need to review the cost benefit of existing format of public consultations. There is the need to engage the public at the grassroot.District level consultations should be considered by enlisting the full involvement of the 18 District Councils.Sustainable Development is about resource efficiency.CSD should set a good example to demonstrate its readiness to trade top-down approach for genuine bottom-up engagement.

In summary, Friends of the Earth (HK) has genuine concern about the process and reservation about endorsing the “Sustainable Development Strategy Principles”.FoE (HK) has briefly outlined some areas of concern and recommendations that need to be addressed.

(1) Hong Kong is a fractured city.Lack of connectedness and social responsiveness in city planning is evident in the fragmented development surrounding the harbour and the inland, slums and new towns, commercial and industrial hubs, heritage and man-made tourist attractions, pig farms and countryside, fish ponds and rural communities, mega airports and exhibition centers, container ports and cruise terminals, public and private housing development.

Recommendation: (a) Need to integrate inward-looking and outward-looking planning for both low growth and high growth nodes. (b) Hong Kong needs a sustainable population policy, agriculture land policy, culture policy, sustainable nature conservation policy and a sustainable tourism strategy.Integrated planning needs to balance efficient land use and nature conservation.It is unwise to simply decant population to new towns.It is equally unwise to thin out living density in the metropolitan areas simply by intensifying development of the NewTerritories.The CSD Urban Living Space principle is worrying because it subscribes to full scale development of NewTerritories without full costing and strategic assessment of ecological carrying capacity.It is irresponsible to advocate full scale development in the NewTerritories without addressing and removing the blackspots and rural eyesores that are dotting the countryside.

(2) Hong Kong is a space-less city.Competition for air space, sky space, harbour view, mountain-view and road space has been the reason for planning incompatibility and patchwork provision of open space.There has never been a clear consensus on what constitute public open space.The Government’s directive for open space recommends 15 hectares of open space per 100,000 people.The patchwork nature of open space by choice or by accident has resulted in leftover areas and awkward sites nestled in inaccessible districts or low use sectors.

Recommendation:The Hunghom Peninsula Episode has highlighted the in-equitable access and enjoyment of harbour view and open space as “public property”.Need a clear directive and standards regarding sky space, air space, light space, harbour view space, pedestrian space and leisure space in the context of city planning and built environment.

(3) Hong Kong is a cloned city.The Metro area is beginning to loose its diversity because new development or redevelopment areas are zoned for single use purposes or primary functional objectives.New mega commercial centers and super size residential estates are compromising diversity and local identity for economy of scale.Neighbourhood and district personality and sustainability have given way to market imperatives.

Recommendation: Need to redefine and rethink about “comprehensive redevelopment” in the context of encouraging diversity, vitality, social cohesion, environmental quality and city typology and porosity.

(4) Hong Kong is a city without a past.City regeneration and renewal have leaned towards en masse redevelopment rather than mixed program of rehabilitation, improvement, rejuvenation and redevelopment.One set of formula applies for all.New town development models apply to old and new districts alike.Lack of economic incentive and responsive lands mechanisms to encourage the co-existence of new and old city fabric, old buildings and structures are considered un-recyclable and incompatible with the objective of re-development.

Recommendation: (a) Provide incentive and compensatory mechanism to encourage “tandem” redevelopment programs.Twinning of new town development with old district regeneration to achieve neigbourhood harmonization as well as cultural sustainability deserves clear policy support for re-envisioning. (b) Dedicate resource and funding for continuous community planning and follow up monitoring.

(5) Hong Kong is a city of missed opportunity.Hong Kong’s compactness has an advantage to be a showcase for energy efficiency, building efficiency, space efficiency and resource efficiency.Local building designs fail to take into account of excessive demand on energy consumption and wastage.Buildings account for more than 50% of city’s energy consumption.Building heights and building spacing did not respond to heat island effect.Indoor air quality was never considered as a health parameter in housing and office design.The application of high and low eco-friendly technologies did not receive adequate consideration and incentives.

Recommendation: (a) Provide tax incentive for adoption of eco-friendly technologies and energy efficient designs. (b) Provide clear directive and standards to assess building efficiency, space efficiency and resource efficiency.The Government led consultancy on energy assessment of the life cycle of buildings is a good starting point.

(6) Hong Kong is a city in a hurry.Fast track planning and fast track development ended up with eyesores and blackspots. Tire dumps, car dumps, illegal dumps, rural blackspots, pig farm contamination, mariculture pollution, small house eyesores, slum degradation, Tung Chung new town air quality deterioration, Tseung Kwun O housing density, traffic jam and NewTerritories encroachment are testimonies to bad planning and development.The recent proposed development on LantauIsland and the super prison on Hei Ling Chau warrant concern.Hong Kong’s last frontier and green paradise are at risk.Without taking full account of nature conservation priorities, Hong Kong will pay a costly price for the repeat of unsustainable planning mistakes.

Recommendation: Strategic environmental assessment should be conducted to justify the need and compatibility planning.In fact, full assessment should identify Lantau’s carrying capacity and ecological heritage before voting for wholesale development.Full public consultation with full costing of externalities should be undertaken.

(7) Hong Kong is a city of neglect.Hong Kong children have been identified as the most sedentary in the world.City planning has implication on lifestyle and living space.Social Impact Assessment (SIA) and Health Impact Assessment (HIA) have never been taken seriously for community development and city planning.The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Ordinance has served to highlight environmental impacts and demand mitigation measures.As a technical assessment tool, the EIA has limitations.It does not take full social assessment and health costing.For strategic planning, full costing and assessment is a necessary tool to uphold sustainable development.

Recommendation:(a) Review existing planning and assessment tools.Enhance the EIA to become a bona fide feasibility EIA tool to determine the carrying capacity and full costing of full scale development or re-development.(b) Consider SIA and HIA as a mandatory planning tool to ensure the social sustainability and health of people.(c) Time to question what’s wrong with the $45 million dollar Sustainable Development CASET Modeling tool.Why it has not served as an effective tool to safeguard sustainable planning?

(8) Hong Kong is a city of waste.Hong Kong’s waste crisis is growing.Tax policy is encouraging excessive consumption and did little to penalize polluting and wasteful practices.Minimal producer responsibility is sending the wrong signal to the society.It failed to highlight the ownership of the waste problem.Monopolies and market dominance are harbouring business apathy to take up product responsibility.CSD’s Solid Waste Strategy and Principles did the minimum to address the amount of solid waste and its disposal.We need more than band-aid cures for Hong Kong’s waste disease.

Recommendation: (a) Empower the Consumer Council with resource and funding to conduct life cycle study of products and services and to launch an eco-friendly labeling scheme.(b) Empower the Consumer Council to launch the anti-trust bill to tackle market dominance and exploitative monopolies. (c) Consider a Packaging Law and levy on excessive packaging and resources wastage.

(9) Hong Kong is a city of inefficiency.Demand side management (DSM) is often taken at face value.Electricity suppliers are doing minimal to implement demand side management.The power suppliers are given a free ride and a free hand to do what they propose and what they consider as appropriate.Lack of monitoring and assessment targets, the DSM has been mismanaged.CSD’s Renewable Energy Strategy and Principles advocated some fundamental mechanisms for change but did not go beyond the framework of administrative possibilities such as tax incentives and electricity pricing.CSD can do more than bargaining for incremental RE targets.

Recommendation: (a) Electricity pricing and allowable profit return within the Scheme of Control should be pegged to the suppliers’ DSM and energy efficiency targets instead of purely on oil price fluctuation and inflation.(b) Set annual targets, assessment & monitoring mechanism and penalties to the DSM requirement. (c) Electricity pricing and allowable profit return should also be pegged to the target of renewable energy met and the pollution loading reduced. (d) Public hearing of electricity pricing should be held to allow stakeholders to voice their concern about environmental, health and social costs.

(10) Hong Kong is a city that lacks accountability.Hong Kong spends millions and millions of dollars on consultancy studies.The $45 million spent on the Sustainable Development study led us nowhere.There was no follow-up report on the final outcome of the study.There were no questions raised about its quality and effectiveness.There were no questions raised about the effectiveness of the CASET computer model developed as a sustainability litmus for policy development.Yet Hong Kong’s taxation policy, economic policy, social policy, energy policy, transport policy and tourism policy have failed to uphold the principles of sustainability.Instead, more money has to be spent on endless public consultations, on drafting principles, questionnaires, strategy briefings, printing more reports and consultation promos.

Recommendation: (a) In keeping with the spirit of Sustainable Development, the Council for Sustainable Development (CSD) needs to be more transparent.It should open its meeting to the public. (b) Council members should demonstrate integrity by avoiding possible conflict of interest in recommending principles and strategies. (c) More grassroot representation should be considered for the Council. (d) CSD should be accountable and to tackle governmental apathy and business bad practice by demanding good governance and socio-environmental responsibility (e) CSD should tackle existing blackspots and environmental eyesores to demonstrate its leadership (instead of sitting on the fence) by righting the wrongs due to the small house policy and illegal encroachment. (f) CSD should be prudent and vigilant in spending public money on extravagant venues and lunches to hold public consultations.The most recent workshop held at the Conrad Hotel is totally unjustified and out of steps with the spirit of sustainability to use resource efficiently and responsibly.

(11) Hong Kong is city that lags behind.Sustainable Development was endorsed at the Rio Earth Summit 12 years ago and re-affirmed at the Johannesburg World Summit on Sustainable Development in 2002.Since then, Sustainable Development has become China’s national policy.Hong Kong lags behind major world cities and China cities including Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou, Dalian and Tianjin, to fully embrace its principles.Hong Kong is still struggling to decipher what sustainable development is all about.It has failed to uphold the principles of sustainable development in major policy development and decisions such as harbour reclamation, West Kowloon planning, Lantau development as well as social welfare and political reform.

Particularly disappointing is that Hong Kong has failed to recognize the importance of participatory governance.Pubic involvement in policy development, pubic property enjoyment and public’s right to know are not fully recognized.As a result, the public was left with no alternative but to protest and object.

Recommendation: (a) Open meetings of all advisory bodies (b) Increase grassroot representation on advisory bodies (c) Review and better coordinate public consultations with regards to information quality, timing, venue, target and objective. (d) Review the Ombudsman’s effectiveness in responding to public grievances against maladministration (e) Provide green legal aid to defend environmental rights (f) Dedicate specialized funding for civil society development and capacity building. (g) Better coordination of different government funding to support community projects and public awareness building

(12) Hong Kong is a city with contradictions.The Council for Sustainable Development (CSD) pledges to engage the public from bottom up, yet it holds public consultation workshops in 5 star hotel ballroom instead of in district level town halls and community centers.CSD pledges to be inclusive of all stakeholders, yet it excludes green group representatives in its official appointment.CSD advocates good governance, yet it appoints members whose organization or companies contradict the principles of sustainable development.CSD Chairman, the Chief Secretary’s handling of the West Kowloon Cultural District Planning has caused public condemnation of its lack of transparency and wholesale cultural commercialization.CSD advocates participatory policy development, but its public consultation exercise is manipulative with pre-set principles and restrictive time and opportunity for amendments.CSD advocates accountability, yet it has failed to tackle governmental apathy and business refusal to assume social and environmental responsibility.CSD advocates stewardship and encourage public view sharing, yet the Council remained silent in the face of repeated mockery of sustainable development such as the case of the West Kowloon Controversy, the Hunghom Peninsula Demolition and the Lantau Development Concept Plan.What are CSD’s principles?What kind of standard is CSD setting for the society?

Conclusion:

Selective transparency, selective accountability, selective representation, selective governance, selective principles, selective empowerment, selective sustainable development will only do a disservice to Hong Kong which is embarking on a steep learning journey about the concept of sustainable development.

The Council for Sustainable Development (CSD) needs to demonstrate leadership, integrity, transparency and accountability which are the hallmarks of sustainable development.CSD should enshrine equality and responsibility in building future vision for the long term.

End

Email: foehk@foe.org.hk

www.cuncaoxin.org

www.foe.org.hk

 

Friends of the Earth (Hong Kong) was established in 1983 as an environmental charity organization.Its mission is to safeguard and improve the local and regional environment through education, lobbying, research and community mobilization.In the past 20 years, Friends of the Earth (Hong Kong) has organized school workshops, public forums, community tree planting, recycling and renewable energy projects.FoE(HK) has defended Hong Kong’s ecological heritage such as the ShalotungValley, the Country Parks through judicial processes.FoE(HK) has pioneered Hong Kong’s first wind resource mapping and produced a blueprint “Sustainability---A Community Dialogue” to re-envision Hong Kong as an Eco-City.

Questioning Sustainability

Friends of the Earth (HK)’s concern about the Sustainable

Development Principles and Strategy proposed by the Council for Sustainable Development December 28, 2004